On Publisher Changes

I know someone who interned with a successful theatre set designer. The designer had all his interns build a piece of model furniture (think dollhouse furniture but made of paper and paint). Then he had them squash what they built. Why? Because in theatre it doesn't matter how much time you spend on something, if it gets cut from the show it's gone. There isn't enough time or space to keep everything. The lesson is don't get attached to something just because you made it. 

So, let's talk about the number one reason cited when people talk about self-publishing: "I didn't want the publisher to make changes to my game." I want to skip all the usual pros and cons—artistic control versus existing business structure—and talk instead about one major pitfall of self-publishing that crops up all the time. 

It is one thing to want final say in how a product turns out. Many publishers got their start because of that desire. But my guess is that one thing that separates the more critically successful publishers from the droves of quickly forgotten crowd-funded games is the ability to edit their creations and accept feedback. They are willing to kill their darlings. 

I sometimes think that the secret to being a successful designer is the willingness to trash a design that isn't good enough. 

My problem with the discourse around self-publishing isn't that there is anything wrong with self-publishing but that if you are so enamored of your own ideas that you could never accept outside changes then there is an increased likelihood that your game isn't going to be very good. Or it might be great mechanically, but you refused to hire out the graphic design. Or you became so confident in your knowledge that you didn't adequately research the business-side of crowd-funding, like taxes. I worry that there is a relationship between being unwilling to accept outside changes to your ideas and producing bad products. Exactly zero successful board game publishers are a one-person show. 

I don't think there is anything wrong with just wanting to work on your ideas your way, per se. But this attitude so often goes hand in hand with frustration over lack of critical acclaim or other markers of success. Why did my kickstarter fail? Because you didn't solicit or accept feedback, most likely. (Sometimes that feedback is start with a smaller game.) Why aren't you an overnight success? Because no one can be, certainly not on their own. 

The successful self-publishers I know value collaboration as much as they value their artistic control. In every interview, they talk about the people who make them look good. Working with a publisher is a different sort of collaboration, one I value a lot. Because publishers have more experience making products than I do. I also don't want final artistic say. Instead I want to find a publisher who believes in some aspect of my design vision and is willing to invest. Which invariably requires changes, but those changes make the game better. 

I will always champion the designer and publisher collaborative relationship. But if you want to do both, you should (if you can do so in a financially responsible way). I just want to say, in case no has said it yet, you will have to squash your model chair. It doesn't matter if you are the boss or not. At some point you will have to make an artistic change that hurts to make. You will have to sacrifice your vision to practicalities. And it is when you refuse to make the sacrifice that you will fail. 

Sacrificing your vision is not failure. Sometimes it is the key to success. 

ShippBoard Games is a board game design blog that updates most Mondays.