This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?  (Read 6925 times)

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8330
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2021, 06:44:56 PM »
[I never bothered to understand why JKR is currently cancelled - and I don't think I will.]

Basically she said trans aren't women. Her own feminist, woke cult eventually turned against her. She started with Hermione is black and Dumbledore is gay... and now the golem turned against her because she's a "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). Glad it happened.
There was also the African magic school debacle. The Woke Mob demanded to know why there were wizards in England and Europe but not Africa. She actually had considered that, and posted some of her initial ideas. She was immediately struggled with "Why is there only one school, when white people get three? Are you aware there are many different cultures in Africa? Do you think all Africans are the same? Are you, as a white person, qualified to write about them? Etc."

What a surprise.

A white woman from the UK writing primarily about people in the UK. It's indeed puzzling... :D

Quote
My theory is that Rowling is being rejected by the Wokists because the novels actually have conservative (ish) elements:

- Definite good vs. definite evil
- Boys and girls fall in love, get married, start families
- People are judged by their merits and accomplishments, rather than their identity
- Intelligence and hard work are rewarded
- Duty and self-sacrifice for the greater good
- The soul exists, as well as an afterlife
- Masculinity and fatherhood are positive (rather than universally toxic)


Some liberal elements as well. But I don't see the novels or Rowling as Woke.

Yeah. Rowling is "A progressive driving the speed limit". IMO part of the popularity of the Potter novels is that she consiously or subconsiously used "tradtional" ideas about storytelling and morality, and didn't try to aggressively subvert everything in sight. That is was so popular and not ham handedly conservative put her on track for the eventual confrontation with wokesters who can't help but enjoy "problematic" content.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 1205
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2021, 07:13:31 PM »


As someone who both ran a RPG line and, a few years later, a comic book series, I would have refused the second illustration strictly because the art is bad.

Out of curiosity, what would you say makes the second picture "bad" and the first "good" (or at least acceptable)?  I ask from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about art theory, and sees only two pictures both done with a technical competence I certainly couldn't deliver myself.

I am certainly not a fan of the style of the second painting vs. the first, but a difference in taste is not the same as a criticism of quality, I think.
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

palaeomerus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • If my stats are all 9s then how am I a 3/10?
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2021, 07:21:47 PM »
If Moorcock ever gets caught in the public eye - should there ever be an Elric TV series or something... oh you bet your ass they'll come after him.


Moorcock was supposedly quite trying to get Elric made as a TV/Streaming show and they rejected his pitch and he was told it was too much like the Witcher. Poor guy.
Emery

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #33 on: July 31, 2021, 04:04:45 AM »
I don't believe that there is a definable break point. The change has been gradual and is still ongoing. I remember some of the things that are "new school" from as far back as the late 80s, but they were less widespread than they are today. I think they have become more common as games have moved toward attracting interest from those outside the typical gamer. The D&D gamer might now be something of a minority among those that participate in D&D themed products (not all of which are part the RPG).

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8330
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #34 on: July 31, 2021, 04:38:08 AM »


As someone who both ran a RPG line and, a few years later, a comic book series, I would have refused the second illustration strictly because the art is bad.

Out of curiosity, what would you say makes the second picture "bad" and the first "good" (or at least acceptable)?  I ask from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about art theory, and sees only two pictures both done with a technical competence I certainly couldn't deliver myself.

I am certainly not a fan of the style of the second painting vs. the first, but a difference in taste is not the same as a criticism of quality, I think.

Just want to comment that the first picture is from Everquest, where you can play a dark elf or a catman or a lizard man. :D Positivley "New School" gaming there.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Reckall

  • Junghian alchemist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2004
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #35 on: July 31, 2021, 06:04:21 AM »


As someone who both ran a RPG line and, a few years later, a comic book series, I would have refused the second illustration strictly because the art is bad.

Out of curiosity, what would you say makes the second picture "bad" and the first "good" (or at least acceptable)?  I ask from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about art theory, and sees only two pictures both done with a technical competence I certainly couldn't deliver myself.

I am certainly not a fan of the style of the second painting vs. the first, but a difference in taste is not the same as a criticism of quality, I think.

Just want to comment that the first picture is from Everquest, where you can play a dark elf or a catman or a lizard man. :D Positivley "New School" gaming there.

