-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
$64CDN for Book of the Righteous?? Not in this lifetime...
- Thread starter uv23
- Start date
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Nazlith said:
Well I hope that after reading it, you post a review. I'd like to see what roles the reviews had in creating expections and if the book lives up to those expections. Dont' forget to check the Tree of Life at the GRP site too. Some support is already there and I'm sure they'll have more coming.
Good points have already been made both ways, but I'll throw this in:
Shelf Life
&
Utility
I have many "quality" products that I've bought / read over the years that, while I enjoyed them, had little practical use to me, beyond the system they were for.
Book of the Righteous will be useful for my fantasy campaigns tomorrow and 10 years down the road. Many of the "ideas" behind BotR are so modular that they can be pulled forth and dropped into other games if I so choose.
An almost cliche comparison, but one worth making- how many dollars do you spend on a hot new video game that you'll get, what, 80+ hours of play time out of, at the most?
Quality will out. BotR is pure quality.
{It is also damn hefty, making it a useful missile to direct at the smart-ass player in the corner.}
Shelf Life
&
Utility
I have many "quality" products that I've bought / read over the years that, while I enjoyed them, had little practical use to me, beyond the system they were for.
Book of the Righteous will be useful for my fantasy campaigns tomorrow and 10 years down the road. Many of the "ideas" behind BotR are so modular that they can be pulled forth and dropped into other games if I so choose.
An almost cliche comparison, but one worth making- how many dollars do you spend on a hot new video game that you'll get, what, 80+ hours of play time out of, at the most?
Quality will out. BotR is pure quality.
{It is also damn hefty, making it a useful missile to direct at the smart-ass player in the corner.}
Last edited:
Winterthorn
Monster Manager
Ooops!
Sorry. I'm not fluent WRT all the publishers and products "out there".
Funny thing: I am commuting between Montreal and Ottawa infrequently of late (I'm looking for work in Ottawa), so I pass by Vankleek Hill regularly...
I know! Get yourselves some billboard space--gawd knows there's plenty of other advertisements "broadcasting" to us roadwarriors on the 417!
(Just pullin' yer leg.)
Back to topic:
I think the cost for a single item carries a psychological component. Most of us wouldn't think too much about quality of content if we spent $5 or less--do that once a month for a year. $60 total. A single item of $60 would make us pause--like considering the new pair of shoes each spring (once a year). The degree of cost will make most consumers cautious, I think--ever buy a new car!. (The higher the price, the sterner the consumer criticism.) Even then, consumer behaviour can skew wildly when word-of-mouth, testimonials, advertising and popular media get involved...
Price per page is not enough of a measure of a book's value. Product content and consumer budget, 2 quite independent parameters, play IMO vital roles in the success of the sales of a book like BotR.
I'll go out on a limb WRT BotR:
i) cost per page - good value;
ii) content - good value (really good IMHO);
iii) budgetary effect - poor (playing $60 in a lump sum is not trivial for those on tight budgets--which seems the case for many many gamers!).
(Ya know, I'm tired, so I'm not entirely certain my comments are as cohesive as I would like.
I hope ppl can follow what I'm trying to say?)
I am still pleased with The Book of the Righteous in spite of its price. BTW: once in awhile I am willing to spend a little extra to get what I want.
Cheers, it's Friday the 13th!
-W.
Sorry. I'm not fluent WRT all the publishers and products "out there".
Funny thing: I am commuting between Montreal and Ottawa infrequently of late (I'm looking for work in Ottawa), so I pass by Vankleek Hill regularly...
I know! Get yourselves some billboard space--gawd knows there's plenty of other advertisements "broadcasting" to us roadwarriors on the 417!
(Just pullin' yer leg.)Back to topic:
I think the cost for a single item carries a psychological component. Most of us wouldn't think too much about quality of content if we spent $5 or less--do that once a month for a year. $60 total. A single item of $60 would make us pause--like considering the new pair of shoes each spring (once a year). The degree of cost will make most consumers cautious, I think--ever buy a new car!. (The higher the price, the sterner the consumer criticism.) Even then, consumer behaviour can skew wildly when word-of-mouth, testimonials, advertising and popular media get involved...
Price per page is not enough of a measure of a book's value. Product content and consumer budget, 2 quite independent parameters, play IMO vital roles in the success of the sales of a book like BotR.
I'll go out on a limb WRT BotR:
i) cost per page - good value;
ii) content - good value (really good IMHO);
iii) budgetary effect - poor (playing $60 in a lump sum is not trivial for those on tight budgets--which seems the case for many many gamers!).
(Ya know, I'm tired, so I'm not entirely certain my comments are as cohesive as I would like.
I hope ppl can follow what I'm trying to say?) I am still pleased with The Book of the Righteous in spite of its price. BTW: once in awhile I am willing to spend a little extra to get what I want.
Cheers, it's Friday the 13th!
-W.
Last edited:
Paradigm
First Post
Well Green Ronin can look at this thread and see it as a good thing. There are a lot of $40 books out there. The price on them is not complained about, but the BotR is complained about on a price basis.
Why is that good for Green Ronin? It means that it is a book that people want. Some people who want it are unwilling to drop $40US or $64CDN and this thread fires up as a result. If the book wasn't so darn great, nobody would bother to talk about it.
There are RPG books that are worth $40US. Children of the Sun for example and Book of the Righteous as well.
Hey, as a publisher, we can sell 100K words and 16 pages of art for 19.95 and nobody blinks an eye. Bump it up to 300k words and 48 pages of art for 39.95 and people stop to decide if they want to spend the money. Thrice the book at only twice the price.
Starbucks can charge $4 for some coffee that somebody will buy every day, but $40 pants get agonized over in the department store.
Same thing.
