Does art matter in a publication?

[Zsig]

D&D is in part a game of the imagination.

Well done art can help bring that to life.

This.

 

[Squizzle]

Contrasting the AD&D1E PHB I recently acquired with the 4E PHB, the former skims a lot like a textbook, especially with the minimum of art (and what is there, is fairly unevocative); the latter comes out and screams "Play me! I'm filled with fun! Look at this guy! He's stout and smashing horned skele-men! And laser wands!".

Art matters. (Paul Simon moreso.)

 

[mathogre]

Let me twist this just a bit. Imagine there's a book in two versions. One is richly illustrated and the other contains only essential graphics such as maps and diagrams if any. The illustrated book is priced higher than the unillustrated one, though assume for this discussion the prices on both are reasonable.

Personally I'd go for the illustrated version, given I'm a visual person. Do I need the illustrations? No, but I like them and I want them. I enjoy fantasy artwork, and having some relevant, cool, and exciting artwork in a gaming book adds to my enjoyment.

 

[Treebore]

I like art in monster manuals. I like art when it has something to do with the printed words around it. So I like art that illustrates classes, items, evens hows spell effects, but if its there just to fill space, thats when I get upset.

Where I really differ is that I prefer black and white art over colorized.

First, because I think its inherently grittier and a much better indicator of artistic talent.

Two, they make for great coloring books.

 

[Oni]

Yes, yes, yes! Art matters. I cannot state that emphatically enough.

Nothing will make me put down a book quicker than crummy art/presentation.


It's a lot like comic books actually. Great art cannot save a crummy story (game), but bad art pretty much ensures I'll never read (play) it in the first place.

 

[fba827]

I do not buy a book based on its art. However, if the art is 'bad' (in my own subjective opinion) or the art is 'too much' (taking up pages and pages) or if the art is 'off topic' (not related to the subject matter on the page) then it will cause me to seriously question ever buying from that publisher again.

Edit: I will add that cover art does matter to me. If the cover art is too gorey/bloody or too 'chainmail bikini' style (you know what I mean), then I do not even buy it at all - regardless of the content inside. I know I'm not supposed to judge a book buy its cover, but I have a family and little kids to think about first.

 

[Maggan]

the former skims a lot like a textbook, especially with the minimum of art (and what is there, is fairly unevocative)

I'm running for cover!

As for the question: art sells. I want good looking art, and I think 4e has some great and evocative art.

/M

 

[Greg K]

Yes, it matters to me.

The art can serve several functions. It can provide a look/feel for the game. It can inspire ideas. It can provide visual representation of races, monsters, and equipment. It can also break up large passages of text.

Of course, bad art can just turn people away from an otherwise good product.

 

[Storm Raven]

Art in a game book doesn't matter much to me. I can see how it could matter to others, but for me, it is just superfluous.

Most people who like art in game books say that it helps evoke a sense of fantasy and fire their imagination. I don't need those from my RPG books. I have a vast hoard of fantasy fiction and science fiction to draw upon. I don't need mediocre art stuck between poorly written flavor text.

Give me an SJGames book, with minimal black and white art, a minimum of flavor fluff, and a pile of useful rules and background and I'm happy.

 

[yesnomu]

Lockwood's art never really clicked with me, but William Connors's stuff I do like a lot. So 4e has been pretty good for me art-wise.

Art is absolutely essential, too. If a monster doesn't have good art, I don't want to read the statblock. The more art the better, for the most part.