Iron Game Chef -- The Publication!

[greyorm]

I think most folks are bright enough to realize that a published collection of draft-copies of games is different than a published collection of edited and polished games (especially as I'm guessing a statement to that effect will be included in the introduction to the IGC collection, making the "expected quality" obvious to all readers).

Hence, why someone not smoking crack would expect declared drafts to be comparable to final polished material, and thus judge the NPA book similarly when its contents are quite a different beast, is rather beyond me.

After all, are we going to go around and tell participants at the Forge whether or not they can mention the Forge in their work based on the perceived quality/polish of released material? And who is this Oversight Council of Forge Quality Standards comprised of?

Now, I understand your worry about "tarnishing the image of the Forge," but the Forge is not a publishing house, it's a discussion forum for independent game designers and collaborators, and as such, I think it is ultimately a non-issue what we designers choose to do with our creations.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Well, I agree with Dav's position, if not his tone. Properly handled a publication like this is unlikely to damage any image, and if improperly done, anything at all will hurt your image. It's just a question of trusting the people doing it, and I have no reason not to trust Dav, especially with Mike overseeing.

As to the confusion between NPA and this, that's where coordination comes in. Related but different, that'd be what I'd shoot for. I'd probably even use similar visual elements and the NPA name to hammer home the "line" we have here in the Forge. Then again, I don't have any agenda or stake apart from furthering Forge values, so you might disagree.

Overall, we can quite easily put aside all notions of "the public face of the Forge", as Dav suggests, or we can try to work up some social engineering, or marketeering as it's called in America. Both are possible, and while building brands and cooperating to generate consciousness give added value, they also subject us to the threats Ben outlines. It's a choice to be made, and one to be taken seriously. Ron and Clinton have taken a concervative route concerning this, keeping Forge very strictly out of all kinds of public projects. Despite this there is many things where the line could be drawn differently by different people, like cooperation between NPA and IGC for example, and the degree of Forge, NPA and IGC brand used in marketing. These are things that will come to haunt us as either missed opportunities or flawed impressions later on, so there's no reason to avoid discussion.

Ben voices rightful concerns, but the proper way to answer them is to make sure things he fears do not happen, rather than dismissing them out of hand. So if you please Dav, tell us your stance on NPA and how it affects the publication. Ben didn't try to kill the book.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Frankly, I think the conjunction of "These games were written in about a week" and their sheer quality and consistency can say nothing but good about their writers.

[Walt Freitag]

You'd think that what Raven says about intelligent people having reasonable expectations, when told in plain English what they're getting, would be true. And yet, the hazard Ben points out is real.

Me, on the phone to a client: "I'm going to send you a prototype of the [computer] game, so you can check out how the game works. Remember, this will be a prototype with scratch art. It won't be the real art. The art in the next version will look different."

Me, in the cover letter to the prototype submitted to the client: "This is a prototype of the game play only, so you can check out how the sprites move and how the controls work. The art isn't in it yet. The version with the art will have a completely different look."

Me, in the intro text that appears on the screen when the prototype is started up: "Prototype for sprite movement and game controls. This prototype has scratch art only. Please pay no attention to the art."

Client, after receiving prototype: "I don't like this game. The art sucks."

Expecations aren't always reasonable and they tend to be indifferent to context. It can be a problem.

- Walt

[Walt Freitag]

Acciddental double post deleted.

[Palaskar]

Hi, this is Michael Mendoza. You definitely have permission to print my game "Dilmun, Islands of Dawn:Assualt of the Black Ice."

Do you want it as is, or should I add examples for each mechanic? I.e., in the Assualt (Combat) section, I could add examples for Close the Gap, Take the Measure, and Finish It! attacks. The only thing is that I'm kinda busy right now, as I have to revise Signature (the game system Dilmun uses), plus possibly email copies of Signature if people start buying it, plus revise and sell my e-pamphlet "How to Write Stories," plus some other stuff like maintain my website, etc.

So, basically, I'd like to know what the prority is on me for giving examples for Dilmun, so I know where to fit it in my schedule.

[Palaskar]

Ack. It's "Dilmun, Islands of Dawn: Assault of the Black Ice." Got my a and u mixed up.

Michael Mendoza

[xiombarg]

Y'all certainly are welcome to print my little entry, once I beef it up a little.

