log in or register to remove this ad

 

Kickstarter Too many Kickstarter projects? Is Kickstarter the new d20 glut?

ahayford

First Post
Well, yeah, depending on whose Kickstarter you throw money at. When Steve Jackson started the OGRE Kickstarter, I don't think anyone expected it to come to nothing. They probably fully expected to get a product for the money, just as they do when they order from Steve Jackson Games.
A failed kickstarter by a well established company would be fairly damning, as the people that are most likely to contribute are the biggest fans.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ColonelHardisson

What? Me Worry?
A failed kickstarter by a well established company would be fairly damning, as the people that are most likely to contribute are the biggest fans.
I agree. That's why it's significant that Jackson did it. He also led the way for others to follow, if they chose to. Sure, some other known game designers had Kickstarters, but none with the name recognition of Jackson. That helps legitimize the process.

Plus, these letters (caution: there is some strong, non-Grandma-friendly language in them) by Patton Oswalt to comedians and the gatekeepers of the comedy industry, such as it is, could also be applied in a general sense to the RPG industry - things like blogs and now Kickstarter are game changers for the RPG hobby.

Kickstarter is a way for game designers to do things their way, for better or worse, and go directly to the audience. Certainly it's just one tool in a whole set of tools that should include an online presence where content could be generated and a reputation established. But, it's a way for designers to not have to worry about the whims of an editorial staff, and simply be concerned with how their potential audience reacts. Kickstarter is one way to separate the wheat from the chaff; those who simply take the money and run only get that one chance at it, and those who deliver will have more.
 

Frylock

Explorer
Kickstarter = the Ladders

I'm sorry if I'm rehashing arguments -- I haven't read the entire thread -- but I've been contemplating a blog entry on this for some time now.

I got blasted for suggesting that Kickstarter is, or will soon become, like this commercial for "the Ladders" job hunting site: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhqqAUh1VPU]The Ladders Ad - YouTube[/ame].

The arguments we're even on point, showing that the people (who I later found out, not surprisingly, to have Kickstarter projects) weren't even listening to what I was saying because they didn't want any chance of having to admit it was true.

I've contributed to a couple of Kickstarter projects, and so obviously I concede that there's a time and a place for them; however, the model will eventually collapse on itself because a necessary component of business is missing from these projects: risk. If you take away risk by having other people contribute the entire start up capital without giving them a well-deserved ownership stake in the project, then you're going to get far too many projects getting financed that never should see the commercial light of day. What's to stop me from doing a half-a$$ed job on an expensive project with little chance of success or marketability? Not my finances, because I'm not paying for it. Of course, if I'm trying to break into the gaming industry, I don't want garbage out there with my name on it, but I don't fall into that category. I might as well go for it, especially if things are so bad that I need help paying my phone bill. Fortunately for you, I have some sense of ethics, but far too many people don't.

If Kickstarter merely asked a few questions and held people to a certain standard (e.g., at least tried to require backers getting either a) an ownership stake, or b) a good value for the money they've put in), then the system would improve even though it would be impossible to enforce perfectly either option. Anther option would be to require an accounting so that a significant portion of the project is being financed by the creator him/herself, though that would hurt too many of the projects for which Kickstarter was created. All of this might be more trouble than it's worth for the Kickstarter powers-that-be, but if so, as I said, it's a doomed endeavor. There are going to be too many people with projects simply because they can, like the teenage girl putting on make up on the tennis court at Wimbledon. Why not?

As I said, I don't know whether Kickstarter is there yet or just headed there, but it's already to the point where it's so crowded, I don't even bother to look anymore. When i get announcements via email, I don't even read them. I delete them as if they're spam. I'm still on the mailing list because, well, you never know.... I predict that the entire community will reach that breaking point eventually. That's a shame for those creators that really have something to contribute but otherwise couldn't without this basic model in place; not because they're cheap, but because they really don't have the money to get a great idea off the ground.
 

frankthedm

First Post
Kickstarters replace marketing dweebs and literally let customers vote with their dollars. Win-Win.
My main issue is that some of them seem to have rather high pledge numbers: a couple of shorter softcover books and a map or two shouldn't need a $100+ kickstarter pledge.
Agree. Kickstarters with meager backer rewards are not much better than panhandling.
 
