I'm not sure if this is the forum for this but I have faith it will be moved if it's not. I received this in an email so I post it here for those who may be interested.

After reveiwing the long list of quality CCG's and RPG's no longer in
print due to company downsizing, and lack of profit; AND after
veiwing the quality games and concepts individual gamers create
compared to some of the repetitive trash game companies are
producing, the formation of the Independant Gamer's Organization is
being announced.

The Independant Gamer's Organization (IGO) is a group of gamers whose
goal is to promote gaming seperate from the commercial market. The
IGO's primary objective is to continue old and new games made by the
gamers, and for the gamers.

The IGO has three primary goals:
1. To work with existing game companies to acquire production rights
to out of print games, and to continue these games on a not-for-
profit basis with both design and production provided by the gamers.

2. To bring the best and most creative game concepts designed by
individual gamers to production, either through partnerships with
existing game companies, or directy in a not-for-profit plan.

3. To form a consolidated force of individual gamers to provide a
larger voice in lobbying game companies to make good decisions for
the game market.

Although money makes the world go round, money has forced many a game
company to make short term decisions with long term effects on the
gaming market. A seperate, independant, not-for-profit organization
can help salvage what was lost along the way, and bring the new
gaming market to a whole new level.

Currently, the IGO is in planning stages. If you are interested in
helping influence the game market, please join the IGO group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gamersorganization or e-mail
gamersorganization@yahoogroups.com. This mailing list will serve as
an discussion area for ideas and progression. Let's work together to
make gaming better.

I'd say this fits right here in this forum.

And now I'll tell you why these guys are wrong, wrong, wrong:

Goal 1: "To work with existing game companies to acquire production rights
to out of print games, and to continue these games on a not-for-
profit basis with both design and production provided by the gamers."

I know a lot of people have their favorite out-of-print games that they love. If you have a copy of the book, you can still play it. I have never understood why an out-of-print game is called a "dead game." Not only do I not care if more supplements are not made, but I like that they aren't. Most supplements are a plague on games.

Goal 2: "To bring the best and most creative game concepts designed by
individual gamers to production, either through partnerships with
existing game companies, or directy in a not-for-profit plan."

Are you independent or not? First, I'm guessing bringing games "to production" means "in print." Print isn't necessary any more. It's not hard bring your game to a large audience - lay it out, make a PDF, and sell that thing.

Also - either partnering with other companies or starting your own non-profit (which I don't think even makes sense in this case) is a bad idea. I see too many people caught up in the traditional writer -> publisher -> distributor -> retailer chain - they're making putting their cool game ideas out there much too hard.

Goal 3: "To form a consolidated force of individual gamers to provide a
larger voice in lobbying game companies to make good decisions for
the game market."

Game companies are not the "game market." All of these companies could close shop tomorrow, and people would still make and play games.

Hey there,

Ownership is ownership. Whoever controls the commerce of a thing, owns it; all else is smoke and mirrors.

So what are these guys talking about, really?

Goal #1 - OK, cool, I guess. Such a thing doesn't hurt or help anyone. It doesn't strike me as "independent" in any particular way. It does strike me as oddly committed to the "commercial RPG market," as opposed to being separate from it (as stated in their over-goal).

Goal #2 - Here's where things look mighty bizarre. On the one hand, the over-goal says "Independent" and also "separate from the commercial market." On the other, the effect of goal #2 is to incorporate gamer-driven design and creativity into existing game companies' new products.

Full stop. What? How is this "separate" from the "commercial RPG market"? How is it anything but ... basically, well, parasitism of the user-base and creators in general by the established publisher base? And "not for profit"? Insert cry of baffled outrage and contempt.

Goal #3 - Now we are really down the rabbit hole. How are gamers to lobby anybody? How is the retailer community any sort of governed or unified body? And how in the world could such lobbying be expected to override the dominant factor in the RPG industry, namely whatever current arrangement exists across distributor policy about buy-backs and downstream-discounting?

That arrangement drives RPG publishing and commerce, case closed. No, it's not a conspiracy, no, it's not a single-variable factor. But without understanding it, and presenting retailers with some credo that "me and all my friends here think you should act like this," will result in loud hoots of justified laughter.

I'd like to see this get presented at GAMA. Hell, I'd buy tickets to watch that one.

