What do you feel fantasy RPG art should look like?

[Agrippa]

RPG art, especially fantasy RPG art, helps to give the viewer ideas on the character or creature featured. Not just in surface appearence but also attitude, capablity and how that creature or character carries him/herself. This can be used to make said creature/character look everywhere from mythic and superheroic to mundane and ordinary. This can also be used to divide between what some people call "old school RPGs" and "new school RPGs". So tell me which do you feel is more sutable as fantasy artwork.

More new school artwork.

Chris Stevens a.k.a. chriss2d on deviantArt (along with Mark Sinclair, Kevin Yan and Espen Grundetjern)

Spoiler

Show

Kendrick Lim a.k.a kunkka on deviantArt

Spoiler

Show

Hyung Tae Kim

Spoiler

Show

The infamous Savant and Sorcerer Cover.

Jeff Laubenstein

Spoiler

Show

Or do you prefer old school fantasy illustrations like these?

David C. Sutherland

Spoiler

Show

David A. Trampier

Spoiler

Show

Erol Otus

Spoiler

Show

Larry Elmore

Spoiler

Show

[kardar233]

I'm not sure about the general case, but I really like that one by Kendrick Lim.

[Agrippa]

I'm not sure about the general case, but I really like that one by Kendrick Lim.

I do too, there's just the little problem of overplating on Tepet Ejava's leg greaves. It protrudes too much.

[Spiryt]

Art style completely depends on portrayed fantasy style, that's pretty much given...

Out of those I probably like first Trampier the most, if I had to choose, don't really care for the rest.

[hamlet]

Can't see most of your images (probably has to do with the firewall here), but I've always ALWAYS been a fan of those great big full page paintings that 2nd edition put in most of its work. A lot of them by Larry Elmore.

[Agrippa]

I just added in Larry Elmore under old school for the sake of fairness.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Spoiler

Show

Quite tasteful!

Seriously though, I don't really know how to answer this question because I'm not sure what the divide between "Old School" and "New School" is supposed to be. The artists you posted are different from each other, yes, but honestly the "old school" artists are just as far apart from each other as they are from the so-called "new school." The only consistent difference I can see is the new schoolers use digital tools to keep their lines and shapes cleaner.

[Geostationary]

There is no "correct" way to do fantasy art. The only requirement is that it should fit the tone or style of the work such that it works for, not against, the tone/goal/vision of the setting. Some things benefit from the "new school" styles you show here, such as Exalted. Others look wonderful with more woodblock or simpler art, such as you show in the "old school" styles. It boils down to taste and what feels appropriate.

[hamlet]

Quite tasteful!

Seriously though, I don't really know how to answer this question because I'm not sure what the divide between "Old School" and "New School" is supposed to be. The artists you posted are different from each other, yes, but honestly the "old school" artists are just as far apart from each other as they are from the so-called "new school." The only consistent difference I can see is the new schoolers use digital tools to keep their lines and shapes cleaner.

Elmore likes pretty girls. I can't say as I blame him.

[Tengu_temp]

I like the illustrations of Earthdawn. I believe they do a very good job at portraying an exotic world that's not a generic medieval fantasy setting, without getting too ridiculous. Some examples:

Spoiler

Show

I don't like the AD&D cover style illustrations, with moustached guys in winged helmets, half-naked women and diapered barbarians. I think they look silly and too much like covers to bad fantasy novels from the seventies, or perhaps a failed attempt at drawing Asterix in a realistic style.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Elmore likes pretty girls. I can't say as I blame him.

Bit of a difference between "drawing a pretty girl" and "drawing a woman with her clothes ripped off and on her knees in a submissive position, likely about to be... assaulted."

Granted I don't know the context that particular image was supposed to serve: I could understand if it was part of an erotic graphic novel or something. But it's definitely inappropriate to put somewhere like the cover of an RPG rulebook.

[hamlet]

Bit of a difference between "drawing a pretty girl" and "drawing a woman with her clothes ripped off and on her knees in a submissive position, likely about to be... assaulted."