Last edited:

Here's the question that really comes to mind: How many of the kickstarter projects actually end with good product? Or even a product at all?

Right now, there's a ton people saying, "If you give me money, I'll do X!" Unfortunately, I expect many of them to fail to deliver X. And that will quickly begin to sour people's taste for Kickstarter.
I've pledged to four Kickstarters in the past six months. Three of them have already delivered. The fourth is set to deliver later this year. So far I have been happy with the quality of the products I've received and would happily kick in for future Kickstarters if they are things that interest me.
 


Cergorach

The Laughing One
A Kickstarter is not an investment (nor could it ever be due to investment laws), it's an extreme preorder. Depending on the project and how the project is described, what you exactly preorder can indeed be 'a good feeling', but most often it's a product, a collection of products and/or a service. That means the company/individual starting the Kickstarter is obliged to deliver what was promised. The problem is that a lot of these companies/individuals that start the kickstarter and cannot deliver the product are pretty much broke and can't give you their money back, so suing is kind of counter productive (can't pluck a featherless chicken). It still can be a horrible product/service, nothing you can do about that.

Is Enworld reporting to many Kickstarter projects? Absolutely. Imho, only report the special ones, the famous ones, and the most successful ones.

To be honest, I really dislike the current news page I liked the daily one far better, probably more work, but that was why I came to Enworld (news and discussions). And with the abysmal presentation of the news, I don't check the site as often as I used to...

I only bought into in one project so far (Shadowrun Returns), I wanted to buy into a couple more, but due to lack of a gaming budget, haven't been able to.
 
Last edited:

ahayford

First Post
I'm sorry if I'm rehashing arguments -- I haven't read the entire thread -- but I've been contemplating a blog entry on this for some time now.

I got blasted for suggesting that Kickstarter is, or will soon become, like this commercial for "the Ladders" job hunting site: The Ladders Ad - YouTube.

The arguments we're even on point, showing that the people (who I later found out, not surprisingly, to have Kickstarter projects) weren't even listening to what I was saying because they didn't want any chance of having to admit it was true.

I've contributed to a couple of Kickstarter projects, and so obviously I concede that there's a time and a place for them; however, the model will eventually collapse on itself because a necessary component of business is missing from these projects: risk. If you take away risk by having other people contribute the entire start up capital without giving them a well-deserved ownership stake in the project, then you're going to get far too many projects getting financed that never should see the commercial light of day. What's to stop me from doing a half-a$$ed job on an expensive project with little chance of success or marketability? Not my finances, because I'm not paying for it. Of course, if I'm trying to break into the gaming industry, I don't want garbage out there with my name on it, but I don't fall into that category. I might as well go for it, especially if things are so bad that I need help paying my phone bill. Fortunately for you, I have some sense of ethics, but far too many people don't.

If Kickstarter merely asked a few questions and held people to a certain standard (e.g., at least tried to require backers getting either a) an ownership stake, or b) a good value for the money they've put in), then the system would improve even though it would be impossible to enforce perfectly either option. Anther option would be to require an accounting so that a significant portion of the project is being financed by the creator him/herself, though that would hurt too many of the projects for which Kickstarter was created. All of this might be more trouble than it's worth for the Kickstarter powers-that-be, but if so, as I said, it's a doomed endeavor. There are going to be too many people with projects simply because they can, like the teenage girl putting on make up on the tennis court at Wimbledon. Why not?

As I said, I don't know whether Kickstarter is there yet or just headed there, but it's already to the point where it's so crowded, I don't even bother to look anymore. When i get announcements via email, I don't even read them. I delete them as if they're spam. I'm still on the mailing list because, well, you never know.... I predict that the entire community will reach that breaking point eventually. That's a shame for those creators that really have something to contribute but otherwise couldn't without this basic model in place; not because they're cheap, but because they really don't have the money to get a great idea off the ground.
I think you're wrong. There is a lot of chaff in their database right now, but many existing companies that have a reputation to worry about have used the model and site to great affect. I think the Kickstarter website itself (technology) isn't very good, and could use with some updating. I'm not even sure the website itself is completely necessary. Coolminiornot essentially built their own when one of their projects was removed from the website and used it to successfully fund their project.

