The old school art showed the adventurers trying to survive the horrible things that happen to adventurers in old school D&D. Now it depicts people that are so happy you have to wonder why they would need to embark on dangerous tasks in the first place.
To me it's exactly like the art style changes fron Dragon Age Origins to Dragon Age Veilguard...went from serious dark/gritty fantasy to Disney fantasy.
My wife simply called the art, "Immature," and I fully agree. The art in the race/class section is the worst in the book. Those characters look like they would crawl under their bed at the slightest bit of adversity.
As much as "old d&d" gets a bad rap for oversaturating the market with different campaign settings, I think it was a big mistake moving away from having distinct IP thats easily copyrightable and transferrable to other media. Look at Baldur's Gate 3, its *still* using Forgotten Realms IP from decades ago. Why is this relevant to the video ? Because you can *have* a cutesie/soft artstyle in one setting, but then have a dark gothic horror artstyle in another setting, and the players & DM's can choose what suits them. When its "all in one setting" cute furries and multicolored demons & angels, you lose that choice as a consumer.
I wanted to see the art, so I found a 🏴☠copy. Between the "office motivational poster" art, the illustrations depicting people playing the game (what's "fantasy" about that? Does no one know what players at a table look like? Also, they clearly had each finished a case of Red Bull to be that OTT enthusiastic), the strange happy Disney pastels, Candyland Combat scenes, and hipster art, this is clearly not the D&D for our group. I think the sorcerer with the flowers is supposed to be the new College of Dance Bard, or as one of our alliteration-loving DMs, put it, the "Ballerina Bard".
I think some of the scenes look okay, but the one with the wagon with the idiotic looking rogue? They look like JC Penney photos of the family rather than dramatic moments or scenes. I much prefer the art in 3e/3.5.
It's all about flashy explosions and strange magic lights. I agree with the term "disneyfied". That combined with anime style and you have nothing that reminds me of the "good old days". Colors are much more harmless and it looks like you have a soft filter put over everything to take away edges and less defined. Dreamy. Boring.
The art appears to be targeted to 7 year old kids which is NOT the audience of the typical D&D player which is teens and adults. The proficiency of the artist is not in questions but the feeling it instills. Reminds me of what they did to Star Wars in the later movies. Ewoks and Jar Jar Binks come to mind.
I noticed when flipping through that almost every piece of art is so Posed and Sanitized and has a "Smile for the camera" type feel. Whered the grit go? Its set up like you're in a quirky Marvel sitcom. Theres one piece of art that almost captures that old feeling, the one with the Black Dragon spewing acid atop adventurers with one holding a shield as it melts. It looks dismal until you look at the face of the shield user and theyre grinning, why?! (pg. 92 for anyone curious) Its like the book is almost telling you there is no danger, theres nothing to worry about, YOU are the main character 🎉 yaaay That problem paired with the muted/muddy lines and soft "neon" color palletes, its just all so tired and boring.
Keith Parkinson was peak D&D art imo. Made the art that came before look like child’s play and all the art that’s come after has been cartoonish in comparison.
It's all so very nice when depicting *_DIVERSITY_* because it's the greatest gosh darned frickin thing in the whole flippin universe because of *_INCLUSIVITY._* It's perfect for a modern D20 role-playing game. You can't show a PoC dower or melancholic because that's counter the narrative. But why not, though? Why can't you have an absolute black Chad, eyes ablaze, ready to slaughter orcs? Well, because, reasons. All of this is completely neutering when it comes to the D&D experience. And that's the whole thing. Neutering. Who is pushing the whole idea of blockers and changes? Who wants to neuter an entire generation because of delusion and misperceived identity? Yeah.
Why not showing the black Chad slaughtering orcs? Because nowadays orcs are considered civilized gentle beings. They definitely had some good pr people working from them to hide their monsterous ugly true self that they have always been and will always be. That simple. Having said Chat carrying two beautiful orc babies from the flames of some catastrophe - that's what you'll get.
I think if we all strip ourselves of a tone of authority online, and say "look, I'm just going to groan about this for a while," everything becomes fair game. But it helps that I agree lol. Overpolished, I guess. The art for the MTG expansion, the 2014 books and most since, much better. Glad to see the chaps in BECMI/OSR camps reverse course and make really um, "shitty" gritty art. I love it
Lord have mercy. I have a game in development which acts as if none of this ever happened. It's not intended to make a statement or be "anti" or "pro" this or that, it is just a game which is intended to look like it was made in a world where hyper-wokism never was. Will still be months until it is ready for the shelves but thank God the players will never be subjected to this insanity.
