So, at Origins, I discovered a few interesting ideas that people have about publishing.

For one, let's start with White Wolf's announcement about licencing:

http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=19615

In brief, if you charge people to play in your WW game, you now owe them $20 per player, per year, to be in compliance with the liscence.

This has already caused a lot of acrimony, and it seems somewhat reasonable. Let's try to stick to analysis here, however - is WW just heading to where things are going in the future early? Perhaps they're just ahead of the curve on this.

Another similar thing I saw was a game called Equation by a company called Hybrid Game Systems: http://quadratic.equat10n.com/

The model here is a subscription service. Almost the opposite in some ways of what WW is doing, you pay to have access to the content of the site on a monthly basis, and new content is added regularly (or so the model goes). Anything downloaded is then free for use with your group. I'm sure I have the specifics screwed up, but read the site to be sure.

Anyhow, this particular model seems like it would be a really good one for many indie designers, at least in terms of overhead - no printing. But is it going to generate sales? The booth at the convention was very slick, and they made great presentations. So they have the service angle covered. The question is whether or not the publishing model will attract buyers.

What do you think? Are RPGs suited for this more "liscencing" based distribution sort of model? What do you think would be the best way to go? What are the pitfalls?

Mike

Mike,

It is an interesting model. Essentially adopting the MMORPG model in some respects. I think it would require a few things to be successful in any meaningful way. I flirted with the idea, but decided free regular content is more appropriate at this time.

Here is my list in no particular order of shit I think is needed to make this a viable idea.

• A large burst of initial content to start things off. Maybe even a book or PDF, much in the way you buy the software in a box for online games.
• A consistent updating of the site with new quality content, which would have to be immediately applicable to game play. In other words, things along the lines of adventures and rules and such.
• Interactive tools for users. Shit like dynamically generated maps, character generators, dice rollers, and adventure generators.
• User input to the "world" at large. Shit has got to change and the Players need to be a part of that.
• Communication between developers and Players.
• A fan base before implementation. Got to trade on your reputation, use a much beloved license to draw 'em in, or get a bunch of guest developers to pinch hit at times (June is Ron Edwards Month, etc.).


Keith

To be honest, I'd be really rather surprised that WW plan is legally enforcable - particularly under English law. But that's by the by. I also predict WW will be forced to withdraw their plan under consumer pressure.

The trouble with a subscription model is that you're then paying for content you can't see. That works fairly well with news based outlets (magazines, etc.) because you're paying to be informed about stuff you don't know about. RPG content is different because of its highly subjective nature; just because I liked your last game doesn't mean I like this one. While with settings, you can't continually refine them without metaplotting on people's games; and you can't keep rolling out Crunch without disbalancing a system with inevitable power creep.

That leaves adventure content; I could see a decent number of gamers being interested in an on-going campaign rolled out in installments. But the usual caveat applies: only GMs buy adventures and only some of them - so your market is smaller.

That leaves adventure content; I could see a decent number of gamers being interested in an on-going campaign rolled out in installments. But the usual caveat applies: only GMs buy adventures and only some of them - so your market is smaller.

Bob Goat wrote: A consistent updating of the site with new quality content, which would have to be immediately applicable to game play. In other words, things along the lines of adventures and rules and such.

MatrixGamer wrote: This model would work better if one had an organization in place. But if that was the case then why go all subscription? Subscription sales would only be one revenue stream.

The problem I see with a Subscription model is that there is no way to control what one person with a subscription does with the material once he has access to it. People buy the print version of books because they want the actual book in hand. Sure they could run a Xerox copy of the book from their friend but the actual book is better quality, lasts longer and is just plain cool to own.

A subscription isn't going to have any of those advantages. One person will go and purchase a monthly subscription and then will make access to it available to all his friends. Since there is no printed version, there's no downside to just making a copy from one person and using it.

The subscription method works for MMOGs because only one person can use the account at a time and this is very important to the medium. Verant doesn't care if you and 2 other friends share an EverQuest account. Only one of you can be online at a time. If you want to play together you will have to buy multiple subscriptions.

I don't see any way to monitor this kind of thing with print products. You could rely on basic human honesty, I guess. If so, good luck and let me know how that turns out. :-)

Gaerik wrote: The problem I see with a Subscription model is that there is no way to control what one person with a subscription does with the material once he has access to it. People buy the print version of books because they want the actual book in hand. Sure they could run a Xerox copy of the book from their friend but the actual book is better quality, lasts longer and is just plain cool to own.

Lots to cover here.

Andrew, I think that the intent is, in fact, that you are free to distribute the materials that you download. This is part of the model. The idea is that the new content would keep people on the line for new stuff each month or whatever. And that you'd only have one subscription per group likely. I think that's built into the model (but check if you want to be sure).

So it would rather be like news site, I guess.

In any case, it's no worse than the "PDF Piracy Problem", or the fact that all my life all my groups have always shared one copy of the books needed to play any game. Both of which haven't deterred people from making money in either medium.

