The Forge Archives

General Forge Forums => Publishing => Topic started by: eyebeams on September 03, 2004, 02:27:16 AM

Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: eyebeams on September 03, 2004, 02:27:16 AM
I for one would be very interested to know how Issaries is considered an independent game company by Forge definitions. Is this entirely because Greg Stafford has final approval over content and marketing?

Does this mean, then, that as long as I come up with the initial concept for a game, I can farm out the actual production to freelancers and still have it considered independent, so long as the idea was mine and I ultimately approve everything?

If not, what are the specific exceptions and restrictions? At what point, for instance, does Vampire stop being independent? Mark Rein*Hagen created the game, co-owns the company and could theoretically execercise his fiat over anything made for the game (and its successors) and any aspect of its production -- but obviously, the term isn't meant to include Vampire.

To choose another example, look at Fading Suns. It's a self-published game by a collection of pros who went into business for themselves and still retain incontrovertible control over the game's design and marketing.

Finally, I wonder if the D20 decency clause doesn't automatically disqualify D20 logo-using games, because the terms of the license specifically cede on form of editorial control to WotC.

I'm not ragging on the definition, but these anomalies make me curious about it
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on September 03, 2004, 05:37:49 AM
Malcolm,

Well, I can refer back to what Ron said a little earlier in the thread:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsFor those who are interested, I recently contacted Greg Stafford and asked him lots of questions, because I was concerned that Issaries had crossed that line with its post-HeroQuest publications. By "concerned," I mean for the Forge's Issaries forum, not for Issaries (he can do what he wants, it's his). Greg characteristically was gracious, professional, and savvy, and explained all sorts of things about how the company operates - and it's independent, period.

I'd also assume that with all the points about voluntarily accepting terms, the decency clause isn't a barrier to independence.  On the other hand, if as a practical matter that ended up being USED to involuntarily edit and keep in publication (in that edited form) a product, the product wouldn't be indie anymore.  At some point, case-by-case practicalities are going to trump any theoretical definition.

But that's just my thoughts, and I'm hardly an authority - just thought you might have missed some of the earlier points,

Gordon
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: eyebeams on September 03, 2004, 12:43:39 PM
All the quote tells me is that Issaries is "indie" beceause Greg Stafford is a nice chap. While the definition that comes from this ("indie" is whatever Forge moderation calls indie) is a coherent definition, I suspect that this isn't what Ron means, because if it is, it doesn't have any broad applicability at all.

Also, I don't see how an agreement to self-censorif necessary is not a barrier to "indie" status, because the term *does* have a wider definition beyond this forum, and that definition is definitely tied to efforts fo keep corporate decision-making from twisting creative efforts. If the Forge's definition does embrace censorious publishing agreements, than I find that definition problematic. If it embraces work that is created with the help of  RPG freelancing (i.e writers who create content but do not retain the rights to that content), then I also find the definition problematic. In Issaries' case, that begs the question: Does Robin Laws own the material he wrote for the game? Questions like that certainly seem relevant.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Clinton R. Nixon on September 03, 2004, 01:40:19 PM
First things first: "indie" can only be applied to a particular product. Attempting to do otherwise would be futile. Given that, we could by extension call a company independent because all of their products are.

Quote from: eyebeamsAlso, I don't see how an agreement to self-censorif necessary is not a barrier to "indie" status, because the term *does* have a wider definition beyond this forum, and that definition is definitely tied to efforts fo keep corporate decision-making from twisting creative efforts. If the Forge's definition does embrace censorious publishing agreements, than I find that definition problematic. If it embraces work that is created with the help of  RPG freelancing (i.e writers who create content but do not retain the rights to that content), then I also find the definition problematic. In Issaries' case, that begs the question: Does Robin Laws own the material he wrote for the game? Questions like that certainly seem relevant.

Malcolm,

I apologize that you find things problematic. That is, of course, no one's problem but your own.

I've seen people online get all up-in-arms about some sort of co-option of the term "indie." In the end, the term is irrelevant, and all arguments about what it means are circle-jerking, not to put too fine a point on it.

I think that my old post The five percent (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4464) is quite applicable towards this phenomenon: while I'm at it, I'll say that I'm not specifically talking to you, Malcolm, but to anyone engaging in this activity. It not only specifically states the mission of the Forge, but uses another term for "indie" at the top:

Personal-vision RPGs: RPGs which are an expression of one person, and as such, all creative and publishing decisions are done by that person. Usually, all writing's done by that person, but if Greg Stafford sat down, knowing "I want Glorantha to work like this," and then paid Robin Laws to make it work that way, that's not much different than me paying Jennifer Rodgers to make "The Shadow of Yesterday" look like I want it to.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: eyebeams on September 03, 2004, 02:28:42 PM
QuoteI apologize that you find things problematic. That is, of course, no one's problem but your own.

I've seen people online get all up-in-arms about some sort of co-option of the term "indie." In the end, the term is irrelevant, and all arguments about what it means are circle-jerking, not to put too fine a point on it.

Was this kind of editorial comment especially necessary? Plus, it looks to me like it isn't just my particular problem.

What is my agenda? My personal feelings about game design and theory could be summed up as follows:

1) RPG design needs to engage artistic pursuits which are not RPG design and take a look at their theories and practices.

2) RPG play is not the product of author or director-style authority; this is probably where I differ the most from the "95%." Design is meant to create something for the group to deviate from at will for their own enjoyment, not to cleave to.

3) That said, I'm interested in genuine representation of a game author's vision. For 2) to work, this needs to be as clear as possible. The choice to deviate from the author's suggested form of play needs to be one which can be made with a clear idea of what is going on.

QuotePersonal-vision RPGs: RPGs which are an expression of one person, and as such, all creative and publishing decisions are done by that person. Usually, all writing's done by that person, but if Greg Stafford sat down, knowing "I want Glorantha to work like this," and then paid Robin Laws to make it work that way, that's not much different than me paying Jennifer Rodgers to make "The Shadow of Yesterday" look like I want it to.

And perhaps this is where I believe that such a definition is problematic, on two counts:

1) The work done by freelancers is real, creative work. I know that folks around here do have misapprehensions as to what peeople who freelance for largish gaming companies actually do, but what I'm reading in your statement is the idea that freelance workers are the hand puppets of an auteur.

2) I'm not sure what it is about publishing that gives it a special privilege compared to all of the other components necessary to get an RPG out. Compare the following scenarios:

A) Person has an idea for a game and a bunch of money. She hires writers, artists and layout people and outlines a vision for the game, approves the final product, and sends it out. Indie, or no?

B) Person has an idea for a game and writes it, but doesn't have the resources or inclination to direct printing. The game gets floated to a publisher who agrees to put the thing out, while the creator retains all rights and basically gets out exactly the game he wants to go out. Indie, or no?

*As I understand it* (and if someone would care to clarify this, I'd appreciate it), person A) is an independent creator and person B is not.

Why do I think this is problematic? Because Person A is the way the non-indie field *actually works.* For instance, in terms of personal vision being fulfilled by others, you can't get much more relevant then by talking about Kevin Sembeida. He usually rewrites, edits and lays out ever Palladium book, and ball all accounts, outside of the PB fanmag, he does proceed according to a very particular vision.

Person B, on the other hand, is not considered "indie" here, but (in accordance with the first point on my personal agenda), I think this is a mistake. In comics, books, film and music, it is commonly accepted that the actual creator is the independent party as long as his work is relatively unfettered by managerial fiat.

Now, when you're talking about personal vision, how is B less legitimate than A? Why is it that ponying up the dough trumps actual authorship?

I feel this is useful because it is obvious that the Forge has an interest in ideosyncratic and experimental types of play and innovative design. Is the current definition consistent with that interest or not? Would it be useful to have define more than two modes of publishing, then? And "indie production" versus "indie creation" tag might be useful here.

