|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 4:09PM
#111
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I'd rather not have Wayne back. Get Caldwell, Elmore, Brom. Bring back the AD&D and AD&D 2e artists back, or at least, that style of art. It was and remains the best!
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 4:31PM
#112
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2008
|
I don't want there to be 1/2 of character art (or for that matter D&D minis) females, the ratio should be closer to the actual representation of how much Males or females are played as characters. For example if 1 out 4 characters played in the hobby are female then make 1 out 4 characters in the art and miniatures females?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 4:39PM
#113
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2004
|
With regards to scantily clad females. I am so tired of seeing females dressed in Princess Leia slave bikinis, where they're expected to charge into a group of orcs and win the day. I do believe that any artist of worth is capable of drawing/painting a skimpy dress that is medieval in style. There is no need for the worn out drow priestess wearing what appears to be Victoria's Secret lingerie as currently shown on this website. Another thing is the actions of the characters. A scullion scrubbing pots should not be wearing rich clothing. A princess kidnapped by a black knight should not be in a perfectly smooth dress without a single wrinkle or scuff of dirt. For me Wayne Reynolds is touch and go. This blogger explains the problems with Reynolds. gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/2011/03/...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 4:58PM
#114
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2007
|
WotC, PLEASE hire Wayne Reynolds to do your artwork.
Check the 4e books: there's a high chance the cover was done by Reynolds.
I love his work, especially that charging Orcus from MM. It's lively, dynamic and straight to the point.
Some people like to dissent him as "Rob Liefeld of D&D", but I see him more as Humberto Ramos: their art is more cartoony than others', often looks wonky, has some very specific quirks that make them easy to tell apart, but damn, Ramos makes the best Spidey and WAR makes the best modern D&D (and MtG and Pathfinder...).
I'd rather not have Wayne back. Get Caldwell, Elmore, Brom. Bring back the AD&D and AD&D 2e artists back, or at least, that style of art. It was and remains the best!
They're antiquated and not necessarily in a good way. I mean, people are arguing about unrealistic female armor? Look at this!
Spoiler:
Show
Also, 80s hair and weird dinosaur man with tiny arms.
That dopey dwarf apparently walked in from a different picture. One from a children's book. Or The Muppet Show.
Hair metal covers FTW? I mean, that redheaded guy is practically blasting riffs on that "weapon". And why is the lady poised like that?And I didn't have to dig for those. Sorry, I just don't get it.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 12:43AM
#115
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2003
|
I don't want there to be 1/2 of character art (or for that matter D&D minis) females, the ratio should be closer to the actual representation of how much Males or females are played as characters. For example if 1 out 4 characters played in the hobby are female then make 1 out 4 characters in the art and miniatures females?
1. please, no. Even if there are more male characters played, our artwork still depicts NPC as well and most fantasy worlds tend to be places where half of the population will be female and the other half male (unless you throw in some hooks to why it would be different -> no gender/more than 2/unequal birth rates)
2. You want to make this books more attractive to new gamers which includes women and girls (especially the kids of older gamers)
3. How would you even know how many male or female *characters* are being played? Or do you simply assume that no player ever gender-bends? And how would you know how many male and female players are playing at a given time? (last surveys are from 5 or 7 years in the past iirc)
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 2:12AM
#116
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2012
|
It should be simple really. Depcit females the same as males. If a woman should show her belly for "dexterity"-reasons then shouldn't the male? And depending on the class and/or race and/or role of the character. My Goliath Fighter female with full body armor and all she wants to do is kill things will ofcourse not show alot of flesh, but if I had a rouge human female who liked flirting and wanted to tease then it would be another thing.
The thing I would like to see is muscular females, older characters that could actually be over 30 (both females and males) and some with beautiflaws. Like a female with a scar across her face or something like that.
