Hmm, three characters standing, an expression of dull surprise on at least one of them, and a dragon that nobody's reacting to in a scene that probably doesn't actually happen in the book.
Looks pretty standard to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No work of fiction related to D&D has ever done so well.
That is not a hard bar to meet, most D&D related fiction is both terrible and irrelevant. Also, bear in mind that Weis and Hickmann have been publishing books since then, they're in the category of "sell well enough to keep publishing, but not well enough for a lot of people to care", and the publisher is entirely aware of that, so they're getting the level of support that would be expected from their recent results, not from what they did forty years ago.
Why does the cover art matter when it's a novel... Shouldnt the contents of the book be what matters rather then the cover art?? Hence why the phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" comes to mind.
You are not getting the book to hang on the wall like a piece of art, you are getting the book to read...
Since I'm a little confused as to the point of debating whether the art is good or bad when it is but a fraction of the product which doesn't appear to be a picture book but instead a novel where the writing is the important part. Ultimately how long is someone going to look at the cover art compared to the contents...
The publisher's made a decision to use that artist and that cover, they are unlikely to change the cover art, so whats the goal of debating it after voicing your initial dislikes for the art....
I buy the standard covers to use, and the alt covers to display, I have alt covers that I don't have standard covers of simply to display as I would never use them in a game. This also carries over to non ttrpg books I own. Some books I own are just for looking at not reading or using 🫣😱🙃
I buy the standard covers to use, and the alt covers to display, I have alt covers that I don't have standard covers of simply to display as I would never use them in a game. This also carries over to non ttrpg books I own. Some books I own are just for looking at not reading or using 🫣😱🙃
"An unread book is a book that has been denied its purpose."
- Literally me
I also have books on display, both read and unread. They are my triumphs and my future aspirations put out for viewing, or convenient gifts earmarked to gift to others, but all are intended for reading by someone's hand. Some people buy shoes just to put them in a climate controlled glass box though, so... I guess I understand in an abstract way. It seems almost criminal to do that to a book though. My soul hurts.
Not to rub salt in an open wound, but i own several books that I both have not cracked open, nor do I have any intention to do so that were bought solely for the cover art. Some of which I own a second copy with either the same cover art, or different cover art to read/use, but some are for display only.
To tie this back to the topic at hand, I have read some of the earlier dragon lance books, and they didn't really stand out, but i do remember getting some enjoyment out of them, but not enough to buy the new one based solely on the poor cover art. Putting that quality of art on a series I have read some of but didn't love is a hard pass for me. Not withstanding some really great reviews on the actual writing.
Hmm, three characters standing, an expression of dull surprise on at least one of them, and a dragon that nobody's reacting to in a scene that probably doesn't actually happen in the book.
Looks pretty standard to me.
This thread isn't about what it depicts. But how badly. Are you saying you believe it's a good piece of art? That there is nothing wrong with the faces on the figures depicted in it? That the artist is a skilled draftsperson? [Redacted]
No, I'm saying that for mass market fantasy novels, bad cover art is as common as dirt and I don't see a reason to raise a fuss about it unless it's something particularly egregious, like excessive fanservice or depicting a character as an ethnic stereotype.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Don't forget there are plenty of valid reasons to judge a book by its cover, many of them are not a judgement on the writing, or reviews of the content.
If the PHB, MM, and DMG were void of art or contained bad art then it would become okay to complain about the art. It's only impermissible when others do it. For reasons.
Considering D&D alt art cover books are exactly the same as the standard covers as are many other books regardless of genera buying a book judging it solely for its cover art has more merit than the antiquated saying "never judge a book by its cover". There are valid reasons to judge a book by its cover as long as there is no plan to read/use the book beyond its cover art.
I buy the standard covers to use, and the alt covers to display, I have alt covers that I don't have standard covers of simply to display as I would never use them in a game. This also carries over to non ttrpg books I own. Some books I own are just for looking at not reading or using 🫣😱🙃
"An unread book is a book that has been denied its purpose."
- Literally me
This statement begs the obvious question especially considering 5e D&D alt covers, why go through the expense to produce an alt cover book, when giving the FLGS's a week or 2 to head start on book sales, primer is exclusively and people like me will pay for that. It is doubly cool that most alt cover books are 1st printings without errata and that novelty just adds to the exclusively of any printing especially when they know that first crack opening is there for the taking. Exclusivity is a commodity, why do you think Elvis's manager coined the term "Elvis has left the building" hard clue, it was exclusivity. A first print in an exclusive cover art that hasn't been cracked open has a value far and above a subsequent printing with a standard art cover with errata. Is it a more usable book in play? Nope, but is it a more impressive display absolutely!!!
For the record 7th, I am piggybacking on your post not disagreeing with it.
I just wanted to be sure I got the full intent of my poit across.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Incidentally, why are we talking about a series of books published 2022-2024? It's not like the art will change unless they do a reprinting. What the covers tell me is that Random House didn't have particularly high expectations of it, and given its Amazon sales rank and that I never even noticed its existence, they were probably right.
Discussing the dicision of choosing crappy art for the cover gives feedback, even if it is indirectly. Making a stand here even if it seems divorced from the publisher is one of the few benefits of the web scraping algorithms that claim to be "ai". It will get back to the publisher at some point and they can decide if poor art is worth the savings they thought they'd realize publishing the book with the art they chose. A side benefit is Wizbro gets direct feedback (if they actually use these forums as feedback to better the brand, which history says the dont, but hey we tried!!) about the choices the publisher was allowed to make concerning the brand. Both have the potential to improve the finished product moving forward.