Best,
Ron

I think perhaps your giving too much weight to OUR definition of independent. These guys are certainly not "indie" but they aren't subsidiaries of a major publisher.

I can definitely see some benefit in what they're doing. There's a large number of GURPs books currently out of print. Ok, I could go buy someones used battered copy on Ebay. But what if its been out of print for several editions. I clearly see value in rereleasing these old supplements updated to the latest rules edition. Similiarly there is a TON of old Chaosium Pendragon stuff long gone, not updated to the new Pendragon rules and virtually impossible to find except by spending an hour at the Crazy Igor booth at Origins going through boxes.

Fortuneately for Pendragon, Green Knight (basically 1 guy, Peter Corless who financed it out of his own pocket) picked up the Pendragon line and has enjoyed enough success to not only finally release stuff that had been stalled in the pipeline, but to go back to some of the old first edition stuff, collect them, update them and rerelease them (like the old Tournament of Dreams adventure).

It seems to me that what IGO wants to do is exactly this but not tied to a single favored game line relying on 1 guys budget and dedication. Instead they hope (perhaps wishful thinking) to start an organization with 1) broad enough support base to not be dependent on that single fan, and 2) a broad enough support base that publishers will pay more attention to them then if they were just joe nobody with an idea.

IMO they should broaden it beyond RPGs and CCGs and include old board games like the SPI and AH stuff that Hasbro would never in a million years re release.

Fortuneately some of those old games have found new homes (or new old homes in the case of Civilization) but many wind up on the Island of Misfit Toys waiting for Santa to come and rescue them. Seems to me that if these IGO people want to play Santa, more power to 'em.

I'd like to see some sort of business plan as to how they expect to pull it off. the closing remark of "Currently, the IGO is in planning stages. If you are interested in helping influence the game market, please join the IGO group" doesn't sound very encouraging in that regard.

This is going to start to veer off-topic, so replies should probably be via private message.

Anyway - the ending statement "Currently, the IGO is in planning stages. If you are interested in helping influence the game market, please join the IGO group," can be translated as "Nothing will ever come of this."

I've seen very, very few projects ever work without:

a) A plan before-hand; and
b) A tyrannical leader who retains firm control, and only accepts suggestions.

That sounds wacky, but even The Forge can be strained sometimes by the fact that there's two of us running it. (Luckily, we delinated who's in charge of what well, but it still makes things take longer, as we consult each other, and argue a bit, and finally come to a conclusion.)

It sounds like these guys are saying, "Bring back our old games! Do it now! Somehow."

I really do respect their sentiment, but I can't see it as something that will viably happen.

Ralph,

All well and good, in terms of Goal #1. I agree with you that older game material, and more of it, and more widely available is basically a good thing.

However, I think that that goal is notably "out of place" relative to the rest of the document. It doesn't seem to bear any relationship to "independent-ness" of any description nor to the other goals.

Basically, re-printing older material for release in stores can be due to someone getting ownership of it, which basically means that they are now a publisher. Or it can be due to someone at an established company which already has the rights deciding to dust off some older stuff and re-issue it. All of these are as "traditional" publishing concerns as you can get.

On a larger note, there is no difference between a "small gaming publisher" and a "big gaming publisher" if the ownership issue is not considered. Ten years ago, WotC was a "quaint little company." Ten years before that, SJG was tootling along with Ogre and whatever, decidedly second-string at best. And less than ten years before that, TSR was a couple of dudes with some pamphlets in a box. None of these were subsidiaries of a major publisher. In RPG publishing, small becomes big (WotC) and big becomes small (The Chaosium) in a matter of months.

Best,
Ron

Clinton's absolutely right. I have a feeling the whole thing is just so much wishful thinking.

But Ron, I gotta say, "so what". Is there some beef with their using the word "independent" in their name? If they become a publishing house themselves...what possible difference does it make whether they call themselves "independent".

So part of their intended business is to get the rights to old dusty OOP stuff and reissue it. Part of their business is to help individuals bring their games to market. So what. I realize that the Forge is all about being "indie" and bringing our own games to market, but what about people who have a game and don't want that hassle.

