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.
Quote from: PaulChapmanFrom 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.
I've always wondered how the hell this can be determined. I can't think of many RPGs which are both hardcover and softcover releases. Of those few that are, the hardcover was always released first, and I'm under the impression that the gamers that do actually buy stuff are an impatient lot and have to have it as soon as possible. So, it isn't like there's a softcover version of the book sitting right next to a hardcover version and, therefore, an actual choice.
I have a feeling it's more that the profit margins on hardcovers are higher because the price can be jacked up because of "perceived increased value."
Quote from: GabrielI've always wondered how the hell this can be determined. I can't think of many RPGs which are both hardcover and softcover releases. Of those few that are, the hardcover was always released first, and I'm under the impression that the gamers that do actually buy stuff are an impatient lot and have to have it as soon as possible. So, it isn't like there's a softcover version of the book sitting right next to a hardcover version and, therefore, an actual choice.
I have a feeling it's more that the profit margins on hardcovers are higher because the price can be jacked up because of "perceived increased value."
It can be determined by relative sales of products companies deem similar in quality.
Basically, hardcovers get "priority dollars". What we noticed is that if a company puts out both a softcover and a hardcover that you want, the average consumer buys the hardcover first.
Often this means they don't buy the softcover at all, or buy it at a steep discount later when people are just trying to clear inventory out of the warehouse.
Remember that RPGs are done on a real strange model that counts on 90% of sales in the first 30 days or so. So priority dollars are huge in that model. RPG companies also realized they could make a little more money selling hardcovers and anything that lets us increase margins, which are razor thin, is desirable.
Basically, people buy a hardcover before a softcover and you can sell the HC at a better profit margin, but a softcover isn't that much cheaper to produce than a HC.
This isn't true with the other divide in products, between softcover and PDF, where the PDF is attractive because of how much more cheap it is to produce. But if you're printing a book, and spending a couple grand to do it, why not spend an extra grand and make it HC.
Chuck
Quote from: jcfialaI'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.
Yeah, it really threw me when I found out that the core MRQ books would be hardcovers. The stated aim was to get the rules out in a no-frills easy-on-the-pocket format... which, erm, would seem to point towards softcovers all the way.
I would rather MRQ came out in a single softcover with the Companion rules (which are pretty damn important - enough so that there's an SRD of them out there) included - and I'd bet that if it did the cost would be about the same as the hardcover MRQ core rulebook.
I prefer hardcover--I've got enough curled covers (Palladium), split spines (Marvel Superheroes) from light casual reading and use over years that I'd like something more durable.
On the other hand I like cheap but well made.
For the record: Hearts & Souls is hardcover, but I'd take the same cut either way for publication: Compare 25USD hardcover H&S to 25.00 Soft cover Truth & Justice. Roughly the same page count, I like T&J but I know Chad is making more money than I per sale significantly. That's ok--I'd rather people get a good durable lasting book than to slap another 5-10 bucks on there for hardcover. H
Neither I nor Chad are getting rich of game books. He is trying to make a living at this though, I'm just trying to make good games (and survive on my teeny dole.)
Quote from: JongWKSoftcovers are more easily damaged inside a backpack. That is my personal experience, but I'm not swayed one way or the other.
As someone who carried around RPGs (and other hardcover books) in backpacks for years, I can tell you that this isn't true, except in the very short term.Yes, a softcover is more likely to have some of the border of the cover damaged by being carried around in a backpack. But the Hardcover, if it has to be regularly carried around in a backpack, is going to have its spine destroyed.
So yes, on one single trip, you might slightly damage a softcover and you might not a hardcover.
But if you take both books every week for a year, the softcover will basically just have that same slight cover damage, while the hardcover will be in pieces.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckRemember that RPGs are done on a real strange model that counts on 90% of sales in the first 30 days or so. So priority dollars are huge in that model. RPG companies also realized they could make a little more money selling hardcovers and anything that lets us increase margins, which are razor thin, is desirable.
