D&D 5E Toward a new D&D aesthetics

[Umbran]

I did post an example. Post #27.

One point doesn't establish a trend.

You posted one example, from the most recent books. But, a couple of books within the past 12 months look like this:

Spoiler: Monsters of the Multiverse

Spoiler: Fizban's Treasury of Dragons

Neither of which strikes me as particularly "Disney". So, at the moment, that one example looks like one recent example, not a series that indicate a particular intentional direction.

 

[Scribe]

However, the medium has definitely changed. I can't imagine there's much oil painting going on anymore!

Thats certainly part of it.

Here's an example using as basic a subject matter as possible, a Forest. Both are forests, but only the first one feels to me like what I can step out my door, walk a block, and enter. There is nothing wrong with the second one, but I prefer the first (and in fact still have those in a deck I keep.)

 

[beancounter]

One point doesn't establish a trend.

You posted one example, from the most recent books. But, a couple of books within the past 12 months look like this:

Spoiler: Monsters of the Multiverse

View attachment 154108

Spoiler: Fizban's Treasury of Dragons

View attachment 154109

Neither of which strikes me as particularly "Disney". So, at the moment, that one example looks like one recent example, not a series that indicate a particular intentional direction.

OK, you were all right. I was wrong.

But just curious. How many pictures would have been sufficient to demonstrate a trend?...

 

[Yaarel]

Thats certainly part of it.

Here's an example using as basic a subject matter as possible, a Forest. Both are forests, but only the first one feels to me like what I can step out my door, walk a block, and enter. There is nothing wrong with the second one, but I prefer the first (and in fact still have those in a deck I keep.)

Really?

Of the two images, I would say the first one is more clearly a drawing. It has the feel of a colored pencil drawing.

That one seems less realistic to me.

Unless it is the subject mater that you are talking about rather thsn the style?

 

[Undrave]

OK, you were all right. I was wrong.

But just curious. How many pictures would have been sufficient to demonstrate a trend?...

Bring up more exemples to explain your point, it's not hard.

 

[Scribe]

Really?

Of the two images, I would say the first one is more clearly a drawing. It has the feel of a colored pencil drawing.

That one seems less realistic to me.

Unless it is the subject mater that you are talking about rather thsn the style?

There is a feel evoked here though, at least for me. Both are clearly drawings, I'm not looking for photorealism, if I was I would look out my window at the overgrown trail a block away.

I can smell the forest in the first one though. The 2nd one, is just a picture.

 

[beancounter]

Bring up more exemples to explain your point, it's not hard.

I asked a legitimate question. I've been on forums where no matter how many examples you provide, it's never enough, or not good enough.

 

[Yaarel]

OK, you were all right. I was wrong.

But just curious. How many pictures would have been sufficient to demonstrate a trend?...

Seriously, you would have to demonstrate the percentages of the styles, year after year, decade after decade. Then show these percentages are trending.

The fact that it is so easy to find similar styles from 40 years ago onward suggests it is a fruitless claim to assert that a "trend" is happening.

The 1e core books are a mix of serious and cartoony, cute and scary, posed and activity, heroic and everyfolk, and so on.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Have you ever seen Lilo and Stich? It's the first thing I thought of when I saw this. The big eyes, the non threatening expression, etc.


View attachment 154064

It that image is visually similar to Lilo and Stitch, to you, then I really don't think you've a strong grasp on how to articulate what is similar about any given two things, because there is literally no meaningful similarity, beyond stuff like "has humans and non-human but probably sentient creatures" and "some of the colors are bright", in which case....no, this is not at all a new thing, or a trend toward something new, in absolutely any way.

It's not just that disneyfied is the wrong terminology. The entire concept you're pushing is complete nonsense from the ground up. There is art just as bright, just as light hearted, and just as innocuous in content, in every edition of dnd for which there was an actual art department. At least.

Ok, I'm sorry if using Disney bothers you. I think the softer tone of the modern illustrations vs older illustrations is pretty apparent.

No, it isn't. You seem to think there is some obvious thing other people are not recognizing. This is not the case. The supposed trend in question literally does not exist.

 

[Yaarel]

There is a feel evoked here though, at least for me. Both are clearly drawings, I'm not looking for photorealism, if I was I would look out my window at the overgrown trail a block away.

I can smell the forest in the first one though. The 2nd one, is just a picture.

Ok. Maybe you are describing the "mood" of each forest image? Between the two works, the difference is mainly the color palette, with the first one using the dingy colors and shadowing to convey a mood.