|
| Steam and Brass |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| m8adam |
 Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: Steam and Brass |
 |
|
Patron
Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 148
|
Hey, I've been trying to find resources and materials for steam-punk themed DnD and stumbled across references to the Steam and Brass project by chance. I've since done some digging and decided that I'd really love to either buy someone's copy, or short of that, find someone willing to let me take a look at their copy.
I'm curious as to the feasibility of either of these possibilities. I've read the arguments about limiting availability of this project, and it seems like the proponents of it remaining largely unavailable would have no objections to me buying someone else's patronage rights. If anyone's willing to sell them.
If it's not possible to buy these rights, is there any way I could peruse the file/book without keeping it?
~Adam |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| avidreader514 |
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 140
Location: montreal
|
| I don't know if anyone would sell their patronage to Steam & Brass, but I know that the upcoming Tales of Zobeck covers some of the crunchy highlights of that project. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Aberzanzorax |
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: was this option ever discussed |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 276
|
I 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Wolfgang |
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kobold Overlord
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 4988
Location: The Mines
|
Well, the patrons who balked would be the ones who decide. Steven Schend was one of them, Troy Luginbill was there too. I could dig up the names, but I'm really not willing to go chasing after these patrons every couople months when someone wants to make them an offer.
I'll leave it to other folks to convince them. I've sort of washed my hands of that issue. Repeatedly.
_________________
Wolfgang Baur
Publisher, Kobold Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Aberzanzorax |
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: Gotcha. |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 276
|
Thanks for the reply Wolfgang. I imagine this whole issue must be frustrating for you.
I think your stance is very reasonable. I'll see what I can do to track them down based on the names you've given.
EDIT: I just contacted the two blogs mentioned under the Steam and Brass section of the Free City by commenting on them and directing them here.
I also contacted Steve Schend at his site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kanousal |
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 10
|
Got your message post to my (now mostly defunct) blog Aberzanzorax. Thanks for pointing me to this discussion.
A significant problem I see with your proposed solution, is that, regardless of the frequency of these payments, it's going to require record keeping that will eat up time that I would prefer Wolfgang spend on continuing to develop new content. Not to mention the logistical and tax implications of making these payments.
That being said - and I am no more interested in re-engaging in this discussion than Wolfgang is - as an original opponent of subsequent distribution of earlier patron projects, I'd just mention that I've softened that opposition somewhat. Steam & Brass has evolved into a significantly larger enterprise, and I'm proud to have helped support the project in its infant stage. The exclusivity I sought to protect will be maintained in that only those of us who made the original gamble will be listed as patrons. I'll leave it up to Wolfang's good judgment as to whether these older projects will be made available in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Aberzanzorax |
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:09 am Post subject: So then, are you stating that you've changed your mind? |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 276
|
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but the way I read your reply it sounded as though at this point you'd be fine if this project was opened up to new patrons (even without my compromise).
Is that the case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| m8adam |
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: NO! |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 148
|
Ok, so i knew that I might be opening a can of worms by bringing this issue up again, and honestly, that was not my intent. I fully understand the objections of the patrons who balked at making the project available again, although didn't agree with them, and was trying to work within the context of those objections.
I did not want to drag us down the road of "what's legit and what's not" again, I just wanted to put an offer out there to purchase someone's patronage of that project as I'm EXTREMELY interested in it. I wanted to post to the discussion board because 1) I have no idea how to go about conducting this purchase, and 2) I wanted to make sure that no one had any objections as I know this is a touchy issue.
However, if the patrons who previously objected have changed their minds on the issue I'd be very interested in negotiating terms for making the project more public. It just seems so backwards to keep these amazing gaming materials out of the hands of gamers, although I understand that the patrons feel protective of something that they contributed to and expected to benefit from exclusively.
Maybe someone could put me in contact with the people who objected previously and I could discuss this issue directly with them?