Yes, in other words, they are banking their entire stake on selling to obsessive drooling collectors who aren't necessarily ever going to actually play. This is the only context in which Paul's statements about sales are true, and its ultimately going to be the undoing of many a company.
If you don't actually get people playing, you don't get new players. If you don't get new players eventually your collectors die of old age (or more likely, heart disease and diabetes by age 45 from sitting on their corpulent worthless asses all day), and you're left without an RPG hobby.
RPGPundit
Speaking of making money, I _do_ think that the pocket gamebooks as done by Green Ronin or Mongoose are a pretty neat idea, so that not everyone has to buy the core gamebook if he doesn't care for the DM'ing information...
Quote from: RPGPunditYes, in other words, they are banking their entire stake on selling to obsessive drooling collectors who aren't necessarily ever going to actually play. This is the only context in which Paul's statements about sales are true, and its ultimately going to be the undoing of many a company.
If you don't actually get people playing, you don't get new players. If you don't get new players eventually your collectors die of old age (or more likely, heart disease and diabetes by age 45 from sitting on their corpulent worthless asses all day), and you're left without an RPG hobby.
RPGPundit
I don't think the decision of whether to make a book HC or SC takes collectors into account. I think most people who buy a HC intend to use it for some purpose, either using it whole in their game, mining for ideas or simple reading pleasure.
Where you get into books aimed at collectors are the full-color glossy books like Buffy, Angel and to a lesser extent I'm guessing Conan. These books are meant to appeal to fans of their properties.
But don't underestimate the value of priority dollars. A hardcover book just SEEMS more important. And if it is both HC and in color, well it must be good or they wouldn't have spent so much money on it!
Trust me, RPG companies would love to operate on a different model but there's a reason why companies like GR and Mongoose, which are almost strictly HC these days, are also the companies doing the best business.
Of course quality counts too, because the FIRST 3rd party company to go almost totally HC was Fast Forward ;)
Still, even THEY got quite a few nibbles because their books looked substantial. Big, meaty HC just draw the grubby hands of gamers lol.
Chuck
I prefer small softcovers that aren't large enough that by opening the book fully it damages the spine (Marvel, D&D Boxed Sets). Between the larger books (Rifts or 3.5), I prefer the economics of softcovers. Hardcovers seem like a luxury.
Again I ask, why does no one publish spiral bound books?
Quote from: GunslingerAgain I ask, why does no one publish spiral bound books?
Looks unprofessional and doesn't play well with its shelf neighbours.
Quote from: GunslingerI prefer small softcovers that aren't large enough that by opening the book fully it damages the spine (Marvel, D&D Boxed Sets). Between the larger books (Rifts or 3.5), I prefer the economics of softcovers. Hardcovers seem like a luxury.
Again I ask, why does no one publish spiral bound books?
That one I know. No one can read the name on the spine when stacked on a shelf.
-clash
Quote from: GunslingerAgain I ask, why does no one publish spiral bound books?
I would be hard pressed to buy a spiral-bound RPG and I can't really explain why, especially because I have no problem using a printed PDF in a folder.
Pete
The main reasons for choosing hardcovers are durability, ease of use (in some cases) and a higher perceived value by customers. The third is probably the dominant reason; hardcovers are thought to be more valuable than softcovers, colour art better than B&W, and glossy paper better than simple paper. I don't begrudge publishers if they follow this model, even if I personally prefer smaller pamphlets with B&W artwork (old D&D was pretty good for this, but there are some nice new examples as well, like Polaris or Necromancer's Tome of Horrors) and paper that's designed for utility. Still, the current model is the market reality, and most publishers are naturally followers - they try to go where the market leader, Wizards, does. In the long term, some publishers would be wiser to break with this model for two possible reasons:
a) satisfying niche markets, and
b) making something innovative that will find fans both within and without the core hobby. Much of this has to be in content, but it isn't impossible that it would extend to form - e.g. Kevin Siembieda claims to have mostly "invented" the softcover rulebook format in an age where boxed sets and hardcovers were the safe bet. Today, it could be boxed sets, sold in toy stores. Or whatever.
