Winston Smith | 08 Sep 2015 5:17 p.m. PST |
Remember that I am a Baby Boomer, starting to wargame in 1964 and to play miniatures in 1974. I was playing Avalon Hill games for a few years before I started subscribing to the General. I thought that the General was clever merchandising but the support was not mandatory. Then I got into SPI and S&T. That was nothing but support. When I got into miniatures , I found the support, or lack thereof almost refreshing. I had nobody to turn to when learning 1776, TSATF, WRG Ancients etc. Let me take that back. Until I started playing tournaments and ran into the "support " industry that is WRG, I didn't need any. And then, every tournament had the Thursday Night Rules Seminar where competing interpretations were decided by latest postmark. Xeroxed rulings and amendments and interps were passed out. At least twice a year but probably more often because I didnt make all the tournaments. This is what ultimately turned me off to Ancients. The revisions and the 7.4 and 2.2 printings, immediately followed by amendments to "the most heavily playtested ancient rules ever!" In my humble opinion, WRG and DBX were supported into the grave. I joke about my own Flames of Liberty Rules. Right now it consists of bately a full page of notes and tells you which charts in TSATF to use. When I ever get around to publishing it, I will charge $260 USD for it and tell the suckers who buy it that they are are on their own. Nobody will hold their hands or tell them what to do. I will answer no mail, answer no phone calls, and reply to no text messages. Anticipating this, I do not tweet and am not on Facebook. This is directed to the whining crybabies who will not play a game that "is no longer supported". Like if the author is no longer churning out supplements the rules now have cooties and must not be played. |
cosmicbank | 08 Sep 2015 5:20 p.m. PST |
Only if he wants to sell it. |
Winston Smith | 08 Sep 2015 5:22 p.m. PST |
Funny. I bought dozens of " unsupported " rules back in the 70s and 80s. |
cosmicbank | 08 Sep 2015 5:24 p.m. PST |
I normally don't care but the "market" does. |
John Leahy | 08 Sep 2015 5:31 p.m. PST |
I did as well John. However, that didn't mean gamers did not have any questions about parts of the rules back then. Having the net allows folks to ask questions which eliminate guessing what was the author's intent in almost real time. It also allows for them to create a repository of replies which players can reference later on. Does an author need to support his rule set forever? That's up to the author. Do I believe that an author should support their rules for at least some basic time period? Yep. I bought a couple of sets of rules years ago from authors who made it known here that they were for sale. I bought them. Then I waited for some signs of activity either here or elsewhere from said authors on questions about them. Complete silence. Both sets seemed to die pretty quickly in the marketplace after that. I am pretty sure I know why (at least to some degree). Thanks, John |
Winston Smith | 08 Sep 2015 5:37 p.m. PST |
If I sell a hammer, I am not obligated to sell nails. |
Wargamer Blue | 08 Sep 2015 5:37 p.m. PST |
Yes they should make themselves available and put some effort into answering rules questions. And in the modern age there is no reason why rule play examples can't be shown on YouTube. All you need is an iPhone to do that. |
John Leahy | 08 Sep 2015 5:50 p.m. PST |
That's because there are 100's of companies that sell hammers. Only one sells and can explain to me the how the sequence of play works for that particular rule set. Failure to do so means I'm probably not going to buy anything else from them. Almost every author who sells more than a couple sets of rules gives a response in some manner. Having the net available makes it pretty simple to do so. Thanks, John |
Winston Smith | 08 Sep 2015 5:53 p.m. PST |
In the Foreword, I will say "If you cannot read the English language, and cannot figure things out for yourself, do not buy these rules. Do you want scenarios? Buy the British Grenadier books. They are superb. Better yet, buy a few BOOKS. Such as Boatner or Ward, and make your own. We do not have a dedicated range of figures. Here are are a few suggestions…." |
John Leahy | 08 Sep 2015 6:02 p.m. PST |
And don't be surprised if those rules sell 20 copies. Markets change. You can't sell rule sets similar to how it was done in the 70's and 80's. Folks won't buy them. I like em too and own loads. I play precious few now. Each person can obviously do as they please. I just do not believe that author will be around long in this marketplace taking that position. Thanks. |
Mako11 | 08 Sep 2015 6:07 p.m. PST |
I think it is a good practice, and to be expected, especially if the rules as written, are unclear, or don't have many play examples. Good luck with that, Winston. I wouldn't pay 26 cents for a set of rules, with a statement like that. |