~Adam |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kanousal |
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: Re: So then, are you stating that you've changed your mind? |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 10
|
| Aberzanzorax wrote: |
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but the way I read your reply it sounded as though at this point you'd be fine if this project was opened up to new patrons (even without my compromise).
Is that the case? |
Well, in terms of the compromise, I am most definitely opposed as I believe it will eat up resources better used elsewhere.
As for opening the project up, I wouldn't say that I'm fine with it, as I still believe it runs contrary to what the patronage model is all about. However, that's mainly academic blather and in the end I just don't feel all that strongly about it. So I'm fine with Wolfgang making previous OD projects available to non-patrons.
I would be opposed to "new patrons" being added to the project, however, as later customers were in fact not patrons of the project at all. Perhaps a minor distinction, but it is the exclusivity of patronage for a given project that I am looking to maintain.
Of course, I am only one of the original detractors, and still support previous OD projects being walled off if any of those patrons object. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Aberzanzorax |
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject: Thanks for the clarification! |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 276
|
Thanks for the clarification! I appreciate your candor.
I agree with new individuals not being listed as patrons. That has been the model used for people such as myself. I became a patron of Blood of the Gorgon and was allowed to buy 6 Arabian Nights and Empire of the Ghouls. My name was NOT added to the list of patrons, and that is as it should be, I believe.
I too believe that all four of the original detractors should be convinced of allowing the sale of the original model in order to do so. I am glad to hear that your position has softened, however, and hope to convince the remaining detractors.
I wonder if a compromise as simple as charging double the original cost with the full proceeds going to Wolfgang would be sufficient for the other detractors? It seems that this is more about academic fairness than anything else....and I can understand that on a personal and intellectual level. I, for one, would certainly consider that to be a reward for my original patronage (and it would help keep exclusivity up as few people other than "uberfans" of the Open Gaming Projects would want to pay that much).
One last thing, if you don't mind. May I have your name? I posted on three blogs all at once regarding this subject and want to follow up with the others in a few days time. If not, that's ok. (if you like, you can PM me the name, and I promise I'll only share it with Wolfgang--so that he knows of your changed position).
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jerrie luginbill |
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Location: lynden washington
|
I too agree that the compromise would be top heavy and offer no payback to either wolfgang or the original patrons. But read below and you will see that for me the money is not the point.
I also agree that the stock analogy is a loose analogy, and does not represent the the greyer areas of the patronage model. It is an easy way to explain the basics motives for keeping it closed. The relationship to money and monetary value is the part that doesn't really ring true to the patronage model.
I am not willing to sell nor to open up the design. I am truly sorry that many missed out, but the unique aspect of this is that the module was commissioned with input by a small group of people. It is in my opinion not a publication but an actual work of art that I own partial copyright to. To allow wider duplication would be like having the mona lisa duplicated without the consent of Leonardo or the commissioning patron. That simply would not have happened back then. This is because of the collectors value. To many this mistakenly means the inherent monetary value, but to a collector this is not the case. It is not truly exclusivity but rarity and background that makes this module valuable. Very few of these exist in the world, yet I have one, because I was part of making it happen. I am proud of this work, I am proud to have taken part in steam and brass and to allow others to have a "piece" of that pride would devalue the contribution the patrons gave (not in money but in being part of the first of this sort of project.) I and others literally made history with this project. Patrons originally commissioned art for the rarity of the piece and pride associated with being the one that recognized talent and gave it a shot.
Imagine the real value of having someone of Wolfgang's talent and standing in the roleplaying realm write you your own adventure. Yes, you would have to drop a tremendous amount of money but it would be a one of a kind, singularly unique piece of work. How often would you show it off? How many times would you say no, you cannot xerox it? How would you feel if you saw someone standing at the store being either excited or disgusted with what you brought to life? Especially if the artist, you or the community regarded it as the artists master work.
I understand that sounds selfish, and that others would say "you would get more recognition for your efforts if it was widely distributed." I can only say to that that it is easy to make claims to generosity when you are the receiver of that generosity and that it is also easy to make claims to someone else pride and emotion when it is not yours you are selling.
