Issaries and independence

[eyebeams]

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

[Gordon C. Landis]

Malcolm,

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

For 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

[eyebeams]

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.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

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.

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.

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 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.

[eyebeams]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Valamir]

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.

[eyebeams]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

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.

[eyebeams]

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.

[Valamir]

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).

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.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

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?

[eyebeams]

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.

[eyebeams]

Now, Ralph:

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 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.

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.  

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:-)

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".  

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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

But 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.

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."  

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's not really my agenda.

[Ron Edwards]

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

[eyebeams]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

OK, Ron, I'll bite. I have no idea what you're talking about here.