This. Oh, so very much this.Exposure as salary is looked down upon in pretty much any creative industry. It's disreputable behavior. Some people get away with it, but that does not make it right.
That’s because it’s prone to a lot of abuse in those industries. It usually prone to that abuse is in any industry where big business is involved. I’ve seen that same kind of thing in my own and it’s not a creative industry at all. Once it starts the higher ups realize they can get the work done cheaper and never actually hire for that position anymore.Exposure as salary is looked down upon in pretty much any creative industry. It's disreputable behavior. Some people get away with it, but that does not make it right.
It's prone to abuse in any creative industry, where the actual creative people are ignorant of business or really think exposure is fair payment-in-kind. Volunteering your work is one thing, being asked to give it away is a different thing.That’s because it’s prone to a lot of abuse in those industries. It usually prone to that abuse is in any industry where big business is involved.
we aren’t talking about big business here.
But these aren’t creative professionals. They are hobbyists. Like it doesn’t even apply. It’s not the same thing.It's prone to abuse in any creative industry, where the actual creative people are ignorant of business or really think exposure is fair payment-in-kind. Volunteering your work is one thing, being asked to give it away is a different thing.
I’m not, and my comment didn’t imply that I am.If you want people paid for their labor then why are you against the idea of a dm being paid for his?
Only if the players want to do that, which we know in this case they don’t.if he decides it’s a better model to get paid via outside revenue than his players directly paying him then that sounds like a win-win situation.
4. Pay the players for the work he’s asking them to do.the only bad part of this is that his players aren’t okay with being filmed or doing extra homework and that’s perfectly okay.
solution then is to:
1. Charge the players to dm for them. Probably won’t work even if attempted
2. Find a new group of players that are okay having a free dm in exchange for their use in his brand building and monetization.
3. Forget monetizing himself and keep this is a hobby.
And in the far more likely event that it doesn’t pay off, the players just cut their losses? Sorry, no, that is not an acceptable solution.And here’s the thing that seems missed, if he’s ever successful and his monetization pays off then that’s when the players are going to step up and say, I’ve been a big part of this. Give me my fair cut or I’m walking away which will damage your brand.
The only reason they aren't professionals--by definition--is that they aren't getting paid. That's the only difference. So, you're saying they shouldn't get paid because they're not getting paid already? That seems unlikely (as in, you genuinely don't seem like the sort of person to say that). The objection--again--is to the DM deciding to monetize it without any consideration (apparently) of paying the players, ever.But these aren’t creative professionals. They are hobbyists. Like it doesn’t even apply. It’s not the same thing.
I run in an original setting, and I tell the players what they need to know to make their characters, in as direct a way as possible. If someone wants to play a cleric, I’ll give them a list of gods and their domains. For the rest of the players, it’s not necessary information at character creation, and they can discover it in play.Even the last D&D game I ran (back in the 3e era) had a heck of a lot more than that, just so the nationalities and religions were clear. It probably makes a difference whether you're running in an original setting or not.
If it doesn’t make sense for this person to do the work for a share of $10, why the hell would it make sense for the rest of the group to do the work for $0?A) no issues. That’s what I’m arguing for.
B) this is the part that doesn’t make sense. Sorry but if you are making 10 dollars a month from “monetizing” your game by streaming it then it’s absurd to share that. And let’s be realistic, the guy is goina be lucky to make 10 dollars a month from this. Maybe years after he’s put tons of blood sweat and tears into it he might get beyond the 100 dollar mark a month.
which goes right back to my point about paying the dm. If we are talking 10 or 20 dollars a month in profit, that is essentially being paid to dm in such a way that the players don’t have to. There’s no sharing that should be taking place in that arrangement for those kinds of amounts.
But only if everyone involved wants to do so. If they don’t, you either have to accept it isn’t going to happen, pay them to do it, or find someone else who does want to.we aren’t talking about big business here though. We are talking about how a leisure activity can organically transition into something more. That doesn’t start with business plans and contracts. It starts by doing stuff and seeing if it’s worthwhile.