TheRPGSite

Link is here: http://conceptopolis.deviantart.com/gallery/26646047

Bearing in mind that this is concept art, and therefore concepty and therefore cartoon like  - I love it.

I like the halflings of course because they resemble Hobbits once more. I like the monsters (see page 2), but I really like the Drow, the Gnome and the Half-Elf here (http://conceptopolis.deviantart.com/art/Forgotten-Realms-Characters-348995856).

I believe that they have made Gnomes look cool?

I ... I like all of that. It looks like proper fantasy D&D, no anime shit or pants made of belts, just proper adventurers and such.  

Only slight complaint is the Ilithid, he needs to be scarier.

One of the things I hated about D&D3 was the art for the Displacer Beast.  The Displacer Beast in 3e looked horrible.  And even though I generally love the art in 4e, the D-beast got shafted in the art for that edition as well.

So, I'm happy to see in the linked concept art that my favorite tentacly panther monster is back to looking righteously badass.

Looks pretty good!

I like it too. A little cartoony yes, but I think it's a solid traditional look. If they can put those folks in armor with a name that isn't green, purple, or orange (if you catch my meaning), and I'd be pretty impressed.

I've seen these before, and while most of it appears a bit too anime/pixar for me, I'm OK with it.  It's not too children bookish like Tony D's art is, but not "mature" to turn off younger players either.  I would, however, like to see some variation in art styles.  One single artist style for everything (ahem 4e) sucks.

The gnoll is freaking bad ass though.

(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2013/017/5/4/forgotten_realms__characters_by_conceptopolis-d5rs6xc.jpg)
(http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/017/b/1/gnoll_by_conceptopolis-d5rsbti.jpg)

Quote from: Mistwell;628668(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2013/017/5/4/forgotten_realms__characters_by_conceptopolis-d5rs6xc.jpg)

That is one awesomely creepy Gnome.


The only problem I have with that picture is that axe... just. to. big...

The size of that axe-head pretty much single-handedly eliminates any potential interest I might have had in 5E. Luckily I still have my 1974-85 era stuff.

Yeah, that Gnome is badass. Sorry Pundit!

(http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/017/4/c/gnome_by_conceptopolis-d5rsjk7.jpg)
(http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/017/4/c/strongheart_halfling__male__by_conceptopolis-d5rsq2i.jpg)

Looks like Pixar/computer-generated shit. There is a distinct lack of fine detail in the clothes and everything else. Looks artificial. Compare this to any decent oil painter from TSR era and see the difference.

Man, whoever contracted out this art just does not get it.

Not as bad as Wayne Reynolds, though, so that's a plus.

It is better for me than 4e Xtreme Anime! chic.

But it is very Pixar animated peasant chic. Cute, but... meh. As long as it does not become the sole art direction vision it is acceptable. Not desirable, not iconic, not stand out, not even all that eye catching either - just acceptable.

Hopefully they did not pay all that much. I'm sure they could commission something reasonably similar from fan works, sans CGI.

As much as I liked the Displacer Beast, I felt the character portraits were very World of Warcrafty.

Quote from: Gabriel2;628697As much as I liked the Displacer Beast, I felt the character portraits were very World of Warcrafty.

They are very videogamey (not specifically WoW-y) but not in a bad way. It's certainly not my favorite D&D art ever, but I like it.

My Gods!
All the women are wearing more than 50% of the clothes, of their compatriots!
It's, quite honestly, a surprising LACK of skin showing.

...I like.

My only real complaint, is the artist went a little overboard on the "large arms, spindly legs" for several of the pictures.

But the monsters (especially the 2nd Owlbear and Yuan-Ti) look great!

Looks like it'll fit right in with the art for forgotten realms which i heard they're getting some chinese art company to do the landscapes and such for(no doubt with hopes of eventually getting a forgotten realsm mmorpg made), the character concepts are very mmorpg which im not at all surprised about as it'll make translating them over easier shoudl they decide to go that route.

I kinda like the gnome. And also the hobbit if you only look at him from the knees up and imagine he has proportionally-sized (and bare, and hair-covered) feet :)

This would be decent art for a D&D-themed cartoon aimed at small kids. But as the "core D&D look" it's pretty terrible. I wish they'd bring back Steven Belledin and Michael Komarck and direct them to give their characters historical-looking medieval-style clothes, armor, and weapons. Or, for that matter, I'd be fine if they just re-used a bunch of old Keith Parkinson paintings (leaving aside the flagrant cheesecake ones).

Quote from: T. Foster;628670The size of that axe-head pretty much single-handedly eliminates any potential interest I might have had in 5E. Luckily I still have my 1974-85 era stuff.

I seriously can't tell anymore: are you being sarcastic and mocking the idiots who pick one thing about 5e and declare that this "proves" its useless and they'll never play it, or this is a serious post?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;628720I seriously can't tell anymore: are you being sarcastic and mocking the idiots who pick one thing about 5e and declare that this "proves" its useless and they'll never play it, or this is a serious post?

RPGPundit

I'm one of the idiots. So far I've been mildly curious about 5E (the same way I was about 4E before it was released), but if I saw a book with a picture like that on the cover in a store I doubt I'd even pick it up to flip through it to see if it was something I might be interested in. My 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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;628720I seriously can't tell anymore: are you being sarcastic and mocking the idiots who pick one thing about 5e and declare that this "proves" its useless and they'll never play it, or this is a serious post?

RPGPundit

You might want to take a peek again at the quote of yours he proudly bears in his sig. ;)

Quote from: 1989;628693Looks like Pixar/computer-generated shit. There is a distinct lack of fine detail in the clothes and everything else. Looks artificial. Compare this to any decent oil painter from TSR era and see the difference.

Man, whoever contracted out this art just does not get it.

Dude, it is concept art. Concept art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_art):

"Concept art is a form of illustration where the main goal is to convey a visual representation of a design, idea, and/or mood for use in films, video games, animation, or comic books before it is put into the final product" (wikipedia)

Great art.
Really solid direction and not like any thing else. You can see a couple of those and know its from the same set.

Quote from: 1989;628693Looks like Pixar/computer-generated shit. There is a distinct lack of fine detail in the clothes and everything else. Looks artificial. Compare this to any decent oil painter from TSR era and see the difference.

Man, whoever contracted out this art just does not get it.

Not as bad as Wayne Reynolds, though, so that's a plus.

I love the old oil paintings but this looks good to me too.

Quote from: One Horse Town;628673Yeah, that Gnome is badass. Sorry Pundit!

Yeah I like the gnome. But I have pro-gnome bias.

Where has this been confirmed as the real deal?

I imagine standard D&D rather differently, but it is mostly decent art. Very vanilla, but not in a bad way (like Elmore or Caldwell, who brought us 2e's detestable "Ye Olde Renfairlande" aesthetic). If anything, it is fairytaleish, which is especially notable on the halfling pictures.

[edit]The halfling girl has an owl pouch. Cool!

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dreye/20130213

Above is the most recent Next article, which was about halflings and how the concept art is being used to guide the final interpretations, and the concept piece looks a lot like the pieces we have here. Either way the article does emphasize the concept nature of the current art.

Interesting enough, although I get the accusations of the concept art being a little bland and cartoony, I'm not sure if I like the "second phase" halfling concept sketches at the end of the Wizards article at all.

edit: D'oh! This the second part of the article discussing halflings. It does have a link to the first article with some of the pieces we can see at DA.

