D&D as a genre can be anything the DM and players want it to be, whether that is gritty realism, High Fantasy, Sci-Fan, or something like Cyberpunk. I don't really care about the artwork on the website and in the books, because I'm going to be adapting the content to my world regardless.
That said, if I had to choose a singular style for published media for D&D, I like High Fantasy because games benefit more from quickly digestible content. High Fantasy takes better advantage of visual storytelling, so when the players stumble upon a magic ring, they can easily understand its significance, whereas "Anchored Fantasy" is more subtle, requiring more explanation and context to make it relevant.
My personal aesthetic is more subtle, but that isn't as practical for this environment.
by "anchored" fantasy, are you saying fantasy linked to a certain time or style? because I'm not sure what you mean by that. LOTR, Witcher, and GOT have loose historical connections in terms of the level of technologic advancement, but aren't historical fantasy in any stretch of the word; all have significant high fantasy elements (in fact, LOTR is kind of the archetype of high fantasy to modern audiences, at least per the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy)
Quite frankly, D&D seems to move between a number of 'styles' and 'times', especially when you consider the different settings (eberron, for example, is quite steampunkish in some aspects). I'm fine with that.
Im running a low magic campaign with a gritty realism rule option. The players are much more careful with their planning, use their tools and resources well and talk to eachother alot more. I have alot of new players and this has helped them relate to the world to something they know rather than trying to think of a magical way around problems.
I feel this question presents an inadqueate binary to capture a broad range of fantasy aesthetics that really can't be contained in two buckets. I also question the motivation since you frame your perspective of desiring some sort of aesthetic reflective of your self/hobby "study" of medieval/early modern (what scholars actually call the Renaissance these days) "culture and history" (as if that is a homogenized thing) and complain of elements that don't appease your personal aesthetic as (pejoratively) "leaking" into the art direction of the game.
Prior to the survey, you title this poll "does anyone like the D&D's character design/aesthetics. Some illustrations I like, some I do not. But my answer to that question comes regardless of your survey question, so I'm further confused what you're trying to communicate.
I don't know what the end point of your poll is trying to prove, and again I think it's a flawed question, but a "studied" aesthetic shouldn't feel threatened by other art styling leaking into their game. It may blow your mind, but when you're playing the game, even as the DM of "your world" your players may have a very different camera/illustration/color palette etc going on in their heads ... yet you're all playing the same game.
Your opinion is messy. "I'm just asking for everyone's opinion" (as any "I'm just asking questions") claim still needs to predicated on some sort of coherent framing of the ask. You're free to ignore my constructive criticism of what I feel I've shown are deeply flawed questions, but I'll play your game and ask you to show me the "historical anchoring" of any depiction of Minas Tirith, Barad-dur, or Khazad-dum as "historically anchored." I'm still at a loss at what you mean by "post modern cultures" "leaking" into D&D art direction. D&D's OG DNA was far more informed by Moorcock than Tolkien and Moorcock definitely popularized the postmodern sensibilities of Ballard. Tolkien's own writing is very much in the vein of modernity. Of course some argue so wasn't Chaucer's.
Your opinion is messy. "I'm just asking for everyone's opinion" (as any "I'm just asking questions") claim still needs to predicated on some sort of coherent framing of the ask. You're free to ignore my constructive criticism of what I feel I've shown are deeply flawed questions, but I'll play your game and ask you to show me the "historical anchoring" of any depiction of Minas Tirith, Barad-dur, or Khazad-dum as "historically anchored." I'm still at a loss at what you mean by "post modern cultures" "leaking" into D&D art direction. D&D's OG DNA was far more informed by Moorcock than Tolkien and Moorcock definitely popularized the postmodern sensibilities of Ballard. Tolkien's own writing is very much in the vein of modernity. Of course some argue so wasn't Chaucer's.
I fail to see what is flawed about my question. It is simply "What style do you prefer?" and "What do you like/don't like about the style?". When I say Aesthetic, I mean the way weapon, armor, and character design is done. And what "game" do you insist I'm playing? You're acting as if I'm some manipulative, deceptive bully when all I'm talking about is opinions.
