Friends,

We tried a different approach for layout and design with the new Book of Battle 2nd Edition, that's now on sale at DriveThruRPG. Our design goals:

1.) The designs must be printer-friendly. Meaning, no images that "bleed" off the edge of the pages, no background patterns, very limited use of grayscale, limited use of reversed out type and no large areas of solid black ink.

2.) Devote more time and attention to typography and page layout, including the structure of the pages and the use of white space, to make the page more inviting and to improve the "flow" of the document.

3.) Develop a design aesthetic that is informed and inspired by Traditional style and conventions (such as those found in illuminated manuscripts and early printed books].

4.) Make the most of art in the public domain (since our budgets don't support original illustration commissions these days)

5.) Make the print easy on the eyes since, let's face it, most of us aren't in our teens and twenties anymore.

The third item was a tricky balancing act — reconciling ancient forms with the needs and expectations of a modern audience — and we honestly have no idea how our experiment will play out.

Do you like this direction? Would you like to see the design pushed more in this direction? Less? What works for you? What doesn't? Please vote and comment below. We want to hear from you! If we see patterns in the comments, we'll do our best to address them in future publications.

The BOOK OF THE ESTATE has just been sent to layout, so we're keen to get your thoughtful feedback now.

Best,


T.

Likes:
Good handouts
GREAT INDEX (*cough* rare in a KAP book *cough*)
There is good flow/good transitions in the chapter(s) that describe the process of a battle round.
I like the little red-text comments in the margins to assist me in understanding connotations and denotations of specific rules/concepts
sample battles=YAY!

Dislikes
Spending money to have little red text-comments printed in colour at [name redacted].
Why the battle leader sheet? It seems to me to be redundant and the battle leader in my campaign complains that he doesn't get glory for defeating/being defeated by foes now that he is the leader.

commentary feedback:
I still don't get how/where to apply the battle modifiers from GPC battles (i.e. pg 142 "Battle of Terribil, but not the Cornish Terrabil" Morning Battle Arthur outnumbers foe +5, Nero inspired by Love (family) +10 and Afternoon Battle Arthur outnumbers his foe +5, Arthur's army is tired +5, Arthur's army has been victorious today +5) Explanation would be welcomed in BoB 2.1!
I am happy to have less artwork in something i am paying to have printed at [name redacted].

As I remember more, I'll give as detailed feedback as I can.

Hey, thanks for responding; we really appreciate it!



Likes:
Good handouts
GREAT INDEX (*cough* rare in a KAP book *cough*)
There is good flow/good transitions in the chapter(s) that describe the process of a battle round.
I like the little red-text comments in the margins to assist me in understanding connotations and denotations of specific rules/concepts
sample battles=YAY!

Good deal. We thought a little color might be help to highlight certain things, or just help you find info faster. Of course there is a downside...


Dislikes
Spending money to have little red text-comments printed in colour at [name redacted].

Bingo. Well, we figure the trade off for usability is worth it — plus a lot of people might only view this on their laptop or iPod; those folks don't have to pay a nickel more! Of course, you can always just print the file in grayscale — the red color is just a value add, but you certainly don't have to spring for the extra color. Another option is to only print those pages with the red callouts on the color machine. Print all the rest on a B&W machine. You have to hand collate them, but hey — there's all kinds of options!


Why the battle leader sheet? It seems to me to be redundant and the battle leader in my campaign complains that he doesn't get glory for defeating/being defeated by foes now that he is the leader.

Well, being Battle Leader's a dirty job, villagereaver, but someone's gotta do it! Seriously, those overworked and under-appreciated Gamemasters need a helping hand to make sure all the calculations come out right. The redundancy is to help avoid do-overs because someone forgot the modifier for such and such.

Why does the battle leader not win his Glory like everyone else? Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious...


commentary feedback:
I still don't get how/where to apply the battle modifiers from GPC battles (i.e. pg 142 "Battle of Terribil, but not the Cornish Terrabil" Morning Battle Arthur outnumbers foe +5, Nero inspired by Love (family) +10 and Afternoon Battle Arthur outnumbers his foe +5, Arthur's army is tired +5, Arthur's army has been victorious today +5) Explanation would be welcomed in BoB 2.1!

