In this thread

ryand wrote:
When you underprice your product vs. what the market would pay and is paying for similar works, you're hurting everyone who is making those other works at the higher price.

Every time you meet a fellow game designer who is doing it "for a living", that is, paying the rent, buying food, insuring a family, etc. on income from game design, think about the fact that you choosing to price a great product at a low price means that person will have a harder time earning that paycheck.

Valamir wrote:
For instance, some have been pretty critical of comments on the Forge that question the "industry's" status as an actual industry. Yet I can think of no industry in the western world where any consideration whatsoever would be given to the impact of business decisions on other companies employees. When Walmart marks down its everyday low prices it doesn't care two figs about how this impacts the employees of other retailers who are trying to make a living.

Yet I can think of no industry in the western world where any consideration whatsoever would be given to the impact of business decisions on other companies employees.

On a related note, from my perspective, I hypothesize that adventure gaming would be alot better off if there were fewer people trying to make a living at it to begin with.

Well, too, games are a selective bunch. Not just any game will do for any everyone.
Regarding WalMart, Pillows are pillows. Video games are video games.
The software model is a better example: we have creating vs. retailing.
So WalMark marks down Dove face soap. Dove still makes their money off Target. Target loses out on some sales yea, but the manufacturer is still making their money.
Just because I put out a game at $5 doesn't mean its going to impact say Luke and his Burning Wheel - BW rocks, my game would most certainly suck if I just threw it out. Just because its low price doesn't mean people are going to flock to it.

I hear this alot in reference to artwork.

It seems to me what its saying is more like:

Burning Wheel is a very good game, and it is underpriced. If someone were to put out an 'equal quality' game at a 'fair' price in the same market (say non-d20 indie rpgs) the lower priced game will certainly drive people to buy burning wheel instead of the 'normal' priced same quality rpg.

It seems the idea is its not so much 'throwing out cheap materials', but people doing it as a hobby adn creating GOOD stuff for cheap that hurts the one who does it as a living.

That said, I'm not sure this is even true. However assuming it is, theres no reason to think this is morally reprehensible behavior as long as one is living in a capitalistic society. This is just bad luck for the fair priced rpg and the investor of in the rpg knew that they were up against luck when they went into business. I will say it is somewhat unfair to the loser, however thats the arena they choose to play in.

Now in an ideal world, I would agree that its wrong and unfair to price lower than the market bears, but unfortunately its not an ideal world.

I think this happens more often in the RPG making business because it often is the hobby of whoever is running the project/game/etc and many times it is a labor of love. But then again, thats just a random opinion of mine.

Just what I think, based on little-to-no experience. ;-)

I copied this post from the other thread, because my response doesn't really belong in a thread about Luke's game.

ryand wrote: The only additional point I'd like to make is that the issue I raised (low price vs. peer compensation) is directly related to the difference between publishing "for a living" and publishing "for a hobby".

It is a normally valid assumption that the market will tend to keep prices of RPGs high enough to justify the costs to make them and support the people who make them (or cause innovation on the cost side to make them cheaper which could allow a lower price in theory). But one of the assumptions in that model is that all the publishers have the same cost basis - that is, they all have roughly the same kinds of expenses and needs.

A unique situation develops when a small-press, vanity-press or art-press product gets enough attention to come onto the radar of a larger segment of buyers (ala Alliance distribution). Now a product produced under one model (profit not relevant or far less important) will be compared apples to apples with products where profit is critical.

In a worst case scenario, enough small-vanity-art press products get enough attention that the general SRP of products has to drop substantially, and a lot of RPG designers are fired and companies go bankrupt. It is not likely, in my opinion, that the small-vanity-art press community can continue to push the quality and utility bars for RPG products through their own efforts, and the loss of a lot of full-time designers and for-profit publishers would have the net effect of removing a lot of cool and important work from the market that could not be otherwise replaced.

That's an extreme, and extremely unlikely scenario, but there is something to be said for the general price resistence factor in the market being affected by small-vanity-art products that do "break through", and the publishers of those products do, I think, bear some responsibility for the impact they have on the overall perception of "fair price".

