I rather like Elmore, Caldwell and Easley; they may not produce energetic art, but it sure does look nice.  

Parkinson, I often found evocative, as well.  Otus and Willigham, too.  

Go here and start clicking on the Wallpapers -- nice stuff.

And, of course...

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesCompare that to the awful, awful art that was just unveiled to be the cover for Mongoose's Lankhmar game.  The sheer energy of Dee's work is amazing, and is something that's sadly lacking in much contemporary gaming art....Fluid figures, energy and motion, great visual storytelling in a single image, evocative as all get out.  

This is true and something I've seen commented on before.  Current covers tend to have posed figures - they could be for fashion magazines from a fantasy world. Here we see Elvella in mithril top with matching bikini bottom.  Her emerald crown accent her eyes and match her wandt.  Older cover art had a tendency to be a snapshot of action that might happen in the book.

Current covers? I think you're talking about the 2nd Edition era with its Elmore posers. Currently covers are often rather abstract or actually do display some action again. The first D&D3 adventure path was quite infuriation in that regard, as you had to actually hide the covers so the players didn't see the big bad meanie they'll fight soon...

Interior illustrations are getting worse, IMHO. More portraits, less action. And way too much punk, not just in 3E...

Quote from: SosthenesCurrent covers? I think you're talking about the 2nd Edition era with its Elmore posers.

Go here to see current WOTC products:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndlist&brand=dnd&year=2006&tablesort=2

and check out the covers for Complete Mage, Complete Psionic, Dragon Magic, Faiths of Eberron, Secrets of Xen'drik, and Tome of Battle.  They all have a single character doing a tough pose.

Hardly surprising, there's not enough space for a full scene anyway. Given the constraints that you've got books who should fit in with the totally abstract core books, you can't exactly have the Battle of Hastings on them...

A similar thread over at RPGnet started with the cover of Agone, which would certainly draw my attention at the FLGS. In fact, I went through a number of old threads and reviews because of that picture.

Hmm, I can remember some good covers, but was there ever a spine on a book that really attracted you? After all, once the stuff gets closely packed in shelves, you won't see the cover first...

Quote from: SosthenesHmm, I can remember some good covers, but was there ever a spine on a book that really attracted you?

I'd have to say no, unless the title piques my curiosity or is already familiar from somewhere else.

Quote from: SosthenesHmm, I can remember some good covers, but was there ever a spine on a book that really attracted you? After all, once the stuff gets closely packed in shelves, you won't see the cover first...

The best I can say off hand is that some stand out so that you can instantlytell what company they're from, which makes browsing much easier.  I can't remember any actually cool spines at the moment.

Do tell:  What's so bad about DungeonPunk?

Quote from: fonkaygarryDo tell:  What's so bad about DungeonPunk?

It's punk, for once...

I hope you're not talking about some kind of Exalted supplement unknown to me. For the rest of this post, I just assume we're talking about the new style of fantasy illustrations as presented (pioneered?) in D&D 3E.

It's a matter of taste, but most of the stuff is just too noisy for me. Too many pouches, piercings and pauldrons. In a real action scene, this amount of detail distracts. Which might be one reason we're getting more and more portrait shots... It also slightly disturbs my suspension of disbelief. A character wearing that to an adventure? Gimme a break. This is the Tomb of Horrors, not a candy rave ("Return to the Parade of Love", coming to a FLGS near you). And yes, I can cope with fireballs, ogres and ludicrous traps made by ancient warmages. But I like my characters a little more grounded in reality. Never liked the Exalted style, too.

It's also a bad reflection of the usual player. Whenever I get a description from my players, I don't get paragraphs about buckles on places that would put Michael Jackson to shame. As if the furs and feathers of Elmore aren't bad enough. Wayne Reynolds did some illustrations for Osprey and there he actually manages to say something without outlandish fashion. I might be wrong, but even the later WotC publications get a little further away from the Liefeld-meets-Brom style.

A great unsung artist of D&D is Roger Raupp. His work in Dragon, especially, really created and set a mood for D&D in the mid-80s through the mid 90s.

Quote from: fonkaygarryDo tell:  What's so bad about DungeonPunk?

Its just a thin veneer.

Make a REAL DungeonPunk game and you'll have me.

The world was ruined by a magical war. All that's left are walled cities where the guilds have a stranglehold on everything and run it all from the lodge-houses and high towers, living in riches while the poor grub a life in the streets beneath them.

The populace is ruthlessly controlled by the Guild's guards, the city watch is useless in the face of their power and influence and the other thing that keeps the populace in check is the hopes of buying their way into a guild and becoming part of the elite.

That leads some to seek the dangerous path of leaving the city, exploring the ruins and tombs of the past age and to find treasures to trade for status - though they'll never truly be accepted. And then there's the inter-guild espionage and skullduggery, always looking to be top of the pile...

Take one part China Mieville, add a sprinkling of Jabberwocky, season liberally with Brom art, add Gibson to taste.

Quote from: SosthenesIt's punk, for once...

I hope you're not talking about some kind of Exalted supplement unknown to me. For the rest of this post, I just assume we're talking about the new style of fantasy illustrations as presented (pioneered?) in D&D 3E.

It's a matter of taste, but most of the stuff is just too noisy for me. Too many pouches, piercings and pauldrons. In a real action scene, this amount of detail distracts. Which might be one reason we're getting more and more portrait shots... It also slightly disturbs my suspension of disbelief. A character wearing that to an adventure? Gimme a break. This is the Tomb of Horrors, not a candy rave ("Return to the Parade of Love", coming to a FLGS near you). And yes, I can cope with fireballs, ogres and ludicrous traps made by ancient warmages. But I like my characters a little more grounded in reality. Never liked the Exalted style, too.

It's also a bad reflection of the usual player. Whenever I get a description from my players, I don't get paragraphs about buckles on places that would put Michael Jackson to shame. As if the furs and feathers of Elmore aren't bad enough. Wayne Reynolds did some illustrations for Osprey and there he actually manages to say something without outlandish fashion. I might be wrong, but even the later WotC publications get a little further away from the Liefeld-meets-Brom style.

Honestly, the whole "dungeonpunk" charge against D&D's latest art has always been spurious. I mean, really, besides the illustration for Hennet the sorcerer, one of the D&D 3e "iconics," I just am not seeing the "dungeonpunk" thing.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonHonestly, the whole "dungeonpunk" charge against D&D's latest art has always been spurious. I mean, really, besides the illustration for Hennet the sorcerer, one of the D&D 3e "iconics," I just am not seeing the "dungeonpunk" thing.

The term "dungeonpunk" actually appears in the WotC D&D style guide for artists.