So I was a proud contributor to Wolfgang Bauer's first Open Design Project, "Steam & Brass." I haven't played D&D in years now, but I do my best to stay up on the latest news in the gaming community. As a student of copyright and IP alternatives, when I came across Wolfgang's proposal to craft an adventure/sourcebook/etc. selected by a handful of paying patrons, who would also get to critique the product as it was drafted and provide guidance in regards to it final form, I was intrigued. In researching topics for a law school paper I had briefly touched on the idea of returning to a patronage model as an alternative to our stressed copyright system. Thus getting to participate in the execution of such a model - though admittedly on a much smaller scale - was enough to prompt my Paypal payment. Receiving an exclusive module, written by an industry veteran, that credits me was just an added bonus. Or so I thought.
As the first project must have been something of a success, Wolfgang has embarked on a second, which I have once again contributed to. This time, the response has been much greater. Whether it be a greater awareness of the project by the "press" element of the industry, chatter on forums or envious group members who have been eyeing their DM's copy of Steam & Brass, Wolfgang has received a greater response than he did at this time in the first project. Apparently, several of these new patrons, having missed out on S&B, have inquired about the possibility of buying that module. This obviously poses something of a dilemma for Wolfgang. Obviously, the potential for new sources of profit are extremely enticing. However, this project was launched to test the viability of a patronage model, which by its very definition assumes financial support, either in full or enough to prompt iniative, up front. The alternative, creating a product with the hopes that people will buy it after completion is essentially the traditional commercial model.
In what I felt was a very classy move, Wolfgang posed this dilemma to us, the initial patrons. While my first thought was to echo what many others have said - the more people able to get their hands on the work and thereby foster future works is a good thing - I've since begun to rethink that stance. Academically, as noted above, allowing latecomers to purchase the product deviates from the concept of a true patronage model. Of course, while this was an experiment on Wolfgang's part, I recognize that this is a source of income for him and academic implications are probably a distant second, or non-existant, concern.
My second, and less lofty, reason for questioning distribution stems from the slight twinge of irritation I feel when considering distribution to late-comers. As I noted above, having an exclusive product was originally only an added bonus. The possibility of having that exclusivity diluted, no matter by how little, irks me. I realize this is an irrational and selfish response, and I'd like to stress that I'm normally a very community-oriented individual. However, this response really isn't all that suprising when one considers the intent behind historic patronage systems. The wealthy benefactors of the arts didn't commission works for distribution to the public, but to own something unique. The inclusion of these works in museums where all could behold them was a later development. Sure there were privately funded works for the "public good" - one merely need look at the frescoes adorning any a number of European cathedral walls - but these were just as much a marketing tool for the family name than anything else.
While I found supporting this experiment rewarding, at the end of the day it is the possession of something unique that vindicates my decision to be a patron. Sure, the product is of outstandingly high quality, but the reality is that I could only hope for such a result when I first made payment. I was taken with Wolfgang's vision, shared that vision, and decided to take a risk - even if nominal - to see it through. Allowing latecomers to benefit from the gamble of early investors seems somewhat wrong.
Might I offer a path which benefits both the individual and the community? A limited time exclusivity.
ReplyDeleteGreg Stolze uses what's called the "ransom model" in where he ransoms a product for a certain amount and once that amount is reached the object becomes public, available to ALL. While this isn't satisfactory for a patronage-type project, there is a part which is.
The patrons get alot to say in the development of the module and I can understand your feeling of the need to be exclusive.
My suggestion would simply be that the product is unique to the patrons for a set amount of time - one or two years, after which it becomes available to everyone (for free).
It might not help widen the income for Wolfgang Baur, but it might help widen the knowledge of what he is doing and provide more patrons for upcoming products instead.
And in the end, both the individual and the community benefits.
