I think that is a bit extreme...
I mean, TSR's "motto" as it were in the 70's and 80's, was "Product's of your imagination". In fact, those early books (pre 1st edition) had very little art, and I would hardly call those books dull, boring, or lame...
Also, comparatively speaking, AD&D (1st edition), aside from the Monster Manual, also had very little in the way of art. Again, hardly dull, boring, or lame in my estimation...
While I agree with you as a whole, when I'm looking at my 1st and 2nd ed AD&D handbooks, I can't help but to find them a bit dull, boring and lame compared to some more modern books...
Darksun, Ravenloft and Planescape are three example of settings that got into their own because of their artistic direction. I know art (in which I included layout, fonts and editing) does a lot for me, especially initially.
'findel
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why anyone would want just a bland book of rules with no art. Talk about dull, boring, and lame.Er, who said that? I did a search through the thread and couldn't find anyone taking that stance.
Honestly, I'd be happier without the interruptions in the presentation of information. Yeah, the combat section needs examples. But beyond that?
Sure, splash something across chapter headings... but don't keep interrupting the layout with portraits. The rogue presented in the CRB obviously doesn't pursue Acrobatics -- not in THAT get-up. The Assassin's crossbow? Not functional.
I get that lots of people enjoy these drawings, and am resigned to it. But thought I'd answer the question honestly: the art in rulebooks just irritates me.
EDIT: Bestiaries, grudgingly, ought to have illustrations, I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's close. I'd say he was advocating minimal art rather than no art.
Actually, I'd like to own an artistic physical book for the love of the object itself, and a digital copy with minimal art, no background, legible fonts and layout optimized for finding information.
That's close. I'd say he was advocating minimal art rather than no art.Actually, I'd like to own an artistic physical book for the love of the object itself, and a digital copy with minimal art, no background, legible fonts and layout optimized for finding information.
That is what I use the prd for to find rules on a computer I like it more than pdfs.
You people with bright imaginations should not be complaining because all you have to do is not look at the artwork if you don't want to. The artwork is there to assist those that aren't highly imaginative like those in this thread claim to be. So in all artwork is not only a great marketing tool, it's a voice for inspiration to some of us who can't go on brainstorming binges and so forth...
I don't see why anyone would want just a bland book of rules with no art. Talk about dull, boring, and lame.Er, who said that? I did a search through the thread and couldn't find anyone taking that stance.
Actually, I kinda did. I don't find the rules bland (why play if one thinks so?) and the art interrupts the layout for, imo, no good reason.
I could stand for a lot less fanservice, but I like having art in products, especially for important NPCs and monsters. Otherwise I'm on par with DQ's post I think.
I could go for some more, personally.
That is what I use the prd for to find rules on a computer I like it more than pdfs.That's close. I'd say he was advocating minimal art rather than no art.Actually, I'd like to own an artistic physical book for the love of the object itself, and a digital copy with minimal art, no background, legible fonts and layout optimized for finding information.
That's an interesting point, and I think I have different preferences for print media than digital media (although as I said before I'd prefer no art to bad art or badly laid out art). I love flipping through physical copies of Paizo books.
But I hate flipping through their .pdf counterparts, and if I have an Internet connection, I will ALWAYS use the PRD online instead of the .pdfs even though I own them, because the PRD is much easier to read on a computer (unfortunately, two people I play with have no idea what their WEP key is, so I get saddled with the unwieldy .pdfs most of the time). The issue boils down to -- what makes for a good layout reading a physical book does not make a good layout for a screen on a monitor or laptop. The double column that works so well for print reading makes it very hard to follow text on a screen because you have to scroll down to read and then back up and then down again to finish a page. Any inserts--art, tables, etc.--makes it doubly harder to follow the flow. I find adventure paths and modules especially impossible to read on a computer screen (I hate it that the player's guides are digital only but laid out to look like books)--I find it impossible to follow the flow of an adventure, but unfortunately if I want to reference an adventure on my laptop it's all I have to make do with (I find myself copy pasting text into word into a way I can follow better). It is easy to flip back and forth with your eyes and hands in a section in a physical book; .pdfs are harder to manipulate that way quickly, and all too often I find a sentence broken in a place it takes me awhile to find where the rest of the clause picked up. The new low-res .pdfs at least have eliminated the loading time issue, which made dealing with the .pdfs even worse, but the art and layout and shiny really does get in the way on a screen, even as much as it makes the printed books look so nice. I know with Paizo's limited staff and resources/time it's unlikely to have two separate layouts, one for print and one for layout, but I can dreaaaaaam, can't I?
