This goes along with a game design thread. I've always felt like the most important piece of art an RPG book can have is the cover. Unless I'm looking for something specific, the cover of a book is the most likely thing that's going to cause me to pick it up off the shelf at a game/book store.

So what are the elements of a great cover, in people's opinions? What would you pay to have a top-rate cover done?

(As a subnote, I've approached Veronica V. Jones, who Ron has raved about on other threads, to do the cover for Devils Cay. She's interested and charges $250-$350 for a book cover, which I think is more than reasonable for an artist of her calibre and experience.)

Laurel

Veronica rules.


Gawd, I gotta get those illo guidelines out to her.

Veronica, if you're reading this - SLAP ME.


For me, the most important element of the cover is RELEVANCE. I'm serious. That is far too often overlooked in this industry. The cover should be more than eye-candy, it should relate to the material within.

That's about all I got.

Laurel wrote:
This goes along with a game design thread. I've always felt like the most important piece of art an RPG book can have is the cover. Unless I'm looking for something specific, the cover of a book is the most likely thing that's going to cause me to pick it up off the shelf at a game/book store.

Jason Blair wrote
For me, the most important element of the cover is RELEVANCE-

And that is something that can be overlooked. While a really cool font and killer artwork and the right color scheme is great and important and all, if it doesn't fit, it ain't worth shit.

Make sure that the cover art and typefaces and color work well with the game, with your general theme of the game (Frex, do you want really pretty bright colors for something n the Noir vein?)

People who are discerning about games will look inside, and you can't count on the fanboy crowd to pick up your book all the time.

Chances are you kept an eye on the game creation, the layout and everything inside the cover, so don't stop there.

Just my 2 cents.

aaron

Hey there,

Some comments about covers can be found here.

I'll also state something else, which may not be well received. Bluntly, the best way to test-drive a cover concept is to show it to several women, separately, who aren't involved much in role-playing. I won't go into why I think this is the case, but in my experience, doing so results in candid, direct, and meaningful feedback.

Best,
Ron

The Unknown Armies people have been discussing cover art on the UA mailing list. IIRC, John Wick said that cover art should make the viewer think 'hey, I want to be that guy.' Amusingly, the current cover for UA shows a dead guy lying on the floor of a grim apartment, covered in a bowl of cold pasta.

IMHO, cover art should show people. Interesting people. Your space opera game might have cool starships, but I'd sooner see the cool pilot. Your neolithic game might have a nifty social mechanic, but show me a hairy guy with a club. Shadowrun 1st edition grabbed me because of those cool, futuro-looking people on the cover.

You can also exploit your audience a bit, if your game has an obvious genre. If you're writing a book all about mecha, then for heaven's sake appeal to the otaku - show some cool technology. If it's a horror game with monsters-as-protagonists, then show a cool guy with a dark coat. The imagery should be suitable sexy.

Joe.

Hi there,

Funny you should mention the UA cover ... I was just talking about that the other week with someone, and I agree that the main book cover is not especially compelling. By contrast, I suggested that the Postmodern Magick cover image was among the finest I'd ever seen, of its type ("Wouldn't it be cool to play this person ...").

Best,
Ron

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that a good cover should show something players "want to be." Speaking from the perspective of a graphic designer, that seems to me to be a limitation.

This thread has mentioned at least a couple suggestions for what the content of a cover should be. But, it hasn't directly addressed form. Form, in my opinion, is much useful to discuss here.

Here's why -- few, if any, of use discussing creation of an RPG book cover will be doing the actual artwork. Yes, we might direct the artist specifically, and we do choose the artist, but in the end, we'll simply be framing the artist's hopefully brilliant art. That is, we have far less control over the content than we do the form.

My suggestions for good covers

* First off, my above paragraph assumes you'll feature art or illustration on the cover. I think this is an absolutely necessary feature of a cover -- great art. Spare no expense, and be picky. In my experience, it's possible to create a cover without art, but it's far more difficult to do it well.