I think the biggest misunderstanding in both the small press world and the consumer world is the idea that an individual RPG product can be priced based on its costs. In reality, each publisher has to invest capital in new work, and some of that investment will be lost. It is money at risk, and the risk is high. RPG products have to pay the costs of that risk in the form of gross margins. If a company did nothing but break even on the stuff it sold, it would be killed the first time something it invested in failed to sell. A well run company is always working to build a reserve fund, a contingency that allows it to survive a bad knock in the market. The capital to make continued investments can only come from either outside money or gross margins, and since most RPG companies have no outside money, de facto, it comes from gross margin.

That's the key difference between an small-vanity-art press release and a "commercial" release - the need for the commercial release to make more profit than absolutely necessary to break even. And if companies didn't make that money, they'd be a great risk of failure, and would fail, and that would, in my opinion, be a bad thing for the art, science and hobby of roleplaying games.

In a worst case scenario, enough small-vanity-art press products get enough attention that the general SRP of products has to drop substantially, and a lot of RPG designers are fired and companies go bankrupt. It is not likely, in my opinion, that the small-vanity-art press community can continue to push the quality and utility bars for RPG products through their own efforts, and the loss of a lot of full-time designers and for-profit publishers would have the net effect of removing a lot of cool and important work from the market that could not be otherwise replaced.

Valamir wrote: Further, I'd suggest that the current commercial designer who would in fact quit designing all together if he could no longer make a living at it, would be no great loss.

Points to both.
I'd warrent the comments about dropping out of the running stem from the truly commercial endevours: something NOT created as a work of art or because of conviction, but some carbon-copy thing stamped off the presses simply to turn a profit, or what one can of it.
I truly admire someone who can take their love and make a living off of it. I would LOVE to do that myself, and hope to. I LOTHE people who just do it for the sake of doing it- THOSE, in my mind would be the ones everyone could stand to live without. The "games" or "supplements" that are nothing but rehashed, reprinted, regurgitated material and ideas seen for the past century or what not.
That goes for everything~ From the next d20 uber supplement or game to the calculated boy-bands or emo-bands~ I *HATE* "Calculated Creativity" - its an oxymoron yes, but thats what a lot of major commercial endevours become- calculated attempts at "creativity", crafting something not because its new, different or entertaining but will reach more customers (not even people or players- CUSTOMERS).

rule of thumb: Profit, Revenue, Income, doesn't matter- do you serve players or customers?

Valamir wrote:
Further, I'd suggest that the current commercial designer who would in fact quit designing all together if he could no longer make a living at it, would be no great loss.


So it's OK for a printer, an ISP, a retail store, a shipping company, a warehouse, or a distributor to make a fair, living wage off of an RPG product, but not a designer? A designer who wants to earn a viable income is automatically disqualified from participating in an economic chain?

I think that if you want to fly this flag, you don't have a right to charge anything for your game. If you really are doing it for the love of making a game, don't charge anything. As soon as you charge a single cent for your work, you've betrayed that love.

In other words, where exactly does the line go? And why this obsession devaluing creative endeavors? We never demand that people pump gas for the love of it, or stock shelves in a department store with nothing but pure, noble intentions.

I think the argument is overly romantic. There is indeed a rush to the bottom incommercial endeavors, and underpricing a product does - must - have a knock-on effect on other similar products. And this applies in all fields, for it is the same phenomenon as drives international outsourcing to developing world economies.

I note this 'vocational' argument has been frequently used to justifay wage cuts, especially in public services. The argument goes that jobs like teaching and nursing are badly under-paid for the levels of commitment and training they require, because this work is 'vocational' and 'they're not doing it for the money'. And the result of THAT has been that these jobs become discounted, disrespected, and the people whose talents wopuld be most valuable in this arena frequently go into other fields where they can make a decent living.