I don't mind some art in digital products either -- but it needs to display on a screen in a way that it does not interfere with the text at all. The way images are displayed in Wikis work, as they are usually small and cleanly sidebarred to one side of the page.
Hmm, I subscribe to several product lines and don't come close to being able to utilize even a quarter of the content I receive every month. However, every time that monthly 'care package' arrives, the first thing I do is flip thru all the books to admire the artwork.
Of course I also peruse DeviantArt for fantasy artwork and have even started commissioning some artists there character artwork so maybe I'm just in the crazy minority that actually like lots of artwork.
That said, for quick-reference I do find the PRD easier to use than printed books or PDFs. The only exception to this is if I'm creating a character for whom I need to reference several books. In that case, I find it easier just to spread out 5 or 6 books on the desk rather than shuffling browser tabs. When doing so, the presence of the artwork doesn't bother me in the least. In fact it's sometimes a helpful cue to remember where I was on a page.
Art is the subtle tool publishers can use to tell you about their game and their world. The images you find in their product will influence how you think of the game and their game world. For me, the art is just as important as the text for getting me to play a game. For example, I like Rifts (yes, go ahead, mock me, I don't mind :) ). Why? The rules are all over the place. But the art consistently shows me an exotic, post-apocalyptic world that I think has untold potential. So I'd play in a Rifts campaign, even though the rules are wonky. But one of my early turn-offs for 4E was that I actually didn't care for the art. It was good quality, no doubt, but it really didn't sell me on the world because it often felt too generic. I played TMNT when I was younger, but I doubt I could get through the books now because I don't care for that art style anymore, though it is a good match for the game.
I appreciate great art (though I recognize that "great" is very subjective*). However, if given the choice between bad art and no art, I'd happily take no art.
* I do, however, thing it is possible to recognize quality art and just not like it. Take WAR. The guy is 100x the artist I will ever be, fantastically successful, and I wish him the best. I just personally don't like his art, but it's not like its an eyesore.
The new low-res .pdfs at least have eliminated the loading time issue, which made dealing with the .pdfs even worse, but the art and layout and shiny really does get in the way on a screen, even as much as it makes the printed books look so nice. I know with Paizo's limited staff and resources/time it's unlikely to have two separate layouts, one for print and one for layout, but (sings) I can dreaaaaaam, can't I?
Unfortunately, having two layouts like this would double the load of work on our art staff. I understand the challenges with having to view our products on screen. What we've done with the Lite PDFs is a compromise that we can actually fit into the production schedule, and honestly took quite a bit of time (about a month and a half combined with my regular to-do list) to get all of our currently released hardcover material that far.
Unfortunately, having two layouts like this would double the load of work on our art staff. I understand the challenges with having to view our products on screen. What we've done with the Lite PDFs is a compromise that we can actually fit into the production schedule, and honestly took quite a bit of time (about a month and a half combined with my regular to-do list) to get all of our currently released hardcover material that far.
A effort we greatly appreciate (in case that hasn't been said enough).
The new low-res .pdfs at least have eliminated the loading time issue, which made dealing with the .pdfs even worse, but the art and layout and shiny really does get in the way on a screen, even as much as it makes the printed books look so nice. I know with Paizo's limited staff and resources/time it's unlikely to have two separate layouts, one for print and one for layout, but (sings) I can dreaaaaaam, can't I?Unfortunately, having two layouts like this would double the load of work on our art staff. I understand the challenges with having to view our products on screen. What we've done with the Lite PDFs is a compromise that we can actually fit into the production schedule, and honestly took quite a bit of time (about a month and a half combined with my regular to-do list) to get all of our currently released hardcover material that far.
Emphasis on the dreaaaaam, there, in my original post. I know it's not going to happen, and I do very much appreciate the lite PDFs. As I said above, that does eliminate one major problem of using them, and it makes them much more valuable and useful. Thank you.