As concept art even, it's too Pixar-ish, that needs to be said again and again, so the final art direction realizes that.

Aside from that and the size of the Barbarian Axe and Fire Giant's Buster Sword, I think they're going in the right direction...less anime, races aren't small humans with pointed ears, etc...

Note for the Art Director: Do not replace anime schtick with Pixar or WoW schtick.  Two words : Michael Komarck.

Between 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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;628773Note for the Art Director... Two words : Michael Komarck.

That would be pretty cool, but like Sacro, I wouldn't really begrudge them going with a route that might be simpler or less life-like, but equally evocative.

I'm a pretty easy going guy, the final style they go for is less important to me than how they use it. I want to look at the pictures and see adventurers adventuring or get a genuine feel for the worlds and settings they want to emulate. I'm tired of art that feels too much like posed fantasy pictorials where everything seems to be posing for a weird hidden camera.

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(http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/017/b/1/gnoll_by_conceptopolis-d5rsbti.jpg)

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.

Quote from: Claudius;629045I 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.

I too came across more complicated rpg rulesets when I was a pre-teen.  Complexity wasn't an issue then, after playing basic D&D and AD&D for awhile.

Though if I had come across something like Rolemaster as my first rpg system, I probably wouldn't have continued playing rpg games.


Fast forward to the present, these days I find I just don't have the time and patience anymore to deal with complex rpg rulesets.

I started D&D when I was 10 or 11 with blue book and was playing AD&D within 3 months and have built my own system to run Gor in by the time I was 12.
However things have moved on in the last 30+ years.  
You should read the Wizards article ai posted too as the plan isn't to leave the final look cartoony, its to use that exagerated model for the concept art to inform the fianl designs. I actually think its a shame.

When I was young the Bakshi LotR cartoon was really was one of the key things that got me hooked into fantasy. Followed by Fire and Ice.

Cartoons have moved on. Kung Fu Panda, Shrek, Brave, these are really good films (well Shrek 3 was a bit shit but you get the idea). The audience for Animated movies is much broader now and the potential to bring that audience of 10 and 11 year olds into RPGs needs to be grabbed (still a shame about Harry fucking Potter of course)

Quote from: jibbajibba;629068When I was young the Bakshi LotR cartoon was really was one of the key things that got me hooked into fantasy. Followed by Fire and Ice.

I never really caught on to fantasy type cartoons or movies when I was a kid or teenager.  Even when I got around to watching them, they were never my favorite.  (Stuff like Conan, Excalibur, Krull, Thundarr, He-Man, D&D cartoon, Labyrinth, Dark Crystal, etc ...).

I was more into action movies/shows and some sci-fi.  Stuff like Star Trek, James Bond, Rambo, the original Star Wars trilogy, the A-Team, Knight Rider, Rocky, Miami Vice, MacGyver, the original 1978 Battlestar Galactica, the 1980 Buck Rogers tv show, Transformers cartoon, etc ...

Though oddly enough, I never really got into rpg games with a sci-fi or action theme.  At the time, I thought it was pointless to replicate an action movie/show as an rpg game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629068When I was young the Bakshi LotR cartoon was really was one of the key things that got me hooked into fantasy. Followed by Fire and Ice.

Same here. The Bakshi LotR actually had a bigger impact on me than the books.

Quote from: Claudius;629045I 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.

Which is great.  What I was addressing were comments like those of the Usual Suspects who are throwing a fit unless the "basic/core" version is complex from the get go.  Those who like more complex systems can still get it.  Throwing a tissy fit because it's not core is fucking stupid.

My son is 11, and he and his friends started playing games at around 9.  There is no way they'd pick up an AD&D book and play it.  No way.  But they picked up the red Moldvay book and were good to go.  Largely because the AD&D books were more like textbooks with tons of stuff they assumed they would have to memorize.  The B/X books not nearly as much.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629068When I was young the Bakshi LotR cartoon was really was one of the key things that got me hooked into fantasy. Followed by Fire and Ice.
)

Same here, along with Conan the Barbarian, Krull, Flight of Dragons, and The Dark Crystal.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;629094Same here. The Bakshi LotR actually had a bigger impact on me than the books.

well it got me to read the books then my uncle bought me the war of the ring board game from spi that xmas and I was done :) All that talent wasted playing silly games :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;629097well it got me to read the books then my uncle bought me the war of the ring board game from spi that xmas and I was done :) All that talent wasted playing silly games :D

Was that the old massive lord of the ring game (i had one that had a bunch of thick cardboard foldout maps).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;629101Was that the old massive lord of the ring game (i had one that had a bunch of thick cardboard foldout maps).

Map of Middle earth in 2 sheets. Still teh most usuable hex map of middle earth by the way.

Card for all the major personalities.
chits for all the armies and the heroes whe were moved round inverted.

Wasn't a perfect game. But was most excellent to my 10 year old self.

And I still have all the bits although its in storage back in the UK.

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-6mV87FrW5j9PanLPmE0_ZVxe1eN_UfY34JhMdgS4RBlhmY9k6A)

Quote from: T. Foster;628723I'm one of the idiots. So far I've been mildly curious about 5E (the same way I was about 4E before it was released), but if I saw a book with a picture like that on the cover in a store I doubt I'd even pick it up to flip through it to see if it was something I might be interested in. My 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.

Then I doubt you'd have bought it in any case. Seriously, what's next? People boldly stepping forward to declare that the typeface they're using means they'll Never Buy A D&D Product Again?

The joke of the thing is how shallow and obvious an excuse that is to cover up a prejudiced decision right from the very start.

I don't know, call me crazy, but the reason I wouldn't buy 5e is if the rules as a whole suck ass.  I think pretty much any other reason besides that would mean that you never actually even considered buying it in the first place, and you're just using your situation to loudly justify your hatred for a game that isn't even out yet.

RPGPundit

Quote from: J Arcane;628729You might want to take a peek again at the quote of yours he proudly bears in his sig. ;)

Yeah, but it seemed so ridiculous, I had to ask!

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;629624Then I doubt you'd have bought it in any case. Seriously, what's next? People boldly stepping forward to declare that the typeface they're using means they'll Never Buy A D&D Product Again?

The joke of the thing is how shallow and obvious an excuse that is to cover up a prejudiced decision right from the very start.

I don't know, call me crazy, but the reason I wouldn't buy 5e is if the rules as a whole suck ass.  I think pretty much any other reason besides that would mean that you never actually even considered buying it in the first place, and you're just using your situation to loudly justify your hatred for a game that isn't even out yet.

Occupational hazard of a hardcore cynic type.  :D

At times I find myself thinking in a similar cynical prejudicial manner.

I don't know what T Foster's underlying prejudicial reasons are.  (Never met him/her in person).  In my case, my main underlying prejudicial reason is to avoid jumping onto another splatbook treadmill.

Art in published rpg products is extremely important to me, probably the most important thing, because it's the one thing I can't do on my own. The art helps me envision what the game looks and feels like, and helps me convey that to the players (including potential players). Anybody I'm likely to play with doesn't really care about rules (and I'll probably house-rule and modify them anyway) so they don't matter as much as establishing a feel and tone, being able to show a few pieces of art and say "this is what this game is about." So if I don't like the art in a game, or don't find it inspiring, I'm extremely unlikely to buy that game.

