The Purpose Of Dungeons And Dragons Art

Yesterday, I posted three illustrations, asking which of those illustrations was the most representative of Dungeons and Dragons.

Before doing so, I stated that the PURPOSE of DnD Art is to reflect, elaborate or highlight the fantasy elements UNIQUE to Dungeons and Dragons. That purpose is superimposed on a larger purpose of fantasy art: to explore the imaginary, fantastic, and taboo.

The question remains, what changes came about in fantasy art, as a result of the publication of Dungeons and Dragons, that reveals the unique elements of DnD specifically, and fantasy role-playing generally?

Let's consider the elements that appeared in all three previously-posted illustrations.

1. Dragons: all three illustrations feature a Dragon. Dragons are not a unique feature to DnD, although the range of colors of Dragons is perhaps a unique feature, which is why I suggested you ignore the differences in colors. Dragon illustrations were produced long before DnD was published. Therefore, the inclusion of Dragons does not, in and of itself, indicate that the art is DnD Art.

2. Dungeons: all three illustrations feature dungeons or ruins. Ruins and dungeons are not a unique feature of Dungeons and Dragons. Arabian Nights, a collection of middle eastern and indian adventure tales, includes such stories as Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, featuring hidden caves filled with treasures. Many of the Swords and Sorcery tales of the early 20th Century featured dungeons and ruins. All of those were published prior to DnD. DnD reflects those tales, not the reverse, and therefore they are not elements unique to DnD, instead, deriving inspiration from them.

3. Treasure: all three Dragons sit on piles of treasure. Again, Dragon-troves and treasure-seeking pre-dates Dungeons and Dragons, and is thus not an element unique to role-playing games.

4. Magic: all three illustrations contain magical elements. In two cases, protagonists are using magical weapons. In the other, a magical spell is being cast. But the ideas of magical swords (excalibur for example) and magical spells (myriad folktales with witches and curses) are pre-DnD concepts.

Given that all of those elements are not uniquely Dungeons and Dragons, what is the only element remaining?

In my prefacing instructions yesterday, I asked which of the three illustrations was MORE REPRESENTATIVE of Dungeons and Dragons than the others. What is the only significant remaining difference between the three illustrations?

The number of adventurers facing off against the Dragon.

One of the unique features of Dungeons and Dragons is the idea of the ADVENTURING PARTY, made up of various classes of adventurers, combating Dragons, exploring dungeons and ruins, seeking treasure, and employing magic. So, the illustration that most effectively reflects, elaborates and highlights the uniqueness of Dungeons and Dragons is the last illustration, featuring three adventurers.

The illustration with only two adventurers is less reflective, and the Elmore illustration is the least reflective, as it features a single combatant.

I will finish off this post by saying that the adventuring party is not the only unique element of Dungeons and Dragons. I'm not saying that an illustration must include several adventurers to be "DnD". However, I think you can gauge how well a DnD illustrator understands the game by how effectively they communicate this, and any other unique, elements of DnD.

Having Fun With Venn Diagrams

As some have already argued, the relationship between Fantasy Art and Dungeons and Dragons Art can be represented by the Venn diagram, above.  We can quibble over whether the DnD Art circle is fully contained within the Fantasy Art circle, or whether a tiny portion of the DnD Art circle extends beyond the Fantasy art circle.  However, I think it is reasonable to suggest that all (or nearly all) DnD Art is Fantasy Art, but not all Fantasy Art is DnD Art. 

I make this observation knowing that some people will suggest that Fantasy Art and Dnd Art are (or can be) the same.  When those people make that argument, they confuse viewer inspiration with creator purpose.  An art consumer can be INSPIRED BY a piece of fantasy art, and use that fantasy art to construct a Dungeons and Dragons character, encounter or milieu.  What I am referring to, when I speak of DnD Art, is fantasy art whose PURPOSE is to reflect, elaborate or highlight the fantasy elements unique to Dungeons and Dragons. That purpose must be reflected, back, as a clear representation of Dungeons and Dragons; most or all viewers should be able to agree that the fantasy art is also DnD Art.

Having established what I mean by DnD Art, I'm posting two illustrations, below.  The first illustration is a classic piece of Larry Elmore art, which appears on the cover of the Mentzer Basic Dungeons and Dragons Red Box.  The second illustration, by Wayne Reyonds, appears on the cover of the Pathfinder Beginner Box.

Which of these two illustrations is DnD Art (or "more" DnD, if you are still on the fence regarding my explication, above) and why?  For the purpose of this exercize, please ignore the color of the Dragons.

Here is another combat with a Dragon.  Why is the illustration below "more" DnD than either of the two illustrations, above?