So sure - WallMart doesn't give a fig. But lots of people affected by WallMart's strategy do. Equally, I don't see why those people should have to give a fig for WallMarts rationale - its impact is real regardless of the commercial logic, and those affected are entitled to pursue just as narrow and self-serving a commercial interest as they do.

Yes, I would rather there were full time professionals who did this for a living. Yes, I do think that it is smart (not moral or right) for producers to consider the impact their decisions have on other producers, and that perpetually undercutting one another is a recipe only for the race to the bottom. We will ultimately all lose out that way - and that applies to WallMart as much as RPG.

I'm not defending the present model in toto by any means. But I do not think that it is an unreasonable aspiration for people to want to be paid for the things that they do and to try to do those things that they love full time. And if corners are cut for commercial necessity - well, thats the way capitalism works, too bad so sad. Thats the alleged 'discipline' of the market at work.

As for needing to do it full time in order to tap into some full creative spirit I don't follow that logic at all. Are you suggesting that if a game designer couldn't make a living doing game design that the only job they'd be able to get is some mind numbing menial labor that leaves them spiritually and creatively drained? That notion seems fairly ridiculous to me given the large number of people I know engaged in game design from a wide range of walks of life.

For instance, some have been pretty critical of comments on the Forge that question the "industry's" status as an actual industry. Yet I can think of no industry in the western world where any consideration whatsoever would be given to the impact of business decisions on other companies employees. When Walmart marks down its everyday low prices it doesn't care two figs about how this impacts the employees of other retailers who are trying to make a living.

daMoose_Neo wrote: Well, too, games are a selective bunch. Not just any game will do for any everyone.
Regarding WalMart, Pillows are pillows. Video games are video games.
The software model is a better example: we have creating vs. retailing.
So WalMark marks down Dove face soap. Dove still makes their money off Target. Target loses out on some sales yea, but the manufacturer is still making their money.

Jack Aidley wrote: Some more established industries are carefully constructed to prevent their trades being so devalued (doctors, actors and lawyers spring to mind).

Hi folks,

Has anyone considered what really sells games? Price is A factor, but not THE factor. Gamers are a pretty well off bunch. Sure, they might not be able to buy both game A and game B today, but if they're really interested, they will get game B down the line, probably in a few months, actually. And rpgs have a fairly long shelf life.

What determines popularity is more based on marketing and name brand than anything else. D&D will always sell, even if someone finds a way to do "D&D better" much in the same way MS Office sells, even though there are many other options out there. There are plenty of games you can pick up for the $20 range, yet people still shell out the 60-90 dollars for D&D, the 30 +20 x splatbooks for Whitewolf, etc, etc, etc.

Lower priced games may get people to pick up things on a lark, but it won't get them to stop buying the other games. No, folks will stop buying the other games either because they're not happy with the product, or the perception of the product. And people have talked a lot of trash about a lot of games, from D&D to Vampire to Rifts, and they still sell.

People may grumble about price, but ultimately, they still buy stuff. It's when they decide the product isn't for them, for whatever reason, that sales stop happening.

Chris

Ralph, you should know better (and you do, you're being obtuse):

WalMart is not a manufacturer. They are a seller, end of story. A game designer is a manufacturer, first and foremost. Manufacturers ALWAYS look at what the other guy is doing, and often do "price set" (within the confines of the law... somewhat). WalMart has nothing but price and selection as a differentiating position (sure, tell me about employee aid and that crap, we know that it only matters to grannies and fools). If WalMart has Coke for 4.99, and Target has it for 3.99, of course everyone goes to Target... because there is NO DIFFERENCE in product.

However, after gauging the inputs of raw materials, manufacturers always gauge the rest of the market when setting end price. Always. Or they are stupid. You are in business, why would you sell your widget at $3 when everyone else sells their widgets for $7? You wouldn't. You would find the interval of indifference and set your price right there... because people won't buy more copies of your widget, they only need one. They'll buy something at $6 over $7, but at $3, they'll think your widget is shoddy. You know it and I know it, and anyone can complain, but they are wrong (this isn't opinion, it is fact, pure and simple).