Quote from: T. Foster;629785Art in published rpg products is extremely important to me, probably the most important thing, because it's the one thing I can't do on my own. The art helps me envision what the game looks and feels like, and helps me convey that to the players (including potential players). Anybody I'm likely to play with doesn't really care about rules (and I'll probably house-rule and modify them anyway) so they don't matter as much as establishing a feel and tone, being able to show a few pieces of art and say "this is what this game is about." So if I don't like the art in a game, or don't find it inspiring, I'm extremely unlikely to buy that game.

Me, too.

Really, really.

early 1e a bit amateur. 3e too dungeonpunk. 2e really had my preferred blend on heroism and realism in its fine art.

Maybe having more child friendly art will help market 5e to a younger audience. Pixar D&D may not be a bad move.

Quote from: Spinachcat;630009Maybe having more child friendly art will help market 5e to a younger audience. Pixar D&D may not be a bad move.

I would much prefer Pixar D&D over the Bugbear Boobs of 4e...


bugbear boobs... *shudder*

Quote from: Spinachcat;630009Maybe having more child friendly art will help market 5e to a younger audience. Pixar D&D may not be a bad move.

Not a bad move? When I think of what D&D can offer, one type of play that I can't hear enough of is some nice fairy tale adventure. It can't be all about hardened adventurers dungeon plundering. Some damsel rescuing, dragon-slaying, and black knight defeating is good clean fun.

I don't think we have enough reason to believe that's where this is all leading, but "Pixar D&D" as it's being dubbed here would be a different look from past editions, and not necessarily in a bad way.

Quote from: JamesV;630097Not a bad move? When I think of what D&D can offer, one type of play that I can't hear enough of is some nice fairy tale adventure. It can't be all about hardened adventurers dungeon plundering. Some damsel rescuing, dragon-slaying, and black knight defeating is good clean fun.

I don't think we have enough reason to believe that's where this is all leading, but "Pixar D&D" as it's being dubbed here would be a different look from past editions, and not necessarily in a bad way.

And in all fairness, it's only the PCs who appear pixar.  The monsters by and large look great.

They can keep this style, I don't mind.  I would, as mentioned, like to see a few different styles however.  I loved that about TSR D&D in that you had Easley, Elmore, Caldwell, etc all be included as core artists.  I find the same ol' 4e style boring and meh.  Mix it up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630100And in all fairness, it's only the PCs who appear pixar.  The monsters by and large look great.

They can keep this style, I don't mind.  I would, as mentioned, like to see a few different styles however.  I loved that about TSR D&D in that you had Easley, Elmore, Caldwell, etc all be included as core artists.  I find the same ol' 4e style boring and meh.  Mix it up.

Very good point about the difference between eds 3 and 4, and everything prior. The art of the 1st and 2nd edition had way more variety in not just artists, but style. The look of the 3rd and 4th edition was more homogeneous, and I think that impaired things.

You could look at the art of the 1st and 2nd edition and envision all sorts of games. You look at 3rd and 4th and see only one type of game.

Quote from: JamesV;630105You could look at the art of the 1st and 2nd edition and envision all sorts of games. You look at 3rd and 4th and see only one type of game.

Muscle bound dragons with lots of spikes and lower jaws much larger than upper jaws, and PCs with mouse like faces.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630117Muscle bound dragons with lots of spikes and lower jaws much larger than upper jaws, and PCs with mouse like faces.

So true.

Personally I always hated Gnomes, I can't stand the little Gits.  I would much prefer to play an Orc or even a Goblin before playing a stupid Gnome, little bugger's with their discounts on hotels. LOL

Quote from: CRKrueger;628773Note for the Art Director: Do not replace anime schtick with Pixar or WoW schtick.  Two words : Michael Komarck.

Doesn't he do artwork to support Game of Thrones, and other obscure licenses from the dead format of print? Big mistake. Gotta cater to the sensibilities of the videogame and manga crowd. After all, D&D these days is just a quirky offshoot of World of Warcraft, not something that would appeal to the handful of people who read stuff like Game of Thrones.

Quote from: Kaz;628802But 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).

Absolutely. Nothing I hated more as a 10-year-old than stuff was geared to appeal to kids. Because by that age, anything that smacked of even 7 or 8 year olds was lame. Pixar movies are geared primarily at 4-8 year olds. No self-respecting 10 or 12 year old boy is going to clamour to watch Finding Nemo.

If I was 10, I would be blown away by this stuff (http://www.google.ca/search?q=Michael+Komarck&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=rAwlUYDbG-isiALbwIDIDw&ved=0CFAQsAQ&biw=1341&bih=865#imgrc=T8dTGtha2f4ceM%3A%3BECgOkSlLgVe3pM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fa407.idata.over-blog.com%252F4%252F90%252F99%252F85%252FIllustrateurs%252FMichael-Komarck%252FThe-Grieving-Tree.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fnot.pulpcovers.com%252Fpage%252F146%3B504%3B672), not something that looked like it was pulled from a Tangled storyboard.

Quote from: jibbajibba;628956My 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.

Why wouldn't you want to appeal to today's equivalent of your 13-year-old self?  

D&D was a mainstream game for about 9 months in 1983. It's naive to think 5E will be a game that grandparents buy at Target for their 10-year-old kids. If it's a game that high-school and college age kids play, the 10 and 12 year olds will follow. That's exactly how it worked in the 70s and 80s. D&D became enormously popular before it started catering to 10-year-olds. Heck, the blue-box Holmes set that introduced me to the game said Adult Fantasy Roleplay right on the box. That only made us want to play it more. And frankly, the kind of parents who worry a lot about what kind of pictures their 10-year-old looks at won't be onboard with D&D in any manifestation.

Quote from: jibbajibba;628956My 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.

Why wouldn't you want to appeal to day's equivalent of your 13-year-old self? D&D was a mainstream game for about 9 months in 1983.

It''s naive to think 5E will be a game that grandparents buy at Target for 10-year-old kids. If it's a game that high-school and college age kids play, the 10 and 12 year olds will follow. That's exactly how it worked in the 70s and 80s. D&D became enormously popular before it started catering to 10-year-olds. And frankly, the kind of parents who worry a lot about what kind of pictures their 10-year-old looks at won't be onboard with D&D in any manifestation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;629624Then I doubt you'd have bought it in any case. Seriously, what's next? People boldly stepping forward to declare that the typeface they're using means they'll Never Buy A D&D Product Again?

The joke of the thing is how shallow and obvious an excuse that is to cover up a prejudiced decision right from the very start.

I don't know, call me crazy, but the reason I wouldn't buy 5e is if the rules as a whole suck ass.  I think pretty much any other reason besides that would mean that you never actually even considered buying it in the first place, and you're just using your situation to loudly justify your hatred for a game that isn't even out yet.

The artwork of an RPG does influence my attitude towards it. It conveys the feel and attitude of the game world. The artwork of some games (Midnight, the Savage World of Solomon Kane, The One Ring, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay) helped sell me on the games. The artwork for others (Pathfinder, D&D 3E and 4E) contributed to my wariness.

I know when I present a game to my group, it shapes how they feel about it too. We're more of an immersion-oriented group than rules crunch group, so this stuff matters to us. And judging by how much of their budget RPG publishers spend on artwork, they clearly recognize that it affects the opinion of a lot of people.

