I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I prefer a sparse and less "decorated" appearance to a book. The less artwork, the better - it helps me to focus more on the rules and the world I'm envisioning in my mind.
And, while I'm at it, on a related note, I feel there are too many different typefaces in play in the current edition of HARP. The layout would have a much less 'busy' appearance if there were just two typefaces used.
As I count it, there are at least six distinct type faces in the current HARP design:
1. there's the sort of celtic 'uncial' style used for the title
2. there's the Optima-esque face used in the TOC
3. there's the standard serif face used in body text
4. another decorative title style used for subheads
5. another distinct decorative style, used for examples
6. yet another (!) decorative title style used in the footer
These should be condensed down to two overall families, in my opinion.
Whatever face is used for the body can be used for subheads and examples (just bold/enlarge, and italicize, respectively). Footer material should be in the same typeface as the body text. Pick one decorative title style, and use it sparingly. The result is a more readable, timeless style that enhances rather than detracts from the reading experience.
I'm sure that to many, this is nitpicking. It's just my opinion as a typographical purist who prefers a classic, understated approach to book design.
</soapbox-mode>
