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

[Wolfspider]

Belt-buckles...upward sweeping shoulder armor...big weapon...

It's anime!

OK. I'll stop being snarky now.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Thanks for posting that... I hadn't seen those pictures. See, maybe it's indiosyncratic, but when I see this image, it says "anime" to me. The big ears, the "comic book" proportions, the giant upturning shoulderplates, the strappy leather look of the armor, the swirling energy nimbus that forms the background contrast, the fact that he's voguing outside of any background context, even the sword looks awfully big and like a Katana, etc.

Does that picture not suggest an "anime" influence? It does to me.

Wow...um...I'm not sure how to respond to that.

If the Warlock is anime-styled to you, then there's not much to be said, really. But that is not anime style at all. Its much, much closer to an American comic style. The ears on that image are very small compared to what anime-styled Elves or Half-Elves look like and the whole armour thing is just...armour. It doesn't invoke anime or comic books or anything other than the artist's decision on what the character would be wearing. As for the energy...well, he's a Warlock. What else is that supposed to look like? By that logic, any image of a wizard or socerer is anime.

The thing about anime-styled art is that it looks very very bad in stills compared to in motion. The style is extremely simplistic and fluid. On paper, or a screen, the proportions are way off, the angles of the body are almost always sharp, and the limbs are generally very long. Spiky hair isn't just anime, though, as hair does actually clump together in spikes of a sense when you really look at it for some people anyway.

Besides, that Warlock image flies in the face of being anime styled with small eyes and a broad, more realistic looking nose and other facial features. Even the ears, though pointed, are fairly realistic looking. The armour, again, doesn't really hint at anime at all. In fact, it just screams fantasy, as does the large, curved sword which looks more like a scimitar than a katana.

I guess the thing is, that its fine if you don't like a particular style of art. Everyone has their tastes. My problem is with seeing huge generalizations of things that are, no offense, wrong. The feel, tone, and spirit presented in the art of 3e is really no different than what is shown in 1e. The style, however, is. But the other three things? Those aren't actually in the pieces themselves, they're from what YOU take...and most of us saw those older pieces when we were much younger and our first impressions are still with us.

Nostalgia ain't bad, but you can't simply discount it, either.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I can see both points of view, for what it's worth.

I can also see it screaming "D&D Movie" for some reason. Did Damodar wear makeup like that? My mind refuses to remember clearly.

In any event, this is exactly what I mean by a picture designed to be "cool" that has no context.

RC

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I can also see it screaming "D&D Movie" for some reason. Did Damodar wear makeup like that? My mind refuses to remember clearly.

Some things are best left not thought of.

In any event, this is exactly what I mean by a picture designed to be "cool" that has no context.

The context thing I can get. There are definitely a lot of portrait type images throughout 3e art, which I could see turning off some. But they do have a context, its just a much more personal one. You don't need a background or a scene for context...a simple face can provide context, its just a different kind.

But even then, there are, and have been since the release of the Core books, a great deal of scene type pieces that aren't just flashy crazy pieces. Earlier in the thread I posted a few, all of which were taken from the Core books themselves, meaning that (most) were there from the very beginning(some where from the 3.5 release, though). Whether you like them or not is one thing, but they are there and there are more than some seem to want to admit.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The feel, tone, and spirit presented in the art of 3e is really no different than what is shown in 1e. The style, however, is. But the other three things? Those aren't actually in the pieces themselves, they're from what YOU take...

That, however, I disagree with vehemently. Drawing and painting, like any other art form, are attempts to communicate. Style is how you communicate, but feel, tone, and spirit are often what you communicate, and the "message" of the art in the 3.X core books (at least) sends a different message than the art in the older editions. In older editions, the art direction was as often (or more often) world-oriented as character-oriented. A large part of the "feel" of the earlier art is contextual.....something that has been, as previously noted, more and more prevalent in newer WotC books.

Back in the day, I actually submitted some art, and sent away for the art guidelines for Dragon. The art directors of the day were not looking for character portraits, and were looking for pieces that tied the characters or creatures shown into their world in some way. That is very, very different from the "white space" look of the 3.X core rules.

RC

 

[Wolfspider]

I can see both points of view, for what it's worth.

I can also see it screaming "D&D Movie" for some reason. Did Damodar wear makeup like that? My mind refuses to remember clearly.

In any event, this is exactly what I mean by a picture designed to be "cool" that has no context.

