Who Do You Want Illustrating 4th Ed.?

[Sundragon2012]

Again... you're talking about Hârnmaster. The rest of us are talking about D&D.

You mean a fantasy setting that makes sense, has well developed cultures, economics, armor styles, religions, calendar, and tons of internal consistancy through all of its content.

Oh yeah.....keep that away from my D&D.

I don't understand why D&D is assumed to be played in the style of some juvenile adolescent comic book. Just because I started out wandering through senseless dungeons with no ecology with a barbarian warrior who wore a loincloth doesn't mean that 24yrs later my DM/playstyle hasn't become more sophisticated.

A lot of DMs and players appreciate a certain amount of believability in their fantasy settings. Tolkien's world is the archetypal High Fantasy setting but it literally oozes believabiliy even though wizards cast spells and dragons fly.

Of course I still want more fantasy in my fantasy than a Harnworld game. However, because fantasy =/= absurdity I don't see the desire for versimilitude in something like armor to be antithetical to fantasy.

I am 37, but am no grognard. I look forward to positive changes in the game and welcome the coming of 4e.



Sundragon

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I've never understood why people want to chuck realism/verisimilitude out the window just because D&D features dragons and magic.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't understand why D&D is assumed to be played in the style of some juvenile adolescent comic book. Just because I started out wandering through senseless dungeons with no ecology with a barbarian warrior who wore a loincloth doesn't mean that 24yrs later my DM/playstyle hasn't become more sophisticated.

A few things.

1) Comic books have become much more sophisticated and mature than when we were kids. I mean, I'm not a comic book guy, but I check out the latest graphic novels from time to time. Don't sell them short.

2) D&D was never really based on comic books so much as it was on pulp fantasy of the 30s and later "trash" fantasy novels of the 60s and 70s that often outright aped the pulps. Not comic books, but hardly more realistic.

3) Even Lars Grant West's illustrations don't look like either comic books or classic pulp illustrations (or anime, so let's nip that in the bud too.) It reminds me more of b-movie fantasy movies of the 80s on up through the Lord of the Rings movies. Which don't look too much like any "real" culture's armor, but it's absurd to say that they couldn't be functional, because they actually made that armor and actors and stuntmen actually wore it.

4) Dendra armor and Milanese armor are not very similar. What a bizarre claim to make! Nor do other forms of plate armor necessarily resemble either. That milanese suit is specifically designed for a mounted soldier fighting with a couched lance against another opponent of the same variety. The D&D fighter is more likely to be on foot.

 

[WayneLigon]

but not care if the armour doesn't look like armour? As long as it appeals to your discriminating postmodern punk aesthetic tastes, it's all good, right?

That would be pretty much exactly correct. I like accurate, but I'll take an interesting aesthetic or 'look' over accurate and practical any day of the week.

I like my D&D art to evoke classical, heroic adventure, not puerile, lowbrow comic book stories.

You're getting into fightin' words territory, here.

 

[Anti-Sean]

I've never understood why people want to chuck realism/verisimilitude out the window just because D&D features dragons and magic.

Because different people want different amounts of verismilitude applied to their games.

You want armor in the game to hew closely to realistic/historic examples. I'm cool with armor sacrificing varying amounts of realism for coolness. The guy across the table wants to play a half-dragon wizard/ninja with three different prestige classes, the Vow of Poverty, and the Machine of Lum the Mad.

We're still all playing D&D, and that's groovy. We can discuss and even argue about what would be best for the game and still be groovy. Once one of us gets to the point where we proclaim to know the One True Way and start pointing fingers, proclaiming wrongbadfun and "that's not D&D"*, our mellow has been harshed.



* ...except for the half-dragon wizard/ninja guy, it is Good and Right to shun him.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Dendra armor and Milanese armor are not very similar. What a bizarre claim to make! Nor do other forms of plate armor necessarily resemble either.

But they do. It is bizarre to claim that they don't.

They resemble each other not in appearance, but in structure and function. Both have a cuirass, both have an articulated fauld and pauldrons that are put together in a similar fashion. Most armour in D&D illustrations has none of those features(except the pauldrons--"dungeonpunks" and otaku seem to love huge pauldrons).

I'm not trying to dictate how anyone plays their game. But it screws with my own suspension of disbelief to see "coolness" trump function where armour is concerned. Fireballs, dragons, etc--those I am compelled to accept because of the conceits of the genre, but ridiculous, unrealistic armour is not fun for me.

 

[Desdichado]

But they do. It is bizarre to claim that they don't.

They resemble each other not in appearance, but in structure and function. Both have a cuirass, both have an articulated fauld and pauldrons that are put together in a similar fashion. Most armour in D&D illustrations has none of those features(except the pauldrons--"dungeonpunks" and otaku seem to love huge pauldrons).

Oh, wow, you've managed to find two similarities, and only one of them you can claim "most" D&D illustrations don't have. What a case you've managed to construct!

In any case, most D&D illustrations don't feature plate armor. And arguably, they do have articulated faulds, although not of as comprehensive a protection style as real armor. And arguably that's to facilitate movement, which would be more important to fighters on foot.

Sorry; I'm not buying it.

I'm not trying to dictate how anyone plays their game. But it screws with my own suspension of disbelief to see "coolness" trump function where armour is concerned. Fireballs, dragons, etc--those I am compelled to accept because of the conceits of the genre, but ridiculous, unrealistic armour is not fun for me.

So? Then tell your players (or your DM) that this is what armor (or at least my character's armor) looks like and show them whatever picture you prefer. Because otherwise, it kinda looks like yes, you are trying to dictate how other people play their game. Or at least insult them if it doesn't correspond with your Hârnworld-Lite vision of "realistic" fantasy.

Medieval fantasy with a heavy emphasis on the medieval is certainly one valid play aesthetic, but it's not the only one. Arguably, it's not one that D&D ever had in the first place, though.

 

[hazel monday]

Frank Quitely!

 

[Mad Mac]

Arguably, it's not one that D&D ever had in the first place, though.

Is this where I link to all the OD&D/1st Edition pictures of fighters with horned helmets and bare limbs? That was pretty much the classic fighter look for a long time, after all.

 

[ZoA2]

I think problem here is more with lack of imagination that finds any deviation from medieval clichés as unforgivable offence. All of this “OMG this armor is unsymmetrical, how can that be!” is all the more meaningless as even article I posted says as follows: ”As was common for European armour in history, this suit is asymmetrical. The wearer of armour was most likely to be struck on his left side, as most opponents would be right handed. The left side shoulder is reinforced with a thick plate called a "gaurdbrace," while the right shoulder is notched to allow for the "couching" of a lance in the arm pit.”
http://www.ageofarmour.com/milan.html



Greek hoplite armour was very different compared to Roman legionary armour, which looked very different compared to medieval European armors, which in turn looked quite different from medieval Middle East armor, which on other hand were very much unlike samurai armor. Yet same people can’t bend their minds that different fantasy cultures could produce armors that are quite unlike any of those in historical examples. I think it is simple lack of imagination that prevents them from accepting anything that is not narrowly based on some historical precedent, and then they try to impose their narrow definition of verisimilitude on entire game.