That said, I suggest all the nuts and bolts stuff -- "I prefer RTF, no more than one illustration" etc. that have come forth in this thread be, at some point, put in one place, so you don't have to go searching through the whole thread for the data. :)

[Ben Lehman]

(Just as a note, if this happens, Polaris will be in it, because I feel that it ought to be as complete as possible.  This is not a "take my game out" post.)

Hey, Dav: I'm not trying to piss in your cornflakes.  I'm trying to point out some real problems with the project and, even if you're dead-set on doing it, I think it might be worthwile to hear me out, just to understand the risks and possibly ablate them slightly.

As for the formality, which perhaps is the wrong word -- I think that printing and distribution, even on a small scale, entails a very different set of artistic concerns than a bunch of friends having a game-writing contest together.  I certainly would have done things very differently with Polaris if I had assumed that it was going to be published in anything near its present state and, likely, I would have been much more conservative in the design, and the game would have come out the worse for it.  Now, this is partially my own pecadillo, but can you understand how publication and distribution changes the tone of the event, particularly when people know in advance that there will be a publication?

Imagine the difference between "Hey, we're all going to get together and practice our writing" and "Hey, we're all going to get together and write short stories for publication."

Also, as far as I know, the idea of an "RPG Anthology" is a totally new one.  The No-Press was pretty much going to be the first, followed perhaps by others.  Releasing another anthology at the same time will invariably result in some confusion between them, especially if they are seen as both being "products of the Forge," which they probably will be.  So people are going to read the "IGC Anthology" and say "these RPG anthologies are just a bunch of good-for-nothing games that people threw together" and be bitter and turned off.  Or, people are going to read the no-press first, and buy the IGC expecting that level of art content and ironing, and be very disappointed and get bitter and turned off.  I don't think I'm alone in saying that bitter and turned off is bad.

This goes triple if the two books are "co-branded" or made to look the same.

Again, these are just considerations.

yrs--
--Ben

[Jack Aidley]

I agree with Ben's concerns. Looking at it now I think we should have first considered whether we should do it, rather than running straight into how. I think Ben is right that this radically changes the nature of this and all future Iron Game Chef's.

I also strongly disagree with your stance on this, Dav - it is not just for Mike to decide what happens with the Iron Chef contest and it's entries - the games are ours not his. And "Besides... it's going to happen, too late to question" is simply false - you cannot proceed without us.

As with Ben, this is not a 'take my game out' post.

In terms of other issues raised. I would prefer the Iron Game Chef anthology to be published without any publisher's imprint marks, and I would hate to see 'No Press' become a brand, rather than a product.

[Rich Forest]

Of the issues Ben's raised, I can see the potential dangers of changing the nature of the IGC by setting a publishing precedent. And yeah, as far as keeping RPG anthologies and stuff produced at the Forge separate in their heads, and whether people will/can be expected to do that, I'd say Walt's example is a good one. But I'm not as concerned about the IGC and the No Press somehow being competition, or having bad effects one way or the other on each other. I'd be damned excited to buy an RPG anthology. Two? Yeah, that's even cooler.

I don't think the publication of the IGC is quite as problematic as you're painting it. It's based on the assumption that we're just going to be churning out some crap. But I don't think that's the case at all. Take another look at those games. Aren't there are some really, truly excellent games in there? Could they use some revisions? Sure. Will revisions be allowed? Yup, sure enough. Does the IGC editor have a very sharp eye for game designs and a matter of fact way of letting you know what looks problematic? Again, yup. I trust these games going through Mike's hands and getting revised to meet whatever standards he's set.

Remember, when we first got the No Press Anthology together that we didn't decide whether your games would be allowed in or not based on some flat out editorial policy of "this makes it, this doesn't." Sure, we edited. Sure, I gave as much feedback as I could. And sure the games have been revised. But are they necessarily all necessarily slicker and more playable games, every single one of them, than every one of the games that might be in the IGC? Well, you'll have to make your own call on that I guess when you read them. Can we assume that they must necessarily be better because we started working on the project first? I dunno. We can assume it. Does that make it true?

What I'm saying is, while I do understand your concerns, I don't know how useful comparing the IGC to the NPA is. Do I think the NPA is a great product? Yes, I do. Do I think the IGC could be as well? Yes. I do.

