Who are the graphic designers of the Forge? Are your services for sale to other Forgies?

I'm one such designer and have worked with Lumpley and Timfire on their books.

How do you charge for your services among the Forge? How would you like to?

See, I have this theory: a lot of us have skills and talents. No small number of folks can design games better than I. Any of the many illustrators here draw better than I can. But I also know that I design a mean page, and I make logos and icons that work.

Usually, the way amateurs like us do stuff when our professional lives overlap is that we cut our friends a deal: we charge them a tiny amount, knowing that our friends couldn't afford upfront what we charge. I propose that this sucks. It means that we wind up resenting our friends because we have a lot of work to do and not much compensation; and our friends resent us because we have to spend so much time doing things that actually pay money and not a cool RPG.

So I suggest that we invest in each other. When you want someone to do illustrations, give them a percentage of the profits. When you need page layout or full-on book design, pay by percentage. That way, what we're doing is showing faith in each others' projects.

The flip side of this is that you have to actually have faith in someone's game.

I'd like to come up with a set of Forge contracts that we can refer to; really use this community tool to make our ideas into real things.

Who else is a GD here? How does this plan sound?

I did all the layout and graphic design for Capes. I think the plan sounds like it could, long-term, make for much worse feelings between people than simply charging a set sum.

If I'm a shareholder in a game system, my opinions of how it's being marketed are no longer just idle speculation. This is a question of how much money I get for my efforts. If the game publisher makes a complete hash out of it then he's not just screwing himself, he's screwing me as well.

Hello, Nikola!

I'm one of the several graphic designers active here on the Forge, and I've done layouts for probably over a dozen indie games, including my own.

I have charged various fees for my services, ranging from $100 to as high as $800 for a book. Frankly, that's an incredibly low price for the kind of work we do. I do it because I enjoy it, and because I think the games deserve to look good.

On the other hand, I haven't done a layout for a game in a while now because the time involved versus the compensation isn't worth the effort in my increasingly busy life.

Truth be told, I miss doing this. It's a great creative outlet! I hope to be able to do a couple more layouts this year, hopefully.

I find the flat fee very workable given the general nature and situation of most indie designers (and the nature of most designs, alas!). I don't think a percentage is a very workable solution. I just don't think there's enough revenue to make the percentage workable over an uncertain time for the designer. I'd much rather have my money up front, even if it means I might make as much as, say, double the money over a couple years.

Let's say I charge $100 flat fee for, oh, a 60-page RPG book. I get my cash, and turn it around into buying art for my own publication, which I also sell. I then make, oh, $300 over the next couple years with about $200 profit.

I'd rather do that than take, say, some 5% cut of the book, which results in -- on a VERY profitable indie game -- $200-300 over a couple years.

Those are really rough numbers for the sake of examples, but I don't think they are unrealistic at all.

If you base your percentage fee on the expected number of sales, it's another matter. If you say, "I expect this book to sell 200 copies and I want $200 for it, and the book sells for $20, costs $10 to print and ship, then I want $1/book, or 10%."

Then you do a fucking awesome job and it sells 1000 copies.

I do layout more than general graphic design (if I need art, logos or other graphical bits, I usually have other people do them for me so that I can focus on putting things together on a page), and it's certainly available to others.

The main issue for me is one of time. If I thought graphic design was a better use of my time than game publishing, I wouldn't be publishing games in the first place. As a result, I don't really advertise that service much, but I've done a few things for people.

Anyway, getting a share in a game sounds like a lousy idea, honestly.

My thinking is this: you have to be willing and able to put up money to prove that you can make the game successful. Thus, only the people who can pay a flat fee up front are the ones I'd accept a royalty from. The ones who can only offer a royalty are the ones I'd demand a flat fee from. It's just too easy to walk away from a project when you only owe royalties, so I almost always go with the flat fee.

If someone really can't pay up front, I sometimes use a trade in services. For example, I once designed and hosted a web site for an artist in exchange for an equal dollar value in art. Like all bartering systems, this requires a coincidence of interests (he has to want what I'm offering and vice versa) but it also means that we both get what we want up front and for a reduced price.

jdagna wrote: I do layout more than general graphic design (if I need art, logos or other graphical bits, I usually have other people do them for me so that I can focus on putting things together on a page), and it's certainly available to others.

The main issue for me is one of time. If I thought graphic design was a better use of my time than game publishing, I wouldn't be publishing games in the first place. As a result, I don't really advertise that service much, but I've done a few things for people.

Anyway, getting a share in a game sounds like a lousy idea, honestly.