Dragon Magazine Collection: April 2012

I possess only a handful of post-issue 142 Dragon Magazines.

Issue 142 of Dragon Magazine, published in February 1989, is a significant signpost in the history of DnD, for that issue contains the official preview for Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, 2nd Edition.

It never really occurred to me that I should be interested in what was said about Dungeons and Dragons, after the release of the 2nd Edition rules. After all, was 2nd Edition not the culmination of everything that had been, or could be, said about DnD?

I'm curious to hear whether I am mistaken in this regard, and if so, what wisdom can be gleaned from Dragon Magazines, post-issue 142.

If those post-issue 142 Dragon Magazines are worth pursuing, are there any issues that are particularly insightful?

What Is Dungeons And Dragons Art?

How does one identify Dungeons and Dragons art?  Here are four illustrations by the amazing Keith Parkinson (may he rest in peace).  Which of these illustrations would you consider to be Dungeons and Dragons art, and why?

I had intended to use the art of Larry Elmore for the above exercize.  While Elmore is among the most beloved of all artists providing illustrations for Dungeons and Dragons products, I found it next to impossible to find any Elmore Dungeons and Dragons art. 

Therefore, as a bonus question, suggest one piece of Elmore art that you consider to be Dungeons and Dragons art, and tell me why.

Dungeon Module D2: Shrine of the Kuo-Toa

It's easy to find examples of "bad" Dungeons and Dragons artwork.  One has only to look at the D-series of modules to find it.  Of course, when I say bad, with quotations, I don't really mean bad.  Primitive, yes.  Amateurish?  Fine.  But it is also entirely appropriate, in keeping with the requirements for Dungeons and Dragons art, as separate from Fantasy Art.

Incidentally, some people, big fans of Elmore, Easley and Parkinson, uncritically consider fantasy art (particularly by those three artists) and DnD art to be the same thing.  I will return to why they are not in a separate post.

Having reached the end of module D1, Descent into the Depths of the Earth, and avoided or defeated the troglodytes, bugbears, trolls, dark elves, and assorted other adversaries that dwell in a large subterranean cavern, the party pushes on towards the fabled city of the Drow.  The party continues to encounter Drow patrols and merchant caravans, along with quintessential DnD monsters like the Rust Monster pictured above.

Several other new (for 1977) monsters appeared in Shrine of the Kuo-Toa.  The above Umber Hulk makes his first appearance here in this DnD module.

Above we discover a trio of Ropers, one being put to the torch while another Roper pulls a hapless party-member to his doom.  It's interesting to view these illustrations, and in so doing compare them to the artwork that will come in the mid-80's and beyond.  It's typical of these early illustrations that the party's survival is often in doubt.

Other than some standard subterranean corridors, we are provided with very few encounter areas in D2.  One such encounter area is a river crossing, populated by a single insane Kuo-Toa ferryman.  It is possible that this will be the first of several encounters with this Lovecraftian adversary, prior to reaching the Shrine.

It should be obvious that the above artwork is by Trampier, even without his signature appearing upside down at the top of the illustration.  It features Tramp's not-atypical conceit of framing the illustration from the persective of the monster, rather than that of the adventuring party.  It catches the action at the precise moment of decision and danger, for the madness of the insane Kuo-Toa will be revealed in the manner in which the party reacts to his hail.

Another secondary encounter area features deep gnome miners, foes of the Kuo-Toa, whose reaction and sympathetic gestures towards the party may affect the success of their visit to the Shrine.  The deep gnomes have been scouting the Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, and have had several military encounters with these fish-men.  The deep gnomes are potentially powerful allies, if the party reacts to them in a fashion appropriate to their motivations.

Finally, we reach the Shrine of the Kuo-Toa.  Like the central subterranean cavern adventure location in D1, there is no requirement that the Shrine be cleared of foes.  In fact, you could, potentially, bypass this encounter location without participating in a single combat.  That is because there is significant underworld traffic through this area, including the traffic of drow patrols and merchant caravans.  Although the Drow and the Kuo-Toa hate each other, they have come to an uneasy accommodation, with rare breaches of that truce.  Other underworld denizens travel to and past the Shrine, so it is not unusual to find over-worlders in the vicinity.

However, there are clues to be gathered at the Shrine, regarding the intentions of the dark elves, and opportunities for other intelligence-gathering and preparation for what lies beyond, not to mention ample treasure and combat for those who wish to partake in those activities.  A smart party will take advantage of their friendship with the deep gnomes, or use subterfuge and cleverness to gain information and treasure here.

