By the d20 glut I mean the phenomenon we had a few years back when everyone seemed to be bringing out d20 conversions, supplements, adventures and whatnot, many of them not very good.
There was a bandwagon rolling and a lot of people jumped onto it, people with no real history of game design released d20 books (often in pdf form) of very variable quality. The market was flooded with d20 stuff, as everyone tried to get in on it, the result was a crash in part because it became difficult for consumers to wade through it all to get to the good stuff.
What has this to do with indie gaming? Quite a lot I think, increasingly in indie gaming circles the idea is becoming popular that everyone with a concept for a game should design an rpg about that concept, no matter how narrow. People want to be indie designers, and even if their concept could easily be an adventure in some other system or just something run with their group, it becomes an indie rpg design and gets added to the stock of indie rpgs out there.
The designing of indie rpgs is being encouraged as an end in its own right, with a variety of indie competitions incentivising people to find ideas so they can create a new indie rpg. The driving force is often not that someone has an idea for an rpg that cannot be met by an existing game, but that someone wants to be an indie rpg designer and so creates an indie rpg to meet that need.
The result is a glut of indie rpgs, just like the d20 glut, increasing difficulty in telling the good from the bad and increasingly a risk of a bit of a crash in the indie rpg market. A risk that is disguised by the common habit in the indie scene of designers buying, though frequently not ever playing, each other's games.
Thoughts? Am I totally off base? It seems to me the current setup has similarities to the d20 one and similar effects, a lot of people producing games that nobody or hardly anybody ever actually plays and in the process making it harder to find the real gems.
Yeah - look at story games where everyone talks about their own games and no one comments on anyone elses.
Forge Heartbreaker - get that phrase warmed up - your gonna use it.
Quote from: BalbinusThe designing of indie rpgs is being encouraged as an end in its own right, with a variety of indie competitions incentivising people to find ideas so they can create a new indie rpg.
ARRRGH! You're VERBING, Balbinus!
As to your real question, probably. There are a lot of vanity games out there in a small marketplace.
-clash
Quote from: Erik BoielleYeah - look at story games where everyone talks about their own games and no one comments on anyone elses.
Forge Heartbreaker - get that phrase warmed up - your gonna use it.
Is it that bad at Storygames? I don't really post there anymore, though I have a certain fondness for the place, I hadn't realised you were there.
Forge Heartbreaker I think is a real phenomenon, but I prefer to use heartbreaker only in the context of fantasy where it was originally coined and where I think it has a fairly clear meaning. That said, definitely.
Quote from: flyingmiceARRRGH! You're VERBING, Balbinus!
As to your real question, probably. There are a lot of vanity games out there in a small marketplace.
-clash
In my defence, I am under the weather and have been off ill for a few days (nothing serious), hence my appalling error in verbing. Sorry about that.
Quote from: BalbinusIn my defence, I am under the weather and have been off ill for a few days (nothing serious), hence my appalling error in verbing. Sorry about that.
OK, we'll let you go with a warning this time... :D
-clash
Quote from: Balbinus*snip*
The result is a glut of indie rpgs, just like the d20 glut, increasing difficulty in telling the good from the bad and increasingly a risk of a bit of a crash in the indie rpg market. A risk that is disguised by the common habit in the indie scene of designers buying, though frequently not ever playing, each other's games.
Thoughts? Am I totally off base? It seems to me the current setup has similarities to the d20 one and similar effects, a lot of people producing games that nobody or hardly anybody ever actually plays and in the process making it harder to find the real gems.
I think that an actual "crash" in the indie game market if it happens will be a different animal than the D20 one. The games may be numerous, but they're not really connected to each other. The market is fragmented, so any kind of crash would simply be a bunch of indie games suddenly going out of print at the few storefronts that carry them while the more successful games will carry on as if nothing has happened and
that will be it. No stores or distributors will close because "Deep Issues: The Storygame" and "Pudding and Pardners" goes belly up.
Quote from: JamesVI think that an actual "crash" in the indie game market if it happens will be a different animal than the D20 one. The games may be numerous, but they're not really connected to each other. The market is fragmented, so any kind of crash would simply be a bunch of indie games suddenly going out of print at the few storefronts that carry them while the more successful games will carry on as if nothing has happened and that will be it. No stores or distributors will close because "Deep Issues: The Storygame" and "Pudding and Pardners" goes belly up.
True, the only people really affected will be those already into indie gaming, but that doesn't make it any more desirable as an outcome.
Quote from: BalbinusTrue, the only people really affected will be those already into indie gaming, but that doesn't make it any more desirable as an outcome.
Also true. I just wanted to say that I think any such crash will have a limited ripple effect. I think most indie game makers are fairly realistic about the level of success they'll have with their games, so I kinda think/hope that even the effects on the people themselves will be small too.
They all publish because they want their "groovy card" punched, because that's all gaming is about to them; a chance to get some kind of weird sick psychological fulfullment by pretending to be doing really deep important radical stuff... instead of, you know, going out and doing that stuff.
Oh, and I don't really see how there could be an "indie crash". To have a crash you have to have a market first.
What there will be is an eventual end of certain more mainstream group's and people's sense of respect for the "indie revolution" and the Forge. At least, I can really hope that will be the result.
RPGPundit
Quote from: BalbinusTrue, the only people really affected will be those already into indie gaming, but that doesn't make it any more desirable as an outcome.
On the contrary, I think a pretty thorough extinction in the market could be a very good thing in many ways. It would, I think, shake out a fair number of people who have good intentions but lousy business plans.
Yes, it's hard-hearted of me, but I think that some people making examples of themselves could help later developers to realize that business is an art unto itself, and one that they should develop at least a rudimentary understanding of if they want to invest their time and money in it.
'course, I tend to think that about FLGS's too, so maybe I'm just nasty and cynical all the way 'round :D
Quote from: TonyLBOn the contrary, I think a pretty thorough extinction in the market could be a very good thing in many ways. It would, I think, shake out a fair number of people who have good intentions but lousy business plans.
Yes, it's hard-hearted of me, but I think that some people making examples of themselves could help later developers to realize that business is an art unto itself, and one that they should develop at least a rudimentary understanding of if they want to invest their time and money in it.
'course, I tend to think that about FLGS's too, so maybe I'm just nasty and cynical all the way 'round :D
Nah...just a budding Capitalist...
