D&D 5E Planescape shows up in the wild. Tease from Chris Perkins.

[Vaalingrade]

And here I thought it was snarking on people who don't love the newest release.

Believe me, if you haven't been watching the show, I'm more than happy to see people reject Planescape specifically, just not for this 'the art is too pleasant' thing that rose up when Radiant Citadel came out.

 

[ninjayeti]

The only reason to have him doing the cover as opposed to any other artist is because he did it in the 90s, isn't it?

Yes, exactly.

If he hadn't done it the internet would have exploded with people complaining about his absence ruining the whole thing. Mediocre Diterlizzi art is on Diterlizzi. Not even asking him to do art is WotC "being out of touch with the real Planescape fans" and "not understanding why Planescape was great in the first place," etc.

Now we are arguing about if the art is good or not, rather that how WotC management botched another beloved setting (at least not yet...).

 

[Alzrius]

Believe me, if you haven't been watching the show, I'm more than happy to see people reject Planescape specifically, just not for this 'the art is too pleasant' thing that rose up when Radiant Citadel came out.

Because as we all know, criticism directed at a product's artwork is in no way legitimate (unlike criticizing the people making the criticism; don't those people know that their tastes are wrong?).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Woooow.

I'm sorry, I honestly thought that's what you meant by that. I have nothing against him or his artwork, I just don't see WotC using him for any other reason than to entice old Planescape fans, and since his art style has changed, that benefit is to some degree disingenuous.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, exactly.

If he hadn't done it the internet would have exploded with people complaining about his absence ruining the whole thing. Mediocre Diterlizzi art is on Diterlizzi. Not even asking him to do art is WotC "being out of touch with the real Planescape fans" and "not understanding why Planescape was great in the first place," etc.

Now we are arguing about if the art is good or not, rather that how WotC management botched another beloved setting (at least not yet...).

Fair enough. I guess there wasn't really a better option from a PR point of view.

 

[darjr]

I'm sorry, I honestly thought that's what you meant by that. I have nothing against him or his artwork, I just don't see WotC using him for any other reason than to entice old Planescape fans, and since his art style has changed, that benefit is to some degree disingenuous.

I’d think they’d want to work with him cause he’s awesome but usually out of the budget. A fantastic excuse, this book, to blow the budget on fantastic Tony art seems like a wonderful win win to me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Because as we all know, criticism directed at a product's artwork is in no way legitimate (unlike criticizing the people making the criticism; don't those people know that their tastes are wrong?).

Yes, that is exactly the same thing as criticizing criticism and the attitude behind it.

 

[Reynard]

Veterans of D&D, specifically fans of Planescape when it was an active release.

I know. it is just a weird way to say "old fans."
Unless of course you are implying they survived the Edition Wars...

 

[Parmandur]

I’d think they’d want to work with him cause he’s awesome but usually out of the budget. A fantastic excuse, this book, to blow the budget on fantastic Tony art seems like a wonderful win win to me.

One rather suspects that the same crowd would raise a hue and cry of he was absent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’d think they’d want to work with him cause he’s awesome but usually out of the budget. A fantastic excuse, this book, to blow the budget on fantastic Tony art seems like a wonderful win win to me.

I cannot possibly see it from that rosy a perspective, but then I far preferred his original style. I don't generally even care about RPG art, but his old stuff was an exception.