Artists working on profit sharing model?

[KeithBVaughn]

Ryan,

I've had my own difficulties with RPG net culture. Some of their leading artists you don't critisize their work...as I found out with my first post in the Freelancers section. If you really want to hit some poor artwork hit "elfwood" especially their fantasy section. One thing though, there are some real gems buried in the dross and often those artists have web links.

Iaceck-have you considered second use art? It is much cheaper than original pieces and you can often afford better artists for your dollar.

Keith

[Jake Richmond]

I've had my own difficulties with RPG net culture.

Yeah. it's not like that community can't be difficult in it's own way.

Something to consider is that it's really not that hard to find a good artist that will work for a reasonable rate. I think that there is a lot of assumption that paying an artist a fair wage means that you'll bankrupt your project on the art budget alone. That's just not the case. You can very often get a nice art package fo $200-400. My real best advice is to go looking around the internet for an artict you like. Don't just look here or on RPG.net. Look in art communities and forums, fan sites, school sites or anywhere else. Once you find an artist you like, contact them and tell them what you want. Ask them if they would be interested in the project and what kind of deal they can offer you. Most artists will be happy to put together a package for you. For $200-400 you can often get a reasonable number of black and white illustrations and a color cover piece. That's pretty good.

[lachek]

Iaceck-have you considered second use art? It is much cheaper than original pieces and you can often afford better artists for your dollar.

Keith, I think you're still misunderstanding me. With this post at least, I'm not talking about getting art on the cheap, though I appreciate all the resources you have posted in that regard. In particular, I'm not talking about buying someone's art as filler. I'm talking about a designer/writer/publisher/artist collaboration model, however that is handled financially. I'm interested in a cohesive design, where game mechanics, fluff text, layout and art flow together into a single piece. The way this is typically done is by having a lead designer that micromanages a team (freelance or not) to complete a particular vision. Indie game developers do not have that kind of money to invest into salaries. My original question was if there was a precedent for such a partnership, and how that worked out for the parties involved.

[Jake Richmond]

My original question was if there was a precedent for such a partnership, and how that worked out for the parties involved.

There is. Matt Schlotte and I created Panty Explosion under a partnership of this kind. We decided we wanted to work on a game together, and brainstormed until we came up with the idea of a social clique game based off the premise of psychic Japanese schoolgirls. Once we knew what we wanted to do we nailed out what our working relationship would be. Matt and I would be equal owners of the final product and the company that we formed to publish it. We would each invest an equal amount of money into the project, and any profits ever generated from the project would be split evenly.

We split the work like this: Matt and I each wrote an equal amount of the game text (almost to the page). This was proceeded by months of conversations and brainstorming. Once the text was complete I would illustrate the book, design and lay it out and manage the printing and production. Because of this I actually did end up doing more then 50% of the finished product, but that was my choice, and we still split the proceeds 50/50.

What Matt and I had was a very clean and fair working relationship that was both easy to manage and fun. We were complete equals in a way that you can never be with someone who you hire for a project. To maintain this equality we had to create the project from the ground up. It would have never worked if I had come to Matt and said "I have this idea for a game, and I want you to do half the writing, Instead, it had to be a complete collaboration from the get go.

That's what has worked for me.

jake

[lachek]

What Matt and I had was a very clean and fair working relationship that was both easy to manage and fun. We were complete equals in a way that you can never be with someone who you hire for a project. To maintain this equality we had to create the project from the ground up. It would have never worked if I had come to Matt and said "I have this idea for a game, and I want you to do half the writing, Instead, it had to be a complete collaboration from the get go.

That's what has worked for me.

Jake, this is awesome, and exactly what I was going for. Are there more examples of this in Indie-land?

I'd like to ask one follow-up question, if you will allow. It's not rhetorical and I will certainly accept a "no".

If you had not been required to do half the writing, printing and distribution as part of the agreement, concentrating on the artwork, layout, selection of printed matter and all-around artistic quality, would you have been willing to entertain it if Matt came to you and said "Hey Jake, I have this really awesome idea about [some subject you're pretty keen on]. Would you handle the artistic aspects of that as an equal partner on the project?". Note that you're not invested in the idea, but you like the subject matter and wouldn't mind illustrating in that style.

