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

[I'm A Banana]

i respect mearls (and i even bought the starter set ) but i have to say i wholeheartedly disagree with the art direction so far. diversity is one thing...but what are we saying here? that diversity equals boredom? why not have people wearing next to nothing (as to the realism aspect....in a game that involves goblins and magic we are far removed from miniature wargaming/retainers (thank god) etc...). what sort of character walks around in full armor/battle dress all day?

why not have some sexiness? shouldn't barbarians and drow wear skimpy outfits (for cultural reasons)? the characters in the starter set struck me as adrogynous and badly drawn. lets put the sex back in starter set ...mmm ok perhaps badly worded but.... the games are supposed to be fun not some exercise in head to toe medieval 'fashion'.

It's about design intent, yeah? D&D books aren't DESIGNED as titillating books of semi-porn. It's not what they're for. The artwork isn't there for oggling, it's there for getting you and everyone else at your table into the mood to play a heroic game of action and adventure!

If you want sexy fun oggling times, I'd like to introduce you to this thing we call the Internet. It'll be MUCH better at delivering that than a book from WotC.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

No doubt, but I believe that this speaks more to the lack of imagination of the "whole lot" portion of the viewers. You can interpret what you're seeing as-is, with no contextualization - and that's no more or less valid than one that does contextualize the picture (however they do it) - but I personally find that to be rather limiting. If the circumstances of a picture don't seem to make sense prima facie, I prefer to think that there's an explanation that's not immediately obvious, rather than writing the entire thing off as being stupid.

That said, it brings us to your subsequent point...

Eh, there's a time and a place.

...which is that WotC can't, for a host of (largely economic) reasons, can't be quite so unconcerned with the artistic interpretation of the illustrations in their books. As you noted, WotC is invested in conveying an impression regarding their art, which means that they're likely going to compromise in favor of whatever comes across as being the least objectionable and most engaging (or otherwise laudible).

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.

I just want to be clear here - you're not refering to literally writing something in their artwork, such as a caption, right?

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.

I should reiterate that I'm not saying that artist's don't necessarily have a message that they want to communicate in their artwork. I'm saying that the nature of artwork is such that the message is virtually impossible to transmit in a manner that's clearly understood. The impression that the viewer takes away from a piece of artwork, to my mind, tends to have so little to do with any question of the creator's intent that it renders it little more than a theory.

(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.)

No worries; I didn't see the previous version anyway, so it's all good.

 

[designbot]

I'm glad to see more diversity appearing in the books, and glad also that it seems they're going for better representation of female characters in particular.

There's an excluded middle there, though - I could certainly see a "tavern scene" fitting the game, and that doesn't necessarily require that the PCs be in their work clothes. Indeed, if those work clothes are heavy armour and, especially, closed-face helms, those would be equally out of place.

You reminded me of this illustration from the Lost Mine of Phandelver adventure guide:

 

[Agamon]

You reminded me of this illustration from the Lost Mine of Phandelver adventure guide:

View attachment 63052

Yeah man. Forgot about that pic. That's an illustration that fits the game.

Call me a prude, but I prefer stuff like this over what you see in, say, Lamentations of the Flame Princess (anyone unfamiliar with that OSR game, be warned that googling that in Image search will be NSFW).

 

[Alzrius]

Call me a prude, but I prefer stuff like this over what you see in, say, Lamentations of the Flame Princess (anyone unfamiliar with that OSR game, be warned that googling that in Image search will be NSFW).

To be fair, LotFP is self-described as being about "weird fantasy," so they're going to have circumstances in their games that will merit illustrations that go beyond the typical conventions of fantasy RPGs. Personally, I'm a big fan of their work, and I plan on picking up their Core Rulebook at Gen Con.

 

[Agamon]

To be fair, LotFP is self-described as being about "weird fantasy," so they're going to have circumstances in their games that will merit illustrations that go beyond the typical conventions of fantasy RPGs. Personally, I'm a big fan of their work, and I plan on picking up their Core Rulebook at Gen Con.

I wasn't trying to be disparaging. I get what they're shooting for, it's just not up my alley.

Some people aren't a fan of the 5e art, as it should be, beauty being in the eyestalks of the beholder, and all.

 

[Selkirk]

It's about design intent, yeah? D&D books aren't DESIGNED as titillating books of semi-porn. It's not what they're for. The artwork isn't there for oggling, it's there for getting you and everyone else at your table into the mood to play a heroic game of action and adventure!