Ah — those are the "Starting Conditions" you may have heard tell about. Use 'em when calculating the First Charge Intensity. Maybe on the next version we'll be able to add in that linkage to the GPC at the top of p. 19.


I am happy to have less artwork in something i am paying to have printed at [name redacted].

Yeah? Hmm. We use the artwork to draw the reader through the book and (hopefully) make it a better experience over all. The book would be very dry without artwork, even though it's a little more expensive if you're having it printed. We're very curious to know if other's share this view. Are you printing two-sided? One way to save a little jack...


As I remember more, I'll give as detailed feedback as I can.


Please do! Thanks so much for taking the time.


Best,


T.

The Poll says I cannot post for some reason, but in short I loved the new layout.

Why does the battle leader not win his Glory like everyone else? Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious...


There is no "glory for round" column on the leader sheet. Pg 131, BoB II

Ah, thanks. We'll fix that, and post a stand-alone PDF ASAP.


T.

The Poll says I cannot post for some reason, but in short I loved the new layout.


Hm...perhaps your vote registered after all? I see two new "I love it" votes in just the past 12 hours...

Thanks!


T.

Ah, thanks. We'll fix that, and post a stand-alone PDF ASAP.


T.


Sir Primarus thanks you. Well, he would if his player could read, write, and/or navigate teh intarwebz. :P

Here's a replacement for the Leader's Battle Record that includes the Glory calculation stuff at the bottom:

http://goo.gl/v9eGb

Thing is, the Leader will not be able to track as many rounds as the Gamemaster now, as we had to sacrifice several rows on the table to accommodate this stuff. But now people have a choice!

Best,


T.

Here's a replacement for the Leader's Battle Record that includes the Glory calculation stuff at the bottom:

http://goo.gl/v9eGb

Thing is, the Leader will not be able to track as many rounds as the Gamemaster now, as we had to sacrifice several rows on the table to accommodate this stuff. But now people have a choice!

Best,


T.


My apologies--I was not clear. There is no column for "glory for enemy fought" on the Leader's sheet, while there is one on the Player's sheet.

The eschille's leader's player can't think outside the box and was complaining about his lack of "opponent glory" for the battle. (If there is no box, his OCD prevents him from penciling it in outside the box.)

Or is the implication (as i return to look at both sheets again) that the leader will fill out both sheets?

I hope this is more clear. AND I appreciate the quick addition of the new Leader's sheet.

Or is the implication (as i return to look at both sheets again) that the leader will fill out both sheets?

That is correct
one for the unit
one for himself

Ah, sorry, my bad. Yeah, ran out of room for additional columns on the Leader's sheet. It was everything I could do to make them fit as is.

Maybe we should have Legal-size versions?


T.

Ah, sorry, my bad. Yeah, ran out of room for additional columns on the Leader's sheet. It was everything I could do to make them fit as is.

Maybe we should have Legal-size versions?


no
the intent was always to have the leader have one sheet for himself
one for the unit

Ah—just so.


T.

As I'm always telling: you can't lead from behind. A Unit Leader ist also a Fighter. So two different sheets for two different Funktions seems perfect logical to me. ;)

I like the Design. It could be a little more minimalistic for my personal taste. But I must confess a special liking for simple style. So its absolutely OK. I like the detailed maneuver descriptions with the suiting pictures very much. I'm tempted to use them to create some maneuver cards for my group.

More minimalistic?! Wow, Lothaire — you must like your pages very plain indeed! Our chief concern is that people would find this too minimalistic, compared to most RPG books on the market, which provide wall-to-wall text and graphics! We're delighted that you like the book; thanks very much for the feedback.


Best,



T.

Hi

After my first readthrough I have a (very small) problem with "Position of Honor". It first appears at p. 30 and is finally explained on p. 88. There are more than 50 pages, where I don´t have a clue, what this means. :)
I don´t really understand the explanation and the example on p. 88, but this may be because of inexperience with the system (and english is not my first language). Of course I get that it is the right side of a formation, but why is that a advantage/disadvantage ?

