Malcolm's points to me - reply

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Because Malcolm has stated that non line-by-line replies are not to his liking, I'm going point by point in this one, against my better judgment.

Malcolm, you wrote,

Did I ever say, "Think of the children?" Or anything like it? I invite you to refer to something I have actually written. In fact, you'll not I've summarized my points in numbered form, Ron. Snd I will not feel offended *in the least* if you respond to them, on by one.

Here're the children:

For the most part, your [meaning independent publishers'] ability to feed yourself and your loved ones bears no relationship whatsoever to how well you get new people gaming.

It is extremely difficult to respond to this concept without sarcasm. I just tried twice (nope, I lie, three times as of reviewing this post pre-submit) and failed, badly. But I'll confine myself - you asked "where'd I say it," and I have told you.

Here are points which you demanded my response to (repeated twice in the thread):

What I'm saying is pretty simple:

1) White Wolf does not work the way a lot of you think it does or, perhaps, wish it did for the sake of ideological justification.

'K. Write an essay explaining how it works. Post it at the Forge or at another website. Educate.

I should clarify (based on recent private messages) that I have made no comments at all about motivations or goals among White Wolf employers or employees, or those of any other company. I've talked about economics. I consider economics to provide a chassis for decision-making which most of us, most of the time, cannot perceive very well even though our "engines" are sitting on and moving the chassis.

2) One of the aspects that may surprise you is that it designs its games to be played.

I'll spot every game company on this planet the same "aspect." No surprise.

3) It is apparently even more surprising that these games have to be written to have broad appeal that encompasses new gamers.

Surprising to me? You're talking about motivations, I think. I'll accept whatever motivations you care to identify in the designers and so forth. OK, the games are written to have broad appeal. Dunno why you think that'd surprise me.

4) By contrast, Indie games never have to mandatorily sell themselves to neophytes, ever.

Well, independent games have no "mandatorily" anything. That's, uh, part of the point.

One thing we're finding, over and over, is that a lot of the recent games are appealing greatly to people who would not ever be customers for a high-production hardback game in a game store. Spouses of ex-gamers are a particularly strong group, for example.

So maybe we're just talking about different neophytes.

5) Regardless of whether or not you find the system clunky, aesthetically revolting or somehow worthy of Redefined Capitalized Terms, people do play it. New gamers play it. Lots and lots.

And this is controversial how? No disagreement here either. My argument is that sales to distributors are not equivalent to play. Not that no play exists.

This is one of many, many examples of you ascribing views to me personally or to "the Forge." If your sentence were a game mechanic, I would reference the Whiff Factor. Your darts and attributed opinions and outlooks simply aren't ... you know, hitting anything.

6) None of the above is an indicator of the relative quality of anything (WW put out WoD: Gypsies for God's sake, and I have a special hatred for the book Destiny's Price -- please do not assume I have unqualified praise for the company), since that's the faction of an individual's agenda.

'K. You're not a flack. I see no reason to doubt you.

7) However, if you want to get right down to it, my personal agenda is player driven, and I think extremely narrow games that try to shove the game author's creative agenda down the players' throats is horse hockey. I think Drift is the way God Himself intended us to play, and if you disagree with me fundamentally on this point, we are simply two solitudes.

Um. If I disagree with you, does that mean I have to disagree with God Himself too? 'Cause that's sorta weighty.

Leaving the Big Guy out of it for the moment, here's my response: 'K. And a puzzled look. So you think it's horse hockey.

Didn't I already say that you can consider me to be a Bad Old Man in a Corner? Well, you can. There I go, mouthing obscenities, glaring frightfully, being a public nuisance. Fly open, breathing whiskey fumes.

"Horse hockey!" you say, then dare me to respond. What is this, a playground? I'm supposed to care?

That's why I didn't respond to any of your points, Malcolm, because they aren't points. They are your views, to which you are entitled, and to which you may adhere, and to which I have no business replying. Some of them seem based on what I must think, but all of those attributions have been weirdly off-base.

(Oh! Exception = #1, which is a matter of information and education.)

What, did you really want me to try to alter your views about such things? Or to bother unravelling whichever of the dozen or so claims you made about how "the Forge" would respond to something, or what I must believe or claim? (the one I tagged above is an example; there've been a lot, too many to bother with)

Nah. I got better stuff to do. You have posted your views. Some are based on your image of what "we must think," and there ain't nothing to be done about that, and others aren't even particularly controversial or, you know, anything to disagree with.

Oh yeah ...

