PDA

View Full Version : Old Rule Books vs New Rule Books



Yorgel
2017-07-10, 07:40 PM
I'm curious how people feel about the design of current D&D rule books compared to pre-third edition ones, and when I say design I don't mean artwork or rules. I noticed that after AD&D, rule books started being released as these large full color hardback books. And while the books certainly look cool I think that they've become much less usable and a bit of a money grab.

Older rule books are usually saddle stitched and three hole punched so that you can compile your own custom binder with notes and grid paper and whatever modules you need. I've never actually campaigned anything pre ed.4 so I don't know if it works as well as it looks but now if you want to use physical books and not digital it feels like your being punished. You have to carry around a bunch of big heavy expensive books that you're afraid to mark up and have to tab yourself and can't organize how you want.

Do other people have issues with the current rule books? or do you like them/ have organization workarounds (I've heard stories of people ban-sawing the spines off the hardback books and re-ordering them how they liked)? Or is this a solved problem and I'm just not aware of it.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-07-10, 08:17 PM
The books I've used are well laid out enough that I've never felt the need to hack them up and rearrange them. I'll make a separate binder with campaign notes and custom monsters and the like, maybe mark key pages in monster manuals and the like with sticky notes.

Airk
2017-07-10, 08:38 PM
Speaking as someone who WAS around during that period, the 3-ring binder thing, while it sounded like a clever idea, was basically awful. Three ring binders have terrible durability under any kind of stress and inevitably pages get torn out or the whole thing gets crushed and bent, and it takes up way more space than a book. Not recommended. That was a brief experiment during 2nd edition, and they hastily rolled it back for good reason.

I really don't give a darn about saddle stitched vs some other form of binding. As long as the book holds itself together, I don't care. I've certainly never encountered a book that had organizational issues that were A) bad enough to consider rearranging the order of the book AND B) actually fixable by reordering the book, so this a non-thing from my perspective as well. Though to be fair, organization during the AD&D 1 era was TERRIBLE. Good luck finding anything in those books unless you memorized a page number. (Which I did.) Similarly, if I had campaign notes or something, why in holy hell would I want to put them in the book? I'm gonna use that book for my next campaign too! Then what? No. Campaign/module/character/mission/backstory notes got a folder, same as now.

While I do feel like modern glossy fancypants book design has made many RPGs less useful as games and more useful as coffee table objects, this has never been a hobby for the faint of heart when it comes to carrying stuff around. Even in my AD&D 1 days, I would routinely lug a player's handbook, dungeon master's guide, three different monster books, unearthed arcana, and the dungeoneer's and wilderness survival guides with me to gaming. Yes, these books were overall a little lighter than the modern ones, but not THAT much - I was bored and just got out a scale. The 2nd edition DMG weighs about 24 ounces, compared to 36 for the 3rd edition PH, 40 ounces for the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual (the hardbound one.) and 20 ounces for the only 1st edition book I have on hand, Greyhawk Adventures, which I suspect is a little bit on the light side. Sure, it's true that hauling your entire library of D&D4 or Pathfinder books somewhere is going to be a huge pain in the ass, but that's what you get for picking a game with dozens of supplemental books. Dungeon World weights 19 ounces, Burning Wheel 29, and Ryuutama 30. :P

So I guess basically: no. I'm not feeling any nostalgia for old books.

Jay R
2017-07-10, 08:45 PM
The problem is the massive quantity of rules. There is no good way to provide that many rules.

The books I started with were made offrom about 29 sheets of 8 1/2 x 11 sheets of paper (plus covers), folded over.

http://img00.deviantart.net/95f2/i/2017/185/d/5/a_nod_to_the_gamer____rpg_comic__by_travisjhanson-dbf20qw.jpg

Knaight
2017-07-10, 08:54 PM
I really don't like the unbound book style, and have found three hole punch binders completely useless*. With that said, there have been a few books where the bindings were questionable, and that's also not great. Most of the D&D manuals I've handled have been fine though, with other systems** doing the bulk of the falling apart.

