Quote from: David RBalbinus & Clash although I understand the need for AM's statement to be challenged, you have to remember that AM in his own words has a dislike for Tony (an irrational one at that - again his own words). His statement was just further evidence of this. I find most of the stuff that AM post interesting, but I tune out this nonsense.

Regards,
David R

It's not about him, it's about me.  It lessens me not to speak out when someone gets slammed and I disagree.  Abyssal has every right to his views or not to like Tony.

When Tetsujin28 died it hit me very hard, I decided at the time to make much more of an effort to tell people when I had something good to say about them, while there's the chance you know?

Quote from: BalbinusWhen Tetsujin28 died it hit me very hard, I decided at the time to make much more of an effort to tell people when I had something good to say about them, while there's the chance you know?

I understand completely.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David JohansenI think it happens sometimes.  I think there are games that are significant works of art with a singular focus drawing from one author's creative vision.

They're generally called flops, or heart breakers in the industry.  There's nothing quite like a rigid vision to narrow a game's potential audience.

Still, there's a few, Runequest 1&2, Pendragon, Adventure/ Abberent/ Trinity, Spacemaster: Privateers all seem to have the auteur's singular vision.  And none of them could really be called huge successes in the sense that Call of Cthullu, Traveller, D&D, Twilight 2000 were.  I should probably remove D&D from that list as nothing has its level of success in that particular sense.

I'm also uncertain whether one can assess whether something like Hybrid is in the real of what we're trying to quantify.

David, just to be clear, I agree both with your examples (so far as I'm familiar with them--Adventure and Pendragon) and your argument, which I think is different from what I've seen in this thread.

What I don't like is when people borrow terms like auteur which have long become obsolete in order to make claims that are either pretentious or empty.  Pretentious, when the implicit point is that pre-Forge people were uncultured fools but that indies are artistes like Truffaut. Empty, when people retreat from that so that auteur is merely synonymous with name recognition or "creator-ownership" (as with Hybrid's auteur).

None of that's to say that there aren't games by a single author that are awesome. I love Pendragon. Your examples show that the pre/post-indie divide is meaningless, and that people can be creative even when they're working for ICE!

Lastly, why don't you publish that game about kids you wrote???!

I'll use an analogy I've often used: Game Designers aren't artists, they're craftsmen.

And here's what I mean: when you make a chair, there are limits on your creativity imposed by the functional requirement that it BE a chair, that it work.

So it needs a back, a seat and four legs. Once you put those together, you have a chair.

Now everything else you do is more or less window dressing. Cusions, making the chair rock, making it recline, adding all sorts fancy carving on the legs, those might be preferred by some customers but they really aren't changing the chair fundamentally.

Most indie RPGs, for me, end up falling into one of two extremes: either they're really great for a narrow range of options (the best work chair, the best rocker or the best recliner ever- but not a general chair for work or relaxing in front of the tube) or they're SO artistically overwrought that they're more or less useless (either they're great to look or read but not that comfortable to sit in, or the designer really let his juices FLOW and made me a three-legged chair that redefines chairs FOREVER).

Quote from: Pierce InverarityLastly, why don't you publish that game about kids you wrote???!

You mean the one about metamorphic canibalistic creatures?  Because I think it would fly like Tekumel, or Jorune, or Children of the Sun, or Mechanical Dream.

I think, that the hobby is generally built on the collective subconscious and cultural mores.  It's neccessary due to the consensual form of play.  Most people want to be Legolas or Bruce Lee.  They don't really want to make something of their own because they've been taught that their ideas are bad.  Really our society tends to teach that anything that isn't manufactured and polished, and glossy is bad.  In the end our hobby community is far more conservative and myopic in its outlook than we like to think.  We like to think we're creative, intelligent, and avant garde.  We like to think we're above the masses.  But really we're just another mass.

So, I guess, while a game designer might be an autuer, I can't imagine it'll ever break even or prosper.  Publishing costs money.  Doing a proper job of production takes a team of people who need to be paid.  I write what I like and give it away.  That way I have no financial commitment to my readers.  No deadlines, no obligations to meet.  I just write stuff that I think is cool and if people like it that's great and if they don't, it doesn't really matter.  The internet is full of delusional kooks just like me with other stories to tell.