WalMart can be compared to FLGS, but not to designers and publishers. We manufacture the product, they sell the product to an end user. Manufacturers selling into the three-tier system (curse it for a poxy whore), find that their buying public doesn't fucking care what you are, what you have, or why you have it. If it sells, they buy it, at a discount, and make the amrkup cost. If the percentage of your game is so much lower than another game, such that your game requires 50 copies to make the same profit 1 of this other company's makes, they expect your demand to come near, or match that 50x rate (Hurdle Rate, people, Hurdle Rate).

Now then, the other side of the coin is that while you SHOULD fix price competitive but not debilitating to other products (and you should, because too cheap and you can't meet a 3-tier hurdle, too expensive and... well.. you better have something right beautiful), if you don't, you increase the need for a higher demand when moving through the 3-tier (or you can end-run it to FLGS, but honestly, I'd rather kill myself than deal with the masses of mouth-breathing FLGS-owners on a regular basis... not that ALL FLGS are mouth-breathers, but there is a preponderance of them). Here's the other thing: there is no fucking way that you hurt, injure, wound, or otherwise infringe on some other company's price point when you set waaay low, or competitive, or whatever. You just don't. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you, or just plain does not understand. Period. This is canon. Drill this into the heads of everyone you meet: RPG'S ARE NEITHER COMPLIMENTARY NOR SUBSTITUTIVE PRODUCTS!

They are unique. At any given moment, a kid will spend $X on gaming. He will tend to stick with what he knows. But shiny catches the eye... he buys something new. THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE WILL NOT BUY OTHER THINGS IN THE FUTURE! The only impact to other companies is in time value of money. The sales cycle fluctuates (SLIGHTLY). Companies that cannot weather this, especially if they are of the type that employs regular employees, who draw salary, SHOULD NOT EXIST! Friedman says you suck, I say you suck, and a capitalistic economy says you suck. In the end, you suck. A company should have how many months of solvency without new business or a contracting of existing business (anyone? anyone?)?

If you run your company as a business, expect to be treated like a business. If you run it as a hobby that makes you some cash, expect it to be treated accordingly. No, there is no RPG industry (there isn't, just isn't... Publishing = Industry, RPG Publishing = Market of an Industry, and a pretty goddamned micro-niche market at that... just look at a fucking dictionary).

What I'm in the end saying here is this: Ralph, Walmart is not an RPG Designer and you know it, they operate on different business principles. Apples and oranges. To everyone else: Ralph has something of a point. Business ain't friendship, and fuckall if you can't make it on your own. That said, RPG design AIN'T BUSINESS!... it should be a community, it should price set collectively, and it should have the ability to call up someone in another company and say: "have you thought about X, that would be AWESOME!" I don't care what you say, not even Wizards has anything approaching an operating budget or market capture rate that does anything more than make say: aaaand? This is a small potatoes market, always has been, always will be. You can't change it, I can't change it, nobody can. There will never be a time when every kid wants the shiny new RPG under the Xian Tree... ever.

Eye-on-the-ball, here.

Dav, and his rambling is now over... stop crying and spinning your head.

What I'm in the end saying here is this: Ralph, Walmart is not an RPG Designer and you know it,

"For me this sort of high lights the split personality of this business that can't seem to make up its mind whether its a real "industry" or a collection of close associates and grass roots hobbyists. "

daMoose_Neo wrote:

Jack Aidley wrote: Some more established industries are carefully constructed to prevent their trades being so devalued (doctors, actors and lawyers spring to mind).

*A quick aside* Actors? Unless we're talking SCREEN actors here, that doesn't quite fit. Its difficult to break into acting because there are so many actors out there. In fact, I'd actually link acting to whats going on in the RPG 'industry'.
...
FEW people actually make a living acting. Those who do do it through Hollywood. Stage actors typically work waiter/waitress jobs wherever they can. Ditto for RPG development- with the rare exception (I do believe there is a couple here), this is a spare time, wee hours of the night hobby for almost everyone else here.

I don't think doctors are a legitimate example.