Quote from: flyingmiceThat one I know. No one can read the name on the spine when stacked on a shelf.
Ahhh, that makes sense. You could put a soft wrap around the spirals, similar to what they do with some cookbooks I've seen.
I think the main part of this that a lot of folks are missing is the PDF market.
I really think this impacts the decision to print hardcover or softcover in ways that might not be apparent.
We at RPGObjects print a couple books a year. Often these are hardcovers. Why? Because the difference in investment isn't that different between a HC and SC. If something is our one big investment for the year, the difference in price isn't significanltly different.
In other words, if a company is looking to cut costs, it doesn't make sense to try and cut them by printing a cheap softcover BW book as much as it does to just put the book out on PDF.
Options are also limited by the fact that there aren't a lot of low-cost print options the market has shown a willingness to support.
PODs tend to be supported by the same small fraction of early adopters as will buy a PDF. People just don't think the books will be of good quality or durable.
Paperback sized books and off-sized books, something like what Dilbert collections are printed as might be cheaper but haven't gained much traction in the market either.
In short, the RPG market only has a few formats it has adopted and priority dollars seem to flow HC in color, HC in BW, SC, PDF.
RPG manufacturers really aren't dumb (unless you count their decision to stay in the hobby at all) and are just following what the market does.
Quote from: GunslingerAhhh, that makes sense. You could put a soft wrap around the spirals, similar to what they do with some cookbooks I've seen.
I've seen a spiral bound RPG product like this.
From a company that, even if they still existed, I wouldn't buy from again. But I think the format is viable. Real nice for books you want to lay flat.
Quote from: pspahnI would be hard pressed to buy a spiral-bound RPG and I can't really explain why, especially because I have no problem using a printed PDF in a folder.
Pete
And that is the general reason EVERY publisher I have talked to does not favor spiral bound. Caveat: Many live the format and wish it was commercially viable but attempts prove otherwise.
Bill
Quote from: RPGPunditAre 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
YAWN. Another beller post. Whether people want a paperback or hardback doesn't matter. Most companies make one or the other so there's really no real choice for the buyer.
A hardback does not guarantee quality, of course. Tye famous gurps 4e fuckup proved that. The pages in my g4e hardback came out right away, buyt the ones in my 3e paperback are still intact.
All things being equal, I prefer a well made hardcover. If I'm going to order the book and get it shipped, I might as well get something that's sturdier and better looking.
Things, however, are not aways equal: if I were choosing one or the other for something I'm producing, it would be softcover.
-Marco
Quote from: RPGPunditAre there people here who sincerely feel its worthwhile to pay extra money for the less practical format of the hardcover RPG book?
Yep. I'm a bibliophile and, as a rule, hardcover books typically endure regular use better due to sewn bindings (an option unavailable in softcovers) and well. . . hard covers (which don't bend, fold, tear or stain with the ease that the covers of many perfect-bound books do).
QuoteIs 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?
With the exception of printer errors (e.g., early White Wolf hardcovers) , I've
never seen a hardcover book that was "less durable" than a softcover. As I note above, I've found the
exact opposite to be true.
Quote from: WarthurYeah, it really threw me when I found out that the core MRQ books would be hardcovers. The stated aim was to get the rules out in a no-frills easy-on-the-pocket format... which, erm, would seem to point towards softcovers all the way.
I don't think it was the hard cover that boosted the MRQ price, but the choice of paper stock and artwork presentation. As Troll Lords has demonstrated, a low cost, hard cover rule book is well within the realm of possibility (provided that you use no-gloss paper and simple black and white artwork).
The soft wrap around spirals sounds positively awesome.
I'd use that.
Quote from: jdrakehWith the exception of printer errors (e.g., early White Wolf hardcovers) , I've never seen a hardcover book that was "less durable" than a softcover. As I note above, I've found the exact opposite to be true.
Something else to consider is that books are getting larger. When I started in this business RPG books were printing between 32 and 64 pages. For the large sourcebooks you'd see 128 pages.
Now 300 pages or more is not uncommon.
