D&D 5E D&D and who it's aimed at

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Hey, why not both??

Erol Otus isn't bad art, it's stylized.

I think it's bad. That last one I shared (the weird ant one) is, IMO, just awful. Not at all indicative of anything in D&D and just bad art in general. Again, all of this is just my opinion, but I really, really dislike that type of artwork.

 

[Parmandur]

I think it's bad. That last one I shared (the weird ant one) is, IMO, just awful. Not at all indicative of anything in D&D and just bad art in general. Again, all of this is just my opinion, but I really, really dislike that type of artwork.

Oh, man, I love that image. I love all three, really. And all three very indicative to me of what D&D is about, certainly.

 

[jasper]

When I first encountered Wayne Reynolds' art back in the late Aughties, I thought "I love his unique comic-ish styling, but man, I sure wish he'd cut it out with the big swords and the worse excesses of anime-stylings. I mean, how many buckles do you need?" Or something like that.

Auntie Aughties how many buckles did you buckle when you buckled down to go to the game store in the snow during the 3E era. Aughties. Aughties. Naughty Aughties. (strange it not spell checking the word.) Angry Aughties. average Aughties.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If we're just generally stlying on D&D art, can we talk about how 3e thought minotaurs were some sort of horned bigfoot, and metallic dragons were tropical fish?

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Yeah, I just cannot imagine how someone could see art as awesome as this:
View attachment 156110
View attachment 156111
View attachment 156112
. . . and somehow think that D&D would be better off with art looking like this:
View attachment 156113
View attachment 156114View attachment 156117

Erol Otus is certainly a better artist than I am . . . but I also think that this art looks awful. D&D art is just waaaaay better now. I would never, ever want D&D's art style to go back to looking like that abomination.

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

I’ll take Otus over any and all of those examples any day, all day. They’re very very competent as concept art but Otus is absolutely brimming with character and weirdness.

You can have your preference but that’s all it is. A whole lot of DCC-heads will disagree.

 

[jasper]

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

Art you like is not necessary better than artwork other people like. And I love the drug comment.

 

[Mercurius]

Just think, @AcererakTriple6: in 20 years, you'll be on ENWorld Meta waxing nostalgic about old-fashioned 5E era digital 2-D art, and some young cyborg will be mocking it, neuro-texting you 4-D sensory-augmented 4-D hypergrams of the latest D&D 8E art. And you'll think compassionately of us old geezers.

 

[billd91]

I think it's bad. That last one I shared (the weird ant one) is, IMO, just awful. Not at all indicative of anything in D&D and just bad art in general. Again, all of this is just my opinion, but I really, really dislike that type of artwork.

The art’s fine. I love Erol Otis. He’s like the Devo of the D&D art set - more than a little bit weirder than mainstream.

 

[Greg Benage]

The point of this whole discussion is one of if we feel we are still being aimed at for Wizards products. I dont feel I am at all, and the art plays a big part in that, exactly because of the 'imprint' of what I enjoyed and look for still.

Can tastes change? Certainly.

That's all I was getting at -- I don't feel like I "imprinted" on anything. I wouldn't actually pick on Erol Otus here, since he at least had a distinctive style and that counts for a lot in my book. Some of the old art was good, some was bad, and pretty much all the 5e art would have blown me away at the time because it's better than a lot of the novel covers of the time, let alone D&D art.

 

[Hussar]

We've had all these discussions before. It's a little odd that the same people who defend the changes in those discussions are here now saying, "What? Huh? There's no 'sanitization'? What are you even talking about?" Come on, man. Can't we argue about whether the sanitization is on-net good or bad without the gaslighting?

Well, again, my issue isn't so much with the idea that things have been changing to reflect broader social changes. I think that's undeniably true. The whole "chainmail bikini" thing going away pretty much shows that there have been changes.

My issue is that it's being framed in a pretty negative context by talking about sanitization. As if we are somehow pasteurizing the product and we are left with a weaker, less creative, less interesting result. Which is quite simply not true. Someone might not like the result, that's fine. I have zero interest in Strixhaven, for example. But, I cannot deny that it's pretty damn creative and interesting. The whole Radiant Citadel thing looks pretty creative, pulling in stories and settings and elements that haven't been seen in the game before.

Isn't that what creative means?