"I don't value production value - do you?" Topic

OK. I'll tell you a story.

Last year I spent $30 USD on a copy of Uniforms of the Seven Years War Prussia by Greenwood & Ball Ltd. This is a 12 page (24 'sides'), rather shabby, stapled booklet with only four, rather dated, colour pages. I bought it for two reasons. Firstly, I already had the one on the Austrians. Secondly, the content is exceptional (packed with easy to understand and well laid out information – a painter's dream).

I tell you this tale to remind you of the truth we all know but often forget. A book is worth the sum of its information and ideas. The size of a book and its production value is largely irrelevant.

So I put it to you, that rubbish rule sets with the best of glossy production value are still rubbish. They are not saved by the lovely shots of other peoples model soldiers or the extra pages, filled with waffle, they provide.

I would spend $30 USD for a good set of rule mechanisms (on a period I was interrested in, obviously) fashioned by an author with an enormous, flexible, sublime brain and edited by a professional editor, even if they were 4 pages long and printed on loose leaf toilet paper; because I value the intellect not the physical cost of production.

Would you?

BTW: Greenwood and Ball: Worth over a dollar a page: You bet is is – every penny!

I like both. I appreciate someone taking the time to turn out a quality product with good rules underpinnings.

That does not stop me appreciating "small Press" efforts.

No contest -- you've hit the nail on the head for me too.

I'll add one other criterion for me: if the product is rife with simple spelling or grammar errors, I generally won't bother with it -- NOT because I'm a spelling/grammar Nazi (although I probably am). But rather, the quality of the presentation reflects the quality of the work behind the product. A writer who can't take the time to proof read (not spell check) probably didn't take the time to think through the interaction of different rules, or do thorough research on what he's modelling.

Yes, it's a stereotype or assumption. But that's all there is to go on at that point. What do the shrinks say? "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." So too with work products.

I do care for them, but that depends on your definition.

I don't give a hoot if they are perfect-bound on glossy paper with pretty eye-candy pictures.

I do care if they are badly set out, hard to read, full of typos and spelling errors and have illustartions that make me wince. that pitiful picture on the front of the DBA book is just embarrassing. Others may find it endearingly amatuerish.

Pat

It is true a pretty rulebook of crappy rules are still crappy rules. But if the rules are at least decent, the eye candy is icing on the cake.

Damon.

So I put it to you, that rubbish rule sets with the best of glossy production value are still rubbish. They are not saved by the lovely shots of other peoples model soldiers or the extra pages, filled with waffle, they provide.

Funnily enough, that's the bits I like. It gives me an idea of the sort of terrain layout, density and type that the game's author envisaged when writing the game. I like seeing painted armies, partly because they look nice, partly as an inspiration for painting my own figures. Sometimes, painted miniatures are a better guide than photographs or drawings of the real thing – it can be useful to see how the painter has 'abstracted' designs or details on the miniatures.

I like the "waffle" because it's usually a handy primer to the game's setting. For example, I got into Flames of War after watching Saving Private Ryan and Band Of Brothers. Now, I knew a bit about the period, but it's not outwith the bounds of probability that othersmay not. In that case, a quick 5-10 page overview of the war and a bibliography would be handy.

For a ficitonal setting, the "waffle" is the make or break for me. I don't want a generic game, I want an interesting setting, with decently-thought-out factions, technologies and forces. The artwork and photos of miniatures supports that. Even the layout of the book itself – the typeface, page borders and backgrounds, etc – can help give a feel for the setting (for instance, the Infinity and Battletech rulebooks).

To me, a wargaming rulebook is a visual entity as much as a textual one, and the design is a vital part of the "sum of its information and ideas".

This is a 12 page (24 'sides'),

That would be a 24 page, 12 leaf volume.

I go for quality which may or may not include high gloss and pretty pictures. It helps if you know what you want and you know what you're getting, which apparently is the case with olicana. However, whatever the merits of Greenwood&Ball, I'm not convinced by the negative strawman argument versus "the other", which in this case sounds like so much whistling in the dark.

Yes, but nor style over substance. Modern hobby publications are generally better laid out and a lot easier to read and use the information inside than used to be the case.

I was recently going over some old stuff hunting something out, and I found the quality of photographs in them bad compared to modern ones. That and old typewritten text, shudder…

I don't judge a book entirely on its cover, but appearance is a factor. A badly produced rule set might be the greatest game on earth, but if it is going to fall apart after 3 games, and it is hard to read and it looks ugly it's probably not something I want to spend my money on.

Is there any correlation between how nice the finish is and how good the substance is?

