Discussion of Art in D&D

[Droogie]

My pet peeve about 3e art is that it just looks too "modern" to me. I won't demand that the D&D world adhere strictly to 15th century medieval Europe, but I prefer a more "pre-industrial" look at least. Skin-tight leather with buckles and modern hair styles evoke Spycraft more than D&D. Platemail composed of hundreds of interlocking pieces looks more like body armor from a D20 Future game. There are plently of technically gifted artists working on Wotc books, but I'm not a fan of the current design aesthetic.

 

[Faraer]

I played RPGs as a way to travel to fantastic worlds where heroes were larger than life; not as a way to see Bob the Mechanic as Bob the Paladin in garrish clothes.

The problem is that larger-than-life stylization is personal; one person's fantastic is another person's cartoonish and juvenile.

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

As Dyne says, it is, and it's bound to be as long there's any art direction at all, or even if there isn't.

My pet peeve about 3e art is that it just looks too "modern" to me.

For me, too much of it looks transparently like what a particular demographic of living, modern person thinks looks 'cool'. Seeing so plainly where it's coming from foregrounds its artifice and makes it look less like another world. To be fair, a lot of older art suffered from the same problem in different ways.

 

[Jhaelen]

To be honest, I never had the feeling that D&D art looked even remotely historically acurate. I also don't see why it should. And in general the 3rd.ed. is absolutely gorgeous!

I still remember how the old Runequest supplements looked like...

 

[Kris]

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:

(image omitted to avoid duplication)

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

(image omitted to avoid duplication)

I'm not fond of both of those images to be honest. Sure, they are great pieces of art, and I appreciate the pictures as individual pieces, but the knights in the first image all look a little too uniform for my liking (but what do I know ), and the second one portrays exactly the kind of 'feel' that I myself am not too fond of.

For me (and I would like to emphasise the 'me' in that... it's purely 'IMO') I really do not like magical airships, PC's riding dinosaurs, half-drow/half-dragon ninja PC's, crystal castles among the clouds, teleportation travel, resurrections aplenty, 300 monstrous races all living within a 3 mile radius, outlandish armour, and all that kind of stuff.

I admit that I may be in the minority, and that to some folks these elements are what makes D&D what it is - but it's just not to my taste (so why am I playing D&D I hear you ask ). However, I wouldn't try to convince someone that my way is right or their way is wrong, just as I would not try to convince someone that the music I listen to is superior to the stuff they listen to... it's simply my own take on things.

So I'm happy for the art to take whatever direction they feel represents their (by that I mean WotC's) vision of D&D, and I'll continue to portray my own D&D campaign world in the way that I feel represents it best. Sure, it would be great if those two 'visions' matched exactly (well it would be great for me - perhaps not for everyone else ), but they don't - but it's no big deal as no-one is forcing me to imagine things in a certain way

 

[Razz]

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.

Then you have those who like their Oriental Adventures setting...their African-setting...their Meso-American setting...their Greek setting...Egyptian setting...Viking setting...Arabian Nights setting...and so on.

I think the medieval feel should remain, but take off the European strait-jacket, or should I say, the more England-setting aspect. Keep it as core, but realize that there're other settings out there and they should be catered to as well.

As for the art, me and my gaming group personally think the artwork look more "japanese-anime" in a lot of them rather than "medievial but not medieval". I can give some examples of this if you'd like, from some of the books I've seen it in.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

For me (and I would like to emphasise the 'me' in that... it's purely 'IMO') I really do not like magical airships, PC's riding dinosaurs, half-drow/half-dragon ninja PC's, crystal castles among the clouds, teleportation travel, resurrections aplenty, 300 monstrous races all living within a 3 mile radius, outlandish armour, and all that kind of stuff.

Well, yeah, but this is a bit of a red herring, and it illuminates another one in these discussions:

There's a difference between "style" and "subject". For me, quite a number of the illustrations in earlier editions are perfectly reasonable subjects, but are painted or drawn in a style I find ugly or dull. The earlier example of the two versions of "A Paladin In Hell" captures that pretty well; Sutherland's original has no charms for me whatsoever, and though I'm not fond of the artist who does the modern version, I appreciate the style a great deal more.

Your complaints above are pretty much about subject, not style. Wayne Reynolds, to beat the horse into a chunky paste, has done plenty of illustrations of "traditional" subjects:

Hard to argue with hill giants throwing rocks, after all.

Other people complain about style, but that's not the same thing. There's some degree of overlap - for instance, improbable armour is both a subject and a style matter:

The conflict is two-fold: people who like Larry Elmore, for instance, tend to also like the sorts of things Larry Elmore painted, like attractive women and very traditional dragons:

When a guy like Wayne Reynolds becomes known for pictures like the Thayan Knight illustration above, fans of "traditional" art tend to associate him with the non-traditional subjects they dislike, which means that they evince the sentiment that he shouldn't be working on D&D ilustrations at all despite the fact that he's perfectly capable of doing so, as the hill giants prove.

