As long as the 6x9 isn't lost in the shuffle. I prefer it.
Besides, it was my understanding that 6x9 makes it easy for Lulu to print soft and hardcovers both in the States and over the pond since formatting for that size works for printing in A5 as well (unlike Letter to A4 or vice-versa).
I wish I had any skill at all in office software. I know enough to write and 'insert image'. Earlier it was asked if there are any further suggestions... doesn't seem like much at all, but I think all of mine are in my OP.
The thing is: I'd like to make it easy for people to tinker with the rules. That seems to be the whole point of doing this in a word processing program, rather than a pro typesetting program that would give better looking results.
8.5x11" and 11x17" are fairly easily available in Europe (according to my cursory Amazon searches). A4 is fairly easily available in the U.S., but A3 is pretty hard to find. 6x9" and 9x12" paper doesn't appear to be available to consumers in the U.S. or Europe (is Lulu trimming this down from a larger size?).
Amazon only prints both soft covers and hard covers in 6x9" and 8.5x11". As far as I know, this is true in both the U.S. and Europe.
I like the small books too, but they seem to have the least flexibility. I guess we could support two different sizes. Or leave it to Matt to support the 6x9". Or maybe I'm alone in placing ease of home printing as a priority.
paulg wrote:I've been working on my own Whitebox house rules for about a year (PDF here), but it took a lot of work.
Hey, Paul, looks like you've done a pretty nice job of this.
At one point I had a Word doc that I had formatted, but then it was decided that someone more polished should do layout instead and as typos were caught they were fixed in the other version (of which I never got a Word copy) instead of mine. The best I could offer is to start with the free download as you did and begin layout from scratch as you did.
I'm not sure I want to go back to WB personally but I think the idea of cleaning up the rules and hosting a version 1.1 sounds like a nice one, art or no art. It's a nice game and it's a shame that it's out of print.
Finarvyn I'm partly to blame for S&W:WB D&D Player Since 1975
Here is the direction I'm going with the reformat. It will give everyone an idea of what I mean by lightly formatted. If you have any input, I would appreciate you letting me know as soon as convenient.
I'm using methods available on a word processor, so users won't need a layout program to fiddle with the setup. Arial was used for the title until I can clear using MG's trade dress with Matt, the body text is 12 point Times New Roman fully justified. Main header text on the tables is 20% gray, group shading for the table body is 10% gray.
If anyone (cough-cough Marv cough-cough) has any corrections to the 3rd printing text I'd love to see them. My e-mail address, for larger files, is my screen name at gmail period com.
Proposed White Box 3 Reformat.jpg (122.07 KiB) Viewed 453 times
Well, hold on. I don't mean to pee-pee on anyone's rainbow either. The idea that grew from my simple wishes is a nice one. I'd wager it would be appreciated by some.
It's likely my fault if I wasn't clear. I'm well aware I'm not as accomplished at communicating my point as other folks who engage in discussion on forums. My point may have been lost since I rambled instead of coming to the point. Looking over my OP I think I did that to make certain I didn't sound too pointed, too negative and/or to whiny.
I can completely understand that Matt didn't wish to spend anymore effort and time on WB, but didn't wish to put it to death. I wish it had been cleaned up much better before it was let go, but unfortunately a couple of little things are left hanging like that annoying little thread hanging out of the middle of your sweater. My wish (and request, as it happens) was that: will/can these things be taken care of? (at the same time I'm also aware of the 'danger' of being eternally called upon to revisit something you've grown past, etc.)