v3.0 suggestions

[Urieal]

Just wanted to throw out some suggestions for any reprinting efforts that may be going on amongst the BFRPG head honchos.

1. Consider using a 3 column layout instead of a 2 column layout. Several magazines, books and even some newspapers use this format. It is a very easy format to read. Tables can span multiple columns without any problems.
2. Consider a font that is different than Soutane. That seems like the de-facto go-to font for retro clones, yet there are other, free, fonts that are extremely nice and easy to read. One such is Gentium. Stand out by being different.
3. Consider including optional rules in a gray box near the section that is most corresponding. I didn't know about the option to allow thieves to put their % points in the abilities they desired until it was pointed out to me recently.

I'll post more thoughts as they come to me...

Here are links to 3 PDF files that showcase the 3 column look as well as Soutane vs. Gentium. The 3rd is an example of the optional rules box for Thieves Abilities.

3 column Soutane example
3 column Gentium example
Optional Rules box example (some table artifacting...but you get the point)

[SmootRK]

Personally, I am very flexible when it comes to presentation, but I think that a deliberate effort was/is being made to match the old school tomes that were the inspiration for this game. I am not sure that everyone will be on board with a style re-definition, even minimally.

Otherwise than speaking what I think the general population will say (above), I have no problem with BFRPG developing its own style that otherwise still feels old-school or has medieval/fantasy looks to it. I say it here and there, that BFRPG is perfectly deserving of being its own game, and not simply as a flimsy representation or facsimile of those old games.

[Solomoriah]

1. Consider using a 3 column layout instead of a 2 column layout. Several magazines, books and even some newspapers use this format. It is a very easy format to read. Tables can span multiple columns without any problems.
2. Consider a font that is different than Soutane. That seems like the de-facto go-to font for retro clones, yet there are other, free, fonts that are extremely nice and easy to read. One such is Gentium. Stand out by being different.

Both of these fall into the same category: They differ from the style of the game I started with. As such, I do not plan to change them.

Little secret here: I really don't like Soutane/Souvenir/etc. However, I can't make the rules look right to me in any other font... it's probably a nostalgia thing, but there it is.

3. Consider including optional rules in a gray box near the section that is most corresponding. I didn't know about the option to allow thieves to put their % points in the abilities they desired until it was pointed out to me recently.

Gray boxes don't reproduce well in PDF, in that different printing rigs print them differently. I avoid them entirely, even though alternate gray bars are an old-school standard in tables, because of this.

Beyond that, printing the optional rules in the player's section would make it appear as if they are somehow less optional. This is much the same thing as I complained about with the Almanack... people treated it like it was somehow "better" than the separate supplements were.

[Urieal]

I say it here and there, that BFRPG is perfectly deserving of being its own game, and not simply as a flimsy representation or facsimile of those old games.

This is my feeling about the game as well. I think it is a good enough amalgam of old-style, simplicity and common house-rule features that it is, IMO, the best retro-clone to date.

[Urieal]

They differ from the style of the game I started with. As such, I do not plan to change them.

Please extrapolate

Little secret here: I really don't like Soutane/Souvenir/etc. However, I can't make the rules look right to me in any other font... it's probably a nostalgia thing, but there it is.

The Mentzer BECMI uses Baskerville, which is proprietary, but is also a beautiful font. I prefer serif fonts over sans-serif.

Did you take a look at the Gentium PDF...I'm not sure if the fonts embedded properly in it, let me know if it looks off.

[Urieal]

Have you put any thought into creating a version for saddle-stitching?

I like having a single rule-book, but I also like the idea of having a Players Rulebook, Game Master's Handbook and possibly a Monsters Handbook.

I suggest this, not as a replacement for the hardback Rulebook, but as an alternative for those who might wish for a more simple version.

[Urieal]

Beyond that, printing the optional rules in the player's section would make it appear as if they are somehow less optional.

