Thomas Whitten | 06 Aug 2010 8:11 a.m. PST |
What are some irrational reasons people have for not buying a set of rules one would otherwise play? (As opposed to other reasons people buy rulebooks such as collecting.) Here are some I quickly came up with (two of which I'm guilty off) Poor Cover Art Poor Internal Art No Art Don't like the author personally Don't like the fan boys Someone you don't like plays the game Irritating title I've left off things such ‘poor layout' and ‘lack of diagrams' as I would consider those rational reasons for not buying a set of rules. Perhaps others would disagree. t.w. |
tobermoray | 06 Aug 2010 8:14 a.m. PST |
---Irritating title--- Only that one "Snappy Nappy"? Never in a million years would I buy them. Certainly irrational. |
aecurtis | 06 Aug 2010 8:16 a.m. PST |
Not yet "reviewed" by WGG? Allen |
Condottiere | 06 Aug 2010 8:21 a.m. PST |
Nope. Never applied any of the above listed irrational reasons (at least as far as I can recall). |
ming31 | 06 Aug 2010 8:30 a.m. PST |
A game has to pass certian conditions that were adopted by me and some gaming friends ( andy) Pfierrer test : has to have weight to cost ( i.e. lots of components) ( Vince) Romeo Test ; Good Graphics, diagrams, and lay out ( Dave) Skelley test ( mine) : Mini's
gotta jhave mini's or ability to use mini's . |
John the OFM | 06 Aug 2010 9:05 a.m. PST |
If they spent all that money making it look pretty, the rules can't be very good. |
John the OFM | 06 Aug 2010 9:06 a.m. PST |
You couldn't pay me to get a set of rules in PDF format only. ((Actually, that is true. )) |
vtsaogames | 06 Aug 2010 9:08 a.m. PST |
my usual reason for not buying rules is they sound too complex for me they cost an arm and a leg (I still buy some of these) |
ComradeCommissar | 06 Aug 2010 9:45 a.m. PST |
|
Farstar | 06 Aug 2010 9:47 a.m. PST |
"Don't like the author personally" Guilty, but then I don't consider this an irrational reason. |
Cold Steel | 06 Aug 2010 9:53 a.m. PST |
|
christot | 06 Aug 2010 9:59 a.m. PST |
Poor Cover Art Poor Internal Art No Art Don't like the author personally Don't like the fan boys Someone you don't like plays the game Irritating title All of those. Plus: Swanky cover art Swanky internal art Too much art Author is a mate of mine Author can't write Author thinks he CAN write |
Blackhawk1 | 06 Aug 2010 9:59 a.m. PST |
It says "Games Workshop" somewhere |
CeruLucifus | 06 Aug 2010 10:00 a.m. PST |
The most common irrational reason I see posted here on TMP for not buying a set of rules is that years ago the poster enjoyed playing an earlier edition and the new one must therefore be a scam to separate him from his money. A corollary to this is when the same poster says seriously they intend to visit the local game store where players are actively gaming with the new version, and recruit them / enlighten them to play the old edition. |
quidveritas | 06 Aug 2010 10:30 a.m. PST |
As a rules publisher you get it from all angles. "You should publish in .pdf its the future" v. "I will never buy a .pdf" "I want a professional effort with a nice cover and lots of color pictures" v. "I will never pay for fluff -- I just want the rules and nothing else." and I could go on all day. Everyone has their own opinion on this subject. There's no reason you shouldn't have your own preferences. Now if you didn't, that would be weird. mjc |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 06 Aug 2010 11:14 a.m. PST |
I am very guilty of not buying rules because I don't like the way the local fanboys behave. This really put me off Warmachine (but not Hordes, because none of them played it.) Of course, all my favorite players never outgrew Games Workshop, so now that I am playing 40K again I get to play with guys I like. |
Plynkes | 06 Aug 2010 11:17 a.m. PST |
Learning on TMP the opinions on various topics of the authors, and deciding I don't ever want them to have any of my money. That's a true one, too. Cutting off my nose to spite my face, perhaps, but that's me.
