D&D is not a single entity. It does not have a specific style. It does not have a single original author. Instead, it has two people who made some rules and lore and then hundreds upon hundreds of other people who, over the decades, expanded upon that and made their own rules and settings, many of which completely ignored other people's rules and lore, even that created by Gygax and Arneson themselves.
Nice try.
Post 3e every D&D edition has had a default setting.
The default setting for 5e is the Forgotten Realms. With little snippets of lore and names of spells and deities scattered throughout the rules.
So it makes sense that a consistent art direction for the core books and other material that refers to the realms have a consistent art direction to reflect the aesthetic of the setting.
Here, look at the Dark Sun. They have a consistent art direction. It would be inconsistent if you suddenly threw art by, I dunno, Larry Elmore in there. Take a look at the 5e MM. Digital artwork along with some of the original pencil sketches. It would be inconsistent if they had a handful of done in the style LuisCarlos17f just posted, of the woman on the bike.
You make my point for me. The Dark Sun had a consistent art direction.
There is no reason WOTC cannot have a consistent art direction for each 5e setting: One for the FR, and different one for Ravenloft and its domains, and one for Eberron etc..
I have never said otherwise. And was always referring to D&D settings like the Forgotten Realms in my replies.
Ravenloft not having consistent art direction, but it's clear you don't understand how Ravenloft even works. If you did, then the difference in styles would be obvious.
Yes the domains.
Again you have done some seriously selective reading - I'm starting to think that it is intentional at this point.
I have answered this issue at least twice previously in replies. Nothing wrong with each domain having a unique look to match its setting/culture.
You seem to be taking the position that I am advocating one uniform look for all climates and cultures in a given setting.
This is a incredibly disingenuous way to frame your responses. It is self evident from just my replies to you that this is not my position at all.
Others who have chimed in on this thread that generally agree with me seem to understand what I am saying without issue.
So then the fault is yours for realizing that's what D&D does. You may not like it, but D&D doesn't do "consistent" costuming. It does fantasy rule of cool. That is it's style, and it's pretty darn consistent with that. Like it or lump it.
OK, your stance seems to be D&D = rule of cool.
You have gone as far to say that D&D goes beyond the renaissance:
D&D doesn't take place in any of those centuries. It takes place in a nebulous time period that spans from the "Dark Ages" to beyond the Renaissance, and contains dozens of different cultural influences
And is not reflective of the real world at all:
D&D is not the real world. It doesn't follow real-world history or social or religious mores, and thus doesn't need to follow real-world fashions.
Yet when a poster asks why not jeans and baseball caps in D&D, your reply:
No, because D&D is "medieval-ish fantasy," not "modern-ish fantasy."
Wait what?
D&D is now Medieval-ish fantasy ?!
You are certainly willing to have D&D go medieval when it suits your purposes to do so!
Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.
But that is less a D&D problem than the laziness or ignorance of American art directors.
As an American I say You are 100% right. I get the general sentiment and intent of what you are saying here.
Don't pay the slightest attention to this nonsense response:
Wow. So it's not just D&D, but all art directors of a particular nationality who are at fault.
Bigoted much?
Yeah, I'm done here.
They grabbed onto the faintest excuse to label you some variety of: igot-ista-phobe.
There by labeling you a BadWrongFun person so that they get to dismiss anything you say out of hand.
They were just looking for a reason to flounce from the discussion as the logical inconsistencies of their position, and disingenuous replies became more difficult to defend.
