|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 1, 2014 15:45:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Aug 1, 2014 16:03:28 GMT -6
Every picture looks very carefully composed according to a set of finely tuned "best practices" rules. I think this art reflects the writing and "feel" of 5E with absolute precision.
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Aug 2, 2014 1:52:13 GMT -6
Sorry if this goes beyond just the master art, but I want to tackle the art of 5e as a whole...
Well, they are way better than what was seen in 4e, which was loud and obnoxious (to the point of burning my eyes), and they are more subdued than 3.x, which tends to overdo the little details (think the D&D equivalent of Rob Liefeld's pouches). They are not as dull as 2nd Ed ("OK guys, pose for the camera!"), and they have better quality than the note book art of the pre-2nd Ed era. Although, classic D&D had character and strangeness that I quite enjoy, but most people these days would find unacceptable given the cost of the books. The new art in this edition feel dull and generic to me.
Fantasy art should serve as a mental gateway into another world; an escape from our mundane world. The art make everything look so mundane, that I have no desire to explore their world; I seen so much better in other games. Not just lacking an other-worldly sense, they have no sensuality about them -- not outright smut, but something close to old pulp covers (if that makes any sense?).
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 2, 2014 6:03:19 GMT -6
Malcadon, I think this is a great place for your thoughts on artwork of various editions and in general I think I agree with your assessment. As much as I'd like to think that a RPG stands on its own, often the artwork conveys a certain feel that seems to rub off in the form of play style. Indeed, as I think more on the topic I believe that artwork and my love of the rules seem to have a much larger connection than I might have anticipated. I love OD&D (in part) because of the look. The "off the typewriter" look of the booklets, the brevity of the rules themselves, and even the cheezy B&W line-art. All of these things help to evoke in my mind an old-school 1940's-1950's-1960's Swords & Sorcery flavor. Reminds me of Howard, of Tolkien, of Leiber. 1E AD&D was more slick and polished, but had many of the same elements in the artwork and presentation. Hardback, but still sort of down-to-earth. I suppose some of my favorite artwork (and editions) are from B/X and BECM, with a lot of Otis and Sutherland and Caldwell and Elmore. Those rulebooks are epic and not at all cheezy line-art. There are babes wearing very little, there are big dragons to be killed, there are vampires, there are lots of neat things to look at. That artwork is the "golden age" for me, and the rulebooks of those years are some of my favorites as well. 3E and 4E artwork wasn't my "thing" much at all, and it happens I didn't like the rules as much either. I'm not really sure how much one influenced the other, but I happened to dislike both together. I don't want to say much about why I didn't like the artwork because the words I'd pick seem harsh and evoke general frustration and irritation with the "state of the game" from that era. I think it's best to simply say that those aren't my favorite years and leave it with that. 5E is still a bit of a mystery, since it's just being launched. I think that much of the artwork so far has a lot of color but does seem to lack the passion of the B/X years. I'm not sure why it doesn't pop at me at the moment, and perhaps it will grow on me with time. It's easy to say "well, it's just generic" but I'm not sure that's the case. It's not Otis. It's not Elmore. That's not to say that it's not good, but it's not them. Does this mean that the rules will be meh? Not sure. So far I'm encouraged becasue the rules are the best thing we've had since 2000, and maybe the artwork is as well. Well, this turned out to be a lot longer than I thought it would be. As always, just a couple of my coppers thrown into the pot.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 2, 2014 7:16:29 GMT -6
I havn't been following all the 5e chatter, but art work always interests me.
The illustrations from the Monster Manual all seem to be snap shots of larger pieces. Also, from what I can tell by the styles, it possibly represents the work of at least 3 different artists. Maybe some one else can confirm who the artists are. Out of all the pics, only two of them convey a feel that I find enigmatic in an inspiring way. That's what I want in my art work for D&D. Though, I might feel differently about even those two pics once I'd see the larger images they come from.
