Quote from: T. Foster;628723My default-state with new rpg products is already so far in the direction of "not buy" that it takes a great deal to push me in the direction of buying and very little to push me the other way.

Same here.

But more generally, this is also my default-state for many other "new" products, such as:

- fantasy/sci-fi novels
- video games
- non-fiction books
- movies
- music
- food brands
- etc ...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;628777Between the art and the decision to go with a more "basic" version of the game, it seems clear they are trying to get back some of that younger crowd back into gaming.  And if the younger crowd is drawn more to pixar type art rather than the art style we liked in the 70s and 80s, then I can't begrudge them for that.

And all those people who hate that they're doing a basic version and want complexity right out of the gate as a core system can go fuck themselves.  Seriously.  I LIKE this hobby.  I started when I was 7.  This hobby NEEDS to get new younger blood into it, and the self absorbed selfish attitudes of "I want MY edition to be the way I want it or fuck them!" are very harmful.

IMO.

I was never a huge basic guy, but I can definitely see the value of making the entry into the game simpler. I remember at the height of 3E, looking at all the books and contemplating the rules thinking how intimidating it must look to a new or younger player. They can always build complexity ontop of the simple system.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;628780I was never a huge basic guy, but I can definitely see the value of making the entry into the game simpler. I remember at the height of 3E, looking at all the books and contemplating the rules thinking how intimidating it must look to a new or younger player. They can always build complexity ontop of the simple system.

That's one of the things that baffles me about the vitriol.  People who want a more complex game are getting it.  It's not like having a Basic version means that they're getting shafted.  It just means the core skeleton of the game isn't complex.  Some of the vitriolic reactions against the idea of a basic core game makes no sense at all.  It really is cutting off your nose just to spite your face.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;628777Between the art and the decision to go with a more "basic" version of the game, it seems clear they are trying to get back some of that younger crowd back into gaming.  And if the younger crowd is drawn more to pixar type art rather than the art style we liked in the 70s and 80s, then I can't begrudge them for that.

And all those people who hate that they're doing a basic version and want complexity right out of the gate as a core system can go fuck themselves.  Seriously.  I LIKE this hobby.  I started when I was 7.  This hobby NEEDS to get new younger blood into it, and the self absorbed selfish attitudes of "I want MY edition to be the way I want it or fuck them!" are very harmful.

IMO.

This is a game for kids.
When it stops being a game for kids and becomes a game only for 40 years olds like us then the game is on a descending spiral it isn't going to get out of.
If you want your art to be more mature like the art WotC use for Magic that is fine but magic is aimed primarily at the 13+ age range and not where magic needs to pitch D&D itself which is more at the 10+ age range.

This art does that. It's good quality well produced professional artwork and it has a definite feel to it that no other game is currently using. It manages to have a younger apeal with that pixar/dreamworks quality to it but still has really strong character appeal. Look at the face on the Northern Barbarian.

However, all that being said we know this is Forgotten Realms concept art. We don't know if it will be in the core book do we. I think they should do to keep it consistent across the first release of the line and its central setting.

Quote from: jibbajibba;628784This is a game for kids.

But that doesn't mean it has to LOOK like a game for kids. I remember being a kid, and being very interested in the awesome looking things geared toward older people (movies for example).

I think you can make the art enticing to both adult players and kids. Hell, video games do it all the time.

Having said that, I don't necessarily hate this art direction if WOTC decides to go with it.

I thought the wood elf was exceptionally well done.  It fits the archetype well and managed to be fully clothed at the same time.  This would be great art for an introductory set aimed at giving new players a quick visual impression of how the different races work.

Interesting how I think the monsters were largely extremely well done, but none of the PCs look all that good to me.

I'm not one to give a shit about art in gaming books (beyond "is it distractingly hideous/stupid") but I think the people saying that it's good the art is aimed at kids have a good point. That is a cleverer way to market it and one would hope that older fans might be less superficial (hope but be eternally disappointed ofc). The only thing I'd be sure to do is add grime and blood where appropriate: make it Pixar by way of Watership Down at least.

Quote from: Mistwell;628668

That Gnoll looks pretty badass IMHO

I agree that it doesn't have to look like a game for kids to be kid-friendly.