In any event, trivializing it by implying that I'm just trolling around doesn't strike me as the most useful response I could have recieved. Among other things, I'm *genuinely interested* in what Issaries does that distinguishes it from similar-looking ventures.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Valamir on September 03, 2004, 02:45:05 PM
I understand Malcolm's point.  There is a grey area to the way Indie is presented that I find rather disquieting.  "Creator Owned" is a useful marketable tag line, but as a definition its not very rigorous

So let's take apart what "creator owned" really means.  The real definition boils down to money.  He who controls the money ultimately controls the content.  If both the controller of the content and the controller of the money are the same person...its indie.  If not, its not.  If you control the content, but not the money...then you don't really control jack.  If you control the money but not the content...then you are the one in charge but you aren't indie.

This definition itself, however, has some interesting grey areas.

"who controls the money" is not always all that easy to determine.  If you have employees, if you have office space, if you have long term financial commitments...do you really control the money?  How much control of the money do you really have if the majority of your budget is nondiscretionary?


Here is where I go perhaps a step further than Ron (maybe).  For my purposes, budget breaking nondiscretionary expenditures are sufficient to disqualify you from being indie.  

Why? because as soon as you have to start making business decisions based on trying to come up with the revenue to meet your financial obligations you no longer control the money.  The money is controling you.  On paper you may have total creative and business control.  In reality, however, your creditors, vendors, employees, and anyone else with an on going reoccuring claim to your revenue has the real control.  They demand to be paid, and you must pay them.  Once you enter into an agreement where the day to day, month to month choice about whether to write the check or not is made for you your indie status is in jeopardy.

Ramshead's expenditures are 100% discretionary.  If I want art, I pay for art.  If I don't I don't.  etc.  There is no decision I have to make (for my business) predicated on my ability to "pay the bills".  Therefor I and only I control the money.

That to me is the root of being independent.  It means never having to make a decision based on cash flow needs.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: eyebeams on September 03, 2004, 04:44:20 PM
QuoteI understand Malcolm's point. There is a grey area to the way Indie is presented that I find rather disquieting. "Creator Owned" is a useful marketable tag line, but as a definition its not very rigorous.

In comics and fiction, the definition is, in fact, pretty rigorous. The creator writes. The publisher rents the right to reproduce the creator's work. The publisher doesn't own it; it is allowed through its contract to reproduce the creator's work under those contracted conditions.

Nothing vague to it.

What I wonder is what makes a contract like this different from hiring a layout person.

This is all personally interesting to me now because I do have one book slated to come out from a publisher next year that will be creator-owned. The interested party accepted my outline and I have agreed to extend them a year's worth of rights in exchange for that.

I certainly accept that the book isn't "creator-produced," by I do resent the implication that the publisher has some sort of control over the content. They can control whether to release it or not. That's it. They do not have any influence over what goes in the book, and I can still release material in any form I choose.

As some one who has been employed as creative talent over the years, I do (thanks to my bias, among other things) believe that the role of the creator of the game is paramount. I'm happy to have found a publisher who recognizes that too. I don't consider myself to be "controlled" by anything. I shopped my game around for someone who'd get it into the hands of gamers the way I want it. I didn;t get into wrangling over content at all.

QuoteSo let's take apart what "creator owned" really means. The real definition boils down to money. He who controls the money ultimately controls the content. If both the controller of the content and the controller of the money are the same person...its indie. If not, its not. If you control the content, but not the money...then you don't really control jack. If you control the money but not the content...then you are the one in charge but you aren't indie.

I think "He who has the gold, makes the rules," doesn't work either. Now you've disqualified lots of Finnish/Scandanavian Indrama/gaming because in many cases, there's a government arts agency involved -- and you still have the Rein*Hegen problem. Since my vague personal definition is not one where White Wolf's lines can be categorized as "indie" (I've worked for them and stand by my material and enjoy their games, but the nature of the creative/production process is not what I would call independent at all).

QuoteThis definition itself, however, has some interesting grey areas.

"who controls the money" is not always all that easy to determine. If you have employees, if you have office space, if you have long term financial commitments...do you really control the money? How much control of the money do you really have if the majority of your budget is nondiscretionary?

This does speak to a definition of "indie" that is broadly applicable outside of gaming, in that indie music and comics are commonly known by not being a part of the conventional process and its associated corporate values.

QuoteHere is where I go perhaps a step further than Ron (maybe). For my purposes, budget breaking nondiscretionary expenditures are sufficient to disqualify you from being indie.

Why? because as soon as you have to start making business decisions based on trying to come up with the revenue to meet your financial obligations you no longer control the money. The money is controling you. On paper you may have total creative and business control. In reality, however, your creditors, vendors, employees, and anyone else with an on going reoccuring claim to your revenue has the real control. They demand to be paid, and you must pay them. Once you enter into an agreement where the day to day, month to month choice about whether to write the check or not is made for you your indie status is in jeopardy.

This definition disqualifies anything that is a working business. It may even disqualify Sorcerer (which, as an admitted for-profit commercial venture, would be restricted by business realities as well).

QuoteRamshead's expenditures are 100% discretionary. If I want art, I pay for art. If I don't I don't. etc. There is no decision I have to make (for my business) predicated on my ability to "pay the bills". Therefor I and only I control the money.

SF, Horror and Fantasy publishing would call this amatuer or semipro. This isn't an insult in any way (there have been lots and lots of amatuer publications that have become very, very important). If you don't have to make something which brings in revenue, though, you will have different choices to make.

In short, I think it's important to support creators who want to be financially successful and who freely enter into contractual agreements to make it happen, for the purpose of viably producing material that is unequivocally theirs. It may not be "Forge indie," but it isn't "industry" either.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Clinton R. Nixon on September 03, 2004, 05:16:16 PM
Quote
In short, I think it's important to support creators who want to be financially successful and who freely enter into contractual agreements to make it happen, for the purpose of viably producing material that is unequivocally theirs. It may not be "Forge indie," but it isn't "industry" either.

Malcolm,

You and I don't disagree at all on this topic. That is the root of why this thread has become devoid of real content, and why I have a problem with it.

You see, no one here doesn't support what you're talking about. The Forge, as a forum, can throw all sorts of support behind that. It doesn't get a special label? Bah on that, and bah on anyone looking for it: as I said before, the label is irrelevant. If you have a vision for a game, and you make it the game you want, I stand behind that, and I imagine anyone else here would to.

Given that, I think your problem is that you're uncertain about a label, and that - well, that's just not that important.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: eyebeams on September 03, 2004, 05:48:39 PM
Clinton, what you quoted is not the whole of my point.

Is this thread "devoid of content?" I don't think so. Valamir's reply struck me as being substantial and useful. "Bah," does not.

As for a "special label" -- well, this site already approves of that in principle. The question is whether or not further classification has any utility -- and I think it does.

When we have words to talk about different facest of game creation, everybody benefits. It benefits folks who value the creative efforst of designers because it's possible to atttach a tag to a game that says that it's being produced under a particular set of creator-friendly conditions. It benefits marketing and sales because it allows people in every side of things to identify what people want.

Maybe, just maybe, "Bah on that" is not an alternative that gives something to discussions, to gamers and to gaming.

It's certainly no great leap to observe that the Forge values semantic accuracy. Certainly, in past discussions I've beeen reminded of that repeatedly. Over the years, Ron and others have worked to tighten the terms used in theory into being as unambiguous as possible.

Why, then, is there resistance when it comes to doing this for the creation and production of games? Aside from deflecting rhetorical absurdities (like the Vampire example, which is *intentionally* absurd) with something substantial, it opens up the basis for discussion more.

In any event, the fact that there has been repeated online and face to face taalk about this indicates that it isn't just my personal problem and that dismissing its importance doesn't seem to do anything useful. I didn;t bring up Issaries; Ron did. I didn't bring up dissatisfaaction with usage; Ron did.

Despite my differences with the dominant thinking here, I do believe the community here is useful and interesting.

In closing, here are five useful things that would come from tightening up and diversifying categories:

1) People who want to create and people who are willing to do production without sacrificing the creator's vision can be hooked up with unambigious terms smoothing the way.

2) People who want to be RPG conceptualists and producers can coherently talk about this and find writers to reproduce a process like the one Ron finds satisfying about Issaries.

3) People can talk about the varying goals of a project. Commercial or not? Government funded? What?