Talking Points:

1) I think the parton/kickstarter model is awesome for existing companies to judge product interest, award their fans, and to bypass venture capitalists

2) I think for some new companies/creators, it allows them a chance to pitch their idea and see what the public thinks. A professional pitch with sample product has a decent chance of getting funded, and a decent chance of actually fullfilling the project.

3) If you spend a few minutes to evaluate the pitch, its pretty easy to tell who is likely to succeed and who is likely to fail. Engage your critical thinking and judge the complexity of the project and the state of what the creator is showing you.

4) The kickstarter webpage is, largely, unnecessary to the process (imho)

5) A lot of the chaff that you see, never gets funded anyway.

6) Any person or company that gets funded and fails to finish the project, is unlikely to get funding from crowdsourcing again....nor are venture capitalists likely to touch them. I'd say thats a pretty strong reason *not* to fail and provides that "ownership" that you refer to.
 


gamerprinter

First Post
Well after reading that 'reveal article' and looking at my current Kaidan Campaign Setting Kickstarter Project which is just at 10 days from the start-up, I am almost at 75% to my Tier 1 goal of minimum funding ($4000). It looks like it will definitely be funded, with the possibility of even funding Tier 2.

One of the few statistics given to Kickstarter founders is that whatever you collect in the first week of a Kickstarter Project is 90% likely to be 33% of whatever the total is collected at the end of the project - this is looking at all successful projects in the past.

Being realistic, it is unlikely that my project will reach the hoped for Tier 3 and 4 goals, but really this Kickstarter is for the production of 3 books - a GM's Guide, a Player's Guide and a Bestiary. If only the GM's Guide gets funded (and it's looking that way), we'll most likely start follow up Kickstarter to cover them in the months to follow - after the release of the first book.

All in all, so far, my experience of getting my first Kickstarter to succeed seems to be a good one. I am very hopeful.

Note this is not the first setting release for my project. Although I am still new at this, Rite Publishing (my imprint publisher) has released 10 products for Kaidan, prior to the start of this Kickstarter. So Kaidan, is not an unknown quantity.
 
Last edited:

Frylock

Explorer
Re: Kickstarter = the Ladders

Thanks for responding, ahayford.

I think you're wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time.

but many existing companies that have a reputation to worry about have used the model and site to great affect.
Now this concerns me. I thought the purpose was to support creators that could not afford their initial start up fees. Established companies can afford launching projects (easily or otherwise), and because they have a good reputation, their risk is somewhat lower (though still very present). Ergo, established companies shouldn't be involved by design (as I understand it) but also for the reasons I've laid out. If an established company or person uses Kickstarter (yes, I'm looking right at Paizo), then my ridiculous example becomes very appropriate: They might as well start a kickstarter project for their phone bill. This is something they should be financing themselves.

1) I think the parton/kickstarter model is awesome for existing companies to judge product interest, award their fans, and to bypass venture capitalists
Which is kind of my point. They bypass people who have the nerve to request an ownership stake when providing the start up capital. The model of risk is important because it assures that no one will show up to Wimbledon with a briefcase instead of a tennis racket. If you don't risk as much, you don't control as much, but you have to make an informed pitch, because venture capitalists do their research. Does the average Kickstarter backer do their research?

2) I think for some new companies/creators, it allows them a chance to pitch their idea and see what the public thinks. A professional pitch with sample product has a decent chance of getting funded, and a decent chance of actually fullfilling the project.
That's the purpose of doing your research. Having 50 backers might finance the initial run, but it's hardly a good model for whether the project will succeed large scale. Of course, it succeeds for the backers. The project gets done, and they get their copies, so they're happy. It also gets the project out there with the creator's name on it, giving him or her a shot at the big time if he or she deserves one. This is an attractive idea, which is why Kickstarter should focus on the little guy, but I'm concerned that Kickstarter isn't asking creators any questions at all, let alone the right ones, and that has/will result in too much chaff.

3) If you spend a few minutes to evaluate the pitch, its pretty easy to tell who is likely to succeed and who is likely to fail. Engage your critical thinking and judge the complexity of the project and the state of what the creator is showing you.
This simply isn't true. Even a great idea might fail due to market forces most backers can't (or at least don't) appreciate. You need to do more research than, "The anecdotal evidence provided to me by my relatively small circle of friends and myself suggests this will succeed because we think it's a neat idea."