My thinking is this: you have to be willing and able to put up money to prove that you can make the game successful. Thus, only the people who can pay a flat fee up front are the ones I'd accept a royalty from. The ones who can only offer a royalty are the ones I'd demand a flat fee from. It's just too easy to walk away from a project when you only owe royalties, so I almost always go with the flat fee.

If someone really can't pay up front, I sometimes use a trade in services. For example, I once designed and hosted a web site for an artist in exchange for an equal dollar value in art. Like all bartering systems, this requires a coincidence of interests (he has to want what I'm offering and vice versa) but it also means that we both get what we want up front and for a reduced price.

I do freelance layout work (more than graphics per se) plsu web site design.

Taking the general concept of cheap community rates, and Justin's comment on exchange of services, here's an alternate idea: some kind of bartering network for publishing-related work. A centralized website would keep track of work done using a virtual currency, only very roughly equated with dollars. For instance, you could do someone's artwork for them and get 10 points on the network. Then you could "spend" 5pts by giving them to someone else for editing.

It'd be pretty hard to make work, unfortunately, since it would be hard to evaluate work on a systematic basis. If the work were primarily pro bono, with only a mild expectation of reciprocity, the network could just help balance things out a bit. But hard feelings could develop fast if someone felt they didn't get a fair trade. I guess participants would have to establish, up-front, what kind of work they would do for 1pt.

Jasper wrote: It'd be pretty hard to make work, unfortunately, since it would be hard to evaluate work on a systematic basis. If the work were primarily pro bono, with only a mild expectation of reciprocity, the network could just help balance things out a bit. But hard feelings could develop fast if someone felt they didn't get a fair trade. I guess participants would have to establish, up-front, what kind of work they would do for 1pt.

HI Joshua,

Points is not a new idea, nor is it a bad one. Heck, Alec Guinness took points in Star Wars and got the hell out. Smart man, that Alec.

But as a small press publisher, ain't no way I'm giving points to a graphic artist for layout work. It's just too much handling time on the back end. I want to hire a professional for a job and be done with it. I've got enough worries when the money comes rolling in, that cutting a check to my layout guy every month is very unappealing.

Perhaps a better negotiation of price on the front end would clear things up? Layout is hard fucking work and of paramount importance in a medium such as rpgs, but no rpg company can afford to pay graphic designers a rate that they could get in working in, say, advertising. But as you said, we're friends and small press publishers. The deal is the name of the game. The art is cutting a deal that satisfies both sides.

-Luke

Full disclosure: I work as a layout artist and do my own layout for Burning Wheel.

Heya, Luke. I was hoping you'd show up here.

Lemme set something straight here: when I go into a design project, I want to get a big check at the beginning, a big check at the end, and a credit in the colophon. No duh.

The checks can't be that big here.

What I'm proposing here is that we work out some way that the design of the books that come out of the Forge match the design of the games. I have no doubt that anyone in this thread could do a beautiful book. Luke's proven it, in fact, and then proven that it was no fluke. But a lot of good game designers are graphic design retards.

So, what is this, like 6 people in this thread? There's a tremendous demand that well outstrips the supply here at the Forge. I think we should figure out a way to make it work.

Well, I do web-design, which is a whole different kettle than graphic design for print, though related. I mainly stick to illustrating for RPGs, but as semi-related paid professional I have to throw my two bits in:

I want my check up front, my money for the work I've done now for one good reason -- I have bills. Bills don't come in the mail and go, "Sure, pay us whatever you can this month."

No, I want something I can count on, not something I have to pray about. I have a family I have to budget for, so I'd rather have a definite $X now than a maybe $X later, even if the maybe $X ultimately ends up being more.

That's a gamble I can't afford. I need to know ahead of time what I have coming in so I can put down what is going out, or it isn't just me that gets screwed. Hence, I can't take chances with having enough money for my bills, my kids, my house, etc. Thus, "faith" in someone's game has nothing to do with it -- it isn't even a part of the equation for me.

Others might be in different situations, so it may be different for them. However, I literally could not afford to wait on what is essentially a gamble, even a gamble with good odds (because that's all they are: odds).

(Plus, I think, most producers forget they can send their artists/designers/whomever more money later if the game does end up selling well or better than expected. In fact, as I've announced before that is something I plan to do with Orx.)

As for feeling "resentful" that I can't charge folks what the larger industry pays: resentment is something we, as individuals, can control. It is not as though we HAVE to charge them less, as though we are being forced to do so, and thus we really have anything to be resentful about.

What an individual charges another is their choice, and if you can't do it at that price for someone, then you simply don't do it. I don't know where resentment should come into it at all, except as some sort of dysfunctional social dynamic on the part of the individual feeling upset over their own choice.