4) We can find ways to talk about the success and failure of different kinds of partnerships.

5) We can better critique existing games based on their mode of production.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Valamir on September 03, 2004, 06:12:46 PM
QuoteThis definition disqualifies anything that is a working business. It may even disqualify Sorcerer (which, as an admitted for-profit commercial venture, would be restricted by business realities as well).

Not so.  

Lets first distinguish the term "working business"

A game company which is profitable, can support itself out of its own cash flows after an initial period of relying on start up capital is what I would call a "working business" and not at all excluded from this definition.

However a game company that enters into a corporate mentality of how a business should be structured will often run afoul of this definition.

By this I mean game companies that rent office space and pay sizeable numbers of employees and other such practices that may or may not be useful.  There is absolutely no reason from a game design standpoint for any of these things.  Many high quality wonderful games are designed by profitable game companies that have neither rented office or warehouse space nor salaried or wage employees.

So the decision to go that route is independent of the decision to be a for profit business.  The issue is that once you go that route you now have to make decisions for reasons other than achieving personal vision.

You now have to be willing to sacrifice personal vision in order to pay the bills.

In my mind, no one who sacrifices personal vision in order to pay the bills can be indie.  The only definition of indie that matters to me is one in which cash flow decisions never trumps creative decisions.  The minute cash flow decisions start to trump creative decisions is the minute you've "gone corporate".


In other words:
Given a choice between A and B where A makes more money.  If the decision has no impact on artistic vision than the wise indie publisher will choose A.

If the decision has an impact on artistic vision such that choice A makes more money and choice B is truer to the vision, then an indie publisher is one where the person who HAS the artistic vision gets to choose which way to go.  The non indie situation is one where someone other than the person who has the artistic vision gets to choose which way to go.

It doesn't matter whether the other person also happens to choose choice A.  If they do, great...if they don't...you wind up with corporate schlock.  But either way its not indie.  Corporate publishers are still capable of producing visionary games (the hypothetical choice A); but that capability doesn't make them indie.  Nor does not being indie mean they automatically produce schlok.

In theory you could have an indie publisher who chooses B.  I'd say that's a mistake since it by passes the key reason to be indie to begin with...but no one said indie publishers always make the best decisions (or decisions I'd agree with).


Now you can say that you've found an arrangement that gives you the opportunity to realize 100% of your creative vision even though someone else is making the money choices, if so Great!  But it isn't indie.  May well be an absolutely fabulous game.  May well be an absolutely wonderful relationship where the other party indeed gives you everything you could ever want without it ever turning sour.  May well be absolutely the right business decision for you to make.

But it ain't indie if you're not the one controlling the purse strings.

It really is that simple.


Divest yourself of the Indie = good; Corporate = bad  worry.

There is no need to try and force yourself into the indie box.  If you're not indie, you're not indie.  Fine.


The Forge isn't here to say Indie = better than Corporate; Corporate = crap.

The Forge is here to break the myth that Corporate is the only way or the best way to publish a game.  

The Forge is here to say "hey there's another alternative, its viable, it produces just as much of a "real game", it can have just as high production values, it can be wonderfully profitable, and you don't have to give up control.   Its called indie publishing.  

Before you run off to sign that contract with a publishing house, consider being indie.  If you still decide the corporate model is for you, great, good luck with that, we'll look forward to checking your game out when it arrives.  If you think maybe you might want to give indie a try, stick around...we can help with that."


That's all there is to it.

Now that said, I can see why some people might want to be considered indie even when they're not.  In addition to being a great resource, the Forge has developed a kick ass brand, alot of recognition and cred, and a following of gamers who will eagerly try nearly any game that comes with a "forge" connection to it.  Its a great buzz to have around a game.

But yeah, you only get to capitalize on that buzz if you are, in fact, indie.  There are plenty of advantages the corporate model provides both in terms of finances, support, marketing, and distribution.  The Forge currently is one advantage available to indie publishers, and only to indie publishers.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Clinton R. Nixon on September 03, 2004, 06:33:03 PM
Ralph is making my point more cogently than I am. (For the record, by the way , I'm not the editorial moderator here, so take everything I've said as what some guy thinks, not what a moderator thinks.)

How do I sum up? Ok. What does it matter if your game gets some "indie" label? After it's all said and done, if you like your game, does it matter what some guy on the Internet calls it?
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: eyebeams on September 03, 2004, 07:18:31 PM
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon
How do I sum up? Ok. What does it matter if your game gets some "indie" label? After it's all said and done, if you like your game, does it matter what some guy on the Internet calls it?

Because, to be frank, once somebody labels something as "corporate" around here using the current definition, which it "not-indie", useful discussion stops.

I'm not trying to sneakily defend the "corporate" approach to gaming. Having actually worked for a top-5 games company, I *know* what that entails and I *know* what the pitfalls are. Thanks, but no thanks. I want my own work to be bereft of those characteristics, and I would prefer not to have stereotypical characteristics assigned to my work based on readers' assumptions of how mainstream as opposed to "indie" ventures get things done.

Earlier, you said that the community here would "support" creator-owned ventures, but it doesn't look like that to me. It looks like you're saying that this sort of thing is so beneath your agenda that it does not even bear the kind of analysis the community here has been ready, willing and able to give other topics.

Plus, it coours to me that even if you want to exclude discussions about cerating certain kinds of games, y'all could do it better by dissecting the design/production relationships already out there.

Really, I don't understand the strident oppostion to creating a nomenclature for these sorts of things. I don't see how anybody could lose and I see how many people could benefit.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: eyebeams on September 03, 2004, 07:52:58 PM
Now, Ralph:


QuoteLets first distinguish the term "working business"

A game company which is profitable, can support itself out of its own cash flows after an initial period of relying on start up capital is what I would call a "working business" and not at all excluded from this definition.

However a game company that enters into a corporate mentality of how a business should be structured will often run afoul of this definition.

By this I mean game companies that rent office space and pay sizeable numbers of employees and other such practices that may or may not be useful. There is absolutely no reason from a game design standpoint for any of these things. Many high quality wonderful games are designed by profitable game companies that have neither rented office or warehouse space nor salaried or wage employees.  

So if Ron Edwards rented an studio space, his company wouldn't be "indie" any more? As for numbers of employees, you haave Issaries and Driftwood, both of which have employed multiple people. I'm nto sure how sticking them in an office makes a difference.


QuoteSo the decision to go that route is independent of the decision to be a for profit business. The issue is that once you go that route you now have to make decisions for reasons other than achieving personal vision.  


After a certain degree of success you have to make a decision about how to expand. Let's look at TSR:

TSR in the early 70s was as "indie" as they come, but of course, it stopped being that at some point. When would that be? Well, perhaps you are partially correct of you say the answer was when they struck out looking for external capital. See, *that* is a real, honest to goodness dividing line. So would creative staff ultimately being subject to a corporate board in their day to day work.

These are actual meaningful definitions of "indie." I don't believe levels of profit and where your offices are are as useful. But this -- this is progress:-)


QuoteYou now have to be willing to sacrifice personal vision in order to pay the bills.

In my mind, no one who sacrifices personal vision in order to pay the bills can be indie. The only definition of indie that matters to me is one in which cash flow decisions never trumps creative decisions. The minute cash flow decisions start to trump creative decisions is the minute you've "gone corporate".  


How can you tell? If my personal vision is to have an RPG that's full colour with gold-trim pages and artwork by Brom, am I a "sellout" for deciding that I can't afford that and picking something cheaper instead?

If you're just talking about game text, then you have the same A vs B problem I talked about. You can have people who don't change content to please but who get somebody else to publish it.


QuoteIn other words:
Given a choice between A and B where A makes more money. If the decision has no impact on artistic vision than the wise indie publisher will choose A.

If the decision has an impact on artistic vision such that choice A makes more money and choice B is truer to the vision, then an indie publisher is one where the person who HAS the artistic vision gets to choose which way to go. The non indie situation is one where someone other than the person who has the artistic vision gets to choose which way to go.


