• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Toward a new D&D aesthetics

What is your feeling about the changes in aesthetics of D&D illustrations?

  • I really enjoy those changes. The illustrations resemble well my ideal setting!

  • I'm ok with those changes, even if my ideal setting has a different aesthetics.

  • I'm uncertain about those changes

  • I'm not ok with those changes because it impairs my immersion in the game.

  • I hate those changes, I do not recognize D&D anymore

  • The art doesn't really matter to me either way. I don't buy/play the game for the art.

  • Change in aesthetics? Where? What?


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The poll is faulty for many reasons, ranging from options with faulty premises, options confused by combining more than one option, and options that were added late after the other option already received votes.

The results of the poll are flawed, even meaningless, and any analysis of it largely moot.
For sure is not made by a professional.
Can you suggest a better way to arrange statements?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You have no basis for that conclusion. Very few people ever play in their "ideal" setting, which is how you phrased the poll, because they are only one person at the table. Claiming that someone does not way to play in a world that is their ideal setting is untenable, because plenty of settings are "good enough" even if they're not ideal.

64% of the people who acknowledge a change either actively like the change or are fine with it.
Glass half empty, glass half full...? No.

The fact that those people actually plays into their ideal fantasy world or not it's completely out of topic and with no relevance to the discussion.

Those who say that are ok with the changes but it doesn't reflect their IDEAL FANTASY WORLD implicitly are saying that their IDEAL FANTASY WORLD don't have the current aesthetics.
 

For sure is not made by a professional.
Can you suggest a better way to arrange statements?
It would mean, starting from scratch in a new thread.

Heh, this thread turned out to be interesting regardless of the poll.

There are different ways to approach the questions. Probably the agenda should be to specify the various characteristics that players want for the images, and it is ok to choose more than one.
 

Those who say that are ok with the changes but it doesn't reflect their IDEAL FANTASY WORLD implicitly are saying that their IDEAL FANTASY WORLD don't have the current aesthetics.
Since it's right in the poll, I'd say it more explicit than implicit. But you miss the point: expecting D&D to represent your specific ideal aesthetic is unreasonable. It has never represented the ideal aesthetic for most players - it simply cannot, because there are so many players and we're have diverse tastes in aesthetics. If you find it upsetting that the game doesn't cater to your specific preferences, and only your preferences, well that's on you. If they did cater to your specific preferences, there would be another player out there with different aesthetic tastes than you but also an expectation they theirs should be the preferences catered to, and they'll be upset about the aesthetics instead of you.
 

I didn't say it was indicated by the books' texts:
I didn’t suggest that you did.
the point (with which I still only somewhat agree, mind you) was that it was encouraged by some of the artwork. That's all.
And my point, and the point of various others, is that this is a bold claim that requires some actual work to back up, because it’s easy to provide evidence against it.
 

Glass half empty, glass half full...? No.

The fact that those people actually plays into their ideal fantasy world or not it's completely out of topic and with no relevance to the discussion.

Those who say that are ok with the changes but it doesn't reflect their IDEAL FANTASY WORLD implicitly are saying that their IDEAL FANTASY WORLD don't have the current aesthetics.
Dude, the option literally says 'I'm okay with those changes'.

So choosing that option means they're okay with those changes.

I should know: I chose that option because I'm okay with those changes.
 

Can you suggest a better way to arrange statements?

I'm not sure it is worth rearranging them. The poll is not representative of any particular population anyway, no matter how you change the statements. It shouldn't be used as support for any positions.

Those who say that are ok with the changes but it doesn't reflect their IDEAL FANTASY WORLD implicitly are saying that their IDEAL FANTASY WORLD don't have the current aesthetics.

There are millions of gamers out there, if they have idea settings at all (a questionable assumption), they are all going to be different. The books cannot be reasonably expected to reflect the ideal of the majority, because the majority does not have a shared ideal! So, "doesn't reflect the ideal of the majority" it not a valid criticism of the art, nor a reason to change the art.
 

It would mean, starting from scratch in a new thread.

Heh, this thread turned out to be interesting regardless of the poll.

There are different ways to approach the questions. Probably the agenda should be to specify the various characteristics that players want for the images, and it is ok to choose more than one.
This poll wants to let people express regarding the existence of a change in aesthetics AND if the change is in line with their tastes in a more clear way that a debate into the forum. And don't want to represent the whole D&D gamers world, but the people of this forum.
Just in case you were in doubt of the intentions.
 

I've played in campaigns where both progress and victory were really easy, right? And they got boring fast.
But what has this to do with brighter colors and more blue than brown in the art, or with more characters in the art seeming to be people who enjoy adventuring or are generally happy people?
In my fantasy worlds, I want evil to be smart, savvy, and dangerous. Recent official art doesn't seem to focus much on danger
Really? The flying giant evil-red-crystal corrupted shark and the sand worm in the preview art doesn’t focus on danger? This is what people have been objecting to this whole thread.

Show it. The claims being made seem to us to be wholly unsupported by what is actually in the books. We don’t understand what in the art makes you see what you’re describing. That’s it.
 

Dude, the option literally says 'I'm okay with those changes'.

So choosing that option means they're okay with those changes.

I should know: I chose that option because I'm okay with those changes.
2 choices:
I'm ok and my ideal world is as depicted
I'm ok BUT my ideal world isn't as depicted

It doesn't seems to me so difficult to understand.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top