In Defense of Low Production Values

[geoffrey]

RPG books are, fundamentally, rulebooks. Let's take a step back from it all, and remember back to before we played RPGs. Game rules (I exclude computer game rules, since I am totally ignorant of them) were typically in one of three forms:

1. plainly printed on the inside of the game's box cover
2. plainly printed on a sheet of paper
3. plainly printed in a tiny folded and/or stapled booklet

The focus in these non-RPG books was on the game itself, not on the presentation of the rules. Consider Monopoly. The focus is on playing the game with the board, tokens, cards, money, dice, and little houses and hotels. Nobody would ever dream of printing the Monopoly rules in a deluxe rulebook with high production values (hardcover, color, professional art, fancy printing, etc.). Monopoly's rules are there to be learned and internalized, so the game can be played with minimal reference to the printed rules.

For the most part, the D&D game started out that way. The little brown books are printed in black-and-white (if one excepts the words "DUNGEONS & DRAGONS" on the covers), with amateurish art, and consist simply of 8.5" by 11" sheets of paper folded in half and stapled. These are honest-to-goodness rulebooks, and nothing else. Things changed a bit starting with Eldritch Wizardry (full-color cover and better interior art), but for the most part the OD&D rulebooks remained in unpretentious form.

This changed in a big way with AD&D. Gone were the days of simple and amateur presentation of the game rules. The presentation of the AD&D rulebooks was an object of admiration in and of itself: full-color hard covers, professional art, professional layout, etc. While I am a big admirer of Tramp's and Sutherland's art, I wonder if (in a way) it doesn't do a disservice to playing the game. The art in the AD&D volumes is so good and so prevalent that it kind of stamps a uniformity of vision on D&D land. Everyone started imagining the D&D monsters as looking like the illustrations in the Monster Manual. Gone were the days of each gaming group (or even each gamer) mentally picturing the monsters in its own unique way. I think that's a shame.

Then stuff such as Darlene's Greyhawk map was published. And it kept getting ramped up from there, with RPG rulebooks nowadays costing an arm and a leg for their over-the-top production values (full-color glossy pages in addition to their full-color glossy hard covers, entire teams of professional artists, fancy layouts, fancy fonts and splashes of color, etc.).

This makes me think that it isn't an accident that so many RPG products are purchased, read, and left to languish unplayed on the purchaser's book shelves. These books aren't presented as simple game rulebooks. Instead, they are presented as artistic coffee-table books. To me, that's kind of sad. RPGs should be primarily for play, not for admiring their production values.

Give me RPG books with low production values:

little or no art
typed on a plain-Jane word processing program
staple-bound
plain white paper and plain black ink
hand-drawn maps (the best example being the awesome hand-drawn dungeon map in Rob Kuntz's Bottle City module)

In short, give me products that anyone with imagination can make at home, and that no one would be afraid to use in a game by dog-earing pages, underlining passages, getting food stains on them, etc.

(The one exception I would make to the above would be something like M. A. R. Barker's Tekumel, in which the creator is presenting an intensely personal and developed fantasy world. Books for such benefit from profuse illustrations by the creator.)

[kuburanar]

Couldn't agree more. Here's an example of what I consider near-ideal, the Melee/Wizard clone "Legends of the Ancient World"
www.darkcitygames.com/docs/Legends.pdf
Seven booklet-size pages with almost no art and little whitespace. This and Microlite74 make me want to rewrite the 3 LBBs just to see if I can get it in under 36 booklet pages!

In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away.
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[coffee]

I totally agree with the basic sentiment. The market today demands high production values, but I could live without them. (I also prefer booklet sized rules, and not hardcover.)

However, when it comes to "Legends of the Ancient World" -- I have one 'production values' issue:

In short, there could be more white space. If you compare this to the LBBs, you'll find that space was not at such a premium that white space couldn't be included.

And in LofAW, there's half of page 7 and all of the (as yet non-existant) page 8 where they could spread the current text out. It would make it easier to read. (Especially since I printed it out as a booklet -- so it's both small and densely packed.)

[Mr. Darke]

I have to agree with this. Though I do like the way the S&W rule book is presented. I'd like to go back to this idea as the feel and flavor comes from the play and not the rules.

[Deleted]

Post deleted by author.

[kuburanar]

Coffee & dubeers, you make a good point. In that case, certainly use that page and a half to space things out. But this is what I was getting at:

I'd like to go back to this idea as the feel and flavor comes from the play and not the rules.

Rules-as-quick-reference-sheets pretty much necessitate that the imagination do all the full-color work. ;D

[chronoplasm]

Why don't you just download the quickstart rules then?
Many of these games you're talking about offer condensed versions of their rules with no pictures for free.

