What I am not seeing in Stephens article are the realities cause by the fact that digital technology has dramatically lower the barriers to creating, distributing, and selling content. There are more details but the basic result is that a large portion of people involved in publishing for RPGs, like myself, are in business for themselves. This also includes artists, editors, layout, and cartographers.

For example I have a contract rate for people wanting me to draw maps. So far every time I was asked for a quote, I gave my number and it was accepted. I make sure that the time I have to complete the work fits within the time I have for my hobbies because I have family and work priorities that come first. Some of what Stephens says is interesting and relevant to me, some are not.  However the fact remains I am able to do this because digital technology has allowed me to take advantage of opportunities that didn't exist in the 80s or 90s.

Quote from: oggsmash;1134681Rpg books do not read anything like novels.  They are more like text books.  Or Encyclopedias, or Books about Dinosaurs.

Yes, RPG bools are technical manuals. People are comparing apples and oranges and expecting them to be treated as the same thing. They are different products for different audiences, with different expectations and reading habits. Even if those audiences somewhat overlap (you'd be surprised how many people willing to play an RPG won't pick up a novel and rely entirely on film and visual media to get their fantasy fix) the purpose and usage is not the same.

Technical manuals are informative and often rely on charts and visual representations to get their message across. They're not an immersive and highly evocative piece of media where the audience is expected to disconnect from the real world and be taken for a ride in their imaginations. And people being introduced into the game don't have time (or often the inclination) to sit down and do "homework" stuff just get a feel for what this supposed "game" is about. But if you show them some cool pictures of the type of world this game is about and the creatures that inhabit it you can hook them without saying a word or them having to sit and read dozens if not hundreds of pages just to get the gist of it.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1134682C.J. Carella was fairly prominent in gaming and started writing novels, "in order to make a living." He seems to be doing OK. His newest novel was released this week.
He hasn't stopped gaming. In fact, he is running a game for us right now and will play in my campaign tomorrow.

  Ah, I remember him as basically being the beginning of crazy power creep in Rifts  (Mercenaries ( or south america cant remember) I think was the first I had where guns got BIG).  I have  his Armageddon game as well, as (formerly owned, who knows what my youngest brother did with them) a bunch of rifts books he wrote.    I will have to give his novels a look.  I am certain that is A LOT more profitable than writing rpgs.  I remember an episode of Joe Rogan, and he started talking about the lady who started the "big foot porn" digital mini novels and short stories on amazon.  It led me down a rabbit hole where there are some novelists out there putting stuff on amazon selling it digitally and making money that is....shocking. I think he had an estimation what big foot lady had made for that year.....and I was like W T F.

Quote from: oggsmash;1134681Rpg books do not read anything like novels.  They are more like text books.  Or Encyclopedias, or Books about Dinosaurs.

Do you expect tons of full-color pictures in your Encyclopedias?

Though textbooks are a fairer comparison. They might have some pictures here and there, but mostly it's diagrams, charts, or graphs -- which aren't pictures, and RPGs have plenty. That's why I don't understand why people feel the need for all these illustrations, especially full color ones. They're not picture books or coffee table books.

Quote from: Pat;1134692Though textbooks are a fairer comparison. They might have some pictures here and there, but mostly it's diagrams, charts, or graphs -- which aren't pictures, and RPGs have plenty. That's why I don't understand why people feel the need for all these illustrations, especially full color ones. They're not picture books or coffee table books.

Images are really inspiring and help set a tone. Color images or images are not a must for me but I would be lying if I didn't say I found them neat or intriguing.

Quote from: Pat;1134692Do you expect tons of full-color pictures in your Encyclopedias?

Though textbooks are a fairer comparison. They might have some pictures here and there, but mostly it's diagrams, charts, or graphs -- which aren't pictures, and RPGs have plenty. That's why I don't understand why people feel the need for all these illustrations, especially full color ones. They're not picture books or coffee table books.

  Have you seen me asking for full color pictures?  I am the DCC fan.  Some art yes.  Encylopedias (world book at least) were FULL of pictures.  Biology text books are FULL of pictures.

Quote from: oggsmash;1134681Rpg books do not read anything like novels.  They are more like text books.  Or Encyclopedias, or Books about Dinosaurs.

just so. A novel is aimed to entertain with it's text. Rules and tables are interesting but not necessarily entertaining.

PS a dinosaur book without pictures of dinosaurs is a very sad thing.

Quote from: Pat;1134692Do you expect tons of full-color pictures in your Encyclopedias?

Though textbooks are a fairer comparison. They might have some pictures here and there, but mostly it's diagrams, charts, or graphs -- which aren't pictures, and RPGs have plenty. That's why I don't understand why people feel the need for all these illustrations, especially full color ones. They're not picture books or coffee table books.