Not every piece of art needs to be dour hopeless or gritty-- and not every piece in the 2024 version even is. You're also comparing the Players Handbook alone against DMs guide and monster books from the previous edition, we haven't seen the monsters or the world so much yet. Plus for the most part, you aren't comparing the new art to OSR at all. I pulled my copies off the shelf to review but my memories were still pretty intact-- the art of 1st and 2nd editions was absolute garbage by comparison. I understand 1st-- the was no art budget then. Honestly probably very little for a second. It isn't that OSR art was terribly gritty, it just wasn't generally very good. And there's plenty of nonsmiling art even in the Players handbook, you did a little cherry-picking to support the thesis (which is the point of having a thesis, I get it) The one picture from the cover of the companion level adventures with the dragon and paladin on the mountaintop might just be the very best picture in editions 0, 1 and 2 combined. Where there are likely dozens of pictures in the 5th edition which are at that quality level. Furthermore, Im just going to add; the notion that somehow you want all art to be gritty. Let's take the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The film starts with a party in the shire, breaks for dancing at an inn in Bree, celebrates the visual beauty of Rivendell and Lothlorien. The party scenes in the Shire are flashed back to in the climb up mount doom. People smiling and pictures that arent gritty are not bad, they are the point. You suffer the bad to protect the good. You fight through the grim darkness to reach the places where there is smiling and dancing. It was those scenes and those moments that drove home what the struggle was all for in the first place. Honestly I think the art will come together more evenly when all three products are actually out.
I absolutely love the old artwork from my first edition books. Man that stuff knew how to elicit a reaction from you. This new stuff is absolutely garbage. I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed how “soft” it all looks. The constant stupid grins on everyone’s faces is absurd.
Hi! Relatively new D&D player here (own a few starter sets and currently dming for the first time). I just picked up the 2024 book and personally I think the new art is much better than the old. I think it'll most likely appeal to folks like myself who found the art in the old books to be a bit drab (although still good). Honestly, it's made me more excited to play!
And that’s brilliant. It’s important for older players like me to recognise their bias. It’s also important for our voice to be heard too. D&D used to be basically based off Tolkiens works. Halfling were originally called Hobbits at one point. So when an old fuddy duddy like me sees everybody smiling and being happy it seems off and not “proper” D&D. However we all have our own likes and it’s ok.
I’m 47, I’ve been playing since the early ‘80’s. I wholeheartedly agree with you. The very early 1e art was just rubbish. Then they hired some real artists and it developed a certain look. The BECMI box art and the cover art for a few of the books was great, but the insides of the books were inked sketches that varied wildly in quality. These people aren’t really offended by the quality of the artwork. They’re upset because they’re aging edgelords who grew up on Conan the barbarian and want everything to be as grimdatk as possible.
I can’t hear bad audio when I listen back? I can hear a very mild hum in the background which may be an OBS thing, but it doesn’t sound awful. Strange.
To be perfectely honest original to 2e AD&D posseses that ambience, that magic, that feeling of going into fantasy world, without any lies softening the arrival. 3e/3,5e was gritty and had some ambience, really good yet compared to previous art... Well, it's like western vs middle-ages - similar but hundred years apart. 4e definitely felt like WoW of its age - dark, heavy-metalic fights with equally heavy-metal themed villain... The sadest part is that it was modern power metal, not the classic and good one. Also, as many say, it lost its DnD nature, thus it ain't DnD. .. Tho' it's still named as one. Then fifth... Eh, art felt more like a half-delivered discount product instead of art and already in 2014 you knew where they're heading. Worst of all, it lost its magic. So it ain't really shocking that the newest edition is the pinnacle of 5e evolution line - it's going to flop tho'. I have seen many other TTRPGs that might follow the same route of fantastic and stressless story, but they do not try so hard to sell themselves - they just are what they are, no lies about it.
its colourful, overly cheerful, lacking in masculinity and obvious DEI "balance". i say balance but it is heavily skewed towards a certain type of protestor. absolute crap.