The two pieces that I give a thumbs up to are the first image of the beholder and the picture of Forgotten Realms. I'll also give the Dragon an honorable mention. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they're all by the same artist.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 2, 2014 7:24:48 GMT -6
Some of the 5e monster art is taken directly from 4e - like, the actual images themselves. I'm looking at the githyanki, lich, and umber hulk in particular. It seems to me that Wizards' art direction is obliged to walk a rather fine line: on the one hand, they have to establish a brand identity; on the other, they have to stay sufficiently generic to accommodate the players' imaginations (which after all is the substance of the game) - new players' especially. You may prefer Otis or Elmore or whomever, but as with all expressions of taste, this is really a statement about you rather than a statement about Otis or Elmore. If the 5e art appeals to new players and gets more into the hobby, I'm all for it. We all know what we imagine a rust monster to look like, and further what the mise-en-scene of an encounter with one looks like. I don't think it's incumbent on Wizards of the Coast to capture those widely disparate visions.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 2, 2014 8:14:26 GMT -6
I don't care for the new art. It strikes me as trying to look like computer graphics.
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Aug 2, 2014 8:21:35 GMT -6
In the beginning, D&D pilfered gleefully from myth and literature for most of its monsters and the TSR artists depicted them based upon the source material -- Titans and Medusae "looked" Greek, the Balrog was Tolkien's Balrog, the Ogre Mage was Japanese, etc. Now, WotC has its own identity for these and all of its monsters and the artists depict them according to the corporate formulation, and I overwhelmingly find 5E's visual aesthetic lame.
I contrast this with Games Workshop from the '80s and '90s, which put its own artistic spin on borrowed monsters and material. I liked their take on Orcs and Goblins and Vampires back then (less so now) and their formulation and aesthetics had definitive, unique appeal.
Maybe D&D 5E will luck out and find another Tony DiTerlizzi to illustrate a setting that departs from the Forgotten Realms standard, but what they have now I find uniformly uninspiring and I don't think it stands out in a very crowded marketplace.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 2, 2014 8:28:23 GMT -6
DiTerlizzi's 2e art was a revelation to me back in the day. I too wish that Wizards would assign one individual artist to each setting - it would convey a kind of authorial voice - but I doubt that the unfortunate economics of publishing (in which it's cheaper to pay 10 artists by the piece than to hire one artist full-time) would allow it.
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Aug 2, 2014 8:40:07 GMT -6
I think even allowing those 10 artists to express themselves individually -- think Otus and Holloway and Elmore and Willingham -- would be a huge improvement. I don't think any of those guys are great artists, but they certainly had a distinctive and immediately recognizable style that successfully elevated the brand. The 5E art looks like each artist receives a thick document that details in withering precision exactly how their art for WotC should look, instructions on composition, etc., and even the work of different artists comes out looking largely the same.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 2, 2014 9:15:16 GMT -6
The first art work I saw for this edition was for the cover of the Starter Set. I actually liked that image and its style, though the lone warrior against a dragon is a bit of a cliche. However, it is Dungeons & Dragons. The fonts on the covers are a little off putting to me and distracting instead of complementing to the art.
I really don't have any expectations (good or bad) based on previous editions for 5e. I simply found that Starter Set cover promising. It seemed different in a positive way. Now, as other art work is being released, my expectations are dwindling.
If I had to wrap it up into a descriptive term for what WotC is trying to ascend to, it would be "heroic". Does this embody an old school feel? No, not really. Possibly, this is what is off putting to some?
Anyone else want to try and wrap it into one descriptive term that would be constructive?
|
|
joseph
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 142
|
Post by joseph on Aug 2, 2014 9:49:32 GMT -6
I have to say that I am not 100% behind the new art - I like some but not all. Some is pretty and some is uninspiring. I do think it is a huge step in the right direction, as the 4E anime - like art was entirely contrary to my tastes, and the 3E art was too over the top. I agree that some of it looks overly computer generated, but that's the age we live in. Mostly I just want the art to be at least believable... I can't buy into the huge, 30 pound swords being wielded by skinny fantasy girls clad in chain bikinis with towering shoulder spaulders.