The reason I'm asking the question, of course, is that most games don't start with two friends deciding to write "some game". It starts with someone, usually a writer as opposed to an artist (though not necessarily), having a good idea for a game and developing it until it takes shape. Asking an artist to commit their time on an unproven, infant idea may also be balked at.

[Jake Richmond]

This may just be a "me" thing, but I don't think I would. I don't want to get that heavily involved in a project unless I'm being paid really well or if I own half of it. And I know what you are proposing is half ownership, but for me, unless I have full creative input I'm just not going to be that interested. For me tht means I'm going to want to be there at the ground floor coming up with what the game is about, and I'm going to want to write at least half the text. It also means that I am going to want to do all the printing and management stuff. Because I'm really hands on. Thats just the way I am.

Now this won't be the case for everyone. You might find an artist who is content to take your idea and play with the visual and design aspect of it. But consider this: Any artist would rather draw his own creation then yours. It's true. And secretly every artist thinks that what they can come up with is so much better then what you can come up with. So full collaboration where you build something together from the ground up is always going to be more appealing then drawing someone else's ideas. Even if the artist is given free reign to draw whatever he wants, he's still doing so in the context of your game. That may sound meaningless, but for a lot of artists it's a big thing. If the artist knows he can just draw his own thing and publish it through a cheap POD outlet then he's much more likely to do that then work on someone elses project.

What I'm hearing you say is that you've got a cool idea for a game, and you want to find an artist that you can have a true artistic partnership with to bring your game to life. But what I think you're missing here (or if not missing, then not seeing as important) is that it will always be your game. Because the artist wasn't involved in the initial idea, he'll always be just the artist working on your game, even if he owns half of it. You may well find someone willing to go for this, but they're always going to feel like they're working on your project.

The reason I'm asking the question, of course, is that most games don't start with two friends deciding to write "some game". It starts with someone, usually a writer as opposed to an artist (though not necessarily), having a good idea for a game and developing it until it takes shape.

See, I think it can work very well. I've created three games now under just those circumstances. I know other people who have as well. Traditionally, the kind of art partnership that you want doesn't exist at all. I mean, if I came up to you and said "I have a great idea for a game. I'll tell you what it's about and what the setting is and what the points of conflict and narration are, and I'll do all the art and design work and layout the book and edit. All you have to do is write the game". Would that be appealing to you? Even if my idea was amazing, wouldn't you want more input and control? especially if you were going to own half the finished product?

Anyway, I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find someone to work with. But if you want to make this kind of collaboration really work I'd really suggest starting fresh, and letting something cool and original (perhaps influenced by ideas you already had) grow from brainstorming with the artist.

I hope this is helpful. I feel like I'm just telling you that you have to do stuff my way.

Jake

[lachek]

consider this: Any artist would rather draw his own creation then yours. It's true. And secretly every artist thinks that what they can come up with is so much better then what you can come up with. So full collaboration where you build something together from the ground up is always going to be more appealing then drawing someone else's ideas. Even if the artist is given free reign to draw whatever he wants, he's still doing so in the context of your game. That may sound meaningless, but for a lot of artists it's a big thing. If the artist knows he can just draw his own thing and publish it through a cheap POD outlet then he's much more likely to do that then work on someone else's project.

Oh, no doubt. But - correct me if I'm wrong here - most artists, even artists that work mostly on RPGs, aren't designers. There are exceptions, and you are one of them, but "designing mechanics", "explaining rules", "establishing setting" and "writing thematic fluff" tend to be duties that in a small project fall squarely at the feet of the writer, and in a larger project are split up among a team of designers and authors. So most artists would have gone into their profession knowing that what they do is art. Not statistical analysis of dice rolls, system balancing, rules distillation, and so on.