This is true, but it in no way implies that the creator has to be the publisher, either -- though technically, you now have "corporate publisher, indie creator." This makes sense -- it's the way actual games have been created.

QuoteIt doesn't matter whether the other person also happens to choose choice A. If they do, great...if they don't...you wind up with corporate schlock. But either way its not indie. Corporate publishers are still capable of producing visionary games (the hypothetical choice A); but that capability doesn't make them indie. Nor does not being indie mean they automatically produce schlok.  


You seem to think that all models make the publisher the default creator of the game. They are not. The designer creates the game. The designer is not necessarily the subject of a corporate body. He can make a choice.


QuoteNow you can say that you've found an arrangement that gives you the opportunity to realize 100% of your creative vision even though someone else is making the money choices, if so Great! But it isn't indie. May well be an absolutely fabulous game. May well be an absolutely wonderful relationship where the other party indeed gives you everything you could ever want without it ever turning sour. May well be absolutely the right business decision for you to make.


I think there's a fair to good chance that preconcieved notions about this model will taint useful discussion.


QuoteBut it ain't indie if you're not the one controlling the purse strings.

It really is that simple.


I am controlling the purse strings. I made the contract with this publisher. They are my client.

As an alternative example, you have government funded games in Northern Europe. In interviews, Ron has said that he welcomes their presence here -- but by your terms, that don't control the purse strings for many of their works, either.


QuoteDivest yourself of the Indie = good; Corporate = bad worry.

There is no need to try and force yourself into the indie box. If you're not indie, you're not indie. Fine.

The Forge isn't here to say Indie = better than Corporate; Corporate = crap.

The Forge is here to break the myth that Corporate is the only way or the best way to publish a game."  


I don't want "indie" status, but I find being lumped into a "corporate" model of gaming not only inaccurate, but vaguely insulting. Not only because there is a hostility against a certain model of production among users here, but because it indicates a disinterest in *truthfully* looking at what the non-indie scene is doing.

How can you argue for an antithesis when you aren't interested in reaklly knowing the thesis?

You said that" The Forge is here to break the myth that Corporate is the only way or the best way to publish a game." Is that purpose served by assuming that there are only two ways to make games, though?

The Forge is here to say "hey there's another alternative, its viable, it produces just as much of a "real game", it can have just as high production values, it can be wonderfully profitable, and you don't have to give up control. Its called indie publishing.


QuoteBefore you run off to sign that contract with a publishing house, consider being indie. If you still decide the corporate model is for you, great, good luck with that, we'll look forward to checking your game out when it arrives. If you think maybe you might want to give indie a try, stick around...we can help with that."


That's all there is to it.


Well no, that isn't "all there is to it," outside of the indie sphere. That's the problem. There are many ways of getting a game out.


QuoteNow that said, I can see why some people might want to be considered indie even when they're not. In addition to being a great resource, the Forge has developed a kick ass brand, alot of recognition and cred, and a following of gamers who will eagerly try nearly any game that comes with a "forge" connection to it. Its a great buzz to have around a game.

But yeah, you only get to capitalize on that buzz if you are, in fact, indie. There are plenty of advantages the corporate model provides both in terms of finances, support, marketing, and distribution. The Forge currently is one advantage available to indie publishers, and only to indie publishers.


That's not really my agenda.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Ron Edwards on September 03, 2004, 07:54:42 PM
Hello,

Well well.

Point #1: the reason I was vague about exactly why Issaries Inc is independent by Forge standards is that the information is literally no one's business but Greg's. I was asking about aspects of his policies and finances which, if you asked me about them re: Adept Press, I might very well tell you to fuck off. Sure he comes off as a nice guy in my telling - because he really was.

As for whether what he told me qualifies for independence, well, you just have to decide whether to take my word for it or not. Because that's all you get. The information is privileged, and either you decide I'm including Issaries unfairly only 'cause I like it, or you decide I'm operating from a consistent standard. Which one is no one's choice but the individual's, and since I'm not running a company called the Forge, nor am I running for public office, any individual's opinion of me about this is neither bonus or nose-skin.

Point #2: where you get this "corporate" vs. "indie" thing is beyond me, unless maybe it's Sean's (Adgboss) discussion of the "corporate game model." One poster. Big whoop.

'Cause, you see, even Sean really doesn't mean "corporate." He's talking about a sort of corporation, that's all. Adept Press is a corporation. So is Behemoth3, so is Issaries Inc (obviously), and so is Apophis. Some of the others are too. And yeah, we all still are independents.

So I suggest losing this whole defensive thing about corporations. Incorporating is not the issue; self-publishing one's work is the issue.

Point #3: what in the world are you talking about, anyway? I really can't tell what you are on about.

a) Are you are objecting to the possibility of being labeled independent?

Good lord, man - take my word, you'll be labeled anything and everything by the time the day is over, by someone. If verbal labels were really stickum labels, I could have covered a dorm door with stuff about Adept Press by now. I can't imagine caring - or rather, if you go in caring about schmutz like that, you'll wear yourself into a little exhausted nub.

b) Are you objecting to the straightforward observation that the Forge does not extend many of its services to people who do not conform with its definition of independence?

Well, them's the breaks. Wouldn't it be nice if, say, Indie Design and Publishing were thrown open to discussing (say) the development of Eberron or Vampire: Requiem, pending the willingness of the creators and their whipmasters (whoops! employers! my client means "employers," your honor!) to do so?

Ahem. Getting over my own wittiness. Back to answering for real. Wouldn't it be nice if these forums were opened up to any committed and creative person involved in developing a role-playing game, without regard to ownership whatsoever?

Sure it would be nice. But Clinton and I are not nice people. We are activists. We have an overt political agenda - to empower those who are interested in self-publishing role-playing games to do so. To reduce the focus on that agenda is to dilute the goal.

All such activists (any sphere of activity, any side) seem irrational and even vicious, or small-minded, to those whom are they are not directly helping. My response? "Yup. I see why you see it that way. Have a nice day."

What's the difference between such an activist and a harmful, undesirable element? Well, you'll notice we don't practice any deliberately harmful policies toward the non-interest-group. We don't smear Hasbro, or people who work for them. White Wolf gets a nod for many of its excellent business practices in recent years, like paying its freelancers on time.

This is the punchline for the whipmasters crack above, for those who under-appreciate my nigh-cosmic humor. This is not an anti-un-independent website. Individuals have been noted to vent their spleen, certainly, but there is no direct or concerted effort here, as in a forum or a dedicated series of articles, to tell anyone why being non-independent (by our definition) is a terrible thing to do. Clinton and I claim no such thing.

We even conduct all of our work in public!! The creative folks in non-independent endeavors can come and read anything they like! And they do, daily.

That's the best you can hope for from activists, my friend - that they are the sort of people who would rather play fair, and empower those they want to empower, without trying to rip down or invalidate those they aren't interested in helping. Bluntly, people who do freelance work-for-hire and their employers can count their lucky stars about that. There are a lot of people out there whose jaundiced little fucked-up souls would love to have a site like this from which to launch their smear campaigns based on some moronic "information wants to be free" bandwagon. But this isn't it.

Best,
Ron
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: eyebeams on September 03, 2004, 08:59:20 PM
QuotePoint #1: the reason I was vague about exactly why Issaries Inc is independent by Forge standards is that the information is literally no one's business but Greg's. I was asking about aspects of his policies and finances which, if you asked me about them re: Adept Press, I might very well tell you to fuck off. Sure he comes off as a nice guy in my telling - because he really was.

As for whether what he told me qualifies for independence, well, you just have to decide whether to take my word for it or not. Because that's all you get. The information is privileged, and either you decide I'm including Issaries unfairly only 'cause I like it, or you decide I'm operating from a consistent standard. Which one is no one's choice but the individual's, and since I'm not running a company called the Forge, nor am I running for public office, any individual's opinion of me about this is neither bonus or nose-skin.

As I said Ron, if Issaries is indie because the definition of "indie" has to do with your preferences first, then that's a coherent definition. It just isn't the definition I think you intend.

