My Take on Ashcans
Okay, so there's kerfluffle here and there about ashcans. To help the uninitiated, let me share my definition:
ashcan n. an early release of a role-playing game that isn't complete because it needs development, playtesting, editing, art, and so on, often released for free, sometimes sold, to gamers in the hopes of gathering feedback that will help the author finish the game
Note that this is my own definition and that other people have different ideas about what an ashcan is and represents.
Further note the important parts of my definition:
There are some people, people for whom I have great respect, like Ryan Macklin (whose post I linked above), who attribute poor motives to people who release ashcans. For example, Ryan says, "I see folks using the ashcan process to have their cake and eat it too. People want to publish a product at GenCon and engage in the exhibitor process, but they don't want to get called on for having a shitty product."
I think that's unnecessarily cynical. I think people are excited to get something out at GenCon because of the vast potential to share ideas that way. They know they have a shitty product or they wouldn't be calling it an ashcan. They're not hedging. They're not trying to pull a fast one on us. By setting up The Ashcan Front or whatever their booth was called, they were loudly announcing to the world that their games were shitty and needed some polish before they'd be ready for prime time.
I have no problem with authors charging for ashcans, as long as it's clear to the buyer what an ashcan is. Creating an ashcan can cost more than creating a final release version of a game. Really, it's up to the buyer to decide if a game -- especially an ashcan game -- is worth the price.
In the end, I see the ashcan as a way to pull the consumer more into the design process. It also can generate attention for a game before its final release and there's nothing wrong with that. It's important to make sure buyers know what they're getting into, for sure, but I've bought supposedly finished, playtested games that sucked hard (and I don't even mean indie games, necessarily). Caveat emptor. Cave canem. And some games are definitely dogs. At least ashcan publishers are being up front about it.
ashcan n. an early release of a role-playing game that isn't complete because it needs development, playtesting, editing, art, and so on, often released for free, sometimes sold, to gamers in the hopes of gathering feedback that will help the author finish the game
Note that this is my own definition and that other people have different ideas about what an ashcan is and represents.
Further note the important parts of my definition:
- It's a game that isn't done.
- The author knows it isn't done.
- The author usually releases an ashcan to get help getting it done.
There are some people, people for whom I have great respect, like Ryan Macklin (whose post I linked above), who attribute poor motives to people who release ashcans. For example, Ryan says, "I see folks using the ashcan process to have their cake and eat it too. People want to publish a product at GenCon and engage in the exhibitor process, but they don't want to get called on for having a shitty product."
I think that's unnecessarily cynical. I think people are excited to get something out at GenCon because of the vast potential to share ideas that way. They know they have a shitty product or they wouldn't be calling it an ashcan. They're not hedging. They're not trying to pull a fast one on us. By setting up The Ashcan Front or whatever their booth was called, they were loudly announcing to the world that their games were shitty and needed some polish before they'd be ready for prime time.
I have no problem with authors charging for ashcans, as long as it's clear to the buyer what an ashcan is. Creating an ashcan can cost more than creating a final release version of a game. Really, it's up to the buyer to decide if a game -- especially an ashcan game -- is worth the price.
In the end, I see the ashcan as a way to pull the consumer more into the design process. It also can generate attention for a game before its final release and there's nothing wrong with that. It's important to make sure buyers know what they're getting into, for sure, but I've bought supposedly finished, playtested games that sucked hard (and I don't even mean indie games, necessarily). Caveat emptor. Cave canem. And some games are definitely dogs. At least ashcan publishers are being up front about it.