Yep, when A/D&D was at its height of popularity (c. 1981-84) it was selling tons of copies to kids between about 9-14, but a big part of how it was able to do that was by appearing as if it was a game geared towards and intended for "adults" (or at least high school-college age). The notion that they were reading and playing something age-inappropriate both served as an ego-boost ("I'm only 11 but I play this 'adult' game") and also gave it a level of "forbidden fruit" coolness and cachet - especially when combined with the mass-media Satanism scare (that anyone who actually read or played the game knew was complete nonsense). For nerdy 'tween kids in the early 80s, playing D&D felt like a form of rebellion and an expression of individualism and non-conformity, even though the truth was that tons of kids that age were doing the same thing and the actual adult players were almost certainly the minority (which is to say there were probably about the same number of them there had been in the 70s).

It's ironic that TSR's attempts to blunt the BADD-type criticism (by removing demons and assassins and nipples in the art and such) and to more directly court the younger audience (through increasingly simplified and sanitized introductory products - black box, First Quest, etc.) managed to undermine and destroy what kids had found appealing about the game in the first place, and turned something that was really a hobby for nerdy kids but looked and felt vaguely dangerous and illicit and therefore cool into just a hobby for nerds, full-stop.

Well a particularly cunning way to handle the art would be to have the Basic set illustrated mostly in the more cartoony Pixar-ish style and then have the Standard and Advanced versions feature progressively more quote unquote adult style artwork, but they'd have to have the strength of will to ignore forum dipshits whining about how the pictures they like aren't "core" or whatever.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;628669The only problem I have with that picture is that axe... just. to. big...

If the axe is made of mythril, it wouldn't be too heavy for a man of that size to wield. But that's being persnickety.

Quote from: T. Foster;628670The size of that axe-head pretty much single-handedly eliminates any potential interest I might have had in 5E. Luckily I still have my 1974-85 era stuff.

Seriously, your interest is hanging by such a thread as to be chopped by a single axe?

//Panjumanju

One of my reactions to the art was "Oh wow.... realistic, tasteful swords YES! But those axes, oh my...."

Quote from: Panjumanju;630314Seriously, your interest is hanging by such a thread as to be chopped by a single axe?

1) We already went over this a couple pages ago.

2) OK, I'll admit I was exaggerating for dramatic effect. Apparently I'm the only person to have ever done this on therpgsite. This one concept illustration in fact does not single-handedly eliminate my potential interest in 5E. But it's true that I don't like that illustration, and it's true that if it's representative of what the 5E art in general will look like that I probably won't be interested in the game (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that if the art is not to my tastes that the rest of the game won't be either). And it's also true that I'm probably not going to buy 5E anyway so it's less a case of the art turning me off than a case of it failing to turn me on - art that I don't like confirms my status quo intent to probably not buy the game, but art that I did like might have moved me more towards buying.

3) This seems like a very long and labored explanation to have had to give (especially to have had to give twice) for a one-line post made as a knee-jerk reaction upon seeing a piece of art I didn't like. But then I suppose laboring every point and beating dead-horses is pretty much a time-honored rpgsite tradition.

Oversize weapons are lame. Period.

Quote from: Planet Algol;630346Oversize weapons are lame. Period.

This is very true.  I blame Final Fantasy

Quote from: Planet Algol;630346Oversize weapons are lame. Period.

Thorette, our Fighting Woman Superhero, disagrees! :D

(http://winningateverything.com/files/2012/07/weapon1.jpg)

Quote from: Planet Algol;630346Oversize weapons are lame. Period.

Indeed.

Quote from: Benoist;630350Thorette, our Fighting Woman Superhero, disagrees! :D

(http://winningateverything.com/files/2012/07/weapon1.jpg)

Damn, now I have hammer envy, LOL!

You guys are suffering from Anti-Thorette Syndrome.

Quote from: T. Foster;630297Yep, when A/D&D was at its height of popularity (c. 1981-84) it was selling tons of copies to kids between about 9-14, but a big part of how it was able to do that was by appearing as if it was a game geared towards and intended for "adults" (or at least high school-college age). The notion that they were reading and playing something age-inappropriate both served as an ego-boost ("I'm only 11 but I play this 'adult' game") and also gave it a level of "forbidden fruit" coolness and cachet - especially when combined with the mass-media Satanism scare (that anyone who actually read or played the game knew was complete nonsense). For nerdy 'tween kids in the early 80s, playing D&D felt like a form of rebellion and an expression of individualism and non-conformity, even though the truth was that tons of kids that age were doing the same thing and the actual adult players were almost certainly the minority (which is to say there were probably about the same number of them there had been in the 70s).

It's ironic that TSR's attempts to blunt the BADD-type criticism (by removing demons and assassins and nipples in the art and such) and to more directly court the younger audience (through increasingly simplified and sanitized introductory products - black box, First Quest, etc.) managed to undermine and destroy what kids had found appealing about the game in the first place, and turned something that was really a hobby for nerdy kids but looked and felt vaguely dangerous and illicit and therefore cool into just a hobby for nerds, full-stop.

Yup, this explains why at the age of 11, Return of the Jedi made me cry... Compared to the previous movies, RotJ was geared more to kids... Kids younger than my 11 year old self... It was so blatant that I felt betrayed and I have hated Jedi for it since...

Quote from: Benoist;630350Thorette, our Fighting Woman Superhero, disagrees! :D

(http://winningateverything.com/files/2012/07/weapon1.jpg)

I love cosplay when its done right!









but when it isnt... *shudder*

Quote from: T. Foster;6303362) OK, I'll admit I was exaggerating for dramatic effect. Apparently I'm the only person to have ever done this on therpgsite. This one concept illustration in fact does not single-handedly eliminate my potential interest in 5E. But it's true that I don't like that illustration, and it's true that if it's representative of what the 5E art in general will look like that I probably won't be interested in the game (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that if the art is not to my tastes that the rest of the game won't be either). And it's also true that I'm probably not going to buy 5E anyway so it's less a case of the art turning me off than a case of it failing to turn me on - art that I don't like confirms my status quo intent to probably not buy the game, but art that I did like might have moved me more towards buying.

Better know as the "confirmation bias".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

Quote from: Planet Algol;630329One of my reactions to the art was "Oh wow.... realistic, tasteful swords YES! But those axes, oh my...."

The way weapons and armor are drawn in FRPGs has almost always been retarded, with the exceptions of Angus McBride's work on MERPG

(http://img-fan.theonering.net/~rolozo/images/mcbride/angus007.gif)

and the art of Jim Holloway and Roger Raupp in Dragon Magazine and a few old TSR modules.

Quote from: T. Foster;629785Art in published rpg products is extremely important to me, probably the most important thing, because it's the one thing I can't do on my own. The art helps me envision what the game looks and feels like, and helps me convey that to the players (including potential players). Anybody I'm likely to play with doesn't really care about rules (and I'll probably house-rule and modify them anyway) so they don't matter as much as establishing a feel and tone, being able to show a few pieces of art and say "this is what this game is about." So if I don't like the art in a game, or don't find it inspiring, I'm extremely unlikely to buy that game.

What a dull mind you must have. Amazing isn't it, how many gamers over the last 40 years have been able to imagine for themselves what people, places and things in their game worlds look like without taking their cues from "official" artwork.

Quote from: Imp;630311Well a particularly cunning way to handle the art would be to have the Basic set illustrated mostly in the more cartoony Pixar-ish style and then have the Standard and Advanced versions feature progressively more quote unquote adult style artwork, but they'd have to have the strength of will to ignore forum dipshits whining about how the pictures they like aren't "core" or whatever.

My sentiments exactly.

Quote from: Haffrung;630272Why wouldn't you want to appeal to today's equivalent of your 13-year-old self?  

