Going from Mainstream to Independent?

[thwaak]

Heya,

There are plenty of games that started off as independent ventures and made the jump to mainstream publishing/success, but what of the reverse?

Have any games started as being published under a mainstream situation (via an established game company (eg White Wolf))and then later being published independently, and possibly with different rules, and still been a success?

I'm curious about the relationship between independent and mainstream games whether it's basically a 'one way street'.

Thanks,
-Brent

[Josh Roby]

In terms of authors, not book lines, you have John Wick as a notable example.  Brand Robins has done a lot of work for the mainstreamers and is getting around to eventually doing an indie design.  I've done a very little bit of writing for Tribe 8.

But as far as book lines, it's a rare case.  The IP belongs to the originating company, and they'd have to sell it off to an individual who wanted to develop it, and generally speaking, they wouldn't sell it cheap.  The only example I can think of currently is Edge of Midnight, which was developed at Alderac but given to Rob Vaux when Alderac dissolved.

[MatrixGamer]

In the rather small world of miniatures gaming the flow between "mainstream" and "independent" is more fluid. In the 70's there were lots of essentially amateur games that sold widely. "Squad Leader" was a boardgame version of the house miniatures rules at the Purdue University wargame club. That obviously went mainstream and since it lingers must have some success after Avalon Hill. Another Purdue wargame club game "Johnnie Reb" had a mainstream presence and then reverted to John Hill who kept it going as a indie game. "The Sword and the Flame" 19th Century British Colonial rules was very influential in colonial wargaming and continues as a smaller game (though it never ever had a wide impact on the market). "Warfare in the Age of Reason" did well for an 18th Century wargame and still continues.

The best example of an indie/mainstream game are the ones put out by Phil Barker "DBA" "DBM" etc. They never  had good production values but could be found all over.

Perhaps the analogy between wargaming and role playing though is a poor one. Wargaming was the heart of the hobby in the early 70's. Role playing surpassed it and supplanted it years ago. I remember the historical miniatures guys griping about getting worse and worse space at Gen Con. Since they were no longer mainstream they largely bowed out of the commercial side of the hobby. The Historical Miniatures Gaming Society (HMGS) created it's own network of game conventions that only serve their needs. That's were I developed my games at. They are fun shows but they are not good places to make money.  If role playing becomes more marginalized in mainstream gaming it might end up going it's own way as well.

I wonder how much the Forge is a step in that direction?

Game Designers Workshop (GDW) made mainstream games and was dedicated to historical miniatures. They eventually closed shop. Games Workshop (GW) on the otherhand always aimed at selling expensive figures and glossy books. I'm prejudiced in this regard (the GDW guys are friends of mine) but I've never thought of GW rules as being good or innovative. So marketing won out over innovation and quality, or should I say innovation went it's own way and is quite happy with it's decision rather than allowing itself to be bitch slapped by dwarfs with mowhawks.

There is an exchange between the glitzy mass sale oriented game and the indie game. They feed off one another. It's just not an equal exchange.

I'll be interested to see what people say about role play games and your question.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[Andrew Cooper]

What about HeroQuest?  I'm not completely sure about the history but didn't HQ start out as RuneQuest and then HeroWars, which were published mainstream (whatever that means)?  I know that I used to play RuneQuest when it was an Avalon Hill product.

[Luke]

The boys at Spycraft are also in an interesting predictament. They broke away from AEG so they could continue to support Spycraft, but they're licensing their own game (even though they have full creative control).
-L

[Kesher]

Howdy.

There's a French game called Reve that was mainstream in Europe (I forget the company) but has now gone indie in on online, pod, English version through Malcontent Games.

Francois Levy, the guy who translated it and started the company is a fine, friendly fellow who I'm sure would be more than happy to fill you in on the ride they had ironing out rights, etc.

Aaron

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This conversation is totally not working, because the term "mainstream" is not defined. I've identified what look to be three separate meanings for it in this thread so far.

Brent, for this to work out better, you're going to have to do one thing. You said,

There are plenty of games that started off as independent ventures and made the jump to mainstream publishing/success

What games do you mean? When, exactly?

It is very likely that your statement can be challenged at the outset, without moving on to the secondary question, but it depends on what you are actually saying. Please let us know.

Best, Ron

[thwaak]

Heya Ron,

Right you are.  I made some poor word choices. This thread was spawned when I read this old article at gaming outpost.  It's an old article (written in 1999) and the author makes some interesting assumptions about the future of 'small press' (the author's term, not mine).

Looking back on it, there is a lot that can be discussed, but the thing I took away from it was a notion that small press flows toward big press (my term to counterpoint the authors); that all independent ventures start at the small press stage and look to make it to the big press stage. What I am interested in is whether any big press moved in apparent reverse toward small press... by reducing size*, cultivating a small press feel, changing rules of their game to be Story Now, and so on. Would there be any reason to?

Thanks,
-Brent



* A conscious choice to reduce the size of the game company based on ideals, rather than economic factors.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Brent,

The trouble is that the article offers a phrase or two of sense embedded in a frightening mass of mistaken assumptions or beliefs.

He's talking about budgets, production value, publishing schedule, and breadth of distribution. Let's throw out your use of "independent" and "mainstream" altogether - those terms aren't anything to do with the variables he's talking about. Even "small press" isn't quite right for this purpose,  because that refers mainly to the size of one's print runs. I really think he and you are talking about grass-roots.

