Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: pawsplay on April 23, 2024, 06:57:05 PM
-
I was pretty excited about the new Rolemaster. However, after sitting with it, I finally decided to get rid of my hardcover. I was just too unhappy with how it looked. The question I have is: what happened?
I can see several possible scenarios.
First, maybe the dev team love how the new books look. We just agree to disagree, and I just part ways with this version of the game.
Second, maybe there was a budget constraint. Maybe all the art across three books had to cost $1000 or less or something. Maybe this is the painful result.
Third idea, maybe some of the artists just didn't deliver. Their portfolios looked okay, but what they turned in was really uneven, and even after revisions, this is where we are. This could be the result of a slightly less constrained, but still tight, budget.
Fourth idea, no one was really in charge. A bunch of art was ordered piecemeal, no one was responsible for QC, and this is the result.
Does anyone want to comment on this? Sorry if this comes across as harsh. I was just really hoping for a Rolemaster I would be happy to have on my shelf, and this does not hit the mark.
-
I like that there are characters who carry over from book to book, I like the gratar, and everybody having a familiar is a callback. It's got some dynamism, a variety of characters, and they are dressed like adventurers and not, well, undressed like some fantasy art.
That said, sure, ICE has a small press art budget not a Hasbro art budget. I don't know the actual numbers but, look, Core is platinum on Drivethrurpg. That's something around 1000-2000 copies. The proceeds of sales have to be split between ICE, writers, editors, art, and layout, plus DTR takes a cut themselves. So what do you think that actually means for the art budget? Now what does that mean on a per-piece basis?
-
Well, if the budget was truly sparse, I find myself wondering, was there a Kickstarter at some point to get some funds up front for the art?
-
I'm not a fan of the covers. But, I don't like obviously digital art, so I've got an instant biased right there. I think it looks cheap (from a quality standpoint) a vast majority of the time. And, I'm sure, to a degree it literally is (actual cost) as there are no material costs involved and you can try as many times as you want to make something that looks cool. Sure, you have to pay for the program and your computer, but after that it's all simply your time - which is worth something, but not in the same way that $1000 is.
I've got a good amount of framed art around my house and only one of them is digital... and it doesn't look like it. It looks like the original piece was an actual painting.
Actually, I do have a set of six digital pieces: Nerdy Star Wars, Firefly and Dr Who mixed silhouette/word art. But most my stuff is Elmore, Easley, Caldwell, Parkinson, some of my own photography, etc.
Thing is, I couldn't really care less about the art for Rolemaster. I end up deconstructing the books and making my own anyhow. Probably not the normal response though.
-
Well, if the budget was truly sparse, I find myself wondering, was there a Kickstarter at some point to get some funds up front for the art?
Best way to help would be to spread the word about rolemaster and get more people to buy it. The more sales each book has, the more money can be budgeted for the next one.
Throwing 8-10% of funds (and time) away on a kickstarter doesn't seem a great way to improve anything.
-
I think a lot of the sales are going to be nostalgia sales. Putting a pretty book on the shelf could go a long way toward increasing those numbers.
-
Yes, the illustrations mean that the books have not yet been translated into French, as the publisher is considering whether to redo all the illustrations. The market is already quite small, and the extra cost means that they're considering it as it is... much to my despair.
-
And, I'm sure, to a degree it literally is (actual cost) as there are no material costs involved and you can try as many times as you want to make something that looks cool. Sure, you have to pay for the program and your computer, but after that it's all simply your time - which is worth something, but not in the same way that $1000 is.
Sounds like creating digital imagery is about the same as being a writer/game designer, all you need is a cheap but functional computer and enough time on your hands to try and hit the right combination of keys to make up a product that someone else has to correct before publishing. :)
-
Props to ICE for sticking with real artists.
Yet, the art is at times alright, and at other times... just plainly not good. It's a shame, because the rules themselves are great, but the art is not going to be helping the sales. Just my opinion of course.
-
I think there should be a Kickstarter for Rolemaster Unified: Better Art Version.
-
I think there should be a Kickstarter for Rolemaster Unified: Better Art Version.
ICE's official statement is to not do kickstarters.
-
A Kickstarter can only generate more funds if either 1) it causes significantly more people to buy the product than otherwise would, or 2) it causes buyers to pay significantly more per copy than they otherwise would. It's not clear to me how either of those would work. Aside from those things, it just moves more of the sales up front instead of later on. Often it does that by offering a discount, which is counter to purpose #2. Also, it costs money to run, and Kickstarter takes part of the proceeds, so it's got to do so by a large margin to be a net gain at all. I don't see how that would have worked, even ignoring the question about who is doing the work.
-
And, I'm sure, to a degree it literally is (actual cost) as there are no material costs involved and you can try as many times as you want to make something that looks cool. Sure, you have to pay for the program and your computer, but after that it's all simply your time - which is worth something, but not in the same way that $1000 is.
Sounds like creating digital imagery is about the same as being a writer/game designer, all you need is a cheap but functional computer and enough time on your hands to try and hit the right combination of keys to make up a product that someone else has to correct before publishing. :)
I actually largely agree with that. Many years ago, at a author panel at GenCon, I was asked how you 'get into' being an RPG writer. My first response was that there were likely plenty of people in the audience that could come up with enough good RPG material to at least put out an expansion book and that the most difficult part of it was for the person to actually sit down and do it. You just need good ideas and time. But most people can't/won't dedicate the time needed. It amazes me how many freelancers who actually do get hired for a project still don't deliver in the end.
I almost said it earlier, but when it comes to digital art I'd paint a very similar picture (ha! See what I did there?) with photography these days. Professional photographers were concerned that digital cameras would start costing them business. Because once film development was no longer a cost barrier everyone was going to become their own 'photographer'. I mean, if you take a 1000 pictures odds are you're going to get lucky once in a while. I have a good amount of photography gear (enough to consider an insurance rider) and I'd likely put myself, at best, on the middle-low end of an amateur photographer. I took 10,000 pictures on a month long trip to the UK using the first ever Digital SLR camera and I got a lot of really cool pictures. But I have many more that are duplicates (cause I was taking the same pic multiple times to make sure I got a good one) or just crap. Yeah, maybe professionals do that too, but I couldn't make a living on it. Couldn't consistently crank out quality photo's at a level where I'd consider myself worthy of charging someone to reliably shoot their wedding.
-
A Kickstarter can only generate more funds if either 1) it causes significantly more people to buy the product than otherwise would, or 2) it causes buyers to pay significantly more per copy than they otherwise would. It's not clear to me how either of those would work. Aside from those things, it just moves more of the sales up front instead of later on. Often it does that by offering a discount, which is counter to purpose #2. Also, it costs money to run, and Kickstarter takes part of the proceeds, so it's got to do so by a large margin to be a net gain at all. I don't see how that would have worked, even ignoring the question about who is doing the work.
Kickstarters consistently generate extra sales. First of all, Kickstarter is its own network. There are literally thousands of RPG players on there that just browse around, looking for projects to back. Second, it tends to inspire a heave-ho, let's do this vibe. So if you get all the existing fans to say, heck yeah, let's get a version with better art, you can get a lot of people to commit to purchasing, because there is both a perceived benefit, and a perceived sense of urgency. Third, Kickstarter campaigns catch a lot of eyeballs. They get shared around on social media, on forums, etc.
In the case of RPG projects, PDF sales have virtually no overhead, so structuring the price structure of the project to be mostly PDFs all but guarantees profitability. In the case of hard copies, you can right-size your print run to maximize your savings on printing costs.