* Brilliance and tone are key, by which I mean the overal color of your work. I don't mean literally neon yellow lettering, I mean clearly discernable titles, and compelling, eye-catching design that makes a bold clear statement about what your game IS. This might be good use of contrasting colors, clearly legible, bold typefaces for the book cover, etc.

* Keep it Simple Stupid. This is rather related to my last statement. Don't make the cover so intricate and complex that people have to puzzle over what the hell it's about. Yes, drawing their interest is good, but drawing them in only to confuse the hell out of them as they try to figure whether it's a game, supplement or what the game's about, then you've lost 'em. Besides, simpler, typically, is bolder, and that's what you're going for, in my opinion.

* Consider how your cover will be seen by the majority of people who view it. If you think it'll be on the game store shelf, then make damn sure you put the title on the top third or fourth area of the cover. If you're making a PDF download, make sure folks can see the cover even at thumbnail size.

* Unique is often better. Again, I'm talking form vs. content here. If you can afford it, work with the printer for something above and beyond the standard perfect binding covers. Maybe a thicker stock (?), or glossy hardback. Anything with a different texture would be great, like those rather silky softcovers so common in fiction trade paperbacks nowadays.

In the end, if you're really trying to get your game recognized or sold, the cover is the place you DON'T want to experiment with tried and true methods. Yes, occasionally something revolutionary becomes eye-catching because it IS so different. But more often, your audience wants to feel comfortably invited to check out the awesome game inside.

I'm going to echo an awful lot of what Matt and probably everyone else has already said here, but I'm going to focus on the cover art for the most part.

First of all, the cover art should be, well, a good piece of art. It should be well balanced, well composed, etc. SOme games have covers that I keep worrying they'll fall right off the shelf they're so badly balanced.

A simple image is better since the cover is just a hook to get someone to pick up the book. A simple image transmits its information quickly. A WHere's Waldo-like image takes loker and you'll probably lose your potential reader before then.

WHat this usually means is the cover is usually a "typical" scene from the game. Such as a bunch of costumed supers duking it out on a super hero RPG cover. I think it's odd that not many games use the colloge (sp?) method. Look at the posters for Star Wars, Indiana Jones, etc. How else would you incorporate all of those elements into one picture?

It has been used occasionally. Mercenaries Spies & Private Eyes comes to mind. But not as often as it could. I've been puzzling over that lately. Maybe I've been looking at the wrong games?

Whatever you do, the artwork should work well with itself. If you wouldn't hang it on your wall, it needs work. Like it or not, a book is judged by its cover. More importantly, the cover will be the "face" of your game. If you manage to get your game up on Amazon, the cover will be posted up on the games page there. That along with the description will be all potential buyers know about your game.

This is also true if it's in game stores. My local game store shrinkwraps all games so you cannot thumb through it. (all of that interior art wasted!) In my case, if the cover doesn't sell me, it don't get bought. (unless I was planning to buy it anyway)

The cover image is what many, many people will immediately associate with your game.

In On Writing, Stephen King talks about writing with the door closed then writing with the door open. WHat he means is at first you should please yourself, then show it to others and hopefully please them.

This can also apply to selecting your artwork. If the piece doesn't speak to you or you think "this will do" when you should think "excellent!" then the piece needs work.

The cover is the first impression your game will make on people. If it's not up to snuff, it may be the last impression.

chimera wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that a good cover should show something players "want to be." Speaking from the perspective of a graphic designer, that seems to me to be a limitation.

* Unique is often better. Again, I'm talking form vs. content here. If you can afford it, work with the printer for something above and beyond the standard perfect binding covers. Maybe a thicker stock (?), or glossy hardback. Anything with a different texture would be great, like those rather silky softcovers so common in fiction trade paperbacks nowadays.

A friend and I were in our local game shop recently, and this exact topic came up. We were looking at the deluge of D20, he likes D&D, and wanted to read some of the small press stuff, but was put off by the appalling cover design. His line of thinking was "If they haven't put much effort into the cover, it's likely the haven't bothered with the content".

It may not be true, but that's the judgement people level at your product.