On the "standardizing" of the look, yes that is happening because WotC is expanding the IP and wants to keep everything recognizable. So, a red dragon in the Monster Manual looks just like the one in a little drawing in module X, and is also the same red dragon depicted in whatever video game they release. I can understand that - if you see a TIE fighter on the shelf, you know it's from Star Wars. What if you see a Paizo goblin? What if you see a red dragon on the shelf? They want people to recognize their products and distinguish them from others.
|
|
tog
Level 4 Theurgist
Detect Meal & What Kind
Posts: 148
|
Post by tog on Aug 2, 2014 13:21:49 GMT -6
That beholder is the first one since the original Monster Manual that I'd get the creeps from.
I want to see what they do with the xorn.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 2, 2014 14:31:03 GMT -6
Not very fan of the body-builded "crocodile dundee" kobold...
|
|
tog
Level 4 Theurgist
Detect Meal & What Kind
Posts: 148
|
Post by tog on Aug 2, 2014 15:17:00 GMT -6
Not very fan of the body-builded "crocodile dundee" kobold... Yeah, not scaly enough for a dog-man lizard guy. Don't you love the "HERP DERP" expression on the kuo-toa's face, though. (I dunno, maybe he's staring at Blibdoolpoolp's butt.) BTW what the heck is the deal with the "transparent" Gelatinous Cube NEVER BEING TRANSPARENT lately? And what happened to the beak on the owlbear?
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 3, 2014 1:08:01 GMT -6
The kuo-tua is fine , to me, it really has en Innsmouth vibe.
I can't make my mind on the flayer. He looks much alike Davy Jones in a recent movie franchise that I won't advertise (I will just say that it features Pirates and takes place in the Carribean). As the Kobold, he looks a little to broad-shouldered
Right about the owlbear's beak. Like the rust monster, I think they want to emphasize a little too much the "Yaaaahr! Monster! Teeth! Claws! " aspect , maybe because they are afraid not to be "serious" enough monsters.
As for the jell-o cube, as far ar misrepresentations go, apart from not being transparent, it is also always featured as a cube standing on the ground like a 6-sider on the game table, when it should actually fill the whole 10x10' corridor!
That said, the Frost giant is cool.
edit: not very fond of the "warhammeresque" orc, either
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 3, 2014 3:59:10 GMT -6
Mainly not happy with double-bitted chunks-of-iron axes.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 3, 2014 5:49:49 GMT -6
Mainly not happy with double-bitted chunks-of-iron axes. All due respect: isn't this getting a bit petty?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 3, 2014 7:33:28 GMT -6
Well, As we're only commenting on a very small sample I think that's inevitable. Although my comment on axes is a admittedly a bit facetious - I guess I could say that I don't like the generally unfeasible armour and weapons, though they are toned down a bit from the worst excesses of the recent past. I like fantasy designs, certainly, but some of that equipment looks unwieldy for its users - at least chainmail bikinis allow freedom of movement! As for the general style, it does look a little bit lower-budget than the 3E days - less detailed, more obviously computer processed, and somewhat homogenised. Not that that's unexpected, and I would still be happy with less art and less colour, but then they don't really have to convince me to buy it (because I probably will based on the Basic PDF).
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 3, 2014 7:51:22 GMT -6
I will say, in defense of WotC, that we're probably a bit spoiled in the "monster art" department. It doesn't seem that long ago when the AD&D Monster Manual came out (okay, it was late 1970's, but time seems to really move nowadays) with all-B&W line art. It was so much better than what we had seen in OD&D and pretty much every monster had actual art, whereas many OD&D monsters were "imagination only" things.
Then the 2E Monsterous Manual raised the bar, what with color art for every monster. It is probably still my favorite monster book of all time because I like the art so much.
