Quote from: gleichmanIf I'm not gone by then, I'll pay you the $20.

How's about you tell me the date, and I won't let anyone know about my startling and incredibly accurate victory? I could use the 20 bucks.

I remember reading the original elements collumns and though they mostly taught me that I had little love for lots of complexity in my games, they were unlike some theory claptrap today, crystal clear. Reading it again, I gotta say my favorite collumn was on the Rationales for Mechanics, it's a great set of starter criteria for even house rules.

Quote from: JamesVI remember reading the original elements collumns and though they mostly taught me that I had little love for lots of complexity in my games, they were unlike some theory claptrap today, crystal clear. Reading it again, I gotta say my favorite collumn was on the Rationales for Mechanics, it's a great set of starter criteria for even house rules.

Yeah, I like that one. It crystalizes why I hate dice pools, among other things.

Hope you stick around, Brian.

Brian, just to throw this out there, but if you ever feel like it, there's an Articles section you can always submit to.  I didn't know if you'd seen that or paid any attention to it yet.  It seems like a lot of us enjoyed your earlier articles, and it would be great to see more in that vein.

Quote from: JamesVHow's about you tell me the date, and I won't let anyone know about my startling and incredibly accurate victory? I could use the 20 bucks.

Hey, that bet is just with Andy K. I don't have the kind of money it would take to expand it

Quote from: JamesVI remember reading the original elements collumns and though they mostly taught me that I had little love for lots of complexity in my games, they were unlike some theory claptrap today, crystal clear. Reading it again, I gotta say my favorite collumn was on the Rationales for Mechanics, it's a great set of starter criteria for even house rules.

I'm rather surprised they are so well remembered after this much time. It threatens to increase my hat size.

I think Rationales for Mechanics was likely the best as well, it should have been the first of the articles (I tended to write them in response to what I was debating online at the time rather then as a 'vision', thus the order) as it lays a lot of groundwork.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstBrian, just to throw this out there, but if you ever feel like it, there's an Articles section you can always submit to.  I didn't know if you'd seen that or paid any attention to it yet.  It seems like a lot of us enjoyed your earlier articles, and it would be great to see more in that vein.

If I was inclined to write more, they'd likely go up on my own website with the others. After my experiences with the Forge and RPGNet, I'm reluctant to connect myself to a site in such a way again.

Then there's the question of what to write about. It seems the era of the 'theory debates' is over and those were always what sparked the subject for an article.

Personally, I think that one of the reasons why the Forge annoyed me so much was because I started my interest in theory with Gleichman's articles and whereas the elements of gaming articles are remarkably concise and clearly written, the Forge articles are, by and large, neither of those things.


I don't know if the era of theory debates is really over.  Even if you look at RPGnet, people are still fishing around and looking for a way to systematically think about RPGs.  While the Forge's ideas have had some impact on more mainstream online gamers, I don't think it's anywhere near the case that they've all joined the cult of "Big" Ron Edwards.

I was discussing the Forge with a friend of mine last night.  This particular friend is involved in creating a new game system and  gameworlds.  He intends to make it available to the big world of gaming sometime later this year or earlier next year.

He described talking to Edwards at a gaming convention like so:

Him: So, our world will be X, Y and Z.
RE: You won't define exactly what a player must do in the world?
Him: Oh, no!  We want players to explore and define and create!
RE: What about your mechanic?
Him: [Describes it]
RE: So, your mechanic does not embody the world itself, it's just a generic resolution system?
Him: I suppose you could call it that.
RE: Interesting  [walks away]

My friend said he has never heard from RE since.  That attempts to contact him or get involved with Forge have completely fallen on deaf ears.  His interpretation, as he said it last night, "If the game mechanics don't completely define everything you can do in the world and limit the players to specificly confined parameters, then you aren't welcome in the Forge community of believers."

Personally, my only real exposure to the Forge ideology has been limited to what I read of it in other places and what I heard from my friend last night.

Quote from: VellorianMy friend said he has never heard from RE since.  That attempts to contact him or get involved with Forge have completely fallen on deaf ears.  His interpretation, as he said it last night, "If the game mechanics don't completely define everything you can do in the world and limit the players to specificly confined parameters, then you aren't welcome in the Forge community of believers."

Yeah, it's always helpful to infer a detailed agenda from what people don't say and do.

Because if you just thought "Hey, Ron doesn't seem to be responding ... though I suppose there are about a million possible reasons for that," for instance ... that'd be boring.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, it's always helpful to infer a detailed agenda from what people don't say and do.

