Better Traveller Art

[Supplement Four]

I'm not a fan of a lot of the art in MGT. I don't like the look of the Vargr or Darrian covers at all. I think they are drawn well--I just don't think they are "Traveller" (Alternity, maybe).

But looking through the new S&P #85, I quite like the more realistic stuff I'm seeing for the Chthonian Stars book. That's good stuff on pg. 22-24. of S&P.

Also, I think Mongoose should consider having the exterior of ships shown with every deck plan. That exterior on pg. 21 really enhances the deck plans, imho. It's sometimes hard to visualize how a ship really looks just based on a deck plan. As a buyer, that "extra" kind of stuff attracts me.

 

[hdan]

The MgT art is highly variable in appeal to me. I LOVE the "Big dog and his slave b*tches" in the Merchants book (p76), as well as the picture on p34 of the same book, but I'm not enthusiastic about most of the art in the Dilettante book (though I like the contents a lot). I generally prefer the realistic line-art stuff, though the strangely cartoonish style of the two pieces I mentioned above appeal to me too for some reason.

In general, I really dislike ships that look like the T4 art, and like the ones that look like CT art. Seriously though, the ships in the main rulebook aren't bad (and the Cutter picture is inspired), but some of the ones in (for example) the Vargr book don't work for me visually.

 

[AndrewW]

Also, I think Mongoose should consider having the exterior of ships shown with every deck plan. That exterior on pg. 21 really enhances the deck plans, imho. It's sometimes hard to visualize how a ship really looks just based on a deck plan. As a buyer, that "extra" kind of stuff attracts me.

They do for the printed books it's just the S&P ones that don't always. That said, there is actually an image for the Missile Defence System but alas wasn't ready before that one got published.

 

[rinku]

They need to try to draft Donna Barr and Bill Keith back in.

 

[middenface]

Also, I think Mongoose should consider having the exterior of ships shown with every deck plan. That exterior on pg. 21 really enhances the deck plans, imho. It's sometimes hard to visualize how a ship really looks just based on a deck plan. As a buyer, that "extra" kind of stuff attracts me.

Thanks, as the chap who did that, its good to know.

As Andrew says, theres an image for the MDS, unfortunately I missed the boat on that, no worries, plenty more on the way.

Nice thing is my images are 3D models......

 

[SpaceDog]

They need to try to draft Donna Barr and Bill Keith back in.

I agree completely. Also Blair Reynnolds and Mike Vilardi.

Speaking of Vilardi, I think the Aslan he did for the MegaTraveller Solomani & Aslan supplement are the best to date. Sadly, I think the Mongoose Aslan are worst. Did none of the 13 artists for the Mongoose Aslan book even bother to note the fact that the Aslan are not anthropomorphic lions?

 

[Gee4orce]

I hate the way that Aslan have basically become 'lion men' - I always thought the feline appearance was more of a suggestion than a head-transplant.

The Vargr as dog-men I can live with as they are supposed to be uplifted earth canines anyway. But if you have 'dog men' and 'cat men' too, well, it's not a setting I can take too seriously.

I've made my thoughts on deck plans plain before - I just dont see the value of them at all, especially when they are as badly done as the Mongoose ones. I'd much rather see a nice ship illustration, as that gets me thinking 'I wonder how the interior is laid out' - whereas pages of gridded paper kills that creativity stone dead.

Great example of a bad deckplan: S&P 85 pg.19
Great example of a good deckplan: S&P pg. 21 !

There's plenty of incredibly good, evocative SF art out there now though - just mentally transplant some of that ! Deviant Art is a great place to look.

 

[hdan]

I hate the way that Aslan have basically become 'lion men' - I always thought the feline appearance was more of a suggestion than a head-transplant.

Yeah, especially after they go to some pains in the text of that same book to say how the "lion" thing doesn't hold up on inspection, but was more of a first impression.

I've made my thoughts on deck plans plain before - I just dont see the value of them at all, especially when they are as badly done as the Mongoose ones. I'd much rather see a nice ship illustration, as that gets me thinking 'I wonder how the interior is laid out' - whereas pages of gridded paper kills that creativity stone dead.

Great example of a bad deckplan: S&P 85 pg.19
Great example of a good deckplan: S&P pg. 21 !

