D&D 5E D&D Next weekly art column!

[Klaus]

And if we can go back to the original topic, which is to present what *you* want for D&D Next in terms of art, it'd be great.

Throw in links to examples, as desired. If you want to see a specific artist, add a link to a website, if you have it. Let's try to keep this thread as helpful and easy to navigate as possible.

Here's an idea: look at illustrations from 4e that, in your opinion, got it *right*. Check the Art Galleries at the D&D website, post links, offer positive feedback ("more of this!").

 

[Mattachine]

I'd like to reiterate my desire to go back to rulebooks having a variety of artists and styles, with some black-and-white and color.

 

[avin]

There was a time when this was seen acceptable, cool even. That time is over, and it is our duty to stop it from crawling out of it's cold grave.

Precisely.

People must remember this is a fantasy game, not a LOTR game nor an pseudo european game cliché.

There's no need a game should be stuck on white humans/elves/dwarves/halflings.

If one wants to DM/play like that, it's fine. What's not cool is to assume everybody else must play D&D the same way.

It's not inclusiveness, is allowing fantasy to breath on different air.

 

[steeldragons]

I'd like to reiterate my desire to go back to rulebooks having a variety of artists and styles, with some black-and-white and color.

Reiterating this reiteration...which I agreed with the first time around.

But it does seem to bare repeating.

--SD

 

[Recidivism]

It's really sad and surreal to see people trying to paint gaming as having been exclusionary to other groups when the reality is that gamers are the ones who have been socially stigmatized and thus mocked and avoided.

The assertion that depicting, or not depicting certain races / classes / sexes in D&D is "exclusionary" is pretty offensive. There's no evidence presented that this is actually the case, so I'm not sure why anyone should take this egregious stereotype seriously.

It's funny to see people pointing out old pictures like that scantily clad pirate woman -- Because if you travel to any grocery store you will see aisles of magazines that are geared towards and bought primarily by women with imagery of an even more sexualized nature, from start to finish. Strange how it's not exclusionary there but it is when an image crops up somewhere in a D&D book.

In terms of artwork that I'd like to see, I would echo the idea of seeing more landscapes, more vistas, more scenes of adventure that aren't directly focused on cinematic action poses. I'd very much like to see more a more impressionistic style overall that focuses on capturing mood and atmosphere over "Look at me in a combat pose!" But that's not a hope just for the artwork but the game rules as a whole.

 

[Dausuul]

Just don't hold good art hostage to some kind of politically correct quota.

Any artist who can't paint a black person just as easily as a white person, or a woman just as easily as a man, is too incompetent to be working on D&D anyway.

I really have no idea what kind of "holding hostage" you're talking about here. It's not like the art is being created off in some mythical Fortress of Artistic Solitude and D&D comes in and picks the best pieces. The people who do the art for D&D paint what they're paid to paint. If they're paid to paint a diverse cast, that's what they'll do. If they're paid to paint a bunch of white dudes, they'll do that too.

D&D traditionally was based primarily on the western world (Europe / Middle East / North Africa) circa the late middle ages/early renaissance.

Hey, you know who historically lived in North Africa and the Middle East? Black people. So this excuse is already falling apart on its own terms. Besides, whether Gygax later regretted putting the monk in the 1E PHB or not, the fact remains that he did it. It was there.

I think you need to read what I wrote more carefully. You're misrepresenting what I said. I NEVER said to deliberately exclude anyone. Your response is a classic straw man argument.

And nobody ever said you were deliberately doing it. Whether it's deliberate or not hardly matters; the end result is the same. And I have to say, when somebody is unintentionally doing something exclusionary, and insists on continuing to do it after having the exclusionary effects pointed out, I don't see a whole lot of daylight between that and doing it intentionally.

 

[Klaus]

Most of the best or most fondly remembered art from previous editions came not from the core books, but from the covers of adventures (specially the Dragonlance series), magazines (Dragon and Dungeon), novels or from calendars (mostly Dragonlance). Case in point, D&D had many outlets for its art, and outlets that remained with the reader/viewer for a longer period of time (specially true with the calendars). I'd like to see a return to these venues.

On a related point, I'd like to see the online Art Galleries not only open to non-DDi-subscribers, but I want to see the art used in pimping upcoming products, not after the fact. The concept art for the "iconics" from Heroes of the Elemental Chaos was seen online before the book came out, and it sparked interest and speculation about what would be in the book.

D&D-based wallpapers could be made available not only for desktop computers, but also for smartphones and tablets.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Hey, you know who historically lived in North Africa and the Middle East? Black people. So this excuse is already falling apart on its own terms.

Duh. You think I don't know who lives in north africa and the middle east? The middle east/north africa had quite a bit of interaction with medieval europe. If you're going to have a medieval european background, then it makes perfect sense to have some art that depicts those cultures. I never said otherwise. Art depicting people from the far east would be a stretch, since there was very little contact. Art depicting native americans would make no sense at all.

I'm talking about applying common sense where applicable, not deliberately excluding people.

Besides, whether Gygax later regretted putting the monk in the 1E PHB or not, the fact remains that he did it. It was there.

And he later said it was a mistake and didn't belong there. It had nothing to do with "inclusiveness", the class just got grandfathered in from OD&D.

And nobody ever said you were deliberately doing it.

Actually, a couple of people here have already started to throw that accusation around. They've even started to throw around labels of "sexist" and "racist". Yikes. Do people actually read before making such accusations?

Whether it's deliberate or not hardly matters; the end result is the same. And I have to say, when somebody is unintentionally doing something exclusionary, and insists on continuing to do it after having the exclusionary effects pointed out, I don't see a whole lot of daylight between that and doing it intentionally.

Ok, then why are people stopping at gender, race, and disability?

Let's start insisting that a significant percentage of the artwork depict old people. They make up a sizable portion of society, so we shouldn't just exclude them. They need to have proportional representation. Why aren't there any old people in the 3e and 4e PHBs? There are in the 1e PHB. Were we more "inclusive" in the 70s and gone backwards since then? What's up with that? Where's Gandalf? Have the last two editions been "age-ist"?

How about overweight people? There are a lot of overweight people in society. We need to represent them proportionately or it's clearly a case of excluding overweight people.

How about people who are bald or going bald? Where are they?

How about left-handed people? Are enough of them being depicted?

Have we depicted any albinos? Elric is a famous fantasy character. If we don't depict any albinos, then we must be excluding them.

If people are insisting of going down the politically correct road of carefully balanced "inclusion" that the open letter advocates, then they need to be ready to go all the way down it... all the way to its obsessive, over-sensitive, logical conclusion.

 

[TheSleepyKing]

Not thinking about inclusiveness and proper depictions in art has led to this:

There was a time when this was seen acceptable, cool even. That time is over, and it is our duty to stop it from crawling out of it's cold grave.

Come on, that art is so agressively terrible that it's actually awesome

If they got Clyde Caldwell to do all the art for 5e I would totally buy it just for the kitsch value.

 

[Mercule]

In the defense of Eberron:

Humanity wasn't originally from Khorvaire, they were immigrants from Sarlona, hence the "any skin color can be found in any of the Five Nations" angle. Perhaps in Sarlona not all skin colors are common in all provinces.

That's a reasonable point. I still really dig the depth of culture in Greyhawk.

Also, I want to be clear on two things: 1) I love Eberron and it's my default D&D setting, unless I return to home brew (which is unlikely, given my adult time constraints). 2) I am not advocating the resurrection of Greyhawk. I think only Gygax did it justice and have not been happy with the feel of any of the later incarnations. It should be allowed to fade into the sunset -- though I'd buy a republication of the old boxed set.