Art matters to me a lot, or rather, art combined with overall layout and appearance of a book in general.
*WARNING INCOMING OPINION* Really, really not trying to start anything, but the art and book layout of 4e was a big turnoff for me. The rules were fine for what that game was trying to do, but I really despise the artist they chose for the PHB; all the characters look "puffy", with big rosy cheeks and stubby fingers... Looked like everyone was having an allergic reaction to something they ate. The pages looked like the tech manuals to some of my audio gear, and did not evoke a "fantasy rpg" feeling at all. Made it tough for me to make it through the book.
I like PF's art significantly better, but for some reason I still prefer the "look" of 3e's books. Not necessarily 3e's art, but just the way the pages looked. The dark page color of PF's books makes it hard for me to read sometimes (my eyes aren't quite what they used to be).
Maybe I'm biased, but my favorite examples of gaming book art comes from 3e Ravenloft; the B&W pages adorned with gothic ironwork on each page really drove the feeling of the game home with me. I was instantly incensed.
I'm not proud of the fact that art and layout have such a distinct effect on my feelings towards a game, but it is what it is.
Complaint? It's a positive aspect for many. Down with the spread of pseudo western medieval European aesthetics! We want Sword And Sorcery!If I had a complaint about the Pathfinder art it would be that it strays too far from my preferred medieval-European aesthetic.Well, so does the entire game, but that's a common complaint. Other games exist which scratch that itch quite precisely. But without Antiquity before and the Renaissance after, "medieval" doesn't mean much of anything!
Yeah! Sword and sorcery would be great! But Since Pathfinder replaced 3.5, all I ever see are Gunslingers and Alchemists(sweeping generalization, I know). When you spot some more emphasis on "Sword and Sorcery," let me know.
YMMV
Sure, art sets the tone and the environment of the game. Some of the best art imo was in the Warhammer RPG.
I like the Paizo art as well, and it seems to be getting better over time.
Art matters to me a lot, or rather, art combined with overall layout and appearance of a book in general.
*WARNING INCOMING OPINION* Really, really not trying to start anything, but the art and book layout of 4e was a big turnoff for me. The rules were fine for what that game was trying to do, but I really despise the artist they chose for the PHB; all the characters look "puffy", with big rosy cheeks and stubby fingers... Looked like everyone was having an allergic reaction to something they ate. The pages looked like the tech manuals to some of my audio gear, and did not evoke a "fantasy rpg" feeling at all. Made it tough for me to make it through the book.
I like PF's art significantly better, but for some reason I still prefer the "look" of 3e's books. Not necessarily 3e's art, but just the way the pages looked. The dark page color of PF's books makes it hard for me to read sometimes (my eyes aren't quite what they used to be).
Maybe I'm biased, but my favorite examples of gaming book art comes from 3e Ravenloft; the B&W pages adorned with gothic ironwork on each page really drove the feeling of the game home with me. I was instantly incensed.
I'm not proud of the fact that art and layout have such a distinct effect on my feelings towards a game, but it is what it is.
Interesting. I preferred much of the art direction in 4E, especially the increased emphasis on environments and landscapes.
One of my favorites is still the original 2E PHB -- many of the full color pages were amazing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my favorites is still the original 2E PHB -- many of the full color pages were amazing.
You must be thinking of the 1995 re-publication (the one with the black cover), as the "original" (first released in 1989) only had (literally) two full color images; the front cover and Larry Elmore's painting ("Dragon Slayer's and proud of it") on page 7...
Every other full page picture is black & white (there were no other color images in the book what-so-ever)...
I don't like WAR. I don't like swords and axes and hammers the size of the people using them, or that look like they were intentionally forged to look like stone, or that have chunks out of them for "artistic value," or that have pointless spikes everywhere.
Personally, I'd rather have one decent Ben Wooten landscape than a dozen explody-fight scenes.
However, I'm also an extreme minority. I'm aware that 99% of the fanbase demands these things, and the more the better, for them. So I just suck it up and deal with it. Paizo needs to go with what the majority of the fanbase wants, not with what an old curmudgeon like me wants.
I dunno how much the quality of art enhances or detracts from a book I've already purchased, but it influences greatly whether I'm willing to try a new rule system or game out in the first place.
