So, I think about this a lot. Sometimes I think it isn't just the art by itself but the AMOUNT of it. Some of my favorite games have no art at all. I'm fond of using full page frontice pieces at the beginning of chapters with little to no spot art in my own work. But some games just have lavish illustrative layouts to the point of gaudiness.
So, like, I really love the art in Raven or Shadows of Esteren but it is EVERYWHERE. And when I see that kind of book design I start to question whether you're actually selling game or if you're really selling an art book or illustrated work of fiction in game form. Paul Beakley refers to these as game-shapped-objects.
That said, there are a few art styles that are almost instant turn offs. There is a kind of web-comic/anime-adjacent style where the characters are either kids or all very young adults. Sometimes that's appropriate to the subject matter (Kids on Bikes) but sometimes I find myself asking "Why are all these lawyers and doctors under 25?"
The second kind is stuff that looks like high-production concept art for a feature film. Like nothing says, "I'm building an IP, not a game" like lavish oil panting looking illustrations of static characters and empty set pieces.
My Hot Take No One Will Like: There's a reason AI is very good at generating approximations of these styles. They are the most milquetoast, middle of the road, "marketable", in offensive, ubiquitously commercial styles out there. People call this stuff "soulless" when it's generated by AI. I call it "soulless" when it's generated by people too. (No offense to working artists who make this stuff for a paycheck to spec. I don't blame them. I blame their employers). I'm fond of saying is if your work can be satisfactorily illustrated with AI, the problem is your work, not the AI. </digression>
Now there's a third category that's more a tragedy of commerce than an actual stylistic choice. Sometimes there's a game that when it is first released feels like the art really is a strong central vision for that game in particular. The art feels like part of the gameplay. But then a WHOLE lot of other people jump on the popularity of that game and start intentionally copying it. Then the art unfortunately shifts from "voice of the game" to "voice of the brand" to "voice of the genre." This has happened to poor Mork Borg at this point.
So what do I like? I like it when the art style feels entirely unique to the game. Like the game couldn't have been illustrated any other way. In some ways the art is an extension of the game design. I will be able to play the game better because the art is, itself, an extension or expression of the game's procedures. It helps if the art was drawn by a fan of the game who has actually played it (or least feels like it was).
My top contender for this is @cavegirlpoems's Dungeon Bitches Jesus, fuck, I can't imagine trying to play this game without trying to live up to what's in these illustrations. They set the bar for play. You must be *this* emotional to ride. (or die trying).
And, for what it's worth, this is also entirely achievable through the curation and manipulation of public domain or stock art. Some times I think it's MORE achievable because it's easier to curate a vision than art direct one whole cloth. An excellent example of this is Deep Nightly Fathoms entirely illustrated with the works of Gustave Doré.
In summary, use less art in your RPGs, and what art you do use, make it a direct expression of *how the game plays* not just its "content".
germansingergirl
yousharknotpass
ellievsbear
jbbartram-illu
izzy806
prguitarman
kaledo-art