*In life, not just for RPGs. It's easier to just use a bunch of folders and store the paper loose leaf as far as I'm concerned.
**Savage Worlds

Mechalich
2017-07-10, 08:57 PM
Hardcovers are more durable than softcovers, which is useful for certain books you're going to use a lot with lots of page-flipping and active reference while at a table. So it makes sense to go that route for whatever you core books with the actual rules in them are. Outside of that, other books are mostly a reference and you're probably using only one or two pages at a time, which can easily be photocopied rather than hauling the whole book around, so there's no need for hardcover. I actually think the oWoD struck a pretty good balance. The core books and a handful of really big expansion books where hardcover but most everything else was softcovers, including some pretty thick books (I own MtA's The Infinite Tapestry, it's ~150 pages and I used it a bunch while running an Umbra-based campaign, still holds together just fine). WotC's all hardcover policy was a pure money grab and nothing more and the hobby suffered insofar as other publishers mimicked it. As for the glossy full-color approach, I also think that is largely unnecessary and mostly a money grab. Full color art is nice, but it doesn't need to be in every book or in every page of every book - the amount of money wasted on color ink for margins and headers in 3.5 books is extraordinary.

Admittedly printing this way advantaged WotC. Due to their large market share they could print books like this at reasonable competitive prices, which means that someone trying to make a book that looks equally good is forced to plop down a huge art budget and charge a ruinous print-on-demand price. Most smaller publishers are stuck looking shabby by comparison. So it's good business policy on multiple levels.


Do other people have issues with the current rule books? or do you like them/ have organization workarounds (I've heard stories of people ban-sawing the spines off the hardback books and re-ordering them how they liked)? Or is this a solved problem and I'm just not aware of it.

The obvious workaround is bookmarked Pdfs. For active reference, when you just need a few lines on a given page, this is largely far more useful. Heck, the last time I ran D&D I didn't bother with hauling around the monster manual, I just printed out the pages of the various monsters that would likely occur in a given session and left the manual in my bag in case something unexpected came up. if you're playing on-line this only becomes more obvious, since you can have a dozen or more books available in another tab for nearly instant access. These days I only usually refer to the printed books when I'm looking to read some large section of fluff material.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-11, 12:11 PM
One of my "worst offenders" for this in many regards is the L5R 4th edition.

The books are printed entirely in color to the point of saturation, making some text hard to read because of the lack of contrast.

The artwork is just crammed in wherever and the text is pushed to one side in a sort of "flow" around many of the images, making for shoddy edges and harder reading.

Related rules bits are all over the book, with for example the rules for two-weapon fighting crammed into a sidebar, I think near the skill entry for "swords".

Rules and fiction-bits are scattered all over, to the extent that there's a fiction/history sidebar that I read once, that I STILL CANNOT FIND again.

EccentricCircle
2017-07-11, 12:55 PM
The new fifth edition books look great, but are not without their flaws.

The main issue for me is that the page numbers are tiny, and in brown on a beige background, so are quite hard to read. I have to peer intently at the page in order to make it out.
The index is also microscopic, and not especially well written. In several places it refers the reader to another index entry, when they could easily have just put in the page number which that entry cites.

The main priority for a book which gets referred to as much as a core rulebook should really be ease of access. You should be able to glance at the index and quickly flip to the correct page, to rapidly check something in play. Making it take several minutes to find any one rule just makes everything harder, and slows down the game for everyone.

I'm not saying that older books are, by definition better, but page numbers in the 3.5 books were almost and order of magnitude larger, and the 4th ed ones were only slightly smaller, and still had high contrast.

Winter_Wolf
2017-07-11, 02:06 PM
I prefer the older edition AD&D and BECM/RC rule books. The quality wasn't always great, but the printing wasn't overblown full color glossy everywhere. It was mostly legible, teeny tiny font of 1e books notwithstanding. 3e starting making it hard to read things because the pages were too busy for my taste, and the increased cost of all that character lot and ink actually lowered the value of the product for me.

I have copies of Mekton Zeta rpg, and although I'm not keen on glue spine softcover books because they tend to fall apart faster, the material is very legible. Not coincidentally, it's also virtually all grayscale with good contrast throughout. Compare with BESM Revised 2nd edition, everything is full color glossy pages and I don't feel it was necessarily a step forward.

klarg1
2017-07-11, 02:24 PM
I don't think I've gotten very many pre-punched rulebooks, even back in the "before times" of the 1980's. Sure, a few games, like Starfleet Battles, and (maybe?) Advanced Squad Leader were (or are) designed to be interleaved into a single binder, but I don't think any of the RPG books I have, going back to the late 70's are laid out that way.

