Somewhere back in the past, I got subscribed to an email newsletter called Story Games Weekly. I probably signed up for it 'cause they do free promotion of one's gaming products and I thought "hey, easy marketing!" Of course, I've never bothered to email them a news item or publication announcement (have I not explained before how terrible I am at self-promotion?). Anyway, I still continue to read through it every week, because there's (usually) at least three or four items that strike my interest.
This week, one blurb led me to this post by Patrick Stuart, author of Deep Carbon Observatory, in which he discusses an ideal ("utopian") framework for designing adventures (or any other gaming product). His Step One is to have a powerful idea that fires the imagination (I'm paraphrasing his thing about generating "psychic energy"). His second step? Artwork.
[*head in hands*]
I understand that Mr. Stuart is a big believer in the inspiring power of art within games. I read his essay on Art In Games, and I can grok his hypothesis. BUT...
Oh, God. How to start without seeming like a completely hopeless, obsolete luddite grognard.
[sigh...I really can't, can I?]
Back in the days of MY youth (when we had to walk ten miles to school, barefoot, in the snow...and uphill both ways, don't forget)...back then we used to have these here "adventure module" thingies that may or may not have had much in the way of great or inspiring art, but what art they had certainly had FUCKALL little to do with the adventures in which they appeared.
How many illustrations are there in The Keep on the Borderlands? Five? Not counting the cover? Again I wish I had the module with me in Paraguay so I could check. I love the Dee illo of the minotaur in the chain shirt with the spear because its badass, sure. You know what else is badass? The whole Chaotic temple complex which doesn't have (or require) a single illustration to influence your imagination. Same with the ogre encounter. Or the hobgoblin torturers. Or the kobolds with their traps and rats and spears. There's plenty of "psychic energy" to be found within the adventure...energy that has made B2 an adventure staple with plenty of "replay" value over the years. I can't even count the number of expeditions I've sent out to the Caves.
The artwork in these early adventures...the ones us old timers consider "classics"...was scant, and often damn misleading. I'm not just talking about the cover leaf to Keep on the Borderlands (in which a halfling wields a pole arm and the owlbear appears in a worked stone dungeon rather than its cave lair). The cover itself shows some sort of showdown with orcs in the hills...there's no such encounter. Tomb of Horrors has some sort of crowned lich on the cover...WTF? Shrine of Tamoachan's cover leaf has the party engaged with a giant bat thing...no such encounter exists. The cover for Queen of the Demonwebs depicts the party battling Lolth in a forest with a bunch of arachnid helpers...no, no, this never occurs in the adventure.
Is there a single image of a fire giant in Hall of the Fire Giants? I can't recall any...but I can certainly recall several memorable NPCs from that module: the king, his decapitating queen, the torturer, a certain dwarf by the name of Obmi, and Eclavdra (of course). Oh, yeah...maybe there's one throwaway picture of a mustachioed giant with his hellhounds...but that image isn't what's firing my imagination. I'm getting enthused by my mental picture of characters trying to coax mules into harnesses to winch their beasts and spelunking gear across a subterranean river of glowing lava. The Drow with male-pattern baldness isn't nearly as inspiring as Gygax's description of the dark elves' tentacled temple.
Those illustration inserts they included with a couple of those old modules? Sure we used them, but they were gimmicky props and more often detracted from play, rather than enhancing it. Not because the art was bad or uninspiring, but because they SLOWED play (especially for adventures where the ills were keyed differently from the map key) for little real gain. Again, it wasn't a drawing of a four armed gargoyle that made Tomb of Horrors memorable to the players.
Here's how I see it, folks: artwork in gaming products is overrated.
Not unimportant, mind you: please put down your pitchforks, all my illustrator friends! Art does have importance, especially in the basic gaming manual for any setting-specific game where the author/designer is attempting to convey the mood and ambience (and express his or her own visual imaginings) to the reader. Artwork is important for understanding what a game is all about.
But I do not lend it the same importance that Stuart and others...like the general game consuming public...lends to it. That's right, I'm not just trying to pick on one man (well, not this time anyway). I'm talking about a commercial trend that Stuart is simply providing with a high-minded justification.
I mean, who the hell is supposed to be reading the "adventure product" anyway? Who is supposed to be getting the benefit generated from the artwork therein? Last time I checked, adventures were supposed to be studied by game masters and off-limit to the players (who wanted to "explore" the adventure's mysteries). So you're going to commission a bunch of artwork for the benefit of one guy, huh?
