Re: Historical Sales Figures for D&D's Various Editions

Christopher Adams <mhacdebhandia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>> That was something I *liked* about 2e -- one monster per ***
>> (nominally). Also, that the *provided* them on pages like that. It
>> made it really easy for me to carry just what I needed.
>
> Yeah, it's a shame it was impossible to file the various MCs together.
>
>> Also, this meant that the physical layout on the page was (or could
>> be) the same all the time. The mechanical stuff mostly didn't split
>> across pages, it was *way* easier to read and use[1] than the 1e and
>> 3e layouts[2].
>>
>> [1] ... as much as 2e could be easier to use than 3e, at least. I'm
>> talking layout, not rules
>> [2] for stuff from WotC, at least. A number of other d20 publishers
>> have been putting out monster books with each monster starting on
>> a new page. *Way* easier to use than WotC's layout.
>
> Well, as of the last monster supplement Wizards of the Coast
> published, Monster Manual III, each creature entry begins at the top
> of a new page. So I guess they've caught up to the industry standard
> your approve of. ;)

So they did.

Now, with the monster layout they presented in DMGII, which way will
they go for the next monster book?

The new layout looks okay for specific monsters (it's quite functional
for play purposes), and looks as though it would be workable for
*single* monsters in a monster book, but I don't think it'd handle the
'monster and variants' (as with hydra, etc.) very well.

AFAICT, it chews up at least 3 or 4 inches of text on a page (about 19
lines, IIRC, without spells and whatnot). That doesn't leave much
room for the other information. This could lead to using two faces
per monster in most cases, or more. If they're willing to spend the
space on it, though, this could make a fairly attractive layout.
Something like

+--------------------------+ +--------------------------+
| Monster Name | | +----------------------+ |
| Descriptive imperdiet | | | New stat block goes | |
| text, arr- ultrices | | | here; I'm not going | |
| anged in two vulputate, | | | try to simulate it | |
| columns. lacus odio | | | here. | |
| tristique | | +----------------------+ |
| Lorem ipsum dui, id | | sem, ullam- sed rutrum |
| dolor sit sollici- | | corper non, interdum, |
| amet, consec- tudin leo | | porta ac, tortor dui |
| tetuer adipi- augue ut | | ornare sed, porttitor |
| scing elit. purus. | | eros. Viv- massa, nec |
| Vivamus euis- | | amus tinci- auctor sem |
| mod, felis Donec pede | | dunt, sem arcu in... |
+--------------------------+ +--------------------------+

Layout is obviously somewhat imprecise (page dimensions are wrong for
letterpaper) and I probably got the hyphenation wrong. However, if
they start off verso (opening on the left) this would probably look
fairly decent.


Still, I think they'll stick with the 'reference layout' rather than
the 'stat block' for books. As nice as this may look, I think it'd be
more space effective to stick with the older layout... especially when
they want to present several monsters together.

Hmm. Animals they could probably do one per page; the descriptive
stuff is relatively short. For anything with a significant writeup,
though, it'd probably be at least two faces.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@xxxxxxxxxxxx rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@xxxxxxxxx a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
.