Most doctors I know (maybe... 7 out of 10 I know from working in an office a while back doing transcription and some from chess clubs) do work often for free, and often aside from that do charity work for hospitals and universitys.... Granted this is no good sample of the pop, but I'd like to think it somewhat like this outside my circle.

Also using them as an example is bad because you are completely ignoring the existance of insurance companies in America, and say in countries like Canada, the government which both have effects on the market that are simply not in relation to what we are talking about at all.

I honestly believe any discouraging of free medical advice is due to conditions it is handed out and the fact thats its usually very suspect. However, this I admit this is somewhat optimistic and likely due to knowing many doctors.
***
That said, I agree that hobbiests or set pricing do not make something a non-industry. I also agree that one would suspect that a hobbiest would not have time and resources enough to create something equal to someone doing it for a living due to many factors. However I see many notable exceptions to this. It might just be that some people have the talent to do what others can do for living in their spare time.
***
Another thing to note though is that when something is lower priced people view it with suspect and are actually many times less likely to get it, and therefore have little negative effect on any competition. I know I thought this about Burning Wheel until recently when I read a thread here about it that changed my mind (luckily) due to the authors devotion to it and the community support. I think the average retailer would like to have the 'real deal' than 'a cheap knock off' and whether one realizes it or not, pricing things low help label it as a cheap knock of, regardless of its quality.

The biggest point I feel is that someone doing it for a living is usually in a different market - online, convention, etc sales - where as the one doing it for fun doesn't usually get distribution..
**

I suppose, I think its just a matter of opinion based on your views of capitalism and socialism. I personally believe that ideally, we should support those who want to do it as a living. However, realistically, I'll have to support the capitalistic model and ay that to do it as a living you better be able to do it as a living on your own.

Valamir wrote:

Umm, Ryan? I'm not sure how relevant your last post is really. Lumping small press with vanity press seems to be a completely inaccurate assumption.

The pricing of a small press title has less to do with profit not being critical, and more to do with a publication model that doesn't include alot of unnecessary expenses to make up for.

Many indie-games have a per unit profit margin that commercial games would envy.

I really don't see this at all. Why couldn't small press companies putsh the quality and utility bars?

What quality and utility bars are "commercial" companies pushing that small press couldn't?

Nobody is in the game industry for the money.

In fact, I think this would RAISE the quality and utility bar. IMO the pace of publication today is far to fast. The "gotta get it out the door so we can start making money to pay our employees" mentality would be replaced with "this ain't going out the door until I'm satisfied the product is as high a quality as I can make it".

Further, I'd suggest that the current commercial designer who would in fact quit designing all together if he could no longer make a living at it, would be no great loss.

Gaming was grass roots and Alarums & Excusions long before it was commercial.

Hi Ryan,

I'm a little puzzled about how I fit into your frame of reference, because how I see it doesn't quite match up to your description of me.

Adept Press is profitable, and I'd shut it down if it weren't.

I think the issue of living-wage or salary of any kind is a red herring. If it's a desired expense, then it is, and if it's not, then it's irrelevant. Suggesting that it's a requirement of a business-model seems like stacking the definition-deck to permit only certain sizes of businesses to claim the name.

As for the products, Sorcerer and my other games aren't "thought-experiments," because people buy and play them, and that leads to others buying and playing them. Nor by any stretch of the imagination can I see them as a vanity press, because the business model is self-sustaining, both by intent and as it's happened, in practice.

Both the core book and the first supplement have continued to sell through their second printings, and I am now making sure that I'll be ready for the second printings of the other supplements as well. Down the line, I expect third printings to follow. All, as I say, funded through profits alone.

I can't see why an endeavor cannot be considered a "business" simply because it's not oriented toward supplying living wages. To me, a "business" relies on being continually profitable, interacting with the world around it in such a way that people (same people, new people) keep buying stuff.

