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. :D
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.
I need some art in a rulebook to get into the game, so art is important to me. Art I don't like is a deterrent, but it's not so much objective good/bad in terms of proficiency. I hate greyscale art for instance (eg in most Necromancer Games product) while I like black & white ink art. It can be good (3e Wilderlands Players Guide) or crude (OD&D), I'll still like it.
Quote from: Necrozius;866448I 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.
Yeah, I'm in near perfect agreement with the two of you. I think good layout has been a bit under-appreciated in the OSR, although there are some standouts. But I find it greatly enhances both the readability and usefulness at the table of an RPG book.
Quote from: S'mon;866496Art I don't like is a deterrent, but it's not so much objective good/bad in terms of proficiency.
Absolutely! Bad/Good art is very subjective.
I used to care more about it, but these days not as much. I kinda prefer minimal art to no art in a rule book, especially if it's generic or genre generic- i.e.- fantasty, sci-fi, ect. As a rule book, just want it clear and easy to reference as needed.
If the game is tied to a very specific setting, then art showing me what they are talking about helps.
It's largely irrelevant to the game content, but if it's really off-putting, then it's off-putting and a shame marring a good set of rules, even if irrelevant. I'd rather it weren't there. Rules without art are ok for me, and better than problematic art.
My bar is fairly low, and crosses into "bad" territory when it contradicts my imagination of a game I'd want to play. Or if the aesthetic bugs me (e.g. The Palladium Role-Playing Game core book had a lot of portraits that put me off somehow - dragons with human-like muscles, off proportions, and lots of faces that creeped me out and made me slightly nauseous somehow - I did not want to imagine myself if a world of creatures that looked like those). Or if the art is weirdly off in how it draws stuff - either too cartoony without being cartoons, or bad perspective or body proportions (http://i48.tinypic.com/t6cv0x.jpg), or characters doing things in ways that look really dumb or wrong, or that illustrate misconceptions as if they're cool, or something.
I strongly dislike this, for example:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/33/45/f9/3345f9b6d34e59e4bc7f5d858666275e.jpg)
And I rather like art that contributes and appeals to me, by being well-done, attractive, interesting/intruguing, somewhat realistic, and evoking something that sparks my imagination, and seems/feels/looks appropriate to the genre in a way I might want to play it, and that helps me get or get into the setting. The Fantasy Trip tended to do a good job of this in some of its art, without being too fancy, just well-done, for example:
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/c71f3202137d8e2a0d9007d5eef04114/tumblr_nqxbatJkJ51ro2bqto1_500.jpg)(http://41.media.tumblr.com/8c8e665ddc359658939c06e451ce35d0/tumblr_neofxxMQEB1ro2bqto1_500.jpg)
I think there's probably room to break down "bad art" into some categories.
Embarrassing Subject Matter - Cheese Cake, Childish or Cartoonish
Lack of Proficiency - Ugly, Confused, Bad Proportions, Rob Liefeld
Irrelevance - What did this have to do with the text again?
Quote from: David Johansen;866538I think there's probably room to break down "bad art" into some categories.
Embarrassing Subject Matter - Cheese Cake, Childish or Cartoonish
Lack of Proficiency - Ugly, Confused, Bad Proportions, Rob Liefeld
Irrelevance - What did this have to do with the text again?
Except for the Irrelevant category (of course ;P) all of these could be appropriate according to the subject matter.
I may well expect a RPG about punk fanzines to have art that is utterly lacking proficiency for example...
Or a game about Boris Vallejo-style barbarians to have cheese cake art.
Quote from: David Johansen;866538I think there's probably room to break down "bad art" into some categories.
Embarrassing Subject Matter - Cheese Cake, Childish or Cartoonish
Just goes to show how different views can be. I see nothing embarrassing about "cartoonish art". I prefer cartoon style art, stuff that evokes that unbridled sense of joy and excitement of Saturday morning cartoons. That is the space where roleplaying games live and thrive for me.
The style of illustration I dislike is the overly ornate paintings, especially if the figures end up looking rather stiff. That kind of art is a complete buzz kill. And poser art, but that goes without saying. Everyone hates that.
Quote from: Skarg;866533The Fantasy Trip tended to do a good job of this in some of its art, without being too fancy, just well-done, for example...
I was looking at my (recently rediscovered) copy of Melee over the weekend and was kind of surprised at how good the art still looks to me after all this time... though the cover image is kind of iffy (I've got the one with the floppy-dick gargoyle.
I'm pretty sure those illustrations helped boost our enthusiasm for the game.
GURPS on the other hand, had such lackluster (though not technically bad) art through most of books I own, that I suspect it served to water down my expectations a bit... despite liking the rules quite a bit.
