Weapon Illustrations in RPG Books

[Tetsubo]

It's a good point, but in my opinion suspension of disbelief isn't framed on the big elements, it's framed on the small ones; in particular, the more you know about a subject, the more it grates on you. I can take a story about a flying man who can leap tall buildings with a single bound, but if the American 21st century cops in the story are using German Broomhandle Mausers instead of modern weapons, it's going to grate on many people's nerves.

EXACTLY!

Though Broomhandles Mausers are ubercool...

 

[Ed_Laprade]

It's a good point, but in my opinion suspension of disbelief isn't framed on the big elements, it's framed on the small ones; in particular, the more you know about a subject, the more it grates on you. I can take a story about a flying man who can leap tall buildings with a single bound, but if the American 21st century cops in the story are using German Broomhandle Mausers instead of modern weapons, it's going to grate on many people's nerves.

Absolutely! Wish I had said this. (But, as Tetsubo pointed out, broomhandle Mausers are ubercool! )

 

[Prince of Happiness]

They might not even have the same goals that you do. They might even have different art direction than what you would want them to./M

They're also likely taking direction from an art director. So even if they wanted to be more realistic with weapons, they're likely asked to "spice it up" a little bit?

 

[Soel]

Good thread to put over an excellent book by 3 AM Games, Collection of Fantastic Weapons, chock full of weapons (every one is illustrated, and mostly in a historically accurate way,) with their own backstories. Good stuff.

 

[Aaron L]

There are those who don't care about historical reference.

This is, of course, completely balanced by the fact that there are those who do care about historical reference.


The fantastic elements in fantasy should be distinct from mere inaccuracies.

Have magic and monsters break the bonds of reality; keep the mundane details the same, or it becomes a muddied mess.


The illustration of the rapier especially irritates me. What the heck is that, anyway? Kind of shaped like an elongated butterknife, not really pointed at the tip, and with a friggin' curve on one edge? Has the illustrator ever seen what a rapier actually looks like?

The falchion also irritates me. If they wanted a 2 handed scimitar, then for goshsakes, make a weapon and all it a great scimitar. Don't co-opt the name from a completely real medieval weapon and paste it onto something that you made up.


I will say, however, that I was extremely pleased to see that they went through and revised the weight of several weapons for 3.5. No more 10+ pound greatswords! I just wish they would have taken a second to do the same with shields; there were never 15 pound, solid steel shields. Yikes!

...and that leads into the whole shield bash thing, where the one shield that, in reality, was most known for being used to bash and punch with (the buckler) being one of the only two types of shield that you can't bash with at all in the game!

I was also happy about how they handled the warhammer; they kept the historical weapon and called it it a light hammer, and gave everyone the fantasy version they've always envisioned from Thor and called it warhammer. My only wish there is they they would have kept the historical weapon's true name and called it a warhammer, and called the fantasy version something different, like a battlehammer or something.


I mean, c'mon, people; if you're going to bother writing about this stuff, do a little bit of research about your subject matter, especially in this day of the Internet, where it's so simple to get information with a quick Google search.

Or is that too much "worldbuilding" and make me a great, plodding nerd?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

It doesn't make you a great plodding nerd, Aaron, it just makes you someone who does care about historical reference - whereas I would venture to suggest that most people playing Third Edition D&D simply don't, so your preferences don't matter.

In the big picture, that is.

Take your example of the Player's Handbook falchion: it may not be a medieval falchion, but frankly if I compare pictures of real-world falchions to the other half-dozen straight blades pictured in the same grouping, I'm grateful for a bit of artistic license and variety there. It makes the damn thing stand out, whereas a realistic falchion would honestly be hard for your average D&D player to distinguish from the longsword:

It's just not a very exciting weapon, visually. Arguably, the D&D falchion is more attractive for a fantastic hero.

 

[Vigilance]

Not a fair comparison at all.

For instance, some artists depict flying dragons with wings that are too smll, and just stick out of their backs. Others, like Todd Lockwood, draw dragons that look like they actually existed, with an eye out to the wings muscles anchored to the body.

Yeah I can see this.

It's like in Star Trek, the way the Warp Nacelles look always bugged me to no end.

I mean, everyone knows a faster than light engine would look NOTHING like that.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Yeah I can see this.

It's like in Star Trek, the way the Warp Nacelles look always bugged me to no end.

I mean, everyone knows a faster than light engine would look NOTHING like that.

This is complete nonsense. We’ve all seen flying creatures (hint: birds, bats) we know how wings work. An artist who takes these physical facts into account is trying to present fantasy in an acceptably realistic way. This, in my view is a good thing.

Unless you know something I don’t, no-one has seen a working ftl drive, if it looks like a plate of haggis & neeps it’s realistic.

 

[Hussar]

This is complete nonsense. We’ve all seen flying creatures (hint: birds, bats) we know how wings work. An artist who takes these physical facts into account is trying to present fantasy in an acceptably realistic way. This, in my view is a good thing.

Unless you know something I don’t, no-one has seen a working ftl drive, if it looks like a plate of haggis & neeps it’s realistic.

But, of course, the problem is, nothing that big could possibly fly. Ever. It just can't. It doesn't matter what you make the wings look like. Why not make the creatures look fantastic (as in fantasy, not wonderful) and give them small wings? Or no wings at all? Why do dragons have to look like dinosaurs with wings?

As far as the great plodding nerd comment goes, well, if you are spending large amounts of time arguing whether a sword weighs 3 pounds or 4, perhaps the title fits. (Granted, my own nerdism comes out when talking about period sailing ships, but, it's a title I wear with pride).

whereas I would venture to suggest that most people playing Third Edition D&D simply don't, so your preferences don't matter.

Ok, I'm not going to let that one pass. No edition of the game has given the slightest toss about historical accuracy. Certainly not in the art. Come on, Erol Otus anyone?

 

[Vigilance]

This is complete nonsense. We’ve all seen flying creatures (hint: birds, bats) we know how wings work. An artist who takes these physical facts into account is trying to present fantasy in an acceptably realistic way. This, in my view is a good thing.

I have more of a chance of seeing a working FTL drive in my lifetime than I do a fire-breathing lizard the size of a mack truck flying through the air.

I like my example just fine thanks.

It's a fantasy game. If you can accept all the big impossible things that go along with that, you should be able to roll with weapons that don't look like ones we could make in our world.

Maybe a drop of mithral in the steel allows spiked plate that wouldn't be realistic in our world.

Maybe the fact that a rogue has preternatural agility to survive the raging inferno of a fireball unscathed also allows him to wield a weapon with a smaller handle than a warrior from our world.

It's a fantasy game. Deal.