RC

I never saw the D&D movie. Is Damodar a character from the movie? Oh dear. I have an online friend with that handle. I'll have to tease him relentlessly now.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

That, however, I disagree with vehemently. Drawing and painting, like any other art form, are attempts to communicate. Style is how you communicate, but feel, tone, and spirit are often what you communicate, and the "message" of the art in the 3.X core books (at least) sends a different message than the art in the older editions. In older editions, the art direction was as often (or more often) world-oriented as character-oriented. A large part of the "feel" of the earlier art is contextual.....something that has been, as previously noted, more and more prevalent in newer WotC books.

Back in the day, I actually submitted some art, and sent away for the art guidelines for Dragon. The art directors of the day were not looking for character portraits, and were looking for pieces that tied the characters or creatures shown into their world in some way. That is very, very different from the "white space" look of the 3.X core rules.

RC

There is definitely a message of sorts in the art...but I've usually found that artist intention is less important than what people actually see themselves.

But, again, while there are more white space type images these days, that doesn't mean there aren't a great many 'context' images, too. One thing we see more is, due to a great deal of Prestige Classes and the like, single images to show what this character actually would look like. With so many out there, you NEED these kind of distinct, single images to help distinguish the class from all the others. So, in a way, this kind of focus could easily have come out of the focus on more classes...and that's not really a bad thing, its just different.

I can keep linking more 'context' images if need be, because they're there, and its not just a new development.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The context thing I can get. There are definitely a lot of portrait type images throughout 3e art, which I could see turning off some. But they do have a context, its just a much more personal one. You don't need a background or a scene for context...a simple face can provide context, its just a different kind.

Dictionary.com defines "context" as:

con·text /ˈkɒntɛkst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-tekst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3. Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.​

Now, I know that we are not talking about mycology, and I know that we are not talking about written statemetns when we refer to illustration. Therefore, we must be talking about "the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.".

For the illustrations themselves, if "white space" is what surrounds the particular event, situation, etc., what context can there be?

But even then, there are, and have been since the release of the Core books, a great deal of scene type pieces that aren't just flashy crazy pieces. Earlier in the thread I posted a few, all of which were taken from the Core books themselves, meaning that (most) were there from the very beginning(some where from the 3.5 release, though). Whether you like them or not is one thing, but they are there and there are more than some seem to want to admit.

Show me the single "best case" from the core books. For me it is the druid illustration. Other than that, I see few if any pictures that have any real context.

I agree that WotC has gotten a LOT better in this regard, the above Damodar notwithstanding.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Dictionary.com defines "context" as:

con·text /ˈkɒntɛkst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-tekst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3. Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.​

Now, I know that we are not talking about mycology, and I know that we are not talking about written statemetns when we refer to illustration. Therefore, we must be talking about "the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.".

For the illustrations themselves, if "white space" is what surrounds the particular event, situation, etc., what context can there be?

Well, I was talking about mycology so I don't know what you're talking about.

More seriously, you're right in what we're talking about. But I think you're being too literal in the reading of it. Mainly with the word 'surround' being used. You don't need a background to have context. An expression on the face, or a defensive pose can be context, even if you don't see anything else.

Oh, and technically, that Warlock image isn't without context. Even though its got white around it, note that he's almost coming out of the violet behind him. Coming out of the shadows, as it were, despite being surrounded, literally, by white.

Show me the single "best case" from the core books. For me it is the druid illustration. Other than that, I see few if any pictures that have any real context.

Technically, that druid illustration is the same as all the other class pictures, she just has a wolf with her. How does that make it any different than, say, the fighter? He has his axe and there's a shadow behind him to hint at a wall. I do see context in the druid image, but its still just a druid and a wolf.

But, to throw out just two other examples that have more 'context' than the druid image...Page 167 with the treasure chest and page 265 with the prismatic wall. That's just from a quick flip through, too. I can look harder if you like.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I never saw the D&D movie. Is Damodar a character from the movie? Oh dear. I have an online friend with that handle. I'll have to tease him relentlessly now.

The pathetic villian's even more pathetic henchman.

Now, of course, I can see that he has blue lipstick, rather than blue eye shadow, but please note the armour.

The basic film is about how a clean, well-fed populace with great personal freedom, no pestilence, reasonable rule of law, etc., is "oppressed" by wizards. Of course, there is one transparently eeevvvviiiiiillllllll wizard who can, apparently, influence every other wizard in the land with almost no effort whatsoever (apparently, neither Intelligence nor Wisdom is needed to be a wizard in that land) to do monumentally stupid things that they should certainly know to be monumentally stupid. Ah well.

If the villian and his henchman were not so inept (even a bunch of kinda-beholders is no help to them, being put on guard duty in plain sight instead of using their magical eye rays to any real purpose....or at all) then they would easily have won, for the heroes are little better.

Blech!