"How Frequently do you expect revisions." Topic

I would imagine that this question will be best answered by gamres who have been around a lonng time.

This is a series of questions on the history of game design.

It is just a preception but it seems that there are revisions for new rules and new editions seem to happen more frequently than in the past. Some rules you could expect to play for five years before a major revision or edition change of the set.
Wrong or Not.

Also a question about revisions vs errata vs supplemental data. What do you expect and are willing to accept in regards to a time frame.

For example Guard du Corps only went 5 years before a major supplemental rules were added for tournament play in the 1980s and then it was 2001 before a new edition was released.

DBM seems to have been around for a long time but were there rule revisions or just clarifications. Other rules and thoughts?

I'm a big fan of the old adage, "Measure twice, cut once."

Allen

I'm kind of conflicted. On the one hand, I am generally happy with rules as they are. On the other hand, my main game is Blitzkrieg Commander, and I have been looking forward to the new edition there as I have followed the evolution of the system through CWC and FWC. I do not expect it to get much updating after that.

I have picked up Volley and Bayonet in its new edition, but if it had not come out I would have bought the old version.

I don't need supplements, so the rate at which they do or do not come out is meaningless.

Revision if it improves the rules, and is available as free pdf downloads, anytime.
When these supplements become too cumbersome or first print run has been sold out a reprint would be acceptable.

One major revision after experience has shown any flaws. Thereafter if it isn't fixed it likely never will be.

I would imagine that TSATF has been around the longest in the USA without a major revision.

I don't want any revisions.
Sint aut sunt aut non sint.

I agree with Mark Plant.

If the rules have a big flaw that playtesting didn't uncover fix it.

What's the life cycle of a set of rules?

There are dozens upon dozens of rule sets releashed. Only a handful remain long enough to need a revision. As MP and KT have noted, the time to revise is when obvious flaws are discovered.

Never if possible.

Brian

I have no problem if something is revamped every four or five years. That's every bit as regular as any computer program out there and nobody bitches much about that.

If a ruleset was well playtested, which god few are for some reason, then it should last a long time before a new edition or revision. Having done playtesting and rule editing on both boardgames and miniature rules, alot has to do with the designer not listening to the feedback. Cant do much with stupid.

Normative Flow Chart for Rules Revison->
(Brainstorming courtesy TMP community of Gamers
© Bill Armintrout 2009

(Rough Draft->
Double Check for coding errors,
punctuation,
and missing or ungainly syllogisms)

suggested by the TMP Community
after a query by Rudy Nelson
Tenet A}
dj coltrain->
1)

What's the life cycle of a set of rules?

(Rhetorical Question:
Rhetorical Answer->)
Long enough to teach it to your Children,
and still play it a for a while:
say 30-40 years, minimum
2) Seek Out That Which Remains.

Tenet B}

1)

a ruleset… well playtested, which… few are for some reason,

submitted by doug redshirt

"Measure twice, cut once"

submitted by a e curtis

1)

Never if possible

submitted by Kampfgruppe Cottrell

_BUT_

One major revision after experience has shown any flaws.

submitted by Mark Plant

( see subtenet 'a' [below] )

Sub Tenet a]

1)

I don't want any revisions. { Sint aut sunt aut non sint }

submitted by John the OFM->

However:

a]

One major revision after experience has shown any flaws.
If the rules have a big flaw that {extensive} playtesting didn't uncover: fix it {!!!}
{and: For Shame!}
b] if it improves the rules, and is available as free pdf downloads,
Thereafter if it isn't fixed it likely never will be.

No more than once every 10 years.

submitted by Mark Plant+Silly Point+Knight Templar

->
Let the Community Feedback accrue
c] (Some things don't come up, even in extensive BlindPlaytesting;
Not every extreme abberation needs addressing.
BUT Bloody Well Fix any & all rule(s) discovered to be truly Broken:)

Tenet C}

1){ Regarding Supplements: }

the rate at which they do or do not come out is meaningless

submitted by Lentulus

Except
a] Where they serve to expand the System (potentially Good)
[ But! Beware over-complication!
Remember SFB & Adv, Squad Leader:
Keep V'Ger a Probe; Don't create a Monstrosity!
I'm Looking at You, WarMachine/Hordes….]
or
b] Correct existing Flaws / revise core rules (Bad. see-> {Tenet B} ) )

2)

When these supplements become too cumbersome, or
first print run has been sold out a reprint would be acceptable.

submitted by Sillypoint

Minority Dissenting opinions:

I have no problem if something is revamped every four or five years. That's every bit as regular as any computer program out there and nobody bitches much about that.

submitted by Nazrat

Response:
regarding comp. programs->
Like Fun we Don't.
(Ever try and completely master a major package,
say Adobe InDesign or PhotoShop,
and as soon as you are getting Really proficient
…..They Change Everything? )

{ Drives me Mad! [ Then I go "mad1, mad2, mad3…]Monty Python}

Similairly:
It may take Five Years just to Paint
a really Big Army {cough-cough-40K-cough).