I'm thinking my preferences run to having a variety of artists illustrate rather than having the whole look of a game defined by one person's work that might hit or miss with me... and silly as it sounds I think it frees up my imagination a bit if there's a wider menu of visual interpretations.
Quote from: Simlasa;866547the floppy-dick gargoyle.
Dude, that just made me laugh- well done! :)
I'd add a fourth category, David: Overblown.
Two of my classic pet hate examples are from the Serenity RPG book and the GURPS 4th edition Characters book. In the first, eight whole pages are swallowed up by full-color photos of the ship's crew. In the second, two-thirds of the page the 'Locksmithing' skill is on is taken up with a full-color illo of a fellow on his knees picking a lock.
You can't really claim that the art is irrelevant, nor is it poorly done. But it's a crazy waste of space. If I wanted action shots of Nathan Filion or Summer Glau in costume, I can Google search ten thousand of them right this minute, for free. I'm pretty secure on the notion that lockpicking involves fiddling with locks using tools (and it's not as if they have a demonstrative illo of every skill in action).
Quote from: Soylent Green;866545Just And poser art, but that goes without saying. Everyone hates that.
I don't. There's good and bad Poser art like any medium. Most of it used for rpg illustration is on the lazy side though.
One persons junk art is ok or fine to someone else.
One of my players really dislikes Okum's art in the Big Eyes, Small Mouth RPG books. Was rather funny when we were in a craft store and there on the shelf was a "How to Draw Anime" by... Okum. heh-heh.
I actually thought the art in original D&D was overall ok. Others detest it. On the other hand I find alot of GURPS art to be little better than shaded clip art. Some people didnt like the folk art style art in 2e D&D. Others didnt like certain paintings.
Totally YMMV there.
I do though like to have some art of the non-human races and monsters. If only to get a feel for what the designer, or just the artist, thought they should be. (That and one of my benchmarks for impending trouble in a book is if the art and the description do not match.) Like White Wolf totally wasting Tim Truemans skills by assigning him stuff he just wasnt adept at. Horrible art direction can make the best of art fail. 4e D&D GW being the other posterchild for art direction failure.
I like the art in GURPS 4th edition in principle at least. It's a more grounded and realistic look for a more grounded and realistic game. For all that, most of it leaves me cold.
Quote from: Soylent Green;866545And poser art, but that goes without saying. Everyone hates that.
Not really. There are games with some surprisingly good poser art in them.
They are unfortunately so rare as to be nigh mythical.
I love art, but I also recognize most core and splat books are just compendia of new rules. That said, great art that evokes a point of view, mood, or suggestions of the rather difficult to fathom, really help. Art can be useful setting off points for me to describe locales or attitudes.
Now, I need a new set of RPG rules like I need a venereal disease (omg, such retro vocab, totes adorbs). So, as practical as it may be to print (or .pdf) a new system or splat sans art, without that evocative image hook I'd rather just pick up an old TSR, WW, or Dragon magazine product. Probably cheaper, probably better art quality on average, and easily better production and style diversity. It's like why I enjoy the cover art on my music albums or books -- evoking a sense of place and wonder is quickly done in image.
If you're new to the market and you want to even bother, bring me something evocative and new either in your cover pitch or your product imagery. I buy games for their settings, not their rules. I type out "cheat sheet" player references, or make my own GM Screens, and so I rarely want to bring your book as a reference to the table, too. But beautiful art that inspires... that's a joy and a treasure for the ages.
Art sets a tone for a setting for me. So I consider it very important. But it has to be good, or it'll turn me off the book.
Let me qualify that a little better: For me good art is composition, perspective and if I like the style of it presented. It doesn't have to be realistic but it needs to 'flow', so no using cartoon art overlayed a photo of a castle or a car park or something, that will turn me off.
And like everyone else says, this is subjective and personal.
Quote from: Ravenswing;866490You 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?
There's a few that I might cast as "bad," on a several levels, be it technical, jarring style to setting, failure in mood, contrasting expectations, etc., but the big thing for me aesthetically is how it sets up expectations. Like, I could really care less about most comic book hero art, and most anime art. Most of it does little for me nowadays (there was a time when at least the anime look was novel, but alas no more). So when I see anime-esque art, I prefer to look for the spoof angle before I really dig much deeper (unless it is one of the few animes I still have love for).
But more importantly, taking the comic book hero art style as an example, it broadcasts an aesthetic in looks that speaks about aesthetic and genre conventions that I have no interest in. I don't want to play Supers games; I don't like them, I don't 'get' them, the best I could care about is
maybe street level gumshoe. That art very much advertises to me "BAD! STAY AWAY!" because I already have certain preferences when I go to market.
