"The price of rules" Topic

Like many of us, I have a sizeable library of published rules, many never gamed. New rule sets seem to appear on the scene at a fairly frenetic pace & it is now rare that I buy a set 'just for a read'. It's not only the avalanche but the price that is a detriment with many being quite exorbitant.

I've fairly recently finished writing my own SYW set. I'm undoubtedly a little slow but the writing was spread over many, many hours of a 2 year period not counting the hours of reading done on the period or the 'play-testing'. So what are they worth? Probably nothing but it begs the question, when you purchase a rule set what are you buying?

Clearly the appearance & associated publishing costs are a factor. But what is the price of the intellectual content?
Surely the concepts behind the gaming mechanisms are paramount? So shouldn't a derivative set of rules be far cheaper than something ground breaking?

What ARE we buying when we buy wargames' rules?

What ARE we buying when we buy wargames' rules?

Ideas.

I'll pay more for lots of stats worked out to a formula then just for rules. Most expensive single rules product I have purchased is Fistful of Tows 3, but it has stats worked out for almost every vehicle from 1939 to the (then) present day.

Same for Advanced Squad Leader (taking into account all the core modules which contain stats).

When I buy rules, I'm buying time. My time. If you produce rules, then I don't have to spend time doing the research to produce my own. The challenging part is finding an author that is interested in modeling the same aspects that I want to model. But if I find that, the motivation for buying the rules is the time that's saved by doing so.

Ideas follow the laws of economics, they are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for them. Yes, I know, that probably doesn't help much.

"Surely the concepts behind the gaming mechanisms are paramount? So shouldn't a derivative set of rules be far cheaper than something ground breaking?"

Maybe, but ultimately in a market economy things are only 'worth' what people are willing to pay for them, not what they cost to produce (Marxists feel free to disagree and explain how the labour theory of value is supposed to work).

Which is why remainder shops are full of books no-one could sell.

'Ground breaking', can equate to 'scary, unfamiliar or hard to learn' for some people and 'ooh shiny' for others.

As Irishserb says, we are mainly buying time – so good ideas are good; good ideas which actually work are great; maps, OBs etc are a nice bonus. A load of fluff and pointless pictures are just wasting my time.

Traditional ideas presented in an innovative and engaging way are also good, which is why I could read Neil Thomas's wargaming books (and Charles Grants) until the cows come home, despite all the fluff and photos.

Whereas Fields of Glory sent me to sleep within three pages.

You are buying a book. Ideas if you like but ultimately it is a book same as any other book. The reason most publications are getting expensive is the materials and the artwork/photography. Thick glossy pages can't be cheap these days. You have to pay the photographer. You have to pay the artist. If the layout is being professionally done, you have to pay that person too. So, I'd contend that much of the cost of the book goes to the "art" in the book.

For comparison, a 400 page hard back novel will cost you about $25. USD All words and a fancy front cover. OTOH, Black powder and other games of their quality run about $45. USD Fancy cover, thick, glossy pages (with art!) and probably not as many pages.

You are buying production costs. I always wait to see reviews on TMP and, hopefully, see or play a game at a convention before I drop cash on a set of rules that cost $30 USD-$50.

If I am interested in the period, then I by the rules for an idea on how various actions are handled. But at the end of the day, it goes on to the book shelf.

Matthew

Rules are a gamble imo – what I'm really buying is the possibility of enjoyment….

Some sets I read once and never look at again, others have provided me with many great games. So for me the "value" of a rules set is essentially based on how likely I think it is to end up in the second category not the first – the more likely that seems, the higher the stake I'm willing to wager…. ;-)

These all seem to apply: research; developing a framework for exposing the research in a playable way; production costs to present the above in a compelling and understandable format. I would also add: you're buying a protocol that enables you to share an experience with others--particularly those outside your local group. Without published rule sets, competitive events such as those held at conventions become much more difficult to setup.

I personally couldn't give a chuff for production values of rulebooks- after the initial purchase at least. My all time favourite sets are both some of the scruffiest and most basic production values, but they work. Indeed I suspect there is an inverse ratio of good rules versus shiny book syndrome.

Sadly I think many, many sets with good ideas never get bought due to the relative high cost of taking a gamble by the buyer. I will happily throw up to £10.00 GBP on a chance but I wouldn't go near a £20.00 GBP plus set of rules unless I am sure I will like the and play them.

I'm trading money for time.

I'm willing to sacrifice some degree of realism and simulation and am ok with a certain degree of abstraction if it results in playability and entertainment i.e. fun.

The inclusion of scenarios is a plus for me.

DM

If you've never done so, it can be fun to play with inflation calculators. Here's an easy one in US dollars:

data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

The first miniatures rules I bought were "Chainmail" in 1974, and I paid $15 USD for them. In today's money, that's $72.21 USD.

At the time I thought that the well-done black and white sketches were the pinnacle of production values. The first "big battles" game I saw was "Column, Line, and Square," and that book was illustrated with stick-figures, had been typed and photocopied and its 60 pages were "bound" with a staple. I believe it was also $15 USD or perhaps more.

