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

[Arnwyn]

What is 'dungeonpunk?'

Hennet. Winter wolf with a pierced ear.

 

[Hunter Simon]

I'll agree. Take David or Diana. I see great art where others see pornography.

I run into the same problem when I try to discuss the merits of Cheerleader Lesbian Orgy VII with my snooty art friends. Snobs.

 

[Strithe]

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.

It really doesn't have anything to do with nostalgia. A lot of the older edition art was terrible from a technical standpoint. As I've said, overall the current art is technically good and the overall graphic design of the books is excellent. It's just that some of the overall art direction is a little goofy.

I'm not so much looking for "historical accuracy" but "technological accuracy." By that I mean that certain characters don't look appropriate for the technological level they're in or items are just unrealistic from a utility point of view. No, it's not commonplace but there are recurring things like the Cybperpunk/S&M look, disproportionate-sized equipment, evil-guy-must have spikey outfit, and just plain goofy stuff (how DOES a creature without an opposable thumb don an earring? ).

There is a fine line between "establishing a unique style" and "being goofy."

 

[Pants]

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

I wish it had... :\

Two points:
1) Their goal (as I read it) was to get away from the classical medieval look.
2) Like Klaus said, compare the Spellsword in CW to Regdar in the PHB. Same style? The books provide many different styles, 'dungeon-punk' (I hate that term) being one of them.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

I'm looking through the books and I just don't see any overarching 'style.'

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.)

Congrats, you've just proven that different people will see things differently. But that's all. The whole tattoos and spikes furor has blossomed from the complaints of some naysayers back when the Countdown to Third Edition site first appeared, into a delusion that, as we can all see, continues today. The number of illustrations that lack the supposed "dungeonpunk" elements far outnumber the ones that have them.
I hate buzzwords like dungeonpunk.

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).

No, they made a decision to avoid the pseudo-medieval style of previous editions. You can argue the semantics of whether a decided lack of style is a style in and of itself, but I'm not interested. A decision to lack a particular style does not mean they have "dungeonpunk" guidelines written down somewhere.

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

If in fact they ever stated the goal that you are saying they did, which they didn't.

I wish it had... :\

Wishing for others' failure is always a noble pursuit.

 

[Ourph]

I would agree that there is a decided lack of style in 3e's artwork. Good call Bran!

 

[Dark Jezter]

The number of illustrations that lack the supposed "dungeonpunk" elements far outnumber the ones that have them.

I know. I just finished going through and examining every single illustration in the PHB, DMG, and MM, and I can honestly say that the illustrations containing "dungeonpunk" elements (spiky armor, tattoos, and unusual piercings) make up only a very small fraction of the 3e artwork.

But then again, making mountains out of molehills is a common trait among gamers, so it's hardly surprising that some are going to claim that the 3e core rulebooks are jam-packed with "dungeonpunk."

 

[Gundark]

IMy jaw still hits the floor every time I see Wayne Reynold's illustration of the orcs charging the dwarf phalanx

Guess what the background on my computer is

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

I would agree that there is a decided lack of style in 3e's artwork. Good call Bran!

I have news for you; there has been far too much twisting of other people's words and misrepresentation of other people's views in this thread. Done once in a great great while it can be clever, but generally speaking it only confuses the issue and frustrates people that are actually trying to make a #&@* point. It's simply not as cute as some people seem to think it is.
What's worse is that you did virtually nothing else with your post.
Maybe the newcomers here need bootcamp instead of a friendly greeting. Now that's a shame.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I really like the artwork in the core rulebooks - not all of it is excellent, and I do miss some of the previous editions' more traditional artwork (one of my favourite books in the Nineties was The Art of the Dragonlance Saga), but on the whole I like the visual style, including the character design, of Third Edition.

That said, there are definitely terrible artists working for Wizards these days. I loath Crabapple with a burning passion, because he actively makes me dislike reading the books I've paid for. There are some other artists whose work I don't care for, but he makes me angry.

Plus I'm sad that Wayne A. Reynolds isn't doing more work in the "core" D&D books that are coming out, because he's my favourite Third Edition artist.

Probably my favourite artist who's ever worked on D&D would be Tony DiTerlizzi, but I also really loved the Elmore-Caldwell-Easley trio back in Second Edition, and I wouldn't say no to a bit of that in Third Edition - especially if they are going to do some more full-page pieces like in Complete Warrior, I'd like to see some good artists working on them instead of whoever that joker was.