From this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=85607#85607):

Though some artwork is very amateurish and reminds me more about 80s RPG books. That's not a big deal and I can understand little amateurish look.

Honestly, "some people are never happy" is the right answer, if you asked me.

But my opinion might not matter much -- art is pretty much meaningless to me. Sure, it's good for establishing tone, but I put a lot more faith in text than art -- I get more bang for my buck per square inch with text than art.

The only time I notice art is when it's painfully bad, or reused -- but even then, the latter isn't a big deal and the former is a matter of taste.

However, a lot of industry people -- particularly White Wolf -- seem to put a lot of stock in art...

Maybe I just said it badly. As I said some artwork is very amateurish (like OBAM p. 31), I didn't say the whole book is full of bad art. Example, cover art is great. Text is the most important thing for me.

Of course WoTC makes great looking books, but they have also some very bad art in their books.

If I made you feel bad Jake, I'm sorry. I didn't mean that. Just said my first impressions about OBAM and I think still it's great book.

I'm not too big on game book art myself... if it's there and it looks nice - that's awesome. If not, no loss. Occasionally a piece of art will do a great job of conveying what a setting or something is like. In the Fading Suns core book there's a picture of a vorox - think a wookie with extra arms - drawing a massive bow with two arms, knocking an arrow with a third while pulling another arrow from his quiver with a fourth the whole time smiling with almost chidlish glee at his combat proficiency. That particular bit of art was perfect for me to give me an idea of what Vorox were like.

That said, maybe it's best to minimize art altogether? I realize that for a monster book this is impractical, but for other supplements maybe getting rid of the generic placeholder art and instead only having a smaller amount of higher-quality (read: more expensive) art?

JD

For the record, I thought most of the art in OBAM was fantastic (although admittedly, I'm biased).

There was this amazing sense of glee when I saw some of the art proofs and the artist had obviously read what I had written, then drawn the picture from the vision the story gave him/her, and it nicely matched the vision I had had in my head when I wrote it. There's nothing cooler than that, let me tell you (although I'm still bemused by the "Mere" thing).

Brian.

Here are a few pics I thought were a bit rough: pg. 31, 37, 43, 83, the hit location charts (which are repeats of the first three anyway)

Stuff I thought was great: pg. 4, 53, 70, 73, 80, 90, 109

On the whole I thought the art was really good, and I wonder if Janne would have even had a complaint if the hit location charts (and reprints earlier in the book) had been better. If there's one black mark on an otherwise white wall, all you see is the black mark...

Personally I loved the art quality, although some of th art choices were not what I would have done...
for example the picture of the dog was kind of goofy, I think every reader has a good mental image of what a dog is, dragons gol and hef are another story and thats where OBAM shined brightly. those pieces were fantastic.

And I loved the art in the core rule book and disagree with the criticisms it recieved which makes me conclude somewhat that the complaints might also be based somewhat on the print quality in that book but I cant see that translating to OBAM which had a much better print quality.

Maybe in the future you could include more chicks in impractical chain mail armor like all the DND 2 ed books... no one complains about those....

And last of all, the comparisons towards other companies is likely the gamer bias manifesting itself once more, you know the bias I am talking about, "if it aint steve jackson or WOTC then it is obviously an inferior basement production " and thus, whether it is or isn't the gamer is expecting it to not be high quality and thus that is what they see.

For the record, I like the art in both books. There are some pictures that have a sort of "unfinished" look and feel to them, but this gives a kind of gritty or dark feel.

For TFoB, I guess I'd like some more realistic pictures of people in armor. For example, a knight in full late 15th C plate instead of something like the picture of the guy from Stahl in the main book (with all the spikes etc). I do like that picture, but I'd like more realistic armor pictures as well. Some fantasy, some reality. Not a big deal really.


Anyway, I like the art. I think it goes along with feel of the text pretty well.

NT

Calling art "good" or "bad" is about as useful as declaring blue to be the "best" color, or calling all abstract art "unartistic crap" -- it's all a matter of taste.