If someone approached me about Universalis and said "hey we'll publish the thing for, you retain creative control, and we'll take a minimal cut just to cover costs [IGO supposedly being not for profit]" I'd jump all over that in a heart beat and say screw this self PDF, deal with distributors, deal with printers, deal with pay pal stuff.

Now the likely hood of that happening is slim to none, leaving Mike and I to self publish as best as we are able, but I see no inherent wrongness in what they've said in this release.

Trying to stay on topic ... what's wrong with trying to convince publishers to provide out-of-print material online for free or pay? Wizards currently does this with tons of their material. Would it be better for IGO to pursue this goal, rather than try to deal with acquiring printing rights?

Or if IGO is uninterested in going that route, why not start/work on a movement like that here on the Forge? I'm sure all our indie games could benefit from being able to look into the development and evolution of rpgs (without making repeated trips through the dusty bins in gaming stores).

Ralph,

I already said that their goal #1 is fine by me.

My other points do not concern the whole "independent" issue at all; I agree with you, that term can mean whatever one wants. No one has to accept or abide by the way we use it here.

My objections to their goals #2 and #3 is that they are totally at odds with their claim to be "separate from the commercial market." I also object to what amounts to a call for creative people simply to donate their ideas for the profit of others. These are what constitute my substantive objections to the document, and I hope further discussion on the thread can address that.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I'm already on record as saying that no one has to publish one's own game in order to be "good" or "approved of" by me. That's another of those personal choices things.

Zak,

No one is saying anything is wrong with their goal #1. No one is saying anything is wrong with their goal #1.

I don't see why people seem to be focusing on this goal. It strikes me as (a) out of place relative to the rest of their points and (b) irrelevant to the extremely definite, extremely alarming content of the second and third goals. Those are what should be claiming our attention - the second, especially, is among the most objectionable material I have ever seen relative to RPG publishing.

There's my value judgment. If we are going to discuss my value judgments in this thread, let's deal with that, not a non-existing value judgment about goal #1.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I'm hip to what you're saying here. It's like I began above - these guys are trapped into the mindset of the traditional RPG market. (And Ralph - you'd really let someone else publish Universalis? Have you read anyone else's horror stories getting into one of these 'oh, I'll publish that for you' arrangements?)

It appears their assumptions are:

a) For a game to be "alive," it must be published.

b) Individual authors can't publish - they need to go through a publisher, or a non-profit publisher set up by this "IGO."

c) The "RPG market" consists of publishers, distributors, and retailers.

I pronounce every single one of these as wrong, and furthermore, foolish.

The RPG market is the people playing the games. And the traditional publishing route, as many have found, is costly and brings in little profit, therefore preventing the hobbyist from really getting into it.

Distributors and retailers aren't actually playing games. They don't know anything about what's on their shelves except what the covers look like, and what's selling.

If these people want to make a difference - then they need to change how they view RPGs. In their current model, they appear to be bending over and handing lubricant to a group of people that have screwed them over and over in the past.

The summary of their ideas is "In order to get more games out there, let's sell/give away our ideas to other people who can get them out there." What they're missing is that they can get their ideas out there, and retain control of them - and keeping control of your own ideas is the defintion of independent.

Well I was responding to item #2. Please explain why this is alarming or objectionable.

Assuming for the moment, the unlikely occurance that they can actually make this work, and that they are telling the truth when they say "not for profit"...what do we have.

A company who, likely through submission, publishes small games designed by individual people who'd likely never see their games published (because most aren't willing to incur the hassle of self publishing). The cut they take for this should be minimal since they claim it is not for profit.

Worst case this turns into some sort of vanity press where a lot of little crap gets published, and little to no promotion is done for the creators.

Best case is the group reaches critical mass, holds the submitted materials to some sort of quality standard, and gets large enough to have some influence in getting product pushed down the traditional distribution chain.

Seems like a poster child for caveat emptor to me. Where are the alarm bells coming from.

I have to say, the first wistful thought that came to my mind on reading this was: damn, it'd be nice to replace my lost TFT material.

FWIW, White Wolf tried a variation of open development with their never-released Exile game several years ago. Basically, they proposed tapping into the customer base and community for gaming ideas and writing, all to be paid from some percentage of book sales set aside for community contributors. Looked pretty cool, even using a non-Storyteller system. Eventually, they dropped the project and released Aeon/Trinity instead.