So unfortunately no, I will not sell my patronage rights, nor will I acquiesce to opening it up. In the future if I decide to get rid of my rights I will give them away, just like a patron would have given a piece of art either back to the artist or to someone that could appreciate it for its historic and artistic value. If there is ever a museum of role playing then that is probably where it will end up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Aberzanzorax |
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: Thanks for the reply |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 276
|
First, I want to thank you for your reply. When you could have just as easily been silent, you chose to speak up, which speaks both to your investment in the project you love and to your belief that your position is worthy and worth defending.
Second, I want to say that I admire anyone who stands their ground when they believe they are right. It is hard to do when there is social pressure pushing you to act in a different way than what you believe should be done. (I love the play and movie 12 angry men.) I also want to say, though, that I admire someone who has an open mind broad enough to consider another's opinon, and who is willing to consider that they might not have been entirely correct. It is a noble thing to stand one's ground because one believes they are right. It is an unfortunate and misguided thing when one holds their ground simply for the sake of holding that ground because they have done so for so long or because they are unwilling to attempt to see another point of view. With that in mind, please read my responses to your points, not merely with the eye of countering them, but with an attempt to truly understand. When you get to the end, please, by all means counter them if you believe it is right to do so. I'd respect you for it.
I understand that money is not the point. I was using it as a means to reach compromise, fairness, and exclusivity. (Compromise and fairness as patrons risked more and invested in it in a way that cannot be duplicated, so there must be some additional penalty for new buyers. Money is the easiest. Exclusivity in the sense that the more expensive a product is, the more demand goes down. This carries with your art analogy. Merely by making something more expensive than its competitors, you drive down the number of people willing to pay for it). However, since you've conceded that money is not the point, I won't belabor that aspect any longer.
You state that this is not a publication, but a work of art. I can totally agree with that assessment. Wolfgang's other work in the Open Gaming Project (and Nick Logue's) are also art to me. I have read that you compare this to the Mona Lisa (or other paintings), and I find that problematic. This is not a one of a kind piece of art like a painting. It is a reproducable product. A more fair analogy would be a song or play that was written for you and several others or a print that had a limited print run (if you would like to maintain the visual medium as your comparison).
Merely by being reproducable, this analogy changes matters. You do not lose your copy of anything (as in a painting), though I concede that others having it makes it less exclusive.
You also mention that allowing it to be duplicated would be like "having the mona lisa duplicated without the consent of Leonardo or the commissioning patron". While nitpicking (but only to a small degree), this is not the case. In this case, Wolfgang (Leonardo) is willing to have his work duplicated. Again, this is not like copying the Mona Lisa, but for, say a playwright who wrote a specific work for a specific group of patrons to allow others to see the play. Ok, the creator of the art is on board....but that is not enough. The patron must also be on board, as the patron is the person who owns the art (if I understand the patronage model) even art like song lyrics. 70 of 74 have chosen to allow the reproduction. (Now 71 of 74, see earlier in this thread). Again, if you are right and they are wrong, this number should not be daunting. However, it does shake your analogy further. Imagine a highschool class that won a contest for working the hardest to get it to happen (making them more like investing patrons and less like lucky winners). A singer/songwriter famous at the time (take your favorite) comes to write a song for them as the prize. The kids LOVE it. It is their song. The songwriter says that he or she would like to sing it at other schools as it is inspirational and could spread joy (no money will be exchanged). 71 of the students say sure (some don't care, others maybe a bit grudgingly, but 71 allow it). 3 say no. This is a fairer comparison in my mind than the Leonardo/Mona Lisa comparison. Again, if those 3 kids are right, then fine. They are entitled to the song being theirs and no one elses. They worked hard. They won. Others did not.
