D&D 5E Art direction and 5th edition

[Lum The Mad]

FRCS3E did a far better job.

Another art style I'd like to see in D&D is Icewind Dale's (CRPG) one...

I just posted the Player's Handbook Pictures because that's the first thing that came to my mind. But I agree: the FRCS3E was better. The design of the whole 3e Forgotten Realms Line was top notch (illustrations were hit and miss as always, but the "old tome" design of the pages was awesome - this should definitely come back).

A Michael Komarck 5e would be ideal for me.

I love this guys work since I saw the cover to "Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk" (2006)

 

[masshysteria]

Sign me up for that one. I have just been checking his website ( Michael Komarck Illustration ) and he would easily be a top tier candidate to create the look I would want to see in 5E.

I'll jump on that bandwagon. I'd love to see the three core books with his covers. His characters just have so much style and make me want to study them.

The art was a big part of what sold me on the concept. A lot of the fantasy art from the 70s, 80s and even a good part of the 90s has a magesty to it that much of the art finding its way into today's books aren't creating.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Majesty is what is missing. Sure a cool Reynold or O'Connor illustration makes you say, "I want to be that guy" or "that guy is so cool." But it doesn't set your imagination on fire and make you dream of adventure and mystery and excitement. There is no story beyond what the picture shows. I think this is why people clamor for more landscapes, they want to be inspired to imagine what's next.

To go in a full circle, I think that's why Komarck would be better suited for the job. Compare the above cover to the 4e DMG cover. Both have a powerful being looking into an orb. Komarck's illustration draws you into the world and makes you wonder what happens next in the story. The Reynolds cover just makes you go, "cool dragon" and then you are done thinking about it.

I also like that Komarck's figures have normal proportions.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Majesty is what is missing. Sure a cool Reynold or O'Connor illustration makes you say, "I want to be that guy" or "that guy is so cool." But it doesn't set your imagination on fire and make you dream of adventure and mystery and excitement. There is no story beyond what the picture shows. I think this is why people clamor for more landscapes, they want to be inspired to imagine what's next.

Even worse, some of us see the Reynold or O'Conner piece and emphatically do not want to be that guy. That's the trouble with going for "cool" and nothing else to back it up. I want something else to back it up because what the artists think is "cool" so rarely fits what anyone at my table wants. So just another image to break up the line after line of text. A chart or different colored side bar could have served the same purpose.

 

[Dausuul]

Even worse, some of us see the Reynold or O'Conner piece and emphatically do not want to be that guy.

Damn straight (must spread some XP around). I see a Wayne Reynolds piece and think, "Why is there a hideously deformed mutant with elephant feet and hands as big as his head, dressed in ill-fitting cardboard armor?" I would give up everything that I own, and go into considerable debt besides, in order to avoid having to be that guy.

 

[Canor Morum]

Earlier this year I got hammered on ENWorld for having the same opinions shared by a lot of people in this thread.

Wayne Reynold's art while good in a technical sense is too cutesy for my taste. And why do his faces always look so terrible?

I would prefer a more photo-realistic and gritty depiction of D&D characters and landscapes. Magic The Gathering has excellent art direction. The last two sets in particular. Makes me want to role-play on the planes instead.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It is sad that Angus Mcbride is no longer with us. I always dreamed about a D&D book full of his stuff.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Magic The Gathering has excellent art direction. The last two sets in particular. Makes me want to role-play on the planes instead.

No kidding. I don't even play Magic, and some of the artwork from Innistrad just blew me away.

My group will often use card art for character portraits, rather than from a modern D&D book - that tells me there is something wrong with the art direction of the game.

 

[Mercutio01]

My group will often use card art for character portraits, rather than from a modern D&D book - that tells me there is something wrong with the art direction of the game.

I think that might be because Magic simply has more art to choose from.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think that might be because Magic simply has more art to choose from.

I think that's part of it, but I also think, based on what I've seen on M:tG cards, D&D could do MUCH better. It's all subjective, of course, but that's how I feel about it.

I will give WotC credit - they've done better at including a broader range of artistic styles in D&D products lately. Certainly a far cry from the dark days of late 2e (the art in the reissued core books still make me shudder) and 3.x, where it was all pretty awful (to these old eyes).

 

[Marius Delphus]

The design of the whole 3e Forgotten Realms Line was top notch (illustrations were hit and miss as always, but the "old tome" design of the pages was awesome - this should definitely come back).

Agreed in all respects. While modern and sleek (or, to wax cynical, "cold and clinical"), the 4E page design doesn't so much evoke "fantasy gaming" to me as it does "school textbook." Which is a shame -- WOTC should, as I've said previously, be able to knock my socks off, and this time around they just didn't.

As far as art -- eh, I have likes and dislikes in every edition. Komarck's work is certainly splendid, though....