Chris, I don't think the "cheap printing" model is old by a longshot. May remain the best model for a long time. I'm just trying to make sure that we're not missing the boat or anything. :-)

Jack, on the enforcability of the model, I think that it is. But that said, somebody said that it means that anyone who wants to can, because of the change in the liscence, return their stuff for a refund. Even if not true, I'd agree with you that user resistance may shoot this down.

It does seem ill advised to stick it to your most fervent advocates for playing of your game. But, again, I'm wondering if they're perhaps trying to make sure that they don't get paid if, for example, somebody were to use the WW rules for an MMORPG. Which would be much more enforcable.

There may be motives here that we can't see.


Keith, I think that they mentioned a lot of your bullet points in their presentation. That said, I may be confusing some of what the Hybrid guys said with one of the partners at the IPR table at Origins, http://www.crossroads-rpg.com/index.htm

These guys were doing a less radical thing, merely promising a lot of free support online. Basically you buy the core game book, and then get loads of continuing support. In any case, both groups were adamant about personal support, and player interaction of some sort.

Mike

As an addendum to the MMOG comparison, the thing with accounts is not only that they are not shared, but that they are turned off when you don't pay. Once you download content, however, you can still use it even if you don't pay anymore.

I don't like subscription models with downloadable content for the following reason: If I sign on in Month 1, and someone else signs on in Month 2, that other person gets everything I got, for half the price. I.e., it would pay off for me to sign in one month, get all I can, cancel subscription, and come back a year later for exactly one month to download all the new content.

That means you'd actually need to have changing content that is only available in any given month, so that each month is worth paying for.

On the White Wolf Position

I do have a few questions.

1) If you do not have to follow the Camarilla stock storyline nor be a member of a local Camarilla group, then why do they care about consistency of product? By definition someone running their own Chronicle is likely not going to be in line with the WW Chronnicle and so who cares if the information is the same?

2) What do they mean Charge to Play? Conventions often have two models of revenue: Charge an admission fee but playing each game is free or charge admission and then charge per game as well. If you are running a game at a con that simply charges for admission, are you still required to become a Camarilla member?

3) What are the subscription numbers and how is the Camarilla doing?

As an aside the RPGA (WOTC) requires each player to have a copy of the PHB and any book from which they are using feats / classes / or equipment. Now in practice this is not always the case. However, the point is that this requierment is designed to increase sales of the D&D books (mainly the splat books).

On RPG Subscriptions in General

I think this would be a fairly tricky revenue idea to pull off for someone who is working alone. What new content could you add that would be worth money on a monthly basis? New rules? Updates to the game world IF you have a ame world. People are not going to pay for crap, period. Well ok someone went to the Fantastic Four movie so...

I think there would be very few people who would be able to create such content on their own for their small (or even not so small) Indie Game.

Now, a conglomerate of artists, working together, sharing the revenue might be able to create a dyamic enough environment to make a little money.

I would also say that an organization like the RPGA, except truly dedicated to all kinds of RPGs could work as far as organizing persistent (living) games or just making content available on a per pay or subscription basis.

Sean

Well, in your scenario, you'd have to wait eleven months to get the information you want. That would be the downside.

OTOH, one could package the material so that you only get the months you pay for. This would then make it, for all practical purposes, an online magazine. Pyramid makes a going business of this model.

Basically without this, it's like a subscription where you can see the back issues.

Also the site is a Wiki. Meaning that even the "old" stuff is updated as things proceed. And they offer discounts for long, term subscriptions.

That said it does seem somewhat pricey at $20 to get in the door, and 7$ a month (5$ is the discounted price). But who knows?

Sean, "Charge For Play" might be just my own term. Check out the link I gave and it should be more clear.

Mike

Reading over WW's policy, it looks very reasonable to me. I think a lot of the backlash they'll get will come from people who just want to rant and people who don't understand the details. Just looking through the replies to WW's announcement, I see that most people are arguing from a theoretical standpoint - they are not even affected by the decision, but they've decided to get mad anyway.

Looking at the details, the policy doesn't require the event runner to pay White Wolf - it requires that the players and runner be members of the Camarilla. You could pay the fees for the players, or you could just say that your fee-based event is only open to Camarilla members and let the players pay the fee. A fair number of WW fans are already Camarilla members, meaning that nothing changes for them.

There's no fee required for one-shot events that charge players, provided that the events' runner is a member of the Camarilla. (From my reading, this also means guest players can participate in a fee-based event for one session before they have to join the Camarilla). If the event itself doesn't have an extra charge (like events at many conventions), then nobody has to pay WW anything.

So... while I'm not sure it's a good move on their part, it does seem perfectly fair and it's reasonable, at least to the degree allowed by the fact that WW will probably have a hard time enforcing the policy.

From my understanding, under the policy, you can't charge for an event. So, if you run an ongoing LARP, you can't charge to cover site fees (which are usually a few hundred dollars) or materials costs (ink, paper, etc.). If, in addition to having to bite these costs, the coordinators have to pay membership fees for themselves and/or their players, these games will have to shut down.

