Are there people here who sincerely feel its worthwhile to pay extra money for the less practical format of the hardcover RPG book?

Personally, I despise this innovation. The only people I can imagine who benefit by it are COLLECTORS who DO NOT PLAY, but put the book up on their shelves to look pretty.

The palladium-esque softcover, smaller sized paperback, or boxed set are all far more practical for the gamer who actually plays. They're easier to use and they last longer, and they're cheaper to make (except possibly the boxed set).

Or is there something I'm missing here? Is there some argument any of you can make to a benefit of the more expensive less-durable hardcover book that I hadn't yet thought of?

RPGPundit

Softcover seems completely adequate for me.  Hardcover often comes off as an unnecessary extravagence.

Softcovers are more easily damaged inside a backpack. That is my personal experience, but I'm not swayed one way or the other.

I end up buying a lot of hardcovers because many games are only printed in hardcover. I'd rather pay less for a softcover though and I have never had any issues with well bound softcover. From what I understand some publishers like to publish only hardcover because the profit margin is higher.

Hardcovers can be nice, but they can also be unwieldy if you need more than one.  I'm not so concerned with preserving the integrity of my books, as I buy them to be used, rather than displayed on my shelf.  That's often a moot point, however, as hardcover doesn't necessarily equate with quality.

What I really hate about most hardcover RPG products is the insistence on using glossy paper.  I like the rough, heavy paper used in the 1st edition AD&D books: they look fine and you can scribble notes on them, and they don't pucker up if you get a drop of liquid on them.

My favorite RPG books are all, with the exception of the 1st edition AD&D set, staple-bound softcovers: Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D, RM2 core books, Traveller, etc.  They have an easier time laying flat when you open them!

Hardcover or softcover doesn't matter that much to me, there are black sheep amongst both of them. I want something that doesn't neccesarily make the book that more expensive, protects it, doesn' fall of at the first bad look and -- this is neglected much too often -- stays open. I have some kind of unreasonable fear of bad-looking spines, so I usually read softcovers at a very small "reading angle"... I like those where the actual spine of the cover isn't connected to the pages themselves...

And don't forget folders and ring binding. Apparently too unprofessional for published books, but I still say that stuff like HarnMaster or the old Monster Manuals were pretty neat. With the current trend towards splashbooks, I'd really like to see those again (and no, with the small margins nowadays, doing it yourselves is not a good option, apart from the fact that destroying book makes me feel like the bad kind of iconoclast).

From a business point of view, they sell better for about 10-15% more than soft cover. Customer often perceive greater value with hard covers.

For myself, I can lift a heavy book by the cover and not have it rip (handy with a 2 year old in the house), I can throw it in th e back pack and it holds up better, and in general, it takes wear much better. Is an inferior hard cover better than a superior soft cover? Most definitely but that is like saying is a rotten apple better than a ripe orange.

Bill

I'm iffy on the HC/SC debate.  There's some hardcovers that I think should have been soft - Runequest Mongoose, I'm looking at you.  I think some larger books are easier to read as hardcovers - I like Palladium's stuff from time to time, but it can be tricky to read when you don't have a table to support the curve of the pages.

I think the D&D Complete books look very nice as hardcovers, but I remember that the softcover splat books from 3.0 were easier to carry around in bulk.

Hmm.  Did that make sense?

Quote from: KenHRWhat I really hate about most hardcover RPG products is the insistence on using glossy paper.  I like the rough, heavy paper used in the 1st edition AD&D books: they look fine and you can scribble notes on them, and they don't pucker up if you get a drop of liquid on them.

Agreed.

I find myself flipflopping a lot. I guess what it comes down to is that for a game I play a lot and I use the books a lot, I like a hardcover. I buy or recieve review copies ~2 dozen print books a year, but realistically I only play one or two them more than once. So for those books softcover is fine.

I prefer smaller, more easily digestible, and lower priced softcovers (under $20) to the big, bloated, excessively padded, and expensive hardcovers ($35 and higher).

Looking back at the games my group actually played and enjoyed, they were almost always the smaller books, because they could be read, understood, and played quickly.  The exceptions are AD&D and Rifts.  Even then, everyone learned AD&D by way of the Basic and Expert D&D books (128pages).  And Rifts was always learned by playing TMNT or Robotech (each one 128 pages or less) first.

I prefer softcovers if they mean any price savings at all, and I hate glossy pages altogether. (In fact speaking of glossy, I like the non-glossy material of the original AD&D books better than the glossy covers on many newer books. I don't know which one costs more to make, but the latter looks chintzy.)

I can do without color illos, too.

Quote from: Mcrowfor a game I play a lot and I use the books a lot, I like a hardcover. but realistically I only play one or two them more than once. So for those books softcover is fine.

That's me.  My Star Wars WEG, VtM, and AD&D 2E books would have been ripped to shreds had they been softcover.  As it is, they've got significant wear, but are still in really good shape.  I've had to buy two Shadowrun 2E core books in that time because they covers have gone from worn to tattered, and I really make an effort to take care of all my books.  I also have a strong preference for "standard" RPG-sized books over mini- or pocket-sized books.  The AFMBE core book just aggravates me for some reason.  

I think it's going to be a moot point in the near future, though.  The level of POD book quality has been steadily on the rise, and I foresee a lot more publishers going that route in the future which means that POD companies will start incorporating hard and soft cover options (because it means more money for them).  

I love boxed sets.  I'd really like to do a second edition of Dreamwalker as a boxed set, but I'm told it's just not cost effective.  We'll see.  

Pete

Quote from: HinterWeltFrom a business point of view, they sell better for about 10-15% more than soft cover. Customer often perceive greater value with hard covers.

From the numbers I've seen, this is true on the "direct to customer" level, hobby distribution level, and the mainstream book trade level.

Simply put, the majority of customers want hardcovers.

Quote from: PaulChapmanSimply put, the majority of customers want hardcovers.

Which is why I don't gripe much on this subject.  I seem to be in the minority and any complaint would be pointless.

I have stronger feelings about paper quality though.  I don't put a lot of notes in my books, but I want to be able to do so.