• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

tattoos, spikes, punk, and goth in D&D images?

Quasqueton said:
I don't think there is nearly as much of this stuff in the images as people claim. I again suggest that most people heaping the comments on D&D are not really looking at the images, but are just regurjitating what they've heard others say.
Quasqueton
It's a knee-jerk reaction. I see it a lot on the internet.
One of my biggest problems with the art criticisms is how everyone jumps on the already overflowing bandwagon to call 3e art 'anime.' Obviously, anyone who says such a thing has no real clue about anime at all, it seems to have become an all-encompassing term for 'art I hate.'

And of course emaciated creatures automatically equals dungeon punk...

Olive said:
I love WAR, but I can see why you wouldn't liek the stylised aspect of it. Given that, his art is generally more 'realistic' than alot of other artists.
I feel the same way about Erol Otus. You either love his style... or you hate it. I find it distasteful.

francisca said:
Recently I was looking through my buddy's Dragon collection. It seems to me the Hennet style art was already showing up in Dragon a few years before 3E was released. I don't think this trend started with 3E, it was just one particular style that was common at the time.
I believe the 'dungeon-punk' style started either with DiTerlizzi or Planescape... or both. It was definitely around before 3e was even planned by WotC.

I totally agree with everything RangerWickett said.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm going to have to profess extreme confusion.

When I fist opened my 3E Monster Manual for the first time, I was *thrilled* with the art. I thought that it was an unbelievable improvement over the 2E Monstrous Manual, because the Monstrous Manual pictures were cartoonish and had no backgrounds (ever), and the 3E Monster Manual pictures often had backgrounds and weren't cartoonish.

Obviously, taste in art is subjective, but can anyone tell me what is going on here? 3E as "cartoonish"? Where does this idea come from?

I'm flipping through my core books, and I just don't see it.

Here's a bit of Monstrous Manual art (chosen at random) for comparison:
http://positron.jfet.org/adnd/monster/sphinx.gif
http://positron.jfet.org/adnd/monster/basilisk.gif
http://positron.jfet.org/adnd/monster/brndragn.gif
http://positron.jfet.org/adnd/monster/impmeph.gif
http://positron.jfet.org/adnd/monster/mindflay.gif

Using these pictures (or others, if you prefer), can someone explain why 3E is more cartoonish? Please?

Am I just missing some complicated joke?
 
Last edited:

It doesn't matter if it's cartoony or anime-ish to me so long as it captures a D&D vibe. Photoshopped, colourised posing character portraits don't do that, through fault of the art direction, not the artists themselves. WAR, for instance, has the potential to capture a D&D vibe when he wants to (look at his black and white work in Deep Dwarven Delve.)

Another example of cartoony but what I consider to be definitely D&D in feel is the work of the Brothers Fraim, for instance (http://www.brosfraim.com/hack.html). Made less gory, I consider this style far preferable to what ended up in the core 3E books. Your mileage may vary. Unfortunately, B&W in the core books is lost to the game forever because colour sells more apparently...and that's teh bottom line.
 

Pants said:
It's a knee-jerk reaction. I see it a lot on the internet.
One of my biggest problems with the art criticisms is how everyone jumps on the already overflowing bandwagon to call 3e art 'anime.' Obviously, anyone who says such a thing has no real clue about anime at all, it seems to have become an all-encompassing term for 'art I hate.'

3e D&D elf:
Mialee.jpg


Anime elf:
deedlit-.jpg


3e D&D human male:
regdar.jpg


Anime human male:
hotohori.jpg



That, my friend, is why it's hard for me to take seriously people who claim that the artwork in 3e D&D books is anime-ish. ;)
 
Last edited:


I for one, am a big fan of the new 3/3.5e art. I loved the full color, full page art in 2e. I even enjoyed the rather cartooned look that the old AD&D books (black cover with the demon idol and deal lizard men). Before I really got into D&D, I was into the art by the Brothers Hildebrant (the Sword of Shannara pose especially).

When I got into D&D, the PHB I had was the AD&D demon idol version. The black and white art on the overly thick pages was passing at best. The one picture that stands out in my mind as absolutely laughable was the old racial comparison. The “paladin in hell” was probably the best.

When I saw the 3e version I was astonished. Most of the book was full of colored pictures and what was presented was a vast improvement in a professional look. No longer did it look like TSR scoured the local middle school for “talent” but there was actual honest to goodness artistic talent.

Say what you will about how the art makes you feel, but the quality of the artwork is pretty good. Comic book, anime-inspired, (I’d say less than .5% of the art I’ve see in WotC books is really anime) - some, yes. I do not see the problem with the buckle on the human’s shirt nor the “spikes” on the elf’s tunic in the racial profile. I’ve always drawn my own elves with slightly leafy looking stoles, sleeves, and cuffs. I wouldn’t call that anymore spiky than I would call Redgar a bookish wizard.

Sweeping generalizations of “Dungeon Punk” and “Anime Art” isn’t cool. I think WotC’s art choices are not entirely geared towards the Elmore generation, but towards the people who have yet to experience the joy that is D&D ( :D ). In a day and age where games are described with pixels, FPS, and min-system requirements; the art is going to be what attracts younger players.

Like it or not, people judge books by the pictures. WotC realizes it’s not going to find a market with the dilettante’s of the art world, but with the what the kids like these days – yup you guessed it – Anime and Comic Book Style “Punk and Spikes and Piercing… etc”. We’ve all been snared. We like the game based on the contents – maybe not the art.

Lockwood, WAR, Elmore – all have a different style. All of us have our favorites (I like the elegance of Lockwood and the grit and menace of WAR, while I find Elmore’s stuff that needs to be framed, not stuck in an RPG book). I’ve taken one too many art classes to not have an appreciation for art. It bugs me when people call art crap. Now I’ve seen crap art – and it is just crap because I don’t like it.

I think I’m rambling, so I’ll cut it short here.

Erge … rambling on to himself ;)
 


Addendum to my post above...the FRCS has a heaps better feel to it than the core books, IMO. If they have to go colour again for next edition (and they will), I reckon that's a much preferable look for D&D as far as style goes.
While I don't think the 3e artwork is really all that anime, I do think that the oversized weapons and armor are.
Oversized weapons are what I'd generally associate more with Warhammer.
 
Last edited:

Dark Jezter said:
*Snip*

Oh, and anybody who says that the artwork in 3.x looks anime-ish needs a reality check. If the 3.x artwork was anime-ish, then all of the men would look like women, and all the women would look about 14-years-old and be wearing schoolgirl outfits. Not to mention that the elves would have three-foot-long ears that stuck out horizontally from their heads. :D

There ain't nothing wrong elves with foot long ears is there? I actually prefer anime elves to the oh-so-slightly-pointed-ears of D&D's vulca ... err elves. :P

As for 3E art, I like some of it but there are too many spikes involved. As for anime-ish looks... I don't see it. I do see a little influence creeping in, but not enough to merit such a label.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top