Quote from: Christopher Brady;871507This is true.  There was a man who knew the value of art in RPGs.

Yup. And upped the ante in his own time in terms of production values.

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?

As much as I love art, it is of no value to me when I am considering the value of an rpg book.

I have this weird notion that I'm SUPPOSED to say that I'm above such trivial things as Artwork.  Fie on that.  

I can illustrate somewhat sharply that I do appreciate the artwork in my reaction to the Legends of the Wulin that I picked up recently.  It is functionally the same game as Weapons of the Gods, and while my systemic complaints (among others) haven't been addressed (If I knew it was a reskinning of WOTG I would have gone with one of my other two choices. Argh.), the change from the Eye Bleeding colors and comic-book aesthetic of WOTG to a sort of neo-classic ink painting style (or whatever you'd call it) was a massively welcome change.

One of the more appealing aspects of Fading Suns, to me, was the consistency of their artistic style, and how it added to the atmosphere of the setting, an effect achieved in part by using mostly a single artist, and I presume telling the other artists to draw to that style.

It isn't the end all-be all of RPGs, of course.  I like the artwork in the various 40k games, but that doesn't make their chunkiness any easier to handle at the table.  I disliked the artwork in my replacement copy of MongTrav... and there was that guy that seemed to show up in all the sci-fi/cyberpunk rigs in the mid nineties I couldn't stand... none of which keeps me from enjoying those games.


But, in the end, barring any other reason to like or dislike a game at a glance, the artwork can be the deal maker or the deal breaker, and usually is.   Maybe I be a shallow motherfucker.

Quote from: Spike;875101But, in the end, barring any other reason to like or dislike a game at a glance, the artwork can be the deal maker or the deal breaker, and usually is.   Maybe I be a shallow motherfucker.

I can't remember if anybody mentioned the Blood of Heroes game (formerly Mayfair Games' DC Comics game) but that's a great example.

JG

Quote from: Spike;875101But, in the end, barring any other reason to like or dislike a game at a glance, the artwork can be the deal maker or the deal breaker, and usually is.   Maybe I be a shallow motherfucker.

I take umbrage with this statement, you are not shallow, you're HUMAN.  We are a visual species.  Everything we do, everything we sense, is linked to an image. When you hear a sound, your mind brings up a visual representation of what it is.  We identify colours and they change our moods.  When we smell something, we identify it with an image of what it is (assuming we know.)  We identify each other by visible features, hair, skin, eye colour, shape.

Our sight is what make us human, so no.  You are not 'shallow', you're using your primary sense to identify what you find appealing.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875170I take umbrage with this statement, you are not shallow, you're HUMAN.  We are a visual species.  Everything we do, everything we sense, is linked to an image. When you hear a sound, your mind brings up a visual representation of what it is.  We identify colours and they change our moods.  When we smell something, we identify it with an image of what it is (assuming we know.)  We identify each other by visible features, hair, skin, eye colour, shape.

Our sight is what make us human, so no.  You are not 'shallow', you're using your primary sense to identify what you find appealing.

You are taking your point a step too far. Are you are unaware that some people are born blind? I assume you still include them as human even though they can't see and don't attach every sound, smell, taste, and touch to an image, right?

Quote from: Bren;875173You are taking your point a step too far. Are you are unaware that some people are born blind? I assume you still include them as human even though they can't see and don't attach every sound, smell, taste, and touch to an image, right?

This gave me a good laugh.

Quote from: Bren;875173You are taking your point a step too far. Are you are unaware that some people are born blind? I assume you still include them as human even though they can't see and don't attach every sound, smell, taste, and touch to an image, right?

And being blind is a massive disadvantage compared to being deaf.  No, I'm NOT saying that being deaf not a disadvantage, but being blind is bigger.

Most human beings can go shopping whether or not they are deaf, without aid.  But someone who cannot see, or even is simply colour blind, is at a bigger disadvantage.

There are a lot of things that you're taking for advantage because you're not blind.  You have access to the internet, you can read signs, you know when to not cross the road based on visual cues, like that semi barreling down the road.

A blind person doesn't.  And will always need help by a third party, whether it be a family member, special tricks that most don't ever need to use, or a specially trained animal.

I repeat, being blind as a human is a much bigger disadvantage compared to losing some other senses.  Our species has developed all of our tools for everything based on sight.

As an aside, there's lots of technology to assist the blind to do things like surf the internet. I've seen blind or visually impaired people use the internet faster and more efficiently than regular folks.

Hell, I know a legally blind fellow who uses an iPhone with full efficiency and can use excel tables (blind people work very well in excel).

Quote from: Necrozius;875194As an aside, there's lots of technology to assist the blind to do things like surf the internet. I've seen blind or visually impaired people use the internet faster and more efficiently than regular folks.