But to me the first question is: why not more stock art? You would probably need a custom piece for the blue people and for the hawk people, but most of the stuff in these books is pretty generic. If cost is an issue, why not just get a Dean Spencer prescription, or pick up some of Eric Lofgren's not-quite-as-overused options? All you really need is a catchy piece of cover art; if you can't find something you like, that isn't already over-used, spend your budget on that.
I've seen plenty of books with smaller audiences with more investment in the art. Rolemaster is a classic game with an existing audience. I don't understand how it went to print with such an uneven, unprofessional appearance.
-
In the case of RPG projects, PDF sales have virtually no overhead, so structuring the price structure of the project to be mostly PDFs all but guarantees profitability.
The marginal cost is very low, but you still have the upfront costs of writers, editors, layout, art. With the volume we are talking about, even when you spread that out over every sale, it's still significant. If, say, we doubled our sales by using Kickstarter (which I think is generous), it's not enough change that.
In the case of hard copies, you can right-size your print run to maximize your savings on printing costs.
Since ICE is print-on-demand, that's kind of moot. You could do an actual print run, which might in fact save money, but there's no staff to receive and ship the books.
-
The marginal cost is very low, but you still have the upfront costs of writers, editors, layout, art. With the volume we are talking about, even when you spread that out over every sale, it's still significant. If, say, we doubled our sales by using Kickstarter (which I think is generous), it's not enough change that.
Well, it doesn't cost more to layout quality art than cheap art.
I think between improving the appearance of the product, and Kickstarter's network advantages, it would not be a stretch to double or more your sales.
Since ICE is print-on-demand, that's kind of moot. You could do an actual print run, which might in fact save money, but there's no staff to receive and ship the books.
I feel like if you accidentally sold 5000 hard copies, you could probably go ahead and pay a little to get some help with fulfillment.
It seems like quite a bit of thought has already been put into this. I'm just floating out some thoughts, as someone who has done projects with a lot less cachet than a new Rolemaster edition.
-
I sometimes think it might be worth it to create my own AI art, and place it on the art that actually is in the book.
This whole "hire humans!!" movement will die anyway. We might as well get the best results now rather than later.
-
I sometimes think it might be worth it to create my own AI art, and place it on the art that actually is in the book.
This whole "hire humans!!" movement will die anyway. We might as well get the best results now rather than later.
It's your purchased copy, nobody is stopping you.
In the end it's up to ICE how they go about with their own products.
-
This whole "hire humans!!" movement will die anyway. We might as well get the best results now rather than later.
Let's get these humans back to producing the good stuff... washing dishes, mining coal... none of this creative endeavours! Leave that to the experts - the machines!
FWIW: I have a simple rule when it comes to AI artwork in creative products: Absolutely not.
Use it at your table for personal stuff (AI icons for characters in a game... sure).
-
This whole "hire humans!!" movement will die anyway. We might as well get the best results now rather than later.
Let's get these humans back to producing the good stuff... washing dishes, mining coal... none of this creative endeavours! Leave that to the experts - the machines!
FWIW: I have a simple rule when it comes to AI artwork in creative products: Absolutely not.
Use it at your table for personal stuff (AI icons for characters in a game... sure).
You get better results with natural intelligence all the time. :D
AI is handy if you can't afford an illustrator, and even then it's spotty. Like blades through hands, for instance. AI can't match natural intelligence.
-
AI can't match natural intelligence.
Yet.
And that's only for activities where actual intelligence is required.
Creativity ? I'd agree, it will not be in the near future. But most people are not able to distinguish derivative works from originals when there are no obvious defects, so I would expect AI "art" to become almost ubiquitous in the next decade or so.
But it is mostly our collective fault - we are used to having things for cheap. And so, if they are not, we look to the ones who can sell us the stuff cheap (or give it for 'free'), and then we consume en masse until the next fad comes in. Intelligence is not required for being a consumer - why should it be required to produce ?
AI can have a myriad of useful applications that will help humanity. It can also have a myriad of lucrative ones that won't. You don't need intelligence to see where this leads, either.
-
This whole "hire humans!!" movement will die anyway. We might as well get the best results now rather than later.
Let's get these humans back to producing the good stuff... washing dishes, mining coal... none of this creative endeavours! Leave that to the experts - the machines!
I will keep running my own campaigns, and writing my own books, but I am not mad enough to believe that any of that will be competitive to all the stuff machines are going to create.
But I insist on the machines also doing the dishes and cleaning my apartment. They will be much better at it than I ever want to be.
FWIW: I have a simple rule when it comes to AI artwork in creative products: Absolutely not.
[...]
We will see how you view that in 5 years.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1095727462941479013/1235632028783874059/sophokleslogimo_Angus_McBride_drawing_of_diverse_group_of_fanta_c7be0a64-7cc0-4a77-b756-99b473e23387.png?ex=66351380&is=6633c200&hm=97f6562ab28ce990150a6774bb7b856289a648494af78b9bf0c6b53a56ba45d9&)
-
I'm certain artists will still call AI generated imagery art theft, 5 years from now.
-
I'm certain artists will still call AI generated imagery art theft, 5 years from now.
There will be very few full-time professional artists below the "I sold my paiting in a gallery for 20,000 bucks" level who don't use AI themselves in their work in five years.
-
I'm certain artists will still call AI generated imagery art theft, 5 years from now.
There will be very few full-time professional artists below the "I sold my paiting in a gallery for 20,000 bucks" level who don't use AI themselves in their work in five years.
I'll log that under "biased predictions"
-
I'm certain artists will still call AI generated imagery art theft, 5 years from now.
There will be very few full-time professional artists below the "I sold my paiting in a gallery for 20,000 bucks" level who don't use AI themselves in their work in five years.
There are very few artists selling things above 20k. I think Angus McBride would have failed to hit that target. And he definitely would not have got there if he could not make money doing books.
You may be right, but you better hope you are not.
-
I'm certain artists will still call AI generated imagery art theft, 5 years from now.
There will be very few full-time professional artists below the "I sold my paiting in a gallery for 20,000 bucks" level who don't use AI themselves in their work in five years.
There are very few artists selling things above 20k.
That was kind of the point.
I think Angus McBride would have failed to hit that target. And he definitely would not have got there if he could not make money doing books.
Yes. But we don't want Angus McBride, we want art that looks as if he made it.
You may be right, but you better hope you are not.
There is nothing stopping machines and robots from doing all the labour in the world in a few years.
-
Then they'll have to also be the ones buying all the products too.
-
I have a simple rule when it comes to AI artwork in creative products: Absolutely not.
Use it at your table for personal stuff (AI icons for characters in a game... sure).
What do you see as the difference?
The problem I see with all those who are trying to say AI art is copyright infringement is that it's using a massive existing database of media to create new art. That is what the vast majority of living human artists do. So long as you're not trying to pass work off as an original you can create close facsimiles of existing art and sell them. Otherwise there wouldn't be categories of art, like 'Impressionist'. Only a vast collection of individual and unique pieces of art that couldn't be labelled by a category.
Now, don't get me wrong... I don't particularly want AI generated art on my walls. Hell, I'll take that a step further and say I'd rather have actual paintings and not prints of those paintings. But in a board game or RPG books? Couldn't care less. I'm not going to hang them on my wall.
-
I have a simple rule when it comes to AI artwork in creative products: Absolutely not.
Use it at your table for personal stuff (AI icons for characters in a game... sure).
What do you see as the difference?
The problem I see with all those who are trying to say AI art is copyright infringement is that it's using a massive existing database of media to create new art. That is what the vast majority of living human artists do. So long as you're not trying to pass work off as an original you can create close facsimiles of existing art and sell them. Otherwise there wouldn't be categories of art, like 'Impressionist'. Only a vast collection of individual and unique pieces of art that couldn't be labelled by a category.