|
highlandcatfrog | 06 Aug 2010 11:29 a.m. PST |
I'm with Plynkes on this. |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 06 Aug 2010 11:38 a.m. PST |
Why would "Poor Art" be irrational, but "Poor Layout" be rational? |
John the OFM | 06 Aug 2010 11:38 a.m. PST |
If I were to reject vendors on TMP because of their perceived opinions, I would have darn few goodies in my possession. I can think of only one who I reject totally. He neither knows this, nor would he care. Identity irrelevant. Some of my best friends on TMP are politically incompatible with me. And, here is where I put on my "poor tortured martyr" robes
Oddly enough, when people of my political persuasion apply an economic boycott to talented yet politically incompatible sellers of stuff (music, movies, wargames stuff
) we are told to get a life, and quit being such a stiff-neck. When the other side does that, they are standing on principle. |
Happy Little Trees | 06 Aug 2010 12:02 p.m. PST |
If there is a page or two of errata out and I haven't seen the rulebook in the store yet; I figure the proofreading and playtesting were less than stellar and decline. Don't know if that is irrational or not. |
Thomas Whitten | 06 Aug 2010 12:05 p.m. PST |
Why would "Poor Art" be irrational, but "Poor Layout" be rational? I never said my criteria would be rational. In my view, poor art wouldn't affect my ability to play the game while a poor layout could. I was thinking broadly here – how well the material is organized in the book and how easily accessed it is. YMMV |
Ron W DuBray | 06 Aug 2010 12:10 p.m. PST |
3rd or 4th ed of a rules set They are just out for fast cash and dont care about the game. |
Sysiphus | 06 Aug 2010 12:15 p.m. PST |
I've reject rules based on how they treat my favorite army at the time. I also get easily ed at overt, "fan-boy" merde. And, yes, needlessly expensive rules with untimely release dates do not receive my commerce. |
Farstar | 06 Aug 2010 1:15 p.m. PST |
3rd or 4th ed of a rules set They are just out for fast cash and dont care about the game.
I'd think that would depend on how many years it's been since the 2nd edition. |
TodCreasey | 06 Aug 2010 1:29 p.m. PST |
Don't like the author Looks like you found it on the floor in a bus station Lads have no interest |
John the OFM | 06 Aug 2010 2:26 p.m. PST |
Some of these reasons seem pretty rationasl to me. Could it be that some people cannot be bothered to read the full title? |
Sysiphus | 06 Aug 2010 2:41 p.m. PST |
Or to spell correctly
rational |
WarrenB | 06 Aug 2010 2:52 p.m. PST |
Warmachine page 5. Play like you have a pair – that hasn't descended yet. Games that look like they're trying to out-40K 40K (or out-warhammer warhammer) with OTT fantasy, sci-fi or horror imagery. Games endorsed by people who act like reknowned historians carrying out painstaking academic simulations, instead of a bunch of guys pushing toy soldiers around. ----- Warren B. minisculpture.co.uk |
Farstar | 06 Aug 2010 3:16 p.m. PST |
Warmachine page 5. Play like you have a pair – that hasn't descended yet. Haven't read the current version, then. |
WarrenB | 06 Aug 2010 3:43 p.m. PST |
No. I was put off by the first edition. How's that for irrational? ----- Warren B. minisculpture.co.uk |
Gear Pilot | 06 Aug 2010 4:33 p.m. PST |
I refused to play Battletech for over 10 years because I thought it was responsible for killing FASA's Star Trek game. |
CPBelt | 06 Aug 2010 4:55 p.m. PST |
Someone you don't like plays the game Yep. Guilty as charged. Someone I don't like designed the game. Guilty again. |
Mr Elmo | 06 Aug 2010 5:47 p.m. PST |
Don't agree with the author's politics and being a conscious consumer, I can't buy them. |
Ivan DBA | 06 Aug 2010 6:44 p.m. PST |
Ivan DBA told you not to buy it. |
Sundance | 06 Aug 2010 6:57 p.m. PST |
Lots of good reasons above and I've used more than a few myself. |
John the OFM | 06 Aug 2010 8:20 p.m. PST |
