Should we go to a more relaxed layout?

[calithena]

Curious about this. Right now we keep the magazine PACKED on purpose and I am already having trouble fitting everything in.

Sometimes though I think we might do better if we went to saddle stitch 3/4 inch margins 12 point font and fewer crammed together paragraphs in order to increase readability.

This would mean about 1/4 less content per issue though.

I think our content for money ratio is a great value of the magazine so I'm a little bit loath to change the formula. But I was curious what others think.

[Random]

I am happy with the readability and content of every issue I own. I wouldn't change anything.

[Melan]

We shouldn't.

[capvideo]

From my perspective, it's a good old-school style, and you're using modern tools to make it more readable. You're making good use of headlines and paragraph headings; you've got big (and useful) graphics breaking the text up; and the spacing between paragraphs is nice. Maybe when a paragraph exceeds a column of text consider breaking it up, but I don't see too much of that as I'm glancing through issue 6. The only thing that's really jumping out is that dark background colors on tables sometimes make the tables less readable, but looking at issue 7 I suspect that it's mainly a problem caused by the different kind of paper used in issue 6; the same use of background colors on the glossy paper in 7 looks fine.

[calithena]

Thanks for the feedback.

Another point in favor of keeping it packed is that it makes it a good value for money. Looser layout might or might not mean greater ease of use but it would make us less of a value. Probably better to be great in one dimension than good in several, is what I'm thinking.

It's weird that 6 uses different paper. I wonder if the paper for saddle stitch is better than the paper for perfect for some reason. If so one more reason to hew hard to the 88 page saddle stitch limit!

[kelvingreen]

Yeah, I'd go for content here. As far as I can tell, you've always got more content than you can fit in a given issue, so I'd play that up as a strength and keep the magazine packed to the brim.

[capvideo]

Mar 12, 2010 10:14:02 GMT -6 calithena said:

It's weird that 6 uses different paper. I wonder if the paper for saddle stitch is better than the paper for perfect for some reason. If so one more reason to hew hard to the 88 page saddle stitch limit!

Looks like it. I just looked over all the issues, and all of the saddle stitch is on a glossier paper than the perfect-bound. The difference in readability mostly obvious when looking at background shading on tables.

(I'm not going to say one is better than the other--I prefer non-glossy paper generally; but in this case it does seem as though the glossy is more readable when background shading is used.)

[Finarvyn]

I think that there are several fantastic things about Fight On!.
1. I like the content. Useful articles, a fun read.
2. I like the philosophy. Old school.
3. I like the fact that it doesn't have to fit a pre-determined publishing pattern (e.g. "monthly" or whatever) and when an issue is done it's released.

If changing font size or margains or whatever makes it easier/faster/cheaper to produce then I would say go for it! Otherwise, it's a pretty darned good product as it is. However, I would be just as happy with half the size twice as often, unless that would impact the cost too much. I thought that issue #3 was getting a bit large and becoming more book-like than magazine like, and at least in my head I'm thinking of Fight On! as a gaming magazine.

Just my two coppers.

[thegreyelf]

I agree. Keep it the way it is. The only change I'd like to see is for you to get wide distribution! It'd be awesome to be able to walk into Barnes & Noble and pick up a copy of FO! from the rack.

Actually, in all seriousness, I would like to see a regular quarterly release, or even bimonthly. If putting less in each issue and holding some in reserve for future issues would help in that arena, then I'd be in favor of doing so. Perhaps what you could do is just blanket open to submissions rather than taking submissions for specific issues? That way nobody gets disappointed when their article is bumped to a later issue.

[calithena]

We have a regular quarterly release, actually. We're bumping up against the end of the quarter here but it will be out next week, just in time.

I too would like to see wider distribution but we would have to have someone besides lulu print us up to make that a possibility I think.

Thanks for all the kind words!

[Random]

Distribution is fine, but I think it would be nice to keep it on lulu (or some other POD) as well. The reason? People like me who have the first five issues, love them, but are taking a break from spending cash of RPG stuff. I'd like to able to swoop in at some point and get all the issues I've missed, rather than having to track them down.

On releasing, I'm a sporadic buyer so I don't mind a sporadically-released magazine.

[kesher]

Content, content, content.

It looks and feels like a 'zine, and I'd love it to stay that way.

[Alex Schroeder]

I also feel that if we're competing on layout, we're going to loose in the long run because we don't have the super-glorious layout and artwork of other publications. Therefore we should focus on what we do best: publish a lot of cool stuff that gets submitted.

Sure, a small improvement here or there is ok. Line height, default font, hyphenation, paragraph separation, headlines, sections, whatever typographers and layouters recommend. But whatever we do, we shouldn't sacrifice what we do best: publish a lot of cool stuff that gets submitted.

Loosing 1/4 of our content is weakening us where we are strong: publish a lot of cool stuff that gets submitted.

How's that for a rant?

Fight Oooon!

[zacharythefirst]

Yep, minor layout tweaks for readability would be ok, but not at the expense of content. I can't think of another RPG magazine that stuffs as much stuff in as Fight On!, and it'd be a shame to lose any of that.