Now, don't get me wrong... I don't particularly want AI generated art on my walls. Hell, I'll take that a step further and say I'd rather have actual paintings and not prints of those paintings. But in a board game or RPG books? Couldn't care less. I'm not going to hang them on my wall.
Taking note that your moral compass is off regarding artists and art creation; let's assume you have some high regard towards your own creations since you're listing them in your signature. Would you be ok to have your work and the works of other rpg authors fed into for example ChatGPT, allowing others to use said material to create new works without you being compensated and credited(not to mention making you obsolete in the process)?
-
Yes. But we don't want Angus McBride, we want art that looks as if he made it.
I guess there is the fundamental difference here.
-
Taking note that your moral compass is off regarding artists and art creation; let's assume you have some high regard towards your own creations since you're listing them in your signature. Would you be ok to have your work and the works of other rpg authors fed into for example ChatGPT, allowing others to use said material to create new works without you being compensated and credited(not to mention making you obsolete in the process)?
How is this different than them having the book, having read it in the past, and using it as inspiration to write an RPG book that is similar, but not exactly the same? Every single new edition of RM has used the information from the previous one and presented it slightly changed. There's a whole lot of what you just said here that's been happening for decades with RM (and lots of other stuff).
Also, I don't particularly have a 'high regard' for my work. I'm simply listing it so if people have questions about them they can ask. (I could point out a number of instances where I've said a whole lot of people could do what I've done if they just sat down and made themselves do it. Even within the last couple of days).
-
Yes. But we don't want Angus McBride, we want art that looks as if he made it.
I guess there is the fundamental difference here.
Well, if you want Angus McBride, you are out of luck, he died in 2007. But as you can see above, there is still the option to have new images in the way he made them, and completely free.
Edit: Huh, where is my linked AI-generated image? Anyway, here it is again.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1095727462941479013/1235632028783874059/sophokleslogimo_Angus_McBride_drawing_of_diverse_group_of_fanta_c7be0a64-7cc0-4a77-b756-99b473e23387.png?ex=66370dc0&is=6635bc40&hm=22a99cbabe4f588ca423381b27e0bfd27e6d95132e06256c3305808308dad6a9&)
-
Taking note that your moral compass is off regarding artists and art creation; let's assume you have some high regard towards your own creations since you're listing them in your signature. Would you be ok to have your work and the works of other rpg authors fed into for example ChatGPT, allowing others to use said material to create new works without you being compensated and credited(not to mention making you obsolete in the process)?
How is this different than them having the book, having read it in the past, and using it as inspiration to write an RPG book that is similar, but not exactly the same? Every single new edition of RM has used the information from the previous one and presented it slightly changed. There's a whole lot of what you just said here that's been happening for decades with RM (and lots of other stuff).
Also, I don't particularly have a 'high regard' for my work. I'm simply listing it so if people have questions about them they can ask. (I could point out a number of instances where I've said a whole lot of people could do what I've done if they just sat down and made themselves do it. Even within the last couple of days).
AI generators use and merge pre-existing images, they can never in the near future learn to paint something on their own without relying on scraped databases of images and photos made by humans, scraped and used without said artists consent.
-
AI generators use and merge pre-existing images, they can never in the near future learn to paint something on their own without relying on scraped databases of images and photos made by humans, scraped and used without said artists consent.
On one hand, Cory is right: when you get a number of art pieces from an artist and try to emulate their style by copying and arranging - maybe in order to improve your own artistic skills, maybe merely to have a picture of your latest character - I'd guess you don't ask permission either.
Furthermore, style has never been protected. Products are. Intellectual property is, to an extent. But it would be almost impossible to protect style.
There is a bit of an issue when you try to turn a profit from the sale of derivative work, but since style is not protected, it's more a moral issue than a legal one.
No on the other hand, I don't like where this is going. Because derivative work (of any kind - physical, technical, artistic, social...) has the capability to supplant a very large portion of the workforce. I would have no issue with it if we globally had a society where redistribution was a thing, but we don't. Being barred from gainful employment because there is someone, somewhere, that can do the same for one tenth of the wages is bad enough. But being barred from gainful employment because what you are doing is, not obsolete (it is still valuable since it is still in demand), but brought down to the initial cost of acquisition. AIs and robots are the ideal slaves: you buy them once, and then they have a marginal upkeep cost until you decide to upgrade. As long as we, as a society, don't have a solution for all those who will be put out of work, and merely shrug them off by saying "they can just find another job", we will have a major social problem with AI.
And I'm pretty much convinced that those who push for AI-in-the-workplace have no intention to find such a solution.
So, yes, I can see the appeal of being able to get derivative art of a certain style for basically nothing. I can also see the huge problem we are collectively building up.
It's interesting to notice that even the dystopian writers of the cyberpunk movement had not considered the consequences of AI and mobile robotics. Most people in cyberpunk settings are poor, yes, but they still have jobs. But when you truly consider how those jobs could exist - if the wages are lower than the cost of the autonomous machine over time -, you realise that threshold is quite low, and probably not sufficient to provide subsistence for someone.
In the end, social peace will be either bought (welfare) or enforced (dictatorship). And I'm not optimistic about what the people in charge will end up choosing.
-
AI generators use and merge pre-existing images, they can never in the near future learn to paint something on their own without relying on scraped databases of images and photos made by humans, scraped and used without said artists consent.
And, if you haven't figured it out by now, I still contend that one artist inspired by others isn't really doing anything all that much different than this.
It is rare you find a truly unique artist. Otherwise there would be no 'impressionism', there would only be Monet. There would be no 'cubism', there would only be Picasso.
-
We're not arguing about inspiration. I think there is where you get this wrong. Programs can't be inspired, they act from programmed algorithms, in this case AI image generators copy/cut/paste human artist's works put very simple, to generate new images. AI generators don't paint images pixel by pixel.
-
Now on the other hand, I don't like where this is going. Because derivative work (of any kind - physical, technical, artistic, social...) has the capability to supplant a very large portion of the workforce. I would have no issue with it if we globally had a society where redistribution was a thing, but we don't. Being barred from gainful employment because there is someone, somewhere, that can do the same for one tenth of the wages is bad enough. But being barred from gainful employment because what you are doing is, not obsolete (it is still valuable since it is still in demand), but brought down to the initial cost of acquisition. AIs and robots are the ideal slaves: you buy them once, and then they have a marginal upkeep cost until you decide to upgrade. As long as we, as a society, don't have a solution for all those who will be put out of work, and merely shrug them off by saying "they can just find another job", we will have a major social problem with AI.
This is one of two pieces of the problem that I partially agree with, but have my doubts it'll really become a problem for professional artists. The digital camera is almost comparable to what AI art is doing.
When digital cameras came out, and as cell phone cameras have improved, people have expressed concern that photographers would be put out of a job. They contended that, now that anyone with a cell phone (let alone a digital cameras of various capabilities) was going to be able to magically take just as good of photographs as professionals. A portion of the argument comes from the removal of the investment into film and film development. I took 10,000+ photos during a month long trip to the UK using the first Digital SLR camera. Today it would have cost me around $3750 to develop that much film. But all it cost me was my own time sifting through them and less time tweaking the good ones I wanted to keep with Photoshop (another thing some expressed the same concern over). I got a lot of really cool shots. I got way, way, way more that were not. The average person out there would think I have a lot of camera gear, but compared to a pro I do not. Yet, I'd likely be put in the 'amateur' category (probably even the lower half of that) and I'm not replacing a professional photographer anytime soon.
