Quote from: James J Skachit appeared to me as if you were implying (perhaps it was simply me inferring) that films were just "cranked out" before Auteur's came along in the 50's - and that this was not necessarily a good thing.

I guess I'm countering with Howard Hawks as an example - Bringing Up Baby (38), His Girl Friday (40), Seargent York (41), The Big Sleep (46). Was he "Auteur"?  If so, then it's useless to put a time frame on it (as you did with the 1950's) as "auteurs" obviously existed before that. If not, then why not?

I was too lazy to check the actual dates in my film textbooks.  I ballparked it.  Those were the directors that auteur theory was based on (in part).

Quote from: James J SkachDid EGG have less influence over D&D design than, say, Baker did over DitV? I doubt it. So if EGG and Baker are auteur, what does it tell us? Not a damn thing, I say. And that's not on you.

It tells us whether an individual had overall creative control.  If it's "their" game, or if it's the product of a large team and/or company.

Quote from: James J SkachI think the term is simply being misused in an otherwise intersting hypothesis.  This isn't about whether the designer is Auteur...it's about whether or not narrowing the focus of a game provides for the designers ideas to become more influential in actual play.

I think....

This is a completely different concept.  You want something like broad focus vs narrow focus or toolbox vs pregen.  Neither of those things is part of auteur theory.

A nice intro to Auteur Theory is available at Wikipedia.

QuoteIn film criticism, the 1950s-era auteur theory holds that a director's films reflects that director's personal creative vision, as if he or she were the primary "auteur" (the French word for 'author'). In some cases, film producers are considered to have a similar "auteur" role for films that they have produced.

Auteur theory has had a major impact on film criticism ever since it was advocated by film director and film critic François Truffaut in 1954. "Auteurism" is the method of analyzing films based on this theory or, alternately, the characteristics of a director's work that makes her or him an auteur. Both the auteur theory and the auteurism method of film analysis are frequently associated with the French New Wave and the film critics who wrote for the influential French film review periodical Cahiers du cinéma.

I guess my ballparking the 50s wasn't too bad.

Quote from: StuartI guess my ballparking the 50s wasn't too bad.

Actually, it looks like the theory is from the 50's...which means the movies he was using to create the theory were from before that...

Stuart, you need to make up your mind whether according to you the auteur model is a historical relic from 50s film "theory," as you just argued; or whether it should be broadened and updated to include 2000s RPGs, as you argued earlier; and if so, why, given the stated objections.

As for pre-50s directors, Truffaut et al. were claiming their work as precedents for the theory they were fleshing out in the 50s. That's perfectly legit and tangential to the discussion in hand--can we now return to it?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityStuart, you need to make up your mind whether according to you the auteur model is a historical relic from 50s film "theory," as you just argued; or whether it should be broadened and updated to include 2000s RPGs, as you argued earlier; and if so, why, given the stated objections.

I didn't argue that it's a relic.  When did I say that?

I got thrown off by your tangential sparring with James.

Now... can we get back into the thick of the discussion? Care to address the objections head-on?

Quote from: BalbinusYeah, I'm struggling with this whole thing too, it's artificial to take the decision to buy and play the indie game out of the equation.

So, if I decided to buy one of these games, and then presumably having read it decide to play it, I don't see why it's a problem that it's applications are fairly narrow.  Presumably I want those applications or I wouldn't be playing it.

I mean, it's not as if all the other rpgs are going out of print so we only have the indie stuff left, it's more choice, not less.

Oh, and now I really want a Balinese espresso maker, that just sounds cool.

Is anyone really claiming that games -- of any kind -- coherce people?

If I said, "In D&D, you're forced to choose a class for your character, unlike GURPS, which does not have that restriction," would people wonder if D&D was secretly packing heat, while GURPS was less aggessive?

I think it's overwhelmingly clear that in this case the use of the term "force" simply meant that the games being looked at had more restrictions of certain kinds than games other games.

The term "force" didn't imply a fascist boot of oppression of any kind (RPGing is a leisure activity -- in that context any force applied or restrictions observed must be voluntary).

Am I wrong?

Why did people get hung up on that?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityDon't you think a definition of auteur that has room for both James Cameron and Francois Truffaut in film, Edwards and Gygax in RPGs, is so broad as to be useless?

