Jump to content

Horror on The Orient Express reprint?


Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

LATEST NEWS:  We are very close to having a Print on Demand (POD) version of Horror on the Orient Express ready. By "very close" I mean in a month or so. It's not going to be a big box full of 6 books

To provide some more info based on the above responses: We chose to get HotOE back into print for a few reasons. First, we were getting asked at least once a week if there we had any spare copies

HotOE will eventually be back in a new edition—most likely in a slipcase rather than a box—sometime in the next several years (no firm date yet).

Posted Images

Any and all extra information and/or confirmation on this would be amazing.
I´ve been out of RPG for quite some years and has not played CoC since the 90ies.
Just got the Starter set and Investigators Handbook for christmas to slowly start up again.
HotOE was a campaign i have fond memories(or horrific nightmares to be honest) about and getting a new copy of it would be amazing

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reprint (or second printing if you prefer) of HotOE contains all the same information that was in the boxed set, with a few adjustments:

  • The six "large font" main softcover books have been somewhat reformatted into two books of 384 pages each*
  • This was done without sacrificing any contents, actually there is a teeny bit more added, and some typos were fixed
  • The separate train car handouts are now in one of the books
  • The color poster map is basically the same
  • The Mims Sahis is in the book, but can be printed out from the PDF
  • The die cut Mims Sahis is also available for purchase separately chaosium.com
  • The small Traveller's companion book (which added nothing new) is available as a separate purchase
  • Not box, of course
  • The passports, luggage stickers, postcards, and such are on pages in the book, and/or printed out from the PDF
  • This is a shrink-wrapped bundle that contains both hardcover books and the folded color poster map
  • An unfolded version of the color poster map will be available on redbubble.com in the chaosium store

*All the info from the original 6 books fits into two books with a much lower page count now because the font used in the first printing was much larger than it needed to be. Just reducing the font from 11 point to 9 point GREATLY reduced the page count.

 

Edited by Rick Meints
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Pnick said:

Hoping that this reprint doesn’t impact upon the likelihood of a proper colour version with art up to the wonderful standards of the other 7th edition supplements.

The combination of the kickstarter and POD means that is almost certainly the case. I think I have seen them say they would like to update it in line with the rest of the line, but it would be some years away. They have also said that they are unlikely to prioritize getting products to be POD if there is an upcoming 7e version, which sort of supports the idea it is a good ways out.

 

I imagine they are more interested in getting other old campaigns back into print for 7e and new material.

 

1 hour ago, stadi said:

Will this reprint / 2nd printing include Pulp info like all the newer releases? Or will that only be included with the potential "real new release"?

They haven't explicitly said anywhere, but it seems doubtful. The POD titles seem to just be to get old titles back into print if a 7e version isn't upcoming.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2020 at 12:14 PM, stadi said:

Will this reprint / 2nd printing include Pulp info like all the newer releases? Or will that only be included with the potential "real new release"?

The reprint, as the name suggests, reprints just the text from the previous printing. We did not add Pulp stats or anything else. That would constitute a new edition. Speaking of new editions, a new edition of HotOE is probably 3+ years away from happening. Thus, we wanted to get something back into print that was economical and usable, which is what you will soon see. Why 3+ years for a new HotOE edition? Because we have a lot of other projects in the pipeline that are more hotly anticipated, like Gaslight, Dreamlands, etc...

As for the HotOE screen, it isn't really economical to reprint. In general, no offense intended, it wasn't that well received either.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 4:38 PM, Rick Meints said:

Just reducing the font from 11 point to 9 point GREATLY reduced the page count without sacrificing readability.

