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

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't think anything you've said here is wrong, but I think 2e fell into that same trap of generic fantasy. I remember Elmore's works generally looking like the front cover of every fantasy novel published at the time. It was, perhaps as a victim of his own success, the generic image of fantasy that I recall from Dragonlance on. I think that's why they went with Brom and DiTerlizzi: to change things up with new looks. They specifically went with a single artist for a whole setting. Planescape and Dark Sun have consistent art direction because they had a single artist. However, TSR books in these settings also have a lot of pages that are just two columns of text.

I don't think you're entirely wrong re: Elmore, and there was a very certain '80s "generic fantasy" style, but it didn't last (maybe a decade?), and it was never quite as widespread as the current "modern fantasy generic" style.

Re: Planescape and Dark Sun having "a single artist", that's completely untrue and I'm surprised you said that. Dark Sun had several artists. Brom was just the best. Baxa, who I didn't like at all at the time, also a very distinctive style and one that worked well for Dark Sun. The 2nd Dark Sun boxed set was notable for using neither of them and looking anemic and un-Dark-Sun-like as a result (I'm pretty sure neither - definitely no Brom). Planescape also had several artists but it's unquestionable that it had a huge amount of extremely high-quality and utterly setting-determining art from DiTerlizzi.

There's absolutely no reason on earth WotC couldn't do the same. Especially in the current era where they potentially have mega-budget because they're raking in cash for Hasbro. MtG is still, right now, getting the pick of the artists, getting more talented artists, and getting more original artists. There are artist out there working on MtG cards (and occasionally even alternative covers for D&D stuff) who are as talented and as distinctive as DiTerlizzi was at the time. But are they getting paid to do D&D work apart from the odd alternative cover? HELL NO. Why? I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL!!!! Argh!

As for two columns of text, so? I don't see your point. I think maybe you're accidentally illustrating one of the follies of WotC, which is that "generic boring-as-hell art is better than no art", and it's like, is it? I don't think so myself.

The whole thing is mystifying to me.

D&D can afford the best artists. But MtG gets them, and D&D doesn't. I'm sorry to say this because like, the art does take skill, but has been left with some very generic and slightly "meh" artists, ones who don't seem to have a lot of vision or distinctiveness, and who are very far from talentless or bad, but also just... bland. And I don't think this blandness, ultimately, is helpful to D&D or WotC. I think it's very much a "succeed despite" rather than a "succeed because of".

I want to see art that makes me react in D&D books. I'd rather a piece that was so specific it the style made me go "Ugh!" than the current bland zero-reaction stuff.

But most of these artists don't have the slightest hint of a personal style. Their artwork remains completely interchangeable. It's utterly nondescript, and none of them dare to stand out.

That's the truly bizarre bit about it. And it's not like there aren't highly distinctive artists working in fantasy right now - there are tons - and WotC is hiring them! But not for D&D! Just for MtG. For D&D, they will only reuse MtG material, or hire artists who don't have much of a personal style. At least WAR back in 3.XE had a personal style. It wasn't super-strong but it existed. The 5E art though? I feel like I could physically hurt my old art teachers by showing them enough of it, and pointing out it was by different artists - but you can barely even tell.

I don't know how much of it is just they don't have a personal style, how much is they don't dare to have one, and how much is by being utterly generic, they get more work. It's so odd.

Also re: Disneyfied, I have to say, I don't particular see that. I actually think that would be an improvement over mega-generic. Disney has like, an attitude, a vibe, I'm not super-into-it, but I can get it, I can see how it works. And it's not what these generic artists are doing. The only real point of similarity to Disney is the mode of dress crosses over a fair between this and Disney's more fantasy-esque stuff (like Tangled).

 

[Faolyn]

People were talking about bright colors?

Or silly?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The question is, is the murder soft, or is the boy soft? Or is it both?

Well, that’s gonna vary from example to example.

 

[Hussar]

There is another point to remember here in all of this.

Availability.

Back in the dark ages of the 80's, the only fantasy art I generally saw was either comic books, D&D Books or fantasy novel covers. Other than the odd bit of art on the side of a van maybe. Oh, right, and calendars.

So, you could probably count on fingers and toes the number of fantasy artists the average gamer actually got to see back then.

Now? Good grief, it's a freaking mountain. There's just so much fantasy art. And, like anything else where you have this explosion of availability, people start forming smaller and smaller niches for their taste because they can. You can absolutely afford to be very, very choosy in your tastes because there is someone, somewhere that's making something that fits your claimed tastes to a T. Probably many someones.

Which makes these sort of art discussions really a problem. People's perception filters are so idiosyncratic that even though we're all speaking English, it's very likely that we aren't speaking the same language.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Innocence and “softness” aren’t required for wholesomeness and kindness, nor even for cuteness. Further who is the population surviving via predation?

Predators. I'm not referring to "good guys" vs. "bad guys" here: I'm keeping it really simple and just referring to ecosystems of pretty much any functioning sort. IRL, the world doesn't love us; a fantasy world that does is soft.

But regardless of that answer, how on earth does building a world wherein kindness and wholesomeness are commonplace trivialize anything?

They trivialize the reality of evil; they suggest a world in which sincere good intentions are enough (I mean, I wish they were, but they aren't); they implicitly trivialize human evil by suggesting people really are basically good. I don't think we are: I think we're basically mixed.

Anyway, none of this stuff emotionally riles me up all that much in one direction or the other. At the end of the day, I'm happy to have D&D's aesthetic tent be a large one so long as it really is large--inclusive of many different aesthetics and many different viewpoints.