4) The kickstarter webpage is, largely, unnecessary to the process (imho)
Interesting observation, and I'd generally agree. That's how marketing research works generally speaking. I'm no marketing expert, but I'm pretty sure they don't use a website to solicit bids. :)

5) A lot of the chaff that you see, never gets funded anyway.
Again, it calls into question how you define "chaff." Success and failure of an idea isn't a true judge of its creative merits, nor are anecdotal statements of opinion. In other words, is chaff a "bad" project creatively speaking (a subjective concern) or just an unmarketable one. Look to patent law. How many patent applications are approved as novel, non-obvious, and useful, yet still result in a product that has no real market value? (Quickly, someone close that can of worms before they get everywhere!)

6) Any person or company that gets funded and fails to finish the project, is unlikely to get funding from crowdsourcing again....nor are venture capitalists likely to touch them. I'd say thats a pretty strong reason *not* to fail and provides that "ownership" that you refer to.
Yes, I agree. I mentioned that in my post. However, considering my assumption is that one-timers have nothing to lose by giving it a half-a$$ed try, there will be a lot of those projects (now or eventually), and that's still a problem.

It sounds to me like people are trying to do two things. First, "stick it to the man" (i.e., venture capitalists, etc.) by bypassing them. Second, use backing of projects as some sort of poor man's marketing data. If you back it, you must want it. This has, or will, create a cluster fudge. (<-- not sure of Morrus's policy on profanity, and I'm too lazy to look it up.) :) It's a bit more complex than the Kickstarter model gives it credit for being. (BTW, I'm applying this analysis with "gaming" in mind. The projects I've backed, the art of Jeff Dee, are completely different, and Kickstarter works quite well for those because of the nature of the medium.)

I could still be wrong, of course, because I'm speaking theoretically. I don't have the data (although someone linked to a website with data, and I'll look at it), but not being a marketing or gaming "expert," I'm not sure I'm qualified to interpret the data . . . which again, is my point. :)

It also depends on what you subjectively think is a valuable contribution to the community. If the project goes no further than its initial run, is that a success? Doesn't that add to the community? Who's to say that in the far future, people might get a hold of even the failed works and say, "Damn, this is great. Let's get the author to reprint this."

Then I see the image of the teenager putting on make up at Wimbledon, and I imagine that Paizo is just paying their phone bill. (Sorry that I'm picking on Paizo. It's just an example. I appreciate what they've done for the community.)

Another subjective concern is that if we focus on the little guy, the depth of creativity will grow, as more people become producers, but if we focus on the big guy, our risk as backers of things like missed deadlines and crappy products shrinks. Should we focus on the big guys or the little guys? I favor focusing on the little guys, but a differing opinion (i.e., big guys or both) is neither right nor wrong. It's a matter of opinion.

Again, thanks for responding. I'm curious where the truth actually lies.
 

ahayford

First Post
Why can't it do both? Let new creators create and allow established companies to take risks on things they might not otherwise take.
 

gamerprinter

First Post
Consider that Rite Publishing is an existing publisher, but still a small one. Any product of 40 pages or less is produced and funded in-house, with less pieces of art and maps, and a limited amounting of writing/editing required - we eat the cost until profits from sales can fix that.

The only things I have been involved requiring some kind of Kickstarter through Rite has been a 3-part adventure arc, and now my campaign guide. The total page count for the 3 adventures is close to 200 pages, the same will be true for the setting guide. We are talking dozens of maps, dozens of illustrations, an author/designer, editor and page layout to pay for.

If you're trying to say, because we are an established publisher, albeight a small one, we shouldn't need Kickstarter funds to get our products out. I'm saying "sure for the small projects, that's true", but for larger products - we don't have an in-house budget to cover them. If we want to do larger projects, we require some sort of outside funding, and the patronage model works great for these.

If you're talking the big publishers, like Paizo, I'd agree with you, but in the RPG industry most product producers aren't big publishers.
 

Frylock

Explorer
Why can't it do both? Let new creators create and allow established companies to take risks on things they might not otherwise take.
It can do whatever it wants; this isn't a question of legality. The question is whether that muddies the water so that you can no longer even find the meritorious projects. Moreover, in the case of a big organization, it's somewhat unethical, though not illegal.

