D&D 5e: The Art Style

Disclaimers: My artistic sensibilities are not professional, so apologies to "real artists" who can discuss this subject with far more precision! Also, I am basing most of this discussion on the Player's Handbook (and other source books used by players) in each edition: your average player doesn't use/see a DMG or a MM, and so I'm staying somewhat away from them as indicative of the art style for the edition.

With that disclaimer out of the way, I do feel that the art direction in 5e is certainly distinct from that of previous editions.

Third edition's bright, vibrant illustrations were high contrast, overlaid with dark, dark tones and highlighted with bright, white highlights. Fourth edition discarded the grit, and replaced it with cartoony, comic-book style, over the top proportions and unified color schemes. Fifth edition retains the color palette of Fourth (though it does tone it down somewhat; earth-tones replace neon vibrancy). Rather than gritty, high-contrast Third edition artwork, Fifth softens the hard edges and blurs the lines. Even the "parchment" style of the page fills is much softer than the earlier two editions.

I am in favor of this shift in art style for the most part in that it is something novel that continues to advance the genre's flavor (a combination rather than a renouncement). What I dislike are the same things that most people seem to be head-scratching over: font, flatness, and indexes (I won't worry about indexes here.).

The font choice, while incredibly legible, is tiny. On the one hand, this makes the book appear to have a vastly increased amount of information from previous versions: they're still hefty tomes, but with smaller fonts there should be more information per page, right? Maybe not. I think the designers made more use of margins and splashes to add art and design to more of the text-pages, ultimately leaving us with the same amount of information in a slightly less easy-to-read font-size. The overall effect is beautiful, but not as practical.

As for the artwork itself, the sophistication level is high, the resolution sound, and the pages glossy. The overall effect (ironically?) serves to flatten the artwork onto the page, rather than make it pop out, off the page. Third and Fourth source books were both designed in a way that made it appear the artwork (particularly partial splashes) were leaping off the page, interrupting the flow of the document and drawing your eye. The new artwork is still eye-catching (truly!), but the new artwork appears behind rather than in front of the text. The text is the center-piece, and the artwork takes a backseat.

I have to wonder if the layout directors thought this "Text-Pop" method would make up for making the font smaller? Smaller font leads to more room for artwork, so the artwork takes a backseat to spotlight the smaller text...

I guess anything's possible?

In the end, I fall back on the metaphor I used in my last post. The source books themselves feel like a travelogue of an aging hobbit. Soft, sketchy artwork, beautifully--even carefully--rendered, with clear, articulate descriptions accompanying the artwork. Even the tone of the text (if I can include that in this discussion of its art value) is closer in tone to one friend talking to another in an intimate letter.

Illustrations are mostly "realistic"--in proportion, realistically colored, and portrayed in naturalistic lighting. They are, however, also impressionistic in the way the colors and lines are occasionally blurred. A person's face may be in full, sharp clarity, while that person's hands and feet may be blurred so that the digits are soft and indistinct. The effect is that of an observer who paid attention to certain details but left others to the imagination--capturing the important or essential qualities of the creature, person, locale, or artifact while ignoring, or at least setting aside, the rest. This is a big change from Fourth (where the cartoony art style meant that all things were "in focus") and from Third (where all things were in gritty, unrealistically clear focus, or else were supernaturally shadowy).

Conclusion? Fifth's art is not as ostensibly "memorable" as the other editions, but--like a good bass line in your favorite song--I think its art is just as recognizable, and maybe necessary. Without the art, the edition would fall flat; with it, there is a distinct flavor to each of the source books that should be maintainable and variable to create new and exciting visual content to accompany supplemental material.

For those of you without a physical copy of any Fifth Edition materials, I would point you toward the Third Edition's Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting as a good analogue for the Fifth Edition feel. Smaller fonts, heavy "parchment paper" backgrounds, and soft, masterfully done images.

I can't wait to see how the Dungeon Master's Guide utilizes this kind of art, and I very much look forward to seeing how a new 5e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting manages to deal with the long shadow cast by its Third Edition predecessor!