 

I'm REALLY glad that you are making HOTOE available again in this way. But, with respect, for those of us with sight challenges, reducing font size DOES always sacrifice readability for some of us. I've engaged with Golden Goblin Press on recent supplements with tiny font sizes meant to reduce page count. I know that publishing has thin margins for cost, but the balance point of this is that it is, essentially, an ableist decision. This is an area for growth in the hobby. Why hire sensitivity readers for race, gender, and sexual orientation, but produce supplements that impact people with visual impairments? I know my perspective isn't likely to be popular. I just want you to know that this is an issue that impacts the inclusivity of offerings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, klecser said:

I'm REALLY glad that you are making HOTOE available again in this way. But, with respect, for those of us with sight challenges, reducing font size DOES always sacrifice readability for some of us. I've engaged with Golden Goblin Press on recent supplements with tiny font sizes meant to reduce page count. I know that publishing has thin margins for cost, but the balance point of this is that it is, essentially, an ableist decision. This is an area for growth in the hobby. Why hire sensitivity readers for race, gender, and sexual orientation, but produce supplements that impact people with visual impairments? I know my perspective isn't likely to be popular. I just want you to know that this is an issue that impacts the inclusivity of offerings.

Im in no way belittleing the issue you have, but with the free PDF with it, at least you can read it more clearly on screen/tablet

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ejlertson said:

Im in no way belittleing the issue you have, but with the free PDF with it, at least you can read it more clearly on screen/tablet

Computer screen reading solves the font size issue while introducing the eye strain from glowy screen issue....

That is the main reason why many of us need print. Print doesn't glow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, klecser said:

Computer screen reading solves the font size issue while introducing the eye strain from glowy screen issue....

That is the main reason why many of us need print. Print doesn't glow.

Yeah the glow can be annoying. Its a hard dissue to solve without adding more page i.e. making the product more expensive

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

The HotOE page count went down by 100 pages, and the font size is not smaller in this new printing than any other book we currently publish for CoC.

I know that 9 point is the standard. Heck, I published my scenario at 9 point, largely because I didn't want people to accuse me of "inflating page count." So, hypocritical of me? Maybe! I wasn't reacting to 9 point specifically, so much as the assertion that going from 11 to 9 "doesn't affect readability." Dude, I'm telling you that it does. And I recognize that that is your standard. But, it is a general problem for the publishing industry, if they truly want to be inclusive. And I don't expect Chaosium to be the one and only ones to solve this issue, or for you to change the choices that you made when you set the template for 7th edition. I'm just letting you know that I love that you guys have sensitivity readers for your books and that you are trying really hard to be inclusive. But I'm also telling you that there are aspects of inclusivity that you haven't considered. If you just said "ok, I get what you're saying" we'd be cool. ;) 

Edited by klecser
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, klecser said:

I know that 9 point is the standard. Heck, I published my scenario at 9 point, largely because I didn't want people to accuse me of "inflating page count." So, hypocritical of me? Maybe! I wasn't reacting to 9 point specifically, so much as the assertion that going from 11 to 9 "doesn't affect readability." Dude, I'm telling you that it does. And I recognize that that is your standard. But, it is a general problem for the publishing industry, if they truly want to be inclusive. And I don't expect Chaosium to be the one and only ones to solve this issue, or for you to change the choices that you made when you set the template for 7th edition. I'm just letting you know that I love that you guys have sensitivity readers for your books and that you are trying really hard to be inclusive. But I'm also telling you that there are aspects of inclusivity that you haven't considered. If you just said "ok, I get what you're saying" we'd be cool. ;) 

There is much more to readability than just font size. I think the new CoC layout (font, background, colors, line spacing etc) is quite comfortable to read, at least for me, who only has myopia. I could imagine that reading them with reading glasses shouldn't be much of an issue. Or is it? There are much worse ones out there (like the horrible white on black that Modipious did with Star Trek Adventures).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stadi said:

There is much more to readability than just font size. I think the new CoC layout (font, background, colors, line spacing etc) is quite comfortable to read, at least for me, who only has myopia. I could imagine that reading them with reading glasses shouldn't be much of an issue. Or is it? There are much worse ones out there (like the horrible white on black that Modipious did with Star Trek Adventures).

I agree that there are multiple dimensions to readability. Contrast is a big issue as well. As a professional educator, readability considerations are a huge part of my professional work, as well as personally affecting me.

