Rant about the cover of the 4e Player's Handbook

[kolikeos]

This rant says nothing about the quality of actual written contents of said book.

Yeah, I don't like the cover.
For starters, the art is very unpleasing to the eye IMO. While the artist does show incredible skill, the hard edges, sharp contrast and darkish colors don't look good to me. But beauty is in the eye of the eye tyrant.
It's very specific in comparison to the 3/3.5e version. By that I mean it has two very specific characters (a human female spellcaster and a dragonborn male warrior) on its cover instead of something more abstract that every player can relate to.
And lastly, it has some very Unfortunate Implications. The drawing just shouts "Men are brutish monsters and women are sex objects". The male character in that picture is actually an ugly monster and the female character seems to be there for the sole purpose of showing her Great Cleavage.

Thanks for allowing me a place to rant.
Sorry about the poor humor and tvtropes links.

 

[ppaladin123]

This rant says nothing about the quality of actual written contents of said book.

Yeah, I don't like the cover.
For starters, the art is very unpleasing to the eye IMO. While the artist does show incredible skill, the hard edges, sharp contrast and darkish colors don't look good to me. But beauty is in the eye of the eye tyrant.
It's very specific in comparison to the 3/3.5e version. By that I mean it has two very specific characters (a human female spellcaster and a dragonborn male warrior) on its cover instead of something more abstract that every player can relate to.
And lastly, it has some very Unfortunate Implications. The drawing just shouts "Men are brutish monsters and women are sex objects". The male character in that picture is actually an ugly monster and the female character seems to be there for the sole purpose of showing her Great Cleavage.

Thanks for allowing me a place to rant.
Sorry about the poor humor and tvtropes links.

I agree. Player's handbooks II and III have the same style, so does the Eberron Player's guide. It looks like the Dark Sun Campaign guide will too. I really hate this.

It pedestrian; it doesn't display any action; it doesn't stimulate my curiosity or sense of wonder; and as you said, it plays into the standard sexual stereotyping.


They continue to use the, "two characters posing, one male, and female," template for their player's guides*. This appears to be a conscious marketing decision...maybe it appeals to a wide audience?


* The other two art templates are as follows:

power source books: displays one male character jumping into a fray, character must be at least five feet off the ground.

adventure path: displays single villain doing something vaguely magical, must have mouth wide open (see for example H1. H2, H3).

 

[Asmor]

"Men are brutish monsters and women are sex objects"

*ponders self*

*ponders fiancée*

*nods sagely*

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I don't like "strike-a-pose" cover art, in general. I much prefer "moment in time" cover scenes with interesting stuff going on (action scenes are fine, but I don't mean ACTIONEXPLODINGOFFTHEPAGEALLOVERTHEPLACE cover scenes). For example, I think the original cover of the 1e Players Handbook is great.

Also, I have W.A.R. fatigue, and don't like the art direction he must be receiving. I think he's a good artist, and I like some of the stuff he did for the Osprey books, but his work for D&D (and Pathfinder) leaves me cold. Just not my cup of tea, I suppose.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I think the job he did on the PFRPG cover is far better in conveying the feel of D&D that the actual 4E covers. That PF book just screams D&D to me for some reason (maybe because it depicts a dungeon AND a dragon...)

 

[Nebten]

And lastly, it has some very Unfortunate Implications. The drawing just shouts "Men are brutish monsters and women are sex objects". The male character in that picture is actually an ugly monster and the female character seems to be there for the sole purpose of showing her Great Cleavage.

Then don't look at the Deluxe Edition of the Player's Handbook. Its the girl by herself with a maginfication upon her heavying breasts, midrift and exposed thigh. Of course . . . why is this a bad thing?

That PF book just screams D&D to me for some reason (maybe because it depicts a dungeon AND a dragon...)

Whoa . . . WHOA there. A dungeon and a dragon . . . I think you may have something there. Somebody, give this man some money.

 

[Melkor]

I guess I'm in the minority when I say I really like the cover art.

 

[Mercurius]

I could have sworn it was November, 2009.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

I don't like most of the 4E art in general - there's not enough distinction between the foreground and the background. It all seems to be on one plane, which makes it very busy and except for a few scattered pieces it all blurs together for me. It often takes me several glances to tell what I'm looking at.

I'm an Elmore fan. Sure, he had his quirks with the 80's hair, but it was so clean!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm an Elmore fan. Sure, he had his quirks with the 80's hair, but it was so clean!

Sadly, I think Elmore often suffered from the "strike a pose" problem, too. And he especially liked "strike a pose with feathers." (But its severity pales when compared to Caldwell's compulsion for painting shiny round gems…)