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

[Bacon Bits]

I'd say I'm fine with the changes. I think big change was 2E to 3E, and since then it's been more of a drift than any major changes in art style. 2E still had that old-school look, even quite late on, but also some artists taking risks and being, well expensive-looking artists like DiTerlizzi and Brom. Whereas 3E went for a more straightforward "illustration-y" style, which was definitely more modern, but was less artistically interesting.

My problem with the last twenty years of D&D art-wise has never really been the aesthetic in a broad sense. It's been that most of the art just hasn't been very good technically, nor original, nor even particularly evocative, and I know some people are going to be mad, and WAR defenders will be particularly mad to hear me say that. But may WAR should have been less boring? I dunno. He certainly set the tone for like 20 years of D&D.

That didn't change with 4E, and it hasn't changed with 5E, except where 5E has employed MtG art, which generally isn't like a cut above D&D art, it's like a Zorro Z above D&D art in terms of how evocative it is, how strong some of the pieces are, and so on.

Currently D&D is drifting into a particularly generic "modern fantasy" style that exists solely because there is so much fantasy now, and illustrators have sort of converged on this particular approach, which I've described before. I don't hate it, but it is boring. It's less irritating than some approaches for sure, and closer to the "imagined aesthetic" of most D&D sessions I've been involved in than some styles.

I don't think anything you've said here is wrong, but I think 2e fell into that same trap of generic fantasy. I remember Elmore's works generally looking like the front cover of every fantasy novel published at the time. It was, perhaps as a victim of his own success, the generic image of fantasy that I recall from Dragonlance on. I think that's why they went with Brom and DiTerlizzi: to change things up with new looks. They specifically went with a single artist for a whole setting. Planescape and Dark Sun have consistent art direction because they had a single artist. However, TSR books in these settings also have a lot of pages that are just two columns of text.

I don't think WotC has done any book with a single artist, let alone every book in a given setting. Maybe not even done concept artwork. WotC's books have been larger, and with more art than TSR books. It's just not possible for a single artist to produce enough pieces for a modern WotC book. For real, grab the 5e PHB and flip through the race and class sections. More pages have artwork on them than don't. In some sections there is artwork on every page. It doesn't have the quality that Planescape and Dark Sun books had, but.... there's a lot of paint there, where it would be a line drawing in 1e or 2e. I agree the art has changed and isn't as consistent or evocative, but I think that's at least partially because audiences demand so much of it. I can't imagine that WotC's product leads can spend as much time on art direction as TSR's books did.

Never mind how much cheaper 5e books are compared to their 1e counterparts (after adjusting for inflation). $20 in 1978 is nearly $75 in 2014. That difference has to come from somewhere. Would you happily buy an $80 TTRPG book today if it wasn't in full color? I'm not sure many people would.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I don't think anything you've said here is wrong, but I think 2e fell into that same trap of generic fantasy. I remember Elmore's works generally looking like the front cover of every fantasy novel published at the time. It was, perhaps as a victim of his own success, the generic image of fantasy that I recall from Dragonlance on. I think that's why they went with Brom and DiTerlizzi: to change things up with new looks. They specifically went with a single artist for a whole setting. Planescape and Dark Sun have consistent art direction because they had a single artist. However, TSR books in these settings also have a lot of pages that are just two columns of text.

I don't think WotC has done any book with a single artist, let alone every book in a given setting. Maybe not even done concept artwork. WotC's books have been larger, and with more art than TSR books. It's just not possible for a single artist to produce enough pieces for a modern WotC book. For real, grab the 5e PHB and flip through the race and class sections. More pages have artwork on them than don't. In some sections there is artwork on every page. It doesn't have the quality that Planescape and Dark Sun books had, but.... there's a lot of paint there, where it would be a line drawing in 1e or 2e. I agree the art has changed and isn't as consistent or evocative, but I think that's at least partially because audiences demand so much of it. I can't imagine that WotC's product leads can spend as much time on art direction as TSR's books did.

Never mind how much cheaper 5e books are compared to their 1e counterparts (after adjusting for inflation). $20 in 1978 is nearly $75 in 2014. That difference has to come from somewhere. Would you happily buy an $80 TTRPG book today if it wasn't in full color? I'm not sure many people would.

I wasn't just Planescape and Dark Sun which pretty much had a single artist. At least at the beginning, Ravenloft was nearly exclusively Stephen Fabian illustrations, setting the gothic mood. Dragonlance heavily leaned on Elmore (though Jeff Easley was prominent as well), Birthright had Tony Scuzdulo and Eberron was the setting that really brought Wayne Reynolds to prominence.

I guess Eberron is really the closest thing WotC has done to have a single artist for a setting, really, even if they did supplement him with other artists. He did do all the Eberron cover art I believe, which certainly kept it consistent.

 

[Scribe]

Would you happily buy an $80 TTRPG book today if it wasn't in full color? I'm not sure many people would.

If the product was to my personal tastes? Looking at some of the other books I've purchased in the past like the Horus Heresy Black Books (Hardback)...yes, yes I would, and I would not even blink.