I gotta agree about color illustrations, at least for the most part. I do think that at least some color art (beyond just the cover) is necessary, or at least ideal, to properly set the tone and give players a really firm idea what the world is about--specially if setting is a central feature of the game.

But it doesn't need to be splattered across every page. Not every page needs or should have a picture--or background images and frames--because it interrupts the flow of reading, which defeats the purpose of a technical manual or textbook, which is what an RPG game book actually is. An RPG book is not a toy--even if it's technically used to play a game--and trying to make it look like one won't make it a better book.

I HATE the busy design that some games use. A textbook page should be as clear as possible, focusing on readability, rather than trying "wow" audiences with all these background art splats in the middle of text or heavy frames that take too much attention from the text. Art should be used sparingly to help illustrate the game, and color art should usually not be thrown in the middle of text, unless you manage to minimize the impact somehow. And most illustrations could be black and white, and probably should. I prefer sleek and minimalistic design, that's attractive but not overpowering.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1134693Images are really inspiring and help set a tone. Color images or images are not a must for me but I would be lying if I didn't say I found them neat or intriguing.

The best art is wild, weird, diverse, and evocative -- but that has little to do with the text, or the game. You're better off buying an art book, watching movies, or trolling archives on the web, if you need some inspiration for a game. The density is greater, as is your control. Art can make for a nice accent in an RPG book, but that's about it.

But most RPG art is much worse, because it tries to define the world, which I find uninspiring. No, that's the wrong word. "Un-" just means "not", which is neutral. I find it negatively inspiring. They're not just extraneous, they make it worse. Dis-inspiring? Anti-inspiring? Something like that. The problem is that RPG settings primarily exist in the mind, and words are far better at conveying necessary information while letting the reader's imagination fill in all the other details. The problem with art is it never provides necessary details,[1] it only gives tone, impressions, and style. Which is constraining, because your imagination can't just build on the necessary details presented in the text, it has to constrain them within a very narrow range of visualizations.

[1] Floorplans and the like are an exception, but they're more diagram than art.

Quote from: Pat;1134707The best art is wild, weird, diverse, and evocative -- but that has little to do with the text, or the game.

You're pretty much contradicting your later statement. You tell yourself that you find images too stifling is one thing, but saying they don't have an impact before that is just oxymoronic.
You're also just yapping more personal preferences and presenting them as objective truths. I can respect your preferences but don't demand everybody treat them as objective.

It reminds me of a blog thing I can't find any more about a guy doing a review of a D&D monster and how this neat and creepy image brought the idea to a new direction and made him want to run it. And then in a later release, the monster was more generic and not as inspiring. And when I saw what he was talking about yeah I agreed with it as well.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1134710You're pretty much contradicting your later statement. You tell yourself that you find images too stifling is one thing, but saying they don't have an impact before that is just oxymoronic.
You're also just yapping more personal preferences and presenting them as objective truths. I can respect your preferences but don't demand everybody treat them as objective.

No, you're just being an asshole. I never said images didn't have an impact, and I never contradicted myself. The "I find..." and similar phrases in my post should clearly indicate I'm talking about personal preferences -- not to mention, it should be obvious in context. It's a ridiculous standard to burden casual speech on a forum by requiring "IMO" caveats in every damn sentence. There are a few parts where I talk about general principles, but if you object to any of that, then you should specifically object to them, because otherwise there's no way I can know what caused you to descend into this idiocy.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1134700just so. A novel is aimed to entertain with it's text. Rules and tables are interesting but not necessarily entertaining.

PS a dinosaur book without pictures of dinosaurs is a very sad thing.

What I find sad is that Pterosaurs and T-Rex didn't live at the same time and also -Rexs had feathers.

Quote from: Pat;1134707But most RPG art is much worse, because it tries to define the world, which I find uninspiring. No, that's the wrong word. "Un-" just means "not", which is neutral. I find it negatively inspiring. They're not just extraneous, they make it worse. Dis-inspiring? Anti-inspiring? Something like that. The problem is that RPG settings primarily exist in the mind, and words are far better at conveying necessary information while letting the reader's imagination fill in all the other details. The problem with art is it never provides necessary details,[1] it only gives tone, impressions, and style. Which is constraining, because your imagination can't just build on the necessary details presented in the text, it has to constrain them within a very narrow range of visualizations.

I disagree. While it is entirely possible that a game provides inadequate art that fails to properly convey a world or tries to narrowly define things that are better off left up to the GM--particularly in the case of generic, non-setting specific RPGs (like D&D to a certain extent is technically supposed to be)--properly made art can greatly enhance most players ability visualize the world, inspire them, and help hook them on a game.

Some people simply do not want to slug through long written descriptions in order to get the intricacies of the world, but an image can help them get a glimpse in an instant. And the more setting-specific the game, and more original the setting is, the more that good art can become essential to properly conveying that world.