[Random]

Geoffrey, you are basically spot on here, but...

I'd say it depends on the size of the rulebook. For anything the scope of AD&D, I prefer a hardcover book, although fancy interior art isn't a must.
For more concise games (OD&D), I want something simple, easy to read, and easy to produce pirate copies of (since it's a pain to buy a round of M&M for a group).

[Finarvyn]

I like two types of rulebooks:
1. Smaller pamphlet-sized softbound books with simple b&w lineart and lots of white space.
2. Sturdy 8.5x11" hardback books with color artwork throughout.

Not so much in between. I hate spending big bucks on b&w hardbacks, for example. Either make it useful or make it pretty. For all cases, I prefer white pages to those with backgrounds. I also like somewhat large font size with a readable font.

The brown-book OD&D booklets are perfect, as is Carcosa and others of similar design. I loved the 1E d20 Conan but hated the "improved" 2E d20 Conan because the first one had nice artwork and the second one just looked cheap. That's kind of the problem I've had with the d20 Blackmoor line, becasue they are big and bulky but softbound and b&w.

The Sorcerer RPG is a bit of an oddity, in that it has the "b&w pamphlet" feel but is done in hardback. Oh, well. So much for a hard-and-fast rule.

[Deleted]

Post deleted by author.

[gazeboslayer]

I just got the JG "Ready Ref Sheets" their unique production values brought a smile to my face.

[kuburanar]

Aug 6, 2009 14:48:21 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

I was referring strictly to white space, as referenced in my comment. Too little strains the eyes and makes text difficult to read.

You don't need art to have white space (if that is what you're saying).

I'm going to take the blame for the lapse in communication. Your reply indicates you read something into my comment I did not intend to convey.

I'll butt out of the conversation now.

Sorry, I should have worded that post better. I meant to say that your posts caused me to realize the importance of whitespace.
The sentence of mine you quoted was intended as a response to Julian's quote only.

[Mr. Darke]

And I heartily agree!

[Deleted]

@ kuburanar: Ah! Okay. (chuckle) I understand now.

[palmer]

I'll tell you what I don't like, glossy paper! I have a hard time reading anything printed on hi gloss paper. The light just glares off of it unless you hold it just so to the light source. It irratates the crap out of me.
I much prefer flat or satin papers for just about anything. Also, as far as relates to fantasy gaming, that glossyness is so, "modern", it just dosn't seem right for a sword and sorcery theme.
It's just a little thing, really, but every " lense flair" off the page jars the atmosphere of immersion for me when I'm reading.

[waysoftheearth]

I am in total agreement that there is something beautiful about modest, functional production values which is lacking in many "over-produced" modern gaming products. Now that then I find myself looking over a (pdf) Strategic Review and am awestruck by the glorious simplicity of it. Sometimes, less really is more.

On the other-hand, sometimes more is more.

I recently came across a copy of the Tunnels & Trolls 30th(?) anniversary edition boxed set. I'm not a T&T player, but this is a modern product that delivers a serious dose of good ol' fashioned value. In one little box (half as deep as the OD&D box) you get a five digest-sized booklets -- a ring-bound rulebook, monster manual, and book of spells and magic items, then two separate adventures, cardboard chit sheets, character sheets, a colour map of Trollworld, and dice. The box is so packed full of goodies that once you've opened it, you can't get the lid closed any more!

That's a different kind of production "value", but one I'm sure would appeal to a broad cross-section of gamers.

[Random]

Aug 6, 2009 21:15:22 GMT -6 palmer said:

I'll tell you what I don't like, glossy paper! I have a hard time reading anything printed on hi gloss paper. The light just glares off of it unless you hold it just so to the light source. It irratates the crap out of me.
I much prefer flat or satin papers for just about anything. Also, as far as relates to fantasy gaming, that glossyness is so, "modern", it just dosn't seem right for a sword and sorcery theme.
It's just a little thing, really, but every " lense flair" off the page jars the atmosphere of immersion for me when I'm reading.

I dislike glossy paper for the practical reasons (glare and smooth texture), but I don't care at all about the modern factor. Hell, we play RPGs with a computer!

[machfront]

I guess I'm the odd man out.
I don't need or want anything big an' flashy. I guess the format and layout of B/X or Fifth Ed. Tunnels & Trolls is about my ideal (though I far prefer hardbacks in general).

However, I will certainly agree wholeheartedly on the matter of glossy pages. I can't stand that.

waysoftheearth,
If you're talking about the tin, then yes, that's the 7th ed. 30th Anniversary. The boxed set for T&T 7.5 has even more in it. (Though I still far prefer 5th ed. as a game.)
Sorry....T&T is my big fave and I can never resist talking about it.

