D&D 5E D&D Next Art Column Discussion: May

[Sunseeker]

Point 3: "great characters" does worry me somewhat, because it takes me to Pathfinder and makes me think of Drizzt. From Pathfinder we get Seela, from Drizzt we get well...Drizzt. "star" characters are a double-edged sword, their presence can be beneficial for providing a good representation of some character concepts. However, their over-presence can cause the game to feel dependent upon them, too focused on what they are doing, much in the way MTG has come to focus heavily on what's up with their Planeswalkers, and less the great stories and multitude of characters and worlds therein.

Point 5: as always, in-game cultures are cool, provided they are unique and original to the game. In-game cultures that are parodies, mockeries, attempts to recreate lost cultures as seen from an outside perspective are quite frankly: dangerous and damaging to the game.

Honestly we're looking at some good points here....but I would really like to see some samples of what Jon would like to put in 5e before I really come out and say something.

 

[Libramarian]

They all sound good to me.

With regard to the relationship between realism and fantasy, I reconcile it by saying that I don't really care about realism as such; I care about the aesthetic effect of realism, which is often to make something more viscerally and immediately awesome/scary/cool. The 'feel of real' as it were. So that's not incompatible with an overall fantastic artistic goal at all.

Reality checks keep artists from reproducing fantasy tropes until they become ineffective and dated, like huge weapons and absurdly skimpy female armor. Reality is a weird place. Realism as a priority produces weirder, more interesting art, I think.

 

[Eric Tolle]

What I see is of the 70+ pieces of artwork, is only one woman, in a submissive pose, wearing a ridiculously cheesecake outfit. All this after that weasel-worded blog post about sexism and art.

I think it's pretty obvious what 5E's attitude is toward inclusiveness or female gamers. the art is going to be all cleavage and ass, designed to do it's best to make women feel like their only role in the game is as sex objects.

 

[hafrogman]

What I see is of the 70+ pieces of artwork, is only one woman, in a submissive pose, wearing a ridiculously cheesecake outfit. All this after that weasel-worded blog post about sexism and art.

That's funny, because what I see is a website unaffiliated with WotC in any way, collecting pictures drawn and submitted by individuals. Of 79 pictures of orc shaman, there is, as you said, one picture of a woman. From that, you made sweeping generalizations about a company, edition and people who have nothing to do with that one image. Could there have been more female orcs shown, yes? Does that make any difference as to WotC's or 5e's attitudes towards women? No.

Then there's also the town guard submission which includes many women, many wearing thick winter clothing. You didn't even look that far before making vast, sweeping, antagonistic generalizations. Try limiting the discussion to what IS, rather than what you're afraid of.

 

[Sunseeker]

What I see is of the 70+ pieces of artwork, is only one woman, in a submissive pose, wearing a ridiculously cheesecake outfit. All this after that weasel-worded blog post about sexism and art.

I think it's pretty obvious what 5E's attitude is toward inclusiveness or female gamers. the art is going to be all cleavage and ass, designed to do it's best to make women feel like their only role in the game is as sex objects.

Considering these are images submitted to WotC, you're going to have to blame the artists for that one.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

What I see is of the 70+ pieces of artwork, is only one woman, in a submissive pose, wearing a ridiculously cheesecake outfit. All this after that weasel-worded blog post about sexism and art.

It would be good if we could get some strong fantasy images involving women from a much more diverse set of roles. Rather than focusing on a woman's breasts or bottom, it would be good to see a focus on hair, facial features and a variety of equipment in a variety of adventuring and social situations. It should not be that difficult to show women in positions of power among a plethora of diverse roles.

I think it's pretty obvious what 5E's attitude is toward inclusiveness or female gamers. the art is going to be all cleavage and ass, designed to do it's best to make women feel like their only role in the game is as sex objects.

I think here however, you are using hyperbole to make a point and I don't think such escalated language and false logic helps. Rather than berating the 5e art team for what a variety of artists have submitted, I think constructive criticism paired with situations and scenes you would like to see that are much more supportive of female gamers would be more helpful. Throwing one's hands in the air is as useless as sticking one's head in the sand on this issue.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Stormonu]

Differentiated monsters. What are the differences between a ghost, a shade, a wraith, and a host of other incorporeal undead that run around as transparent wisps? I want that defined and I want it to be clear when you see them in a line-up. Even if you don't know the names of the monsters, I want to make sure that you can tell that the creatures are different from each other—not just the same creature with a color shift and a new name.

There is an aspect of this that bothers me. While it is nice to be able to visually tell diferent creatures apart easily, I also enjoy variety in the depiction of the same creature. A disturbing trend in Pathfinder has arisen that the same monster is always rendered "just so", as if from a template or animation reference sheet - essentially a trademarked, fixed depiction. I much preferred, as in the days of 2E, the wide variety in which a given monster might be rendered; for example, look at all the different ways an orc or goblin has been rendered by Easley, Elmore, Parkinson, Roslof, Fields, etc. Each artist had their own variation on how the orc looked, and it could vary dramatically - yet they all felt like the same creature.

The same goes for the depictions of iconic characters. In Pathfinder's latest AP (Skull and Shackles), I was saddened to find a picture of two iconic characters, shanghied and forced into labor on a pirate vessel still dressed in their outlandish costumes/armor as they scrubbed the ship's deck. Jon, please, please, please, don't let D&D Next's art fall into this trap. It'd much rather have iconics adjust their costumes to fit the picture (and it'd be fun to see them in "casual" dress every once in while), than end up with an abomination like that pic.

 

[MortalPlague]

Point 3: "great characters" does worry me somewhat, because it takes me to Pathfinder and makes me think of Drizzt. From Pathfinder we get Seela, from Drizzt we get well...Drizzt. "star" characters are a double-edged sword, their presence can be beneficial for providing a good representation of some character concepts. However, their over-presence can cause the game to feel dependent upon them, too focused on what they are doing, much in the way MTG has come to focus heavily on what's up with their Planeswalkers, and less the great stories and multitude of characters and worlds therein.

I took 'great characters' to mean depicting characters with personality and interest, rather than new iconics. It goes hand in hand with the art telling a story.

What I see is of the 70+ pieces of artwork, is only one woman, in a submissive pose, wearing a ridiculously cheesecake outfit. All this after that weasel-worded blog post about sexism and art.

I think it's pretty obvious what 5E's attitude is toward inclusiveness or female gamers. the art is going to be all cleavage and ass, designed to do it's best to make women feel like their only role in the game is as sex objects.

I think you're taking this a bit too far. Especially in light of this:

Then there's also the town guard submission which includes many women, many wearing thick winter clothing.

 

[Piratecat]

What I see is of the 70+ pieces of artwork, is only one woman, in a submissive pose, wearing a ridiculously cheesecake outfit. All this after that weasel-worded blog post about sexism and art.

I think it's pretty obvious what 5E's attitude is toward inclusiveness or female gamers. the art is going to be all cleavage and ass, designed to do it's best to make women feel like their only role in the game is as sex objects.

You know what? I didn't like that piece either, but - and I can't emphasize this enough - all that artwork was submitted by non-WotC employees. Do not make judgments about 5e's art or inclusiveness by judging entries in what's effectively a contest. Personally, I'll make that judgment when I see what art comes out on top.

This thread is not the place for a sexism discussion, however. Please keep conversation to on-topic discussion.

 

[Zireael]

In later editions, almost all (if not all) the pictures are either someone posing or someone fighting.

Indeed. I'd like a return to the atmospheric pics from AD&D. Black and white, and showing a street of a busy city or a marketplace or its buildings... and the people, of course.