Quote from: S'mon;897646True - but many people share that flaw while never saying anything of any value at all. Justin Alexander may be a goddamn Lefty who probably hates my guts (at least when aware of my existence), and he certainly has a highly inflated opinion of himself, but he does often produce work of real value; stuff that improves how I think about RPGs and makes me a better Gamesmaster. Likewise Pundit (though we've actually been agreeing about some stuff lately!). So I cut them some slack.

Oh, I enjoy reading them both. Just an observation. Makes me wonder if JA is Canadian too.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;897615In my circles its character sheet is legendary. Just look at this thing:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kaWFoAPhTRs/UOcxPLtZRPI/AAAAAAAAABU/rKvhm0V1GAU/s1600/Kalei+CS.jpg

Oh, I totally remember that SAT Scantron. My favorite absurdity (and oh there are so many to choose from) that encapsulates my view on its madness is the font ambiguity on "Kalei." With the "I" drawn top heavy it looks like a centerpiece exhortation "KALE!", as like a proselytizing health zealot randomly ejaculating "The One True Way" as mantra... and then colorful auras with sparkly bubbles drowns out your vision as you slip into unconsciousness.

/The Doors song "The Crystal Ship" starts up in the background...

Quote from: S'mon;897646True - but many people share that flaw while never saying anything of any value at all. Justin Alexander may be a goddamn Lefty who probably hates my guts (at least when aware of my existence), and he certainly has a highly inflated opinion of himself, but he does often produce work of real value; stuff that improves how I think about RPGs and makes me a better Gamesmaster. Likewise Pundit (though we've actually been agreeing about some stuff lately!). So I cut them some slack.

I haven't really had any dealings with either Justin Alexander or the Pundit, but I've seen both of them go off more than once. This thread is pretty civil compared to a lot of others, all things considered.

It's entirely possible I've missed some posting of Helton's where he clarifies his position and I'm wrong, and if Justin can point it out to me I'd be happy to reconsider my evaluation of the guy's ideas. It wouldn't be the first time someone was wrong on the Internet, after all. But so far I haven't seen any such evidence, just his initial posts in the discussion on his article.

Quote from: Opaopajr;897662Oh, I totally remember that SAT Scantron. My favorite absurdity (and oh there are so many to choose from) that encapsulates my view on its madness is the font ambiguity on "Kalei." With the "I" drawn top heavy it looks like a centerpiece exhortation "KALE!", as like a proselytizing health zealot randomly ejaculating "The One True Way" as mantra... and then colorful auras with sparkly bubbles drowns out your vision as you slip into unconsciousness.

/The Doors song "The Crystal Ship" starts up in the background...

Yep, and there's actually multiple first character sheets for the different races plus a second sheet. I once thought Anima had the worst character sheet I'd ever seen (and it's a nightmare, no doubt), but the EE sheet is a strong contender. The EE sheet is prettier and neater, though, and the fact it actually gives page references is a plus. If I ever tackle the game again I'll have to see if the page numbers are actually correct.

Quote from: Matt;897635One major problem with licensing work is that once the license expires you cannot reprint the product, which may be a big deal if there is demand. Also, if there is demand it will likely make renewing the license that much more expensive. See the issues Marvel has had with reprints of Conan, Godzilla, ROM, Master of Kung Fun, and the like.

Usually art is licensed a bit differently than a set of IP like Conan and Godzilla. Most of the time you buy a non-exclusive right to use the art in your products and that it. The major restriction being you are not allowed to transfer that art by itself to somebody else or to sell it as a piece of clip art.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;897531This is probably the most expensive thing on the list for myself (and I suspect many other publishers). At least on the POD end of things it is. You can also spend a good deal on the other things but it is possible to avoid them by writing stuff yourself, doing layout yourself, etc. Unless you are a really talented artist, good art is one of those things you just have to buy and it can get into the thousands of dollars (even tens of thousands) to fill a book with solid art.

There is so much good copyright free art out there though. I've been collecting pre-1900 images for my wargame for a while now, and there really is fantastic stuff that barely ever sees the light of day. This is just one of my albums

[video]https://www.flickr.com/photos/131371855@N04/albums/72157664158412906[/youtube]

On top of that there's always cheap artists like myself willing to do stuff for next to nothing just for the fun of it, because art is a hobby not a dayjob.

Quote from: TristramEvans;897701There is so much good copyright free art out there though. I've been collecting pre-1900 images for my wargame for a while now, and there really is fantastic stuff that barely ever sees the light of day. This is just one of my albums

[video]https://www.flickr.com/photos/131371855@N04/albums/72157664158412906[/youtube]

Sure. I think there is a lot of great public domain art out there. Especially once you find artists you like, it can be a great resource (I use public domain paintings on our blog page all the time for that reason). But I've just noticed that when we do include public domain art in products, it is one of the first things people point out when they talk about the book's art. For my purposes it tends to not be specific enough, so I've been increasing the amount of original art over the years, to the point that we don't really need public domain stuff anymore.

QuoteOn top of that there's always cheap artists like myself willing to do stuff for next to nothing just for the fun of it, because art is a hobby not a dayjob.

