I have spent the last year and more publishing my own games. I've had good success, all things considered. I've made a very small profit that has so far allowed me to fund my next game (and that will hopefully remain sustainable), plus attend conventions and also buy a more than a few indie (and non-indie) games as well. Not bad for one guy doing this part time and with a family to take care of, to boot.

While creating Nine Worlds, I had Dust Devils as the model to learn from. I have done many things similarly, and I have done a few things quite differently. In both cases, however, I used the Forge as a co-operative resource. (It's not technically a co-operative, because no one owns shares in the cooperation.) I have no staff. I do have local friends who can edit and offer suggestions for my games. They can also playtest, but they're a pretty biased crowd.

What interests me most this time around is that I rather overtly offered up the "free" playtest of Nine Worlds. This served two purposes. One, it got people interested in the game. It was marketing on the cheap, and I've no compunction about that at all. Secondly, it was the easiest, cheapest, and least labor intensive means to organize playtest groups (it's also likelier to be the least productive, but I've already got results and I refer back to my easy and cheap remaks!). The "real" RPG publishers in the industry organize playtests for their games, even sending out Non-Disclosure Agreements, creating feedback mechanisms and more. These publishers also have a staff and, often, an established fan base and network to reach out to.

I have a staff of one. I design, write, edit, direct art, create art, manage payments, market, and fulfill every bit of stuff I offer. Hell, I even print and bind my books, letting Kinkos only print the color covers and cut letter size into digest size. The only thing I don't do is illustrate the artwork, and I offer what I feel are fair payments to artists to do that for me. (Oh, I have had people copy edit my material for free, but I have no "go to" person for this). I am not alone in this approach here at the Forge (and elsewhere), but I do know that a few of indie publishers occasionally seek a bit more help than I do (heck, I've done several of their layouts, so I know they do at least that).

But, I don't do it all alone, either. I use the Forge as my "company." I conduct research via fellow Forgers, I certainly develop designs here. When/if actual play starts happening for Nine Worlds, I'll have conducted playtesting here as well. In effect, the Forge is my "company" or "staff" covering important features of my publication needs. I know others are finding the same kind of needs fulfilled here.

So, I guess my questions for this thread are these:

What specific resources have you found particuarly valuable here?

Have you considered the Forge from this "as a company/co-operative" angle?

Do you think that thinking about it in this way could improve or expand the Forge's role in helping you publish games (in whatever format)? How so?

Why do you think there are relatively few instances of Forgers collaborating on actual game creation (as in, writing and creating the publciation, like Ralph and Mike did on Universalis)? Do you view "ownership" as a hurdle in such collarboration?

(Note: I pose this last question because of my observation that because Forge games are often one-man-bands, the games are "thin" on content. This may be intentional and appropriate more often than not. But, given a "staff" would any of these "thin" games become thicker, and perhaps better by doing so?)

Universalis isn't particularly thick, and Ralph did all the writing. I only edited, contributing to organization, etc. So I'm not certain that more people lead to bigger games (though some are smaller than Universalis, I suppose). And I'm not sure that bigger is better.

What's more, collaboration does mean that you have to split the meager profits somehow. And in the end it worked out better for me to sell my part of the game to Ralph for just the sort of ownership reasons that you mention. It's just better to have one owner.

That all said, I'm still all for collaborative efforts. I personally find working with others rewarding, and I think that the collaborative process has some advantages in terms of the quality of the product. I'd do it again in a minute.

Why don't people do it more? Well, in addition to the above disadvantages, you have to share creative control. Which isn't always the most comfortable thing. For example, I've got a neat idea (IMO) for a game right now, and I've been hacking away at it myself for a while. I know that it'd go about five times faster if I had somebody to work with. But I'm not sure that I want to share. A solo producer can make exactly the game he wants to make and not worry about having to fight for it, or for their vision to be corrupted by the process of collaboration.

See Ralph and I both happened upon the same idea at the same time. If either of us had come to the project with a predetermined vision, then I think that we probably wouldn't have ended up working together. But the vision developed over time from that single idea instead through the collaboration. I think that circumstances like that are rare. Or at least, I think that when two people have an idea, they don't often go out of their way to ask the other party if they're willing to make a game with them. It's the recognition of the opportunity that I think is rare.

Mike

As an alternate thought, collaboration doesn't neccessarily have to be on a single product.

Currently I'm in somewhat of a collaboration.
I'm primarily an artist, but I do some writing and I wanted to do an rpg.
Problem is I'm not all that good at system creation. I'm good with concept and setting, but I bog down when it comes to the rules. I needed help.

So what I'm doing is exchanging services with a writer/developer. He does writing and system design for my game, and I do illustration for his game. Ownership isn't an issue as he owns his game and I own mine. It's basicaly a freelance by barter system.
It seems to be working well so far.

That might be an option people could consider for swapping some help without getting into split ownership. It should be able to work for almost anything...writing, editing, art, whatever.

Just something to think on.

Mike Holmes wrote: It's just better to have one owner.

For example, I've got a neat idea (IMO) for a game right now, and I've been hacking away at it myself for a while. I know that it'd go about five times faster if I had somebody to work with.

Michael S. Miller wrote: I guess when someone gives me a deadline, I have no problem meeting it, but when I set one for myself, I have no problem moving it. Maybe I need a partner just to keep me on schedule.