[Deleted]

I really prefer a utilitarian approach to my rulebooks. IMO, no other RPG manual has really ever beaten the sturdiness & bang for your buck of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia; mine is still in great shape for the miles it's got (18 years of 'em). And yes, I also prefer hardbacks. Even though I try my best not to be, I'm always really rough on softcover manuals.

The price of manuals today, on the other hand, is another story. 20+ years ago, it was feasable to drop $15 to $20 bucks on a new manual. Even $25 wasn't out of the question, if it was really worth it (like my RC . But $34.95? For a Player's Handbook? Are they serious? That's a good reason why I am so reluctant to try a new mainstream RPG; too expensive. I don't need all that fluff between the covers.

[Deleted]

Post deleted by author.

[geoffrey]

Aug 7, 2009 7:30:27 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

[/li][li]Good grammar, spelling, and punctuation.[/quote]

Yep. It's ironic that some of these expensive and fancy full-color, hardback RPG tomes apparently couldn't afford a good editor.

One of my favorite examples of how to do it right is the Empire of the Petal Throne game published by TSR at the dawn of the hobby at 1975's Gen Con. The editing therein is, humanly speaking, perfect. Any typos therein are vanishingly rare. The rulebook is (IIRC) about 112 pages long, written by one man (M. A. R. Barker) and looked over by Gary and his buddies in their humble little start-up business called Tactical Studies Rules (before it was abbreviated to "TSR").

That's why I will never be forgiving towards poorly-edited RPG material (unless it's free, in which case I figure I got what I paid for). If Empire of the Petal Throne can be pretty much perfect, there is no reason for later RPGs to be riddled with typos.

[Grognard]

Aug 6, 2009 9:49:54 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

While I am a big admirer of Tramp's and Sutherland's art, I wonder if (in a way) it doesn't do a disservice to playing the game. The art in the AD&D volumes is so good and so prevalent that it kind of stamps a uniformity of vision on D&D land. Everyone started imagining the D&D monsters as looking like the illustrations in the Monster Manual. Gone were the days of each gaming group (or even each gamer) mentally picturing the monsters in its own unique way. I think that's a shame.

I understand your sentiment about how rules for games used to be simple, mostly text-only documents meant to be digested so that players of the game can get to the actual playing of the game as quick as possible. Its a good point. Another good point is the simple economics of amateur vs. professional games; namely, the price point to but into playing the game. Expensive games can certainly be a turn off to many (particularly those that crank out an endless line of supplements and add-on material that gamers feel obligated to buy to "keep up"). Point well taken.

That being said, I can't agree at all with your statement about the art from AD&D (and I'd assume that must include art from Holmes, Moldvay, etc. as well, since all of that was done by professionals for a professional-level publication).

The reason I disagree is because the art from the early RPG era does not do what you say it does. It has never forced a feeling of conformity upon my imagination, but in fact has done the exact opposite. It has instead always fired my imagination, and indeed still does today nearly 30 years later.

The funny thing is, a lot of the art in AD&D, a lot of the modules, and so on, really challenged my own ideas of what certain monsters looked like in my head. Take a simple monster like orcs, for example. I never thought of them as pig-faced until I'd looked at the MM. Seeing the pig-faced orcs in the MM simply gave me a different way to think of them than I already did at that point. When I first encountered the orc illlos in the MM, my reaction was, "They aren't pig-faced!" But after awhile, I warmed up to that interpretation of them.

And that's the key I think. Any artistic representation is an interpretation of a thing (real or imagined). It simply gives one way of looking or thinking about something, but in the end, a picture is worth a thousand words. And those words do not necessarily lead to some kind of straight jacket or manacle for the imagination. They can in fact lead to freedom of the imagination, as pictures move us to reevaluate how we've thought about a certain topic or thing for years.

The art in early D&D/AD&D has never "stamped a uniformity of vision on D&D land" or my imagination, but has instead opened many, many new vistas that I might never have explored had I not been exposed to it.

Further, whenever I've exposed players to pictures of monsters, or scenes from modules, or whatever over the years, the reaction has always been enthusiasm for the game and increased fun and pleasure in the hobby. Many times players have said to me that they never would have thought that some monster would "look like that," and thus their own imaginations were fired.

Art that generates great enthusiasm for the hobby and fires the imagination of the players cannot possibly said to be a "disservice" to playing the game.