I think what MidnightPlat is saying is that you failed to adequately define what you think "D&D's character/design aesthetic" is, so it's impossible for anyone to answer whether they like it or not
The attempt to did made to offer a definition is internally inconsistent and riddled with your own biases/preferences, so it really only makes sense to you. Example: you talk about LOTR having "style and armor [that] look more practical and suitable for the time they are based on", so I have to assume you're talking about Jackson's film adaptation of the books and not the books themselves, but the visual aesthetic of the films varies wildly based on location (Rivendell vs Rohan), etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Honestly, from a writing perspective D&D's character design and overall aesthetic has been watered down from it's fantasy origins. Long long ago it was certainly based upon the likes of Lord of the Rings.
Sadly, and I do think it's sad, D&D requires such a high level of investment to play that often both players and DMs fail to branch out to explore other TTRPGs. As a result instead of a coherent niche, D&D has become more and more generic in an attempt to become more profitable (see Spelljammer). I see more often than not players and DMs wanting to use the D&D ruleset in a genre or setting they deeply love. That is amazing of course, but it neglects the literal thousands of TTRPGs created specifically for that setting. I could go off on a tangent here about how too few people understand the art, craft, and science of good writing but suffice to say not enough value is placed on how the ruleset used can help immersion within the setting of your choice.
That said I do seriously think D&D is best when it's squarely in the Tolkien-esque fantasy genres (incidentally, Tolkien would classify as High Fantasy more than Anchored). That is after all where its origins lie (also wargaming for those who didn't know). Its built for adventure and combat which just doesn't work as well in ordered, high science, well structured settings. Take for example an industrial age setting, to get to an industrial age any society needs structure, law, order, and ultimately greed. Because of this, the combat pillar of D&D falls down a little here. That's not to say that combat doesn't happen in such a setting, but rather that in an industrial setting combat would not be one of the core pillars.
And this is partially why I feel like Spelljammer was so unsuccessful. It's a really cool concept and has the ability to work really well. Sadly, I feel like it could and should have been a TTRPG in its own right. A dedicated system for something new but ultimately familiar where only what was essential was ported over from 5e. Blades in the Dark does this with the FATE ruleset. Both are unique TTRPGs in their own right, but have common roots.
The simple fact is however, that players and DMs don't like to be told how to enjoy their games. I've even found that many DMs don't like being suggested other TTRPG systems to try and explore as a way of enhancing their own DMing abilities (the old 'why should I invest time and money in a new system when I can just hammer this one into a contorted shape' argument).
Personally, I'd have given more options to people in the poll. The two that you chose both work very well for D&D in my opinion. In fact, it would have been far more revealing to see who felt that themed campaigns (based on popular franchises), sci-fi, steampunk, roguelike, or other such genres work best with D&D 5e. Personally, I think it's fairly clear I don't think they work as well as Fantasy (high or anchored) but I know there are legions of people who disagree with that assertion. What is great is that they have the freedom to disagree and enjoy the ruleset their way.
D&D as a genre can be anything the DM and players want it to be, whether that is gritty realism, High Fantasy, Sci-Fan, or something like Cyberpunk. I don't really care about the artwork on the website and in the books, because I'm going to be adapting the content to my world regardless.
That said, if I had to choose a singular style for published media for D&D, I like High Fantasy because games benefit more from quickly digestible content. High Fantasy takes better advantage of visual storytelling, so when the players stumble upon a magic ring, they can easily understand its significance, whereas "Anchored Fantasy" is more subtle, requiring more explanation and context to make it relevant.
My personal aesthetic is more subtle, but that isn't as practical for this environment.
by "anchored" fantasy, are you saying fantasy linked to a certain time or style? because I'm not sure what you mean by that. LOTR, Witcher, and GOT have loose historical connections in terms of the level of technologic advancement, but aren't historical fantasy in any stretch of the word; all have significant high fantasy elements (in fact, LOTR is kind of the archetype of high fantasy to modern audiences, at least per the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy)
Quite frankly, D&D seems to move between a number of 'styles' and 'times', especially when you consider the different settings (eberron, for example, is quite steampunkish in some aspects). I'm fine with that.
Im running a low magic campaign with a gritty realism rule option. The players are much more careful with their planning, use their tools and resources well and talk to eachother alot more. I have alot of new players and this has helped them relate to the world to something they know rather than trying to think of a magical way around problems.
I feel this question presents an inadqueate binary to capture a broad range of fantasy aesthetics that really can't be contained in two buckets. I also question the motivation since you frame your perspective of desiring some sort of aesthetic reflective of your self/hobby "study" of medieval/early modern (what scholars actually call the Renaissance these days) "culture and history" (as if that is a homogenized thing) and complain of elements that don't appease your personal aesthetic as (pejoratively) "leaking" into the art direction of the game.
