The Forge Archives

Following the B-day party theme...

You know how sometimes you get drunk and brutal honesty follows.  This is that thread.  Remember, it's the booze talking.

My posting here has been way down.  Almost non-existent, actually.  It makes me sad, because I love this place.  I love many of the people here.  But shit, I just got nothing to say.  I'm not designing anything.  Well, I try, but it's all shit.  I'm not playing much either.  And when I try, it turns out to be shit too.  I could join in the theory discussions, but you know, for me it's not a suitable surrogate for the other two.

But hey, what's that got to do with The Forge, right?  Well, I'll tell ya'.  I think many of you are having the same problem, and choose to soldier on anyway.

For starters, look at the Actual Play forum.  Or don't...there's not really any point.  Nothing new is getting played.  I'm happy for The Riddle of Steel, Sorcerer, InSpectres and Burning Wheel.  The fact that those games are getting posted about is great, and I don't begrudge them it a bit.  We need to keep playing and posting about those games, because they are the success stories of the indie movement.  But increasingly it appears to me that they are the indie movement, at least as far as The Forge is concerned.  Gone are the days of experimental game play, aimed at broadening horizons.  Gone are the days of the X-game.  I rejoiced in the return of our own Zak Arntson, but he's just one person.

And when someone does post about a really interesting play experience – Wraiths, for instance – it goes largely ignored, or at best becomes a conversation between the poster and maybe one or two other people.

Maybe I'm just being wistful here.  Maybe the old days were never as great as I remember them.  Maybe it was just Ron and Zak and Blake and a few others crutching up an otherwise lackluster forum.  I don't think so though.  Why aren't people here – especially people like John Kin, who has clout to spare – pioneering new frontiers, rather than playing games where horses try to have sex with player characters?

And then there's game design.  Lots of ideas floating around out there .  No new games though.  Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe three – Robots & Rapiers, Dogs in the Vinyard, and 9 Worlds – that move forward with any level of earnestness.  But knowing their designers, that's not a surprise.  Where are all the rest?  Where are the games moving towards publication, even if that publication "just" means a freebie for download?  And if you say "mine's right here", I want to know, why aren't you playing and posting about it?

Mind you, I'm not saying design more games.  The forum is clogged with stuff already; it's no wonder people can't get good feedback there.  I want to know who has something to say, something they feel passionately about.  I want to know who those next great couple game designers are going to be.  Are they Forge people?  Right now it sure doesn't seem like it.

So what's the point?  Am I just talking about the "noise to sound" ratio?  Maybe.  Do I want to redefine what "noise" is?  Not really.  Do I want an indie game community where people actually play and design indie games rather than just theorize about them?  Yes.

- Scott

One game of mine, Snowball, is available on the web and getting tossed into the "No Press Anthology #1" to boot.  As a variation of The Pool, I'm not sure if it's a full and complete "game", but I like it anyway, and it's something that' both been created and been played.  The threads for it are mostly, at the moment, in the ROCG forum, and a new one was created recently in response to some Actual Play over in Italy, of all places.  Those threads should be moving to my company forum, if/when it becomes a reality.

Another game of mine, Fastlane, will soon be available as a for-sale PDF and a published product.  You haven't seen much in the way of posting for it recently because the playtests of the game have completed themselves (the Actual Play threads are still out there), and there's been no NEW play since then, and nothing to speak about since the rules have crystallized and are off in layout.  

Fastlane has been moving forward for months, mostly quietly, not really making a big splash for whatever reason or reasons (maybe 'cause it uses a Roulette wheel, maybe 'cause it's just sort of "out there") but it will be for sale this month, barring catastrophic real-life issues from Matt Snyder, the man doing my layout (and god forbid he actually experiences catastrophic real-life issues).

And yes, I've been playing Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel in person (one, then the other, really) - TRoS concurrently with Fastlane as a player, and BW subsequently as a GM, and have dropped the ball on making Actual Play posts about it, possibly because it hasn't really inspired me to make Actual Play posts.  I've been running a Sorcerer online through play-by-post, which doesn't inspire making a lot of posts solely because it's already a bunch of posts.  But there are Actual Play posts about Fastlane, small though they are.  I'm not playing it right now because I like variety, and frankly I had too much Fastlane during the playtesting phase.  I'm not posting about it because, well, it's out of the design process, I've got my publishing ducks lined up in a row, and there's no new Actual Play to discuss.  There's nowhere else, really.

(There's one other designed game on my site that's more than half-baked, a redesign of the original Creeks and Crawdads, an out-there concept that, while fun, doesn't really attract the players.  The one time it was Actually Played, there was a post about it too.)

And I'm ashamed to admit, I've been slacking and stagnating on designing some of the other ideas that have popped into my head, working towards turning them into actual roleplaying game products (and some of them are truly meant to be future products for Twisted Confessions, my game design label/company/whatever).  I've been waiting for two goalposts - Fastlane to turn into a published product, instead of an on-the-cusp project (and I jokingly blame Elfs for the delay, 'cause Matt Snyder had some sort of writer's block on the layout, and it was in line before Fastlane), and for Twisted Confessions to get its own forum (which is more an empty excuse than an actual reason).

Anyway, now you know the reasons why I'm not playing or posting about either of my big games, although one (Snowball) is at least getting SOME posting from others.  If there was a place where I could post "hey, look, I'm finally published!" I would certainly do that when my game was complete.  But none of the forums really look suitable.

Besides my games, however, I would like to point out the first game that pops into my head (besides Robots and Rapiers, and my own works) when I think of games that are happening and progressing here at the Forge:  "Great Ork Gods."  Heck, I've seen enough excitement over that game to be jealous.  What's Dogs in the Vineyard?  I can't say I've even HEARD of that one...

Well, I have a microgame being published and I'm working on Tactics as well as I can whilst juggling a couple of other creative projects and intensive schoolwork on top of that...

I mean, is Tactics going to be the next Big Commercial Success Indie Game?  Probably not.  At this point in my life I don't have the internal or financial resources to publish and distribute a paper-press game, and I honestly don't know if the life of a game publisher is for me.  But I do intend to design it and get it out there, because its a good game, and I want people to play it.

So the Forge is not perhaps as dead as all that.  It's different, sure -- different audience, different people -- and it will never compete with the force of nostalgia.  But, even if it could, I wouldn't want it to.  There's a lot of great stuff going on here, in terms of recongnition of a lot of different types of play and game designs, and I think that it's really grown since the "old days."

(I am slightly bitter about how everyone always bitches about how quiet Actual Play is but *never posts questions* about play experiences.  So go on.  Post there.  If you build it, they will come.)

yrs--
--Ben

READ MY SIG. IT IS TRUE! PEOPLE ARE READING THE FINAL DRAFT VERSION RIGHT NOW COME TOMORROW MORNING! I AM GOD. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!

