Monte on covers

[Silas the Mariner]

As Eric Noah said, I think that Wizards have got the "faux" book and cover art balance just right with recent releases:

 

[Ottergame]

I practially ignore cover art. One of my favorite books is Rokugan, and I couldn't tell you what's on it's cover to save my life. I can swear, in all honesty, I have -NEVER- purchased a RPG book based on it's cover. I read through the content, that's all that matters to me.

The cover could have the goatse man on it for all I care (I'd cover it up, to save my poor lunch), if the content is good I'll buy it.

 

[buzz]

I'm in 100% agreement with what Mark posted above. Sage words.

Personally, I like good covers, and I dislike bad covers. The WotC core books, IMHO, have good covers. Some of the faux-covers I've seen have been appealing to me, some have not (a lot--such as the initial S&SS releases--simply screamed "ripoff" to me, honestly). Ditto illustrated covers.

No offense to MEG Hal, but the Fall of Man cover doesn't appeal to me. It's not bad, but it reminds me a lot of the 2e/Elmore style that I just can't stand, and thus makes associations in my mind that make the product unappealing to me. That, and I already own Darwin's World, so I have all the post-apoc RPG goodness I need.

As others have stated, that's one of the things I like about the core books, i.e., the lack of art eliminates any possible negative associations I might have; they blend with any concepts I might have. Most 2e books (and Dragon art from that era) I found so incredibly hideous that I simply didn't want to play AD&D anymore. If 3e had continued in that vein, I might not have picked it up.

Supplements, OTOH, need to evoke specific associations more than the core books. Ergo, the more art they can splash all over the product that conveys the content is a good thing, IMHO.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Personally, I like good covers, and I dislike bad covers. The WotC core books, IMHO, have good covers. Some of the faux-covers I've seen have been appealing to me, some have not (a lot--such as the initial S&SS releases--simply screamed "ripoff" to me, honestly). Ditto illustrated covers.

No offense to MEG Hal, but the Fall of Man cover doesn't appeal to me. It's not bad, but it reminds me a lot of the 2e/Elmore style that I just can't stand, and thus makes associations in my mind that make the product unappealing to me. That, and I already own Darwin's World, so I have all the post-apoc RPG goodness I need.

As others have stated, that's one of the things I like about the core books, i.e., the lack of art eliminates any possible negative associations I might have; they blend with any concepts I might have. Most 2e books (and Dragon art from that era) I found so incredibly hideous that I simply didn't want to play AD&D anymore. If 3e had continued in that vein, I might not have picked it up.

Just a thought, but I wonder if this isn't another reason for the choice of safe, but bland, covers vs. artwork. While a great cover can certainly help sell a book, artwork is very subjective and, in general, people are less likely to get excited (positively or negatively) about the faux-book covers. Of course, playing it safe has other costs - for example...

I love the art for Fall of Man. It evokes just the kind of campaign I've been wanting to run for months now - so just based on the cover, I'll at least take a look at the book. If it had been faux-book, I'd probably have no idea what the book was about and never even notice it.

 

[JEL]

While I don't believe that superior cover art is essential for a sale (contrary to the statements of others), I do believe it can help make an impulse sale. If you, as a gamer, are browsing the shelves looking for something to buy, you will likely be more inclined to pick up a book with an attractive cover versus one in a plain brown wrapper (publisher's name not withstanding). Once you've picked it up and looked at the contents, statistically speaking, if you find both favorable you will likely buy the book with the nice cover even though it also has good content. As a general rule, humans are more accepting towards and even desire those things which we find pleasing to our eyes. It only makes sense that this would apply to book covers. The covers serve as the lure and bait to get us to pick up the book, while the content is the hook that makes us say, "I'll buy it." But of course, there will always be exceptions to this rule...

I highly agree. While I buy books based on their content, I'm more likely to actually look at said content by an attractive cover.

 

[Aaron2]

As others have stated, that's one of the things I like about the core books, i.e., the lack of art eliminates any possible negative associations I might have; they blend with any concepts I might have. Most 2e books (and Dragon art from that era) I found so incredibly hideous that I simply didn't want to play AD&D anymore. If 3e had continued in that vein, I might not have picked it up.

I'm in complete agreement about 2e era art (esp. Elmore). Of course, I also dislike the whole dungeonpunk thing. Does every monster have to be screaming and charging?*

I thought the cover to Arcana Unearthed was weird since it looks exactly like the cover for the GURPS Basic book. Now that's disturbing.


Aaron

*One thing that bothers me greatly is that every computer generated movie monster must stand still and scream (preferably with a larger than possible mouth opening) before it attacks. All the LotRs movies were terrible in this regard.

 

[buzz]

I thought the cover to Arcana Unearthed was weird since it looks exactly like the cover for the GURPS Basic book. Now that's disturbing.

You thought the cover of Malhavoc's Arcana Unearthed looked like GURPS Basic? I don't see any resemblance.

Edit: Enh. Maybe...

 

[Ottergame]

LOL, come to think of it, you're right. They are a lot alike.

 

[buzz]

If it had been faux-book, I'd probably have no idea what the book was about and never even notice it.

This gets at what I was saying about supplements. The D&D core books can probably afford to do the faux-cover thing; being the most popular RPG on earth, everybody *knows* what they're about. Beyond that, products need to distinguish themselves.

The blah-factor comes in, I think, when third-party publishers mimic this. They're usually not doing it as well, and on top of that, the consumer has no idea what their product is about, initially. The cover doesn't really do anything to inform them. Ergo, you get a bunch of products with photoshop-leather covers and interchangeable names.

At least this trend (as much as it is one) seems to be sort of dying out. The time when it may have been a selling point ("Hey, that looks like one o' them new D&D books!") seems to have passed.

Anyway... what I'm really eager to see die is the "margins crowded with obnoxious ornamentation" trend. That really needs to go. Kudos to Malhavoc for not doing it.

 

[Wolffenjugend]

you're assuming Joe doesn't actually open up either book and try reading them.

My point is that joe average consumer who flips through both books and finds them equally interesting will be more likely to buy the one with the "nicer" cover.