Before you started chopping the ur thread up, I made a simple observation: White Wolf needs to get its ideas across in an accessible fashion t novice gamers. It doesn't have the luxury of a series of highly theory-driven essays. I am *still* curious as to how "indie" folks would write to these requirements, but apparently the answer is that indie games will rely on their innate virtue to attract newbies. Or something.

There's another one. You raise a question, then state how we (independent publishers) would answer it, then ridicule the answer.

How does one respond to such a paragraph? There is no response. You clearly do not want a response, because you slammed the door on any possible answer to the question.

Am I supposed to guess what sort of post you're expecting in reply? I really am not into guessing this kind of stuff. Since there's no response possible, to any of what you've said, then there you go.

'K. There's my answer.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

Ron?  What's the topic for this thread?  Are there questions you have for Malcolm?  Should other people comment?

[Ron Edwards]

Good call, John. Thanks.

This thread is intended to address Malcolm's points, because he stated them twice in the parent thread, including his full accusation that they were being ignored.

Most of them aren't points. I wanted that to be on public record, and for people to understand why.

Regarding this thread, I guess I've had my say, and it's almost impossible for me to imagine any further dialogue that is not based on re-casting the points into discussable form. I think some of the points can't be so cast; they'd have to be re-invented.

In response to several strong private messages, and as well to Raven's and Doug's excellent points in Site Discussion, I'm done with it. Anyone who protests to me closing this thread because they have something to add, please contact me by PM; I'm leary of killing a discussion if it's there to be had.

Otherwise, let this one die.

Best,
Ron

[eyebeams]

1) Sure thing, but I won't do a big essay. I'll do a rough outline instead. Here's how it works, from my POV as a freelancer:

a) White Wolf (meaning the managerial staff) decides to put out a new game based on an idea generated by an internal or closely conected external staffer. This decision usually happens after talking it over with the other full-time creatives.

b) White Wolf assigns a developer. This developer produces an outline.

c) The other creatives and management fret over the outline and send it back, usually with less  in the way of "Make it more friendly to the 18-24 crowd!" and more, "Er, it doesn't work for me. Try something else." In fact, I have *never* seen the former. Ever. I have seen after the fact crowing about how it *will* hit an audience, but usually, something is sent into revision over its perception as a creative work. Sometimes management has their own creative agenda and they butt heads with development.

d) The developer eventually produces a final outline and with it, a very rough 2 years release schedule. At this point, some rough art direction may be under way.

e) The developer hires a whack of freelancers to actually write it. They see the outline. The outline is very loose.

f) The writers usually make suggestions about the outline, which will have none to a radical effect on the final product. Essentially, at this point the writers can get away with much, if they are good and the developer is the kind of person who believes in a writer-centered process.

g) If the outline has mechanics, we start playtesting.

h) The writers produce initial drafts. This also goes into playtesting. In fact, playtesting and drafts will bounce off each other in a kind of dialogue throughout.

i) The developer redlines those drafts, asking for anything from complete rewrites to nothing at all. Some developers redline everything heavily. Others limit themselves to brief comments. At this point, if you decided to do odd things with the outline, you'll find out whether or not you were clever enough to pull it off.

i-1) Here, we might have one last haul of revisions.

i) The outline goes into editing, then production.

In short: We're talking about a chaotic process, full of second-guessing, that can ultimately be changed at any point of creative responsibility. The primary emphasis is not really on marketability; by and large, it's felt that having a satisfying result will produce something marketable. The outline is, however, informed by a structure the consists of creative and non-creative staff. The process is hugely influenced by developers, though. Working for Geoff Grabowski is sufficiently different process than working for Bill Bridges that only their title is a real indicator that they belong to the same company.

One the book releases successfully, the developer has more solo discretion, it seems. Assuming the release schedule is approved, it's their ship to sail.

2) I'm speaking to past sentiments expressed in the original thread and others, that people aren't really playing and don't like the games, but read 'em and shelve 'em.

3) It's pretty simple. White Wolf has a network capable of bringing in new gamers and an interest in expanding the profile of their IP.

4) Spouses of ex-gamers are not neophtes.

5) Sales to distributors are not *exactly* equivalent to play, but your model of the desperate retailer, being pushed product by an evil distributor, is . . . high debatable, let's say. Plenty of games stores follow the comics model of filling customer-side orders, and many retailers actually confine themselves to what sells. Sometimes, we don't care for what sells. It would be nice if, for example, the cards and GW to RPGs ratio was reversed. But that isn't because of evil distributors. It's because gamers want to buy cards and minis, want to buy D&D and want to buy White Wolf. The claim that this bears little relationship to a gamer's desire to play any of these things is the kind of incredible claim that can only be supported through repitition and excessive recourse of Ockham's Razor.

I always wonder why people don't make the same assumption about indie games.