I've seen people state that they think AI art has no 'soul' as their argument. But that's just a sliding scale of what you think does. I could just as easily say that a print of a painting has no soul. That Parkinson's 'The North Watch' (probably one of my favorite fantasy pieces) doesn't inspire or move me because what I have was pumped out of a printer and not hand painted. Here's where the real money aspect comes into it if you ask me. We could then argue that only the rich have the ability to possess (buy) art with a 'soul'. Cause I'm sure even when Keith was alive I'd have to have paid $5,000 or more to buy that painting. So I don't swallow the 'soul' thing either. Those who make that claim need to prove to me that they can reliably tell the difference between human and AI created art. As soon as they say 'There! That piece speaks to me! It has a soul' about an AI piece they've proven to me they're full of crap.
AI doesn't remove the creative process at this point either. You don't just plug in a few words and get exactly what you want. I've played with AI art and you typically have to work at getting what you've envisioned, going through many iterations, tweaking it over and over, if you don't want mediocre results of if you want as close to what you envisioned as possible. In my view, one of the valid criticisms is that AI removes is the actual skill of physically drawing or painting. But, as I've said before, couldn't I say that about digital art created by a human to some degree? Couldn't I say that about post production photography programs like Photoshop? Couldn't I say that Hollywood 'rebooting' movies over and over is taking jobs away from writers?
I think AI art is more dangerous to beginner graphic designers that are coming up with logo's and non-artistic pieces. I mentioned over on Board Game Geek that I couldn't care less that Terraforming Mars used AI art for the cards in the game. I don't need a Mona Lisa on every piece of paper, I just need a halfway decent graphic representation. Now, the game Inis, I think they were going for true artistic value (Jim Fitzpatrick created that art) and it's one of the things that got me to buy the game. So using AI didn't stop me from buying Terraforming Mars, however a talented artist is part of what prompted me to buy Inis. So, a point I've made on other AI discussions (more on the writing side) is that it's going to impact people who aren't skilled far more. Is that bad? Eh... debatable. It means they have to learn and grow more in their medium, but wasn't that already true if they want to be dubbed a 'professional' artist or writer?
My concern with AI art isn't that it's scraping whatever database of art it's been fed to create new art and the, claimed, legal implications of that, it's that too many people (from the general population) may not place enough value in creativity of truly talented artist for them to be able to make a living at it. It's not that the process has become cheaper, it's that there were too many people who weren't willing to pay for it in the first place. But even then, isn't there a danger that the less wealthy you are the less access you have to purchasing that art? I can say I'm okay with not being able to buy original paintings because I can buy prints, but there are those out there who don't even have the spare money to buy prints.
In the end, I don't see AI art replacing talented artists so long as there exist people who appreciate their efforts and not just 'Oh pretty colors!'
-
We're not arguing about inspiration. I think there is where you get this wrong. Programs can't be inspired, they act from programmed algorithms, in this case AI image generators copy/cut/paste human artist's works put very simple, to generate new images. AI generators don't paint images pixel by pixel.
I don't agree. Firstly, the person plugging the information into the AI program is still looking for something. They still have some inspiration they've going for. So far as 'copy/cut/paste' I think you're splitting hairs. Like I said, artists copy each others style all the time. It's why there's 'Impressionism' and not just 'Monet'. In the theoretical sense they are copying/cuting/pasting like work.. or pixels. Their just doing it using physical media. We could say digital art created by a human is doing what you claim AI art is doing.
-
We're not arguing about inspiration. I think there is where you get this wrong. Programs can't be inspired, they act from programmed algorithms, in this case AI image generators copy/cut/paste human artist's works put very simple, to generate new images. AI generators don't paint images pixel by pixel.
I don't agree. Firstly, the person plugging the information into the AI program is still looking for something. They still have some inspiration they've going for. So far as 'copy/cut/paste' I think you're splitting hairs. Like I said, artists copy each others style all the time. It's why there's 'Impressionism' and not just 'Monet'. In the theoretical sense they are copying/cuting/pasting like work.. or pixels. Their just doing it using physical media. We could say digital art created by a human is doing what you claim AI art is doing.
The person looking to generate something is programming the AI generator with the input used. You do not have to agree with any of it, that is your choice, but I'm telling you how it is in reality.
Unless the fictional artist is copy pasting parts of other artists works into a new creation, there is no similarity between a human and an AI generator
-
We're not arguing about inspiration. I think there is where you get this wrong. Programs can't be inspired, they act from programmed algorithms, in this case AI image generators copy/cut/paste human artist's works put very simple, to generate new images. AI generators don't paint images pixel by pixel.
I don't agree. Firstly, the person plugging the information into the AI program is still looking for something. They still have some inspiration they've going for. So far as 'copy/cut/paste' I think you're splitting hairs. Like I said, artists copy each others style all the time. It's why there's 'Impressionism' and not just 'Monet'. In the theoretical sense they are copying/cuting/pasting like work.. or pixels. Their just doing it using physical media. We could say digital art created by a human is doing what you claim AI art is doing.
The person looking to generate something is programming the AI generator with the input used. You do not have to agree with any of it, that is your choice, but I'm telling you how it is in reality.
Maybe it's just your reality. Or maybe you misunderstood. What I disagree with is that: We aren't talking about inspiration. Without the inspiration of the user providing, well, inspiration (parameters) to the AI it would be creating entirely random results at best. Currently, without that input, obviously nothing is produced.
Unless the fictional artist is copy pasting parts of other artists works into a new creation, there is no similarity between a human and an AI generator
Again, I disagree. It many cases the only major difference between original and derivative art is the fact that the person largely copied by hand rather than cut and paste.
-
We're not arguing about inspiration. I think there is where you get this wrong. Programs can't be inspired, they act from programmed algorithms, in this case AI image generators copy/cut/paste human artist's works put very simple, to generate new images. AI generators don't paint images pixel by pixel.
I don't agree. Firstly, the person plugging the information into the AI program is still looking for something. They still have some inspiration they've going for. So far as 'copy/cut/paste' I think you're splitting hairs. Like I said, artists copy each others style all the time. It's why there's 'Impressionism' and not just 'Monet'. In the theoretical sense they are copying/cuting/pasting like work.. or pixels. Their just doing it using physical media. We could say digital art created by a human is doing what you claim AI art is doing.
The person looking to generate something is programming the AI generator with the input used. You do not have to agree with any of it, that is your choice, but I'm telling you how it is in reality.
Maybe it's just your reality. Or maybe you misunderstood. What I disagree with is that: We aren't talking about inspiration. Without the inspiration of the user providing, well, inspiration (parameters) to the AI it would be creating entirely random results at best. Currently, without that input, obviously nothing is produced.
Unless the fictional artist is copy pasting parts of other artists works into a new creation, there is no similarity between a human and an AI generator
Again, I disagree. It many cases the only major difference between original and derivative art is the fact that the person largely copied by hand rather than cut and paste.
I'll end my part in this AI discussion. You'll find enough publications online regarding AI image generation if you truly want to learn, I know as I've had a particular interest in the subject, ever since these generators first surfaced.
-
I'll end my part in this AI discussion. You'll find enough publications online regarding AI image generation if you truly want to learn, I know as I've had a particular interest in the subject, ever since these generators first surfaced.
I understand how it works. Because I don't agree with you on aspects of it doesn't mean I need to 'learn' more. More likely it means you need to learn that your point of view isn't 'reality'.
-
I'll end my part in this AI discussion. You'll find enough publications online regarding AI image generation if you truly want to learn, I know as I've had a particular interest in the subject, ever since these generators first surfaced.
