Revision concerns

[Jason Morningstar]

Hey independent designer-publishers,

So The Roach has been available for a little while now and done well, and I'm getting a lot of good actual play and critical feedback on what works and what could work better.  I feel like I could change a few things around, add a couple of pages, and strengthen the game.  I could actually add a whole bunch of stuff that would prove useful, actually. 

When do you revise?  Is it a bad idea to make changes within six months of publication?  Should I just add supplementary content to the Web site and point people to it, or fix it in the book when I reprint (which will be very soon)? 

I'm looking for feedback, experiences, and suggestions.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jason,

As we're functioning in a developing new activity, a new marketing environment, a new community-of-practice, and a new economy of use ... geez, I think we have to make up answers to questions like those as we go along. Your guess is as good as mine. I mean, there's a lot of collective experience here, but I don't think there's any guarantee that a decision made for better or for worse in 2002 is going to be directly applicable today.

For what it's worth, here are my very personal thoughts based on what's happened so far, but as I say, what's best now is terra incognita.

1. Supplemental and corrective material at the website is a very, very good thing. People readily forgive errors or omissions when they are shown that you care enough (a) to admit them and (b) to provide helpful stuff. There's a certain recognition out there that one can say "hey!" about one's own work and fix something.

2. Revision of the book itself? Well, the line between amending and revision seems to carry some cultural weight. What you're talking about reads more like "amending" to me, and if you agree, then I think you simply make the emendations in the file currently being used for printing, and carry on from there when you roll into printing more. (I think this is really needs to be combined with #1, though.)

Others may disagree and consider any change of note to be a "revision," requiring an announcement, a new cover, a big "second edition" promotion and look, and so on. Bluntly, I think that's a holdover from abusive marketing practices that are now considered standard among the adherents to the three-tier, retail-heavy RPG publishing approach. Universalis was completely written for its release at GenCon 2006. I see that as "revised." Adding a paragraph or two in the how-to-play section in the Roach, for example? Not.

3. Here's a point which is very unpopular with those who've never published a book or game. There does come a point where revisions, however wonderful they would have made the game originally, are not worth the time and trouble they need/cause relative to the new stuff you're working on. That's where I am with Trollbabe, for instance. I decided how to rewrite it, oh, two years ago. But there is just too much else going on that I care about more. I don't think that's where you are with the Roach, considering its age and the technology involved in the kind of change you're talking about, but it's something to keep an eye on. Eventually, there will come a hard limit, unless you plan to devote your life to the Roach, as some mid-level, three-tier oriented publishers have done with certain titles, in my opinion, to their detriment as publishers and as creative members in the hobby.

As I said, all of the above is highly, highly informed by my biases and personal summations of everything I've observed about RPG publishing, but it should not be taken as the best possible advice for you as we all wade forward into the unknown.

Best, Ron

[MatrixGamer]

The beauty of print on demand, PDF and short run home printing is that you can make changes as you go. Tweaks (proof reading!) and variations on presentation make a book better. I honestly can't think of a good reason not to do them. It does mean that there will be various versions of the book running around out there but that seems unlikely to be a problem. Just put a date on the text so they can compair it when two players come together.

Mind you - I'm being very disrespectful to the idea of "THE BOOK" as a permanent artifact when I say things like this. Maybe it's because I print and book bind and sold used books, but I don't worship them. They are a technology to communicate information, they are temporary, and they are relatively cheap. So unless it serves your marketing strategy to make them seem more than a pile of paper then why not correct as you go?

There is a trap in all this though. I have re-formated  Engle Matrix Games titles every year since at least 2000. I think I'm making them better, but each time I do it I'm also putting off fully committing myself to a product to take to market. I love tinkering so it is great fun but it also has hurt me by always being there as an excuse to put things off again. I'm just about to do it again this fall - but this time it is to move it to a format I can outsource to printers. Beware the updates that push back release dates...

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[Justin D. Jacobson]

My recommendation is that you make your corrections on a going-forward basis. I.e., newly printed versions will contain the new material. And, simultaneously, collect the revisions into a short pdf (perhaps with a desinger's notes running monologue with explanations for the changes) and release that as a free download on your site. In my experience, people have a problem with a new edition released relatively quickly on the heels of a prior edition. This makes them feel that they have to purchase the new edition or they won't get continuing support for their prior one and that they have a "broken" version. If you eliminate those concerns with a short, free pdf download, I don't think you'll have a problem.

[Luke]

Jason,

As folks have mentioned, the beauty of POD is that you can tweak and correct. I endorse and recommend such practices. Don't be bashful about cleaning up your content a bit.

However, don't make any substantial changes. No "revision" worthy text should go in the tweaked versions. Why? Because if you think you have ideas and thoughts after 6 months, imagine what'll be going through your head after a year. There's lots of stuff you haven't even thought of yet. Save yourself and your fans grief and push your current product. Post all your revisions and updates and new content on your website. Next summer, you'll have a clearer vision of where you want to take your game and a host of material to pick and choose from. Release a revised version then -- new material, new art, etc. -- and everyone will be happy.

BTW, just the hint of a mention of a possible revised version coming out soon will kill sales for your current book. If you do make plans to revise and rerelease material, keep the news in house until you've moved all the stock you need to prior to the revision.