Consider that Rite Publishing is an existing publisher, but still a small one.... If you're talking the big publishers, like Paizo, I'd agree with you, but in the RPG industry most product producers aren't big publishers.
I'm not going to (seriously) criticize any particular company or project. As I've conceded, there are projects for which Kickstarter is appropriate, and whether or not yours is among them isn't for me to say. All I'm saying is that there exists the theoretical possibility of projects that have no business being financed by Kickstarter, and Kickstarter's model encourages their existence. This will inevitably drown out the legitimate projects, which cuts against the stated goals of Kickstarter, making Kickstarter's structure self-defeating. Kickstarter isn't even trying to address this, and therein lies the problem. They've already lost me. I wonder how many others they've lost and whether new followers will also begin to drop off as they see what's been created.

EDIT: Another thing I thought of that cuts against my argument is this: If someone goes to the website of Fred Snerd, Gamer Designer and see that Fred, someone whose work is trusted, has a new Kickstarter project, then they can jump directly to that project. This might help keep Kickstarter viable. There's no searching for good projects because you use the websites of people you already trust to find them. Of course, this doesn't help the starving artist looking for his or her break.
 
Last edited:

gamerprinter

First Post
Just trying to understand your point... in your opinion, Kickstarter projects would be better served for the 'new guy' trying to get a break into the industry (in our case the RPG industry.) And you seem to say, that established companies are taking advantage of Kickstarter (in a bad way), and they shouldn't be the targetted Kickstarter founder.

If this is what you mean, the problem exists (especially among RPG pledgers) if you're an unknown quantity, unless you hit the right chords in your hoped for publishing project pitch, your project is highly likely to fail in funding.

In my opinion, the 'new guy' in the RPG industry requires to produce some kind of RPG content and release to the public, paid for out of his own pocket (something small) before he should even attempt to do a Kickstarter. Complete unknowns tend not to get funded.

Your premise (from what I gather) says that established companies shouldn't be Kickstarting - it's only for the new guy. By my explanation then, Kickstarter would be a very poor method of putting out brand new material - since new guys tend not to succeed. A string of Kickstarter RPG failures wouldn't be very positive of this method of funding if this is the case.

IMO, especially regarding the RPG industry, you have to be a known quantity (at some level) before you even think to use Kickstarter to fund your project.
 

Frylock

Explorer
Just trying to understand your point... in your opinion, Kickstarter projects would be better served for the 'new guy' trying to get a break into the industry (in our case the RPG industry.) And you seem to say, that established companies are taking advantage of Kickstarter (in a bad way), and they shouldn't be the targetted Kickstarter founder.
That's a good characterization of what I said with only one caveat. The involvement of "established" companies isn't necessarily "taking advantage" of the system. A big company doing so would be "taking advantage" not only of the system, but of the poor saps who have loyalty to those companies. Small but established companies would arguably strike the balance I suggested between 'meeting deadlines/producing good content' and 'getting otherwise unfinanced projects financed.'

In my opinion, the 'new guy' in the RPG industry requires to produce some kind of RPG content and release to the public, paid for out of his own pocket (something small) before he should even attempt to do a Kickstarter. Complete unknowns tend not to get funded.
I'm reading this to mean, "being the 'new guy' in the RPG industry requires produc[ing and paying] out of his own pocket . . . ." That's true of the traditional business model and for damn good reason. However, isn't that why you have something like Kickstarter? It's an alternative means to financing, and it's existence depends on filling an otherwise unmet need in the community. If that's not "getting the new guy his start," then what is it?

However, one of my concerns that I didn't discuss, but you raise here, is a very good point. IMHO, project creators should be required to prove that they're taking on a 'significant' portion of the start up costs. I have no strict definition of "significant," but certainly someone going to the trouble of creating a corporate entity and overpaying people like me :) to obtain trademarks would qualify (assuming those things aren't covered by the financing goals of the project) because they are expensive.

Your premise (from what I gather) says that established companies shouldn't be Kickstarting - it's only for the new guy. By my explanation then, Kickstarter would be a very poor method of putting out brand new material - since new guys tend not to succeed. A string of Kickstarter RPG failures wouldn't be very positive of this method of funding if this is the case.

IMO, especially regarding the RPG industry, you have to be a known quantity (at some level) before you even think to use Kickstarter to fund your project.
I'm trying not to pin down specifics because I'm not qualified to do so, but because you're asking, if I created something like Kickstarter, I'd start from the following premises:

1. If you're "big," you aren't permitted to create a project.
2. You must either (a) give your backers an ownership interest (making them "silent partners" is fine); or (b) prove that you're taking on significant costs (i.e., risk) yourself.

