D&D 5E Mearls and Crawford interview with The Mary Sue

[ExploderWizard]

I just enjoy a nice balance spread throughout. 1E and B/X featured such a wide variety of styles from different artists and I think the multiple perspectives really helped show the different imaginings of the D&D universe.

A uniform art direction can become boring even if the individual art pieces are technically good. I prefer variety which is inclusive of all D&D fantasy tropes and that includes a mix of sensibly dressed and more gonzo characters. In other words, ALL sensibly dressed characters is just as boring as NO sensibly dressed characters. I see no reason that the politically correct sect has to be catered to exclusively with art choices any more than those who refuse to look at the game if it includes options they don't like.

"Oh look I'm not buying this game because it has feats as an option! "

"Oh look I'm not buying this game because there is a barbarian chick in a fur bikini! "

In either case you are refusing to get a game because it includes something that you may not personally be wild about but that someone else sees as an awesome plus.

 

[Agamon]

I just enjoy a nice balance spread throughout. 1E and B/X featured such a wide variety of styles from different artists and I think the multiple perspectives really helped show the different imaginings of the D&D universe.

A uniform art direction can become boring even if the individual art pieces are technically good. I prefer variety which is inclusive of all D&D fantasy tropes and that includes a mix of sensibly dressed and more gonzo characters. In other words, ALL sensibly dressed characters is just as boring as NO sensibly dressed characters. I see no reason that the politically correct sect has to be catered to exclusively with art choices any more than those who refuse to look at the game if it includes options they don't like.

Good point. Mearls did point out that where that type of art is applicable (the incubus was his example), it will be there. It won't be there just because T&A.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I just enjoy a nice balance spread throughout. 1E and B/X featured such a wide variety of styles from different artists and I think the multiple perspectives really helped show the different imaginings of the D&D universe.

A uniform art direction can become boring even if the individual art pieces are technically good. I prefer variety which is inclusive of all D&D fantasy tropes and that includes a mix of sensibly dressed and more gonzo characters. In other words, ALL sensibly dressed characters is just as boring as NO sensibly dressed characters. I see no reason that the politically correct sect has to be catered to exclusively with art choices any more than those who refuse to look at the game if it includes options they don't like.

"Oh look I'm not buying this game because it has feats as an option! "

"Oh look I'm not buying this game because there is a barbarian chick in a fur bikini! "

In either case you are refusing to get a game because it includes something that you may not personally be wild about but that someone else sees as an awesome plus.

This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I loved seeing a variation in style in 1e from Caldwell, Otis, Trampier, Willingham, Easley, etc. When everything looks like it was done by Wayne Reynolds, it gets old.

 

[Thaumaturge]

A uniform art direction can become boring even if the individual art pieces are technically good. I prefer variety which is inclusive of all D&D fantasy tropes and that includes a mix of sensibly dressed and more gonzo characters.

I agree. Variety is good, for sure.

What I was protesting was a book full of T&A. A succubus in a habit is ridiculous and shouldn't be the standard picture of a succubus, though it may actually make a good piece because of that. People dressed based on who they are makes sense. Pictures of scantily clad, and fully dressed, people can make sense depending on the context. A book of filled with T&A art for the purposes of T&A is not something I have any interest in.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Branduil]

This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I loved seeing a variation in style in 1e from Caldwell, Otis, Trampier, Willingham, Easley, etc. When everything looks like it was done by Wayne Reynolds, it gets old.

I can't say that any of the art we've seen so far has struck me as a WAR piece, except the one he actually did.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree. Variety is good, for sure.

What I was protesting was a book full of T&A. A succubus in a habit is ridiculous and shouldn't be the standard picture of a succubus, though it may actually make a good piece because of that. People dressed based on who they are makes sense. Pictures of scantily clad, and fully dressed, people can make sense depending on the context. A book of filled with T&A art for the purposes of T&A is not something I have any interest in.

Thaumaturge.

Certainly. The love of variety is about more than the amount of skin shown. Dressed however, in whatever, I like a variety of artistic styles.

 

[Nimblegrund]

Personally, I won't be satisfied until every illustration features beefcake characters in leather underpants like in the movie 300.

You know, for the historical accuracy.

 

[Jynx_lucky_j]

The earlier mention of Red Sonja reminded me of this (semi) relevant pic

 

[Sacrosanct]

it actually reminds me of this old Dragon cartoon