And that's my point. With respect, you may not have any problem reading Chaosium's or anyone's print decisions. And that's fine. I'm happy for you! From an inclusivity perspective though, it's important for all of us to consider ways in which our personal experience may not match others. So, the response to "readability is an issue for me because X" can't be "Nu uh! I personally don't have any problems!" or "There are no problems." More listening is needed.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Chaosium is bad at inclusivity (I've already pointed out how much I like that they use sensitivity readers), or that I expect them to change their current line text decisions as a result of my experience (I mentioned this above too.) What I am saying is that people in general (and especially abled people), have a tendency to make judgments about what works for other people. And that just isn't fair. I can't tell you how many times someone in my professional life has assumed that something they have composed is readable, just because it is readable to them. So, all I'm asking for is for Rick and Chaosium to extend the excellent job of consideration they've done in improving inclusivity on race, gender, and sexual orientation to physical ability differences as well. And that request includes trying to avoid saying things like "the decision we made doesn't affect readability." Because that just isn't true. 

As I said, I don't expect my perspective to be popular, because the tendency of people, when being asked for consideration, is to get defensive. But I happen to believe that we all can be better than that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, klecser said:

I'm just letting you know that I love that you guys have sensitivity readers for your books and that you are trying really hard to be inclusive. But I'm also telling you that there are aspects of inclusivity that you haven't considered. If you just said "ok, I get what you're saying" we'd be cool. ;) 

Ok, I get what you're saying. I should also note that I have known about font sizes and visual impairment concerns for some time, having done layout for many years. Reading my earlier statement, I have edited it since it was too vague.

I also review Chaosium's customer service emails regularly. Thank you for your feedback.

Edited by Rick Meints
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear All,
As another example of a sight-impaired individual, I want to loudly proclaim my support for the 9 font size. After all, it is better to see HotOE with the smaller font size, than not to see it printed at all. Also, I agree with honorable stadi that CoC books are comfortable to read. I think there were maybe only two pages in two different 7ed books that were a little problematic to me (I will try to find them). I do not even think it was in the English edition. It only happens when the interline spacing is sacrificed for more text on the page. However, I know people (mostly in my family) who would say that all CoC books are completely unreadable. But for them, unfortunately, almost any book, in any shape or form is unreadable because of the severity of their condition. Sadly, I do not think it can be helped.


Moreover, from my perspective, the word "inclusivity" seems to be abused here. I do not feel in any way excluded by Chaosium's decision. To contrary, if their decision makes it possible for HotOE to be reprinted, knowing the current prices of the campaign e.g. on eBay, I would call it nothing but inclusive, because it allows more players—who do not have $300+ to spend on the book—to purchase it. And it is very easy here to accuse Chaosium (or other companies) of "exclusion" since someone that finds 11 font-size unreadable might use the same arguments that honorable klecser has employed. And then someone that finds 13 font size too small. And then 15, and so on. And then someone who does not know English. And then someone who does not know how to read. I am not trying to underestimate the problem that was raised, but the line between "inclusion" and "exclusion" is vague, subtle and it is even hard to say where it is placed. So before one demands more "inclusivity" the easiness of demand compared to the difficulty of outcome should always be considered.


Maybe it is a cultural difference that I do not understand. My grandma, who suffered from glaucoma and two messed-up eye operations, never complained about the font size of her favorite newspaper (which was ridiculously small) or expected more inclusivity. I admired her because she taught me the value of suffering and was always looking for solutions rather than generating problems. Without access to all the technology that we now have, she just used her magnifying glass to read.


And this is the idea. A magnifying glass as a handout to HotOE!

Edited by Tranquillitas Ordinis
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
8 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

This afternoon, my favorite FedEx driver dropped off these advance copies from the printer. Won't be too much longer now... Two hardcover volumes of 384 pages each, plus the folded route poster map.CHA23130-SET.thumb.JPG.8475ad8d58b88d9a1f65c285269a86fa.JPG

Will the matching PDF be released in advance(if so when) or after?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a photo of a couple of pages and a photo of the previous layout. While the layout is "new", it's not radically different from the previous printing. The main intent was to get the book back into print, not redo it any more than necessary, so the main changes are the font size is smaller and the art placement has moved a bit depending on what worked best. IMG_3499.thumb.JPG.0222736b2aa83560f1168fe2b052af7f.JPGIMG_3500.thumb.JPG.da1a285b46676cf1fe105d94a2db1b6f.JPG

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...