Page Count of adventure module A1 to A4

[thenorthman]

Looking through RPGgeek I am seeing a significant page count difference between some of the 1st writings and 2nd printings.

(I understand A1 has A1.1 and A1.2 incorporated into it and that why it has a large page increase, nearly double)

I realize that a 2 to 4 page increase is expected from Softcover to PDF or vs versa, but some are 7 to 10 page different.

Anyone know why this would be? Larger font maybe? Lots of errata?

Sean

[Traveller]

More art and an updated layout I think, but I no longer have my original prints of A1-A3 to check. I sold them when I got the updated prints a couple of years ago.

[Fullerton]

Some (but not all) of the page count increase is due to the originals having maps on the inside front & back covers. In the later releases, these maps were moved to normal pages.

[thenorthman]

Thanks!

[Fullerton]

One example:

The original 2005 version of A1 Assault on Blacktooth Ridge has 24 pages, plus maps on the inside covers.

The circa-2008 printing* of A1 has 28 pages, but no maps on the inside covers. The additional 4 pages are made up of a less dense layout (maybe a very small amount of added text), plus two pages of maps (formerly on the inside covers), plus one full-page advertisement.
* which ironically still says "First Printing" on the title page despite obvious differences in layout, font and pagination.

Note also that rpggeek is pretty incomplete when it comes to the printing variations of TLG modules. What they call the "2nd printing" of A1 is really the fourth printing, at least!

The 2005 & ~2008 printing of A1 are in the top-left and top-right respectively:


There's another one from in-between those, probably printed in the last half of 2007 (which is when the PH 3rd print C&C logo was used on modules), but I don't own it so I don't know its page details:

[thenorthman]

Thanks!

[Traveller]

@Fullerton: the database at RPGGeek is edited by its members and thus inaccuracies can rear their ugly heads real easily. However, the Geek as a rule doesn't break its versions down like that. Regardless, the blue 4th Crusade trade dress version of A1 is referred to as the second printing by the Trolls themselves, as it is listed as such on the title page.

[Fullerton]

Traveller, yeah, speaking to the choir on that one. I've worked with them to split various entries to better conform to their "98.3% rule," but run into limitations due to the site's multiple purposes.

On the one hand, they want to be a proper database with correctness being a high priority. On the other hand, they worry about splitting rpgitems (to conform to the 98.3% rule, to fix fix mistakes, or to fix carelessly added versions) because users' collection info is tracked on an rpgitem basis, not an rpgitemversion basis. And then there are naive naming choices made by people unfamiliar with databases and/or methods for naming that are still robust when faced with the inevitable realizations of "oh wow there is another version between the 1st and 2nd!" (That's why "2005 printing" or "Printing with logo matching the first PH C&C logo" are better than "2nd printing.")

On the bright side, they were pretty flexible and let me dismantle their Villains & Vigilantes section a year or two ago, to properly differentiate 1st and 2nd ed V&V.

[thenorthman]

They had me submit Monsters and Treasures 4th printing into a separate product. Mainly because of page count.

Plus guess its easy to combine but hard to separate them out.

[Traveller]

That's inconsistent. The PHBs are all in the same entry. It may be the fact the printed version hasn't been released yet, but I sent a message to one of the Admin for clarification.

[thenorthman]

I said as much in my submission. In fact I had it as a different version. They had me withdraw that one and resubmit it as a new item.

To fall in line with the 98.3% rule they have. Since it does have a large page number increase. I also have a version submitted for the print (or PDF which ever one it is) for the 2nd printing of Blacktooth ridge that he doesn't like because of the nearly double page count and that it combines in the A1.2 and A1.1 into it.

He did say it is easier to combine the entry if it is already separate but VERY hard to separate it out later if they want to go that route with the Monsters and Treasure.

I also pointed out the Players 6th edition being a version instead of a different entry in the notes when submitted the second time.. Nothing to do with it only being a PDF right now.

Sea

[Traveller]

Your entry for A1 likely would never have gotten approved, as it duplicated my entry, which I entered as a version of the original.

They're not being consistent. If the title hasn't changed, then it should be listed as a version rather than its own item. Especially if it's a new printing. Needless to say I've had discussions over this before.

[Fullerton]

They're not being consistent.

Yeah, but that's what happens when energetic folks add stuff to the database when they don't have enough details about the other variations of the items in question. That's also why it's important for folks to add meaningful descriptions of the content (i.e., not just back cover blurbs) to items & versions, and also pictures of title pages / table of contents / etc. Or start a forum thread over there discussing your version with others to look for differences with / similarities to other versions, before adding a new entry.

Those things really help when you have only version A, and I have only version B, and we're trying to determine whether they're materially the same or not.

If the title hasn't changed, then it should be listed as a version rather than its own item.

Haha, Traveller—you're part of the problem, not part of the solution!

Same title isn't enough to justify only being a version. As evidenced by the necessity of new rpgitems when the main properties vary between the two—Designer, Publisher, Setting, RPG, etc. The 98.3% rule is there to catch the various other reasons for not simply being a new version.

Versions are for when two books are, for 98.3% of functional & content purposes, the same. i.e., softcover vs. hardcover, or changed trade dress, different layout, etc.

Items are for when you say, "get Assault on Blacktooth Ridge because it has a perfect kobold-infested dungeon that would totally fit your campaign," but then I buy one on eBay only to find out my copy doesn't have a kobold-infested dungeon at all. That's a significant content difference.

[Traveller]

Nitpicking the terminology? I guess I deserve that.

Hopefully my intent was clear, in that multiple printings of a single volume, if identical in all respects save edition (not printing), appearance, layout and content, should be grouped together. Appearance, layout and content should not be a determining factor. Where the 98.3% rule fails is in using appearance, layout and content as determining factors. By the logic of the 98.3% rule, every copy of the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide from the sixth print onward should be lumped together into a single entry: Dungeon Master's Guide (Revised), with 5th and earlier printings being in their own entry. After all, the revision added six more pages of material along with all those revisions.

Using Monsters & Treasure as an example, we now have four printings of it. All of them are named "Monsters & Treasure". All of them are published by Troll Lord Games. All of them are written by Robert and Steve. Those four books should all be listed together, under the single entry of "Monsters & Treasure".

If there is a change in edition, then each edition should get a separate entry. Traveller is an obvious example. The classic rules, Starter Traveller, and The Traveller Book are one edition. MegaTraveller is another edition, followed by TNE, T4, Mongoose Traveller and the doorstop (T5). In the case of each of these editions except the doorstop, there was more than one printing. Within an edition, each printing of the rules should be listed. I know this sounds obvious, but mixing of editions has happened before on the site.

The 98.3% rule and the inconsistency of the application of said rules is part of why I stopped contributing entries over there. I want to make the database better, but in order to make the database better it needs to have a hierarchy to it, similar to scientific classification of creatures and plants. Unfortunately, implementing any change on the site is torturous, as things move at a very glacial pace due to outdated software and a lot of time invested in a site redesign that ultimately got scrapped.

[thenorthman]

I had asked about taking a picture of the Table of Contents to see if able to take a picture of that. The person I had been talking to CC'd somebody. Never heard anything since.

Then pictures of the Title page? Haven't see that yet on any of the entries....easy to do though if that is something that needs to be done.

They're not being consistent.

Yeah, but that's what happens when energetic folks add stuff to the database when they don't have enough details about the other variations of the items in question. That's also why it's important for folks to add meaningful descriptions of the content (i.e., not just back cover blurbs) to items & versions, and also pictures of title pages / table of contents / etc. Or start a forum thread over there discussing your version with others to look for differences with / similarities to other versions, before adding a new entry.

Those things really help when you have only version A, and I have only version B, and we're trying to determine whether they're materially the same or not.

If the title hasn't changed, then it should be listed as a version rather than its own item.

Haha, Traveller—you're part of the problem, not part of the solution!

Same title isn't enough to justify only being a version. As evidenced by the necessity of new rpgitems when the main properties vary between the two—Designer, Publisher, Setting, RPG, etc. The 98.3% rule is there to catch the various other reasons for not simply being a new version.

Versions are for when two books are, for 98.3% of functional & content purposes, the same. i.e., softcover vs. hardcover, or changed trade dress, different layout, etc.

Items are for when you say, "get Assault on Blacktooth Ridge because it has a perfect kobold-infested dungeon that would totally fit your campaign," but then I buy one on eBay only to find out my copy doesn't have a kobold-infested dungeon at all. That's a significant content difference.

[Fullerton]

Then pictures of the Title page? Haven't see that yet on any of the entries....easy to do though if that is something that needs to be done.

I've only added the Title page to a couple entries, but I've seen it in various others. Since title pages usually/often contain the credits, and make it easy to see differences in authorship, a title page scan is useful for helping prevent uninformed/incorrect merging of two items, or uninformed/incorrect addition of a version to an existing item.

For example, if you compare the title pages of the 2007 and 2010 C&C quick starts, it becomes clear very quickly that they might contain very different content. (These two really ought to be different items, instead of different versions as they are in rpggeek now.)

[thenorthman]

Then pictures of the Title page? Haven't see that yet on any of the entries....easy to do though if that is something that needs to be done.

I've only added the Title page to a couple entries, but I've seen it in various others. Since title pages usually/often contain the credits, and make it easy to see differences in authorship, a title page scan is useful for helping prevent uninformed/incorrect merging of two items, or uninformed/incorrect addition of a version to an existing item.

For example, if you compare the title pages of the 2007 and 2010 C&C quick starts, it becomes clear very quickly that they might contain very different content. (These two really ought to be different items, instead of different versions as they are in rpggeek now.)

Makes since. I might start doing that then for new versions. If denied its denied.