I understand how it works. Because I don't agree with you on aspects of it doesn't mean I need to 'learn' more. More likely it means you need to learn that your point of view isn't 'reality'.
This just proves how off track you are regarding the subject.
-
[...]
AI generators use and merge pre-existing images, they can never in the near future learn to paint something on their own without relying on scraped databases of images and photos made by humans, scraped and used without said artists consent.
This comment isn't aging well even now...
-
I wonder, how many people who wholeheartedly oppose AI art are aware of Sora, or sono.ai?
The world is changing, whether we like it or not. We might as well get better images from it.
-
I'll end my part in this AI discussion. You'll find enough publications online regarding AI image generation if you truly want to learn, I know as I've had a particular interest in the subject, ever since these generators first surfaced.
I understand how it works. Because I don't agree with you on aspects of it doesn't mean I need to 'learn' more. More likely it means you need to learn that your point of view isn't 'reality'.
This just proves how off track you are regarding the subject.
Or how stuck in your ways or closed minded you are.
I wonder, how many people who wholeheartedly oppose AI art are aware of Sora, or sono.ai?
The world is changing, whether we like it or not. We might as well get better images from it.
What I have heard were fairly mediocre songs, which is largely my opinion of my AI 'art' at this point. I'm sure it will get better with time, but until AI is capable of independent and creative thought it won't be better than talented artists. (And I'm not at all thrilled with the idea of AI capable of independent thought).
-
Or how stuck in your ways or closed minded you are.
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm only showing you the fundamentals of how AI generators works(tried to, it didn't hit home). This is why I opted out of the AI image discussion above here, as you have failed to grasp the basics which makes this "discussion" a small waste of time.
-
Regardless of anybody's opinion on AI content generation, it isn't going away. It is increasing, and it will do so at an accelerating rate. Short of a global cataclysm of some sort, we are stuck with it. Maybe we should change the conversation to how and where and when and by whom it should be used.
-
Regardless of anybody's opinion on AI content generation, it isn't going away. It is increasing, and it will do so at an accelerating rate. Short of a global cataclysm of some sort, we are stuck with it. Maybe we should change the conversation to how and where and when and by whom it should be used.
The "cataclysm" being lawmakers stating that AI content providers must pay royalties for every piece they use for training.
It won't happen. AI is too useful in certain domains to be bludgeoned into submission like that. The fundamental problem is not AI, it is data availability: 1) the internet where everything is available and 2) the users who think everything *should* be available for free (or as close to 'free' as personal data mining can pretend to be). And neither of those things will go away.
-
[...]
The "cataclysm" being lawmakers stating that AI content providers must pay royalties for every piece they use for training.
Even if that ever happened: That would just mean they'd train it on public domain content.
Guys, this whole AI development has way more implications than just art. We will all be out of our current jobs eventually. And that's okay, as long as everybody still have a livelihood. But that's a discussion for quite different forums.
For RMU, what we really want is just better art. Can we agree on that, at least? :)
-
For RMU, what we really want is just better art. Can we agree on that, at least? :)
I'm pretty sure the whole point of the discussion was "what is the price of having better art ?" :-P
-
Or how stuck in your ways or closed minded you are.
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm only showing you the fundamentals of how AI generators works(tried to, it didn't hit home). This is why I opted out of the AI image discussion above here, as you have failed to grasp the basics which makes this "discussion" a small waste of time.
And yet here you still are, being as obnoxious and closed minded as usual, failing to grasp that your opinion isn't a 'fact'.
The "cataclysm" being lawmakers stating that AI content providers must pay royalties for every piece they use for training.
I don't see it happening. The legality of the whole thing isn't on the side of the artists strong enough to make a case. They will need to show that work is being copied nearly outright, sold as and profited from as a wholesale fake. Here are some bit taken from explanations of 'derivative' art.
...include major copyrightable elements of a first...
Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes.
Originality of a derivative work means any variation of an original work which is sufficient to render the derivative work distinguishable from its prior work in any meaningful manner.
The vast majority of AI art doesn't qualify as those. It's also subjective to a good degree in the first place, but in a legal matter it would need to be fairly obvious (and maybe detrimental to the original artist to qualify as well).
-
And yet here you still are, being as obnoxious and closed minded as usual, failing to grasp that your opinion isn't a 'fact'.
I opted out of the AI discussion with you as continuing would be futile.
I'm also sorry to see that you are resolving to personal attacks and attempts at defamation when being explained that your basic understanding of how AI generated images are done is wrong.
-
For RMU, what we really want is just better art. Can we agree on that, at least? :)
Creature Law 1 is near being published in pdf-form, with Creature Law 2 "most likely" having most if not all art commissioned already. There was a plan of publishing posted(on Discord?) by ICE last year saying that all 5 core RMU books would be out within 2024. Due to this, I would say it is very unlikely that any art will be swapped for anything new.
-
This is a nice read for anyone advocating for the use of AI generated content in games and rpg books, from the 2023 Wizards of the Coast AI controversy. Wizards has since this "blew up" stated they are banning the use of AI generated content in any of their final products:
https://www.polygon.com/24029754/wizards-coast-magic-the-gathering-ai-art-marketing-image (https://www.polygon.com/24029754/wizards-coast-magic-the-gathering-ai-art-marketing-image)
-
...your basic understanding of how AI generated images are done is wrong.
You don't think they're generated using a combination of examples of many pieces of art... just like most living artists do?
-
...your basic understanding of how AI generated images are done is wrong.
You don't think they're generated using a combination of examples of many pieces of art... just like most living artists do?
My reply #33 and #36 should have answered this already.
-
...your basic understanding of how AI generated images are done is wrong.
You don't think they're generated using a combination of examples of many pieces of art... just like most living artists do?
My reply #33 and #36 should have answered this already.
You're going to need to be more specific. Both AI and human artists use existing art to generate derivative art from.
AI generators use and merge pre-existing images, they can never in the near future learn to paint something on their own without relying on scraped databases of images and photos made by humans, scraped and used without said artists consent.
How does this differ from a human basing their new art on past art?
We're not arguing about inspiration. I think there is where you get this wrong. Programs can't be inspired, they act from programmed algorithms, in this case AI image generators copy/cut/paste human artist's works put very simple, to generate new images. AI generators don't paint images pixel by pixel.
Firstly, as I said in reply to that, we are actually partially arguing about inspiration (via the user inputting parameters), but ignoring that aspect of those posts...
Are you implying something partially copied by hand is okay but something partially copied digitally is not?
-
For RMU, what we really want is just better art. Can we agree on that, at least? :)
Yum! ;D
I am curious, for those who can answer it, how you compare the art in HARP vs. RMU. And yes, I realize that is asking to compare apples to atom bombs.
-
Can I whisper it, but I actually like the art in RMU, yes, it's slightly naive, but it has charm.
-
Having had time to live with it for a while now, I also like almost all of the RMU art. Unfortunately, I really dislike the covers and that first impression influenced my judgement of all of the art for a while.
I wish the covers were done in the same style as the images at the start of most chapters. Those feel like Rolemaster to me and the covers simply don't.
Interestingly I frequently had the opposite problem with earlier editions. The cover art was great and some of the interior images were lacking. But for me the absolute worse art problem was the attempt to create a new design aesthetic for Shadow World with the Master Atlas 4 and Powers of Light & Darkness. My dislike of the RMU covers is nothing compared to my loathing for those because it extended to replacing the white space on each page with that hideous dark frame.
-
Having had time to live with it for a while now, I also like almost all of the RMU art. Unfortunately, I really dislike the covers and that first impression influenced my judgement of all of the art for a while.
I wish the covers were done in the same style as the images at the start of most chapters. Those feel like Rolemaster to me and the covers simply don't.