The real reason I finally chose to post about this at all is that a lot folks on here seemed convinced they were not dogpiling on @Stefano Rinaldelli and @beancounter, so I decided to test that hypothesis with a more moderate but still aesthetically critical post and see what happened. From the energy and frequency of reactions I've seen just in recent hours, I think we've pretty well proven the hypothesis false, haven't we?


Edited because I'm a hopeless comma-counter.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, talking about the art, look at the difference between Marvel Movies and DC ones.

What's the single biggest complaint about the DCU movies - the color palette. They're too dark. What does everyone LIKE about the Marvel Movies? That they're bright and brash.

So, it really should come as a surprise to no one that WotC is going the way it is.

 

[J.Quondam]

The real reason I finally chose to post about this at all is that a lot folks on here seemed convinced they were not dogpiling on @Stefano Rinaldelli and @beancounter, so I decided to test that hypothesis with a more moderate but still aesthetically critical post and see what happened. From the energy and frequency of reactions I've seen just in recent hours, I think we've pretty well proven the hypothesis false, haven't we?

Well, no. Remember that number of people commenting regularly in this thread could probably fit around a large table, and the actively disagreeing posters number maybe a half-dozen. Though it may feel like it upon internet-chafed skins, there is no "dog-pile." This is not a twitter-mob of thousands, after all. It's more like someone flipped over a gravy-boat at a holiday dinner, and everyone got hot under the collar.
Perspective.

 

[Jahydin]

Saw some comments asking me to elaborate a bit more. I'll give it a a go, but in the end, this is, of course, just a personal opinion. Sorry I'm not very forum savvy, so not sure how to tag them...

Part of the appeal of 5E for many of us that have been playing for a long time was the about-face made in the art direction from 4E's.

From an interview from the escapist, Daniel Gelon, Senior Art Director, and Shauna Wolf Narciso, Creative Director:

"In Fourth edition there were three tiers of characters–heroic, paragon and epic. Visually we wanted them to be distinct, using bright colors and elaborate costuming to help differentiate. This time around we wanted adventurers to look like real travelers seeking fortunes, a little ragged and road weary.

During R&D’s playtests of the new edition, the art team took the opportunity to ask our fans exactly what they envisioned as the essence of Dungeons and Dragons art. It came down to immersion; an illustration had to tell a grand story and had to be relatable to the viewer. A player needed to be able to place himself into what we were showing them and WANT to be there and experience it. The art needed enough mundane elements for a player to feel grounded, yet enough of the fantastical to make it enticing.

As for style, our first priority was to have artists working in traditional media with a classical, realistic, and narrative style or digital artists whose work still had that “handcrafted” quality to it."

I think pictures like this really show what they were going for:
View attachment DND_Art1.webp

Personally though, I feel in recent years they've pretty much abandoned this direction. The vibe I get is more of:
View attachment dnd-strixhaven-curriculum-of-chaos-character-creation-new-students.webp

And like the art directors said:

"A player needed to be able to place himself into what we were showing them and WANT to be there and experience it. The art needed enough mundane elements for a player to feel grounded, yet enough of the fantastical to make it enticing."

And for me, the art just doesn't do that for me like it used to. In fact, it is so different, I haven't purchased a single book in the past 5 years.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Well, no. Remember that number of people commenting regularly in this thread could probably fit around a large table, and the actively disagreeing posters number maybe a half-dozen.

I don't doubt that. Does the word "dogpile" implicitly mean it involved a very large number of people?? If so, then I misused it. I've always used it to refer to a kind of mob mentality, but those easily can happen in small groups.

Though it may feel like it upon internet-chafed skins, there is no "dog-pile." This is not a twitter-mob of thousands, after all. It's more like someone flipped over a gravy-boat at a holiday dinner, and everyone got hot under the collar.

Mm. If that's your chosen analogy, then I'd say it wasn't like someone flipped over a gravy boat. All he did was say he disliked cranberry sauce, and then some people started calling him names either explicitly or by innuendo.

Perspective.

I always try to.

I think pictures like this really show what they were going for:
View attachment 154406

Personally though, I feel in recent years they've pretty much abandoned this direction. The vibe I get is more of:
View attachment 154408

And like the art directors said:

And for me, the art just doesn't do that for me like it used to. In fact, it is so different, I haven't purchased a single book in the past 5 years.

I think I see your point now, and I think there's something to it. Strixhaven, if I remember this correctly, was intended for a younger audience, of course, so its more fanciful elements fit that intended mold much like the early Harry Potter books did. But there does seem to be that trend in the art overall, yes.

I've said five or six times now, it doesn't upset me--it doesn't. But it also doesn't have me running for my checkbook.

 

[Hussar]

Saw some comments asking me to elaborate a bit more. I'll give it a a go, but in the end, this is, of course, just a personal opinion. Sorry I'm not very forum savvy, so not sure how to tag them...

Part of the appeal of 5E for many of us that have been playing for a long time was the about-face made in the art direction from 4E's.

From an interview from the escapist, Daniel Gelon, Senior Art Director, and Shauna Wolf Narciso, Creative Director:



I think pictures like this really show what they were going for:
View attachment 154406

Personally though, I feel in recent years they've pretty much abandoned this direction. The vibe I get is more of:
View attachment 154408

And like the art directors said:

And for me, the art just doesn't do that for me like it used to. In fact, it is so different, I haven't purchased a single book in the past 5 years.

To be fair though, those two images are illustrating two VERY different campaigns.

I mean, Strixhaven characters are supposed to be students at a magic school. So, yeah, it's a pretty different aesthetic from wandering heroes living rough.

The art does have to match the work after all.