D&D 5E Mearls and Crawford interview with The Mary Sue

[delericho]

I agree with your first paragraph, but disagree with the conclusion you come to in the second. The contextualization/interpretation of art is always going to be subjective to the viewer - all of the presumptions about what's being shown happen in the mind of the people viewing it. While it's certainly simplest to read absolutely nothing into a given picture, but I wouldn't call that "best."

It's about expectations, suspension of disbelief, or similar - you the audience is presented with an image of a knight in full plate armour wandering around in the desert under the baking heat, that's going to raise a lot of eyebrows. Yes, it can be rationalised away as "he's wearing a ring of endure elements", but because that's not something that's clear from the picture, it's probably not the first assumption people will make. And so the artwork becomes a distraction from the rest of the game, which isn't the desired effect.

(Similarly the female barbarian in the chainmail bikini - yes, it could just be glamoured armour, but we know it would cause needless debate, again distracting from the game it's supposed to be supporting.)

It's less that I'm suggesting the viewer read nothing into a given image; more that the arist should write nothing into it (or at least nothing* SoD-breaking that can't be directly depicted into the picture).

* And even the 'nothing' here admits to exceptions - I'm not advocating an absolute ban here, necessarily, more a general approach.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I can imagine a painting of three characters in a desert. The one in the foreground is a female in full plate who is not breaking a sweat as she marches toward some destination. The two in the background are both male and in appropriate gear for travelling in the desert. Both are very sweaty. One is looking at the other with confusion and gesturing toward the female. The other looks resigned and is pointing at his ring finger. Upon further inspection, the female has a ring with snowflakes and flames inscribed on it.

There may be too much going on there. It may not work, or it may take a very skilled artist to pull it off. But I can imagine it.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Umbran]

There may be too much going on there. It may not work, or it may take a very skilled artist to pull it off. But I can imagine it.

That particular image has a scale problem. When you can see three human-sized figures in full, seeing details etched into a ring on one finger is probably not happening.

Now, make it so that woman in plate mail has some large religious symbol, or obvious signs of full-body magic (an aura of some kind, for example) and you might have something.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Now, make it so that woman in plate mail has some large religious symbol, or obvious signs of full-body magic (an aura of some kind, for example) and you might have something.

That was something else I was thinking, for sure. Have the aforementioned flames suns and snowflakes floating around her head with two figures in appropriate desert clothes trudge behind her.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Nellisir]

That same party cutting a trail through a steamy rainforest in full metal armor and covered in heavy cloaks would look almost as out of place.

*cough* conquistadors *cough*

 

[Alzrius]

It's about expectations, suspension of disbelief, or similar - you the audience is presented with an image of a knight in full plate armour wandering around in the desert under the baking heat, that's going to raise a lot of eyebrows. Yes, it can be rationalised away as "he's wearing a ring of endure elements", but because that's not something that's clear from the picture, it's probably not the first assumption people will make. And so the artwork becomes a distraction from the rest of the game, which isn't the desired effect.

I won't say that that doesn't make sense. Moreover, it's an understandable guideline for the artist to adhere to when creating their work - it's just that such a guideline necessarily limits the idea of what can be understood from a picture to whatever is (presumed to be) obvious, clear, or otherwise playing towards viewers' expectations. I'm of the opinion that that is not only boring, but with regard to D&D specifically minimizes (the rationale behind presuming the inclusion of) a lot of the elements of the game that are well-known but don't have an obvious visual presence.

(Similarly the female barbarian in the chainmail bikini - yes, it could just be glamoured armour, but we know it would cause needless debate, again distracting from the game it's supposed to be supporting.)

Also a fair point, though shying away from something solely to avoid a debate over it - which is markedly different than avoiding something because it doesn't conform to an idea of social justice that you want to promote - is an idea I personally find distasteful (though understandable).

It's less that I'm suggesting the viewer read nothing into a given image; more that the arist should write nothing into it (or at least nothing* SoD-breaking that can't be directly depicted into the picture).

* And even the 'nothing' here admits to exceptions - I'm not advocating an absolute ban here, necessarily, more a general approach.

I disagree with you here, if only because I find the idea of an artist writing something into a picture to be little more than purely theoretical. Simply put, the nature of artwork is to be extremely opaque with regards to whatever message - if any - the artist may be trying to convey, to the point where I'm of the opinion that a viewer correctly interpreting what the artist "meant to say" is likely to be little more than coincidence.

 

[delericho]

I can imagine a painting of three characters in a desert. The one in the foreground is a female in full plate who is not breaking a sweat as she marches toward some destination. The two in the background are both male and in appropriate gear for travelling in the desert. Both are very sweaty. One is looking at the other with confusion and gesturing toward the female. The other looks resigned and is pointing at his ring finger. Upon further inspection, the female has a ring with snowflakes and flames inscribed on it.

There may be too much going on there. It may not work, or it may take a very skilled artist to pull it off. But I can imagine it.

Sure, it can be done. But once you've gone to those lengths is it really worth it? Unless the point of the picture is to illustrate specifically that spell it seems like an awful lot of work for not much payoff.

(And, sure, there's value in illustrating that it's a magical universe. But even then, surely there are easier and more visceral ways of doing that?)

 

[Thaumaturge]

Sure, it can be done. But once you've gone to those lengths is it really worth it? Unless the point of the picture is to illustrate specifically that spell it seems like an awful lot of work for not much payoff.

The piece I'm talking about would be best served close to endure elements or something, for sure. I mostly wrote that up as an exercise in whether one could demonstrate such an effect...um...effectively. I think it's possible.

Whether it's reasonable is another question.

(And, sure, there's value in illustrating that it's a magical universe. But even then, surely there are easier and more visceral ways of doing that?)

Floating, glowing entrails certainly would illustrate a magical universe.

Thaumaturge.

 

[delericho]

I won't say that that doesn't make sense. Moreover, it's an understandable guideline for the artist to adhere to when creating their work - it's just that such a guideline necessarily limits the idea of what can be understood from a picture to whatever is (presumed to be) obvious, clear, or otherwise playing towards viewers' expectations.

The thing is that if the game presents an image of a warrior in the desert with no other explanation, some people might conclude "Aha! Endure elements!", but a whole lot will just assume it's a stupid picture.

Which surely isn't the impression that WotC want their art to convey.

Also a fair point, though shying away from something solely to avoid a debate over it - which is markedly different than avoiding something because it doesn't conform to an idea of social justice that you want to promote - is an idea I personally find distasteful (though understandable).

Eh, there's a time and a place.

I disagree with you here, if only because I find the idea of an artist writing something into a picture to be little more than purely theoretical.

Artists write things into their artwork all the time, even if it's as simple as "here's a bunch of adventurers fighting a dragon." And most go way beyond that.

The finer points of what an artist is intending to convey may well be debateable, but would be... odd to claim that artists don't write some things into their work, or even that they don't do so deliberately.

(Edit: the previous paragraph has been changed from "it's... odd" to its current form. As it was, it over-stated Alzrius "purely theoretical" statement, for which I apologise.)

 

[TarionzCousin]

Doesn't every group of PC's remain in armor as often as possible, even when "relaxing" at the town tavern?

There are no penalties for wearing armor all the time (right?) so a fighter wearing casual clothing on his day off is only inviting the DM to spring a surprise attack.