If you want sexy fun oggling times, I'd like to introduce you to this thing we call the Internet. It'll be MUCH better at delivering that than a book from WotC.

i'm really not calling for semi-porn (altho i wouldn't be upset if they were ). but we have reached a point where the old d&d books (which are very tame) are now considered scandalous (deities and demigods in particular would cause mass faintings within the blogosphere ). i loved the art in the old books (the old jeff dee and bill willingham stuff was awesome)...this new art is a digitized mess. shapeless/faceless blobs...where we used to have character! we could actually see the character's limbs...arms/legs and yes even boobs. armor and clothing didn't define these characters (although it could) but instead they were defined by great figure work.

now, we have hopelessly complicated character designs and one has to wonder why?..as if in the southern lands or the forest or the desert these characters are tromping around clothed head to toe. did frazetta need to have his characters decked out like this to create drama? of course not...

and...this style of dungeons and dragons argues against it's own history. the games were at one time considered dangerous (they weren't but they did wad the panties of the right people...churchgoers, moral prudes, bluenoses etc...) , now they are played so safe it is almost caricature. gygax and company would have openly sneered at the concerns of the moral minority of today-and even if forced to make a concession or two it would have been through gritted teeth. but with 5th edition, mearls and his mates are not chomping at the bit looking for something challenging (and yes sexy) they are instead championing the new prudishness ...this isn't just giving in-it is collaboration .

still, the die has been cast as they say...i just shudder when i think of what they will do to the bulette (one imagines this illustration involves a loose fitting tunic and sensible pants ).

 

[pkt77242]

i'm really not calling for semi-porn (altho i wouldn't be upset if they were ). but we have reached a point where the old d&d books (which are very tame) are now considered scandalous (deities and demigods in particular would cause mass faintings within the blogosphere ). i loved the art in the old books (the old jeff dee and bill willingham stuff was awesome)...this new art is a digitized mess. shapeless/faceless blobs...where we used to have character! we could actually see the character's limbs...arms/legs and yes even boobs. armor and clothing didn't define these characters (although it could) but instead they were defined by great figure work.

now, we have hopelessly complicated character designs and one has to wonder why?..as if in the southern lands or the forest or the desert these characters are tromping around clothed head to toe. did frazetta need to have his characters decked out like this to create drama? of course not...

and...this style of dungeons and dragons argues against it's own history. the games were at one time considered dangerous (they weren't but they did wad the panties of the right people...churchgoers, moral prudes, bluenoses etc...) , now they are played so safe it is almost caricature. gygax and company would have openly sneered at the concerns of the moral minority of today-and even if forced to make a concession or two it would have been through gritted teeth. but with 5th edition, mearls and his mates are not chomping at the bit looking for something challenging (and yes sexy) they are instead championing the new prudishness ...this isn't just giving in-it is collaboration .

still, the die has been cast as they say...i just shudder when i think of what they will do to the bulette (one imagines this illustration involves a loose fitting tunic and sensible pants ).

Have you read what Mearls has said about it? He has said that creatures that are sexual (think Succubus) will be scantily clad as it fits their function. Why would a female warrior wear armor that has her boobs popping out and most of her chest uncovered? What kind of protection is that? They are trying to make the art more realistic. Also you point about people in deserts not walking around fully clothed is funny as most desert dwellers are covered head to toe as it protects them from the sun. I believe what Mearls is going for is a realistic portrayal of the characters/monsters, so they will be scantily clad when it fits but if it doesn't fit then they will be dressed more realistically.

 

[bogmad]

now, we have hopelessly complicated character designs and one has to wonder why?..as if in the southern lands or the forest or the desert these characters are tromping around clothed head to toe. did frazetta need to have his characters decked out like this to create drama? of course not...

....but with 5th edition, mearls and his mates are not chomping at the bit looking for something challenging (and yes sexy) they are instead championing the new prudishness ...this isn't just giving in-it is collaboration .

I love Frazetta as much as the next guy, but haven't seen much so far with the art to excite such a response. So far I've seen a deliberate choice to include inclusive and diverse art, but nothing overtly prudish unless you count a bunch of regular looking folks and lack of cheesecake as prudish.

Have we seen seen a desert image of fully armored folks, or is this just a theoretical example I've seen a few times already?

Pbbffft.

Just, don't freak out at a picture of an incubus later, please.

 

[Selkirk]

to the realism argument...there really isn't one that is worth addressing. unless one considers a group of 4-6 characters tackling a dungeon somehow 'real' or representative of medieval combat.

in a world of fantasy why not have fantastical heroes and heroines? wouldn't some of the characters and creatures be exotic and yes sexy? isn't it possible that say the drow or orcish societies would challenge the conservative mores of 2014 middle america? but enough with the rhetorical questions . part of what made dungeons and dragons so damn good was that the game and the books(and yes some of the illustrations) were racy and thought provoking...made one almost feel like a subversive carrying them around. now we have a game so bland for all that it might as well be set in des moines, iowa not forgotten realms.

and don't tease me with that one racy incubus sketch...give me bare breasted harpies!