D&D 5E Art in 5e...?

[pemerton]

Worlds & Monsters originally sold me on 4E, it was so compelling. Yet, sadly, I didn't get that same feeling from the actual game books.

That's interesting. Your first sentence is true for me also. Happily for WotC, though, and for my past 5 years of RPGing, the game books also worked for me.

Of the core 3 I think the 4e DMG is the weakest. It has big slabs of largely pointless (or at least far too wordy) discussion around adventure and campaign design which could easily have had a lot of the stuff from W&M put in there instead. The DMG does a good job of talking about the "tactical" aspect of encounter building, but doesn't build on the framework that W&M laid for having regard to the "story" aspect. Which is a pity, I think.

Hopefully the D&Dnext DMG will do a better job of that.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Hopefully the D&Dnext DMG will do a better job of that.

I think we can agree on that.

 

[Blackbrrd]

...
EDIT - Heresy, I'm sure, but I'd like to go on record and say "character on white background" is not actually a bad thing at all. In many cases such images can be intensely evocative and capable of provoking the imagination in the way that a more rendered scene cannot. You do need a stronger artist, one capable of creating really bold images, to get away with it, but you can get some serious raw power that way (an example of his would be how many of the clan/bloodline/character images in 1E/2E WoD books were B&W character-on-white background, but were ultra-memorable and ultra-distinctive, in large part thanks to Joshua Gabriel Timbrook).

All the images from D&D books I can remember are full drawings, not characters on white background. I have only played D&D Basic, AD&D, 3e and 4e. When I think of it, I mainly remember the AD&D drawings, which I find superior in many ways.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I don't care if it looks like Diterlizzi's style, Brom's style, etc. I don't care if it's a character on a white background. I just want it to be good art that doesn't look cheap and isn't too highly stylized.

I have a particular dislike of manga or cartoonish art in an rpg that doesn't have that overall mood or flavor. I haven't really seen much of that in D&D, so I doubt they'll go that way. I see it a LOT in smaller or independent rpgs, probably because it is a much easier, simplistic form of art.

 

[sunrisekid]

Frank Frazetta

Every combat I describe at the table is fuelled by Frank Frazetta. I’m amazed nobody mentioned him yet in a thread on fantasy art. Obviously that style would never be included in a D&D product but, for me, his art is representative of the ultimate fantasy RPG.

My other favourite artist is Keith Parkinson, of the original Forgotten Realms grey box. There’s not a lot of art in the books but I like the semi-realism, and the monochrome works well.

Another artist is whoever did the “Mysteries of the Moonsea” stuff; sure, it borders on cartoonish but the work evokes a certain ambiance that works well with the story material.

And that’s the hook with fantasy art - it should evoke more in the imagination of the viewer than what is explicitly portrayed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

All the images from D&D books I can remember are full drawings, not characters on white background. I have only played D&D Basic, AD&D, 3e and 4e. When I think of it, I mainly remember the AD&D drawings, which I find superior in many ways.

2E had a lot with sketchy backgrounds, but few by themselves entirely. So most examples are in non-D&D RPGs.

 

[Salamandyr]

I don't know what the "best for the brand" would be for me, but I know what I want. I want something that looks like the fantasy I read. I want mighty thewed barbarians. I want a humanocentric party, rather than the one in five or so humans you generally get. I want something that looks like it ought to grace the cover of Wierd Tales or Heavy Metal, illustrating the works of Howard, Moorcock, Zelazny, or Lovecraft.

I would really like black and white, inked interior art, and only a few color plates. Mediocre digital color has ruined more great illustration than anything else. I want to see art where the only thing a computer was used to do was to scan it.

 

[Salamandyr]

Looking back, I'd say the BECMI line probably had the most superior art quality of any edition of D&D. It had a consistent feel, being cover illustrations by Elmore (including one of his best paintings ever-the cover to the Mentzer Basic set) and interior black and white illo's by Elmore and Easley (Elmore inks and Easley pencils).

It could have used more monster illo's-the 2e Monstrous Compendium is the gold standard for that, but otherwise, it was great.

That being said, I have a lot of love for the wierd art of Trampier, Otus, et. al. of the earlier additions.

 

[Hussar]

The problem with earlier edition art is that it was all over the place. Sure some great stuff but lots of really bad too. For every 1e phb cover you had a Monster Manual cover.

 

[steeldragons]

The problem with earlier edition art is that it was all over the place. Sure some great stuff but lots of really bad too. For every 1e phb cover you had a Monster Manual cover.

Now see, what we have heah is a failyoor t'communicate. You used the word "problem" when what you meant to say was "best thing about..."

Easy mistake. You're welcome.