D&D 5E (2014) D&D Next weekly art column!

[Hussar]

Yeah, I did notice the name on there.

 

[Klaus]

New article is up, talking about the D&D logo: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (A Rose By Any Other Name)

I'll cross-post here my comment on the 17 mock logos:

[sblock]
Caveat: I've been designing logos professionally for 15 years (most recent ones: ENnie Awards, EN World TV and Dino-Pirates of Ninja Island).

The biggest problem with the 17 logos is the reading. Most of them don't read as "Dungeons & Dragons". In some, the ampersand isn't read as such, but rather just as a graphic element, making it "Dungeons Dragons". In others, the ampersand is read out of order, making it "& Dungeons Dragons".

Some of the fonts turn the "g" into "e" (most notably, number 15).

As much as I adore the AD&D logo (it lasted two editions!), the 4e one got several things right. It is bold, clearly read from a distance, is read in the correct order, has an easily-useable graphic element (the ampersand) AND on top of that, you can use just the "D&D" elements, as they are, for a shortened version.
[/sblock]

 

[TwinBahamut]

Certainly an interesting article. I don't usually think about the logo much...

I rather like logos #5 and #7, myself. If they worked from there, they could get a pretty decent logo. They could probably adjust the placement of the ampersand or drop the dot in the O's, but they look pretty nice.

Honestly, I've never really though about the logo before. I got my start with 3E, so I've never considered a logo that didn't place the Dungeons above the Dragons... As for the poll options, I really don't think any of those things are strictly necessary. The dragon ampersand is rather distinct, but the ampersand tends to get lost in the dragon. I kinda like the black logos more than the red ones. The sword is not needed... A "hard and aggressive" or "retro" look isn't very important to me. Actually, I'd rather not see retro. I think most of all I just want to see something clean and unobtrusive (rather the opposite of the 3E logo).

 

[Dausuul]

Looking over all those logos, my favorites are the 2E logo, minus the "Advanced" and "2nd Edition" bits, and #5. Possibly this reflects nostalgia on my part, but I do think the 2E logo has a lot going for it:

1. It's legible! The text is easy to read from a distance. The ampersand is clearly identifiable as such, yet the dragon motif is also easy to spot. There's no over-elaborate, distracting background (3E logo, I'm looking at you).

2. The font choice makes it look clean but sophisticated. It isn't baroque like the 1E logo, but it also doesn't have the slick, slightly futuristic, mostly-but-not-entirely-sans-serif look of the 4E logo.

3. Only two colors, once you remove the red "2nd Edition." This ensures that the colors don't distract from the text and the dragon-icon. Furthermore, the ampersand is the same colors as the text, so it doesn't break the flow of reading.

4. "Advanced" aside, it's all on one line, leading the eye naturally from "Dungeons" to "&" to "Dragons." The two-line format often makes me see "Dungeons Dragons"--it's not clear that the ampersand is part of the text. (One reason I like #5 is that the "Dragons" is clearly, deliberately offset to make room for the ampersand, and the ampersand is equally clearly and deliberately located on the second line, so you don't miss it.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would like the "A" back. AD&D is much better known here in germany than D&D...
Also it looks better than D&D...

I peronally believe number 9 is te best logo from the proposals. But the 4th edition one is maybe still the best.
I however also liked the 3rd edition logo on the printed books. It really fitted to the great design of those books. I can´t imagine the 4th edition logo on those books, so maybe it has to change a bit.

And there we are back to logo 9. The color of the letters are a bit less shiny. The Ampersand is bigger. I could imagine this logo on a 5th edition book.

 

[Lwaxy]

Yes, and I know that not all RPG characters are soldiers. But forcing all those women to be thieves and wizards, and priests seems even more sexist to me.

Why? There could be battlemages/battlesorcerers, usually behind the front lines, there can be monks originally just training to better themselves, they could be priests or other healers originally not planning to adventure - there are so many options.

I've created a lot of female characters over time who were not exactly fighters but could hold up their own. And most of them didn't plan to be adventurers.


Generally, you are right that most women wouldn't go off and about. But there is a difference in how females in your world are acting/supposed to act and the art in the books. There could be a mother holding up a child to her breast while standing in the front of the depiction of a typical village. There could be a female priest in a temple giving out blessings, or a market stand or shop with women praising their typical adventure world wares. All clad in real clothing, of course.

The issue is more to bring enough people into it women/non-whites can identify with.

 

[Sunseeker]

Generally, you are right that most women wouldn't go off and about. But there is a difference in how females in your world are acting/supposed to act and the art in the books. There could be a mother holding up a child to her breast while standing in the front of the depiction of a typical village. There could be a female priest in a temple giving out blessings, or a market stand or shop with women praising their typical adventure world wares. All clad in real clothing, of course.

The issue is more to bring enough people into it women/non-whites can identify with.

Catering to gender and racial stereotypes is probably the fastest way to turn people OFF to D&D than to bring them in. If the imagery of women in the books is of mothers, healers, general "not so tough" roles we might as well put in sex-based stat limits.

 

[Hussar]

Hrm, my gut reaction to the logos would be numbers 1 or 9. I voted for a "hard, aggressive" look, simply because, to me anyway, that means very strong, bold, clear colors. The 2e logo was mentioned, but, to me, it's a bit too plain. And that blue just brings back horrible memories of all those damn blue books in 2e.

Honestly, I could live with numbers 7 or 11 as well. Needs to be a bit bolder and brighter, but, not half bad.

 

[Sunseeker]

Ooo haven't been keeping up with the articles.
1: nice, but there's something that bothers me about it, a little too medieval looking, like it's trying too hard to be old then it's not.
2: too cartoony. Looks like something off those Marvel shows aimed at 5-year-olds.
3: 8-bit gaming, woo!...um, no not really. Too "oldschool" and not in a good way.
4: um...what is this?
5: is probably my favorite, good color, good design, clear lettering.
6: I think 6 says "unions and bagels"
7: is a good variant to #5, probably would work for covers that need to be more colorful in which #5 would bend in too well. Alternatively might be good for a specific type of books.
8: Russian D&D! Neyt!
9: good, traditional, nice, but a little bland.
10: maybe if wizards decides to print everything in B&W...or not...
11: I love the logo on this one, but I'm not so fond of the lettering.
12: why are people still using this type of bad photoshop glow/shadowing? eww.
13: Might be cool on the side of a WOTC NASCAR....
14: neat logo, too metallic, too futurey, too sci-fi. Maybe good for some future sci-fantasy content tho.
15: good, but lacks pizazz.
16: Too angular, also very Russian again, neat, but not ideal.
17: I have to squint to read it, good idea for books? no.


Aside from the dragon ampersand, most of these look like someone whipped them up in photoshop. And the poll, seriously? How does that help ANYONE? It should have had 17 choices for people to pick their favored design. All the options presented are meaningless as they have no context.

 

[Klaus]

To be clear: None of these are intended to be the basis of the D&D Next logo. These are just an exercise in recognizing what is essential in a D&D logo.

For me, it's the Dragon-&.

As for the AD&D 2e logo, remember that it is actually the 1e logo, with a blue background and a red "2nd Edition" notation: