Nonsensical Ramblings

[Morlock]

I wish...

D&D were still mostly black and white. I know, what an odd thing to say, right? I mean, everybody prefers color art to black and white. So do I, usually. But not the color art in D&D 3, 4, and 5. I haven't seen the MM in print form yet, but I'm searching up images on the Web. So far they're all just the creature, floating on a white background. I can't say if it's the artists they used, or the art direction ("gimme just a cutout on a white background"), or both, but I'll take the B&W stuff from 1e any day. Even the crappy stuff. It had backgrounds. It had blacks. Here, check this out:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JyVBm7_Q1...8/EgbpvMeNrbg/s1600/Kobold+Monster+Manual.jpg

It's one of the better illustrations from one of the crappier 1e artists, DCS. Okay, so the guy was never going to win any awards. But, it's "real" for me. I relax my eyes a bit, and that critter is right there in my mind's eye. I'm about to be pulled into that illustration with him. And he doesn't have anime feet (I friggin' hate anime style. Especially the big stupid feet*).

It's not nostalgia. It's mood. It's style. I don't think it's nostalgia. I like very little of the "old school" art I've seen in products marketed toward old school nostalgia, anyway. And I'd like to see work in that style from much better artists than DCS ever was; I can see much room for improvement in the 1e art.

Heck, I even like this guy better than the stuff I see nowadays, totally wrecking my argument about backgrounds:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GTZgxXxFs_A/UGK1V_8VYMI/AAAAAAAAAlE/zYYqxcAw3gU/s1600/Duergar.JPG

Spotted blacks, baby. And an axe that looks like something a mortal could swing. A physique that looks like it was dreamed up by a guy who'd never heard of steroids. Armor and kit that look like your average Duergar could afford them. And despite all that, he's evocative for me in a way practically no 3/4/5e art is.

Maybe - just thinking out loud here...but maybe the old B&W stuff leaves more room for my imagination? Maybe the new stuff is TOO well-rendered? Check this guy out:

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...riffith.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090519101127

Me? I'm not getting anywhere near that thing. Eff...YOU. YOU kill it. Maybe I can sit in the back row and shoot arrows at it.

But this guy?:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qNa2cdPsB...W_7N6sIMD4E/s1600/carrion_crawler-205x300.gif
https://alastairsavage.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/carrion-crawler2.jpg

Yeah, okay, I can see that. Somebody hand me a sword. Rabbit stew, comin' up. Hideous? Yeah. Nightmarish? Sure. But doable. Gimme a coat of mail and a spear and it's go time.

But now I don't even know what I'm on about. The color crawler is definitely the better illustration, by far. But I'd still rather see a book illustrated in the style of the B&W one. Does that make any sense at all?

A vampire elf, whatever that is:

http://www.lomion.de/cmm/img/vampelf.gif

I prefer this style. And OMG, did I just say I preferred a Baxa piece? Because I friggin' HATE Baxa's work. Always have. But...it's got a swamp. And trees. And a background. And a swirly cloak with some artistic flair, and not a lot of detail.

This is a vampire, my friend:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Vampire_(Dungeons_&_Dragons).JPG

And this:

http://vampires.monstrous.com/gallery/albums/C4/normal_Larry_Elmore_TWO_FOrtheroad1985.jpg

(I searched for Elmore's excellent B&W vampire illustration from the Expert BECMI book but came up empty)

She's pretty cool, though:

http://www.ironrealms.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/250-wide/story/images/vampire.jpg

Check out the cover to Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea:

http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp161/ghul576/Hyperborea_resized.jpg

Badass. Not that good a draftsman, but still badass. Oozes atmosphere. Looks like actual paint, too (imagine that). Love the whatever-that-is on the axe, staff, and corpse.

I'm not really a fan of the sword and sandals aesthetic, but still, D&D could use a makeover to look more like that.

And this:
http://www.dorktower.com/files/2014/03/PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg

And this:

http://www.dorktower.com/files/2014/03/david-trampier-01-225x300.jpg

And this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xx12LpWFdag/UxPX8y1nPzI/AAAAAAAAAeY/eE1Eqxkho3M/s1600/pic547353.jpg


I guess it's as much about mood, as anything else. When I crack open a D&D book, I want some dark. And I don't mean spikey armor. I mean a world with dark spaces. Shadows. Parts I can't see clearly. Through a glass darkly.