QuotePoint #2: where you get this "corporate" vs. "indie" thing is beyond me, unless maybe it's Sean's (Adgboss) discussion of the "corporate game model." One poster. Big whoop.

'Cause, you see, even Sean really doesn't mean "corporate." He's talking about a sort of corporation, that's all. Adept Press is a corporation. So is Behemoth3, so is Issaries Inc (obviously), and so is Apophis. Some of the others are too. And yeah, we all still are independents.

So I suggest losing this whole defensive thing about corporations. Incorporating is not the issue; self-publishing one's work is the issue.

I think that was already assumed, thanks. But "corporate" is a term with specific connotations here and elsewhere, and you have used those connotations yourself. Obviously, I was referring to those connotations and not the legal process of incorporation.

QuotePoint #3: what in the world are you talking about, anyway? I really can't tell what you are on about.

a) Are you are objecting to the possibility of being labeled independent?

Good lord, man - take my word, you'll be labeled anything and everything by the time the day is over, by someone. If verbal labels were really stickum labels, I could have covered a dorm door with stuff about Adept Press by now. I can't imagine caring - or rather, if you go in caring about schmutz like that, you'll wear yourself into a little exhausted nub.

b) Are you objecting to the straightforward observation that the Forge does not extend many of its services to people who do not conform with its definition of independence?

Well, them's the breaks. Wouldn't it be nice if, say, Indie Design and Publishing were thrown open to discussing (say) the development of Eberron or Vampire: Requiem, pending the willingness of the creators and their whipmasters (whoops! employers! my client means "employers," your honor!) to do so?

a) No. I am merely saying that if you want to make observations about the way people make games, then there ought to be some well-ddefined terms. And the "indie/not indie" split is a terrible way of doing this.

b) Your use of the term "whipmasters" is an obvious example of the kind of implication I take umbrage at. In any event, Ron, that's a bit of an absurd example, isn't. Nobody's talking about refocusing on Vampire and D&D, and I believe that you know this.

QuoteAhem. Getting over my own wittiness. Back to answering for real. Wouldn't it be nice if these forums were opened up to any committed and creative person involved in developing a role-playing game, without regard to ownership whatsoever?

Sure it would be nice. But Clinton and I are not nice people. We are activists. We have an overt political agenda - to empower those who are interested in self-publishing role-playing games to do so. To reduce the focus on that agenda is to dilute the goal.

It depends on what you mean by "ownership." There are many games that do not use Work for Hire arrangements. What in your mind distinguishes games that are owned by their creators but contracted out for publishing with games that creators do layout and production on? You have already aceded that layout art and even writing can all be farmed out.

QuoteAll such activists (any sphere of activity, any side) seem irrational and even vicious, or small-minded, to those whom are they are not directly helping. My response? "Yup. I see why you see it that way. Have a nice day."

What's the difference between such an activist and a harmful, undesirable element? Well, you'll notice we don't practice any deliberately harmful policies toward the non-interest-group. We don't smear Hasbro, or people who work for them. White Wolf gets a nod for many of its excellent business practices in recent years, like paying its freelancers on time.

This is the punchline for the whipmasters crack above, for those who under-appreciate my nigh-cosmic humor. This is not an anti-un-independent website. Individuals have been noted to vent their spleen, certainly, but there is no direct or concerted effort here, as in a forum or a dedicated series of articles, to tell anyone why being non-independent (by our definition) is a terrible thing to do. Clinton and I claim no such thing.

In what way is the "whipmasters" comment neutral? I know you probably intended for there to be some irony -- but when it comes to the stance of many members of the community here, it's not ironic at all.

Coupled with your apparent refusal to define your terms (and indeed, this seems to be the *only* area in which defining your terms is not something you feel is important), I can't parse a coherent message about who it is this community wishes to serve, because:

1) It will serve folks who don't own their own layout, writing or art, but own a "concept."

2) It will not serve people who own the concept *and actually write the manuscript*, but contract out production.

This leads to interesting questions. Like: If I decide to farm out a manuscript as "Eyebeams Design" instead of as myself and talk about my "client" who's printing and distributing the book, *despite having exactly the same contract*, do I magically become "indie?"

These are real questions. I'm not asking for a label. I'm asking if this community can define its terms and come to a realistic assessment of the kinds od design/production out there and where they fit in. A binary definition -- to be blunt -- sucks. It lacks utility for me, and lacks utility for you.

If indie is, for the purposes of this site, defined first and foremost by what you like, then don't be coy; say it. Then the Forge becomes a site about games that two game designer like, and I have always assumed that your interests were broader. Supporting things based on an arbitrary standard or preference isn't activism; it's fandom.

QuoteWe even conduct all of our work in public!! The creative folks in non-independent endeavors can come and read anything they like! And they do, daily.

That's the best you can hope for from activists, my friend - that they are the sort of people who would rather play fair, and empower those they want to empower, without trying to rip down or invalidate those they aren't interested in helping. Bluntly, people who do freelance work-for-hire and their employers can count their lucky stars about that. There are a lot of people out there whose jaundiced little fucked-up souls would love to have a site like this from which to launch their smear campaigns based on some moronic "information wants to be free" bandwagon. But this isn't it.

OK, Ron, I'll bite. I have no idea what you're talking about here.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Ron Edwards on September 03, 2004, 09:22:11 PM
Hello,

Whipmasters, whipmasters, whipmasters all! Slay them! Rise up ...

... shhh, Malcolm's listening. Everyone look friendly.

Malcolm, you asked this very thing in Indie or not? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10833) back in April. Raven listed several threads for you to reference, and I specifically invited you to contact me for further questions. You didn't do that, so any dialogue which would have determined whether your publishing was "Forge-called-independent" didn't happen. I still have no idea, so any sense that you have of being "rejected by the Forge" is your own doing.

I also defined this independence, as I've done many times. It's based on whether the creator owns the game.

QuoteOwnership is defined as final authority over content, development, and finances. Small groups of people are permitted, in addition to one-person shows.

The full definition may be found in What indie RPGs came out in 2002? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=50142):

Quote1) Creator has full executive control over the property.

2) Creator is the publisher - responsible for printing costs, art costs, etc. (Note that this does not preclude organizing venture capital or startup stocks.)

3) Profits are received and managed by the creator.

Nuance: small teams of creators are possible rather than a single person.

The gray areas concern distinct degrees of work-for-hire (e.g. Robin Laws on Hero Wars).

What is not a grey area: having a company publish your game, meaning paying for printing and other production costs, with the understanding or contract that the creator retains the IP and will share in the profits once the publishing company has recouped its costs. That is what Atlas does with Unknown Armies and what Hogshead did with Nobilis.

That's 100% concrete. It's very clear. It does require some research on my part in many cases.

It's also not very well understood by some of the folks who are active here at the Forge, hence a lot of dust clutters the air sometimes when it gets brought up. And some other folks who do understand it tend to focus on their own re-phrasings, like Ralph and his "vision" stuff. But there's one single authority, who is me, and that's the yardstick I use every time.

And, also to be clear: independence has fuck-all to do with whether I like a game, a company, or a person. I've demonstrated this so many times that it's actually archaic-sounding for someone to drag out the old saw about "whatever Ron likes he calls independent."

Best,
Ron

P.S. Ain't no reason on this earth not to keep yanking your chain about the whipmasters. It's too much fun to see you leaping like a goosed chambermaid. Small of me, I know.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: eyebeams on September 03, 2004, 09:59:30 PM
QuoteHello,

Whipmasters, whipmasters, whipmasters all! Slay them! Rise up ...

... shhh, Malcolm's listening. Everyone look friendly.

P.S. Ain't no reason on this earth not to keep yanking your chain about the whipmasters. It's too much fun to see you leaping like a goosed chambermaid. Small of me, I know.

Ron, if you have an issue with me, personally, feel free to contact me via PM. Suffice to say that any hostility here is a function of your own inference, not my intent.

QuoteMalcolm, you asked this very thing in Indie or not? back in April. Raven listed several threads for you to reference, and I specifically invited you to contact me for further questions. You didn't do that, so any dialogue which would have determined whether your publishing was "Forge-called-independent" didn't happen. I still have no idea, so any sense that you have of being "rejected by the Forge" is your own doing.