Creative Destruction...Destructive Creation and all that...
People gettin' themselves all pimp-slapped by the invisible hand? :D
Quote from: TonyLBPeople gettin' themselves all pimp-slapped by the invisible hand? :D
Happens every day. Hell, in a way, happened to me (in a completely unrelated business, not RPG's).
It's the beauty of the system...
I have this hypothesis that the logical end of the Forge philosophy is that we should all be making and playing our own games.
Quote from: droogI have this hypothesis that the logical end of the Forge philosophy is that we should all be making and playing our own games.
I had a similar idea except that the logical end of Forge thinking would lead to there being a game out there for even the slightest group preference.
Quote from: BalbinusThe designing of indie rpgs is being encouraged as an end in its own right, with a variety of indie competitions incentivising people to find ideas so they can create a new indie rpg.
I think some the various competitions tend to go overboard (Game Chef is particularly craptacular and worthy of contempt) but still, I like the general trend of self-producing and self-releasing RPGs.
Quote from: BalbinusThe driving force is often not that someone has an idea for an rpg that cannot be met by an existing game, but that someone wants to be an indie rpg designer and so creates an indie rpg to meet that need.
On that, I am not sure. I think a lot of those games can't be done by an existing RPG. I also like that several "indie people" tend to ask the question: "what makes your idea special?" Or "why couldn't you use [insert existing game]" or just refer people to a list of existing games as food for thought.
Quote from: BalbinusThe result is a glut of indie rpgs, just like the d20 glut, increasing difficulty in telling the good from the bad and increasingly a risk of a bit of a crash in the indie rpg market. A risk that is disguised by the common habit in the indie scene of designers buying, though frequently not ever playing, each other's games.
Nothing to worry about, IMO. Yes, there will be a crash. Right now they are riding the trend. Good for them. And yes, it's amusing that they buy each other's games. It's hardly unique to roleplaying and happens in other hobbies. Amateur artists often do that.
What I find interesting is that, unlike certain other hobbies, indie designers can still break even or even pull a cute little profit. I know everal amateur musicians who are actually spending hundreds of dollars each per month, despite playing to an audience.
So I like how the indie industry of RPGs is developing in this respect. It is sustainable, although some projects are doomed for failure.
Quote from: BalbinusThoughts? Am I totally off base? It seems to me the current setup has similarities to the d20 one and similar effects, a lot of people producing games that nobody or hardly anybody ever actually plays and in the process making it harder to find the real gems.
Well, yeah. That's how it's always been in this hobby, no? It wasn't any easier finding the great roleplaying games in the 80s and the 90s either.
The difference is that indie RPGs don't depend on complex and quirky distribution channels. They self-regulate themselves. Thus, whatever happens, there won't be a spectacular crash.
I really like that. I think going indie makes sense. I think it is the future of roleplaying as we know it, barring some true visionaries breaking out in a big way.
When there's a Forger "Abortion" game, then you can talk about an indie glut like the d20 glut.
Quote from: JimBobOzWhen there's a Forger "Abortion" game, then you can talk about an indie glut like the d20 glut.
I thought that
It Was A Mutual Decision was their Abortion game :deviousgrin:
Regards,
David R
My vote goes to Nicotine Girls. It's so depressing, abortion would fit right in.
That everyone and their brother has their own game is nothing new. It's just that in the eighties and early nineties, people would call their game a "homebrew" rather than an "indie design". There was often less sophistication particularly in the writing and the printing.
In the last nineties, I started my list of Free RPGs on the Web -- and I was quickly amazed at how many people had their own game system, sometimes with hundreds of pages. My list quickly grew out into the hundreds, then passed a thousand. What has really changed now is that post-nineties, people now have the tools to really put together and publish a game on their own.
I agree with Pundit that they're can't really be a crash yet. It's already true that most indie games have no market, and even the top handful have only a really small market. As long as we have venues like Lulu where it is essentially free to put an indie RPG up for publication, I think that the indie market (such as it is) isn't likely to shrink.
I do disagree with one thing:
Quote from: RPGPunditThey all publish because they want their "groovy card" punched, because that's all gaming is about to them; a chance to get some kind of weird sick psychological fulfullment by pretending to be doing really deep important radical stuff... instead of, you know, going out and doing that stuff.
Sigh. This is an old chesnut regularly used to attack any sort of creative endeavor -- i.e. "Instead of writing about X, why don't you go
do X!" and so forth. It's possible for something to be self-indulgent (and I think many games are), but you can't just say that anything which is a creative work instead of activity is automatically self-indulgent.
Quote from: jhkimSigh. This is an old chesnut regularly used to attack any sort of creative endeavor -- i.e. "Instead of writing about X, why don't you go do X!" and so forth. It's possible for something to be self-indulgent (and I think many games are), but you can't just say that anything which is a creative work instead of activity is automatically self-indulgent.
No, but of course that's not what I'm saying: I'm saying that the MOTIVES the Swine have for wanting to publish games are based on something other than a love for games themselves, much less RPGs.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditNo, but of course that's not what I'm saying: I'm saying that the MOTIVES the Swine have for wanting to publish games are based on something other than a love for games themselves, much less RPGs.
RPGPundit
Are we talking about Indie = Forge / Storygames, or Indie = Indie?
QuoteAre we talking about Indie = Forge / Storygames, or Indie = Indie?
Lo and behold the value of the usage of the term "Thematic Game" would bring to this discussion!
Quote from: StuartAre we talking about Indie = Forge / Storygames, or Indie = Indie?
"Indie" meaning Forge/Storygames. Take it up with them. Its their fault that they stole the term from all the other independent publishers.
RPGPundit
edited to add: and they did so, again, out of their desperate psychological desire to feel hip.
Quote from: StuartAre we talking about Indie = Forge / Storygames, or Indie = Indie?
Indie meaning Forge, other indie games I tend to call small press.
Settembrini is correct by the way, thematic games would be a useful term here. Last time I used it though Pundit lambasted me for including them within the umbrella of rpg or something and I lack the appetite to fight that particular battle.
Quote from: BalbinusIndie meaning Forge, other indie games I tend to call small press.
First of all, this is just plain contradictory, since you call them "other indie games" in your explanation.