{rough draft of
combined community wisdom
courtesy your humble servant}

I am happy with a set of rules being updated /revamped every 5 years or so.

I'd expect free minor errata and clarifications once a year or so.

I realise that no set of rules can EVER be playtested for all eventualities and together with changing tastes for certain rule aspects means i think rule sets should have a "life cycle" of 5 years or so.

IMO this also has the advantage of regenerating interest, and importantly for the author(s) some income, to keep the rules "alive".

What i don't expect is wholesale major changes that completely alter the original game. The "2nd" edition should be a natural evolution of the original concepts and general updating where necessary.

I think that one of the problems that rules authors experience is that, while they may be experts in their field and might even be decent writers, they are not very good at testing. By this I mean that there are a special set of skills associated with testing the complex algorithms in rules.

I one looks at rules the same way as one looks at software, for instance, in that they are both a set of instructions and constraints that are intended to produce specific outcomes, it becomes quite clear that the variety of inputs far exceedes they ability of just playing games or running of programs to discover defects.

It's impractical to expect game rule writers to learn how to identify, characterize and test the complicated algorithms represented by a moderately complicated set of rules. The rules writers do their best and find the easy to spot big rocks. Play testing will find more big rocks some of the incidentally , some of the smaller rocks. However, authors will resort, like many software companies, to allowing general usage to expose the small rocks.

Of course, when this happens new revisions ar always in the offing. It's not the lack of play testing that results in frequent releases, it's the lack of well thought out testing strategy for the algorithms embedded in the rules.

One other reason for the revision of rules is just natural evolution of the author and the audience. Those who have been gaming for a few decades know that both the rules and the playing public have changed in thier attitudes to rules and how they work.

Once example of this might be the of multi faceted dice. With the advent of D&D, in the 70's it seemedthat game designers were enthralled with making use of special dice. Some went so far as to include special dice designed just for their game. Lots of times they didn't take the time to figure out the probablility curves generated by combinations of the little random number generators.

As time passed the sophistication of the gamers grew and the authors along with it. It was eventually realized that the good 'ol d6, in various combinations, was perfectly adequate in most situations, easy to obtain (one can buy d6s in most grocery stores) and easy to understand. Hence games got revised to reflect this change. That of course is only one example of many changes in the market and in the way gamers perceive games which drives change.

Change is a natural state of being. Progress and evolution can't happen without change. I would say that I advocate revising rules to incorporate new knowledge and to accomodate improvements discovered during the wide spread use of the rules. That is not to excuse, however, those rules poorly written and tested.

So the answer to the question posed, cannot be given in a definate terms of a time span. My response would have be: "It depends."

Apologies for the Sloppy HTML of my
22 Nov 2009 4:55 a.m. PST.

I'm not very proficient at coding (Obviously!)
and one hour was not enough
to make it look pretty.
Mebbe I can get Bill to fix it…

…after his Done with Real Coding…
…when he has free time.

But Hopefully:
you get the idea?

XRay->
Well Spoken!

( One thought, by way of caveat:
There is a difference between pragmatic 'rule 'o' thumb',
and normative idealized standard…)

Steveus->
The point about Author's Income is well made:
Hopefully this can be addressed by slow expansion & supplement,
and diversity of supporting Products
(versus chuckin' the core systems & attendant bells & whistle)

e.g. -> Full Thrust

This Is Interesting:
As I have Said in the Past:

Hypothesis:
We { the TMP Community }
are uniquely qualified to analyze..situation(s),
and develop a working Model….
We are, in effect: a Private Think Tank.
(Hubris?
Not me:
Humblest motherser you ever gonna meet, Joe.)

ref->
thebluefez.com/msg.mv?id=409

I don't like revisions. If they need to be done, say, after 10 years, that's the time to correct the minor rules problems. (Any rules problems should have been captured before the rules were even published!)

Topical Normative examples->
Fistfull of Miniatures 2.0®
TMP link
1st ed. © 1996
2nd ed © 2009
gap: = 23 years

Similairly:
Full Thrust
Shock Force/ WarEngine

Who Else?

Gamers start revising games even before they've bought them. I get several emails a day from guys who are interested in this or that game of mine, but who want to convert or adapt it in such-and-such a way… before they've even seen it.

