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

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Dude, if a bunch of people are having this issue in discussions with you, there's one common denominator...

I understand your opinion. I'm going to let this go now.

 

[Redthistle]

As I mentioned in an other thread, I don't care for the changes. One person compared them to my little pony. I wouldn't go that far. I would say that the illustrations are being Disneyfied.

I understand why though. They want to make the game more appealing to a wider audience including kids

But why not just make the illustrations "softer" instead of crossing the line into Disney?

It isn't just the illustrations - the choice of race (species, really) has expanded to include anthropomorphized rabbits and turtles. How about a game of Alice in Wonderland? Anyone?

But again, obviously they were added to appeal to a younger audience.

Back in the '80s, I seem to recall an Alice in Wonderland-like adventure having been published. I'll see if I can find a reference.

Found a link with info:
From that discussion:

Dungeonland (EX1) is an adventure module for the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) roleplaying game, written by Gary Gygax for use with the First Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) rules. It is an adaptation of Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, with the various characters from the book translated into AD&D terms.

The EX module code stands for extension, as the adventure is designed to be inserted as an independent addition to another, ongoing scenario. In Gygax's own campaign, an early version of Dungeonland was an extension of Castle Greyhawk. In this module, the player characters (PCs) are plummeted into what [White Dwarf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Dwarf_(magazine)) reviewer Jim Bambra referred to as "a strange partial plane".

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Back in the '80s, I seem to recall an Alice in Wonderland-like adventure having been published. I'll see if I can find a reference.

Found a link with info:

Back in the '80s, I seem to recall an Alice in Wonderland-like adventure having been

Back in the '80s, I seem to recall an Alice in Wonderland-like adventure having been published. I'll see if I can find a reference.

Found a link with info:
From that discussion:

I own both of those modules! They're super weird and pretty much unplayable, but fun to read.

 

[Faolyn]

I'd never heard of Doug Kovacs. Just checked out some of his work. Interesting style! I like that each of his works is filled with tiny details... the more you look, the more jumps out at you.

I think he could be a good artist for Planescape. His art isn't like DiTerlizzi's, but seems to fit that same style.

 

[Scott Christian]

I remember when the concept art for D&D Next came out. There was quite a stir. People had grown use to 4e's aesthetics (which was magic-magic everywhere), and didn't like what they called the Disneyfication of D&D. There was a halfling picture I think people really disliked. I do not know if this was the one, but it was something like this:

Overall, I think WotC is trying to play the line they always play - a little bit of this and a little bit of that. And when voices (or sales) get affected, they lean one way or the other.

 

[Guest 7034872]

View attachment 154357To me, the shift in D&D art over just the past 5 years has changed pretty dramatically. Surprised they're so many here that don't think so...

What I write here is exclusively a reaction to the posted image: I don't know if it extends to 5e art overall. I suspect at least points (1) and (3) do, but I haven't actually done a study on it, so who knows?

1. Consistently over-saturated colors. Not just bright: over-saturated. I do home theater as another hobby and calibrate my own screens and audio. No way on planet Earth would I accept a post-calibration image that looked like the one above. That whole thing looks like everyone in it went to a drug-tripped Neon Superhappy Funtown. We had stuff like this in 1e and 2e, but not so persistently.
2. Only the male characters wear revealing clothing here.
3. (The big one to my mind) About half of them are grinning or smirking. When did a smirk become endearing??? It isn't. And those that aren't grinning hold facial expressions of extreme self-confidence. No one in this image looks nervous or afraid in the least. Everyone seems fully assured of their own overflowing competence.
4. I've seen psychedelic mushrooms before, but never quite that large (though in that old Alice in Wonderland module they seemed huge if only because the PCs were shrunk down so much).
5. It's only showing heroes: no villains appear here, and certainly none take center stage and, oh...actually defeat the heroes. This is something I've noticed a lot. Not universally, but a lot (the cover of the 5e PHB has a gorgeous villain on it, for instance, so of course this point isn't universal).
6. Where's all the heavy armor?? Seriously. I see one character that has what could be called heavy armor (but not really); all the others have none or light armor only.

