D&D 5E Toward a new D&D aesthetics

[Stormonu]

Yes, but it's become more prevalent.

Only because you are looking for it.

 

[Undrave]

Is this about Strixhaven and (what we have seen) of Radiant? 2 books? Or just the 1?

D&D has had bigger experimentation in art. Dragon Lance (at the time), Darksun, and especially Planescape, for example.

And sure they were all better than Strixhaven art wise, but can you draw such big conclusions from 1 book?

Aren't the M:TG setting books just reusing arts made for the cards anyway? Because it's cheaper that way? And that's a whole other stable of artists? If the M:TG settings art is not to your taste then it has little to do with D&D as a whole.

Where the monsters don't look blatantly Disneyfied.

The flying lemur (or whatever it is) on the front cover of the latest book is what "classic" is not.

Have you ever heard of the tarsier? Or the slender loris? The creature on the cover is basically a flying monkey based off a lesser known primate. And made blue to be D&Dfied. It's not any cuter than the real animal.

I bet that using an animal from southeast asia as the basis of a new creature instead of a more recognizable 'monkey' was probably a deliberate decision.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I like the aesthetics of modern D&D!

I also like the aesthetics of old D&D!

I like both because they are both varied, evocative, and often spark my imagination.

 

[Undrave]

Right, SB is part of classic art style. I'm talking about modern vs. classic.

Lilo and Stich is the modern style.

Not to be that guy, but Lilo & Stitch was in 2002... That was two decades ago!

 

[Mind of tempest]

Not to be that guy, but Lilo & Stitch was in 2002... That was two decades ago!

man that makes me feel old as I was four then.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Have any of you ever posted on a gaming forum full of fanboys who freak out if you dare criticize anything about their favorite game or developer?....

This is the sense I'm getting from this thread. @Fifth Element @Mythos Enthusiast ... do you think you can respond without being defensive? As in actually thinking about what's being said objectively? People have different opinions. Demonising someone out of the gate for not sharing your opinion is no way to have a discussion. I see your point. Even if I don't agree with it now, or even if you don't manage to convince me by the end of the discussion, I will not think any less of you. You are just people with different opinions from mine.

But right now, I see purposely obtuse responses intended to inflame the discussion. Bleh.

 

[Stormonu]

Besides, D&D was “Disneyfied” long, long ago - it was part of their plot to sell millions…

 

[DarkCrisis]

2E's art is D&D to me. That's how I picture things in my head when playing. I like a more old school "serious" style.

Not saying the new art is bad, it's just not my preference.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Besides, D&D was “Disneyfied” long, long ago - it was part of their plot to sell millions…
View attachment 154073

People like to pull these up but were meant to be funny. They were little comics stuck in the margins etc, they weren't the "main" art.

To be fair, the main art wasn't that amazing either but they had like zero budget for art.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

People like to pull these up but were meant to be funny. They were little comics stuck in the margins etc, they weren't the "main" art.

To be fair, the main art wasn't that amazing either but they had like zero budget for art.

The picture that @Stormonu posted is from the Fiend Folio. This was the unofficial second Monster Manual for 1E. It was slapped together from what was effectively user submitted monsters (the actual history is a bit more complicated). I don't know where that particular piece of art for the Kilmoulis came from, but I highly doubt, as you say, that it came from some sort of highly organised art department.