I think the art is ok - it doesn’t offend me - I think the lack of a consistent style is jarring, but none of it particularly bothers me individually - it’s confuses me how upset some people are about it - I started with 2e, so I’m familiar with the art of the various editions, including what came before - look at the old black and white image of the smooth beholder with thick human lips or the magic mouth on the wall👄 - I despise WotC, but I think we’ve veered into “if I don’t like them, everything they do is terrible” territory - we’ve got far more important things to riot over when it comes to D&D
I opened a copy of the book, and page 6 has a trex wyvern about to eat Raistlin, page 11 has someone about to be impaled on spikes - and the stone dice on 9 and 13 are pocked and cracked - that’s just the first few pages - two things do get on my nerves 1) the styles are just all over the place (e.g., 8 & 21 look like graphic novels while 19 is closer to a Todd Lockwood) 2) the bird on pages 86 and 87 is a cardinal that someone just gave long hair 🤦🏿♀️ But who am I? Just some guy - I’ve been playing D&D for almost 30 years, so maybe I need to have been playing for 40 to be a true fan - I don’t know - this topic confuses the heck out of me - I feel like I must be missing something here - I don’t know 🤷🏿♀️
I don’t dislike WOTc though I think they have made some bizarre decisions. I love a game of 5e. It’s just the art style feels very warm for D&D for me.
I don't see what the problem is. I have seen old DND art. That stuff looks so goofy. It is goofy in an unintentional way. It takes a while for DND to establish good art. It becomes the epic and mature fantady game it is supposed to be. DND and MTG have very similar art styles, even to the point of seeming identical. There is a style of fantasy art that is super realistic. It is a good style. I with give both games a pass, because they are major classics of fantasy games. However getting into the style too much can be generic. It is good for these classic games to break the mold a little bit. MTG has some thinkgs going for it. It has a set of important characters, especially planeswalker. Each has a distinctive look, so I can recognize them in pictures. Another thing is that the Ravnica factions have thier own distinct styles and aesthetics. They even have thier own logos. There has been times where I watch a DND video. Then I recognize one of the used pictures as being from MTG instead. It is subtle but I do notice. I love the art from the 2024 Player Handbook. It is so gorgeous. It breathed new life into the pictures. The pictures are so much more vibrant and lively. This is a subtle change, and it is for the better. This looks absolutely nothing like Disney. Where did that come from? Disney movies are so much more cutesy and stylized. The new DND art isn't like that at all. The one subtle change from older DND art is that the colors are brighter. That is something that happens in so many media franchises that no franchise stands out. Maybe Lisa Frank is one, if I must pick. However that is an extreme example, and it was just a fad. Lisa Frank makes Disney look as gritty as the Shadowdark. The video did have a picture with nine portraits in there. Most of those pictures are bards. That explaines the whimsy right there. Bards are sopposed to be charming and entertaining. They even have charisma as thier spellcasting score. I especially like the dance bard and glamor bard pictures. Those are so creative.
There is something weird and baffling about the old art. Back in those days, DND suffered a huge and unfair backlash. Rock bands suffered too. This was mainly in the 80s. The old art totally is not scary to me. It may be because it is unintentionally goofy. Maybe I have been desensitized from seeing plenty of fantasy art with DND and MTG. Apparently the old art probably scared someone. The religious zealots had a witch hunt in the 80s. DND was a major victim. It is ludicrous that such goofy art would scare the zealots so badly. The zealots seems so paranoid. It is like they fear that Satan is going to jump scare them and go "Ooga booga!". They are such wussies. I am baffled as to why this video criticized the new art. It was just minor improvements. I am even more baffled as to why the old art scared the zealots so badly. I did get an idea. Maybe it is too cynical. Who knows. DND is generally a harmless game of make believe. That is basically what an RPG is. One thing that DND does have is lots of reading and math. A play session becomes a huge workout for the brain. I wonder that a DND player is smarter than someone that doesn't do any brain workout activities at all. I don't know for sure, but that is my educated guess. Perhaps this brain exercise is the real threat of DND. Smart people are more difficult to control. There are attempts by authorities to discourage smart activities by the masses. Perhaps the biggest modern example is anti-intellectualism. That would be a good reason to make a witch hunt against DND. It makes more sense than a paranoia about Satan. It could be both. Religious people are not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. Extreme religious people tend to be dumb in the ways of science. The persecution of DND can be caused by both anti intellectualism and paranoia.
