D&D 4E In terms of theme, tone, and spirit, I hope 4e . . .

[Mouseferatu]

As long as I don't have to see 15th-century harness like that stodgy crap in the original "A Paladin in Hell", okay.

Uh, that's exactly what I want to see more of, thanks. I mean, the art quality could be better, but I find that picture a lot more evocative than many--not all, not even most, but many--more modern pics. And the historical accuracy is part of that.

 

[Asmor]

You know, all these charges of "anime" stylings are really, really starting to get on my nerves.

I don't know what art you're looking at (or, alternatively, which anime you've seen), but I can see no conceivable way any parallel could be drawn between 3rd edition's style and anime.

Don't get me wrong, I love anime, but I just don't see any resemblance.

First of all, anime is primarily an animation style and so the bulk of it is simple line artwork and simple coloring/shading. 3rd edition's art is almost exclusively full blown paintings.

Anime has a very, very distinctive look to it, typified by long limbs, large eyes, crazy hair styles. I've heard people complaining about the body proportions of 3e art, but not being an artist or physician myself I just don't see it. In addition, 3e art definitely doesn't have the large eyes or crazy hair.

I guess the only real parallel I can see is that action in anime tends to be very over the top, and that does seem to be what 3e is going for as well... But I think that owes more to an attempt at emulating pulpy action. Anyways, even here, the parallel's not very strong.

 

[Asmor]

Uh, that's exactly what I want to see more of, thanks. I mean, the art quality could be better, but I find that picture a lot more evocative than many--not all, not even most, but many--more modern pics. And the historical accuracy is part of that.

The historically accurate depiction of armor and clothing is one of the things I find most boring and bland about older art.

Ironically, for my personal sword collection (every geek has one) I prefer simple, strong and functional weapons to the fantasy replicas and other crap that's so prevalent now a days.

Go figure.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The historically accurate depiction of armor and clothing is one of the things I find most boring and bland about older art.

What if they were involved in 3E-style over the top butt-kicking, like the iconics tossing the Wand of Orcus into the Terrasque's mouth? (That's Power of Faerun, as I recall.)

 

[Kaodi]

I think you have to consider too, when trying to justify the need for " historically accurate " armour, that historically speaking, it would be very unlikely that your armour would need to be able to turn or deflect a club the size of a small tree, or a set of teeth as long as your sword, or the stingers of a swarm of bird-sized insects. Armour is made to defeat weapons, and the weapons of the opposition are anything *but* " historically accurate " .

 

[Wolfspider]

Hmm.

For some reason, seeing both of these images together really makes me want to watch The Rocky Horror Picture Show....

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Uh, that's exactly what I want to see more of, thanks. I mean, the art quality could be better, but I find that picture a lot more evocative than many--not all, not even most, but many--more modern pics. And the historical accuracy is part of that.

Well, to be honest, what really bothers me about that is that the armour in question looks just like the kind of "dress" armour which was never really worn on the battlefield, and survives into the present as a museum piece for that reason.

Plus, it looks more like one of the animated suits of armour from the climax of Bedknobs and Broomsticks than it does like a paladin actually fighting . . . but that's down to the terribly stiff and unrealistic pose.

It's not just the superior composition and sense of action that makes this updated version by Carl Frank look better, either. This paladin's armour isn't copied from a museum tour booklet, but it's still perfectly practical and believable.

I'm not saying I want everyone's armour to look like the knight of Thay from Complete Warrior, after all.

 

[Tewligan]

As long as I don't have to see 15th-century harness like that stodgy crap in the original "A Paladin in Hell", okay.

Gasp! Legally, I can have you punched for badmouthing that illustration! In the face!

 

[theredrobedwizard]

As long as I don't have to see 15th-century harness like that stodgy crap in the original "A Paladin in Hell", okay.

Sir, I like the cut of your jib and wish to subscribe to your news letter.

-TRRW

 

[Melan]

I love Erol Otus, and yet his artwork is totally at odds with what most people seem to like about 'old school' art. It's weird, unrealistic and not medieval at all. It's D&D as dream rather than D&D as simulation.

Well, speaking only for myself, I love the "D&D as a dream" look, and would like to see more of it - less stuffy "realistic looking oil paintings about kittens playing with balls of yarn dwarves hacking at orcs", and more surrealism, dreamscapes, abstract images and so forth. How about supplements illustrated in the manner of Jugendstyl or impressionism?