To provide my alternative view: I think that if a company with rented offices, a pyramid-style wage-employee strucure, and very extensive design and production processes, were to be periodically externally funded, with no expectation of return from the funders, then it would be a vanity press. Yeah, all 500 employees and 100,000 copy print runs, etc - still a vanity press. (hypothetical example)

Whereas (to take an example besides my own), Half Meme Press has returned its initial investment to Paul Czege many times over, and continues to cover all expenses such as conventions, promotions, etc. Half Meme is one guy, and it pays itself/himself no salary. But I don't consider it vanity press.

So what about the size factor? My net profit is small, but it is in fact sufficient to fund new projects. Adept Press does not require infusions of outside funds in order to stay in existence. I don't see any point in comparing (say) Mongoose Publishing and Adept Press in terms of relative success, as each successfully matches its own model and stays in business. There is no "threshold" of raw return that validates a business, as long as it can continue to operate without handouts.

Anyway, I don't see any of this as a disagreement about what RPG publishing is, or how it works, merely an example of two-or-more different ways to deal with the opportunities that are available.

Best,
Ron

Well, I'm all for people making a living at this, 'professional' or 'indie'.

RyanD wrote:

"In short, the game design "science" has moved past the idea of focusing on a set of rules or a game mechanic, and has embraced the concept of the "whole product line", a work encompassing compatiblity with other components, playtesting, feedback from consumers, illustration, production unit quality, marketing, organized play, etc. That work has to be done by larger organizations than the individual "indie" game designer."


Logically valid, but what if one dislikes the 'game line' approach in the first place? Compatibility is only important if you've got a game that makes you add stuff to a basic framework in the first place, illustration and production quality are chrome, marketing and advertising are by definition waste expenses in all industries, and I can organize my own game group, thank you very much.

Playtesting and feedback are important, and here a larger organization does indisputably have advantages, though you can do some of that for yourself using the net.

It's possible that there are some games with a degree of system and setting complexity that a large organization will inevitably do them better, and some of these may well be good systems and settings (ones which lead to enjoyable play). But I don't think that either of these forms of complexity is intrinsically lniked to game quality, and where it's not, there's no reason that the independent designer or small team can't do as well or better. Maybe not as well or better at selling a whole line to people who like buying lots and lots of products, but in terms of providing quality rules and a quality play experience, why not?

For myself, I hate big game lines and complex interlocking modular game systems, because they usually undermine or even cripple my ability to work with the system and world creatively. Others may disagree; fine; let a thousand flowers blossom. But the point is there are many gamers who don't prefer this particular approach to game design or the types of game it tends to produce, and at the current time the indie community serves those people about as well as the professional one does, AFAICT.

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm a little puzzled about how I fit into your frame of reference, because how I see it doesn't quite match up to your description of me.

Yeah, all 500 employees and 100,000 copy print runs, etc - still a vanity press. (hypothetical example)

Hiya,

Cool! I always suspected we were talking the same language, if from different "what to do" perspectives. Many thanks for your reply.

I wanted to avoid stepping on my foot with rumors-only pseudo-knowledge, but yeah, my example was kept hypothetical only because I don't know the hard numbers. Such a scenario has been described to me for more than one company.

Anyway ... so, given that this "semi-sustainable" model isn't a vanity thing, and also given that it could arguably become "fully sustainable" in your terms, owner willing ... the real question for me now becomes something else (and with any luck back to the original topic):

Does such a business actually hurt the other businesses in any way? Let's leave aside issues as to whether it might out-compete them, because I can see that going either way, and probably many weird ways that are hard to assess. Let's talk about price-pointing.

Fact: Sorcerer is priced kinda low. I don't think it's shockingly low-priced (as the Burning Wheel certainly is). But yeah, it's a slim hardback, and it's $20. Lots of people tell me I should have gone for $25.

But is that really so terrible for anyone else? It's undercutting, yes, in what I consider a competitive way, but at least in the same playing field. I think. But what is that minimal threshold MSRP at which point a game's low price becomes a terrible, unfair, industry-hurting price? I guess I have a hard time understanding how to identify it.

(And just to be very clear, let's assume that every company in this picture I'm painting is a business, sustained by profits.)