I don’t care what you say, most of the new art is awesome. There’s a full page picture of the kids from the early ‘80’s cartoon, with a caption that lists their names. The caption includes Sheila. Sheila is not in the picture anywhere. This feels like a mistake until you remember that Sheila had the cloak of invisibility. 😂 Whoever captioned that picture is an absolute Chad. I don’t care what you people say…
While the cute stuff isn't my favorite, I think there's something that we need to keep in perspective: the original art was targeted at an incredibly niche group of people, and it was also the only game in town. Modern D&D has a 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 wider audience and much broader (and to me, better) competition. There's also many, 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 more styles of play, including tables that play entire campaigns that never see combat. Another thing is that D&D 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 just D&D, it never really has been, at least not since the introduction of Greyhawk. Greyhawk is nothing like Planescape, or Ravenloft, or Spelljammer, or Eberron, etc., etc. All of those settings can be tuned from purely political to purely combat, from gritty to whimsical. When I went through it, I saw a pretty standard amount of "gritty", like the Displacer Beast about to murder a drow and a halfling, a trio fighting a white dragon, some characters being surrounded by Ravenloft ghosts, stuff like that. I see it as having several examples of each major preference sortof randomly placed throughout. That said, I think this exists because D&D have written themselves into a corner by trying to convince everyone that they're 𝘵𝘩𝘦 TTRPG to play, so they have to basically try to cater to everyone. Meanwhile a lot of the other (better) games are hyperfocused on specific audiences that like specific things. There's a ton of 'cutesy' in Root, but you won't find any in Mörk Borg, so it's much easier to pick a game that fits your playstyle, and Hasbro doesn't really understand their situation.
I think that's a fair point, and a good one to make. But if Shameful Role Play just wants to moan, I want to join him. I don't care for the new art. But then, early this year I abandoned 5e and anything coming after for one of those games you mention in your comment--those that cater to specific tastes. I'm an old, old-school guy. I'm part of the OSR community. I like grit, real risk, and cool black and white art with my game. Long live Shadowdark.
Yeah, I can see the point about not liking the art. I've never liked the old black-and-white old-school art, even when I was playing games when that art was still what was in the books, so I tend to prefer the newer stuff. I've also dumped 5e, and for the same reasons as you did, and it's really interesting how liberating it can be to have the game's playstyle fit your own rather than having to shoehorn the way you want to play into the confines of the game.
The art is definitely more kidified. I can play this version of D&D with my kid. For my friends there's other RPG options wirh more mature art and subject matter.
At the risk of going against the crowd... there are loads of different play styles to D&D. Some people like it really gritty, where every quest is life-or-death, but loads of other people want to play something more whimsical and, for lack of a better word, goofy. I don't really see the problem with the new art - it's just depicting a different way to play the game.
Nu5e has a lot of really old women as "HERoes" in it, too. Early 2014 5e still had somewhat adventure and danger. The nu5e looks more like a soap opera or slice of life drama show.
I’m happy to see more inclusivity so that it’s not all just buff white guys and scantily clad maidens. It’s important to grow the hobby so that other folks feel like the game is for them too (because D&D is for everyone). But yeah, it’s definitely odd to see adventurers being so “happy” when they’re fighting for their lives.
I honestly don’t care about the sex, ethnicity of the people in the book. What I do care about is the fact is it just doesn’t look like D&D. It looks like the offshoot for it strixhaven or MtG art. It’s just very happy, soft and nice.
The old school art showed the adventurers trying to survive the horrible things that happen to adventurers in old school D&D. Now it depicts people that are so happy you have to wonder why they would need to embark on dangerous tasks in the first place.
People have to look nice when they go to prom. Which is what D&D is all about these days.
Very astute it’s strixhaven art!
It reminds me of Jehovah’s Witness art 😂
🤣🤣
It looks like baby's first fantasy "adventure", and by adventure I clearly mean railroad of festivals.
To me it's exactly like the art style changes fron Dragon Age Origins to Dragon Age Veilguard...went from serious dark/gritty fantasy to Disney fantasy.
Such a shame too! 😔
My wife simply called the art, "Immature," and I fully agree. The art in the race/class section is the worst in the book. Those characters look like they would crawl under their bed at the slightest bit of adversity.
😂
As much as "old d&d" gets a bad rap for oversaturating the market with different campaign settings, I think it was a big mistake moving away from having distinct IP thats easily copyrightable and transferrable to other media. Look at Baldur's Gate 3, its *still* using Forgotten Realms IP from decades ago. Why is this relevant to the video ? Because you can *have* a cutesie/soft artstyle in one setting, but then have a dark gothic horror artstyle in another setting, and the players & DM's can choose what suits them. When its "all in one setting" cute furries and multicolored demons & angels, you lose that choice as a consumer.
Well technically the choice is still there, just not being provided by Hasbro/WoTC.... This is where third party content creators really shine.
