Weapon Illustrations in RPG Books

[Tetsubo]

I love a good illustration, especially of a cool weapon. As I sketch weapons as a hobby (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=190844) this shouldn't be a surprise. But I am constantly disappointed with the QUALITY of the weapon illustrations in RPG books. I know that they fall under the category of "equipment" but they do play a major role in the games. Would it kill game developers to make sure they look nice? Or at least accurate. Heck, I'd settle for realistic.

Most of the time it looks like the person doing the illustrations has heard of what weapons look like but never actually seen one. Weapon reference books are not hard to acquire. I own dozens of them. I don't expect illustrators to become weapon scholars. But having a few decent reference books around doesn't seem to be too much to ask. And it might stop people from introducing abominations like the Spiked Chain, Dire Flail or Mercurial Sword... *shudder*

Make them simple. Make them look like you could actually use them without harming yourself or your companions. Make them to scale (detail illustrations can be added). Illustrate every weapon listed in the book.

Or is this too much to ask?

 

[haakon1]

Osprey, not WOTC

The armor is even worse, at least in the 3e PHB. Banded armor doesn't look a thing like a real lorica segmenta, a full plate looks like a mech warrior instead of plate mail. And in the world are they thinking with chainmail? Is it really that hard to find an accurate illustration of a hauberk of chainmail?

I stick with Osprey for illustrations of medieval arms & armor.

 

[Nyaricus]

Or is this too much to ask?

Not at all; I too was disappointed with 3.5 art; they didn't even bother to update their weapon pictures, and there were enough variances in the content to need such a step forward.

Of course, I think it was pathetic that the only new PC pic in the PHB was a flipping gnome bard (...Jokes about things that people have no control over really aren't funny...Dinkeldog); but for the weapons and armour part, it'd be nice if there was a little bit of accuracy.

Really, I'd love to see a nice sketch like the few you've shared with on your thread. I, too, draw weapons for fun and should think about uploading them sometime

cheers,
--N

 

[WhatGravitas]

Yeah... good weapon illustrations would be plenty of goodness. The 3E art is... okayish - but to really good.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I think wtc had the idea that

"its fantasy so it doesn't need to be historically accurate"

I think they took this too far, and in some cases ditched the fundamental anatomy. People have anatomy, and so do weapons and armor. Even if its fantasy anatomy is still impotent. If your not going for historical likeness, the their should be a good dzn reason why. That decisioned should also be self evident in the work itself.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Yeah, some of the weapons are plain stupid. The big warhammer that should require a 30 STR to use? But the armor is usually even worse. Spiked armor? By the gods, don't these morons know how dangerous that would be... TO THE USER? "If you can't do it right, don't do it at all!"

 

[WayneLigon]

"its fantasy so it doesn't need to be historically accurate"

It constantly amazes me how people put down a decision they don't like (or - not nessesarily in your case but I have seen it several times - can't understand) to incompetance, stupidity or laziness instead of the idea that the artist is making a consistant and conscious design choice. If WoTC artists are like every other artist I've ever known, they have dozens of reference books on how pretty much everything looks - including anatomy and weapons and such.

Here's the secret to art, in a nutshell: 'Cool' surpasses 'Reality'. Once you have the rules down pat, then you also know how to break them in effective ways for effect or to convey a particular message. 'Style' surpasses a text-book correct engineering illustration, because the style says things about the subject.

Yes, you could make technically correct weapons and armor illustrations. And all characters would wind up looking almost alike; more like soldiers than heroic fantasy characters. This is the death of any sort of illustration, especially one meant to make you go 'ooooooh, I want my PC to look that cool'. Unless you're illustrating a Sears catalog or an engineering textbook, making something technically correct is generally not the way to go.

For instance in the first Pathfinder cover illo, the goblins have these wicked serrated blades called dog-slicers. Yeah, it's simpler to make a blade that is a narrow triangle; they'd probably be more effective as well. it's techically correct. It's also boring as hell and says nothing about the goblins. Ok, did you get that? The blade design isn't meant to say a damn thing about the blade, but it says volumes about the creatures who made them.

That is art. This notion also applies to films, books, etc.

 

[jdrakeh]

Here's the secret to art, in a nutshell: 'Cool' surpasses 'Reality'.

I'm of the firm opinion that people who complain about any aspect of D&D not being "realistic" are missing the point. They need to go back to the AD&D 1e DMG and read what Gary had to say about what the primary design goals of the game are (and always have been), and which force wins out when Fun collides with Reality [Hint: It's not Reality].

 

[Ranger REG]

Here's the secret to art, in a nutshell: 'Cool' surpasses 'Reality'.

True, but to be brutally honest, I don't put my D&D 3e next to my L5R 3e on my shelf because the arts in L5R are way cooler.

As much as I hate to say this because it would hike up the price of their WotC's products, they need to spend more to lure AEG's artists to their camp.

 

[Klaus]

I love a good illustration, especially of a cool weapon. As I sketch weapons as a hobby (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=190844) this shouldn't be a surprise. But I am constantly disappointed with the QUALITY of the weapon illustrations in RPG books. I know that they fall under the category of "equipment" but they do play a major role in the games. Would it kill game developers to make sure they look nice? Or at least accurate. Heck, I'd settle for realistic.

Most of the time it looks like the person doing the illustrations has heard of what weapons look like but never actually seen one. Weapon reference books are not hard to acquire. I own dozens of them. I don't expect illustrators to become weapon scholars. But having a few decent reference books around doesn't seem to be too much to ask. And it might stop people from introducing abominations like the Spiked Chain, Dire Flail or Mercurial Sword... *shudder*

Make them simple. Make them look like you could actually use them without harming yourself or your companions. Make them to scale (detail illustrations can be added). Illustrate every weapon listed in the book.

Or is this too much to ask?

Not too much. I think the game has room for spiked chains and dire flails, if they're thought out a bit more.

For instance, Eberron's Valenar elves use the double scimitar. Look at the official look of that weapon:

When I did the picture of a Valenar elf, I tried to turn the double scimitar into something that is at least marginally useable:

See how the grip was extended to allow a wielder to hold it like a staff, and how the blades actually look like scimitars?

For the dire flail, it can be done if you don't make it with a long chain (which is fine for light flails). It could be done as a short-ish staff with two hinged ends (no more than a link or two), like the heavy flail in this picture I did way back:

In Episode 1, Darth Maul wields the dual-bladed lightsaber, which is based on a Star Wars comic book weapon. Look at the original Exar Kun weapon:

The handle is no longer than a regular lightsaber handle. When time came to build the prop for Episode 1, Ray Park (who plays Darth Maul) said that the weapon, as designed, would be impossible to wield. He worked with the design department until they reached a comfortable length for the weapon:

Cool and Realistic don't need to be mutually exclusive.