TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
I'd definitely drop $50 on a Book of Gray Apathy, though.
D&D 5E Toward a new D&D aesthetics
- Status
BookTenTiger
He / Him
The Book of Immaculate Light
The Book of Slightly Soiled Dimness
Vaalingrade
Legend
The 3e BoVD has a naked drow and numerous exploded corpses. Hat Trick!
Recent 5e art is more similar to early 5e art than it is similar to art from other editions. This is intentional: they want to keep a largely similar art style throughout all books from the edition. The art itself (from any 5e product) strikes me as very saturated and very fully realized, with less left to reader's imagination. One thing I do not like is not so much the art but the graphic design style of the books as a whole: the way they do borders on images, the back splashes of color, and the way the text is formatted and laid out. The young adventurer's guides don't have all that, and I noticed I liked even the same art a lot more when it was isolated on the page without all those design flourishes.
What I react poorly to in the OP, and some of the comments, and the discussion overall, is the claim that there was a singular Classic style and a singular Modern style. This often strikes me as implicitly reactionary, in which the classic style is better for any number of reasons. We see these kinds of claims with mechanics as well (for example that racial ASI worked in one particular way for all of dnd history, and only now has there been a change).
Not that there aren't differences among the editions in the style of game or overall aesthetics--there most certainly are. But as a fan of older editions of the game and of the OSR, I take issue with these claims mostly because they are simply inaccurate a lot of the time. What people happen to identify as "Classic" is just what they grew up, and the claims that there has been just one shift or that older editions played or looked a certain way don't hold up when you actually go back and revisit those texts. Another part of my is annoyed with those arguments because without experimentation you just get people doing the same thing over and over. (On that note, I wouldn't say that 5 is experimenting; I'd actually like to see new art and layout styles, allowing for more individuality and variance. I'm more referring to all the amazing artistic creativity that's happening in indie osr and "artpunk" type games.)
What I react poorly to in the OP, and some of the comments, and the discussion overall, is the claim that there was a singular Classic style and a singular Modern style. This often strikes me as implicitly reactionary, in which the classic style is better for any number of reasons. We see these kinds of claims with mechanics as well (for example that racial ASI worked in one particular way for all of dnd history, and only now has there been a change).
Not that there aren't differences among the editions in the style of game or overall aesthetics--there most certainly are. But as a fan of older editions of the game and of the OSR, I take issue with these claims mostly because they are simply inaccurate a lot of the time. What people happen to identify as "Classic" is just what they grew up, and the claims that there has been just one shift or that older editions played or looked a certain way don't hold up when you actually go back and revisit those texts. Another part of my is annoyed with those arguments because without experimentation you just get people doing the same thing over and over. (On that note, I wouldn't say that 5 is experimenting; I'd actually like to see new art and layout styles, allowing for more individuality and variance. I'm more referring to all the amazing artistic creativity that's happening in indie osr and "artpunk" type games.)
Vaalingrade
Legend
Are halflings still horrifying doll-body nightmares from beyond the kith and kin of mortal minds in modern 5e?
Because Kingmakers was on sale this week, I bought it and... it's spread to Totally Not 3e too!
Because Kingmakers was on sale this week, I bought it and... it's spread to Totally Not 3e too!
Voadam
Legend
Three from recent WotC seems easy enough. I don't have any of these but quick image searches from the titles of recent ones that come to mind.
The first two are what I have seen for the upcoming Radiant Citadel and the third is Witchlight.
These seem indicative to me of a lighter direction for D&D art.
Call of the Netherdeep is another recent one:
I don't have a comprehensive 5e collection but the 5e art I have been seeing in promotions and such recently do feel like a trend to the lighter and more kid friendly.
To be fair - IIRC the original one didn't sell great and neither did the 4e movie tie-in version.
Vaalingrade
Legend
Wait.
What's wrong with this one?
They're camping on a burning mammoth skeleton. How is that light? Because big dude can read?
ersatzphil
Hero
One thing that I miss - and that I'm well aware will not return - is different D&D settings having different art direction. Particularly Brom directly contributing to Dark Sun and DiTerlezzi directly contributing to Planescape, but I'd personally put Stephen Fabian's work on Ravenloft in the same bucket. Having the art in "Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft" be the same style as the PHB was kind of a letdown for me, even though I did like a lot of the pieces in that book. Really drove home the point that these were radically different worlds:
Attachments
BookTenTiger
He / Him
Yeah, I would love to see more variety with the styles of art WotC publishes.
- Status
