Quote from: ColonelHardissonI'd say this is mostly due to them wanting to clearly delineate their halflings from hobbits to avoid any legal wranglings. Elves, dwarves, gnomes, and even orcs have precedence in myth, legend, and literature, whereas Tolkien pretty much created hobbits out of whole cloth. D&D's creators and subsequent designers could easily point to any number of sources for their elves and dwarves that pre-date Tolkien; they really can't do that with halflings. I think it's pretty much that simple.

Except it really isn't, because that legal issue was settled long ago, so its not like they can fear renewed litigation over a matter that was already resolved.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditExcept it really isn't, because that legal issue was settled long ago, so its not like they can fear renewed litigation over a matter that was already resolved.

RPGPundit

Regardless, they seem to be making an effort to distinguish halflings from hobbits even more in recent years. The legal issue was resolved by TSR not referring to them as "hobbits" in their game books. Maybe with the movies so successful so recently, they want to head-off any possible appearance of infringement. :shrug: I mean, hell, Disney made Marvel put pants on Howard the Duck to make him resemble Donald less, and Marvel has changed the character's appearance even more in recent years, to the point he hardly resembles his old self, without any discernible pressure from Disney that I'm aware of. They probably just want to avoid any possible headaches.

Pauldrons. Huge ass pauldrons the size of box kites.

I don't get it with the gnomes either. If it were up to me, halflings would have been dropped and gnomes would have stayed.

Actually, those little watter rats... oh, sorry... I mean halflings... are pretty cute. 3E halflings were bit like gypsies... now they add another level of nomadism, I guess. Well, it is interesting.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonRegardless, they seem to be making an effort to distinguish halflings from hobbits even more in recent years.

  I don't think it's really a concious effort.

  I think it's due to the influx of different & younger, writing & artist teams over time.

I may not be totally clear in my line of thought, but I'll try...

 D&D is slowly but surely moving away from is "pure" roots in Tolkien and old school Sword & Sorcery.

Howard, Lieber, Moorcock, Vance and Ol' Tolky, are being supplanted by imagry from - the Jordans and Salvatores of modern fantasy, along with Final Fantasy, Warcraft, other PC games, and a dash of japanse anime.

Just campare the art of 1st and 2nd edition to 3.x and now 4e and you can see a shift. Yes, the quality of artist has gotten better, but they are also influenced by different things.

4e is more of a kitchen sink gonzo fantasy game than AD&D was. But this is an aspect of the game that is not new. The kitchen sink aspect of D&D has always been there, just that in the beginning its main influences were those I listed above.

  But now D&D encompasses such a vast array of differing fantasy influences that the look of the game is bound to be different than it was in its earlier years.



.

Quote from: JaegerI don't think it's really a concious effort.

  I think it's due to the influx of different & younger, writing & artist teams over time.

I may not be totally clear in my line of thought, but I'll try...

 D&D is slowly but surely moving away from is "pure" roots in Tolkien and old school Sword & Sorcery.

Howard, Lieber, Moorcock, Vance and Ol' Tolky, are being supplanted by imagry from - the Jordans and Salvatores of modern fantasy, along with Final Fantasy, Warcraft, other PC games, and a dash of japanse anime.

Just campare the art of 1st and 2nd edition to 3.x and now 4e and you can see a shift. Yes, the quality of artist has gotten better, but they are also influenced by different things.

4e is more of a kitchen sink gonzo fantasy game than AD&D was. But this is an aspect of the game that is not new. The kitchen sink aspect of D&D has always been there, just that in the beginning its main influences were those I listed above.

  But now D&D encompasses such a vast array of differing fantasy influences that the look of the game is bound to be different than it was in its earlier years.



.

As someone younger than many one the board, and someone who is not at all interested in Tolkien...I'll give you an idea of what fantasy looks like to me.

First of all: D&D 3. The first D&D with a signature "look".

Warcraft II was my first foray into Fantasy that I actually enjoyed quite a bit.

Final Fantasy: Men in weird clothes fighting colorful monsters with swords made out of water is standard fare. No justification...it just is.

Star Wars: It's as much Fantasy as it is Sci-Fi.



Fanatasy to me, is mostly style over substance. The Orcs don't need a reason to be killed, they just have to be killed in an entertaining manner.

Quote from: KrakaJakFirst of all: D&D 3. The first D&D with a signature "look".

:confused: Here's me thinking that OD&D, AD&D1e and BECMI D&D all had their own "signature looks"...Messrs Sutherland, Otus, Parkinson and Elmore, et. al.  take your bows...

Quote from: JaegerHoward, Lieber, Moorcock, Vance and Ol' Tolky, are being supplanted by imagry from - the Jordans and Salvatores of modern fantasy, along with Final Fantasy, Warcraft, other PC games, and a dash of japanse anime.