I do think glossy pages, and full-color artwork can hurt readability, but I also think it the modern game purchaser expects it. As with video games and board games, eye candy sells, and the RPG shelf is crowded with options. I doubt the profit margin on these things has gone up much in the past 40 years.

BWR
2017-07-11, 03:26 PM
One of my "worst offenders" for this in many regards is the L5R 4th edition.

The books are printed entirely in color to the point of saturation, making some text hard to read because of the lack of contrast.

The artwork is just crammed in wherever and the text is pushed to one side in a sort of "flow" around many of the images, making for shoddy edges and harder reading.

Related rules bits are all over the book, with for example the rules for two-weapon fighting crammed into a sidebar, I think near the skill entry for "swords".

Rules and fiction-bits are scattered all over, to the extent that there's a fiction/history sidebar that I read once, that I STILL CANNOT FIND again.

You realize that the design, layout and general physical aspect of L5R 4e is the best aspect of the game, right? It has a good index, unlike every edition barring the d20 one, it is organized sensibly and solidly built. The art and color are just fine and perfectly readable. Fiction is always the beginning of a section or a chapter, never scattered about in the middle of stuff. Your only valid criticism is the two-weapon fighting sidebar, which has been a problem in every edition.

Noje
2017-07-11, 03:27 PM
I think the biggest difference between the newer books and the older books are page limits. publishers used to charge by page ranges, so If you went slightly over one range, you were charged for the next range up. This made authors of early editions try to use their pages as efficiently as possible. That's why each page is so dense and has the equivalent information that a newer edition would have spread through multiple pages. This also meant that there was a whole lot less room for fluff in earlier editions.

Another big difference is how the rule books flow. Newer editions tend to read from cover to cover like a story would, as they are written in a way that each page builds off the last. Earlier editions read more like handbooks or manuals, where you looked up information in the moment. Those books weren't meant to be read cover to cover, but to look up rules as you needed them (not every campaign is going to need lycanthropy rules or underwater adventuring rules).

Personally, I prefer 1st edition since it reads like a game manual, telling you what you need to know and not sugar coating it with a bunch of fluff. However, I still can respect newer editions like fifth for what they are (except the way fifth organizes spells is basically unusable. who thought an alphabetical list of all the spells in a row was a good idea? :smalleek:).

Lord Torath
2017-07-11, 03:41 PM
I don't think I've gotten very many pre-punched rulebooks, even back in the "before times" of the 1980's. Sure, a few games, like Starfleet Battles, and (maybe?) Advanced Squad Leader were (or are) designed to be interleaved into a single binder, but I don't think any of the RPG books I have, going back to the late 70's are laid out that way.Didn't the old B/X books (not the BECMI books) come 3-hole-punched? I seem to recall that mine were, though that might have just been my older brother's work.

CharonsHelper
2017-07-11, 03:51 PM
In terms of price - have you calculated including paper's increased cost. (And make sure you remember that paper has gone up considerably more than inflation due to increased environmental restrictions starting late 80's & early 90's.)

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-11, 06:47 PM
You realize that the design, layout and general physical aspect of L5R 4e is the best aspect of the game, right? It has a good index, unlike every edition barring the d20 one, it is organized sensibly and solidly built. The art and color are just fine and perfectly readable. Fiction is always the beginning of a section or a chapter, never scattered about in the middle of stuff. Your only valid criticism is the two-weapon fighting sidebar, which has been a problem in every edition.

I have the book open here in front of me.

The layout is hot garbage, and representative of the "art for the sake of art" almost postmodernist trend that took over RPG book design. Text has to flow around randomly-inserted artwork, and here and there the text and background are inverted or some low-contrast color combination.

Topic after topic has core information scattered from one end of the book to the other -- and rarely is there ever a "see page XX" reference to the other locations.

The index lists every single mention of some terms, and completely skips others, randomly.

