Doubling Up On Art

[Matt Gwinn]

Here's the scenario:
You pick up a game at your local RPG shop and it looks great, really cool art and a good system.  then you grab the supplement which is of equal quality as the main book.  However, both are using the same artwork.

Would that turn make you not want to buy the game?

I remember back when TSR released spellfire and the main reason I never got into it was because all the cards used artwork from TSR's archives.  I fealt cheated to a certain degree.

The reason I ask is because I'm making a second edition of Kayfabe and/or a sourcebook that covers all the new rules and clairifications for people that already own Kayfabe and don't want to buy a second edition.  The problem is that I can't afford to shell out the cash for artwork for both and I want to use all new art for the 2nd edition.

Do you think using artwork for two different books is a bad idea?

,Matt Gwinn

[Matt Snyder]

Before you can answer the aesthetic considerations of doing this, you must answer the legal ones! Make sure you have permission and rights to be using art in this manner. Very often, artists in this industry agree to rights that are effectively a license to use their work in a game, its subsequent editions, translations and maybe promotion for the game (ads and such).

If there's any doubt, check with your artist. Better yet, have it specified in a contract.

Now, if you DO have legal rights to reproduce the artwork, my general preference is to avoid using art multimple times in a rulebook and then supplemental material. For whatever reason, I have no hang-up whatsoever when re-using art for things like "GM screens" or character sheets, etc. However, once we're talking about separate, supplemental products, I think re-using art is not the greatest of ideas. It just comes of cheap (which is, of course, precisely why the publisher would want to do this, I realize!).

I think it's generally acceptable to use artwork again in "second editions" of rulebooks, for example.

[Andrew Martin]

Why not make a short PDF that contains only the new rules and clarifications of old rules, with no artwork, that is free to all? Then your second edition can contain new and old rules and clarifications as well as the previous edition's artwork for your usual price?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Matt,

I guess I'm confused as to whether this is a revised edition, a second edition, or just a second printing with a few changes. These aren't just terminological quibbles, I think.

All of the following is just my take on it; feel free to modify, edit for personal use, or to ignore ...

If I buy a second printing, I expect editorial corrections, maybe a revised paragraph or two for clarity, possibly a few new rules or rules-changes. In the modern day, I'd expect the changes to be available cheaply or for free on-line as well. Otherwise, it's the same book. Example: Sorcerer, as of last November.

If I buy a revised edition, I expect improvements and justifications for them, but I don't expect a "different book" with new artwork and everything. Example: The Riddle of Steel as of Origins.

If I buy a second edition, I expect a whole friggin' new game - better artwork, better production values, better writing, better system, better everything. Example: 2nd edition Champions, 3rd edition Champions, (in some views depending on your version of "better") 4th edition Champions, through the 1980s.

Again, these are just my take on things, which are at least interesting to explain my beef with the practice of claiming "new edition" for what amounts to the next printing. But regardless of the terminology, I'm still not sure which of these describes what you're doing with Kayfabe.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I am incredibly confused about why you are trying to put out two books in the first place. The standard model here is that you put out the core book. You follow it up with a suppliment or two and then later revise the line with the re-release of the core book in a second edition. What's wrong with this? I mean that it seems a little fast to me to be thinking of putting out a new edition. It is generally a good idea to wait a year, possibly two, possibly more (D&D appox. 10). Putting the product out slowly will allow your fan base to recover, financially or whatever and then be in a place again where they are ready to purchase a new edition.

My advice is to stick with the suppliment idea and, if need be reprint the core book. Print a revised 1st edition if you like, but stay on this edition for a while. Who knows what you'll want to put in/leave out of a second edition after a year or two go by.

And you had answered your own question about the art. Get new art. If you felt ripped-off, so will other people.

[Matt Gwinn]

I'm not sure where Kayfabe stands by Ron's definitions.  I guess it comes down to "what constitutes a NEW game?"  The basic rules for Kayfabe will remain unchange, though a few new rules will be added and some existing rules will be expanded upon and/or clairified.  Does adding new rules constitute a"whole friggin' new" game?  Thus making it a second edition by Ron's definition?

I will have between 20 and 25 new pages of material that will either get added to the core rules or put in a supplement, but that's a whole different topic which I believe I brought up in the Kayfabe forum if you care to comment.  I don't think it fits the topic here.

The main topic here is that I intend to use all new art in the main book whether I change one word or the whole game.  The only real complaint I ever received about Kayfabe concerned the quality of the artwork.  I was never all that happy with it myself and I would feel better about the whole situation if I could look at the book and know that it looks as good as it plays.  As it stands, I have zero print copies of Kayfabe left.  That means I have to shell out the cash for a second print run before GENCON anyway.  I figure, I might as well fix the art while I have the opportunity.

Now, seeing that I'm going to be blowing my budget on new art for the core rules, I may not have cash for art for a supplement.  I guess what I really need to know is:

Let's say I have 15 pieces of art to use.

Is it better to use those 15 piece of art in both the core rules and a new supplement (using some of the art in both) or use most of the art in the core rules and release a supplement with little or no art at all?  Or, if I desided to add ALL the new material to the main book, spread the art over twice as many pages.

,Matt

[quozl]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that the supplement is just the rule changes between first and second edition.  If so, why would anyone buy the second edition rulebook and the supplement?  Since nobody would buy both, put the same art in both.

If I'm confused about the contents of the supplement, please let me know.

[contracycle]

Do you think using artwork for two different books is a bad idea?

Yes.  I bitterly resent paying for the same ink and wood pulp twice.  Re-using art sends, IMO, the clear signal "just padding, nothing to see here, move along".  It's something I scan for unconsciously; sometimes they try to get away by clipping a larger picture or re-using one at a different size.