You are buying production costs.

If that were true, then why is it that nowadays you can get a 200-page, full-color, hard-bound game book with gorgeous layout and great production values, for only about $40 USD?

In 1974's money, that would be only $8.31 USD.

In other words, miniatures rules nowadays cost about half as much as they did back in the 1970s. Despite being massively improved in layout, graphics, binding, color, etc.

Personally, I don't see much of any relationship between price and production quality. I paid $40 USD for the black-and-white, softbound "Musket and Tomahawk," which is only about 70 pages… and I paid $25 USD for the full-color, hardback "Fields of Glory," which is 140 pages.

If nice production values drive up the cost… then explain that?

The first miniatures rules I bought were "Chainmail" in 1974, and I paid $15 USD USD for them.

Either you misremembered or you paid way too much!

Most of the TSR rules were about $5 USD each. DnD was $11 USD for the box set (I think) and Tractics was $14. USD

There doesn't have to be a linear relationship between production price and cost, although there may be. Regardless, you are still paying for production. What rules cost decades ago is immaterial.

"If that were true, then why is it that nowadays you can get a 200-page, full-color, hard-bound game book with gorgeous layout and great production values, for only about $40 USD USD?"

Because modern production technology makes it cheaper and easier to produce quality rules?

Depending on the size of the production run, and various mark ups, you could also pay $75 USD for the same rules, so what is your point?

I think everyone who has answered has provided some insight into the question. I am not sure why you think I need to defend my opinion.

Primarily ideas but also hopefully some degree of refinement. Quite a number of the rules sets I've bought over the years could benefit from a bit more smoothing and polishing. A few I've polished myself – one had endless morale tests which we discovered were passed in 99% of cases so I just did away with them altogether. The same rule set had a cranky firing system but colour coding the dice made firing a really streamlined process. It's those little nuances that making playing just that bit faster and I wish that almost all the rules I've bought had had a bit more really pedantic fine tuning before they were released.

It's a component of the cost of a form of entertainment, the total cost of which should be compared with other recreational pursuits and distractions.

I usually price PDF's around a dollar per 10 pages, and rounded up a tad. That's shooting cheaper than a lot in the PDF industry though.

Surely the rules are the least expensive part of the hobby, but the most important? I may spend hundreds of dollars/pounds on figures, whereas a set of rules are twenty pounds/thirty dollars, less if I buy the PDF edition. It's the rules which make the game fun or not.

I agree with the notion of buying time.

Most published rulesets are actually not that original in terms of actual content (there are exceptions), but you pay for the time and effort that someone has (hopefully) spend streamlining them in a coherent whole through lots of design decisions and playtesting and historical knowledge.

I tended to buy a LOT of rules. After so many years you start to realize 90% of them are very same-ish. I simply don't want to pay anymore for yet another buckets-of-dice gaming engine or 50 pages of army lists. If a rulebook has >50% army lists, point values, and such things, I simply toss it aside. It's like inventing additional monsters for roleplaying games. It does look like a lot of work, but most of the time it's very unoriginal, bogus, and not playtested.

So I started writing my own for many periods. I like thinking about rules and trying out new ideas, but I understand not everyone does. Perhaps it's because IRL I'm a scientist. I prefer creating knowledge rather than consuming someone else's.

These days I usually hunt for original ideas on wargamevault.com. Many independent authors and original ideas are to be found there, and if you're truely interested in games design, a much better place to find the good stuff rather than the established publishers.

So what is a ruleset worth? In the end, it's an artificial calibrated price-point. They are worth whatever people are willing to pay, and whatever the producer wants to charge, with a lower bound of actual production cost. But honestly, I do not know. Some rulesets never get a decent read or never get played. Others are so original that people want them no matter what. It's hard to put money on that.

When I buy rules I'm buying the whole package. I'm paying for:

-The time and creativity (whether completely new or derivative) of someone who can put together a fast-play (my preference) ruleset for a given genre/era/scopeetc.

-Production costs.

-A little bit of polish. Whether something big and glossy like Mantic or small and shiny like Osprey, I like a good looking and well laid-out ruleset.

As for the idea that rules should be priced based on originality, that's just silly.

Re:Original Ideas, Time and so forth

These days, time is a premium for me. My current gamer friends are not tabletop gamers. I've come full circle and now prefer simple rules.

With simple rules, I can write my own in an afternoon. They play as well, or even better (quicker) than there commercial counterparts. Instead of 20-40 pages of actual rules, there are usually about 4. So it is easy to teach the non-(tabletop)gamer and they can be finished in a few hours in the evening. The best part of it is that you save $40 USD-$60. Finally, these simple rules are easily modifiable without upsetting balance.

These things play a huge part in my decision making. I find I am more interested in generic scenario books than I am rules sets.

Inspiration. Good to know I'm not the only one who found Fields of Glory life crushingly boring.