And while there's fiction to start various chapters, there's also sidebar fiction scattered about. And half the rules seem to be tucked away in little sidebars as well.

JAL_1138
2017-07-12, 08:20 AM
My 1e and 2e rulebooks are hardback, except for the Monstrous Compendium binders (which were later replaced by a hardback MM in the '95 black-border printing). The binding for the old books was threaded, so if the covers fell off, the books still held together. The 1e books are older than I am. My paperback splatbooks for 2e have glued square-back binding and no punched holes. (Most of my paperbacks for other systems are square-backed and have no punched holes; most of those systems also had hardback corebooks). Modules (not rulebooks) were often staple-bound in 1e, but without punched holes. 2e modules were largely square-backed and glued. So to say that old rulebooks were "typically" three-hole punched and saddle-stiched is inaccurate for D&D; that was particular to the Basic line, and only for pre-Rules Cyclopedia ('91), which is hardback. The Monstrous Compendium looseleaf in 2e was more of a (failed) experiment.



My first-printing 5e PHB is now largely looseleaf due to shoddy glue in the first print run. My first-printing DMG and MM, however, survived getting thoroughly rain-soaked in the back of my vehicle when I forgot my windows down during a rainstorm, with surprisingly-minimal damage once they dried out. You can kinda notice if you look close and know what to look for, but they're basically fine.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-12, 10:21 AM
Only getting into RPGs after D&D 3e, I have a style I very much like. It's not the modern glossy look of all modern D&D and quite a few other games, it's much more the current indie style.

I like my artwork black and white and relatively rare, I can read 8+ pages without a single picture if the material holds up. I do like artwork in a book, Fate Core is a massive favourite of mine, but I don't require a picture for every option as WotC seems to think (although a picture of the 'default' look for every race is nice).

The only old books I own are the 2e PhB and DMG (with some settings and supplements in pdf), and generally prefer the artwork there to the 5e artwork while being torn on 3.X's. I remember seeing the old BECM rulebooks and they also looked pretty good. But that's as much a hate for 5e's art style as it is liking 2e's (I mean really, bobblehead halflings?).

In terms of binding, I really couldn't care. I can work with anything, and will hole punch it and stick it in a folder if needed.

BWR
2017-07-12, 11:55 AM
I have the book open here in front of me.

The layout is hot garbage, and representative of the "art for the sake of art" almost postmodernist trend that took over RPG book design. Text has to flow around randomly-inserted artwork, and here and there the text and background are inverted or some low-contrast color combination.

Topic after topic has core information scattered from one end of the book to the other -- and rarely is there ever a "see page XX" reference to the other locations.

The index lists every single mention of some terms, and completely skips others, randomly.

And while there's fiction to start various chapters, there's also sidebar fiction scattered about. And half the rules seem to be tucked away in little sidebars as well.


Yet I've never had a problem with it. Also, you are the only person I've heard to voice these particular complaints. Everyone else has praised it. Some of that is merely comparison to earlier editions, which were kind of a mess in many ways, I'll grant you, but it is definitely not only that, or even primarily that. The layout and looks of 4e is one of the few things I like about the edition and which is indisputably better than the previous ones.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-12, 12:05 PM
Yet I've never had a problem with it. Also, you are the only person I've heard to voice these particular complaints. Everyone else has praised it. Some of that is merely comparison to earlier editions, which were kind of a mess in many ways, I'll grant you, but it is definitely not only that, or even primarily that. The layout and looks of 4e is one of the few things I like about the edition and which is indisputably better than the previous ones.

I remember the art in a few places making the text hard to read (I want to say somewhere near the role of women bit as an example, but it's been a while since I've read it). The organisation isn't the best, but I've seen worse, and the art is generally nice, if I had to grade it I'd give it a C (which still puts it above the 5e PhB).

hamlet
2017-07-12, 12:07 PM
Just diving in to say:

1) I like the feel of the older editions books. Not the whole 3-ring binder shtick, that wasn't a great idea, though interesting. It's more that they were relatively inexpensive, begged to be scribbled in as appropriate (house rules, clarifications, etc.) and they could be made relatively inexpensively. Yes, comparatively they were still pricey, but still, they didn't feel like a money grab. They felt . . . homey.