I feel that the paragraph above implies that the vast majority of artists feel that "game design" and "writing" is not a professional endeavour - it is something they can handle just fine on their own. I don't think you meant to say that, but I resent the notion. As an amateur game designer, I would never claim to know anything about art. While I very much appreciate a DIY attitude, it is plain rude to claim that I could produce an aesthetically pleasing game without somehow involving an artist on the project. Naturally, I would have to make some sacrifices in terms of project ownership to involve an artist, and that's where much of the friction between artist and publisher comes from - with art that is purchased, the publisher can dictate everything from style to content to perceived quality, because it's their project and they're holding on to the money.

My suggestion merely takes things to the next level - where both writer and artist publish together, and have to both make concessions on the ownership of the project. The writer cannot dictate the artist's art, and the artist cannot dictate the writer's writing, due to professional respect - an "I know you know what you're doing" attitude. While at the same time, a healthy flow of suggestions and critique going both ways.

What I'm hearing you say is that you've got a cool idea for a game, and you want to find an artist that you can have a true artistic partnership with to bring your game to life.

And just to clarify any remaining misconceptions, I'm interested in this idea but I'm not currently looking. If I did, I would approach an artist much earlier on in the development process than I am now. This is an idea I had which I thought I would bounce around on the Forge for a bit since it might benefit others and increase the average aesthetic quality of our games.

But what I think you're missing here (or if not missing, then not seeing as important) is that it will always be your game. Because the artist wasn't involved in the initial idea, he'll always be just the artist working on your game, even if he owns half of it. You may well find someone willing to go for this, but they're always going to feel like they're working on your project.

You're an exception, Jake, but I contend that most artists are aware that their profession does not include game development, it consists of creating awesome pieces of art. If they started dabbling in game development because they want to work on their own game, awesome, but they would be learning two professions. Some comic book creators have done this, but the ones that excel at both are few and far between.

The reason I'm asking the question, of course, is that most games don't start with two friends deciding to write "some game". It starts with someone, usually a writer as opposed to an artist (though not necessarily), having a good idea for a game and developing it until it takes shape.

See, I think it can work very well. I've created three games now under just those circumstances.

No doubt that it can work very well, given the correct circumstances of two friends sitting down to make a game. I'm not saying you fought an uphill battle and ended up with something that could have been better, I'm saying games don't usually develop out of nothing. Someone comes up with an idea, and recruits people into his/her vision - hopefully early on in the process.

I mean, if I came up to you and said "I have a great idea for a game. I'll tell you what it's about and what the setting is and what the points of conflict and narration are, and I'll do all the art and design work and layout the book and edit. All you have to do is write the game". Would that be appealing to you? Even if my idea was amazing, wouldn't you want more input and control? especially if you were going to own half the finished product?

If I were a professional freelance writer, that's exactly what I would be used to doing. So yes. The question is, do I have a secure enough arrangement with my current set of employers that turning down their work for potential profit sharing would be a considerable risk, or am I in a spot in my life where I have some free time on my hands? And before anyone starts ranting about "taking advantage of poor unemployed artists" again, this is the situation 95% of indie game designers are in - they either do not have a secure job and they're willing to risk it, or they're doing it in their spare time and wouldn't depend on the income anyway.

I hope this is helpful. I feel like I'm just telling you that you have to do stuff my way.

This is actually really helpful. I hope I didn't come off as antagonistic in this post, I just need some things clarified for me since I'm not on the "inside" of artist culture and mindset.


[/quote]

[Jake Richmond]

I feel that the paragraph above implies that the vast majority of artists feel that "game design" and "writing" is not a professional endeavour - it is something they can handle just fine on their own.

I wouldn't say "a vast majority" (and I shouldn't have implied that), but I do know that there are plenty of artists out there that feel like they can write games just as well as the writers they often work for. Whether or not they actually can is another matter entirely. But think about it this way: most of the people who write RGPs are not writers at all. Their RPG fans who got lucky and were hired by a company t write bad fanfic or fans who had a bit of money and decided to set themselves up as publisher/writers (I'm not talking about the people around here, but the legion of self published D20/generic fantasy writers). Given that there are plenty of artist who are competent, better then average or actually good writers, it's not really surprising that they might think "I'd be better off doing this myself then working with a writer". Now of course, just because someone thinks they can write (or draw) doesn't mean they can. But if I THINK I can write a better game then you, and I have a game I want to write and draw for myself anyway, then there's not much incentive for me to work with you. Sure, every artist isn't like this. And there are a lot who have no interest in writing at all. But I think you'd be surprised how many there actually are, and how many of them are very good writers.

