A Philisophical Question

[Buddha Nature]

Why do you create games?  Do you do it for the money?  Do you do it for the fame?  Do you do it to make the RPG community that much better?  Do you do it as a piece of self expression and nothing more?

The reason I ask is I wonder alot about charging for games, or at least charging everyone.  I think one of the things I hate the most about the normal RPG world is the fact that _everyone_ has to buy a copy of the book--everyone!  That is a lot of money out of a lot of pockets.

Do people ever think about other options, like "donation-ware?"  If you like the game hit this PayPal button and give me some cash.

Has anyone looked into open licencing like the GNU Free Documentation Licence?  What this might mean would be you could (and maybe would) still publish (in hardcopy form) your work, but that the person who buys it then has the freedom to do with it what he wants but the licence applies to whatever they do to it.  They could make copies for their friends, or they could add on to the system and publish it themselves.  You as the writer would still have the copyright, but you would also have "copylefted" it - allowing it to be freely (or expensively) distributed beyond.

An electronic version of this scenario could be something like this:

You write a game, you lay it out with art and tables and make it into a PDF.  You would also make it into a text file (no pretty charts or pictures).  You would then charge however much you wanted for the "package" of the stylish PDF and the "source code" text file.

Joe Buyer pays your $10 pricetag and downloads your game.  He then prints it out.  He shows it to his friends, gives them the package (or maybe charges them $2 each).  They play the game.  They fall in love with it and want to add on to it and expand it.  So they take that text file and add on their own tweaks (adding or subtracting but stating that they did so) and lay it out with their own graphics and tables.  They then make a PDF and (because of the licencing agreement) the "source code" text file and sell it (or give it away) on their website, or print it and sell it at cons.

What would people think of this?  I am pretty sure that if/when I make a game I will probably do it this way.  To be honest I care most about just getting a cool new game out there, not profits.  I worked for a game company - we made a card game (that was pretty damn popular), but the costs were so high that we had to stop publishing.

Anyway, just something to think about from the guy who should sleep but wants to eat.

-Shane

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Shane,

Some related issues were discussed in a thread called An exercise in vanity?. Seems that this thread might as well pick up from there, or at least take its points into account.

For clarity's sake, I should mention that that discussion took place before Sorcerer was published as a book, and its details refer to Sorcerer as a PDF product.

Best,
Ron

[Zak Arntson]

I love to write games. And since none of them are more than, say, 3 pages printed, I don't see much point in selling them for profit. I spend a few hours writing it up/laying it out/drawing a logo and there you go. I think charging for it would be unfair, as they are generally unplaytested (see Superpets Questions for Zak for an example of one of my broken games)

If I wrote a 15-20+ page game that had most of the kinks worked out, yes, I would consider charging for it. There would be enough effort put into the thing that charging would be both understandable, considering the effort and size of the thing. But then, for me to pack a game into that many pages would require a lot of effort. I feel that from me, that many pages would be pretty durn meaty.

Currently, I'm considering putting a PayPal donation option on my site, allowing people to freely help me pay for server space. This probably won't generate much revenue (I'm thinking: none), but it may add an air of legitimacy to the site.

Also, 2003 or 2004, I'm planning on making bundles of my free games (and possibly new ones) in print form for sale. Rewriting, nice layout, commissioned artwork, etc.

That's my plan, so that's what I think. Now, Ron's tried a different method: Providing your playtest via email (for free) and the final .pdf (for money). This is a great way to establish a relationship between you and your customers, and is also something I've considered. There's an added, perceived value to the product: The more work you put into something, the more likely you will be to use it. If you have to email Ron, you'll be more attached to the product. If you have to pay for it, you feel like you should use it even more!

[Le Joueur]

Why do you create games?  Do you do it for the money?  Do you do it for the fame?  Do you do it to make the RPG community that much better?  Do you do it as a piece of self-expression and nothing more?

Not for the money; hey, who wouldn't like a little fame, but no; I'm also neither that altruistic nor that much an artiste!.

Why?  Because I don't seem to be able to not create them.  Many have pointed out that I have done more to crack my skull open thinking about gaming then anyone they know.  That's because it's always 'back there,' in the dim recesses of my mind.  Whenever I see something cool, I find myself thinking, "I wonder if I could make that a game."

What does that mean in a practical sense?  Well, I certainly don't want to own my own business; I have better things to spend my money on.  As a matter of fact, despite the plethora of gaming materials coming from me, I hardly have the motivation to do the freelance thing either.

Fame would be nice, but my only real reason for game design is so my head don't bust open.  Since having something in print (on paper, on the shelves, in the stores, and all that entails) might be kinda nice, but I have no interest whatsoever in publishing myself, I began designing a game that I could 'sell out.'  I know that probably makes me a bad boy in the indie-rpg community ('creator ownership rules!'), but honestly my goals in fruition are at cross purposes with independent ownership (my design goals on the other hand are very much in-line with independent design).

Actually, I find that the more requirements (read that design specifications) I put on what I create, the more stimulating the process.  So a couple of the earliest were that it would 'market well' in accords with my observations.  That caused our game to go from a system to a product line, et cetera, et cetera.

The reason I ask is I wonder a lot about charging for games, or at least charging everyone.  I think one of the things I hate the most about the normal RPG world is the fact that _everyone_ has to buy a copy of the book--everyone!  That is a lot of money out of a lot of pockets.

As much as I loathe the idea of self-publishing my material, I have had many thoughts along this line.  Ron is by far the most experienced on the practical end of this question, but I've had a few unique ideas along these lines.