These are a couple of Robert Jordan novels. To me, in D&D terms they look much more like Forgotten Realms (except without 'big 80s hair') than like D&D 4th or even 3rd edition.

It makes me think the same thing as with Harry Potter etc: you'd imagine that they'd want D&D to appeal to Robert Jordan fans, and yet they don't seem to have tried to do that at all.

They are not trying to appeal to a particular author fan base.
I think there are 2 elements at work. The influence of the designers. When D&D came out the designers were wargamers and linked into Tolkein the pulps and the whole post war sci-fi fantasy thing. When you design something as 'generic' as D&D (that is to say a general Sci-fi / fantasy game and not a conversion of a specific book or film) you own influences are going to be the drivers. The current crop of artists and designers are influences by all the stuff going on here they can't really get into the head of a 13 year old any more than they can get into the head of an old school 1960's wargamer. Its their own influences they are bringing to the table.
The second thing is the Computer Game/MMO/WoW imagery. This kind of fantasy graphic with heroes that carry swords 6 feet long and 4 feet wide and have size 23 feet and wear armour that must be a foot thick has come from Japanese animation and Computer Games, via Warhammer and those chunky citadel miniatures into Warcraft (I am sure the esthetic for the Orcs in Warcraft came out of White Dwarf/Warhammer and citadel infulenced orc figures) and from there into MMO and WoW. This is the fantasy standard for most people int eh game space I think and it makes sense for the art directors etc involved with 4e to look to that style as that is their target market.
Compare this dragonborn //www.wocstudios.com/images/4e12.jpg to this //www.freewebs.com/fonzys/aggghhh%20ork.gif to blog.cleverly.com/misc/coriantum40.jpg see anythign similar....
then compare them to a typical fantasy novel cover... say the Jorden book above or //www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n5/n27924.jpg or whatever...
There is a govening esthetic here and its not one that comes out of the fantasy novel publishing world.

Quote from: jibbajibbaThey are not trying to appeal to a particular author fan base.

That would be a logical conclusion. If true, it seems a bit of a self-defeating move. Actually it seems a lot of a self-defeating move.

Quote from: jibbajibbaThe current crop of artists and designers are influences by all the stuff going on here they can't really get into the head of a 13 year old any more than they can get into the head of an old school 1960's wargamer.

Maybe not, but whoever makes the choice who to employ can employ people who can. Whoever did those covers is presumably out there and hire-able.

Quote:confused: Here's me thinking that OD&D, AD&D1e and BECMI D&D all had their own "signature looks"...Messrs Sutherland, Otus, Parkinson and Elmore, et. al. take your bows...

However, their artwork "style" was not unified, you had some semi-realistic artwork, like the covers, crossed with unprofessional looking sketchwork in the books. Some Sunday Comic stuff strewn thoughout...etc. Not to say some of it wasn't endearing, but it was all over the place in terms of style and quality.

D&D 3+ look was unified,

For what its worth, Amazon has a list of its Top Selling Fantasy Books.  

Excluding vampires and other modern fantasy, top authors include Phillip Pullman (The Golden Compass & sequels), George R.R. Martin (Song of Ice and Fire), Patrick Rothfuss (The Name of the Wind), Joanna Rowling (Harry Potter), and Lois Mcmaster Bujold (The Sharing Knife).

Quote from: jhkimFor what its worth, Amazon has a list of its Top Selling Fantasy Books.

It's noticeable that most of them seem to be about vampires/werewolves in modern times.

Quote from: KrakaJakHowever, their artwork "style" was not unified, you had some semi-realistic artwork, like the covers, crossed with unprofessional looking sketchwork in the books. Some Sunday Comic stuff strewn thoughout...etc. Not to say some of it wasn't endearing, but it was all over the place in terms of style and quality.

D&D 3+ look was unified,

OD&D had a very distinctive art style. It was all done by one or two artists. Yes, it was very amateur and unprofessional, but some old timers still get nostalgic about this "signature look".

AD&D1e was indeed more diverse, and had a mix of Sutherland and Trampier's cartoony stuff with more realistic styles. Diverse in style and quality, so this is probably what you are thinking about in the above comments. Still, it melded together into a whole, and most readers didn't consider the cartoons or sketches out of place. Different expectations at the time.

The Mentzer B/E and the thre box sets following them which make up BECMI had a distinct unified art style, defined primarily by Elmore. These books don't fit your characterisation at all, as the art is of generally uniform quality and similar in style. Clearly some art direction has gone on here.

The same applies for AD&D2e. Consistent quality according to the standards of the time, and a uniform look. Sometimes it's hard to tell what is an Elmore piece and what is a Parker piece.

So 3e was not the first edition to have clear art direction, presumably enforced by editorial oversight, consistent quality, and an attempt to portray a specific vision of the game. AD&D1e might have been the only prior edition to lack this, and this is arguable.