Well sorry to waste your time, man, but I'm kind of on the same page with Jeff Rients when it comes to illustrations. Give me LESS to work with...don't fill in all the blanks for me! If you do that, how am I supposed to fire the pistons in this old and feeble mind of mine? What's more, don't give me a picture that I just show to the players and say, "here, it looks like this, you dolts!" Let me just give them a brief verbal description and allow the players' imaginations to fill in the blank spots...that way the magic and monsters and traps and perils and whatnot become more personal and more affecting to the people at the table.
What is this constant handholding? What is this coddling? Why do we not trust that players can do this imaginary heavy lifting all by themselves? Why must every single monster have an illustration...I can guess what a "giant slug" looks like! No, you do not need to paint me a picture of it!
I know, I know: I am hopelessly old and decrepit in my thought. People have "grown to expect" a certain degree of "professional polish" in their gaming product, including high quality artwork and a glossy finish. And, yes, these types of products sell better, and these types of products are more likely to find more shelf space in nicer stores, while the "amateur hour" productions are relegated to print-on-demand or ebook status.
[and, yes, Mr. Stuart, it would be nice if all the art was soulful enough to transcend the reader]
I'm not completely stupid and ignorant. I'm just a curmudgeon who can't draw.
Also, I am a curmudgeon who was very sad to learn that Greg Irons died way back in 1984, after I was considering trying to track him down for a project of mine (no not an adventure). What a talent lost!
 |
| This is great, but the D&D Coloring Book was psycoholic! |
Okay, okay...I am now resuming my hiatus. You may feel free to comment, but I can't guarantee swift response. No, I'm not going to change my mind on this: any artwork in a published "adventure" should be far down on Ye Old List of Design Priorities.
[hope everyone is doing well!]
@JB-"Any artwork in a published "adventure" should be far down on Ye Old List of Design Priorities."
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess I can see your point from a "game designer" perspective. But, from a marketing perspective, art will sell a product. Cover art is critical to getting someone to even consider picking the product up. The key is finding the right art that will make the product evocative. Unfortunately, alot of current products over do it. The art becomes an eye sore instead of an inspiration.
I really believe good art selection can sell a poor product and bad art selection can adversely effect the sales of a good product. There are certain products I won't even spend the time to review because of the art content or, even, lack of content (I do like some).
So, I think it shouldn't be that far down Ye Old List of Design Priorities if your goal is to sell the product.
@ Dervish:
DeleteAs I said, I’m not ignorant of the business importance of artwork in a game product. I was up till 4am (my time) combing through DeviantArt pages looking for artists who matched the style of a project I’m working on. Publishers need SOMEthing to get their product noticed…it’s not like the old days when the quantity of product in distribution was small (just look at the number of listing nominated for an ENNIE in the “favorite publisher.” There’s an “Evil Beagle Games?” WTF?!). Something needs to impel that initial purchase that will (hopefully) generate “word o mouth” buzz.
But as a DESIGN priority? That’s what the guy appears to be saying: build around artwork with “good energy” if you want to make a memorable product; lack it and your product may well lack soul…or, at least, the power to inspire. That I don’t buy.
One more thing about the “business” aspect of art: I looked at a lot of images of book covers last night when making my Ennie selections (yes, I vote. Voting is patriotic!). There is a shit-ton of good, evocative art on the shelves…certainly more good art than good product. Do I need or want a 500 page “sourcebook?” No, not even for a game I like and enjoy. At some point, don’t you think people will need something MORE than just artwork to sell a product? If everything is sporting great covers, but most of it is dross than why would you judge a book by its cover?
But that’s ME…I long ago stopped judging books by their covers. YOU may still choose your reviews based on their art…can’t you think of ANY better way to make your selections?
Maybe if we stopped making “art quantity” such a priority, we could use less, pay artists more for fewer pieces, and give them the space to craft something more powerful.
But now I’m just wandering….
I would be thrilled with a product with really interesting cover and one or two high quality illustrations done by a motivated artist inside along with some clear and easy to reference maps than anything else. Scattering stock art everywhere rarely makes a product better. And in some cases I think is only there to buff up the page count.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I really believe good art selection can sell a poor product..."
DeleteMaybe people shouldn't be selling "poor" products. And maybe the products wouldn't be "poor" if people focused on more important aspects before worrying about the art. Just a thought.
Since I'm not selling anything for money or otherwise, I use artwork to convey a mood. And it's all public domain, sucka, because, I'm not selling anything.
ReplyDeleteSo I agree. Art is nice but not necessary.
I'm a professional artist and even I don't think everything needs an illustration. I don't think everyone at the table needs the same picture in their head.
ReplyDeleteThere's definitely value in a heavily illustrated product and if consistent in style it certainly sets the mood and tells you the viewer/reader a whole lot but it focuses the imagination and forces a consensus on details that may have been very different from one player to another in absence of a illustration.
