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

[Hussar]

Oh no way. Completely disagree.

I suspect this idea that the cover needs to create a desire to play is a big factor in why the 4e books have such a "toy" look to them (imo).

Compare Skyrim vs. the 4e PHB:

vs.

Skyrim doesn't try so much to create a desire to play. This is why it looks cooler.

I think being coy and a little bit inaccessible would be a good thing. Basically, think of how a limited edition cover would look. That should be the cover on release!

Like "Roleplaying Game Core Rules" -- you don't need that on the cover. Who is going to be looking at it without already knowing that? You don't need that on the cover anymore than Skyrim needs "Roleplaying Video Game" on the cover.

Do we even need the name Dungeons & Dragons on the cover? What about just a solid fantasy painting (wraparound front to back! and a SCENE with a narrative to unravel, rather than just some PCs modelling themselves), with Dungeons & Dragons on the inside page.

I know that sounds wild, but this is the presumably the point of extending the conversation to random internet people like me, let's shake up the assumptions.

There is an apples to oranges comparison going on here though. Your Skyrim box, if you even bother buying it - you could just get it through Steam, gets looked at once and never seen again. You put it on your hard drive and the box gets put away, probably never to be seen again.

Your D&D books, though, are on the table all the time. Even if they're not open, they're still there. When someone is walking by at the FLGS or at the school lunch room or wherever, and a bunch of people have these really pretty coffee table books sitting there, you don't want that casual observer to have to be "in the know" in order to know what's going on.

Someone observing someone playing Skyrim won't even see the box. He or she will see someone's screen and amazing graphics, fantastic music and whatnot. THAT'S what sells the game to a new player.

D&D, unfortunately, does not have that option.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well I appreciate that. Basically I think you have two different art styles for two different priorities, capturing attention and creating a desire to play vs. rewarding attention that's already there.

I think D&D should do the latter, both because it would be more appealing to existing players AND potential new players.

Because even new players are really interested in D&D before they actually play. I recall reading at some point during the Next announcement that "D&D" is one of the the most popular internet search terms among teenage boys. The interest is already there. So I think don't overmarket to them, don't try to grab attention that is already there, would be a good general rule of thumb.

Hmmmm, yeah, I'm just going to say that I think there are a lot of dimensions to the overall 'trade dress' etc of a product. The main thing that you NEVER want to do is make the design so different that people don't recognize it. I think people can recognize 4e books as D&D. I think the art on them is reasonably decent fantasy art. I don't think it is the greatest, but then again I never said it was. Your Skrym example though says zilch to me.

Now look at the covers of your 1e books. Those are cool. Those say to you "there's a story in here" and you don't need to be "in the know" to get that vibe. I don't expect 5e to look exactly like 1e, it can do better. But IMHO at least the books should definitely beg anyone that sees them to open them up, see what its about, and PLAY. Why on Earth would you want to make a product which fundamentally depends on having a lot of people to play with into some kind of "insider thing" that isn't inviting to more people?

 

[Hussar]

A better comparison might actually be other books rather than video games. As I said, the purpose of a video game box is, more or less, to hold the physical game and let you stock it on a shelf. Drawing in buyers, while important, is not generally where the video game box is going to shine.

But, look at novels. About the only time you get plain covers on novels is with classics where, by and large, we're looking at people in academia buying the books for a class. Not always, true, but, I'm fairly willing to bet that most buyers of, say, the Penguin Edition of Jane Eyre are not doing so without having a pretty good idea of what they are buying.

OTOH, if you look at current novels and whatnot, you get some pretty spectacular cover art. They don't spend that kind of money for cover art for nothing.

Given all the hoopla over the years about art in the D&D books, I'm thinking there are a pretty vocal group of people who want pretty gaming books.

 

[Yora]

If you look at current gamecovers except the Elder scrolls, you also have highly detailed cover art.

 

[Hussar]

If you look at current gamecovers except the Elder scrolls, you also have highly detailed cover art.

Yeah, there's a point. Elder Scrolls stands out because it's different. It's minimalist in a sea of color.

 

[Yora]

In a sea of teal and orange.

 

[Hussar]

Could be worse. Could be a sea of brown... urgh.

 

[Libramarian]

There is an apples to oranges comparison going on here though. Your Skyrim box, if you even bother buying it - you could just get it through Steam, gets looked at once and never seen again. You put it on your hard drive and the box gets put away, probably never to be seen again.

Your D&D books, though, are on the table all the time. Even if they're not open, they're still there. When someone is walking by at the FLGS or at the school lunch room or wherever, and a bunch of people have these really pretty coffee table books sitting there, you don't want that casual observer to have to be "in the know" in order to know what's going on.

Someone observing someone playing Skyrim won't even see the box. He or she will see someone's screen and amazing graphics, fantastic music and whatnot. THAT'S what sells the game to a new player.

D&D, unfortunately, does not have that option.

At the beginning of this post you had me thinking that this might be an important difference (product box vs. reference book), but I don't follow your conclusion. I think if you walk by some people playing D&D what's going to sell you on the game is how much fun the people seem to be having together, not the book cover.

OK I mean it's important for gamebooks to stand out from each other visually so you can easily find the one you want when they're splayed across a table and you're referencing it in game. That would be a fair point.

I'm not really arguing specifically for the very minimalist Elder Scrolls look, where it's a just a couple of colors and the title. I would say it's more that I'm not into really overt trade dress and branding.

I want to make my own connections like the Monster Manual has this painting on the cover, and the DMG has this painting on the cover.

I would like the covers to be striking, but not give everything away.

So a passerby who sees you with the book would be like "whoa that's a weird looking book, what is it about?" that wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's reminiscent of the Classic Traveller covers, which had great graphic design imo.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think it would be most appropriate if D&DNext had a wide range of art styles - realistic, fantastic, comedic, tragic, heroic, grim n' gritty.

Maybe even a 70s moustache, though the problem with that is everyone would assume it was a hipster moustache.