Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dyne" data-source="post: 3629119" data-attributes="member: 27202">While surfing around, I came across <a href="http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/540/540509p2.html" target="_blank">this article</a> on GameSpy, which basically tells the history of D&D from its creation up to 3.5. The part that really stood out to me, however, was this bit about the art design philosophy of third edition: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.Maybe it's just me, but I actually like medieval/Tolkien-esque stuff, that's why I got into this game in the first place. I like wizards and sorcerers that wear flowing robes engraved with symbols, not outfits that are composed entirely of straps. I like warriors in shining armor that conjure up images of the knights of old, not lumbering scrap piles. Since it is countlessly stated that Medieval Western Europe is the default setting of D&D, it makes sense that "default" artwork would actually look like Medieval Western Europe. Heck, if you want to be style/culture-neutral, you can easily mix in styles from other regions and time periods; I wouldn't mind seeing Arabian warriors wielding scimitars, or samurai wielding katanas. At the very least, clothing and armor should look like something that people would actually wear.To a certain extent, this "neutral" philosophy seems to have carried over to what monsters look like, as it seems like so many of them can only really be described as "a thing with claws and teeth." Since I never played AD&D, I never knew Slaad originally looked like carnivorous frogs; I've always seen them as being multi-colored lumpy things, and so never had the slightest interest in using them. With inspiration from older editions of the game, they might actually have some place in my campaigns now. Maybe I'm unique in this regard, but I like creatures that are based on real-life animals. I'm overjoyed when a new monster manual comes out with different "animal people" such as Armands, Gnolls/Flinds, Ibixians, Kenkus, and Nycters; I even like the creatures that are basically two critters combined together like Centaurs, Bearhounds, Owlbears, and Phoelarchs. I can make do without more variations of animated piles of bones, or the latest golem made of whatever crap happens to be lying around.But enough with my rants. Share your thoughts on the art design philosophy behind third edition D&D. How is D&D supposed to look/feel?</blockquote>

Verification