Although a nice solution this one is a glass half empty solution. By ending the exclusivity of the patronage model after any amount of time still takes away from the patrons what they originally bought into. Which is exclusivity. It is not that I want to take away Wolfgangs income, but to look at the patronage model the benefit to him is not that he is going to get rich off of this model but that he will have his creativity recognized without the supposed benefit of a publisher telling him what will and will not work. That is his benefit in this model-he can finally create what he wants to and get paid to do it. Because he is a nice guy he is letting us have some level of input into the process.
ReplyDeleteBy its very nature the process is limited to the number of people it can handle, he has already had to reduce the influence patrons have by promising stages and benefits commensurate with those stages as the price increases. In Shadowcrag he could not include all of our input or monster choices. In many cases he had to tell some patrons outright that their idea was good but did not fit his creation. Obviously he does so at his own risk of loosing a patron but that is the basic issue of the patronage system. There is no one backing him if he fails. Luckily for him he is only out time and internet costs. Imagine if he had to print the books for each of us.
Think of it like stock. Each patron has purchased some tangible amount of interest in this project. Some more so than others. Just like stock you cannot resell a copy of that amount. This would inflate the stock and decrease its value by having more out there. 1 share of 101 is not as big as 1 share of 100.
I see no reason why my share should deflate in value because someone recognizes the value of what I purchased and wants one too. If you want a copy then buy out one of the patrons and the commensurate rights that go with being a patron.
One of the things that's amusing is that people are comparing this to art and ancient days.
ReplyDeleteThe BIG difference is that this isn't a passive thing like a piece of art that youd admire and perhaps study and think, "Man, it's awesome that I own this." Well, it could be in part.
However, in another part, it's a game and is meant to be played, to save GM's time and trouble. It's something that should be USED and not just hoarded unlike say a standard piece of valuable fiction.
Some talk about "buy out one of the patrons" but how would that actually work? Is that patron then going to erase his memory of the adventure if keeping it exclusive? Can we verify that he doesn't have any backup copies? Doing so in the secondary market cuts the original author out of the profits anyway.
Though it may be amusing, a comparison to "art and ancient days" is necessary because that was generally the last time that a patronage model was regularly used. The utility or function of the piece that the patrons have invested in - i.e. whether it is to be admired or used in a non-passive way - doesn't add much to the debate. After all, an individual is just as free to purchase a hammer and display it on his mantlepiece as he is to use it to build a house. Heck, the fact that I rarely ever role-play anymore means that I'm more likely to hoard it as a "passive" object than ever reference it for a game.
ReplyDeleteI think I understand your position, Troy, but I have to admit that I'm disappointed.
ReplyDeleteI did come late to the game. I heard something about the Open Gaming project of Wolfgang Baur's, but the details were extremely sketchy. I had no interest in telling him how to make an adventure. Whatever he and the community created, I figured could be evaluated and purchased as a normal good.
Apparently, that is incorrect.
The recent cancellation of Dragon/Dungeon magazines is what brought this to my attention in the first place. I'd like to support Kobold Quarterly, and at the same time I'm much more interested in non-WotC produced books and materials than I was only a short time ago.
The differences between a single patron system and this are significant. However, there are many people who would be upset if they purchased a limited edition anything and then found out that it's original run was extended. However, most of those people would be upset because the perceived value would diminish.
If the product is available for wider distribution, your name will be distributed to gamers as well. The crucial role you played (simply providing money up front) will be well known and appreciated.
You admit your motives are somewhat selfish. Recognizing that, are you unwilling to consider generosity?
It is always easy to make a claim to generosity when it is someone giving you something you want.
ReplyDeleteI've read your article, and I wonder if I might have a compromise to offer that would make everyone happy. The thread is on the Kobold forums here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.koboldquarterly.com/kqforums/viewtopic.php?t=296
Here is the post, to whet your whistle:
ReplyDeleteI note that the reasoning that the project is "closed" is that it would be like buying now stable stock at the price when it was risky.
In a sense I agree...why should people now get the same price without the risk?