When people say things like "All I want is sexy women that I can drool at" I just sigh. I want my character to be what I invision her to be (I am female and I play mostly females). Strong if that is what she is. Small if that is what she is. Sexy if that is what she is and ugly if that is what she is. Come on, a little diversity please.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 4:30AM
#117
|
|
|
I don't want there to be 1/2 of character art (or for that matter D&D minis) females, the ratio should be closer to the actual representation of how much Males or females are played as characters. For example if 1 out 4 characters played in the hobby are female then make 1 out 4 characters in the art and miniatures females?
What are you basing these numbers on? Your own experience? In my experience, the majority of characters created are female. In my last game we were a group of five adventurers, four of whom were women, for instance.
One's own experience is hardly an objective thing.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 4:32AM
#118
|
|
|
I can find a good justification for chainmail bikinis. Fay blacksmiths could make magic amors with illusory effects of showing female skin, but without be worse protection.
Do you rebember the "ethereal" amors of Diablo II?
But why would you hunt for a justification for something that's inherently ridculous? I can imagine any damn thing I want. What I expect the game to depict is something that makes sense internally and isn't going to drive me (or other prospective players) away.
Z.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 8:38AM
#119
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
WotC, PLEASE hire Wayne Reynolds to do your artwork.
Check the 4e books: there's a high chance the cover was done by Reynolds.
I love his work, especially that charging Orcus from MM. It's lively, dynamic and straight to the point.
Some people like to dissent him as "Rob Liefeld of D&D", but I see him more as Humberto Ramos: their art is more cartoony than others', often looks wonky, has some very specific quirks that make them easy to tell apart, but damn, Ramos makes the best Spidey and WAR makes the best modern D&D (and MtG and Pathfinder...).
I'd rather not have Wayne back. Get Caldwell, Elmore, Brom. Bring back the AD&D and AD&D 2e artists back, or at least, that style of art. It was and remains the best!
They're antiquated and not necessarily in a good way. I mean, people are arguing about unrealistic female armor? Look at this!
Spoiler:
Show
Also, 80s hair and weird dinosaur man with tiny arms.
That dopey dwarf apparently walked in from a different picture. One from a children's book. Or The Muppet Show.
Hair metal covers FTW? I mean, that redheaded guy is practically blasting riffs on that "weapon". And why is the lady poised like that?
And I didn't have to dig for those. Sorry, I just don't get it.
They could change what they put on a a character. I am just talking about the overall quality oft he art produced. It LOOKS better. If FEELS like D&D. It is just all around great. Reynolds and a lot of the others just feel like a cheep anime-like copy. I don't want that for my D&D. It is just my opinion of course, but I feel that the kind of art they produce is the best. Along with the likes of Whelan, Parkinson, etc. Just my preferred art style.
Also, on a last note. I pesonally don't care if it looks unrealistic or not. I just want it to look good and/or fun! Besides, the argument on only women not wearing enough is moot based on teh pictures shared there. Also men wearing very little in the one picture as well. This is a fantasy game, not a simulation game. Again, just my opinion. 
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 8:55AM
#120
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
 Half my gaming group consists of women. When they make a new character, they often go online and print off some bit o' fantasy artwork to represent thier chracter. And I've noticed that they are, more often than not, drawn to the sexy, scantily clad women. I think that the key here is that this is a Fantasy. Just as the guy who plays a Barbarian with Str 20.... isn't exactly the fittest guy at the table! Its Fantasy Fulfilment. If anything, we need diversity. Yes, have buxom barbarian women in revealing Fantasy Armor. Yes, have a deveoted female knight in realistic non-boob showing Armor. Yes, have men being seduced by a wiley female rogue in a corset. Yes, have women being seduced by a wiley male rogue with a codpiece. There is only a problem if the only women represented in the book are sluts or in peril. As long as there is some dieversity, I wouldn't worry about it. And the picture below has always been my favorite piece of female fantasy art work out there. I would argue that the Redbox Cleric is both powerful and sexy, but not at all scantily clad. It works.... 
|
|
|