Hi Scott,

I agree and I don't, here's why:

There are games in real development, really moving toward publication, if ever so quietly--my case in point, before each and every author stops by to point out his game individually, is the No Press Anthology. There's over half a dozen Forge designed games in there. All of the games have been through editing. Layout, final proofreading, and final layout are all in the immediate future. This thing is coming out. Soon. For real. It might have been under your radar--most of the grunt work happens outside of the Forge. But the initial game developments were all almost entirely done here, in Indie Design.

That said, I still see your point. Not that I'm sure there's much that can be done about it. I mean, everybody comes here for different reasons. Ron has often stated that Actual Play and Publishing are the two forums that he sees as being absolutely central to the Forge. But you know, they're not the most popular ones. RPG Theory and GNS dominate most discussions.

Now when I first found the Forge, the only thing I cared about was the Indie Design forum. I read it, I sought out the games, and I picked up theory as a side effect. But I didn't post much--I didn't have anything substantial to offer, as far as completed or even really seriously in-development games. And at the time, I didn't feel like I had a lot to offer from a feedback perspective. I feel differently about that now, but here's the rub--I can't be bothered to post much in Indie Design. Even though I think it's great. Why? It is a lot of work.

Reading through a game or portion of a game for development and giving good feedback is just a lot of work. It's time consuming. And then what happens? The game never sees the light of day. It's dropped. Left to the side. Now this doesn't happen all the time, but it happens often. When a game does make it to web-published status or for pay status, playtested and revised by the author, that's cool. But most games don't.  

It's a lot of work to reply to those games in there, and I have a ton of respect for the people who manage to do it consistently (Mike Holmes has been doing this for a long time, and he still keeps it up. Other people are great in there as well). So it's work. And then there are the obvious idea dumps, which I tend to ignore, and then there are the games designed by folks who just haven't encountered many games yet. Those are really hard--you know, usually you bang your head against the wall trying to open their eyes to the possibilities only to frustrate them, or annoy them, or get involved in a long discussion saying the same things over and over that you've said a million times, or something. And then what? You never hear from them again. Ever. Have any of those games ever been transformed from heartbreakers to games that know what they're doing and why? Have any of those games ever been published? I don't know. I suspect not. I wonder if the effort people put in to giving feedback might have been better spent in other ways. Would the Indie Design forum be more productive if, say, we all went in and said, "Today, I'll only reply on Indie Design thread. And only the one I think is worthwhile. The one I think might have a real chance of being published." I don't know. I'm tempted to do this one, but I can't imagine I'd manage to post consistently enough. If throwaway ideas, and people who are all talk and no design, and so on were just ignored in the Indie Design forum, the threads allowed to drop off to oblivion, while everyone focused only on replying to the really juicy stuff, would that help? Again, maybe. But for some people, I suspect, that would ruin what Indie Design means to them.

Indie Design could be seen as something on a continuum with Publishing. Each is at one end of the process. But right now, I don't think it functions that way. And you know, there's only so much that can be done about that. It's up to the people who use it to make it work. Now what if a few people, say you and me, said OK, let's just go into Indie Design every day and reply only to substantive games and encourage them toward publication, would we make a difference? Maybe so. But only if we did it instead of talking about it, and frankly, I'm pretty busy. My own answer was to sign up as free editor for the No Press Anthology. Sending in a game submission to us was a promise to complete it and work on it, so I knew my efforts wouldn't be wasted.

Anyway, some people, many people, I think, are here for the RPG theory discussions. And those discussions, at least to me, feed good design and good play, so I see them as very valuable. But yeah, they dominate the Forge. They have become in a sense what the Forge is and does, primarily. Whether you see that as a good or bad thing is your call. I'm not too bothered by it. Partly, I think it's fairly natural. A game design is a focused project that requires prep time to get involved with, even to give feedback. Theory, hell, anyone can jump into a theory discussion with no prep time. On top of that, most conversations thrive on disagreements. A lot of theory threads burst into action fast because people disagree, they want to say they disagree, and they don't care that somebody's already said it. Now it's done pretty socially around here, it's pretty friendly, and it happens all the time in normal day-to-day conversation. So I don't see it as a real problem, either. If everyone agrees, well, there's not much to talk about :-)

Rich

Guys,

No, the No Press Anthology isn't off my radar.  I'll buy it when it comes out.  I'm glad that the people involved with it have made a committment to seeing it completed, and that alone makes it a success story.  Kudos.

I'm glad Orx is coming out.  I'm happy about Fastlane.  I hope Tactics sees print.  My definition of success has nothing to do with whether those games make a "big splash", or whether they're even in print.  Freebies in html on a webpage are fine.  We used to have those all the time around here; not so anymore.

What does qualify as success for me, and I should think it would for all of you too, is whether or not your game is being played.  At the very least you should be playing it yourself.  Because if you don't have the enthusiasm for it, no one else will.

Game Design and Theory have the same agenda.  They both attempt to address issues with play, hoping to create a better, more enjoyable play experience.  And if you accept that as true, then Design and Theory can only follow from Actual Play and to Actual Play.  Without it, you are going no where, and worse, you're coming at it from no where.  Think about that last part a little; you might be trying to say something with a given design or bit of theory, but if you're not coming at it with personal experience derived from play, then where's your enthusiasm coming from?

And that's what I'm really getting at here.  Indie games by people who don't play usually fail, because the apathy is evident to the audience.  Theory from those who don't play rings hollow, because they have no cred to back up their arguments.  These may still be good games, and the theorizing may still be sound, but they lack enthusiasm, vitality, conviction, and urgency.  

And that's The Forge for you, by and large.

- Scott

Scott,

I'm with you on the importance of actual play. Play your game, love your game, and then publish it. Absolutely. And by the same token, play feeds good theory. Again, absolutely. I just assume that the people here who talk a lot of theory also play a lot. I could be wrong in that assumption. I play as much as I can. I get an IRC game with friends back home in bi-weekly or more (currently the Marvel Universe RPG, with a recent two week Street Fighter game thrown in). I also have played D&D 3, AD&D 2: Player's Option, Risus, and Hero Quest with people I've met here in Hong Kong over the last couple months. And I've played fairly often--we played Hero Quest just yesterday, and had a lot of fun. But I don't talk about it much. I assume the same of other posters--a lot of play, but they're not posting about it for whatever reason.

Of course, you'll note that none of the games I listed in new Indie games. And none are my own. But that's something that comes and goes. Both groups, both my friends back home and my new group here, are open to trying out games (they're interested in different kinds, but generally). And I've played most of my own game designs with my friends back home even though I haven't posted about any of those play experiences or even about the design of the games in the Design forum.

