Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9513076" data-attributes="member: 18">Whilst this is fun, it's largely beside the point, and it's funny that you say that re: Eberron, given Eberron has a massive 1920s vibe, which was conveyed in large part through the art! Maybe not to 1920s fashion specifically (I'm not an expert on fashion from that era, I must confess), but certainly vibe.As for current fashions in fantasy art, sure, but art direction exists, it's not a random assemblage of fantasy clip art from the last two years or something. Veilguard actually helps illustrate this, as its art is vastly more realistic in style (despite insane-person criticisms about "Pixar", which are actually down to numpties not understanding what subsurface scattering is) than 5E, far less stylized, and tending far more towards the dark.What definition of "sci-fi horror" are we using here? I can't think of one that includes RotF. You seem very convinced though - you want to clarify what you're referencing in spoiler blocks? I would note that it's very possible to nod to The Thing or Alien or the like without in any way actually "doing horror".Re: rules it needs a ruleset that can actually support the vibe beyond the superficial, and D&D 5E just doesn't have that.We can put a superficial veneer on sure, but it's a millimetre deep and the moment it gets tested it's obviously just aesthetics.I already answered this upthread.Glad I'm not the only one who caught how specifically Carry On-esque some of the stuff in a certain location in Act 3 was! They were even doing Carry On-style voices!For sure, but that's writers and directors essentially attempting to evade a BBC mandate, back in an era when evading mandates was a hell of a lot easier.Whereas with WotC, I don't think they have adventure writers who are trying to "fly under the radar" or "work around" things to make them more horrifying. RotF is from when WotC began the whole child-friendly-ization of D&D, so presumably escaped the same kind of deal. And it's a corporate company with tighter (if incompetent) control over its messaging. They might miss obvious racism, but I don't think they're going to miss an obvious innuendo or horror element. We shall see of course.Neither of those are WotC, and BG3 was specifically notable for how different its tone is to all of 5E's official products. And WotC managed to sever that relationship, so that's over. Critical Role is obviously not WotC and again the discontinuity of the vibe between that and WotC's own output is increasingly being noted, even by younger people. Re: aimed squarely at children, I concur - it's on the way there, but it's not there yet - and I don't object to including children, to be clear - quite the contrary, but I think WotC's drive to make D&D super-safe is inevitably going to mean D&D starts looking a bit "lame" to teenagers through young adults as a group. It happened with 2E (sure 2E was edgier than 5E is, but also the '90s were wildly edgier in youth culture terms, especially other RPGs), and it feels like they're going more extreme this time.But this actually brings us back to art and appendix N. A lot of the vibe of an RPG is contained in the art, particularly for newer and younger players, so it's important that you pick art that gives the right vibe for your RPG - and 5E 2024 I think has done that, but it's a vibe that's somewhat divergent from where a lot of fantasy is going today, which is to say, more fantasy art is rather more towards the gritty than it was 5-10 years ago. Recommendations re: media (which don't necessarily have to be true inspirations, just vibe carriers) for 5E are this made more difficult in another way, beyond parent-offending, in that 2024's main vibe is somewhat at odds with much of fantasy (the deep fear of parent-offending is clearly the main issue though).</blockquote>

Verification