• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Best Layout and Graphics?

I find AU to white, when i look at a page i see to much white, so much white that it hurts my eyes...

Ronin Arts has some... Interesting art pieces, layout is not my favorite...

I thought we where talking about D20/OGL books only, but if we're not, Heavy Gear books are also very appealing (both in layout as in art), Changeling (WWP), some of the Warhammer (40k) books, etc. But i would rather see this discussion to only include D20/OGL books, it's a bit more focused that way...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Cergorach said:
I find AU too white, when i look at a page i see to much white, so much white that it hurts my eyes...

I have nothing bad to say about the content of Arcana Unearthed, but the graphic design was so boring it nearly put me to sleep.

I feel compelled to chime in on Green Ronin's behalf, especially for the Mutants & Masterminds line. Simply gorgeous. Their B+W books also look great (and the prospect of the Book of Fiends has me drooling).

I agree that the Lord of the Rings books look good; too bad the game itself is lame. The Buffy game has nice graphic design and looks pretty decent to boot.

WotC can do great work when they try (like Dark Matter), but they don't always try.
 

I like WotC, Bastion, and AEG for layout (their styles are similar for d20 stuff).

Green Ronin usually does well too (although I hated the cursive section headers for the Necromancy book).

Least appealing to me is Fast Forward - in some of their books the text changes sizes from page to page. And the color pictures/graphics transfer horribly to black and white.

I also agree with The Sigil about Malhavoc. They are my second least favorite - particularly with regard to sidebars. Their first few supplements looked great, but I *really* rate the fact that in most of the books the sidebars are only differentiated by text size/font rather than shading or a border. It's painful for me to read (and it seems like there is an annoying sidebar on every page!). I do like the *content* of their books, however.
 

I'm not sure exactly what a "boring" layout is supposed to be. A layout can be bad in that it's difficult to read or use, or it can be professional and slick, or somewhere in between. I'm not entirely sure how it can be boring, though.

And again, I think the AU layout is my favorite in the industry, so you can't just point to that as an example. ;)
 

As a layout designer myself for a national magazine, I find:

Most visually appealing layout: Wizards of the Coast.
Ease of use: Malhavoc Press (but very bland. Easy on the eyes though)
 

Malhavoc Press - very solid layout (newer books even more so than older books). I appreciate it if a layout is easy to read (good structure, good font choice (hey, you can even read the headlines and sidebars! ;), no blatant errors).
Nothing boring about legibility.

There are other companies with a more original ("post-modern"?) layout, that's for sure.

And indeed, WotC layout rocks. Great stuff.
 

Joshua Dyal said:
I'm not sure exactly what a "boring" layout is supposed to be. A layout can be bad in that it's difficult to read or use, or it can be professional and slick, or somewhere in between. I'm not entirely sure how it can be boring, though.

And again, I think the AU layout is my favorite in the industry, so you can't just point to that as an example. ;)
Perhaps it will be easier to show than tell. I'll give an example from Way of the Staff (one of the PDFs that is a "piece" of Arcana Unearthed) by way of attachment (I have shrunk the scan of the page down to the point where it should be illegible in terms of reading the text itself, but the general idea should be clear).

Take a look at the first page below... tell me what you see.

I see LOTS and LOTS of huge areas of white space. The margins - especially the bottom and left margins - are huge. The left margin's sparsity is exaggerated by the fact that there's no text underneath the "gem with eyes" graphic (this is not unique to this page, it's in evidence throughout the book). As noted earlier, the sidebar has little demarcation... just a little extra "white space" around it, making it visually a little bit difficult to distinguish.

Now take a look at the second page below... again, we have the white space problems, but it also demonstrates another of the problems I have with the layout... the "Sameness." All of the text is in the same 1.5-spaced format, in the same font, at the same size, all the way down except for the "Class Features" header (which may be slightly hard to read, it's the first "break" in the left paragraph) but it's not much different from the text itself.

Basically, while the format is legible and neat, it's mind-numbingly dull. The 1.5 line spacing and huge margins make for a *lot* of white on the page. You have small type "swimming" in the midst of the white - which is a headache to read. Headers don't particularly stand out from the text. Sidebars don't particularly stand out from the text. Basically, all you see is a lot of white with small-font text swimming in the middle of it (the large margins and generous line spacing exacerbate the small font size by emphasizing it).

To put it another way, it looks like a textbook. It's dry. It's bland. The content is excellent - I'm not knocking that - and the layout is clean - I'm not knocking the legibility - but it's very boring. There are no "alternative fonts" or even "noticeable changes of font size" on the headers to break up the monotony of the "look" of the text. The sidebars are nearly undifferentiated from the remainder of the page, and don't break up the monotony of the look of the text. For contrast, pick up an FFG book some time - they have probably as much margin space, but break up the monotony of "black text on white page" with both page borders (which are not always popular, but do break the monotony) and, more importantly, with Headers in the Morpheus Font at a considerably larger text size from the main text (so they stand out - though FFG is not always great at "chopping the text up" into coherent sections underneath the headers).

Does that help explain why I find the layout boring? It's page after page of the same font, same size, same spacing, floating in the middle of a LOT of white.

--The Sigil
 

Attachments

  • mep1.gif
    mep1.gif
    16.5 KB · Views: 121
  • mep2.gif
    mep2.gif
    15.1 KB · Views: 107


Heh, I like the white. Rather than giving me a headache, the incredibly cramped and busier layout of your typical WotC book is much more likely to provoke that reaction. I like the feeling of space relative to, say, the FFG books, which feel to me to be fairly standard and traditional. Why standard and traditional would be good and "textbook" would be dull is still beyond me. I actually quite like the layout of most textbooks too, not that I've read any recently. It's not the layout of textbooks that tends to make them dull, it's the content.
 

Joshua Dyal said:
Why standard and traditional would be good and "textbook" would be dull is still beyond me.
It's kinda like cars, they're supposed to have four wheels, not five, not three, FOUR wheels. thehe same goes for game books, AU is like riding a car that has only three wheels...
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top