Discussion of Art in D&D

[Dyne]

While surfing around, I came across this article on GameSpy, which basically tells the history of D&D from its creation up to 3.5. The part that really stood out to me, however, was this bit about the art design philosophy of third edition:

"Planescape gave us the opportunity to reach out, to move past the Medieval European straitjacket that traditional D&D had placed us in." In setting up the basic look of 3.0, the team attempted to do that again. Rather than just go with a Medieval European look, the art team did with the look of the game what the rules team did with the text: they went back to basics.

"We went very functional with the new look of D&D," Muren said. "We made a conscious decision to make armor and weapons and the look of characters as functional and culturally neutral as we could." As a result, armor has a very layered look to it, with lots of spikes and different materials and asymmetrical features.

This made me realize the biggest thing I dislike about the look of 3.x D&D: it's a medieval fantasy game that tries to not look medieval. From what I've seen, clothing and armor barely resemble clothing and armor, being more like random scraps of material that have been strapped on to cover the body. It just doesn't look or feel believable, since the styles don't seem to have any basis on the real world; heck, the concept of "style" seems to be completely nonexistent, as there seem to be no trends whatsoever in appearance.

Maybe it's just me, but I actually like medieval/Tolkien-esque stuff, that's why I got into this game in the first place. I like wizards and sorcerers that wear flowing robes engraved with symbols, not outfits that are composed entirely of straps. I like warriors in shining armor that conjure up images of the knights of old, not lumbering scrap piles. Since it is countlessly stated that Medieval Western Europe is the default setting of D&D, it makes sense that "default" artwork would actually look like Medieval Western Europe. Heck, if you want to be style/culture-neutral, you can easily mix in styles from other regions and time periods; I wouldn't mind seeing Arabian warriors wielding scimitars, or samurai wielding katanas. At the very least, clothing and armor should look like something that people would actually wear.

To a certain extent, this "neutral" philosophy seems to have carried over to what monsters look like, as it seems like so many of them can only really be described as "a thing with claws and teeth." Since I never played AD&D, I never knew Slaad originally looked like carnivorous frogs; I've always seen them as being multi-colored lumpy things, and so never had the slightest interest in using them. With inspiration from older editions of the game, they might actually have some place in my campaigns now. Maybe I'm unique in this regard, but I like creatures that are based on real-life animals. I'm overjoyed when a new monster manual comes out with different "animal people" such as Armands, Gnolls/Flinds, Ibixians, Kenkus, and Nycters; I even like the creatures that are basically two critters combined together like Centaurs, Bearhounds, Owlbears, and Phoelarchs. I can make do without more variations of animated piles of bones, or the latest golem made of whatever crap happens to be lying around.

But enough with my rants. Share your thoughts on the art design philosophy behind third edition D&D. How is D&D supposed to look/feel?

 

[jimpaladin]

Overall I definately agree. I like my medieval feel also. Where it could have been different is the "look" they went for didn't really stand out. Even a neutral stance should have came through as a "form".

Monsters are the same way in this regard. I don't see any humanoid having better than hide armor. I would allow Hobgoblins to have more but that is a personal bias. I mean goblins basically live in filth yet they are assumed to have the equvilent of leather armor. I imagine most creatures without clothing per say.

There have been some very good artists to have come to the forefront during 3.x, but my eye is on those that at least recognize that we play a game with knights and dragons and wizards. Of course YMMV.

 

[Stormborn]

But enough with my rants. Share your thoughts on the art design philosophy behind third edition D&D. How is D&D supposed to look/feel?

I don't believe its "supposed" to look and feel like anything in particular. I also disagree that "it is countlessly stated that Medieval Western Europe is the default setting of D&D" - that may have been its inspiration but thats not what it came to be. I think that the existance of magic would radically alter any society, even if its just a subset of the society such as those with access to magic, past the point of recognizable analogs to real world cultures and styles. I never played ADnD either, so I guess to me the "dungeon punk" art is what i associate with DnD. Basically to me DnD looks and feels like a Wayne Reynolds Dragon cover.

 

[Hussar]

This made me realize the biggest thing I dislike about the look of 3.x D&D: it's a medieval fantasy game that tries to not look medieval.

Bold mine.

Right there, that bit that I bolded, is why you are feeling the disconnect IMNSHO. D&D, to me, has never, ever, ever, been a medieval fantasy game. Krynn wasn't a transplanted Europe - it was a world with its own history and culture of its own. My homebrew campaign world's had pretty much nothing to do with medieval culture, insofar as that's possible.

Sure, you have some of the trappings of the medieval, but, very, very little of the history or culture comes over.

So, why should our art mimic a history that doesn't exist?

((Of course, this also ignores the rather large amount of 1e art that had nothing to do with the medieval as well. Erol Otus anyone?))

 

[I'm A Banana]

Maybe it's just me, but I actually like medieval/Tolkien-esque stuff

It's not just you.

But it's not everyone. Medieval/Tolkien-esque stuff has some representations in 3e art, and there have been more after people realized there was slim-to-none in the Core books, but they aren't ALL it does. Because that's not ALL D&D does.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think the art of D&D has always been influenced by the times.

Look at the droopy mustaches in 1e, the eye-shadow in 2e, and the spiked hair of 3e, just to name a few examples.

 

[Hussar]

On a side note, looking at 3ed art and only the core books, yeah, I gotta agree, it blows. But, if you move beyond the core books, there's some fantastic art out there.

 

[Doug McCrae]

D&D takes its inspiration more from European medieval fantasy than any other single source but the whole thing is a grab bag really, pulling in ideas from all over the place. Does a European look make sense in a world that has rakshasas, djinni, scimitars and flying carpets? Should norse frost giants really be fighting men in full plate armour? I can see justification in going for a culturally neutral look. Equally I can see a justification in sticking with Euro-medieval.

 

[Dyne]

I also disagree that "it is countlessly stated that Medieval Western Europe is the default setting of D&D" - that may have been its inspiration but thats not what it came to be.

"The rules in the previous section leave a lot of room for flexibility when it comes to creating your world. However, they assume a few basic aspects: a medieval level of technology, a Western European flavor, and a moderately historical basis."

"...Though the default cultural assumption for most D&D game worlds is medieval Europe...."

-Both from DMG pg. 144.

 

[Mallus]

"However, they assume a few basic aspects: a medieval level of technology, a Western European flavor, and a moderately historical basis."

That rival's Nixon's "I am not a crook" in terms of veracity.

In other words, just because that was written in the DMG doesn't make it true.