Products not meeting expectations is something I know all about, recent years Star Wars content VS the older trilogy, new Motu content vs the older etc.
The first 5 core Rolemaster Unified books (Core, Spell, Treasure, Creature 1 and 2) are more than likely to be made by the same individual. There's a chance you might see something you like beyond those though :)
-
Having had time to live with it for a while now, I also like almost all of the RMU art. Unfortunately, I really dislike the covers and that first impression influenced my judgement of all of the art for a while.
I wish the covers were done in the same style as the images at the start of most chapters. Those feel like Rolemaster to me and the covers simply don't.
Interestingly I frequently had the opposite problem with earlier editions. The cover art was great and some of the interior images were lacking. But for me the absolute worse art problem was the attempt to create a new design aesthetic for Shadow World with the Master Atlas 4 and Powers of Light & Darkness. My dislike of the RMU covers is nothing compared to my loathing for those because it extended to replacing the white space on each page with that hideous dark frame.
I am mostly the same. One of the strengths of Rolemaster is its grittiness and granularity -- call it realism if you want, or at least an attempt at being more realistic than D&D, which was in fact the original impetus for Rolemaster -- and the covers do not convey that at all. They are more cartoony. I wasn't expecting another Angus McBride, but there is interior art that is considerably better than the covers.
-
Having had time to live with it for a while now, I also like almost all of the RMU art. [...]
I wholeheartedly disagree. RMU's art is horrible for the purpose that it should serve, namely, to inspire people to play fantastic characters.
-
Quoting an official statement by ICE this weekend regarding AI generated content in ICE products, after someone asked permission to create content with AI generated images for use with VTTs:
quote
"Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I'm afraid it is a no for now. We don't want our products to feature AI artwork in any form."
quote stop
-
Quoting an official statement by ICE this weekend regarding AI generated content in ICE products, after someone asked permission to create content with AI generated images for use with VTTs:
quote
"Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I'm afraid it is a no for now. We don't want our products to feature AI artwork in any form."
quote stop
Whatever. The question remains: Will we get halfway decent art in future books?
-
Whatever. The question remains: Will we get halfway decent art in future books?
What do you imagine is going to change? Do you suppose sales will go through the roof and increase the art budget?
I expect after the core books are out, companions will have black and white interior art.
-
The question remains: Will we get halfway decent art in future books?
That depends largely on what your opinion of 'decent' is. It won't be the same as other ICE customers (obviously from this thread alone).
-
It is unrealistic to expect Ironcrown to commission new covers for the books at this point. The most important priority must be to get all the books out to satisfy those customers who was interested enough in the books to buy them with the current covers.
Considering how long we can expect RMU to in print it seems likely there will be an updated version in future with errata items fixed and some of art replaced, but starting that process now in the hope of a few extra sales seem like madness.
-
The problem in my opinion is the lack of a (good) art director and/or layout maven. Artists can be hit or miss but the art director must be able to select talent and put his foot down when the artist under-delivers. The layout is grade school level. Note how the art is always a simple block with no fitting of the text around the art at times to make it pop, or other simple devices. Look at any decent RPG book and you will see what I mean.
Look, a lot of us fans are not visually oriented. But it seems no-one in the current ICE food chain is. Therefore no-one was there to say at any stage, "this isn't good enough." They still might think it is. But sales suffer because most people are visually oriented and can tell something is off even when they can't articulate what.
-
What do you imagine is going to change? Do you suppose sales will go through the roof and increase the art budget?
... Not with those covers. Sorry.
-
The problem in my opinion is the lack of a (good) art director and/or layout maven.
The 'problem' is pretty obvious. ICE isn't in a position to be paying higher end artists. Period.
This isn't the ICE that had the MERP license, was in the top five RPG's, and paying people like Angus to do their covers and probably never will be. Constantly coming at them about art isn't going to do anything but dishearten people who are working for pennies. I don't mean to be a Richard... but everyone needs to get over it and move on. Worry about the substance of the RPG itself, you aren't flipping through the books while playing to admire the art, you're at a table playing the game itself.
-
This post is addressing the "sales worries". Anyone can access these numbers within Drivethrurpg, where products reach certain metal tiers based on number of copies sold:
Adamantine Best seller tier (sold 5001 copies or more) - 202 products have reached this tier (0.14%)
Mithral Best seller tier (sold 2501 copies or more) - 510 products have reached this tier (0.35%)
Platinum Best seller tier (sold 1001 copies or more) - 2462 products have reached this tier (1.68%)
Gold Best seller tier (sold 501 copies or more) - 5705 products have reached this tier (3.89%)
Electrum Best seller tier (sold 251 copies or more) - 10403 products have reached this tier (7.09%)
Silver Best seller tier (sold 101 copies or more) - 20344 products have reached this tier (13.86%)
Copper Best seller tier (sold 51 copies or more) - 19260 products have reached this tier (13.12%)
A total of 58886 products fall into these Best seller tiers ( “Only” 40.13% of all Drivethru products have reached Copper or better)
Rolemaster Unified Core Law – Platinum Best seller – First published 3.Dec 2022
Rolemaster Unified Spell Law – Platinum Best seller – First published 20.Mar 2023
Rolemaster Unified Treasure Law – Gold Best seller – First published 7.Feb 2024
Other rpg products from “well known franchises” currently in the Platinum Best seller level:
Fallout, Warhammer, The One Ring, Alien, Star Trek, Pathfinder… and more.
Considering most/many non-ICE titles in the Platinum Best seller level are around $10 or even less, I’d argue that ICE’s new RMU products are doing
extremely well for being a “niche” rpg system made on the spare time by a very small group of people. Sales where each copy sold are around $25-30 for
a digital pdf, heading towards Mithral Best seller level next, regardless if anyone dislike anything about the new books.
Anyone thinking that Rolemaster products would sell in the range around or above 5000 these days are simply “out of their minds”, but we’ll get to those numbers one day.
-
The 'problem' is pretty obvious. ICE isn't in a position to be paying higher end artists. Period.
There are plenty of books with smaller audiences and better art. Core Laws is a platinum seller. Assuming $2 from each copy went to art, that's an art budget of at least $2000. I've done more with less.
-
The 'problem' is pretty obvious. ICE isn't in a position to be paying higher end artists. Period.
There are plenty of books with smaller audiences and better art. Core Laws is a platinum seller. Assuming $2 from each copy went to art, that's an art budget of at least $2000. I've done more with less.
Show us what you've published, please?
-
The problem in my opinion is the lack of a (good) art director and/or layout maven.
The 'problem' is pretty obvious. ICE isn't in a position to be paying higher end artists. Period.
This isn't the ICE that had the MERP license, was in the top five RPG's, and paying people like Angus to do their covers and probably never will be. Constantly coming at them about art isn't going to do anything but dishearten people who are working for pennies. I don't mean to be a Richard... but everyone needs to get over it and move on. Worry about the substance of the RPG itself, you aren't flipping through the books while playing to admire the art, you're at a table playing the game itself.
It's not (only) about paying more for art.
Look at the layout here.
https://imgur.com/a/14hOu4p (https://imgur.com/a/14hOu4p)
This is a random page, literally the first page I flipped to from the last pdf I had open.
See how the shape of the art has been incorporated into the column layout of the page? See how background textures have been used? See how there is a shadow from the dwarf which spills over into the page? This all gives it life and visual appeal. It's basic stuff at this point. Nothing to do with budget.
-
The 'problem' is pretty obvious. ICE isn't in a position to be paying higher end artists. Period.