I wanted to see the art, so I found a 🏴☠copy. Between the "office motivational poster" art, the illustrations depicting people playing the game (what's "fantasy" about that? Does no one know what players at a table look like? Also, they clearly had each finished a case of Red Bull to be that OTT enthusiastic), the strange happy Disney pastels, Candyland Combat scenes, and hipster art, this is clearly not the D&D for our group. I think the sorcerer with the flowers is supposed to be the new College of Dance Bard, or as one of our alliteration-loving DMs, put it, the "Ballerina Bard".
I’m not sure if it’s the D&D for many groups out there. It’s very strix haven like. But that was a specific setting as opposed to the whole genre.
I agree with you old 1980s art was the best
The new art has all the flavour of a glass of water
Very well put!
WotC all failed their saving throws vs Cloud of Toxic Positivity.
I think some of the scenes look okay, but the one with the wagon with the idiotic looking rogue? They look like JC Penney photos of the family rather than dramatic moments or scenes. I much prefer the art in 3e/3.5.
It's all about flashy explosions and strange magic lights. I agree with the term "disneyfied". That combined with anime style and you have nothing that reminds me of the "good old days". Colors are much more harmless and it looks like you have a soft filter put over everything to take away edges and less defined. Dreamy. Boring.
The art appears to be targeted to 7 year old kids which is NOT the audience of the typical D&D player which is teens and adults. The proficiency of the artist is not in questions but the feeling it instills. Reminds me of what they did to Star Wars in the later movies. Ewoks and Jar Jar Binks come to mind.
Exactly this!
The arts ok, but yes doesn’t evoke Dungeons and Dragons. OSR art does!
Thank you! Yes exactly it’s not inherently bad but is Terrible (in certain places) as a representation of D&D art for me.
I noticed when flipping through that almost every piece of art is so Posed and Sanitized and has a "Smile for the camera" type feel. Whered the grit go? Its set up like you're in a quirky Marvel sitcom.
Theres one piece of art that almost captures that old feeling, the one with the Black Dragon spewing acid atop adventurers with one holding a shield as it melts. It looks dismal until you look at the face of the shield user and theyre grinning, why?! (pg. 92 for anyone curious) Its like the book is almost telling you there is no danger, theres nothing to worry about, YOU are the main character 🎉 yaaay
That problem paired with the muted/muddy lines and soft "neon" color palletes, its just all so tired and boring.
Its called dungeons and dragons but it comes off as fields and felines
It’s just in places very off.
lol kittens and cuddles?
Keith Parkinson was peak D&D art imo. Made the art that came before look like child’s play and all the art that’s come after has been cartoonish in comparison.
Adventures in candy land art is the new handbook
It's all so very nice when depicting *_DIVERSITY_* because it's the greatest gosh darned frickin thing in the whole flippin universe because of *_INCLUSIVITY._* It's perfect for a modern D20 role-playing game. You can't show a PoC dower or melancholic because that's counter the narrative. But why not, though? Why can't you have an absolute black Chad, eyes ablaze, ready to slaughter orcs? Well, because, reasons. All of this is completely neutering when it comes to the D&D experience. And that's the whole thing. Neutering. Who is pushing the whole idea of blockers and changes? Who wants to neuter an entire generation because of delusion and misperceived identity? Yeah.
Why not showing the black Chad slaughtering orcs? Because nowadays orcs are considered civilized gentle beings. They definitely had some good pr people working from them to hide their monsterous ugly true self that they have always been and will always be. That simple. Having said Chat carrying two beautiful orc babies from the flames of some catastrophe - that's what you'll get.
I think if we all strip ourselves of a tone of authority online, and say "look, I'm just going to groan about this for a while," everything becomes fair game. But it helps that I agree lol. Overpolished, I guess. The art for the MTG expansion, the 2014 books and most since, much better. Glad to see the chaps in BECMI/OSR camps reverse course and make really um, "shitty" gritty art. I love it
S@tty and gritty! I love it lol.
Lord have mercy. I have a game in development which acts as if none of this ever happened. It's not intended to make a statement or be "anti" or "pro" this or that, it is just a game which is intended to look like it was made in a world where hyper-wokism never was. Will still be months until it is ready for the shelves but thank God the players will never be subjected to this insanity.