D&D was a mainstream game for about 9 months in 1983. It's naive to think 5E will be a game that grandparents buy at Target for their 10-year-old kids. If it's a game that high-school and college age kids play, the 10 and 12 year olds will follow. That's exactly how it worked in the 70s and 80s. D&D became enormously popular before it started catering to 10-year-olds. Heck, the blue-box Holmes set that introduced me to the game said Adult Fantasy Roleplay right on the box. That only made us want to play it more. And frankly, the kind of parents who worry a lot about what kind of pictures their 10-year-old looks at won't be onboard with D&D in any manifestation.

Nah....
See I don't think that is true at all.

First off Pixar/Dreamworks cartoons appeal to a massive audience. The Incredibles, Kung Fu Panda, Shrek, Puss in Boots etc have established that genre as cool Kung Fun Panda is cool, Shrek is cool. On the D&D Next art as you see from the artwork of the gnoll and the barbarians it's not all cute little Hobbitess. It just has that clean line and crisp esthetic that we have come to associate with the modern animated movie.

Then the idea that a parent that cares about what images their kid looks at will by definiton be anti D&D is frankly bizzare and I am only think comes from the American need to devide everything in to Liberal vs Conversative. I don't think my 8 year old daughter should be looking at Boris style erotic Fantasy Art or reading my RanXerox graphic novels or reading Mark Millar's Wolverine run. In fact recently I forbade her from going to see the Hobbit as I deemed it too violent. However, I have been playing 'D&D' with her since she was 5 and from the get go she was incredible violent. However there is a huge difference between the violence she watches on Tom and Jerry or Kung Fu Panda and the violence in the LotR or Hobbit movies.

Yes the artwork in the original D&D was mostly awful. Sutherland could not draw and that is clear from most of his work. However, it was another time D&D grew from small hobby press stuff, and the amature artwork was part of that DIY vibe that the early hobby had.

By the time you get to the early 80s things have moved on but D&D art was still trying to scrape by on goodwill. I mean Mondrons.... really. The fans of the genre were now used to Frazetta, Boris, etc Certainly kids like me that read comics and bought books found it hard to understand how say 2000AD could put out a comic each week with solid art by Bolland, Wilson, Davis, etc and this hugely sucessful game we loved couldn't get cover art as good as a cheap paperback or internal art that was comic book standard. 2e had to step up but maybe in doing so it lost its own unique look and became too "generic fanatasy".

Art direction changes over time. I think D&D needs a strong look you need to see an image and it to kind of click as a D&D image. Wizards have been really good at doing this with Magic. Each Magic cycle has its own look and feel. They put a lot of care onto the concept art, so that the architecture, clothing, people, monsters of a certain world have a specific feel and they are absolutely great at it. They need to take that esthetic approach into D&D. I think this 'pixar D&D ' manages it.

Again to those that haven't been paying attention to Magic artwork recently check out the Innistaad Block. Just really solid evocative artwork with no Giant swords or chain mail Bikinis

Quote from: Sacrosanct;628781That'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.

But... but... but...  who's going to gatekeep and make sure it's only the right kind of person playing?  :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;630396Art direction changes over time.

This.

There's no going home again. Industry artists are either not painting full oils for RPG art the way they used to, or they've become too expensive - with a few exceptions. More importantly - art design goes in movements, and if this art looks too Pixar it's only because that's the art movement in which we're seated. Artists fully capable of doing old-school-style-oils are doing what they consider 'new and exciting' instead.

There's a whole culture within artists (especially industry artists) that we're forgetting here. Young artists would rather do their work wholly or partly on the computer, and this is what results.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: jibbajibba;630396Again to those that haven't been paying attention to Magic artwork recently check out the Innistaad Block. Just really solid evocative artwork with no Giant swords or chain mail Bikinis

I hadn't seen this Innistrad, though now that I check they have been out for a little while.  i don't follow Magic at all, though.  Character-like cards from Innistrad for those that are interested.

(http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/products/isd/4wn1c3uxsq_en.jpg)

(http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/products/isd/c0puqqf9wm_en.jpg)

(http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/products/isd/wb8twqq5sy_en.jpg)

(http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/products/isd/9x97fbdhb6_en.jpg)

(http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/products/isd/bebacawwbv_en.jpg)

(http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/products/isd/4hy2891i3e_en.jpg)

Quote from: Mistwell;628680(http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/017/4/c/gnome_by_conceptopolis-d5rsjk7.jpg)
(http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/017/4/c/strongheart_halfling__male__by_conceptopolis-d5rsq2i.jpg)

Wow, all you need to do is add furry feet to that fat bastard.

All halflings, aka, hobbits, are of the Mk I, hairy footed variety in my games.  Screw you, Tolkien Estate.  Also, DEATH TO KENDER. They make for awful trouble at D&D tables in my experience.

To all of those who say that manga art styles don't support the old school ethic -

To thee I reply - Guts from Berserk.  D&D as fuck. And with a huge but historically accurate Zweihander sword!

(http://axel22.github.com/resources/images/guts.jpg)

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630554To thee I reply - Guts from Berserk.  D&D as fuck. And with a huge but historically accurate Zweihander sword!

How the hell is that a "historically accurate" Zweihander? I've tried to find other Google Images of this character in case I'm missing the comparison. And I'm not seeing it.

Are you being silly?

Quote from: jibbajibba;630396Then the idea that a parent that cares about what images their kid looks at will by definiton be anti D&D is frankly bizzare and I am only think comes from the American need to devide everything in to Liberal vs Conversative. I don't think my 8 year old daughter should be looking at Boris style erotic Fantasy Art or reading my RanXerox graphic novels or reading Mark Millar's Wolverine run. In fact recently I forbade her from going to see the Hobbit as I deemed it too violent. However, I have been playing 'D&D' with her since she was 5 and from the get go she was incredible violent. However there is a huge difference between the violence she watches on Tom and Jerry or Kung Fu Panda and the violence in the LotR or Hobbit movies.

What I'm disputing is that WotC would want to make D&D aimed at 8-year-olds. That's way too young. And if you're aiming at 12-14 year olds, they like entirely different stuff form 8 year olds.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630396Art direction changes over time. I think D&D needs a strong look you need to see an image and it to kind of click as a D&D image. Wizards have been really good at doing this with Magic. Each Magic cycle has its own look and feel. They put a lot of care onto the concept art, so that the architecture, clothing, people, monsters of a certain world have a specific feel and they are absolutely great at it. They need to take that esthetic approach into D&D. I think this 'pixar D&D ' manages it.

Again to those that haven't been paying attention to Magic artwork recently check out the Innistaad Block. Just really solid evocative artwork with no Giant swords or chain mail Bikinis

Recent Magic style is fine. And it would work for D&D - a lot better than Pixar style aimed at 8-year-olds.

No furry feet...

Interesting goblin. Goblins usually have that *gurgle gurgle* factor that makes them cartoonish, even in a dark fantasy setting. These don't look like anything I'd want to play with before eating.

Did you see the Tulumi bard? Here come the racism accusations.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630554To all of those who say that manga art styles don't support the old school ethic -

To thee I reply - Guts from Berserk.  D&D as fuck. And with a huge but historically accurate Zweihander sword!