But I have no idea if I'm representative. Does everyone play a lot? And yet not post about it?

In which case the question becomes, why aren't I, why aren't they, posting in Actual Play? Because you know, I can definitely see its value. I don't know that I can say why, but I have a couple guesses. For me, time is an issue, often. But that doesn't completely explain it. I guess there's also the issue of positioning. You know, when someone posts to Actual Play, they're in this position of having to open up. In order to get the most out of it, you have to be willing to say, "This is what we did, this is where it might have worked, this is where it might not have worked." So you have to open up, let loose, and let people know where you might not have gotten it right. If you're trying to position yourself as a heavy-duty theorist, I can imagine this could be difficult. You have to be vulnerable to critique. Or, alternately, you can go in there as the guy who knows it all and is sharing techniques. This doesn't work either, and in any case, posts in the Actual Play forum don't seem to get many replies. What do you say? That's the problem. People don't usually use it to set up a question. Instead, it's used to summarize either events (not so interesting) or techniques (more interesting) and issues. Of these, usually it's only dysfunction that gets a lot of feedback. I suppose it's harder to have something substantial to say about the others, and you know, when you post something in Actual Play and it gets little feedback, again, it becomes kind of a "why bother." At least, that could be part of it.

I'd love to hear what other people think about that, though.

Whether the Forge has really lost its edge or not, I dunno. It certainly isn't as edgy for me as it was when I found it. But is that the Forge that got less edgy or did I just get used to it? I don't know.

Rich

I feel that, in regards to Actual Play, the threads that don't have dysfunction get *very* little traffic.

Case in point, Xiombarg posts some sweet logs of his IRC games and gets *no* response.  *none*

This is just one of many.  I think that if there were more room for discussion of Actual Play, there would be more traffic.  And for that, we need a more robust Theory than Nesting Dolls, by which I mean we need a theory that does more than target and eliminate dysfunction, but can also be used to deconstruct and examine positive play experience in a way that others can learn from it and we can understand how it happens uniquely each time.

So -- who's up for the theory?

Wow, this is topic drift.  I feel bad.

yrs--
--Ben

Hi Ben,

I think it's pretty well on topic, actually, Ben. At least it's one of the threads that Scott talks about in the first post, which has some links to Actual Play. And I think it's a good point, though I'd pose it as a question--what do we need to get more people to post in Actual Play? (This assumes that we agree it's valuable, and useful, and so on, as Scott is arguing, and that it would be good if more people posted in there.)

Now your answer is an angle on theory that focuses less on fixing dysfunction and more on dissecting successful play. I'm open to any theory suggestions, but I'm hardly going to be the guy to get behind doing something like that. But what's more, I wonder if that's really what we need. I don't know. It could have an effect, but is there a quicker way? (Is this thread part of the answer?)

I think Scott is implying that, among other things, people need to actually recognize the value of the Actual Play forum. That's definitely something, too, but I don't know how to convince people of it.

And then there's the issue of what makes a good post in Actual Play. Sure, there's a real responsibility for people to reply. But the initial poster has a responsibility to get the thread off to a good start.  

Given the example of a post of an IRC chat log, I just don't know where to start with it. Usually, it's very one-sided. It only presents the "narrative," devoid of the "game." It's not a post of an RPG session, in a sense. It's just another version of "in our game, we did this, and we did that, and then we did this." So it's not approachable as an RPG, not given what we know about RPGs and how we play and the importance of the rules. What's more, like any recount, it doesn't offer any questions. It doesn't offer any issue to deal with. It doesn't offer any advice, either. It's just there. You know, and all I can say is, "Great, looks like you guys had fun." Or something like that. So I don't bother. So the initial post, in order to engage conversation, has to also pose a question, or an issue, or even a theoretical point related to the play. Otherwise, no one is going to respond. No one is going to know how to respond. No one has anything to respond to.

But then, of course, people have to take Actual Play as a forum seriously as well. Once the post is made in Actual Play, other people have to bother to read it and then think about what they have to offer. They need to treat a recount post like an Indie Design game that is offered with little info--they need to ask meaty questions. Some people do this, actually. I've seen recounts transformed into real play issues by people who respond to draw things out of the initial poster. And actualy, this is where the "Techniques" part of the model does fit in. There are so many possible techniques topics that could be addressed via Actual Play but rarely are.

On the other hand, I think a lot of RPG Theory posts and GNS forum posts are informed by actual play. They aren't devoid of it. They sometimes even bring in immediate examples from "My game this week." So there may be some "covert actual play" that isn't getting posted in the actual, Actual Play forum. These things feed into each other, so that makes sense as well.

So ok, we have one suggestion, which is another angle on the theory. We also have this thread, which is a kind of "what do you think" consciousness raiser about the importance of Actual Play to the Forge. What else?

If I'm pushing this thread off topic with all this, Scott, feel free to set me straight :-)

Rich

Not quite discussion... more of a contrary datapoint, really.

I play a few times a month. I almost never post about it because 1) I only get around 30 minutes on the Forge a day and 2) I'm trying to finish up a playtest version of the game I'm working on.

I'm working on a superhero game called Excelsior! Never heard of it, that's likely 'cause I've never posted it to Indie Design or anywhere? Why? Because, since I only have 30 minutes a day, I never read Indie Design. How could I possibly read people's game designs and comment on them, as well as read other threads that intereset me in a half hour? Can't do it.

Therefore, I can't bring myself to post to Indie Design. It's getting something without giving something back. It's jus tplain wrong. But, Scott, if you want to read the playtest version, I'll gladly send it to you.

I don't play as many experimental games as I'd like 'cause I'm the only one in my group that likes 'em. My indine gaming group only meets once a month or so, so we don't go through games very quickly.

Can't speak for the rest of the site, but that's where I'm at.

Quote from: Ben Lehman
This is just one of many.  I think that if there were more room for discussion of Actual Play, there would be more traffic.  And for that, we need a more robust Theory than Nesting Dolls, by which I mean we need a theory that does more than target and eliminate dysfunction, but can also be used to deconstruct and examine positive play experience in a way that others can learn from it and we can understand how it happens uniquely each time.

So -- who's up for the theory?

That paragraph should REALLY by its own post on the RPG Theory board.

You might be on to something there.

Scott,

Hey, man, good to hear from you. How the hell are you. The other day, I was thinking, "Gee, what the hell is Scott Knipe up to? We never hear from him." Seriously!

I'm right there with you. So, this is a Hell Yeah post.

Now, I've got to get back to two things: Finalizing Lxndr's Fastlane layout and writing Nine Worlds -- good to see it was on your radar screen!