I love the overall design and I like the red text on the sides and all the art.
This is certainly one of the most beautiful PDFs I know.

regards

Booka

The right side of the battle was typically the Vanguard. This was the battle that led the army in the march and ordinarily had the greatest commander, most glorious knight etc in charge of it. At the Battle of Crecy it was Edward of Woodstock, the black prince, son of Edward III.

Strangely during the Battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, Duke of Gloucester held the Vanguard but lined up on the left of the army.

After my first readthrough I have a (very small) problem with "Position of Honor". It first appears at p. 30 and is finally explained on p. 88. There are more than 50 pages, where I don´t have a clue, what this means. :)
I don´t really understand the explanation and the example on p. 88, but this may be because of inexperience with the system (and english is not my first language). Of course I get that it is the right side of a formation, but why is that a advantage/disadvantage ?

In sword and shield fighting there is always a tendency to fall back on the right, since it is less protected. This is true for individuals and formations, so that in some ancient battles both armies fell back on the right and advanced on the left, so that the line of battle nearly pivoted to 90 degrees of its starting position.
Flanks are also dangerous because it is where the enemy is most likely to curl around a formation and attack their foe from the (uprotected) side and get behind them.
The Position of Honor is on the right, because those are the tough guys who are not afraid to stand their ground and not fall back, despite the additional danger and natural tendency of humans in combat.
Hence, additional Glory

The Position of Glory dates back to ancient greek (at least). Its not an aspect of sword and shield fighting style alone. Its an aspect of infanteristic shieldfighting. The greek hoplites used very big round shields and spears. The shield covered their left side and the right of their left neighbor. That means an opponent would have the best angle for attacking on one's upper-right (the weapon arm). That leads to to rightsteps or an least pulling your shield rightswards for self protection. Your left neighbor will follow that movement to stay in the partly protection of your shield. Also when linefighters fall, the survivers tenddo go right to close up, for the very same reasons plus the fact, that moving left would open your very own vulnerable right side.
In all other points, Gregs explanation is perfectly fine. Putting your best and most experienced (which are the the most honored) fighter to the right stabilizes the army on this critical position. It feeds the most power on the weakest position. The guys the have hard conditions and their fate affects the outcome of the battle greatly. This means more honor is earned by them.
In the Battle of Leuctra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuctra) this natural tendecy to the right and the fact, that the enemy elite is there is used for a very effective tactic. Epaminondas of Thebes defeated the Spartans (which had an nimbus of invincibility at that time) by concentrating troops on the very left flank and causing an overwhelming attack to the spartan position of honor with all the important people.

In a cavalry fight, this tendency is not true. But the tradition lives on. Warriors and nobles are a really conservative kind of people and seem to give a great deal on Traditions. I can imagine the allurement on something called "position of honor", just by that name, very well.

Thanks very much, both of you. It all makes sense now and I especially like the flavor it gives. My players and myself love those things. Maybe this should be added to a later version of BoB, I´m probably not the only one without the neccessary education in ancient/medieval warfare. Red text an the side or in the text in the beginning explaining basic Army organization ? I can also understand the need to keep its content focused on the important stuff.

regards

Booka

Thanks very much, both of you. It all makes sense now and I especially like the flavor it gives. My players and myself love those things. Maybe this should be added to a later version of BoB, I´m probably not the only one without the neccessary education in ancient/medieval warfare. Red text an the side or in the text in the beginning explaining basic Army organization ? I can also understand the need to keep its content focused on the important stuff.


Consider it done! Next time we update the book. We still don't have enough errata to justify a tweak, but I'll definitely keep this in mind.


Best,


T.

Just pick up BoB2. It looks fantastic. Nice job.

NT

Thanks, Eothar. Keep your eye on this space for an official sneal peek of the next KAP publication: The Book of the Estate. The book is in the final stages of production and I hope to post some goodies this weekend.

Guys, if you like this (and other PENDRAGON books) please consider posting a review, or at least a rating. on DriveThruRPG. If you really want to help the cause, write a review for RPG.net. All these little things help increase the game's visibility and thus drive sales — which in turn make it easier for us to continue to produce more books!


Best,


T.

