Why is old D&D art so much cooler than new D&D art?

Why is old D&D art so much cooler than new D&D art?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qR7U1HIhxfA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because you're entitled to your own opinion.

And probably because new D&D art is trying to be a little bit of everything while the old stuff is focused.

First of all that's Dragonlance which is only somewhat D&D related, and it's good because it didn't have to be anything other than an awesome book cover, possibly based off of straight mythology and history

Nowadays there's a shitload of conventions that come with the standard "elf" or "human" or "dwarf" that it would alienate too many if they didn't have the most bog standard art possible

Because old art had inspirations from the era; heavy metal, renaissance fairs, all those fun things. Also the art used real people in poses as references

Same goes for current, but it's got anime, cartoons, digital drawing, etc etc. basically it's become so abstract in making the art that it's lost all soul

tl;dr difference between a custom made mustang and an off the lot ford

It was a niche audience so it had a unique niche focus.
Now they're aiming for wider appeal in art style and structure with anime and video game influences and those sorts of "movie poster" style images falling out of favor.

The newer stuff for 5e is explicitly based off of the old stuff, so I don't see what your issue is. If it's with the WoW esque 4e stuff, that's gone.

Because you forgot to remove your nostalgia goggles

>dragonlance
>only somewhat D&D related

What the fuck are you talking about.

Better artists.

>First of all that's Dragonlance which is only somewhat D&D related

...what? No it isn't. The entire thing was created ground-up to be "the" D&D setting. You can debate whether or not it succeeded, but the point is that it was conceived entirely to be a D&D setting where D&D stories can be told.

Hence why the dragons follow the D&D color code, wizards cast spells according to Vancian magic, everyone is pretty firmly identified by their class, and so on.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about. Modern D&D art is fine. Among other things you get less people standing around looking into the camera, which is a style that I hate in fantasy.

> anime, cartoons, digital drawing, etc etc. basically it's become so abstract in making the art that it's lost all soul

I would love to hear how pic - from the 5e PHB - is anime, cartoon, or digital drawing inspired.

I'm not gonna pretend that this art is better in any way than more modern stuff, and it's pretty clear there wasn't a huge amount of talent going into these.

But, I like the beholder because it looks like what a field researcher would quickly sketch after encountering one in the wild. It's got a pleasant simplicity to it that I enjoy.

...

...

Because today everything should look handsome and/or badass for it to sell

Same reason why old D&D modules are better than new ones, they cared.

Maybe it's just because a lot of the old stuff is before my time, but I prefer the new style of art. It seems cleaner and clearer to me, it's easier to see what's going on and it often isn't as muddled or confused with lots of different elements at play.

The 5e cover is the worst.

Nah, the 3e is worse. It looks like some high schooler's sooper sekrit journal.

You are like little babies.
The worst is clearly 4e. That chick in the front, the fuck is that even supposed to be. How does her body even function?

5e has good cover art that stands out while 3.5e goes for a more polished "ye olde tome" look. I'd rank 'em a follows
>5e
>AD&D
>3.5e
>[POWER GAP]
>4e

Switch 5e and AD&D and that's my list I like the older shit because it doesnt look like all the modern fantasy art I grew up with.

Only been playing on and off for 9 years starting with 4e and a smattering of 3.5 but the art fron 4e just looked like the art from WoW or any fantasy game of that time it was already generic to me.

Finding 80's era rpg was the good shit to me even if it didn't look proffesional at least it had some personality, the 5e studd has been better though

I agree with this post 90%. I would argue that AD&D has a cooler cover, despite 5e's being more technically proficient as an illustration.

I guess 5e has a good cover, if you want to make people think they'll be playing giants or something.

Wayne Reynolds has uglier art and more extraneous pouches than Rob Liefeld

3.0 and 3.5 covers are photos of a physical creation, not digital art. Unless you're saying that Henry Higginbotham created the cover with his fingers, aka his digits. In which you're correct. Dumb, but correct.

It's because a lot of the new artists don't understand basic things like perspective, proportion, and the way clothing and equipment hang off of the human figure.

Look up anything by Wayne Reynolds. His proportions border on the alien, and he has a tendency to make the clothing and armor so tight that they may as well be painted on. He doesn't always do these things, but you can find it throughout his body of work.

You can blame Todd Lockwood for the "I love belts!" dungeon punk aesthetic 3rd edition pushed, and the "let's make elves look like aliens!" facial proportions.

