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

[Slomoot]

The blue woodcuts looked like something I did in 6th grade. As far as bad art though, you can't top the picture of the thief in the revised players handbook... I was always trying to get someone to play that creepy old man, but no takers

--Miles

Edit: Spelling... stupid state education

 

[haiiro]

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).

If you mean the most basic element of the format (one monster per page) it's my understanding that the 3.5e MM will be laid out in this fashion -- which is a very good thing. The current MM layout may have a more "dynamic" feel, but after I've read it once that's no longer a plus, and I'd much rather the focus were on its in-game usability.

As far as one of Ron's original comments goes, I think it's safe to assume that the background lines won't be in the 3.5e core books (as they haven't been present since the PsiHB). I actually liked the lines, though; they were one of the first things about the PHB that really jumped out at me.

 

[Nellisir]

While I'm clearly in the minority, I liked JEM's work. The illustrations in the core 2e books are far more evocative and interesting than the mundane "illustrate this spell" graphics in the 3e books. No more mysterious wizards, no more brooding fighters, no more secret sigils. Just Jozan and Mialee standing around, and Lidda getting her head blown off.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Jody Butt]

2E all the way. Three columns. Good B&W art by Easley. Covers by Easley. Full colour plates that look like paintings, not illustrations from comic books.

 

[Davelozzi]

With the sole exception of Planescape, 2e D&D books set the standard in bad design.

Planescape only? C'mon, Erik, you have to admit that the Birthright line was well done.

Certainly, the core books were less than perfect, but I think that is certainly still the case in 3e.

Also, I liked the design of Faiths & Avatars, although I agree with Storminator that the physical construction of the current books is far superior.

 

[Ron]

My basic point is that 2E layout was not intrusive in the reading. The art used in 3E is top quality, but it is hard to follow the text, not only because it is not clearly apart of it, but also because of the faded horizontal lines and the awful margins (man those margins are really bad).

Second edition art came in two kinds. Small pictures that were pretty good, sort of evocative of medieval themes, and full page color illustrations, usually top quality. Thus, I don't think that there is a difference in art quality (except for the MM, which is much better now and the covers, which are much worse now) but rather a difference in theme -- and I prefer 2E style -- and layout, which I would also go with 2E as I think it's less intrusive in the reading and the words, not the art, are the most important thing in a book.

 

[Psion]

I don't find the illustrations bothersome. Actually, I find some of them (mostly in the supplements; those in the core books don't do much for me) rather evocative and inspirational.

What does bug me about the core book is the brown lines. I mean: what's up with that?

 

[Marius Delphus]

"Good" page layout serves two functions:

1. It makes the contents of the page easy to read.
2. It's pleasing to look at.

Ease of reading ought to be of primary importance, IMHO. I've seen pages running the gamut between easy-to-read but boring to look at and "artful" but nearly impossible to read... I prefer being able to read!

As a caveat, I'd argue *both* of the items I listed above are qualitative and idiosyncratic judgments. What *I* find easy to read, other people will find distracting and frustrating, and vice versa. What *I* find pleasing to look at, other people will find garish, boring, or something else... and vice versa. There is no "golden design" just as there is no "golden ruleset"; you can't please everyone every time, after all, even though you might be able to shake out something of a consensus if you work at it.

I happen to agree with Erik that the 3E core books' page layout is a vast improvement over past layouts (as I've already said), but my further opinion is that the primary improvement has been in "look." As an experiment, I think the 3E core books were a fantastic success: I like the margin art, I love the fonts (I wish I owned that Celestia Antiqua, lemme tell ya ), and I find the pages clear (apart, as I said, from the brown "wet notebook" lines). I'm also a big fan of the layout featured in the new FR line.

Stat blocks crossing pages can be fixed (see Fiend Folio). Brown lines can be fixed (see all core books published after the first 3). White space around art can be fixed. Overall, I think we have some smashingly attractive, easily read books and to me the difference parallels that between fine cuisine and fast food (laying aside considerations of price and preparation time). Sure, fast food is serviceable and fills the empty spot, and it's even likable sometimes; but if you have the opportunity....

Just so it's clear where I'm coming from, my favorite 2E layouts, in order from "excellent" to "good," are: Planescape, Birthright, Mystara, the 3 FR deities books, and Monstrous Arcana. The rest strike me as varying from "a bit on the lame/boring side" to "ugly." Easy to read, sure (and I've reservations on this point concerning the "black books"), but still.

Personally, I think a judgment regarding page layout should be separated from a judgment regarding art quality. Picture your favorite artist (or pick from your short list) and your least favorite artist (or pick from your long list ) in that spot instead of the art that is actually there: to the extent that it doesn't make a difference, I'd say you are evaluating the page's layout.

Just to keep it unclear where I'm coming from, my favorite 2E art appeared all over the place. I won't name any names; I don't think a "favorite artist" discussion is on-topic in this thread.

You see, as a desktop publisher myself, page layout is one issue I sort of take to heart... what is "good" and "attractive" layout is of professional interest to me. I can't really say I make purchasing decisions based on it, because I've been buying the Arthaus Ravenloft stuff; I do like it for its content, but I find it kind of "bleh" layout-wise. (I don't even like the fonts. )

 

[Henry]

I'm biased. From an objective viewpoint, I don't like them as much as the 3E layouts; on the other hand, my 2E books don't exist in a vaccuum; The smell of the cigarette smoke from the countless "misspent youth" sessions with friends is still ingrained in the pages; the food stains from the celebration of the encounter with the Gigantic red dragon that we triumphed over at single-digit hit points is still embossed over one illustration. It's simpler, but there was more white space in the margins to spill stuff on and write notes in.

 

[Staffan]

I don't actually mind the faded brown lines in the core books so much, but the one big flaw in the corebook layout is that they don't use alternating shading in the tables. Tables, especially ones that are as wide as the page they're on, should always have alternating shading.

As for the MM, I think they've said something along the lines of still not doing 1 monster/page, but trying to avoid splitting the stat block across pages.