The D&D Logo

1, Don't care for the font, colors, or what they did to the dragon icon
2, It's D&D, not Pokemon.
3, D&D should be in HD, not "8-bit Theater".
4, Maybe for the Crayola coloring book cover, but not the rulebooks.
5, Not wholly awful but too restrained, physically constrained by the top and bottom lines. Suggests something the opposite of fun and excitement.
6, D&D the ghostly, dead RPG...
7, I like the font but again too UNanimated.
8, Can't even read this one.
9, Not far off what's on the 4E covers but with different font, etc. Need to move OFF of this style more.
10, Actually looks very like typefaces the game used in 1970's or early 80's to me and I think you'd want to suggest something more in the 1070's. Also, don't like the white on black look anyway.
11, I like the dragon a lot but the font and proportions of the text is all wrong.
12, Cartoony dragon. Wrong font again.
13, Severe mismatch between look of the dragon and text. Wrong font entirely. More evocative of a cartoon version of The Rocketeer than D&D.
14, Star Trek: The Dungeon?
15, Lacks vibrancy, impact, color.
16, OMG. Just no.
17, If you had to go minimalist this looks quite nice. It has a strange appeal to me. Has the look of the Futura font used in the 1E hardcover headers and text, but I'm not sure if that's the direction to be looking.

Some elements I like here and there but none of these sell me on D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I recall during the 3e/4e transition that the sword made it really hard to put on the Spine. The 4e logo could be broken up so as to be stacked or run sentence style, something the 3e books couldn't (check your spine, if the book was too thin, it had a generic font D&D logo).

True but when we play we have the books in front of us so what's on the cover is most important. I don't mind the backs being different.
 

True but when we play we have the books in front of us so what's on the cover is most important. I don't mind the backs being different.
I don't know about you, but if I have a book in front of me at the table, it's probably open.

I like the 3E logo, but I really like the way 4E's "D&D" looks.
 


And his time wouldn't be better spent with the art direction for monsters, races, classes, covers ... ?
I see arguments like this frequently with respect to management in general, and politics specifically. It assumes that all the other things that the arguer would prefer to be worked on are being ignored to the exclusion of something to which they assign a lesser value.
 


I'm really not impressed with any of them. #1 isn't too bad - it's the best of the bunch. #9 is acceptable. The rest are downright bad. If I was the art director, I'd tell the team to try again.
 

And his time wouldn't be better spent with the art direction for monsters, races, classes, covers ... ?
At this point in time? No.

Just as the designers are asking people what is the very *core* of D&D, the Creative Director is asking the same about the look of D&D. What makes a D&D logo *feel* like a D&D logo? Because, at this point in the design process, it's the one thing that D&D Next is sure to have: a logo.
 

I'm really not impressed with any of them. #1 isn't too bad - it's the best of the bunch. #9 is acceptable. The rest are downright bad. If I was the art director, I'd tell the team to try again.

They're supposed to be bad. They're not any of them meant to be the D&D Next logo.
 

The biggest mistake they could make with the logo is to make it look like a soul-less brand logo. To my mind the 4e logo does that.

It needs to have grit, soul, and speak to the subculture alongside being a brand identifier. The font is important. Don't get cute, keep it simple.

I don't play 3e but I thought that logo was very good, despite my interest in older editions.

The dragon ampersand is a must.
 

Remove ads

Top