Not every piece of art needs to be dour hopeless or gritty-- and not every piece in the 2024 version even is. You're also comparing the Players Handbook alone against DMs guide and monster books from the previous edition, we haven't seen the monsters or the world so much yet. Plus for the most part, you aren't comparing the new art to OSR at all. I pulled my copies off the shelf to review but my memories were still pretty intact-- the art of 1st and 2nd editions was absolute garbage by comparison. I understand 1st-- the was no art budget then. Honestly probably very little for a second. It isn't that OSR art was terribly gritty, it just wasn't generally very good. And there's plenty of nonsmiling art even in the Players handbook, you did a little cherry-picking to support the thesis (which is the point of having a thesis, I get it) The one picture from the cover of the companion level adventures with the dragon and paladin on the mountaintop might just be the very best picture in editions 0, 1 and 2 combined. Where there are likely dozens of pictures in the 5th edition which are at that quality level.
Furthermore, Im just going to add; the notion that somehow you want all art to be gritty. Let's take the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The film starts with a party in the shire, breaks for dancing at an inn in Bree, celebrates the visual beauty of Rivendell and Lothlorien. The party scenes in the Shire are flashed back to in the climb up mount doom. People smiling and pictures that arent gritty are not bad, they are the point. You suffer the bad to protect the good. You fight through the grim darkness to reach the places where there is smiling and dancing. It was those scenes and those moments that drove home what the struggle was all for in the first place.
Honestly I think the art will come together more evenly when all three products are actually out.
Only sane comment here.
I absolutely love the old artwork from my first edition books. Man that stuff knew how to elicit a reaction from you. This new stuff is absolutely garbage. I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed how “soft” it all looks. The constant stupid grins on everyone’s faces is absurd.
Welcome aboard!
This art is crap ant its obviously a continuation of Tashas and the like. It just doesn't feel like D&D.
Hi! Relatively new D&D player here (own a few starter sets and currently dming for the first time). I just picked up the 2024 book and personally I think the new art is much better than the old. I think it'll most likely appeal to folks like myself who found the art in the old books to be a bit drab (although still good). Honestly, it's made me more excited to play!
And that’s brilliant. It’s important for older players like me to recognise their bias. It’s also important for our voice to be heard too.
D&D used to be basically based off Tolkiens works. Halfling were originally called Hobbits at one point. So when an old fuddy duddy like me sees everybody smiling and being happy it seems off and not “proper” D&D. However we all have our own likes and it’s ok.
I’m 47, I’ve been playing since the early ‘80’s. I wholeheartedly agree with you. The very early 1e art was just rubbish. Then they hired some real artists and it developed a certain look. The BECMI box art and the cover art for a few of the books was great, but the insides of the books were inked sketches that varied wildly in quality.
These people aren’t really offended by the quality of the artwork. They’re upset because they’re aging edgelords who grew up on Conan the barbarian and want everything to be as grimdatk as possible.
D&D 2024 is so woke. Nothing compares the art of TSR era. Jeff Easly and Larry Elmore were the best artists.
Don't forget Erol Otus.
@@langwaters9653 Or Keith A. Parkinson.
Trampier!
I think the term you’re looking for to describe the art is more Bugbears & Baristas than Dungeons & Dragons
This Video has Terrible Audio?!
Sounds fine to me?
I can’t hear bad audio when I listen back? I can hear a very mild hum in the background which may be an OBS thing, but it doesn’t sound awful. Strange.
terrible feedback with a humming sound throughout, it is terrible
Yep, 2024 has very Disneyfied art
its like DC (think Dark Knight) want to be Marvel-like
To be perfectely honest original to 2e AD&D posseses that ambience, that magic, that feeling of going into fantasy world, without any lies softening the arrival.
3e/3,5e was gritty and had some ambience, really good yet compared to previous art... Well, it's like western vs middle-ages - similar but hundred years apart.
4e definitely felt like WoW of its age - dark, heavy-metalic fights with equally heavy-metal themed villain... The sadest part is that it was modern power metal, not the classic and good one. Also, as many say, it lost its DnD nature, thus it ain't DnD. .. Tho' it's still named as one.
Then fifth... Eh, art felt more like a half-delivered discount product instead of art and already in 2014 you knew where they're heading. Worst of all, it lost its magic.
So it ain't really shocking that the newest edition is the pinnacle of 5e evolution line - it's going to flop tho'. I have seen many other TTRPGs that might follow the same route of fantastic and stressless story, but they do not try so hard to sell themselves - they just are what they are, no lies about it.
its colourful, overly cheerful, lacking in masculinity and obvious DEI "balance". i say balance but it is heavily skewed towards a certain type of protestor. absolute crap.
Ive heard the words out of Jeremy crawfords's mouth. DEI... theres a growing queer community in fantasy roleplay, and wotc is catering to them.
I agree. Not a fan of the 5e art myself. Thanks for the share!!
