Yeah! I'm in Dragon (again). Want to argue?

As a relative young 'un, I don't mind the art direction too much (and it's really for the iconics that I notice it), but by and large I think some of the marketing towards a "younger" audience by making the art "kewl," that reeks of talking down to your audience. When I got into the game, I "pulled up to the bar," so to speak, I climbed up into the chair. I didn't wait for the bar to lower itself to me.

God, I hoped that made sense.

People who want to play the game will learn it, either by teaching themselves, or by playing with others who do know the game. No amount of artwork in the world can substitute for that.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Prince of Happiness said:
People who want to play the game will learn it, either by teaching themselves, or by playing with others who do know the game. No amount of artwork in the world can substitute for that.
Very true - but good, relevant artwork may attract people to the books (and then the game) who might otherwise have walked by.
 

Samothdm said:
Just curious - which version of the game are you playing now? And, how many books do you use to play?
To answer your question of me:

We're playing 3e. We use a fair number of books - all must contain new information, though. I don't buy regurgitation (thus I ignore any "update" books). Stuff from previous editions is still used heavily (as I find much of it easy and quick to update on my own).
wedgeski said:
And yet if they don't keep the game alive and bring in new players, there will be no books at all, because the hobby may die.
Uh-huh. And? I already clearly covered this in my original post.
And really, if, in the mass deluge of d20 material on the market, you can't find any books to be interested in, then I don't think there's much anyone is going to be able to do to help you.
I never said anything of the sort. What are you talking about, here?
 

Punk kids and their punk neo-steampunk gothic video-game punk art.


======
El "Waiting for Punky Brewster to show up as the iconic something-or-other in some WotC book" Rav
 

To hijack just a little bit (I didn't want to start a whole new thread about it, when this one kind of applies), I was also kind of in Dragon (again), just like Zander - while I didn't have a letter published (and congrats by the way, Zander!), I was referenced in two back-to-back letters in the latest issue. Both basically were fond reminiscences of my old Monster Hunters ecology articles, and the second even mentioned Shandrilla by name (a character from a different series of ecologies that I used to write). Warmed the cockles of my little heart, those letters did. Nice to know the old-style "fiction and footnote" ecologies are still fondly remembered by some.

Johnathan
 

wedgeski said:
Very true - but good, relevant artwork may attract people to the books (and then the game) who might otherwise have walked by.

Yes, but how many people here picked up gaming by saying "Ooo! Lookit the pretty pictures?" Art is an aid to marketing, I'll concede that, but just how much is the art direction working on a younger target? My complaint about the art isn't the look so much as what it being portrayed. Does the game look like s*** is happening, does it look fun? Or does it just look like a bunch of "cool" looking characters standing around doing nothing? For that part, I'll have to say Lockwood's artwork in the marketing campaign that I found in video gaming magazines very well fits that part and has a classic look/feel. In the books? A big fat "no." It's very much the content of the artwork vs. the visual aspect for me.

The artwork doesn't make the rules any less of a slog to get through. I guess the Basic set's going to address that part.
 

Prince of Happiness said:
Yes, but how many people here picked up gaming by saying "Ooo! Lookit the pretty pictures?"

Well, when I was younger, me.

And you know what - I still buy books I'm vaguely interested mostly because the art and production values appeal to me. I've bought books that are full of really cool stuff, and neglected whole chunks of it because the illustrations looked silly (Book of Eldritch Might Mirror MAge - I'm looking at you). I've ingored whole campaign settings that would otherwise have appealed because I didn't like the window dressing.

There are always going to be people who respond strongly to the aesthetics of a game. When you're trying to appeal to new gamers, why disregard those folks when you know people who are already farmiliar with the system will pick up the rules anyway?
 
Last edited:

Richards said:
Both basically were fond reminiscences of my old Monster Hunters ecology articles, and the second even mentioned Shandrilla by name (a character from a different series of ecologies that I used to write). Warmed the cockles of my little heart, those letters did. Nice to know the old-style "fiction and footnote" ecologies are still fondly remembered by some.
Ah, the Monster Hunters Association. Most of the Ecology articles I found to be rather dry and dull, and I usually skilled over them. But not when these guys showed up! Reading about their bungling was always amusing, and I'm kind of surprised they survived as long as they did. And of course, they're probably the only way anyone could possibly have done the "Ecology of the Flumph."
 

Henry said:
I think Mark's analogy is the best one: You can argue about whether or not the new looks and themes are "hurting" D&D, but in the end, it's attracting a large number of people in their early 20's and younger, and that's what is making the game grow.

There are figures demonstrating this somewhere? I see kids at the game shops, but they're playing HeroClix and card games. It's the grown-ups playing RPG's.

The important point is to interest young gamers in the game itself

That's the same misguided philososphy comics had in the nineties: "priority nnumber one is attracting new readers, so let's start replacing the old guard and give the twenty-year-olds hip new heroes for their generation". To a large extent, that didn't work--and in fact, played a big factor in putting the entire industry in dire straits.

The important point is to maintain a certain level quality, and not just pander to the lowest-common-denominator. Why do I care if more kids are playing D&D if that's a direct result of it becoming downright lame?
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top