Note that, as in the case of the projects I've backed, (b) can be satisfied by providing the backers with true value for their contribution. For example, if I'm producing a 3PP book for D&D with a retail value of $30, then your contribution of $30 (or even $25) gets you a copy of that book. I haven't always seen that, but again, I'm no longer looking. Maybe things have changed. By giving people true value for their money, the initial run is not profit-bearing, but it allows the content to be created, which means subsequent print runs would be relatively cheap and worth personal risk due to the success of the project.

If a thorough analysis of the issue would result in a change to my views, than so be it. Posting here has been spit-balling for me, and the more we discuss, the more my views might change. Also, for all we know, Kickstarter might be performing such an analysis right now. As I see it though, it currently looks like the Ladders commercial and leaves me feeling nauseous. Hopefully, Kickstarter will evolve, and we'll get a stronger contributor to the community for it. One thing on which we can all agree 100% is that the goal is noble.
 
Last edited:

gamerprinter

First Post
Note that, as in the case of the projects I've backed, (b) can be satisfied by providing the backers with true value for their contribution. For example, if I'm producing a 3PP book for D&D with a retail value of $30, then your contribution of $30 (or even $25) gets you a copy of that book. I haven't always seen that, but again, I'm no longer looking. Maybe things have changed. By giving people true value for their money, the initial run is not profit-bearing, but it allows the content to be created, which means subsequent print runs would be relatively cheap and worth personal risk due to the success of the project.
Funny you should mention that - for $45 contributors to the Kaidan Campaign Setting Kickstarter (for example), get the core book as a B/W softcover printed book, plus the PDFs for all created books from the project ($75 retail value), access to 'at cost' extra print copies (20% of retail), and all the PDFs currently available for the Kaidan setting (a further $51.50 value). Technically speaking our pledgers are getting more than thrice the value in products in hand, than what they are contributing.

Additionally, at the varying tiers, all patrons get to participate in the creation of the content, whether through poll vote at the lowest end, to actually pitching material for the setting with the opportunity to actually write/design it themselves.

I don't know if all Kickstarters are providing tangible bonuses for sign-up, but we certainly are...
 
Last edited:

Here's the question that really comes to mind: How many of the kickstarter projects actually end with good product? Or even a product at all?

Right now, there's a ton people saying, "If you give me money, I'll do X!" Unfortunately, I expect many of them to fail to deliver X. And that will quickly begin to sour people's taste for Kickstarter.
I completely agree with this.

Kickstarter is all the rage right now, just like the .dot com booms of yesteryear. And there will come a crash where we start to see more failures than successes.

The key will be what arises from that. I greatly hope we see a sustainable form of the kickstarter model arise that continues to allow the small publisher with a good idea to rise past the initial barrier of investment.
 

Frylock

Explorer
I don't know if all Kickstarters are providing tangible bonuses for sign-up, but we certainly are...
And good on you for it. I don't doubt there are plenty of great projects and honorable creators out there. I don't regret for one second my backing of Jeff's art (though again, art is different than gaming products).
 

If you're trying to say, because we are an established publisher, albeight a small one, we shouldn't need Kickstarter funds to get our products out. I'm saying "sure for the small projects, that's true", but for larger products - we don't have an in-house budget to cover them. If we want to do larger projects, we require some sort of outside funding, and the patronage model works great for these.

If you're talking the big publishers, like Paizo, I'd agree with you, but in the RPG industry most product producers aren't big publishers.
Frankly, I have no issue with any company big or small using the kickstarter model. Ultimately it is simply a new way of getting corporate investment. By diffusing the costs to so many people, each person has minimal risk in their investment and the company itself is not hit with massive debt.

Further, what is probably the most revolutionary aspect of this model (at least for modern times, as opposed to the ancient times with the patronage system) is that we are returning to a model where I am investing not for the sake of profit but for product. My return is seeing the creation take form, not the money I can generate from it.

So I am happy for anyone to use kickstarter....as long as ultimately there are reasonable guarantees that the product will complete. What would be the deathnail is if too many people tried to use kickstarter to get some free money and provide a "half-assed" job.
 

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top