The title is the question.
I've seen it done this way since BD&D, all the way up to Starfinder. Most RPG books use the two column format.
Is there a practical or asthetic reason for it? It it just tradition?
Practical. It is easier to read. Theres been alot of studies on this and apparently larger blocks of text are harder to process.
This post elsewhere sums it up.
QuoteIt was shown, by experiment, that optimal amount of text for print material is ~60 characters per column. This was calculated by the ratio between font size and leading which were picked by humans as most comfortable to process. Higher amount of characters per column interferes with brain's ability to scan through text easily, much like you need to break text into paragraphs for same reason.
Another thing: it nearly halves your page count. That's a big deal for printed books
I don't. Two column format is a bitch on screens as opposed to in print. I use a 2/3 size text body with wide sideheads. It's a decent compromise.
For a while TSR used 3 column text to squeeze even more in. But that's hard to read, IMHO.
There is an obvious difference between screen and print, one is wide and the other narrow. But if you have a decent sized monitor then it looks like a book (at least if you fit it to height, most PDFs default to width for some reason) and two column works there. To me single column always looks like you're writing for the elderly or something.
Quote from: JeremyR;1058508For a while TSR used 3 column text to squeeze even more in. But that's hard to read, IMHO.
There is an obvious difference between screen and print, one is wide and the other narrow. But if you have a decent sized monitor then it looks like a book (at least if you fit it to height, most PDFs default to width for some reason) and two column works there. To me single column always looks like you're writing for the elderly or something.
Given the advancing age of the OSR community maybe that's an argument for single column! :-D
I'm going with a 6" x 9" single column format (10.5 point font size) so its easy to stuff in a bag (players should only ever need the one book) or read on a tablet without having to scroll individual pages. Its also THE default size for general non-fiction and larger novels which makes it a LOT cheaper (and with a lot more options) to print.
Quote from: Azraele;1058456Another thing: it nearly halves your page count. That's a big deal for printed books
Quote from: JeremyR;1058508For a while TSR used 3 column text to squeeze even more in. But that's hard to read, IMHO.
What? Do you guys also think two $10 bills are more money than a $20 bill?
Dividing the pages into two columns doesn't mean you can fit two pages of text on one page. Unless you make the font size smaller, you'll still have the same words per page. In fact, you'll probably have fewer words per page because each extra column also adds another margin.
Quote from: Xuc xac;1058703What? Do you guys also think two $10 bills are more money than a $20 bill?
Dividing the pages into two columns doesn't mean you can fit two pages of text on one page. Unless you make the font size smaller, you'll still have the same words per page. In fact, you'll probably have fewer words per page because each extra column also adds another margin.
I stand corrected here: although there's still a significant reduction in total page count (I took a 42 page document down to 35 with two-column layout just now in attempting the experiment) it's not as significant as I thought.
Still, there's some trick to the formatting that immediately reduces the page count with no loss of information (go ahead and try it yourself, if you don't believe me). That's sufficient monetary justification for me.
Quote from: Azraele;1058706I stand corrected here: although there's still a significant reduction in total page count (I took a 42 page document down to 35 with two-column layout just now in attempting the experiment) it's not as significant as I thought.
Still, there's some trick to the formatting that immediately reduces the page count with no loss of information (go ahead and try it yourself, if you don't believe me). That's sufficient monetary justification for me.
It makes a much bigger difference, though never 50%, in technical documents. The more technical the text, the shorter the paragraphs, the greater the reduction in page count by going to multiple columns. It's all about wasted space after a line break. Lots of bullet point short lists? Big reduction. To the extent that a game is technical text, it will benefit. Massive paragraphs can go the other way, due to the extra loss in the column gutters.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1058708It makes a much bigger difference, though never 50%, in technical documents. The more technical the text, the shorter the paragraphs, the greater the reduction in page count by going to multiple columns. It's all about wasted space after a line break. Lots of bullet point short lists? Big reduction. To the extent that a game is technical text, it will benefit. Massive paragraphs can go the other way, due to the extra loss in the column gutters.