I design (graphic, layout, web, whatever you need). As a designer and artist, knowing what's coming in and out money-wise in a project is crucial to actually make profit for your services. In this society, relying on royalty is shakey at best. Something solid and garanteed is needed.

Having faith in a game is risky in the business world. Things that no one can control could happen, and your profit would be lost. Just because someone likes a game, doesn't garantee it's sucess. That is unless lot's of people like. But it's just so much safer and universally exceptable to go with cash up front.

-MisterPoppet-

So, what I'm hearing here is that you'd all prefer to not make a game better because your already-reduced-for-friends up front fee is too high for people to pay?

That's lose-lose. You don't get the money and you don't get to help make something else in your community succeed.

Or do you usually get paid so little that it makes sense to get that little for a job?

Come on. If I ask for an amount of money that I normally get doing graphic design, no one here could afford me. Same with Luke, I'm sure. Probably same with most of you. I sure couldn't afford to hire me. It costs thousands to lay a decent book, because it takes dozens of hours, meetings, and redoings. You're telling me that you'd rather guarantee that you get less than minimum wage to do that kind of thing than to throw your lot in with a game whose creator and vision you trust, and maybe make a non-embarrassing amount of money in the process?

The worst that happens is you don't get paid as much as you wanted. You were going to do that anyway.

In the larger world, there's usually an upfront, plus royalties. That's certainly workable in this context. But what I'm hearing is that the economic realities of self-publishing somehow shouldn't extend to graphic disign. Game designers don't get paid up front, either. When you're the co-creator of a product in an environment like this, why not play the same game?

Remember, I'm not talking about this as a business model for a graphic design house. I'm talking about this as an internal Forge thing. And I'm also not talking about doing this with someone you don't trust already.

I do graphic design because I enjoy doing it. I'm a not-quite-grad student currently on government scholarship money so, unlike many of the people here, I can still afford to do this. I've, in the past, flat out volunteered to do layout, design, and illustration work for games that were really spiffy but might not end up looking all that spiffy, unless their designers forked out a chunk of change. Most recently I meant to do some pieces for Clinton's Shadows of Yesterday, but life intervened. Grr...

I'd be willing to work for:
-- recognition
-- a few copies of the book
-- the greater beauty of indie games

And that's all. Those of you who know me or who are willing to first build a relationship with me just have to ask. I'll most likely be up for it.

This model probably wouldn't fly with many other people, for the various and sundry reasons listed above. However, I enjoy making good games look good and have the economic and artistic freedom to go out of my way and help other designers out.

So, I'm very open to the kinds of collaborative projects you seem to be proposing, Nikola. (Your work on Dogs was swell, by the way.)

nikola wrote: Come on. If I ask for an amount of money that I normally get doing graphic design, no one here could afford me.

Nikola, people -- like me -- who have done this thing many, many times are talking, and you don't seem to have budged on your position. What do you want to see happen in this conversation?

You're not going to get much argument from me that the payment for layout is greatly undervalued. But, being an indie publisher myself, I sympathize.

Given the state of the RPG industry as a whole, graphic design is NOT it's strong suit, generally speaking. I've done some layouts that I'm really proud of. I did some of 'em for peanuts. (shrug) My choice. What's your choice? Do it, then. Or not. I guess my position is that it's up to the individuals willing (or not) to do the work.

Publishers, it can't hurt to ask. In fact, I've got a fun idea for doing a layout here this year . . . .

As an indie publisher myself, I've found myself underpaying for services I know are worth more...sometimes I've had to actually tell people eager to do me a favor "no its ok, you can actually charge me more than that".

But one thing I insist on is paying up front, usually 1/2 now 1/2 on acceptance which does put a crimp in the old cash flow when the game isn't going to be released for some time.

So the solution I'm trying out for R&R is not quite profit sharing as Nikola proposes. Rather I'd call it a contingency bonus. It works like this.

I pay you $400 up front for a service I know is worth $800. After my book generates enough revenue to pay for the printing costs, the next $400 are yours (plug in your own numbers here). If necessary it can go to 3 tiers, but then it starts getting a little more difficult to track.

Its easier to track than a %age and once its paid, its done so you aren't tracking royalties for years and writing small checks constantly. Its just one big followup payment made out of cash flow from the game and then its done. But it does help the indie guy not pay way more up front than he can afford while helping get the contractor a little closer to fair value.

Right now, I'm getting a serious "bear-pit" vibe from you regarding this question, Nikola. Instead of tearing apart the answers and declaring why anyone whose choice that doesn't agree with your proposal is invalid, why not try reading what was said instead of just batting (part of) it down.