(http://axel22.github.com/resources/images/guts.jpg)

That's a lame, non-D&D-feeling piece of art.  Hair is stupid.  Square face is stupid.  Arm looks out of proportion.  Armor has huge gaps in crucial areas for "cool" factor, even though in effect the bottom of the biceps would be rubbing directly against sharp plates of armor. Sword is incredibly stupid (the base of the sword is larger in width than his head, while the hilt is a twig that would snap from the weight of the sword).  Not my thing, at all.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630554To all of those who say that manga art styles don't support the old school ethic -

To thee I reply - Guts from Berserk.  D&D as fuck. And with a huge but historically accurate Zweihander sword!

(http://axel22.github.com/resources/images/guts.jpg)

You must be a troll.

Quote from: K Peterson;630564How the hell is that a "historically accurate" Zweihander? I've tried to find other Google Images of this character in case I'm missing the comparison. And I'm not seeing it.

I am also not sure about the historical correctness of that sword - especially the seemingly effortless way the boy wields it.

Trailer of the movie. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMOS3YDCSE)

Quote from: 1989;630587You must be a troll.

Yeah, there is no anime or manga in old school D&D.  Old school Palladium, sure.  But not D&D.

I like the art from those Magic cards. The same way I've seen some non-D&D/PF art by Wayne Reynolds (for Osprey Books) that I didn't hate. I wish WotC directed D&D artists towards this sort of look and not towards the extreme action-pose quasi-manga quasi-superhero quasi-WoW look that is such a turn-off for me.

Quote from: Mistwell;630577That's a lame, non-D&D-feeling piece of art.  Hair is stupid.  Square face is stupid.  Arm looks out of proportion.  Armor has huge gaps in crucial areas for "cool" factor, even though in effect the bottom of the biceps would be rubbing directly against sharp plates of armor. Sword is incredibly stupid (the base of the sword is larger in width than his head, while the hilt is a twig that would snap from the weight of the sword).  Not my thing, at all.

Argle Bargle.  Physics has meant nothing for D&D art, unless Erol Otus is now the model for which we measure "realism" (hah!) or "authenticity." This is wounds, action, barely contained raw physicality.  Check out the comic - it's raw, dark, and over the top, like a lot of swords and sorcery written by the great Appendix N authors.

Guts stinks the entire Appendix N aesthetic.  That's what counts!

And no, I'm not trolling.  Appendix N adaventurers are dirty mercenaries and adventurers.  More Fafrhd and Conan for me.

Now, as to Zweihanders -

This is one -

(http://images.wikia.com/deadliestfiction/images/c/ca/Zweihander.jpg)

This is a real life one being held for reference.

(http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1341/09/1341092580726.jpg)

These things were used by heavy infanry to break cavalry lines and gut horses.  The swords we see in games in FF VII, while being stylized, are actually based in grounded military fact.  Errol Flynn has less to do with battlefield combat than characters like Guts.

Guts is certainly stylized, including his occasional one handed swings and the thickness of his particular horse gutter, but in a game where a man can chant gobbledy gook and fly through the air, two handers are not particularly a stretch.  Read some of the Appendix N style japanese comics like Berserk and Claymore, both heavily influenced by D&D as per their authors.  They bleed the Appendix N aesthetic.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630593Argle Bargle.  Physics has meant nothing for D&D art, unless Erol Otus is now the model for which we measure "realism" (hah!) or "authenticity." !

Are you high?  James Holloway was known for his very realistic arms and armor style.  I can't think of a single iconic D&D image where someone had this super huge anime weapon.

Quote from: 1989;630587You must be a troll.

No, I'm just sharing what I feel Appendix N is.  Trust me, you folks don't need me to get all hot and in a bother.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630597No, I'm just sharing what I feel Appendix N is.  

And you are so incredibly wrong as to make people wonder whether you are trolling for the lulz. Congratulations.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630593Argle Bargle.  Physics has meant nothing for D&D art, unless Erol Otus is now the model for which we measure "realism" (hah!) or "authenticity." This is wounds, action, barely contained raw physicality.  Check out the comic - it's raw, dark, and over the top, like a lot of swords and sorcery written by the great Appendix N authors.

Guts stinks the entire Appendix N aesthetic.  That's what counts!

And no, I'm not trolling.  Appendix N adaventurers are dirty mercenaries and adventurers.  More Fafrhd and Conan for me.

Now, as to Zweihanders -

This is one -

(http://images.wikia.com/deadliestfiction/images/c/ca/Zweihander.jpg)

This is a real life one being held for reference.

(http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1341/09/1341092580726.jpg)

These things were used by heavy infanry to break cavalry lines and gut horses.  The swords we see in games in FF VII, while being stylized, are actually based in grounded military fact.  Errol Flynn has less to do with battlefield combat than characters like Guts.

Guts is certainly stylized, including his occasional one handed swings and the thickness of his particular horse gutter, but in a game where a man can chant gobbledy gook and fly through the air, two handers are not particularly a stretch.  Read some of the Appendix N style japanese comics like Berserk and Claymore, both heavily influenced by D&D as per their authors.  They bleed the Appendix N aesthetic.

And somehow you think the real life sword is the same as the one that is in your illustration?

For realz?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630594Are you high?  James Holloway was known for his very realistic arms and armor style.  I can't think of a single iconic D&D image where someone had this super huge anime weapon.

That's because those artists didn't pay close attention to german arms manuals that made use of things like Zweihanders, and were more influenced by late medieval recreationists and swords from the early firearms period.  There work was great work, but the best fantasy art that captures the Appendix N feel for me is dirty, gritty, full of emotion, over the top, not stately knights or pennants.

Fantasy art has always been highly stylized.  Anyone who claims that there was 'one' or 'an iconic' style of D&D art is just trolling. D&D had many art styles between 1976 and 1997.  Berserk expresses to me the Appendix N feeling. I feel that many here don't like it because it shares some elements with japanese CRPGS and the fact that it's from overseas.

Maybe the disconnect here is that for me, D&D isn't necessarily TSR, but what Gary drew upon for Appendix N - Moorcock, Leiber, Howard, the original S&S works from which D&D derives.

Quote from: Haffrung;630567What I'm disputing is that WotC would want to make D&D aimed at 8-year-olds. That's way too young. And if you're aiming at 12-14 year olds, they like entirely different stuff form 8 year olds.

Back in the 80s TSR had various "D&D gateway" products - the Endless Quest line of choose-your-own-adventure books, the D&D cartoon, the AD&D toy-line (which, rather inexplicably, featured a different lineup of characters than the cartoon), the Dungeon! boardgame, etc. - aimed at young kids, while the game itself was still targeted (at least ostensibly) to older audiences (especially AD&D with its tiny print and High Gygaxian vocabulary and nipple-laden art and such). This was clever (if possibly unintentional) marketing - young kids get indoctrinated into the concepts and aesthetics of D&D without kiddifying the game itself to the extent it turns off older kids and adults.

Quote from: Benoist;630599And you are so incredibly wrong as to make people wonder whether you are trolling for the lulz. Congratulations.

Ah, the almighty head of orthodoxy rears and roars.  No, I'm not wrong, I have the right to like what you hate. And read some Moorcock.  Stormbringer was described as being bigger than Gut's weapon.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630608Ah, the almighty head of orthodoxy rears and roars.  No, I'm not wrong, I have the right to like what you hate. And read some Moorcock.  Stormbringer was described as being bigger than Gut's weapon.

Go look at your pictures again.  The real life sword is NOTHING like that anime piece of shit you posted earlier.  For one, the crossguard of that anime crap is bigger than the dude's head, and would weigh about 10 pounds by itself.

Are you really trying to argue that you think the two are equivalent?

