Artworks in an RPG

[aia_2]

The question seems simple but it might have some considerations that I am not sure I know and therefore I likely miss the whole picture: why are artworks in an RPG book so important? A good book would sell also for the contents regardless to the presence of internal artworks?
I imagine that the first answer would be: because if these are evocative they help the reader in the exercise of imagination. I see however that a fraction of rpger still play with edition where this answer doesn't perfectly fit as the quality is not that great (I am thinking to 1E or Rolemaster... Pls apologies in advance if this hurts someone's favourite artist!). We also have the example of "ordinary" fantasy book completely artworkless which had a success in the past (and this leads me to think that the evocative power of images is not really a must...).
I wonder whether or not a completely free of artworks RPG has ever been published (and in that case if the unsuccess of it is totally due to this feature).
Another though goes to products where the editing is so poor that the presence of artworks helps these products to "off-set" the lack of care of the text...
A final note: I have recently seen some artoworks which are real forms of art rather a fine representation of an inspirational scene of fantasy; some of them are well known and had a success like Mork Borg and Deep Carbon Observatory... In this case I would better understand the role of the presence of these artworks.

 

[Hand of Evil]

A picture invokes one of the five scents, vision and from that the brains' ability to imagine, fantasize, and process information. A lot of people are visual in how they take in information, artwork helps that, it is a delivery system. If it does not relate to the material, it fails in that delivery or at least is confusing in the processing of the material it is presenting.

A TRPG without art is a manual. Boring. Some people like those. I think some of the "pocket" sized prints of did not have artwork.

 

[aramis erak]

The question seems simple but it might have some considerations that I am not sure I know and therefore I likely miss the whole picture: why are artworks in an RPG book so important?

Because so much of RPG play requires mental images, and so much is beyond normal experience, it's VERY much faster to put in a drawing or painting than to spend the wuarter page (or more) that's going to be vague anyway?

A good book would sell also for the contents regardless to the presence of internal artworks?

No, not really. It should, but that really only holds true for novels.

Non fiction normally has illustrations. In the case of instructional texts, you get procedural flowcharts, illustrations of start and finish, and often steps between.
Historical texts use paintings, drawings, photos, and visuals of source documents.

Illustrations help reinforce the text.

In RPGs, illustrations reinforce the text, inspire additional non-text elements, show the hard to describe bits, show the things the author's talking about when there's potential confusion

eg: "claidhmore" or claymore... some use it to refer only to the scots bastard sword, others to the greatsword, others still to the dress sword of the regimental pattern, and others still in its original use, as the Scots Gaelic for "sword"... When an author labels a blade a claidhmore and depicts it with a basket, you know it's a one-hander. If they show a long angled quillions, it's probably a late Reiver era bastard. If it's straight quillions, odds are it's a late medieval bastard sword or greatsword.​

And now, how do you describe some of the fantasy weapons, such as the main characters in later (7 & up) Final Fantasy JRPG CRPGs??? Such as Cloud's insane single edged two-handed straight blade? (FF VII) I could call it a "very angular variant greatsword variant of a scramseax" - but that assumes one knows what the latter is - a sword length meat-cleaver with a thrusting point - which makes it still not a great description. But you see a pic of Cloud and the Sword, and you instantly see just how freaking disproportionate it is. Oh, and I'm talking the Buster Sword - a term that's meaningless to most... see https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII_weapons#Cloud's_broadswords

Sure, pure text can convey information, but it's not doing all the jobs an RPG needs to do in a corebook... Provide visual cues, provide inspiration, communicate setting information about the look of things, provide a meaningful description of things outside human lived experience...

Oh, and even some novels don't go pure text - JRR Tolkien included maps in his novels, specifically so he reader was able to grasp the geographical situation.

 

[aramis erak]

A picture invokes one of the five scents, vision and from that the brains' ability to imagine, fantasize, and process information. A lot of people are visual in how they take in information, artwork helps that, it is a delivery system. If it does not relate to the material, it fails in that delivery or at least is confusing in the processing of the material it is presenting.

A TRPG without art is a manual. Boring. Some people like those. I think some of the "pocket" sized prints of did not have artwork.

There are a number of games with "no art versions" as free teasers... most of those for OSR games. But the work the OSR most often emulates, Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert, is filled with good illos to inspire, to illustrate points (literally), and most importantly, to convey that D&D isn't just for the guys...

Mörk Borg just had a free version hit DTRPG a few weeks ago. No art. Just the tables. I can run it from those, and knowing that the name is vaguely "murky woods".... but not everyone can.

 

[aia_2]

Because so much of RPG play requires mental images, and so much is beyond normal experience, it's VERY much faster to put in a drawing or painting than to spend the wuarter page (or more) that's going to be vague anyway?

No, not really. It should, but that really only holds true for novels.

Non fiction normally has illustrations. In the case of instructional texts, you get procedural flowcharts, illustrations of start and finish, and often steps between.
Historical texts use paintings, drawings, photos, and visuals of source documents.

Illustrations help reinforce the text.

