Artwork. It makes or breaks a book/setting. You hear it all the time, about how bad art is worse than no art, and if you are using clip art, you might as well put a bullet through the manuscript and play Dance Dance Masturbation.

Most books follow the: "If it looks fantastic, it belongs in my book!" even if it is a beautiful picture of a Red Dragon gnashing up a Warforged, they'll put it in the "Society" section just to use it.

Gorgeous elves, scantily clad, with bows and magic  swords, looking stern and brave while surrounded by lush foilage. A barbaric half-orc swinging his axe through fifty goblins, in full glorious color.

But when does that beautiful art add something to the book? Many people pan the sketches of the various races in the PHB, but they feel better than some "photos" of the same. Even better would have been the Star Frontiers of 1E Shadowrun pictures, the "Da Vinci" pose and look. But the fact they are assummed to be naked (Shadowrun, IIRC, had closeups of spots over the groins) would gain howls of disapproval from parents and the Puritan Gamers of New England Alliance.

Many books are filled with gorgeous artwork, which you know cost between $100 and $1200 a picture. Sometimes it appears that the artwork was done merely for the sake of being done and displayed.

So, when I was deciding on artwork for Year of the Zombie, I had to make a decision. There were plenty of artists who offered to do pictures for it, ranging from $50 for an 1/8th page, all the way to one guy who offered me $5000 for a cover.

But I kept looking at the artwork samples, and not really feeling it. One piece that ran me about $200 really caught my eye, but it was a gorgeous piece. It didn't seem to make the setting, it seemed to compliment it.

And that is what made me make my decision to use the artwork I did.

Believe me, the results I wanted involved lots of drunken arguing, beer, Wild Turkey, and more than a few threats.

90% of the artists refused. Of the 10% left, they demanded that it be inked and that they had say. They even went so far as demanding I change the descriptions of things to match their "vision."

What they forgot, is it was MY vision, not THEIRS.

I've seen what art driven stats did to a book. Many of the things in Rifts were based, not on logical progression, but upon artwork. I'd read KS's stuff, and knew that wasn't the route I wanted to go.

Finally, I had an artist who agreed. I got photos from soldiers who took the photos for me in exchange for a PDF version of the book. I got stuff from the Department of Defense. I took it all, captioned it, and inserted it.

I still remember the first reactions I got to the artwork...

"Are fucking stupid as well as drunk?"

Up to that point, all the artwork, even if it was piss poor, in books, was obviously finished. It had backgrounds, correct proportians, highly detailed weapons, unique facial features, and all the rest.

Year of the Zombie didn't. One picture is barely more than a sketch. The highlights are on her eyes, her serrated snarl, and her weapons. Legs and feet were rarely finished, sometimes still in the blocks artists use for proportians. Objects were DELIBERITELY made to be out of scale/perspective, warped in some ways. I even insisted that some artwork was to be done one lined paper, like it was written on a tablet someone would find in the store. I even tried to insist on having a rough sketch written on the back of a box, I wanted brown cardboard or maybe a cereal box. The artist won that fight, but one of these days...

Anyway, I added in the flavor text, and finalized the captions, then the book went to layout and the backgrounds, tiddle-pics were added, and the edging done.

And it looked right. It really did.

Photo-perfect drawings didn't make any sense with the world as it was presented in the flavor text. You honestly couldn't see Becka or any of her friends having the time to sit down and draw a perfect sketch. They all looked like half completed pictures done by a talented amatuer from memory in order to act as reminders.

The arguements paid off. I made the artwork actually do more than just be pretty pictures, they actually helped in the feel of "Everything's fucked, it's game over, man, game over!" that I wanted. It did what artwork is SUPPOSED to do, it enhanced the book.

It wasn't eye candy. It was art. It was art that enhanced the whole, making it more than the sum of its parts. Best of all, it worked.

Or maybe I'm being a bit egotistical.

Decide for yourself:
The NPC Johnny Rocker from Maruaders, before and after.


Nick Rage from Maruaders, before and after


From the Core Book, Sam the Lawman, on the move

From the Core Book, Thomas, the techie of the group

From the Core Book, like it says, Greg and Becka

From the Core Book, Greg

From the Core Book, a self-portriat of Becka

From Hold At All Costs I, Ranger Martinez, from Sylvia's description

From the Core Book, Buck

From Traders and Hold At All Costs I, labor and delivery

From Fleshmongers, Sam in foreground, slavers in the background. I wanted their eyes open, but the artist refused, saying it looked better.

And finally, a desktop I made for fun, mixing pics from Maruaders, Fleshmongers, and the Core Book...

So, as you can see, the artwork is definately different, and it really does feel right, where photo's wouldn't.

I've been thinking about a Stone Age D20 game, off and on, for a few years now.

If I ever did it, one thing I'd probably want to do is use stylized artwork reminiscent of cave paintings. And ONLY that kind of artwork.