Now, and at this point it feels like gratuitous beating of D&D 4e, the art posing of that edition line was very Supers-esque. At its start it felt like a poor fit with what I wanted to play. Needless to say Pathfinder wasn't much better, just cluttered with more shit atop each character like a Katamari Damacy ball, as Wayne Reynold's aesthetic was ubiquitous. In the end upon reflection I sort of wished I did judge both books by their covers because it really did feel like a Supers aesthetic leaked into both spheres.
So not exactly "bad art," but "warning art."
Quote from: Omega;866577Not really. There are games with some surprisingly good poser art in them.
They are unfortunately so rare as to be nigh mythical.
Perhaps it is due to my background in art, but I can TELL if someone just used Poser models and painted or drew over them. There's a certain "look" to them that I can identify a mile away (the faces, the way the arms are positioned and the foreshortening/perspective (or lack thereof because the artist didn't tweak the camera settings). This screams "LAZY" to me and I loathe it very much.
In my opinion, Poser should only be ever used as reference if you need a super specific pose that you can't find from an image search or catalogue. To each their own, of course.
Quote from: Omega;866577Not really. There are games with some surprisingly good poser art in them.
They are unfortunately so rare as to be nigh mythical.
I suppose I have lower standards as far as Poser art goes. I do like the medium. I'd say majority of Poser illustrations in rpgs falls into the lazy category but there's some, good ones (in the sense I liked them, individual mileage will vary). One thing that seems to hold true is that Poser pictures don't play well with other mediums so mix and matching with more conventional art can be jarring.
Quote from: Necrozius;866625Perhaps it is due to my background in art, but I can TELL if someone just used Poser models and painted or drew over them.
I thought this was about poser (i.e. poseur) art. I didn't know that Poser art (http://my.smithmicro.com/photo-galleries/poser/Poser_Gallery_20151114/images/Melissa_Krauss-The_Falconer-Poser%20Pro.jpg) was a thing.
It's not awful, but it does feel a bit lifeless or sterile.
Though I could probably use this one (http://my.smithmicro.com/photo-galleries/poser/Poser_Gallery_20151114/images/THE%20DIVER.jpg) for CoC.
Palladium Fantasy 2nd Edition is my gold standard for how a book should handle art and formatting.
1) Evocative Cover
2) Sparse but very high quality B/W illustrations
3) Formatting is easy on the eyes with enough white space
I actually like quality b/w illustrations in my RPG books. But I am a very visual guy, it helps me absorb ideas I can later recite from memory for improvisation.
Quote from: Simlasa;866547I was looking at my (recently rediscovered) copy of Melee over the weekend and was kind of surprised at how good the art still looks to me after all this time... though the cover image is kind of iffy (I've got the one with the floppy-dick gargoyle.
I'm pretty sure those illustrations helped boost our enthusiasm for the game.
GURPS on the other hand, had such lackluster (though not technically bad) art through most of books I own, that I suspect it served to water down my expectations a bit... despite liking the rules quite a bit.
I'm thinking my preferences run to having a variety of artists illustrate rather than having the whole look of a game defined by one person's work that might hit or miss with me... and silly as it sounds I think it frees up my imagination a bit if there's a wider menu of visual interpretations.
Yeah, I have the "dead gargoyle" Melee, and I didn't even see the floppy-dick gargoyle till years later. Melee being the first game in the series, I might not have found the RPG that got me hooked (and that I'm essentially still playing with GURPS + house rules), so I suppose cover art can be very important in that sense. Game cover art has definitely got me interested or not interested in many games.
So perhaps it is important to get cover art (at least) that's not only well-done, but also somehow relates to what you think is compelling about your game, and represents it well and doesn't sell something it's not (because I also know some games I resent or avoid because the cover art is compelling but the game isn't like the art's suggestion, for me, at all).
I agree with you Simlassa too about imagination - my imagination will be used during the game, and has a lot of advantages over art, and if there's one artist doing the same style throughout a book, that's a fairly strong suggestion to that style of visualization. Variety can help invite broader imagination by the players, I think.
It's a factor in my decision but not a decisive one. I will be more likely to buy a game with evocative art that I like and less likely to buy one with amateurish looking art. It not the only thing I look at but I do look at it.