Granted I don't know the context that particular image was supposed to serve: I could understand if it was part of an erotic graphic novel or something. But it's definitely inappropriate to put somewhere like the cover of an RPG rulebook.

Actually, it's an image from the 2nd Dragonlance trilogy (Legends) and the instances are quite . . . convoluted. In effect, it started with the woman all but sexually assaulting the man, who got angry and tore her dress to degrade her and refuse her attempts to seduce him.

And Elmore almost never portrays women as helpless or degraded. Much, if not most, of his work shows women as strong and powerful.

[ngilop]

I would like some 2nd ed art from Tony Diterlizzi, like formt he monster manual and such, Boris Vallejo, or Frank Frazetta for some more support from the 'old school' way......

( the only difference i see really is the the new school seems to be done via computers and not by hand and uses much brighter colors)

[Janus]

I've always preferred the old school art from AD&D. It seems like a lot of them have a story just begging to be told, whereas 3.x and 4e give me more of a "LOOK HOW AWESOME I AM RAHHH!!!" impression.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Actually, it's an image from the 2nd Dragonlance trilogy (Legends) and the instances are quite . . . convoluted. In effect, it started with the woman all but sexually assaulting the man, who got angry and tore her dress to degrade her and refuse her attempts to seduce him.

Huh, well that's... not what I expected. Fair enough, though the whole thing is still too sexualized for me to be comfortable with it.

Anyway, call me crazy, but the art that captivates me the most tends to be land/water/city/starscape art rather than character or monster art. Either that or a good map. Sadly something-scape art is pretty rare in RPG books and for some reason high-quality, really beautiful maps are even rarer. Most maps you see tend to be confusing messes of jumbled nonsense words that don't really provide you with a clear vision of how the world fits together. A great map invokes mystery, it should draw your eyes to parts of the world and make you think "Wow, I wanna go see what's there."

Anyway, here's the kind of fantasy artwork I like to see:

Spoiler

Show

[Zovc]

I've always preferred the old school art from AD&D. It seems like a lot of them have a story just begging to be told, whereas 3.x and 4e give me more of a "LOOK HOW AWESOME I AM RAHHH!!!" impression.

I think this isn't necessarily an art style thing, but more a focus thing.

When you have a picture of a scene versus a picture of a dude looking awesome, that's kind the intrinsic difference.

Personally, I prefer the two 'new style' examples you gave. But I'm partial to more colorful, vibrant, and 'cartoony' pictures. I do feel like Kendrick Lim may have made the armor a little too ornate and obnoxious in her picture. That may have been what she was going for, but I don't really like World of Warcraft-size shoulder armor.

[North_Ranger]

Personally I like the kind of fantasy art that straddles the fine line between realism and fantasy. You know, the kind with armor that looks awesome yet also something that could be worn, weapons that exhude a sense of adventure and yet feel like something like that could exist, and so on. Pathfinder, for instance, does that wonderfully - save for Amiri the iconic barbarian and her honking big sword.

I do agree what has been said about D&D 4e art, though. Some of that artwork, while physically stunning, just throws the whole idea of fantastic realism in the junk pile and goes full-on LOOKIT HOW AWESOMESAUCE WE ARE!!1111!!! I'm looking at you, any picture with dragonborn in it...

[White_Drake]

Anyway, call me crazy, but the art that captivates me the most tends to be land/water/city/starscape art rather than character or monster art. Either that or a good map. Sadly something-scape art is pretty rare in RPG books and for some reason high-quality, really beautiful maps are even rarer. Most maps you see tend to be confusing messes of jumbled nonsense words that don't really provide you with a clear vision of how the world fits together. A great map invokes mystery, it should draw your eyes to parts of the world and make you think "Wow, I wanna go see what's there."

I always liked reading the maps in the front of some of those old fantasy novels, like the ones done by Shapiro in the Belgariad.

Edit: Oh, and to actually contribute to the discussion, definitely Elmore, although the elf in the one with the dragon statue looks a bit too stockily built. Maybe it's just me.

[Agrippa]

I just added three non-cheese cake illustrations of Elmore's to my original post. And yes, that's a low-level party proudly displaying the baby dragon they slew.