I dont even want to think about how bad the binding would be on a 300 page softcover.
But really, there's no conspiracy here. Manufacturers just noticed that hardcovers were attracting priority dollars.
I even remember a thread on ENWorld a couple years ago where someone said, in complaining about hardcovers, that he wished he could buy some great looking 128 page softcovers but he was buying the new HC instead.
That's exactly the mindset publishers were noticing.
And of course full-color glossy paper took that to the next level. Anyone else here remember people ooing and ahhing over how amazing the 1st edition of Mutants and Masterminds looked?
I do. That made the book stand out. Had people gushing about it for weeks on the boards. It helped make the book a hit.
Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckI dont even want to think about how bad the binding would be on a 300 page softcover.
I've seen 'em during my time as a product reviewer. Hot glue doesn't hold 300+ pages in place very securely for very long under normal use conditions (especially in very humid or very arid environemnts).
I've had several high page count softcover products literally fall apart in a matter of weeks (most recently the True20 Bestiary and, prior to that, a new copy of Rifts Conversion Book I).
For low page count products, a softcover is a more viable option but (again,with the exception of botched print runs) I generally find hardcover books to be superior in every way when it comes to long term durability.
QuoteBut really, there's no conspiracy here. Manufacturers just noticed that hardcovers were attracting priority dollars.
I admit that, when I have the option between buying a hardcover or softcover version of a product, I buy the hardcover version -- even if it means putting off the purchase for another week or two (the only reason that I bought a softcover of Cyradon was that I had no idea a hardcover version existed at the time).
I think that perfect-bound books are. largely, crap. If I've found that, in day to day use, even thin, saddle-stiched (i.e., staple-bound), products like the old TSR AD&D adventure modules tend to outlast perfect-bound books when subjected to frequent use. The problem with this is that the most efficient way to sell saddle-stitched products is as part of a boxed set (which usually costs the publisher more than they can expect to sell it for)*.
Spiral binding might be an alternative, but as mentioned earlier, it looks like absolute crap (you can get it done at most neighborhood copy shops for $2.00) and most consumers would expect such products to retail for significantly less than perfect-bound softcovers. And I'm not sure that they would. This would be met with consumer hostility, I think.
*I'm not sure how well the current $70 box sets that are roughly equivalent to their 1990s $20 counterparts are selling, but I'm guessing that many of them collect dust on the shelves of retail stores.
Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckI do. That made the book stand out. Had people gushing about it for weeks on the boards. It helped make the book a hit.
I was one of those people. I had a similar reaction to the deluxe edition of Silver Age Sentinels. For four color supers game I like the art in four colors. I find black and white sufficient for pretty much everything else.
My 1st Edition AD&D DMG is falling to pieces, while my softcover Palladium books bought in the same time are mostly fine.
And not counting absolute disasters like my Midnight book, even those hardcovers which haven't started out messed up, I can tell are going to be in much worse shape in 15 years than said softcover Palladium (and other) titles.
RPGPundit
I like softcovers. I don't hate hardcovers, but for fuck's sake, can someone invent a cheap, durable version one can open and lay flat? And if there is one, why don't more publishers use it (and don't say "it's expensive"; I just said "cheap")? Plus, I hate the trend of short (like 128 pages) books that are hardcover. It makes them take up an inordinate amount of space. That's important when space is at a premium.
Speaking of books that lay flat, I would be willing to pay a bit more for a hardback or softcover (especially softcover) that did so. The Amber RPG book I have is precisely this kind of book, and is one of the reasons I think it's pretty nifty. Spiral-bound books are very convenient, as others up-thread have said, but they don't sit well on a bookshelf, and there is no spine to identify them.
Quote from: RPGPunditMy 1st Edition AD&D DMG is falling to pieces, while my softcover Palladium books bought in the same time are mostly fine.
My own softcover Palladium books lasted little more than six months before the laminate started to peel away from the cover's cardstock (there have been a few exceptions, though not very many) and the pages started to separate from the spine inside of a year (with the exception of, oddly enough, my limited edition hardcover copies of Rifts and Palladium Fantasy).