If I boycotted every artists' work that I politically disagreed with, I would miss out on a lot of really good actors and musicians whose work I like. Even Michael Savage does not apply that test. As he said tonight, there would be no one left to watch or listen to! Of course, a personal visceral dislike is something entirely different. There are a few that I agree with about 95% of the time, but have met in person
Therefore, I buy NO Jerry Pournelle books. I am completely aware of the fact that I might enjoy them. However, I HAVE met the guy. Therefore I will not give him a red cent in royalties. Irrational? Yeah, so what? That is my call, not yours. |
(Leftee) | 06 Aug 2010 10:39 p.m. PST |
Don't like anything that might read like 'the life and opinions of Tristram Shandy gent.' Cannot abide Mr. Barker's style. Get mildly annoyed at the British habit of changing whether 'one' is a good or bad dice roll – consistency here is appreciated. Don't like rules dedications that state 'everything else sucks, so this is the holy grail you've been searching for' -whether that's true or not! Get annoyed when the dedication also states that more supplements and or/lists are planned when nothing of the sort is even mildly on the horizon. Beta rules sitting around for years (Crusader/Battlefront/Flames of War). Though this last one did allow me to enjoy 'Battlefront WWII' from 'Fire and Fury' instead. Rules whose pages fall out after one or two readings. |
tobermoray | 06 Aug 2010 11:27 p.m. PST |
---Don't like rules dedications that state 'everything else sucks, so this is the holy grail you've been searching for' -whether that's true or not!--- It's never true ---Rules whose pages fall out after one or two readings.--- But wouldn't you need to buy them to discover that? and to add: after being bitten by their "Napoleon" rules, I'll never, ever, buy another product from the same company. |
Lentulus | 07 Aug 2010 6:06 a.m. PST |
but "Poor Layout" be rational? Good layout contributes to readability, which make the rules easier to grasp quickly and correctly. It doesn't take much to be acceptable, but unacceptable is just painful, and a perfectly rational reason to not buy a set of rules. |
e4warde | 07 Aug 2010 12:14 p.m. PST |
I would not hold an author's politics against him when trying to decide whether or not to pay him for a set of his rules, but I have not made a purchase from those who go out of their way to behave like an ass while sharing that opinion. |
Tom Bryant | 08 Aug 2010 12:39 p.m. PST |
Of course, a personal visceral dislike is something entirely different. There are a few that I agree with about 95% of the time, but have met in person
Therefore, I buy NO Jerry Pournelle books. I am completely aware of the fact that I might enjoy them. However, I HAVE met the guy. Therefore I will not give him a red cent in royalties. But what about the USED book market John? Back on topic, the only things that "turn me off" to rules sets these days are the following: – Overly flashy cover and internal art. – The ABSOLUTE NECESSITY of making rules sets hardcover and bound when a decent print of softcover rules could be made for (sometimes) less. – Rules that stuff their fluff, or misc addenda not germane to the rules, into the main rules and do not "highlight" or set off with a font change or box so I can bypass them as I look for how to handle cavalry vs. infantry melee. Issues such as politics or personal knowledge or dislike of the author have YET to give their influence to my "irrationality" however the time may come
Still, many of the things listed don't seem too irrational to me. For me, the best rules sets keep the layout simple, clean and accurate to the game, with enough art and flash to pull me in and help me keep interested. Also enough information for me to setup and run several games based on the MAIN RULES, not umpteen dozen VERY expensive supplements (Damn You TSR and GW!). Finally, they need to be fun, plain and simple. I really don't care if the book costs $80 USD so long as I can have that much (or more hopefully) fun with them. |
dandiggler | 11 Aug 2010 10:33 a.m. PST |
Binding, brand, artwork, and probably editing (although this can vastly effect the overall gaming experience). |