I take it back, actually. The 5e cover sucks. It barely even has a focal point.

Make way for the best one.

PLATE ARMOR IS THE PROBLEM

ODYSSEUS AND HERAKLES NOT DON QUIXOTE AND ARTHUR THE GREAT

PRAISE BRONZE

If we speak of Player's Handbook covers, then surely the 1989 2e cover rates mention?
One of the best examples of a 'this could be you' cover, because players can indeed be that in the game, pretty quickly, if not immediately. I favour it over 'you might fight giants one day', at least.

>tfw my father has this

Yeah, it's a pretty good one. I think it could use more conflict though, like the Rules Cyclopedia cover.

Because op as you can see here
People just have shit taste these days.

That's fair. Both are top notch bits of work by Easley.

I think part of this is economic practicalities, too.

A lot of the amazing fantasy artwork we remember was hand drawn or painted, taking huge amounts of time, work and cost to produce. It looked fantastic, but you were lucky if an RPG book had any decent art in it that wasn't on the cover.

Things have changed. You might not get the same stuff on the cover, but in exchange you get generally higher quality pieces throughout the whole book, since these days digital or digitally assisted art is a lot easier to produce- Still not easy, but there are a lot more tools to help artists create more work more quickly than there was in that era.

I guess it's a question of where you assign your funds. Do you commission one truly amazing piece that just sits on the cover, or a dozen decent pieces that go throughout the book and give it extra flavour? I can see why most companies default to the latter.

Because they had actual artists.

>Dragonlance
>only somewhat D&D related
(You).

> Because they had actual artists.
this

>Why is old D&D art so much cooler than new D&D art?

Sturgeon's Law, a shift from a limited number of color art pieces to all art being color, massive increase in the number of artists over the pasted 30 years and changes in tools.

Honestly I'm finding myself digging older black and white art as opposed to every illustration being fully colored, maybe Usagi Yojimbo has really skewed my tastes

The artists working on D&D stuff in the grand era often had talent and imagination both.
These days you strike a lot of work in D&D that shows one or the other. Very rarely will we see both.

...

fp(s)bp(s)

I'd add that in the past, the focus was on substance instead of style, on soul instead of subject matter.

If it was good enough, and vaguely close to the topic, it got in.

It helped that there were a limited number of good fantasy artists, all of whom seemed like they were more lovers of their craft first, and money making professionals second.

>D&D
>Art
>Cool

W E W. You Veeky Forums fags are worse than I thought.

Neither of these images look good, but the bottom one looks more like it's actually "happening". They're not just posing, unlike the elf and black wizard in the top image.

In fairness, that picture is Wayne Reynolds parodying his own artwork.

...

I prefer O'Connor to Reynolds (weird because I am a Pathfag) but I love the fact that the characters are full of items, potions and backup weapons (yes, this is a self-parody).
It makes them closer to how they are usually played and equipped.

I would've agreed with you in the 3.x - 4e days, but I think 5e has improved immensely in terms of the consistency of anatomy, colour, and composition. It still has the 3.x philosophy of "bags and belts everywhere", but at least it's executed better.

I still miss the B&W of becmi. Larry Elmore and shiet.

Larry Elmore is hands down the most important artist of the tabletop fantasy genre.

New stuff is designed for broad appeal and palatability, whereas the older art had a much more focused audience, and so could take greater creative risks

Elmore and Trampier are the kings. I still want to know what went down to caused Trampier to disappear and even leave royalty checks behinds. It is a damn shame that Wormy never got finished or republished.

Agreed. Numerous times I've skipped past the PHB while shuffling through my books because it registers as MM to me.

I can see why!

Also (I know people associate him with a specific setting) Diterlizzi.

Both of those are terrible

I don't have a horse in this game, but some things I've noticed in this thread:

Older art:
> Not a moment in time, just a bunch of people posing together
> What's a palette? -or- Palettes are for characters, not scenes, silly

Newer art:
> Making people look like their feet are resting on the ground is apparently a lost art
> ACTION POSES! With no understanding of weight. Maybe more like action leaning.

>muh nostalgia
Yes everything always just gets better, nothing ever deteriorates, the star wars prequels were better then the original trilogy and anyone who says otherwise has just got nostalgia.