Doesn't it stand to reason that the author of a beautifully produced and laid out volume has taken the same care in crafting the rules?

Two examples that come to mind are the Field of Glory rules and LaSalle.

Whether you like the games or not, I don't think you can reasonably dispute that they are well and clearly explained and don't have a lot of holes or missing pieces.

I was recently discussing with TMP favourite Allen Curtis(via that email thingy) a booklet published under the Pallas Armata imprint in 1992. It's a set of scenarios for medieval battles written by the late Terry Gore, with lists for WRG 7th and the 1st edition DBA.

It looks like garbage by current standards. It's clearly a home production, with hand drawn maps of amateur grade and basic word-processing layout.

It's terrific.

Even in 1992 this would have been seen as a bare-bones production. I have no idea how many copies it sold, but I'd guess that it wasn't a runaway best-seller. In those days, of course, a fancy production demanded a much larger production run than today. The publishers would have lost their shirts on such a publication.

Personally I like a nicely produced set of rules, but I'm also cheap, so it's a trade-off. I understand that in 2010 the buying public really does demand a much higher standard of production than was the case twenty years ago. That's simply a fact at this point.

But still, the content is the crucial point. Gloss is an addition, not a core value.

I like simple and I like pretty, but if I were to pick any one thing I like over all it would be straightforward. I'm a busy guy. I have a short attention span and several different things and people that vie for my attention. I don't want to work hard to figure out how to play a game. Just give it to me straight, whether it's good or bad. Even high production rules could use more of that. Look at FOG.

I want both.

Well-written rules don't do me any good if I can't read the poorly-typeset text, if the paper falls apart on the first reading, or the illustrations don't properly illustrate.

Having said that, I have quite a few cherished old-school low-production-quality treasures in my collection. I just don't play them very often.

Good production values can also encompass:
Font- is it big enough? Easy to read?
Layout- how is the white space used? are the rules easily laid out? (tables, bullet lists etc.) is it easy for the eyes to read the text?
Diagrams- clear, relevant, somewhere near the text they refer to?

Some glossy rulebooks fail on these principles. They use too much graphic razzmatazz with borders bleeding into the text and small fonts on top of off white pages making them damned hard to read.
DBA also fails on these principles too btw.

I certainly like high production values and lots of photos in the rules sets I buy! They inspire me to paint and play all the more. I do agree that they don't help sell a bad set of rules to me, but I think there are just as many (or more) horrible cheap ass rules out there than there are bad fancy ones. A simply produced set won't keep me from buying them either, though…

"Is there any correlation between how nice the finish is and how good the substance is?
Doesn't it stand to reason that the author of a beautifully produced and laid out volume has taken the same care in crafting the rules?
Two examples that come to mind are the Field of Glory rules and LaSalle. "

You would hope this to be the case, but there are counter examples, such as Foundry's Napoleon.

LaSalle and Grande Armee beautiul books, not my cup of tea rules.Grande Armee seemed like a ripoff of Volley and Bayonet with a command system added to the rules.ROB

I would appreciate discussions about the value and merits of good game designers so much more if they weren't buried in/excuses for rants against successful game companies that muster the resources to produce high quality books.

It's a visual experience as much as an intellectual exercise, and people wouldn't bother with painted minis vs. scraps of paper or chits. All of the "I don't need no fancy pictures! And when did photographs become color?" moaning from curmudgeons doesn't convince me of their love and appreciation for good game designers. It rings more of jealous grousing that their homemade rules ("very popular with my group of experts on Hessian fusiliers, I assure you!") produced on toilet paper just aren't catching on.

Hi Bede,

"Doesn't it stand to reason that the author of a beautifully produced and laid out volume has taken the same care in crafting the rules?"

I'm not sure that it does. I guess it largely depends on how many people are putting the rules together and where the expertise lies. Not all rule writers are good writers, even though their mechanisms are sound, and the reverse is also true. Also, I'm not sure how many rule writers employ an independant professional editor, type setter, etc.; all of whom can greatly enhance a rule set, for good or ill.

But I digress. What I'm asking is, are you prepared to pay for intellect over gloss?

Example: You need a set of rules. You are confronted at a show with two rule sets, one 4 pages of toilet paper with the best set of rules you've ever seen (coming with a 100% recommendation on mechanisms from EVERYONE) priced $30, and a glossy rule set with high production value but average rules at the same price. Now, with rules that good most of us would have to buy the toilet paper – but, seeing the production value of other next to it, would you feel ripped off?

I say I wouldn't, because I know I'm buying something very clever – when the booklet falls apart I'll put the pages into plastic sleeves and still have the best set of rules ever. I've gladly paid for the intellectual content.

