GURPS/4E... could be more attractive?

[tentaclesex]

Originally Posted by Qoltar

Hell, even bringing back Dan Smith - but doing his stuff in color could help a whole bunch. The Color stuff he did for Illuminati had tons of personality. Honestly , a lot of the 4th edition artwork feels FLAT when compared to other game books on our shelves.

You took the words right out of my fingers! Even his black and white stuff had more personality than the new art.

Also, SJG should send money to Xuub and Pmandrekar. They're both right on. "Generic" and "Universal" are good things for the system, but they should not characterize the entire line. Some kickass settings that include GURPS Lite seems like a good way to indoctrinate people. Licensed stuff might not be a bad idea. I'm sure a decent amount of Terry Pratchett fans have been introduced to GURPS via GURPS Discworld.

Overall, I think the new books look pretty decent. The covers have a very unified theme going on, which is good. The cover art in general is good, and I like the layout. My only gripe is the "action dudes and dudettes" character art. I find it bland and unimaginative. I wouldn't be surprised if the same artists were able to do better if they were working on more cohesive setting-based material. I imagine that generic system books aren't terribly inspiring to work on for artists. (I feel obligated to add that I can't even draw a straight line, so I shouldn't even be judging artists. Hooray internet for allowing me to dump my unwanted opinions on everyone!)

By the way, this is my first post. Hello everyone!

[PK]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The fact that Game of Thrones is a multi-million dollar bestseller doesn't have anything to do with it?

Game of Thrones was but one example of many, and one that he could put in my hand. He specifically said that the d20 books that sold well were far more visually appealing. And from the comments that his customers had made, many of them (Game of Thrones fans or not) were undecided about whether to pick up the book until they held it in their hands and looked at it, and that made the difference.

I know I've done the same thing. I heard a good buzz about Nobilis, but it was only one game of many that sounded interesting. It wasn't until I was in my FLGS and saw it on the shelf that it grabbed my eyes and pulled them towards it. Flipping through it, I couldn't help but thinking, "Wow, even if this game sucks, it'd sure be pretty to have lying around...." That night, I consciously grepped the net for as much solid information as I could get about the game -- I got mixed reviews, but overall it seemed not to suck, so I bought it, simple as that.

Now, don't get me wrong -- Nobilis is an absolutely brilliant game. I hate over-hyped terms like "revolutionary", but it's appropriate here. Still, I would never have been so interested in the game (interested enough to sit down and spend my night making sure it was worth checking out) if the core book hadn't looked as damn pretty as it did.

[Andrew Hackard]

One thing to keep in mind is that, when we first started working on the page design for Fourth Edition, the example of the horrible backgrounds from some of the new D&D books was firmly in our mind. We decided to forgo backgrounds entirely rather than try to come up with something that wouldn't make the text difficult to read for at least some people.

There were a couple of major reasons for switching to three columns. One is that it's an immediate visual cue that something is a Fourth Edition book rather than an earlier one.

(And here I'll note that Phil and I set up a couple of experiments YEARS ahead of Fourth Edition's release. Alpha Centauri was a prototype 4/e book long before anyone but Phil was even thinking about the 4/e graphic design, and All-Star Jam was a refinement of those ideas based on the things we learned from AC. Jam also let us test our new text font* to see if it would be obtrusive, obstreperous, or otherwise objectionable. Passed with flying colors -- well, grayscale.)

Another is that it gives the production staff a lot more flexibility in layout. Boxed text, quotes, art, and other graphic elements can be two or three columns wide (very rarely, one), which allows for a bit more variety on the page at a cost of not much more effort.

* Modified New Aster, if you're curious. The old books used plain old Times, which is a solid workhorse but which caused problems on occasion ... there are a LOT of versions of Times out there, and sometimes opening a file created with one version of Times on a computer that had another version of Times would result in the layout equivalent of a technicolor yawn. New Aster is significantly less common, which makes it less likely that font problems will arise down the road. Plus, IMO, it's visually just a bit more interesting than Times, but not in a way that jumps up and down waving road flares while you're trying to read. (I especially like the italic version, compared with italic Times.) And New Aster came in a wide variety of weights, so it's useful in a variety of situations.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Rev_Pee_Kitty

Game of Thrones was but one example of many, and one that he could put in my hand. He specifically said that the d20 books that sold well were far more visually appealing. And from the comments that his customers had made, many of them (Game of Thrones fans or not) were undecided about whether to pick up the book until they held it in their hands and looked at it, and that made the difference.

This is a very good point. As long time players we're mostly interested in the material, but making the books more attractive isn't going to lose us as customers, and is much more likely to attract new customers.

We all repeat the cliche "Don't judge a book by its cover."; however, the reason it's a cliche is because it's something we all do.

Before buying any book we look at it, pick it up, look at the back blurb.
If the art is crap we might just put it back before reading the blurb, if the art is good we might buy it just because we were attracted to it.
Then we read the blurb in the back, if its good we'll buy the book, if it's bad, we either put it down, or maybe flip through the front comments, or check out the prologue or first chapter to see if its interesting, and if something catches our eye we buy it, otherwise it goes back on the shelf.

I like GURPS, and despite my complaints about some of the bad pieces in the books, for the most part outside of the amateurish looking unfinished Poser bits, the art is adequate and there's even an occasional nice piece.

However, adequate doesn't really attract people, it doesn't make them go "ooh shiny, must purchase", or "wow, this is cool".

I'll buy the books for the written content, because I'm an established customer. I'd hazard that most other established customers also buy the books despite the bad Poser stuff because of the written content as well.