For example, has anyone who has disagreed with your proposal said anything about "not working for free" or "not choosing less than industry price"? No, they haven't. Yet you are responding and writing as though they have (see below). You are making plenty of assumptions about folk's reasoning and choices, and plenty of unfair judgements right along with them. Politely, knock it off.

nikola wrote: So, what I'm hearing here is that you'd all prefer to not make a game better because your already-reduced-for-friends up front fee is too high for people to pay?

Come on. If I ask for an amount of money that I normally get doing graphic design, no one here could afford me.

You're telling me that you'd rather guarantee that you get less than minimum wage to do that kind of thing than to throw your lot in with a game whose creator and vision you trust, and maybe make a non-embarrassing amount of money in the process?

Nkola, I think that if you want to work based on royalties, that's a perfectly valid decision. There are merits to doing that, but there are also disadvantages and risks. Nobody here is saying that you should change your ways or charge up front (I would save that for another thread), just that we're in positions where we feel it necessary or preferable to charge up front. Successful people often thrive by being willing to do things that everyone else isn't so maybe it will work for you.

But it's a little unfair to criticize other people for making a different choice, especially when you're putting words into our mouths or making a worst-case scenario out of it. Graphic designers can't be held personally or collectively responsible if we choose to "not make a game better."

Wouldn't it be more fair to suggest that game publishers plan an appropriate budget for graphic design? Just like they do for printing and artwork? You could say that the publisher has chosen to not make his game better by entering into a project that they were poorly-equipped or unprepared for. That would put the responsibility for product quality where it belongs - on the publisher.

jdagna wrote: But it's a little unfair to criticize other people for making a different choice, especially when you're putting words into our mouths or making a worst-case scenario out of it. Graphic designers can't be held personally or collectively responsible if we choose to "not make a game better."

Wouldn't it be more fair to suggest that game publishers plan an appropriate budget for graphic design?

Valamir wrote: I pay you $400 up front for a service I know is worth $800. After my book generates enough revenue to pay for the printing costs, the next $400 are yours (plug in your own numbers here). If necessary it can go to 3 tiers, but then it starts getting a little more difficult to track.

Its easier to track than a %age and once its paid, its done so you aren't tracking royalties for years and writing small checks constantly. Its just one big followup payment made out of cash flow from the game and then its done. But it does help the indie guy not pay way more up front than he can afford while helping get the contractor a little closer to fair value.

Right. To put some additional numbers to it, lets say that I print 1000 copies at $4.00/book and sell them for $30 MSRP.

That means I have $4000 in cost sunk into the print run. If I sell all of the copies through distribution and pocket $12 per book myself, then after 334 copies sold I'll have paid for the print cost. The next 34 copies sold would generate $400 which would all go to the artist. Then anything beyond that is profit to me (not including other expenses, of course).

If you wind up in an arrangement like this with multiple parties you'd want to set the payout standards in advance....probably some form of split on a quarterly basis or the like.

I think Ralph is pretty much saying this, but here is my idea.

Let's say the service is worth $1,000 (nice round number). I as publisher can afford to pay $400 dollars up front. So we set up a contract like this:

Upon Contract Signing: 20%
Upon Completion: 20%
Upon Sales Goal X: 20%
Upon Sales Goal Y: 20%
Upon Sales Goal Z: 20%

That way, if it is a hit the service provider gets what he is worth, but if it doesn't reach said goals both sides are happy. Service provider at least gets a portion of his full worth and the bank isn't broken for the publisher.

Keith

Hey Keith,

I think Ralph is pretty much saying this
.
.
.
Upon Contract Signing: 20%
Upon Completion: 20%
Upon Sales Goal X: 20%
Upon Sales Goal Y: 20%
Upon Sales Goal Z: 20%

That's slightly different. Ralph's scheme isn't based on unit sales, but on how many dollers he pockets across the sales he makes. He pockets more on direct sales than to distribution via a consolidator.

Paul

Either way works and has its pros and cons.

Unit sales are slightly easier to track (and much easier to retroactively reconstruct).

Revenue makes sure that the publisher isn't paying out before break even and makes sure the artist isn't waiting for a unit target if the publisher already broke even.

But Unit Sales are hard, indisputable and measurable. Revenue is based on how the publisher chooses to sell the game. So the con side of basing on revenue is that the artist is at the whim of the publisher to set sales prices. If sales on Indie Press Revolution / Lulu / RPGMall are slow and the publisher cuts the price in half to spur some sales volume...that impacts the artist's repayment schedule.

Someone you have a good relationship with it probably doesn't matter, but for formal, arms length, contract type arrangements...Unit Sales is likely the more concrete way to go.