Second, the Forge itself defines "indie" differently -- inclusive of any creator-owned works, not just Forge-associated ones (cf.
About the Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/about/)). It seems ridiculous to me to use the term "indie" for Forge games in defiance of the Forge definition. Even moreso to use a definition which contradicts the Forge one, then blame them for stealing the term.
If you're going to attack the Forge, attack it on things it actually says.
Quote from: RPGPunditNo, but of course that's not what I'm saying: I'm saying that the MOTIVES the Swine have for wanting to publish games are based on something other than a love for games themselves, much less RPGs.
Well, in general, people who self-publish have a certain amount of ego in their creations -- this is just as true of indie D20 publishers or Senzar as others. I think the idea of anyone publishing out of "pure love" is doubtful -- and if they do, it sounds like they're some kind of damn pervert! :p
Quote from: jhkimFirst of all, this is just plain contradictory, since you call them "other indie games" in your explanation.
Second, the Forge itself defines "indie" differently -- inclusive of any creator-owned works, not just Forge-associated ones (cf. About the Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/about/)). It seems ridiculous to me to use the term "indie" for Forge games in defiance of the Forge definition. Even moreso to use a definition which contradicts the Forge one, then blame them for stealing the term.
If you're going to attack the Forge, attack it on things it actually says.
I would do, but I'm not attacking the Forge.
Indie as in Forge games is the most common usage, I'm well aware it doesn't match the actual Forge usage, but then even the Forge all too often doesn't really use the proper usage.
Speaking properly, indie obviously includes small press, in practice when people use the term they mean Forge style games, and by that they mean a certain type of Forge style game.
My reply was in context, taken in that context I think it's fairly plain I meant indie for the purposes of this thread is referring to a certain type of game popularised by the Forge rather than a more general usage of the term indie, but I didn't really feel the need to type all that out.
Edit: To clarify, usage is determined by use, naturally enough. The term indie for a certain type of Forge game is so widespread as a usage that I think it is the most logical one to use, the term as defined by the Forge is used by almost nobody, including by and large indie gamers (by which I mean of course gamers focussing primarily on focussed thematic games typical of a certain family of Forge design) who routinely use the term indie game to mean their type of game and very rarely use it to mean simply creator owned.
If I wanted to refer to creator owned I'd probably just say, hm, creator owned.
Quote from: jhkimWell, in general, people who self-publish have a certain amount of ego in their creations -- this is just as true of indie D20 publishers or Senzar as others. I think the idea of anyone publishing out of "pure love" is doubtful -- and if they do, it sounds like they're some kind of damn pervert! :p
Totally untrue from, my experience. D20 vanity publishers generally don't usually see themselves as being edgy or cool. They see themesleves as publishing "here's some rules for what happens when your character drinks too much" or "here's an expanded list of 30 poisons".
Although maybe my experience is limited to the guys who are pretty much publishing their D&D house rules and subsystems.
There's certainly no delusions of "publishing makes you cool", though. After all, these are D&D guys. I'd say for the most part, they really are doing it for love, and they aren't part of a supremacist cult.
Quote from: Abyssal MawTotally untrue from, my experience. D20 vanity publishers generally don't usually see themselves as being edgy or cool. They see themesleves as publishing "here's some rules for what happens when your character drinks too much" or "here's an expanded list of 30 poisons".
Maybe if I had suggested that they saw themselves as "edgy" or "cool", this would have some meaning. But I didn't, so this is a non-sequitor.
Quote from: BalbinusTo clarify, usage is determined by use, naturally enough. The term indie for a certain type of Forge game is so widespread as a usage that I think it is the most logical one to use, the term as defined by the Forge is used by almost nobody, including by and large indie gamers (by which I mean of course gamers focussing primarily on focussed thematic games typical of a certain family of Forge design)
I don't agree. There are a number of people who use "indie" to mean independent. They might be in the minority -- but as far as I've seen, the other people don't have a consistent and clear definition that they're going by. Instead, they're just like "Uh... indie games are kinda like the Forge, because, well, it's indiegames.com" And they'll waffle about -- sometimes including only GMless or distributed-GM games; but sometimes including combat-heavy adventure games like Burning Wheel or even wargames like Mechaton.
I believe that language changes, but I also think there is such as thing as a common mistake in usage.
If there was a sensible alternative that were proposed, I'd seriously consider it. However, I've never heard anyone give any other half-way decent definition for what an indie RPG should be -- never mind there being agreement on that definition.
John, with respect only one person had been at all confused about what we were discussing, and I clarified it for him within the terms of his query.
My goal here is to discuss a particular idea, and that has been working fine even with the imprecise use of indie which I don't think has at all interfered with communication. There is no clear and single definition of the term, nor do I particularly think there needs to be as long as in context it's clear how we're using it (and I think that was clear here, as the responses generally indicate).
As for the Forge's definition, I think it's nonsensical. Creator owned is creator owned, that doesn't of itself say anything about whether or not a game is independent as opposed to mainstream, which is how the term indie is normally used in general language. If we wish to talk about creator owned games, then it is simpler just to say that.
Gurps is as far as I know creator owned, but I don't think Ron sees it as an Indie game. Indie in the strict Forge usage is simply another example of Ron's dreadful penchant for taking a word and defining it as having a specific meaning which is sufficiently close to the ordinary meaning as to be confusing but sufficiently far away that you can't extrapolate from the ordinary meaning. He is appalling at coining jargon, and much trouble with GNS et al could have been avoided if he'd been a bit more careful in the first place in his creation of terms.
GNS for example, based on GDS with enough similarity that it causes confusion and with meanings that are not particularly close to the ordinary English uses but which are close enough that people can again get confused.
This whole semantic debate is off topic, but I don't particularly feel bound by the Forge's mangling of the English language and other than Stuart's easily answered query nobody here was struggling to understand my meaning. As such, my usage in context was I think fine.
Yes, there are common errors in language, but here there is no consistent usage to be in error from, merely a wide variety of usages which must be determined from context and which here easily were determined by context.
