New cover art for the Revised PHB and DMG?

[Alzrius]

I wouldn't describe the LotR as "low fantasy". D&D is very much in the LotR vein whatever Col Pladoh might say.

For the most part, I think you're right Zander, but there's one vein in which LotR is low fantasy - magic.

When is the last time anyone in Middle Earth hurled a fireball? What about teleporting from one spot to another? Making a golem? Polymorphed? Heck, it takes a major artifact just to turn someone invisible! In the sense of magic, LotR is definately low fantasy.

 

[Buttercup]

Gah, I appear to be the only one who likes the new style.

You're not the only one. I, too, prefer the Spell Book look.

 

[Alzrius]

Thanks Buttercup, and thanks to everyone who kindly voiced their support to let me know I'm not alone in liking those 3E covers!

 

[Staffan]

Re: AAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

I'd just like to note that someone posting a picture called "drawing the human head and comparing it to an elven arcane archer probably missed something important somewhere.

 

[Arken]

Dungeon-punk is cool. It gets me excited about playing in ways that "historically accurate" pictures wouldn't. I suddenly want my character to be that bad ass. Not a big tin can.

I agree whole heartedly, I really like the new style of art they used. I find it fun and a bit inspirational in a way (yes buckles and all) I'm not saying that I think you'd find Hennet striding around middle earth, buckles-a-gleaming and tight pants-a-squeaking
However I don't think that it should have to try to aim to present that particular image. We all know LOTR to be the foundation of the game we're playing but we can have that look whenever we want.

To concede a little, the iconics may have been better liked (I don't think there's any chance of a change in art internally) if they were more like the FR character pictures which were less punky but still very cool looking.

PS. Since the topic is actually (was actually?) the covers I'd like to say that I like the new covers a lot as they are, I don't think there's a need for a picture of an adventuring party right on the front though a full page picture inside with that theme would be most welcome

 

[Quasqueton]

I like the current cover and interior art

Look at the old picture of "A Paladin in Hell". There you have more "real-like" full plate armor, large shield, and a longsword. Some seem to like this. But how about the paladin's helm of brilliance, belt of giant strength, cloak of charisma, back-up mace, longbow and arrows, boots of flying, etc. And I have to point out how absurd that "real" paladin looks combating a fantasy devil.

I like the "tome" covers of the D&D3 books. As someone else above said, it gives the books a weightier look. The older "scene" covers of the previous editions look too gamish and cartoony. That was great when I was in high school, but now I want a book I can feel comfortable reading in a restaurant at lunch.

The so-called "dungeon punk" look is actually closer to how most people see their characters. But really, of the iconics, only Hennet and maybe Mialee look "punkish". The others look more "realistic in game terms". I mean, you see their mix-and-match armor and gear (why would gauntlets of ogre power found in the troll lair match the half-plate armor bought in Greyhawk). You see their secondary weapons (Jozan has a crossbow). You see their equipment (the gnome illusionist has scrolls and potions tucked under his belts). You see their quirky ornamentations (Krusk has that trophy jaw bone on his shoulder, the elf druid has antlers tied in her hair, the paladin has a brand).

I like the interior art of D&D3. It matches the "reality" of the standard D&D worlds as *most* players see and play it.

And as for comparing it all to the new LOTR movies: note how Aragorn wears no armor at all; full plate armor does no good for the orcs; Gandalf has no sheath for his sword; etc.

Quasqueton

 

[Zander]

For the most part, I think you're right Zander, but there's one vein in which LotR is low fantasy - magic.

When is the last time anyone in Middle Earth hurled a fireball? What about teleporting from one spot to another? Making a golem? Polymorphed? Heck, it takes a major artifact just to turn someone invisible! In the sense of magic, LotR is definately low fantasy.

Yes and no. Yes, the magic is less overt. But no, there's no shortage of magic items. If you count the elven items with improbable (and sometimes impossible) properties as magical, then Frodo is dripping with them in the book.

But Joshua Dyal's argument isn't valid anyway. The level of fantasy - high or low - makes no difference to whether a character who could have been in Beyond Thunderdome is appropriate in a fantasy setting - unless Joshua Dyal is saying Mad Max is high fantasy.

 

[schporto]

Personally I like the tome covers. I always seem to think the book is heavier cuz of that cover.
Now inside I'd really prefer to see a mix. In the 1e books they had different styles of artwork. So this page is an artistic rendition of the evil mage zapping commoners. This page has the +3 backscratcher cartoon. This one has a group of dwarves fighting a serpent in a realistic look. OK there weren't any dungeon punk looks, not sure the idea was even around then. But today I'd love to see 'special' artists poke in and do a page or two. A couple cartoons. Mind you having all the pics the same artistic style make it seem more cohesive. But I think its less fun.
-cpd

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I like the tome covers too. It would be nice to see some new interior art though.

Ditto on both accounts. I'd like to see some full page scenes and such like in the 2e books.

Oh yea. I like the "dungeon punk" look. It gives off that harsh and gritty air that I really like.

Functional? Couldn't care less. I'm all about whether it looks cool or not.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

"High fantasy" and "low fantasy" are not indicators of what kind of magic is used in a piece of literature. There are actual definitions of those terms generally accepted to be accurate. From the Encyclopedia of Fantasy by Clute and Grant:

High Fantasy Fantasies set in otherworlds [note that this term is a reference to another entry in the encyclopedia which I won't quote, but which I think we all know the definition of] specifically secondary worlds, [ditto what I said about otherworlds] and which deal with matters affecting the destiny of those worlds.

Low Fantasy The introduction to The Fantastic Imagination (anth 1977 ed Robert H. Boyer and Kenneth J. Zahorski) defines High Fantasy and implies L[ow]F[antasy] as an antonymic description of fantasies not set in Secondary Worlds, nor elevated in their literary style.

The second entry hits on an important aspect of High Fantasy that the first entry seems to have forgotten; the elevated style in which the story is written. Lord of the Rings, in both style and concept, is definitely High Fantasy. Low Fantasy generally describes fantasies set in the real world, or fantasies that use coarse subject matter, or a combination of the two.