This can certainly be a way to go. In the past I've partnered with artists who were willing to trade services for example (I write for them, they do art for me), or worked with people who just didn't charge that much. When it comes to interior and cover illustrations though, I have artists I like working with who get the look I want, and that costs money. I also just find this a  much more reliable way to get the number of images I need for a book. Also you'd be surprised how difficult those kinds of situations can be to find. Another issue to consider is art that goes into a book is very different from art that goes on a wall. When I get image files from people, I need them formatted a particular way and I need the artist to follow guidelines so the image doesn't create problems for the printer or layout person. So even if you do find a hobbyist willing to work cheap there is the added requirement that they know how to deal with those technical aspects of formatting files. Many artists who do it as a hobby, know how to format, this just shrinks the pool. And now this becoming something of a taboo practice in the industry too as you see more people calling for artists and writers to be paid fairly for their work. So going this route can also impact your reputation. I think if you want to make art because you love it and you are willing to help out a struggling company that has products you really like, then that is fine (and between them and you) but it is something more people seem to frown on these days.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;897734... And now this becoming something of a taboo practice in the industry too as you see more people calling for artists and writers to be paid fairly for their work. So going this route can also impact your reputation. I think if you want to make art because you love it and you are willing to help out a struggling company that has products you really like, then that is fine (and between them and you) but it is something more people seem to frown on these days.

This is a simple extension of CJH's assertion of what creators/artists "deserve*". It's up to the person how they would like to be compensated for their work, and it isn't always money, though as you mention, paying money often has distinct benefits.

*Deserve sounds pretty harsh, but at the same time, so is when people try to assert what they deserve with reality.

Quote from: JamesV;897739This is a simple extension of CJH's assertion of what creators/artists "deserve*". It's up to the person how they would like to be compensated for their work, and it isn't always money, though as you mention, paying money often has distinct benefits.

*Deserve sounds pretty harsh, but at the same time, so is when people try to assert what they deserve with reality.

I think if artists want to work for cheap or trade their work for something else that is up to them. I don't think people should be exploited, and like I said earlier, I support a good minimum wage for regular work (though not enough of an economist to know what that number should be exactly). But in creative fields I think things are bit different. Artists, musicians, writers etc often work for very little when starting out until they get a break or make it big. And the more creative the area the less certain the income. Sometimes creative people band together and unite their efforts, not making much money at the time but in the hopes of doing so down the road. So I think there needs to be some flexibility here because in an effort to protect writers and artists, you might actually be pulling away their ability to work completely.

My point is just that this is coming up a lot more in discussions. It didn't originate with this article, I've seen the subject come up a lot in the past two years. So as a company, if you go that route, it is a consideration is all I was saying.

Still I don't think this is a bad conversation to have. At the end of the day, this is a really small industry, and I don't think most companies could pay more without making many fewer products or, more likely, not hiring as many freelancers. I have no problem with the original article making its case though. Point and counter-point is fine here, especially if it gives people more clarity on what goes into products, why they are priced the way they are, where there is room to change things, and where that is difficult, etc.

I've donated art to two books (Petty Gods and Girls Gone Rogue) and I'm super proud of them. Got nothing but my foot in the door in terms of reputation with the lead writers. That means a lot to me and increases the odds that I can be part of another project. My small contribution to the community instead of just being a consumer.

But I'm no professional by any means and thus don't feel that I deserve any fancy payment. Ask me to do Web design, however, and it will cost you (fairly, though, cause I want to be cool).

Well here's the question that pops to my mind.  What's a fair price for art?  I would assume that a more established and popular artist would charge more than a new comer, but is the newcomer really getting screwed if the selling price is low so long as they're getting their name out there?

Quote from: Warboss Squee;897752Well here's the question that pops to my mind.  What's a fair price for art?  I would assume that a more established and popular artist would charge more than a new comer, but is the newcomer really getting screwed if the selling price is low so long as they're getting their name out there?

Considering that the full-color $60 hardback would have little point but for the art, this is one of the points that could use further discussion.

In re art exploitation:
Also something that really makes me curious where RPGs are concerned. All fair deals are about mutual consent, and I'm wondering where the power imbalance is in the RPG Publisher/Artist discussion, that would merit the spectre of exploitation? When is a publisher being a cheapskate because they're poor, compared to competition for artists in the market, etc.?

When I was doing the convention circuit there were A-LOT of artists who were doing work for lower prices to undercut competittion. but more important as noted before is an artists rep for reliability and speed. Companies will OFFER better pay to artists that have a good workhorse rep even.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;897752Well here's the question that pops to my mind.  What's a fair price for art?  I would assume that a more established and popular artist would charge more than a new comer, but is the newcomer really getting screwed if the selling price is low so long as they're getting their name out there?

The 'no spec' argument is that there is no measurable way to determine what you are getting by 'getting your name out there', so it must be exploitation of the artist and devaluation of the craft in general. That also applies to contests, too. This came up not long ago when SIGGRAPH ran their poster contest and a bunch of no spec'ers jumped all over it as exploitative.

Since these guys are freelance. unless they are really well known and can easily fill their time with high paying work, its all negotiable. Some will have standard contracts with variable costs that take into account milestones, specific use rights and the like, most won't, and many don't really do a lot of self analysis on the cost of their time either.

Quote from: Lynn;897789[...] many don't really do a lot of self analysis on the cost of their time either.

Tl;dr: most artists are really shitty business people.  And they're drama queens.

I did all kinds of free or below market rate (cash under the table, even) when I was starting out as a consultant because I knew I was building my contacts and future customer base.  I also had a day job that paid the bills.  I can't stand listening to writers and artists whining about this shit when IT went through this exact same thing twenty years ago.  Your work either speaks for itself, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, maybe freelance artistry isn't the job for you.

Anything that I do for the hobby is for fun. I have a day job. I'd love to make money off of my amateurish artwork and module writing, because I like my art, my writing and my game module ideas. But I don't see why anyone should pay for my stuff.

My hopes are low because of the endless torrent of stuff on OBS or even on G+ communities. LIke, every day people are churning out shit like "10 magic items!" or "a new prestige class for 5e" and charging money for them. Not sure how I can compete with that, to be honest. I don't have that much free time.