GypsyComet | 08 Sep 2015 6:28 p.m. PST |
An author who did his job properly won't need to "support" the results. Very VERY few qualify for that form of retirement, including many who actually do try to attain it. |
Winston Smith | 08 Sep 2015 6:28 p.m. PST |
If it sells 20 copies I will make $5,000. USD |
svsavory | 08 Sep 2015 6:29 p.m. PST |
These days it seems like "support" means publishing a new expansion/codex every few months. |
Rrobbyrobot | 08 Sep 2015 6:36 p.m. PST |
I guess it has a lot to do with perspective. I've been playing Bolt Action for about 2 1/2 years. When I got into it the best part was the number of folks playing the rules. Now about six folks play the set regularly where I do my gaming. As far as I know, the rules, figures and such still sell fairly briskly. I have proposed a number of what I think are improvements to the rules. Most have been embraced by most of the group. The rules are supported by Warlord Games. There are numerous forums dedicated to the rules. But I pay almost no attention to them. I'd hardly be aware of them were a friend of mine not very much participating on them and keeping me informed. I've been frustrated by these rules at times. I don't think they were play tested much at all. I sometimes wonder if the authors actually studied WW2, or if they relied on movies. Yet they are, for the most, good rules. They just needed a little 'help'. All my, and others in our group's, modifications could have been done without support from the authors. But, then again, I'm rather old. I'm not used to having the ability to consult authors. I'd rather have a comprehensive set of designer's notes to work with. |
mandt2 | 08 Sep 2015 6:55 p.m. PST |
|
Rrobbyrobot | 08 Sep 2015 7:03 p.m. PST |
But… It's such a nice lawn… |
Syrinx0 | 08 Sep 2015 7:24 p.m. PST |
I would expect an author to support new rules either through a forum or an updated release. I don't expect him to support it for years when it's "complete" but I appreciate those who do. |
Rudysnelson | 08 Sep 2015 7:27 p.m. PST |
Yes, whether it is a sucess or not. |
coopman | 08 Sep 2015 7:35 p.m. PST |
Woa be unto those who desert their customers after their purchases. Customer support is always greatly appreciated. |
79thPA | 08 Sep 2015 7:39 p.m. PST |
I guess it depends how you define "support." I don't need endless codexes, rule revisions and fluff but, with technology being what it is, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to get hold of the author through some type of medium -- be it email, a blog, etc. -- in order to ask questions. There is a reason rules are no longer being produced with typewriters and mimeograph machines. |
Winston Smith | 08 Sep 2015 8:14 p.m. PST |
I will change my phone number, email address and open yet another account on TMP. |
Doctor X | 08 Sep 2015 8:41 p.m. PST |
Wasn't every set of rules unsupported back in the early days of wargaming? |
Meiczyslaw | 08 Sep 2015 8:57 p.m. PST |
I think the difference between then and now is that now, most companies that sell rules are actually minis companies, not rules companies. That is, the rules are meant to drive sales of the minis, so the relationship between the company and the player is an ongoing one. Ergo, support is necessary. |
raylev3 | 08 Sep 2015 9:16 p.m. PST |
He's under no obligation. However although I've been playing as long as you the odds of me buying a supported rules set are much greater. |
wolfgangbrooks | 08 Sep 2015 10:20 p.m. PST |
Typical, suggest gamers put some damn effort into their hobby and they become entitled children demanding everything from iphone apps to youtube videos and years of add on books before they deign to even look at a set of rules. Then they have the gall to complain about Games Workshop's endless tide of new editions and army lists and similar from other companies. "The Market" is not responsible for your fun, YOU are. That's the whole point of a hobby. |
Martin Rapier | 08 Sep 2015 11:14 p.m. PST |
I will respond to polite queries, but beyond that, I do it for pleasure not gain. The situation for other people is different. |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 08 Sep 2015 11:22 p.m. PST |
Yes a wargames designer I know dreads the release of his rules – after years of play testing, he just knows he's going to get acres of damn fool, haven't properly read them criticisms within hours of the rules being released – in other words the critics haven't read them properly, much less attempted to play them out…. Its enough to make a grown man cry – fortunately none of us ever really grew up! |
MajorB | 09 Sep 2015 2:23 a.m. PST |