The first one is by the late Keith Parkinson, one of the "big four" of D&D and esp. "Dragonlance" (along with Elmore, Easley and Caldwell).

The first thing you notice about the second one is how the composition is all wrong. Not only it is unbalanced, but important elements are muddled. The little lizardman in the middle disappears amid all the other elements surrounding him. The two figure fighting in the lower right partially obscure the two other figures behind them (Parkinson apparently does the same, but it his version the way the figures are placed doesn't hide the ones in the background).

Generally speaking, Parkinson's illustration gives more "air" to the scene, allowing to each figure to be properly perceived. His dragon isn't big and it hadn't to be. The "bigger is better" dragon in the second illustration only results in an orange blob in a scene already crammed.

Parkinson uses colors to further detach each character both from the ambience and from each other (you could say that the paladin in white against the white boulders is his only mistake). The second image is a "garish is better" assault on the retinas.

Then the characters. Parkinson's show an elegance and beauty that - as a side effect - makes the player say "I want to play this one!". They are also anatomically correct. Now, tell me why I should want to play the befuddled ranger (?) on the left (after I realised that she was an archer only after staring to her for a while, because her bow almost belongs to a game of "hidden objects"). Who is fighting with who is often unclear. I have a few doubts about the anatomies. And, for all the attempt to show "superheroic characters" in the second image, Parkinson's poses are cooler.

These are the first things that come off my head. Generally speaking, Parkinson's work shows a guy who has mastered his talent and knows to convey the spirit of what he is illustrating in the best possible way. The second image is done by someone who apes better artists, but who still has to understand that cramming everything together and failing at the basic use of colors only shows how he still has a long road in front of him.
For every idiot who denounces Ayn Rand as "intellectualism" there is an excellent DM who creates a "Bioshock" adventure.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #36 on: July 31, 2021, 06:50:29 AM »
The first one is by the late Keith Parkinson, one of the "big four" of D&D and esp. "Dragonlance" (along with Elmore, Easley and Caldwell).

The first thing you notice about the second one is how the composition is all wrong. Not only it is unbalanced, but important elements are muddled. The little lizardman in the middle disappears amid all the other elements surrounding him. The two figure fighting in the lower right partially obscure the two other figures behind them (Parkinson apparently does the same, but it his version the way the figures are placed doesn't hide the ones in the background).

Generally speaking, Parkinson's illustration gives more "air" to the scene, allowing to each figure to be properly perceived. His dragon isn't big and it hadn't to be. The "bigger is better" dragon in the second illustration only results in an orange blob in a scene already crammed.

Parkinson uses colors to further detach each character both from the ambience and from each other (you could say that the paladin in white against the white boulders is his only mistake). The second image is a "garish is better" assault on the retinas.

Then the characters. Parkinson's show an elegance and beauty that - as a side effect - makes the player say "I want to play this one!". They are also anatomically correct. Now, tell me why I should want to play the befuddled ranger (?) on the left (after I realised that she was an archer only after staring to her for a while, because her bow almost belongs to a game of "hidden objects"). Who is fighting with who is often unclear. I have a few doubts about the anatomies. And, for all the attempt to show "superheroic characters" in the second image, Parkinson's poses are cooler.

These are the first things that come off my head. Generally speaking, Parkinson's work shows a guy who has mastered his talent and knows to convey the spirit of what he is illustrating in the best possible way. The second image is done by someone who apes better artists, but who still has to understand that cramming everything together and failing at the basic use of colors only shows how he still has a long road in front of him.
I don't think the difference is that stark. I do think the characters in Parkinson's tableau are easier to distinguish, but that's mostly because the armor in the second piece tends to chop the characters up -- the style of plates with borders breaks up the overall outline of a human body. The problem with the dragon is less size and more color -- the red really stands out, and provides a sharp border; the orange does not, especially since the foreground characters use orange or analogous colors. The same problems also occurs with the characters to the right. Regarding elements blending in, that war machine in the back of Parkinson's piece is harder to distinguish than the small lizardman in the second piece, and Parkinson's halfling and dwarf also merge into a hard to separate blob. Also, I wouldn't praise Parkinson's anatomy too much -- the giant forehead on the wizard stands out, and so does the pose of the rogue, which appears to be a resting position rather than in the middle of moving, but would be terribly difficult to hold. The priestess with the staff staring directly at the viewer is distracting. Overall, neither picture has good composition. Both are kind of a mess. They're action scenes, but half the characters seem to be posing pointlessly, or staring off in random directions. Neither is a particularly good piece.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2021, 06:59:33 AM by Pat »

Cola

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • C
  • Posts: 113
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2021, 10:43:28 AM »
I am not sure where the breaking point was.