Here's what I propose: DOUBLE the cost of any purchases on the now collectable adventure. Then, have Wolfgang keep the original fee amount and spread the remainder among all of the original patrons (perhaps in quarterly/biannual/annual payments so that this doesn't have to be done every time someone buys a single copy.
Less risk=higher cost. Fine by me.
As far as exclusivity goes, there would be a direct correlation between payment and exclusivity. If one person buys the adventure, the exclusivity is only slightly diluted, the person has paid a substantial sum for the adventure (which in and of itself would be a way to promote exclusivity), and those who lose exclusivity gain money. If a number equal to the original patrons buy the adventure (effectively doubling the amount of patrons), then every patron essentially has a full refund, Wolfgang gets to make money, and the project is still fantastically exclusive---and in the hands of only people who have a real desire for it or have money to burn (lucky bastards).
I wonder if this model would be acceptable to those four patrons who balked at opening it up to additional "investors" in the project. If not, I think the stock market comparison really falls flat.
As a new consumer to the Midgard and Zobeck line of products I find it darn frustrating to not be able to acquire even a pdf or other eVersion of Brass and Steam or Tales of Zobeck. The Zobeck gazetter is layerd with references back to what I'm finding are unobtainable gaming material. I missed out on the real deal print products either because I was not aware or simply did not have the funds so-be-it. Open Design has produced some top notch material. The print supporting patrons should be entitled to a different experience and superior product. I would like to be able to purchase a pdf version just to round out my material and understanding of the world. It is awesome material. Some (maybe all) of these products are not obtainable even through inter-library loan, I've tried.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that I wrote this post 5 1/2 years ago, so I'm not as wedded to this stance as I once was. But, purely as an academic discussion, which is how I originally approached my involvement, I think this point still has merit.
DeleteI understand that it might be rather frustrating to not be able to access this early material, and I know that Wolfgang has voiced his desire to be able to make it available, but what early patrons were agreeing to was to fund the development of a project, the deliverables of which were going to be available to them alone. It had nothing to do with print vs. pdf, but access to the product in any form. Anyone coming along later shouldn't be able benefit from a breach of that understanding simply because they want access to these early works.
As I stated in the original post, while Open Design has gone on to create some truly great products, it was an unknown when the first patrons signed on. We were taking a gamble that fortunately turned out to be fruitful, but had we not it's questionable whether OD would have ever taken off.
In a weird twist, it is the fact that my trust in Wolfgang was vindicated by the massive growth of OD and Zobeck that I am no longer as staunchly opposed to the release of the Brass and Zobeck materials. The project's continued success means that neither of those books are the rare, solo products of a failed project. I've really grown to love what Midgard has become, and I want the world to be as fully fleshed as possible. Brass was a foundational work for what has grown into the larger published Midgard setting and I think it's important that some of the content found there find its way into the hands of others, whether that's through re-using some of the background material in other products or a re-release of the modules wholesale - though the latter must be subject to the approval of other patrons opposed to re-release in my opinion.
In researching 'Steam and Brass' to add it to the Open Design/Kobold Press entry on my website (RPG Resource) I came across this blog post. It's really sad... in every possible interpretation of the word. The real joy of the 'patronage' model has always been the ability to have input into the creative process, not clinging on to something you deny to others.
ReplyDeleteMegan, as can be guessed from the infrequency of my blog updates, I don't make it back here very often so only today saw that you had a comment awaiting approval. Despite being nearly a year late, I still felt it appropriate for your comment to be part of the record and to deserve a response.
DeleteFor starters, if you made your way down to the comments section you'll have noted that I've definitely softened my position from 10 years ago. But regardless of that fact, I still don't agree with the approach of shaming the resistant backers or dictating to them the type of "joy" they should feel in having backed this project. Wolfgang, for S&B, was promising a privately commissioned adventure. The fact that Open Design and Kobold Press moved away from that model quickly doesn't change the nature of that initial relationship.