I personally have no problem enjoying a book with almost no art in it that's well-written (Hulks & Horrors, for instance). But Dark Albion has certainly proven to me that in general, among gamers, having great art/production makes a huge difference in terms of the popularity of a game.
well for me it play little part in what i will buy with the exception that i will pay more for good art good being a subjective term
Quote from: artikid;866513Absolutely! Bad/Good art is very subjective.
yep yep yep for example i love the pencil sketch art Kōsuke Fujishima dos from time to time for stuff heres a good example if you want a look
http://static.zerochan.net/Sakura.Wars.Illustrations.The.Origin.%2B.Tribute.full.258028.jpg
yet a friend of mine ribs me regularly for liking them
Quote from: Skarg;866533It's largely irrelevant to the game content, but if it's really off-putting, then it's off-putting and a shame marring a good set of rules, even if irrelevant. I'd rather it weren't there. Rules without art are ok for me, and better than problematic art.
My bar is fairly low, and crosses into "bad" territory when it contradicts my imagination of a game I'd want to play. Or if the aesthetic bugs me (e.g. The Palladium Role-Playing Game core book had a lot of portraits that put me off somehow - dragons with human-like muscles, off proportions, and lots of faces that creeped me out and made me slightly nauseous somehow - I did not want to imagine myself if a world of creatures that looked like those). Or if the art is weirdly off in how it draws stuff - either too cartoony without being cartoons, or bad perspective or body proportions (http://i48.tinypic.com/t6cv0x.jpg), or characters doing things in ways that look really dumb or wrong, or that illustrate misconceptions as if they're cool, or something.
I strongly dislike this, for example:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/33/45/f9/3345f9b6d34e59e4bc7f5d858666275e.jpg)
And I rather like art that contributes and appeals to me, by being well-done, attractive, interesting/intruguing, somewhat realistic, and evoking something that sparks my imagination, and seems/feels/looks appropriate to the genre in a way I might want to play it, and that helps me get or get into the setting. The Fantasy Trip tended to do a good job of this in some of its art, without being too fancy, just well-done, for example:
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/c71f3202137d8e2a0d9007d5eef04114/tumblr_nqxbatJkJ51ro2bqto1_500.jpg)(http://41.media.tumblr.com/8c8e665ddc359658939c06e451ce35d0/tumblr_neofxxMQEB1ro2bqto1_500.jpg)
please correct me if im wrong but isnt that top picture from shadow run ?
Quote from: artikid;866541Except for the Irrelevant category (of course ;P) all of these could be appropriate according to the subject matter.
I may well expect a RPG about punk fanzines to have art that is utterly lacking proficiency for example...
Or a game about Boris Vallejo-style barbarians to have cheese cake art.
yah and cheese cake is not necessarily a bad thing
Quote from: Necrozius;866625Perhaps it is due to my background in art, but I can TELL if someone just used Poser models and painted or drew over them. There's a certain "look" to them that I can identify a mile away (the faces, the way the arms are positioned and the foreshortening/perspective (or lack thereof because the artist didn't tweak the camera settings). This screams "LAZY" to me and I loathe it very much.
In my opinion, Poser should only be ever used as reference if you need a super specific pose that you can't find from an image search or catalogue. To each their own, of course.
Same here. I can tell sometimes when Poser has been used and sometimes even the model types they used. The arm and body thing is another tell-tale.
Apparently some or all of the art in Dead of Winter uses poser as a base. Im a little dubious of that though.
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1947798_lg.jpg)
Quote from: Nerzenjäger;866648Palladium Fantasy 2nd Edition is my gold standard for how a book should handle art and formatting.
1) Evocative Cover
2) Sparse but very high quality B/W illustrations
3) Formatting is easy on the eyes with enough white space
I actually like quality b/w illustrations in my RPG books. But I am a very visual guy, it helps me absorb ideas I can later recite from memory for improvisation.
Palladium art period. Overall their art and composition has been great. They tend to have a semi-uniform look throughout a book and the art nearly allways IS what is being described and gets across at a glance what the thing is.
And the art isnt over-used. Though they do like their little retread fillers. But mostly just as section breaks so that is ok really.
Quote from: Omega;867851Apparently some or all of the art in Dead of Winter uses poser as a base. Im a little dubious of that though.
I generally hate Poser art too... if that stuff started with Poser the artist has done a good job of covering his tracks, I like the feel of it... at least in regards to what I perceive that game to be about, a kind of soap opera horror.
Quote from: Simlasa;867871I generally hate Poser art too... if that stuff started with Poser the artist has done a good job of covering his tracks, I like the feel of it... at least in regards to what I perceive that game to be about, a kind of soap opera horror.
Co-op Board game from Plaid Hat. Survivours in a snow shrouded town dealing with not only some sort of zombie problem outside. But internal strife from within as well. Hidden agendas and possible power plays.
