Monte on covers

Psion said:

Well, speaking for myself, I see where Monte is coming from. He especially struck a chord when he talked about the old chessboard covers of Dragon.

Click to expand...

I see where he is coming from, I just don't believe that the "faux" covers are dominating the industry. The only area in which they seem to be most prevelant is in the single concept books. Everwhere else "real" art is still the rule.

Just a quick point.

The guy who did the 3.0 and 3.5 "faux" covers (Henry Higginbotham) runs a game shop about 1 mile from where I live. Those images are actually photos taken of models that he built. He puts the models on display in his store occasionally.

I give him high marks for the unique medium he uses. And I like the “neutral” aspect of the cover design. But like others here, I don't have a personal preference for the cover style. I like them both. I also agree that on the whole, a "good" cover is better than a "crappy" cover for any book.

If I was forced to choose, I think I would prefer things to be just the way WOTC has done them. The core books have “faux” covers and the supplements have pictures or a “faux”/picture blend.

We decided to go with a wrap around cover that tells a story. A Magical Society: Ecology and Culture uses the trope of a new godling's world-building task to talk about RPGworld-building. So hopefully Monte will be happy about that...

joe b.

The core rulebooks holds the highest standard exactly because it used a real building and made it by hotographing it, this can get pretty awesome results, I can tell because my father is a photographer.

And on the cover for the neewest book of the XRP, I must say that it serves the purpose well, I did not like the MAgical Medieval Society book, although that will not stop me from getting it (waiting to get both in print version! ).

Also, I think that the forgotten realms line is the most sucessful group of covers because the style they chose was well implemented, some good covers I have on my shelf are those of the Midnight campaign setting and the other books for it, they have a surrounding "faux" style and a good art on most of the rest, and also, I like the cover of the 2nd edition series of the Van Ritchen's Guides, it followed the same style of Midnight and the artwork was very evocative too.

That said, I think that a cover is like your clothing, it may say not a thing about you, but when you want that new job that badly you better have a good one for using!

I've always been a bigger fan of artwork on covers than of designed covers. That said, I like the core book covers, but I think that the "faux book" cover idea has been taken too far by some publishers. When the first few d20 books came out that had covers similar to the WotC books (Creature Collection, Relics & Rituals) I thought they were cool, but it now seems that there are far too many of them on the shelf at my FLGS. WotC does a great job with their covers, as has been mentioned before, they are actual pieces of art that have been photographed. I met Henry Higgenbothom at GenCon last year and got to look at several of the original pieces, they are amazing. The covers that are designed in Photoshop usually end up looking liek a poor reproduction of what an old tome is supposed to look like. There have been a few that were well done, but for the most part, what I see is a retred of an idea that has been done better. The books that come out with artwork on the cover are the books that draw my attention when sitting on the shelf. That's not to say that I don't buy books with designed covers, I rarely buy a book strictly for the artwork, although good art and covers make me feel better about a book purchase, especially if it's an expensive book.

I loved the Dragon and Dungeon covers prior to 3.0. I still have the first Dragon Magazine I ever bought (#89, I think). It has a wizard casting Mordenkein's Sword in a dark room. Great cover, full of action, and it sticks with me. There are many other covers that stick in my mind over the years as well-Trouble At Grogs from one of the early issues of Dungeon, the Witch kneeling on an alter from a Dragon in the early 100's, the chess covers, and many more. Since 3.0, none stick out as anything special, but I can certainly think of a few that I thought were awful.

As far as the arguement that covers sell books, I have to agree wholeheartedly with it. I saw it while working for several years in a variety of bookstores, and I sat in on many, many cover meetings when I worked at HarperCollins. A bad book with a good cover will outsell a good book with a bad cover almost anyday. Face a book out on the shelf and it will almost always outsell the book sitting next to it. Publishers sometimes PAY to have their books faced out on the shelf. As for good books with bad covers not selling, look at the heavily designed covers that White Wolf was putting on their fiction line in the mid-late 1990s. Good books-Fritz Lieber, Michael Moorcock, and other authors who should have steady backlist titles. Cutting edge design, but awful looking books. You could sometimes hardly tell what the title was. Poor design choice, and the books sold terribly.