Later,
Matt

Scott,

Well, I was just about to post that I don't have no truck with you, beause there (points) are my boys over in indie-netgaming playing like mad.

Only, we really aren't, any more. I mean, we still play. There's a HQ game, there's a Sorcerer game, there's talk of a TROS game and a Pool game. And that was your point all along.

I remember the old days (a year or two ago... gee) when we had new games constantly coming out. Indie-netgaming was one of the first non-Zak groups to play Shadows. Same with Otherkind. James himself did the TQB playtests there. We played Noches de las Vampiros (it was broken as heck, but we still had fun). We played Otherkind. We played Trollbabe. It was like the first time you get a library card.

So, yeah. You're right.

Quote from: Rich ForestGiven the example of a post of an IRC chat log, I just don't know where to start with it. Usually, it's very one-sided. It only presents the "narrative," devoid of the "game." It's not a post of an RPG session, in a sense. It's just another version of "in our game, we did this, and we did that, and then we did this." So it's not approachable as an

Hmmm, I dunno what thread you're reading, but when I post IRC logs, I post both the narrative and the "ooc" logs, that let you know about the "game" as it's going on. Everything is captured.

And I try, tho I don't always succeed, to come up with some points for discussion. But people rarely respond, except for my players.

Hi there,

I have a lot to talk about in this thread, but for this post, I'll restrict it to one topic: posting about fun and successful play, and why it receives less discussion.

You know something? I don't think that's a problem, for the goals of the Forge and for (in my view) healthy-minded people. A brief discussion with a few people, in such a case, has a huge impact in terms of readership. It's inspiring. It generates sales. It helps people in their games in the long term, affecting them perhaps even under their own perceptual radar. It provides an archive for people to refer to when helping someone who is having problems.

What it doesn't do is feed the fucking ego of the initial poster. It doesn't generate controversy, higher post-counts, opportunities to sound off, and pages of responses. No - it does a good thing, and it's done.

So you know what? I'm disgusted. I think folks should post about their successful play as much as they can.

How about me? I'm constrained, people. If it's not moderating, it's Adept Press. If it's not Adept Press, it's clarifying theory. Then it's Publishing and Actual Play, and only then, after that, is it Indie Design. That's me and the Forge; my posting choices are severely limited compared to yours.

I have been drafting, in moments of spare time, actual play posts about Elfs, Extreme Vengeance, Pocket Universe, Star-Lit Hell, and as of yesterday, The Great Ork Gods. You'll see them eventually. But you guys are not as constrained as me in terms of just keeping this place going and (in many cases) in terms of keeping my business viable. You have no excuse.

So put aside your internet-egos and freaking post in Actual Play. Your good experiences will become a thousand people's desperately-needed help, over the course of just a few months.

Best,
Ron

QuoteSo put aside your internet-egos and freaking post in Actual Play. Your good experiences will become a thousand people's desperately-needed help, over the course of just a few months.

(note: to maintain the Forge birthday party atmosphere, everyone has to imagine me holding a keg cup filled with beer that's gotten a bit warm)

You know, this is exactly why I don't post about my stuff in Actual Play any more. I did, and the threads summed up pretty well why it works for me, and how, and further posts will be more of the same. Who does that benefit besides my internet ego?

Next time we play something from a Forgonian, I'll be happy to post about it. And when the playtesters post about my stuff, I'll be happy to see anything new they have to add.

And when my labor of love is done, I'll pimp that shit like nobody's business.

Note that none of the aforementioned playtesters of said game is that good fer nuthin' Scott Knipe. If he wants more Actual Play posts, he could volunteer. I'm just sayin'.

Hey Ron,

Your good experiences will become a thousand people's desperately-needed help, over the course of just a few months.

Oh yeah, I think this cuts exactly to the heart of what Scott is saying. He has played widely, playtested lots of indie games, learned a lot, and shared that with folks through posts and emails. And now he's blocked. He's not playing, and he's not satisfied with his play. And so when he turns to The Forge for insight into how others may have solved the issues he's struggling with, he finds lots and lots of theorizing about play by folks who aren't playing or who have a grossly limited range of play experiences, and it isn't helpful. He's forced to think that either folks haven't played themselves to the point of having to deal with the problems he's facing, or that they have and they aren't posting about it or designing games that organize play in a way that addresses it.

Paul

Rich Forest said:

QuoteI think Scott is implying that, among other things, people need to actually recognize the value of the Actual Play forum.

I'm not just implying it, I'm saying it right out loud for all The Forge to hear.  And I'm saying that there are people here, as Mr. Miller confirms, who take what they need and never give back.  I'm saying that there are people here who talk the indie game, but then it's right back to d20 or WW or whatever else is big at the moment.  And I'm saying that there are some people here - maybe only a few, but notable because of their high-profiles - who barely play at all, but certainly offer their advice about it all the time.

As Paul points out, I have a selfish angle to all of this.  So here's what I want.

I want a Forge where people are playing indie games, and secondarily, designing cool indie games for play.  

I want The Forge to be successful in introducing new games to an audience, and vice versa.

I want the Forge denizens to be proactive in their indie gaming, and not just standing around waiting for Ron to point the way.  He's too busy to be telling us all what we should be playing these days.

I want John Kim to swing some of that clout around, putting it to use towards the indie movement.

I want to see the prolific theorizers knee-deep in the Actual Play forum, developing a breadth of gaming experience that rivals all others.

I want to see us take that next step, because we've plateaued at this point.  But I want us to love it and vigorously take up the challenge, and no impassioned plea from myself or anyone else can make that happen.  And if it's not going to happen, I want to know why?  Why don't you guys want to play these games?

And don't tell me it's because you can't find people to play with.

- Scott

Notes:

Rich: You have a breadth of gaming experience that people around here should be jealous of.  I know you're busy, but people could really benefit from what you have to say.

Mike: Same thing as Rich.  And I'd dig checking out your superhero game, although I need to warn you, I've been tinkering with my own ideas about the genre.

Ben: I don't know where to go with your "deconstruction of successful play" theory proposal, but I'm not going to nay-say it either.

Matt: You probably don't realize it, but I've followed the development of PTA for quite some time now.  I should have listed it along with 9 Worlds and the others (I should know better than to make those lists because someone always gets excluded).  In some ways, PTA is probably a better example of the sort of game design I'm hoping to encourage here, because yours is a freshman venture, almost entirely developed in plain view of The Forge.  It, like MLwM, represents the model I would point aspiring indie game designers to; that is, the author has a broad range of play experiences, which inform his design goals, ultimately leading back to the gaming table, where new, fun play experiences are had as a result.

QuoteIt's not a post of an RPG session, in a sense. It's just another version of "in our game, we did this, and we did that, and then we did this."

