Discussion of Art in D&D

roguerouge · Jul 6, 2007

Hussar said:
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.

Quoted for truth. The art's still uneven, but when it's good, it's very, very good. I thank my lucky stars for the planescape setting after this thread.

I'd rather have a variety of funky images that I can use or not use rather than have my imagination forcibly colonized by neo-European faux-middle ages imagery.

Sameness is the spice of bad.

theredrobedwizard · Jul 6, 2007

On a whim, after reading through this thread, I decided to look through some old books and compare the art to the new books.

I hated pre-third edition art. Something about it just seemed to corny. I really don't know what it was. Something about Larry Elmore/Jeff Easley/Erol Otis and their lot just didn't sit well with me.

Their characters looked like, well, people. Boring, every day people. 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.

Below are two examples (European and Oriental) of D&D in various ages.

To me, this picture pretty much sums up what I want my D&D experience to be:

This is *not* what I want my D&D experience to be:

So, to review: new art is much more to my liking than old art. You may begin the lynching now.

-TRRW

johnnype · Jul 6, 2007

theredrobedwizard said:
I hated pre-third edition art. Something about it just seemed to corny. I really don't know what it was. Something about Larry Elmore/Jeff Easley/Erol Otis and their lot just didn't sit well with me.

So, to review: new art is much more to my liking than old art. You may begin the lynching now.

You make a compelling argument and I'm 110% with you on the Elmore & Easley remarks.

It's interesting to note how much art has evolved in the last 10 years. That illustration of the 1st edition Paladin in Hell is probably more like 20+ years old by now. I don't think anyone is looking to regress to those days (although the rumor is that Paizo is using Elmore on the last issue of one of their magazines, BARF) but a different art direction would be greatly appreciated. At least by me.

HeavenShallBurn · Jul 6, 2007

Yep, must say even back then I never really could LIKE the art in the 1e and 2e books aside from a few exceptions. The art now is so much better not just stylistically but in the quality of the work itself, things have come a long way.

The only complaint I have about the current art is there are basically two tiers of art in the WoTC books, the great tier and the mediocre tier. And the artists for the mediocre tier hang around and keep getting called. The art directors could boot up a computer skim DeviantArt and find replacements for these people who would do a better job in a couple hours and they don't seem to. I can't draw myself so I skim net art a LOT looking for props and I have to say some of the most incredible art I've ever seen is on places like DeviantArt. With the net as a universal canvas it's not hard to find a good artist who'll work on commission anymore.

Ilium · Jul 6, 2007

I like some of the earlier stuff. Clyde Caldwell and Jeff Easley in particular did a lot of work I liked. That samurai picture is, I think, quite good.

I liked Jeff Dee's stuff, too, though it's a very different style.

But there's no question that the average quality of art in WotC products is worlds above 1e (and most 2e).

Faraer · Jul 6, 2007

Ilium said:
But there's no question that the average quality of art in WotC products is worlds above 1e (and most 2e).

In terms of technical draftsmanship, I'd say the 1986–1999 and 2000– art is on a par and better than earlier. Quality is something different and bigger -- how well the art works for its purpose, for your sensibility, and what it expresses -- too subjective to judge definitively.

Asmor · Jul 7, 2007

IMHO, anyone that doesn't think D&D is heavily based on medieval western europe is deluding themselves... Take this little thought experiment: Take a generic D&D character. Picture him in front of a castle.

The castle you pictured... Does it look more like:

A:

B:

C:

I'd bet dollars to cents that damn near 100% of people picture a castle like C.

That said, I think that 3rd edition's art is leaps and bounds ahead of the omnipresent, frankly, crap that was 2nd edition's art. Black and white, ugly, plain illustrations that did little to spark the imagination were the norm, not the exception. Open any random monster in the 2e monster manual, and then find the same monster in 3.x. I guarantee you the 3.x illustration knocks the pants off the 2e. (exception: Invisible Stalker. I always loved its artwork!).

D&D's roots are medieval europe, but its present and its future sure as hell aren't and that's a Good Thing (tm) in my book.

Dyne · Jul 7, 2007

Mallus said:
I've never said that.

I was talking about the books.

ColonelHardisson said:
Twice =/= countless

The rulebooks say it many, many more times than just twice. For example, my Ravenloft book has a detailed section about different levels of culture and technology, and it refers to "default" D&D being equivalent to Medieval Europe.

Really, the fact that people would debate this detail makes me wonder if you have EVER read a D&D book in your life. If you want examples, pick up a book: it is mentioned so many numerous times that it would be difficult to miss. It's unreasonable to expect me to pour through my books and quote every instance I come across. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to post quotes of your own that support your viewpoint.

ColonelHardisson said:
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?

Dyne · Jul 7, 2007

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

I was not aware of this. If anyone has any quotes, please post them. I have not seen anything akin to "D&D is not medieval fantasy" in any of my books.

Ipissimus · Jul 7, 2007

DnD's technology level places it in the medievil europe time zone. Platemail armour, longswords and crossbows, with expanded (and slightly clunky) rules for firearms floating around the place. Of course, the abundance of magic alters this considerably.

Still, it's interesting. In making the artwork generic and ignoring some of the reality of arms and armour they are violating some people's suspension of disbelief.

Discussion of Art in D&D

roguerouge

First Post

theredrobedwizard

Explorer

johnnype

First Post

HeavenShallBurn

First Post

Ilium

First Post

Faraer

Explorer

Asmor

First Post

Dyne

First Post

Dyne

First Post

Ipissimus

First Post

Similar Threads