RE B2: "The cover itself shows some sort of showdown with orcs in the hills...there's no such encounter. " - There certainly is if the players run out of the dungeon with the orcs in pursuit, with the caves of chaos outside the dungeon isn't all that far away.
@ JD:
DeleteThose orcs won't survive the 30' jump from their cave mouth.
; )
Those are elevation lines at the mouth of the lairs, not cliffs. I'm suspecting only the critters in cave A would have to worry about jumping in pursuit of a band of adventurers.
Delete@JB- "But that’s ME…I long ago stopped judging books by their covers. YOU may still choose your reviews based on their art…can’t you think of ANY better way to make your selections?
ReplyDeleteMaybe if we stopped making “art quantity” such a priority, we could use less, pay artists more for fewer pieces, and give them the space to craft something more powerful."
I hear ya JB, but art "quality" is subjective. So, selection and "quantity" is a matter of you knowing the audience who you want to read and/or purchase your product. It really isn't about the designer's personal preferences.
The fact is that some people just do not have any skill in recognizing what good visuals are when it comes to marketing their own products. We now live in a day where your product has to stand out from all the rest right from the git-go. When I scan the shelves of my gaming store, the thing that grabs my attention from one product over another is the art. I don't have time to look at every game on the shelf. A designer needs to grab my attention first. Designers who ignore this fact are only hurting themselves.
@ Dervish:
DeleteOkay.
@JB- "But as a DESIGN priority? That’s what the guy appears to be saying: build around artwork with “good energy” if you want to make a memorable product; lack it and your product may well lack soul…or, at least, the power to inspire. That I don’t buy."
ReplyDeleteHasn't a piece of art work ever inspired you to design around it?
@ Dervish:
DeleteSure. I've seen images that have sparked an initial IDEA (to create an adventure or a character or even an entire game).
But that's not the same as having an idea FIRST, and then making it a priority to find inspiring artwork. If I'm not jazzed by my own idea, I'm not going to GET jazzed after commissioning some art!
@JB- "But that's not the same as having an idea FIRST, and then making it a priority to find inspiring artwork. If I'm not jazzed by my own idea, I'm not going to GET jazzed after commissioning some art!"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. I agree you first have to be engaged with your own ideas. That's all the more reason to commission good art that will translate well with your work.
I have a feeling you and I may look at this in complete reverse from one another. You asked above, "At some point, don’t you think people will need something MORE than just artwork to sell a product?"
My answer to that is, yes. First, there must be a demand for the type of product they're producing. You can be all jazzed about your ideas, but if no one wants 500 page source books, then 500 page source books will not sell.
If there is a demand and the market is saturated with 500 page source books that all sport great art, the next thing will be price point.
It's my opinion, that actual great content will fall lower on the priority list. This is partly because there is a ton of freely distributed material already available.
If your product was a "one of a kind", it would be a different story and you might be able to get away with scant art work. You still need to get your product noticed first and that's what good art does.
There's that old saying "A picture is worth a thousand words."
ReplyDeleteI think some of your examples are inaccurate. Q1 doesn't show a forest, it shows a pillared hall, just like the pillared hall where you fight Lloth and her drider, solifugid, and pedipalp servants. The pictures of the latter two in the back of Q1 match the cover.
ReplyDeleteHall of the Fire Giant King? G1-3, pg. 17, shows two fire giants.
The thing on the cover not being depicted in the adventure / vice-versa happens, but those are two inaccurate examples.
ermmm... so I believe Patrick's point was missed. It's not so much about the importance of art for the module itself, it's that a **conversation** between an artist and a writer is a tremendously powerful and magical thing. It's not about commissioning art, it's about having an artist as a co-creator and true partner on the project.
ReplyDeleteI've been exceedingly lucky and been able to experience this very thing with my Swordfish Islands project. My friend Gabe does the art and participated directly in all of the brainstorming sessions that occurred and here are a few of my favorite examples of how this *ideal* can play out.
So, tropical island setting, I make a monster list and include "Giant Crabs" on it with the personal mental assumption of "fodder monster". Gabe comes back with this: http://i.imgur.com/6m1AH.jpg
He did not share my assumption, and when he read giant, he went with giant. I, ashamed at my lame assumptions, reworked things and ended up creating a whole nice little myth/event structure to go along with this truly giant crab, and was able to tie up some other offhanded brainstorming ideas where we'd mentioned "old ones": http://swordfishislands.blogspot.com/2013/12/joomavesi-golden-crab.html
The art ran us into a whole other direction and was glorious.