I disagree with this thought, the DM decides in the end anyway. And while a DM can just point the player to the appropriate page in the rulebook for the optional rule, it seems like it would be better placed next to the rule it alters. I don't think it will make the rule any less optional by having it in either place.

[Solomoriah]

They differ from the style of the game I started with. As such, I do not plan to change them.

Please extrapolate

Perhaps you mean "elucidate?"

I started with the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic and Expert games. Together they comprise my "coverage target," that is, any rule found in BX must have a counterpart in BFRPG. Not that I copied them, but rather that I used them to define the scope of my rules.

Little secret here: I really don't like Soutane/Souvenir/etc. However, I can't make the rules look right to me in any other font... it's probably a nostalgia thing, but there it is.

The Mentzer BECMI uses Baskerville, which is proprietary, but is also a beautiful font. I prefer serif fonts over sans-serif.

True, it is a nice font; but as I said, Souvenir-family fonts are the only fonts which fit the style I've defined (or perhaps co-opted).

Have you put any thought into creating a version for saddle-stitching?

No, as it's not an option for Lulu to saddle stitch a work this large.

I like having a single rule-book, but I also like the idea of having a Players Rulebook, Game Master's Handbook and possibly a Monsters Handbook.

I don't care for this idea in general, but more pragmatically, the three together would cost more than a single work such as I have now. There's a minimum per-book price that must be paid. This is why I put three modules into BF1 rather than publishing them separately... it's a better deal for the buyer. If I were trying to make a buck on this, perhaps I'd do it that way.

Beyond that, printing the optional rules in the player's section would make it appear as if they are somehow less optional.

I disagree with this thought, the DM decides in the end anyway. And while a DM can just point the player to the appropriate page in the rulebook for the optional rule, it seems like it would be better placed next to the rule it alters. I don't think it will make the rule any less optional by having it in either place.

You should try it from my side of the fence for a while. Then you'd see how people really behave.

As to missing the optional rule in the back of the book... don't take this personally, but I think if you try to start a game using a rule system you haven't at least perused from end to end is asking for trouble. I don't expect anyone to read all the spells, or all the monsters, but when I start a new game with an unfamiliar rule system I make a point to make it familiar first.

Your players will find all those rules you missed, generally when it's least convenient for you. Part of the reason I scrapped the Almanack (though not the most important reason).

[Solomoriah]

Re-reading this thread, I guess I have to point one more thing out.

You're asking me to do more work. Work I don't need to do, since (as far as I'm concerned) the game is done. Work that is more time-consuming than you think (just try to get the formatting to flow right in a large work, and you'll see what I mean). Rearranging the game into separate books, or changing the fonts wholesale (ouch), or reorganising the optional rules to put them in sidebars are all changes that only you have asked for. Jobs nobody else is paying me to do. The rules are laid out how I want them, and how I want to present them, and I'm happy with them. Why would I change them now?

[SmootRK]

I wouldn't be too defensive. Many ideas are a good thing, and anyone might throw out some ideas wondering when one or more might stick and become something to work with. That said, I also appreciate Solo for his 'sticking to it' rather than caving in at times. The core rules especially are a great work; I would not want them spoiled with random changes. Extra material is fair game for writing Supplements, and I would suggest funneling energies there instead.

My thoughts:
I don't think a re-working of the core rules is necessary at this time. It just wouldn't do much to advance anything. It would be cosmetic change at best, and really a change only for the sake of change.

Going forward however, if a new revision became something reasonable (which is plausible at some point, but not right now), then perhaps consideration of all ideas (including contents, fonts, organization, optional stuff, art) can be done. Just premature at this point.

Also going forward, additional material or tweaking/updating of the existing material would be of greatest value to users of the material... including more more more modules/settings/adventures. I personally don't find my talent in these areas to be very great, so I must look to others for such stuff. I think updating or fully fleshing out some material would be a reasonable investment of time into the game. Some of the earliest supplements are little more than a few notes (assassin, jester, etc.) and could use a full class write-up.

New material such as 'all new' spells, magic items, or equipment, would be very welcome additions.