Why is that good for Green Ronin? It means that it is a book that people want. Some people who want it are unwilling to drop $40US or $64CDN and this thread fires up as a result. If the book wasn't so darn great, nobody would bother to talk about it.
There are RPG books that are worth $40US. Children of the Sun for example and Book of the Righteous as well.
Hey, as a publisher, we can sell 100K words and 16 pages of art for 19.95 and nobody blinks an eye. Bump it up to 300k words and 48 pages of art for 39.95 and people stop to decide if they want to spend the money. Thrice the book at only twice the price.
Starbucks can charge $4 for some coffee that somebody will buy every day, but $40 pants get agonized over in the department store.
Same thing.
Crusty Older DM
First Post
Fun History on U.S.-Canada Relations
A little known fact of North American History:
During the U.S. Civil War, Secretary of War Stanton recommended to President Lincoln that the U.S. invade Canada. The reason was that some Confederate sympathizers had been using Canadian bases to launch raids into northern New York State. I believe that the consensus among historians is that Stanton wanted to use the raids as an excuse for a land-grab in the style of the Mexican-American War over the secession of Texas (1846-48).
Needless to say, Lincoln didn't bite. He had enough to worry about.
Now what I have always wondered is the following: If Stanton had gotten his way, would the U.S. have given Quebec its independence? Was there a movement for Quebec independence in the 1860's? Maybe Stanton would have cut a deal with the Quebecois for their support on his bid for Canada.
Fun imponderables for alternate history settings.
A little known fact of North American History:
During the U.S. Civil War, Secretary of War Stanton recommended to President Lincoln that the U.S. invade Canada. The reason was that some Confederate sympathizers had been using Canadian bases to launch raids into northern New York State. I believe that the consensus among historians is that Stanton wanted to use the raids as an excuse for a land-grab in the style of the Mexican-American War over the secession of Texas (1846-48).
Needless to say, Lincoln didn't bite. He had enough to worry about.
Now what I have always wondered is the following: If Stanton had gotten his way, would the U.S. have given Quebec its independence? Was there a movement for Quebec independence in the 1860's? Maybe Stanton would have cut a deal with the Quebecois for their support on his bid for Canada.
Fun imponderables for alternate history settings.
Paradigm said:
Actually thats not entirely accurate. I buy a lot of books because they seem interesting enough that they might be a fun read, not necessarily because I need it. I probably actually use about a quarter of the books that I own. As soon as a book becomes prohibitively expensive, it drops right off the radar. Most points that needed to be made on both sides have been made. My opinion remains the same - the book's just too expensive.
Acmite
First Post
Re: Fun History on U.S.-Canada Relations
You imply that if Stanton had convinced Lincoln, the invasion would have succeeded without doubt.
The War of 1812 (which Americans often conveniently forget) suggests otherwise.
I'm no history expert but, as far as I know, the Quebec separation movement is largely a modern thing (~1960s). Canada wasn't even a country until 1867, so I doubt the French Canadians would have allied themselves with the Americans--but there is no way to know for sure.
But assuming that the divided US could have walked over Canada seems ill-conceived considering we are the only ones to ever burn down the White House.
Crusty Older DM said:A little known fact of North American History:
Now what I have always wondered is the following: If Stanton had gotten his way, would the U.S. have given Quebec its independence? Was there a movement for Quebec independence in the 1860's? Maybe Stanton would have cut a deal with the Quebecois for their support on his bid for Canada.
Fun imponderables for alternate history settings.
You imply that if Stanton had convinced Lincoln, the invasion would have succeeded without doubt.
The War of 1812 (which Americans often conveniently forget) suggests otherwise.
I'm no history expert but, as far as I know, the Quebec separation movement is largely a modern thing (~1960s). Canada wasn't even a country until 1867, so I doubt the French Canadians would have allied themselves with the Americans--but there is no way to know for sure.
But assuming that the divided US could have walked over Canada seems ill-conceived considering we are the only ones to ever burn down the White House.
Just for the record ...
... Nyambe is an Atlas book. I can't speak intelligently about price effects due to international sales or any of that stuff. I just wanted to clarify. Carry on!
word,
Will Hindmarch
Atlas Games
... Nyambe is an Atlas book. I can't speak intelligently about price effects due to international sales or any of that stuff. I just wanted to clarify. Carry on!
word,
Will Hindmarch
Atlas Games
Last edited:
Paradigm
First Post
Re: Re: Fun History on U.S.-Canada Relations
A) The US in 1860 (even divided) was drastically more populated and more heavily industrialized than Canada. Whereas the US was not drastically more populated or heavily industrialized than Canada in 1812.
B) Invading Canada was a bad idea in 1812 because the assumption that Canadians wanted to be free of Britain was flawed.
C) None of this means that anything would have succeeded without a doubt.
D) If the US had succeeded in taking Canada in 1812, our currency would be worthless, but we would have better beer.
E) Point D was made tongue-in-cheek.
F) How the heck did this thread end up here?
Acmite said:
You imply that if Stanton had convinced Lincoln, the invasion would have succeeded without doubt.
The War of 1812 (which Americans often conveniently forget) suggests otherwise.
But assuming that the divided US could have walked over Canada seems ill-conceived considering we are the only ones to ever burn down the White House.
A) The US in 1860 (even divided) was drastically more populated and more heavily industrialized than Canada. Whereas the US was not drastically more populated or heavily industrialized than Canada in 1812.
B) Invading Canada was a bad idea in 1812 because the assumption that Canadians wanted to be free of Britain was flawed.
C) None of this means that anything would have succeeded without a doubt.
D) If the US had succeeded in taking Canada in 1812, our currency would be worthless, but we would have better beer.
E) Point D was made tongue-in-cheek.
F) How the heck did this thread end up here?
Similar Threads
