Knights & Knaves Alehouse

grodog wrote:In the earliest printings of the PHB, it's "Perfect" but should be "Prefect." However, when they tried to fix it in the third printing (when the endpapers were still orange/goldenrod), it was left out completely, and was blank in the subsequent printings Info @ http://www.acaeum.com/library/errata_phb.html The error also appears on the DM Screen as "Perfect" on both the 3/3 panels and 4/2 panels versions.

Thank you!

Chainsaw wrote:... (maybe the color pages required a thicker gloss?)...

Color doesn't require glossy paper. As any newspaper should illustrate.

A pity they had to shrink these so I can't check them out at the store. I'm rather curious about the construction for some odd reason now... also wanted to check out the pics first hand.

grodog wrote:- My hunch is the the different paper stock made the art darker when it was printed, probably.

Paper and ink choice can indeed affect such things, but more likely it's the 'copy-of-a-copy" effect.

Matthew wrote:I noticed they spelled "armour" wrong in every instance, and since I just cannot stand that sort of editorial sloppiness I am going to have to pass on these otherwise very attractive volumes.

Chainsaw wrote:

Falconer wrote:The reason I don’t like the glossy paper is that it makes it much harder to pencil things in. I haven’t tested that, but I assume.

I totally agree and [snip] I'll do an experiment tonight and post a pic.

Thanks, Donovan: that'll be very useful info!

Melan wrote:

grodog wrote:In the earliest printings of the PHB, it's "Perfect" but should be "Prefect." However, when they tried to fix it in the third printing (when the endpapers were still orange/goldenrod), it was left out completely, and was blank in the subsequent printings Info @ http://www.acaeum.com/library/errata_phb.html The error also appears on the DM Screen as "Perfect" on both the 3/3 panels and 4/2 panels versions.

Thank you!

You're welcome, Gabor

SimperingToad wrote:A pity they had to shrink these so I can't check them out at the store. I'm rather curious about the construction for some odd reason now... also wanted to check out the pics first hand.

Ditto: I'm pretty sure our FLGS will have an open copy to flip through. Still not planning to buy these, but they are on my Amazon wish list, at least

SimperingToad wrote:

grodog wrote:- My hunch is the the different paper stock made the art darker when it was printed, probably.

Paper and ink choice can indeed affect such things, but more likely it's the 'copy-of-a-copy" effect.

Even with high-res scans, Paul? I assumed that given all of WotC's art clean-up effort that the artwork would be scanned at sufficiently high-resolution to be nearly perfect reproductions. However, clearly the art printed as substantially darker. What other issues could be a factor in that? (I'm not arguing with you, btw, just trying to get a handle on what other kinds of issues could crop up with reproducing art from scans, since Black Blade has a few projects that could run into the same issues).

Got mine. They look great!

People at Games Plus were amazed at the slimness of the volumes, as I mentioned before, but I failed to mention they were amazed vis-à-vis the thickness of today’s RPGs (i.e., the 3.5e core clocks in at 960 pages total). I saw the DCC RPG for the first time, while I was there, and man, what a beast of a book!

In all, I am VERY happy about this reprint. A total victory!

Can someone tell me if the bindings are stitched/sewn or glued ("perfect")? I've read one review that assumes that because there is a cloth headband at the top of the spine that the books are stitched, but that isn't necessarily the case. Anyone ? Thanks in advance.

Falconer wrote:People at Games Plus were amazed at the slimness of the volumes, as I mentioned before, but I failed to mention they were amazed vis-à-vis the thickness of today’s RPGs (i.e., the 3.5e core clocks in at 960 pages total). I saw the DCC RPG for the first time, while I was there, and man, what a beast of a book!

In all, I am VERY happy about this reprint. A total victory!

One of the things I've often heard was the AD&D 1e was not rules light. And it probably wasn't by 1978 standards. It certainly is by today's mainstream gaming standards. Sure, it's quite a bit heavier than many indie type games out now, but it's quite a bit lighter than any of the top selling games out now.

Here's an interesting comparison: The three 1e rule books total 496 (110 + 126 + 240) pages, indices and appendices included. The much-lauded Rules Cyclopedia, praised by many as the most concise, complete D&D ruleset has 304 pages. 206 pages of 1e consist of lists of monsters, spells, and magic items (98, 60, and 48 pages respectively) while 108 pages of the RC consist of monsters, spells, and magic items (58, 29, and 21 pages respectively). Thus, in terms of actual rules, the comparison is 290 pages to 196 pages. 1e is obviously heavier, but not so much heavier as it's often made out to be. I'd be curious to see how other editions break down.

I got my 2 sets today. I had to drive a couple hours to get them in Green Bay though...because that is the closest FLGS I have. They are still in the plastic so I will open them after I get home from work today.

EDIT: Opened up one set and see the little things that others have mentioned. I am just content with having a couple of extra sets of hardcovers. I left one wrapped and unsure about the fate of that one. They will be used though, as a gaming book and not a decoration. Deep down I only got the extra set in case my son one day wanted to pursue the hobby as a DM instead of a player. Then I can keep the older 70's books and give him a newer set. I still like using my 70's books at the table.

Just picked up my order. As we were worried Chainsaw's guy wouldn't come through I ordered three sets: one for Fridgeghiz, one for Chainsaw, and one for myself.

Looking good, man.

For those interested, here's some pencil-on-page pics. Unsurprisingly, the originals (and Black Blade's OSRIC) are definitely better for penciling. The reprints aren't as bad as my 4E books were though.

Wrote prefect


Attempted to smudge word with my finger


Attempted to erase smudged word


Rewrote word

If you can write in them at all with pencil that's pretty decent. I remember with the 2E rulebooks I couldn't get pencil-marks to show up legibly without pressing so hard I ripped the paper so I had to make notes in ink, which then smudged all over the place

Oh no! There goes the collectibility value.

grodog wrote:

SimperingToad wrote:

grodog wrote:- My hunch is the the different paper stock made the art darker when it was printed, probably.

Paper and ink choice can indeed affect such things, but more likely it's the 'copy-of-a-copy" effect.

Even with high-res scans, Paul? I assumed that given all of WotC's art clean-up effort that the artwork would be scanned at sufficiently high-resolution to be nearly perfect reproductions. However, clearly the art printed as substantially darker. What other issues could be a factor in that? (I'm not arguing with you, btw, just trying to get a handle on what other kinds of issues could crop up with reproducing art from scans, since Black Blade has a few projects that could run into the same issues).

I don't know that it's possible to be completely perfect. It would have helped if they had original art. The originals were probably shot on a stat camera or something similar at a reduced size. And I can see on some illos places where things washed out, or look filled in. I had the opportunity to use a stat camera many years ago in the late '80s, and while I got pretty good at getting the settings quite nice for paste-up, some details often got lost, sometimes merely from the reduction, but other times it was just impossible to get all the details in dark areas to show without other spots washing out, or vice versa. I don't see scanning to be much different in that regard. I had the benefit of not having type on the reverse side of the art too. They did mention having difficulty dealing with that. Hell, even in the dimly lit room I'm in now, I can see the text on the other side of my PHB pages. Using back lighting for this project could have helped the cause, but by appearances (and understandably), they didn't use this.

I would imagine (or I would hope at any rate) that the paper was chosen to have as little ink bleed as possible. But that's me giving the benefit of the doubt.

Chainsaw wrote: Rewrote word

Dang. I know you don't really givvva giant rat's-a about collector value, but you coulda "rewrote" it a little neater, no?

capitalbill wrote:Oh no! There goes the collectibility value.

You ought to eBay that original shrinkwrap. It's worth a lot to collectors.