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

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Earlier…



So:



Furthermore:



This is absurd. People requesting clarification, such as me, did so in order to not make an assumption about the intent of the term. I did not want to assume it was being used pejoratively, even though context clues suggest it probably was. It's best to be charitable, however, so instead of making that assumption, ask for clarification instead. The request for clarification was therefore to give beancounter the benefit of the doubt. And to those people who were trying not to assume that it was intended as an inflammatory pejorative (as you now say it explicitly is), you claim that they were treating beancounter unfairly, when in fact they're the ones attempting to not make assumptions. Bananas.

Wow. This is a super disjointed post. You are clearly upset and I'm sorry that I have contributed to that. I am not your enemy and I will respond to you in kind.

I see what you are saying. I am going to remind you that you are not being personally attacked. You feel that your intent was that you were giving the benefit of the doubt as to the intent of beancounter. That's fine. I'm not going to crawl through the thread to assign personal blame to anyone.

What I'm saying to you, as I said to a previous respondent, is that you may have been carrying previous baggage into this argument. Is that possible? I'm asking a genuine question, no repercussions.

My opinion is this: regardless of what you felt at the time, beancounter was not implying the thoughts you assumed he was. Your personal history with this topic might want it to be so, but that does not make it a fact.

In any case, try looking at it this way. If you were beancounter, and you made a statement, then a number of people came at you with comments whose baggage you were not aware of, and that implied you were a horrible person, how would you respond?

 

[Jahydin]

For me, the latest C&C Player's Handbook is a great example of "Classic" D&D art.

 

[Mind of tempest]

View attachment 154358
For me, the latest C&C Player's Handbook is a great example of "Classic" D&D art.

I am not seeing a large supply of difference from 5e art there?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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...

"Surprised they're so many here that don't think so..." Can you just be clear as to what you mean? Why be oblique like this?

 

[Yaarel]

To 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...

D&D 1e used bright colors too for images. Bare chested men, too. Halflings, too. Drow player characters, too. 2e has tieflings.

I dont see qualitative differences from the AD&D images.

You must put in words what you think is different.


You mention the change in "the past 5 years", but that is nothing compared to the last 30-odd years, where in the big picture there is no change except better technological access to color images. Yet even the last 5 years, it is too easy to show diverse images that contradict a change.

 

[Fifth Element]

My opinion is this: regardless of what you felt at the time, beancounter was not implying the thoughts you assumed he was. Your personal history with this topic might want it to be so, but that does not make it a fact.

Please read it again. The point of asking for clarification was to not assume their intent. I did not assume it was a pejorative. You have argued that it is necessarily pejorative, that there is no nuance to it, that it's inflammatory, and that everyone should know that it's always a pejorative. I tend to disagree that you should consider terms to be non-nuanced in these discussions (with certain exceptions, of course), and that it's better to give someone the benefit of the doubt and attempt to clarify things instead of making assumptions about what they meant by a term.

It's such a bananas defence: "Look, you should have known it's a pejorative term, you're being deliberately obtuse if you claim you didn't. But you also shouldn't assume that it was being used as a pejorative. But if you ask for clarification you're being disingenuous." This is what I would call disjointed.

 

[Fifth Element]

For me, the latest C&C Player's Handbook is a great example of "Classic" D&D art.

To me, it's obvious that this is recent work. The subject matter is one often addressed in older D&D art, but the style screams modern to me.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Please read it again. The point of asking for clarification was to not assume their intent. I did not assume it was a pejorative. You have argued that it is necessarily pejorative, that there is no nuance to it, that it's inflammatory, and that everyone should know that it's always a pejorative. I tend to disagree that you should consider terms to be non-nuanced in these discussions (with certain exceptions, of course), and that it's better to give someone the benefit of the doubt and attempt to clarify things instead of making assumptions about what they meant by a term.

It's such a bananas defence: "Look, you should have known it's a pejorative term, you're being deliberately obtuse if you claim you didn't. But you also shouldn't assume that it was being used as a pejorative. But if you ask for clarification you're being disingenuous." This is what I would call disjointed.

To me, something that is common sense to 99% of the populace is the route to follow. If you want to embrace your own path, that's fine. Just understand that your ideology is not going to be embraced by many.

Your opinion is an outlier. I will never ignore the opinion of an outlier though. History changes on the opinions of outliers. Hello, Galileo! But even if they are occasionally correct, they are generally wrong. Consider that in your calculus.

 

[Yaarel]

you may have been carrying previous baggage into this argument. Is that possible?

Speaking for myself.

I had no baggage. My encounter with "grognards" was accusing 4e of being videogamey.

But when I saw the term "Disneyfy" out of context in that post, it came across as an insult.

But I took the misuse of the term more to mean it was not D&D.

Therefore when many D&D images from 1e books came to mind that were the same and similar, the insult made no sense. It came across as an ill-thought-out insult.



Compare my similar discussion with @Scribe. He kinda sorta made similar complaints. I asked him similar questions with similar objections to try narrow down what exactly was bothering him about the images. I am still not completely clear, but my impression is, for fantasy themes he prefers images that are "moody" with atmospheric haze and shadowing, plays of light, and a serious theme. That is totally fair for an esthetic preference. Heh, I think he also hates juxtaposing the colors grass green and sky blue, perhaps because there is no haze. And there is something about disliking the rosy color of dawn, that is less clear to me.

The point is, these kinds attempts to clarify can be useful.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Please read it again. The point of asking for clarification was to not assume their intent. I did not assume it was a pejorative. You have argued that it is necessarily pejorative, that there is no nuance to it, that it's inflammatory, and that everyone should know that it's always a pejorative. I tend to disagree that you should consider terms to be non-nuanced in these discussions (with certain exceptions, of course), and that it's better to give someone the benefit of the doubt and attempt to clarify things instead of making assumptions about what they meant by a term.

It's such a bananas defence: "Look, you should have known it's a pejorative term, you're being deliberately obtuse if you claim you didn't. But you also shouldn't assume that it was being used as a pejorative. But if you ask for clarification you're being disingenuous." This is what I would call disjointed.

Speaking for myself.

I had no baggage. My encounter with "grognards" was accusing 4e of being videogamey.

But when I saw the term "Disneyfy" out of context in that post, it came across as an insult.

But I took the misuse of the term more to mean it was not D&D.

Therefore when many D&D images from 1e books came to mind that were the same and similar, the insult made no sense. It came across as an ill-thought-out insult.



Compare my similar discussion with @Scribe. He kinda sorta made similar complaints. I asked him similar questions with similar objections to try narrow down what exactly was bothering him about the images. I am still not completely clear, but my impression is, for fantasy themes he prefers images that are "moody" with atmospheric haze and shadowing, plays of light, and a serious theme. That is totally fair for an esthetic preference. Heh, I think he also hates juxtaposing the colors grass green and sky blue, perhaps because there is no haze. And there is something about disliking the rosy color of dawn, that is less clear to me.

The point is, these kinds attempts to clarify can be useful.

Thank you. Now we are having discussions.