False dichotomies are stupid

Tfw I saw this, MM1 and MM2, and deities and demigods but didn't get them because they were 20$ CAN a pop at a used bookstore

Fucking sick

That's not a false dichotomy that's hyperbolic mockery you dumbass. Sometimes things get better, sometimes they get worse, sometimes they stay the same. "muh nostalgia" is just a lazy cop out, justify why you think it's as good if not better, don't just accuse the other person of some sort of irrational bias and leave it at that.

>I would love to hear how pic - from the 5e PHB - is anime, cartoon, or digital drawing inspired.

Looks digitally painted to me.

>I still want to know what went down to caused Trampier to disappear and even leave royalty checks behinds.

He probably joined a cult and left his old life behind.

They feel like people that could actually exist. And they're generally imitating the style of great artists like Frazetta and Vallejo

He was found in a southern Illinois college town in the early 2000's, got over most of his problem (something with TSR which he was unaware had gone under) and was about to sign a deal to publish his shit when he had a stroke, got cancer and died three weeks before making an appearance a con in that same town.

Best cover coming through.

Not using the original cover PHB.

This guy knows what's up.

>If we speak of Player's Handbook covers, then surely the 1989 2e cover rates mention?
It's not bad, but it seems a bit unfocused to me. Like, it's a fine scene and all, but it doesn't feel very player's handbook-y.

Why do all the titles on all these books look like Japanese penises?

I always found Elmore to be a bit boring.

Your standard for coolness was set by the media you consumed in your childhood.

Why do all the goblins look exactly the same?

That's just how they are.

because it's not popular, if this style became the norm again everyone would be complaining about how WoWesque art is cooler

das racys

shitty, boring, generic art desu

Because the Old Art is inspired by Frazetta and Frazetta is God of Fantasy Art
Oh and it wasn't afraid to appeal directly to its audience instead of trying to make art that looks "Respectable" and bland as fuck for the Barnes & Noble shelf

>Old : Rule of cool is #1, tits, ass, muscular dudes, bad things to fight, artists
>New : Diversity, cool maybe later if you meet you diversity quota, "artists"

Me too unironically you nerd
There's an appeal in the simplistic B&W art. Also your nitpicking one of the very first D&D images to ever be drawn for OD&D which was before even Basic & 1E you deceitful & misleading twat

It's because you don't like any aesthetic other than:no aesthetic
And this is coming from someone who's only 24
Go look up the original Planescape art it's a good segway into appreciating this up

They really do. Similar to how modern cars are fucking awful. They really speak to the kind of people that exist today.

>Car that parallel parks for you, because it's just to hard!
>Car that brakes for you, because you need to snapchat as you are driving.
>Cars with lane assist, since we find it difficult to hold our smartphones and the wheel at the same time.
>Computer monitored everything, because fuck learning/paying attention other than what a Kardashian just tweeted.
>Made to be used, and tossed away in lieu of a new car that you can pay eternal interest swap on.

Fuck everything.

Convenience is a blessing and a curse. But hey, if you want to drive a 40 year old rusted guts tank that with no power steering, column shift, no air-conditioning and needs to be refilled every 30mins, go for it.

Can someone explain to me that the fuck is happening in the upper picture? Like, who is on which side, and how many factions are there? Is that archer the ogre's friend, why else would he be standing so close to him? Why does that blonde chick seem to look into the camera instead of paying attention to the fight, and why is that literal nigger watching her? Why is the fucking dragon just chilling there? Does that half-elf chick yet have to decide which side to join because she is just standing there looking confused?

Budget breeds creativity maybe? I think the same thing of MtG cards so maybe it's just a change in direction for the worse from WotC maybe it's just the change in art style as the era changed

>soulless digital paint
>instead of referencing other works of fantasy, scifi, history and literature references itself in an uncreative circle jerk

youtube.com/watch?v=qR7U1HIhxfA

>ITT: grumpy old men moan about how everything was better when they were younger

>things never get worse, they only ever improve and you are wrong to complain about it.

I'm 19, due

>t. Millennial

Its the colors. The old ones look like paintings.

>low skill people pumping out art for contracts

This is it.

Making art is the act of recreating reality or realizing inspiration, the imagery created drawing from the influences and experiences of the artist at hand.

Art comes from minds steeped in their contemporary popular culture with cross-pollination from their peers.

To create artists with the habits of older generation content creators, you need to soak them in the culture that was relevant at the time.

But as time moves forward, the point of inspiration moves forward. Popular culture moves forward. Those who admired become the admired, to themselves end up inspiring the next crop of content creators.

Tldr : Times change