Discussion of Art in D&D

[Dyne]

I don't want my D&D being constrained to some limited view, of how others think it should be.

Yet, that's exactly how it is. But instead of being limited to a medieval view, it's a view of mismatched clothing/armor, straps and buckles, and spikes all over the place. This style would be fine if it were for one particular setting, but it's everywhere.

I also think its style is spread across the board too much. Should it look like a comicbook? an anime (good anime)?, Should it be flat (cell)? should it be well shaded? should it have a painterly look? should it really be scans of oil paints? Should it be ink wash? water color? cg tablit?

Should the color in general be bright? or grim? What should the pallet be like? Should warm and cool be used to speak about its magic?

should all these things change from book to book and be consistent within, depending on what the book is trying to convey?

I think each setting should have an art style that is unique to it. Eberron has a totally different feel and theme than the Forgotten Realms, so it would make sense that each setting's art be a different style portraying the setting for what it is. For non-setting books, it would really depend on the theme of the book: horror/undead books would be dark and gloomy, books about magic/spellcasters would be mystical and mysterious (long flowing robes, runes everywhere), books about warriors would have a heroic/knight-like appearance, ones about scoundrels would be heavily shaded/lots of leather/shadowy. Alternatively, since the default setting is supposedly Greyhawk, art should evoke images of that setting; though since a Greyhawk book hasn't been put out in ages, they should probably either print some setting books for it or change the default setting.



I forgot to comment on the images that theredrobedwizard posted up on the last page:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/alumni_paladininhell_3.jpg
The only problem I have with this image is that the devils don't even look like devils to me, they look like any other monster. That's the main problem I always had with 3e fiends: they don't look sinister and dark enough, too much emphasis is placed on action.

http://steveargyle.com/Illustrations/Whos_Next.jpg
This is a really great image, I would love to see stuff like this in the D&D books.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/alumni_paladininhell_1.jpg
This is a classic picture, and it illustrates how demons/devils should be shown: they should be fiends, not just another thing with teeth and claws that your characters get to kill. Even though it's a bit outdated, I still enjoy this piece of art.

http://www.clydecaldwell.com/jpgs/large_images/warlords.jpg
This one's a little boring, but it isn't bad. D&D pictures usually shouldn't have people just standing around.



Here's another bit of art that I used to enjoy and would love to see resurface:
http://www.toymonger.co.uk/GamePictures/heroquest.jpg

 

[Gentlegamer]

What's this about excessive straps and asymetrical armor?

If excessive straps and asymetrical armor worked for the Romans, it's good enough for my D&D character.

-TRRW

No, it didn't work for the Romans. Those are gladiators illustrated, and the "armor" they wore was designed to allow for more blood-letting in order to put on a better show for the crowd.

The Roman legions didn't wear that stuff.

 

[Edgewood]

And for the record, I absolutely love Wayne Reynolds. He's one of the few artists that can actually make the straps/spike look work, and I love his work for the art of Eberron.

I have no love for Reynolds' art. Yes he's talented. He definately appeals to a specific fan base, and he can draw both on the basis of historic reference, and from the fantastical. But to me, his art is "meh".

The facial structures he uses are stylistic but it looks like he's drawing the same female character each time. There's no variation in the face. He borders on an anime style that does nothing for me.

The artists I like most are Todd Lockwood, Steve Belledin, Michael Phillippi, Erik Polak, and Wayne England. And yes, I also enjoy Larry Elmore and Jeff Easley. They may be boring to some folks, but they originally raised the bar for D&D art back in the eighties.

I await the onslaught from the Wayne Reynolds fans....

 

[Hussar]

Me, I'm an Andrew Hou fanboy and have been for quite a while.

On the whole "D&D is medieval fantasy" thing. Well, that may be fine for you, and I'm sure you believe it, but, D&D has never really been medieval in anything but the most surface way. Sure, it has castles and stuff, but, sheesh, it also had spaceships and aliens.

I've run campaigns that were pretty much straight from Tolkien and I've run campaigns where aliens landed on the planet and began blasting away with particle weapons. To me, D&D is not about trying to recreate 12th century England. It's Conan meets Aragorn and Boba Fett to go kick Kulan Gath's boney behind.

 

[Hussar]

Just out of curiousity, because this pic:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/c...lery/100497.jpg

was one of the ones posted by Dyne. How is that pic so much different that this one:

This pic from Biblioodyssey

I'm not seeing the problem here.

Or possibly This pic from the same place. How is that vastly different from much of the art we see in 3e?

 

[Pants]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/alumni_paladininhell_1.jpg
This is a classic picture, and it illustrates how demons/devils should be shown

How? Getting their butts kicked by PC's?

To be fair, I've never been a big fan of this picture and I don't really see it's attraction, the pose of the fiends is too static, it looks like the one getting chopped into is just standing there waiting to get smited while the others are just looking on. Meanwhile the 3e version looks like the paladin could get overrun at any minute, one is leaping at him while a few others are sneaking around to the sides. He's got nowhere to go, fire behind, devils to the sides and the front and each one looking like it could jump in at any moment. The stark white background does suck though, but otherwise, I like this version better.

I also don't really see a big fundamental difference between how the fiends are portrayed in this picture as opposed to the one from 3e. I see both being equally sinister so I guess I just don't 'get' what makes the 1e fiends so much more... fiendish.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't understand this sentiment, since several of Wayne Reynolds works are very historically-based. You can see several examples in the gallery at his site.

It's true, and I know about his work illustrating historical books - but he also makes frequent use in his D&D illustrations of improbable proportions, oversized weapons, straps and leather, and completely ahistorical elements.

So, while he can contribute historically-inspired artwork, restricting him to doing so would eliminate much of what gives his D&D work such vibrance.

This:

is not as appropriate for a game of heroic fantasy as this:

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Wayne England

Wayne "It'll be a cold day in hell before I learn to draw something other than front-on or looking like something other than a lizard" England?

 

[Sound of Azure]

Wayne Reynolds is a talented artist and all, but for me he suffers from over use. It doesn't help that I'm not that fond of his more "graaargh!" works, either. His quieter works are kinda nice, one example being a cleric pouring water for a labourer in Defenders of the Faith. She's not screaming, or leaping across the image.

I also like his monster pics, but by and large his PC race images fall flat for me.

It was the same (for me) with Todd Lockwood, Sam Wood, and Tony DiTerlizzi. If you see too much of an artist's work, it can breed contempt. I'd rather see a variety of artists with their own interpretations of how things in D&D can be, be it more historically based, or not.

It's good seeing a mix of art types (portraits, action scenes, wide landscape shots, etc) in the more recent books.

 

[Edgewood]

Wayne "It'll be a cold day in hell before I learn to draw something other than front-on or looking like something other than a lizard" England?

Yeah, that guy.

I understand how someone can get bored with his 2D and isometric style of drawing but I still like him. I have followed his work since his Games Workshop days. And although he may not have the firmest understanding on how light may fall on form, he does have a good technical eye and I can appreciate that.

I was looking through alot of the Complete splatbooks and there is no doubt that there is a trend towards the strapped on/buckled on/patchy leather armor look in the books. I suppose it really is to take in many sorts of influences and not make it one style, but it needs a bit more refinement. If a knight is wearing armor, he should probably look like a knight from medieval times (seeing as that is the time period knights are most associated with). When they draw a Spellthief, well seeing as we don't have a real world equivalent, go crazy with the strapped on/buckled on/patchy leather armor look.