On my monster list I also had "fire hydra", with the intent of a mid-to-late ranged fodder monster. Once again, Gabe kicked me in the teeth and did this: http://i.imgur.com/tSTkI.jpg
Clearly more lava that fire, but clearly a fuck of a lot cooler than what I was imagining to begin with, so now hey, what do I do with this happy disparity of assumptions? Ok, so this creature is made of molten rock and recently cooled molten rock, so how about if we have one of the lizardman factions use the creature as a test of strength and they try and pull one of the faceplates off the hydra and return it safely to their home? The art directly challenged my assumptions and pushed us up another level (maybe 2 or 3).
So what about the flip side? Earth Imps. What are we gonna do with earth imps. We've got fire and magma and ooze down, but what about earth? Oh hey Gabe, have you ever seen that super fat 3 year old? lolwut? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368790/Lu-Hao-Chinese-toddler-3-weighs-staggering-132lbs-hes-growing.html
omg! let's do it! So he draws this: http://i.imgur.com/xrWxDmO.jpg
And we say... hmmm... too angry, so he does this: http://i.imgur.com/Y3Gehy3.jpg
And we say, oh yes, just right.
This is an ideal state. This is nuts and I'm dumbfounded and thankful everytime I look back on this.
It's not about writing something up and then dropping it onto an artist and saying "let me give you money so you can draw this exactly and help me move stock." It's about being able to work with an artist from the ground floor so y'all can challenge the fuck out of each other and push and push and push until you break through into new and undiscovered lands.
And you know, honestly, I don't think the other person even has to be some brilliant and amazing artist. Just seeing how another person attempts to render the idea you describe with words as an image will *immediately* start your brain going. You'll see your gaps, your holes, your assumptions. You'll clarify, change, adapt, and feed off of what you see.
So as an alternative, are you suggesting that you should only get an artist involved after everything else has been finalized? Do you believe this method would result in better modules?
ReplyDeleteBeing a visual person art is important to me. It is what either draws me in or has me running to the hills in terror. I think art is just as important as design. Less is better than more though.
ReplyDeleteIt is important for a game product to inspire the reader, be they player or dm. To use mr. Stuarts term it needs to have psychic energy, to project itself from the pages and into your mind and grow there like a disease. Once there it can only be released through sharing that disease with other people in a communal mindspace (playing the game, running the adventure).
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have had this experience with certain classic modules (and probably many other game products) regardless of their lack of art, and that is good. However, art is a powerful medium for conveying this feeling, even if, as you state, it can be distracting in other ways.
The important part is for the art to be good. Not to fill your gamebook with as many pictures as possible to project maximum psychic energy, but to make sure that whatever art is there does its job. And its job is to be evocative as fuck.
Not to disagree with your larger point, but...
ReplyDeleteThose are hobgoblins on the cover of B2, not orcs. You can tell by the orange skins, blue noses, and cartoon samurai armor. 1st edition orcs have none of those things; 1st edition hobgoblins have all of them. Compare the creatures on the cover of B2 to the Monster Manual illustration of a hobgoblin and they are basically dead ringers.
Crowed Lich from S1 was the "fake Acererak" from the False Crypt - same crown from Illustration #18 :)
ReplyDeleteI actually loved how both the mono (DCS cover) and green (Jeff Dee cover) perpetuated the ruse to any PCs who might have seen the cover (presumably, these map folder were used as screen for many a S1 run-through!).
-=A
For whatever reason, blogger will not let me reply directly to comments??
ReplyDelete@TheShadowKnows- "Maybe people shouldn't be selling "poor" products. And maybe the products wouldn't be "poor" if people focused on more important aspects before worrying about the art. Just a thought."
It's a novel thought, except every game designer thinks what they're offering is the cat's meow. It's human nature. No one purposefully produces crap if they're serious about what they're doing. That's a flawed concept.
My point was that even if the product isn't great, the graphic presentation can help it get noticed and sell.
"No one purposefully produces crap if they're serious about what they're doing. That's a flawed concept."
DeleteWho said anyone was "purposefully producing crap"? I didn't. I just said if you put first things first - concept, development, writing, editing - you might do better than if your goal is to slap together something to go with some pretty art. Worrying about the art at too early a stage shows a troubling lack of ability to set priorities - i.e., you need to worry about substance before style. Putting style over substance is the "flawed concept" here.
"My point was that even if the product isn't great, the graphic presentation can help it get noticed and sell."
Your argument seems to be that nice art can help sell people a pig in a poke. That's undoubtedly true. That doesn't make it ethically right, or a good practice. A good practice is to make a good product, hopefully including good art, not to try to disguise a "poor product" (your words, not mine) with pretty art.