Discussing the dicision of choosing crappy art for the cover gives feedback, even if it is indirectly.
Buying (or not buying) the book says a lot more. If the books had sold bestseller numbers, good chance there'd be a reprint at collector's edition quality with an alternate cover.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hmm, three characters standing, an expression of dull surprise on at least one of them, and a dragon that nobody's reacting to in a scene that probably doesn't actually happen in the book.
Looks pretty standard to me.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think any Dragonlance covers were good pieces of art.
I'm sorry, he may be technically competent but they're still bad art.
So, one of them doesn't qualify at all (published 1984), and the other two only squeak in at the bare margins (published 1985).
That is not a hard bar to meet, most D&D related fiction is both terrible and irrelevant. Also, bear in mind that Weis and Hickmann have been publishing books since then, they're in the category of "sell well enough to keep publishing, but not well enough for a lot of people to care", and the publisher is entirely aware of that, so they're getting the level of support that would be expected from their recent results, not from what they did forty years ago.
Why does the cover art matter when it's a novel... Shouldnt the contents of the book be what matters rather then the cover art?? Hence why the phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" comes to mind.
You are not getting the book to hang on the wall like a piece of art, you are getting the book to read...
Many that buy D&D alt covers may disagree.
Are you not judging a book by the cover.....
Since I'm a little confused as to the point of debating whether the art is good or bad when it is but a fraction of the product which doesn't appear to be a picture book but instead a novel where the writing is the important part. Ultimately how long is someone going to look at the cover art compared to the contents...
The publisher's made a decision to use that artist and that cover, they are unlikely to change the cover art, so whats the goal of debating it after voicing your initial dislikes for the art....
If a person is not going to read the book and only display it the the only way to judge a book purchased for that purpose is by the cover.
WHAT?!
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I buy the standard covers to use, and the alt covers to display, I have alt covers that I don't have standard covers of simply to display as I would never use them in a game. This also carries over to non ttrpg books I own. Some books I own are just for looking at not reading or using 🫣😱🙃
I feel sorry for any novel only displayed for it cover while it's story is left unread... Feels like a waste
Each to their own I guess
Eye stalks of the Beholder and all!
Most books in private libraries and air bnb's are for display and never read.
"An unread book is a book that has been denied its purpose."
- Literally me
I also have books on display, both read and unread. They are my triumphs and my future aspirations put out for viewing, or convenient gifts earmarked to gift to others, but all are intended for reading by someone's hand. Some people buy shoes just to put them in a climate controlled glass box though, so... I guess I understand in an abstract way. It seems almost criminal to do that to a book though. My soul hurts.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Not to rub salt in an open wound, but i own several books that I both have not cracked open, nor do I have any intention to do so that were bought solely for the cover art. Some of which I own a second copy with either the same cover art, or different cover art to read/use, but some are for display only.
To tie this back to the topic at hand, I have read some of the earlier dragon lance books, and they didn't really stand out, but i do remember getting some enjoyment out of them, but not enough to buy the new one based solely on the poor cover art. Putting that quality of art on a series I have read some of but didn't love is a hard pass for me. Not withstanding some really great reviews on the actual writing.
No, I'm saying that for mass market fantasy novels, bad cover art is as common as dirt and I don't see a reason to raise a fuss about it unless it's something particularly egregious, like excessive fanservice or depicting a character as an ethnic stereotype.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Don't forget there are plenty of valid reasons to judge a book by its cover, many of them are not a judgement on the writing, or reviews of the content.
Considering D&D alt art cover books are exactly the same as the standard covers as are many other books regardless of genera buying a book judging it solely for its cover art has more merit than the antiquated saying "never judge a book by its cover". There are valid reasons to judge a book by its cover as long as there is no plan to read/use the book beyond its cover art.
This statement begs the obvious question especially considering 5e D&D alt covers, why go through the expense to produce an alt cover book, when giving the FLGS's a week or 2 to head start on book sales, primer is exclusively and people like me will pay for that. It is doubly cool that most alt cover books are 1st printings without errata and that novelty just adds to the exclusively of any printing especially when they know that first crack opening is there for the taking. Exclusivity is a commodity, why do you think Elvis's manager coined the term "Elvis has left the building" hard clue, it was exclusivity. A first print in an exclusive cover art that hasn't been cracked open has a value far and above a subsequent printing with a standard art cover with errata. Is it a more usable book in play? Nope, but is it a more impressive display absolutely!!!
For the record 7th, I am piggybacking on your post not disagreeing with it.
I just wanted to be sure I got the full intent of my poit across.
So ... they're in braille? ôO
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Incidentally, why are we talking about a series of books published 2022-2024? It's not like the art will change unless they do a reprinting. What the covers tell me is that Random House didn't have particularly high expectations of it, and given its Amazon sales rank and that I never even noticed its existence, they were probably right.
Discussing the dicision of choosing crappy art for the cover gives feedback, even if it is indirectly. Making a stand here even if it seems divorced from the publisher is one of the few benefits of the web scraping algorithms that claim to be "ai". It will get back to the publisher at some point and they can decide if poor art is worth the savings they thought they'd realize publishing the book with the art they chose. A side benefit is Wizbro gets direct feedback (if they actually use these forums as feedback to better the brand, which history says the dont, but hey we tried!!) about the choices the publisher was allowed to make concerning the brand. Both have the potential to improve the finished product moving forward.
Buying (or not buying) the book says a lot more. If the books had sold bestseller numbers, good chance there'd be a reprint at collector's edition quality with an alternate cover.