By the way Tengu, who Earthdawn's illustrators? Because I feel like I have to add at least some of them my list of favorite fantasy RPG illustrators.

[Agrippa]

I think this isn't necessarily an art style thing, but more a focus thing.

When you have a picture of a scene versus a picture of a dude looking awesome, that's kind the intrinsic difference.

Personally, I prefer the two 'new style' examples you gave. But I'm partial to more colorful, vibrant, and 'cartoony' pictures. I do feel like Kendrick Lim may have made the armor a little too ornate and obnoxious in her picture. That may have been what she was going for, but I don't really like World of Warcraft-size shoulder armor.

I think the over-sized pauldrons/sapulders and leg greave outcroppings were on the order of White Wolf corporate.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think the over-sized pauldrons/sapulders and leg greave outcroppings were on the order of White Wolf corporate.

Yeah. Tepet Ejava was/is one of the most important Dragon-Blooded there is in the current age. She's going to have artifact armor made by the best Dragon-Blooded artisans. And when you get to Exalted artifacts, artistic license is the norm.

[Tengu_temp]

By the way Tengu, who Earthdawn's illustrators? Because I feel like I have to add at least some of them my list of favorite fantasy RPG illustrators.

The one who sticks in my mind is Jeff Laubenstein. The guy seems incapable of not drawing spirals on everything - building, rocks, people - and his characters often look heroic and cool without necessarily looking like models. It's awesome.

[warty goblin]

I don't really like my fantasy art to look like a cartoon. Pretty much ever. It just doesn't say fantasy to me, it says TV show or videogame. Which makes my immediate reference not the action of the work itself, but the medium its style is aping.

I also tend to prefer my art on the realistic side. If it isn't realistic I want a consistent, atmospheric style ala the Disciples series. None of the armor makes any sense, but its redolent with romantic, gothic, despair.

But yeah, in general Larry Elmore could just illustrate everything forever, and I'd be happy.

[1337 b4k4]

Elmore far and away is my preference. In general is dislike art that appears cartoony (a la Sutherland) or worse hyper real cartoon (like a lot of 4e inspired art). I also dislike art that appears posed (like a lot of 3e art was, but also most of the examples at the top of the page).

I much prefer my art to appear to be a snapshot of a story, which Elmore captures more often than not. Even his dragon hunters shot up there, which is quite obviously supposed to evoke the feeling of a posed trophy photo, still feels like it tells a story as compared to most of the modern "solo character staring off into the distance with unfocused eyes" that's become prevalent or the Stevens image with the elementals.

Lastly, and in almost direct conflict with my first statement, I dislike overly detailed pictures, ones where it seems the artist was interested in cramming every last bit of minute detail into the picture. The Laubenstein alchemist above is a good example of this, but it's really popular with cyber-punk art (where actually I think it tends to work). I just feel the level of detail detracts from the picture as a whole. The focus becomes more on the individual details than on the story in the picture. In other words, I like my art to acknowledge that it is art, not a study in still life.

[valadil]

I don't like chainmail bikinis. Well, I like them, but not as armor. They belong in the Book of Erotic Fantasy, not in core. I find them demeaning, not just to the women being treated as sex objects, but to the stereotypical nerd they're trying to sell the book to. It feels like pandering. It's like the publisher is saying "if you're reading this, you're obviously not getting any, so look at this instead." I don't think that attitude is doing geeks any favors.

Otherwise I want the art to make sense and be consistent with the setting. Ineffectual armor bothers me on this front too. Ridiculously overconstructed fantasy armor can work for me if it's part of the setting. Are all warriors strength potion junkies? Are there special materials that weight 1/10th what steel does without losing any strength? Are enemies so powerful that you really do need a half a foot of steel on each shoulder? If so, I can live with some degree of WoW armor. Maybe not that last one, but you get the idea. If something in the picture stands out as unrealistic, I want that to be because it's part of the setting it's portraying.

[Zovc]

Are all warriors strength potion junkies? Are there special materials that weight 1/10th what steel does without losing any strength? Are enemies so powerful that you really do need a half a foot of steel on each shoulder? If so, I can live with some degree of WoW armor. Maybe not that last one, but you get the idea. If something in the picture stands out as unrealistic, I want that to be because it's part of the setting it's portraying.

I see where you're going with this. And for some reason, I like it.

[Terraoblivion]

I don't really think the op is being fair here. There are no real examples of the really bad art in a lot of modern fantasy, like the infamous Savant and Sorcerer cover, or much of the art where the men are so muscular they shouldn't be able to turn their heads due to how thick their necks are, while the old school art is mostly represented by early 1st edition AD&D scribbles by people who weren't professional artists, with Larry Elmore being the only exception.

However, for personal preference probably the biggest things are that I hate art with men who are too muscular. Don't get me wrong, a big, burly strong dude is fine. So is a bodybuilder if it fits, but a scrawny nerd shouldn't have arms like a circus acrobat, nor should a muscley guy have arms as thick as an elephant's legs. Adding more muscles than a human has, especially thick muscles going across joints is another pet peeve.

I also despise overly sexualized art, whether of men and women, if I want something sexualized I'll go look at porn. This is not the same as nudity, non-sexualized nudity is possible if rarely seen in art.

Finally, I really find the "barbarian" look silly, whether it's chainmail bikinis, fur diapers or just random bits of fur, skin and leather strapped on with no clear sense of what purpose they serve there. It looks ridiculous, raises so many questions about why people would choose to wear that and just comes off as being as impractical and useless as the costumes worn by the people on the floats at the carnival in Rio. Also, it really grates on me as a historian to see people perpetuate ridiculous ideas about the past and how people away from major centers of civilization dressed. Fabric has been known for quite a while, so has stitching actual, functional clothing of fur and leather, why not use that instead?

[warty goblin]

Finally, I really find the "barbarian" look silly, whether it's chainmail bikinis, fur diapers or just random bits of fur, skin and leather strapped on with no clear sense of what purpose they serve there. It looks ridiculous, raises so many questions about why people would choose to wear that and just comes off as being as impractical and useless as the costumes worn by the people on the floats at the carnival in Rio. Also, it really grates on me as a historian to see people perpetuate ridiculous ideas about the past and how people away from major centers of civilization dressed. Fabric has been known for quite a while, so has stitching actual, functional clothing of fur and leather, why not use that instead?

I can't say I mind the dude in loincloth barbarian art too much on principle. A guy in a loincloth with a substantial sort of axe says 'this guy doesn't bother with clothes, they slow him down when he's driving his enemies before him.' I'm well aware it doesn't have any particularly good historical parallel, but neither is the dragon skull he's leaning against. Not realistic, but not jarringly stupid.

That same dude plus some crosbelts holding three dozen tiny daggers and joined by a skull, with three rags of chainmail stuck into the loincloth suggests that the character is either an idiot and will hopefully be eaten by a dragon, or else should go back to his fetish club. Bonus moron points if the crossbelts are attached to one-piece pauldrons each the width of his torso with large spikes positioned so as to remove his eyeballs should he raise his arms.

Should the axe have a head larger than a small child, I start praying that the character will be rendered extinct, hopefully in a painful way involving trolls and an unusually sized garlic press, before he finds a buxom tavern wench and has a chance to further contaminate the fantasy hero gene pool. Plus the sex scene is bound to to be terrible.

[prufock]

Of those, I prefer the Larry Elmore stuff. I also like the cover art from Game of Thrones:

Spoiler

Show

And the covers Keith Parkinson did for the Sword of Truth series:

Spoiler

Show

[Agrippa]

I don't really think the op is being fair here. There are no real examples of the really bad art in a lot of modern fantasy, like the infamous Savant and Sorcerer cover, or much of the art where the men are so muscular they shouldn't be able to turn their heads due to how thick their necks are, while the old school art is mostly represented by early 1st edition AD&D scribbles by people who weren't professional artists, with Larry Elmore being the only exception.

I didn't forget the Savant and Sorcerer cover, I just couldn't bring myself to post that "artwork". I started this as more of a comparison style than subject matter or taste. Maybe I should include that train wreck.