Discussion of Art in D&D

[Dyne]

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

No, the rulebooks define exactly what is "true," especially the core rulebooks. It doesn't matter how we play the game or how a particular published setting/adventure/supplement portrays the D&D world, the core rulebooks are the first thing (and often only thing) a newcomer sees when they pick up D&D. The core rulebooks ARE D&D; everything else is gravy.

I just find it ironic that they constantly say "The default setting of D&D is Medieval Western Europe," and then they contradict themselves at every opportunity. If D&D is supposed to be totally culture-neutral, they should've said something like "D&D does not favor any particular culture or historical period, though it is common practice to use many elements from Medieval Western Europe."

 

[Mallus]

The core rulebooks ARE D&D; everything else is gravy.

In the core rulebooks you'll find plenty of material that contradicts your pull-quote.

I just find it ironic that they constantly say "The default setting of D&D is Medieval Western Europe," and then they contradict themselves at every opportunity.

I've never said that.

If D&D is supposed to be totally culture-neutral, they should've said something like "D&D does not favor any particular culture or historical period, though it is common practice to use many elements from Medieval Western Europe."

See, that would have been a more accurate description of D&D.

Edit: Check out Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e for comparison. Now there's a game that does what D&D claims to do ie. map to Medieval (err, make that Renaissance) Western Europe.

 

[dougmander]

D&D, to me, has never, ever, ever, been a medieval fantasy game.

Then I guess you didn't start with the Eric Holmes set that was subtitled "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Role Playing Adventure Game Campaigns."

As a seventies kid, i can tell you that visual sources for fantasy illustration were sparse back then. 1e illos were produced in a relatively sterile climate. There was no sizable body of contemporary fantasy illustration to literally draw upon, as there is today, no DeviantArt or Elfwood to swipe from. No one knew what dwarves were "supposed" to look like, or had worked out a reasonable physiology for dragon wings. I'm looking at the old DAT, Darlene, and DCS illos as I type this, and it's really fun to see them work out these and other visual problems, basically from scratch. The only references I can pick out of their work include:

-- contemporary wargame minis (the look of the armor and so on is very much in the style of old Minifigs 25mm medievals)
-- 19th century paintings (including a direct Darlene swipe from pre-Raphaelite Edward Burne-Jones)
-- underground comix artists like Rick Griffin and Greg Irons (especially in DAT's work)

By the way, we're clearly meant to see analogues in their work to historical medieval armor and weapons, plus influences from orientalist fantasy films like The Arabian Nights and The Thief of Baghdad.

Erol Otus broke out of this mode. He's a one-off, for sure. His illustrations evoked a quasi-medieval aesthetic with no direct historical analogue. God knows what inspired those amazing HPL illos in the recalled Deities and Demigods edition! (I remember hauling a case of those -- a case! -- up from the stock room of the toy store I was working in that summer.)

Most 2e illustrations seem reactionary in comparison. Easley and Elmore had a tight, academic, literal style, firmly rooted in historical source material. I have to say I don't care for their work; it's admirably workmanlike and painterly but not particularly inventive or inspiring. DiTerlizzi came as a breath of fresh air, with looser, whimsical elements and a vigorous imagination.

As for 3e, to quote The Simpsons, the whole thing smacks of effort -- trying way too hard to tart up the visuals to get those edgy Gen X kids not to feel embarassed to play D&D. It already looks dated -- the punky hair, the oft-mentioned spikes and straps. I hope that for 4e, WotC goes for a classic, clean, timeless look with a light touch and plenty of humor.

 

[Doug McCrae]

"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.

Good quotes. This is conclusive proof that the artwork doesn't fit the default culture.

 

[Faraer]

"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.

There's a non sequitur! That kind of improbable Games Workshop-inspired spiky armour is extremely culturally specific, albeit a culture that's nonsense.

Comparing 2007 D&D art to 2000, we can see that the original self-consciously 'edgy' direction has been softened. And I'd be in favour of very individual art styles, but (a) too often what we get is just voguish aesthetics, and (b) settings need a coherent look and art direction. Eberron has been given one more than the Realms, which just does not look like all these disparate D&D artists who aren't even bearing in mind Ned Dameron and Valerie Valusek.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

"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.

Twice =/= countless

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Good quotes. This is conclusive proof that the artwork doesn't fit the default culture.

Two passing references that are pretty qualified ("Western European flavor, and a moderately historical basis" "Though the default cultural assumption for most D&D game worlds is medieval Europe") [emphasis mine] don't really constitute a ringing, iron-clad commandment, in my view.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

not outfits that are composed entirely of straps

One character is portrayed that way. Just one. Do all the characters have to be portrayed exactly the way you describe? No variety at all?

 

[tzor]

First of all, I strongly disagree that traditional AD&D had a "medieval" feel. The fantasy feel had common elements taken from eariler ages but it was not a medieval feel. There were no "wizards" in the middle ages and they didn't wear long robes with moons and stars on them along with pointed hats. The average noble's tunic started to get so short that they almost looked like the miniskirts of the 1960's. (And it was a long while before the codpiece was commonly used.) Laws were in place that prohibited the use of fur for anyone not of noble blood. Some weapons were prohibited for use by the common folk.

In fact sometimes fantasy went way way back in terms of fashion. Leiber's Lankhmar was also know as the "city of the black toga" and togas weren't common after the Roman era.

I don't have any 1E art in front of me at the moment, so I'm going by memory. Most males wear trousers of some sort, which was really only common among the barbarians of the middle ages. Tunics are definitely out. Hose is definitely out. Armor styles went from Greek to Renaissance. The same is true for weapons.

 

[johnnype]

I never loved the spiky look of the first 3rd edition books but I didn't hate it as much as many others did. I believe the style was quickly and dramatically toned down in follow-up books.

I'm hot and cold on the individual artists. There are a few very good ones (Wayne Reynolds, Raven Mimura, Matt Wilson and Vinod Rams) and many that are not so good (too many to name). My primary complaint is reserved for the art directors. With 3rd edition WotC did away with art depicting scenes focusing almost exclusively on illustrating individual people or items. For example, instead of showing a battle between a party and band of orcs we get an illustration of an Elf, or a Fighter, or a Mage, or a monster. ALONE. The subject is rarely doing anything. That's boring. Here and there we do get scenes but it's nowhere near as common as in previous editions. That doesn't inspire me. What does inspire me are scenes like the ones found in the 1st edition DMG of Emrikol the Chaotic galloping away on his horse while casting a spell at his pursuers. I want more of that. We have to remember that artists paint what they are told to paint not what they want to paint. Furthermore the art director tells the artist how to paint it, what it should look like and what style he's going for. The artists then tries his best to deliver what's been requested.