Quote from: WillIf I ever did it, one thing I'd probably want to do is use stylized artwork reminiscent of cave paintings. And ONLY that kind of artwork.

How about, in addition, highly detailed line drawings of artefacts (flint tools, worked antlers that sort of thing) - the sort of things the Victorians used to do?  You could probably find plenty of that kind of stuff out of copyright

Yeah, originally I was thinking of using 18th century illos and the like (frex, 'this is a hand axe'), but then I considered that the two styles clash conceptually.

Also, in terms of 'this is life as a stone age person,' it struck me as possibly more 'true to the spirit' to use only the symbolic art.

Of course, now that you bring it up... having technical drawings would help a lot to explain what certain things really look like (like an atl-atl).

Mind you, it's deliberations like this that cause me to flounder each time on the idea. (Though most of the really big debates I have are more important: the role of tribe, resources, magic, fitting the D20 level curve...)


Going back on topic, what has struck me about projects I've worked on (I've written for a number of RPGs) is that the attitude tends to be 'artwork is utterly unimportant and I can't believe you waste money on it, you should skip the artwork and make games cheaper, but OMFG this artwork sucks and ruined the game.'

Quote from: WillMind you, it's deliberations like this that cause me to flounder each time on the idea.

If the idea's meant to happen then you'll figure it out.  You could divide the book into sections with different artistic styles and have the equipment section (which will need accurate drawings so people can understand what their characters are carrying) use the 18th century illos while the rest of it uses cave drawings.  

Quote from: WillGoing back on topic, what has struck me about projects I've worked on (I've written for a number of RPGs) is that the attitude tends to be 'artwork is utterly unimportant and I can't believe you waste money on it, you should skip the artwork and make games cheaper, but OMFG this artwork sucks and ruined the game.'

Just throwing out a theory here - it might be because they haven't figured out the role of the art director and how he or she adds to a project?

Can you imagine Paranoia or "Tales..." without the artwork?  The art should support the text and they should both point towards the heart of the game.  Look at the splatbooks for the original MtA.  The Sons of Ether is supposed to be a special "issue #0" of Paradigmia, the Son's in-house publication, and internally at least it looks like an issue of Science or Nature.  The Iteration X splatbook takes the form of an info-dump from a rogue ItX agent who's sending everything he can lay his hands on to the Traditions before his superiors realise he's broken his conditioning.  Two books that are nominally the same (both providing info on a particular group), but they've got very different feel because of the way they're structured

Sorry, I was being unclear... I meant the attitude of fans to the projects in question.

When the art is good and works, few people say anything, just the same general buzz of 'art is unimportant and games are too expensive; print it on newsprint in tiny font!' from some corners.

When the art is bad and doesn't work... the response is deafening.

More clearly, I agree with what other folks have been commenting on, about the role of art. A piece of art can do more to communicate elements of the setting than a chapter full of explanatory text.

Hi !!

I've got a very different approach to art in what I'm doing and it might be worth mentionning (at least I hope). But first, I'd like to mention that it took me a year to find my four illustrators as what I pay for art is not that much.

What I do is very specific : plots, not mechanics. So, I needed art, a lot of it !! That said, I don't use it as a cosmetic feature, but really as a part, on his own, of the setting (in fact, the material in general). So, what I'm proposing to the illustrators is to be part of the project, as they don't do single pieces, but interelated ones, following a plot line. First, they do colors, defining the places, races and characters that take part in the plot, and then B&W to illustrate the plot itself.

The way I work I really want the illustrators to get as much freedom as possible : we work a little bit on sketches, but not much. The idea is they add their own vision to the project. And that's what I'm looking for from their part : their vision, not mine. In fact, they build upon my original work, the text I provide them, which, on purpose, omit all physical details.

I see a couple of advantages in doing this :
- illustrators really get the chance to feel that are part of the project. Their name is really beside mine. And maybe even more, as people see the illustrations before the text.
- So far, it has only been benefic to the project that the illustrators add their vision. I must say they are doing a terrific job, maybe in part, because they have that freedom.
- I do think I can pay less for those illustrations because I buy a lot of them at a time (30 illustrations contract). Also, as the illustrators work along plots, they work all the time with the same elements, thus, the more they work on it, the less time it takes them to do their job.

Well, if you ever want to take a look at it, here it is.

And to finish, I'd like to say that I really, but really, need those illustrations !!!

Quote from: WillI've been thinking about a Stone Age D20 game, off and on, for a few years now.

If I ever did it, one thing I'd probably want to do is use stylized artwork reminiscent of cave paintings. And ONLY that kind of artwork.

That actually sounds like a good idea. Maybe a few "artist renditions" of Stone Age people put very sparsely in the book, and a few photographs of flint tools/weapons put in like you see in a textbook.

That would definately be a book where the artwork would be critical on keeping the flavor of the setting.

Well, there is a big difference between an artist and an illustrator. I'm an artist, I create art. for my clients, and my studios clients, we illustrate.