Oh, and theres a stunt dog that you can equip with a 44 magnum. That he then uses. And you can exile Felicia Day and one of the game designers to the cold harsh wilderness.
Quote from: Omega;867874Co-op Board game from Plaid Hat. Survivours in a snow shrouded town dealing with not only some sort of zombie problem outside. But internal strife from within as well. Hidden agendas and possible power plays.
So yeah, Peyton Place with zombies.
QuoteAnd you can exile Felicia Day and one of the game designers to the cold harsh wilderness.
Well, that bit certainly appeals... that woman's schtick annoys me.
Quote from: Simlasa;867961So yeah, Peyton Place with zombies.
I'd play it.
jg
Heres something from marketing research on my own way back and it still applies today.
One thing that the art can be a factor for though is in how much incentive you feel for buying any supplements or other product from the publisher. Or more aptly. How the composition of art and content inspire or dissuade you from buying more.
2e D&D and Gurps are the posterchilds for that. For some the art fit and for others it was a turn-off
Quote from: Omega;867853Palladium art period. Overall their art and composition has been great. They tend to have a semi-uniform look throughout a book and the art nearly allways IS what is being described and gets across at a glance what the thing is.
And the art isnt over-used. Though they do like their little retread fillers. But mostly just as section breaks so that is ok really.
I really appreciated the art in their weapon & armor books, but have you seen the art in The Palladium RPG core book? I almost always got physically nauseous after looking at it. I don't just mean ideas, but just the way the faces and bodies were drawn somehow had a weird automatic effect on me.
Quote from: kosmos1214;867837...
please correct me if im wrong but isnt that top picture from shadow run ?
...
Yes, it is from Shadowrun. It's just an example of a visual style that I find very off-putting. I also can't stand Shadowrun, so maybe it's appropriate. But if the content were appropriate for a game I like, but that style were used in a game book I liked, I'd really dislike it and consider putting a sticker over the picture to avoid being annoyed by it when using the book.
Quote from: Skarg;868284I really appreciated the art in their weapon & armor books, but have you seen the art in The Palladium RPG core book? I almost always got physically nauseous after looking at it. I don't just mean ideas, but just the way the faces and bodies were drawn somehow had a weird automatic effect on me.
The 1st edtion of Palladium RPG art features a lot of Kevin Siembieda's pieces and it is not good to look at !
When Kevin Long joined, the art becomes better. The first edtion of Rifts has nice pieces.
A good move for Kevin was to hire Vince Martin (you see his art in Nightbane, Phase World and Japan) and Randall K Post.
Newton Ewell has done coll things on Atlantis, Mechanoids and Macross 2.
Quote from: Skarg;868284I really appreciated the art in their weapon & armor books, but have you seen the art in The Palladium RPG core book? I almost always got physically nauseous after looking at it. I don't just mean ideas, but just the way the faces and bodies were drawn somehow had a weird automatic effect on me.
That's why 2nd edition is the one to go. Fabulous artistry by Martin McKenna throughout the book.
Kevin's really got an eye for good illustration, you gotta give the guy credit.
(http://www.martinmckenna.net/content/assets/1773-51.jpg)
Another vote for the "no art" is better than "bad art." And although it's very subjective, I've got my standards. If the art annoys me, then it better be a "must have" product in almost all other respects.
It's almost like interviewing someone for a job. If the art bugs me, then it sends a message to me that the product is probably going to be shoddy, sloppy or inappropriate in other ways (even if it's not always true.)
"Outstanding art" or even "pretty good art" can definitely take me over the fence on what would otherwise be a marginal purchase.
Ah, yeah I'm pretty sure I had the awful art edition of Palladium RPG. There was also some good art in it (the maps and coin illustrations were nice, and it had things like magic symbology and various magic variations, but I think all that lured me to look at the other pictures... ;-)
Good vs bad art is partly subjective but there is also such a thing as technical skill or lack of it. Some art is just amateurish and bad. The anatomy is bad. The perspective is off. The line work is sloppy and/or lazy. The piece looks unfinished. If I did the art for your game it wouldn't be subjectively bad. It would just be plain old bad.
Quote from: yosemitemike;868492Good vs bad art is partly subjective but there is also such a thing as technical skill or lack of it. Some art is just amateurish and bad. The anatomy is bad. The perspective is off. The line work is sloppy and/or lazy. The piece looks unfinished. If I did the art for your game it wouldn't be subjectively bad. It would just be plain old bad.
This was my point about the art in the BECMI Cyclopedia. The art is really good and the artist showd a wide variety of favial and ethnic styles without being PC. And the amount of detailing on pieces is amazing. But his one failing is perspective and limb angles. Several of his pieces lack perspecta and a few have limbs at slightly off kilters. Seen far worse and its minour compared to other game art fails.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger;868402That's why 2nd edition is the one to go. Fabulous artistry by Martin McKenna throughout the book.