I saw too much of players around a table images. Also, whats with all the pink and purples? Are we just catering to friends of dorothy?
I think the art is ok - it doesn’t offend me - I think the lack of a consistent style is jarring, but none of it particularly bothers me individually - it’s confuses me how upset some people are about it - I started with 2e, so I’m familiar with the art of the various editions, including what came before - look at the old black and white image of the smooth beholder with thick human lips or the magic mouth on the wall👄 - I despise WotC, but I think we’ve veered into “if I don’t like them, everything they do is terrible” territory - we’ve got far more important things to riot over when it comes to D&D
I opened a copy of the book, and page 6 has a trex wyvern about to eat Raistlin, page 11 has someone about to be impaled on spikes - and the stone dice on 9 and 13 are pocked and cracked - that’s just the first few pages - two things do get on my nerves 1) the styles are just all over the place (e.g., 8 & 21 look like graphic novels while 19 is closer to a Todd Lockwood) 2) the bird on pages 86 and 87 is a cardinal that someone just gave long hair 🤦🏿♀️
But who am I? Just some guy - I’ve been playing D&D for almost 30 years, so maybe I need to have been playing for 40 to be a true fan - I don’t know - this topic confuses the heck out of me - I feel like I must be missing something here - I don’t know 🤷🏿♀️
But you’re still cool as far as I’m concerned - I’ve got not beef with you
I don’t dislike WOTc though I think they have made some bizarre decisions. I love a game of 5e.
It’s just the art style feels very warm for D&D for me.
The page 6 art is very nice. Page 48 also.
I think as you say it’s very mismatched with rather soft images.
modern pastel puke color pallet is vomit
I don't see what the problem is. I have seen old DND art. That stuff looks so goofy. It is goofy in an unintentional way. It takes a while for DND to establish good art. It becomes the epic and mature fantady game it is supposed to be. DND and MTG have very similar art styles, even to the point of seeming identical. There is a style of fantasy art that is super realistic. It is a good style. I with give both games a pass, because they are major classics of fantasy games. However getting into the style too much can be generic.
It is good for these classic games to break the mold a little bit. MTG has some thinkgs going for it. It has a set of important characters, especially planeswalker. Each has a distinctive look, so I can recognize them in pictures. Another thing is that the Ravnica factions have thier own distinct styles and aesthetics. They even have thier own logos. There has been times where I watch a DND video. Then I recognize one of the used pictures as being from MTG instead. It is subtle but I do notice. I love the art from the 2024 Player Handbook. It is so gorgeous. It breathed new life into the pictures. The pictures are so much more vibrant and lively. This is a subtle change, and it is for the better. This looks absolutely nothing like Disney. Where did that come from? Disney movies are so much more cutesy and stylized. The new DND art isn't like that at all. The one subtle change from older DND art is that the colors are brighter. That is something that happens in so many media franchises that no franchise stands out. Maybe Lisa Frank is one, if I must pick. However that is an extreme example, and it was just a fad. Lisa Frank makes Disney look as gritty as the Shadowdark. The video did have a picture with nine portraits in there. Most of those pictures are bards. That explaines the whimsy right there. Bards are sopposed to be charming and entertaining. They even have charisma as thier spellcasting score. I especially like the dance bard and glamor bard pictures. Those are so creative.
There is something weird and baffling about the old art. Back in those days, DND suffered a huge and unfair backlash. Rock bands suffered too. This was mainly in the 80s. The old art totally is not scary to me. It may be because it is unintentionally goofy. Maybe I have been desensitized from seeing plenty of fantasy art with DND and MTG. Apparently the old art probably scared someone. The religious zealots had a witch hunt in the 80s. DND was a major victim. It is ludicrous that such goofy art would scare the zealots so badly. The zealots seems so paranoid. It is like they fear that Satan is going to jump scare them and go "Ooga booga!". They are such wussies. I am baffled as to why this video criticized the new art. It was just minor improvements. I am even more baffled as to why the old art scared the zealots so badly.
I did get an idea. Maybe it is too cynical. Who knows. DND is generally a harmless game of make believe. That is basically what an RPG is. One thing that DND does have is lots of reading and math. A play session becomes a huge workout for the brain. I wonder that a DND player is smarter than someone that doesn't do any brain workout activities at all. I don't know for sure, but that is my educated guess. Perhaps this brain exercise is the real threat of DND. Smart people are more difficult to control. There are attempts by authorities to discourage smart activities by the masses. Perhaps the biggest modern example is anti-intellectualism. That would be a good reason to make a witch hunt against DND. It makes more sense than a paranoia about Satan. It could be both. Religious people are not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. Extreme religious people tend to be dumb in the ways of science. The persecution of DND can be caused by both anti intellectualism and paranoia.