If "support" means answering questions about the rules and clarifying detail then sure. Although if a rules author gets a lot of these perhaps he should consider obtaining the help of a copy editor … If "support" means producing endless revisions, rewrites, updates, new editions, specific figure ranges, additional rules etc. etc. then … no. |
Temporary like Achilles | 09 Sep 2015 2:33 a.m. PST |
If you're charging for the rules then it seems like a reasonable thing to respond to reasonable queries. As John Leahy says, if a designer refuses to clarify fuzzy rules then it's highly likely players will attach themselves to rules writers who do. Of course, if you are up front about the fact that players are on their own, as Neil Thomas is, then people can choose to take their chances or not. But in this day and age I think the market expects some level of reasonable support. You pay $40 USD for rules with problems and no clarifications and you're not going to go back to that designer again. I'm not talking massive free army list updates and things, but clarifications (when needed) on how the designer intends the game to be played seem to me to be a very reasonable expectation. EDIT: Agree with MajorB Cheers, Aaron |
IUsedToBeSomeone | 09 Sep 2015 3:04 a.m. PST |
That time of the year already, John? TMP link
You'll be telling us next that 25mm figures have been abandoned :-) Mike |
Khusrau | 09 Sep 2015 5:48 a.m. PST |
The extent to which 'support' is expected of a company very much reflects not only changing expectations, but also the business models of a small number of companies that can afford to use scarce resources for user-support. And yet again, another dig at WRG and one specific individual. Give it a rest. |
vtsaogames | 09 Sep 2015 5:52 a.m. PST |
Back in the day there was no internet to post FAQ and such. Now that there is, I'd like a designer to hang in long enough to publish a decent FAQ and errata set – there are always mistakes that don;t get seen until you go to print. Say a year or two. |
Mako11 | 09 Sep 2015 6:02 a.m. PST |
Going for the GW pricing model, I see. Not sure you'll be able to pull that off. Zero copies sold x $260 USD = $0.00 USD. Of course, I've been told there's a fool born every minute, so……. |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 09 Sep 2015 6:52 a.m. PST |
If the support consists of an online group or forum where I can ask questions or share stories, I am all for it. I buy rules I can get feedback on. If support means an endless release schedule of things required to play the game, I am more likely to skip it. I like to buy my rules once and play them as long as I like, not buy them piecemeal over time and have what I bought two months ago invalidated by next month's rules update. |
(Phil Dutre) | 09 Sep 2015 7:12 a.m. PST |
No. I feel much more comfortable with a set of rules knowing that the rulebook is all there is, even if imperfect. No additional website to check every day, no rules changes to track, no keeping up with the latest editions, no nothing. Just the rulebook as is. |
Weasel | 09 Sep 2015 7:30 a.m. PST |
People always say No, but if you stop talking about a game, sales stop. At least from my experience. Putting out anything new triggers more people buying that.. or related.. games. |
Lee Brilleaux | 09 Sep 2015 7:33 a.m. PST |
Somebody emailed me recently to clarify a rule in a booklet (we used to have booklets) I'd written in 1987. I told him that, honestly, I had no idea. |
Russ Lockwood | 09 Sep 2015 9:54 a.m. PST |
It is the extremely rare set of rules (miniatures or boardgames), no matter how fancy, how colorful, how expensive, or how thick, that will not generate questions…and I include my own Snappy Nappy rules as having unforeseen questions even after 15 years of gaming before being published. I was fortunate that one of my customers enjoyed it so much, he started a Yahoo group for Q&A and variants and OOBs, etc. I make sure that I answer any question that pops up, usually within a day or so. Yes, it takes time, and quite often the person who asks if something is correct or not has indeed done it correctly, but it's nice to be able to contact the designer to find out. To me, in the very least, patrolling TMP for miniatures rules questions should be done. A Yahoo group is really good considering it offers messages, daily digests, files, and so on. A blog or dedicated website? That would be good, too. Of course, customer support can get time consuming, especially for the proverbial one-man shop and especially when dealing with someone with ax grinding or flame war on the brain, especially if you designed something other than another d6 iteration of 4+ to hit, 4+ to save, 4+ to damage. And yes, getting grief is part of the process…look back on TMP threads to find commentary about the title Snappy Nappy. Yet, I also find this give-and-take creates many good quality comments, suggestions, and ideas that make a ruleset or game better for all concerned and can help a designer improve on subsequent designs. Designers have to remember that they may have played a set hundreds of times before publishing and automatically 'know' mechanics and processes, but the rules purchaser's universe of knowledge only consists of the rules as published. |