I hope the next video game system has Terrible graphics, but great games.
...the "original" (first released in 1989) only had (literally) two full color images; the front cover and Larry Elmore's painting ("Dragon Slayer's and proud of it") on page 7...
Perfect example of artwork setting the stage and selling the system. I started playing my sophomore year in high school (1992), and when I first saw 'Dragon Slayers and Proud of It', I knew that I'd found something special.
A custom-framed, signed print of that piece now hangs on the wall next to desk at which I'm tying this post. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like WAR. I don't like swords and axes and hammers the size of the people using them, or that look like they were intentionally forged to look like stone, or that have chunks out of them for "artistic value," or that have pointless spikes everywhere.
I don't mind WAR specifically, but his Pathfinder style is as you describe it. He had a long career that included much more historical content before his D&D fame.
I really wish that weapons and armor in Pathfinder looked... real. Not in a perfectionist kind of way... I just think that the actual artifacts of the various warriors of Earth are pretty neat.
I would be very happy to see WAR render that kind of imagery again, since I know he can do it. He draws monsters and characters fine, but I wish the weapons and armor were really convincing. It would help make the world seem more alive, and less cartoonish.
I don't like WAR. I don't like swords and axes and hammers the size of the people using them, or that look like they were intentionally forged to look like stone, or that have chunks out of them for "artistic value," or that have pointless spikes everywhere.
Personally, I'd rather have one decent Ben Wooten landscape than a dozen explody-fight scenes.
However, I'm also an extreme minority. I'm aware that 99% of the fanbase demands these things, and the more the better, for them. So I just suck it up and deal with it. Paizo needs to go with what the majority of the fanbase wants, not with what an old curmudgeon like me wants.
I don't really like the oversized weapons eitehr. I think some spots being hit would be more important on on armor. Now I want a picture of a volcano in a pathfinder book.
I am willing to overlook bad art associated with a good game (though I might acknowledge that the art is...unfortunate). No amount of good art will save a bad game for me--though I might pick up a book or two anyway, depending on content, just to scan the art and use it at the gaming table. Taking the middle of the road, then: for a mediocre game, I think good art will do more to draw me in than bad art will do to push me away. Thus, I suppose it's not terribly important to me, but I do think it's a nice bonus.
I would rather see consstently subpar art across a single game line than see some books have good art, some bad...or even good art of vastly different styles. I have played 7th Sea for years, and just when we thought they had found their signature look (Cris Dornaus, et al.), they changed it up for whatever reason, and we got something like the Swordsman's Guild book, where some of the art was so different from previous releases, it almost felt like a book for a different game.
All that said, the worst published art I've seen is loads better than anything I could do. If I was forced to illustrate my own characters, they would all be some iteration of my famous crime-fighting duo Captain Stickman and the Blob.
You must be thinking of the 1995 re-publication (the one with the black cover), as the "original" (first released in 1989) only had (literally) two full color images; the front cover and Larry Elmore's painting ("Dragon Slayer's and proud of it") on page 7...
Every other full page picture is black & white (there were no other color images in the book what-so-ever)...
That isn't how I remember the 1989 version. IIRC, there were perhaps 8-10 color plates throughout the book.
Off the top of my head, I recall:
A picture of unicorn being polymorphed
The aforementioned dragon-slayer pic in the front
Some sort of Elf on a throne
A party in a air bubble about to be swallowed by a fish (this one may have been the DMG).
Can anyone who has the book confirm?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope the next video game system has Terrible graphics, but great games.
While the big name block-buster games (CoD, Halo, etc.) use high quality graphics, there are many smaller budget games that do not have great graphics and are very popular (just look at Xbox Live games for examples of this). There are also many indie games that are quite popular, and almost none of those have good graphics (look at "Cthulhu Saves the world" for an example)...
But no, not even the same thing; it's comparing apples to oranges. The action in a video takes place, well, on a video screen. And the action of a table-top RPG takes place totally within our minds...
But no, not even the same thing; it's comparing apples to oranges. The action in a video takes place, well, on a video screen. And the action of a table-top RPG takes place totally within our minds...
I happen to think that useful analogies abound within the two media.
|
|
Can anyone who has the book confirm?
