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

[Mercule]

#5, #7, #15 stand out as appealing, to me. I think I like the simplicity of #15 best, then #7, then #5, but it's a pretty close thing. I've seen enough people say they like #5 best and I'd be pretty happy with that.

There are a few I do not like, too. I'm going to assume that #4 and #3 are ringers and not presented seriously.#2 and #16 bug me -- I think because the ampersand is too spiky. I know I don't care for the ampersand in #1, but the font's okay. #17 looks like a line from the the bottom of the copyright page and would make an acceptable secondary "logo" or spine marking, but it would turn me off as the primary logo. I like retro, but #13 looks like it fell out of Flash Gordon (fun movie, but I'd want a higher budget in 2012). #6 looks like a watermark, not a logo (draft logo?). #14 is possibly my least favorite -- it looks like it should be on a scifi game, not D&D.

 

[Hussar]

As far as new people not knowing what "dee and dee" is, well, that's what market research is for. I imagine that D&D is a fairly recognizable "name" in and of itself. Like I said, a logo does not need to include the name of the product line in the logo. Whether it's the three diamonds of Mitsubishi, or the golden arches, I'm not entirely convinced we absolutely need "Dungeons and Dragons" in the logo.

 

[tuxgeo]

Right. Not every logo has to have wording in it.

Here's a version of the TSR "Wizard" logo, for example.

WotC could make a completely new logo if they wanted to; but a "unification" edition is probably neither the time nor the place to get too awfully inventive.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Every times i see the TSR wizard i want to yell "goddamit wash your robes already!".

 

[Jon Schindehette]

I agree. But ideally, the logo should have multiple usages. When space is a constraint and you're speaking to a knowledgeable public, you could go with just "D&D". On a more formal capacity, such as a book cover, you must go with the full name (stacked, for the core books, and in a single line if used in a sub-brand, like FR).

It's a good idea...so good in fact, we've been doing that for years.
Check out products from both 3rd and 4th edition and you can see examples of it.

 

[Klaus]

It's a good idea...so good in fact, we've been doing that for years.
Check out products from both 3rd and 4th edition and you can see examples of it.

I know!

In most discussions I have regarding D&D art and logos, people tend to ask for stuff that is already there, or tend to complain about stuff that aren't exactly true.

 

[Jon Schindehette]

All right, I'm going to get technical for a minute.

Let's all get on the same page for terms

A name of a brand is not a logo. It may be used in a logo, but it isn't a logo. It IS a trademarked identity though. The trademarked name of the brand is Dungeons & Dragons.

When it comes to identity marks, there are:
Wordmarks - a freestanding acronym, company name or product name (Dungeons & Dragons mark)
Letter forms - a unique design using one or more letterforms that act as a mnemonic device for a company name (D&D mark)
Emblems - a mark in which the company is inextricably connected to a pictorial element (Tivo mark is an example of this. D&D does not have an equivalent)
Pictorial marks - an immediately recognizable literal image that has been simplified and stylized (some would argue that the ampersand and wizard are examples of this...)
Abstract/symbol marks - a symbol that conveys a big idea, and often embodies strategic ambiguity (target or walmart marks are an example of this.)

I'm sorry to get so academic, but each of these types of marks have specific strengths and weaknesses. Moving from a workmark is a significant decisions and involves a significant cost when trying to inform such a strategic visual identity.

Do you think Nike just decided to toss the swoosh out there and make it the visual identity of the brand? No there was lots of work, a broad based strategy to migrate from the wordmark to the symbolic mark...and a lot of marking dollars spent on informing the new visual identity to the public.

While I have advocated for developing a shorthand visual identity for the brand on numerous occasions - the strategy and commitment to the adventure has not been in place

....yet.

We'll see what happens in the future.

 

[Tortoise]

Looking at the logo ideas presented, I picked out the following ones as appealing to my eyes:

#4 - good, but not for the main logo. This could be useful for inside a module.

#7 - clan, but dull like a blunt instrument, maybe useful for something like a physical prop (dungeon tiles?)

#14 - clean and eye catching, might be a nice main logo

#15 - clean, needs something to punch it up a bit, but definitely good for supplemental material and the like

#17 - very clean, crisp even. Maybe not the main logo, but absolutely awesome for use inside books and for web use.

If this makes no sense to you please go to the article about the logos and have this open in another window for reference.

I'm not a fan of many of the designs that seem too busy or too video-gamey and definitely dislike the ones with the thick ampersand since it looks like someone dragging their butt across the floor.

 

[Yora]

Do you think Nike just decided to toss the swoosh out there and make it the visual identity of the brand? No there was lots of work, a broad based strategy to migrate from the wordmark to the symbolic mark...and a lot of marking dollars spent on informing the new visual identity to the public.

While I have advocated for developing a shorthand visual identity for the brand on numerous occasions - the strategy and commitment to the adventure has not been in place.

I think Dungeons & Dragons is a name that is quite widely known, but a product that many people don't know that much about. You don't have to worry about people who are new to sport shoes and have heard the name Nike, but don't really know what they are actually selling.
But with D&D, I think it's quite important that newcommers see a D&D product and think "Hey, I have heard about this! Let's take a look at it to see what it is actually about."
So the D&D logo needs to include the clearly visible words "Dungeons & Dragons", so it can be recognized by people not familiar with the product who did not see the logo a thousand times already.

 

[Jon Schindehette]

I think Dungeons & Dragons is a name that is quite widely known, but a product that many people don't know that much about. You don't have to worry about people who are new to sport shoes and have heard the name Nike, but don't really know what they are actually selling.
But with D&D, I think it's quite important that newcommers see a D&D product and think "Hey, I have heard about this! Let's take a look at it to see what it is actually about."
So the D&D logo needs to include the clearly visible words "Dungeons & Dragons", so it can be recognized by people not familiar with the product who did not see the logo a thousand times already.

Not going to disagree with you at all. In fact I agree completely when it comes to game product, but there's a whole lot more to D&D than just game product.

Question for you...
Would you be more inclined to by a t-shirt with a really cool fantasy image on it that had a big D&D logo splashed across it, or a stylized mark (like the swoosh) that gives a secret handshake to the informed, but just looks cool to Mr. John Q. Public?

To some, it makes no difference, to others, they want that "secret handshake".

There are a whole lot more media uses where a mark would be more useful (from a technical standpoint) than the full D&D logo.

So yeah, I agree, I'd never lose the D&D logo on the product - especially for portal products, but other brand experiences? Maybe. Just depends on what makes sense.