I am not talking about the Forge as a resource for creators. I know where my work stands; stuff about it isn't going to appear in Indie Game Design. I'm more talking about the way non-indie stuff is treated -- and that is indeed topical. It's certainly difficult for me -- who has both indie and non-indie projects in the works -- to have any coherent idea of what your aims with this activism actually are, because the community's critique of the "amisntream" is so broad as to lack any specific points of applicability.

QuoteOwnership is defined as final authority over content, development, and finances. Small groups of people are permitted, in addition to one-person shows.

The full definition may be found in What indie RPGs came out in 2002?:

Quote:
1) Creator has full executive control over the property.

2) Creator is the publisher - responsible for printing costs, art costs, etc. (Note that this does not preclude organizing venture capital or startup stocks.)

3) Profits are received and managed by the creator.

Nuance: small teams of creators are possible rather than a single person.

The gray areas concern distinct degrees of work-for-hire (e.g. Robin Laws on Hero Wars).

What is not a grey area: having a company publish your game, meaning paying for printing and other production costs, with the understanding or contract that the creator retains the IP and will share in the profits once the publishing company has recouped its costs. That is what Atlas does with Unknown Armies and what Hogshead did with Nobilis.

As a point ot technical clarification, what do you mean by "recouped its costs," exactly?

Plus, how does this apply to state-funded Finnish Indrama?

QuoteIt's also not very well understood by some of the folks who are active here at the Forge, hence a lot of dust clutters the air sometimes when it gets brought up. And some other folks who do understand it tend to focus on their own re-phrasings, like Ralph and his "vision" stuff. But there's one single authority, who is me, and that's the yardstick I use every time.

And, also to be clear: independence has fuck-all to do with whether I like a game, a company, or a person. I've demonstrated this so many times that it's actually archaic-sounding for someone to drag out the old saw about "whatever Ron likes he calls independent."

It's reflective of the qualities of the community -- and I can always skip over to the WoD thread to see your use of "coporate" as an invective. The question now, appears to be whether the Forge's critical tools are meant to be used honestly, or whether, frankly, it's in your collective, continued interest to let your perception of how people are making games rule that day and furiously tilt and the result windmills -- or whipmasters, for that matter.

Too bad.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Ron Edwards on September 03, 2004, 10:45:42 PM
Hello,

"Personal issue," no. Nor do I perceive hostility. Yanking your chain is fun to be sure, but what I'm really mocking is any actual extremity on the part of an independent publisher. "Whipmasters" indeed. What bullshit.

(Californians love to impersonate points of view they disagree with, as a form of satire, often to the confusion of others who, gasp, cannot believe they would say something so awful, etc etc. I run into this miscommunication in the American midwest all the time, so must curb myself frequently.)

What I do perceive from you and other work-for-hire freelancers is conflict of interest. We literally make our money in entirely different ways. The way I and Clinton are empowering, successfully, isn't your way. I see your comments and others as resentment about that, for implied criticism and judgment of the way you've chosen to make this money. As if you were filthy or mercenary or something similar.

This resentment is especially expressed in a way which you claim it isn't: defense over the creative content of the games. You playtested it? Authored part of it? Helped create it? Fine - because you do not own it, nor did you have final authority over anything that I or anyone might be criticizing, then the "attacks" aren't your problem.

So why bother defending it? Defend your work in it, if you'd like. Explain why it's an awesome game, maybe by posting in Actual Play. Compare its features to similar games in RPG Theory. But who cares whether the game undergoes critique and its creative power-structure is called to task for perceived flaws? It's not your authority or input which is under fire.

That's why I think you are posting. I think it's economic conflict of interest, and that you think it's unfair. My response is that yeah, economics are unfair. People take different approaches to making money.

Since I don't think our actual, personal success(es) are threatened by one another, then I'm happy with peaceful co-existence. But those differences in outlook are going to be manifested - sometimes with bile (as in Sean's case), sometimes with open criticism of an approach to creative work on the work (as in mine, in the thread you mention), and sometimes with educated or uneducated comments that any number of people won't like. Any of these are subject to discourse.

Free advice: you won't get anywhere by identifying terms as evidence of values. You'll see whatever values you want to see, when you look at a site as diverse in outlook as this one. Criticism toward White Wolf? It's invective! Ha! Found the values. Must be the real values here - the whole community is in on it!

Yeah, your comments do read that paranoid to me. All I need to do is consider your position - how you make your money - and it all makes sense. You're defending the source of your income. OK, that sort of cuts any chance for discourse out of the picture.

Clarifications ...

You asked what I meant by "recouping cost" in the quoted text. Usually that means that the publishing company pays for printing and many other tasks involved in getting the book actually made as a physical product. Profits from the sales go first to the company, so that they make back their investment. Subsequent profits are split among the company and creators, according to whatever arrangement they've agreed to. Royalties are a common example, but I've seen others.

How would any of this "independence" stuff apply to Finnish Indrama? Good question. Might be out of the box, considering that all of my "independence" stuff was construed in a fully-capitalist context. Or maybe it's just not independent, period. I'd like to know more about the details to decide, or throw it open to discussion among people who know a lot about it, in order to learn more. RPG Theory topic for sure.

Your final question isn't a question. You've made up your mind, it appears, that I've used "corporate" as invective. Ah! Case closed, Ron hates White Wolf, awful terrible corporation that it is. Knew it all along. Found the values.

My final point: I welcome anyone and everyone to write off anything I post here, at this site and any other, as the ravings of a bad person. It strikes me that once so identified, my ravings would then best be ignored. After all, why bother debating with the ravings of a bad person? It won't make you any happier to do it, and the bad person certainly isn't going to change.

Saves us all a lot of trouble that way.

Best,
Ron
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Valamir on September 03, 2004, 10:55:43 PM
Quote

So if Ron Edwards rented an studio space, his company wouldn't be "indie" any more? As for numbers of employees, you haave Issaries and Driftwood, both of which have employed multiple people. I'm nto sure how sticking them in an office makes a difference.

No Malcolm.  Theres a level of rising frustration I'm going to try to avoid contributing to here.  You will read back in my post that I said such decisions put indie status in jeopardy.  Not that it immediately disqualifies you.

I also explained why, in some detail.  Its not a question of whether you have or don't have employees (for the record I'm 99% certain Driftwood under Jake Norwood had zero employees, Brian can correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe he was a contributing fan with privileges).

The question is whether you've committed your company to ongoing periodic non discretionary expenditures to the extent that you no longer have the luxury of designing the game how you want and releasing it when and how you want.

As soon as your long term non discretionary expenditures reach a point where you are forced to sacrifice art for profit you cannot be indie.

Now, I will add, this is part of the clutter Ron alludes to.  Its not part of the official Forge definition but rather is IMO a practical extension of it.  The official Forge definition refers to another human being not the creator having control over the hows and whens and whys.  I, however, believe that the knocking sound of the credit collectors also qualifies as another human being not the creator for this purpose.

But that issue is perhaps tangental and should be dropped

Quote
After a certain degree of success you have to make a decision about how to expand. Let's look at TSR:

TSR in the early 70s was as "indie" as they come, but of course, it stopped being that at some point. When would that be? Well, perhaps you are partially correct of you say the answer was when they struck out looking for external capital. See, *that* is a real, honest to goodness dividing line. So would creative staff ultimately being subject to a corporate board in their day to day work.


There is always the possibility of finding a clear dividing line.  The problem is

1) you will almost never have access to all of the inner workings of a company's financial situation to make more than a speculative guess about that anyway, because almost everyone plays these things pretty close to the vest (for reasons I find somewhere between amusing and silly)

2) The dividing line depends on so many individual factors unique to each situation for each company that you can never come up with a simple litmus test to tell.  If that's what you're looking for, get used to disappointment.  It isn't possible except as a theoretical construct.


QuoteThese are actual meaningful definitions of "indie." I don't believe levels of profit and where your offices are are as useful. But this -- this is progress:-)

I'm not sure here if your making a joke or are really missing my point, so I'll just say this.  If you actually think my position articulated above was about levels of profit and office locations than you missed the point and need to reread it more carefully.