There are plenty of books with smaller audiences and better art. Core Laws is a platinum seller. Assuming $2 from each copy went to art, that's an art budget of at least $2000. I've done more with less.
Examples please, with all the required relevant information for a fair comparison (see below).
It's not (only) about paying more for art.
Look at the layout here.
https://imgur.com/a/14hOu4p (https://imgur.com/a/14hOu4p)
This is a random page, literally the first page I flipped to from the last pdf I had open.
See how the shape of the art has been incorporated into the column layout of the page? See how background textures have been used? See how there is a shadow from the dwarf which spills over into the page? This all gives it life and visual appeal. It's basic stuff at this point. Nothing to do with budget.
Who is publishing this book, who's in charge of it, what's their budget for it, what does the book cost, and how big is their target audience?
If you think it has nothing to do with budget you haven't actually created such a book.
-
Whatever. The question remains: Will we get halfway decent art in future books?
What do you imagine is going to change? Do you suppose sales will go through the roof and increase the art budget?
I expect after the core books are out, companions will have black and white interior art.
Well, I know ONE method to get excellent art for low cost. But you have ruled that out because… reasons, I guess.
But there are certainly others. I mean, you could use basically any ancient naturalistic drawing of landscapes, battles, etc, that is old enough to be public domain, and use or modify those. Just as one example.
-
Well, I know ONE method to get excellent art for low cost. But you have ruled that out because… reasons, I guess.
ICE show they have ethics, which is very positive in any individual or company.
But there are certainly others. I mean, you could use basically any ancient naturalistic drawing of landscapes, battles, etc, that is old enough to be public domain, and use or modify those. Just as one example.
Old ICE used "clip art" for their 90s books for example, we can only guess current ICE did not want to do that.
-
There are plenty of books with smaller audiences and better art. Core Laws is a platinum seller. Assuming $2 from each copy went to art, that's an art budget of at least $2000. I've done more with less.
The interesting question if those other books ever reached break-even or if they are labours of love that are sold at a loss.
I think a very common case is that small scale authors/publishers does not spare any expenses to get the book as good as it gets. Very few authors of fiction can live on their trade and Roleplaying books takes magitudes of more work. Small audience and paying the cost it takes to match the production level of industry giants like D&D doesn't really mix.
Secondly...that the books now are platium sellers is a fact in hindsight, but how could Ironcrown possibly know this when they ordered the art? The idea that Ironcrown would have any large pile of cash lying around to pay for arts to upcoming books is rediculous.
Thirdly...if the fans have cash to spare. Are not those better spent on more books for the gaming group so we quicker reach the Mithral best seller class?
-
It's not (only) about paying more for art.
Look at the layout here.
https://imgur.com/a/14hOu4p (https://imgur.com/a/14hOu4p)
This is a random page, literally the first page I flipped to from the last pdf I had open.
See how the shape of the art has been incorporated into the column layout of the page? See how background textures have been used? See how there is a shadow from the dwarf which spills over into the page? This all gives it life and visual appeal. It's basic stuff at this point. Nothing to do with budget.
I don't love the background texture, it looks kind of cool at the expense of readability. Similarly with wrapping text around images. Text is full justified for readability. I don't think that adds anything. It's dynamic in the sense that it disrupts the text layout, but that's also its weakness.
-
Anyway I apologise to those who worked hard on these books. I know that they all did their best, and I'm happy with the substance of the new edition. Just not the presentation. I stand by my opinion that no-one in the team has real credibility in art direction/layout, and that this hurt the final product. In keeping with its old school heritage, Rolemaster people seem just not visually oriented.
I'll just add that RMSS is an example of good layout (now dated, but the style was fine at the time) with low-budget art. The art sometimes let the page down, but everything flowed well and was clearly presented.
-
I'll just add that RMSS is an example of good layout (now dated, but the style was fine at the time) with low-budget art.
But you're comparing a company with full time employees with a better budget. Just like I suspect the page you used as an example was even bigger company with an even bigger budget.
-
I'll just add that RMSS is an example of good layout (now dated, but the style was fine at the time) with low-budget art.
But you're comparing a company with full time employees with a better budget. Just like I suspect the page you used as an example was even bigger company with an even bigger budget.
The example I gave was from the Talisman Adventures RPG from Pegasus Spiele. Yes, a bigger company with a bigger budget. But we have excellent software these days, why can't an individual working from home lay out a good-looking book? Is is just that the time involved to do each page, for example with text often wrapped around art, was not available to the ICE team? Is it that folk with the skills charge an arm and a leg?
-
The example I gave was from the Talisman Adventures RPG from Pegasus Spiele. Yes, a bigger company with a bigger budget. But we have excellent software these days, why can't an individual working from home lay out a good-looking book? Is is just that the time involved to do each page, for example with text often wrapped around art, was not available to the ICE team? Is it that folk with the skills charge an arm and a leg?
You say this like everyone with a digital camera should be able to become a professional photographer. They can't. You need to dedicate time to it. ICE can't do that. It's not their actual job, it's essentially a side hobby. You're talking about someone who doesn't publish as their full time job using a program that they may not own.
-
It's not (only) about paying more for art.
Look at the layout here.
https://imgur.com/a/14hOu4p (https://imgur.com/a/14hOu4p)
This is a random page, literally the first page I flipped to from the last pdf I had open.
See how the shape of the art has been incorporated into the column layout of the page? See how background textures have been used? See how there is a shadow from the dwarf which spills over into the page? This all gives it life and visual appeal. It's basic stuff at this point. Nothing to do with budget.
I don't love the background texture, it looks kind of cool at the expense of readability. Similarly with wrapping text around images. Text is full justified for readability. I don't think that adds anything. It's dynamic in the sense that it disrupts the text layout, but that's also its weakness.
I agree. A book formatted that way may look pretty and have an initial appeal, but for me it's extremely hard to read and would be horrible as a reference. Accessibility for people with differing vision and perception issues is important.
The text formatting used to structure the page loses much of its effectiveness when combined with text being restructured purely for artistic purposes. The reduced (and variable) contrast created by the background is harder for me to read. And the overall visual clutter of the outer border makes it hard for me to focus on the text.
To me the layout of the RMU books is far superior to that example page.
-
Just to be clear, the kind of textured-background, color-heavy design was created specifically to make it hard to scan. It may now be copied without thought for its origin, but it's fundamentally a copy-protection measure.
-
The 'problem' is pretty obvious. ICE isn't in a position to be paying higher end artists. Period.
There are plenty of books with smaller audiences and better art. Core Laws is a platinum seller. Assuming $2 from each copy went to art, that's an art budget of at least $2000. I've done more with less.
Show us what you've published, please?
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/211267/do-not-approach
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/423878/before-the-empire-the-3-0-srd
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/194515/the-eliminator-5e
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/207804/Ex-Cyclopedia
There's a few. Nothing fancy, just a mix of custom and stock art.
-
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/211267/do-not-approach
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/423878/before-the-empire-the-3-0-srd
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/194515/the-eliminator-5e
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/207804/Ex-Cyclopedia
There's a few. Nothing fancy, just a mix of custom and stock art.
So one of them made Silver, one Copper and two did not reach Copper. Did you break even on any of them?
-
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/211267/do-not-approach
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/423878/before-the-empire-the-3-0-srd
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/194515/the-eliminator-5e
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/207804/Ex-Cyclopedia
There's a few. Nothing fancy, just a mix of custom and stock art.
So one of them made Silver, one Copper and two did not reach Copper. Did you break even on any of them?
Every single one of these is a profitable publication.
-
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/211267/do-not-approach
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/423878/before-the-empire-the-3-0-srd
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/194515/the-eliminator-5e
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/207804/Ex-Cyclopedia
There's a few. Nothing fancy, just a mix of custom and stock art.
