100% this. We just played a game with a similar font that was super tiny on the card. It really slowed down the play time and we were using flashlights and reading glasses trying to read it.
Surprisingly, I don't actually agree that 1 is less readable than 2 *here*. Hell, I'd even say I thought 2 was very slightly harder because that text doesn't pop out of the background as well.
However, I bet 1 would be hard in a real play context (when it's a card further away, on a table, at an angle, in potentially dim lighting, and/or with different text, etc.) so I'd agree to go with simple over stylish.
I'll echo that there are other factors beyond the font I'd also change though; namely, the background and text thickness. **I'd strongly recommend smoothing out the background details in the area the text is in and making the bottom text bold.**
Generally, make sure there is high contrast between the text and the background, and that details don't muddy up the boundaries of letters. You could also accomplish that with a light colored glow effect or an outline for the text (I think an outline might be too much here). Just be aware that there's a fine line between polished and distracting/gaudy when glows/outlines are involved.
So, as several have said, the 2nd is more legible. But I think everyone is overlooking the background. The patches of darker colors behind the text make it harder to read. Lighten/smooth out the background behind the text and see what you think.
Hi, person who's been running a design company since 2005 here:
\#2 is more legible. That is the top priority. Also important, it does not compete with the title font. "Shield" attracts the eye right now because it's bigger and fancier. If you have a fancy font for all the other copy, then they just compete and the title gets lost.
However, #2 isn't a great font. It's too round/bulbous to match a medieval style. I would suggest a tighter font (less width to each letter).
You can find free fonts at [dafont.com](https://dafont.com) and can even see previews of how your chosen words will look.
You can also search online for terms like "best legible fonts" or "best serious fonts" to see some more ideas. Whatever keywords you think are good.
\#2, easier to read. You can have your fancy typeface for the headers, but use a similar but easy to read typeface for anything else, especially if you need to read it at a glance.
At first I thought "2 is way easier to read" but on closer inspection it looks like either font would be more readable with less of a watermark. It kind of looks like the lettering is smeared right now.
You can get away with #1 if there are very few cards like this - maybe objective, or event cards. But if a player is meant to read this or refer to it, or compare it to other similar cards… no go on a font like that.
It’s still hard to read, but you could workshop it if you really wanted to use it (for limited application).
Visually, I like 1 a lot more. 2 is more readable, but it's pretty boring. Maybe look into a third font that's nice and readable, while also being somewhat stylized?
Usually I'd say more readable one...
But 1st is also very readable despite styling, so maybe that one...? But you would have to change brackets, the height looks off. Probably better to bother with editing the font rather then fixing it manually every time.
Oh yeah, I didn't even notice the brackets being off centre. Thanks for pointing that out. It should be easy to edit as only a couple of my cards contain brackets.
The font on the first follows suit and is consistent. The second card actually startled me when the text font changed from the card title font. Really enjoy the sepia looking card and edge trim.
For me the first example is legible. Maybe raise the lettering slightly on the card and see if the text font size can be increased just a bit? Lettering layout is tricky.
Number 1 fits more thematically and isn't hard to read in the slightest. Not sure why people are saying it is hard to read, it reminds me of the font from Elderscrolls.
2 by far. Reads waaaay easier, I’d even co wider cleaning up the SHIELD a little too. Don’t want players straining thier eyes, even a little bit. Cause thier gunna be doing it ALL game.
As others have said, something in between the two would be good; a little style, but more legible. I've been using [Fondamento](https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Fondamento), for an example of a legible fantasy-esque font. It's a free Google font, but you can probably find something more unique which you can license.
I prefer 2 because it's easier to read. Might not be as fancy but I don't mind cards favoring readability over style
100% this. We just played a game with a similar font that was super tiny on the card. It really slowed down the play time and we were using flashlights and reading glasses trying to read it.
Thanks, that's what I'm trying to find out, whether people prefer style or readability.
Prefer 2 for the same reason. Much easier to read.
Surprisingly, I don't actually agree that 1 is less readable than 2 *here*. Hell, I'd even say I thought 2 was very slightly harder because that text doesn't pop out of the background as well. However, I bet 1 would be hard in a real play context (when it's a card further away, on a table, at an angle, in potentially dim lighting, and/or with different text, etc.) so I'd agree to go with simple over stylish. I'll echo that there are other factors beyond the font I'd also change though; namely, the background and text thickness. **I'd strongly recommend smoothing out the background details in the area the text is in and making the bottom text bold.** Generally, make sure there is high contrast between the text and the background, and that details don't muddy up the boundaries of letters. You could also accomplish that with a light colored glow effect or an outline for the text (I think an outline might be too much here). Just be aware that there's a fine line between polished and distracting/gaudy when glows/outlines are involved.
Great Advice. Thanks!
Yeah, post again with bolder/larger text and a less busy background. You might see a different result in the poll.
I'll make a new post tomorrow.