Quote
How can you tell? If my personal vision is to have an RPG that's full colour with gold-trim pages and artwork by Brom, am I a "sellout" for deciding that I can't afford that and picking something cheaper instead?

What sell out?  Where does this come from?  Did I not go to great lengths to say repeatedly that if that's the business model that works for you great?

Are you reading what I'm writing or are you responding to your own projections?

Let me make it perfectly 100% clear.

If that is your vision.  And using the corporate model helped you achieve your vision.  And it wound up being a pretty great experience with none of the horror stories people worry about when they "lose control"...then absofrickin' fantastic and I couldn't be more pleased for your success.

But it ain't indie.


Why is that a problem for you?  Why is that even an issue?  What exactly is your agenda for caring?

And don't say its just about getting a clear idea of the definition.  Nobody cares about having a clear idea of a definition is until they want to know how it fits or doesn't fit with their own personal issue.

So what...exactly...is your personal issue.


QuoteYou can have people who don't change content to please but who get somebody else to publish it.


True and Irrelevant.  It doesn't matter if the controlling party does 100% everything you could ever want them to.  If you're fortuneate enough to find such a person...wonderful.  I'm highly skeptical about how long a situation like that will last before your benefactor starts making demands of some sort; and I don't find talking about "what if you could find such a person" to be very useful.

But if this is a real person you've really found who's really fronting the money to publish the game and has no intention of saying boo about anything...who has no intention of ever making "suggestions" about how to change your game when sales wind up being alot worse than expected and he's at risk for losing his investment...good for you.  But it ain't indie.


Quote
This is true, but it in no way implies that the creator has to be the publisher, either -- though technically, you now have "corporate publisher, indie creator." This makes sense -- it's the way actual games have been created.

No.  It not only implies the creator has to be the publisher...it requires it.  If you are the person who created the game and someone else gets to make the choices about it (like whether to print a second print run or not.  Or whether to sell direct or only through distribution. Or what price to sell it at, or whether to change the cover) then it isn't indie.

Really Malcolm,  that's the definition.  


You may not like it.  You may not agree with it.

But can I at least hear from you that you understand it?


QuoteYou seem to think that all models make the publisher the default creator of the game. They are not. The designer creates the game. The designer is not necessarily the subject of a corporate body. He can make a choice.

No, I seem to think the indie definition of the Forge requires the publisher to be the creator of the game.

'cause that's the definition.


Quote
I am controlling the purse strings. I made the contract with this publisher. They are my client.

As an alternative example, you have government funded games in Northern Europe. In interviews, Ron has said that he welcomes their presence here -- but by your terms, that don't control the purse strings for many of their works, either.


Well, until you come out and actually outline what your actual business practice is, there probably is no point to continueing this discussion.

What are the terms of this contract?  Who decides how many copies to print?  Who decides how many pages the book will be and if it will be full or half size?  Who decides how much art it will have, who the artists will be and how much they're paid?  Who decides whether to print in color or black and white?  Who decides whether it will be sold direct or only through distribution?  Who decides after an extended period of no sales to just mulch the rest of the inventory for the tax writeoff?  If the first run sells out who decides whether to print a second run?  If there was alot of player feedback about how to "make the game better" after the first print run who decides whether to change the game to meet that feedback and make the second print run a "revised" version.  Who decides to offer the game simultaneously as a PDF or not?  If someone is going to sue over copyright infringement for your game who gets to foot the legal bill?

Who makes these decisions Malcolm...you or him?

I can tell you right now that I am indie because for every single one of those questions the answer is me.

For Burning Wheel its Luke Crane.  For My Life with Master its Paul Czege.  For Sorcerer its Ron Edwards.  For Riddle of Steel it was Jake Norwood.  It isn't any longer.  Riddle of Steel is no longer indie which is why they've now moved their forum elsewhere.

For Hero Quest, I don't know, because I'm not privy to the secret information.  But if Ron Edwards feels the answers to the above are Greg Stafford and that makes it indie, then I either accept that or call him a liar.

Its a real simple definition.  If the creator of the game is also the person in charge of the above questions then its indie.  If the creator of the game is not the person in charge of the above questions its not.  It doesn't matter how altruistically inclined that other person is.

So feel free to answer the questions for your self.

It does get more complicated when you have multiple co creators who are also co owners, but Ron feels that with sufficient information provided he can sort that out into indie or not.  If for some reason you feel knowing how he does that is important, why don't you just ask him?


Quote
Well no, that isn't "all there is to it," outside of the indie sphere. That's the problem. There are many ways of getting a game out.

Well yes, that is all there is to it.  Here at the Forge, that is all there is to it.  If you are indie by the definition of the Forge you get to have direct support for your efforts.

If you are not indie by the definition of the forge you do not.  That's all there is to it.

If you don't like the Forge's definition you are welcome to go start your own web community for whatever business model you want to support.  If you're just not sure whether your included in the definition or not and whether you can get support here just PM Ron, answer whatever questions he asks and he'll be able to tell you.


Now if you have an actual specific business model that you are actually practicing yourself or know of other who are...that you think it would be worth the effort of designers here to know about and consider for ourselves...

Then quit beating around the bush and just tell us about it.

Spell it out, man.

This arguement by oblique reference gets really tiresome.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on September 04, 2004, 01:30:00 AM
I'll be honest - I can jusify the  . . . testiness on all sides here, but I wish it wasn't happening.  From anyone.  But then I'm told I'm "too nice", sometimes.

It seems to me the core of it is this: surrendering actual publication of your work to another party is a risk.  Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.  Of course using a layout guy is a risk, using an artist is a risk, hiring Robin Laws is a risk . . OK, maybe that's not a risk.  But hiring someone to write your rules is a risk.

So risk (of bad product, of unfulfilled promise, of financial loss) exists everywhere.  But Ron and Clinton believe that the particular risk of a second-party publisher is unnecessary, and many people (NOT all) would be better off not doing that.  They created the Forge to support that belief.  To evangelize that belief.  People who think they are better off taking that risk don't qualify for full-on "support" at the Forge, though I'm grateful we can hear about, say, Nobilis in Actual Play, or see UA referenced in Theory, and etc.

Malcolm, as a reader/low-key participant in this thread/issue, what I really want to know is does that make sense to you?  I'm fine with you not liking it, but I'm really hoping you understand it boils down to "Ron and Clinton like the idea of a creator controling his own publishing.  They use the site to support that belief."

I also have no problem hearing even more about WHY they like that idea so much, but I think I know a good part of it.

Gordon
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: eyebeams on September 04, 2004, 03:12:07 AM
It's pretty simple:

1) The Forge exists to support companies that fit Ron's definition. It also exists to criticise RPG design.

2) If the Forge wishes to coherent criticise RPG design, it must comn\e to terms with the way RPGs are designed and produced.

3) Finding out what 2) is is not fulfilled by guesswork or uselessly broad categories.

4) Guesswork and uselessly broad categories are the current analytical tool of choice when it comes to figuring out how people make games, thus:

5) Thanks to 4), not only is it difficult to justify any statements people here make about them, it is difficult to justify why the indie method would actually be desirable, except where it feeds into whatever value you put on the Forge's community.

This isn't about my yearning desire for "indie cred." (As I said, I have two games -- Jianghu and Heartbreaker -- in line for that next year, when I get around to them). It's about how things said here can be made more meaningful for me and, I suspect, for others, by tightening the language used to describe how games are made.

Discuss. Refute in detail. Just leave the thinly veiled ad hominems and jabs at my suspected intent behind. I said what my feelings about game design are when I replied to Clinton.

I have to say that I expected better. Years ago I had a conversation on GO with Ron about game design that ended in disagreement but I was touched by the sane, respectful tone he displayed. That, more than anything else, has kept me coming back here to read and occasionally post.

Naturally, I believe that that level of dialogue is capable of being used here, or I wouldn't have bothered.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: greyorm on September 04, 2004, 04:09:29 AM
You know, this is simply not going to be pleasant...

Quote from: eyebeamsIn what way is the "whipmasters" comment neutral? I know you probably intended for there to be some irony -- but when it comes to the stance of many members of the community here, it's not ironic at all.
Here we go with yet more stereotyping of this odd beast called "Forge members" -- as subtly as you might try to split that hair later, it simply comes off as "You know people aren't like that at all, they're very diverse, I wish you Forge people would figure that out." Yeah...anyone else note the irony? Thank you. Seriously, you want to talk about "thinly veiled ad hominems"? Anyways, there's more...

QuoteSuffice to say that any hostility here is a function of your own inference, not my intent.
Sorry, Malcolm, I call bullshit...and I also play my "Right Back At You" card, considering your repetitions regarding references to White Wolf as "corporate" is obvious and pure invective, or that "corporate" is touted as a dirty word by "the Forge": Any invective in such a reference is a function of your own inference, not anyone's intent.

Same thing with the whipmasters bit...it's called "humor." You may not appreciate it, it may not be your type of humor, but that's what it is, patently so to someone without an investment in the group being jibed a little. Ron's right, it is quite humorous (if small) to watch you bluster and gasp and work your shorts into a knot about such a very small and completely empty thing. Any deep and abiding insult in the statement is pure inference on your part, and as such, no one's problem except yours.

So, get past yourself and get over the "whipmasters" comment, and your bloodpressure will probably drop ten-fold, because you're taking yourself and the horrors perpetrated by the Forge machine far, far too seriously to currently engage in reasonable discussion.

You want to get pissed off about something worth getting pissed off about? Alright, here:

A young child we know was recently molested by their uncle. The family openly refuses to do anything about it, close relatives who found out about the incident refused to report it and told everyone else not to say anything to anyone. The only two family members who decided to report this uncle to the authorities are now being ostracized and harassed by the family for daring to break the silence.

Note this is neither the first incident covered up by this particular family, nor the first child molested -- one of the family members reporting this incident was a childhood victim of the same cover-up behavior by their family (different offending relative, though) and can't take seeing it done to a younger relative.

If you want the statistics on how often things like this happen (except where no one reports the abuse) well...they're goddamn scary.

There, that's something you can get all worked up about. Work yourself into a raging froth about it.

"Whipmasters"? Yeah...
To put it crudely: pull yon stick from yon ass, because it's becoming a diamond. End of story.

Either take that advice to heart, or really, just leave, because you're going to be an intellectual drag on everyone until you do, no matter how smart or skilled or knowledgable you are, due to this oversensitivity.

This is, of course, the main problem with certain individuals who want their heads patted during discussions; it's always insults and invectives when the other party doesn't agree with/like a particular position or subject the respondent has a personal stake in, because then any (percieved) value judgement is taken as a judgement of the individual rather than a judgement of the issue.

You know, certain people come here, they expect to be taken by the hand, patted on the head, and spoken to with soothing, non-challenging words. Then they aren't, and they have apoplectic fits about the "evil that is the Forge and/or Ron" and how badly they were treated, etc. etc. etc.  Well, grow up, you're adults. As adults, you should be well above behaving like a fist-clenching high school student.

"How dare they say our football team isn't that good!"
"You lost ten games."
"Yeah...but we still work hard! How dare they!"

All these gripes ultimately tend to boil down to is "I can't handle the difference in your point of view! You, therefore, are an evil asshole...and cultists!"

I consider Chris Pramas' childish temper tantrum some months ago to be a prime (if not the definitive) example of this nonsense behavior.

And it all arises from inference.

Note that this "pat my head" behavior is also tied any response I might give to your query to Clinton about the suitability or utility of his use of the circle-jerking analogy. It's an absolutely great analogy that I utterly adore his pulling out (ahem, no pun intended), because it is right straight to the point, and it isn't sugar-coated. It simply is.

Unfortunately, most of the time it seems you are looking to argue, rather than looking to discuss. Consider: I've noticed the disheartening tendency of your text (not only here) to practically shout "they MUST be saying this, they MUST be" then building arguments that attack that MUST, which ends up being nothing more than running around in big circles. Don't agree? Well, 1) I don't expect you to, but 2) it's more obvious from an outside perspective. Why do I say that? Because a great majority of the time, the whole "football team" analogy above is exactly what your responses "look" like when broken down.

As an example from elsewhere, your response and rebuttal in the WOD Impressions thread is a very clear display of this behavior:

"White Wolf projects aren't written to Threefold needs."
Well, no shit, Sherlock. (Really.)

It was an pointless response on your part, devoid of value, and ends up sounding exactly like a person does when they argue "with themself".

It is also quite apparent that your statement is a reaction to the use of Threefold jargon, rather than the context of the situation the jargon is being used to describe. Yet out came the opposition for no reason more than to somehow express opposition; you might deny it, but logically, that's all that's really there. It was absolutely empty of real, discussable value as a response.

I have a very strong feeling that if the words Drift and Incoherence had not been used, the Threefold would have never have been mentioned by you, and the actual point being made would instead have been discussed, as it was later by other posters; a point that was really quite simple, and only made complex by infering context and statements that were not present.

It's the same thing here in this thread.
The definition of indie, as stated both elsewhere and repeated in this thread, is really (actually) simple and really (actually) functional, I promise.
Quit making it complex.
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Ron Edwards on September 04, 2004, 08:28:09 AM
Hello,

Well, it's been a night's sleep later.

I guess it's time for us to stop ganging up now. Four responses: mine, Ralph's, Gordon's, Raven's; five, actually, Clinton too. Five very different people, but the net effect is one of ganging up. With any luck, the array can be seen as five different people, not (5 x 1).

Anyway. The real issue, and Malcolm, you did state this nicely just now, is whether discourse at the Forge typically makes use of guesswork and uselessly broad categories when non-independent games are brought into the dialogue.

And he's right about that, people! Yes, in order to address issues of design and publishing in our limited sphere here, it is necessary that such issues be understood for games outside that sphere as well. Otherwise the site is an incestuous hive.

So! Do we rely on guesswork and uselessly broad categories when non-independent games come into the picture?

Well, it depends, now doesn't it? As with any website (especially one dedicated to permitting grass-roots entry), people come in with all kinds of misperceptions and emotional baggagge. It's very hard, for instance, for many to grasp that TSR is not the flagship, numero uno successful game company of all RPG history. Getting past that is part of getting educated about RPG publishing.

And furthermore, a lot of brutal truths have to get spoken too - White Wolf did not have a happy sunny time, financially, in the middle-to-late 1990s. No bankruptcy ... but if all the insider accounts I've garnered are true, it was definitely whispering in the company's ear like the Nemesis in Wraith. The "big four" first games and their fill-the-walls supplement publishing context were not financially sound.

Who can tell the emotional/misperception baggage from the brutal truths? I tell ya, in a single thread, it's not possible. Nor is a little tolerance about the former, in the interest of long-term education, easy to tell from over-stating the latter.

And how about the corrective posts which try to keep such things "right"? When do they turn into kneejerk defensiveness? Unfortunately, within moments, especially when economic interest is involved.

That's the environment we're in. The question is not whether the place is perfect, but rather whether it is better, in terms of guesswork and useless categories, than it might be. I think it is, but so what. The answer is up to the individual participant.

Best,
Ron
Title: Issaries and independence
Post by: Valamir on September 04, 2004, 10:31:58 AM
Malcolm, I'm going to try this one more time and then bow out.

Your last post answered none of the questions I raised for you.  You didn't even do me the courtesy of acknowledging that you understood what I was saying.

So please.  What is your agenda on this thread?  You say its not because you want indie cred yourself, fine...so what is it?

What is that ultimate point you're pursueing here Malcolm, because I have to admit while you started off making what I thought was a valid point you've since buried that point in a lot of bluster and rhetoric.

Specifically, what is the point at which you'll be able to read a post on this thread and say "ahh, yes, that's what I was looking for, thanks".  What aspect of the Forge definition needs to be changed or clarified for you to be satisfied?  That way we can either do it or explain why we won't do it and the conversation can come to a close.