The art of RPG books

[PetterTomBos]

I'm playing 3,5 , but I don't have all the books, and I'd absolutely love to buy the books I want for my game. I have no mechanical hate for 4th ed. but there is one big thing:

The art. I mean, I love how 3,5 looks! (esp. the PHB). 4th seems computer animated to me, PF is better, but sort of, dunno, anime-ish? Still, I feel like I'm asking the other game's artists to get of my lawn ;)

I really hope 5th comes soon, and that it is good :)

[Eldan]

Personally, I think everything after Tony Di'Terlizzi was just downhill. His pieces were just more, hmm, expressive. Fantastic. More character in the characters.

[Yora]

I don't know. Di'Terlizzi IS planescape, and any playnescape art that isn't by him isn't really worth it.
But for the rest o D&D, it seems rather inappropriate.

I am mixed about 3rd ed. art. While it is much more sophisticated than in older editions, it gave the game a very different feel. 2nd Ed. Forgotten Realms were a completely different world than 3rd Ed. Forgotten Realms because of the Art. It makes you have very different ideas about how people in these worlds live and act.

Interestingly, early 3rd Edition art was much closer to older designs, and it was about with 3.5e that you got the real art shift. For me the Forgotten Realms were the setting of 2nd Edition. The 3.5e setting is Eberron., which I think is heavily influenced by the Warcraft setting when it comes to peoples behavior and way of life.
AD&D settings were pseudo-medieval, while 3.5e and 4th Ed. are very modern worlds with just different technology. And I think the art is the main reason for that.

[Eldan]

I'm not sure on that. Sure, he defined the Planescape look, but a lot of his things aren't too planes-specific. He also drew quite normal-looking adventurers, and some of his monsters could be at home just about anywhere.

[Yora]

Okay, if he wants to, he can tone it down. But the crazy from the planescape illustration only works for planescape for me. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

Absolutely. The weird fashion sense* and tentacle ponies don't work for every setting.


*The hats (http://azrai.com/wiki/images/e/e4/Hashkar.jpg). Seriously. The hats.

[Yora]

Hats?

Oh yea, those hats. :smallbiggrin:

[Calmar]

I don't know. Di'Terlizzi IS planescape, and any playnescape art that isn't by him isn't really worth it.
But for the rest o D&D, it seems rather inappropriate.

I agree. I feel similar about his artwork on some Magic the Gathering cards. DiTerlizzi's art is awesome - and extraordinary. I think his style doesn't mix well with more conventional styles, because it creates a unique atmosphere.

[Ravens_cry]

1st edition AD&D had some spectacular black and white work, like the Intellect Devourer. Some mind, a lot of it was seriously bad.

[hayabusa]

3.x does have a lot of art, and really the majority of Wizards of the Coast's RPG artwork has been good. Especially the following covers: Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide, Jedi Academy Training Manual. Scum & Villainy, Forge of Fury and Grand History of the Realms.

Look 'em up, especially the Star Wars ones.

[ra88]

Personally art in some RPGs get on my nerves and extend out the book to un needed size but with most RPGs I enjoy the art work.

[PetterTomBos]

Good to hear others prioritate the artwork as well :)

I should note myself the artist's name more often..

[KillianHawkeye]

I liked the art in 4E better than the 3.x art.

[FatJose]

I liked the art in 4E better than the 3.x art.

Me too. The only thing that bugs me at all in 4E art has more to do with the fact that they base their drawings on what's described. So any qualms to be had with deviations from the norm in art is usually directed to be that way by the new fluff. I think 4E would benefit esthetically from having some more of that sketchy research note art that's all over the 3E books.

[Janus]

I prefer the 4e art to the 3.5 (usually), but it bugs me just how, well, "fantasy" some of the armor and weapons look, along with the generic action poses.
I love a lot of the old AD&D artwork due to its old-school charm, but also for having pictures that brought the game to life for me and would always make me ask "What's going on there? I want to know more!"

[Winter_Wolf]

My top artists for RPG art are, in no particular order:
Larry Elmore
Clyde Caldwell
Keith Parkinson (RIP)
Jeff Easley

These guys were my heroes when I was in high school, and I was inspired to push myself in my own artistic endeavors because of them. If I ever had the sheer amount of disposable income necessary, I'd be thrilled to own an original by any one of them. They ain't cheap!

I don't know who did the cover of the 1st edition Shadowrun RPG, but that was also pretty sweet.

I never really cared much for the Planescape style, or steampunk, and Tony Baxa was always real hit-or-miss for me.

I like anime and manga style, but Tristat BESM 2nd edition art had a lot more misses than hits.

[Remmirath]

I've always preferred 1st and 2nd edition artwork. It's generally more in line with how I like D&D to feel, I suppose, plus I just rather like the black and white style at times.

Planescape art was amazing for the setting, but it wouldn't seem quite right for general D&D to me.

3rd edition artwork to me is all over the place. There are a few pieces that I like, but mostly I'm not very fond of it - especially one artist that crops up frequently (I think it's the same one who does the Pathfinder art, which I really dislike).

4th edition artwork I like better than 3rd, except that it just doesn't have quite the right feel to me.

I mostly dislike the art in D20 Modern, although there are some things I like in there. I'm generally fond of the art in MERP, although there are some oddities about some of it.

[Mando Knight]

4th seems computer animated to me, PF is better, but sort of, dunno, anime-ish?