And just to clarify any remaining misconceptions, I'm interested in this idea but I'm not currently looking. If I did, I would approach an artist much earlier on in the development process than I am now. This is an idea I had which I thought I would bounce around on the Forge for a bit since it might benefit others and increase the average aesthetic quality of our games.

Sure. You've said that a few times, I just keep forgetting.

You're an exception, Jake, but I contend that most artists are aware that their profession does not include game development, it consists of creating awesome pieces of art. If they started dabbling in game development because they want to work on their own game, awesome, but they would be learning two professions. Some comic book creators have done this, but the ones that excel at both are few and far between.

frank Miller, Will Eisener, Mark Oakley, Dave Sim, Range Murata, Brian Bendis, Chyna major, Samura, Rick, Vietch, David Mack, Barry Smith, Katsuhiro Otomo, Matt Wagner, Oda, Shirow, Mike Allred, Kiyohiko Azuma, etc.  I could go on for a full page. few and far between is a false hood.  there's no reason why the game designer and artist have to be two separate people. There are plenty of artists who are very good writers and want to design games. there are plenty of writers who are very good artists and want to design games. The idea that a game has to ave a separate writer and artist is pretty stupid. The idea that an artist shouldn't want to design his own game is pretty stupid. People who have the ability to be talented at more then one thing are far more common then you seem to think. Rather, I think the reason we haven't seen more artists who also want to write games is that historically the game industry is a crappy place to work. Good artists either gravitate to the top paying jobs or leave for comics, advertising or video games. There's not a lot of incentive to work for a crappy company and crappy pay if you can get a better job somewhere else. This has started to change over the last few years. We're also starting to see more artists who do their writing in games instead of comics or other projects. I think we're going to continue to see more of this as different avenues for self publishing open up.

No doubt that it can work very well, given the correct circumstances of two friends sitting down to make a game. I'm not saying you fought an uphill battle and ended up with something that could have been better, I'm saying games don't usually develop out of nothing. Someone comes up with an idea, and recruits people into his/her vision - hopefully early on in the process.

Right. I'm not saying that's how it usually happens, but rather that's how it should happen. Just because something is usually done ass backwards and poorly doesn't mean we should do it that wy forever. A true creative partnership will always start as a collaboration among equals.

If I were a professional freelance writer, that's exactly what I would be used to doing. So yes. The question is, do I have a secure enough arrangement with my current set of employers that turning down their work for potential profit sharing would be a considerable risk, or am I in a spot in my life where I have some free time on my hands? And before anyone starts ranting about "taking advantage of poor unemployed artists" again, this is the situation 95% of indie game designers are in - they either do not have a secure job and they're willing to risk it, or they're doing it in their spare time and wouldn't depend on the income anyway.

The difference, which I still don't think you understand, is that while it's perfectly alright for me to dedicate my time and effort for free to a project that belongs to me and that I have a personal stake in because I created it, expecting someone else to do the same, even if I offer them a share of the profit, is unreasonable. Yes, 95% of indie designers are in that situation. That's where we chose to be. We work on personal projects that are important to us. e can't expect them to be important to anyone else in the same way.

If you were a professional freelancer you would not be used to that. You would be used to someone offering you terms for guaranteed payment. If you were a professional freelancer you would turn that offer down right away. Youwould recognize it for what it is, someone else's  passion project that may or may not ever get published.

Anyway, I'm hitting you over the head with the way I think things should be. But the picture I'm painting is (I think) pretty accurate. I know plenty of writers who have found artists to work on their projects for payment on completion, only to have the artist leave half way through because they realized that the project was going to take for ever to make money, it would never be their project anyway and really they would b better off doing their own project. Really, this is why you pay artists (or anyone) mony to begin with, so they don't wander off to do something more interesting.


