Second edition page layout. Was it better than the current one?

[Ron]

Last Sunday a couple of friends whom I haven't seem since my undergraduate times, about 14 years ago, appeared at my place for a friendly game of AD&D 2nd edition. I haven't played 2nd edition for long, as I nearly dropped D&D for other rpgs at the time it was released and latter I virtually dropped roleplaying at all. Still, I can affirm that there's no doubts that the third edition is a superior game.

However, I am writing because of the page layout design. Although I was getting used to, third edition doesn't sports a good page layout design. The text is very hard to follow, being frequently interrupted with illustrations -- some of them gorgeous, but still disrupting of the reading flow -- and bugged with horizontal lines and the bad looking and distracting coloured margins.

I was very pleased in browsing the second edition books. I looked at the PHB, the DMG, the Complete Wizards, and a few FRealms books. They are very clean and the text is easy to follow. The PHB have nice illuminures in each chapter opening and the few full page colour illustrations are far more evocative of the small third edition pieces spread around the book.

I am reasonably sure that the upcoming edition will keep the current design, but I wonder what we would get if the give more value to the text than the current design.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

The thing I notice when I go back to some of my 2e books is that the text is so big in some of them.

I agree that the 3e books are sometimes hard to follow (MM in particular) due to trying to cram stuff in, but I think overall the 3e books are better. The full color and glossy pages are especially nice - at least compared to the early 2e books, the Player Option era books had better text density and paper quality.

 

[Marius Delphus]

I'm much happier with the look of the 3E books than I presently am with the look of any of the 2E books (looking back at them), and I was especially disappointed with look of the Player's Option books and revised core books (Spells and Magic being the best of a poor lot). I rather liked the Monstrous Arcana line, but I still prefer the new looks (FR, OA, and core; in no particular order). The 3E books (esp. the ones without the brown "notebook" lines) just look far more professional to me.

 

[Grazzt]

I much prefer the 3e layout in just about all the books to the stuff TSR did with the layout for 2e.

Course now, if we were comparing 1e to 3e....

 

[BOZ]

The thing I notice when I go back to some of my 2e books is that the text is so big in some of them.

this was one of my main arguments as to why the tome of magic and book of artifacts should have been one big book. they could've made the font smaller and reduced the margins... the content goes together naturally anyway.

 

[ced1106]

Although I was getting used to, third edition doesn't sports a good page layout design. The text is very hard to follow, being frequently interrupted with illustrations -- some of them gorgeous, but still disrupting of the reading flow -- and bugged with horizontal lines and the bad looking and distracting coloured margins.

Yep. 3e also has "widows and orphans". Really, for its flagship product, WotC really should have laid this out as a reference book, not a coffee table one.

3e: There's a problem with the art. It interferes with the layout.
2e: There's a problem with the art. It sucks!

J/K, but if I want fantasy art in my rpg book, I'll get some MtG commons and use 'em as bookmarks.


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[Erik Mona]

With the sole exception of Planescape, 2e D&D books set the standard in bad design. Small "I wonder what this button does" designers for companies like White Wolf were able to make their products look SO much better with a minimum of effort. Yes, the little lines between sentences are annoying, and sometimes the designers allow words to approach too close to (generally high-quality) art, but that's a small price to pay. The design is better. Aside from breaking stat blocks across pages all too often, the information design is LEAGUES better. I really don't think there's a contest.

Or would we prefer our books in 12-point type and littered with light blue amateur "woodcut" illustrations like back in the glory days? I wonder what that "JEM" artist is up to these days?

--Erik

 

[KingOfChaos]

I have to say that I prefered the monster manual format for second edition. Which is why I am glad some companies are trying to go back to using something similar to it (Bastion Press, for instance).

 

[Storminator]

I'm terrible at judging layout. I completely overlook things that drive others crazy.

But the 3E books physical construction is so much better it's amazing. I picked up Faiths and Avatars in the used bin the other day, and the difference between it and say, Lords of Darkness, is simply astounding. I'm so glad I'm gaming in this day and age.

PS

 

[Qlippoth]

Or would we prefer our books in 12-point type and littered with light blue amateur "woodcut" illustrations like back in the glory days? I wonder what that "JEM" artist is up to these days?

--Erik

Oddly enough, the first images that come to mind when I think of 2e are those light blue things. Maybe JEM's moved on to WizKids by now...