This IGO model is obviously pretty different, but I can't see commercial companies releasing rights to material that could compete with their own product. Wizards is trying this, but Wizards is laying a bunch of people off. The d20 bandwagon seems to be hitting the fringes of an implosion zone, er, market adjustment.

Best,

Blake

Clinton R Nixon wrote: And Ralph - you'd really let someone else publish Universalis? Have you read anyone else's horror stories getting into one of these 'oh, I'll publish that for you' arrangements?)

I joined the IGO list, even though I expect it to fail and even though I question some of their goals. Call me weird, but I'm fascinated with the actually *process* of witnessing community-building endeavors presented and then grow, factionalize off or die. I don't think these folks have ~any~ idea what they are really getting into, but won't it be interesting to see what happens as the reality starts to set in?

I have a related topic, but I'll just start a new thread.

Ralph,

Even though we disagree on many points, we strangely agree on one: The Forge could do a lot of this work for people who don't want to finagle with self-publishing. (More on this below.) My problem with all of the above is that you're signing away your creative control when you get someone else to publish your stuff, and retaining control of your product is actually the definition of independent.

Ok - as for The Forge, I haven't really mentioned this, just in case it never happens, but I've been working on a piece of software, provisionally called Anvil, that will allow you to self-publish with little work on your part. It would be hosted here, and allow you to create HTML pages, from which you could create PDF's (kind of bare-bones, but still PDF's) and control whether they are free downloads or for sale.

All the products in Anvil would use the same system for selling, and you could retrieve copies of everything you've bought all from this site.

The coolest part to me, since I'm a huge geek, is the URL system. If you were to publish Universalis, for example, on Anvil, the URL would look like:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/anvil/valamir/universalis

All your stuff would be under

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/anvil/valamir/

which is a cool, stable URL you could even put on business cards.

Here's the difference, though - The Forge would own nothing, and get no money whatsoever, keeping complete control in your hands, and keeping everything independent.

Note: this software is still being worked on, and is kind of a pipe dream. I don't want anyone getting their hopes up of seeing this soon.

Ron, good point. I suppose I was just concentrating on trying to wring something positive about this weird IGO (which, if/when I ever want to start some kind of "rerelease your old stuff" movement, I'll start a new thread).

Here are my thoughts on the matters:

1) This item seems like a pretty lofty goal. Acquiring publishing rights to out-of-print products while keeping a non-profit status? Ignoring the fact that it is possible, is it feasible, and are companies willing to play along?

2) I'm reading #2 as if they're still talking about out-of-print games. That's fine (though I'm still wary of the constant mention of not-for-profit), but I side with others here in saying, "How is this any different than the current commercial model?" The only thing I can come up with is "not-for-profit." Does this mean creators don't get paid?

3) A lobbying force? It sounds like IGO could be a vocal minority trying to speak for all gamers. And what do they propose to be a "good" decision? They aren't differentiating themselves enough from commercial RPG companies or touting creator's rights to claim goodness.

My big question, then, is how does IGO plan to operate? The three goals seem disconnected and need further explanation or support. Should we try and drag the IGO folks to the Forge?

Lastly, Clinton makes an excellent point with translating "planning" and "please join" to mean "Nothnig will ever come of this."

I hear you Clinton. But there are ways to word a contract that don't strip creative control and allow publishing rights to revert to the creator if the publisher fails to follow through on their committments. Most of the horror stories you referred to are IMO from folks who don't know much about reading a contract let alone negotiating one.

But that's a whole 'nother issue.

In regards to your Forge plans. Can I get a "Hell Yeah".

That's very slick, and really takes the Forge to the next level beyond just talking about indie-publishing to actually facilitating it.

Hey Ralph,

I think you and I are reading "not for profit" differently. I read it as saying that the creators of the ideas or systems will not be paid. I think you're reading it as the publishers of the games using those ideas and systems will not be taking (expecting? making?) profit from them in some way. Or rather, I think I'm not understanding how you're reading "not for profit" (rather than put words in your mouth).

My reading is what's yielding my intense reaction. By that reading, Job Bob Idea generates a wicked-good magic system in his play group, and these IGO guys generously permit said system to float straight to (say) WotC, "Thanks, Joe Bob!"