There seem to be a lot of assumptions that the IGC games simply won't be that good. Now I'll be the first to admit that I haven't  read them all carefully. I was too busy working on my own to do so. So I can't say whether they're a bunch of great games or a bunch of half-assed almost games or a bunch of just ideas. But Mike has read them all carefully. If he thinks they're worth publishing, or that with a little work they can be made worth publishing, I'm inclined to trust his judgment.

What if the IGC is a great product? What if it reflects well on the Forge and on that other game anthology. We probably wouldn't be so worried about people getting them confused then.

Rich

[Mike Holmes]

I'm saddened by a lot of these posts. I hope that if I make some things clear to help people see it in the light that I do.

First, I have no idea how the NPA got included in the discussion. That's Luke's baby, and we have nothing to do with it. Period.

Now, I'd be flattered to have a NPA brand logo on the product if Luke thought it was a good idea in order to cross-sell. But there may be some serious considerations there, and I would completely understand if Luke didn't want that to happen. As such, I think that everyone can just shut up about the NPA (which it happens I'm a designer for), until Luke says something about us all getting together. If that doesn't happen, then these are completly separate products.

And yes, I can say that without reservation. Ralph and I produced Universalis with support from this site - should we have been concerned that others might have been producing a product that would somehow interfere with the sales of Universalis, just because it, too, was involved with the Forge in some way? That's ridiculous. So let's just set that aside for the moment.


Next, while Walt is correct about perceptions, all we can do is put a blurb on the back or something that tells people what it is that they are buying. The introduction will make it as clear as I humanly can what the scope of the product is. I'm even willing to do individual intros to each indivisual game if that helps people understand the state of development in which the particular game is currently at when published. What can we do besides try to inform people as to what the product is about? Given that anthologies are, as mentioned, almost non-existent, I think that, itself, will go some way to making people aware that the games inside are somehow different.

The way I see it, they won't so much be buying a bunch of RPGs, as a text that shows the outcome of a contest. Which just happens to be RPGs. As such, developed quality doesn't matter at all. Remember what I said before: originally Dav and I were contemplating just wrapping up the texts as they stand now and publishing them without alteration at all. To make it more explicit that these weren't neccessarily complete RPGS. What we've decided upon is to allow people to do essentially whatever they want to improve them before the publication comes out, making the book a bit more potentially useful to the buyer. I would entertain ideas about going back to the really rough format, sooner that I'd consider....what? What's actually being proposed? Just not doing anything?

I think that some people have some sense that we'd be trying to bamboozle the buying public somehow. That's not the case at all, we want to make explictly clear what's going on, and what the product is. As such, I know, that I'm going to be proud to have my name as that of editor of the product on the book. There is no question in my mind.

Note that, in terms of economics, what we're looking at is selling the book for possibly $10 with as many as 20 games in it (maybe more, who knows). That's only $.50 per game - at that price, I don't think that anybody can complain about the content.

Also, at that price, none of us are going to make much money. If the run sells out, we'd each make on the order of $100-$200. Enough to pay for any art you might want to purchase to include, and a little left over for your time and effort. Really the publication is intended to be to pump up The Forge, to show people what goes on here, and get each author some experience and exposure. Again, in the original concept, we were going to give these away for free in a largely unformatted pamphlet. The idea was to have it as a freebie available for people to pick up with purchases at The Forge booth. There are problems with this due to the volume of material, however.

And, looking at it, the entries are of really great quality. As such I thought that we could make people more interested by charging for it. Again, if you charge a nominal price, people will read a product far more than if you give it away for free. Pamphlets that are put into bags would be mostly chucked, I'm certain. Also, by going with multiple distribution methods, I think we get into more places than we'd get into by just distributing to people who are Forge Booth buyers.


In the past two competitions, despite some excellent entries, and despite me encouraging and trying to help authors, I can't think of one of those games that's been published in any meaningfully improved way. Sure, some of them have their own webspace, etc, but none were made into books and sold. None. That's really depressing, people. Here we have this event that generates so much creativity, and the games produced just languish doing no good.

I want to see these games published for people to see, and hopefully play.

Now, if people have plans to do that on their own, that's great, I'd love to hear about it. But there's nothing about this publication that says that A) you have to participate (it's only going to be a cross-section in the end), or B) that you can't publish the game in some other form after the fact. So, if you publish with us, that means that you will have had a minimum of success with the game at least, and it doesn't prevent you from going further. In fact, I'd think that this product would make an expanded edition all the more desirable.

So I'm not seeing a downside.


For those who don't like the idea of the fact that Dav is going to have his logo on the product, I suggest that you publish on your own. Dav is putting up the money, and considerable other resources to make this possible, and I think that a logo is a small price to pay to get this product out. In any case, it's not happening without Dav, because I can't afford it, nor am I willing to try and organize a couple of dozen people into some sort of conglomerate for so small a project (in financial terms). It's important to keep this simple.


As for "damage" to the IGC competition, first off, just because we do this one book now, doesn't mean that we'll ever do another. Again, as a promotional tool, essentially, I think that it might only ever be useful to do one. I won't rule in out, OTOH, which means what in terms of the pressure on people? That they might want to try harder so that they might have a better game for a potential book? That's a lot of if's. I don't think it'll have much effect at all. And what effect it does have, I think would be good, personally.

So, I'm sorry Ben, if you think that it would hurt your participation somehow, but I'm not seeing why, I don't sympathize, and I think that it's indeed something that you'll have to deal with on your own.

Now, if somebody can give me a convincing argument for why it's a bad idea, other than they wouldn't like it, I'll have to consider it. Because, indeed, I take my privilege in being the only person allowed to run these contests here very seriously. Before even considering doing this, I asked both Ron and Clinton what they thought about it. Ron has some concerns about just how "indie" the whole thing is (he'd like to have you alll publish on your own - which I encourage you all to do if that's really your intent), but outside of that, they don't have any problems with the idea.


So I remain largely unconvinced that there is any problem at all with this project - rather the opposite, I see a really neat and innovative produt. I hope that what I've said here will give some of my vision on my thinking and that this may clarify anybody's perceptions of what's going on to their satisfaction. I'll continue to hear arguments about this, but I sincerely hope that I've made a positive impact with these statements. Because, as I said at the top, I am saddened that anybody sees this as anything but an attempt to improve The Forge's reputation, and the reputation of the games that come from work here. That's been my intention and Dav's intention from the start.

Mike

[Zak Arntson]

Formatting question: Dav (and Mike, since you'll be editing), what kind of formatting notes would you like? My manuscript has headings, subheadings, bulleted lists, IGC-flavor text, rules text, and potentially some example-of-play callouts. I figure if we all present you with the same style of notes, then it'll make your job easier and quicker.

[Luke]

Hi kids,

I've only skimmed this thread -- since I am farking busy with the Monster Burner and the NPA -- so don't sue me if I've missed a relevant point.

Here are my bullet point thoughts:

Iron Games Compilation: Yes. Do it. Why the hell wouldn't you? More potential audience (in print) for a bunch of very cool games that are likely a completely unique entity in the rpg world. I'd play up the coolness of them.

NPA vs IGC: Let's fight! Wait, no. Let's join forces! Nah, screw it. Wait, no. Actually, I think these are two very distinct projects that there will be absolutely no confusion between whatsoever. They are going to look completely differently and have completely different content, and be marketed differently. (at least I hope so. I did find some suspicious spyware on my computer the other day...)

Branding: I'd love to cross-brand, but frankly, we don't have a brand and neither do you. We've got a cool name (and logo) that we've cooked up for the NPA, but that's it. No one knows a damn thing about us and it is going to take a lot of people a lot of hard work to get the word out. I know the Forge seems like the center of the universe, but it's really just a few chickens in the chicken coop (pardon the strange analogy) makin a lot of cluckin. Just cause we cluck up a cool idea, doesn't mean anyone cares. We've got to make them care.

Branding 2, The Forge: I love this place, but Ron has let it be known that it is not an imprint, brand, publishing house or money laundering front. I'm not planning on using the Forge at all in marketing the NPA, I recommend the IGC does the same. Let's make our own brands.

To Review: IGC? Yes. NPA vs IGC? We're friends doing two different things, let's keep it that way.

Please don't start any discussion about the NPA here. If you need to, we can start another thread.

-Luke

[Mike Holmes]

Zak, forget what I said about RTF. See Dav's comments about formats. I can deal with all of these, so let's do that. Dav will give all further guidance about formatting. I will deal with content only.

Luke: about what I thought. Cool.

BTW, and FWIW, everyone, both the NPA and this publication do have stuff saying that they were created at The Forge. Like Luke said, not an imprint, but really just sorta advertising for The Forge more than anything else.

Mike