2) I've had 1st edition books for a long time now. They've held up entirely with no problems. At all. My 5th edition PHB, which sees less use, is completely fallen apart. I'm fairly irritated by that. Expensive and lower quality if you ask me.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-12, 12:24 PM
2) I've had 1st edition books for a long time now. They've held up entirely with no problems. At all. My 5th edition PHB, which sees less use, is completely fallen apart. I'm fairly irritated by that. Expensive and lower quality if you ask me.

I think that's an issue with the early printings that has now been fixed, I've got a 5th printing or later and it's held up fine. I don't use it that much, but it's survived the test of being carried around and being lent to a brother.

hamlet
2017-07-12, 01:12 PM
I think that's an issue with the early printings that has now been fixed, I've got a 5th printing or later and it's held up fine. I don't use it that much, but it's survived the test of being carried around and being lent to a brother.

Perhaps, but I can't justify buying another copy of it even if I'm DM'ing the darn game. They're so pricey and, on top of that, I'm trying to convince the group to go old school, or at least 3.x so I don't feel an utter ennui for the game.

JAL_1138
2017-07-12, 03:22 PM
Perhaps, but I can't justify buying another copy of it even if I'm DM'ing the darn game. They're so pricey and, on top of that, I'm trying to convince the group to go old school, or at least 3.x so I don't feel an utter ennui for the game.

No need to buy a new copy. WotC will replace 5e PhBs that come apart for free; they're well aware of the binding problems with that print run and taking responsibility for it. Contact their customer service and send them a pic of it.

wumpus
2017-07-12, 05:10 PM
I think only the BECMI books had holes in them, and only some of them (I had the Moldvay, 1981 edition. It only had Basic & Expert. I'm pretty sure they had holes).

Photocopying and binding all the necessary pages seems more critical in 3.x (and presumably Pathfinder) than any other edition of D&D, but that just might be a function of success. Doing such is probably a lot easier these days (photocopiers have gotten cheaper over time).

The big problem with AD&D (1e) is that the author, Gary Gygax was the CEO of TSR and the editor reported to him. And it especially shows in Gygax's otherwise greatest work, the Dungeon Master's Guide. I've described the presumed editing process as "starting with the absolute necessities, and then cramming stuff in the holes by how cool it was". The whole book is an organization disaster, and DMs presumably could only figure out how to play the game by coming from Basic (and higher) D&D (although I remember even before I started playing with a kid whose older brother started with 0e and then to 1e. I wonder how those games really went...).

I really suspect that 5e can be played as a better AD&D than either 1e or 2e. If you can find a copy of Gygax's DMG, I'd still recommend reading it: it is filled with advice on how to run a D&D campaign. I just don't think the old game itself can really hold it's own to a modern game, and 5e appears to allow "old school" play as well as any (although I don't have personal experience).

Yorgel
2017-07-12, 07:26 PM
So to say that old rulebooks were "typically" three-hole punched and saddle-stiched is inaccurate for D&D; that was particular to the Basic line, and only for pre-Rules Cyclopedia ('91), which is hardback. The Monstrous Compendium looseleaf in 2e was more of a (failed) experiment.


Thanks, good to know. I'm only working off assumptions from what I've seen/been able to purchase in used book stores and games shops, so in my experience its what seemed the standard. To rephrase then the format of three-hole punched and saddle-stitched seemed to at least be relatively common. What I see now (from WoTC mainly but plenty others seem to have jumped on the bandwagon) seems to be full color inked with a hardcover and to me feels daunting, certainly cool looking but like I should lock it away in a case and keep it clean. While the type of older booklet I'm referring too feels much more approachable, I like not being afraid to make my own marks or comprise my own binder of content to my needs.

The loose leaf Monstrous Compendium sounds like a super fascinating experiment that while failed is very intriguing, I'll have to look into it. Thanks for the comments!

Yorgel
2017-07-12, 07:35 PM
Admittedly printing this way advantaged WotC. Due to their large market share they could print books like this at reasonable competitive prices, which means that someone trying to make a book that looks equally good is forced to plop down a huge art budget and charge a ruinous print-on-demand price. Most smaller publishers are stuck looking shabby by comparison. So it's good business policy on multiple levels.