On the other hand, to get new customers, GURPS needs to be more attractive. I'm not saying it's an ugly dog, you don't need to wrap it in a paper bag, but it's also not good-looking enough to flaunt.


I've also mentioned in the past that I believe new GM's screens for different settings with good art would be worth pushing. (Luther's right, the current GM's Screen is the one published product which is a dog, visually.)

Qoltar has a good point too, GURPS Lites on better paper, maybe with some art or even softcovers, possibly even expanded out to twice the size with additional material for different settings and/or additional game aides like the GURPS cards, depending on the price I'd probably buy half a dozen and hand over one to each of my players.

[Doktor Teufel]

I am a person who always does lots of research on a given game system or sourcebook before deciding whether or not to purchase it. I'll read multiple online reviews of the product, ask around about it at RPG.net, join any dedicated forums and/or chat rooms (anyone who remembers my entrance to this forum will know that I did not own Basic Set for weeks after joining), et cetera. At no point does the appearance of the book or its artwork affect my decisionmaking process, although sloppy layouts annoy me and bad editing will turn me off in an instant.

However, I also find myself drawn to flashy or pretty books when I am in the FLGS. I won't buy them based on their eye-candy factor -- I've been through one too many beautiful, worthless d20 books to fall for that again -- but they sure are appealing. I was sorely tempted to buy Engel just the other day, until I read the horror-story reviews and also discovered that it was OGL (I've sworn d20 off indefinitely).

Still, cuteness does equal sales these days in many cases. It's unfortunate.

[Luther]

Originally Posted by Rev_Pee_Kitty

Is this having an effect on sales? According to one FLGS, the answer is a definite yes. Old-school GURPS fans might not mind a book with no (or bad) art as long as it's crammed with useful text, but any product lives on new blood -- the maxim of the business world is "grow or die". Does GURPS need to get more attractive?

I don't know. I don't know if investing (lots of) resources in artwork and presentation would really help GURPS from a commercial point of view. It surely would improve it's visual quality, but I really have mixed feelings about the overall impact.

Yes, GURPS art is mostly meh. I, for one, have not bought the GM Screen because it's so ugly.

However would improving the quality of art beyond average increase profit?

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Luther

However would improving the quality of art beyond average increase profit?

This is the key question, of course, and one which I am not qualified to answer authoritatively. My instinct tells me no.

But I turn a deaf ear... What does IT know?
;)

[DreadDomain]

Originally Posted by Luther

Yes, GURPS art is mostly meh. I, for one, have not bought the GM Screen because it's so ugly.

You know, it never occurred to me before but this is exactly why I didn't buy it. I bought everything else but not it...

[Ragabash Moon]

Originally Posted by DreadDomain

You know, it never occurred to me before but this is exactly why I didn't buy it. I bought everything else but not it...

I asked my friend, who owns the GM screen, about this issue. He tends to agree with me. Sure, nice art on the GM screen would be nice, but... He didn't buy it for the art on the side shown to players, he bought it for easy access to all the charts and tables without having to open the book. I feel the same way... That's the intent of a GM screen... easy access to the important charts, and to a lesser degree, hiding your rolls and characters from players. The art or lack therof is not AT ALL a selling point for him or me.

[RANT} I may be wrong, but IMO the reason that d20 sells better that GURPS is a simple fact of ease of play. Is GURPS a better system? Hell, yes! Is GURPS an easier system? No. Level-based systems are easy. You are a 5th level fighter. 5th level fighters have fighting abilities. They do NOT cast spells. Very rigid, very balanced.

Point based systems... I can have Combat Reflexes and Magery too... the only true "limits" on what your character can or cannot purchase with his/her points is set by the GM.

Also, you have to take into account WotC's OGL program. They are the only company to do such a thing. That, without a doubt, was a stroke of genius in getting the d20 system to sell better than the competition.

To be totally honest, I don't need artwork in my books. I may be in the minority, I probably am. The cover should catch my eye, I'll give you that. But a picture doesn't tell me how to run a combat, text does. One of my favorite books for the 7th Sea game was Crescent Empire... I don't think I Remember a single bit of art IN the book... but it was packed full of information on the Cresent Empire area of the game world... when they started "Dual-statting" with their system and the d20 system, I had major issues with how the game converts (it doesn't IMO... old system, in time one could be master swordsman/master sorceror... d20 version, can't do it 'officially' unless you go past 20th level which is NOT supported as the Epic book wasn't OGL at the time), and every single review I ever read complained about the "wasted space" of the "other system" that nobody plays.

I think we as players of GURPS, if we care... We need to try to get other players to realize why GURPS is better than d20. Granted, D&D is fun sometimes, I do like it as long as I am playing a published "official" world that has lots of support and lots of prestige classes that "break" away from the cookie cutterishness of the whole system. I don't however like Star Wars (WotC's version, I do play West End's), d20 Modern is okay in how generic it is, but GURPS is better... I'd almost say d20 Modern is TOO generic with it's classes based on the six attributes...

[/RANT]

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by Ragabash Moon

I may be wrong, but IMO the reason that d20 sells better that GURPS is a simple fact of ease of play.

I think you're wrong. I think it has a lot more to do with D&D's extra 10 years of building a player base, during most of which time it had virtually no significant competition in its market. (And it's a popular market, too; I note that TSR published a number of RPGs, and none of them took off the way D&D did.)

Originally Posted by Ragabash Moon

Also, you have to take into account WotC's OGL program. They are the only company to do such a thing.

This is not accurate. Other companies have offered similar licenses, some of which are even less restrictive than the d20 license. The difference was that they didn't have the large and entrenched fanbase that D&D does, so their licenses didn't get nearly the publicity that the OGL and d20 licenses did.