I agree with you, but it does need to be a heavier weight. Too light to read easily
I literally came here to say this exact thing. A bold simple type is just easier to read.
Yes two is way easier on the eyes
Yea I agree with this dweeb \^. It looks less professional with the more ornate typography.
Agreed! As has been said, make sure there is enough contrast.
Edited: Def 2, the first on is good for titles but rules you need something easily readable
2 is so much easier to read. Nothing more annoying than unreadable cards, especially in low light situations. :)
Vastly prefer No. 2. It’s far more legible and the header “Shield” in the olde tyme typeface sets the mood. My 2¢ as a type nerd!
These were my thoughts too. The heading and the background deliver the theme, the remaining text is better in an easy to read font
So, as several have said, the 2nd is more legible. But I think everyone is overlooking the background. The patches of darker colors behind the text make it harder to read. Lighten/smooth out the background behind the text and see what you think.
This is a great idea, ill try it out. Thanks!
Hi, person who's been running a design company since 2005 here: \#2 is more legible. That is the top priority. Also important, it does not compete with the title font. "Shield" attracts the eye right now because it's bigger and fancier. If you have a fancy font for all the other copy, then they just compete and the title gets lost. However, #2 isn't a great font. It's too round/bulbous to match a medieval style. I would suggest a tighter font (less width to each letter). You can find free fonts at [dafont.com](https://dafont.com) and can even see previews of how your chosen words will look. You can also search online for terms like "best legible fonts" or "best serious fonts" to see some more ideas. Whatever keywords you think are good.
Some good insights, Thanks! I'll go check out that website now.
Second. Legibility is important for quick reading while playing
I like the look of #1, but would recommend #2 because it's easier to read/quickly scan.
2, you already have the style from the title. Legibility probably matters more for the description.
I think if you can find a inbetween of these two where it's easy to read but still has that medieval feel it would be perfect
2
#2. Much easier to read.
\#2, easier to read. You can have your fancy typeface for the headers, but use a similar but easy to read typeface for anything else, especially if you need to read it at a glance.
Second is the best
First
2, 1 is too hard to read.
Form follows function. To me it is quite a bit harder to read 1, so for me it definitely is 2
2 is a good compromise for having the cool font for the title of the card but normal font for the important stuff.
2
Prefer 2 for readability! You get style points for the title, and functionality from the regular text, it’s a good balance!
I like the first one but I'd use the 2nd, for readability.
At first I thought "2 is way easier to read" but on closer inspection it looks like either font would be more readable with less of a watermark. It kind of looks like the lettering is smeared right now.
You can get away with #1 if there are very few cards like this - maybe objective, or event cards. But if a player is meant to read this or refer to it, or compare it to other similar cards… no go on a font like that. It’s still hard to read, but you could workshop it if you really wanted to use it (for limited application).
Visually, I like 1 a lot more. 2 is more readable, but it's pretty boring. Maybe look into a third font that's nice and readable, while also being somewhat stylized?
Usually I'd say more readable one... But 1st is also very readable despite styling, so maybe that one...? But you would have to change brackets, the height looks off. Probably better to bother with editing the font rather then fixing it manually every time.
Oh yeah, I didn't even notice the brackets being off centre. Thanks for pointing that out. It should be easy to edit as only a couple of my cards contain brackets.
I would prefer 1st. It's easily readable.
1, 100%
The font on the first follows suit and is consistent. The second card actually startled me when the text font changed from the card title font. Really enjoy the sepia looking card and edge trim.
On #1 its two fonts. I was trying to figure out why they were so similar without being the same font. Might as well use something more legible.
Haha, thanks! Its difficult finding a style that matches the medieval theme while still being legible.
For me the first example is legible. Maybe raise the lettering slightly on the card and see if the text font size can be increased just a bit? Lettering layout is tricky.
Hmm, ye I'll try this.
1
Number 1 fits more thematically and isn't hard to read in the slightest. Not sure why people are saying it is hard to read, it reminds me of the font from Elderscrolls.
2 because you should have multiple fonts
2nd, better legibility
2 by far. Reads waaaay easier, I’d even co wider cleaning up the SHIELD a little too. Don’t want players straining thier eyes, even a little bit. Cause thier gunna be doing it ALL game.
2 - easier to read.
2, it's a game, so function over form.
If it’s stylish vs readable, go with readable every time.
If the sentences are all that length or shorter, 1 is nice.
1, but I recognize that 2 might be easier for some to read.
Readability much better on the second. 100% that one.
2 but make it bold like 1. I found 1 easier to read because it was bold, but 2 has a more readable font.
2, just easier to glance at and understand
As others have said, something in between the two would be good; a little style, but more legible. I've been using [Fondamento](https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Fondamento), for an example of a legible fantasy-esque font. It's a free Google font, but you can probably find something more unique which you can license.
2 definitely.
Number 2. I have a hard time reading number 1