Hi John:
Using "Indie" as a label for all small press/creator owned games doesn't work. Since most people use the term solely for Forge-influenced/Forge-style games, using it in any other way merely sows confusion. People looking for an "indie" game and getting a trad small press game will most likely be disappointed, and folks looking for a trad small press game and getting an "indie" game will most likely be disappointed, no matter the quality of the game, because it wasn't what they were expecting. This is why I have pushed - fairly successfully - over the years for using the term "small press" to refer to traditional style creator-owned/controlled games. It works, there is no confusion, and customers are getting what they were looking for, plus there is no particular onus to be creator owned - PIG's small press, no matter whether Brett wrote the game or not. Most folks couldn't care less whether the game is creator owned or not. It's just a lot simpler all around.
-clash
Quote from: jhkimMaybe if I had suggested that they saw themselves as "edgy" or "cool", this would have some meaning. But I didn't, so this is a non-sequitor.
NOT so fast: you said this:
QuoteWell, in general, people who self-publish have a certain amount of ego in their creations -- this is just as true of indie D20 publishers or Senzar as others.
Now. a certain amount of Ego is definitely different than having a hilarious perception of yourself as being edgy or cool, sure. But that's the sin we're realy talking about. The phrase used before I added mine was "...desperate psychological desire to feel hip."
I mean, come on. That's the real problem in a nutshell, isn't it? I was shorthanding that.
Quote from: Abyssal MawNOT so fast: you said this:
Quote from: jhkimWell, in general, people who self-publish have a certain amount of ego in their creations -- this is just as true of indie D20 publishers or Senzar as others.
Now. a certain amount of Ego is definitely different than having a hilarious perception of yourself as being edgy or cool, sure. But that's the sin we're realy talking about. The phrase used before I added mine was "...desperate psychological desire to feel hip."
I mean, come on. That's the real problem in a nutshell, isn't it? I was shorthanding that.
OK, we're arguing different terms here. I do not agree that there is a sharp difference where D20 self-publishers release for pure love of the game and story game self-publishers do so solely to pose at being cool.
All of the story game self-publishers that I know play their own and similar games, and enjoy doing so. I've observed and participated in such games. They are generally very excited about their own games and similar games. They might be a niche audience out of touch with what the majority of role-players want, but they're in touch with their (admittedly small) core audience. And yes, they try to sell their games as cool. That's what people are
supposed to do about their games, in my opinion. The better D20 publishers and other publishers also make their products sound cool.
The people to slam on would be people who praise indie story games that they haven't actually played. This isn't most of the designers, as far as I can see, but it might include some of the more numerous RPGnet crowd.
For what it's worth, I'm with John. And my response earlier in this thread was based on the "true" meaning of indie. Indie does not mean Forge. Never did, never will.
Quote from: flyingmiceUsing "Indie" as a label for all small press/creator owned games doesn't work. Since most people use the term solely for Forge-influenced/Forge-style games, using it in any other way merely sows confusion.
There is some truth to what you say -- that is, a lot of people are using it to mean a vaguely-defined "Forge-influenced/Forge-style". However, I don't think that this means the term has to be abandoned.
To take a very practical case: these days I'm administering the
Indie RPG Awards (http://www.rpg-awards.com/), which were established back in 2002 when the creator-owned definition of indie was more in use, and there was less of a distinction of Forge-associated games being distinct from others. So, the question is, should these be renamed "The Creator-Owned RPG Awards"? That sounds sucktastic to me.
Sorry guys - has, does, and will continue to mean "Forge-style stuff"
Indie movies have a certain meaning - otherwise jokes about gay cowboys eating pudding wouldn't work. Indie starts out meaning independently produced and/or distributed. But it always takes on the connotation of the work that predominates needing to be indpendently produced/distributed.
If it was "mainstream" material, it would be produced by one of the big boys.
So what happens is that indie starts out with it's true meaning. It then takes on the meaning of the set of products that have to be indie as the big boys won't produce it. At the same time, it takes on the cache of cool because who doesn't like to stick it to the man. At this point, an indie could produce something akin to a big boy product and remain indie - it depends on their previous accumulation of indie cred. Not enough? Then they sold out! But heaven forfend a big boy who tries to dabble in indie products.
And those that are successful start to get bigger - and sooner or later, they lose the street cred of being "indie." And then you sometimes see them fighting to get back to indie - "returning to our roots."
It's the cycle of life.
That whole 'indie cred' thing is for teenagers. Grownups like what they like and don't worry about whether it has cred.
Sometimes I like to listen to the Carpenters. Nobody I know rates them, except for some girls. It doesn't seem to affect my relationship with my friend Clive, who constantly seeks out new and obscure music (which we seem to hear a few months before the radio plays it).
Quote from: BalbinusCreator owned is creator owned, that doesn't of itself say anything about whether or not a game is independent as opposed to mainstream, which is how the term indie is normally used in general language.
This is an excellent point. The insistence on defining "indie" as meaning the same as "creator-owned" causes people to go into verbal gymnastics when referring to other games. "Mainstream" is the term that people use as the opposite of "indie" when they're not thinking too hard about it, but even worse are the alternatives of "non-indie" and "non-creator-owned". There's no accurate positive term for these games.
Therefore while I'll try to remember the technical definition of "indie" when it comes to the Forge, or the Indie RPG awards, or just generally talking to John, I'm going to press for using "creator-owned" and "small-press" in general conversation.
Quote from: James J SkachSorry guys - has, does, and will continue to mean "Forge-style stuff"
Indie movies have a certain meaning - otherwise jokes about gay cowboys eating pudding wouldn't work. Indie starts out meaning independently produced and/or distributed. But it always takes on the connotation of the work that predominates needing to be indpendently produced/distributed.
Words always have certain
connotations and
stereotypes. However, that doesn't mean that we have to follow the pattern of abandoning what a word means and instead embrace everyone's misconceptions.
So, for example, there are stereotypes of what a French movie is like, or what a Hollywood movie is like, or what a Hong Kong movie is like. Does this mean that now "French film" now means self-involved arty film and we have to find a new word to refer to films like "La Femme Nikita" and "Taxi" -- that they aren't French films any more?
If that is the case, then we have to admit that a role-playing game is a game played online with lots of other people -- and we should be searching for a new term for older games like D&D.
Quote from: jhkimThere is some truth to what you say -- that is, a lot of people are using it to mean a vaguely-defined "Forge-influenced/Forge-style". However, I don't think that this means the term has to be abandoned.
To take a very practical case: these days I'm administering the Indie RPG Awards (http://www.rpg-awards.com/), which were established back in 2002 when the creator-owned definition of indie was more in use, and there was less of a distinction of Forge-associated games being distinct from others. So, the question is, should these be renamed "The Creator-Owned RPG Awards"? That sounds sucktastic to me.
I ought to know, as I have been sponsoring the awards since the beginning. Which reminds me, I have a pay pal to send! :D
I argued this a bit with Andy when he started them, because he wanted to be inclusive, but call them Indie. I still think Small Press would be more inclusive a name, but I like what the awards are for, and I'll continue to support them no matter what the name. :D
-clash
Quote from: jhkimAnd yes, they try to sell their games as cool. That's what people are supposed to do about their games, in my opinion.
Not quite what Abyssal is arguing. He's pointing to something close to fetishization as it's been discussed at S-G. To help sort things out:
Do you design a game because doing so feeds your need to identify yourself as a game designer?
Or do you design a game because you actually enjoy designing games?
Or do you design a game because you enjoy making other people happy?
Or because you can make money from it?
Or because designing a game is a way of getting a game that you will enjoy playing?
Answering "yes" to the first question shows a greater or lesser degree of fetishization. Is it a real phenomenon? I leave that up to the reader.
I answered "yes" to all those questions except the first. The first one I'd respond with, "I didn't care if I felt myself a game designer, I just wanted people to think I was cool for writing a game."
Oh, also a qualified "yes" to the bit about making money. I thought it would be a pocket-money amount of cash, and I was right. I aso noticed that if you really want people to read the thing thoroughly and play it, you have to charge them for it. Otherwise it just joins the sad ranks of games which are much-praised and rarely-played.
Quote from: Elliot WilenNot quite what Abyssal is arguing. He's pointing to something close to fetishization as it's been discussed at S-G. To help sort things out:
Do you design a game because doing so feeds your need to identify yourself as a game designer?
Or do you design a game because you actually enjoy designing games?
...
The whole fetishization thing sounds like psychobabble to me. How can I tell if I'm feeding a fetishized need or whether I actually enjoy something? So, for example, I enjoy it when my players are happy. Does this mean that I'm fetishizing my need to be enjoyed? If I enjoy praise from my friends, does that mean that I crave attention and fetishize it -- or am I just, y'know, human?
I'll repeat -- as far as I can tell, the indie story game designers that I have met all genuinely enjoy playing their games and similar games. So, for example, I played three games with Ben Lehman this past weekend: Basic D&D, The Face of Angels, and A Thousand and One Nights. (Ben's author of Polaris -- a GMless game about fairy-tale knights at the North Pole, and thus is presumably grade-A swine.)
Quote from: jhkimThere is some truth to what you say -- that is, a lot of people are using it to mean a vaguely-defined "Forge-influenced/Forge-style". However, I don't think that this means the term has to be abandoned.
To take a very practical case: these days I'm administering the Indie RPG Awards (http://www.rpg-awards.com/), which were established back in 2002 when the creator-owned definition of indie was more in use, and there was less of a distinction of Forge-associated games being distinct from others. So, the question is, should these be renamed "The Creator-Owned RPG Awards"? That sounds sucktastic to me.
Given that said awards are only a front to do some mutual back-patting for Forge-approved games, I would say you could stick to using "indie".
Maybe the rest of us should just relegate the term "indie" to a ghetto term, meant to isolate forge games, possibly with some other derogatory junk added on (like "indie garbage"), and call decent RPGs "Small Press".
RPGPundit
Quote from: droogThat whole 'indie cred' thing is for teenagers. Grownups like what they like and don't worry about whether it has cred.
Sometimes I like to listen to the Carpenters. Nobody I know rates them, except for some girls. It doesn't seem to affect my relationship with my friend Clive, who constantly seeks out new and obscure music (which we seem to hear a few months before the radio plays it).
The Carpenters fucking rule. Superstar is one of my favorite songs.
Quote from: Abyssal MawThe Carpenters fucking rule. Superstar is one of my favorite songs.
What the fuck is going on here? Are you trying to make peace?
Me, I like 'Rainy Days and Mondays'.
Quote from: jhkimThe whole fetishization thing sounds like psychobabble to me.
In general or only applied to something that game designers
might do?
I think it's nicely applicable to lots of things. Basically, not valuing something for its inherent qualities but because of some magical connection. You find it a lot in collectors.
But if you're going to dismiss the concept out of hand then, whatever.
QuoteSo, for example, I played three games with Ben Lehman this past weekend: Basic D&D, The Face of Angels, and A Thousand and One Nights. (Ben's author of Polaris -- a GMless game about fairy-tale knights at the North Pole, and thus is presumably grade-A swine.)
Dude, are you addressing this to me? I know who Ben is.
Quote from: jhkimWords always have certain connotations and stereotypes. However, that doesn't mean that we have to follow the pattern of abandoning what a word means and instead embrace everyone's misconceptions.
So, for example, there are stereotypes of what a French movie is like, or what a Hollywood movie is like, or what a Hong Kong movie is like. Does this mean that now "French film" now means self-involved arty film and we have to find a new word to refer to films like "La Femme Nikita" and "Taxi" -- that they aren't French films any more?
If that is the case, then we have to admit that a role-playing game is a game played online with lots of other people -- and we should be searching for a new term for older games like D&D.
Perhaps you and the Pundit can fight over the last one.
As much a I admire your insistence on keeping the terms as they were, the fact is terms take on new meangings and the leave the old one in the garbage every day. Hooking Up? Dating? just a couple off the top of my head.
Sometimes you just can't go back to the old meaning.
None of that implies that because people play RPG's on line that RPG doesn't mean only that now. Words take on new meanings when people kinda agree to it. Nobody has attempted to take over the term RPG to mean only online gaming. Instead, common wisdom has attempted to sub-divide with things like TTRPG and CCRPG and everyone seems comfortable with that.
If, someday, I am one of a few thousand people playing TT RPG's, and the tens of millions of people who play CC RPG decide that really, RPG means what they do, I'll probably be stuck calling what I do TTPRPG or something. Damn my luck.
How did this turn into whether indie game designers actually play? As far as I know they pretty much all play regularly, or at least when the opportunity presents itself. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two don't, just on the laws of averages and all that, but generally these guys play as much as anyone else.
Is that seriously in dispute here? I'm seeing posts defending the Forge when other than Pundit's usual rants nobody was attacking it. Predicting an indie glut is not the same as saying teh Forge suxxors. Apart from anything else, I first encountered this concern in posts from Mike Holmes and Paul Czege on Storygames.
As for the semantics thing, whatever, until we got sidetracked into that nobody was struggling to communicate. Now we are looking for terminological exactitude the thread has been totally derailed, I'm not sure that's really a clear victory for communication.
Quote from: BalbinusAs for the semantics thing, whatever, until we got sidetracked into that nobody was struggling to communicate. Now we are looking for terminological exactitude the thread has been totally derailed, I'm not sure that's really a clear victory for communication.
As I've said before, the whole point of most semantic arguments is to avoid having to defend your weak ideas (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=5066487&postcount=353).
QuoteAs for the semantics thing, whatever, until we got sidetracked into that nobody was struggling to communicate. Now we are looking for terminological exactitude the thread has been totally derailed, I'm not sure that's really a clear victory for communication.
I´m actually very pissed by this rather obnoxious discussion tactic. Gimme a blunt attack, but spare me the semantics-syndicate.
I´m giving some people the benefit of doubt, though
They don´t neccessarily mean to be bad by doing so.
I'm sorry. I'm partially guilty for allowing myself to be drawn in.
I think you'll have a glut (why can't I publish - look how easy it is!), but not a "crash." It's too diversified for a "crash." The glut will be mainly crappy material that lives on for years on a website that almost nobody visits.
QuoteThe glut will be mainly crappy material that lives on for years on a website that almost nobody visits.
That´d be really sad.
Ron´s Vision was explicitly to (also) reach out to "all those guys with a geocities homepage", a part of the Forge-mindset that I always found to be worth of success.
Quote from: BalbinusHow did this turn into whether indie game designers actually play? As far as I know they pretty much all play regularly, or at least when the opportunity presents itself. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two don't, just on the laws of averages and all that, but generally these guys play as much as anyone else.
Is that seriously in dispute here? I'm seeing posts defending the Forge when other than Pundit's usual rants nobody was attacking it.
Well, I was responding to Elliot and Abyssal as well as Pundit, but fair enough.
Prior to the sidetrack, in
Post #21 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=67680&postcount=21), I wrote:
Quote from: jhkimThat everyone and their brother has their own game is nothing new. It's just that in the eighties and early nineties, people would call their game a "homebrew" rather than an "indie design". There was often less sophistication particularly in the writing and the printing.
In the last nineties, I started my list of Free RPGs on the Web -- and I was quickly amazed at how many people had their own game system, sometimes with hundreds of pages. My list quickly grew out into the hundreds, then passed a thousand. What has really changed now is that post-nineties, people now have the tools to really put together and publish a commercial game on their own.
To elaborate, the change that I see is that now there is a real independent design
community -- whereas before everyone came up with original ideas diverging from a starting point of D&D or another popular game. I think having a community has established a more prominent place of such designs as a whole. There will always be a bunch of designs which don't get much attention -- often deservedly so. The prominence of story games simply means that besides the D&D variant and complicated fantasy world, we will also have obscure story games as a type.
What I hope to see is more people recognizing the diversity of indie and small press designs, and it seems quite possible.
QuoteRon´s Vision was explicitly to (also) reach out to "all those guys with a geocities homepage", a part of the Forge-mindset that I always found to be worth of success.
He'll always be able to do that and it'd be good if everyone can take their sense of fun and turn it into a game that they actually enjoy with their friends, regardless of whether the game sees wider usage. I wouldn't consider this to be superior to people finding ways to have fun with existing games, though, and if it distracts from that, leading to wasted energy, it'd be less good.
When I say what I just did, I'm looking at gaming strictly as a hobby--that is, for the sake of argument I'm taking at face value Ron's claim that there's no gaming "industry", no meaningful division between creators and users of RPGs.
On the other hand if we accept that division, then a glut becomes meaningful in that consumers will have a hard time locating games they'll like, among the myriad games which are bad or simply unsuited to their tastes. And creators will similarly be harmed--not by competition (can't really complain about competition) but by market confusion as consumers can't find their stuff, or simply give up altogether in distrust.
That shows what I think is deficient so far, in the "cottage industry" model of indie gaming: a way for producers and consumers to find each other in a mutually beneficial fashion. The existence of the Internet and forums, even though they reduce the cost of marketing and make tactics such as "guerilla marketing" highly effective, does not really eliminate this problem.
I can think of a few things that might help tackle the problem:
Increased role for criticism. Currently difficult due to cultural wars and conflict of interest, and of course ultimately risks creating a critical elite that rules the hobby, just as the bad old "mainstream" publishers do now.
Name recognition for individual designers, as opposed to membership in a "movement", as a mark of quality. Risks development of a designer elite.
Increased accessibility of actual play reports that truly convey the manner in which a game is used--as opposed to campaign journals that concentrate on the fiction. The Forge has done a lot of this, though I also see a lot of gamer therapy and theory-testing that muddies the picture, as well as people who still don't get that AP reports aren't first draft fiction or news reports from the game world.
Quote from: jhkimThe prominence of story games simply means that besides the D&D variant and complicated fantasy world, we will also have obscure story games as a type.
What I hope to see is more people recognizing the diversity of indie and small press designs, and it seems quite possible.
Sometimes I think this diversity maybe a good idea for them, but now that I think of it, what benefit is there to the story game community if they become derivative of themselves, which is a possible conclusion? The market for these games is so small, will those few folks really be interested in games that are inspired by
Polaris or
Lacuna and go from there? Will that really grow their market or will the phrase 'Forge Heartbreaker' become a serious description for these games, and a reason for why no one will buy them?
Quote from: jhkimWell, I was responding to Elliot and Abyssal as well as Pundit, but fair enough.
To clarify, I wasn't making that claim, I was responding to your mixing together two different ways that products are conceived as "cool" for purposes of making and consuming them.
Apologies to all for the somantic red herring.
-clash
Personally, I think more diversity would be great. Overwhelming diversity. Let a thousand flowers bloom and all that. Surely the best ones will rise up to the top, right? Enrich our multi-hued rainbow of choices. By all means, please go about doing this. I am not being sarcastic or ironic, either.
But for gods sake.
SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE.
You aren't beat poets, rock stars, moral theosophers, or psychologists and you shutting the fuck up saves me the trouble of pointing that shit out. Just produce the game, make the goddamn thing available, and then .. I dunno.. disappear.
So here's one vote in favor of diversity! Glut or not!
Quote from: Abyssal MawPersonally, I think more diversity would be great. Overwhelming diversity. Let a thousand flowers bloom and all that. Surely the best ones will rise up to the top, right? Enrich our multi-hued rainbow of choices. By all means, please go about doing this. I am not being sarcastic or ironic, either.
But for gods sake.
SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE.
You aren't beat poets, rock stars, moral theosophers, or psychologists and you shutting the fuck up saves me the trouble of pointing that shit out. Just produce the game, make the goddamn thing available, and then .. I dunno.. disappear.
So here's one vote in favor of diversity! Glut or not!
I'm more and more in agreement, here.
QuoteIncreased role for criticism.
Well Elliot, that will always remain a dream. A nice one though.
For that, you´d need several central organs, like newspapers. You´d need an ongoing intellectual debate, most likely in several media to cater for different political views. Just like in newspapers.
But newspapers have reach and impact. Gaming forae do not. Why?
Because nobody except the users need them. The press is powerful, as long as it is needed for publicity.
So a review in the New York Times is important. A review on RPG.Net is worth shit.
That´s also because only very few venues offer reliably news on a regular basis, and most importantly: with known bias.
Choosing a newspaper or TV station is a major step in a political humans life. Some blogs already offer a stern value-centered reporting style. But most don´t.
Forae thereby have to act as a sort of substitute, and they continue to crack up under the weight of all the conflicting interests that people try to realize with them.
Only an oligarchy of major venues that are received by the majority of players would bring relevance to debate, and thusly relevance to criticism.
Quote from: Abyssal MawPersonally, I think more diversity would be great. Overwhelming diversity. Let a thousand flowers bloom and all that. Surely the best ones will rise up to the top, right? Enrich our multi-hued rainbow of choices. By all means, please go about doing this. I am not being sarcastic or ironic, either.
But for gods sake.
SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE.
I don't actually think that's possible.
The way I see it, the problem predates the Forge. Heck, it predates the internet. Gamers, shop owners and editors were already preaching back when this hobby was limited to brick and mortars and a few dead-tree zines. I've personally seen extremely loud arguments between Hero and GURPS fans. Literally shouting at each others' face.
Another instance, the old "role-playing VS roll-playing" argument is extremely old. Snobbing games because of their lack of realism, ignoring games based on brand recognition, etc. Just the other day, I was arguing with a really nice gamer dude who was offering me a ride. He's *never* been on the internet but
man, did he have some things to say about AD&D2nd edition VS 3rd! He turned from "nice" to "rabid" in no time.
Then these debates were accentuated by the internet. I mean, one look at the rpg-create mail list will tell you homebrew designers like to argue and it dates back to 98-99. Same with internet forums and gamers.
Today, it's not just about the Forge. It's also about Blog-mania. Blogs in and of themselves are about people who have a sense of self-importance and need to show off. Many in the Forge community have embraced it but we are seeing other designers use them and the trend will only accentuate.
It doesn't make G/N/S any less delusional than it is. I'm not excusing this. But loud debates about pointless things have always existed and, in the case of roleplaying, they will exist as long as there will be at least two gamers left on this planet.
I mean sure, all roleplaying theories are doomed. But beyond that, any single opinion on roleplaying game is condemned to lead to debate. Even the fact Louis Porter Jr. sucks donkey balls is debated.
Nothing will ever make concensus in this hobby.
See, I don't actually care about snarking on games. That doesn't bother me at all.
Let's say we're talking about breakfast, and we're all breakfast hobbyists. I, as a mainstreamer "love eggs". Fried, scrambled, whatever. But then there's some people who hate eggs, or maybe they're allergic to eggs or eggs killed their dad or something. And then there's a group of people who have given up eggs in favor of eating.. I dunno.. tofu.
They could totally be insulting to eggs, ("I hate eggs!" "Eggs are yucky!") and I wouldn't have much to say about it. Such is the nature of breakfast.
But when they start commenting about egg-eaters, or they start to make grandiose comparisons of themselves to egg-eaters, I pretty much have to reply. At that point, I'm gonna bite me off a piece of that tofu guy, just because I can, because it's easy, and because it's justified. Because that fuck is ruining my breakfast community.
Quote from: Consonant DudeThen these debates were accentuated by the internet. I mean, one look at the rpg-create mail list will tell you homebrew designers like to argue and it dates back to 98-99. Same with internet forums and gamers.
Today, it's not just about the Forge. It's also about Blog-mania. Blogs in and of themselves are about people who have a sense of self-importance and need to show off. Many in the Forge community have embraced it but we are seeing other designers use them and the trend will only accentuate.
Yeah, those bloggers are bad with their inflated self-importance -- but what's even worse are the forum posters. How pathetic is it to expose your desperate need to show off by posting something on some web-based forum? Sheesh.
:rant:
Seriously, is there something wrong with communication? I mean, I was part of the Hero vs GURPS arguments way back when. What's wrong with them? Discussion about games and game design is vital to a critical community.
Sure, an given online review or debate won't touch *that* many people, but it forms the first layer in the tree of word-of-mouth. i.e. A game which gets rave reviews on here or RPGnet will sell to some more people than it would otherwise. That increased exposure means that a more major person might pay attention to it -- say Ken Hite writes about it in his review column. Then maybe Mike Mearls reads Ken Hite's review and it makes it's way around that part, and maybe a staff writer for some company writes a review of it for a print magazine.
How fragile is a breakfast community if a guy calling egg eaters losers can damage it?
What's your point, James?
****
I think what's really changed, in the last decade or so, is the increasing contact between creators and consumers even while the roles are still in many ways distinct. E.g., it's traditional to think of your relationship differently if you are buying something, or prospectively buying something, and it's also traditional to regard someone differently if they create something for sale. Traditionally, consumers are entitled to criticize even in the rudest terms without concern about the creator personally setting them straight, and creators are traditionally entitled to a degree of "difference" or distance, even reverence. On the one hand they're expected to have thick skins, but put another way they're (imagined to be, and may succeed in thinking of themselves as) above it all.