Why does everyone have to buy a copy of the book?  On the practical end of real world publishing I can think of two reasons.  It keeps the designers fed and the fact that all the information is in one product.  Since I have no interest in struggling with the former, let me address the latter.

Bringing something to print is a chore; bringing four things to print is almost four times as much work.  Still, here is the model Scattershot is exploring: there will be 12 core books, each going into great detail examining a specific genre (this would ordinarily be the 'book that everyone has to buy').  There will also be a 'mechanix only' volume that is smaller, far cheaper, and hopefully fits in your back pocket.  (I still remember the pocket games that Steve Jackson put out before GURPS, does anyone else?)  This provides instant access to the mechanics so that the players (theoretically the 'others who had to buy the book') don't have to 'shell out' as much.  What about genre specific mechanics?  These appear in a slightly abbreviated form for free on the web site and at conventions.

There will also be a number of satellite products; where the core book will detail a genre (with an archetypical example game) the satellites will detail a specific incarnation of the genre.  (As an example, there is a cyberpunk core book and there could be a Matrix satellite.)  What the satellites lose in not having exhaustive detail of mechanics and the broad genre treatment, they make up by presenting deep penetration into a single game (full of 'character') that can be run simply from the satellite product alone.  (The price point aimed for here is below $20 - below $15, if we're lucky.)  People who 'want more' than a simple 'deep penetration' will be directed back to the core product for further treatment.

There will also be a number of other freebies, rudimentary character generation, basic gamemastering, conflict in a nutshell; the game is designed specifically to scale this way and reach a wider range of price points.  (Right now we're looking at three stages of this scale, one for free, that one or the next for satellites, and detailed for the core product line.)  On the downside, the publisher will have a wider range of products to support, but they interrelate enough that cross-sales are likely.  Furthermore, the concept of the satellites is expressly short-term; they are meant to catch-the-wave of fad and evaporate as quickly.  Being based on a solid core mechanic means that the only thing that needs development is the 'impact' material.  We are exploring the idea of using licensing in the satellites to reach people outside of the gaming community who may like role-playing games provided proper exposure.

This is how we intend to address the fiscal issues you discuss, providing both a product line that 'collectors' can help themselves to, as well as enough free materials for the 'low end of the market.'  The principle component is how these all lead back to a central product line that does not need redevelopment making it cheaper in the long run.

Fang Langford

(Now if we could just snag that all-important publisher and 'sell out,' no wait, make that 'cash in.')

[JSDiamond]

For the p_ssy, definitely.


J

[contracycle]

I have no interest in charging for an RPG product whatsoever.

I will not pay for PDF's, personally.  A PDF is not a product, IMO, and I see no reason to pay for simple information.

[Zak Arntson]

I will not pay for PDF's, personally.  A PDF is not a product, IMO, and I see no reason to pay for simple information.

I don't understand how a PDF is different than a published product, or even a piece of software. An ebook isn't much different (in spirit) than a printed book. It should be cheaper (printing costs are nil), but shouldn't be free (the author needs to make a living).

Do you feel the same towards a 2 page PDF versus a 100 page PDF? Personally, I wouldn't pay for a 2-20 page PDF, unless it were CHEAP or somehow very compelling. Anything more than that (and I were interested) I'd consider it. The author put that much work into it, you know?

[Clay]

For the p_ssy, definitely.

Jared definitely hangs with a different crowd than I do, if designing a game gets him that. I think I need to start making a different class of game.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

For the p_ssy, definitely.

Jared definitely hangs with a different crowd than I do, if designing a game gets him that. I think I need to start making a different class of game.

You know, it took me two days to figure out what the hell he was talking about. Anyway, hmm. That was JSDiamond (of Orbit fame) btw, not me.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I will not pay for PDF's, personally.  A PDF is not a product, IMO, and I see no reason to pay for simple information.

I don't understand how a PDF is different than a published product, or even a piece of software. An ebook isn't much different (in spirit) than a printed book. It should be cheaper (printing costs are nil), but shouldn't be free (the author needs to make a living).

This part of the discussion needs to be dropped immediately from public display. It involves a sensitive subject. (what is information worth?)

Plus, I can sense myself about to tear some people a new asshole on this one, and if I'm ready to fight about it, I imagine others are to.

[J B Bell]

Clinton,

Hopefully this response will skirt your wrath.  Certainly mentioning the GPL in any form invokes the terrible demons of arguing about intellectual property, so it's slightly germaine, but I'll try to keep from addressing the value of one view over another.

I like FUDGE's license.  It's not greatly viral--something the GPL is criticized or praised for, depending who you are--and it's quite simple.  In sum, the wonderful Mr. O'Sullivan says you can use FUDGE in any game, and if you're not charging for it, do what you like.  If you do wish to charge for it, he asks you to work something out with him.  Lately this has meant working through Grey Ghost Games, but that doesn't appear to be compulsory at all.[*]

Obviously, you can write your own license however you want.  Perhaps a less flame-prone way to break this down would be:  here's a license I thought up, does anyone have any ideas about the real-world consequences?  Or:  I want my game to be distributed this way, what kind of license will fit my values?

--JB

[*] This could lead us to a game that might rightly be called "borderline indie," come to think of it.  If I publish a game, including innovative mechanics of my own design, but depending on the FUDGE engine and burdened with a licensing agreement with O'Sullivan, is it an indie game?  Just idle maundering, if anyone really wants to take that up, it should be a new thread.