This is why I avoid logs of games. They're devoid of immediate impact, and incredibly difficult to parse for a vaguely interested observer. Alot of crap to wade through in order to find the diamonds.

Give me points and highlights and conversation bits, damnit! Not a frickin' column of "<ScottG> Morpheme rides the high wire. <Nate> Excelsior chases him. <ScottG> I roll d20 and get a 12." That would be like recording your gaming session on audio and then playing it as a report of Actual Play. BAH!

As for posting to Actual Play, I have a post in the works about recent play -- this comes after around six months of no real gaming whatsoever. However, for me, the only play I'm able to get is two (sometimes three) hours once a week with my 3E group.

Why?

First, no local group. No chance at a local group. IRC is it for my gaming.

Second, family. Specifically, wife. Once a week is it -- in order to play, I have to leave her alone with all four of our kids at bedtime; doing so more than once a week would be incredibly self-centered of me.

Third, families of the rest of the group. We simply don't have the time to devote to gaming we did pre-children, and undertaking new systems just isn't going to happen. It's been put forward and tried.

Fourth, making a living and actually working on game projects. I'm much less active at the Forge now than I was even a year ago, because all the free time I had for the Forge is now being channeled into actual design and writing.

I'd love for all of this to change, to find a local group I could play different games with, to be able to game more than once a week for a couple hours, and to be able to post more at the Forge (especially about playing all these awesome games everyone has).

So, you know what, Scott? Go play ORX. Then tell me about it on the forums. Strike up a conversation with me about play, or anyone about your play. Play the games being talked about, and then talk about the play.

If you want to feel the love, you gotta put it out yourself. That goes for everyone, not just Scott. So, Forge-folk, if you aren't designing, start playing. Right now. DO IT.

Start playing your fellow Forge-folk's games!

As for my playing 3E as opposed to indie games...see above.

No local group. And yes, I've looked. That's why I spent six months in gaming purgatory recently.

In fact, I'd love to find a stable, committed group on-line...and I mean committed. That means you say you're going to play on Thursday night, you're there unless someone died or your computer exploded. No ditching because "other things got in the way," which is what I've seen time and time again.

That's also why I'm loyal to my current group. They are THERE unless someone's dead or their computer is fried. Period. I've had them show up puking, and apologize for being sick when we call the game so they can get some needed rest.

I had high hopes for the Indie Netgaming group, but they're...well, I'm just going to say it, no pulling punches: they're flaky, damnit. Half the time, group members flake out and never show for planned games, and a good chunk of the time the planned games don't occur, at least if the traffic on the mailing list is any indication.

So, where, folks, can I find players who are willing to play games on-line from 9 or 10pm Central time to gods-forbid in the morning once a week without fail?

If anyone out there has the balls for that, talk to me, but don't waste my time. Yeah, I'm talking a hard-core-indie-punk-advancement-stance with that challenge. Who else is willing to make the sacrifice?

Hey...  Y'know, what I noticed about the Forge is that, at one point, there were great games being played, designed, and admired like I'd walked into a river of gold.  I couldn't help but stumble into the happy, great games.

Now, I keep reading the Indie Design forum, listening to people spout about their games played... AND THEY ARE ALL WHITE WOLF AND D20!

Now, while I do have a personal hatred for these systems that borders on maniacally insane... I find that rehashing D&D or WW seems to be well not-indie.  

And, for those wondering, I despise d20, in all incarnations, mainly because it has already been fucking done.  It was done in the 70's, it was done in the 80's, it was done in the 90's, and fuckall, it is getting done again.  And nothing has changed.  Changing + modifiers into - modifiers does not change probability.  Nothing has been altered in the game since day 1.  It is still a pointless and fruitless dungeon crawl with only killing things and taking their shit as a benchamrk of success.  Stop thinking you are playing something new, stop thinking you are playing a game that has/requires/advocates creativity... it is masturbating with your friends... not sex!

Hmmm.... that may have come out too.... honestly.

Anyway, people, what I am asking, and no, I am not asking Moose or Clinton or those who obviously "get it" (and, if you are wondering if that's you, then it isn't)... I mean the people thinking that changing cards for dice changes a system, people that feel that having races and classes in a game is a good thing, someone who wants to nitpick the necessity of Strength, Endurance, and fucking Robustness in the same game (the correct answer: NONE OF THEM!).  Three, six, nine, twenty attributes, it doesn't matter.  Screw rules for swimming, I don't give a flying fuck how your game handles climbing, and if I have to read more than a page or so on how to stick a sword through a head, I swear, I will find you at your homes and show you that it does not require that long to explain.

I want the river of gold back, I don't want to dig through the muck and shit for some nugget.

Dav

A community is made up of its members. If you don't like something, change it.

Ah, yes...

Mr. Greer... when I begin methodically culling the herd of d20 players, promise me that you will stand for me in court.  

Dav

Thanks Ethan. I agree.

QuoteYour good experiences will become a thousand people's desperately-needed help, over the course of just a few months.

The problem is that it's very hard to see sometimes how a post of positive play will help anyone. I mean, if you put a lot of detail in, nobody reads because it's hard to find the useful stuff in the mix. If you post little, you'll probably miss the important stuff.

That said, we post a lot. I posted about the Unsung game a lot recently. And realize that many actual play posts are in other fora. You can read up on the Wiki game just by checking it out - links found in the Univerasalis forum. You can read about our FTF HQ game in Josh's thread in the HQ forum. I comment about our IRC game all the time in the HQ forum. Sometimes it's best to post about the play not in threads about it, but in other threads.

Once again, I'm seeing little change in actual play posting, and don't know what y'all are smoking. Frickin doomsayers. Like Ethan says, how can you say that there's a problem when you're part of the problem? Want others to cop to it as well so you can feel you have company, or an excuse? Sorry, not playing the codependent today.

QuoteI think Scott is implying that, among other things, people need to actually recognize the value of the Actual Play forum.

Which is great. I would have just said, "Hey, everybody, try to post more to actual play, it's important." As opposed to, "Something's wrong with Actual Play."

QuoteAnd I'm saying that there are some people here - maybe only a few, but notable because of their high-profiles - who barely play at all, but certainly offer their advice about it all the time.

I think that people are capable of figuring out who the people who play are from the people who don't.

Me, personally if I start one more game, my wife will leave me. I think that 3 or so a week is pretty good.

QuoteI want a Forge where people are playing indie games, and secondarily, designing cool indie games for play.

Well, that is sorta selfish considering it's not the goal of The Forge as stated. Now if you mean that the proper mix to support design should include more play, I'm behind you. But getting people to play isn't easy, and getting them to post about play when it's a lot of work for little percieved benefit, is harder. I mean, if the play is good, what do I get from posting about it? It takes an issue of some sort to give one a reason to post most times.

QuoteI want The Forge to be successful in introducing new games to an audience, and vice versa.

And we have new games produced every year. About the same amount. And they are enthusiastically recieved.

QuoteI want the Forge denizens to be proactive in their indie gaming, and not just standing around waiting for Ron to point the way.  He's too busy to be telling us all what we should be playing these days.

Except for all the people playing things he isn't commenting about. Not seeing this one at all.

QuoteI want John Kim to swing some of that clout around, putting it to use towards the indie movement.

I want Scott Knipe to rewrite and publish Wyrd. Take care of business at home first.

Yes, Sorcerer & Space is coming out this year. I'm waiting on a playtest to do final adjustments. In trade of the playtest of another indie game PTA. Are you playtesting anybody elses games?

QuoteI want to see the prolific theorizers knee-deep in the Actual Play forum, developing a breadth of gaming experience that rivals all others.

Who, specifically? You name John Kim, who only has an association here by interest (he's not particularly about the Indie scene), and actually he posts quite a bit in actual play. I remember his work with Chris Lehrich on Chris' Shadows in the Fog game. How many games do you have to work on to have the privilege to post to theory?

QuoteWhy don't you guys want to play these games?

Like MLWM that I've played more than I think anyone else has (I dunno, something like five games now)? Or is it just that I didn't post prolifically on each one of them? Because I don't post enough?

This is the part where the complainer tells me that it's not Mike Holmes that's the problem, but somebody else. Well, "sombody else" is you! I don't think there's a problem, personally, but if you want to change it, then be my guest.

Mike

<metallic booming voice>If I might make an observation ...</quote>
Perhaps it would be helpful to have some guidelines for Actual Play. There's rules for indie design posts, but not for actual play, and I must confess that I've not yet got a firm grasp on what a post in AP should look like, what to mention, what to leave out etc.
Maybe if some of energy going into frustration over AP could go into some sticky for more focussed AP reports, that might help a lot. There have been some useful ideas mentioned on this thread, but they still need to be collected and refined IMO.
The advantage in having guidelines for AP IMHO would be, that writing up an actual play report might be less of a burden, if it's clear, what people are interested in (=what gets responses=social reinforcement) and what's useful. People can bring up additional stuff of interest to them anyway, so I think it's unlikely that this would scare anyone away.
Maybe some sort of 20-questions about your session would be nice, much faster to answer those than write up a lengthy report, hoping one has included bits of interest.

I'm glad this is the FB-forum, so I don't have to bother whether the above is coherent and makes sense. Much easier that way.

Quote from: DavAh, yes...

Mr. Greer... when I begin methodically culling the herd of d20 players, promise me that you will stand for me in court.  

Dav

*grin* I can't make that promise at this time, Dav... I'd need more details on the method, and also whether or not I would be among the culled. Assuming I'm okay with your method, including the criteria for culling, then I'm your man.

On topic, I like Montag's idea about more guidelines for the Actual Play forum.

Quote from: hardcoremooseI want the Forge denizens to be proactive in their indie gaming, and not just standing around waiting for Ron to point the way.  He's too busy to be telling us all what we should be playing these days.

I want John Kim to swing some of that clout around, putting it to use towards the indie movement.

I want to see the prolific theorizers knee-deep in the Actual Play forum, developing a breadth of gaming experience that rivals all others.  

I want to see us take that next step, because we've plateaued at this point.  But I want us to love it and vigorously take up the challenge, and no impassioned plea from myself or anyone else can make that happen.  And if it's not going to happen, I want to know why?  Why don't you guys want to play these games?  

Urk!  You know, I would like to help the indie scene -- because I do think that the RPG industry is in something of a rut, and I approve of new ideas in general.  However, even though I approve of shake-up in principle, most of the Forge designs don't grab me personally.  Right now I'm in three bi-weekly campaigns: Buffy (as player), James Bond 007 (as GM), and my RQ-variant Vinland campaign (as GM).  I did playtest Shadows in the Fog last summer with Gordon Landis and Tor Erikson as well as some group regulars.  I actually liked the results of play a lot despite some struggles with the beta mechanics, but people mostly couldn't commit to more.  There was talk about doing one or two followup sessions, but I think several people thought that it wasn't worth it if it wasn't a campaign.  

I'm considering trying out My Life With Master with my group after my Vinland campaign ends, as an in-between thing prior to the Star Trek campaign I was planning.  

As for why I don't want to play these games...  Well, that's probably a whole 'nother thread.  Roughly, I like detail and cause-and-effect, and I'm wary of personality or theme mechanics which often seem reductionist to me.  Going into why would take some digging, though.

I'm going to just get to the heart of Mike's response here...

QuoteThis is the part where the complainer tells me that it's not Mike Holmes that's the problem, but somebody else. Well, "sombody else" is you! I don't think there's a problem, personally, but if you want to change it, then be my guest.

Mike, you always argue the status quo, and that's cool.  I pretty much counted on it anyway.  We rabble-rousers need you folks.  

The thing is, though, I look at The Forge, and I see an Actual Play forum that's lost its vim and vigor.  I see indie game design that's become stagnant.  I see theory discussions that have become self-aggrandizing exercises in rhetoric.  I know other people see it too.  I can't imagine that you don't, but heck, anything's possible.

You're right about one thing though...I haven't been playing much lately.  And indirectly, that's the reason for this whole thread.  You see, at some point, my little group, who was so prominent back in the heyday, became dysfunctional.  And what that dysfunction is...well it's hard to explain.  It was sort of like hitting a wall.  We had done everything we wanted to within a certain realm of design and were ready to take the next step, but found that as a group, we were incapable of doing so, possibly because that next step hadn't been invented yet.

So I turned to The Forge.  I had never left it, really.  I had stopped posting extensively about the same time that our group started to hit its rough spot, but I always stuck around, reading the threads in Actual Play and Indie Design, thinking something was going to click...that someone else was having the same problems and had found a way to overcome them.  Not only did I not find that, but I watched as the actual play and design dwindled away to only a few interesting tidbits.

So there you go.  I'm about the last person you want to playtest a game right now.  I have to find a way to make myself functional.  If people here at The Forge have insight into that, by way of game design or theory informed by actual play experience, great, but really, my interest in this thread is unselfish.  I'm just offering observations derived from a year-and-a-half of semi-lurking.

- Scott

PS...I appreciate the support regarding WYRD, but you're not going to run me out of town on that rail.  WYRD exists.  It's playable.  Anyone who wants to play it can download it from my site.

