How do you feel about 3e's art style?

[RFisher]

It's not the art that I don't like so much as the art direction.

 

[Akrasia]

A common complaint of 3E art in this thread is its lack of variety (this certainly is my main complaint). Everything has to look "dungeonpunk" in style, and poses (rather than dramatic scenes) are painfully ubiquitous.

The dungeonpunk style would not bother me so much if it was just one style among many.

(Ironically, the old-school art of Otus and Trampier seems a lot closer to the true spirit of punk ("Never mind the boll ... er .. spikes and crap") than this new stuff. )

 

[Isagard]

i love 3e art....PERIOD

 

[The Serge]

I've been playing D&D since 1ed. I've seen the art from that time and I've watched the art, like the game, change and -- I would say -- evolve over time. And I can say with no doubt that the art in 3ed in vastly superior to the art from earlier editions.

Now, while I recognize that all of this is subjective, I honestly believe that for most of my fellows who've been playing since earlier editions, their "love" for older art is mired in their nostalgic attachments. This fine. In fact, in this thread, most of the people who like 1ed and 2ed art have implied that their preference is due to their backgrounds. Great.

One area that I do find odd is this thing for "historical accuracy." While I can appreciate the desire for there to be a certain "realistic grounding" in this sort of thing, I think it's important to remember that this is a fantasy game. Spikes on armor are as par for the course as fireballs and dragons.

 

[Akrasia]

...
... I honestly believe that for most of my fellows who've been playing since earlier editions, their "love" for older art is mired in their nostalgic attachments. ...

You are simply wrong to say that nostalgia is the only or main reason why some people prefer the earlier art (though of course it may be one reason).

An active dislike of the ubiquitous current 'dungeonpunk' style, and longing for the greater variety of art styles found in the earlier editions, are nonnostalgic reasons.

One area that I do find odd is this thing for "historical accuracy." ...

A desire for variety -- and a dislike for spikey armour on knights, etc. -- is not simply a desire for "historical accuracy."

 

[Dark Jezter]

A desire for variety -- and a dislike for spikey armour on knights, etc. -- is not simply a desire for "historical accuracy."

You keep bringing up "spiky armor" like every single 3e picture has it. Flipping through the 3.5 PHB, however, I can only find two pictures that feature spiky armor: Regdar (who has two spikes on his shoulder pads) and Alhandra (who has one spike her shoulder pad). There are also some spiked armor and shield illustrations in the equipment chapter.

You also seem to be complaining about tattoos a lot. Well, Hennet has tattoos, and Vedania and Alhandra have barely-noticable tattoos on their arms, and that's about it. Ember might have a couple of tattoos on her face, but that might be face paint, so I'll rule that as a maybe.

The elements you seem to despise so badly about 3e art really aren't as commonplace as you seem to think they are, or at least not in the Player's Handbook. Maybe later I'll check out the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual to see how many spikes and tattoos I can find.

 

[Akrasia]

...
The elements you seem to despise so badly about 3e art really aren't as commonplace as you seem to think they are ...

Heh, maybe I am the victim of a massive group delusion, given how widespread these complaints are (I have hardly been alone in making them).

Anyway, the spikes and tattoos (and piercings) are just the most annoying aspects of the overall "dungeonpunk" style, which is why people tend to focus on them.

Maybe later I'll check out the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual to see how many spikes and tattoos I can find.

Don't forget the gratuitous piercings! (My favourite: the Winter Wolf's pierced ear in the 3.0 MM -- very chic wolfie!)

 

[RogueRonin]

I haven’t read this whole thread yet, so excuse me if someone already brought this up. I really like most of the interior art for 3ed books. I especially like Todd Lockwood, Wayne Reynolds, and Sam Wood. However, I really don’t like the cover art for 3ed. I would rather have a cool painting than art that tries to make the book look like some D&D artifact or tome or something. We either get the fancy jewels and leather, or the brass frame around a tiny little picture, half of which look like concept art rather than finished work. I can see what WotC was going for, but it doesn’t work for me. Draconomicon is one of my favorite WotC books, not just because the interior is filled with tons of cool info and art, but because the cover art is actually cover art. When I saw the book on the shelf at the store, it really stood out from all the other “tomey” looking books… So anyway what I’m saying is basically: I like 3ed interior art much better than old editions, but I think the cover art pales in comparison to 2ed.

 

[The Serge]

You are simply wrong to say that nostalgia is the only or main reason why some people prefer the earlier art (though of course it may be one reason).

I don't think I'm wrong. Quite a few of the comments here revolve around when folks were introduced to the game and how the art of the time of introduction "spoke" to them and helped defined their attitude on the game. That's nostalgia.

An active dislike of the ubiquitous current 'dungeonpunk' style, and longing for the greater variety of art styles found in the earlier editions, are nonnostalgic reasons.

I've noticed that the "active dislike" the "dungeonpunk" style is largely isolated to those who started in earlier editions (mostly 1ed). Nostalgia.

As for the greater variety of art styles... I see a greater variety now than back in the early 80s. There are the illustrative types, the more muralistic/painting types. There are those with wild kinetic energy and those with something more reserved. Much of the art in the original DMG is almost totally illustrative and/or comic book-like. I don't think it was until late 1ed that we started to see a real broadening of styles.

A desire for variety -- and a dislike for spikey armour on knights, etc. -- is not simply a desire for "historical accuracy."

I'll buy this. In fact, I had intended on mentioning it in my original post. I do think there's some of this in the texts, although perhaps there's not enough for some folks' desires.

 

[Akrasia]

I don't think I'm wrong. Quite a few of the comments here revolve around when folks were introduced to the game and how the art of the time of introduction "spoke" to them and helped defined their attitude on the game. That's nostalgia.
...
I've noticed that the "active dislike" the "dungeonpunk" style is largely isolated to those who started in earlier editions (mostly 1ed). Nostalgia..

You are making an unwarranted inference if you go from the claim "someone fondly remembers the art from when they first started to play DnD in the late 70s" to the conclusion "the only reason that person dislikes the current art, and prefers the old art, is because of nostalgia." It is an unjustified inference plain and simple.

Sure, some people might prefer the old art only because of nostalgia. But many old-timers who dislike the current art do so independent of, or in addition to, nostalgia-related reasons.

And it is simply ridiculous to think that the only reason why so many people dislike the "dungeonpunk" style is because of nostalgia. Many people dislike it without ever having played an earlier edition.

Lots of people prefer the art in non-WotC books because it does not employ the "dungeonpunk" style. To prefer the art in, say, Midnight or Conan , over that found in the PHB, is not a case of disliking current WotC art because of nostalgia.

As for the greater variety of art styles... I see a greater variety now than back in the early 80s. ...

I completely disagree (compare Erol Otus to Dave Trampier to Larry Elmore). But whatever.