 

[Guest 7034872]

If the product was to my personal tastes? Looking at some of the other books I've purchased in the past like the Horus Heresy Black Books (Hardback)...yes, yes I would, and I would not even blink.

Ditto. If they brought back the original Planescape setting updated for 5e (or 6e--whatever) and kept both content and art faithful to the original temperament and flavor of the place, I'd happily shell out some real money for it.

I think Bacon Bits has this right: there's a unity of vision--a coherence to the imagined world--that comes from having a single author, and the same is true of having a single artist.

I don't think it'll ever happen, mind you. In companies as big as Hasbro/WotC, that sort of editorial freedom and control is never given to writers and artists nowadays. It's too risky.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, if that was what was happening here, great. But the truth is, it wasn't anything like you're describing. Look, with honesty, at the tone of the answers that were given to this poster. It was like a swarm of vultures homing in on a dying zebra. It was bizarre to watch. It was a set of people with their own preconceptions attacking en masse a person who was not a part of their herd. Absolutely zero effort to accommodate this person's viewpoint. The polar opposite of intellectualism and seeing the value in all people.

Speaking as someone who was involved in that discussion early on, your characterization of it is highly inaccurate. Vague claims were made and no evidence was presented to justify them.

 

[Umbran]

I certainly agree with this however, as its what I've essentially been saying, just in another way. Non-offensive, and Age Neutral.

Sure. I'm good with agreeing you on that. However, I don't see as there's any new trend in that choice. It has been like that pretty much since the launch of 3e - and that's twenty years ago.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, on the point about "historical accuracy".

It pretty much goes straight out the window because the entire function of weapons and armor isn't based on the real world. In the real world, by the 12th century, say, most Europeans would never, ever have to face something trying to eat them. So, armor is designed to stop people from poking sharp metal things into your squishy bits.

But 3e comes along with it's "dungeonpunk asthetic" and everyone freaks. Spikes everywhere?!?!?! Makes no sense.

Except that it does. The average adventurer is far more likely to be on the receiving end of a claw or a bite than a spear or a sword. Putting spikes on your armor when nearly everything out there is trying to Improved Grab you to death makes a considerable amount of sense. Putting spikes on armor makes no sense when someone is trying to stab you with a sword. Sure. But, some Wyvern trying to bite your arm off? Suddenly armor spikes make a lot of sense.

Same goes for architectural aesthetics. Most D&D town or city art looks like 15th century Europe. But, again, 15th century European towns were almost never attacked by large animals. Look at African towns and settlements of a similar period and you see lots of far more defensible towns when dealing with things like lions or hyenas.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Speaking as someone who was involved in that discussion early on, your characterization of it is highly inaccurate. Vague claims were made and no evidence was presented to justify them.

The original poster was saying that the artwork seemed cutesy to them (phrased as Disney-fication). They surmised that this was some sort of trend. The claims were vague for sure. Mostly why I disagree with them and of course counter arguments should be presented. Even if the poster is wrong, does this make them bad or stupid? Of course not! The responses, though, were very patronising/antagonistic. To my mind, not how you engage in discussions. Definitely not if your eventual hope is to sway someone.

 

[Hussar]

The original poster was saying that the artwork seemed cutesy to them (phrased as Disney-fication). They surmised that this was some sort of trend. The claims were vague for sure. Mostly why I disagree with them and of course counter arguments should be presented. Even if the poster is wrong, does this make them bad or stupid? Of course not! The responses, though, were very patronising/antagonistic. To my mind, not how you engage in discussions. Definitely not if your eventual hope is to sway someone.

That’s a bit inaccurate.

The point way back there was that the art was being Disneyfied to appeal to a younger audience. It wasn’t just that the art is Disneyfied but it’s also the infantilization of the game that it’s being paired with.

Compounded with the idea that somehow material for todays younger audience is less mature than what would be appropriate for a younger audience in the past.

While I get the point about dog piling. Sure. But this isn’t entirely unjustified. There have been some pretty broad brush claims being made that are pretty insulting to anyone who doesn’t agree.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

That’s a bit inaccurate.

The point way back there was that the art was being Disneyfied to appeal to a younger audience. It wasn’t just that the art is Disneyfied but it’s also the infantilization of the game that it’s being paired with.

Compounded with the idea that somehow material for todays younger audience is less mature than what would be appropriate for a younger audience in the past.

While I get the point about dog piling. Sure. But this isn’t entirely unjustified. There have been some pretty broad brush claims being made that are pretty insulting to anyone who doesn’t agree.

First off, I'm glad we agree about the dog piling. That was very strange and off putting to me.

So pairing the term Disney-fied with the infantilisation of the game. I do see how if this was identified, it would lead to some hostility. Not an argument I can get behind (the infantilisation I mean), but I would prefer counter-arguments be more open. This thread was filled with veiled counter-attacks. Yuck.

Was the original comment a disguise for some sort of commentary on infantilisation of the game? Possibly. Or maybe it was a misunderstanding. Either way, let's discuss openly.

The original poster I'm sure would have appreciated a more open discussion than they received.

Thank you for speaking about this debate in frank terms.