Because if you just thought "Hey, Ron doesn't seem to be responding ... though I suppose there are about a million possible reasons for that," for instance ... that'd be boring.

My guess would be that the game didn't engage him or his interests.  Which is fair enough really, I am polite but disinterested with games that don't grab me as well.

That said, I don't think that necessarily stops others at the Forge from helping.

That said too though, when was the last time a game like this did get support at the Forge?

Quote from: VellorianPersonally, my only real exposure to the Forge ideology has been limited to what I read of it in other places and what I heard from my friend last night.

For what it's worth, I've heard basically the same story from other designers. Makers of very fine games, but they were of the traditional type and thus beneath Edward's notice.

On one level, that's quite acceptable. After all, a person doesn't care about games that they don't care about. Ron doesn't care about traditional games and as an individual that should be the end of the story.

However, The Forge itself had the stated mission of helping all indie designers- and the truth is that it does no such thing. It's that lie that I hold against them.

Quote from: BalbinusThat said too though, when was the last time a game like this did get support at the Forge?

That was what I was trying to get at, instead of some of the obvious "maybe he just didn't like it" rhetoric.

The point was that my friend analyzed the situation and looked at what kinds of games are at the Forge and realized, "Hey, there's nothing there that does what my game does.  It's all lock-stepped and reality-defining."

The point was that the Forge doesn't support games that "think outside the box."  They're too intent on "creating the box to trap the thinking."

Quote from: gleichmanHowever, The Forge itself had the stated mission of helping all indie designers- and the truth is that it does no such thing. It's that lie that I hold against them.

Exactly.  They only help those that look like themselves.  (And, personally, I find that kind of myopic viewpoint not only sad and (as you said) dishonest, but I also find those kinds of games hold my interest for one night of play and then I lose any desire to continue playing them.  I would much rather play in a rich, deep, world where I can carve out and create my character's destiny with only my imagination to limit me.)

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalPersonally, I think that one of the reasons why the Forge annoyed me so much was because I started my interest in theory with Gleichman's articles and whereas the elements of gaming articles are remarkably concise and clearly written, the Forge articles are, by and large, neither of those things.

The Forge and I certainly do stand at opposite sides of the great riff in nearly everything.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI don't know if the era of theory debates is really over.  Even if you look at RPGnet, people are still fishing around and looking for a way to systematically think about RPGs.  While the Forge's ideas have had some impact on more mainstream online gamers, I don't think it's anywhere near the case that they've all joined the cult of "Big" Ron Edwards.

I think that Edwards has polluted theory debate such that anyone just entering the arena is assumed to be something of nutcase out of the gate.

And while not everyone has joined the Cult of Ron, those that have far outnumber theorist who haven't- at least online.

It may not always be that way. The Cult of Ron has shot itself in the foot nicely in the past few months as Ron has gotten increasingly loony in his comments, the tide may turn in the future.

Quote from: BalbinusThat said too though, when was the last time a game like this did get support at the Forge?

At DexCon I explicitly recruited a friend (Shawn) and sought out a guy who was making such a game.  I demanded that he run us his convention-scenario, because he had mentioned in conversation that it needed work.  We ran for four hours, and we then spent two hours seriously talking, recommending tweaks and different ways of presenting things, and also chatting about the fundamentals of his system and whether they were doing what he wanted.

I honestly don't know whether that "counts" in this context.  Is the question whether folks in the Forge community individually help out games designed by entirely different methods (they do, see above) or is the question whether they use the Forge's posting system as the medium for doing that?

Quote from: gleichmanThe Cult of Ron has shot itself in the foot nicely in the past few months as Ron has gotten increasingly loony in his comments, the tide may turn in the future.

Since I really try not to follow the ongoing saga, I'm not sure what "looney" comments you're talking about?

Can you give a couple of examples?  (I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I am just admitting to my own ignorance.)

Quote from: VellorianSince I really try not to follow the ongoing saga, I'm not sure what "looney" comments you're talking about?

Can you give a couple of examples?  (I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I am just admitting to my own ignorance.)

His brain-damaged comment was perhaps the most infamous. It should be found here starting about the 3rd paragraph down:

http://www.lumpley.com/marginalia.php?entry=158&comment=3777

and here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18707.0


There has been a number of other more recent comments about his exploration of sexuality in rpgs that likely will split opinion along various lines depending upon one's own views. Seems he's into creating games now to explore such themes. I don't have the links handy currently, but if no one posts them in the meantime I'll dig them up at home later.