Somehow, that feels a little too forced.

Well whatever he is he doesn't look like any troll I've ever imagined. An elf with the troll looking flaw? Maybe with a bit of cosmetic surgery thrown in? Certainly makes the most sense to me.

That may be true, but when portions are of and anatomy is wrong it is just 'bad'. Style is completely opinion, I think the style sucks. But the proportions are all wrong, for a human, elf, or troll.

yeah, i agree that the proportions in that particular image are wonky. but that complaint ("it's not what i imagined") is echoed throughout the thread.

Trolls through out SR have been described and drawn a certain way. Granted I've seen a number that don't exactly fit into the style of troll I like and that's cool. I expect artists to do up their own renditions and use their own imagination. But I've never seen a troll who had whatever genetic disease that one apparently has that only half goblinized him leaving behind his human looking arms. If that's what the artist was aiming for, that's cool, if not then the proportion is messed up and I hope Fanpro didn't pay to much for the piece because if they did they got ripped off.

*edited to add this space*

@mfb:

I don't think that many people are criticizing the art because its not what they would draw, but people are criticizing the art for its quality. Many of us are not artists, nor professionaly trained art critics, but even we can tell when something is not right. The complaint is that the art is not very inspiring, and sometimes down right 'bad'. I don't think that you need to be an artist or a professional critic to see that the Troll picture has some problems. I think that most of us have a basic understanding of human proportions and that we can extrapolate that to what a Troll would/should look like. I assume that proportions are just as important to trolls as they are to humans. Although, I could be wrong since I am neither a troll nor an artist.

Veracusse

Generally trolls have been described (pictured) as having longer arms then humans proportionally. Looking at that picture again though, it could be an orc with implanted horns judging by the tusks, lack of dermal deposits on the flesh, and thickness of his arms (trolls have generally been pictured with much more thickness to them).

Even then the proportions look a bit off like his head's to big for his body.

yes. i agree that the particular image, there, is unrealistically-proportioned. however, every thread i see about SR art (or art for any other RPG) is full of people making the same complaint: the artist didn't draw X the way i would have drawn it. people complain because some chick has a gauge in her breast. people complain because a character is holding something electronic in his lap. people complain because an archer is nocking an arrow that appears to have some sort of magical glow. the actual quality of the art--the amount of skill that went into it, whether or not the image is clear and easily understood, use of line and shading, proportion--things like that get lumped in with things like "you can't do that in the game" (a point on which the complainer is usually mistaken anyway) or "trolls don't look like that" (says you) or other things that have nothing at all to do with the artist's ability and everything to do with his interpretation of game elements. it irks me that most posters can't or don't seperate those, because they're very different things.

All and all I like the artwork shown so far (as I stated earlier). Especially the one with the troll and the dwarf looking like some deals going down. I think that one's awesome.

As far as the one picture I was referring too, I'll stand by my words, he doesn't look like any troll I've ever imagined. He lacks dermal deposits, his arms are way to small, etc. But, he may be an orc as I said two posts up.

@ mfb:

I don't see how most of the comments are complaining too much about the interpretation of the artist. Although most of the recent comments have been more in jest than really constructive. But what most posters are complaining (at least from my perspective) is that the art is ill proportioned for a human (humanish) figure. I think that the picture would have been very cool if the artist would have gotten the proportions correct, not only on the arms, torso, head, but also with the gun that the troll is holding. I have taken a few human anamopty and figure drawing classes to know that something is seriously wrong with this picture, and it isn't the artists interpretation of the content but the actual picture itself.

Veracusse

Lets face it, all thats happening here is that Shadowrun 4 does nothing raise the bar. RPG book artwork blows and it always has. Even White Wolf's new Mage book has the lamest character drawings, for its signature NPCs no less, that I've ever seen.
Crotch robots are nothing compared to the Magical Pedalless Unicycle.

i'm talking partly about this thread, partly about all the other threads i've seen re: SR art, and partly about all the threads i've seen re: art for [RPG that the board i'm on at the moment is dedicated to].

the arrow could be a fetish-limited manabolt, or an anchored spell. the androids on the cover of M&M exist in-game--what did you think Deus' skelbots look like? the flying car is pretty easy to construct in R3--autogyro with CF dedicated to extra seats. people are making assumptions, and then blaming the art for not fitting those assumptions, never considering the possibility that their assumptions might be faulty to begin with. and then, they blame it on the artists!

right. i'm not saying can't dislike the art. i'm saying the fact that you (or anybody) dislikes it doesn't make it bad. and i'm questioning the concept that because it doesn't fit your (or anyone's) particular vision of SR, that means it shouldn't be in the book. art, far more than rules or fiction, is very much open to interpretation.

