Discussion of Art in D&D

[Dyne]

especially since a more truly medieval aesthetic would leave no room for Wayne Reynolds, the best artist to ever illustrate D&D.

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.

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. However, I just don't think everything should have the look and feel of Eberron, and I would love to see more historically-based art such as in the example above.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Those are just from a couple books. I wouldn't mind if it happened only occasionally, but D&D art is now full of strap-on clothing. Then there's the trend of two sides of an outfit not matching, excessive spikes, and such things. Again, if these were done only on rare occasion, I wouldn't mind. However, I do not find it interesting to make all the characters look like they don't know how to dress themselves, and it is far from being original at this point. They're trying to break from the stereotypes of medieval fantasy, and in so doing have created stereotypes of their own.

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

 

[Zulgyan]

The new art must be around the 50% from the negative reason pie of why I don't buy WotC books other than the core ones. For me it's very important and I find the new art very far away from my tastes.

 

[Dyne]

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

What excessive straps? That sculpture doesn't even have a single strap on it. And well, if you want to base your character around some cheap gift shop drawing of a guy with mis-matched spaulders, well be my guest. But if you want something that actually looks like real Roman armor, I would suggest something more like one of these:
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/2002/103102/gladiator.jpeg
http://www.unitedmaskandparty.com/Halloween/images/roman_armor.JPG
http://www.4halloweencostumes.com/images/44115.jpg
http://www.costumearmour.com/images/roman.JPG
http://www.wga.hu/art/g/ghirland/domenico/3fresco/3gigli2.jpg

The only times I've seen asymmetrical armor in a historical source were a few types of Roman gladiators, who would sometimes wear armor on one of their arms or legs. I still have yet to see anything resembling the mis-matched stuff we get in 3e.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

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

Also the main factor about Wayne Reynolds is that his art is more dynamic and full of action, I don't pick over details such as how the characters are dressed, because they're going to be different anyways.

 

[Kris]

Obviously everyone is going to have different tastes, and you can't please all the people all the time… etc… etc… but for me, I like armour and weapons to at least look reasonably practical.

Basically if the armour in a picture (to use it as an example) would look a little silly on a real-life actor in a movie or something like that, then it's usually veering away from the 'look' that I would like to portray in my own games (even though I might actually like the image itself as a piece of art).

This is just my take on things, and how I imagine things in my own campaign world. Obviously everyone has different tastes, and as such we all see the game a little differently - but that's the beauty of it… we can all imagine it any way we see fit

However, there are some very talented artists out there, and most of the WotC artwork is pretty good (technically) IMO, so I don't have a problem with the quality or the style - even if some of the images are not to my taste.

So for me, yeah I would prefer it if the D&D artwork was more medieval looking, but at the same time I have no problem with them trying to invent their own look for the game.

 

[Tharkun]

I'm not a big fan of the "3E look," having all the usual complaints (dungeonpunk, spikes, straps/leather/buckles, anime, piercings, big ass weird weapons [serrations, holes, etc], etc.) It's not that I object to those elements, but they're often done in an over-the-top/too-much manner, IMO.

I agree with Philotomy Jurament, though I object to all the piercings all over, I also think that if it's supposed to be culturally neutral than why do you have every Tom Dick & Harry (including Monsters) have way too many piercings in each ear? Arab style setting I'd give you that but everywhere? Not too much. I don't recall seeing too many (any?) tattoos for that matter either.

 

[mattcolville]

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.

At WotC, the brand statement for dungeons and dragons is "medieval fantasy."

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I think this post got eaten, so i will post it again.

I don't mind If d&d art is anime or whatnot. I feel its too generic as it is now though. I think d&ds art should focus on something and strive to do that well. Weather its dark and gritty/ heroic and boastful / historical and realistic / or whatever... I think d&d should strive to be something other then everything. I think trying to appeal to a wide array of audiences makes the art weak as it lacks focuses. each individual paining or arkwork of d&d may be amazing, but they should work together to tell a story. I realize that can be hard with lots of freelance artists. IF they get rid of freelance and pay a group full time to develop the art though, it could really be something.

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?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

See, I'm just the opposite. I don't want to be Superman, I want to be Arragorn or Bob the mechanic (minus the bad knees and beer belly.) Just an average guy, in better shape than most, perhaps a BIT stronger or more agile than most, but not outrageously so. I want to play a game that puts my character in situations I could see myself (with rigorous training and diet) in - and I need art that evokes that feeling. From the below images, I prefer the "paladin in Hell" of the four, , though I do like the pic of the chic with the bloody axe. I'd rank the samurai third because it's boring. The other one is nice, but all the spikes just turn me off. It is also hurt by the stark white background.

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.