The 5E art isn't bad when compared to some of that stuff. I think they are attempting to portray more "realistic" monsters rather than cartoony ones and that's probably hard to do, particularly if they need artwork for a hundred or so monsters. (I'm not sure how many will be in the Monster Manual, but a hundred seems like a ballpark number.) I guess the final test will be when we see what the whole book looks like and whether it comes across as a good final product or not.
|
|
tog
Level 4 Theurgist
Detect Meal & What Kind
Posts: 148
|
Post by tog on Aug 3, 2014 8:20:11 GMT -6
It was so much better than what we had seen in OD&D and pretty much every monster had actual art, whereas many OD&D monsters were "imagination only" things. It was supposed, I think, that you already knew what a chimera or dragon or roc looked like; there seems to be less grounding in myth and legend for today's players so they need pictures. Plus the whole "branding" thing, ptui ptui. Ironic you point out the color thing for the 2e MM, when the Gelatinous Cube there was clear instead of the lime-green it seems to have become. (I still doubt about the "surprise on a 1-3" invisibility thing when every illo I've ever seen has a significant amount of stuff floating in the middle; note that the OD&D 'cube was merely "semi-translucent", more like it's always been depicted.)
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 3, 2014 8:48:19 GMT -6
The "great comparison" for 5e would seem to be how it stacks against Pathfinder.
I have not bought the 5e Starter Set, but I did buy Pathfinder's Beginner's Box. From what I see, Pathfinder is still the best bang for the buck. Pathfinder's art would not appeal to everyone here, I would think. I don't care for how they portray PC's and NPC's, myself. But I do like some of their monster's. The one thing is that Pathfinder is consistent in their art direction.
WizKid's put out a set of minis for Pathfinder that I thought was rather good and diverse. WotC has followed that example with WizKid's producing a starter set of 5e minis for them too. I took a look at the set and have to say that I am not as enthused by the representative selection. I think it was the female dwarf cleric that I failed to appreciate. When you consider the 4 iconic PC's from the Pathfinder Beginner Box, they are instantly recognizable and distinct. I'm not sure I can say the same for the 5e set. I did like their Elf Wizard, though.
WotC seems to be suffering from an identity crisis, if I had to put my finger on it.
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Aug 3, 2014 18:27:04 GMT -6
... on the other, they have to stay sufficiently generic to accommodate the players' imaginations (which after all is the substance of the game) - new players' especially. Despite the fact that like 3rd edition, they are using Grayhawk as the default setting. Although, the setting is so bland, boring and generic, "Grayhawk" has become the trigger word for the Power Word Sleep spell.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 3, 2014 20:32:14 GMT -6
I thought Forgotten Realms is the default setting in 5e?
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Aug 3, 2014 21:56:28 GMT -6
I thought Forgotten Realms is the default setting in 5e? Sorry, my bad! When I read the free download, I ignored the boring fluff text to focus on the rules and gaming advice. The only time I took note of the what setting it might have been based on was a passing glance at a deity list that noted a god form Oerth (Greyhawk). So at least it try to be more-or-less setting-neutral — they just try to list all of them by noting that it takes place in the greater D&D multiverse.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 3, 2014 23:19:12 GMT -6
The art of ad&d is cartoony representations of realistic situations.
The art of 5e is hyper-realistic representations of unrealistic situations.