So that's my problem: I like Reynolds much more than Elmore, so even though I'd (grudgingly) accept a shift in D&D's art direction back towards more "traditional" subjects were it to take place, I think it's pretty obvious that it would all but necessarily involve pandering to people who mistakenly believe that only artists working in a "traditional" style should be used.

(But then, I think there's a good balance between traditional and non-traditional subjects anyway - and I'd rather see Elmore paint a warforged juggernaut than yet another blandly beautiful warrior-maiden with bare thighs and impractical hair.

Also, I note with delight that the adventuring chiquita above is even less practically-dressed than Hennet.)

 

[Toben the Many]

I remember early on that the developers of 3rd Edition were trying to move away from the Medieval influence of the game towards what they called, "A D&D based culture". For example, they stripped away the Asian look of the monk and tried to make it fit, not into a Medieval paradigm (where it doesn't fit) but into a D&D paradigm.

D&D has always blended time-periods, cultures, and styles. Even back in 1st and 2nd edition, D&D was really a blend of Celtic, Medieval, and Renaissance cultures.

In any case, I think it was a smart move to drift away from the Medieval paradigm a little with 3rd edition, because we had already seen plenty of Elmore-esque artwork for D&D. Had they kept with that same style, it wouldn't have graphically represented just how different 3rd Edition was. It was a good way to herald the fact that there was a brand new cat in town.

I remember looking at the cover of the 3rd Edition book and being uber-surprised. "What? No oil painting of a dragon? No Jeff Easley cover?" It was a sign that they were headed into new territory.

That being said, I too like my Medieval fantasy, and I miss that in D&D sometimes. I really missed it in the Monster Manual from the beginning. As some others have said here, the Monster Manual creatures look too much like space aliens for me.

 

[johnnype]

When a guy like Wayne Reynolds becomes known for pictures like the Thayan Knight illustration above, fans of "traditional" art tend to associate him with the non-traditional subjects they dislike, which means that they evince the sentiment that he shouldn't be working on D&D ilustrations at all despite the fact that he's perfectly capable of doing so, as the hill giants prove.

So that's my problem: I like Reynolds much more than Elmore, so even though I'd (grudgingly) accept a shift in D&D's art direction back towards more "traditional" subjects were it to take place, I think it's pretty obvious that it would all but necessarily involve pandering to people who mistakenly believe that only artists working in a "traditional" style should be used.

(But then, I think there's a good balance between traditional and non-traditional subjects anyway - and I'd rather see Elmore paint a warforged juggernaut than yet another blandly beautiful warrior-maiden with bare thighs and impractical hair.

Also, I note with delight that the adventuring chiquita above is even less practically-dressed than Hennet.)

QFT. I couldn't of put it better myself. Looking at that Elmore painting makes me roll my eyes with boredom. That dragon is actually completely uninspiring. His head is out of proportion to the rest of it's body. The bare thigh is also a signature mark of Elmore and always make me think he is in the same league as Franzetta (NOT a complement). Ugh!

 

[Tewligan]

"Now GO! Destroy the foes of Thay!"

"Yes, my lord! I go to...hmm...wow, this door is kind of...shoot...what am I catching on back there? Oh, I've got a shoulder spike caught in that upper hinge. Hang on...hey, does this door open any wider? Maybe if I turn kind of sideways, and...okay, I think that's clear. Now, I go to slay the...oh, sonuva...here, can you hold this shield for me? Careful, it's sharp...wow, this doorframe is getting really scratched up, huh? No no no, I think I've got it now, if I can just get my right shoulder all the way through, I'll...Hm. Can you give me a push? Oooh, sorry! Yeah, it's pretty sharp and pointy all over. Huh? Oh, I dunno, I just thought it would be cool, y'know. Holy crap, is that really the time? Oof...okay, that nearly made it...crap, now I can't back up...hey, is there a bigger door out of this room?"

 

[Kris]

Well, yeah, but this is a bit of a red herring, and it illuminates another one in these discussions:

There's a difference between "style" and "subject".

The topic is kind of a crossover, as it was originally posted about D&D trying not to look medieval (i.e. medieval subject matter not actually medieval style illustrations)... but yeah... I know I was on a bit of a rant about the other stuff - but hopefully it got across my own D&D preferences, so that it's a little clearer what type gamer I am (which then influences the style of artwork I would prefer to see).

Like I said, I really like most of the images that come out of WotC (even if it's not the style/subject matter I would choose to portray D&D with if I was in the control seat), and I would say that (to me) their style has a very 'comic book art' feel to it (and high-end comic book art at that).

But if you look at how many comic book characters have made it onto the big screen recently, and then consider how they had to change the costumes of some of the characters to make them less silly-looking or more practical in real life - then that's the kinda thing I'm getting at (i.e. have them look practical in the first place ).

So, for me, I would just prefer it if things looked somewhat realistic (i.e. no 80's-style chainmail bikini's, or the current obsession with armour spikes that would have your own eye out) - whatever 'style' of artist they use ...though that obviously leans less toward some of the over-the-top anime/comic styles.