Hey, never mind that I look at the 1e books and see a ton of crap that I'd never put into a book I was publishing. I still prefer the heights of that style to the style of 3/4/5. Maybe it is nostalgia, because I clearly left any rational argument somewhere behind me. I'm not nostalgic about the rules. I much prefer higher AC being better, thank you very much (on the other hand, I also prefer faster, simpler rules).

I guess art is like music. Whatever you liked best when you were a teenager is what you like best forever. Like the man said, I know it when I see it.

This is a DM:

http://www.blackgate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/jeff-easley-16.jpg

P.S., yes, I love Trampier (love me some Roslof, Caldwell, Elmore, Easley, Whelan, Parkinson, Nicholson, Holloway, and Angus McBride, too). Something about his woodcut style, like I'm looking at an ancient manuscript from a master. Someone else put it well:

"I've always considered Trampier's style one of the most evocative of a sense of wonder, foreboding and all the more immersive because of that feeling. The facial expression, textures, and embedded narrative in even a single figure are a touchstone for fantasy art. Any of his illustrations could be a single frame from a key moment in a film, part of a continuous stream of images that your mind can almost fill in to either side of the single image before you."

Another great quote:

"Even with the ability to instill the fantastic, it did appear that DAT enjoyed depicting the mundane as much as anything. I remember reading somewhere a quote from the amazing Keith Parkinson, something to the effect that “one must paint the backgrounds as if they are in the real world, that way that which is fantastic in the foreground can seem rooted in its own reality.” Trampier appeared to have his own philosophy in this respect, choosing to show the fantastic at its most normal. Instead of portraying the great hall of the Hill Giant Chief, he would rather put the activities of its kitchen on display. A man working a sharpening wheel for an Enchant an Item spell is just a man, not some great wizard imbibing a noble weapon with power. Even the heroes of the legendary cover to the Player’s Handbook are devoid of anything exotic or unique. This was a very interesting approach, one that was never lost on me – that sometimes the fantastic is not really that fantastic at all."

So true.

***

* liar liar, pants on fire:
http://fierydragon.com/dragonsbreath/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CloudGiantTrampier.gif

 

[Morlock]

And then there's the whole modern, done-on-computers layout. Fancy text, colored fonts, paper that's an illustration. Keep it. I prefer 1e on that score, too.

I guess I want D&D Unplugged.

 

[Morlock]

""Even with the ability to instill the fantastic, it did appear that DAT enjoyed depicting the mundane as much as anything. I remember reading somewhere a quote from the amazing Keith Parkinson, something to the effect that “one must paint the backgrounds as if they are in the real world, that way that which is fantastic in the foreground can seem rooted in its own reality.” Trampier appeared to have his own philosophy in this respect, choosing to show the fantastic at its most normal. Instead of portraying the great hall of the Hill Giant Chief, he would rather put the activities of its kitchen on display. A man working a sharpening wheel for an Enchant an Item spell is just a man, not some great wizard imbibing a noble weapon with power. Even the heroes of the legendary cover to the Player’s Handbook are devoid of anything exotic or unique. This was a very interesting approach, one that was never lost on me – that sometimes the fantastic is not really that fantastic at all."

I'd add that if you assume Trampier was doing precisely what Parkinson described, then he wanted to emphasize the fantastic elements. Which is something I really prefer about 1e's art direction. The medieval men look like medieval men, hauberks and simple caps, realistic everything. It lets the magic and monsters shine.

 

[Morlock]

Ooh, forgot Miguel Harkness, by far my favorite recent game artist.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wish...

D&D were still mostly black and white. I know, what an odd thing to say, right? I mean, everybody prefers color art to black and white. So do I, usually. But not the color art in D&D 3, 4, and 5.

I get it. I associate the old B&W line art with the excitement of the early days of the hobby, it provided my first vision of what each of the classic monsters 'really looks like.' And, it carries, in my memory, a certain quality of honesty, too. That the book is about the game, not the production values. I know it's just grognard nostalgia, but it doesn't mean it's wrong for us to feel it.

At the same time, I appreciate the higher production values that started with 2e.

 

[Morlock]

Yeah, it's just too bad that those higher production values aren't serving art direction more like 1e's.

It's also about aesthetics. I'm just not that into super-garish, dungeonpunk style, light digital color palettes, etc. Not like I've been seeing it, anyway.

 

[Morlock]

Anyone know where I can find the art credits for the 5e PH and DMG? I just realized that I shouldn't lump 5e art in with 3/4 going only by the MM, which is usually has the weakest art of the big three. I did a couple searches but couldn't find anything. I get the names and I can search up their galleries.