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

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You might want to reread the post in question, which touches on rather a lot more than the hiring of a person who literally has nothing to do with DnD books.

the post in question

I just reread it. I don't see anything more than what I said there was. What is being touched on that you are seeing and I am not?

 

[reelo]

I guess my copy of Moldvay Expert Rules that says for 10 and up was just lying. D&D is serious business and has never been for children. [emoji2369]

How about this angle: D&D (or at least Basic D&D) has always been for children/pre-teens, but what society deems suitable for kids of that age has changed. Old "for kids" was more mature than today's "for kids".

 

[beancounter]

She's in charge of a separate studio for separate projects aimed at kids, not for inserting kid friendliness into non-kid-related projects. These books did not come out of her studio, did they?

It's part of a long term strategy. Kids are the next generation of D&D players, and the project aimed at kids is likely to have D&D themes. She may not be directly involved in the books, but it would make sense from a business strategy standpoint to start "leaking" the kid friendly aesthetic into the books, as that will be the next generations art preference (because that's what they were exposed to as kids).

I just think it's naïve to believe that there is a firewall separating WoTC divisions with no coordination, idea exchange or long term planning between them.

If they are smart, I believe they are, they are looking at kids and trying to figure out how best to get them interested in D&D. She, and her division, are likely part of that strategy...

 

[beancounter]

2e modrons:
View attachment 154175View attachment 154176View attachment 154177View attachment 154178

Thanks! They were definitely on their way to looking goofy as early as 2E, but still not as goofy as the current aesthetic, IMO.

 

[beancounter]

So, uh, my very first exposure to D&D was from the Fantasy Forest board game (1983-ish) and AD&D cartoon (ditto), when I was 6-7. Both of these things were targeted directly to kids.

D&D has always been marketed in part to kids.

I was just quoting what the article said.

 

[beancounter]

What's interesting is that a lot of people are saying they like the dnd art they grew up with. I relate to that, as it was that aesthetic (Elmore and then Diterlizzi, in my case) that drew me into these fantasy worlds.

As a child. Dnd drew me into its fantasy world as a child of 10 or so. Because dnd has been, from at least the late 70s, a game for children. All the basic sets are clearly written for an audience of children and early teenagers (it just turns out that simplistic style is exceptionally clear for explaining a game compared to 200 pages of Gygaxian prose). And older gamers complained about "kid dnd" back then too:

When the Grognards Were Munchkins

A blog about table-top role-playing games after a break of two decades.

lichvanwinkle.blogspot.com

Ironically, the concern then was that these younger players weren't fully understanding the that the game was about role playing



Whereas today's grognards seem upset that younger and/or newer players are not more interested in just "getting powerful items and bashing things with them." You know, like they used to do when they were munchkins!

I will never apologize for my preference to kill things and take their stuff.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I grew up with Frazetta and Elmore, so that's fantasy illustration to me. But preferably with more pants and sensible armor.

Nowadays, me and my gang of old folk players spend the absolute majority of our time playing the social pillar in intrigueheavy campaigns with a roleplaying focus and lots of moral grayscale. So neither the Conanesque barbarian or the current brightcolored fluffy fairytale styles necessarily represent our actual game. But in my rpg books I still want illustrations that evoke conflict, epic drama and heroic adventures, it's just a nostalgia thing that is hard to get rid of. And I absolutely will be less excited about a book with illustrations that obviously target a preteen market, but if the content is good I still buy it.

And just to be safe and not jinx anything: I would buy a Spelljammer book even with Teletubbies illustrations!

 

[Hussar]

How about this angle: D&D (or at least Basic D&D) has always been for children/pre-teens, but what society deems suitable for kids of that age has changed. Old "for kids" was more mature than today's "for kids".

That is absolutely not true.

Remember that The Hunger Games is for young adult readers. This is a series that would absolutely be an adult fiction series in the 80's. Remember, that was the time when you absolutely could not show on screen death in a children's show? Remember those days? The idea that what was suitable for children was more mature than what is suitable today is flat out false.

I know there's this myth that's perpetuated about children these days been all coddled and protected and whatnot. It's not true. Good grief, you get on screen murder in Harry Potter. Not just someone getting killed, but, flat out murder. You would never, ever get that pre-90's in a children's product in America.

 

[Mournblade94]

I am very tolerant of many styles. I know im the minority but the art in say the 5e D&D Players handbook are people I can recognize. I mean a halfling looks like GOvernor Chris Christie. It points to the skill of the artists but I actually don't like that. Even Elmore art and Easly art were faces with their style. I like that.

The very skilled artists of today are really getting faces well perfect. So much they sometimes look like people I know. Something about it bothers me. I can't call it bad. Its not bad. Maybe its that uncanny valley.

What I object to the most is when architecture, clothiing, and equiptment look to modern. The top hat on Witchlight for example.

most of the art I actually don't like are fan art or comissioned art for peoples characters. That is usually modern style in clothing and background. I think the fan art shows that the fandom for D&D is moving towards modern fantasy. Modern fantasy is hard for me. Its harder for me to suspend disbelief when we merge 21st century with supernatural. Its actually why I can't buy into the actual "Supernatural" show my wife loves and tries to get me into. Its just to hard for me to buy into.

Fantasy in general is much easier for me to suspend disbelief than sci fi though. So many sci fi shows I give up early because of implausability.

 

[Mournblade94]

I've already admitted I was wrong, and the pile on continues. Pathetic.

Its like Twitter!