Frex, there are some pieces of my art that I don't like at all, I think they're unfinished, yet others rave about them.

Even polished and finished pieces by successful artists can be pegged as "amateur work" by the right (or is that "wrong"?) art editor, especially if they don't know who the artist is, or don't like the artist's style.

There's a reason art is art and not science, and when discussing it, explaining why you think a certain piece is a certain way (such as "amateurish") goes further towards communicating than simply saying you like or dislike it.

That said, art can be good and bad, amateur and professional, but there's a whole lot of gray area in there.

As to TRoS's art, I can't say, I unfortunately don't have the book yet.

Calling art "good" or "bad" is about as useful as declaring blue to be the "best" color

I personally liked the artwork in both books, especially OBAM.

I feel that that art is pretty important in a book like this, as it is a very powerful media for bringing a world to life. So I see it as money well spent. Having seaid that, you've got to have good content in the first place and TROS does (which is why we are all here ;-)

The only real caveat on that is that the general concencus in my group was that the dog in the hit-location chart looked too cute to want to hit!

Dan.

OKay, I'll fess up on the horse and the dog. They were some old sketches of mine that I spruced up when the animal art I had "ordered" fell through at the last minute (something always does). I agree that the dog is too cute to hit, but sometimes your players have to deal with that. Heh.

Jake

Time for a lurkers two cents, and mind you that i haven't gotten OBAM yet.

For me, and that is Greyworm's point, for me art is make or break. The reason I didn't buy TROS the first time I saw it was the art, I admit that, and had to wait two months to get it because of this. It is the same reason why I hate Ars magica 4th edition, compared to 3rd edtion.

Now the text i Tros was brilliant at times, I whole heartedly agree with this part and it can spark a lot of ideas. But it is the feel of the game that is conveyed through the art, and I do belive that the money spent on art is well spent.

Then again this is my opinion.

This might be a dumb question, but why not rely more on period illustration ? I've been reading a lot about XVIth century recently (blame TROS) and between Dürer, Holbein, Urs Graf, Caravaggio, Bruegel, Cranach, Uccello and the martial arts manuals you have enough knights, landsknechts and men-at-arms to fill a volume. And of course there's always XIXth century illustrations like the Pictorial History of costume and the like...

And it's free.

Jake Norwood wrote: OKay, I'll fess up on the horse and the dog. They were some old sketches of mine that I spruced up when the animal art I had "ordered" fell through at the last minute (something always does). I agree that the dog is too cute to hit, but sometimes your players have to deal with that. Heh.

Part of why I rave about Nobilis is the fact that the interior art is rare (though the few pieces I can recall haven't disappointed me). Too many game books glut themselves with art instead of providing actual content. Art is beneath my notice 90% of the time - I had to have Wolfen remind me that there was cover art on the tRoS main book, because despite having seen it multiple times, the fact that there was art on the front had never, y'know, made an impact, to the point where I wasn't entirely sure there was any. OBAM's cover art is a bit more anvillicious in that regard.

But that's me. I'm an aberration in the RPG world, and I fear the day that my first game is ready to find art.

Anvillicious? Pertaining to anvils?

I don't think that's a word :-)

(Nor does my dictionary)

Brian :-)

Anvillicious - "like unto an anvil falling on one's head." In other words, "hard to miss."

I'm not sure where I picked it up.

Lxndr wrote: I'm not sure where I picked it up.

Thierry Michel wrote: This might be a dumb question, but why not rely more on period illustration ? I've been reading a lot about XVIth century recently (blame TROS) and between Dürer, Holbein, Urs Graf, Caravaggio, Bruegel, Cranach, Uccello and the martial arts manuals you have enough knights, landsknechts and men-at-arms to fill a volume. And of course there's always XIXth century illustrations like the Pictorial History of costume and the like...

And it's free.

I stand corrected Jake, the art in OBAM is a great improvement. And I seriously agree that the money spent on art is money well spent.

For my .02, I like good art and lots of it. Then again I'm more an artist than a roleplayer :P. No art is better than bad art though.

I haven't bought TRoS yet so I can't comment on it specifically.