I think games are often better, as a lot of creative arts are, when they come from a single mind. A consistency of vision and aim is a good thing and stuff that is created by committee is often flavourless and dull.

I like the auteur approach, I like work (in all fields) that challenges me and has that consistency, even if I don't agree with the view expressed.

Quote from: GRIMI think games are often better, as a lot of creative arts are, when they come from a single mind. A consistency of vision and aim is a good thing and stuff that is created by committee is often flavourless and dull.

I like the auteur approach, I like work (in all fields) that challenges me and has that consistency, even if I don't agree with the view expressed.

I think this is broadly right, ages back here I started a thread arguing that the great fantasy rpg creations were almost all the result of a single vision, as indeed are most of the truly awful creations for that matter.

A single vision breeds something singular, for good or ill, all too often a committee vision breeds something bland instead.

But bland games sell well apparently.  And are played by more people.  Sometimes I wonder if what we really want are encyclopedias of faerie.  Big, beautiful colorful tomes that are windows into another world.  Are rules just an artifact.  Does a world really need to be constrained to a set of game mechanics.

Sadly, systemless sourcebooks don't do well in the gaming market and the non-gaming market has very little interest in such things.

Quote from: GRIMI like the auteur approach, I like work (in all fields) that challenges me and has that consistency, even if I don't agree with the view expressed.

I agree with this.

I'm not going to open a can of worms by starting a derail about the concepts of homage and Mise en scene in rpgs...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BalbinusI think this is broadly right, ages back here I started a thread arguing that the great fantasy rpg creations were almost all the result of a single vision, as indeed are most of the truly awful creations for that matter.

A single vision breeds something singular, for good or ill, all too often a committee vision breeds something bland instead.

Eh... I don't know about this. D&D was certainly not "one man's vision" given that Gygax expanded on a core of wargaming rules and the work of Dave Arneson. And of course with later editions, the list of principal designers has expanded immensely.

Champions is also not the work of one designer... I always associated the original rules with two men but there often as many as four credited for the original design.

GURPs was written by one man but *ahem* borrowed so much from Hero that I also don't think I'd call it a one man design.

Runequest is also a group effort design wise.

Traveller is one man, CoC is one man.

So of the 6 greatest RPGs ever designed (my personal list anyway) 2/3 were the result of a group.

Quote from: David JohansenBut bland games sell well apparently.  And are played by more people.  Sometimes I wonder if what we really want are encyclopedias of faerie.  Big, beautiful colorful tomes that are windows into another world.  Are rules just an artifact.  Does a world really need to be constrained to a set of game mechanics.

Sadly, systemless sourcebooks don't do well in the gaming market and the non-gaming market has very little interest in such things.

Did you catch that?  I mean, I assume the implication is the D&D is bland, right?

What game sells the most?  What game is played the most? Ergo?

I could be wrong, but that certainly seems to be the implication.

So please, clarify.

Quote from: David JohansenSometimes I wonder if what we really want are encyclopedias of faerie.  Big, beautiful colorful tomes that are windows into another world.

They sell these in many bookstores.  (Hint: They're not in the games section... )

Sure, if you're Brian Froud or the Dinotopia guy.

Also, yes D&D in its current incarnation is as bland as a handful of white flour.

Quote from: StuartHow many indie RPGs are born out of people's frustration with working with larger RPG companies?  Is there even one?  Someone working at a large RPG company actually left, went to the Forge, and created an "indie" game?

Ron Edwards frequently tells people about how he offered a game (I think it was Sorcerer) to a big-name RPG company, but balked when he saw the contract involved and how much creative control he'd have to give up. Ron's work - and thus, a heck of a lot of the thinking behind the Forge - is apparently informed by that experience.

Whether Ron is telling the truth or not, only he knows, but I don't see what he'd gain from lying.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckTraveller is one man.

Well the core three books anyhow.  Much of the setting was the brothers Keith.  Marc's a system wonk.