vtsaogames | 09 Sep 2015 10:14 a.m. PST |
the rules purchaser's universe of knowledge only consists of the rules as published So true. Knowing what I mean when writing the rule ain't the always the same as a clearly written rule. |
etotheipi | 09 Sep 2015 10:16 a.m. PST |
Obligated? By civil law? Not that I know of. By social convention? Yes, though that support may become less active (answering questions) and more passive (a posted FAQ) as time goes on. By Bushido? Well, depending on how you interpret it, if you were subject to the code, you would have some obligation with respect to things you establish. By business ethics? No, though you may be liable for real damages caused; adaptation and support can mitigate that. By wargaming ethics? It's a trap! |
Herkybird | 09 Sep 2015 12:07 p.m. PST |
I always support my own rules, if anyone comments reasonably, the rules get changed! I agree its better not to have corrections published too often though! |
Only Warlock | 09 Sep 2015 12:21 p.m. PST |
If the competitors support their rules and you do not, then the perceived value and thus the sales will go to the better supported rule set. I've been playing since 1977 and deeply appreciate support from developers and publishers. The days of dropping a rule set and hoping for the best are long gone. |
PatrickWR | 09 Sep 2015 12:24 p.m. PST |
I don't particularly care about rules errata or new releases, but "support" to me also includes being part of a community of gamers. That's kind of nice, particularly for people who don't have a local gaming group. |
doug redshirt | 09 Sep 2015 4:43 p.m. PST |
I would just like a set of rules written in standard English that fully explain the rules, without needing a page or two of corrections in the first month and a complete rewrite in 6 months for a change. |
snurl1 | 09 Sep 2015 10:00 p.m. PST |
I would be happy if people would actually read and comprehend the rules before asking questions. Questions so basic that it makes me wonder if the asker has read the rules at all. |
christot | 10 Sep 2015 12:07 p.m. PST |
Depends if you want to make money or not, if that doesn't matter to you, then publish the rules, say here they are, take it or leave it. The designer doesn't owe anybody anything, after that if designer and rule buyer wish to enter a dialogue, fine. If the designer can't be bothered with putting up with stupid questions from a proportion of his public, don't. If the buyer can't make sense of gobol-de-gook jargon riddled rules that the author won't explain, don't buy them, its not rocket surgery, it's market forces. |
TNE2300 | 12 Sep 2015 1:11 p.m. PST |
James Maliszewski on his Grognardia blog link pointed out the following in GDW's Striker rules: Another reason I don't want to criticize Striker unduly is because of a comment it includes on its credits page: Although this game (as presented in Books 1, 2, and 3) envisions a referee or umpire to supervise play and resolve questions, the publisher is prepared to answer questions or inquiries on Striker provided a stamped, self-addressed envelope accompanies the request. …Like Loren Wiseman's editorial from issue #2 of The Journal of the Travellers Aid Society, it suggests that GDW's designers only grudgingly felt it was their job to clarify rules rules, since this was properly the purview of one's referee. and later in the comments section: …What I found interesting is that the designer suggested not asking GDW directly, instead suggesting that the referee is the final authority for rules questions. |
John Treadaway | 13 Sep 2015 12:22 p.m. PST |
I still support the Hammer's Slammers: The Crucible rules even though I now don't earn a penny from them* for several reasons: Support for the manufacturers who took leaps of faith and continue to supply suport material for the system: it just seems good manners and the "right thing to do" Support for gamers that brought into the system. Again it just seems good manners and the "right thing to do" and I know its what I'd want if the boot is on the other foot. Love of the background. Hubris? Maybe vanity: I'm quite pleased with the rule system and it cheers me up that folks play with – and seem to enjoy – them. John T * I was paid my fee up front by the publisher so further sales are not a financial incentive for me * |
Sir Mumsy | 13 Sep 2015 6:54 p.m. PST |
I will neither purchase nor promote a product that the author refuses to or is too lazy to support. I agree, "it just seems good manners and the 'right thing to do' " to quote JT from above. Lots of rules out there to choose from… it is a buyer's market… done. |