I like a lot of 5e but commented to my friend of 40 years: “it’s hard to find pictures of warriors with axes…knights…where are all the badasses?”

It only gets worse by Tasha’s.  Neon colored characters who seem to fight by shooting lasers from their twats.

There was a picture of a what looked like an English footman being menaced by a monster: https://5e.tools/img/bestiary/MTF/Nightwalker.jpg

And I was shocked to find it in the mound of art from the past several years.  Why the shift?

Overall you get railed for representing fantasy medieval Europe at all—-the roots of the game.  As you push further away from knights and castles (too Eurocentric, I am sure) a normal adventuring party gets rarer and rarer.  The other element is totally cultural.  The cutesy fan art is ubiquitous.  Tastes have changed.  Old D&D players were inspired by older things.

I would imagine that the flood of computer generated heroes in the last 20 years is also a contributor.  Instead of reading and imagining some things subject to the laws of physics, we have bendy flashy flippy CGI heroes in mind now.

I would guess the art really shifted mid to late 90s just thinking back to old products from major companies.

So I think the subjects change for one reason followed by the aesthetics for other reasons all within the past 20 years.

Don’t think I am right?  It’s ok I pulled this out of my own subjective ass.  What I know for fact is the new Star Trek homoerotic wizard schools leaves me pretty cold.  Uninspiring and unexciting to say the very least.

Reckall

  • Junghian alchemist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2004
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #38 on: July 31, 2021, 11:11:56 AM »
The first one is by the late Keith Parkinson, one of the "big four" of D&D and esp. "Dragonlance" (along with Elmore, Easley and Caldwell).

The first thing you notice about the second one is how the composition is all wrong. Not only it is unbalanced, but important elements are muddled. The little lizardman in the middle disappears amid all the other elements surrounding him. The two figure fighting in the lower right partially obscure the two other figures behind them (Parkinson apparently does the same, but it his version the way the figures are placed doesn't hide the ones in the background).

Generally speaking, Parkinson's illustration gives more "air" to the scene, allowing to each figure to be properly perceived. His dragon isn't big and it hadn't to be. The "bigger is better" dragon in the second illustration only results in an orange blob in a scene already crammed.

Parkinson uses colors to further detach each character both from the ambience and from each other (you could say that the paladin in white against the white boulders is his only mistake). The second image is a "garish is better" assault on the retinas.

Then the characters. Parkinson's show an elegance and beauty that - as a side effect - makes the player say "I want to play this one!". They are also anatomically correct. Now, tell me why I should want to play the befuddled ranger (?) on the left (after I realised that she was an archer only after staring to her for a while, because her bow almost belongs to a game of "hidden objects"). Who is fighting with who is often unclear. I have a few doubts about the anatomies. And, for all the attempt to show "superheroic characters" in the second image, Parkinson's poses are cooler.

These are the first things that come off my head. Generally speaking, Parkinson's work shows a guy who has mastered his talent and knows to convey the spirit of what he is illustrating in the best possible way. The second image is done by someone who apes better artists, but who still has to understand that cramming everything together and failing at the basic use of colors only shows how he still has a long road in front of him.
I don't think the difference is that stark. I do think the characters in Parkinson's tableau are easier to distinguish, but that's mostly because the armor in the second piece tends to chop the characters up -- the style of plates with borders breaks up the overall outline of a human body. The problem with the dragon is less size and more color -- the red really stands out, and provides a sharp border; the orange does not, especially since the foreground characters use orange or analogous colors. The same problems also occurs with the characters to the right. Regarding elements blending in, that war machine in the back of Parkinson's piece is harder to distinguish than the small lizardman in the second piece, and Parkinson's halfling and dwarf also merge into a hard to separate blob. Also, I wouldn't praise Parkinson's anatomy too much -- the giant forehead on the wizard stands out, and so does the pose of the rogue, which appears to be a resting position rather than in the middle of moving, but would be terribly difficult to hold. The priestess with the staff staring directly at the viewer is distracting. Overall, neither picture has good composition. Both are kind of a mess. They're action scenes, but half the characters seem to be posing pointlessly, or staring off in random directions. Neither is a particularly good piece.