You state that collectors value, to you, is: "is not truly exclusivity but rarity and background that makes this module valuable. "Again I will nitpick. I can understand rarity making it emotionally valuable. I can also understand background making it emotionally valuable. However, by opening up this project to new buyers, the background does not change. You still made this fledgling company viable. It was your risk, love, investment, and desire that helped Wolfgang launch a project (Open Gaming) we all can now enjoy. That wouldn't change. No new names would be added, no credit would be given to others nor taken away from you. Hence it seems we are left with rarity.
You state: "I am proud of this work, I am proud to have taken part in steam and brass and to allow others to have a "piece" of that pride would devalue the contribution the patrons gave (not in money but in being part of the first of this sort of project.) I and others literally made history with this project. Patrons originally commissioned art for the rarity of the piece and pride associated with being the one that recognized talent and gave it a shot." More nitpicking here, along the same lines. No one would have a "piece" of that pride. No one helped this to exist apart from you and 73 other patrons (and of course the artists). New buyers would not change that fact. New buyers would not be making history. They would see the 74 names emblazoned on the work and see those that did. Patrons did not only commision art for the rarity of the piece and pride associated, they commisioned it because they wanted something that fit their tastes...something that met their needs specifically. You got that as well. Again, the pride associated with the creation is something you cannot lose. The rarity, again seems to be the crux/sticking point.
I'd like to honestly answer the questions you have brought up/asked me. "Imagine the real value of having someone of Wolfgang's talent and standing in the roleplaying realm write you your own adventure." That would be, and is AWESOME.
"Yes, you would have to drop a tremendous amount of money but it would be a one of a kind, singularly unique piece of work. How often would you show it off?" I would show it off by running it, of course. I would run it as often as I could with any and all groups I played with because I'd want to use the product I loved dearly. I imagine this is true for you as well.
"How many times would you say no, you cannot xerox it?" That's a bit more complicated. I certainly have loyalty to Wolfgang and freelancers generally and do not support any duplication of their work for no reward. I don't use torrents to download music or movies either. So I would say that every time, but that would be the rationale. I suspect that's not what you are getting at, though, and I'm not trying to avoid your point, but to be thorough. If I were allowed as part of my patronage rights to copy it, I suppose I would copy it for some friends upon request...but not just any friends. I'd do this only for friends who shared parts of their lives with me (went to concerts with me whether or not they paid for my ticket, gamed with me, etc). I'd copy it for everyone who played it as a keepsake. I'd want to share, but not with just anybody...only with those I knew would find it as special as I did and who would not abuse it.
"How would you feel if you saw someone standing at the store being either excited or disgusted with what you brought to life?" Well, if excited, I'd be happy. If I were the artist, I'd feel proud. If I were the patron, I'd feel proud. If they were disgusted, I'd certainly feel defensive, and might wish that they did not have access to it to scorn it. That said, releasing this for purchase would not result in such things. Again, if it were kept only to those who really, really wanted it...you'd have option 1...where I'd be proud that others admired something I created. Again, we come to rarity.
You state: "I understand that sounds selfish, and that others would say "you would get more recognition for your efforts if it was widely distributed."" Well, it does sound selfish, so far. It seems you do not believe it to be. That may be because I do not fully understand you, particularly because metaphor rarely captures our true meanng and emotions, and as I think I have pointed out, the metaphors you have used are flawed in one or two ways. It may not sound selfish if I understood it better, or if it were said in a different way. To the second part of the above quote, I can respond in two ways: one would be "of course you would get more recognition for your efforts if it were more widely distributed" but I thought about it some and that is not entirely correct. Of course the product would be more admired and those who were patrons could point to their involvement. However, that brings me to the second point. I now know your name and one other. I know the names of the dissenters. Hence, you actually get more recognition by being in the minority group who refuses to allow the sale of the product. I doubt that this is the prideful sort of recognition you seek, but it is a form of recognition nonetheless. So hereI do question that if your pride is in the creation of this work and its historic nature rather than in keeping it rare, why you are working so hard to keep it from others eyes. Again, the sticking point is rarity.