In older editions, monsters were divided in power artistically. The strong ones looked scary, the weak ones looked humorous. 5e blunders in attempting to make kobold and rust monsters seam fearsome.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 4, 2014 5:58:19 GMT -6
The "great comparison" for 5e would seem to be how it stacks against Pathfinder. I have not bought the 5e Starter Set, but I did buy Pathfinder's Beginner's Box. From what I see, Pathfinder is still the best bang for the buck. Pathfinder's art would not appeal to everyone here, I would think. I don't care for how they portray PC's and NPC's, myself. But I do like some of their monster's. The one thing is that Pathfinder is consistent in their art direction. Not fair to compare the two. (1) The Pathfinder starter set blows almost every other starter set I've seen out of the water. It clearly beats the 5E "Starter Set" because it's actually a complete game in the same way that Holmes D&D Basic was a complete game. (2) Since 5E isn't out yet, it's really impossible to compare 5E to anything. We really need to wait until the whole thing is released before we can make any big comparrisons, unless we want to compare an art-free Basic version to either Pathfinder's whole rules system or Pathfinder's starter set. I just don't think either is a fair comparrison. On the other hand, I've heard several folks who play Pathfinder tell me that they have enjoyed 5E much better and plan to switch over. Whether this becomes a national partern or not, who can say. Again, too early to really judge the two systems side-by-side.
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Aug 4, 2014 15:01:40 GMT -6
I think the art is meh. It's not bad, it isn't great.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 4, 2014 16:16:55 GMT -6
Not fair to compare the two. Maybe I am jumping the gun a little. I'll try to be a little more even-keeled in my evaluations of 5e I agree. Paizo seems to be a company that knows how to dot their eyes' and cross their tees'. Here's what I find note worthy about the Pathfinder Beginner Box: Like you mentioned, it's complete. I would say it goes beyond complete with the map and pawns. The art work on the box is appealing. The font complements the box and all the rule books. The pregens are iconic and easily recognizable. The set appeals to young people. I'm not a Pathfinder player, but I did run my kid's through the Beginner Box adventure. For me, it was painful to run because it is just not my style of play. I found it clunky. My kid's on the other hand, loved it. For some reason this game scratched them where they itched. If I could bring myself to "like" the system, I'd be running it for them. Pathfinder's artwork is part of the appeal for them, even those stupid little green goblins (maybe especially those stupid little green goblins). So, I guess what I'm saying is that I would love 5e to be the bridge between "old school" and what Pathfinder has accomplished. I would love it to be a system I could enjoy running and my kid's enjoyed playing. But, just judging from the art, I'm not hopeful that they will grab my kid's the way Pathfinder did.
|
|
|
Post by TheObligatorySQL on Aug 4, 2014 18:14:23 GMT -6
I thought Forgotten Realms is the default setting in 5e? There is no default setting for the new edition. Why the Forgotten Realms shows up so often is because that's the setting that most people are familiar with. The spoiled Table of Contents from the Player's Handbook lists Appendix B: Gods of the Multiverse. Also, the paladin preview notes the following under the "Creating a Paladin" section: "Appendix B lists many deities worshipped by paladins throughout the multiverse, such as Torm, Heironeous, Paladine, Kiri-Jolith, Dol Arrah, the Silver Flame, Bahamut, Athena, Re-Horakhty, and Heimdall.Not fair to compare the two. I agree completely with this. A comparison can't be made until the entire game is available. Personally, I'm on board with the new artwork; maybe that's because I see similarities among the editions (I was, after all, a product of 3rd Edition that not only traveled forward with the game editions, I also went back in time to the older ones). I like the fact that Wizards is making the game a little more retro (either that or they're making the retro more up to date). Heck, even the ampersand is using an updated version of the 1st Edition ampersand. I liked the fact that the cover of the 4th Edition Adventurer's Vault 2 paid homage to the page opposite the treasure tables in the 1st Edition Monster Manual. (I would give a page number, but I don't have the book near me.) The fact that they pay homage in different, and sometimes subtle, ways tells me that, regardless of what other people may say or think, they really care about the game. If you don't believe that statement, then look at the credits on the first page of the Basic Rules. Yes, Gary and Dave essentially made the game, but if it weren't for everyone else listed there (Brian Blume, Rob Kuntz [hope to see you active here again soon!], James Ward, and Don Kaye), the game wouldn't have happened the way it did, nor would it have developed as it did if it weren't for everyone else listed under "Drawing from further development by." If they didn't care about the game, and all who play it, that large list of people wouldn't be there.
|
|