Kevin's really got an eye for good illustration, you gotta give the guy credit.
Ok, so here's the real question: I think we all mostly agree that 2e Palladium has way better art than 1e Palladium.
But almost everyone believes that 1e Palladium is a much better SYSTEM than 2e Palladium (which ended up integrating the game to the more standard Palladium system found in Robotech, RIFTS, TMNT, etc).
So, which is more important? Would y'all rather have a better system with worse art? Or a less-good system with better art?
Quote from: RPGPundit;868977So, which is more important? Would y'all rather have a better system with worse art? Or a less-good system with better art?
Well, the fact that I bought Arrows of Indra kinda answers that...
(joking! I acually like the art in AoI)
System trumps art every time... but you have to read the book to get at the system and, sometimes, the art (GURPS, Larry Elmore, Poser) can drain my enthusiasm for that vital first step.
Quote from: RPGPundit;868977Ok, so here's the real question: I think we all mostly agree that 2e Palladium has way better art than 1e Palladium.
But almost everyone believes that 1e Palladium is a much better SYSTEM than 2e Palladium (which ended up integrating the game to the more standard Palladium system found in Robotech, RIFTS, TMNT, etc).
So, which is more important? Would y'all rather have a better system with worse art? Or a less-good system with better art?
As a highly visual person, I prefer good art, it sells a book better to me rather than no art or bad art.
(And for the record, I preferred Palladium 1e for both the art and the system. It even had details on the various currencies and magical symbols!)
Considering all the systems I ended up buying (often used) through impulse, I guess I have to conclude my answer is an unexpected one: the art. I thought I'd be all high minded and say the system matters more. But over the years my shopping doesn't reflect that, and it would be dishonest of me to preach otherwise.
If there's a choice and I really had to put the effort into comparison shopping I guess I could say system. But I definitely am a setting person as I have plenty of systems. And when it comes to more casual purchases, art, funky tables, discrete bolt-on widgets, and awesome hooks sells me more than some grand display of cohesive (a.k.a. "elegant") mechanics.
I guess it has something to do with me being in a personal gaming period beyond where I was actively shopping for "The One System to Bind Them All." After a scattershot survey of systems, and a fruitless quest for "The One System," I got old and grumpy and just returned to what I liked, warts and all. And after that general system survey phase I'm just not on the market desperately seeking "The One" anymore.
I guess systems are disposable to me nowadays, like an afterthought. Never thought it'd get to that, but there it is. A new bucket of rules equations (and paradigms; never forget the new flavor of the year paradigms) is about as welcome as reading some table's 200+ page addendum of houserules. I could bother relearning how to build and operate a new car, or I could get on with the business of driving for fun.
Good art is a plus for me but I can definitely live without art. I do agree that no art is usually better than bad art, keeping in mind that bad art is subjective. I find art isn't representative of the game and setting (like many of the works in THS, IMO) is actually worse than bad art as far killing the mood.
Quote from: Opaopajr;869015If there's a choice and I really had to put the effort into comparison shopping I guess I could say system. But I definitely am a setting person as I have plenty of systems.
Yeah, when I say 'System trumps art' I really mean 'system+setting=content trumps art'... because most of the time I'm mining the thing for ideas to use in a handful of go-to systems... not looking to run the new hotness.
Quote from: RPGPundit;868977Ok, so here's the real question: I think we all mostly agree that 2e Palladium has way better art than 1e Palladium.
But almost everyone believes that 1e Palladium is a much better SYSTEM than 2e Palladium (which ended up integrating the game to the more standard Palladium system found in Robotech, RIFTS, TMNT, etc).
So, which is more important? Would y'all rather have a better system with worse art? Or a less-good system with better art?
Hard to answer in that particular scenario; they are still quite close mechanically. Wenn I look at that fat, juicy softcover I do want to play it more than 1E, but I also know that 1E is less of a pain in the ass.
Quote from: Skarg;868285Yes, it is from Shadowrun. It's just an example of a visual style that I find very off-putting. I also can't stand Shadowrun, so maybe it's appropriate. But if the content were appropriate for a game I like, but that style were used in a game book I liked, I'd really dislike it and consider putting a sticker over the picture to avoid being annoyed by it when using the book.
ah thanks and yah i thought i recognized it just wasn't sure
Quote from: Simlasa;868979Well, the fact that I bought Arrows of Indra kinda answers that...