I like deckplans in general, but I agree 100% with your examples, good and bad.

 

[AndrewW]

I've made my thoughts on deck plans plain before - I just dont see the value of them at all, especially when they are as badly done as the Mongoose ones. I'd much rather see a nice ship illustration, as that gets me thinking 'I wonder how the interior is laid out' - whereas pages of gridded paper kills that creativity stone dead.

Great example of a bad deckplan: S&P 85 pg.19
Great example of a good deckplan: S&P pg. 21 !

Anything particular you didn't like about the deckplan or because it doesn't have a 3D image to go with it?

 

[hdan]

Anything particular you didn't like about the deckplan or because it doesn't have a 3D image to go with it?

I can tell you what I didn't like about it, submitted in the spirit of constructive criticism:

1) The bulkhead lines considerably too thin. Outside walls and bulkheads need to be thicker lines than the floor grid. I don't think different colors are enough to differentiate the different types of lines in the drawing.
2) It looks more like a Full Thrust record sheet than a floor plan. The iconography (both visual and placement) is not evocative of actual ship's systems to me. And the asymmetry of the M-drive symbol placement only enhances that effect. I prefer "engine parts" over "symbols" for engineering sections. The bridge is good though.
3) The FGMP mounts are not actually connected to the ship. Are they turrets controlled from the bridge? If they're "pintel mounts" for FGMPs, then there needs to be space for someone to stand and operate them. If they imply more "streamlining" involved with the outline of the ship, it would be nice to see that.
4) The wings don't work for me aesthetically, especially in light of #3.

In short - too much "full thrust record sheet" not enough "traveller deck plan". (Not that I have a problem with FT's record sheets when I'm playing FT, but they're not deck plans.)

Now the ship on the preceding page (the asteroid monitor) does work, even though it uses the same iconography. Probably because the outline gives you a good idea what the ship would look like, even though it doesn't have an external picture.

 

[AndrewW]

1) The bulkhead lines considerably too thin. Outside walls and bulkheads need to be thicker lines than the floor grid. I don't think different colors are enough to differentiate the different types of lines in the drawing.

The interior lines are thicker then the grid lines and the exterior hull lines are thicker then the interior ones. You may need to zoom in to really see this though

2) It looks more like a Full Thrust record sheet than a floor plan. The iconography (both visual and placement) is not evocative of actual ship's systems to me. And the asymmetry of the M-drive symbol placement only enhances that effect. I prefer "engine parts" over "symbols" for engineering sections. The bridge is good though.

It's not meant as exact equipment placement but to show what is located in that section.

3) The FGMP mounts are not actually connected to the ship. Are they turrets controlled from the bridge? If they're "pintel mounts" for FGMPs, then there needs to be space for someone to stand and operate them. If they imply more "streamlining" involved with the outline of the ship, it would be nice to see that.

They are operated from the acceleration couchs.

4) The wings don't work for me aesthetically, especially in light of #3.

I'll agree those could perhaps have been done a bit better.

 

[hdan]

The interior lines are thicker then the grid lines and the exterior hull lines are thicker then the interior ones. You may need to zoom in to really see this though

IMHO they should be thicker then. I would at least double the thickness of all structural lines. The interior lines should be as thick as your current bulkhead lines, etc.

It's not meant as exact equipment placement but to show what is located in that section.

Hence my comment that it looks more like a combat record sheet than a floor plan.

I don't expect panel-for-panel exact details in my deck plans, but something more like the bridge would be ideal, and would give a better impression of how crowded (or not) the engineering section is. Maybe throw in a few workstation couches if that is appropriate.

They are operated from the acceleration couchs.

Perhaps the couches should face outwards towards the FGMP mounts?

I'm only writing this as constructive feedback about what would make me like a deckplan better.

 

[AndrewW]

IMHO they should be thicker then. I would at least double the thickness of all structural lines. The interior lines should be as thick as your current bulkhead lines, etc.

Currently the interior lines are 4x thicker then the grid and the exterior ones are 2.5x thicker then the interior lines. This is in line with the ratios used in the earlier deckplans done for the printed books.

I don't expect panel-for-panel exact details in my deck plans, but something more like the bridge would be ideal, and would give a better impression of how crowded (or not) the engineering section is. Maybe throw in a few workstation couches if that is appropriate.