In RPGs, illustrations reinforce the text, inspire additional non-text elements, show the hard to describe bits, show the things the author's talking about when there's potential confusion

eg: "claidhmore" or claymore... some use it to refer only to the scots bastard sword, others to the greatsword, others still to the dress sword of the regimental pattern, and others still in its original use, as the Scots Gaelic for "sword"... When an author labels a blade a claidhmore and depicts it with a basket, you know it's a one-hander. If they show a long angled quillions, it's probably a late Reiver era bastard. If it's straight quillions, odds are it's a late medieval bastard sword or greatsword.​

And now, how do you describe some of the fantasy weapons, such as the main characters in later (7 & up) Final Fantasy JRPG CRPGs??? Such as Cloud's insane single edged two-handed straight blade? (FF VII) I could call it a "very angular variant greatsword variant of a scramseax" - but that assumes one knows what the latter is - a sword length meat-cleaver with a thrusting point - which makes it still not a great description. But you see a pic of Cloud and the Sword, and you instantly see just how freaking disproportionate it is. Oh, and I'm talking the Buster Sword - a term that's meaningless to most... see https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII_weapons#Cloud's_broadswords

Sure, pure text can convey information, but it's not doing all the jobs an RPG needs to do in a corebook... Provide visual cues, provide inspiration, communicate setting information about the look of things, provide a meaningful description of things outside human lived experience...

Oh, and even some novels don't go pure text - JRR Tolkien included maps in his novels, specifically so he reader was able to grasp the geographical situation.

I get all your points, i am not against any of them as i do recognize that artworks are an important part in an RPG book... Still i wonder why: this because RPG are the paramount of imagination to my eyes! Being games where ppl sit around the table and imagine collectively a story to live together, this is the top of the effort in immagination... So why the presence of a "little push" like an artwork could be?
Pls consider the example you gave with the calymore definition: why is necessary to provide details of the shape and the structure this sword has? ...and i do not want to consider its artwork in the picture... Wouldn't be better (by far to my eyes!) to leave an unprecise description that it is a large sword and the game mechanics info (namely damage and speed for instance)? In this way everybody is free to imagine within his game what kind of claymore he likes better...
Do you understand where i want to get?
It would be like having a movie played while you are reading the book... Artworks would set "constraints" to your immagination... (How many times we have heard that the book is better than the movie IF you have read it before watching it?)

 

[aramis erak]

I get all your points, i am not against any of them as i do recognize that artworks are an important part in an RPG book... Still i wonder why: this because RPG are the paramount of imagination to my eyes! Being games where ppl sit around the table and imagine collectively a story to live together, this is the top of the effort in immagination... So why the presence of a "little push" like an artwork could be?
Pls consider the example you gave with the calymore definition: why is necessary to provide details of the shape and the structure this sword has? ...and i do not want to consider its artwork in the picture... Wouldn't be better (by far to my eyes!) to leave an unprecise description that it is a large sword and the game mechanics info (namely damage and speed for instance)? In this way everybody is free to imagine within his game what kind of claymore he likes better...
Do you understand where i want to get?

No. I read the woords, and they trigger disdain. I understand what your seeking, but cannot grasp why....
Because it's coming across as just about the worst kind of gamer I can think of at my table - the guy who refuses the tools to keep everyone sharing the same understanding in favor of his own disconnect from what the others are doing.

Plus... The original subtitle under "Dungeons and Dragons" is "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures."

For me, RPGs are a type of boardgame. Going TOTM is NOT a goal, it's a fallback for lack of resources.

I don't trump rules limitations for story reasons, either; I treat the rules much as another player in the game - and my players - most being neuroatypical, prefer that the rules work as a fellow player. When we go to the dice, we accept the result.

 

[aia_2]

No. I read the woords, and they trigger disdain. I understand what your seeking, but cannot grasp why....

Sorry, disdain for what? I don't think to disdain anything related to rpgs...

Because it's coming across as just about the worst kind of gamer I can think of at my table - the guy who refuses the tools to keep everyone sharing the same understanding in favor of his own disconnect from what the others are doing.

Again, sorry, you misunderstood my idea: i was not aiming to say that every single person around the table should have his own idea of how a claymore is... I wanted to say that if there is not a picture of a claymore, the GM can use this weapon for the purpose of his game (and obviously the players accept this version of the weapon).

Plus... The original subtitle under "Dungeons and Dragons" is "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures."

Hence? I miss the sense of this sentence...

For me, RPGs are a type of boardgame. Going TOTM is NOT a goal, it's a fallback for lack of resources.

What does TOTM mean?

I don't trump rules limitations for story reasons, either; I treat the rules much as another player in the game - and my players - most being neuroatypical, prefer that the rules work as a fellow player. When we go to the dice, we accept the result.

Again, i miss the "quid" of your thought referred to the topic... I miss how this relates with the presence or not of artowrks in a book...

 

[TBeholder]

It’s not necessary, but desirable.
If you want everyone to be on the same page, a picture cannot be really replaced with text.
Also, it’s good for defining the style/mood.
Obviously, this applies only to the illustrations that actually fit the material. Better nothing than a Random Pic From Internet Search.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

For me, RPGs are a type of boardgame. Going TOTM is NOT a goal, it's a fallback for lack of resources.

Uh ..... I'm sure it's not what you meant, but saying that RPGs (the majority of which are "TOTM") are just a type of boardgame, and that (paraphrasing) only poor people play TOTM .... probably not the best approach?

ETA- @aia_2 "TOTM" refers to "Theater of the Mind," which playing RPGs without a grid/minis. Most RPGs (other than D&D/PF and related games) use TOTM. D&D itself has a large contingent of TOTM players and DMs, including (for example) me.

 

[aia_2]

Also, it’s good for defining the style/mood.

That is smtg i didn't take into consideration! Now that i read you, i also have a reply about the abstract artworks of some games like Mork Borg and a great example from the past: the Planescape setting!

Obviously, this applies only to the illustrations that actually fit the material. Better nothing than a Random Pic From Internet Search.

Ok, that is rather clear! That was not even under discussion!

Uh ..... I'm sure it's not what you meant, but saying that RPGs (the vast majority of which are 'TOTM') are just a type of boardgame, and that (paraphrasing) only poor people play TOTM .... probably not the best approach?

Sorry, what does TOTM stand for?