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.
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....
No. I'm judging a picture. A picture I have seen. My opinion of the book itself I have not given because I haven't read it I teach children who can make this distinction without any help. I suspect you can too and are just being argumentative.
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...
I haven't given my opinion of the book.
I have books on the shelf with cover art I don't like.
One of my most cherished books is an anniversary edition of a novel by A. Merritt.
I don't like the cover art. It's terrible.
So how I am possibly judging what's inside based on the cover?
I'm not.
You are missing the point. The art is not good. That's all. I'm sorry you have to make this about the 'content' of the book as if doing so is doing anything but deflecting from the actual point being made so you can be argumentative for no reason.
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.
Say people who buy alt cover editions of books when they already own the content.
More importantly, if the PHB, MM, and DMG were void of art or contained art almost universally disliked by people in the hobby then it would become okay to complain about the art. It's only impermissible when others do it. For reasons.
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.
As I've just mentioned: collectors routinely buy collector editions of books. They've read these books. What's inside of them. They just want to buy collector editions as well. Have you never heard of the Folio Society? Or heard of Centipede Press? Heck, even Library of America?
Many buy their books as collectibles.
That isn't to say they've judged the CONTENT by its cover.
They are buying these editions because they LOVE the content and want to collect more than one edition of the book. Particularly those into which a lot of work has gone.
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.
Thousands of independently published books on Amazon should be evidence enough that SOMETIMES the cover of a book says plenty.
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.
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.
I own multiple editions of Moorcock's Von Bek novels.
Why would it be "criminal" to not read every one of them when they contain stories I have already read and do read about once a year in selected copies?
I complained about the art in question and people are now falling over themselves to make it sound as if it's a crime to even own a book because it's a collector's item in order to sustain the 'argument' we must never buy a book because of the art.
As someone else pointed out:
If you truly believed that you'd not buy the alt cover editions of the D&D books if you already own the regular ones.
How many here can truly say they would NEVER own the alt cover editions of the PHB, MM, and DMG if they've got the ones with the regulars covers?
Seems some are allowed to judge books by their covers ...
Or at least accuse others of doing that when they are doing no such thing.
The series is probably GREAT.
That's called prejudging it on its authorship.
Something we do every day.
Or should I believe Dan Brown's latest might be better than the works of Oscar Wilde and I can't assume otherwise because I've not read it?
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.
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.
That's irrelevant.
People can still call out the cover art for how terrible it is.
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.
... yet as I pointed out to you already more obscure authors whose work hasn't been widely read since they died decades ago have been published by smaller publishers and managed to get work done for the covers by some of the best fantasy artists out there.
Chances are those Smith and Vance books I mentioned did not sell anywhere near as much as did the new Dragonlance series.
Shall we chalk this up as another example of how smaller publishers actually care about quality control while the bigger players can't see any sense in it beyond the dollar signs in their eyes?
I mean, you can call some of the most iconic and beloved cover art in the history of the game and its associated fiction 'bad.' It it pleases you. What you can't do is question the quality control to be found among many of Wizards' competitors when it comes to binding and paper and so on. Something in regard to which Wizards lag sorely behind. Even with improvements between 2014 and 2024.
Big publishers cut costs. Just to cut costs. All the time. But it's inconceivable to imagine the same might happen when deciding what's to go on the cover ...
I'm going to lock this thread as it has derailed not into any thoughtful insights into fantasy art, book covers or people voicing their opinions on the art in any constructive manner, but bickering for the sake of bickering.
There were some very helpful resources shared earlier on in the thread, about who the artist is (Philipp Urlich)(his portfolio, filled with many beautiful landscapes)), an interview with this artist, and discussions of previous cover arts, the styles and some comments on how a cover piece is directed. People shared what they did or didn't like about the piece. I'd urge folk to go back and look over those resources.
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.
No. I'm judging a picture. A picture I have seen. My opinion of the book itself I have not given because I haven't read it I teach children who can make this distinction without any help. I suspect you can too and are just being argumentative.
