|
Wider margins are more comfortable to read, and I am pretty sure that is the main motivation behind it. If they shrunk them much more everything would start to look cramped and wordcount per page would spike dramatically, which impacts the overall price of the book just as much as the number of pages within.
I like the pages as Pathfinder does it. Not only larger margins for easier read, but also trying to shorten or lengthen passages, so that chapter take whole pages, not like 3.5 where races ended at the middle of a page. This is especially true for bestiary.
However you are right, smalles marges, smaller fonts, less images, and you could make a compact book.
However you are right, smalles marges, smaller fonts, less images, and you could make a compact book.
Compact, yes, but much less readable, for sure.
Wider margins are more comfortable to read, and I am pretty sure that is the main motivation behind it. If they shrunk them much more everything would start to look cramped and wordcount per page would spike dramatically, which impacts the overall price of the book just as much as the number of pages within.
Why does having more words on a page make the page more expensive to print?
If by "Ancient D&D" you mean 1st Edition AD&D, I just came back from checking my bookshelf with a ruler (if I still have ancient D&D books, does that make me an ancient D&D gamer?), and the 1st Edition DMG has 1/4" margins. It also appears to be in 10 point type, in B&W.
By 2nd Edition DMG the type had enlarged to 12 point and the margins to 1/2". It also included sort of color (though not a lot.
3rd Edition (and 3.5)had 1" margins (same as the Pathfinder Core Rulebook), 12 point type, and full color.
I might also say that my 1st Edition DMG has stood up to 30+ years of Cheetos, Mountain Dew, Pizza and whatever else. Take that for what it's worth.
I think much of the change has to do with a general change in production values for printing, and for RPG books in particular. In 1978, I imagine it would have broken TSR to print the DMG, PH, and MM on glossy paper in full color, never mind the margins. There was also no standard production values for RPG systems, either, there not being many at the time. Heck, it was fairly common for typewritten copies of the rules to make the rounds if one couldn't find/afford the rule set. In 2011, there are very different expectations, and if an rule book is going to be different, there needs to be a reason why.
For what it's worth, I like the gradual changes. I have fond, fond memories of playing 1st edition and the 1st edition rule books (I can still give you the page numbers for both the experience point and saving throw tables), but if they were released today in their present format, I don't know if I would pick them up. I mean, a few of the illos in the 1e DMG look like my 10-year-old drew them.
There are some very good rule sets done completely in B&W (Burning Wheel comes to mind), but I have to say I like the Paizo materials the way they are.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd also point to Faith and Powers from 2e for small font. I think it's 8 point font.
I recall they did that because TSR had the writers on a strict page count. (I think Sean told me that, but don't hold me to it.)
At least it's not greyhawk product sized margins
|
Wider margins are more comfortable to read, and I am pretty sure that is the main motivation behind it. If they shrunk them much more everything would start to look cramped and wordcount per page would spike dramatically, which impacts the overall price of the book just as much as the number of pages within.Why does having more words on a page make the page more expensive to print?
Because they pay authors by the word.
Wider margins also allow the machine that cuts the page to be a little bit off without causing issues and cutting off letters
Printing cost wise, the number of words on a page doesn't change anything. Heck, even artwork on the page (as long as it is B/W) doesn't change the cost. What matters in printing is page count and if you are printing to the edge of the page (called "bleeding"). An all black page except for a 1/4" margin around the outside costs the same as a blank page.
I did consider dropping the side page graphic on the Book of the River Nations. It would have made reduced total page count by a page or two, but I can't print 46 pages, I'd have to have printed 48 anyways. Plus it just looks better with the side graphic so I kept it. It did increase printing cost some, but the book doesn't look like I took it to the local kinkos to get it printed.
Kobold Press
|
I think the earlier argument was simply that putting 25% more words on a page and keeping the same page count would mean paying writers and editors both about 25% more for the same size book.
Which sort of misses the argument about reducing pagecount, but ok.
For Open Design, we've had narrow margins and bigger wordcounts (such as in the Northlands book). Some releases had Paizo-size margins and more art (such as the Imperial Gazetteer).
If you go too heavy on text, people complain about the lack of art and graphics. If you do more with art and a little space for the page to breath, then people complain about the lack of text. I'm confident you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time.
Creative Director
|
Not only does more words on the page from smaller margins mean we need to pay the authors for more words, it also means that it takes that much longer for editors to edit the books. I'm pretty sure adding workload to the editorial cycle is just about the WORST thing we could do to our rulebook lines right now.
Also, I happen to think that books with tiny margins tend to look way too cluttered and cramped. It's ugly to not have margins big enough for your fingers and thumbs to rest when you're reading a book.
I love the layout, but I agree with you that the book could and should be much shorter in the next iteration.
There are literally hundreds of places where things could be reorganized and condensed. There's a lot of legacy material, too, from how the original designers thought things would play out.
For one narrow example, the attacks of opportunity section calls out the combat reflexes feat as a way to take more attacks of opportunity. There's not a lot of reason for this, it should suffice to explain the feat in the feat section.
The CRB is what it is for now, and I think we can get another few years out of it at least. After that, things need to be totally restructured and presented in a more user-friendly manner.
I'm a bibliophile of the first order. My only troubles with the CRB are as follows:
1. It's too thick/heavy to be held open with one hand for convenient reference. It's not Webster's Unabridged, requiring two hands and a lap if not a full lectern, but it is unwieldy. Related to that is the fact that it gets battered exceedingly quickly as a result.
2. Dark brown end papers printed on glossy stock are a poor choice for any book. They show every smudge and fingerprint and very quickly have worn spots showing the binding seams.