That said, I've heard both of these complaints (i.e., pages falling out, laminate separating from covers) from many, many, many Palladium fans (online and off). Conversely, I've heard very few AD&D fans complain about the quality of the old hardcovers, with the exception of the Oriental Adventure (indeed, I hear many old grognards pine for the days of handsewn bindings and hard covers for every book).
Of course, YMMV, but I think you're the
first person that I've ever heard praise Palladium's books for being
durable. You're certainly the first person who I've heard argue in seriousness that glue and light cardstock are more durable than sewn bindings and heavy cardstock.
Quote from: jdrakehYep. I'm a bibliophile and, as a rule, hardcover books typically endure regular use better due to sewn bindings (an option unavailable in softcovers) and well. . . hard covers (which don't bend, fold, tear or stain with the ease that the covers of many perfect-bound books do).
I agree that perfect binding is often crap, though it seems to vary for some reason. (National Geographics, often decades old, seem to hold their bindings pretty well.) But also, Dover Books is at least one publisher that does use sewn bindings in its paperbacks. (Or did at one time.)
Also, while poking around for more info, I came across a couple of links that suggest both that good modern adhesives and techniques (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.publish.books/msg/d9e951e8aca82651?hl=en&) can make very good perfect-bound books, and that even hardbound books these days are often made using, essentially, perfect binding (http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.system/msg/d16c56e382344626?hl=en&). (I just looked at a couple of my hardcover game books and one (
Sorcerer) is pretty clearly perfect bound; the other two (
Feng Shui and
Riddle of Steel) are inconclusive and I don't feel like tearing them apart to be sure.)
Quote from: ColonelHardissonSpeaking of books that lay flat, I would be willing to pay a bit more for a hardback or softcover (especially softcover) that did so.
The technology is available, but it's very new (and, thus, it's also very expensive). Here's a bit about the process and how you can identify a "lay-flat" book:
Linkage (http://www.wrapups.com/docs/service/layflat.html)I
believe that some recent RPG products (all hardcovers) have used the process in question, though I could be mistaken (never having tried to lay the books flat, I can't say with certainty that they were, in fact, "lay-flat" books).
I think that when the process becomes more affordable, you'll see more publishers use it, though because it would raise the price point for softcover products considerably, I doubt if you'll ever see many "lay flat" softcover RPG books. I think it is well-established that the primary appeal of said books for consumers is their low retail price.
The Amber books are another great example. I've used these two books even WAY more than my old palladium books (last time I ran anything Palladium in a serious way was over 12 years ago, but I've been using my Amber books almost non-stop for the last decade and a half straight).
They're softcover, and have vastly outlasted hardcover books that I used much less.
RPGPundit
We'd all like our books to be better quality Pundit. Sometimes it just doesn't happen. Sometimes you get a book back from the printer and it's flawed. The printer admits it's flawed and offers to do a reprint free of charge.
Now you're in a position where you're screwed either way. Delay a book whose earnings you are counting on or go with a flawed book.
In cases of wear and tear, often whether you've gotten a good deal on a print run or been ripped off isn't apparent until the book is in people's hands.
So book quality is something we wrestle with all the time. But on the subject of whether or not publishers should CHOOSE to print softcovers or hardcovers, the market has more or less spoken.
In general (and of course things like quality and timing play roles too) a book will better if it's hardcover, better if it's in color, better if it's big and meaty, better if it's licensed.
Combine all of those and your chances improve even more.
Of course some publishers just have a devoted fan base and could print their books on cardboard with crayon art and their fans would line up to buy it.
And even those publishers have put out licensed books with color art on occasion.
Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckOf course some publishers just have a devoted fan base and could print their books on cardboard with crayon art and their fans would line up to buy it.
Don't believe the man? Do a Google search for "Grontar the Frutang" :D
Quote from: jdrakehDon't believe the man? Do a Google search for "Grontar the Frutang" :D
Lol. Obviously I was being too subtle ;)
I was actually thinking of Palladium when I said that. I mean, part of Pundit's central thesis in this thread is that more people should make books like Palladium because they sell.