In my opinion, if you can't get a piece of quality artwork for your game cover, then it's better to just go for a plain cover with a easy to read logo and a good tagline. (something like the less fussy WW covers) You still have a chance of hooking them, and they won't turn up their noses at it just because of the artwork.

Or maybe that's just me.

Matt

That's a good point, Matt. I've kind of been ignoring the title and other elements on the cover but the fact is, they are on the cover and should also be well planned.

Vampire: the Masquarade worked because it had a simple cover, green marble red rose IIRC. and the title. The title is what sold that book. "Vampire" well, most people know what a vampire is so they already have a grasp of what to expect from this game. ":the Masquarade" is a mystery. What does that mean? SOmeone who wasn't especially interested in a game about Vampires probably gave that game a second look because of that.

Whatever you do with the title, it needs to be clear, legible and obviously the title of the book. This could mean it needs to be big, like 1/3 or 1/4 of your cover, but not necessarily. But do make it bigger than most other text near it. Were it "vampire: THE MASQUARADE" it would have been confusing.

For really good examples of bad titles, you need to be 21 or older and go into the back room of your local video store that is not a Blockbuster since they don't have a back room like that. Good gravy! these things have some of the worst titles on any product I've ever seen. More than a few chosen an illegible font and the title look less like a part of the cover that the scanbar the store put on there.

There are probably decent examples of bad titles that do not involve such things, but I can think of anything as bad right now. (anybody? little help?)

This brings me to another element that tends to appear on RPG covers: cheesecake. Sex sells, no question about that, but it's worth considering if it's really the image you want to project.

I mean, it isn't the 70's anymore. Slapping an attractive female on your cover is as likely to spark controversy as sell books. Look at some of the stuff from Avalanche Press. WHat the heck were these guys thinking? I mean, I'm a pig, as you've no doubt guessed from earlier in this post (I admit it. I'm not proud of it but I admit it) but I just can help but think that they should've given those covergirls something to wear besides electrical tape.

See? I'm talking about their cover, not their product. I don't even own any, so maybe that's telling.

That all said, it is still something that works if done well and with a little taste. But this only seems to work on the male portion of the market. Then again, maybe not. They put attractive women on the cover of women's magazines. Maybe some of the female members here at the Forge can enlighten us on this subject. I've never heard of beefcake selling a game, but I must be listening to the wrong radio stations.

In any case, if you go this way, go there with some tact, taste and above all a darn good reason. For example, I've been toying with the idea of doing a new editions of the old RPG Starfaring. A pipe dream, I know, not the least of my obsticles is that I would have to acquire the rights from the original publisher. But the cover on the original had a female on it. I hesitate to say "attractive" since it's way too cartoony, but a new edition could easily have a nice cheesecake pic in a similar design of that original. Granted this may not be a good reason, but it is a reason.

Or maybe I'm just the last person who should comment on this subject.

Now, let's look at something that has largely gone ignored thus far in this thread: the BACK cover.

Like I said earlier, my FLGS shrinkwraps all of their games. You cannot thumb through them. The back cover has become an important selling tool in my store. Even if you can flip through the game, the back cover is still important. It's usually the first place people turn to to find out more about your game. Many games that have come before have put a more in-depth description of the game on the back. You could put a large picture of your cat on the back, but I wouldn't recommend it.

The back cover is the second step in the selling process. The front cover is the hook. It gets people to stop and take a second look at the book. The back cover closes the deal. This is probably why the price is also on the back.

You need to describe your game as concisely and clearly as possible. You could write a 5000 word essay describing your game in intimate detail while not simply giving it all away, but few people will sit there and read 5000 words, especially when 50 words will do.

Now let's look at some examples:

Remember when you were young
and you were afraid of all
those things that went bump
in the night?

Ever wonder where they went?

What is Tunnels & Trolls?
Tunnels & Trolls is a fantasy role-playing game.

All right then, what's a fantasy role-playing game?
Ah, there's the crux of it...

