"New Rules Inoculation / Quarantine" Topic

Given that many, even very shiny, new rules have brief shelf lives as far as selling (and sometimes playing), shouldn't there be some rule that no new set of rules gets published unless its been on display, say, at least at a dozen different conventions (so mostly new exposures) and the result is a great clamor for the rules? Let's put it that at least 100 unique individuals put their desire for the rules in writing as a minimum.

And, yes, I realize this will be controversial for some of you (and apoplectic fit causing for a certain few) but it just seems to make sense to me.

Without some demand in the first place, what is the point of expending the funds and effort? That is in commercial production of the rules, not in actually bringing the rules into existence in the first place. Anyone can do that – just seems logical to await well displayed and documented demand prior to going commercial.

NO! So who would make the decision if a rules set was fit to publish? You? Me? Yes, of course! The consumers!

Taking a rules set public (published to populate the shelves as you say) is a fundamental principle of the free enterprise system….risk taking. If the author is willing to take that chance; a publisher taking the chance by publishing so they can make some money, ….nothing wrong here!

If you don't happen to like a set you recently bought, shame on you for not finding more about them first. Afterall, we are all here on the internet and there does not seem to be a shortage of folks here on TMP to whom you can ask and get an opinion before you pay. Don't forget, the shop owner who has them on their shelves has already "bought" the set, taking the risk that someone will come in and ask for them.

Pleaase, we do not need this (or any) type of regulation in our hobby! (or perhaps your question was meant to be a Joke?)…

I entirely agree with Dye4minis.

I'm pretty sure it was a joke….

There is a means of doing this. It's called kick-starters.

But the proposition begs the question should we do the same with miniatures? Only those exceptionally painted or agreed upon as coming up to a standard be allowed?

any proposal that inhibits the spread of ideas is detrimental to the hobby of tabletop gaming.

any proposal that inhibits the spread of ideas is detrimental to the hobby of tabletop gaming.

And will be promptly ignored

Bricole!

Have people been forced to buy these rules sets and need some kind of industry protection for their wallets?

How would inoculation work, exactly? Having to eat a copy of DBA 1.0?

Say,that might actually work!

Have people been forced to buy these rules sets and need some kind of industry protection for their wallets?

And, if so, how do I get a piece of that?

Okay, not a joke and not because of any rule set I bought. Just some pretty common sense stuff motivated by seeing some folks pouring heart and soul into a new set of rules and pouring money into it to put out a 'professional' looking set of rules and then four or five people – or maybe twenty-five – buy the rules. Just hoping to deter the next person from traveling that road. Unless they are perfectly fine with that result. I expect some are – but some might be betting the farm, risking their close relationships over this. The rules and inoculation were meant to be metaphoric not literal.

And as to the Kickstarter thought – heck no, a set of figures is one thing, but rules sight unseen from that source? Not my money. But caveat emptor and all that.

There will always be people who publish new rules without having played them at least once.
There will also always be people who have have gone through 10000 playtests, and still are doubtful about bringing their rules to print.
These days, it's very cheap to publish new rules. Cfr Wargamevault.com. The only thing it does cost you is time.

And yes, some people do things or spend money on their own vanity projects without thinking first. But it's hard to stop those, no matter what.

So, what's the problem you're trying to address exactly?

Keep the hobby free from any sort of regulations. The hobby will move in a direction determined by micro-decisions of thousands of individual wargamers (rules, figures, periods, …). I think that's a good thing.

Wargamers are always tinkering with rules, so I don't see any 'rules' about publishing rules surviving unscathed.

Commercial publishers will obviously think carefully before committing money to producing hard copy, so that will filter out some poor sets.

If someone wants to try to get their rules published at no risk, they can either make them freely available via their blog, or submit them to one of the magazines.

Excepting in a world where "vanity presses" are quite happy to "pet" your ego while negotiating your money out of your pocket with no regard whatsoever for the quality of the product. The bar to getting published is, indeed, low. And – of course – if someone wants to spend that money, their choice. But not everyone is privy to how that works as opposed to the process with an ethical and legitimate publisher.

Sadly, there are more and more of the vanity press style publishers out there and the quality can, very rarely, be good but it can also be horrid, no sensible narrative thread, multiple typos on every single page (inexcusable in a world with electronic spell check). If my post causes one or two people to rethink their approach and save themselves some money better spent else where – or to take a little more time to ensure they have a market ready product – then it is more than worth it to me.

JSchutt +1

I read the OP more than once and could make no sense of it and I came to the same conclusion.