If something directly contradicts the setting or rules, it should not be in the artwork or the official fiction. The artwork is not there for the artist to put forth their ideals for the piece, it is there to compliment the work over all, to break up monotonous and at times seemingly endless pages of charts, tables and text.
If trolls are described as being over a meter taller than the average human, that should be expressed in the artwork consistently and not drawn as twice the height. If firing two guns at once is for most people nearly impossible to do accurately, then for god's sake, show the subject missing once in awhile. And would it kill someone to submit a POV piece from the view of a cybered character, with readouts, etc.?

POV.... I dig that idea.

And MFB you're missing the point. The art work, especially cover art shouldn't be misleading. I'm speaking more out of concern for new people to the hobby/game. I'm sure alot of game masters have had to explain that no, SR doesn't really have flying cars, sorry but you can't purchase one. I'm also sure a few people have bought SR books only to be dissappointed to find that no rules cover magical arrows, in fact they're specifically nixed.

DNA/DOA for example. Imagine buying that adventure and finding that inspite of the cover art no part of it took place in the sewers but instead took place on Zurich Orbital flying space station. I'd be a little urked if I had picked it up thinking, Oh, this would be something gritty to run my players through.

Actually, Vectored thrust Air taxi's do exist in the game, they just didn't print hte stats for them. You have to build it from the R3 rules.

By the same token, Awakenings, the Grimoire, etc. all came out way before SRComp.

~J

anchoring was introduced in second edition (or even first?). the rules for it were updated to third edition in MitS, yes. the rules for fetish-limited spells were introduced to third edition in SR3.

my point is that most of the time, the art is only misleading if you're making assumptions about the subject matter--assumptions that might sound good, but aren't necessarily correct, or even logical.

I see, and completely agree with your POV.

But; shouldn't the artwork represent the 'mainstream' SR not the minority. Yes you can have a flying car in Shadowrun, but you need to make it yourself using complicated Rigger rules as there are no examples of them in any of the books.

Yes you can anchor spells to an arrow, but the picture depicts a person with Cyberware shooting what appears to be a magic arrow (ala D&D Cartoon).

Anyone who sees that will assume there are magic arrows (which there are not). Now knowing what I know about Shadowrun I could tell him that yes you could maybe duplicate that by anchoring a spell or using a fetish etc...

But if I wasn't around to tell him that and he picked up the book based on the cover telling him he could have magic arrows, he would be sorely disappointed.

Now that would be someone who doesn't know anything about Shadowrun. He looks at the art and based ONLY on the art would assume there are flying cars and magic arrows in Shadowrun. Two things which you cannot really have out of the gate.

Um? I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the artist on point 3 and assuming that they may just not be fully up on Shadowrun and are trying to make a magic arrow, not that they're complete fucking idiots and trying to make an electrical charge arrow.

~J

Well, the latter does seem more likely to exist in Shadowrun.

or, maybe they'll think "wow, magic and cyberware! neat!" and pick up the game because they like the concept. later on, once they're playing the game, maybe they'll go back and ponder those magic arrows. and they'll probably come up with the same explanations i did--or who knows, maybe they'll think of something new. that's the great thing about SR: there's no default "look" for anything. you can't look at someone casting a spell and say "oh, he's casting manabolt" or "he's casting powerbolt"; at best, you can try to judge from the results of the spell.

or, more likely, they'll lock themselves into the same false assumptions that every other player uses, and call it bad art.

Either way it is still the artist representing a minority faction of Shadowrun instead of the majority.

