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

[Pants]

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.

What is 'dungeonpunk?'

 

[Ourph]

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.

My all time, top of the list, gag me with a spoon, 3e art example is Hennet's outfit in the PHB. Forget time to doff and don armor! How freakin' long does it take to put on a leather S&M outfit with 20 different buckles? Not to mention the difficulties of undoing your fly when you've got claws instead of fingers!

 

[Dark Jezter]

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).

Yes, and the complaints are just as baseless if somebody else types them up. While a few pictures in the 3e core rulebooks do have spikes, tattoos, and piercings (just as a few pieces of artwork in older editions also had spikes, tattoos, and piercings), they're definately not as invasive and predominant as certain individuals are making them out to be.

What is 'dungeonpunk?'

Mainly a buzzword thrown around by old timers who think that D&D artwork was much better back in the "old days." It's also used by fans of other systems as a way of dismissing D&D as being childish and silly.

 

[Basin?]

I started playing with 3rd edition and am generally quite happy with the artwork. My buddy started with the second edition rules and showed me his book the other day.....

It's true that people in the middle ages didn't have spikey armor or spikey hair or superfluous buckles, but they also didn't have mullets.

Artwork is going to be influenced by the time period it's created in, there's just no avoiding it.

 

[Akrasia]

What is 'dungeonpunk?'

'Dungeonpunk' is a term used to describe the art style of the current generation of official DnD books from WotC. It is loosely inspired by the Planescape art of the 90's, and is a deliberate attempt by WotC to give 3E DnD a new "nonMedieval" look, distinct from that found in earlier editions (and for that matter, fantasy art in general).

It largely eschews any attempt to make armour, weapons, clothing, equipment, and so forth, even vaguely plausible looking (hence the use of beaucoup de buckles, spikes, implausibly shaped shields, modern-looking gnome goggles, implausible looking weapons, anachronistic-looking clothing, and so forth). The characters portrayed in dungeonpunk art frequently have tattoos and piercings (even the Winter Wolf in the MM has a pierced ear!), presumably in an attempt to make them look "kewl" by contempoarary standards. Dungeonpunk is also often criticized for looking somewhat 'cartoonish,' despite the obvious technical skill of some of the WotC artists (e.g. J.Foster).

In short, look through the PH, DMG, MM, etc. Like any art style, it is hard to summarize in a few sentences -- rather, it is a general 'look' that comes across in most of WotC art.

Many people like it. I do not. :\

 

[Akrasia]

...It's true that people in the middle ages didn't have spikey armor or spikey hair or superfluous buckles, but they also didn't have mullets.
...

Dude -- mullets are timeless. They belong to all eras!

 

[Klaus]

I don't know...

I have quite a few history/arms & armor books, and the armors of the Cavalier, Spellsword (Complete Warrior) and the Epic Cleric (Epic Level Handbook) seem quite accurate (specially the Spellsword).

 

[Pants]

It's true that people in the middle ages didn't have spikey armor or spikey hair or superfluous buckles, but they also didn't have mullets.

Or big, pristine 80's hair, or afros, or superhero jumpsuit armor (Jeff Dee), etc. etc.

'Dungeonpunk' is a term used to describe the art style of the current generation of official DnD books from WotC. It is loosely inspired by the Planescape art of the 90's, and is a deliberate attempt by WotC to give 3E DnD a new "nonMedieval" look, distinct from that found in earlier editions (and for that matter, fantasy art in general). [/b]

You know...
Before I started playing D&D, whenever I thought of fantasy, a picture of bulky, spiked, and generally useless armor always came to mind. Don't know why that is really...

Besides, I really don't think that the old 1e and 2e art was really all that medieval to begin with.

In short, look through the PH, DMG, MM, etc. Like any art style, it is hard to summarize in a few sentences -- rather, it is a general 'look' that comes across in most of WotC art.

I'm looking through the books and I just don't see any overarching 'style.'
Sure Alhandra looks like a butch, 80's reject. And Hennet has the most illogical sense of style ever, but... beyond that?

Many people like it. I do not. :\

Hey, you know, that's fine. Lots of people don't like the art style. I just don't think that throwing around ill-fitting terms like dungeonpunk and 'anime-art' really describe anything, because they don't really fit.

Spikey and ridiculously useless armor has been around since before 3e and it really isn't as prevalent as most seem to think.

 

[Akrasia]

... I'm looking through the books and I just don't see any overarching 'style.' ...
... I just don't think that throwing around ill-fitting terms like dungeonpunk and 'anime-art' really describe anything, because they don't really fit.
...

Two quick points:

(a.) Many people see a 'overarching style' in the main WotC books. (Sure there might be exceptions to this style, but I would be very surprised if so many people are suffering from a mass delusion here.)

(b.) WotC made a deliberate policy decision to have an 'overarching style' for 3rd edition DnD (one, as I indicated above, was somewhat inspired by the 'goth/punk' and 'nonMedieval' look of Planescape art).

If you are correct in thinking that there is no 'overarching style', then WotC failed in its stated goal.

I wish it had... :\

 

[The Serge]

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.

You're intentionally (or perhaps ignorantly... I'm not sure which yet) corrupting what I wrote. I never wrote that it was the "only" reason. I wrote that it's the primary reason.

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.

I disagree... I think it's a far great number and, from what I've seen, a lot of it has to do with background. But, as you say... Whatever.

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

Compare Lockwood to Wood to Reynolds to Cramer to Sardhina to Baxa... And so on. Very different styles.