Jake

[pells]

Just a bit of wisdom, if you would allow me ... And I think Jake speaks the truth here !!! Just so to say, I'm currently working on my own project, for which, at the moment, I'm hiring five illustrators, among them Jake.

I've found my illustrators this way : three at the forge, one thru an ad at the university I graduated and one thru a friend of mine. And I'm paying all of them. Just so to say, I've started alone, but we are now more than ten people working on this : illustrators, translator (the original project is in french), webmaster, webdesigner, writer, DBA (database administrator), people who work to incorporate systems ...
The ones I am paying are the illustrators and the translator. And I need to pay them !!!

Now, about collaboration, beside the "creation" of the product (ie the game in question), if you want to acheive sells (since you're sharing profit, that's the big point), you'll need to assure promotion ; that is presence on forums, explaining what you do, posting AP reports. This is THE big job, that will make the difference !!! And it takes a lot of time ...

So, if you look for collaborators who only do illustrations, how could they help you for that ? Would they only trust you to assure this vital task ? On the other hand, if he can do that (make promotion), that will mean he will be able to be a designer. You see the problem ?

Jake may seem to you as the exception, but if you look at collaborators, for sharing profit, that's the "profile" you'll be looking for. So, Jake isn't "designing" my project, but he doesn't do promotion neither, and I think that is a more vital step. Quite Franckly, Jake, what needs more job : designing panty explosion or assuring its promotion ?
Because, don't forget, what you sharing is profit, sales revenue (as opposed to share risks, money invested). How do you make those ?

That said, I believe you could find illustrators at a somehow cheap cost, who would be interested to work with/for you, as a way to promote their work, build a portfolio.
Or, like Jake, have a good friend, and collaborate closely with him, in a very trusty relationship ...

[Jake Richmond]

Sebastien has a good point here.

I should point out that I've worked on a lot of projects, Sebastien's Avalanche project for one, where even though I was not the creator of the project or it's co-owner, I still was passionate about the work and interested in it's success. It hasn't been like that for every job I've worked on, but there have been a few. But the main motivator was always that I was being paid.

Anyway, I feel like I've said enough about this, and that I may be trying to push my personal opinions and practices on other people. I guess this will be my last post. I hope you are able to find an artist for your future projects.


Jake

[lachek]

Jake, like you, I feel this thread is boiling down to a simple difference of opinion, so this will also be my last post. If it continues to be of use to someone else, please do feel free to keep it on life support.

In parting though, let me tentatively give the following as suggestions to anyone considering this, based on the above comments from various participants.

* Try to involve the artist or writer (whatever your case may be) as early in the development process as possible and share creative control 50/50 (shouldn't be a hard concept for you if you're familiar with dirty hippie games.

* If the artist or writer has not been on equal grounds from the get-go, consider a pay-up-front / percentage-of-profit split rather than a straight percentage-of-profit option. I think a good analogy to use here is an IT startup company - even though there may be a great idea you can get behind, if you would work for nothing but stock options and will be in the poorhouse until the eventual IPO, you may rather look elsewhere. Having said that, many multinational corporations started in someone's basement based on someone's good idea and promises of shares in the company. I guess it depends on what risks you are willing to take and how well you know the other participants.

* It may be worthwhile to consider licensing terms in the contract such that if one party fails to deliver on the road to publishing, all work up until that point is owned by the remaining party(ies). This way, if the writer jumps ship the artist can still finish the project, publish and get paid. And vice versa, of course.

You know what I want to see? The indie RPG equivalent of Arkham Asylum. Writing by Grant Morrison, illustration by Dave McKean. There is no way this book could have been produced by anything less than two masters in their respective fields, yet it is very obvious that they both share a vision. There is also no question that they both got paid handsomely for their work by DC, of course, but I cannot abide by the thought that the indie scene couldn't produce something of approaching quality by way of blood, sweat and tears. Call me a dreamer.

Food for thought, perhaps.