I haven't given my opinion of the book.
I have books on the shelf with cover art I don't like.
One of my most cherished books is an anniversary edition of a novel by A. Merritt.
I don't like the cover art. It's terrible.
So how I am possibly judging what's inside based on the cover?
I'm not.
You are missing the point. The art is not good. That's all. I'm sorry you have to make this about the 'content' of the book as if doing so is doing anything but deflecting from the actual point being made so you can be argumentative for no reason.
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.
Exactly.
So the cover art doesn't matter ...
It's all about what's inside ...
Never what's on the cover ...
Say people who buy alt cover editions of books when they already own the content.
More importantly, if the PHB, MM, and DMG were void of art or contained art almost universally disliked by people in the hobby then it would become okay to complain about the art. It's only impermissible when others do it. For reasons.
Collectors often buy more than one copy of a book. A book they've very much read. Doesn't mean they're required to read every copy they own.
As I've just mentioned: collectors routinely buy collector editions of books. They've read these books. What's inside of them. They just want to buy collector editions as well. Have you never heard of the Folio Society? Or heard of Centipede Press? Heck, even Library of America?
Many buy their books as collectibles.
That isn't to say they've judged the CONTENT by its cover.
They are buying these editions because they LOVE the content and want to collect more than one edition of the book. Particularly those into which a lot of work has gone.
Thousands of independently published books on Amazon should be evidence enough that SOMETIMES the cover of a book says plenty.
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.
I own multiple editions of Moorcock's Von Bek novels.
Why would it be "criminal" to not read every one of them when they contain stories I have already read and do read about once a year in selected copies?
I complained about the art in question and people are now falling over themselves to make it sound as if it's a crime to even own a book because it's a collector's item in order to sustain the 'argument' we must never buy a book because of the art.
As someone else pointed out:
If you truly believed that you'd not buy the alt cover editions of the D&D books if you already own the regular ones.
How many here can truly say they would NEVER own the alt cover editions of the PHB, MM, and DMG if they've got the ones with the regulars covers?
Seems some are allowed to judge books by their covers ...
Or at least accuse others of doing that when they are doing no such thing.
The series is probably GREAT.
That's called prejudging it on its authorship.
Something we do every day.
Or should I believe Dan Brown's latest might be better than the works of Oscar Wilde and I can't assume otherwise because I've not read it?
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.
That's irrelevant.
People can still call out the cover art for how terrible it is.
... yet as I pointed out to you already more obscure authors whose work hasn't been widely read since they died decades ago have been published by smaller publishers and managed to get work done for the covers by some of the best fantasy artists out there.
Chances are those Smith and Vance books I mentioned did not sell anywhere near as much as did the new Dragonlance series.
Shall we chalk this up as another example of how smaller publishers actually care about quality control while the bigger players can't see any sense in it beyond the dollar signs in their eyes?
I mean, you can call some of the most iconic and beloved cover art in the history of the game and its associated fiction 'bad.' It it pleases you. What you can't do is question the quality control to be found among many of Wizards' competitors when it comes to binding and paper and so on. Something in regard to which Wizards lag sorely behind. Even with improvements between 2014 and 2024.
Big publishers cut costs. Just to cut costs. All the time. But it's inconceivable to imagine the same might happen when deciding what's to go on the cover ...
Just food for thought.
But the point remains. That art is bad.
I'm going to lock this thread as it has derailed not into any thoughtful insights into fantasy art, book covers or people voicing their opinions on the art in any constructive manner, but bickering for the sake of bickering.
There were some very helpful resources shared earlier on in the thread, about who the artist is (Philipp Urlich)(his portfolio, filled with many beautiful landscapes)), an interview with this artist, and discussions of previous cover arts, the styles and some comments on how a cover piece is directed. People shared what they did or didn't like about the piece. I'd urge folk to go back and look over those resources.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support