If all he was saying is that some companies start small in these variables (budgets, production value, publishing schedule, and breadth of distribution) and then increase them, or some of them, that's a no-brainer. Of course they do. He was also correct that PDFs - by which actually, he should say "internet publishing," PDF is merely a file format - offer a way for grass-roots companies to build audiences, and that can facilitate increasing their business and hence budgets.

However, he's also writing from the perspective of the economic beliefs of the time, already obsolete by the time of writing, but which are only just now beginning to be questioned by these folks. One of those beliefs is that if you start with a pile of money and therefore with high production value and wide distribution, that your game must offer a better play-experience (not be "off-kilter" in his terms). Another is that you need to become a massive company in order to achieve high production value and wide distribution. Yet another is that the grass-roots were somehow dying or floundering at the time of writing, which only illustrates his (at the time common) separation from the realities of the situation. It was booming. What he was reacting to was the fact that many companies begun in the early-mid 1990s foolishly ran themselves straight into bankruptcy by over-extending their production and distribution at the outset.

So let's take a look at your question. What this is, is the equivalent of a band which becomes pretty popular, and then loses some degree of its audience or, for some reason, has lost a significant portion of its capital, and so must scale back its expenses. The most important thing for such a band is to choose the right venues ... if you can't fill the Coliseum, then don't try; look for the best bars or university ballrooms that you know you can fill.

In role-playing, the venues for such a "scale-back" are not very well defined or understood. Only a few people have managed to do it and still hope to remain economically viable (which is, after all, the point of doing so in the first place).

1. The fragmentation of The Chaosium may be a good example. I am not well-informed enough to describe the hows and whys, but by the late 1990s, the properties of this fairly large RPG company had been divided or separated across at least three, maybe more different owners. I'd suggest asking some of the principals in that story about the details. However, the two sets that I'm most familiar with, Green Ronin and Issaries Inc, did continue with high production value and a determined run at traditional distribution. I can't speak to how well they've done financially.

2. R. Talsorian is an excellent example. This company began as a pure, raving, by-Forge-definition independent, as well as grass-roots (which is really what Mangold and you are talking about), and then quickly expanded its line and its products. However, due to life-realities and some budgetary crunches, Mike and Lisa Pondsmith eventually reduced their investment and their just-then-increasing reliance on work-for-hire. The company exists, but at a smaller scale of budget and distribution.

(I thought it was especially aggravating when, upon selling some Cyberpunk supplements for Mike and Lisa at the Forge booth, I was snottily informed by a customer that these books were "out of print" and "not independent," both of which statements were false and ignorant.)

3. Marc Millar and Traveller are another. The complications and negotiations about the property called "Traveller" are way too involved for my poor brain, so all I know, or think I know, is that Marc did, in fact, eventually get sole ownership of the original materials, and now sells them as "Marc Millar's Traveller," separately and distinctly from a lot of material that had expanded the line of books when its ownership (in Forge terms) was not independent. However, don't get me wrong; although as you can see I'm easily distracted by the independence-issue, I'm still talking about grass-rootness, and as I understand it, Marc's books and production are handled at that level.

There are other examples too, especially companies which offer only PDFs of what used to be books.

My question to you is, so what?

Best, Ron

[thwaak]

My question to you is, so what?

Best, Ron

Heya Ron,

It's personal Interest. As you might remember from another thread, I'm in a position to have a game published officially for Savage Worlds, though I keep the rights and creative control. I have been toying with the idea of going through with that, and then later revamping the game (both in content and rules) and do the whole (grass-roots, small press, independent, whatever) thing.  I'm not really leaning towards this concept, but I wanted to get as much information before I made a decision. As always, The Forge has been very helpful in this regard.

Thanks,
-Brent

[Matt Snyder]

However, the two sets that I'm most familiar with, Green Ronin and Issaries Inc, did continue with high production value and a determined run at traditional distribution. I can't speak to how well they've done financially.

Clarification: Ron, I think you mean Green Knight, not Green Ronin. Green Knight carried on the Pendragon license, I believe. Green Ronin didn't exist until after the 90s.

[Ron Edwards]

*Smack self*

Green Knight, Knight = Round Table, Round Table = King Arthur, King Arthur = Pendragon ... I'm doing my best Ben Stiller and saying "I knew that." No one else make a company with Green in its name, OK? My head hurts already.*

Anyway, at least it reminded me that I was having a discussion on this thread. Brent, you wrote,

As you might remember from another thread, I'm in a position to have a game published officially for Savage Worlds, though I keep the rights and creative control. I have been toying with the idea of going through with that, and then later revamping the game (both in content and rules) and do the whole (grass-roots, small press, independent, whatever) thing.

There's some merit to the idea that another company could help pump your game out there into the big bad world. However, you should consider whether they really can get more games out and sold than you could do on your own (of course, they claim they can).

In the realm of blatant speculation, it might be good to wonder whether, if their branding is that important, your reversal/removal of that branding will be a problem later. As I say, this is pure speculation and no obvious answer is possible.

The only really concrete advice I can think of is to set exactly when and how full authority over the book reverts to you. I strongly recommend making it a fixed time or copies-sold limit, or both, and not letting yourself into the classic contract in which they only sell it back to you once they start losing money on it (and it thus being worthless to you, probably). This bullshit tied up a hell of a lot of great comics titles in the 1980s.

Best, Ron

* Dammit, Em.