BTW, I'm not saying that high production value is a bad thing, or that rules with a high production value are using it to cover up a deficiency. I own several sets of good rules with a high production value (and several sets of poor rules with poor production value c.1980). My question is of a more philosophical nature.

Production value is like gold buttons on a new coat. Most of the time care more aboutstaying warm than the coat. Rules with good production values can still suck.

darthfozzywig,

As I've said above (see last post), this is not a rant about the need for high production values. It is not a rant, by me at least, against people or companies that produce rules with high production values (indeed, I count myself part of that group under another name).

I did not make myself clear, obviously, in my first post. I apologise.

"You are confronted at a show with two rule sets, one 4 pages of toilet paper with the best set of rules you've ever seen (coming with a 100% recommendation on mechanisms from EVERYONE) priced $30, and a glossy rule set with high production value but average rules at the same price. "

I would say this is really begging the question. If the premise is you have a choice between rules you know in advance are great but ugly versus rules you already know are pretty but not great, duh! buy the ones you prefer. If the premise is don't you feel dirty when the rules you like are shabby compared to the slick alternatives, I don't know if it matters all that much. The real issue is what do you buy when you don't really know in advance which is better, the ugly duckling or the swan? Most of us probably go swan.

Personally, I prefer rule sets with professional production values, engaging mechanics and well-written text. My favorites are those that I most enjoy reading, looking at and playing.

Cheers,
Scott

Depends on what you mean by "production value." I will tolerate quite a bit in terms of printing, layout, etc. I will not tolerate:

* Excessive misspellings and typoes
* Lack of a table of contents or index (at least one, please)
* Crappy binding. Saddle-stitched is fine for a home grown book, but if you put something out that has a hard cover, I expect it not to crack after first opening

All things being equal, a good ruleset with good production value is far better than a great ruleset (content, concepts, mechanics) that is borderline unreadable.

Much depends on the complexity of the rules, but I definitely value a good table of contents, index and reasonable cross-referencing. If those are examples of "production values", then I'm all for it. A great set of rules that I'm unlikely to ever play due to problems finding things is a problem.

- Bob

"A book is worth the sum of its information and ideas."

High quality diagrams, well done pictures of games in progress, uniform shots, historical photos, concept art… All this on high quality paper that can endure some abuse.
Sandwiched inbetween a good cover.

That's a great way to convey information and ideas, which are crucial to the understanding of the game and the enjoyment of playing it.

If the author can sum up what I need to know in 24 pages and throw in some illustrations I'm all for it. Why would I want to go through 64 pages of drivel to get the smae information. Net it out for me. My very limited free time is valuable!

Presentation to me is important. I work hard on presentation for my miniatures, and I expect the same from my wargaming ancillaries, including rules.

I'm not likely to be interested in supposedly good rules that are very poorly presented. There would have to be something extra special about such rules for me to overcome that bias.

Having said that, I'm also not interested in well-presented but unengaging rulesets (either because the rules are "bad" per se, or just because I don't like something about them).

What I want is easy – well-presented and personally engaging (read this as "good", if you like) rules.

I would not pay $30 USD for the world's best rules on 4 sheets of TP. That would be a rip off.

Most of the cost of a rule book is the production and printing costs. Rule designer gets maybe 10% if he's lucky.

I would not pay $30 USD USD for the world's best rules on 4 sheets of TP. That would be a rip off.

This.

When buying rules, you are paying for two things: the intellectual product as well as the book itself. These two aspects may need to be balanced against each other for the final purpose. But a ruleset printed on newsprint and charged the same as a glossy book makes me wonder about the arrogance of the publisher of the awesome rules.

Damon.

I'm not that fussed about paper grades (various thickness of pages) or gloss covers or that hub-bub. As I tend to make up my own houserules with my friends anyway, I'm more interested in books for their inspiring content (rules, ideas, pictures) than their use as a reference copy. Having said that I like easy to read charts and well presented rules. I appreciate professional layout skills (even if I don't have them myself) but I favor basic layout over fancy. I do value well executed graphic details and extra touches like fillers, themed page numbers, and so on. But not enough to make up for a poor product. As my wargaming hobby is mostly visual I get easily put off products that feature lowgrade painting or terrain, or use poor photography.

1. The most sublimely brained writer won't be able to explain even moderately complex rules without any example diagrams as well as he would be able to explain them with diagrams. -> Production value isn't necessarily separate from use value.

2. Some rules need to be 50 pages long and would be incomprehensible or incomplete if reduced to 4. -> Apples and oranges.