No book is so perfect that it won't have errata. So I think the designer's job is basically to make sure that HIS concept of his game is clearly expressed, which can hopefully be done in one well-edited book, plus the inevitable few subsequent clarifications or corrections. And then the customers/buyers/players are going to do with it, what they will.

Volstagg: I believe that 1996-2009 is 13 years, not 23.

Topical Normative examples->
Fistfull of Miniatures 2.0®
TMP link
1st ed. © 1996
2nd ed © 2009
gap: = 23 years

Scratchin Frazz->

I believe that 1996-2009 is 13 years, not 23.

Good Catch.
Fistfull of Miniatures was published in 1986, not '96.
23 years is correct, my sourcing the date was a typo.

regarding errata->
True, that, But:
If the Vision is good, and
Editiong is done proffesionally (sic): {pshaw, Right!)
Erratum should be minimal.

speaking of erratum:
link
crypto-revisionism and ret-conning is to be discouraged, IMO
(40K: I'm looking at You!)

I don't mind some errata after the rules are originally published. It's only natural that the more a rules set is played by the users, a few things may need clarifying or revision.

What absolutely chaps my behind is to buy a rules set or supplement and find it completely superseded by a new revision within two years of my buying the first one, with no discount being offered by the publisher to owners of the previous edition. This is happening way too often with the Codex mentality of a few well known publishers and I refuse to suport this sort of thing anymore. I refuse to support incompetency. Publish a quality product the first time around and offer downloadable pdfs if you must to fix problems as they come up. I might go along with an entirely new version every 5 years as being acceptable.

"I don't want any revisions."

I agree with John.

I don't mind errata, or new print runs with typos elminated, or FAQs, but a new revision? Essentially these are new sets of rules, so why not just call them that.

Isn't there sort of "damned if you do; damned if you don't" sort of thing going on here? I mean, on the one hand hand you've got people clammoring for rules that reflect the way that they think the rules should play and on the tother people just as strongly protesting that rules change out from under them.

At the same instant there are those whom decry that certain companies have a "Codex" mentality and revamp thier games every couple of years. On the other hand thare are those begging companies to do something with thier games to drawn in new players and keep the hobby vital.

This is a no win scenario if ever I've seen one. There is positively no way to satisfy everyone--maybe even anyone. The answer has to lie with the individual gamer and whether he/she is satified with the set of rules that they play. It's up to each individual to decide whether a particular rule set needs a revision or not and press for that same decision to be made by the author or publisher. Ultimately, it is the author or publisher to decide on basis of need and economics.

After years of experience I know that any set of rules I purchase will be revised about a month after my first game.

I can handle one revision, within reason.

My worst experience was DBM version 1. I pre-ordered it, and got it the same week that it was published. One week later, errata came out (on the old Electronic Hoplite mailing list, if anyone still remembers it) that changed 1 out of 3 pages of the book.

Just awful.

I like buying a game system and never having need to second guess the math behind the rule. I do understand that beneath the surface of many gamers is a rules designer trying to claw their way out.

To this end, they come up with alternate army lists, or house rules… or go out of their way to find some way in which the rules are flawed (flawed being a relative term). Once this flaw is noted by the gaming community, the publisher/designer may feel that listening to this contributor is more important than sticking to their guns and alienating whoever it is.

Thus, with revisions you end up with User Buy-In… they are making the game into something they directly took part in and prefer. At some point, this becomes different enough from the original game that it either becomes something on its own, or the original game gets a new edition.

I understand this is what happened with the Admiralty edition of Full Thrust, and the people involved in that edition really are happy with the alterations they made.

So, with all that said… Sometimes edition updates aren't necessarily a publisher/designer driven, but instead are more of a collaboration that the players (unpaid fans) come up with.

In such a case, I welcome new editions of games.

As an old Traveller player, I've seen both good and bad results from constant revision, mid-edition adjustments, and "nuke-and-pave" edition changes.

A game that needs extensive revision more often than every two or three years probably should not have been published in the first place. Once is forgivable, twice is a Marketing Plan or plain stupidity.

Five years of sales is considered a successful run in the RPG segment of the hobby. Arguably, five years is therefore close to the minimum acceptable edition cycle for RPGs. "Revisions" may be more frequent if they are "within the edition". The extensive re-working of both combat and magic in supplements for both of the first two editions of Shadowrun is a case in point.

The acceptable cycle for wargames, be they hex or free table, is much less predictable. The cost to the gamer of the revision has a lot to do with it, and can lead to even 10 years being insufficient (see GW) or a couple years seem too long. The alternate problem is that the longer a set of rules goes, the more changes are expected. Expected by whom, specifically, is unclear.