I just looked through the entire 1989 Player's Handbook, and you are correct. It does have more than I mentioned. It does indeed have the unicorn and what looks to be a dark elf on a throne, as well as 4 more (I counted 7 total color pictures aside from the cover)...
Can anyone who has the book confirm?I just looked through the entire 1989 Player's Handbook, and you are correct. It does have more than I mentioned. It does indeed have the unicorn and what looks to be a dark elf on a throne, as well as 4 more (I counted 7 total color pictures aside from the cover)...
Whew! For a minute I thought I was (even more) senile than I feared... :)
I don't like WAR. I don't like swords and axes and hammers the size of the people using them, or that look like they were intentionally forged to look like stone, or that have chunks out of them for "artistic value," or that have pointless spikes everywhere.
Personally, I'd rather have one decent Ben Wooten landscape than a dozen explody-fight scenes.
However, I'm also an extreme minority. I'm aware that 99% of the fanbase demands these things, and the more the better, for them. So I just suck it up and deal with it. Paizo needs to go with what the majority of the fanbase wants, not with what an old curmudgeon like me wants.
Come help me guard my lawn...
As long as it isn't drawn by Rob Liefeld, I'm cool with it.
Yeah, I hate that style of art. That style basically drove me to stop collecting comics (X-Men mostly) in the late 80s.
|
I don't like WAR. I don't like swords and axes and hammers the size of the people using them, or that look like they were intentionally forged to look like stone, or that have chunks out of them for "artistic value," or that have pointless spikes everywhere.
Personally, I'd rather have one decent Ben Wooten landscape than a dozen explody-fight scenes.
However, I'm also an extreme minority. I'm aware that 99% of the fanbase demands these things, and the more the better, for them. So I just suck it up and deal with it. Paizo needs to go with what the majority of the fanbase wants, not with what an old curmudgeon like me wants.
If we join forces, maybe we can downgrade our status to "severe minority".
|
|
There's a lot of art in Pathfinder books that I don't like whether it be to quality of artist or subject matter (eg. which spells to show (if it were up to me I'd like to see a representation of every spell!), but I like way more than I don't.I can't say how many times have I seen the same "Sneaky Thief" in a D&D product and a completely revitalized, re-imagined rogue/assassin in Pathfinder (Mantis Assassin). Golems, goblins, misfits of all shapes get the PAIZO, PATHFINDER treatment. And I love it.
-Jeremy
ONE of the things Paizo does BEST is their artwork! They definitely go to the extreme to make sure they are as sleek as possible! I love to run the APs for my players. One of the primary reasons why is because whenever there are monsters/unique bad guys the players ALWAYS ask to see a picture. Usually the response is "That's fricken COOL looking!" It's hard not to support their products when everyone at the table can get lots of enjoyment from the art alone in their products!!!
See what I'm talking about, Jal?
I have to say, though, I was flipping through the last two Jade Regent installments this morning, and the cartography freaking ROCKS!
|
|
See what I'm talking about, Jal?
I have to say, though, I was flipping through the last two Jade Regent installments this morning, and the cartography freaking ROCKS!
I was just playing the Europa Universalis III demo, and something just clicked. I really liked the ability to change between map types (geographic, political, etc). I just realized, almost every RPG map I've seen has been geographic (with an emphasis on terrain), with other types overlaid as an afterthought.
How cool would it be to have an area map with translucent overlays allowing you to add or change layers?
I can think of numerous times that such a product would have prevented a complete momentum crash during a game as we paused to calculate political borders, distances, or where exactly that landmark would be located.
I'm definitely going to MacGyver one for Kingmaker out of overheads and markers.
EDIT: Could even go a step further and do the same for dungeons, either for a single level, or to show multiple levels in overlay.
I really liked the ability to change between map types (geographic, political, etc). I just realized, almost every RPG map I've seen has been geographic (with an emphasis on terrain), with other types overlaid as an afterthought.
You've got to remember, though, that up through the last couple centuries, most of the earth didn't belong to a political unit; there was just terrain, and maybe a tribe or two, whose territory might fluctuate on a weekly basis. Western Europe was the exception rather than the rule. It's only very recently that we divided up every square inch of land into political units.