A great example of this is Dark Sun, which basically rode in the coattails of Gerald Brom's art, which ultimately helped inspire some elements of the world while it was still in development, and brought it to life. As excellent as Dark Sun is in its own right (except for the later supplements), it would've never been the same without Brom.

I do think that not all art has to be in the book, though. Particularly color art. A lot of it could just be promotional material mostly found in the web, and you could dedicate an entire site to the game, with a lot of color illustrations in there and use only minimal art in the book, perhaps entirely black and white.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1134674As for UBI, I worry much more about the social effects moreso then if it's really possible (which I doubt). No Universal Basic Income system will ever be Universal or Basic or a type of Income.

I think a better catchphrase might be 'Conditional Beurocratic Welfare'. And Id say humanity being at the point of needing a CBW is more of a horrific outcome then a solution.

If UBI replaced all Government benefit programs (except those you pay into, like Medicare and Social Security) I think it could work well. You'd eliminate dozens of existing programs and the bureaucracies built to support them (SNAP, Subsidized housing, energy assistance programs, welfare, supplemental security, Lifelime, temporary assistance for needy families, Earned Income Tax Credit, etc..). You fold all that money into one program, and it goes to every citizen so you don't need some big system which checks income and how you spend it and when you spend it and checks for renewals etc.. Nobody feels the shame of being on Government dole, nobody has to prove to the Government they need the money or spent the money wisely. You'd save money in Government employees and their benefits and pensions, and use that to help fund the program. It would be one big Government spending program which ironically shrinks the overall size of the Government itself.

And then people could use that cash to buy more RPG books! Which is only semi-joking. Extra money would in fact be used by some to supplement their hobby expenditures. And one theme of UBI is it frees some people to pursue more creative endeavors with their time, since they can afford to live with fewer work hours. Which is something that mechanization will force on us eventually anyway. Some of those creative hours would be on making RPG products.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1134717What I find sad is that Pterosaurs and T-Rex didn't live at the same time and also -Rexs had feathers.

Pterosaurs and tyrannosaurs did live at the same time, in fact both around for the end-K extinction. In fact, it was the time of the largest pterosaurs, like Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx. You may be thinking of a specific genus that was extinct by the latest Cretaceous, like Pteranodon or Pterodactylus.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1134727I disagree. While it is entirely possible that a game provides inadequate art that fails to properly convey a world or tries to narrowly define things that are better off left up to the GM--particularly in the case of generic, non-setting specific RPGs (like D&D to a certain extent is technically supposed to be)--properly made art can greatly enhance most players ability visualize the world, inspire them, and help hook them on a game.

Some people simply do not want to slug through long written descriptions in order to get the intricacies of the world, but an image can help them get a glimpse in an instant. And the more setting-specific the game, and more original the setting is, the more that good art can become essential to properly conveying that world.

A great example of this is Dark Sun, which basically rode in the coattails of Gerald Brom's art, which ultimately helped inspire some elements of the world while it was still in development, and brought it to life. As excellent as Dark Sun is in its own right (except for the later supplements), it would've never been the same without Brom.

I do think that not all art has to be in the book, though. Particularly color art. A lot of it could just be promotional material mostly found in the web, and you could dedicate an entire site to the game, with a lot of color illustrations in there and use only minimal art in the book, perhaps entirely black and white.

Where did I advocate for long written descriptions? I didn't. Your argument is based on a strawman.

The necessary information to run a setting is the concrete details, like names, stats, maps, and so on. You need that, and it can't be conveyed through art. But you don't want too many details, because it's a lot harder to memorize someone else's work on all kinds of topics that might or might not come up in your game, and keep every detail of that straight, than it is to remember what you, yourself, came up with in the course of a game. That's why RPGs work best with an extensive improvisational component. Give the GM specific details for game stats and the necessary setting elements, but leave the rest open. Tone, trappings, and so forth don't need to be extensively detailed, they can be primarily defined by reference and allusion, allowing the GM to come up with the specifics only when needed.

Setting bibles are bad for that same reason -- while they're good for maintaining setting consistency when dealing with numerous authors, it becomes a lot of work ensuring every new element is consistent with the entire previous body of work, and it limits many stories. But that cross-consistency is simply not an issue in a single campaign run by a single GM, where the setting unfolds as the players engage with it. The GM doesn't have to vet everything for consistency with an established canon, because whatever the GM presents to the players is the canon. The setting bible for a new campaign starts out as just a few pages, and they're all in GM's head. That's much easier to work with.

Inspiration is useful, but it doesn't have to be art. A few words, or references to TV shows, movies, novels, or legends work just fine. And when it's art, it works best when it's detached somewhat from the setting. (Which is why I argued it doesn't have to be part of the game.) Because that way, you're not bound by it; it's a launchpad, not a prison. Conversely, by portraying it, you're limiting the world. You're creating the visual equivalent of an exhaustive setting bible, and forcing the GM to maintain some level of consistency with all kinds of extraneous, non-essential details.