What's Your Price Limit?

[Gorgon Zee]

I'm not trying to be diffficult but I don't see any contradiction at between what he said

I appreciate that. As I stated, his statement wasn't totally clear.

On the contrary it looks like you're really just demonstrating how he was right. Your actual examples don't show "most games" at all. Instead they're a collection of the some of the most popular games. The only even slightly obscure one is DramaSystem.

Well, if we define pretty much any game that is less obscure than DramaSystem as "popular", sure. But his actual statement was: "While it's true that a certain few core books are absurdly good value if and only if they're attached to incredibly popular games,"

Even being generous, I cannot call Pendragon, Fiasco, My Life With Master, AD&D and Pendragon "incredibly popular". And the statement also restricted to core books only, which further limits. And not even all core books, just a few of them!

Overall, I was pushing back against the post's general theme that it's rare (only for "incredibly popular" systems; only for "core" books) for games to be "forever games".
If I read him wrong, then no worries!

My belief, backed by convention games lists and personal experience is that it is common for people to buy and play games "forever" (defined as at least around 2 decades)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Even being generous, I cannot call Pendragon, Fiasco, My Life With Master, AD&D and Pendragon "incredibly popular".

I mean, Pendragon is so popular you listed it twice!

But I would definitely say that Pendragon is one of the more popular RPGs out there, and AD&D was unquestionably "incredibly popular" for about 20 years, which is presumably when you bought it, no? No king rules forever, sure, but a decade or two of being incredibly popular has to count. Fiasco and My Life With Master are two of the most popular and well-known "indie" RPGs.

You also listed Call of Cthulhu as an example. Worldwide that's probably only second to D&D in popularity. I suspect a lot more people play it than say, Pathfinder 1E or 2E or both together. That's the definition of "incredibly popular" and a "core book"

Re: DramaSystem, I'd actually say that there's a pretty huge jump down in how popular and well-known that is from everything else you listed.

 

[CleverNickName]

I get about $30/week in spending money, after all of my financial obligations are taken care of. That's usually enough to buy myself lunch on occasion, or have a quick pint after work with some friends, whatever. As far as my gaming hobby is concerned, it's usually enough to get a couple of PDFs off of DriveThruRPG, or get a discounted game on Steam, or help crowdfund something that looks interesting.

I tend to think of games and other purchases in terms of weeks, rather than dollars. And it's very rare for me to spend more than 2 weeks paying for a game. So my price limit would be $60 at the moment.

But once my student loans are paid off? That limit will go up quite a bit.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My own feeling is twofold:

1. Does it genuinely interest me, either to read or play (and yes, I'm quite capable of finding a way to run games off the beaten path; not a single game I've participated in as a player or GM has been D&D proper, and more than half haven't even been D&D adjacent)? I might well buy the needed books piecemeal, but I'll buy them.

2. That said, I don't need, or even want to buy most books in physical mode, and PDFs usually run anywhere from two thirds to half the cost of the physical books.

So likely that SF2e buy in would be around 60-70 bucks. If I'm actually going to run that, that's fine (and I'll note I'd probably spend that much or more on fiction series I couldn't find at the library).

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I mean, Pendragon is so popular you listed it twice!

I do love it!

But I would definitely say that Pendragon is one of the more popular RPGs out there, and AD&D was unquestionably "incredibly popular" for about 20 years, which is presumably when you bought it, no? No king rules forever, sure, but a decade or two of being incredibly popular has to count. Fiasco and My Life With Master are two of the most popular and well-known "indie" RPGs.

Pendragon does have 23 events running at Gen Con, which is over a third of one percent of all RPG events, and more than I expected. "My Life with Master" is sadly unrepresented. But honestly I am so happy to hear "Pendragon" and "My Life with Master" categorized as popular I don't want to push back!

 

[Celebrim]

Pendragon does have 23 events running at Gen Con, which is over a third of one percent of all RPG events, and more than I expected. "My Life with Master" is sadly unrepresented. But honestly I am so happy to hear "Pendragon" and "My Life with Master" categorized as popular I don't want to push back!

"My Life with Master" is on the short list of con events I actually would want to do. Although, I'm increasingly disappointed at the level of GMing in con events and a bit sour on the whole thing now. Maybe 1 in 3 meet the standard of what I would consider an average GM, and maybe 1 in 10 are really good. This is below the average rather than above the average, and well if you were paying for an event I'd expect above average ability.

Same sort of thing with a book. I'll pay $90 for a good book, but I'll feel like I wasted my money if I spent $45 and got no useful content out of it.

 

[Morrus]

I paid attention to your numbers, and found them nonsensical half thoughts,

Dial it back please. There is very little appetite on this forum right now for posts like this.

 

[Umbran]

I thought better of it.

 

[Retreater]

Comparing the dollar amount of RPG books to entertainment per hour isn't a fair comparison to say - a video game or movie.
If I were running Starfinder, a big portion of that investment is my prep, the campaign design, the adventure creation. It's not just the "$4 per hour of fun" for the players.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

"My Life with Master" is on the short list of con events I actually would want to do. Although, I'm increasingly disappointed at the level of GMing in con events and a bit sour on the whole thing now. Maybe 1 in 3 meet the standard of what I would consider an average GM, and maybe 1 in 10 are really good. This is below the average rather than above the average, and well if you were paying for an event I'd expect above average ability.

Yeah, it can be a real issue. If I go to a big con, I might play 8 games and I'd expect one to be awful, one to be great and the rest OK. I've found that unaffiliated GMs running games written 10+ years ago have a high proportion of games towards the awful end of things, sadly.

On the other hand, Games on Demand -- often featuring newer indie games -- has been consistently good for me. I also often end up playing Pathfinder at cons, because even if the GM isn't great, I can have fun with the mechanical side of things.
Our local group has several high quality GMs. So it is not uncommon for me to be at a con wishing they were running for me. But I learn a lot from con GMs and players, and almost every con I have a (good) experience I would not have had in one of my home group games. This year's Origins was actually great -- GMs at or above average skill levels, played 4 new systems and learned whether I wanted to play/run them, and got to play my level 10 PF character. So although it can be a mixed and disappointing bag, I still roll the dice and go ...