That's a possibility, though there isn't any set rules for how crowded or not the engineering sections are.

Perhaps the couches should face outwards towards the FGMP mounts?

I figure they aren't in a fixed position and could rotate to operate the anti-personnel weaponry.

I'm only writing this as constructive feedback about what would make me like a deckplan better.

No problem, feedback is welcome.

 

[Mark A. Siefert]

They need to try to draft Donna Barr and Bill Keith back in.

Bryan Gibson too!

 

[Gee4orce]

Anything particular you didn't like about the deckplan or because it doesn't have a 3D image to go with it?

The general style of it is spidery and weak - there's no weight given to bulkheads or hulls. Compare to the other, good, example and it has thick bulkheads and an outline of the exterior hull shaded in, to give an impression of the outer hull of the ship and how the deck plans sits within it.

The wings - really ? They just look naff.

Also, thinking on a higher level, the bad deckplan really doesn't add anything that couldn't be said in text. "The ship has a large seating area aft of the small cockpit, twin armouries mounted amidships, and engineering aft" pretty much describes that layout.

Look at the 'good' deckplan and there's some neat design ideas in there - like the way the cutter and hold are docked either side of the long neck (and presumably other subcraft could be mounted in the same way).

Personally I think deckplans should be treated like artwork - good deckplans can really add something, but bad deckplans really do take away. Just like bad art. I'd ask someone with design skills to re-draw the deckplans. The deck plans I have from old copies of White Dwarf and Traveller Digest knock the spots of anything I've seen published recently.

 

[dmccoy1693]

*scribbling down lots of good notes*

 

[Nathan Brazil]

I had only art peeve to complain about. Sometimes the art piece does not appear appropriate in the context where they appear in. The worst case is the scholar at the bottom of pg 30 in the core rulebook gets me annoyed. By itself, I like the picture, she is fairly suggestive and hot. Not very realistic, what the hey. But within the context of representation for scholars, or other professionals for that matter not very realistic. Ya I is a computer geek, and have worked in health care, banking and education. Professionals have a tendency to be, um, covered up?

Lest you think I'm prudish, I still frequent goth/industrial bars despite being middle aged and know my younger co-workers clothing choices in work and at the bar. I think I scare them I remind them of aging. Oh well, I guess I will grow up some day.

 

[middenface]

The deck plans I have from old copies of White Dwarf and Traveller Digest knock the spots of anything I've seen published recently.

Methinx, I opened a small can of worms with the Vargr Junker..

Yes, the plans from White Dwarf where pretty good, expecially the St Christopher, remember all those stars placed on the maps as consoles?
If you can remember the Travellers strip where Flynn (?) was trying to lift one of the stars off the console... in fact that map for the shuttle was really nice, you could just about see it behind the comic strip.!

I quite like the maps in Dilenttente, remind me more of the White Dwarf - Classic style, if I did them that way it'd make my job a little easier..

 

[GJD]

The deck plans I have from old copies of White Dwarf and Traveller Digest knock the spots of anything I've seen published recently.

Methinx, I opened a small can of worms with the Vargr Junker..

Yes, the plans from White Dwarf where pretty good, expecially the St Christopher, remember all those stars placed on the maps as consoles?
If you can remember the Travellers strip where Flynn (?) was trying to lift one of the stars off the console... in fact that map for the shuttle was really nice, you could just about see it behind the comic strip.!

I quite like the maps in Dilenttente, remind me more of the White Dwarf - Classic style, if I did them that way it'd make my job a little easier..

There were some great ones drawn by somone called Nic Weeks if I recall - did the excellent Type H bounty hunter variant of the Type S and some very good plans for the Beanstalk on earth for a heist adventure.

G.

 

[rinku]

I had only art peeve to complain about. Sometimes the art piece does not appear appropriate in the context where they appear in. The worst case is the scholar at the bottom of pg 30 in the core rulebook gets me annoyed. By itself, I like the picture, she is fairly suggestive and hot. Not very realistic, what the hey. But within the context of representation for scholars, or other professionals for that matter not very realistic. Ya I is a computer geek, and have worked in health care, banking and education. Professionals have a tendency to be, um, covered up?

Hey, at least she's wearing glasses. Must be smart

In any case, totally contextual. Maybe on her planet that get up *is* conservative...