More Pathfinder Minis

Paizo continues to release previews of their Rise of the Runelords miniatures set.  The above Alu-Fiend miniature will be an excellent accompaniment to the Succubus miniature that was included in Paizo's Heroes and Monsters set.  

I'm not all that familiar with the Pathfinder bestiary, so I can't tell you what the above figure represents.  It looks vaguely centaur-like, although both the tail and the tube-top are puzzlements.



I presume the figure above is a Naga.  Looks pretty cool.

The last two figures are named adversaries from the Paizo Rise of the Runelord adventure path.  The first is some sort of mage, the second is a Lich, in the early stages of decay.  Both miniatures seem interesting.

So far, Paizo has previewed 40 of the 65 miniatures in this set.  They are inluding an additional 3-5 Goblin miniatures, which, once again, will go into my re-sale pile, as i'm not a fan of the Pathfinder Goblins.

Females And Framing Less Controversial

Depending on your perspective, the art of Dungeons and Dragons became either more professional, or less visceral, as the game and its adherents grew ever more sophisticated.

Dragon Magazine 126, published in October 1987, features a cover by Daniel Horne, of a female ranger battling a skeletal frost giant.  Sensibly dressed, and actively posed to fire an enchanted arrow at her adversary, there is little to criticize in this illustration, from a framing and art theory perspective.

Our heroine is posed in the foreground, as befitting the focus of the illustration.  This is the ranger's story, not the frost giant's.  Well lit, the froze wasteland setting is interesting, but is suitably muted to avoid detracting from the central narrative.  The color choices are appropriate:  blues and oranges, blacks and whites, reds and greens. 

This was an exceedingly popular illustration, so much so that it was printed on heavy card stock and included in the binder version of the 2nd Edition AD&D Monster Manual.

Compare this full color illustration to that of the early Dungeons and Dragons artwork, much of which was printed in black and white.  In those early pieces, the framing of the action was all wrong.  So was the lighting.  The most important portions of the narrative were often at the edge of the frame, or entirely off-screen.  It would be unsurprising to hear criticism of that early artwork as amateurish and poorly framed.

So why would anyone prefer that old artwork to the more professional illustrations that followed?  Is it simply nostalgia, or is there something that the old artwork communicated, that was lost in translation?

No Stranger To Controversy

Back in the day, Dungeons and Dragons was no stranger to controversy. Besides attracting criticism for it's portrayal of gods, demons and devils, and attendant accusations of encouraging devil worship, there was ongoing concern about the depiction of naked bodies, predominantly those of women.

Those expressions of concern finally precipitated editorial changes at Dragon Magazine, in reaction to angry letters over what was perhaps the best cover of Dragon Magazine ever, that of Issue 114, published in October 1986.

The contents of Issue 114 were in themselves controversial, as Dragon Magazine once again published a revised Witch class.

However, it was David Martin's depiction of a naked Witch on the front cover of Dragon that resulted in a new artwork policy. That new policy was announced in Issue 117, following several months of argument and counter-argument between those who supported the depiction of nakedness in Dungeons and Dragons art and those who opposed it.

The early versions of Dungeons and Dragons were billed as a game for adults.  As the game grew in popularity, it garnered more teenage and pre-teen players.  It is little surprise, then, that there was heightened sensitivity amongst the staffers of TSR and Dragon Magazine to the issues of nakedness.

The Dragon Editorial staff concluded that the above depiction of a naked Witch crossed the line. 

While it is easy for us to disagree with their assessment, we were not in the pressure cooker with the 1980's morality police, they were.

Spell Cards Reloaded

Over at The Aspiring Lich, Chris has produced a mock-up of a spell card design for his Labyrinth Lord games.  Here is an example of one of his cards, a staple for any first-level Magic-User:  Sleep.

I'm a sucker for resource cards.  Years ago, I toyed with the idea of designing a set of 1.25" x 2" resource cards, that included equipment, treasure and spells.

My initial resource card mock-ups are still sitting on a memory stick, somewhere, waiting for my return. 

I'd really love to see a set of spell cards for OSR games, and some appropriate accompanying artwork on each card would be icing on the cake.

Just over a year ago, Sully at A Pack Of Gnolls had a similar idea, for 4E ritual spells, and posted a mock-up of Magic Mouth, complete with some appropriate Dave Trampier artwork.  I was as enthusiastic about spell cards, then, as I am now.

I suggested to Chris that this might be a good candidate for a kickstarter crowd-sourcing project. Thoughts?

Now That's A Lich!

I have a couple of substantial posts planned, but I just had to post a picture of this Lich, which is being previewed over at the Otherworld Miniatures site.  Now that's a Lich!