So one of them made Silver, one Copper and two did not reach Copper. Did you break even on any of them?
Every single one of these is a profitable publication.
I have to ask, for the 37 page product selling for $2.95 which has sold under 50 copies, how many hours work went into its development and getting it ready for publication?
-
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/211267/do-not-approach
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/423878/before-the-empire-the-3-0-srd
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/194515/the-eliminator-5e
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/207804/Ex-Cyclopedia
There's a few. Nothing fancy, just a mix of custom and stock art.
So one of them made Silver, one Copper and two did not reach Copper. Did you break even on any of them?
Every single one of these is a profitable publication.
I have to ask, for the 37 page product selling for $2.95 which has sold under 50 copies, how many hours work went into its development and getting it ready for publication?
Also, your artists...
- Who were they? Friends? People willing to 'work for exposure'? True professionals?
- And what did you pay them?
-
Every single one of these is a profitable publication.
I have to ask, for the 37 page product selling for $2.95 which has sold under 50 copies, how many hours work went into its development and getting it ready for publication?
Also, your artists...
- Who were they? Friends? People willing to 'work for exposure'? True professionals?
- And what did you pay them?
He used stock art so the cost for the art was most likely neglible. Obviously making a profit on below 50 sales suggest he is working basically for free, probably due to motivations I mentioned earlier in the thread. Beats me if there is a point with continuing this part of the discussion.
Interesting observations:
* On Drivethrough the only real interaction from a purchaser for pawsplay's work is somebody that is complaining about the layout/art and wants a print friendly version
* The assertion that "better" layout and stock art gives lots of sales is not backed by the number of sales for pawsplay's work.
At the end of the day we have no clue about how many that prefer a traditional layout that saves ink if you print selected pages and how many that need more D&D style layout if they should consider to purchase a product. I think easy to read and uses little ink is high priority for many, but that better cover would have been a good idea.
-
Also, your artists...
- Who were they? Friends? People willing to 'work for exposure'? True professionals?
- And what did you pay them?
The writing credits are listed right there. Eric Lofgren and James Denton have done Magic cards. The cover to Before the Empire is stock art; I've hired him for custom pieces in other books before. The cover to Ex Cyclopedia is a piece of stock art by Dean Spencer. I could never hire Patricia again because not long after, she became a big shot and did some concept art for Hollywood. Storn Cook did some internal illustrations for Do Not Approach.
I paid them money. Nobody works for exposure.
Looking back, the Eliminator lost me a little bit of money. But I do own the the rights to the cover image. So I'll probably use that again at some point.
-
He used stock art so the cost for the art was most likely neglible.
As I said, I use a combination. Do Not Approach has a custom cover and has made hundreds of dollars. The cost for art for Yokai Races was, indeed, basically negligible, and has a very nice profit margin. Conquest of the Universe has a custom cover, and while I still haven't brought it to print yet, the PDF version has made thousands of dollars.
I've also done quite a bit of freelance work. Take a look at Boricubos: The Lost Isles (https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/product/370991/Boricubos-The-Lost-Isles-5E) by Legendary Games, which I did some bits for. Or look at the Aethera Campaign setting (https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/product/208096/Aethera-Campaign-Setting). Or any of their other books. I don't think there's a Platinum seller in the lot.
Shall we talk about Fabula Ultima (https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/product/410108/Fabula-Ultima-TTJRPG)? Gorgeous book. Tiny publisher. Currently an Adamantine seller.
That's what other people's books look like.
-
Shall we talk about Fabula Ultima (https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/product/410108/Fabula-Ultima-TTJRPG)? Gorgeous book. Tiny publisher. Currently an Adamantine seller.
I didn't want to get involved in this discussion about apples and oranges, but I have to second that. Fabula Ultima is a great book, with very nice art and a layout I find quite conducive to reading.
It also happens to be a (personal opinion again, obviously) quite interesting RPG, which I believe is a great part of the appeal. But it's one thing to be great, and another thing to be accessible and make the greatness be obvious. FU, in my opinion, does that : the book art and layout makes it easy to grasp the core of what makes it interesting.
Now compare it with RMU and see where the differences are. It does not explain the full difference in popularity, but it probably does explain part of it.
I must admit that the last RM book I could read without wondering why it took so long to get to the freaking point was probably the original ChL&CL. RM2 suffered from a critical lack of editorial and quality control, and from RMSS onwards, the core of the rules and the design intention were buried in meandering prose. Personal opinion here, but the first commandment should be "get to the point"; the second should be "provide an example"; and the third should be "provide *technical* design information" (instead of an essay on the relative values of historical and literary source material, which can easily be omitted or moved to the appendices).
Layout and artwork is the icing on the cake.
-
Merkir's question went completely unanswered and mine mostly unanswered. So I guess we still don't know if we're comparing apples to apples or not.
Nobody works for exposure.
They, mostly, shouldn't, but some people do.
-
Shall we talk about Fabula Ultima (https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/product/410108/Fabula-Ultima-TTJRPG)? Gorgeous book. Tiny publisher. Currently an Adamantine seller.
I didn't want to get involved in this discussion about apples and oranges, but I have to second that. Fabula Ultima is a great book, with very nice art and a layout I find quite conducive to reading.
It also happens to be a (personal opinion again, obviously) quite interesting RPG, which I believe is a great part of the appeal. But it's one thing to be great, and another thing to be accessible and make the greatness be obvious. FU, in my opinion, does that : the book art and layout makes it easy to grasp the core of what makes it interesting.
Now compare it with RMU and see where the differences are. It does not explain the full difference in popularity, but it probably does explain part of it.
I must admit that the last RM book I could read without wondering why it took so long to get to the freaking point was probably the original ChL&CL. RM2 suffered from a critical lack of editorial and quality control, and from RMSS onwards, the core of the rules and the design intention were buried in meandering prose. Personal opinion here, but the first commandment should be "get to the point"; the second should be "provide an example"; and the third should be "provide *technical* design information" (instead of an essay on the relative values of historical and literary source material, which can easily be omitted or moved to the appendices).
Layout and artwork is the icing on the cake.
Fabula Ultima won product of the year 2023 on Ennies etc. The art and layout might be part of winning the awards, but it is also interesting for our current discussion to note that it is not awailable as Print on Demand product and according to the comments it was not in print for parts of last year.
Let me also quote from their homepage
Fabula Ultima has won a Gold for Best Game and a Silver for Product of the Year at the ENNIE Awards.
Well, we’ve told you a thousand times how this story began. The enormous work that went into it. The striving for everything to come out the best it could. The endless research.
Today, we reached a place we never dreamed of reaching. And we can’t help but be grateful!
Grateful to Emanuele for entrusting us with their little creation, thanks to the whole team of wonderful people who worked with us, and thanks to all of you, the amazing NEED GAMES! and Fabula Ultima community.
It sounds very much like this started as a one-man project with no concerns about devoted time to make the product perfect. How much money that was devoted to arts it hard to tell if the guy who did it wanted to make it perfect...but it is worth to note they even have a soundtrack for the game!
If we turn out attention NEED GAMES themselves this is italian company with like 20 employee that seems to have purchased license to everything from Warhammer to Bladerunner. I have not done any real research, but it sounds similar to the german company previously mentioned. You really need to stretch definitions in rediculous ways if you want call this an indie developer.
-
I'm not sure I understand the point being made. Setting aside whether a small Italian board game company is an indie developer, Legendary Games started with like four people, and I'm just one person plus freelancers. So, pick whatever size operation you think is the best comparison to Iron Crown Enterprises.