(joking! I acually like the art in AoI)
I do too, but there's no question that the artistic quality of Dark Albion runs rings around Arrows of Indra. Or most RPGs, for that matter.
I don't mind art in RPGs, but it isn't the main reason I'm buying the books. When I want art in an RPG, I'll go out and buy the art book for it. (Like I did for Anima Beyond Fantasy)
If the art is evocative, then fine, Eoris, for example, has come really cool art. It really gives the feel of the kind of world that the game is set in, and makes me want to play the game.
But if the art is really bad, anything from SCAR studio or J Cobb in the older White Wolf books, I'll want to get rid of the book just because of that art.
There are a lot of RPGs on the market competing for my attention. The ones with art that appeals to me are more likely to get a second look than ones with art I find unappealing. It difficult to judge how a system will run at the tabletop while leafing through a book in a store or looking at a blurb for a pdf copy. Things like art I like or a premise I find interesting are much easier to judge.
The purpose of (visual) art in an RPG is to evoke specific thoughts and feelings, and only becomes 'bad' when it evokes the wrong ones. Even pieces which look drawn by a child off their ADD meds are good as long as that's the mental and emotional space you want to put your readers.
Art helps establish what you want someone to think when playing your game and how you want them to feel about it. So if the art brings up feelings of sloth and incompetence simply by how well it's drawn, those feelings will affect how the rest of the game is evaluated, so you'd be better off not having that art at all.
And the advantage art has over writing is that it's absorbed quicker and it's less (though still) dependent on the personal experience of the reader for interpretation. So if you want to clearly and consistently share your experiences with an audience outside your experience, visuals are a more effective channel. After all, a rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but that still doesn't tell anyone exactly what it smells like.
So how important is art in an RPG book? It's critical. And while bad art can be more damaging than no art, no art is still almost as bad. Perhaps that's why so many RPG Kickstarters are done specifically to pay for art and layout.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;870456The purpose of (visual) art in an RPG is to evoke specific thoughts and feelings, and only becomes 'bad' when it evokes the wrong ones. Even pieces which look drawn by a child off their ADD meds are good as long as that's the mental and emotional space you want to put your readers.
Art helps establish what you want someone to think when playing your game and how you want them to feel about it. So if the art brings up feelings of sloth and incompetence simply by how well it's drawn, those feelings will affect how the rest of the game is evaluated, so you'd be better off not having that art at all.
And the advantage art has over writing is that it's absorbed quicker and it's less (though still) dependent on the personal experience of the reader for interpretation. So if you want to clearly and consistently share your experiences with an audience outside your experience, visuals are a more effective channel. After all, a rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but that still doesn't tell anyone exactly what it smells like.
So how important is art in an RPG book? It's critical. And while bad art can be more damaging than no art, no art is still almost as bad. Perhaps that's why so many RPG Kickstarters are done specifically to pay for art and layout.
Pretty much my personal reason for wanting art in my books. And it matches up with my old anthropology classes and studies about human cultures. Which is not to say it's fact in any way, just that it's both familiar and I personally believe it.
I think there is another aspect that's being left out, presentation. Not particularly layout, though that plays a part. There are some games that evoke a style with either no art, minimal art, or low quality art. The original Traveller reads like a technical manual or Top Secret reading like an agent's handbook. I always thought that is where the 1st edition AD&D DM Manual excelled, it felt and read like a tome of forbidden knowledge compiled by an eccentric sage. I also thought Burning Wheel pulled this off to an extent.
I think that is what I believe to be bad art for RPGs. Art that doesn't feel like it matches what the product is trying to evoke or trumps what the product is trying to evoke. Artwork has to work in tandem with the writing and layout to have a cohesive presentation.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;870456The purpose of (visual) art in an RPG is to evoke specific thoughts and feelings, and only becomes 'bad' when it evokes the wrong ones. Even pieces which look drawn by a child off their ADD meds are good as long as that's the mental and emotional space you want to put your readers.
Which is why the art by SCAR and J. Cobb in the oWoD books was "good" on that relative standard. ;)
QuoteArt helps establish what you want someone to think when playing your game and how you want them to feel about it. So if the art brings up feelings of sloth and incompetence simply by how well it's drawn, those feelings will affect how the rest of the game is evaluated, so you'd be better off not having that art at all.
And the advantage art has over writing is that it's absorbed quicker and it's less (though still) dependent on the personal experience of the reader for interpretation. So if you want to clearly and consistently share your experiences with an audience outside your experience, visuals are a more effective channel. After all, a rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but that still doesn't tell anyone exactly what it smells like.
So how important is art in an RPG book? It's critical. And while bad art can be more damaging than no art, no art is still almost as bad. Perhaps that's why so many RPG Kickstarters are done specifically to pay for art and layout.