A very unfortunate tactic since it seems a lot of consumers are willing to look past other issues for the benefit of having all the cool art. And to be fair the expensive cool art is pretty cool.



The obvious workaround is bookmarked Pdfs. For active reference, when you just need a few lines on a given page, this is largely far more useful. Heck, the last time I ran D&D I didn't bother with hauling around the monster manual, I just printed out the pages of the various monsters that would likely occur in a given session and left the manual in my bag in case something unexpected came up. if you're playing on-line this only becomes more obvious, since you can have a dozen or more books available in another tab for nearly instant access. These days I only usually refer to the printed books when I'm looking to read some large section of fluff material.

Yeah I figure that Pdfs were just the solve of the solved problem question. I unfortunately have a great fondness for paper things and think that the current hardback craze is just excessive and not the best answer to the rpg rulebook question. But I could very well be wrong.
Thanks the insight into the industry, I appreciate the comment!

Yorgel
2017-07-12, 07:43 PM
Just diving in to say:

1) I like the feel of the older editions books. Not the whole 3-ring binder shtick, that wasn't a great idea, though interesting. It's more that they were relatively inexpensive, begged to be scribbled in as appropriate (house rules, clarifications, etc.) and they could be made relatively inexpensively. Yes, comparatively they were still pricey, but still, they didn't feel like a money grab. They felt . . . homey.


Yeah this is I think what I've been trying to get at. To me the booklets feel very accessible or usable. Sure they may get some tear and wear since they aren't hardback but I can tape that up and it all gives it character that makes it much more personal and homey.
Thanks for hitting the head on the nail!

Yorgel
2017-07-12, 07:56 PM
Speaking as someone who WAS around during that period, the 3-ring binder thing, while it sounded like a clever idea, was basically awful. Three ring binders have terrible durability under any kind of stress and inevitably pages get torn out or the whole thing gets crushed and bent, and it takes up way more space than a book. Not recommended. That was a brief experiment during 2nd edition, and they hastily rolled it back for good reason.

I really don't give a darn about saddle stitched vs some other form of binding. As long as the book holds itself together, I don't care. I've certainly never encountered a book that had organizational issues that were A) bad enough to consider rearranging the order of the book AND B) actually fixable by reordering the book, so this a non-thing from my perspective as well. Though to be fair, organization during the AD&D 1 era was TERRIBLE. Good luck finding anything in those books unless you memorized a page number. (Which I did.) Similarly, if I had campaign notes or something, why in holy hell would I want to put them in the book? I'm gonna use that book for my next campaign too! Then what? No. Campaign/module/character/mission/backstory notes got a folder, same as now.

While I do feel like modern glossy fancypants book design has made many RPGs less useful as games and more useful as coffee table objects, this has never been a hobby for the faint of heart when it comes to carrying stuff around. Even in my AD&D 1 days, I would routinely lug a player's handbook, dungeon master's guide, three different monster books, unearthed arcana, and the dungeoneer's and wilderness survival guides with me to gaming. Yes, these books were overall a little lighter than the modern ones, but not THAT much - I was bored and just got out a scale. The 2nd edition DMG weighs about 24 ounces, compared to 36 for the 3rd edition PH, 40 ounces for the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual (the hardbound one.) and 20 ounces for the only 1st edition book I have on hand, Greyhawk Adventures, which I suspect is a little bit on the light side. Sure, it's true that hauling your entire library of D&D4 or Pathfinder books somewhere is going to be a huge pain in the ass, but that's what you get for picking a game with dozens of supplemental books. Dungeon World weights 19 ounces, Burning Wheel 29, and Ryuutama 30. :P

So I guess basically: no. I'm not feeling any nostalgia for old books.

The issues with binders are interesting and good to know. I wonder if some of the binder issues could be solved with just a better binder. I think I saw a kickstarter the other day that was a leather RPG binder that looked pretty durable. That wouldn't totally save the pages from tearing but it might help a bit.