7) This is one of these semanatic games that gets more tiresome every round it's played, Ron.

There's another one. You raise a question, then state how we (independent publishers) would answer it, then ridicule the answer.

How does one respond to such a paragraph? There is no response. You clearly do not want a response, because you slammed the door on any possible answer to the question.

Am I supposed to guess what sort of post you're expecting in reply? I really am not into guessing this kind of stuff. Since there's no response possible, to any of what you've said, then there you go.

Well, people could explain how they'd dtrsucture and explain a game  for newbie friendliness instaed of claiming that they didn't need to do anything to make indie games newbie friendly. That's the "innate virtue" argument and plenty of folks, including you, are making it. My question remains: How would you write to new gamers? The answer is, so far, that it's unnecessary. Do I ridicule that idea? damn straight I do.

[Ron Edwards]

Heya,

Cool. Comments on the outline coming later.

You wrote,

Well, people could explain how they'd dtrsucture and explain a game for newbie friendliness instaed of claiming that they didn't need to do anything to make indie games newbie friendly. That's the "innate virtue" argument and plenty of folks, including you, are making it. My question remains: How would you write to new gamers? The answer is, so far, that it's unnecessary. Do I ridicule that idea? damn straight I do.

This is definitely a new thread topic, but I also think some thread review comes in too. A lot of this got discussed in detail in the Infamous Five threads, especially the family that got going in Publishing.

One of us should start a new thread, using this paragraph, and bring up the relevant IF references too (they are all listed in a sticky post at the top of Site Discussion). So that way we can actually discuss the topic with a clear foundation of what (diverse) approaches are taken by the independent publishers here.

Again, thoughts on the outline are coming later. Anyone else, chime in with some of your own, if you'd like.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

Malcolm, I'm not sure who's claiming they don't need to do anything in designing a game to make it newbie friendly. I've seen the opposite approach in many, many Forge-related games.

(For example, my own game, Dust Devils, has already been highlighted as a game that approaches, but doesn't quite achieve, a superb level of newbie-friendliness in both writing and design. Good. That was one of my intentions; I sure as heck wasn't hoping "innate virtue" -- whatever that means -- would get me there.)

(EDIT: By contrast, I don't consider my new game, Nine Worlds, to be especially well suited toward newbie gamers. In fact, I wrote the system and the unusual setting hoping that gamers would get all geeked out, then check out some new and interesting ways to role-play, share narration, and build on an explicit theme concerning authority. Check it out, if you're so inclined.

So, where are you seeing this claim? About which specific games? How might your observation constructively help those and other designers as they work on new games or revisions of older ones?

[xiombarg]

Malcolm, I'm not sure who's claiming they don't need to do anything in designing a game to make it newbie friendly. I've seen the opposite approach in many, many Forge-related games.

I'm with you, here, Matt. I know that I made an effort to make Unsung newbie-friendly.

Perhaps as a precursor to the thread Ron suggests, Malcolm could list the games that aren't newbie-friendly that people claim are newbie-friendly, and point to who's claiming that newbie-friendliness is an inherent property of indie games. Because, frankly, there isn't anything that's an inherent property of indie games other than they're creator-owned. They are, by definition, all different.

This is, perhaps, connected to a fallacy that, perhaps, has been seen on both side of this arguement. Malcolm tends to view "Forgites" as a monolithic entity, which we're not, by any means. Not all of us agree with GNS, or all points of it. Not all of us are biased against "big" games -- in fact, I suspect very few of us are. This is why Malcolm's "points" weren't answered by anyone -- becaue, as Ron says, they're a nonissue to most of us. On the flipside, White Wolf and "corporate game companies" are not monlithic entities, either. For example, I'm willing to bet that there are people at White Wolf who share Raven's opinion of Malcolm. Considering how much freelancer work goes into, say, White Wolf or SJG, the "chaotic process" Malcolm refers to, this would have to be the case, i.e. that White Wolf is not a monolithic entity with one "will" as to how gaming is to be done.

[eyebeams]

Does the .pdf of Unsung have an explanation of what a character is, what an RPG is, an example of play and GM advice (including what a GM is and what kind of things they have to do before, druing and after the game)?

This is the kind of stuff I'm wondering about. I'm wondering how someone outside of the loop that has a business motive to write this stuff would write this stuff.

I wonder if there's an invisible participant being assumed by some folks here: the knowledgable gamer you grab the game from and talk to. If you were forced to assume that this person *does not exist*, how would you fill in for them?

[Ben Lehman]

Does the .pdf of Unsung have an explanation of what a character is, what an RPG is, an example of play and GM advice (including what a GM is and what kind of things they have to do before, druing and after the game)?

This is the kind of stuff I'm wondering about. I'm wondering how someone outside of the loop that has a business motive to write this stuff would write this stuff.

BL>  Unsung -- yup.  It has a totally awesome "what is roleplaying description" and play example *right on the first page*, so that as soon as you open it up you see what's going on.  It has a huge amount of advice for GMs and players about how to play.  Honestly, that's most of the content of the book.

What it doesn't have is a generalized descriptions of RPGs.  It has advice for playing Unsung -- if you followed this advice in some D&D or World of Darkness or Sorcerer groups, it might very well get you kicked out of the group, and for good reason.  I wouldn't hold this against the game, though.  I mean, monopoly doesn't contain instructions for risk.

Primetime Adventures is another great game like this.  Trollbabe doesn't have an explicit "what is role-playing" but has a metric fuckton of concrete, simple, digestable examples.  If I was going to recommend a game to, say, my mother, I would recommend PTA or Trollbabe.  Dogs in the Vinyard has some great examples and explanation text in the beginning -- although I think that by the end it overbalances itself towards old-hand gamers.

As to why someone would write this text -- well, outreach, of course.  It's not like it matters less to smaller market RPGs.  But there is another level here.  These games are written by theorists.  We *love* talking about what an RPG is, what it does, and how it gets played out.  We talk about it in exqusite detail all the time.  Writing it at a simple level, as if to a new audience, is honestly less frustrating than writing a big apology about "why this is different than other games" to experienced gamers.

yrs--
--Ben

[rafial]

This is the kind of stuff I'm wondering about. I'm wondering how someone outside of the loop that has a business motive to write this stuff would write this stuff.

Then you'll really want to get your hands on a copy of PTA.  In reading drafts of the text, I was constantly struck by what a good job it does of explaining "what each participant actually does in order to play this game" and that includes the what the game master (Producer) does.  The best part is that all this explanation is smoothly integrated with explanation of the mechanical parts of the system, rather than being a bag on the side as so many RPG text offer.

There may be other games, indie or otherwise that do the job as well or better, but of all the ones I've currently read, PTA is my high water mark.

[John Kim]

Hi.

Can we continue this in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12660">Newbie-friendly Indie Games?  It seems like a more appropriate thread with an actual topic.

[M. J. Young]

Does the .pdf of Unsung have an explanation of what a character is, what an RPG is, an example of play and GM advice (including what a GM is and what kind of things they have to do before, druing and after the game)?

I'm hesitant to say much of Multiverser in this context, because even though it is a creator-owned independent game it can hardly be said to be a "Forge" game--it's several years older than the Forge, and was finished and put to print before I'd ever heard of Ron Edwards or RGFA or most of the theory that's around.

Also, Multiverser states up front that it's targeted at the experienced gamer; it was created to expand the possibilities for gamers who have been playing for years.

That said, it also states that every effort was made to provide support for someone picking up the book with no clue about it. It does provide definitions of the unusual terms it uses, in the introductory chapter, including Player, Character, Player-Character, Non-player Character, Associates, Referee, Attributes, Skills, Check, Polyhedral Dice, Martial, and Ranged, as well as brief background sections on game-specific concepts that are further developed later, such as Multiverse, Scriff, Bias, Multiple Staging, and Gather. It includes a section, What Is an RPG?, as an appendix referenced in the first chapter, for those who need that foundation as well.

Certainly there are things we could have done better, particularly if we had a view to introducing a lot of people to gaming through this. Probably we should have thought in those terms. However, as an independent game designer I would say that indeed I, at least, did all those things.

--M. J. Young

[xiombarg]

Does the .pdf of Unsung have an explanation of what a character is, what an RPG is, an example of play and GM advice (including what a GM is and what kind of things they have to do before, druing and after the game)?

Yes, actually. It may surprise you, Malcolm, to know that I actually agree with you about something. ;-D That is, I agree that the old school "how to roleplay" essays generally do their job.

The version of the essay in Unsung is not a general intro to RPGs and is tinted toward the Unsung mode of play, but, yeah, I try throughout the final text to be highly newbie-friendly.

This is the kind of stuff I'm wondering about. I'm wondering how someone outside of the loop that has a business motive to write this stuff would write this stuff.

Well, Malcolm, I welcome your input:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/xiombarg/539465.html

I wonder if there's an invisible participant being assumed by some folks here: the knowledgable gamer you grab the game from and talk to. If you were forced to assume that this person *does not exist*, how would you fill in for them?

I can only speak for myself, in that I do not assume such an "invisible participant". This is because, as I said, indie games are by definition not monolithic entities -- not even games developed with input from the Forge.