Great point.
JG
Back when there was a local gaming convention, I attended one year when an artist who had worked at Palladium was a fairly regular guest. He was friends with one of the organizers. I had the chance to talk to him about working for the game company, and he said that the only people Kevin had less regard for then the staff writers were the artists. H would not only treat the artists like crap, but also would butcher the art, cut large chunks out of it, lay it out so that it was broken across 2 pages, etc. He said that the only good thing about working there was that the checks usually cleared. He said that he liked working at other game companies more, but Palladium usually paid more.
He went on to start his own self-published comic book. Your typical 90's female flying brick who had gold skin and no clothing.
Quote from: remial;870753Back when there was a local gaming convention, I attended one year when an artist who had worked at Palladium was a fairly regular guest. He was friends with one of the organizers. I had the chance to talk to him about working for the game company, and he said that the only people Kevin had less regard for then the staff writers were the artists. H would not only treat the artists like crap, but also would butcher the art, cut large chunks out of it, lay it out so that it was broken across 2 pages, etc. He said that the only good thing about working there was that the checks usually cleared. He said that he liked working at other game companies more, but Palladium usually paid more.
He went on to start his own self-published comic book. Your typical 90's female flying brick who had gold skin and no clothing.
whats the comic?
However Siembieda may or may not have treated the artists, the art itself is one of the things that utterly MADE Palladium books.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;871499However Siembieda may or may not have treated the artists, the art itself is one of the things that utterly MADE Palladium books.
RPGPundit
This is true. There was a man who knew the value of art in RPGs.
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. :D :p
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.
And what was with all the flipping buckles and belts? Was there an artists' sale at Fetish-R-US?
Quote from: Bren;875954And what was with all the flipping buckles and belts? Was there an artists' sale at Fetish-R-US?
Hennet
https://www.google.com/search?q=hennet+sorcerer&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS590US590&hl=en-US&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWx-Pg7M3KAhWmxIMKHXWGCZoQ_AUIBygB#imgrc=UTHOFHTOlEl-oM%3A
To be fair, the DungeonPunk aesthetic isn't actually gone. It's now found a home in the Pathfinder RPG.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;876002To be fair, the DungeonPunk aesthetic isn't actually gone. It's now found a home in the Pathfinder RPG.
Cool, I like that style.
One more thing.
Thanks to cameras and easy access to visual information, creating (often derivative) visual works has become a common form of internet communication for the younger set. This is why I think providing remixable art for Eclipse Phase and Godbound is such a smart idea, and why the increasingly restrictive copyright laws are missing the point.
And what's more purposely remixable than a tabletop RPG?
Quote from: RPGPundit;871499However Siembieda may or may not have treated the artists, the art itself is one of the things that utterly MADE Palladium books.
I'm pretty certain that in many cases Siembieda based the writing (sometimes quite literally) around the art too. Made Palladium books indeed.
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 you're missing the point with a deliberately bad faith reading just like those problematic SJWs do. And you know it.
#partoftheproblem
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.
And there's still whole chunks of visual communication taking place on the internet that will remain inaccessible to them for the foreseeable future. And it's growing.
Quote from: Skarg;875738However I would certainly choose to be colour blind rather than deaf.
There's a big difference between color blind, legally blind, and blind blind however. In fact, color blindness can even be an advantage in certain situations, certainly not in those 'cut the blue wire' sorts, but where perceiving patterns hidden by too much color information is important.
I'd rather have no art than bad art. And most art in RPGs is awful.
My favorite art would be that found in the '77 edition of Traveller.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;876106And you're missing the point with a deliberately bad faith reading just like those problematic SJWs do. And you know it.
The point was overstated. You know it. I know it. Now AA, show us on the doll where the mean SJW touched you.
Quote from: Skarg;875738I 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.)
me to how did you find out i found out do to zangya from dragon ball z every one says shes blue but to me she looks sea foam green in most pictures
Quote from: kosmos1214;876194me to how did you find out i found out do to zangya from dragon ball z every one says shes blue but to me she looks sea foam green in most pictures
I found out when doing web development and responding to some feedback on the colors of something, and talking to a couple of co-workers about the colors of football uniforms (Seattle Seahawks home jersies some years ago that looked solid blue to me, but others saw as blue and green in some parts that were just blue to me).
I just reviewed Walkure (you can find it today on my blog, with art samples) and I have to say its an example of art and production helping to totally make that book.
I want to say that art quality doesn't matter, but that would be a lie. Bad artwork is the main reason I seldom used the Fiend Folio, since most of the illustrations in that book were terrible.