The "iconic" characters -- time to for them to die?

[Gnarlo]

This is true. We need more Erol Otus, so we can have cartoonish people with absurd non-spikey armour and unrealistic clothing.

Don't forget the tentacles. We needs lots of dripping tentacles.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

That would rock my world.

And you're calling modern D&D art "cartoonish"? Hmm..... contradiction going on here?

I happen to like the iconics. Granted they need a few "action" posing rather than posing for portraits.

 

[Akrasia]

And you're calling modern D&D art "cartoonish"? Hmm..... contradiction going on here?
...

Only a good one!

A little Otus would be great (I still love his covers for the early Basic and Expert sets)! But if ALL the art in DnD were done by Otus (or bad imitators), then we would have a problem.

The precise problem we have with the current art in the DnD books, viz. a lack of variety.

Which brings us back to the iconics, and how they are connected to the current style of art in DnD books -- namely, the attempt by WotC to create a very definite "look" and "style" for 3.x DnD. (Thanks to Dark Jester for bringing this point up earlier.)

I suppose that there must be some annoying marketing/branding reason for this, but what it fails to consider is the simple fact that MANY people will not like the look/style in question. At least with a variety of styles (and either no iconics, or a more interesting range of them) the books would not constantly offend the aesthetic sensibilities of a significant number of players. Heck, I could barely flip through the new *Races of Stone* the other day because some of the art was so bad. (Of course yet another books of feats, prestige classes, sub-races, etc. is about as appealing to me right now as chewing on some broken glass. But that is beside the point.)

Monte Cook, or someone 'of his sort', mentioned that there were plans (or proto-plans) to print different versions of the core books in subsequent years. The content would be the same, but each version would have a different "art-style". That would have been interesting. A pity WotC didn't try it.

In any case, the iconics really must be killed.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Unfortunately, the characters in the D&D books don't look like ANYTHING out of fantasy literature! It would be nice if they did ...

Note that I never said fantasy literature in my post. When I said fantasy, I meant things from a time and a place that exists only in imagination. You obviously want the characters to look like they're something out of medival fantasy, but that's not the only style of fantasy there is.

And I have no idea what you're getting at with the "Monty Python" quip.

As Hong mentioned, the characters from Monty Python & The Holy Grail looks like something out of a traditional medieval movie. Their armor and weapons are actually quite realistic looking.

But some variety for people whose vision of fantasy is more Tolkienesque (or Vancian, or Leiber-esque, or ... well, pretty much anything found in fantasy literature other than WotC novels) would be nice.

Getting out of the shadow of Tolkienmania is one of the best things that ever happened to D&D.

 

[Henry]

Anyone own them?(D&D action figures?)

When I was a kid I owned Northlord, Kelek, Strongheart, Warduke, The Ogre King, and the Titan. Never could find any of the other figures, though.

I played with those things until every accessory was lost. In the end, it got left at my father's house when he passed away, and the siblings took it over.

It was either that or my old D&D manuals. - In hindsight I should have taken the toys - they would have made me more money.

 

[Akrasia]

... Getting out of the shadow of Tolkienmania is one of the best things that ever happened to D&D.

Whatever. :\ At least they could have chosen something decent.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

What a bunch of losers!

I'm pretty sure that people who worry too much about the iconics fall into that category.
Seriously, why are some people so hung up on the iconics? Don't they have their own characters to play?
The iconic characters don't even appear in the majority of the 3E artwork...

Unfortunately, the characters in the D&D books don't look like ANYTHING out of fantasy literature! It would be nice if they did ...

I didn't realize so many fantasy books were illustrated...

You DO realize that you're hardly ever going to have a situation where two people are going to agree on what a character from a book looks like, don't you?
You state at one point that it would be nice if characters looked more medieval, then you say more like fantasy literature? Which is it, because I can assure you that these are two different things?

The current art fails utterly to recognize that DnD's not just cartoonish people with absurd spikey armour and unrealistic clothing.

The old art failed spectacularly on so many levels to do so many things, I don't see where this is even relevant.
Before 3E, all wizards got to wear a robe and then choose between pointy hat or metal skullcap. That's so awesome, let's go back to that!

The bottom line here is that the D&D art apparently doesn't fit your exact image of what it should look like and you wish it did. Good luck. There some other people in the world too.

 

[Akrasia]

I'm pretty sure that people who worry too much about the iconics fall into that category. ?

Hey, I don't worry about them. I just don't like 'em! (Nice try at wit btw.)

http://www.cannet.com/~warlocke/temp/rolleyes.gif[/IMG]
You DO realize that you're hardly ever going to have a situation where two people are going to agree on what a character from a book looks like, don't you?

Really? That's interesting. I always thought that fantasy novels included descriptions of their characters. Hey -- maybe that's why all those pictures of Conan, Frodo, the Grey Mouser, and so forth, look so similar!

 

[Darth K'Trava]

I'm pretty sure that people who worry too much about the iconics fall into that category.
Seriously, why are some people so hung up on the iconics? Don't they have their own characters to play?
The iconic characters don't even appear in the majority of the 3E artwo.

Just because I happen to like them?? Sheesh.... They're cool and serve their purpose beyond getting newbies into the game. They are used to reference a certain class in the rulebook examples and such.

Just 'cause we're so "hung up on the iconics"? Somebody needs to chill out a bit. They're just ficticious. Like Drizzt. And those guys from the earlier editions. I haven't seen anyone get po'ed over them. Just the newer iconics are the target of enmity. Why? Just because they look more modernistic looking than their earlier counterparts? Or is it because one thinks that they could see these guys strolling the Mall of America on a Friday night? Is that really it? If so, whatever.....

BTW: I have my own characters so I haven't had to play one. Although I was tempted to play Jozan for a brief bit just for the sheer hell of it to see if anyone would pick up on that.....

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Hey, I don't worry about them. I just don't like 'em! (Nice try at wit btw.)



Really? That's interesting. I always thought that fantasy novels included descriptions of their characters. Hey -- maybe that's why all those pictures of Conan, Frodo, the Grey Mouser, and so forth, look so similar!

Just because the D&D iconic novels didn't include character descriptions? They banked on us knowing what each one looked like. I'd love for them to re-pick up the book line to include the newer guys (Gimble) and see what kind of characters they are. From reading those, it made me like them even more, especially Regdar, Jozan and Alhandra. (the most fleshed out of the bunch.). Even a liking for Devis and Mialee, the lesser-liked iconics.