PHB, MM, DMG covers

[Jdvn1]

I like the art--I'm a WAR fan--but they just don't scream "RPG rulebook" to me.

Also, I'm still not sold on that logo. I hope they come out with something cooler and that's just a placeholder.

 

[Klaus]

The green dragon in the other WAR pic is too prominent for it to be the PHB cover. The monster's taking up much more space than the adventurers.

PHB cover should be player characters (and only player characters), at least one casting a spell. MM cover should feature monsters (duh!). DMG cover is a lot trickier. It could show what happens once the PCs kill the monsters, much like the 1e PHB cover, it could depict treasure or it could show a wide landscape with adventurers and monsters, but the world itself given most prominence, JRRT-style.

Well, the OD&D Erol Otus cover had a *green* dragon take up half the cover as well...

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I'm not sure that "Erol Otus did it!" is an excuse anyone should accept.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

It's not just Erol Otus, mind you. Larry Elmore's picture on the Basic Set, the cover of the Rules Cyclopedia as well...and compared to the covers of the AD&D 2E PHB (the revised black one as well), or those faux tome looks that inspire mystery, but not adventure, the cover JVis put together actually SCREAMS Dungeons & Dragons in a good way. I'd still prefer a similar scene from Lockwood, but tastes are nothing to be argued about. The motif, though, is definitely something that fits on a D&D PHB...a group of adventurers confronting a dragon in the bowels of an underground dungeon.

I just wish that dragon didn't have that weird spike on its nose...a beak I could stomach, but a spike? I hope we're not going from "spiky armor look" to "spiky natural armor look" as the next source of derogatories for an edition not yet published.

 

[The Merciful]

The green dragon in the other WAR pic is too prominent for it to be the PHB cover. The monster's taking up much more space than the adventurers.

Nothing wrong with that. The main point of an adventure is to vanguish enemies and overcome obstacles. Navel casing isn't very adventurous. For that reason, as well as fond memories of Metzen edition D&D boxes, I'm all for prominent mosnters in PHB.

As for the preview versions of 4th edition covers, the artwork lacks severily in color - it is so grey. Just for that alone reason I like mock up with the green dragon much better. And then there are the other reasons others have already stated.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Well, the OD&D Erol Otus cover had a *green* dragon take up half the cover as well...

That picture is amazing, the best D&D cover ever imo, but it's for a complete game so it's right that it should show all aspects of the game - adventurers, monster, confrontation, dungeon, treasure. I feel the PHB should just show the adventurers. The cover needs to be, in a sense, incomplete. Otoh I'm not sure if the PCs posing makes for the most striking image.

 

[The Merciful]

That picture is amazing, the best D&D cover ever imo, but it's for a complete game so it's right that it should show all aspects of the game - adventurers, monster, confrontation, dungeon, treasure. I feel the PHB should just show the adventurers. The cover needs to be, in a sense, incomplete. Otoh I'm not sure if the PCs posing makes for the most striking image.

Well, PHB is the face for the full game - especially for the players. DMG and monster manuals are for the DM.

 

[John Drake]

The covers shown by the presentation at Gen Con, imho are big steaming piles of dung and plates of braised pus. But this one posted by JVisgaitis, was very good, despite the fact I am not fan of the artist. Very good layout and all that jazz.

 

[Doug McCrae]

For comparison, here are the covers of previous PHBs.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I suppose there's no need to point out that the other half of editions heavily featured adventurers that confronted dragons, who were prominently displayed on the covers?