Art in D&D 4e - what do you think?

[Joe]

Hi all,

Just came back from my FLGS. Pretty much every time I've gone in there over the last four years, I've stood in front of the D&D 4E shelf, thinking: I would love to game with this, as I have with so many other editions of D&D over the years, but I just can't bring myself to buy it because I can't stand the art.

Does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?

(Not trying to start a flame war about 4e, honest! Just interested to see whether or not I'm a total outlier when it comes to tastes in rpg art...)

[Dammann]

I was a fan of the old late 80s D&D paintings, around the early Dragonlance heydays. The really old stuff, I liked less, and some of the new stuff doesn't appeal to me much. That said, some of the new art does appeal to me. There was a period when I wasn't playing D%D anymore, and I was almost on a hiatus from RPGs in general, where TSR released a bunch of outer planes related material that had a really distinct art style that I liked, with a lot of watercolors.

This stuff goes in waves. I remember when Dream Pod 9 first released Heavy Gear, I really liked the art they used. Later, there was a subtle shift. The difference was small, but enough to put me off the game a little.

[Wildcat]

The art I remember from 4E books was all a little too highly stylized for my taste. Pathfinder's art is a big step up, aside from trying to make every character totally badass (guys, a few of the girls) or super sexy (all of the girls) -- the only exception is the iconic wizard, who gets high marks for understated design. I liked a lot of 3/3.5 D&D art, and I absolutely loved most of the Eberron art in 3.5.

[Rupert]

I really don't like Wayne Reynold's style of art. As he does most of the D&D 4e and Pathfinder art, and certainly has defined the art style they use, that means I don't like their art. I greatly prefer Lockwood and Wood's work (the two artists who defined D&D 3e's art when it first released), and somewhat prefer the old AD&D1&2 art of Caldwell, Elmore, and Parkinson (some of their work was awesome, some not so much).

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Dammann

I was a fan of the old late 80s D&D paintings, around the early Dragonlance heydays. The really old stuff, I liked less, and some of the new stuff doesn't appeal to me much. That said, some of the new art does appeal to me. There was a period when I wasn't playing D%D anymore, and I was almost on a hiatus from RPGs in general, where TSR released a bunch of outer planes related material that had a really distinct art style that I liked, with a lot of watercolors.

This stuff goes in waves. I remember when Dream Pod 9 first released Heavy Gear, I really liked the art they used. Later, there was a subtle shift. The difference was small, but enough to put me off the game a little.

Yeah, I really like the 80s D&D stuff too.

I don't like overly stylized stuff. Guy on top of a pile of bodies screaming at the orc horde surrounding him, hands filled with steel? Awesome. Guy in the exact same pose with ridiculously shoulder-padded armor, gaps elsewhere, and an axe that must weigh fifty pounds? It just looks stupid.

[mearrin69]

I actually do like Reynold's work and a lot of other fantasy artists are trying to emulate him (some more successfully than others) so I guess I like a lot of the art in 4E. His art was the driver for me to pick up Eberron and have a look...and I ended up buying almost all of the books. I actually like his Pathfinder iconics, most of them anyway.

I sometimes wish GURPS had better art. I actually preferred the old black and white stuff to much of the color work in 4E. That hasn't stopped me from buying pretty much all of the books though. :) GURPS doesn't need flash to be worth buying!
M

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I really don't like Wayne Reynold's style of art. As he does most of the D&D 4e and Pathfinder art, and certainly has defined the art style they use, that means I don't like their art. I greatly prefer Lockwood and Wood's work (the two artists who defined D&D 3e's art when it first released), and somewhat prefer the old AD&D1&2 art of Caldwell, Elmore, and Parkinson (some of their work was awesome, some not so much).

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Yeah, I really like the 80s D&D stuff too.

I don't like overly stylized stuff.

Guy... with ridiculously shoulder-padded armor, gaps elsewhere, and an axe that must weigh fifty pounds? It just looks stupid.

Rupert and Crak - you describe my feeling pretty much exactly.

I love the older stuff - the covers of the old red/blue/light blue/black/gold boxed sets were great (and I'm totally sucked right back into that whenever I see the new intro kit packaged in the old red box set, with that great Elmore picture on the front: http://larryelmore.com/basic-dd/fp )

Some of the art inside those old books was even better than the art on the covers (even if it was sometimes a bit hastily done) in that it often left a lot of room for imagination. I guess I want my art to say "look at this intriguing scene; see how it takes place in the kind of world where a mysterious and thrilling adventure is always just around the corner - imagine what's just out of the frame!"

In contrast, the stuff in 4E seems a bit tacky to me. It's not that I don't like manga, it's just that it seems out of place in my D&D experience. Too often, it just consists of some cartoonish dude, right in the center of the frame, screaming and wielding a hugely oversized weapon. I can't seem to get much of a message from it beyond "Rar! I like to attack! Big Axe!"

To get what I'm talkin' about, compare that old elmore art (http://larryelmore.com/basic-dd/fp ) to this 4e cover: http://dnd4.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/7.jpg

That stuff just doesn't do it for me, I'm afraid. I just feel a bit infantilised by it.

Again, no offense to anyone who particularly likes the 4e art! Different people have different tastes, and that's totally cool with me. I'm just really interested to see how others feel about it.

[Rasputin]

The art didn't turn me off or on, unlike about everything else about 4e (mostly turn off). I think the trade dress of D&D 4e is a visual turnoff -- very cold after the 3e days, though they did get rid of that occasionally hard-to-read parchment look on a few pages. I was hoping for a little more of a showcase for covers and stuff after the gorgeous 3e Draconomicon, but it was not meant to be.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

I was hoping for a little more of a showcase for covers and stuff after the gorgeous 3e Draconomicon, but it was not meant to be.

The Draconomicon was easily one of the prettiest RPG books I've seen, outside or in. The only art from it that I didn't like was some of the new monsters; as I remember, the landwurms were the worst offenders. But the front cover and all of the pictures illustrating dragon anatomy were wonderful. Some of the new monsters were pretty good, too, like the radiant dragon, I think it was. Even if you were the sort of DM who only used dragons once in a blue moon, the book was worth having on your shelf.

Edit: The 4E DMG had pretty nice cover art to it, too.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

I think the trade dress of D&D 4e is a visual turnoff -- very cold after the 3e days, though they did get rid of that occasionally hard-to-read parchment look on a few pages.

How's your red-green colour vision? Mine is quite poor, and I'm wondering if that's what made the parchment-and-ruling-lines look of 3e really hard for me to read. I didn't actually understand the game system properly until I read Munchkin d20, which explains things much more clearly.