This would make sense if D&D and M:TG were both TCGs. However, this is not a car-to-car comparison, it is a car-to-airplane comparison, if you know what I mean.
D&D General Art in D&D
- Status
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Sacrosanct
Legend
A quick search of halfings that seem to be pretty obvious they are halflings without other items for scale (in fact, the girl with the alligator, with it being small, makes her seem bigger, but it's still obvious it's a halfing). All without the giant head syndrome of 5e, and still recognizable even if you had them wear shoes (which many would never do anyway in art).
And literally dozens more. But I think you get the point. I think there was some serious cherry picking of halfling images going on above to argue they look just like humans without something to provide scale. I think it's pretty clear that you can have a depiction of a halfling in D&D, even with shoes, that's pretty distinguishable already without needing to have wonky 5e features.
And literally dozens more. But I think you get the point. I think there was some serious cherry picking of halfling images going on above to argue they look just like humans without something to provide scale. I think it's pretty clear that you can have a depiction of a halfling in D&D, even with shoes, that's pretty distinguishable already without needing to have wonky 5e features.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
If they were in-house or the like that would be very plausible. However, we're talking about a vast array of artists, none of whom, that I am aware of, work solely on MtG (in many cases it is a small part of their work), and I'm not sure any are even actual WotC employees.
D&D hasn't been a "small project" for a while. What might be relevant is cost vs return. It is possible WotC believe great art is irrelevant to D&D's success but is a key brand point for MtG, a differentiator with other TCG, CCGs and LCGs, but with limited direct competition, D&D doesn't need this. However I question this because I know some of the MtG artists are not particularly expensive and I suspect the D&D artists are not particularly cheap. WAR can't have been cheap to keep on in 3.XE as he was basically the visual branding for 3.XE (and poached by Paizo, surely very intentionally).
Ruin Explorer
Legend
This is definitely one of the more plausible takes. The issue I feel is that MtG uses so many artists and styles that if D&D is to be differentiated from it in this way, D&D is somewhat painted into a corner. Especially as so many of the most stunningly talented artists are immediately grabbed by MtG.
I feel like it's creating a situation (or something is) where the D&D art brand is of slightly vague, somewhat less brilliant, memorable and shocking art (even the original 2E PHB has pieces which manage to shock). Certainly as compared to MtG and to a lesser extent to some other TT RPGs (though it's clear most such have limited budgets).
I dunno. It's not a disaster. 5E does have some good pieces, but the overall vibe is a bit 7/10, where, even if I didn't like a lot of the 2E pieces, say, they were more memorable and distinctive relative to general fantasy art of the period.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Ruin Explorer
Legend
There definitely are, but speaking totally personally, great bits of art really made D&D enchant me in a way other games did not, back in the day. I am an artist - much of my A-level art project was inspired by DiTerlizzi's Planescape work, so I get that this isn't broadly applicable, but it mattered to me that 2E employed some amazing and risk-taking artists, and I feel like Wotc has been on the safe but not amazing train with D&D and they can do better. They can take risks. They can shock. Being boring is a bigger sin, IMHO, than being controversial or even disliked. I don't like Jeff Easley's work, personally. It does not appeal. But I can see the artistry and style and I remember it. But 5E art? Pfffff. And it's not age or the like. I can envision some other contemporary TT RPGs far more easily (and contemporary MtG, even though I don't play that!).
Maybe that just me though!
No, I agree, even as someone who can only draw what's necessary to work in Geometry, I have a great appreciation for art. However, I would even venture to say that 5E's art is not just consistently good/middling, it is hinged on a weird sort of strategy. I mean, consider this:
1. The cover art of 5E books is generally a bit more exciting than any art piece within the book itself. It also happens to be higher in definition. The quality of the covers has varied, but, generally, they're memorable. I have a pet peeve with the cover of the PHB, but that may just be me.
2. The art attached to monster stat blocks is generally rather sharp, which is something I like in D&D art. It usually has good definition, stylish artistry, and a nice look. This is probably an intentional investment, as monster art is used by DM's (and sometimes players) to visualize monsters.
3. The rest of the art, unless it's a character portrait, varies wildly, swinging from weirdly impressionistic and strangely proportioned to evocative. However, the splash art seems to be, overall, homogeneously forgettable. All of it is done in watery oil pastels, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of planning in these pieces.
Am I right, am I wrong? It may be just me, but this is something which I have noticed.
Ulfgeir
Hero
I do like the 5e art for being a relatively consistent style, and that most of the times they feature what one would expect professional adventurers to look like, and they are good for diversity.
That said, I also love the Larry Elmore / Clyde Caldwell / Keith Parkinsson stuff from 2e. Jeff Easley is very much hit-and-miss imo. He is good at monsters, but his humans/elfs what have you often look like they either are chaotic stupid or have rabies (or both)... But back then you would have lots of art that didn't neccesarily feel like they belonged to the same game.
For example, Elmore and Parkinsson is relatively similar in style. Both depicting worlds with lots of details, which makes their stuff feel like a living world. Caldwell sticks out being more "fashion-art", and Brom is for a totally different setting, which is much darker. Easley tries (and often failing) to put himself between Parkinsson and Brom.
My preference though is the old stuff. When it was good, it was really good. Now it is maybe not as good as the peaks of old, but the lower level is higher, thus making it more consistent.
That said, I also love the Larry Elmore / Clyde Caldwell / Keith Parkinsson stuff from 2e. Jeff Easley is very much hit-and-miss imo. He is good at monsters, but his humans/elfs what have you often look like they either are chaotic stupid or have rabies (or both)... But back then you would have lots of art that didn't neccesarily feel like they belonged to the same game.
For example, Elmore and Parkinsson is relatively similar in style. Both depicting worlds with lots of details, which makes their stuff feel like a living world. Caldwell sticks out being more "fashion-art", and Brom is for a totally different setting, which is much darker. Easley tries (and often failing) to put himself between Parkinsson and Brom.
My preference though is the old stuff. When it was good, it was really good. Now it is maybe not as good as the peaks of old, but the lower level is higher, thus making it more consistent.
- Status
Similar Threads