Overall, I'd say 5e art has bought into the contemporary Cult of Omnicompetence: everyone is always great at whatever they do and ultimately decent-hearted. Where are the screw-ups who manage still to be good at something the party needs? Where are the scoundrels that don't secretly have a heart of gold? And why is everyone so insufferably self-assured? This is one of the points Stefano Rinaldelli made just before opening this thread, and yes, he did get unfairly dogpiled for it, as did beancounter. I don't think they deserved such treatment for the sin of questioning a prevailing orthodoxy. People who relish cultural critiques shouldn't be so fragile when the tables turn and their favored sub-culture starts to receive one: it's a simple matter of the goose and the gander.

With all that said, though, it's still the case that the new art doesn't really bother me; it merely isn't the art I would use, and that's hardly a big deal.


Edited for a typo.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I remember when the concept art for D&D Next came out. There was quite a stir. People had grown use to 4e's aesthetics (which was magic-magic everywhere), and didn't like what they called the Disneyfication of D&D. There was a halfling picture I think people really disliked. I do not know if this was the one, but it was something like this:
View attachment 154371
Overall, I think WotC is trying to play the line they always play - a little bit of this and a little bit of that. And when voices (or sales) get affected, they lean one way or the other.

You can say a lot about those big headed halflings, but it works. They just look very short and stout...

 

[billd91]

Where are the screw-ups who manage still to be good at something the party needs? Where are the scoundrels that don't secretly have a heart of gold?

They're on Legends of Vox Machina.

 

[Mind of tempest]

What I write here is exclusively a reaction to the posted image: I don't know if it extends to 5e art overall. I suspect at least points (1) and (3) do, but I haven't actually done a study on it, so who knows?

1. Consistently over-saturated colors. Not just bright: over-saturated. I do home theater as another hobby and calibrate my own screens and audio. No way on planet Earth would I accept a post-calibration image that looked like the one above. That whole thing looks like everyone in it went to a drug-tripped Neon Superhappy Funtown. We had stuff like this in 1e and 2e, but not so persistently.
2. Only the male characters wear revealing clothing here.
3. (The big one to my mind) About half on them are grinning or smirking. When did a smirk become endearing??? It isn't. And those that aren't grinning hold facial expressions of extreme self-confidence. No one in this image looks nervous or afraid in the least. Everyone seems fully assured of their own overflowing competence.
4. I've seen psychedelic mushrooms before, but never quite that large (though in that old Alice in Wonderland module they seemed huge if only because the PCs were shrunk down so much).
5. It's only showing heroes: no villains appear here, and certainly none take center stage and, oh...actually defeat the heroes. This is something I've noticed a lot. Not universally, but a lot (the cover of the 5e PHB has a gorgeous villain on it, for instance, so of course this point isn't universal).
6. Where's all the heavy armor?? Seriously. I see one character that has what could be called heavy armor (but not really); all the others have none or light armor only.

Overall, I'd say 5e art has bought into the contemporary Cult of Omnicompetence: everyone is always great at whatever they do and ultimately decent-hearted. Where are the screw-ups who manage still to be good at something the party needs? Where are the scoundrels that don't secretly have a heart of gold? And why is everyone so insufferably self-assured? This is one of the points Stefano Rinaldelli made just before opening this thread, and yes, he did get unfairly dogpiled for it, as did beancounter. I don't think they deserved such treatment for the sin of questioning a prevailing orthodoxy. People who relish cultural critiques shouldn't be so fragile when the tables turn and their favored sub-culture starts to receive one: it's a simple matter of the goose and the gander.

With all that said, though, it's still the case that the new art doesn't really bother me; it merely isn't the art I would use, and that's hardly a big deal.

why would you see villain in a class depiction art, those are all for character inspiration villain are dm art.

 

[Guest 7034872]

why would you see villain in a class depiction art, those are all for character inspiration villain are dm art.

Okay, that's fine. I didn't know where the art was taken from, so my response to it was purely off-the-cuff.