It also wouldn't hurt to look at the box cover art for board games and videogames. I remember a lot of old school boardgames had some really exciting artwork(ah, Fireball Island, Thunder Road, even Hero Quest), and a lot of videogames have some really funky concepts(my personal favorite is PC/Mac Obsidian).

Chris

pblock wrote:
That all said, it is still something that works if done well and with a little taste. But this only seems to work on the male portion of the market. Then again, maybe not. They put attractive women on the cover of women's magazines. Maybe some of the female members here at the Forge can enlighten us on this subject. I've never heard of beefcake selling a game, but I must be listening to the wrong radio stations.

Covers, as John Wick pointed out, must kick serious ass.

Here are some examples of good and bad covers (pure opinion, but the opinion of a consumer nonetheless) I've seen over the years:

ADnD Legends and Lore- Great cover. Fantastic cover. Made me pick that sucker up and drool. Plus, the fantastic work of artists like Jim Roslof (all hail) made the interior just as compelling.

In fact, all the ADnD books of that era had incredible covers. Chalk it up to a slew of great artists on staff, I suppose. Elmore, Easly, etc.. Remember the cover to the DMG? That killer looking wizard with the huge key around his neck? Made me look thrice.

Dying Earth- Inappropriate cover. I bought the book because of all the cloud it has and I wanted to check it out. It was shrink wrapped so I couldn't see inside. I don't like the interior art any better. Good game, seems cool, but visually I was totally uninformed about what to expect or how to play. Plus I've never finished a Vance book so I'm looking at it as an Outsider. If not for the hype, I would not have bought it. (I actually bought The Complete Dying Earth because of the killer Brom cover, even though from what I have gathered from my limited reading that cover doesn't actually do the work justice either--too dark)

Earthdawn- Neat looking cover, but not totally evocative of what the game is about. I would have put that pic inside and used something else like one of the cool Parlainth paintings that not only showed you this beautiful ruined city, but also showed some characters! Plus the backcover had a cop-out with its dual-image. On the left was a cool looking Ork, then text running down the middle, then a mirror-image of the same Ork pic in a kind of negative white-on-blue manner. No good for me. So I didn't buy it until years later when I found a battered copy for $4.

Hero Wars- Again, a game I bought due to the popularity of it (especially at The Forge). Judging it by the cover, I would not have bought it. The interior work was cool, but the cover looked kind of gawdy and didn't really inform me. Sure, you got two powerful characters going at it, and the name "Hero Wars" up there, but it seemed more like a superhero game and less mythic.

Dead Lands- great looking book. I never bought it, but still I picked it up again and again.

Sorcerer- Love the cover. It invites me to look inside. I agree that the back cover could use some "kicker". Most of the interior art is great too.

Star Frontiers Alpha Dawn- This falls into the TSR's Big Names category since it featured an Elmore cover. But it did the trick and then some. I remember picking it up and drooling over it again and again until I had the cash to buy it (what was it back then? $10).

I like a cover that satisfies the following conditions:

1) Quality. The artist is obviously skilled with the media and the style they are employing. Think Elmore, Bill Willingham, and Joseph Michael Linsner.

2) Expression. The artist evokes a mood or passion that supports the game's feel. Think Easely's work on the DMG, Frank Frazetta doing Conan covers, and Simon Bisely doing wicked femmes for Heavy Metal magazine.

If it satisfies those two things, its a winner in my book.

One thing that I don't like is a book with a cover that actually compells you to pick it up by misleading you. I understand the need to sell the game to distributors who might not ever crack the spine, but as a consumer that pisses me off. Dying Earth is sort of like this. But the best example I can think of is in comics. You know those issues that have a particular character on the cover, with a blurb that insinuates his or her appearance in the comic in a major way, but you read it only to find they don't appear until the last page--if ever. Pure marketing bullshit. And what's the point? Its not like they have to pay extra for that character to appear.

So, yeah, covers matter to me.

I'm new to this forum, so please bear with me.