Furthermore, as I understand it, Cammarilla-sanctioned games cannot turn away players. If someone's caused problems at events before, the organizers still can't refuse them participation.

Hi Mike,

I love the idea of subscription services. Such a model can be very profitable for the publisher, and can be generally cool for the end user. One of my great punk rock regrets is that I was born too late to be a member of the Misfits' Fiend Club. Lots of pins, patches and 7"s were only available to Fiend Club members. Oh how I craved them in 1989!

However, creating such product or, in our case, content, is time consuming and potentially costly.

Compound this with the fact that value-added services like web support and free downloads are quickly becoming expectations among the gaming public, and you've got the death knell for subscription services.

Maybe I'm speaking too myopically from my own experiences, but in order to get BW noticed by the web-set crowd, I had to have free content available on my site. And one of the earliest and best pieces of advice I ever got was to put forums "like the Forge" on my site.

I suspect that if I began charging for access to my wisdom and commentary and/or asked for subscriptions for the pdf chapters, I'd be hard pressed to muster fan support.

Of course, this all refers to only one arm of the business, web presence and sales. Retail is still the dominant model and would be largely unaffected/unsupported by any efforts in this vein. Which makes the process even harder and costlier.

just me two whole cents.
-Luke

Andrew has pointed out what seems to be the most coherent argument against the policy. Basically if people have to pay the $20 extra to play, they might not do so. A co-ordinator can pass this on to his people, but that jacks up the cost of an event. What may have cost $5 before for participation - a nominal fee to cover expenses, is now much more substantial. Sure you only have to do this for people who are not already members of the Camarilla for that year, but lots of people attend LARPS only once a year.

I'm particularly thinking of the large game conventions, where, in fact, it does cost extra to get into an event. I think these are affected by the policy. So the LARPer is paying $20 to get into the convention already for that day, $7.50 to play the LARP (or somesuch) and now also has to pay an additional $20 to be eligible to play legally.

No other event at a convention will cost that much. Even True Dungeon is cheaper (and their overhead is astronomical).

Yeah, gamers are cheap. Whatchagonnadoaboudit?


Luke, yeah, I think that's the biggest problem with the subscription model. You sell your entry product for the same amount, and then don't charge for further stuff.

That said, I think that they are at least promising more than what you offer (delivery is yet to be seen). That is, I'm betting that they figure that the thing will grow somewhat virally. That players will add to the Wiki somewhat like Doyce's Wiki (random.average-bear.com) grows, or more. I probably shouldn't say this, but I'd pay a nominal fee to have access to the data there - and not just my own, of course.

But I think that what they want is more than nominal. We're looking at at least $80 in the first year. Stay on three years to maturity and you're looking at a $200 investment. Of course, that's not any more than you'll pay to play D&D 3E...

Perhaps only time will tell. I wish them well in their endeavor, but I won't be purchasing their IPO.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm particularly thinking of the large game conventions, where, in fact, it does cost extra to get into an event. I think these are affected by the policy. So the LARPer is paying $20 to get into the convention already for that day, $7.50 to play the LARP (or somesuch) and now also has to pay an additional $20 to be eligible to play legally.

jdagna wrote: A fee like this at a convention would classify the event as a one-time thing, which means only the event organizers have to be members of the Camarilla.

Mike Holmes wrote: I don't believe anyone is making money off of their ongoing LARP.

That assumes they're packed every time, and no other expenses occur. And even so, we're looking at $3000 a year maybe in profits? For a whole crew?

My point is that nobody is doing this as a full time job, or to make money. If you looked at the hours of work that went into this, it's not a good investment. People do it because it's fun. Nobody is quitting their day job (not even the True Dungeon people, I don't think, and they're subsidized by Peter Adkison) to run LARPs.

So trying to "rake off" money from what it a hobby activity, even if the organizers come out with a few bucks for their efforts, still seems petty to me. If every branch of the Camarilla ran regular events that were truely business propositions, then I could see them wanting to take a bite out of that apple. But I'm just not seeing it as a cash cow.

Again, it seems like it has to be something else.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: If, in fact, they were taking a cut of profits from some venture, I could see it more. But I think that they're not going to make any real money off of this. And I think they know that. Which is why I suspect that there is some other motive behind protecting the use of their IP this way.

Or, maybe they're just trying something new. Again, given the potential damage to the major goodwill that they get from their players (which translates to more players and more sales), I think it's probably not going to work. But we'll see.

Good points.

Mike

Just a quick update on this. Apparently, a White Wolf representative showed up at DexCon to try and enforce this policy. The GMs running WW LARPs got together, and told the rep that they wouldn't go along, and would explain to all their players that it was the WW policy that killed the LARP. At which point, the rep backed off and explained that there was a miscommunication, and that WW would be releasing a revised version of the policy soon.

Admittedly, this is from someone else who was there, and I didn't see any of this go down personally, but I find it interesting. I couldn't find anything about this on the WW website, though. Anyone hear anything?

Not going to comment on that DexCon account, but WW has officially withdrawn the policy -- see http://www.livejournal.com/community/whitewolf_lj/11129.html for Phil's post regarding it.