My counter-thesis is that Palladium has a dedicated fanbase that buys their books IN SPITE OF, not because of, the books' production quality, so that isn't a very good example.
And even Palladium has done some licensed books before, which I'd guess were some of the best selling books they've ever had. I certainly loved the old TMNT game.
Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckMy counter-thesis is that Palladium has a dedicated fanbase that buys their books IN SPITE OF, not because of, the books' production quality. . .
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Kevin could literally crap on piece of cardstock, call it a game, and a great many Palladium fans would buy it. Having been a Palladium fan for ages, I know (I was never that much of a fan, though I personally knew several folks who were). Of course, the same can be said of any company with a notoriously. . . uhm. . .
enthusiastic fanbase.
I
still see die-hard TSR fans defend the "Complete" books as brilliant products, despite several TSR employees having gone on record as saying these very same products were huge money pits that sold very poorly and, ultimately, alienated a large portion of the more conservative fanbase (i.e., they were poor products, even by the publisher's standards).
And, of course, somebody keeps buying enough
World of Synnibarr books to warrant continued print runs :eek:
Fans.
Can't survive without out 'em, can't shoot 'em in the face. Or maybe you
can, but it's not a very good idea ;)
Couldn't those books have been brilliant and sold poorly?
Spiral bound? Amateur shit, straight out of Kinkos.
Softcover? Not enough cash to play in the big leagues.
Hardcover? Now you're able to sit at the grown-ups table.
Quote from: droogCouldn't those books have been brilliant and sold poorly?
Sure, but outside of die-hard fans, this isn't the general concensus.
Quote from: droogCouldn't those books have been brilliant and sold poorly?
They could have been, but in most people's opinion they weren't.
I thought a couple were good (the ones written by Aaron Allston oddly enough), but unfortunately, if two of a line is good and a company makes almost a dozen, that's a bad thing.
I bow to your knowledge, gentlemen.
Quote from: droogI bow to your knowledge, gentlemen.
It's less real knowledge than it is conventional wisdom gleaned through stupid amounts of time spent browsing RPG forums and e-groups. Seriously, for somebody who only does occasional error checking for publishers, I spend
far too much time tracking consumer complaints ;)
Quote from: RPGPunditMy 1st Edition AD&D DMG is falling to pieces ...
That's shocking. The 1e AD&D hardbacks were incredibly well made (at least up until
Unearthed Arcana, which had horrible binding). You must have abused that DMG horribly.
All of my 1e AD&D hardbacks are in good shape. The bindings looks like they would last 1000 years.
The same
cannot be said for my softcovers of similar age.
Having collected RPG books for 26 years now, hardcover books
definitely age better.
If a RPG is contained within a single book, I definitely prefer hardcover. If I need to use 3+ books, then softcover starts to look appealing.
So what about stapled softcover books in boxes? Quite unlikely to lose their bindings, but out of their boxes they're a bit flimsy. And who carries boxes to the game?
Quote from: SosthenesSo what about stapled softcover books in boxes? Quite unlikely to lose their bindings, but out of their boxes they're a bit flimsy. And who carries boxes to the game?
Yeah, I mention saddle-stitched books a bit further up the thread. And you're right -- they do seem more durable than perfect-bound softcovers do (even out of the box). I have stacks of old FR1e modules that are still in one piece after more than 20 years, when most perfect-bound softcovers that I have owned are totally thrashed after less than ten years of regular use.
Quote from: AkrasiaThat's shocking. The 1e AD&D hardbacks were incredibly well made (at least up until Unearthed Arcana, which had horrible binding). You must have abused that DMG horribly.
I'm on my second PHB and DMG because as a kid I used my first to unto death.
Quote from: SosthenesSo what about stapled softcover books in boxes? Quite unlikely to lose their bindings, but out of their boxes they're a bit flimsy. And who carries boxes to the game?
Rust can be a problem with staples. That being said, it's probably the least expensive binding technique.