@TheShadowKnows
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about "slapping together something"?
It's clear you did not take the time to comprehend my comments- especially my first comment.
I certainly am not talking about "disguising" a poor product or attempting to mislead consumers.
Nor am I saying art has to be your first priority.
But, it should be part of what you refer to as "development". Where you actually think that process occurs as a priority, I'm uncertain.
All projects have dead lines. If you fail to meet the dead lines that means your project is going to run late. Good art takes time to produce and can be a common excuse for failing to meet dead lines. It's more likely, instead, the designer failed to make it a priority.
Your comments are some what moot since they missed my point.
"I certainly am not talking about 'disguising' a poor product or attempting to mislead consumers."
ReplyDeleteExcellent. Then you agree with me: make a good product in the first place, and you'll never have to worry about whether "good art selection can sell a poor product" (as you put it).
I don't think he is saying build your product around art. What I think he is saying is that once you have your idea and have started designing, start thinking about and discussing art for the product. Now, from a practical perspective, I think this makes sense since the turnaround on art (from what I've seen posted by others) can take quite a while and can easily lead to delays. I also think, that since the purpose of the product is to communicate something to your audience, finding and refining the right visuals can be a huge benefit. Besides that, it will also help you figure out real quick if you are able to effectively communicate your idea. If the art is coming back drastically off the mark then it might be a good indicator that you need to find a better way to explain and communicate your idea which would probably be helpful for your writing. Lastly, as @JacobHurst mentioned above, depending on the product, art influencing design is not always a bad thing and can be valuable.
ReplyDeleteSo while I don't think he is saying design your product around art, I think he is saying to keep the visual presentation of the product in mind when designing and allow for the art to be an influence where applicable. I can't art influencing game mechanics but I could see it influencing campaign settings or adventures. Nothing wrong with that.
Now, all of that aside, I'm definitely on the side of less art in general and more content. I'm looking for ideas, mechanics, and settings so give me more of that and less images. Also, companies need to stop putting background images on book pages. Background art on pages just makes things hard to read and gets in the way. Stop with the faux aged paper look in a modern printed book. Its just stupid. Stop with corner scrolls and margin filler. Either use the margin for something useful or don't waste the ink. Its distracting.
I should also mention that I think this depends on the product you are producing. I would think that the process would differ a bit based on whether you are producing a game system, a campaign setting, an adventure, or a resource since art is not equally valuable to all of those items.
ReplyDeleteTheater = script(including stage directions) and stage (including scenery)
ReplyDeleteThe actors are going to make the story and they AND the Director are going to be the audience. In some ways the extended development of story telling played backwards.
rpg supplements have more to do with theater than literature. And if you want someone to buy your 'Penny Theater' you pay more for coloured than you do plain and if it is text only few will readily buy it.
So do you want basic, expert or master artist design/illustration?
btw I read the False Machine article and it makes sense.
An RPG product without art is like food without spice, music without lyrics, a script without stage directions.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember ever thinking there was too much art and not enough meat in an RPG product. I remember cases where I liked the pictures better than the meat, but even then, the pictures could prove useful...
I feel ripped off when there isn't enough art in an RPG product. Consider the Temple of Elemental Evil, with a glorious cover (Truman's ToEE exterior looks way better than Gygax/Mentzer describe it), but almost no interior art to inspire, so few visual mileposts to fire the imagination and relieve the tedium of reading monotonous megadungeon room descriptions....
I also feel ripped off when good writing and game design don't get concomitantly good illustrations. For example, the Sentinel and the Gauntlet were good adventures, but the art was so bad.
My expectations with regard to RPG art were set in the golden age of D&D when rock stars like Tramp, Dee, Willingham, Otus and Truman were producing evocative work for TSR. How many of us wrote scenarios inspired by the original PH cover? Or introduced Emirkol the Chaotic as an NPC villain?
Their module illustrations were largely faithful to the text, esp. the illustration booklets with Tomb of Horrors and Barrier Peaks. As a DM, I remember being annoyed at the spoilers on module covers, and remember trying to hide the covers and conceal from the players which module they were in, lest they see the ray guns on the cover of Barrier Peaks, for example.
When the artists went off script, their ideas were often better than the module authors. I added a bat monster to Tamoachan and a hydra to Bone Hill and both additions represented badly needed improvements for the modules in question.
When I was a kid, I had time to write original adventures and illustrate them for my players. I still write, but I no longer have time to illustrate, and I feel guilty about that.
I like how JB's blog is having one of its most robust recent discussions when he's on hiatus.