art & font for Wilderlands of High Adventure products
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:08 am
James's new product, XXXI, is a fine example of a proper use of art and fonts.
First, I would dearly like for James to retain the Century Gothic font used in XXXI. That font fondly recalls the old pastel TSR modules, classics such as Tomb of Horrors, Vault of the Drow, Hall of the Fire Giant King, Village of Hommlet, etc. On Necromancer's boards James mentioned that he intends to use Garamond as a font instead. I hope he reconsiders. While both fonts are readable, only one adds "old school vibe" to readability.
Second, I would like to commend the use of art in XXXI. While there is but a single piece in the book, it is precisely the sort it needs to be: black-and-white, old school, and USEFUL. It depicts the Dragon Gate mentioned on p. 5. I can imagine that when players approach the Dragon Gate, virtually every Judge will hold up XXXI, point at the illustration, and say, "It looks like this."
Contrast that with the empty, shallow, and useless art so prevalent in FRPG products today. [sarcasm]"Oh, look, a party of adventurers. I always wondered what one of those looks like."[/sarcasm] I hope future Wilderlands of High Adventure products continue to stay away from such wastes of paper. You can't swing a dead cat anymore without knocking-over some fantasy art. We certainly don't need any more fantasy art whose only purpose is to (supposedly) look cool. Here are the sort of subjects that need art:
1. unusual architectural or natural features: We do NOT need illustrations of everyday sorts of things, such as are found on some of the pages of Necromancer's generally excellent Wilderlands boxed set: "Would you look at that! A drawing of an average village."
2. new monsters: We desperately need for pretty much EVERY new monster in a given product to be illustrated. What would you rather see? The FIRST (and perhaps ONLY) illustration of a new beastie, or the TEN THOUSANDTH illustration of a fighter? "Look at his cool belt buckle!"
3. weird or bizarre objects: I'm thinking here of hard-to-picture magic items, pieces of high technology, alien inscriptions, outre statues, etc. Give me something that I can hold up and say, "You found THIS."
4. We MUST have nudity, and we MUST NOT have nudity. "Huh?" Look at the illustrations in the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide. They don't shy away from featuring nudity IN MONSTERS. Succubi don't wear clothes! Harpies don't wear bras! Etc. It would be a shame to illustrate them wearing clothes. You might as well draw a picture of a red dragon wearing a sweater. On the other hand, in the AD&D core rulebooks there is not a single adventurer running around in a chainmail bikini or similar nonsense. That is NOT how an adventurer dresses. (The only possible exception is the cover of the DMG, with that scantily-clad girl in the efreeti's clutches. I do not interpret her to be an adventurer, though. I interpret her to be a slave girl.) So no "adventurer babes", PLEASE. And no "pumped-up" men, either. Look at the adventurers in the old MM encountering that giant spider. Look at the adventurers in D2: Shrine of the Kuo-toa. Look at the adventurers in the AD&D Fiend Folio. All of them are lean and mean and roughed-up. They look like they are fighting their way through dungeons. They do not look like they just finished working on their six-packs at the gym.
In short, keep up the old-school vibe, James!
First, I would dearly like for James to retain the Century Gothic font used in XXXI. That font fondly recalls the old pastel TSR modules, classics such as Tomb of Horrors, Vault of the Drow, Hall of the Fire Giant King, Village of Hommlet, etc. On Necromancer's boards James mentioned that he intends to use Garamond as a font instead. I hope he reconsiders. While both fonts are readable, only one adds "old school vibe" to readability.
Second, I would like to commend the use of art in XXXI. While there is but a single piece in the book, it is precisely the sort it needs to be: black-and-white, old school, and USEFUL. It depicts the Dragon Gate mentioned on p. 5. I can imagine that when players approach the Dragon Gate, virtually every Judge will hold up XXXI, point at the illustration, and say, "It looks like this."
Contrast that with the empty, shallow, and useless art so prevalent in FRPG products today. [sarcasm]"Oh, look, a party of adventurers. I always wondered what one of those looks like."[/sarcasm] I hope future Wilderlands of High Adventure products continue to stay away from such wastes of paper. You can't swing a dead cat anymore without knocking-over some fantasy art. We certainly don't need any more fantasy art whose only purpose is to (supposedly) look cool. Here are the sort of subjects that need art:
1. unusual architectural or natural features: We do NOT need illustrations of everyday sorts of things, such as are found on some of the pages of Necromancer's generally excellent Wilderlands boxed set: "Would you look at that! A drawing of an average village."
2. new monsters: We desperately need for pretty much EVERY new monster in a given product to be illustrated. What would you rather see? The FIRST (and perhaps ONLY) illustration of a new beastie, or the TEN THOUSANDTH illustration of a fighter? "Look at his cool belt buckle!"
3. weird or bizarre objects: I'm thinking here of hard-to-picture magic items, pieces of high technology, alien inscriptions, outre statues, etc. Give me something that I can hold up and say, "You found THIS."
4. We MUST have nudity, and we MUST NOT have nudity. "Huh?" Look at the illustrations in the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide. They don't shy away from featuring nudity IN MONSTERS. Succubi don't wear clothes! Harpies don't wear bras! Etc. It would be a shame to illustrate them wearing clothes. You might as well draw a picture of a red dragon wearing a sweater. On the other hand, in the AD&D core rulebooks there is not a single adventurer running around in a chainmail bikini or similar nonsense. That is NOT how an adventurer dresses. (The only possible exception is the cover of the DMG, with that scantily-clad girl in the efreeti's clutches. I do not interpret her to be an adventurer, though. I interpret her to be a slave girl.) So no "adventurer babes", PLEASE. And no "pumped-up" men, either. Look at the adventurers in the old MM encountering that giant spider. Look at the adventurers in D2: Shrine of the Kuo-toa. Look at the adventurers in the AD&D Fiend Folio. All of them are lean and mean and roughed-up. They look like they are fighting their way through dungeons. They do not look like they just finished working on their six-packs at the gym.
In short, keep up the old-school vibe, James!