What about medium? Many of the artists that I am working with are interested in photography, and my cover artist is going over various ideas. But would an RPG manual with a photographic cover really sell? I can't think of one, actually, that I've ever seen. Most are painted, aren't they?

What do you think, is it a viable idea, or would it turn you guys off? What would your initial reactions be?

Thanks --

Deadguy

Personally, I'd jump on this idea.

I spent last weekend hanging out with a bunch of hippie artists, so I may not have been thinking clearly, but I wondered: why do RPGs limit themselves to one type of art? All RPG art I see is rather realistic (in terms of highly defined shapes), painted or line drawings, and visceral.

Why isn't more RPG artwork photographs, or abstract pieces, or impressionistic? If you can find it, get a copy of Forgotten Futures - it's my favorite RPG cover ever. It's a highly abstract painting of a Martian war-machine.

It's ironic that you phrase it that way -- I've been photoshopping old images (friends and family) into incoherent phantasmagoria, and while it's fun, I really wasn't sure if it was suitable art, even for a horror RPG. Perhaps I was too hasty -- I need to reconsider, maybe. But thanks for the food for thought.

Hi there, and welcome to the Forge.

A number of RPGs have used photographic art for their covers. Zero, Immortal, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, and Asylum all come to mind. One of these was very well received, and the others had certain other problems that contributed to their lack of success, so I wouldn't say the covers detracted in any way. There are probably more examples that I'm just not flashing on right away.

I suggest that attractive, effective design/art for a cover is the priority, and that a wide variety of media would suit the purpose, including photographic techniques. A lot of artists use combined photos and paintwork, notably Christopher Shy; his best RPG cover, in my opinion, was done for the game Obsidian.

The real problem with photographic art is that it's not easy - or rather, it's not easy to be good at it, and a lot of people turn out schlocky/blurry stuff that's supposed to be "art." My favorite artist in this medium is Raven, who uses the name "greyorm" here at the Forge; his stuff is really well-designed first and foremost, and the computer/photo effects have a lot of punch due to that. Gary Simpson (hive) is also really good.

This next paragraph is strictly a matter of personal taste and I don't want to give the impression that I'm a worthy critic. I visited your website and at least a couple of the images there would make great RPG cover art, in my opinion.

Best,
Ron

hey

Didn't the game Legacy have a lot of photographs in it? I never saw the book, but the ads usually featured b&w photos of guys with swords. Considering how most pics like that look really cheap and unattactive, the ones I saw were not bad.

Dave Mckean is really great at using photographic images and just working the hell out of them digitally until he's got something bizzare and beatutiful.

The reason most frpgs feature painting on their covers is because they are typically based on a genre such as fantasy which is rife with book covers of the same sort. The line art comes from the fact that b&w line art reproduces very well and is cheaper to work with (same reason comics are usually done this way). Plus I suppose representational "realistic" art is more suited for showing what something is supposed to look like, which is important for a lot of games--though not essential for all. The digital age is altering the playing field in art, so who knows what difference it will make in rpg cover design.

From my own experience, I've found two pieces of advice to be worthy of remembering when you're deciding what to do next:

1) If it doesn't scare you it isn't worth doing.

2) If you're doing it because it's scary, it isn't worth doing.

Um, like...hello? Deadguy? Those pics are dead-on perfect for Whispering Vault...

Cool stuff.

James V. West wrote:
Didn't the game Legacy have a lot of photographs in it? I never saw the book, but the ads usually featured b&w photos of guys with swords. Considering how most pics like that look really cheap and unattactive, the ones I saw were not bad.

ron, thanks for the kind words, and for the good advice. i'll be sure to check out raven and gary simpson.

james, i see what you mean -- i think. my question is, when is it worth doing?

jared, thanks. i checked out whispering vault. it looks sublime. i need to dig up a copy, i think.

so, all, what's more important to you on the back cover of a new title: more good art, or a summary of content, or both, or...?

deadguy wrote:
james, i see what you mean -- i think. my question is, when is it worth doing?

so, all, what's more important to you on the back cover of a new title: more good art, or a summary of content, or both, or...?