Perfectly fair and reasonable.
Again, perfectly fair and reasonable (and ultimately right, I think). It isn't the case that the changes in the art just erase all sense of danger, nor would I want to say they do; mine is the much smaller claim that some of the changes in the art have, over the decades, lessened the feeling of menace and risk of swift, nasty death.
Okay, I can agree with that, as long as the claim doesn't extend to the OP suggestion that this is a new trend or that the game is being made into a cartoonish child's game or whatever.
Well, here's the trick, isn't it? I could show you all sorts of images to support what I say is only a subtle trend in the art, but you easily could accuse me of cherry-picking and back that up by showing a bunch of images that do not fit the asserted trend. I then could counter-accuse you of cherry-picking and show more images. This, naturally, would be taken by you as a stubborn and uncharitable maneuver on my part, and round and round we'd go.
Well, I certainly get why you're wary of that happening, but I will say that I had a perfectly reasonable discussion on the subject with
@Scribe either in this thread or the other one.
I prefer not to accuse people of nasty things unless I'm really sure of it and really sure it matters. On both counts this doesn't pass that test.
So let me explain what it is I've seen but also explain why it really doesn't bother me, yeah? What I've seen from 1e through 5e is a change in the art whereby freaky monsters abound, certainly (what would D&D ever be without them?), but frightened faces of totally-freaking-out PCs do not. Images of dying PCs do not. They are still there, but they don't seem to abound in the way they once did--that's all I mean there.
Ah, okay. Again, as long as it's not about such a change being brand new or meaning the game isn't for grown ups anymore, we're on the same page there.
Tangential to that change has been the move to digital art instead of hand-drawn, and what I've noticed there is the cartoonish elements of 1e (and a bit in 2e, too, I guess) faded away and were replaced with the sort of stuff digital art naturally lends itself to: blue-skinned PCs, monsters, NPCs, or what-have-you whose blue skin looks oversaturated, but at the same time the shading of their faces and figures is quite detailed and precise.
Absolutely. I think saturated has become a bit....well, saturated with extraneous connotations, at least in this discussion, but I assume you're using it in the sense that is possessed of least drama, here, and I agree in that sense. ie, it's about technical qualities of the work, not about the quality of the work.
Now, my own take on this is that both the hand-drawn stuff and the digital stuff have a feeling of unreality about them, but they each yield a different kind of feeling of unreality. It's not so easy verbally to nail down in a description, but it's very easy to see. I myself have no great quarrel with either of these two styles of art: my only point was that when those who dislike the new style say it's not for them, we shouldn't just assume their reaction is a politically or morally loaded one. It very legitimately could be just a purely aesthetic one, couldn't it?
Is it likely, though, when it is combined with obviously loaded terms like "disneyfication" and the rest of the rhetoric that certain people in these threads have used to talk about the more recent art vs older art? It definitely seems unlikely that they are
purely talking about simple preferences in visual art.
And I see no reason why I should pillory them for having that aesthetic preference, right? Some people (God help them) just don't like the taste of coffee. I do. But my love for something they personally dislike doesn't and shouldn't serve to prevent our becoming friends, should it?
Sure, but if someone used terminology that is commonly used, and in fact almost
only used, to imply a deficiency in the character of the person who likes coffee, usually by way of suggesting that coffee is a drink made for rubes that can't get their butts out of bed by their own will or some such nonsense, you'd be justified in challenging their statements and asking for clarification.
I mean, even something like, "I used to pretend to like coffee, too, but then I grew up." would justifiably be met with strong challenge, at least. As it should. The disneyfication comment, and the tone of the rest of the OP's rhetoric, was very similar to that.
My complaint in Morrus' thread and then in this one has never really been about the art: it is and has been about the way we allow ourselves to treat each other. I think Mr. Rinaldelli deserved a more patient, welcoming reception than he was given, especially in light of English not being his first language. I think beancounter deserved a more patient and charitable hearing than he was afforded, and I most definitely think it was way, way out of line for a few members to accuse him of bigotry and racism, of all things. I mean, come on....
I didn't see anyone accusing him of any such thing. Seriously, what? Where?
Mr. Rinaldelli has a habit of making statements that get him reported for pushing against if not outright breaking the forum rules about inclusivity. I suspect this is very much primarily a matter of language and of much of Europe having different POV than America on matters of marginalization and what language is ethically acceptable, not any sort of malice, but it does mean that many around here are not as willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Is that fair? I don't know, actually. I think it's complicated.
People who have to worry about enforcing the "Nazi Bar Rule" tend to be more sensitive to potentially coded language, as well, and this forum has had more than it's fair share of people spout dog whistles in threads about how the game intersects with modern culture and inclusivity and representation, so even the thread topic is one that people are going to be more on their guard in.
All of that adds up to easily raised hackles when the book written entirely by POC that includes art and writing inspired by cultures that aren't Western and White is being called "disneyfied" and implied to be indicative of a deterioration of the quality of the game. Because it is the kind of thing that has been used by bad faith actors in the past. I don't think the two posters in question are at all that sort of person, but it's still quite understandable how they were reacted to.
And I still haven't seen anything that I would consider especially aggressive or out of line toward them. This whole discussion has been pretty mild.
