It borders on being optional for me. Some art is good for communicating what unfamiliar objects in the setting look like (A picture is worth a 1000 words...) but it sometimes feels like a little too much import is placed on it these days.

Thoughts?

I like art, but its real usefulness depends on the book and setting. Art can be really great for settings which aren't familiar to most people. Games like Low Life, for example, are greatly enhanced by presenting clear pictures of the world that the reader might struggle to get just from words on a page.

And then there are monster books. I love illustrations in bestiaries because it not only helps me as a GM know what I'm dealing with, but I can show my players so they have a clear image in their heads of what their characters are facing.

Apart from that, I have to say that no art is better than bad art. Bad art just takes up space and adds to the cost of the book.

For me, all it needs to do is "no harm." I'm not looking for great art, only art that isn't obnoxious. 4e sinned greviously in this regard. The stupid depictions of dragonborn was enough to prevent me from ever taking that game seriously. If it were (per impossibile) presented with Trampier and Sullivan art, things could have been different.

Art has very little value for me; I'd prefer to have no art whatsoever and a cheaper product, for example. The only time I notice it is when it's bad.

I think much the same about fancy formatting; give me no columns in a proper, readable font like Arial and I'm golden.

For purchasing? None at all. Especially if it is a PDF.

Why? Because you usually do not see the art till after purchase.

After purchase my only criteria is that the art actually depict what is being described.

This was the utter failure of the last two Gamma World editions. White Wolf totally wasted Truemans skills and the 4eD&D GW art for the monsters had absolutely nothing to do with the supposed slapstick background.

If possible try to have the art style fit the theme. Or simmilar style artists if possible so the art doesnt flip-flop. Or if it is going to be different artists every page. Then get a good variety.

Building on what aspiringlich says, good art is a plus, but bad art will actively turn me off of a product.  

Now, for me, that doesn't mean art that I just don't like, but art where it's pretty close to objectively bad.  HERO 5's Dark Champions and Dark Champions: The Animated Series had really, really poor art, with little attention to fundamentals, and it really lowered my estimation of the final product.  

When it comes to monsters or esoteric equipment, I do like illustrations just for practical purposes -- a small picture can save plenty of space spent describing a critter, leaving more room for the write-up.  But I'd like it done intelligently -- don't include an illustration for the umpteenth version of a goblin but then not show me what the frumious bandersnatch looks like.

The flip side of that is that while a game like The One Ring or L5R 4e could have art that wasn't as good, the fact that it is so vivid and well-suited to the subject matter makes reading it a pure joy.  

Also, I'll say that to a certain degree, I find layout almost more important than art.  I want decent art, but I'd rather have good layout over great art, if it's a choice between the two.

That question always starts me thinking on classic Traveller and those LBBs. Hardly any art at all... so my imagination wasn't dominated by any visual depictions and so instead went wild with the possibilities. Part of why I was never fond of the OTU when it started to creep in.

I do like illustration though, but I admire spirit and enthusiasm over technical skill. Larry Elmore's stuff just lays there dead on the page to me... even those original OD&D illustrations have more life in them.
Most importantly though, I don't want art/design that interrupts my ability to just read the damn book.

Good art is a plus. In that category I’d place the cover of Runequest 2 and the black and white line drawings in much of the West End Games Star Wars supplements. They were evocative of interesting player characters and PC groups which made playing the game look like fun.

Quote from: Brand55;866431Apart from that, I have to say that no art is better than bad art. Bad art just takes up space and adds to the cost of the book.

It doesn't just take up space and add to the cost; really bad art makes the book painful to look at. I'm (not) looking at you Runequest Elder Secrets.

30 years ago I would have said art is important to me. Today when I'm just a Google Images search away from dozens of anything it doesn't matter. I agree that a picture of a new or complex monster or alien can make a difference. This is rule books I'm talking about.

A specific adventure which has specific places, people, environments, rooms, traps, etc. then I do want more art, when it's accurate and conveying what the writer had in mind.

I don't need another illustration of a generic Wand of Fireballs or Plate Mail Armor or cows standing in a farmer's field. I would like to know what Fred the Mad Wizard and his Mirror of 20 Visions looks like, not to mention Fred's pet Phlagritch.

Good layout is necessary, good art a plus. I'd rather have no art than bad art.

Quote from: artikid;866447Good layout is necessary, good art a plus. I'd rather have no art than bad art.

I feel exactly the same way.

High production values can mean bad readability, however. On the flipside, some highly praised indie stuff looks totally not user-friendly or readable.

It's about restraint, good layout, good writing. Good art enhances a book, in my opinion, doesn't dominate it.

Also: go to hell White Wolf and Fantasy Flight Games for loopy script text that's almost illegible. Luckily, it was mostly fluff but still...

As a product it's very important but as a game it's not so important.  And good art is good but no art is better than bad art (whatever that is).

That said really nice, atmospheric art can really set the tone for a game and draw the players in.  Good art can convince people to play that new set of game mechanics you're crazy for.

And let's face it, a game that nobody wants to play is just a book or a curio.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;866437Building on what aspiringlich says, good art is a plus, but bad art will actively turn me off of a product.  

Now, for me, that doesn't mean art that I just don't like, but art where it's pretty close to objectively bad.  HERO 5's Dark Champions and Dark Champions: The Animated Series had really, really poor art, with little attention to fundamentals, and it really lowered my estimation of the final product.  

Yeah, that last book is pretty much my "gold standard" for crappy art.

JG

Quote from: Nexus;866428It borders on being optional for me. Some art is good for communicating what unfamiliar objects in the setting look like (A picture is worth a 1000 words...) but it sometimes feels like a little too much import is placed on it these days.

Thoughts?

If artwork in an RPG rulebook is good, I'm usually surprised. Because I was going to buy the rulebook regardless. The novels I buy have no artwork in them.

You know, this is an interesting notion I wish I'd thought of in other art-in-RPGs arguments I've been in.  The rebuttal to all the people screeching how evocative art is and how they somehow need it to play a game based almost entirely around the spoken word is this: how often has the art in a RPG book been bad?

One of the gamebooks I wrote was the first effort of the company's new staff artist, and I got the illos for review well before publication.  For the most part they were horrid -- the artist had little sense of perspective, and the illos of the lead characters were not merely wrong, but contradicted the description in the text.  I shot off a prompt "Holy heck, you need to fix these" letter, which was apparently ignored.  Nearly 25 years later (obviously), I still gnash my teeth over it.