I guess what I'm trying to get at and what I think could a solve some organization issues is making the rulebook itself more modular(which is how I view the booklets) or segmented or tab-able which I see a binder being able to help with. And while I agree with the faint of heart comment this hobby also attracts a lot of people who really care about organization and details. I've seen the extensive self tabbing of several of my friends rulebooks and just think that maybe there's a better format than the current plain book one.

Thanks for the comments and wise perspective!

Telok
2017-07-12, 09:16 PM
I think my only two 'things' with rulebooks are organization and humor.

I probably don't quantify organization in the same way some others do. The AD&D DMG is just fine by my standards. Combat stuff in one area, exploration in another, campaign bits here, magic over there. A decent index, table listings, appendices. The 3.5 PH is good too, the glossary is a nice bonus. Basically you can find stuff by looking at the table of contents or index, and similar stuff is lumped togather. The 5e PH that I tried to use was organized like crap, and it's spell list/chapter is an utter horror to try to use.

Humor is something that's rarely mentioned in game book critiques, unless it's a humor based game like Paranoia or Toon. But I feel it's important in setting the tone and feel of the book. The AD&D DMG has cartoons, 3rd ed Call of Cthulhu has jokes, even the 3e D&D PH has a couple of humorous bits. They acknowledge that this is a game, it's meant to be fun, and that it's OK to laugh about it. This is missing from a lot of game books, and I think those books tend to suffer from trying too hard to be awesome, or serious, or something. Humor is fun and happyness, you're allowed to put that in a gaming book.

1337 b4k4
2017-07-12, 11:16 PM
I vastly prefer older rule books for use at the table, with the caveat that I wish they had indexes (or better indexes where they did have them). I prefer this because older rule books were published a bit more like a reference document. Details abounded, but the important things tended to be consolidated into one or two pages of tables, which meant I could bookmark a handful of sections and pretty much have everything I needed (and more) at my finger tips (barring the times when the lack of general organization meant some rules for a situation were here, while others were there. Also the black and white text and general lack of full page art meant skimming and reading the text was much easier.

I prefer newer books for getting a feel of the flavor of the game, and for "inspiration". The newer, higher quality art and higher quality production values can convey a lot of information that would otherwise require way too much text. That isn't to say older books couldn't be inspirational (and there's something to be said about old line drawings for monsters instead of some of these full color spreads), but overall for getting into the mood of the games, the newer books do it better. My problem is, producing text for reading and inspiration and producing it for reference is two very different things. I get why productions are the way they are now, and I don't hold out hope for seeing a return to the simpler layouts, part part of me really wishes publishers would put out "table reference" documents. The "Starter Edition" of classic traveller has an entire book that's basically a consolidation of all the charts and tables. I'd love to see that from more games. In fact to continue to pick on Traveller, the difference between Mongoose Traveller 1st edition books and 2nd edition books is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. 1e books specifically were designed to feel and read like the classic books, and they're clean and easy to read at a glance. The 2e books are much more modern with full color full page artwork and stylized sections and layouts. While it invokes some setting and emotional stuff, to my mind, it's also a much worse book to sit at the table and try and run a game from.

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-07-13, 02:58 AM
Just want to chip in with the absolutely worst / best rule book I own - Mage: The Ascension.

It's beautiful!
It's shiny, with gold text in gorgeous calligraphic font, and full of quality, relevant artwork, all done in a consistent and appropriate style. You feel like you're reading an in-character document at times.

It's illegible!
The gold text in a fiddly calligraphic font is used for section headings, so you can never find what you want. Too much of the text is in a skinny italic font that isn't easy to skim-read. You feel like you're reading some lost tome of obtuse and obscure scribblings, and it makes it almost impossible to use.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-13, 06:12 AM
Just want to chip in with the absolutely worst / best rule book I own - Mage: The Ascension.

It's beautiful!
It's shiny, with gold text in gorgeous calligraphic font, and full of quality, relevant artwork, all done in a consistent and appropriate style. You feel like you're reading an in-character document at times.

It's illegible!
The gold text in a fiddly calligraphic font is used for section headings, so you can never find what you want. Too much of the text is in a skinny italic font that isn't easy to skim-read. You feel like you're reading some lost tome of obtuse and obscure scribblings, and it makes it almost impossible to use.