-L

[Gregor Hutton]

I think if you added some material it wouldn't be a problem, as long as you flag up what you've added and make the new stuff available to owners of previous printings. That's my personal feeling on it.

For Best Friends I have made some minor additions in the margins for the second printing and listed them on my webspace. I felt that to not fix the typos or add these useful notes would have been cutting my nose off to spite my face.

I could reprint the exact same PDF, or I could add some small words of wisdom and correct a few errors I've spotted. I hope no one feels shortchanged with the version they already have, and I hope no one feels they have to buy a new printing (they really don't).

[Doyce]

I really need to get that Roach Wiki space up on RandomWiki so you can put your potential changes up there. :)

[Jason Morningstar]

Thanks very much, everyone. 

I love the fact that I have the ability to change every facet of my design more or less on a whim - I just want to use that power wisely and methodically. 

These responses warm my heart with their sound, thoughtful comments and genuine concern for my success.  You are all excellent people, every one.  I'm very proud to associate with you.

[Paul Czege]

Hey Jason,

Personally I've been freaky cautious about revising My Life with Master. And so the game text of the copies sold earlier this month at GenCon is unchanged from the very first print run in 2003. I know that when I wrote it I was in a creative space that I can't again possibly enter. So my fear of revising is that not borne of the same creative space my edits could inadvertently render the game bloodless somehow.

An example. When Michael S. Miller runs My Life with Master, he allows a minion to contribute one die of aid to another minion, even if their Love is less than their Weariness. It's a generous rule, certainly in keeping with the spirit of the "negative pools" rule, and it empowers player ownership of the humanity of his minion. But I haven't ever run it that way, and didn't intend it that way when I wrote the game. If Love was less than Weariness, I intended for minions to not be able to provide aid. And upon recognizing that folks were making interpretations that didn't match my inentions I might have written a clarification into the text.

But I think that would have been a mistake. Not just because it's thematically stronger, but because I think games should be gestalt constructs in the minds of players, larger than the written rules themselves. The rules of an excellent roleplaying game are half a meme that evokes its own perfect completion in play the way a single strand of DNA evokes its own perfect match during replication.

And so I think you have to be very careful not to over write a game. A bullet proof text that's as resistant to misinterpretation as you can make it is probably an unplayable game. Your goal is a text that gives the players just what they need to gestalt into existence a whole and perfect game.

If you're planning revisions in response to gamer-think misinterpretations, I'd be cautious. But if you're still in the same creative space as when you first wrote the game text, then you probably have nothing to worry about in making revisions.

Paul

[Justin D. Jacobson]

BTW, just the hint of a mention of a possible revised version coming out soon will kill sales for your current book. If you do make plans to revise and rerelease material, keep the news in house until you've moved all the stock you need to prior to the revision.

-L

Quoted for truth.

[Lxndr]

BTW, just the hint of a mention of a possible revised version coming out soon will kill sales for your current book. If you do make plans to revise and rerelease material, keep the news in house until you've moved all the stock you need to prior to the revision.

-L

Quoted for truth.

Definitely.  I made this very bone-headed mistake with Fastlane just a few weeks ago and now I'm scrambling to figure out ways to avoid pulping the rest of my stock. 

[Marhault]

Hey Jason,

I'm not a publisher and only half a designer, but I thought I'd weigh in on this as somebody who hasn't bought the Roach yet.

Cleaning up the text, grammar, etc. in the book is all well and good.  Clarifying rules explanations and general format problems makes for a cleaner book without changing the inherent value of the item.  If you have minor rules changes and such, just include a brief explanatory note and a URL to your wiki or web site so we can all access the information and be on our merry way.  I'd rather know that I got the same game that I hear everyone talking about than some "new and improved" Roach 1.1 edition.

For me, the book is a discrete object, a customer's copy can't change to keep up with the ever evolving version of the game.  Someone who followed SaHR from its early stages (Game Chef, right?) and bought the book as soon as it was available shouldn't be penalized for their excitement and early buy-in, and that's what it would feel like to me, as a consumer.  "Great, I jumped the gun on this and bought it before it was really finished."  As if your first published editions was actually just your last playtest edition.

Put the tweaks up in webspace as suggested variants.  Tell people what game situations led to the problems they're intended to fix.  Start saving up for a revised edition worthy of the name.

[Jason Morningstar]

Thanks Marhault, that's good advice.  I intend to be very conservative and, at this point, post some free additional material with suggestions for things like playing a short game or a three-player game.  I don't have any intention of changing any rules at this point.

[Jake Richmond]

I think its really okay to revise and rerelease your game whenever you want. Theres a few things about Panty explosion I'd like to change. Some typos that need fixing, some page layout issues and some rules clarifications. Theres also some new content I'd like to add. Since we're almost out of copies from the first print run I plan to add this stuff in when we go back to press next month. I don't see any problem with that. I do plan on putting any additional content I add to the book on the site as well so people who already have the book can get at it for free. I don't plan on doing a new cover or promoting the revised book as different in any way, except maybe by telling people that it now has some extra shit in it.

But I certainly don't think 6 months is too soon. If updating your book is worthwhile to you then really you should do it.


Jake

[Jake Richmond]

lso, I've been wanting to play again after the demo you gave me at  Gencon. Should I wait for the revised version or will I be okay with the current one?


Jake