If, on the other hand, "not for profit" applies to the publishers, then I don't have this terrible reaction (ie all that nasty rhetoric in my previous post), but I do stare in puzzlement and wonder why the hell a publisher would do anything requiring their judgment, money, and attention, except for profit. This reading would put #2 in the same Rabbit Hole category as #3.

Best,
Ron

I was reading the not for profit thing this way.

1) "we want to get these independent games out there, we'll try to get them hooked up with a publisher." In this case IGO functions as something of an "agent" who's more likely to get a game idea considered than joe bob off the street.

2) "if we can't find a publisher, we'll publish it ourselves in a not-for profit manner".

I did interpret #2 as being IGO was forgoing a cut as you correctly surmised...but even if it meant neither IGO or the Creator was getting a cut (i.e. not for profit by either party) thats not that huge of an issue, since most of these projects aren't likely to generate much profit anyway.

I certainly did not read anything implying "we'll take your great game idea and give it to WoTC for free".

But whose to really say. The release was not detailed, there is no clear cut plan, and no indication of how they'd finance any of it.

All;

As stated empahtically by others, #1 seems a good goal, but one that is easily sustained (at no cost) by posting such gaming material for free via .pdf or other avenues of online publishing. However, the acquisition of these materials seems highly uncertain to me. For instance, I LOVE Tales of the Floating Vagabond, but, I have no idea who to go to for rights. And the valuation of those rights are rather fuzzy as: 1) this is a NFP organization, and thus operates despite economic prediction, and 2) the creator, copyright-holder, and organization will 100% have three different valuations of this IP.

#2 on the goal-list seems downright insane. Yes, insane. 1) who is the deciding factor of who is, and who is not creatiing "creative stuff", and 2) in any system consisting of a nigh-infinite array of options (such as RPG market), the ability to quantitatively identify, with any real marketable accuracy (which is different from statistical accuracy), the aggregate mean of the population is impossible (I refer you to Dr. Charles King, as well as derivative works on the Black-Sholes equation and Riemann-Zeta functions for reference). The reasoning is simply that there is only the most ambiguous and arbitrary cross-over (meaning, you may think that wild west and feudal japan have some connection... that guy over there may not), thus defining desire based upon a utility axis of like vs. dislike of various paradigms of setting/design/system/art is not feasible.

#3 is right out. I don't want what you want don't want what he wants don't want what she wants... While we share similar goals on the Forge, due to the main constraint that we all agree to participate on the Forge for the express purpose of aiding the design,and establishment of legitimacy, of indie-RPGs, as soon as money changes hands, I'm not on your boat, I'm in mine. Intellectual and critical discourse and debate is fine and dandy, mainly because I don't pay for my ideas, and (I'm assuming) you don't either. But put something at stake, put a pie to be divvied amongst various groups with different resources, acumen, and ambition, and you have what many might consider a cluster-fuck of the Mongolian persuasion.

Lastly, the idea of a NFP corporation merely means that 1) the board of the company cannot make profit, and 2) that the company cannot show economic profit at the end of any fiscal year. This specifically does NOT include any third parties, work-for-hire or for-contract that the company may designate, or internal workers who are not members of the board. Thus a NFP can make beaucoup bucks, it just cannot give those bucks to the people that sign-off on the decisions. This means there is no problem, legally, with anyone the company deals with to acquire rights for publication making all the $$ the company can shovel at them (this does not reflect clever management or marketing, and should not mean that this is what would happen, but that it is perfectly reasonable from a legal stand-point).

Were I you, I would run, not walk, away from these people and train attack animals to hamstring anyone from the IGO that may find their way near your property. Besides, council-decisions regarding economic ventures are bad ideas... always. One person needs to stand at the top. This does not seem to have that either.

Dav

I think that what is implied by using certain words is naive at best and plain old misleading at worst.

Also, as someone once said, "If they are buying up (or soliciting) other's ideas for publishing, it's because their own stuff stinks."

And this last is more of a gut feeling kind of thing: Every time that I read a post, or hear someone say, "Hey we are gamers for gamers" "Games made by real gamers" and so on in that cover tag-line flavor, I automatically raise the shields. I liken that to politicians who appear in flannel shirts at building sites, and the shirt still has all of its creases because it was just pulled from the package.

Not meaning to rant anything...

Jeff