Yeah, the problem is, it's not an in-character document... it needs to function has an RPG rulebook/reference in the real world.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-13, 06:26 AM
Yeah, the problem is, it's not an in-character document... it needs to function has an RPG rulebook/reference in the real world.

Yep, is 'black text on a white background' really so hard to understand? It's the standard text-colour background colour combination which almost everything uses, I don't pick up a novel and find it's pages have been inked to look like parchment.

I own Mongoose Traveller 1e, and it is a joy to reference. Black text on a white background, well formatted tables (well, good enough ones anyway), headings easy to read but still standing out. Lots of games aren't as easy to reference during play, or as comfortable to read.

(Although I'll admit there's an exact shade of faded brown that I find easier to read off of, and some people find it easier with a different background colour.)

CharonsHelper
2017-07-13, 07:26 AM
(Although I'll admit there's an exact shade of faded brown that I find easier to read off of, and some people find it easier with a different background colour.)

I have actually read that the absolute easiest combination to read is black text on a cream background (in a graphic design for dummies style article), but black on white is still up there.

Nupo
2017-07-13, 09:54 AM
Full color art is nice, but it doesn't need to be in every book or in every page of every book - the amount of money wasted on color ink for margins and headers in 3.5 books is extraordinary.
Actually it cost the same if the entire page is saturated with ink, or only one small dot of color. Printing companies don't charge more if you use more ink.


I'm not keen on glue spine softcover books because they tend to fall apart faster,
That's called "perfect bound" and if done properly is quite durable. Unfortunately it's frequently done poorly.


I think the biggest difference between the newer books and the older books are page limits. publishers used to charge by page ranges, so If you went slightly over one range, you were charged for the next range up.
Books are still printed in groups of pages, usually 16 pages per group.


In terms of price - have you calculated including paper's increased cost. (And make sure you remember that paper has gone up considerably more than inflation due to increased environmental restrictions starting late 80's & early 90's.)
Yes, paper cost have increased, but printing cost have gone down. The printing process is much less labor intensive than it was even 20 years ago.


The books are printed entirely in color to the point of saturation, making some text hard to read because of the lack of contrast.

Yep, is 'black text on a white background' really so hard to understand?
I can't agree more. Designers frequently get carried away, and overdo the design aspects, forgetting that the book is actually going to be read by someone.

Airk
2017-07-13, 11:54 AM
I mostly blame White Wolf for the "Game book as coffee table artifact" phenomenon.

Also, games weren't really that much cheaper back in the day. Yeah, I was paying $15 for a Player's Handbook in 1985, but accounting for inflation, that was $34 in modern dollars for a much thinner, less well produced book. So.... it's not all a bed of roses.

But I am mostly done with huge arsed glossy, hardback books. Most of my games that I buy physical these days are "digest sized" paperbacks. And generally not full color glossy anything.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-13, 12:02 PM
And it's not just a matter of color -- the Planet Mercenary RPG book manages to be full color and yet quite easy to read, because the color isn't "artfully" obscuring the text.

oxybe
2017-07-13, 01:14 PM
The 4th ed books are probably the cleanest looking ones in D&D IMO.

I found this slide show of pictures of the Divine Power someone took with a potato for their ebay entry. It should give an idea what the inside of the books looked like https://picclick.com/DUNGEONS-DRAGONS-4th-Ed-DIVINE-POWER-222484939725.html

GungHo
2017-07-17, 01:26 PM
Just want to chip in with the absolutely worst / best rule book I own - Mage: The Ascension.

It's beautiful!
It's shiny, with gold text in gorgeous calligraphic font, and full of quality, relevant artwork, all done in a consistent and appropriate style. You feel like you're reading an in-character document at times.

It's illegible!
The gold text in a fiddly calligraphic font is used for section headings, so you can never find what you want. Too much of the text is in a skinny italic font that isn't easy to skim-read. You feel like you're reading some lost tome of obtuse and obscure scribblings, and it makes it almost impossible to use.

White Wolf also did black on dark grey a few times along with text over pictures. I guess it's intended to be "artsy", but it ended up more "fartsy". It was very hard to read. I could never tell if they didn't look at any samples of the books (no time or not allowed to reject), or if they simply didn't care that no one could read it.