Now those distinctions are breaking down. Consumers can confront creators directly and they are perhaps not aware of the real person. Meanwhile creators interact directly with consumers; they may want to be "regular folks" but that is prevented by artifacts of tradition (such as the commercial exchange) and a not-unfounded sense of a conflict of interest.
Basically, if I was in a conversation with Francis Ford Coppola, would I tell him to his face that The Godfather, Part III was a cheap betrayal of the earlier two films? Heck, I wouldn't even do that to George Lucas. But similarly it'd be completely out of line for either of them to hunt down their detractors on an internet forumt to trade insults.
The first place I really saw this happen was on rec.games.frp.advocacy, when one of the coauthors of Theatrix used the newsgroup to hawk his game and then respond to criticisms of his theory of roleplaying. IMO that led to far bigger flames than I'd seen previously, even compared to the pro- anti-D&D wars of the 80's.
I'm wondering why Abyssal feels the need to leap to the defense of his community when someone that doesn't know what the heck they're talking about makes a moronic insult.
That's a good question. Just wanted to acknowledge.
Actually, I'll do more than that, but I'll be brief: I think part of the problem is that the community isn't well defined, so when insults come it's not clear if they're from clueless outsiders or from insiders.
If they're labelling an entire group with an insult, they're almost certainly clueless, unless they're calling a group of scatologists shit-watchers or something. But in that case it's not really an insult, just a vulgarity. IMO insider vs. outsider doesn't really enter into it.
I'm sorry, I've once again lost track of your point. It's probably my fault for stepping into the back & forth between you and Abyssal Maw, so I will bow out now.
Quote from: jhkimYeah, those bloggers are bad with their inflated self-importance -- but what's even worse are the forum posters. How pathetic is it to expose your desperate need to show off by posting something on some web-based forum? Sheesh.
:rant:
Seriously, is there something wrong with communication?
What the fuck are you on? I didn't say it was wrong. I'm just pointing out what I concluded with my post: you can't have concensus regarding roleplaying games. I'm saying it's useless to point fingers at one place or another.
On blogs: yeah, most of them suck ass and are written by morons who like to pat themselves on the back and read themselves. That's simply how it is, whether you realise it or not. You can't compare that to a forum, unless it's something like Pundit's pointless personal section here, or creepy off-topic cesspools like Tangency.
Basically, Abyssal said he had to defend his hobby against people that would insult gamers. I wondered why it mattered, since anyone insulting an entire group is a moron.
Quote from: Elliot WilenThe first place I really saw this happen was on rec.games.frp.advocacy, when one of the coauthors of Theatrix used the newsgroup to hawk his game and then respond to criticisms of his theory of roleplaying. IMO that led to far bigger flames than I'd seen previously, even compared to the pro- anti-D&D wars of the 80's.
If it hadn't been for David Berkman's hard sell of Theatrix on rec.games.frp.advocacy, a lot of the theory discussions that led to the Threefold wouldn't have happened. So while there were certainly flames, it was also a catalyst to get people to explain what did and didn't make a game fun for them.
Yeah, I was there. And actually, I don't think of the Threefold as a good thing in itself, more as an antidote to the arguments that Berkman started. And in fact I think I dropped out of rgfa partly because of the over-systematization and flights of theoretical fancy...not to mention that the Threefold led to GNS...so I don't view it as an unalloyed good, not by any means. Besides, other gamer-taxonomy approaches had already been published (e.g. Blacow), and it's not as if discussions of preference hadn't already occurred on the Usenet as e.g. this thread (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp/browse_frm/thread/4e3025fd27b1d919/) that I like to bring up from time to time.
In fact Berkman's obtuseness, linked to his creator's-hubris in evangelizing for his game, might be partly responsible for the excesses of GDS, as people split hairs in an effort to overcome what were, on the face of it, some pretty ridiculous claims.
The need people feel to defend, even when not attacked, on both sides does more damage than anything else.
Take this thread, I did not attack the Forge, I didn't even particularly have the Forge in mind when I posted this. I was actually thinking primarily of a discussion I had seen on Storygames where Mike Mearls and Paul Czege made similar arguments in response to some game design competitions that were run there.
However, I got comments back eventually about how I should get terms right if I was going to attack the Forge, which I hadn't.
It goes both ways, someone starts a thread about their deep love of say Burning Wheel, and then someone feels the need to defend D&D because they think it's somehow being attacked, sometimes it's not even been mentioned before the defences start coming into the thread.
Anyway, thread drift happens, but for me this thread has been effectively killed due to an argument about semantics and a defence of a website I didn't even have particularly in mind when posting. I have no idea how much game design is currently being done at the Forge, my impression was it was mostly now Storygames and the blogosphere, for better or worse the indie gaming scene although Forge derived has grown far beyond that and I'm not especially persuaded the Forge is as important to that scene as it once was.
But no doubt someone will perceive that as an attack too, just like if someone posts saying they think the mainstream gaming industry is in trouble someone always takes that as an attack on their gaming preferences.
Sometimes an observation is just an observation, I buy and play Forge inspired/indie/thematic/story/whatever games, if I post about them then part of my perspective comes from the fact I am genuinely interested in how they do as I am one of the people who buy and play them. Of course, the general insistence that one must take sides makes that actually less practical as time goes on.
I don't see how you could divide the site itself from the topic of the thread; considering that if there is an "Indie glut" its undoubtedly the Forge that has brought it about.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Abyssal MawPersonally, I think more diversity would be great. Overwhelming diversity. Let a thousand flowers bloom and all that. Surely the best ones will rise up to the top, right? Enrich our multi-hued rainbow of choices. By all means, please go about doing this. I am not being sarcastic or ironic, either.
But for gods sake.
SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE.
You aren't beat poets, rock stars, moral theosophers, or psychologists and you shutting the fuck up saves me the trouble of pointing that shit out. Just produce the game, make the goddamn thing available, and then .. I dunno.. disappear.
So here's one vote in favor of diversity! Glut or not!
I am Imperator and I support this post.
QuoteI am Imperator and I support this post.
Then we are of the same opinion.
Quote from: SettembriniThen we are of the same opinion.
Great!