Okay...so I'm working on OBAM layouts right now, getting things finalized. Some people aren't happy with the core TROS layout, and so I want to know what you all think I should avoid and/or include. And be quick about it!

Jake

Hi Jake,

Speaking only as a raw consumer, I like it when a line of RPG products all share a common look & feel. So my vote is to treat the current TROS layout as given, use it for the other products, and maybe only alter small things about it as you see fit.

Again, this is emphatically not speaking as a fellow publisher consultant type of idea - just the consumer in me.

Best,
Ron

Jake,
I'd suggest that "ghosted" images behind the text be lighter. Probably something in the 5-10% range. In the copy of TROS that I have, it's difficult to read "overprinted" items.

I'd have to disagree with Mr. Edwards. TROS is awesome as a game, but the book layout is pretty bad. Bad enough for some people to dismiss it as a juvenile effort after just flipping through it. They never read enough to realize what a great game it is.

In TROS, character creation rules could be found all over the place. Try to keep the chapters or sections in OBAM as distinct and independent as possible.

If *small* tables are referenced in a chapter, put them in-line with the text, as opposed to being off on a sidebar or on the next page. Especially don't have tables that are important to a chapter only included in Appendices. It is great to have all the tables in one spot for reference, but put them in twice so we don't have to flip back and forth so much when reading the rules. The damage and weapon tables are so big that printing them twice in TROS would be silly. In that case, I'd rather have those tables in the middle of the book near the combat chapter (it's easier to keep the book open toward the middle than toward one end or another).

Don't reference any d6 -- keep it simple(r) by sticking to d10 (for instance, on hit locations) or use percentile rolls -- I would say use D20 except I don't think you can get the 0-9/0-9 dodecahedrons anymore.

Scrap the penciled art and stick to clean black and white. I know TROS was going for the "rough" feel, but the graytone drawings look like someone photocopied their notebook paper doodles. Some of TROS art is decent but a lot of it is not and would have been better left out. Maybe think twice before including a picture for the sake of having a picture. I like lots of pictures in games, but I'd rather see no pictures than crummy pictures (at least I think I would -- I don't know how I could be sure about that).

The tables-on-top-of-swords background was hard to read.

Make sure you and a few other people read it front-to-back before publishing it. Use a spell-checker.

Some things to think about. TROS is a fantastic accomplishment as a game. Cosmetic changes would have made it so much better as a product.

sirjaguar wrote:
Don't reference any d6 -- keep it simple(r) by sticking to d10 (for instance, on hit locations) or use percentile rolls -- I would say use D20 except I don't think you can get the 0-9/0-9 dodecahedrons anymore.

Well, my only two requests are as such:

If you do a beastiary/monster listing type deal, (please) always begin the entries at the top of the page. It makes things easier when (as a GM) I need to look up something on the spot("hey, what's a hunting dog like?") If you have pictures, put those at the top too.

For any folks who had the old 2nd ed. Monster Manuals from D&D and saw the changes made in the 3rd edition, you can tell what a difference it made. The pictures and names at the top serve as visual landmarks/markers, and makes looking stuff up much easier.

Second, do things alphabetically if possible. I know you might choose to break up the various chapters according to something like People, Mythic Beasts, Wildlife, Marine animals, or whatever, but make it alphabetical within those listings.

Finally, regarding Jaguar's issues with the greyscale images...pencil is fine, just make sure you get someone to go into photoshop after scanning and up the contrast a bit. It makes a big difference in the sharpness of the images.

Chris

Jake, with my bum leg I find much time on my hands that I spend studying, a true waste in other words, might I be able to actually take a look at the layout and then make a suggestion or two? PM me about it.

You're just trying to get a sneak advanced peek :-)

Brian.

The general format of TROS is fine, i really like the double column wide format. A great way to pack the info in. Tros is DENSE, and i love that. I also love the quickref sidebars on the pages, very handy.

I would like to strongly reiterate the use of a spell checker. A good one. And then go through a nitpick on the spell checker, to catch things like their/heir and the/he, and commonly confused words that can slip through a spellcheck (through/threw, etc). I'm a spelling nazi (i mercilessly proofread my posts on message boards), and for a reason. Few things scream unprofessional as loudly as poor spelling.

I also agree with Bankuei's suggestions about monster pages, and sirjaguar's comments on tables.

Not a real format issue: I know a hard cover version isn't likely due to cost considerations, but I'd love to see one. I've spent scads of money specifically so i could have a hard cover version of a book. They look better on a shelf, and they last many, many times longer. I've owned the 1E DMG for close to 20 years, and my copy of The Philosophy Of Nietzsche was printed in 1926 (I'm not kidding). They're both still in great shape. A paperback would have disintegrated a long time ago.

I agree on the ghosting of images, make them fainter.

Beyond that, there's nothing that clicks in my mind about the book except the spelling errors, which I can't see anymore since I re-read it to remind myself of rules, not to properly read it.

One thing I did like about the D&D books is when they wrote somthing about a rule, they had the page number for it in brackets. I really like that, helps out a lot. Not nessersary, but nice.

BTW, why do I hear other people say character creation is so spread out? I made one with a new guy the other day...he seemed to want to make most of it by himself, and didn't need my help except occasionally.

Noon wrote: Beyond that, there's nothing that clicks in my mind about the book except the spelling errors, which I can't see anymore since I re-read it to remind myself of rules, not to properly read it.

Sooooooo bookmarked, BWA HA HA HA HA! ;)