Even those who don't like the art may react to it such that they create their own art, or their own games, or whatever. Such reactions, even though negative in origin, show that the imagination can never be set in amber or frozen in time and can lead to many positive benefits for the hobby (new art and art styles, new games, different products, and so on).

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2009 7:52:19 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

One of my favorite examples of how to do it right is the Empire of the Petal Throne game published by TSR at the dawn of the hobby at 1975's Gen Con.

EotPT is a high water mark. Have I mentioned I'm currently playing in an original edition EPT campaign? It's a blast,and Barker's work exemplifies my basic bullet points above, especially with regard to the evocative artwork.

[Finarvyn]

Aug 6, 2009 21:48:07 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I recently came across a copy of the Tunnels & Trolls 30th(?) anniversary edition boxed set. I'm not a T&T player, but this is a modern product that delivers a serious dose of good ol' fashioned value. In one little box (half as deep as the OD&D box) you get a five digest-sized booklets -- a ring-bound rulebook, monster manual, and book of spells and magic items, then two separate adventures, cardboard chit sheets, character sheets, a colour map of Trollworld, and dice. The box is so packed full of goodies that once you've opened it, you can't get the lid closed any more!

While I agree with your basic love for the tiny books crammed into the metal box, I bought a copy of this and didn't like it much. Somehow the little spiral bound glossy stuff just didn't click with me.

My favorite T&T rules set is my old 5E book with the tan cover. It's all black-and-white, off-the-typewriter kind of stuff. Magazine sized, but tough enough that it has lasted for years and is still in decent shape. (I have one "beater" copy where I intentionally broke the spine so it would lay flat on the table and pages still don't fall out.)

My 5E copy just screams "old school" to me a lot louder than the cool metal tin copy.

Just my two coppers.

[kenmeister]

Whenever I am a player, I ask the DM to show us all the art if he happens to be running a published module. To withhold the art on the idea that it will ruin my imagination is silly; it is quite the opposite.

Edit: I am a visual learner, so that probably has something to do with it. I really can't picture much from a description read aloud.

[ragnorakk]

Yeah, the T&T 7th edition tin is kinda a bummer - 5th edition is pretty much my ideal on size, page count, binding, art, etc. (in addition to it's virtues as a game)

In general, the higher the production value, the less inclined I am to take a product seriously.
Gloss paper? Bah! Text over art? Bah! Bad editing, though, is a real bummer.

[geoffrey]

Admittedly, in my opening post my comment about the art is the part I hold with the least strength. I can't imagine my pastel B1 module without Sutherland's art. It really does fire my imagination.

That said, check-out Jeff Rient's excellent OD&D module, Under Xylarthen's Tower. Therein he gives D&D monsters very different appearances from those in the Monster Manual. I think that's very imaginative and very cool.

link: jrients.tripod.com/xylarthen/uxt.pdf

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 7, 2009 8:58:52 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

While I agree with your basic love for the tiny books crammed into the metal box, I bought a copy of this and didn't like it much. Somehow the little spiral bound glossy stuff just didn't click with me.

My apologies if I've miss-led folks -- I'm not familiar with all the T&T versions -- the T&T set I meant was actually the 7.5e, which I think was the reprint of the metal tin 7e.

It came in a regular card box, and has low-fi black ink on non-gloss white paper throughout. At first I was dubious about the spiral binding, but it turns out to be quite good because you can open the books perfectly flat at any page.

In any case, I guess the point I was attempting to make wasn't that this particular set exemplified any ideal of printing quality, but rather that it represents unusually good value-for-money in today's game store. It contains a game, several adventures, and several other "supplements" all in the one set.

[dwayanu]

Yes, EPT remains splendid in editing, as well as all else -- and the physical production values made it pricey back in the day. To put prices in perspective, TFT (Advanced Melee, Advanced Wizard, In the Labyrinth) cost $14.85 in 1981; adjusted by the Consumer Price Index alone, that would be $34.74 in 2008.

The original White Bear and Red Moon was very "cheaply" produced (which could actually be done more inexpensively today, maybe; certainly the typography would be better!). There was really nothing to compete with it in the fantasy field, though, apart perhaps from SPI's War of the Ring.

[sham]

Aug 7, 2009 22:00:32 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Yes, EPT remains splendid in editing, as well as all else -- and the physical production values made it pricey back in the day. To put prices in perspective, TFT (Advanced Melee, Advanced Wizard, In the Labyrinth) cost $14.85 in 1981; adjusted by the Consumer Price Index alone, that would be $34.74 in 2008.

Yep. EPT is quite actually a bad example of low production values.

There's a reason not that many fans purchased the EPT box back in the day. 25 clams in 1975 is about $100.00 in 2009. Give or take a few bucks.