You state "I can only say to that that it is easy to make claims to generosity when you are the receiver of that generosity and that it is also easy to make claims to someone else pride and emotion when it is not yours you are selling." This is a bit dismissive, but still correct. It doesn't really address your points beyond shaming those who want something that you exclusively have. Here again, we come to rarity.
You state: "If there is ever a museum of role playing then that is probably where it will end up." I disagree most strongly here. It sounds like it would certainly deserve a place there (along with Ptolus, the Demonomicon series, the original sets, and so on). However, you're comparing this to the Mona Lisa. That is a famous piece of art. This is not, and it is, in large part, you who are preventing it from becoming so. A fairer artwork comparison would be more like a lost artwork by a great painter. Not until it is unearthed and shared among others can it truly be appreciated.
I'm sorry to say this, but I believe your position is most similar to the following: Michael Jackson bought most of the rights to the Beatles music. What if if shut down all production? What if instead of being able to buy these hits on CD, the only available mediums would be the records, 8tracks, and tapes available before he bought them? They'd be rarer, to be sure. Parents could tell their kids about this historic and groundbreaking band that they used to listen to, but they'd only ever be able to tell them...they couldn't play the music unless they were lucky enough to have one of those increasingly rare items.
To use the patronage model, imagine you yourself commision a song to be written. It's composed for you by Mozart himself. It's beautiful. It makes you weep to listen to it. You play it over and over on your piano when no one else is around. And you refuse to let anyone else listen to it. It's mine, you say, if others heard it, it would be less special. This, I believe is the model you are working under. Rarity is the sole driving force, it seems, as I have outlined above. You make comments about pride, but it is a pride driven by rarity, not by joy in the product alone. If it was joy, the Mozart song would be shared with others. "Listen to this great song", you'd say. Without me it never would have been created. I still have the original, but you can have a copy too. Then we can both enjoy this work! I wouldn't give this to just anyone, but I see you are moved as deeply as I am by it.
In this analogy, you lose nothing. If I were able to buy it, you would lose nothing but rarity. You would have your historic contribution, would be named as a patron of the art, and would still have your copy of the work.
So if, as I think I've beaten to death, all it is is rarity, what does that really mean? What does keeping the number of something small so that there are fewer of them in the world and so that fewer people can enjoy them result in? What is the import? I can think of only one thing.
I'm sorry, but as I understand your argument, it basically comes down to "It's special because it is mine and not yours." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| varianor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 602
|
Thank you for the thoughtful response. Very interesting to get your perspective on it.
| Quote: |
| Imagine the real value of having someone of Wolfgang's talent and standing in the roleplaying realm write you your own adventure. Yes, you would have to drop a tremendous amount of money but it would be a one of a kind, singularly unique piece of work. How often would you show it off? |
How many conventions would one have to get to and run it? 
(Wolfgang actually once posted a price - at my suggestion - for a single patron-funded adventure. If I were him, I'd raise that price now given how successful this has all become.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Aberzanzorax |
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: Since rarity does seem to be the sticking point, how about: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 276
|
What about a model of purchase as follows:
Suppose Wolfgang opens up all prior products for sale. Each time one is purchased, the cost increases by $1. If 400 people bought Steam and Brass, the last person would be paying the patron price PLUS $400!
This model would enforce rarity through economic means, encourage people interested to buy early, or as soon as they could afford it, as the price was only going to go up, not down.
The additional money could go to Wolfgang or a gaming charity.
I know money is not the issue, but it is a means to an end...and if rarity is the end, then I think that this would be a way to accomplish that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| varianor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 602
|
| Well, Wolfgang has already said that the topic is closed as far as Steam & Brass goes. While I can understand the desire to get ahold of the book, the original patrons want it kept exclusive and we have to respect that. As to subsequent projects? That's up to Wolfgang. (I would think if they were opened up for purchase only, not patronage, that it would be reasonable to charge signficantly more, but as a fixed increase.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
Page 1 of 4 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