And furthermore, considering that a Sorcerer re-print run ranges from 750 to 1250 copies (depending on which book), can its impact on the other titles' sales out there be even a blink on, say, White Wolf's ledgers? I mean, it's kind of ... well, trivial, isn't it?

Here's an even larger question. Let's say, due to technological innovations, to various information-sharing, and to a variety of other factors, a set of publishers similar to me (some bigger, some smaller, but all in this "semi-sustainable" model) all discover that their games sell very nicely at fairly low price-points, with rather meaty profits at that scale. They get some few copies into distribution, enough to have a presence at various stores (probably not all in the same store at any given time, and most stores have none of them, or at least don't re-order once they sell). They mostly sell on-line and through cooperative effort at conventions.

Also assume that the games in question are diverse and notable for their "punch per page," leading to very rapid pick-up-and-play practices as well as a high appeal for gamers' spouses and non-gamer friends, unlike many RPGs as currently construed. Finally, assume that many of the publishers use websites as, effectively, fanzines for the games, providing a lot of positive feedback and sense of community among the end-customers.

I'm not sure why I see that they could be called unethical. What they've done, effectively, is tap into the existing market in a new and better way, effectively generating a new "industry."* If this phenomenon were to have a negative impact on the existing companies' profits ... so what? Is that, in any way, a problem or bad thing?

I'm pretty ethically neutral on that score. It strikes me as plain old evolution (meaning change, not improvement) of culture and commerce, the same story as played out hundreds of times throughout history. I don't even claim it's good (i.e. calling it "progress"), but just ... a phenomenon which is easily understood and not especially controversial.

Best,
Ron

* quotes are non-derogatory, in this case merely indicating that we are talking about commerce that doesn't include a whole ton of images that are often associated with the word industry, like guys in overalls or hooting whistles at factories or executive offices

The issue of owner draw or designer compensation is a pretty big deal, because without it, your whole business is predicated on you basically being willing to keep providing a non-cash investment in it every time you work on a project without getting paid.

Dav wrote: That said, RPG design AIN'T BUSINESS!... it should be a community, it should price set collectively, and it should have the ability to call up someone in another company and say: "have you thought about X, that would be AWESOME!"

Contracycle:

Riddle of Steel, Sorcerer, Obsidian, Menschlichkeit... all of these feature production values competitive with, even exactly on par with, most market standards. Hard-cover, 40-60# paper, color cover with b&w interior at 300 dpi or better. All of these games are indy, all are operated (well, I speak less of TRoS, as I am not privy to Jake's methods of operation) on a profitable model of moderate sales through standard distribution channels, and higher sales through direct or semi-direct (meaning direct-to-store) means.

All of these games occupy a smaller niche in a niche market, but they still have wide impact. Further, again without including details of TRoS, all are operated as secondary income, at best, and not a competitive business models. What Wizards did with that Eberr... whatever it is... new world is pretty much the same thing Ron does with Sorcerer. Seriously. Ron allows development of mini-supplements, centered at his website, by third parties. Wizards did the same thing with their new D&D world, but made it a cash-prize contest. No difference except in the scope of support expected for That-E-World for D&D.

I think that Ryan and the minds behind d20 had a good idea in creating a system that fed development of "mainstream" games. The Forge does similar with indy games. Again, the scale is different, but the idea is the same (not that I am assigning motives to the d20 crew, I am sure that cementing a wide array of support for D&D3E was a factor, but I am likewise relatively certain that the idea of a creative community of designers was likewise a nifty side-benefit in the minds of some).

RPG design requires solvency to continue, and profitability for some of the larger companies, but what is really the key issue is that liking/disliking, or supporting, or whatever one game, has no real impact aside from turnaround period, of another game. Therefore, there is little reason to be competitiors in any real sense. RPG is not that market. Go ahead and design that model, it can work (I've heard horror stories of Hasbro meetings about how to "crush Mattel"), but eventually, the cyclic nature of the market catches up to everyone (even TSR). For indy games, market along a fad model... for bigger people, try to flatten the spike with supplements, if you can give something of substance, but in the end, every company is searching for "the next thing", all the time. No reason not to work together on it. RPG design is too tiny a market to really be something where "real business practices" are readily available to any but a very few. Hell, if I ran my RPG businesses like I ran my trading consortium, I'd be screwed... people would think I'm a bigger asshole than they already do.

