D&D 5E D&D Next weekly art column!

[Yora]

I think Elmore, Easley, and Parkinson actually were very good artists and I'd like to see more art done with their skill and amount of detail. They just did most of their art back in a time of awful fashion and stereotypes. With a modern outlook on heroic female characters, I think they could produce excelent art for a new game.

Take a look at this. Yes, it's done by Larry Elmore three years ago. A female character with armor and pants. I couldn't believe it myself.

 

[Kaodi]

When you are asking for the old art of the 70's and 80's, I want you to go back and watch some cartoons from those times. If you can honestly say to yourself, " I would recommend to any cartoonist that they bet their career and living on making brand new show with a new intellectual property animated and coloured in this style, " then maybe you can say that the next edition of D&D should have retro art.

The art for the next edition should be Realism, Realism, and more Realism. (In fact, I have said this is several threads already, and I am not sure I should really need to repeat it.)

Also, I read that blog that Jon posted, and while I mostly agree with the stuff on sexism and racism, I think the ableist complaint is somewhat misplaced. Sure, have a picture with of someone with an eyepatch, or missing a hand, or a peg-leg, but only one or two pictures in a book with one of these (my apologies to pirate captains everywhere). Too much emphasis, and instead of having " dungeonpunk " we will have " mutilationpunk " . And as much as anyone might dislike it, how many modern militaries send troops out on combat deployment with these issues? Adventuring is at least as dangerous as that. Finally, people with the sort of disabilities that would be immediately apparent in a painting are just not that great a percentage of people to begin with. You should throw them a bone, but it is too much to make it a major " guiding principle " of the artwork.

 

[Burrahobbit]

The folks wanting variety are speaking for me as well. I know there's a good argument to be made for having a consistent or unified visual style, but, at least for books not tied to a particular setting, I'm a big fan of having everything from Otus to Elmore to to DiTerlizzi to Brom to Reynolds to lush and detailed landscapes to antique-looking woodcuts to those blue ink line drawings from the 2nd Edition handbooks. My own imagination thrives on variety.

Speaking of "imagination" and "thriving on", I would really like for some work by Michael Komarck to be there in that varied mix.

 

[pauljathome]

I like that guy.

Agreed.

That is one of the best introductory articles that I've seen. He comes across as very willing to listen to the customer base and very open minded.

Its also an interesting blog post he linked to.

 

[the Jester]

I'm all for a 50/50 gender spread (at least in cases where a race has two genders!), a better mix of skin tones and a few pics of beat-up adventures with wounds, missing ears, eyes and hands, etc.

I'm also for a return to a more realistic style of art than 3e and 4e have. I really don't need anime-sized giant-bladed swords; I'd rather see more accurate depictions of weapons and armor.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Come to think of it:

We got Planescape (at least in part) to showcase DiTerlizzi.
We got DarkSun (" ") to showcase Brom.

Or the other way around.

Anyway... how about picking a really distinctive, unique artist, having him (her!) draw a bunch of stuff that doesn't blend in with everything else out there, and then building a campaign setting around it?

 

[the Jester]

Come to think of it:

We got Planescape (at least in part) to showcase DiTerlizzi.
We got DarkSun (" ") to showcase Brom.

Or the other way around.

Anyway... how about picking a really distinctive, unique artist, having him (her!) draw a bunch of stuff that doesn't blend in with everything else out there, and then building a campaign setting around it?

Personally, I'm all for skipping a 'default setting' entirely, and would rather not have the core books' art focused on one artist with a weird aesthetic.

Now, IN a campaign setting, sure!

 

[Yora]

While 50% of all people are female, I don't actually see 50% of all people who take up weapons to fight monsters to the death to be so as well. Easily 10%, or maybe even 20%. But in real life man and women are not the same. Equal in what they are capable of doing and equal in what an individual can achieve, but not the same when it comes to commonly shared interests and assumed roles in society. An individual woman is just as likely to want to become a warrior as an individual man. But in no time and place in human history, I know of any case where the amount of women in the military has been anywhere close to 50%. And D&D assumes to be set in a premodern world, where gender roles play a larger part than in the 21st century.
Artifically imposing a 50% female quota in D&D art seems highly inappropriate to me. Yes, and I know that not all RPG characters are soldiers. But forcing all those women to be thieves and wizards, and priests seems even more sexist to me.

Knightfall: Michael Komarck for the win: http://www.komarckart.com/

Another one of those cases: I really don't like his artistic style, but he's one of the people who really manage to catch the right feel of the things he's painting.

 

[Dausuul]

For the artistic style I would like to see in 5E, these are my main points:

• Realistic proportions and good detail.
• Sense of mystery. A lot of light and shadow play, a lot of mist and half-concealed creatures and ambiguous scenes. The art should invite the reader to imagine what might be happening or about to happen. This is a game of imagination, after all.
• Scenery! Play up the setting. Pictures of cool characters may inspire the players, but evocative backdrops and panoramas inspire the DM.
• Reasonable clothing and armor. No stripperiffic outfits for female characters (exemptions allowed for succubi and the like). No gargantuan shoulder pads or Coats of Ten Thousand Buckles.
• I endorse the proposition that there should be a mix of male, female, young, old, different ethnicities, and different body types. Some people should be fat. Some should be scrawny. Some should be physically maimed or disabled--and no, that doesn't mean they can't be adventurers. Vecna only has one eye and one hand and he gets along just fine.

 

[howandwhy99]

Art and artists: How are they important to the game and world?
Art style: How does it make a difference?
Character depictions: Are inclusive and “cool” mutually exclusive?
The D&D logo: What does it mean to you?

Those are some solid questions.

First, art is vitally important I believe to any imagination game as it inspires the reader who can then turn around and use it for play. The players are going to be imagining their character and all of the other elements of the environment. Artwork supports this by increasing player communication and connection beyond the spoken word. Artists shoulder both illustrative duties (for answering questions such as "what's a mace look like?") and inspirational ones ("That's what walking up to the Temple of Elemental Evil looks like? Kick ass!")

As you are an artist I find it difficult to imagine you do not know why style matters. As an old schooler I can only suggest resisting the urge to brand a style upon D&D. It's smorgasbord kitchen sink for a reason, inclusivity breeds strange brews. Have cartoons, have awesome full page dragon oil paintings, have sketches, go multimedia even. I like magical realism my self, but let's not limit an edition focused on bringing everyone together. Each piece should be internally coherent I believe, but that's up to the team as well.

No, inclusive and cool are not mutually exclusive. Even if you're using both to define a single depicted character, it is possible. But don't let those be the only two to drive every singular creation either. I can imagine persons visually identifiable both inclusive and cool. But don't finding such for yourself stop you from portraying exclusive individuals or the obviously uncool.

D&D Logo... ... okay, that's a boatload of difficulty there. This is a "final" edition, no? And a logo really is at the heart of branding IMO, so it's going to define part of every element published for the game. This is tough. Look at other work for inspiration I guess. I like googling the LotR logo. I'd prefer classy, but, y'know, this stuff changes over time too. I'm sure some folks here remember the wizard TSR logo - or the lizardman perhaps?

Also, great first pic: