Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1733729" data-attributes="member: 23012">Only a good one!A little Otus would be great (I still love his covers for the early Basic and Expert sets)!&nbsp; 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 &quot;look&quot; and &quot;style&quot; for 3.x DnD.&nbsp; (Thanks to Dark Jester for bringing this point up earlier.)&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Heck, I could barely flip through the new *Races of Stone* the other day because some of the art was so bad.&nbsp; (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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The content would be the same, but each version would have a different &quot;art-style&quot;.&nbsp; That would have been interesting.&nbsp; A pity WotC didn't try it.In any case, the iconics really must be killed.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Akrasia, post: 1733729, member: 23012"] 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. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification