I can’t really review the material content, but I thought I could at least give my 2 copper on the formats of the books…since they seem to be different than what a lot of people have said.
The Good:
Both books seem to flow really well. There seems to be a very intuitive way for how they are set up…it makes for easy reading, and an even easier time finding things when just flipping through the books. The tables and figures are kept very close (usually on the same page) as the text that refers to them. This is good…especially since I’ve noticed a lacking, these days, of other RPG books doing this.
The art fits well with the pages (in both books) and I enjoy the art and the amount of art in each book. I think that fits well with Dragonlance…because I think most of us feel that art is an important and integral part of why we enjoy Dragonlance as much as we do. It’s good to see some new faces along with the old (although I’d like to see some Caldwell and Parkinson art as well…what are they doing these days?)
Kind of along the same lines as the art...are some of the figures in the books (the Moon Chart and Cosmology map come to mind). They are brilliantly put together, and look wonderful! Really...I'm impressed...and I don't know what more I can add about that. heh heh
I will add this in the “good” even though it seems the majority of people disagree. I thoroughly enjoy the green Chapter and section titles. It is a very nice throw back to the SAGA books (although it could be unintentional). And along those same lines, I am very pleased to see the dragonlance wrapped in the Celtic knots of old (and of SAGA). I would hate to loose those. Although, I could concede that they don’t need to be 1.5” wide each…but maybe if they’re just an 1” or so would be a nice compromise?
The books themselves are very well put together…but they use two different methods. The DLCS is glued in…which some people like. I think it’s fine for paperback novels and such, but for hardbacks and especially books that you need to open completely because they have, say, a map that stretches over two pages, I prefer the method used on the AoM book…which is stitched. I do hope that all the subsequent books will be stitched like the AoM book.
The Bad:
Not too much here…I suppose I should just mention the lack of a fold out map. I know that has upset a lot of people (myself included). Perhaps in a future product? The Dungeon Masters Screen, perhaps? (hint, hint) ;)
Also, an index would have been nice, but not absolutely necessary for a well put together book with a good, comprehensive Table of Contents, which brings me to…
The Ugly:
The Table of Contents (especially for the Age of Mortals book) is in complete disarray. There are no chapter headings, some things that are highlighted shouldn’t be (either that or I don’t understand why they are), and some things that aren’t highlighted, should be. All in all, the ToC for the AoM (and somewhat for the DLCS…but really, it’s not AS bad, it just seems to be missing some content) is utterly confusing. I can understand…Tables of Content can be a pain (especially with Microsoft Word templates) but really…I am having a hard time understanding how this got by the final editing process. Hopefully the future books (maybe even future editions of this book?) will not have this problem.
Well…that’s it.
I just wanted to get my opinion out there (since it differed with what some people had said).Um…yep, that’s it. heh heh