As an illustrator, my job is to provide a clear image of what the client wants - sometimes I make suggestions, sometimes I push the boundaries as far as I can, but my goal is to give the client what he needs to sell his product.

T-Willard, after reading your post, I understand completely why publishers are constantly having poor relations with artists, the majority of which have no understanding of business, negotiation, or responsability. Many of them are way too young to be working and just don't have the experience to work professionally.

The prices you listed are crazy to be honest, especially considering the demands and conflict you apparently had along with it. Next book you do, check out //www.emptyroomstudios.com and drop me a line.

On another note. Many publishers do not have an AD (art director) and to be honest this can easily lead to poor artwork. An example:

Several months ago our studio was hired to do a job. It was about 50 illustrations in color (about 1 month deadline). We were given art briefs for all the work, we did all the sketches and recieved approval with zero complaints. We finished the job, with high quality work.

A couple months passed and the book was out and we heard lots of complaints about the art from fans. It wasn't complaints about quality, but that the images didn't fit the setting. Now, who gets blamed for this? Well, we kind of did (the artists) even though we never saw the book text, all our images were approved, and we had no idea. Now, I read the book when my comp copy arrived, and I agree- the art didn't match the setting. But it is not always the artists fault.

Publishers should be very particular when choosing artists, make sure the style fits the setting, and make sure the images depicted fit the theme of the book. Remember, you get what you pay for. . . so, yes you have to pay for quality, but the prices should be reasonable for the artists work, even if it doesn't fit your budget. And there are freelancers and studios that do work professionally and want to work with you, people that are reasonable and produce quality images to your needs. People do judge a book by its cover, and an image is worth a 1,000 words. . . but only if it compliments those words.

I'd like to refer you to an issue of Imazine (a PDF ezine) from 2002.

Specifically, an article called "Brilliance and Dross in RPG Artwork."

Here's the link:
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/panurge/imazine37.pdf

Rick;

I agree with you all the way. I work with the artists I use through every step. I not only give them a detailed description of the type of picture I want (as well as 2 or three alternates), I also hand them the section I plan on putting that artwork in, since a lot of times the feel of the section can give the artist inspiration.

Don't get me wrong, this wasn't a rant against artists. This was more along the lines of ranting about the creators who blame artists for a book failure, or who add in art just to make the book look cool, regardless of whether or not the artwork should be in the book.

Still, I might get ahold of you soon.

Artwork helps set the tone for the setting. Planescape is a perfect example. It had a magical, mysterious, gritty "dungeonpunk" feel because of the layout and illustrations. It had a very specific vibe that most artists would be unable to capture.

Yamo:
   interesting article, but my main problem is that it directs the blame of the artworks content directly at the artist. It's a rare moment when an artist is handed a book and told to draw what he wants, no limits, go at it. The author seems to assume the artists are given this type of freedom from clients. I've drawn lots of images of characters posed holding their weapons. . . do I like it, not always, but it is what i'm hired to do.
  It also makes me ill that he placed so much praise in the "old school" artwork and just dismissed all current rpg art. All illustration in rpg's is a product of the time period they were made. Ten years from now the art will look nothing like it does now and people will be praising the "style" of art done by the current generation. Nostalgia seems to loom forever. It should be understood that the majority of people who I run across who seem to love that type of artwork are for the most part still playing those games. Current artwork like the "dungeonpunk" look everyone is tired of, is done to bring new players into the fold, and this design is closer to the look the new players see if video games, films, etc. It's a different fantasy. . . and one I think should be pushed more.

T-Willard:
   Hey man, I was actually trying to support what you were saying and then add a bit from the artists point. . . but I've been sick and on meds and apparently went into a delusional rant. Ayway, I agree- creators should be more careful with the artwork they use and how they use it. They should build strong bonds with their artists and give them as much material as possible when starting out. Hell, I have clients now that give me very small details on what they need and just let me go at it. Why? Because we have worked long enough together that I know what they want. . . I know what types of visuals describe the world they want to create. That's the type of relationship all creators should strive for, because a dependable artist is great to have on hand.

Anyway- see i rambled again.

Quote from: Rick HersheyNostalgia seems to loom forever.

Nostalgia is also overused as an all-purpose boogeyman. Perhaps the older art really was better art?

To wit: You can put a vintage Max Fleischer cartoon next to an episode of Pokemon and tell me that "nostaglia" is the only reason to prefer one over the other, with no possible citations of technique or artistic merit being valid, but you'd be utterly full of shit and anyone who knew a damn thing about the art of animation would know it.

Don't believe me? Put anything, and I mean ANYTHING from the current run of D&D rulebooks next to Trampier's "Magic Mouth" or "Emirikol the Chaotic" or Sutherland's "Paladin in Hell" or Erol Otus' basic set cover and watch as it fails. Hard.

Yamo, well i'm not going to argue over something as subjective as the quality of art.

It's pointless. But I do not agree with your love of "old school" artwork or its quality compared to current artwork.