If your interested, the IGO

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Ralph,

Even though we disagree on many points, we strangely agree on one: The Forge could do a lot of this work for people who don't want to finagle with self-publishing. (More on this below.) My problem with all of the above is that you're signing away your creative control when you get someone else to publish your stuff, and retaining control of your product is actually the definition of independent.

Ok - as for The Forge, I haven't really mentioned this, just in case it never happens, but I've been working on a piece of software, provisionally called Anvil, that will allow you to self-publish with little work on your part. It would be hosted here, and allow you to create HTML pages, from which you could create PDF's (kind of bare-bones, but still PDF's) and control whether they are free downloads or for sale.

All the products in Anvil would use the same system for selling, and you could retrieve copies of everything you've bought all from this site.

The coolest part to me, since I'm a huge geek, is the URL system. If you were to publish Universalis, for example, on Anvil, the URL would look like:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/anvil/valamir/universalis

All your stuff would be under

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/anvil/valamir/

which is a cool, stable URL you could even put on business cards.

Here's the difference, though - The Forge would own nothing, and get no money whatsoever, keeping complete control in your hands, and keeping everything independent.

Note: this software is still being worked on, and is kind of a pipe dream. I don't want anyone getting their hopes up of seeing this soon.

[Zak Arntson]

Ron, good point. I suppose I was just concentrating on trying to wring something positive about this weird IGO (which, if/when I ever want to start some kind of "rerelease your old stuff" movement, I'll start a new thread).

Here are my thoughts on the matters:

1) This item seems like a pretty lofty goal. Acquiring publishing rights to out-of-print products while keeping a non-profit status? Ignoring the fact that it is possible, is it feasible, and are companies willing to play along?

2) I'm reading #2 as if they're still talking about out-of-print games. That's fine (though I'm still wary of the constant mention of not-for-profit), but I side with others here in saying, "How is this any different than the current commercial model?" The only thing I can come up with is "not-for-profit." Does this mean creators don't get paid?

3) A lobbying force? It sounds like IGO could be a vocal minority trying to speak for all gamers. And what do they propose to be a "good" decision? They aren't differentiating themselves enough from commercial RPG companies or touting creator's rights to claim goodness.

My big question, then, is how does IGO plan to operate? The three goals seem disconnected and need further explanation or support. Should we try and drag the IGO folks to the Forge?

Lastly, Clinton makes an excellent point with translating "planning" and "please join" to mean "Nothnig will ever come of this."

[Valamir]

I hear you Clinton.  But there are ways to word a contract that don't strip creative control and allow publishing rights to revert to the creator if the publisher fails to follow through on their committments.  Most of the horror stories you referred to are IMO from folks who don't know much about reading a contract let alone negotiating one.

But that's a whole 'nother issue.

In regards to your Forge plans.  Can I get a "Hell Yeah".

That's very slick, and really takes the Forge to the next level beyond just talking about indie-publishing to actually facilitating it.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Ralph,

I think you and I are reading "not for profit" differently. I read it as saying that the creators of the ideas or systems will not be paid. I think you're reading it as the publishers of the games using those ideas and systems will not be taking (expecting? making?) profit from them in some way. Or rather, I think I'm not understanding how you're reading "not for profit" (rather than put words in your mouth).

My reading is what's yielding my intense reaction. By that reading, Job Bob Idea generates a wicked-good magic system in his play group, and these IGO guys generously permit said system to float straight to (say) WotC, "Thanks, Joe Bob!"

If, on the other hand, "not for profit" applies to the publishers, then I don't have this terrible reaction (ie all that nasty rhetoric in my previous post), but I do stare in puzzlement and wonder why the hell a publisher would do anything requiring their judgment, money, and attention, except for profit. This reading would put #2 in the same Rabbit Hole category as #3.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

I was reading the not for profit thing this way.

1) "we want to get these independent games out there, we'll try to get them hooked up with a publisher."  In this case IGO functions as something of an "agent" who's more likely to get a game idea considered than joe bob off the street.