I think the new layout is stunning. I've got all of the older books (BoTM, BoKL etc) and this is a huge step upwards in terms of production values. Simple, clean and minimal it may be, but it works and works beautifully. Very, very professional.

Wow, thanks! High praise indeed, coming from you, sir. I've always admired your graphic work as well.

Best,


T.

I too have just picked up BoB II (the voucher you guys sent out spurred me on - plus having a pdf is useful given that my Pendragon gaming is mostly done via internet these days) and I'd just like to echo Pramalot's comments.

In terms of layout and aesthetics it's a huge improvement over the older version - I particularly liked the sidebar callouts in red, a nice echo of medieval texts there that is also helpful in guiding the reader and doesn't break the uncluttered look. I did a quick read through a couple of nights ago and was also impressed at how you've kept the core of the engine pretty much unchanged, but tweaked the text and organisation to help lead people through the rules.

If this is the way for future books then I, for one, will be very happy.

Regards
Luke

Thanks, Luke! If y'all get a chance, please leave ratings and or reviews on DriveThruRPG. It would help us out to spread to world to the wider gaming community.


Best,


T.

In sword and shield fighting there is always a tendency to fall back on the right, since it is less protected. This is true for individuals and formations, so that in some ancient battles both armies fell back on the right and advanced on the left, so that the line of battle nearly pivoted to 90 degrees of its starting position.
Flanks are also dangerous because it is where the enemy is most likely to curl around a formation and attack their foe from the (uprotected) side and get behind them.
The Position of Honor is on the right, because those are the tough guys who are not afraid to stand their ground and not fall back, despite the additional danger and natural tendency of humans in combat.
Hence, additional Glory

Right idea, but bad reasoning. Swordsmen did not fight in shieldwalls, the classic example of swordsmen were the Celtiberians, whom developed the "Roman style" of fighting with swords rather than spears. A unified throwing of pila at the center of a unit either to cause a gap or to lock together the shields of those fighting in a shieldwall followed by a rush into that gap. Swordsmen use penetration not flanking tactics and need to be more aggressive and independent than spear men trying to fight in a shield wall.

The real reason for the right being a position of honor has nothing to do with what happens during a battle, but what happens before it and during deployment for battle. Units deploying for battle keep their shields towards the enemy to cut down on casualties from missiles. If they've arrived in a column (as was normal), the leaders were at the head of that column with their picked men and that because of the need to have kept ones shields to the foe ends up being the right side.

Armies tend to march in three bodies: a van guard; a main body and a rearguard - obviously the vanguard will come into contact with the enemy first and generally have greater opportunities for glory, as they have to scout ahead and find the enemy, as well as, leading to protect the main body from being ambushed. Obviously the vanguard deploys first for battle.

I'd love to be able to vote in the poll but I've not yet got my hands on the book as I prefer to wait for a hard copy. Does anyone have any idea if/went Nocturnal will be releasing this as a Print On Demand product?

Thanks in advance for any help here...

I'd love to be able to vote in the poll but I've not yet got my hands on the book as I prefer to wait for a hard copy. Does anyone have any idea if/went Nocturnal will be releasing this as a Print On Demand product?

Thanks in advance for any help here...


Thanks, Oly. The very next project on our schedule after BOOK OF THE ESTATE is to get out soft and case-bound editions of BOOK OF BATTLE 2nd EDITION. There was a big production SNAFU on the eve of our delivering BOB2 to Drivethru RPG. It was so traumatic, we decided to jump into another project before digging our way out of that particular hole. Now that BOOK OF ESTATE is in the final days of production, we will soon be turning back to BATTLE II. Hang in there just a little longer. My guess is 4-6 weeks from now we'll have those BATTLE II books available.

Best,


T.

Now that BOOK OF ESTATE is in the final days of production, we will soon be turning back to BATTLE II. Hang in there just a little longer. My guess is 4-6 weeks from now we'll have those BATTLE II books available.


Great news!

My guess is 4-6 weeks from now we'll have those BATTLE II books available.

Excellent, thanks for the response.

I still haven't had a proper look through this yet. I'm hoping to have a sit down with one of my players soon and work our way through a few mock battles. The book is nicely laid out though but I'll refrain from commenting until I've used it.