Wide margins with decoration, however, are something I associate with the golden age of fine press. I have a reproduction of Dulac's Sinbad the Sailor, and it has beautiful wide margins filled with gilded ornamentation.
Admittedly the slick paper needed for full color process is not as nice to the touch as the thick creamy paper used for fine press, but even the 1st ed DMG didn't use paper that nice. In fact, the only gaming book I have that ever has is Fantasy Wargaming from the early 80s.
But while we can dream of rpg books on 100% linen rag paper with lead type set and pressed by Willam Morris and tipped-in illustrations by Edmund Dulac, with fore-edge gilding and hand-marbled endpapers, it's not going to happen. Well, maybe the end papers. I know a store where I can buy those and I remember enough of my college book arts to do it if I really felt like it.
That said, there are things the golden age of fine press could not do as well as modern Photoshop. Illustrations with wrap-around text and watered backgrounds? That's very modern and very beautiful.
It should also be noted that one of the limitations of slick paper is that it smudges more easily than matte, making wide margins not just a matter of aesthetics but of necessity.
I don't have my CRB in front of me to check these, but some well-known guidelines in the typography world related to this:
Line length
Reading takes place in small leaps so that the eye picks put 5–10 characters at a time. According to studies measuring the movement of the eye, speed reading that would record text in a photographic manner
is physiologically impossible.
55–60 characters (including spaces) per line is usually considered an appropriate line length, allowing
the eye 6–12 quick stops on each line. 35–40 characters per line is considered the minimum: narrower
lines would cause the reader to have to switch from line to line unnecessarily often, and they also cause
problems with the way justified columns appear (see chapter on column settings). For practical reasons,
the minimum with newspapers is even lower, approximately 30 characters per line. Correspondingly,
90 characters per line is considered the maximum limit. This limit is approached in some wide-column
books and, for example, wall texts in exhibitions.
dndfinders,
Books were cheaper and easier to read in my day! We should do things like we used to so they'd be cheaper and better!
booger=boy
I think the layout and spacing on the newer books is far superior to the older, cramped style. The standards of publishing across the industry largely support this statement.
I get nostalgic about older books as well, but I would never want publishing to go back to that. Designers have learned a great deal since the first printings of D&D, let them use and it benefit from it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are literally hundreds of places where things could be reorganized and condensed.
As someone who spent the last 5 months simplifying the game text for the Beginner Box, I agree.
|
There are literally hundreds of places where things could be reorganized and condensed.As someone who spent the last 5 months simplifying the game text for the Beginner Box, I agree.
If there is a Pathfinder RPG 2 I'm hoping it would focus more along the lines of maintaining compatibility while simplifying and clarifying the existing rules rather than a reboot or major upgrade.
Not that I expect PFRPG 2 anytime in the next few years.
There are literally hundreds of places where things could be reorganized and condensed.As someone who spent the last 5 months simplifying the game text for the Beginner Box, I agree.
Please proceed immediately. Kthxbye. ;-)
Please proceed immediately. Kthxbye. ;-)There are literally hundreds of places where things could be reorganized and condensed.As someone who spent the last 5 months simplifying the game text for the Beginner Box, I agree.
Note that reorganization and condensation is not the same thing as a new version of the rules. For example, one of my favorite books from 3.5e was the Rules Compendium. No rule changes there, but it sure did make some of the rules easier to find, and I'm sure Pathfinder could use something similar to remove warts like:
* The description of flying movement is hidden in the Fly skill, rather than in with the rest of the movement types.
* There are, possibly, inconsistencies in when you do/don't suffer Dex penalties to AC and/or are flat-footed during a grapple - but it's virtually impossible to tell how it works.
* Magic weapons can overcome certain aspects of DR, but this is mentioned nowhere except in the little table hidden in the glossary.
These are just examples - I'm sure Sean could list 25 others right off the top of his head.
The time is not yet at hand, but it is fast approaching.
This period of discomfort and "problem rules du jour" is actually constructive for the game — it exposes the issues for the inevitable re-organization.
The time is not yet at hand, but it is fast approaching.
This period of discomfort and "problem rules du jour" is actually constructive for the game — it exposes the issues for the inevitable re-organization.
Sure, but my point is that a SORD-like reorganization and clarification is sufficient - we really don't need a new rule set.
Sure, but my point is that a SORD-like reorganization and clarification is sufficient - we really don't need a new rule set.The time is not yet at hand, but it is fast approaching.
This period of discomfort and "problem rules du jour" is actually constructive for the game — it exposes the issues for the inevitable re-organization.
Agreed.
I think there are obvious places where the rules could actually be changed to make things better, but those are errata-level changes. Things like the wording of certain conditions, etc.
If they were in the process of a total re-organization of the rules, that kind of thing would be fair game I think. That's a far cry from say, changing how magic in general works, or changing the hit dice or skill points of a class to address some perceived need.
It's a fine line, but I think that Paizo knows how to walk it actually. If they stay true to the mandate that gave us PF1e, then a PF2e should please most people.
Years in the future, but worth discussing now.
Note that reorganization and condensation is not the same thing as a new version of the rules. For example, one of my favorite books from 3.5e was the Rules Compendium. No rule changes there
RC changed few polymorph spell (and with a good reason!). Barring that, IIRC, you are right.
You're forgetting the most important reason for larger fonts and big margins--the demographic of p&p rpg's. If you remember playing 1st edition D&D, then you're probably hoping for a large print edition of PF-2 like I am ; )
All right, now I have soda all over my monitor and up my nose! Seriously, you're probably more right than you know, though hopefully that will change a bit as we greying ones proselytize and hopefully bring our children into the game.