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

[Vaalingrade]

A lot of those garbs were derived from military uniforms. Everything is connected.

Militaries are possible without firearms and cannon, I dare say.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Yeah, but it's not Earth, so it's not an anachronism.

Unless the cravat and waistcoat were a direct defense against cannon fire

That'd have to be quite a cravat!

 

[Vaalingrade]

That'd have to be quite a cravat!

It's no good, sir! Every shot was lost in their fashionable neckwear!

 

[Guest 7034872]

 

[Bluebell]

2. I see the usage of that palette, in combination with an active push towards being 'safe' (no Bikini Chainmail, no brutal violence, no 'edgy'ness and instead pushing to be 'cute') as a way to be as broadly appealing as possible, not for any kind of artistic sake, but to literally be as corporately cynically 'cool', safe, and popular as possible, in a bluntly obvious desire to maximize profits.

This is where we differ, because I see that pink/purple/blue art mostly showing up in either alt art or on products that aren't necessarily meant to have universal appeal. I see that art as less generic because it's made to appeal to more particular audiences. I don't think you're the only person -- particularly the only adult male -- who isn't interested in buying pink and purple books, which is why you're not seeing it on core rulebooks.

That said, I don't disagree that a lot of DnD art is quite generic and overly safe (even though I'm pretty sure we disagree about what generic and safe look like). I would also love to see more distinct art styles distinguishing the different settings.

 

[Scribe]

This is where we differ, because I see that pink/purple/blue art mostly showing up in either alt art or on products that aren't necessarily meant to have universal appeal. I see that art as less generic because it's made to appeal to more particular audiences. I don't think you're the only person -- particularly the only adult male -- who isn't interested in buying pink and purple books, which is why you're not seeing it on core rulebooks.

That said, I don't disagree that a lot of DnD art is quite generic and overly safe (even though I'm pretty sure we disagree about what generic and safe look like). I would also love to see more distinct art styles distinguishing the different settings.

Its again not the issue of Pink/Purple in isolation. Heck, as I look over at my avatar I am seeing some pink/blue/purple going on, and its very clearly part of a genre of music that has gotten me through the last 2 years of utter tedium.

The problem (or shall I make it clear MY problem) is in using that palette:

1. To excess when its clearly identifiable across multiple other settings/genres/medias.
2: In multiple D&D products, instead of keeping it distinct.

Its more than Alternative Covers. You can find it in Witchlight, Strixhaven, and this latest book, and if I wanted to go look I bet its present in Tasha's, and possibly more besides, so its not just the palette which I find (again personally) incorrect to apply to Fantasy, but also that its used across any number of products as a generalization, WHILE ALSO, being central to the visual style of again wildly different properties.

I'm not sure how to articulate it better.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You should not expect forum members or the moderation team to be impartial, fair, or in good faith when it comes to these sorts of debates/discussions/etc. The only difference between a forum member and a moderator is that the latter can ban you.

Enworld is really just an enforced echo-chamber where any serious or spicy debate gets shut down pretty instantly. It is their prerogative, you should just be aware of your environment.

And I say this as someone who thinks you're completely wrong in this debate.

@beancounter I echo this sentiment. And I also think you are completely wrong in this debate. But I support your right to your opinion. I don't ignore any smaller point you might make just because I don't agree with your overall premise. And I extend you the courtesy of making the effort to understand why you might have this opinion, as little as I agree with it. The echo chamber/mob/tribal mentality... it's quite prevalent in this forum. I don't understand why human beings do this. Treat the opinions of others as you would want yours to be treated? Seems like a simple concept to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd say I'm fine with the changes. I think big change was 2E to 3E, and since then it's been more of a drift than any major changes in art style. 2E still had that old-school look, even quite late on, but also some artists taking risks and being, well expensive-looking artists like DiTerlizzi and Brom. Whereas 3E went for a more straightforward "illustration-y" style, which was definitely more modern, but was less artistically interesting.

My problem with the last twenty years of D&D art-wise has never really been the aesthetic in a broad sense. It's been that most of the art just hasn't been very good technically, nor original, nor even particularly evocative, and I know some people are going to be mad, and WAR defenders will be particularly mad to hear me say that. But may WAR should have been less boring? I dunno. He certainly set the tone for like 20 years of D&D.

That didn't change with 4E, and it hasn't changed with 5E, except where 5E has employed MtG art, which generally isn't like a cut above D&D art, it's like a Zorro Z above D&D art in terms of how evocative it is, how strong some of the pieces are, and so on.

Currently D&D is drifting into a particularly generic "modern fantasy" style that exists solely because there is so much fantasy now, and illustrators have sort of converged on this particular approach, which I've described before. I don't hate it, but it is boring. It's less irritating than some approaches for sure, and closer to the "imagined aesthetic" of most D&D sessions I've been involved in than some styles.

 

[Guest 7034872]

[...]

The problem (or shall I make it clear MY problem) is in using that palette:

1. To excess when its clearly identifiable across multiple other settings/genres/medias.
2: In multiple D&D products, instead of keeping it distinct.

Ultimately I agree with this, though it does not stick in my craw too much yet. What I would positively dislike is to see the darker elements go away altogether: that'd be a sorry loss, IMO.

As for what the actual change is, I too have trouble finding the words for it. There is something about the color intensity and color saturation of anime that's in more of the more recent art: I do think that's involved. There's also--what? Kind of a more "fanciful" approach to the fantasy elements, I guess. Less dark, less frightful, less foreboding, and more of a "Wee! Lookit me, Ma--I'm riding on a flying unicorn!" I well understand the appeal of such art (and concepts) to today's young customers and have no quarrel with its inclusion: I just don't want it at the exclusion of the art and concepts I love.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I'd say I'm fine with the changes. I think big change was 2E to 3E, and since then it's been more of a drift than any major changes in art style. 2E still had that old-school look, even quite late on, but also some artists taking risks and being, well expensive-looking artists like DiTerlizzi and Brom. Whereas 3E went for a more straightforward "illustration-y" style, which was definitely more modern, but was less artistically interesting.

My problem with the last twenty years of D&D art-wise has never really been the aesthetic in a broad sense. It's been that most of the art just hasn't been very good technically, nor original, nor even particularly evocative, and I know some people are going to be mad, and WAR defenders will be particularly mad to hear me say that. But may WAR should have been less boring? I dunno. He certainly set the tone for like 20 years of D&D.

That didn't change with 4E, and it hasn't changed with 5E, except where 5E has employed MtG art, which generally isn't like a cut above D&D art, it's like a Zorro Z above D&D art in terms of how evocative it is, how strong some of the pieces are, and so on.

Currently D&D is drifting into a particularly generic "modern fantasy" style that exists solely because there is so much fantasy now, and illustrators have sort of converged on this particular approach, which I've described before. I don't hate it, but it is boring. It's less irritating than some approaches for sure, and closer to the "imagined aesthetic" of most D&D sessions I've been involved in than some styles.

That's interesting. I don't want to put you on the spot, but can you give a couple of contrasting examples? Show me what generic modern fantasy looks like vs. old skool art. Show me something concrete from the good old days that doesn't exist today.