Possibly, but I'm not sure it's relevant. Mainstream game design doesn't hold up the game designer as auteur as much as indie design does - at least these days it doesn't. Sure, the Gygaxes and Jacksons and Tweets and Cooks will get their props, but as far as mainstream games are concerned I don't think people sweat it too much if a game was designed by an individual or by committee.

Indie RPGs, on the flipside - partially because they're born out of people's frustrations with working with larger RPG companies - put everything in the hands of the game designer when it comes to publishing the thing. No editorial oversight, playtesting optional, collaboration discouraged.

Quote from: James J SkachDid EGG have less influence over D&D design than, say, Baker did over DitV? I doubt it. So if EGG and Baker are auteur, what does it tell us? Not a damn thing, I say. And that's not on you.

EGG wasn't participating in a subculture which exalts the designer-as-auteur, however. He didn't have a web forum (or closest pre-internet equivalent) full of people saying "You go for it Gary! Be true to your unique vision! And don't let the big company grind you down!", he had people saying "When's AD&D going to come out Gary? Is it going to have psionics? Did you think about changing the racial level limits? Did you read my idea about weapons-vs-AC rules?"

Gygax has said in interviews that things like psionics and variable weapon speed probably shouldn't have gone into AD&D, but he put them in because of popular demand. This is precisely the reverse of what the Forge encourages game designers to do, which is to stick true to their vision and self-publish so that game company editors can't force them to compromise their art.

Quote from: WarthurEGG wasn't participating in a subculture which exalts the designer-as-auteur, however.

First, I've agreed with your OP and called it interesting, so don't take this as too combative...

WTF?

How does the culture around him matter when talking about whether or not he is auteur?  I mean, he clearly is.  Look at his body of work.

And this leads to the modified agreement I have with what I think is your intent in the OP...that the current approach to Forgery game design is that it encourages the focus of games to the point where auteur matters.

Nobody cared if EGG was or was not auteur. They (we) took his game and played it for all it was worth - house ruling where we saw fit.  Now house-ruling (in Forgery) is looked down upon.  I don't know if I'd call that Auteur or some other term, as Stuart has given a good argument that Auteur doesn't have the kind of implication I think you're making.

And all of that made no sense....my apologies to those who have bits of brain leaking out of your ears...PM me and I'll send you my BCBS group number to give to the emergency room nurse.

Quote from: -E.Is anyone really claiming that games -- of any kind -- coherce people?

If I said, "In D&D, you're forced to choose a class for your character, unlike GURPS, which does not have that restriction," would people wonder if D&D was secretly packing heat, while GURPS was less aggessive?

I think it's overwhelmingly clear that in this case the use of the term "force" simply meant that the games being looked at had more restrictions of certain kinds than games other games.

The term "force" didn't imply a fascist boot of oppression of any kind (RPGing is a leisure activity -- in that context any force applied or restrictions observed must be voluntary).

Am I wrong?

Why did people get hung up on that?

Cheers,
-E.

I think its a trait of Internet discussions. If you can't argue against the strong point, attack the wording used.  

Technically, no one was hung up on anything. If they were Hanged you might have been making a relevant point. Only.... I didn't see any rope or hooks or anything...:what:

Quote from: James J SkachFirst, I've agreed with your OP and called it interesting, so don't take this as too combative...

WTF?

How does the culture around him matter when talking about whether or not he is auteur?  I mean, he clearly is.  Look at his body of work.

The subject wasn't his entire body of work - we were talking specifically about his work on D&D. And where AD&D was concerned, he wasn't just working as an auteur (if he was, he would not have included the psionics rules, because they didn't jibe with his vision).

Also, WTF straight back at you - the culture surrounding someone doesn't matter when it comes to examining their writing? What the hell?

QuoteAnd this leads to the modified agreement I have with what I think is your intent in the OP...that the current approach to Forgery game design is that it encourages the focus of games to the point where auteur matters.

Yes, that's it. The culture of the Forge is such that it will tend to encourage auteur games more than mainstream gaming culture does.

Quote from: WarthurIndie RPGs, on the flipside - partially because they're born out of people's frustrations with working with larger RPG companies - put everything in the hands of the game designer when it comes to publishing the thing.

How 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?

The culture of the Forge reality of indie publishing is such that it will tend to encourage auteur games more than mainstream gaming culture working for larger companies does.

Pretty basic stuff.  Not all that earth shattering.  It's the same deal for comics, films, music, etc.

The Forge may get lots of things wrong (theory, jargon, what will be popular) but picking on indie published games for being more "auteur" than games from big companies is pretty weak.