Dragon’s-Eye View 3/28/2012... now with ENW poll!

[Mercutio01]

You know, we haven't considered photo art.

I don't remember any D&D products with actual photography in it - just line art, paintings and the like.

Wouldn't a lovely photo of a ruined scottish castle be good for giving you that D&D adventure feeling? What about a huge cave full of crystals? Is there a reason we exclude the real world from our books?

It was unofficial, but the Book of Erotic Fantasy used photographs for illustrations.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'll have to defend Wayne. He's done a LOT of work that don't include T&A (just look at the War Weaver I posted above). That his art *has* T&A doesn't mean it's *only* T&A. His Pathfinder Sorcerer may have T&A, but his Cleric and Paladin don't (well, the *do* have T&A, but they're hidden away).

To cut him some slack, I don't believe Wayne Reynolds actually designed those characters. Unfortunately, if this is true, cutting him slack for Seoni means he can't get credit for Seela. If he did create them, then he's gonna have to do a whole lot of backfilling to get out of the T&A hole that Seoni alone digs for him.

To hit up some of the other points along the road.
Obviously impractical things like stilettos are probably best left out. Some people(man and women) will value sexuality over practicality at all times. This is probably best left up to the magical types who for them the difference between "armor" and "no armor" is a silk robe. Wearing or not wearing that +1 isn't going to make or break their level of protection.

On that note: I remember playing an Avenger, and the feats related to armor bonuses kept mentioning "cloth or no armor" to the point like I felt like it was advocating I should have my character wear nothing at all! I settled for somewhere in the realm of scantly clad. She died to a black dragon all the same.

As always: a player's character's specific look should be as fantastic, unrealistic, functional or mundane as they want it to be.

Photographs would be neat, but the style may just be too drastically different to put them into a book with a lot of stylized art. The contrast would just be too big I think. Plus there's often licensing issues for imagery of famous castles, churches, caverns, ect... Maybe a particular book like a guide to setting building could take from real world imagery. IMO: the best settings are the ones that use the real-world as a guideline for how nature, civilizations/people, and creatures would behave.

 

[Quickleaf]

I prefer something in between photorealism and fantastic realism. The near perfect example would be Mark Smylie's Artesia - that man can *draw* armor!

 

[trancejeremy]

It was unofficial, but the Book of Erotic Fantasy used photographs for illustrations.

Not D&D, but the London Sourcebook for Shadowrun also used photographs...

Having seen both, I really don't think it's a good idea.

 

[Mercutio01]

Not D&D, but the London Sourcebook for Shadowrun also used photographs...

Having seen both, I really don't think it's a good idea.

Must spread XP around, but yes, this is true.

 

[Libramarian]

It's more "gritten teeth" than "pout", but it fits here.

If she were just gritting her teeth she would be pulling her lips back, not letting her cheeks go slack and jutting her lips out. They're basically bimbo lips.

I don't like this sort of subtle titillation. It's the same thing with the "Manga" image in the latest article--that image is clearly sexy, but it flies under the erotic radar by being excessively "cute". (*tee hee*)

I think if you're going for sexy, then go for it all the way in a more overtly erotic style, like oldschool Larry Elmore or Clyde Caldwell cheesecake. Otherwise just don't go for sexy at all.

 

[Sunseeker]

If she were just gritting her teeth she would be pulling her lips back, not letting her cheeks go slack and jutting her lips out. They're basically bimbo lips.

I don't like this sort of subtle titillation. It's the same thing with the "Manga" image in the latest article--that image is clearly sexy, but it flies under the erotic radar by being excessively "cute". (*tee hee*)

I think if you're going for sexy, then go for it all the way in a more overtly erotic style, like oldschool Larry Elmore or Clyde Caldwell cheesecake. Otherwise just don't go for sexy at all.

I don't think such absolutism is possible in fantasy art. Art having to portray people 100% tough or 100% sexy is just going to set up an unrealistic dichotomy that will make art either excessively gritty or stupidly erotic. If we're going to argue that every little bit of skin is sexual, well, we could argue that in the "photorealistic" image, it's highly unlikely that a warrior woman would have long hair. She'd likely have a short, masculine cut; there's plenty of room to argue that long hair=sexual(on men and women).

 

[JamesonCourage]

there's plenty of room to argue that long hair=sexual(on men and women).

I did not know this. Is 30 inches of hair on a dude considered "sexual" to most people? I might need to cut it...

 

[Savage Wombat]

I did not know this. Is 30 inches of hair on a dude considered "sexual" to most people? I might need to cut it...

Well, that depends. How big is your head?

 

[Sunseeker]

I did not know this. Is 30 inches of hair on a dude considered "sexual" to most people? I might need to cut it...

Considering that almost every male pinup in romance novels has it, probably. My fiance considered mine to be pretty hot. I mean it really depends, but consider stories like Samson and Delilah.