By Its Cover or Its Guts?

[Wizards of the Coast]

Jon takes a look at bringing the past into the present, then covers the topic of the future in this week's Dragonâ??s-Eye View. So, if you want to learn more about the 3.5 premium books and answer questions about the treatment for D&D Next, this is the article to check out!

Read By Its Cover or Its Guts? on D&D Insider here!

 

[GreyICE]

Is it seriously an article discussing the process behind some of the least interesting and least imaginative covers in human history?


"It's the monster manual. What should we put on the cover?"
"An eye! What an original idea."
"Oh man, that'll really inspire people! Who could imagine a gigantic eye staring at them in a magical fantasy campaign? We're really cooking with gas!"
"Aye! Why this is truly something that has never been done before! A giant staring eye! And maybe if a halfling puts a specific ring on their finger they see it!"
"OH MAN!"

P.S. If your response is that this is a legacy from other people's screaming lack of originality...

 

[Stormonu]

Some tricky to answer questions there, I get the feeling they were badly worded.

How much do you agree or disagree with the following: No matter how pretty a product is, or how good the rules are, if the product isn’t usable, I’m not going to spend my hard-earned dollars on it.

Well, I'ld like to say I prefer a good rulebook, but I've been lured into buying a couple that had some horrible organization (The L5R rulebooks come to mind - beautiful, but the rule organization is wretched).

One things for sure - bad rules can't be disguised by beautiful graphics.

How much do you agree or disagree with the following: Overall, usability is more important than "pretty" design.

Talk about a loaded question...

As an example of what I want/don't want I'd just like to put forth West End Games Star Wars 2nd Edition vs. it's Star Wars 2nd Edition Revised and expanded.

I couldn't stand the initial 2nd Edition book. It was a dense manual, packed with walls of text and ugly black-and-white reproductions of photos from the original 3 movies. I literally couldn't stand attempting to read it for more than a few minutes at a time. Luckily for me, we'd already been playing the 1E version so I only occasionally had to look things up, and preferred using the GM's screen when I could get away with it.

Then I got the 2nd Edition Revised and Expanded book. Full color, with chapters laid out interrupted with color and pictures. It was easy on my eyes and I eagerly read and devoured the ruleset. It really helped that the layout divvied up the rules into easy-to-locate sections and put important concepts into sidebars. I bought 3 copies of the rulebook and tossed my old 2nd Edition book in a box. Of all the versions of Star Wars RPGs over the years, this is still my favorite ruleset, in large part due to the book's layout.

I had a similar experience with the GURPS 3rd edition and 4th edition books. They cover pretty much the same rules, but the 4th edition is so much more appealing I've actually given the game a go.

 

[Raith5]

Ah the 3rd ed covers, I did not mind them when they came out and they could be worse. As much as I love the rules of 4th ed I cannot stand the 4th ed PHB. Worst. cover. ever!

 

[Evenglare]

I just made a post about this on general. I love the 3.5 covers, they are hands down my favorite book covers from any rpg I own. I recieved my NEW 3.5 reprints they made and those are even better. I love the whole in world thing and I personally DO think it's much more inspiring and helps the feel of the game rather than the 4th edition books where I very much felt I was reading an instruction manual on how to play the game. (That's not to say I didnt like 4th edition , because I loved it, but the book covers were awful and very uninspired in my opinion of course). I REALLY hope they go back to a 3.x version of cover for this next edition.

 

[JeffB]

I really hope they do not go 3.x esque for the covers or layout. Marbles and tin foil do not scream "in world" to me...maybe when I was 5 they did, but....

Overly dense text in small type is another thing I hate as I get older.

Though I know it will never happen, I would like to see core books with minimal but well executed B&W art and simple but highly readable layout ala the Moldvay Cook Marsh B/X booklets.

 

[delericho]

I always liked the 3e covers. I wouldn't necessarily advocate that style for 5e (which I feel should do something new), but by not having a picture on the cover those books said "reference work" to me, rather than the somewhat cartoon-esque 4e cover.

And, yeah, the 3.5e reprints should indeed use covers that are, at least, heavily inspired by the covers of the originals.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I really like the 3.0 covers, but feel that the 3.5 covers took the decoration to the absurd, where I would have preferred the decoration to be scaled back. For example, the 1st Edition collectors books have stunning covers, and I'd advocate something like that.

I also liked the interior design of the 3.x books, though I think the Rules Compendium probably struck the best balance between form and function. Paizo has also been doing a fantastic job with the interiors of the various Pathfinder books, with the Inner Sea World Guide being the single most attractive book I've ever seen.

For the most part, I like the 4E cover design, but the interior design feels too modern with pure white pages and large, ragged right text. It doesn't convey the feeling of austerity that I want from my D&D books.