Well, I'm not here to judge your own opinion of what "good art is". I can only notice that you didn't divide your post in paragraphs  :)
For every idiot who denounces Ayn Rand as "intellectualism" there is an excellent DM who creates a "Bioshock" adventure.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #39 on: July 31, 2021, 11:34:46 AM »
Well, I'm not here to judge your own opinion of what "good art is". I can only notice that you didn't divide your post in paragraphs  :)
I didn't just give an opinion. Similar to what you did, I gave a rationale for my opinion, which is a more fertile ground for discussion than a simple I like/don't like. And nearly every sentence in my post in a separate point, which doesn't lend itself well to a multiple paragraph structure. It's more suited for either:
  • one paragraph,
  • or bullet points...
... the latter of which I usually avoid, because theRPGsite's implementation isn't that good.  :P

Shawn Driscoll

  • Role-Play Purist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2928
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #40 on: July 31, 2021, 12:54:38 PM »
How did we go from Frank Frazzetta/Boris Vallejo/Jeff Easley, etc. illustrations, Conan the Cimmerian, Clark Ashton Smith, Sword & Sorcery, 70's psychedelics and 80's metal, hand-drawn art and a "basement" feeling to pauldroncore, freakshit, "anti-racist" soyboy digital art fantasy, in which no character can get harmed and there's lots of cheeky "humor" and anime personalities?
Nintendo.

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18318
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #41 on: July 31, 2021, 01:15:20 PM »
If dragonborn had been the result of dragons developing agents to go out into the world and handle the various issues arising post-3E (Spellplague, etc), it would've fit better.

I can run with this idea. The dragonborn are to dragons what D-class personnel are to the SCP Foundation. Disposable units used to scout out hazardous unknown locations.
"Meh."

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18318
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2021, 01:31:13 PM »
I don't believe that there is a definable break point. The change has been gradual and is still ongoing.

I have to agree with this.

There was no single polarizing moment. This has been a gradual progression (like cancer or a mold) that happened as the internet and social media became more commonly used - as social Marxists and other crazies began talking to each other and organizing into communities, then the SJWs arose organically from that to try and smash the established institutions.
"Meh."

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #43 on: July 31, 2021, 03:47:29 PM »
I don't believe that there is a definable break point. The change has been gradual and is still ongoing.

I have to agree with this.

There was no single polarizing moment. This has been a gradual progression (like cancer or a mold) that happened as the internet and social media became more commonly used - as social Marxists and other crazies began talking to each other and organizing into communities, then the SJWs arose organically from that to try and smash the established institutions.
I don't necessarily believe that the "new" art is inherently linked to specific politics.

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8330
Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
« Reply #44 on: July 31, 2021, 04:17:40 PM »


As someone who both ran a RPG line and, a few years later, a comic book series, I would have refused the second illustration strictly because the art is bad.

Out of curiosity, what would you say makes the second picture "bad" and the first "good" (or at least acceptable)?  I ask from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about art theory, and sees only two pictures both done with a technical competence I certainly couldn't deliver myself.

I am certainly not a fan of the style of the second painting vs. the first, but a difference in taste is not the same as a criticism of quality, I think.

Just want to comment that the first picture is from Everquest, where you can play a dark elf or a catman or a lizard man. :D Positivley "New School" gaming there.

These are the first things that come off my head. Generally speaking, Parkinson's work shows a guy who has mastered his talent and knows to convey the spirit of what he is illustrating in the best possible way. The second image is done by someone who apes better artists, but who still has to understand that cramming everything together and failing at the basic use of colors only shows how he still has a long road in front of him.

Certainly. The second image has a "collage" look, where everything looks like it's been cut out of a magazine and pasted onto a background.
But then, a lot of art from older D&D is pretty bad. Or pretty good, depending on the piece. Quality isn't a defining trait of old school.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung