Forum re-construction under way

[Judd]

Or have a sticky at the top of New Here, guiding folks to post a first AP thread, maybe even with an outline of what we are looking for in that first post.

[Arturo G.]

Hi Nathan!
I can clearly see your point. I myself strongly agree with Paul's point. But I've the feeling that a double entry point for new people may be highly confusing.
I think Judd's idea may work better. I like specially the idea of given some guidelines about what people here expect on the first posts. I think it is extremely important for new people to understand why The Forge works in this way.

BTW, the title proposed by Paul's sounds like a nice invitation.

Arturo

[Gordon C. Landis]

So I haven't posted for months and the first thing I do is comment on how to change things.  Hubris, I tell ya, pure hubris . . .

I'd be surprised if there's much "ah! change? no No NO!" ranting.  It's (IMO) sensible - and almost needed.  What was begun with closing down the theory forums needs to be "finished."  At least, that the sense I've had as an infrequent reader over the last months.

I'm with Paul that the bestest part of the "New here" stuff is the "what in your play led you to design?" thing.  I'd call the forum "From Play to Design", put it right after Actual Play, and expect that ALL designs begin with a post here (to avoid the ghetto thing, and because it makes sense to know this about any game).  For new folks, it'll probably be a long discussion thread - for others, maybe not.  But that topic is great as a way for the Forge and a new person and/or game to get familiar with each other .  So we get:

"Actual Play" (at the top, implying Start Here)
"From Play to Design" (or maybe start here, if you're design-focused)
"Playtesting - Design at Work"? (the implication should definitely be DON'T start here - maybe move to below Endeavor? and below Publishing?)
"Endeavor" (I almost added something to Endeavor, but it does work on its' own  - and I gather Ron's mostly sold on that one)

Anyway, that's my thoughts,

Gordon

[Sydney Freedberg]

I like Gordon's variation on Jesse's "progression" variation of Ron's original idea. A lot. "From Play to Design" is very nice, too. The whole sequence idea suggests, "yes, you're new now, so you probably need to learn a lot of things, but soon you'll move on to doing progressively cooler stuff."

What's going to stop "New Here?  Got An Idea?" from being some sorry little forum where new folks post and the old salts ignore?

I know I from time to time dive into a newbie "Indie Design" or "Actual Play" post that catches my attention and try to be welcoming and instructive (a tricky balance). Some days I'm in that mood, some days I'm not. Having a nice catchbasin for the "New Here?" posts would give me a place to go to do my Forge community service.

[Josh Roby]

The progression is a good thing.  Despite my question, I also think an introductory forum is also a good thing.  However, I'd humbly suggest that everybody use it to introduce new ideas in general.  Even Ron and Clinton and Vincent and the rest of the Many-Titles-Under-Belt Brigade.  Much as how you're not supposed to post into Indie Game Design unless you're talking about a game that is being designed for eventual publication, the new Design board might have the requirement that you can only post there once you've created a New Idea thread about the game you want to discuss.  For extra shits and giggles, Design posts can link back to the New Ideas thread for a general summary of what the game is all about (so we can stop asking the question when it's already been answered).

And starting with Actual Play is a good thing.  Because (everybody sing it, now) all design should be rooted in Actual Play.

My totally irrelevant preferences are:

Actual Play
New Ideas
Design
Playtesting
Publishing

[Andrew Morris]

Okay, leaving aside the "hey, I like this idea," or "boo, I don't like change," issues, while reading this thread, two things came to mind.

1) The order of the forums does not seem like a sufficient indication of where to post first, in my opinion. I know that I never even thought about it until now. A description underneath the forum title that says, "Post here first," might be enough. A "New Posters" forum would be hard to miss. I would never in a million years assume that the suggested order of posting was indicated by the order of the forums.

2) Since there's a problem of people muddying the design boards with attempts at social integration, why not make a social board? I know the Forge is design-focused and academic, not social, but a forum that lets people say hello, be welcomed, and be asked about their intentions and goals would seem the ideal way to cut out the "post to fit in" situation Ron describes. Then, people can be directed to where they should be posting. "Oh, you've got a concept? Talk about in on Forum X."  "You're stuck at a certain point in your game design? Post in Forum Y." Also, you could have this forum auto-erase old threads, so you don't have to worry about adding too much data for storage. It wouldn't be stuff that you'd reference, anyway.

[Walt Freitag]

If I'm interpreting this correctly....

"Endeavor" and "New Here?" would allow or actively promote posting untested game texts and getting non-playtest feedback about them. (With the additional proviso that "New Here?" discussion be directed toward "What actual play experiences influenced your design?")

"Actual Play" and "Playtesting Hotbed" would rule out same.

So, it's beneficial or at least OK to seek non-playtest feedback about a not-yet-playtested game text if (1) you're new or (2) it's part of a contest, but not otherwise? I don't see the logic of it.

- Walt

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Compiling what people have said and mixing that with some nifty names, here's one suggested lineup of new forums:

"Actual Play"
"From Play to Initial Design"
"Playtesting - Designs at Work"
"Endeavor"
"Publishing and Marketing"
"Conventions"
"Connections"
"Resources" - links to old threads in Theory/GNS/Indie Design/Publishing, blogs, and so on

How's that strike ya, Ron?

Peace,

-Troy

[M. J. Young]

Hey, I left Design over a year ago, because there were too many threads, too many posts on threads, too many game designs to be able to remember from one day to the next what they wall were.

I think anything that reduces the burden of that one forum is likely to be a positive step, and this notion of dividing design posts into several categories seems a very positive approach to doing that.

I'm not really against change per se. I'm against change that doesn't really make anything better. The Internet is full of change for change's sake, but I figure if I have to learn something all over again that I already know, there ought at least to be some benefit in it.

I see a lot of ideas about how to divide things and what to call them. To that, all I will say is that you want the divisions to be intuitive, and you want the forums to break up the burden fairly evenly. I agree that the three categories seem to be the newbie posts, the games genuinely in long-term design, and the quick-design contest games, although I'm not certain I would know where to post for a game design done to test a theory, such as the attempts to achieve congruence through the Viet Nam game. That's a minor matter--I used to post those in Theory anyway.

--M. J. Young

[Josh Roby]

Publishing and Marketing.  Watch me drool.

[komradebob]

Publishing and Marketing.  Watch me drool.

Doesn't publishing already cover that?
Although I do like the suggestion.

[Josh Roby]

Publishing and Marketing.  Watch me drool.

Doesn't publishing already cover that?

Technically, yes.  Publishing is an industry; marketing is a practice.  (Marketing can also be a service industry providing that practice for other industry, blah de blah blah.)  In my experience, however, the current Publishing board is mostly about manufacture, and marketing is ignored or implied.  A little name-tweak might help emphasize the other essential elements of the publishing process.

[Arturo G.]

Andrew said:

The order of the forums does not seem like a sufficient indication of where to post first, in my opinion

It was not enough for me at least.
There should be something more (perhaps the same stick in every forum, perhaps a link in the main page)  clearly explaining what is the purpose of each forum, and where and how to post to them for the first time. It could also be a nice place to tell new people about how to exploit the "resources" links to old theory-like posts, articles, etc. A kind of short general introductory text.

The forum names, and a specific stick in each forum explaining only that forum particulars, may not convey the general approach.

Arturo

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'm not sure just which combo we'll go with, but the discussion has really helped. A lot.

The key issue seems to be, what I'm not new to the Forge, and I do have a "new idea" to toss up? My current thinking is that keeping these posts in the "new here" forum will act as a model for new people - they can see that you are basing your ideas on actual play of some kind ('cause you will be, won't you - right? snarl).

What I'm sayin' is that "game notion out of my ass" posting, devoid of play-experience context, is just as annoying (or more so!!) from experienced Forge folks. It really should have some actual play background, even if it's "hey, I always loved alignment even though it flailed in application, and here's how, so ..." If you want to post in this fashion, and why not, then it's into the New Guy forum with you.

But that's just the current thinking. Keep talkin'.

Oh yes, something else - when we do get around to rearranging the actual page, then what I'll do is this: very quickly, move all the current threads from the first couple-three pages of Indie Design (or maybe reach back a certain amount of time) into their appropriate new forums. That way the forums all get jump-started and the threads all get sort of a new lease on life. The remaining Indie Design then becomes another archived forum along with Theory and GNS.

Ideas or comments on that plan are welcome too. (Come on, folks, how often do Clinton & I say that. Enjoy it while you got it.)

Best,
Ron

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

You know, what Andrew and Arturo said really resonated with me.  It still isn't quite clear that Actual Play is the intro forum, followed by New Design.  So here's a bold suggestion, do you think an Intro to the Forge forum would be appropriate?  It would be a place where the Post Etiquette, Where you should go first, What is an "Indie-RPG" and "What to do if you're having a problem" stickies would go.  It would also be a place (oh boy) where people could post a short info sheet on who they are and what they've accomplished/want to accomplish in the Gaming Industry.  It might be too "social" for what the Forge is about, but it would do several things.  A) it would allow the newbies to come in, say "Hi" and get that out of their system so we don't have to mess with it in Play and Design.  B) it would show the newcommers who's produced what games and who has a blog and whatever else which is important if they want to ask for advice  C) It would maybe decrease a newcomer's fear level in asking questions and sending PMs since he's sorta gotten a chance to get to know everyone- a virtual handshake if you will.  It would also be great if it were at the top of the list so there's no doubt as to where someone new here would go first.

So a potential forum lineup might be something like....

"Intro to the Forge"
"Actual Play"
"From Play to Initial Design"
"Playtesting - Designs at Work"
"Endeavor"
"Publishing and Marketing"
"Conventions"
"Connections"
"Resources"

I think this would help make a smoother transition into the Forge and de-clog some of the forums.  Plus you can actually see a progression from Intro to Publishing/Marketing.  If our goal is to help people play, create, and publish better games, I think this line up will help facilitate that.

Peace,

-Troy

PS: It's really cool of you and Clinton, Ron, to ask for our input.  Makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside.