Skip to content

The dilemma with today's Dungeons and Dragons Artwork.

KaliestoKaliesto Member Posts: 282
edited November 2012 in Archive (General Discussion)
Now maybe this is just a generational thing of interpretation, but when it came to the 70s late 80s and 90s DnD artwork, they nailed it down when it came to this:

http://dungeonsmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/fred-fields-red-wizard1-239x300.jpg
http://dungeonsmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/jeff-easley-dmg-220x300.jpg
http://www.spinningdicegames.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ClydeCaldwell-art.jpg
http://mygirlfriendisadm.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/caldwell00.jpg
http://www.blackgate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pic549862_md.jpg

It's alittle hard to find these images, but they showed real skill of art without the use of computers nowadays. All I see now in Dnd to mostly borderline cartoonish styles. This is just a personal preference more than anything, but I would love to see a return of the old styles.

I think that's why I loved Baldur's Gate and Icewind dale so much, though I know computers might have been used, they kept a certain style fitting for DnD even if the style is alittle different, and it didn't go straight cartoon y like. :-)


Maybe it was the feather-hair look of the 80s that put it away in the past? idk lol.
Post edited by Kaliesto on
«13

Comments

  • KaliestoKaliesto Member Posts: 282
    Just to throw it out there, I think it was because of my father who showed me the art of the past, and it was one of the factors why I loved DnD so much, it had a distinct feel for their time.
  • CaptRoryCaptRory Member Posts: 1,660
    Ehhhhh~ Ok that's pretty awesome.
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    Dilemma? I'm not seeing a dilemma. I don't think that word means what the OP thinks it means.

    I will say there is a paradigm shift in art styles, but not that the older styles are dead. I'm photo-shopped out, so I'm more a fan of actual art (done from the ground up), but the quality of art is in the eye of the beholder.
  • bigdogchrisbigdogchris Member Posts: 1,336
    edited November 2012
    I like painted, and hand-colored art.
  • moody_magemoody_mage Member Posts: 2,054
    DIG THE 80'S HAIR!
  • AviiAvii Member Posts: 34
    I love both styles of modern D&D and D&D past. The new art is just flash and is eye catching (which is great to hook new players). Yet for me, the classic art is actually telling more of a story. Though there are exceptions, case and point open up the artwork to skills page in the first players handbook for 4th edition. I still laugh everytime I see it.
  • KirkorKirkor Member Posts: 700
    The vampire picture is so cheesy...

    I wouldn't call D&D 3.5 art style cartoonish.
    I don't know about 4th edition, and I don't give a crap about it :P
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    edited November 2012
    I did find 4th edition art a bit superhero-ish .

    check this out
    http://solonexus.blogspot.com.br/2012/05/carstens-d-4th-edition-solo-tips-part-1.html

    they look like the avengers, and that's not the feeling I look for in a medieval fantasy scenario.

    or this

    http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/your-character-lives-and-dies-whims-gm

    they look like x-men. In the old illustrations, like the ones @Kaliesto has shown us, adventurers look like normal people with special abilities, instead of cartoonish super heroes full of muscles.
  • MedullaOblongataMedullaOblongata Member Posts: 434
    Just my 2¢...

    There are many factors that contribute to this. Firstly, @reedmilfam hit the nail on the head by bringing up the paradigm shift. Within the past 40+ years, there definitely *has* been a paradigm shift. As companies grew, so did their customer base, diversity of players, and requests. They followes the culture shifts, so the art will match the times.

    Second, it's not easy to capture the look of an oil painting. Most developers and studios have teams of artists who use widely varying styles and methods. Even when you have a team that comes close to matching the old styles, it is extremely difficult to do. To match the old styles perfectly is unrealistic.

    With digital painting, it's still hand-painted. A studio can still throwba painting down on canvas, but the costs would be outrageous. With digital art, you pay for one tablet and can get thousands of paintings before the tablet dies (unless it suffers damage). It's very cost effective. This also contributes to some of the difference in style.

    Lastly... This is just my own wondering... But it seems that studios and developers are allowing a greater freedom of artistic styles to be used asnlong as certain QA requirements are met.

    I like the Vallejo-esque art of the 80s, but I still like what I'm seeing today. I'm not a fan of the 4.0 tieflings... I prefer the 3.0 ones...
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    @MedullaOblongata I don't dislike the new look for the most part, aside from when it looks anime/manga/childish (any one of the three). Those don't appeal to me. Anyway, I see it as phases. Some of it is dependent on game engines, some on art design and some on the tastes of the team doing the game. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a renaissance of older approaches to the art and if it balances some of the current trends somewhat.

    I love the BG art style for the most part. Not the portraits, so much, but understanding where they came from goes a long way for that. IWD - was fine, but not so much to my liking. BG2 had just enough fantasy look to be fine, and not so toonish that it annoyed.

    I actually miss the yellow parchment pencil-type art that you see in older D&D and games. I love the look of a lot of that stuff, which you normally see more as concept art today. Great stuff all around.
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    edited November 2012
    @MedullaOblongata , I'm not sure if that's what you meant , but oil -painting-like illustrations are as easy to produce on the computer as cartoonish ones , it is more of a choice than a necessity.

    If we were going to analise why they've decided to change it, I would say tha Lord of the rings trilogy doesn't have a cartoonish look, and that's basically the origin of D&D. If they decided to change their art style, I would have prefered it as something apart, an option , but in this case they simply remodeled the whole visuals.
  • MedullaOblongataMedullaOblongata Member Posts: 434
    DJKajuru said:

    @MedullaOblongata , oil -painting-like illustrations are as easy to produce on the computer as cartoonish ones , it is more of a choice than a necessity.

    As cartoons, yes. As fine art and often times fantasy illustration, no.
  • salierisalieri Member Posts: 245
    I have to say I think that some of the images that you've posted look very dated and not especially well executed. I'm not saying I support the newer trends in D&D artwork at all.

    This is my favourite:

    image
  • ShinShin Member Posts: 2,345
    DJKajuru said:

    they look like x-men. In the old illustrations, like the ones @Kaliesto has shown us, adventurers look like normal people with special abilities, instead of cartoonish super heroes full of muscles.

    I don't really take offense to the muscles. Whereas a mage might be seen as a normal person with special abilities, a fighter's only special abilities tend to be remarkable strength and skill at handling weapons. And considering how many fighters seem to start out with STR 18, it would be sort of weird if they didn't at least somewhat look the part. If you lead the life of an adventurer for a few years as one of the more physically oriented classes and try your best to stay on top of your game, I'd think some muscle would develop quite naturally.
  • BoozillaBoozilla Member Posts: 46
    Just pointing out, that much of that older style used in the older DnD/fantasy books, was heavily photo referenced and in some cases, straight up paint overs. Sadly, that makes the art prone to a dated look, considering the hair and not to mention the very static posing.
    (I've always loved the really loose styles of Frank Frazetta.)

    I have noticed a lot of the newer art for the DnD books are a strange combination of awesome loose art with crazy dynamics and this weird cartoony feel. I guess that happens when you start to hire a ton of artists (probably to appeal to more people).

    Kinda like it though. Variety is good.

    Also, @Bytebrain , agreed.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    Boy, you're hitting a rough one. On these forums, a lot of people are going to agree that 1st/2nd edition AD&D artwork was better, and I'm one of those individuals, but let's keep in mind it's art. Everyone's going to have different tastes and favorite art styles, while not grooving on others. It's unfortunate that there is a "general shift" when obviously it would be ideal to have a whole range of different art styles incorporated into D&D, true, but let's all take a moment and be thankful that the D&D Next books most likely won't feature "D&D Modern Art," if you catch my drift.

    (So-called "modern art" = debatable whether it's art or the inane scribblings of madmen. Think Pablo Picasso)
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    I also disliked how all 3rd edition dragons looked like scaled felines....
  • MedullaOblongataMedullaOblongata Member Posts: 434
    Yeah... I'm not going to touch on abstract art. I love it, but it wouldn't fit D&D. It's often disregarded as scribbling and crap, because it doesn't fit the same standards as classical art. Anyway, I think a lot of good pointswre made in this thread.

    Bacon.
  • BoozillaBoozilla Member Posts: 46
    edited November 2012
    Yeah, I could write essays on this considering i am the other artist at Overhaul and spend waaay too much time staring at styles and what not, so instead, I will just post this in relation to DnD /fantasy/ BG art


    image
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    Regarding modern art, look up "Pierre Brassau" on wikipedia.
  • HaHaCharadeHaHaCharade Member Posts: 1,644
    How about you change the topic to "The Dilemma With Today's Dungeon and Dragons." There's more wrong then just the artwork imo.
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    HaHaCharade said:

    How about you change the topic to "The Dilemma With Today's Dungeon and Dragons." There's more wrong then just the artwork imo.

    Illustrations, games, books , rules...
  • ajwzajwz Member Posts: 4,122
    Stylistically, wizards have become less scholarly/geeky/I put on my robe and wizard hat types, and instead have generally become prettier, more sporty and super serious. I kind of miss the old wizards.

    Having said that there is good art and crappy art no matter what era you look at. WOTC are typically good a moving with the times. Take a look at some of the MTG art for example, the quality of that has seriously improved over the years even if it has become much more computer generated.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    MedullaOblongata said:

    Yeah... I'm not going to touch on abstract art. I love it, but it wouldn't fit D&D. It's often disregarded as scribbling and crap, because it doesn't fit the same standards as classical art. Anyway, I think a lot of good pointswre made in this thread.

    Bacon.

    Umm ... yeah dude you don't need to get offended at what I said, I understand abstract/modern art has its places, and it's better than anything I'll ever make, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows that it would NOT fit D&D in the SLIGHTEST, which is why I used it as a ludicrous example.

    I'll admit I went too far for a joke though, too much explaining necessary for it to be funny anymore.
  • MedullaOblongataMedullaOblongata Member Posts: 434
    Quartz said:

    Umm ... yeah dude you don't need to get offended at what I said, I understand abstract/modern art has its places, and it's better than anything I'll ever make, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows that it would NOT fit D&D in the SLIGHTEST, which is why I used it as a ludicrous example.

    I'll admit I went too far for a joke though, too much explaining necessary for it to be funny anymore.

    It's okay. I didn't get offended. I also stated that I agree that it would not be appropriate for D&D. I just see abstract art brought up in a certain light very often, then I jump to conclusions and feel I have to defend it... meh, its my fault for misunderstanding. Please carry on, I just take things too seriously and need to lighten up. I definitely need more sleep.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    edited November 2012
    MedullaOblongata said:

    Quartz said:

    Umm ... yeah dude you don't need to get offended at what I said, I understand abstract/modern art has its places, and it's better than anything I'll ever make, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows that it would NOT fit D&D in the SLIGHTEST, which is why I used it as a ludicrous example.

    I'll admit I went too far for a joke though, too much explaining necessary for it to be funny anymore.

    It's okay. I didn't get offended. I also stated that I agree that it would not be appropriate for D&D. I just see abstract art brought up in a certain light very often, then I jump to conclusions and feel I have to defend it... meh, its my fault for misunderstanding. Please carry on, I just take things too seriously and need to lighten up. I definitely need more sleep.
    Don't worry about it one bit, sure you jumped to a conclusion but I worded my post badly and was a bit opinionated. We're cool @MedullaOblongata. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.

2024 Overhaul Games, a division of Beamdog. © 2024 Hasbro, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Baldur's Gate, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, Baldur's Gate, Wizards of the Coast and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the U.S.A. and other countries, and are used with permission. Hasbro and its logo are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc. and are used with permission. © 1998 BioWare Corp. All Rights Reserved. BioWare, the BioWare Infinity Engine and the BioWare logo are trademarks of Bioware Corp. Black Isle Studios and the Black Isle Studios logo are trademarks of Interplay Entertainment Corp. Atari and the Atari logo are trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.