I agree that it's got very little to do with the art in the old school D&D books we know and love.

But like jibba, Melan and others said, it's good art. It's got a fairy-tale quality that's very interesting. And if it reels in the 13-year-olds of today who grew up on Pixar cartoons, all for the best (though my 13-year-old self would rather be picking up something that resembled Savage Sword of Conan comics, I can't speak for kids nowadays).

As for the game itself, I'll treat it like any other game; I'll have an opinion on it when I've read the book, and ideally when I've given it a try at the table. But the fact of the matter is that I already have several editions D&D (and their OSR) which I love, and at this point in time, I'd rather have a D&D 5e that I detest but sells like hotcakes and reinvigorates the hobby as a whole (like 3e/d20 did), than a D&D 5e that pleases me but tanks horribly.

The shortarses look stupid and cartoony, but the humans and elves are alright. Though after that dungeonpunk shit of some earlier editions (everything with leather and spikes!), almost anything different isn't that bad.

Quote from: The Butcher;628910I'd rather have a D&D 5e that I detest but sells like hotcakes and reinvigorates the hobby as a whole (like 3e/d20 did), than a D&D 5e that pleases me but tanks horribly.

Yeah. I'm not the target market for 5e, and changing 5e to sell to me would be foolish. Selling to 10-13 year old's seems about right, for a basic set.

I think the art is way too Pixar, it's a 7-year-old's artwork, so a little dirtier would be better. You want a game that seems bad-ass to 10-year-olds, not a "kiddie pool" game.

"It's cool to pretend to be warriors and wizards adventuring in a dangerous dungeon!" is the sort of feel you want.

Less Monchichis, more Thundarr.

Quote from: The Butcher;628910I agree that it doesn't have to look like a game for kids to be kid-friendly.

I agree that it's got very little to do with the art in the old school D&D books we know and love.

But like jibba, Melan and others said, it's good art. It's got a fairy-tale quality that's very interesting. And if it reels in the 13-year-olds of today who grew up on Pixar cartoons, all for the best (though my 13-year-old self would rather be picking up something that resembled Savage Sword of Conan comics, I can't speak for kids nowadays).

As for the game itself, I'll treat it like any other game; I'll have an opinion on it when I've read the book, and ideally when I've given it a try at the table. But the fact of the matter is that I already have several editions D&D (and their OSR) which I love, and at this point in time, I'd rather have a D&D 5e that I detest but sells like hotcakes and reinvigorates the hobby as a whole (like 3e/d20 did), than a D&D 5e that pleases me but tanks horribly.

Aim at 10 year olds not 13 , 13 is too late.
Also try to target girls as well as boys.
No point removing 50% of your possible target audience.

My 13 year old self had a bedroom full of Boris posters. Doesn't mean that I think they are appropriate for a main stream game you can actually sell in shops to kids.

I totally agree that 5e should try and be a market leader that tries to expand the hobby rather than one that solely caters to a narrow demographic of gamers, whatever schools of gaming they may adhere to.

Was reading the Jon Schindehette article on the wizard pages about halflings and the concept art in particular. I think its relevant and quite informative -
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dreye/20130213

I hate the giant weapons with a passion. It just looks like a bad WOW or anime knock off or something. I'm not sure aping that look is going to stand out or grab a kids attention, but a slightly more realistic look might actually stand out these days.

I fall in the "meh to characters portrayed", "but those monsters generally look sweet" camp. The gnoll is already one of my fave D&D monster depictions ever I think.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;628777And all those people who hate that they're doing a basic version and want complexity right out of the gate as a core system can go fuck themselves.

I started gaming when I was, I'm not sure, 12 or 13. I started with D&D BECM, but we moved on quickly to RuneQuest, MERP and then Rolemaster. Yes, Rolemaster. Kids can cope perfectly with complex games, often better than grown-ups. However, before we moved on to Rolemaster, we played simpler MERP.

What's my point? That, if you want to bring kids to this hobby, you need BOTH a simple game kids can start with, and a complex game they can move on to if they want more complexity. There are a few examples of this model that were quite successful, like Basic D&D and AD&D, or MERP and Rolemaster. It looks like WotC wants to bring back this model, and I think it's a great idea.