Hell, I know a legally blind fellow who uses an iPhone with full efficiency and can use excel tables (blind people work very well in excel).

My point was, don't be ashamed if you judge things by sight first.  It's what humans do, and have done, since we were a species of creature.

So, personally, this just reinforces the fact that yes, art in RPG books IS important, often more so than people want to realize or admit.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875192And being blind is..

And here you take that step too far right off the edge of the pit you dug yourself with your own two little hands.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875192And being blind is a massive disadvantage compared to being deaf.  No, I'm NOT saying that being deaf not a disadvantage, but being blind is bigger.

Most human beings can go shopping whether or not they are deaf, without aid.  But someone who cannot see, or even is simply colour blind, is at a bigger disadvantage.
...

I don't think anyone disagrees that blindness is generally more of a problem than deafness. However I would certainly choose to be colour blind rather than deaf. It wasn't until I was about 38 when I noticed I was slightly blue/green colourblind. Many men are, often without knowing it.

And I think Bren has a point that calling fixation with sight something that applies to all humans, is technically an overstatement. But I don't think any of these points bear call for much if any argument.

I would say though that I think art in a game book can make a big difference to me, not just superficially, and not just importantly aesthetically or emotionally, but because especially:

1) for RPGs there is a large element of imagination, which has a lot to do with my interest level. If the images inspire me to add content or want to dwell on stories that include images like those, then they are helping and inspiring me to want to invest time and energy playing that game.

2) the art that the authors (hopefully not just publishers) chose also often seems to say something about their mindset, and the mindset of the rules and the game worlds presented, and that often seems to tell me something about the game itself, and the thinking and style that pervades it. (e.g. As a realism & logic-oriented player, I'm likely to be interested in a game with art that shows things in correct proportion, with lots of detail, in a realistic style that seems to show situations that make sense. But a game showing wild fantasy stuff that's unrealistic, unrealistically drawn, cliche, etc is going to make me think the game is likely like that to, and avert my interest.)

Quote from: Skarg;875738If the images inspire me to add content or want to dwell on stories that include images like those, then they are helping and inspiring me to want to invest time and energy playing that game.

Erol Otus works that way for me... and most of the guys chosen for Dungeon Crawl Classics... which I'm sure plays into my love of old 'underground' comics and artists like Skip Williamson, Spain, S. Clay Wilson, etc. More so than any 'nostalgia' for the art in AD&D.

Quote2) the art that the authors (hopefully not just publishers) chose also often seems to say something about their mindset, and the mindset of the rules and the game worlds presented, and that often seems to tell me something about the game itself, and the thinking and style that pervades it.

I'm trying to imagine my first impression of RQ6 with nothing but chibi manga art.

I'm late to the discussion but for me Art and Layout that I find attractive and appealing is critical to how I view a book.

So so so so soooooooo many RPG books have terrible artwork and layout in them it makes the Trained Graphic Designer in me just cringe. This includes the majority of the over designed (layout wise) World of Darkness books.

I'd rather the book had no art at all and be laid out like a text book most of the time, then have it full of crappy dungeon punk art or font of the week headings.

Bad Art/layout has kept me from purchasing many a game and regretting the purchase of many more.

Which is a shame as I know it's silly of me in a way to hold bad art against a good rules engine or setting, but it's so jarring for me to look at garish poorly proportioned art in a book. It's like meeting the girl of your dreams and then she opens her mouth and sounds like a Baby Talk Fran Drescher.

Quote from: aspiringlich;866432For me, all it needs to do is "no harm." I'm not looking for great art, only art that isn't obnoxious. 4e sinned grievously in this regard. The stupid depictions of dragonborn was enough to prevent me from ever taking that game seriously. If it were (per impossible) presented with Trampier and Sullivan art, things could have been different.

4E art style was what I call "Dungeon-Punk". Balls to the wall over the top fantasy. Ridiculously Big weapons with unrealistic armour.

I much prefer "Fantastic Realism" as a RPG Blogger once coined his similar taste. The Clothing, Equipment, Weapons have to appear if they could actually be worn and wielded, otherwise it breaks the immersion of the setting. Most D&D Art up until the 3rd edition was in the style of Fantastic Realism.

To me this doesn't mean Old School art is better than New School Art. As there is excellent Old School art being made today. And there was crappy over the top Dungeon-Punk art way back when. It's a stylistic approach to the artwork, not OSR vs. New School. My dream job would be being the Art Director for the D&D line at a WotC that was freed from the grasp of Hasbro.

And I agree the Dragonborn art was on the whole terrible. Anatomy Class apparently was not a prerequisite for many of the 4E artists. Dragon Born IMO are just a power gaming teens wet dream. "You mean I can play a dark brooding Dragon Man who can breath FIRE! Awesome!!!" barf.

I'll take primitive Lizard Men PC's any day over Dragonborn/kin/spawn.