Is that why traditional books favor single-column layout, while academic papers are so often two-column?
Man, I learn so much from this forum...
Quote from: Azraele;1058712Is that why traditional books favor single-column layout, while academic papers are so often two-column?
Man, I learn so much from this forum...
Maybe. I wouldn't know. It's only in the last three decades, I have a lot of practical experience writing in-house technical documents, often for people who insisted on printing them. Not something that justifies a dedicated person who really understand publishing, but enough to pick up a few tricks to cut corners.
Quote from: Azraele;1058712Is that why traditional books favor single-column layout, while academic papers are so often two-column?
Man, I learn so much from this forum...
It's also because the two-column format is ideal for visually
scanning a document, an activity more likely to be useful for a technical paper than for a narrative story.
Quote from: Zalman;1058723It's also because the two-column format is ideal for visually scanning a document, an activity more likely to be useful for a technical paper than for a narrative story.
Is there any research on how the proportion of the columns affects scanning, if at all? The 50/50 is easy, but dang I like the looks and utility of something done in two-thirds/one-third.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1058445The title is the question.
I've seen it done this way since BD&D, all the way up to Starfinder. Most RPG books use the two column format.
Is there a practical or asthetic reason for it? It it just tradition?
When done right, it's easier to read than single or triple column layouts. Most publishers have no idea how to justify text, though. Thus your question.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1058733Is there any research on how the proportion of the columns affects scanning, if at all? The 50/50 is easy, but dang I like the looks and utility of something done in two-thirds/one-third.
The results mentioned by Omega, above, are the only ones I've heard, based on number of characters more than percentage of page width, as I understand it.
The early 4th edition Gurps books were triple column, which was awful.
The 3rd edition Gurps books were 2 column with sidebars, which was cramped.
One column with sidebars might be an interesting choice.
Quote from: Aglondir;1058753The early 4th edition Gurps books were triple column, which was awful.
The 3rd edition Gurps books were 2 column with sidebars, which was cramped.
One column with sidebars might be an interesting choice.
I do like sidebars, but like highlighting they are often over used. Used sparingly they are great to make important information easy to find. Used carelessly they just add clutter.
If you really hate your customers, you could emulate the French jdr RétroFuture, that used 3 or 4 columns each slanted alternately 15 degrees left or right.
As people said, 2-column reduces page count. It also looks kind of elegant.
I just opened the 1st edition Conspiracy X. It's a single, page wide column. It looks bad compared to 2 column.
Speaking as a publisher, a two-column format (or, better still, three-column with one of them text-less) is more readable and pleasing to the eye.
However, as some people have pointed out, this is becoming a problem between print publications vs. digital publications. They have vastly different layout requirements for ease of reading.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Panjumanju;1059014Speaking as a publisher, a two-column format (or, better still, three-column with one of them text-less) is more readable and pleasing to the eye.
However, as some people have pointed out, this is becoming a problem between print publications vs. digital publications. They have vastly different layout requirements for ease of reading.
The size of the book also matters. These recommendations are great for a 8.5x11 books, but the same in a 6x9 would be unreadable (not enough words per line at any reasonable font size).
The recommendation I recall from the graphic design classes I took is that optimal line length is 50-75 characters including spaces regardless of font size. Too short and it breaks a reader's flow. Too long and they lose focus.
Two 3.5" wide columns (typical for an 8.5x11 page) at about 10 point font size puts you at about 55 characters; right near the minimum before it starts breaking flow by being too short. 9 point with the same margins is about 65 characters. It can run into trouble though if you get any larger to cater to older eyes, about 48 characters a basic 11 point font and down to about 45 at 12 point.
One 4.5" column (the default for a 6x9 book) at 10 points is about 74 characters; just about the maximum before the average reader loses focus, but at 11-12 pt fonts which are more typical for that layout its about 65 or 60 characters respectively.
Honestly, I'd consider optimal line length (which is a function of which font and point size you use) ahead of any other suggestions for number of columns.