It can’t just be about the money because during the TSR era they shoved all the artists like Brom into one room and made them work for peanuts.
>>97402122genuinely I'd say 5ethe 3/.5e era had some real garbage stinkers but had some of my personal favorites, 4e had the divisive Reynolds which I personally liked, while 5e went straight to the shitter (phb halfling.jpg
I can't recall where, but I remember reading an article or something where a guy explained that fantasy/sci-fi book covers were designed to be eye-catching, the way a video game cover or movie poster is, to pull in people unfamiliar with the work. However, they figured out that some adult readers would hide/remove covers or avoided the genre entirely because they were worried about reading in public and being seen as childish. In response, publishers wanted more bland and symbolic art to entice those buyers. And TTRPG books tend to mirror the trends in the commercial book illustration world. Hard to get artists who do hyperrealistic character art if no one practices it anymore.So catering to normalfag adults, basically. idk if it's bullshit, but it sounded like what publishers would do.
>>97402150I'm one of those Reynolds haters, but I'd never call his art bad.
>>97402150I always liked Reynolds Pathfinder art and his 3.5 art but for some reason I don't like any of his 4th edition work.
>>97402122It was after 2e.It's worth noting that there was PLENTY of trash art in TSR-era D&D. What there weren't? Massive numbers of job opportunities for fantasy artists. They made book covers and pictures for roleplaying games. Then Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter created a massive market for Fantasy Art. So the Broms and Elmores of the world could go do other things and make money.
>>97402190I wasn't aware of that, but I have no doubt you're right. That makes absolute sense and jives with the market changes I am aware of. And as someone who read a lotta fantasy novels in the 90s, I remember appreciating it when it changed in the 00s. It was embarrassing to be reading fantasy crap while I was doing my literature degree.
D&D never had good art.
>>97402232>>97402237I wonder if the problem was art direction? The visual look of the PF goblins and the concepts for a bunch of the iconics were his ideas.Apparently he was in the bath, holding a sponge, folded it in half, and said "Huh. That kinda looks like a goblin" in that UK Stoner voice.Maybe the 4e stuff was under tighter creative control by WotC?
>>97402150I don't think there's anyone around considering Reynolds art bad, just not everyone likes his comics heroic style for d&d, it's a matter of taste. Personally i think he's great, as a rule of thumb i would just prefer him illustrating something like savage pathfinder or MnM warriors and warlocks (escalating pulp and action packed games) rather than d&d or vanilla pathfinder (which are more about attrition spiraling).
>>97402328I think it's how they slapped all his covers with gigantic banners and a bad logo that get in the way of the art. Just completely robs the art of its impact because its fighting with the design of the books.
>>97402311>References WotC era artMate read the room
>>97402122It was bad before, then briefly got good when I was young and impressionable and then got bad again afterwards.I bet you everyone here will basically agree.
>>97402122The day the Little Brown Boxes were printed.
Everything is always consistently mediocre, definitionally
>>97402311>I only know of a few 3e and later D&D art.
>>97402390Part of my 'tism appreciates how clean and uniform the 4e books were, while the other part is deeply insulted by how sterile and boring they felt to read and flip through.
>>97403026I never got a "sterile" feel from 4e, I was for years absorbed into the books and I am even getting that lore PDF that someone made a while back printed up later this year.
maybe some fa/tv/irgin has the collage: the Dr Who novel artwork went from>terrible-to-great traditional art from the 60s to 1989>THESE monstrosities in the 90s>'we can do 3D now!' abstract renders of cubes in the later 90s/2000s>pure 'minimalism' by the later 2000s (text only, maybe a posterized photo)overall, i'd always take traditional art even when there are a few stinkers. Erol Otus has some bad D&D illustrations. in fact, i think his style doesn't fit D&D very well. but it's also great, and way better than 'perfect' digital art.
>>97402976me on the right.
>>97402926Nah, I think the artist they got to do the latest 5e PHB and DMG is pretty good. Probably because they have a more fantastical art style that evokes older editions while still being digital.
>>97403263> t. young and impressionable
>>97403673I only mean the covers. The PHB one kind of makes me think of the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon.
>>97402976Pre-3.x art was really swingy. You had absolute bangers like this and then you'd get some really basic black and white pieces. The highs were higher and lows were lower. The black border era towards the end of the TSR era was a downgrade for me too but still better in my opinion than the 3.x stuff.
>>97402122You can't honestly ask something like that in a site with a terminal level of OLD GOOD NEW BAD bias like this one unless you're expecting an eco chamber. But if that's the case, enjoy your circlejerk.