Prior to the survey, you title this poll "does anyone like the D&D's character design/aesthetics. Some illustrations I like, some I do not. But my answer to that question comes regardless of your survey question, so I'm further confused what you're trying to communicate.
I don't know what the end point of your poll is trying to prove, and again I think it's a flawed question, but a "studied" aesthetic shouldn't feel threatened by other art styling leaking into their game. It may blow your mind, but when you're playing the game, even as the DM of "your world" your players may have a very different camera/illustration/color palette etc going on in their heads ... yet you're all playing the same game.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Your opinion is messy. "I'm just asking for everyone's opinion" (as any "I'm just asking questions") claim still needs to predicated on some sort of coherent framing of the ask. You're free to ignore my constructive criticism of what I feel I've shown are deeply flawed questions, but I'll play your game and ask you to show me the "historical anchoring" of any depiction of Minas Tirith, Barad-dur, or Khazad-dum as "historically anchored." I'm still at a loss at what you mean by "post modern cultures" "leaking" into D&D art direction. D&D's OG DNA was far more informed by Moorcock than Tolkien and Moorcock definitely popularized the postmodern sensibilities of Ballard. Tolkien's own writing is very much in the vein of modernity. Of course some argue so wasn't Chaucer's.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think what MidnightPlat is saying is that you failed to adequately define what you think "D&D's character/design aesthetic" is, so it's impossible for anyone to answer whether they like it or not
The attempt to did made to offer a definition is internally inconsistent and riddled with your own biases/preferences, so it really only makes sense to you. Example: you talk about LOTR having "style and armor [that] look more practical and suitable for the time they are based on", so I have to assume you're talking about Jackson's film adaptation of the books and not the books themselves, but the visual aesthetic of the films varies wildly based on location (Rivendell vs Rohan), etc.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Honestly, from a writing perspective D&D's character design and overall aesthetic has been watered down from it's fantasy origins. Long long ago it was certainly based upon the likes of Lord of the Rings.
Sadly, and I do think it's sad, D&D requires such a high level of investment to play that often both players and DMs fail to branch out to explore other TTRPGs. As a result instead of a coherent niche, D&D has become more and more generic in an attempt to become more profitable (see Spelljammer). I see more often than not players and DMs wanting to use the D&D ruleset in a genre or setting they deeply love. That is amazing of course, but it neglects the literal thousands of TTRPGs created specifically for that setting. I could go off on a tangent here about how too few people understand the art, craft, and science of good writing but suffice to say not enough value is placed on how the ruleset used can help immersion within the setting of your choice.
That said I do seriously think D&D is best when it's squarely in the Tolkien-esque fantasy genres (incidentally, Tolkien would classify as High Fantasy more than Anchored). That is after all where its origins lie (also wargaming for those who didn't know). Its built for adventure and combat which just doesn't work as well in ordered, high science, well structured settings. Take for example an industrial age setting, to get to an industrial age any society needs structure, law, order, and ultimately greed. Because of this, the combat pillar of D&D falls down a little here. That's not to say that combat doesn't happen in such a setting, but rather that in an industrial setting combat would not be one of the core pillars.
And this is partially why I feel like Spelljammer was so unsuccessful. It's a really cool concept and has the ability to work really well. Sadly, I feel like it could and should have been a TTRPG in its own right. A dedicated system for something new but ultimately familiar where only what was essential was ported over from 5e. Blades in the Dark does this with the FATE ruleset. Both are unique TTRPGs in their own right, but have common roots.
The simple fact is however, that players and DMs don't like to be told how to enjoy their games. I've even found that many DMs don't like being suggested other TTRPG systems to try and explore as a way of enhancing their own DMing abilities (the old 'why should I invest time and money in a new system when I can just hammer this one into a contorted shape' argument).
Personally, I'd have given more options to people in the poll. The two that you chose both work very well for D&D in my opinion. In fact, it would have been far more revealing to see who felt that themed campaigns (based on popular franchises), sci-fi, steampunk, roguelike, or other such genres work best with D&D 5e. Personally, I think it's fairly clear I don't think they work as well as Fantasy (high or anchored) but I know there are legions of people who disagree with that assertion. What is great is that they have the freedom to disagree and enjoy the ruleset their way.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.