2) "if we can't find a publisher, we'll publish it ourselves in a not-for profit manner".

I did interpret #2 as being IGO was forgoing a cut as you correctly surmised...but even if it meant neither IGO or the Creator was getting a cut (i.e. not for profit by either party) thats not that huge of an issue, since most of these projects aren't likely to generate much profit anyway.

I certainly did not read anything implying "we'll take your great game idea and give it to WoTC for free".

But whose to really say.  The release was not detailed, there is no clear cut plan, and no indication of how they'd finance any of it.

[Dav]

All;

As stated empahtically by others, #1 seems a good goal, but one that is easily sustained (at no cost) by posting such gaming material for free via .pdf or other avenues of online publishing.  However, the acquisition of these materials seems highly uncertain to me.  For instance, I LOVE Tales of the Floating Vagabond, but, I have no idea who to go to for rights.  And the valuation of those rights are rather fuzzy as: 1) this is a NFP organization, and thus operates despite economic prediction, and 2) the creator, copyright-holder, and organization will 100% have three different valuations of this IP.

#2 on the goal-list seems downright insane.  Yes, insane.  1) who is the deciding factor of who is, and who is not creatiing "creative stuff", and 2) in any system consisting of a nigh-infinite array of options (such as RPG market), the ability to quantitatively identify, with any real marketable accuracy (which is different from statistical accuracy), the aggregate mean of the population is impossible (I refer you to Dr. Charles King, as well as derivative works on the Black-Sholes equation and Riemann-Zeta functions for reference).  The reasoning is simply that there is only the most ambiguous and arbitrary cross-over (meaning, you may think that wild west and feudal japan have some connection... that guy over there may not), thus defining desire based upon a utility axis of like vs. dislike of various paradigms of setting/design/system/art is not feasible.  

#3 is right out.  I don't want what you want don't want what he wants don't want what she wants...  While we share similar goals on the Forge, due to the main constraint that we all agree to participate on the Forge for the express purpose of aiding the design,and establishment of legitimacy, of indie-RPGs, as soon as money changes hands, I'm not on your boat, I'm in mine.  Intellectual and critical discourse and debate is fine and dandy, mainly because I don't pay for my ideas, and (I'm assuming) you don't either.  But put something at stake, put a pie to be divvied amongst various groups with different resources, acumen, and ambition, and you have what many might consider a cluster-fuck of the Mongolian persuasion.  

Lastly, the idea of a NFP corporation merely means that 1) the board of the company cannot make profit, and 2) that the company cannot show economic profit at the end of any fiscal year.  This specifically does NOT include any third parties, work-for-hire or for-contract that the company may designate, or internal workers who are not members of the board.  Thus a NFP can make beaucoup bucks, it just cannot give those bucks to the people that sign-off on the decisions.  This means there is no problem, legally, with anyone the company deals with to acquire rights for publication making all the $$ the company can shovel at them (this does not reflect clever management or marketing, and should not mean that this is what would happen, but that it is perfectly reasonable from a legal stand-point).

Were I you, I would run, not walk, away from these people and train attack animals to hamstring anyone from the IGO that may find their way near your property.  Besides, council-decisions regarding economic ventures are bad ideas... always.  One person needs to stand at the top.  This does not seem to have that either.

Dav

[JSDiamond]

I think that what is implied by using certain words is naive at best and plain old misleading at worst.

Also, as someone once said, "If they are buying up (or soliciting) other's ideas for publishing, it's because their own stuff stinks."  

And this last is more of a gut feeling kind of thing: Every time that I read a post, or hear someone say, "Hey we are gamers for gamers"  "Games made by real gamers" and so on in that cover tag-line flavor, I automatically raise the shields.  I liken that to politicians who appear in flannel shirts at building sites, and the shirt still has all of its creases because it was just pulled from the package.

Not meaning to rant anything...

Jeff