Artistic Confusion

[Rockbird]

I'm not a DnD player. I'm swedish, and most of my roleplaying experience comes from Drakar och Demoner (DoD...), a swedish game that started as DnD clone, and has progressed immensely since. Anyway, here's the thing: I've looked through some of the DnD books i've been able to get my hands on, and one thing bothers me more than anything else:

Art. DnD has crap art. Really crappy art.
Whoa, whoa, put down that pitchfork and hear me out, now.

I'm not saying there are no good pieces of art in the books, because there is. What there isn't is consistency.
I guess i'm spoiled, though i never knew. In the DoD books which i am familiar with, there are fantastic pieces of art, and most importantly: They give a unified feel. As a matter of fact, they are all done by only two or three different artist. They are all greyscale, and kinda sketch-ish. And amazing. Like this. (http://perkan.deviantart.com/art/DoD-Korpikalla-13947820)

While in DnD, or what i've seen of Exalted for that matter, there is a wild inconsistency in feel and tone, and i find it strange. Why can't a big company like WotC get art that's consistent, when a small swedish company can?

Does anyone know?

[Nebo_]

I agree. Most of the art in WotC books is terrible, especially the stuff by Wayne England.

Third party publishers have much better art. My favourites are in the Iron Kingdoms books.

[leperkhaun]

i like the variety that different artists bring. but anyway, its not an important part of DnD.

[Djibriel]

A unified feel is a matter of preference, though. I, for one, think it's pretty sweet that Eberron looks different than the Book of Vile Darkness. Since it's everybody's imagination, the world of your bumbling Half-Orc Bard probably won't have the feel of the image you linked to.

Also, if you think 3.5 art is bad, just compare 3.5 art to 3.0 art or preceeding books, you'll see how much worse it could've been.

[Rockbird]

i like the variety that different artists bring. but anyway, its not an important part of DnD.

I could and would argue that it's only considered less important because it's done badly. Properly done, the art of a book will (Almost) give as much feel and inspiration as the fluff texts. IMHO :smallamused: .


A unified feel is a matter of preference, though. I, for one, think it's pretty sweet that Eberron looks different than the Book of Vile Darkness. Since it's everybody's imagination, the world of your bumbling Half-Orc Bard probably won't have the feel of the image you linked to.

Also, if you think 3.5 art is bad, just compare 3.5 art to 3.0 art or preceeding books, you'll see how much worse it could've been.

You misunderstand me, or perhaps i wasn't clear enough. It's good when the feel i supposed to be different. Different settings etc. But in the same book? No, that's what i'm talking about.

[leperkhaun]

I could and would argue that it's only considered less important because it's done badly. Properly done, the art of a book will (Almost) give as much feel and inspiration as the fluff texts. IMHO :smallamused: .


i guess, to be honest i only ever look at the art to get a general idea on how a monster or some such looks

[Kizara]

I really like DnD.

That being said, the art generally is adequate at best.

Consistancy would be nice. Better quality in general would be fantastic.

It's sad when I can find astondingly better pics for a character archtype or monster on DA with a bit of searching then in the original sourcebook.

WotC should do said searches and hire the artist to do their books.

[Kizara]

i guess, to be honest i only ever look at the art to get a general idea on how a monster or some such looks

And generally the art is adequate enough to convey this. It's not terrible, but it's also rarely inspiringly good.

I think "functional" sums it up pretty well.

[Hazkali]

I like the art, in general. Admittedly most books have a few gaffes, but they are generally good enough. Not as good as Games Workshop art, but then that is geared towards darker worlds.

I disagree about Wayne England, though- I like his style.

[Ascension]

I'm pretty much okay with the art... except what's in the PHB.

Seriously, the PHB art stinks on ice.

That being said, I'll chime in with the "consistency is overrated" crowd. For one thing, when you've got as many sourcebooks as 3.5 has, if you used a single artist you'd work him or her to death. Also, if you messed up and contracted the wrong artist to do the entire line... I shudder to think of a world in which all the female elves look like Mialee. Poor girl.

I think the main problem with consistency in D&D (and, to some extent, Exalted, though I'm unfamiliar with its artwork I know it does cover a number of books now) is that the sheer number of books prevents any real consistency from being possible. This often leads to rather... mixed... quality. I do think there's some nice stuff hidden in there, though, you've just got to dig a little more than you ought to have to dig to find it.

[Nebo_]

Seriously, the PHB art stinks on ice.


Wha...? The PHB is really the only place where the art is passable.* Todd Lockwood is one of the only artists in all of the WotC books who can actually draw worth a damn.

*Except for Mialee, of course.

[Dark Knight Renee]

There are several artists who work for WotC whose art begs me (it's not just DnD; the Star Wars and WoT games have it too). I don't have names, but I can think of at least three different styles that I just don't like. Wayne England is, after a quick google, definitely one of them.

On the other hand, DnD also has art by Todd Lockwood, and his stuff is great. As for Mialee… looking at the rest of Lockwood’s drawings of elves, in the PhB and FR books, I’m pretty sure she’s not supposed to be a particularly attractive elf in the first place…

[Swooper]

I agree with Nebo - Todd Lockwood is by far the best WotC artist. As for Mialee, I don't mind her as much as some of you seem to - She's a wizard, so she likely dumped charisma (yes, charisma does affect looks, but let's not get derailed on that one again).