John,

Thanks for your response.  And I understand where you're coming from.  The only reason I ever named you by name is because you carry a lot of cred, and it's unfortunate that more games aren't produced here that fit your bill of needs.  

MLwM seems like a departure for you, and I'd love to see the actual play post about it.

- Scott

QuoteYou're right about one thing though...I haven't been playing much lately. And indirectly, that's the reason for this whole thread. You see, at some point, my little group, who was so prominent back in the heyday, became dysfunctional. And what that dysfunction is...well it's hard to explain. It was sort of like hitting a wall. We had done everything we wanted to within a certain realm of design and were ready to take the next step, but found that as a group, we were incapable of doing so, possibly because that next step hadn't been invented yet.

So I turned to The Forge. I had never left it, really. I had stopped posting extensively about the same time that our group started to hit its rough spot, but I always stuck around, reading the threads in Actual Play and Indie Design, thinking something was going to click...that someone else was having the same problems and had found a way to overcome them. Not only did I not find that, but I watched as the actual play and design dwindled away to only a few interesting tidbits.

Scott, I'm hugely glad to see you posting again, and glad to hear you've been lurking.

But I hope you'll pardon my quirked eyebrow at the presumption that the Forge is somehow lacking now because we haven't diagnosed a problem you've not yet even mentioned the symptoms of...

Ralph,

Well, you know, I'd pop in every now and then and say something relevant in the Sorcerer forum.  But you know, if you're me and you're not playing, finding stuff to post about is hard.  

There'll be a time and a place for me talk about my gaming woes, if that's what they are, but this isn't that time or place.  This thread is really just my impassioned, frustrated plea to The Forgers to find time for more and varied play (and if that play is happening, then please, post about it).  I hope to be returning to those ranks soon.

Thanks,
Scott

Quote from: Ron Edwards
I have a lot to talk about in this thread, but for this post, I'll restrict it to one topic: posting about fun and successful play, and why it receives less discussion.

You know something? I don't think that's a problem, for the goals of the Forge and for (in my view) healthy-minded people. A brief discussion with a few people, in such a case, has a huge impact in terms of readership. It's inspiring. It generates sales. It helps people in their games in the long term, affecting them perhaps even under their own perceptual radar. It provides an archive for people to refer to when helping someone who is having problems.

BL>  Okay, this is all good.

The thing is, and you have to understand this is coming from someone who has an enormous amount of respect for this forum (perhaps too much), that I cannot, in an online mode, tell the difference between "Okay, end of conversation" silence and "awkward, oh my god he's got it wrong again" silence.

And, because most of my gaming *is* 3E, or LARPing, or IRC play, or something else which is a bit odd and doesn't fit in here, I think "oh, this must be something that no one wants to hear about" or "I must be talking about the wrong things (need more focus on the players, or something)."  Is this a flamingly irrational response?  Yes.  Does this change the fact that it happens, anyway?  No.

Now, I can look at these complaints and say "yeah, that's a problem, uh-huh."  This might be a useful response.  But I am also trying to find something concrete that people can *do* about these problems, and my suggestion is this:

Respond to Actual Play threads.

In my understanding, the Forge posting policies do not prohibit "low-content" posts if they are supportive.  So if you look over an Actual Play thread and go, "hey, that sounds cool," just post it.  Is this shameless pandering to the ego of the initial poster?  Probably.  But fuck it.  Shameless pandering works.

Actual Play threads don't need to be 10 pages long.  But I see a lot of 0 posts and 1 post threads, and that makes it look like everyone is ignoring the forum, so less people post.  Vicious circle.  Let's break it.

yrs--
--Ben

I have to admit I post more problem games, than successful ones, in Actual Play. I find writing in Actual Play difficult, and I find that I get little response to 'this was fun' posts - yes, I know in principle that posting isn't about getting responses but it often feels that way.

Going back to the OP for a moment, and I say this emphatically, without the Forge there would be no Great Ork Gods. Instead there would be an idea kicked around in my head and, maybe, one day the stillborn version first posted would have struggled half-blind and deformed into actual play.

To me, at least, a forum capable of making that much difference to a game has shown its mettle.

Moose, this is what I see. You're in some sort of gaming funk. You once had The Forge get you out of a similar gaming funk. Now that it's not doing that for you, something must be wrong with The Forge.

I think that it's just you and you're group. What I think is happening is that your expectation of novelty has increased from game to game. That is a marginal increase of novelty of X before doesn't cut it anymore. The next game needs to be more novel than the previous (X+1) for you to be satisfied.

Well, that's just unsustainable. Indeed, I see no "stagnation" or any of what you point to. There's more posting going on than ever. I'm a statistician, and I can tell you, empirically, that more is happening now than used to happen. Now, you can say that it's all crap, but the people posting don't think so. I and others who appreciate it don't think so.

So, again, it's just not meeting your ever increasing standards.

I'm not for the status quo. I'm for pointing out just how damn marvellous this place is, as is. Again, if you think it needs to be better, then I'm with you on that - I'm just doing everything I can right now, and so I can't see who it is that you're calling out.

All I see is someone who wants more from The Forge, and is doing less now than ever. I find it hypocritical to say that the quality of a site is decreasing, when it's precisely the absence of people like you and you're group that must be the most important contributing factor, should it be in any way true. To be clear, I think the Forge is just fine the way it is - but if there's been "stagnation" its because Scott Knipe doesn't post any more.

You don't get to stand on the sidelines of a community and say that you will only be a part of it if it improves while doing nothing yourself to improve it. The Forge doesn't need cheerleaders, it needs participants.

I often declare that exercising is difficult for me because I'm fat. At least I understand the irony of the statement, and I know what the solution is to my problem. It can only start with me. Apollogies if this sounds at all scathing, but, again, who is it that's being accused here? Who isn't doing enough? Who is responsible for the supposed "stagnation?" I can only account for myself.  

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesYou don't get to stand on the sidelines of a community and say that you will only be a part of it if it improves while doing nothing yourself to improve it. The Forge doesn't need cheerleaders, it needs participants.

Two things:  I don't think that's what he's saying.  And, to whatever extent this place is a community, the amount you give isn't always going to be exactly equal to the amount you take.

He said that he can't be a part of it, not that he won't.  You might not buy it, but give him credit for believing it.  I think it's an important difference.

In a real community, people give what they can, when they can.  That process is independent of what they take and when.  The thriving communities, over time, have more given than taken, but there are always individuals who for a while or forever take more than they can give.  Communities sustain them.  A commonly cited problem for startup intentional communities is having too many of these anchors sucking the vitality out of the group, but that's not happening in this case.  Is it?  And it sounds like Scott has been a giver in the past, so he's in flux, not an anchor.  I've been reading about community start-up projects for the last year and this is one of the things they often discuss.