I like any cover that is appealing to the eye. I find the 3.5E covers appealing, I find some artwork covers appealing.

Strangely enough, the worst cover I've seen recently would be a Monte Cook book: the Book of Eldritch Might III. While it might look good online, when you have the book in your hands it is definitely unappealing. The artwork is washed out by the border.

Cheers!

.

Anyone remember the original cover to R. Talisorian's Cyberpunk? Not the flashy 2020 version, mind you. The one with plain white text on a black background and a simplistic white line-art rendering of a cybered-up guy with a pistol? Quite evocative, for me at least, due to its simplicity.

Then again, I'm one of a dying breed who actually like four-color comics, rather than the glossy photoshopped stuff we have today where some kid goes crazy with the dodge and burn tool.

I think the cover and art work in the Draconomicon is exceptional and certainly much better than any of the other WotC D&D books, which vary greatly. Some of the artwork in the Complete Warrior is very good, but some is just downright sloppy. I don't mind the faux covers and I think the 3.5 ones are better than 3.0, but like so many others, I'd also prefer more evocative art.

As for Dragon Mag... well, what can I say? The art is bland. I can still remember some covers from years ago (like the chess covers), but I can't recall a single cover from recent copies. Mind you, I stopped buying Dragon Mag some months back now as I found the contents about as inspiring as the cover... :\

MEG Hal said:

This will be the cover for Fall of Man...

Click to expand...

Very cool. Is that a Tony Szczudlo piece? I really like the stuff that he did on the Birthright line but I haven't seen much from him in the past several years.

Nifelhein said:

it amazed me how the Sword and Fist cover was made by the very same Easley who made the great cover of Rules Cyclopedia and 2nd edition PHB, DMG and MM, among others...

Click to expand...

I totally agree. Jeff Easley's stuff used to be great but nowadays it's extremely lacking. I hope that's just because of the direction he's been given by the powers that be in Wotc, as I'd hate to think that his talent has actually deteriorated. My favorite piece of his is the from the 2nd printing of the 1e DM' screen, the one I use as my avatar. I really don't like the 3e stuff, for example, the DM's screen (3.0 version). I particularly dislike the 3e renditions of elves (Mialee makes me shudder - she looks like a bug).

Getting back more to the topic at hand, I definately prefer covers with evocative art over the faux cover look. I don't totally oppose the idea of an old tome cover for the core books, but the current ones are too gaudy for my tastes.

A good example of a great cover that suggests an adventure is the cover of Ruined Kingdoms, an Al-Qadim adventure box. It's by Fred Fields. Unfortunately, a Google image search doesn't turn up it up in high enough resolution to do it justice. Also, Keith Parkinson's covers of Mines of Bloodstone and The Throne of Bloodstone are excellent. More generally, as mentioned I like Tony Szczudlo's old Birthright pieces, as well as Elmore's work on/in the old basic/expert sets and in Dragonlance, Brom's work on the Dark Sun line, and Tony DiTerlizzi's in Planescape (although I don't like it as much in other places).

What do I think?

The exception will usually be what I like better. When the 3rd edition books first came out, I really liked the way they looked. They were different, in comparison to the old 2nd edition covers, which generally bore artwork of some sort - efreet or horseman or what have you.

Now that it's the other way around, where the faux covers are the rule, and not the exception, it's the artwork covers that grab me. I really like the maps on the Scarred Lands continent hardcovers, for example, and though I don't have much interest in the book, the Draconomicon certainly sticks out for its cover. Neither of those would be such a big deal if most covers were done that way.

I will say, though, that faux covers aren't as likely to stick out as an artwork cover. A really snazzy faux cover wouldn't stick out as much, in my mind, from other faux covers as a really snazzy artwork cover would from other artwork covers. There's more that can be done in a piece of artwork than can be in a fake cover look.

Conversely, a bad artwork cover will probably look worse than a bad faux cover.

But I really believe it's a matter of the exception that I find "better."