I value production in rules. I hate reading rules. I'd rather be reading real books. If the rules don't have pretty pictures to keep my attention they probably aren't going to be read in the first place and will be ungamable that way.

Also, I'm not sure how many rule writers employ an independant professional editor, type setter, etc.; all of whom can greatly enhance a rule set, for good or ill.

This to me is key.

I don't think it's fair to take an author to task because you don't like his vision of the Napoleonic Wars/ECW/Ancient warfare/etc. That's subjective.

I do think it fair to immolate a rules writer who's rules are not complete, are internally inconsistent, and/or are just poorly explained or written.

I think you'll find that rules produced by a professional organization like Osprey will avoid the latter problem because they've got professional editors who know how to do that sort of thing.

By the way, it's not limited to rules of course. I'm reading Gunther Rothenberg's "Napoleon's Greatest Adversary" a book about Archduke Charles and the Austrian army. The number of typos (misspelled words, dropped words,etc.) that I've found is embarrassing. That guy's supposed to be a professor of history!

>>> I think you'll find that rules produced by a professional organization like Osprey will avoid the latter problem because they've got professional editors who know how to do that sort of thing.

Whooooooooooot!!!!

Sadly, high production values seems the way to go.

there was a time that gamers wanted cheap rule books, so they could spend the difference on miniatures and terrain.

Not anymore. The days of basic production value of dependable staple binding and mostly error proof rules with simple easy mechanics are gone. Though mechanics may be simple or too simple, products seem to need the high dollar production value aspects in order to be considered a good game.

There are some really silly assumptions here.

First, the assumption that everybody could agree on what "good rules" are. Please. Gamers are totally fragmented in their opinions about what makes rule mechanisms "good." There is no such thing as the "objectively good rules" that everybody would recognize and agree on.

Second. the assumption that potential game buyers would be able to know in advance that the rules mechanisms are "good." How are you supposed to know that in advance, without having played at least a couple of times, which probably means that you or your friend has already spent the money and read the book?

Third, the assumption that there is no relationship between things like good use of color, the size and clarity of illustrations, the useful redundancy of explaining things, then illustrating them for a better chance of the reader 'getting it.' Some people have correctly pointed out that you can't separate these things from "good writing." Good writing in a game book means that things are clearly and thoroughly explained in a memorable way and in the best possible order with good vivid examples. That's obviously going to be enhanced by judicious use of color, illustrations, and layout.

As somebody else pointed out, there are very sound reasons why there might be a half-page photograph at the bottom of page 55. Maybe the author wanted to end a chapter there. Or maybe he needed a full page to explain the next rule concept, and didn't want to break it up by starting half-way down the page on which a totally different rule concept is explained. A good writer doesn't just throw pictures around for no reason. Illustrations are attractive "filler" only when it makes sense to break a page or a chapter a certain way, for better clarity, organization, and comprehension.

In other words: "Higher Production Values" are the same as "Better Rules."

"Lots of color and pictures thrown around" have nothing to do with "Better Rules."

>>>Sadly, high production values seems the way to go. there was a time that gamers wanted cheap rule books, so they could spend the difference on miniatures and terrain.

Gimme a break. How absurd.

There was a time when gamers didn't have a choice. Now you do. Stop complaining about it. It makes you sound like a 300-year-old curmudgeon.

>>> I think you'll find that rules produced by a professional organization like Osprey will avoid the latter problem because they've got professional editors who know how to do that sort of thing.

Whooooooooooot!!!!

Really? Care to point out the typos and holes in the FOG rules?

I don't understand why people can't separate their dislike of the mechanisms/concepts of a set of rules from the clarity of their explanation of the rules.

There was a time when gamers didn't have a choice. Now you do. Stop complaining about it. It makes you sound like a 300-year-old curmudgeon.

Here, here.

If you want rules that are thrown together without playtesting or production values just go to the Free Wargames Rules website and download them to your heart's content.

Or go to the Perfect Captain's website and get some very nice looking rules that are well thought out, have been playtested and have very interesting features and are also free.

And by the way, since when have basic production values prevented rules from being popular? How about the Too Fat Lardies rules? They're very popular with very basic layout and are very reasonably priced in pdf form.

It's not as if nice looking rules are pricing you out of wargaming. There are alternatives.

All I ask for is clear rules and understandable layout- an index doesn't hurt either. Sadly, many rules still don't meet this standard.

-Will

"There was a time when gamers didn't have a choice. Now you do. Stop complaining about it. It makes you sound like a 300-year-old curmudgeon."