Wow.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630608I have the right to like what you hate.

You unequivocally have that right, and I wouldn't take it away from you.

This is not the argument you just made, however.

You didn't just say "I like this and damn if you don't," which again, is totally fine in and of itself.

What you actually said was that the piece of art you showed demonstrated that "manga art styles can support the old school ethic," and when called out on the ridiculousness of that assertion based on that manga pic you said that this piece "stunk of Appendix N aesthetic."

You additionally made an equivalence between an outrageously oversized weapon in the manga piece you showed us and the pictures of the two-handed sword which hilariously enough looks nothing like it.

These are the actual things you said. Not just "I like this," no. You said "this is SO Appendix N!" And that's where we are just looking at our screens and well, rolling to disbelieve.

Quote from: Benoist;630610And that's where we are just looking at our screens and well, rolling to disbelieve.

I passed my roll. I don't believe it at all.
And it still won't go away!

//Panjumanju

The laughable part was the "historically accurate Zweihander sword!"

Show me one, ONE, Appendix N era artist who had anything similar.
Gonzo, yes. But gonzo in a hot chick riding a pterodactyl fighting a guy with a chainsaw for a hand way (none of them superdeforme), not whatever the fuck you wanna call "Buster-style".

Sucessful troll though, but not as subtle as the "fellow grog" you tossed out in the get rid of clerics thread.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630554To all of those who say that manga art styles don't support the old school ethic -

To thee I reply - Guts from Berserk.  D&D as fuck. And with a huge but historically accurate Zweihander sword!

Sorry bud, but I'll go with 1989, Mistwell and Benoist here. That is not "historically accurate" by any sane definition of the term (Oakeshott must be spinning in his grave) and the popularization of the giant honking sword aesthetic definitely postdates what most people think of as "old school D&D" (I'd say 1974-1988).

I'm cool with you enjoying and adopting this sort of imagery for tour D&D game, any edition (that's part of the beauty of D&D), but to claim any sort of kinship with "old school D&D" as understood by most people is seriously uninformed, or bugfuck crazy, or trolling. I'm not one to assume bad faith prima facie so I'm going with uninformed, and urge you to catch up on your reading of the classics. As a fellow latecomer to older editions, I assure you it's been eye-opening, refreshing even.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630608And read some Moorcock.  Stormbringer was described as being bigger than Gut's weapon.

[citation needed]

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630603That's because those artists didn't pay close attention to german arms manuals that made use of things like Zweihanders, and were more influenced by late medieval recreationists and swords from the early firearms period.  There work was great work, but the best fantasy art that captures the Appendix N feel for me is dirty, gritty, full of emotion, over the top, not stately knights or pennants.

Fantasy art has always been highly stylized.  Anyone who claims that there was 'one' or 'an iconic' style of D&D art is just trolling. D&D had many art styles between 1976 and 1997.  Berserk expresses to me the Appendix N feeling. I feel that many here don't like it because it shares some elements with japanese CRPGS and the fact that it's from overseas.

Maybe the disconnect here is that for me, D&D isn't necessarily TSR, but what Gary drew upon for Appendix N - Moorcock, Leiber, Howard, the original S&S works from which D&D derives.

I think perhaps the disconnect is that you have some cultural tastes that simply don't connect well with this crowd, and what you think is in good taste and theme is simply a preference not shared by others (myself included).  The picture you posted shares nothing with my preferences and tastes in D&D.  That you don't understand why others don't see what you are seeing, is I think a cultural disconnect more than anything else.

That's my polite way of saying your Japanese Animation fantasy picture is a piece of shit.

Quote from: Mistwell;630651I think perhaps the disconnect is that you have some cultural tastes that simply don't connect well with this crowd, and what you think is in good taste and theme is simply a preference not shared by others (myself included).  The picture you posted shares nothing with my preferences and tastes in D&D.  That you don't understand why others don't see what you are seeing, is I think a cultural disconnect more than anything else.

That's my polite way of saying your Japanese Animation fantasy picture is a piece of shit.

It has nothing to do with differences in tastes.  It has to do with him posting a magna picture of a huge ass sword, and then saying it works because here's a picture of a real life sword that looks nothing like the one he's trying to make an analogy with.

Ok, I'm a big anime/manga nerd... I admit to it...

But dude.. have you actually read any of the Appendix N books?

The Japanese culture has a long history of taking things and other influences and making them distinctly their own.

While the authors might have claimed influence from D&D and Appendix N lit, what their final product is NO LONGER indentifiable as such... IT is now distinctly Japanese Anime/Manga

I liked Record of Lodoss War, Berserk, Claymore, and Bastard!!. These Series are distinctly anime. There is little to no D&D or Appendix N left in them.

Yes, the Zweihander and the No Dachi were big ass swords... But they were still realistic big ass swords...

Are you dudes hating on Berserk? Because I'm sorry, but Berserk fucking owns. It's probably the the best piece of western fantasy written by a Japanese dude ever, and the whole idea that the series is shit because his sword is too big really does it a disservice, its existence as something that does or doesn't represent D&D notwithstanding. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Paper Monkey;630663Are you dudes hating on Berserk? Because I'm sorry, but Berserk fucking owns. It's probably the the best piece of western fantasy written by a Japanese dude ever, and the whole idea that the series is shit because his sword is too big really does it a disservice, its existence as something that does or doesn't represent D&D notwithstanding. :rolleyes:

No one is doing that.  What we saying is that using that image to say that Anime is representative of old school D&D is ridiculous.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630685No one is doing that.  What we saying is that using that image to say that Anime is representative of old school D&D is ridiculous.

If anything I'd say Berserk works better compared to Warhammer Fantasy, both in terms of theme and the rather over the top nature of some of the characters. And to be fair to Kaiiu Keiichi the sword is acknowledged as ridiculous in setting as well. Normal people explicitly can't use it, and was intended to be used to hunt dragons. The main character becomes more inhuman as time goes on, initially his equipment is more reasonable before he accumulates magical artifacts and hunts demons for a living. The supporting cast is more mundane.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630657It has nothing to do with differences in tastes.  It has to do with him posting a magna picture of a huge ass sword, and then saying it works because here's a picture of a real life sword that looks nothing like the one he's trying to make an analogy with.

In other words, "your Japanese Animation fantasy picture is a piece of shit", at least in comparison to D&D.

Quote from: The Butcher;630644Sorry bud, but I'll go with 1989, Mistwell and Benoist here. That is not "historically accurate" by any sane definition of the term (Oakeshott must be spinning in his grave) and the popularization of the giant honking sword aesthetic definitely postdates what most people think of as "old school D&D" (I'd say 1974-1988).

I'm cool with you enjoying and adopting this sort of imagery for tour D&D game, any edition (that's part of the beauty of D&D), but to claim any sort of kinship with "old school D&D" as understood by most people is seriously uninformed, or bugfuck crazy, or trolling. I'm not one to assume bad faith prima facie so I'm going with uninformed, and urge you to catch up on your reading of the classics. As a fellow latecomer to older editions, I assure you it's been eye-opening, refreshing even.

I'm adding my name to the list.  I am not a fan of anime art, and especially over-sized weapons, but I will say that the piece you posted wasn't terribly bad.  I can overlook the armor issue Mistwell pointed out because, well, it's art and clearly not an attempt at a realistic rendition.  However, the over-sized sword handle detracts my appreciation for the piece somewhat.