Chris

Quote from: Christopher WeeksA commonly cited problem for startup intentional communities is having too many of these anchors sucking the vitality out of the group, but that's not happening in this case.  Is it?  And it sounds like Scott has been a giver in the past, so he's in flux, not an anchor.  I've been reading about community start-up projects for the last year and this is one of the things they often discuss.

This is, and has been my point. Things are just fine. Scott not participating, while lamentable, hasn't damaged The Forge in a substantive way. It does mean that if he wants the "improvements" that he wants to see, changes in the status quo, that he'll have to lead the way. Because the rest of us are satisfied.

It all comes down to who's right about whether The Forge is worse or not than it used to be. All I'm saying is that I give more credence to we who are supporting it than to those who are not.

Mike

Mikey penned forth the following thoughts (it may, in fact be only one thought... but, y'know creative license and all):
"It all comes down to who's right about whether The Forge is worse or not than it used to be. All I'm saying is that I give more credence to we who are supporting it than to those who are not."

Right then.  I support the Forge quite vocally in any gaming or RPG interest site that I am solicited or participating in.  Take note of my recent interview (interrogation) at Flamesrising.com

Now, then... my current hang-ups are polyfold, and let us set aside the White Wolf and d20 absurdity that may or may not be infesting the Forge (it is).  You were saying that innovation follows something along the lines of a Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns.  True, I would suppose.  But, much similar to X-Men's explanation of evolution, every so often, it jumps.  And, when the Forge was happily churning along in 2001, and 2002, things were peachy with jumpiness.  I think many became disillusioned when that fit and burst of creativity leveled to an even keel.  I know I was.

When the Forge began, it seemed a haven for the development and advocacy of indie gaming.  It wanted to push RPG design to the edge, and "legitimize" the indie industry.  That seemed to be the Mission Statement of the Forge.

Ummm.... we succeeded.

My question, then, is not so much, can that be done (we answered that question... and damned well, and Moose and yourself, Mr. Holmes, were quite instrumental in that answering)... my question is: what now?  A community to share ideas about indie gaming is fine... but Actual Play posts about White Wolf and D&D are not in any way indie.  Analyzing GNS using a lens of d20 resolves and answers nothing that hasn't been beaten with a dead horse, by dead horses, on dead horses.  How-to posts on what to do to "start your RPG business" are old hat... as are "does .pdf publishing really work?"

My greatest fear of the Forge was that it would find a rut and stick in the groove.  It seems as though it may be doing that.  Rather than asking new questions and finding new avenues to explore, it seems an increasing flood of new people asking the same questions.  Rather than answer them, I would suggest searching old topics.

Don't get me wrong, helping new people to the community and game design is a great thing... but when many of the topics in the Indie Game Design Forum fall under Fantasy Heartbreakers (and, worse still, people are saying "yeah, it's a heartbreaker, but I want to do it"), I have to wonder if maybe the time has come for the ideas to graduate.  

It's that whole problem of: what happens when the small fry becomes the big guy?  Are we still indie-punk, or have we organized, compartmentalized, and laid down so many guidelines, rules, and structures that we have effectively just made an alternate path to the same d20-laden valhalla?

What is my answer to this dilemma?  I don't have one... yet... but oh, boy, will I.  The Forge needs to become something more than what it is... effectively, more than the sum of its parts (apropos to the topic).  When FanPro and Apophis feel like they are doing more indie-punk stuff than the Forge... I become concerned.  

GenCon '04, baby... I'll have an answer for you then.  If you get to it before me, let me know.

Dav

Victims of our own success? I'd buy that.

But you'll have to understand that most of us are going to be followers rather than leaders in "the next step" - that's always true. Only the discontented can be rebels. So, they'll have to pardon me if I get on with my ho-hum existence.

I'll be there to follow if/when you come up with something new. Just don't expect me to come up with it. But, then, I'm sure that you understand that implicitly, dav.

Dav and I have this special relationship where he constantly marvels at how dull I am. Makes me feel all special inside. ;-)

Mike

As a VERY new member of the forge community, here is my perspective.

1) The forge exists as a home for indie role playing game design, for game designers to talk to other game designers about game design, and to talk about how those games work in actual play. This is the forge's stated reason for existing.

2) The forge also exists as a place for mature gamers who can speak about their hobby with intelligence, to speak about their hobby with other like minded individuals. This is not the Forge's stated reason for existing, but it is why many of us are here.

Sometimes goal #2 can suck all the air out of the room, leaving goal #1 gasping for breath.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10001

Can it be that some read that thread and aren't inspired to Go Play Now!?  :)

Hey Scott,

Thanks for airing your views.  I like your vision for breaking the plateau. Guidelines for actual play sounds like a good idea.  Point taken that actual play and indie games are the real ground of what we're doing here.  And I feel inspired by what you've said to come out into the light more about the thoughts I've been having about what new ground design could cover, continue posting about my actual play experiences (hey, Vincent's doing his part for our play group as I write), and share more of my game development.  Thanks for the reminder to do all that.

Hope you get what you need, and that this can keep being a place to inspire you, and us all.

--Emily Care

I'd just like to sneak in a quit thought before closing time:
Actual Play is the only forum were the community wants something from the individual member.
GNS is pretty collaborative IMO, RPG-theory as well, though in both cases I'd say the poster wants feedback from the community, wants to argue. Indie-Design is mostly people looking for help, ideas, comments etc.
Actual Play is different. Rules questions can be asked on the specific forum (if it's a Forge game), there's little chance to show off one's cleverness (in contrast to e.g. GNS), social reinforcement is lower on average, it requires self-disclosure beyond intellectual debate and one has to deal with "artistic rejection" (in a general sense).
Assuming the previous statements are basically correct, this might mean that we should start treating AP differently.

Hey gus,

I wish I could have been responding to this over the past 24 hours, but an unscheduled Comcast outage in my neighborhood has left me without cable or internet access for the past thirty hours or so.  Motherfuckers.  Even caused me to miss the Pistons game last night.  It's only by the good graces of Matt Gwinn that I'm able to get online right now.

Thanks for the responses everyone.  I'm a little surprised...it seems like more people (at least among those who posted) are with me than against me.  I'm glad.

Mike, I'm with you - all I'm saying is we can do better.  And I do hope to be part of that.

Dav, I'm curious about this answer of yours.  And I still want my copy of Violence Future.

Emily, it wasn't my idea to create rules for Actual Play posting.  In practice, I'm probably with Dav - less rules, more chaos - but who knows, maybe it would work.  But these aren't my decisions to make, so I'll leave at that.

Good talk guys.  Take care and thanks.

Scott

At least you got cable up in time for the Wings playoff game tonight!