I don’t care what you say, most of the new art is awesome. There’s a full page picture of the kids from the early ‘80’s cartoon, with a caption that lists their names. The caption includes Sheila. Sheila is not in the picture anywhere. This feels like a mistake until you remember that Sheila had the cloak of invisibility. 😂
Whoever captioned that picture is an absolute Chad. I don’t care what you people say…
While the cute stuff isn't my favorite, I think there's something that we need to keep in perspective: the original art was targeted at an incredibly niche group of people, and it was also the only game in town. Modern D&D has a 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 wider audience and much broader (and to me, better) competition. There's also many, 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 more styles of play, including tables that play entire campaigns that never see combat. Another thing is that D&D 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 just D&D, it never really has been, at least not since the introduction of Greyhawk. Greyhawk is nothing like Planescape, or Ravenloft, or Spelljammer, or Eberron, etc., etc. All of those settings can be tuned from purely political to purely combat, from gritty to whimsical. When I went through it, I saw a pretty standard amount of "gritty", like the Displacer Beast about to murder a drow and a halfling, a trio fighting a white dragon, some characters being surrounded by Ravenloft ghosts, stuff like that. I see it as having several examples of each major preference sortof randomly placed throughout. That said, I think this exists because D&D have written themselves into a corner by trying to convince everyone that they're 𝘵𝘩𝘦 TTRPG to play, so they have to basically try to cater to everyone. Meanwhile a lot of the other (better) games are hyperfocused on specific audiences that like specific things. There's a ton of 'cutesy' in Root, but you won't find any in Mörk Borg, so it's much easier to pick a game that fits your playstyle, and Hasbro doesn't really understand their situation.
I think that's a fair point, and a good one to make. But if Shameful Role Play just wants to moan, I want to join him. I don't care for the new art. But then, early this year I abandoned 5e and anything coming after for one of those games you mention in your comment--those that cater to specific tastes. I'm an old, old-school guy. I'm part of the OSR community. I like grit, real risk, and cool black and white art with my game. Long live Shadowdark.
Yeah, I can see the point about not liking the art. I've never liked the old black-and-white old-school art, even when I was playing games when that art was still what was in the books, so I tend to prefer the newer stuff. I've also dumped 5e, and for the same reasons as you did, and it's really interesting how liberating it can be to have the game's playstyle fit your own rather than having to shoehorn the way you want to play into the confines of the game.
@@argophontes True that!
You're telling me tables play D&D without any combat? It's specifically a combat centric system. I play soccer but i dont kick the ball.
They changed from Dungeons to Safe Spaces.
Lets all play Safe Spaces and Snugglebugs!
MtG has the same problem. Maybe not on all cards but some of them are terrible.
They made the art VERY MtG. I used to love MtG art but it’s gotten really too nice and friendly the past few years.
Just try ACKS II or DCC
i hear ya, for me the art i describe the same way as the game... too pastel...its good art for sure but ya not my cup o' tea
Very pastel yes. Very soft. It’s just not what D&D has been at all.
The art is definitely more kidified. I can play this version of D&D with my kid. For my friends there's other RPG options wirh more mature art and subject matter.
The new DnD is gross, that’s why I play OSR
At the risk of going against the crowd... there are loads of different play styles to D&D. Some people like it really gritty, where every quest is life-or-death, but loads of other people want to play something more whimsical and, for lack of a better word, goofy. I don't really see the problem with the new art - it's just depicting a different way to play the game.
Nu5e has a lot of really old women as "HERoes" in it, too. Early 2014 5e still had somewhat adventure and danger. The nu5e looks more like a soap opera or slice of life drama show.
I’m happy to see more inclusivity so that it’s not all just buff white guys and scantily clad maidens. It’s important to grow the hobby so that other folks feel like the game is for them too (because D&D is for everyone). But yeah, it’s definitely odd to see adventurers being so “happy” when they’re fighting for their lives.
I honestly don’t care about the sex, ethnicity of the people in the book. What I do care about is the fact is it just doesn’t look like D&D. It looks like the offshoot for it strixhaven or MtG art. It’s just very happy, soft and nice.
Yet another dramatuber. Yaaaawn
Indeed call me dungeons and discourse!
It’s probably DEI people doing the art
Unfortunately it's aim at all the snowflakes in today's society.