Quote from: Mistwell;630697In other words, "your Japanese Animation fantasy picture is a piece of shit", at least in comparison to D&D.

*Edited* because my initial reading may have been less than charitable.

Look at that anime picture.  Now look at the real life picture of a sword that he's saying is the same thing, and is the entire reason why that anime picture is representative of old school D&D.  The anime picture could be shit, or could be genius.  That's not the point.  The point is that the sword in that pic is NOTHING like the one in real life that he's using for his justification.  And more to the point, is NOTHING like anything depicted in old school D&D

Well, actually the handles of the two swords are about the same size. The problem with the comparison is that the blade of the anime sword is about 2' wide whereas the blade of the real sword is about 4".

While stylized, I would say most pictures of Parn from Record of Lodoss War would be pretty nicely inserted for "Fighter" in a D&D or Fantasy RPG, for my tastes.

Slade works pretty well as the Magic-User too, though I'd probably throw some more clothes on Deedlit. Etoh looks good for a priest character, not so much for a battle Cleric, though. Woodchuck always looked too heroic (too tall, aggressive pose, etc) for my typical Thief.

Quote from: Novastar;630722While stylized, I would say most pictures of Parn from Record of Lodoss War would be pretty nicely inserted for "Fighter" in a D&D or Fantasy RPG, for my tastes.

Slade works pretty well as the Magic-User too, though I'd probably throw some more clothes on Deedlit. Etoh looks good for a priest character, not so much for a battle Cleric, though. Woodchuck always looked too heroic (too tall, aggressive pose, etc) for my typical Thief.

Considering RoLW is based off of a D&D basic game, it makes sense ;)

I don't give a shit whether huge anime swords/axes (and has there been an apologist line for the stupidly farking big axe yet?) are historically justifiable. I just think they look stupid.

Yeah D&D has had a lot of looks (almost cartoony weird Otus B/X covers, 2e Elmore cheesecake, 3e punky spikey stuff). Any "look" can be D&D, it's whatever the art department says it is. I just happen to not like the giant animeyish look.

The thing is, there's a really big fantasy audience out there that is not into the anime/superhero look. Take a look at the artwork for Game of Thrones board and card games. Or Tolkien calendars. Or Magic the Gathering. These are huge, mass-market audiences. Why in fuck do WotC and Paizo tailor their game art at the small subset of fantasy fans who are into manga? I mean, they're probably not idiots. They must know something I don't.  So what's the deal?

Quote from: Haffrung;630825The thing is, there's a really big fantasy audience out there that is not into the anime/superhero look. Take a look at the artwork for Game of Thrones board and card games. Or Tolkien calendars. Or Magic the Gathering. These are huge, mass-market audiences. Why in fuck do WotC and Paizo tailor their game art at the small subset of fantasy fans who are into manga? I mean, they're probably not idiots. They must know something I don't.  So what's the deal?

Likely, it's aimed more at an age demographic, than an art aesthetic.

When I was growing up, most anime was bought at Con's from Hawai'ians on shitty VHS tapes, with quality generally in the crapper with sound lines throughout the playback.

My son? He has over 200 anime series a click away on Netflix streaming on HDMI quality; even more selections, if I decide to get a physical DVD.

Most of the anime I spent hundreds of dollars collecting in the 90's? Streaming, on Netflix. :banghead:

Kids today are more likely to know what Korean or Japanese studio made their cartoon shows, than I can name off the top of my head.

Quote from: Haffrung;630825The thing is, there's a really big fantasy audience out there that is not into the anime/superhero look. Take a look at the artwork for Game of Thrones board and card games. Or Tolkien calendars. Or Magic the Gathering. These are huge, mass-market audiences. Why in fuck do WotC and Paizo tailor their game art at the small subset of fantasy fans who are into manga? I mean, they're probably not idiots. They must know something I don't.  So what's the deal?

Not to mention the entire tradition of, for lack of a better descriptor, classical or fairy-tale-inspired fantasy art that goes back to at least the pre-Raphaelites (Waterhouse, Millais, etc.) and continues to this day in book publishing, and was once well-represented among D&D art as well (via much of Trampier, all of Darlene, most of the TSR-UK illustrators, and Dragon cover artists such as Robin Wood and Dean Morrissey), but has been completely absent from the D&D aesthetic pallet ever since Stephen Fabian and Tony DiTerlizzi left TSR for greener pastures in the mid 90s. :(

I don't know what to think, really.  This style of art doesn't appeal very much to me personally, but fucked if I know what the kids will like these days; and a lot of people seem to go for this pixar kind of style.
Its better than some kind of godawful 3d, at least..

RPGPundit

Quote from: zarathustra;630773I don't give a shit whether huge anime swords/axes (and has there been an apologist line for the stupidly farking big axe yet?) are historically justifiable. I just think they look stupid.

Yeah D&D has had a lot of looks (almost cartoony weird Otus B/X covers, 2e Elmore cheesecake, 3e punky spikey stuff). Any "look" can be D&D, it's whatever the art department says it is. I just happen to not like the giant animeyish look.

More importantly, the look of your campaign is pretty much what the DM and players want it to be.

I am fine with the art.  But, preference-wise, if they are going to go for modern animation style art, I'd prefer some of the art from Princess and the Frog.

(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100806014148/disneyvillains/images/3/37/Friends_on_the_Other_Side.jpg)

(http://disneyportugal.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/frogvillain.jpg)

(http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/2937/princessdisneyscreencap.jpg)

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/6784/frogvillain2.jpg)

Could you break the tables of the board more, Mark? ;)

(seriously, the last two pics are way too big)

Quote from: Paper Monkey;630689If anything I'd say Berserk works better compared to Warhammer Fantasy, both in terms of theme and the rather over the top nature of some of the characters. And to be fair to Kaiiu Keiichi the sword is acknowledged as ridiculous in setting as well. Normal people explicitly can't use it, and was intended to be used to hunt dragons. The main character becomes more inhuman as time goes on, initially his equipment is more reasonable before he accumulates magical artifacts and hunts demons for a living. The supporting cast is more mundane.

This is true. Guts is not by the point he is using that sword what I would consider mundane. Most normal mortals in the setting use accurately sized weapons.

Kaiu Keiichi is absolutely bonkers though if he thinks the Dragon Slayer (Guts's Sword) resembles a real life zweihander in any functional way.

I agree though that Guts as he is now specifically doesn't match the old school D&D aesthetic, but I would say that during the Band of the Hawk days the series seems very old school D&Dish. Especially characters like Casca or Judeau.

Berserk is an amazing Manga series. Great story, great characters and it actually does GRIMDARK!!! well. And yeah, Guts is pretty much what a high level fighter in older editions would be like, splattering armies and going up against fairly scary demons. The series is highly recommended, unless gore and at times fairly depressing stuff is a turnoff, in wich case stay the fuck away, seriously. It's made of gore and depressing stuff.

However,
1) the sword is indeed seen as silly and crazy even in-world and is nothing like a zweihander at all and saying it is is extremely o_O
2) I can't see what it's got to do with d&d 5ed unless it goes like
Basic: Pixar style, kid friendly
Advanced: Classic Pre-3e type stuff, aka stuff we like
Extreme!: Blood tits gore gore GORE!!!

...

More on topic, I like the halflings. They actually look like hobbits and d&d halflings haven't in a while. That's a thumbs up from me. And the monsters look cool, well most of them. The rest I'm fairly neutral to, but the art isn't worse than 4e or 3e art, at least, so I suppose I'm cautiously positive.