The art should represent Shadowrun as a whole, not a small part of it that you cant even do till your an advanced player.

If I was going to draw or direct the drawing of the SR comp I would put a Night Elf samurai fighting a Shifter. Because that is what the book deals with. Hell it doesn't even have rules for adepts or magic in it.

So in this context, yes it is bad art. Not to mention the fact you cant even hold your hands that way.

Well, if it is a spell, and not a physical arrow, it really doesn't matter one whit what her technique is as the string is likely false as well. Shoot, the whole bow could just be part of a shamanic mask, for some Idol worshiper of the Hunter, or somesuch.

True, but if you have to make up a hundred excuses of why the art could be right then I think the art has failed.

that'll have to wait till tonight when I can see the book.

I daresay it's not 'bad' art, as mfb has pointed out. The cover of srcomp is pretty darn good. It's simply not wholly appropriate, as has been pointed out by several other people.

Truthfully, yes, you can use advanced rules to make magical arrows. But in all my years of playing SR, I have not seen a single magical arrow ever. I suspect you haven't either. (I am, of course, excepting the one on the cover of the SRcomp). And certainly, the contents of the SRcomp have nothing to do with magical arrows. So it really isn't appropriate. An artist could include a picture of a chess championship or a medieval battle or a unicorn on fire. These all exist in SR somewhere somehow (or could conceivably, if someone was determined enough.) But they aren't appropriate. It would make more sense to perhaps have average shadowrunners doing normal shadowrunny things using common shadowrunner tactics and common shadowrunner tools.

Of course, having a troll whose arms are too short compared to his legs is simply bad art, unless the artist has made it clear that that's somehow intentional.

Maybe they include crossbreeds - Trollorcs and Dwarfelves?

There is a special place in Hell for people like you.

d20 Gamer's Corner?

dude, thats cold

No, he's talking about Munchkin Land.

New player race... Dwelf. All the Body of a dwarf and the charisma of an elf.

Or the Torc. Strength of a troll and uh.. something from an Orc.

Okay how about the Trelf. Strength of a troll charisma of an elf!

I propose we reflect reality and make Riggerdeckermages a separate race.

~J

Okay, but they don't need any Cyber! They use their resonance rating + magic to access their gear!

To speak it is to think it. To think it is to be among the guilty.

~J

There you go; that lady's a combat mage, all her distance spells are geased and/or fetished with the bow. The eye thingy is actually an ornate spell lock with enhanced aim spell.....


I've always liked that pic, since I first saw it on one of FASA's cats. Never really thought much about it till now though.

most of the art does reflect the majority of that material. the amount of art that fits SR to a t vastly outweighs the amount of art that you have to think about to make fit, which in turn vastly outweighs the amount of art that straight-out doesn't fit. i think that's a good ratio, though it would be nice to get rid of the small percent that doesn't fit at all.

you are making assumptions about what magic looks like. you simply happen to be making the same assumptions that everyone else makes. there's nothing in the books about what a manabolt--or any other magical effect--looks like. i agree that bow-using mages are probably pretty rare in SR; i don't think that means that the three or four that exist are undeserving of representation in the art. yes, most of the art should reinforce the mainstream SR image--and, like i said, it does. some of the art should, however, push that image in different directions.

and given that SRComp vastly expands character options for SR, i think an image that doesn't quite fit mainstream SR at first glance is a great idea.

i'm saying "you" a lot. let me reiterate that this isn't directed specifically at anybody. i see the same complaints in every game forum i visit, and i find almost all just as baseless as the ones here.

I love that pic too. I think it's an awesome piece of artwork. Just saying that in alot of ways it's misleading, which I think Shadow has already covered pretty well.

Let's add a few good examples, so it doesn't look like I'm just bashing the artwork in general. MJLBB was an awesome cover, wholly appropriate for the context of the book. Shadows of Europe I love. DNA/DOA and Sprawl Sites I've already mentioned. I love both of those covers. The Harlequinn cover was good. The Dragons of the Sixth world cover was good. All of these books had covers that dealt with the subject matter.

All I'm saying is I'd like to see more covers like those above and fewer of the ones like Companion, M&M, and New Seattle.