D&D (2024) Comeliness and Representation in Recent DnD Art

[Micah Sweet]

The AD&D books had plenty of art that wasn't beefcake and cheesecake, or hyper-airbrushed and computer-colored hyper-dynamic visuals and it's sorely missed by this grognard-leaning player. Give me cartoons, B&W line art and a variety of styles.

I like art, I just don't care about it all that much, or prioritize it as a reason to buy anything.

 

[michaeljpastor]

I like art, I just don't care about it all that much, or prioritize it as a reason to buy anything.

No argument from me about that overall. But if there will be art, let it reflect varying styles as well as content and diversity.

 

[Scribe]

You keep using these words. You could just as easily say Conan-style sexist cheesecake is safe because you know there's a large fan base of people who like that kind of art. And the inclusiveness that is more characteristic of recent D&D art always raises a furore among a certain segment of the audience, meaning it's not so safe after all. If people are getting up in arms about your art, how is it safe and tame exactly?

A piece of art doesn't need boobs to not be safe and tame.

It doesn't so give me some Conan the Barbarian grit and violence.

They won't, they will leave that to licensed works like BG3, and that's that's shame, but that's what I'm looking for.

 

[Scribe]

And, this is exactly why you won't get what you want. The complete lack of any sort of respect for anything other than the art you like. I mean, I'm sorry, but, you are describing the art as "sanitized" "Disney" with the very obvious connotations of immature, childish, and not for "real" gamers.

If you actually want to see the art that you want to see, telling everyone else that their art is stupid, childish and sanitized is the worst way of going about it. You are basically demonstrating exactly WHY WotC won't listen to you.

I never said it was stupid.

I know fact said much of it was technically well done. I said the wizard piece with the glasses was great, and evokes the very produced, clean style that is used in MtG, or even overwatch.

It's absolutely a desire to reflect the players as nothing but good righteous and Heroic.

very clean, very safe, and a very limited definition of d&d Heroic.

 

[michaeljpastor]

I find this interesting and has me thinking. I remember how the old Planescape or Dark Sun book came out and each has a feel and tone that builds something from the art to tell the players about the setting. 3e had all the pencil sketches and characters built around that, even Pathfinder has art that says this is Pathfinder. Not sure what 5e is or the 5.5e will bring.

I've said elsewhere that when Planescape came out I absolutely hated the art. When it came to the outer planes, I was expecting the Grecian ideals that were depicted in much of the art of Deities and Demigods. As time went on, I began to appreciate the style and now I love it. I recently learned about the directive given to Tony DiTerlizzi that they wanted imperfect, ancient and decrepit as befits something that's been around for forever. With knowing that, it all made sense to me.

I still miss the Grecian idealistic style though.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

1e and 2e had far more diversity in art styles throughout their runs than 3e, 4e, or 5e ever did.

I am aware. Dark Sun looked like an entirely different game compared to Planescape or Dragonlance. But art diversity still exists in 5e, and @Scribe was saying that it wasn’t and that all 5e art looks “Disney Heroic,” whatever that means.

Eberron looks different from Acquisitions Incorporated which looks different from Spelljammer which looks different from Radiant Citadel which looks different from Tyranny of Dragons. Just not to the same extreme extent that existed in TSR D&D. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I’m personally glad that Planescape and Dragonlance, for example, are more in line with the 5e style than DiTerlizzi’s and Elmore’s art. People can disagree, but I never liked their styles. There were 5e books that I wished were more close to the 5e style (Tyranny of Dragons, I don’t like Kobold Press’s style, and the Eberron book using older edition art alongside new 5e art was kind of jarring).

The point is that 5e does have a diversity of styles.

 

[Scribe]

I’m personally glad that Planescape and Dragonlance, for example, are more in line with the 5e style than DiTerlizzi’s and Elmore’s art. People can disagree, but I never liked their styles.

Cool, glad your desires are being met.

Shame for those who want some variation, but oh well.

Just call a style racist, and those who enjoyed it bigots, you'll be fine.

 

[Hussar]

Just call a style racist, and those who enjoyed it bigots, you'll be fine.

sorry, no. You don't get to play the victim card here.

Saying that 70's and 80's style art is problematic isn't terribly controversial. Saying that it's frequently sexist isn't controversial. At least, it shouldn't be. You don't get to, on one hand, make blanket statements like, "the game instead of Disney Heroic, and nothing but." and then complain that people are lumping older art together.

Again, you're just reaping what you sow. New art has no variation. It's all the same. It's all sanitized. It's all (insert whatever here).

The problem is that all powerful "ALL" you keep throwing around.

 

[Scribe]

I, for one, am happy that D&D moved beyond the racist and sexist Conan-style art before I started playing the game.

sorry, no. You don't get to play the victim card here.

No victim card is being played. The statement was made.

 

[Charlaquin]

No victim card is being played. The statement was made.

I mean, much of the old art was, in fact, racist, and much of it was, in fact, sexist. Certainly not all of it. But, those prejudices were most definitely present in some of it. They’re still present in some of the latest art too (the hadozee situation being an easy example). But, it’s something WotC is trying to avoid, as well they should.