I agree with the OP too, though. Lots of the D&D art is quite bad. Not all of it though. If like a piece of art, I'll use it as part of a description when appropriate, but if I don't I ignore it. In fact, sometimes I find it preferable when the 'official' art doesn't get in my way. Sort of like when you read a book AFTER seeing the movie, your own imagination becomes unable to produce a vivid image of something else than what it was like in the movie. Know what I mean?

[Ascension]

Wha...? The PHB is really the only place where the art is passable.

Okay, I exaggerated more than a bit, but the weapon art is terrible (particularly the loathsome shields and armor) and Soveliss is just as bad as Mialee.

Most of the other stuff is okay-to-good. I still think it has a higher bad-art-to-good-art ratio than the other books, though. While I'm sure one exists, I can't think of a prestige class with really bad art off the top of my head.

[AslanCross]

Like this. (http://perkan.deviantart.com/art/DoD-Korpikalla-13947820)

While in DnD, or what i've seen of Exalted for that matter, there is a wild inconsistency in feel and tone, and i find it strange. Why can't a big company like WotC get art that's consistent, when a small swedish company can?

Does anyone know?

I think it's the size of the company that precisely works against consistency. They tap a very large pool of illustrators for their games, which leads to descriptions sometimes not even agreeing with the illustrations. (One example: PHB2 describes an "elf" using an acrobatic feat to take down a giant---but the art is clearly Lidda (a halfling) taking down an orc.)

There are a few other instances. However, I find that as a rule, the quality of the good art outweighs the crappiness of the bad.
Here are a few examples of my favorites:
Wayne Reynolds
http://www.waynereynolds.com/WOTCGallery2A/4.jpg
http://www.waynereynolds.com/D&D%20eberron/WOTCGallery2A/CurseotDragonsEye02.jpg
http://www.waynereynolds.com/D&D%20eberron/WOTCGallery2A/SecretsofXendrix03.jpg
http://www.waynereynolds.com/WOTCGallery1A/18.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/MM5_Gallery/106299.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/MM5_Gallery/106294.jpg
(I wish Mialee looked like the elf wizard chick here)

Todd Lockwood
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/draco_gallery/77505.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/draco_gallery/75677.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/draco_gallery/77504.jpg

William O'Connor (I really like his work for 4E)
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111106.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111108.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111117.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111110.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/112910.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/112908.jpg

Jason Chan
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/MM5_Gallery/106297.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/FC2_Gallery/101492.jpg

Tomas Giorello
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/MM5_Gallery/106348.jpg

Michael Philippi
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/tob_gallery/99657.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/tob_gallery/99678.jpg

David hudnut:
https://www.hudnutart.com/porthtml2/imghtml/ifantsy3/wiz501.htm
https://www.hudnutart.com/porthtml2/imghtml/ifantsy3/wiz901.htm
https://www.hudnutart.com/porthtml2/imghtml/ifantsy3/wiz402.htm

Eva Widermann:
http://www.eva-widermann.de/i/124.jpg
http://www.eva-widermann.de/i/154.jpg
http://www.eva-widermann.de/i/153.jpg
http://www.eva-widermann.de/i/105.jpg


Don't know who the artist here is:
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/ElderEvils_Gallery/111152.jpg

Anyway, that artwork you posted is very good indeed, but I wouldn't place it far above any of the good stuff I've seen in D&D.

[Abardam]

Hatin' on the art is a walloppable offence!

http://www.e-figart.com/Image%20files/mightywallop.jpg

Now but seriously, I find the art to be pretty ok, especially in the MM, and I liked the true dragon series. There are quite a few really (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/rodragon_gallery/94121.jpg)sucktastic (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cd_gallery/81356.jpg)illustrations (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/tob_gallery/99689.jpg), but I think that the good art more than compensates for it.

[Pirate_King]

I'd personally find consistency of art, particularly in the three core books, to be kind of restricting. Everyone is going to create a different world for this game, and might have different ideas for what things look like. The art of the books is just kind of filler, or reference for the weapons, monsters, or where it gives an idea of size on that one page of the PHB. I have a player in one of my campaigns who likes to do the art for that particular world, drawing up all our characters, and it's pretty nifty. If it were anything like Games Workshop, we'd be mentally stuck with one image of the world,(which works for things like warhammer) the mixed artists gives us independence in that sense.

[AslanCross]

I'd personally find consistency of art, particularly in the three core books, to be kind of restricting. Everyone is going to create a different world for this game, and might have different ideas for what things look like. The art of the books is just kind of filler, or reference for the weapons, monsters, or where it gives an idea of size on that one page of the PHB. I have a player in one of my campaigns who likes to do the art for that particular world, drawing up all our characters, and it's pretty nifty. If it were anything like Games Workshop, we'd be mentally stuck with one image of the world,(which works for things like warhammer) the mixed artists gives us independence in that sense.

This is a good point. The art, like most of the fluff, is merely a suggestion. The players are always free to change the way they look. For example, the Death Knight is said to be skeletal and decaying, but I'd rather have one with preserved (if cold and dead) flesh.

[Prometheus]

Actually, I think consistency is a terrible thing. I remember Magic the Gathering (another WotC product) would have a large variety of artists that collectively left a powerful impression. Now? They all looks the same, as if there was Magic the Gathering the cartoon. I think WotC art if very generic in D&D, and they should work more on featuring art, and not consistent images.

[Trog]

Art is subjective.

or

Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder™. :smalltongue:

[Pirate_King]

Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder™

which one?:smallbiggrin: