This post is a part of the #RPGaDAY series for 2017 by David F. Chapman and RPGBrigade. For more information, see this post at AUTOCRATIK. I'm modifying per suggestions from S. John Ross as well as applying my own interpretations. Comment with your answers or links to your own posts!
Day 24 - Share a PWYW publisher who should be charging more.
I'm straight up taking a pass on this one. Time for an alternate question, pulled from this fine list at Casting Shadows!
Alternate Question - Campaigns: do you prefer set-length or open-ended play?
Currently, I prefer set-length, inasmuch as I'm taking that to mean the alternative to open-ended play. I'm not assuming set-length to mean a particular number of sessions or length of real-world time, but rather there's some kind of "end condition" to the story; a planned arc, perhaps, or some kind of campaign goal, or anything that will signal, in the fiction, that it's time for the campaign to wrap up. I'll also note that this answer is very much a product of the constraints of practicality. Given infinite free time for myself and all others concerned, sure, I'd love some open-ended campaign play, but I can't see that happening for a bunch of busy adults, at least not for myself or the circles I run in. I'll also note that I'm accepting the question constraint of sticking only to thinking about campaign play. Given my choice of all available options, I'd prefer one-shots at this point in my life to any kind of campaign, though you could certainly also make the argument that a one-shot is just a very limited set-length campaign. But given the kind of gaming time I have (or don't), and given the number of games still I'm still waiting to play, one-shots would be the way to go for me. For campaigns, life being what it is, I'd like to know we were working (playing?) toward something concrete and that we'd know when the game is over.