I'm not complaining about it. I'm afraid you are missing the subtlety of the original question.

"If you want rules that are thrown together without playtesting or production values just go to the Free Wargames Rules website and download them to your heart's content."

I don't, and price means little to me. I spent well over $3,000 USD on my hobby last year. The price of ANY rule book on the market is very small change and I'm happy to part with money for rules.

To repeat the premise of the question one last time. You buy a set of rules printed on 4 pages of toilet paper. When you play them they are the best rules you've ever played, giving the best games you've ever had, time after time after time. But you paid $30 USD for them. Do you feel ripped off?

I'm finding the answers astounding.

I'll put it another way. On your way home from work a man offers you a potion that will make you the luckiest and happiest man alive for the rest of your life. It costs $30, it comes in an old, dirty coca cola bottle, and tastes like wee wee. Never the less, and for some unknown reason, you pay the money and drink it. The potion works absolutely and you are happier than you've ever been, getting happier and luckier every day until the end of a very, very long life.

But, the potion came in an old coca cola bottle and tasted of wee wee – DO YOU FEEL RIPPED OFF!

It's a slightly odd analogy, but Okay…

I probably would never have tried the magic potion, and neither would most people, because it came in such a disgusting container.

Then one day I notice a guy selling the magic potion in a much more attractive fashion, and flavored like strawberries. Oh, All right, I guess I'll give it a try. Hey, this stuff is really good.

Now, for some reason there's a website where all the guys who drank the wee-wee nasty dirty can of the potion get together and complain about why some people are seduced by nice packaging. Many of them nostalgize about the good old days before we had choices, when it was only possible to find the potion in a filthy old can and wee-wee flavored. I find the people on that website strange, particularly when the guy with the pretty container and the strawberry flavoring is obviously doing very well.

I paid forty bucks – ten bucks more than the wee-wee drinkers paid – basically just for the strawberries and the nice container. But it got me to try a product that I otherwise would never have tried, and I've been enjoying it ever since. SHOULD I FEEL RIPPED OFF?

What is with the potty analogies?

So I put it to you, that rubbish rule sets with the best of glossy production value are still rubbish.

I would agree. But in this day and age with the plethora of word processing and page layout software, if an author doesn't put any effort into a well designed and formatted document then they are just publishing rubbish as well. At this point in the publishing of documents, a portion of the intellectual content of a document can and should be found outside of the text.

I always think that I don't care about production values until I think back to the day I first saw Tactica and was just floored. I had to buy it just for the eye candy and never regretted the cost. Wasn't a bad game either, though I haven't played it for years. Also, I've bought plenty of cheap looking games that just plain stank. One thing I haven't seen in a while are boxed sets like Command Decision. It didn't have the glossy color photos, but it had everything you needed, rules, lists, charts, and markers (counters). That's high production value too and was well worth it. So I suppose, yeah, I value production value.

"Really? Care to point out the typos and holes in the FOG rules?"

No problem! And any other poorly-edited Osprey product you choose. So who's going to pay my rates?

Allen

Yes I would feel ripped-off by any rules printed on toilet paper. No, I don't prefer to buy rules that cost more than they should because there is color, jazzy graphics and lots of "purty pitchers." Looking at professional quality figures, buildings and terrain depresses rather than exhilarates me, particularly when it raises the price of the rule set by $10-20. I do agree that good editing and an index would be worth more money.

OK. I surrender – take me to solitary.

I can sit in my darkened room and ponder what people want from a set of rules these days. It's obviously not the rules or the hours of fun playing with them – or if it is they are not prepared to pay for JUST that.

People are not prepared to pay for the best rules ever, written by a genius, unless they are printed on fine paper and full of nice pictures. No thought is to be given to the time it might have taken to formulate the rules, only to how long the author spent making them look pretty on his PC. People are not interrested in intellect, they want gloss.

Ask a hypothetical question, and some people can't see past the toilet paper.

You can throw away the key now.

Shagnasty said: "Looking at professional quality figures, buildings and terrain depresses rather than exhilarates me …"

On the other hand, looking at professional quality figures, buildings and terrain exhilarates rather than depresses me.

And that's just the point – there is now choice, based on whatever your preferences are. There are plenty of good rulesets with nondescript production vlaues, and there is now an increasing amount of good rulesets with high production values … so we should all be happy!

Of course, there are also bad rules of both types, But even then, 'bad' is in the eye of the beholder, as most rules have their supporters!

A well-written, well thought out system of rules in a sloppy or poorly done book is still a set of rules in a sloppy book.

I honor production value in both rules and waffle.

M.