It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Does anyone feel they can write a manual to a RPG without using any text? Images only? Of course it would only count if you could accurately communicate the rules to the players.
In books about writing there aren't pictures of people sitting at laptops in Starbucks.In books about radio dramas there aren't pictures of people standing at microphones on every page.
It's just ludicrous and insane that books about playing RPGs have tons of art in it and it's useless, a huge waste of money and space, and nobody should like it, ever.
By this logic, fantasy novelists can't get their setting across except by virtue of the illustration on the cover. They can, so the argument is flawed. All those games had superfluous art. Proof: all of fantastical/imaginative/descriptive literature in all human history.
Again, your argument only makes sense to me if you're advocating that the rules of any given RPG should be entirely separate from the imaginative content of setting. The rules may not need illustrations of jabberwocks and palaces and whatnot. Strictly speaking, the game setting doesn't need illustrations either, sure; it could be done all as text. But to say "it's useless, a huge waste of money and space, and nobody should like it, ever" is contrary to the entire history of illustrated texts, including the medium of comics, as well as the experience of many (but not all!) people who are not you.
You take comics, I'll take novels and we'll see who has the most vividly realized settings. Ready? I have a 500 year head start by the way.
Right. My take is, art and typography makes a game look better, which is important if you want people to buy it, but it doesn't do much to make it play better.
So question: How does that inspiring image make you have more fun when you play? I don't doubt it does, but can someone explain it better than "It's inspiring" or "It communicates the setting"?I guess it might be a matter of what you need the game to do, too. For me, inspiration is cheap and I don't really need it supplied by the game. But then setting isn't very important to me, either, so I guess it's no surprise that I'm not that jazzed about all the art.
It's okay, mechanics don't much inspire me, so I guess I'm the other side of the coin.
Okay, I'm just gonna ask: Folks, those of you who think art doesn't have much use or is even negative in RPGs, do any of you work at all with drawing/painting/doodling/photographs/photo-manipulation/whatever ?WarriorMonk is a cartoonist, I'm a doodler, I don't know what everyone else is who likes art. I am starting to get the impression that the break-point of pro/con artwork is falling along lines that have to do with whether you work with some sort of visual art or not yourself.
... WarriorMonk is a cartoonist, I'm a doodler, I don't know what everyone else is who likes art.
You open the door, and you see—THIS! *plonk down a piece of art* [...]We can use art at the table, too!
But that's a different topic. We were discussing art in game manuals, not whether you can prep art to be used while playing a game. Completely separate issues.