I'm a bit the other way around. I'm fine with 4e's art, even the fact that if you look through the books most everything that's not new for the edition is recycled from the 3.X material, but Wayne Reynolds (who does most of the iconic character illustrations for Pathfinder) seems to like to hide his inability to draw ankles and wrists behind massive cylindrical chunks of armor or cloth. The other artists might be decent, but most of the Pathfinder art I've seen is his work, and his tendencies bug me.

[Ravens_cry]

Which is too bad, because his work is otherwise spectacular. They have character and emotion. For example, the Paladin practically radiates determined nobility and is one of my favourite examples of (mostly) realistic female armour.

[Yora]

Reynolds has a very cartoonish style, which I also think is not such a great thing.

But it's a really, really good cartoonish style, which makes him rank quite high on my list of RPG artists. And he really keeps the fan service low, I always admire that.

Larry Elmore
Clyde Caldwell
Keith Parkinson
Jeff Easley
Interesting. These people have a style that includes anything I personally dislike about 80s and 90s fantasy art. Their skill is really great, no doubt about that. But their idea about how a fantasy world is supposed to look like really conflict with mine.
But it may be my personal hate for 80's hair and chainmail bikinis that completely overshadows all the merits their art has. :smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

I started playing with Original D&D. ALL art since then is a vast improvement. No exceptions.

[Knaight]

I started playing with Original D&D. ALL art since then is a vast improvement. No exceptions.

FATAL is worse.

Now, onto better. I rather like the art of Chronica Feudalis, its simple line art, but it captures the medieval style quite well. Then there is Legend of the Five Rings, which has consistently good fantasy art, Shadowrun, which has the occasional stunning piece mixed in with a lot of good, but not particularly impressive work.

Then there is Nobilis, which (up until the most recent edition) had the best RPG art, bar none. And you paid a premium for it, which is why I don't own it, and have only looked at it.

[Ravens_cry]

Is it worse than this (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/dungeons-and-dragons/steve-old-gygax.php)?
I don't mean in taste, yeah, of course it is in worse taste, I am wondering about technical ability here.

[Eldan]

Still better than 90% of what I draw.

[Yora]

And I don't think there were a lot of people around back then, who would do fantasy images on commision for an affordable price. Today, there are thousands you only have to send an email.

[Spiryt]

Which is too bad, because his work is otherwise spectacular. They have character and emotion. For example, the Paladin practically radiates determined nobility and is one of my favourite examples of (mostly) realistic female armour.

Eh, if talking about 'standard' PF art, then the only 'realistic' thing about armor is the fact that it actually covers the whole body....

Because other than that nothing in his style really looks convincing or realistic.

Weird overbuilt elements, details bound/glued in many different places, weird angles, composition...

My connotation when I see it is this kind of hipsters that go around with keys, headphones, pockets, jewelery and whatever everywhere creating details overload.... Dunno if it's even proper term. :smallwink:

[Ravens_cry]

Have you seen Gothic and Maximilian plate armour? The fancier stuff makes the Paladins plate look practically plain.
And the fact it covers the whole body makes it far more realistic than most female armour right there.

[Spiryt]

Have you seen Gothic and Maximilian plate armour? The fancier stuff makes the Paladins plate look practically plain.


Quite a lot, actually, and plain or not, even purely parade ones doesn't have that overgrown elements - aside from keys, badges, cords, rings, belts, and hell knows what else everywhere from whatever reason.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7HA3glIbsOs/SfpG9YwD4uI/AAAAAAAAAg4/iWj7ryVgsDU/s400/Zbroja_1514.jpg

And this one has damn moustache on the armet....

All in all I haven't really seen much fantasy armor that has some different style than 'Earth' ones - all in all there was no Gothic period in Faerun I guess, or whatever - and yet to make sense. Everything's before the painters. :smallbiggrin:

[PetterTomBos]

Me too. The only thing that bugs me at all in 4E art has more to do with the fact that they base their drawings on what's described. So any qualms to be had with deviations from the norm in art is usually directed to be that way by the new fluff. I think 4E would benefit esthetically from having some more of that sketchy research note art that's all over the 3E books.

When I think about it, this is what makes the 3rd ed. books for me. I just love how the pictures show that someone drew them! They come out of the paper, same kind of paper I'm using non-stop at my gaming table!

Come to think of it, many of the drawings aren't favorites of mine, but the way the art could be a old bard sitting by his window making a guidebook, that's perfect! :D

[FatJose]

Eh, if talking about 'standard' PF art, then the only 'realistic' thing about armor is the fact that it actually covers the whole body....

Because other than that nothing in his style really looks convincing or realistic....

I notice people often compare PF to anime and I think that is way to broad a comparison to have any weight to it. I couldn't put my finger on what was odd with Pathfinder art until I read your post.

Extreme attention to deatil while still having a slight cartoonish anatomy. These people who made PF seem to be raised on D&D, Conan and 90's comics. It's McFarlaning.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FVXCQBs2iUU/TFVwmTB0QzI/AAAAAAAAEAI/GqFLTsyuU5s/s1600/spawn9.jpghttp://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/17700000/spawn-todd-mcfarlanes-spawn-17799350-1280-800.jpghttp://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/2009/08/mcfarlane-spawn-2.jpg

[Eldan]

When I think about it, this is what makes the 3rd ed. books for me. I just love how the pictures show that someone drew them! They come out of the paper, same kind of paper I'm using non-stop at my gaming table!

Come to think of it, many of the drawings aren't favorites of mine, but the way the art could be a old bard sitting by his window making a guidebook, that's perfect! :D

Yes. Always loved that fact. Also, the half-legible notes sometimes written around it.