Recently, I have been in contact with Eden Studios. They (Derek) mentioned a great idea for a new supplement on the Flames Rising boards, and I pitched my support. I ran it by a bunch of my friends in the industry, and suddenly, the idea has eight to ten big names attatched to it. We don't even want to be paid, we just want to design a world for the zombies (and who wouldn't?). THAT is the core of the RPG community. A few can manage to eke out a living, but no one will argue that bigger money isn't available elsewhere. Hell, I can't consult for the RPG market, maybe 1-2 of the companies can afford me, and I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, the top-shelf of financial and accounting consultants.

To me, RPG design has a lot to learn from creator-owned products, and creator-owned products need to learn to step up to the plate (ala the bigger market companies). We all "work" in the market (with some of us working, rather than "working"), and much as Ryan's presence on these boards wanting to educate and illuminate, and Ron and Mike and Ralph tearing hairs out explaining the hows, whys, and whynots of their processes for success; I don't see why, in some cases, the market shouldn't band together for a few moments and say: "what the fuck?" to do something fun, simple, and potentially kickass (such as the AFMBE Book of Worlds, the IGC Publication, the 24-hour Game Design, etc.). Yeah, yeah, we are all busy(ish), but marketing is marketing, and you can brand yourself faster than a game... In the end, it all feeds the same machine.

Therefore: community, not business (or, if you want me to word it less frictionally: community and business). Not a pipedream, it just means that occasionally, you need to use foul language and browbeating to get it done.

Dav

Ralph and Ryan:

Just tossing a couple cents in:

Ryan speaketh thusly:
"Small, art, and vanity press endeavors have more in common with each other than they do with "commercial" releases. Most notably, they usually have business models that are not designed to be self-sustaining."

I must say that, overall, I completely agree. A good majority of small press designers (and speaking primarily of creator/owners), most have a realistic grasp of their products in such a way that they have either 1) designed an "end", or 2) have some critical threshold in their own benchmarking that signals a "cut it off here" point.

Beside this point, Ryan is completely correct as most creator/owner businesses (or small press, or pick a label) have little in the way of legacy ot leave behind, and, in any event, have even less that could be considered a valued asset over and above current stock. In short, few, if any, small press games have a true brand value... they tend to be stand alones with little, if any support.

This is not a bad thing... don't get me wrong. It is merely a different thing (and less risky, and less stressful, and any myriad other nice side-benefits that one often associates with either a hobby or secondary income source).

I go back to my corner now.

Dav

Everyone looks to see what other people are doing when they set prices, whether as a manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, whatever. If you're serious about the biz, you'll be watching the competition.

It's a free market. This is capitalism. If someone wants to give away their product or sell it cheap, let them. It is their choice and it is only they who are missing the money.

On average, the more expensive products by more professional publishers will have higher production values and higher quality (you know, things like paid editors and paper... as opposed to review by friends and pdf).

The undervalued yet still high-quality products out there are the exception to the rule. And when they occur, maybe the person will wise up eventually, or maybe someone with more business savvy will make them an offer and publish for a higher price, who knows? It's free market economics. It goes up. It goes down. If you want to play, then you have to be as smart as you can, and you can't count on mounting a massive wave of industry altruism to prop up your own prices. It just won't happen.

Olibarro wrote: On average, the more expensive products by more professional publishers will have higher production values and higher quality (you know, things like paid editors and paper... as opposed to review by friends and pdf).

For my opinion on White Wolf, please see page XX.

*sighs@ww*

Olibarro wrote:
On average, the more expensive products by more professional publishers will have higher production values and higher quality

Nate,

Yeah, I know. I was just being a smart-ass.