Suggestions for Indie Manifesto?

[Ron Edwards]

Among other things, I hope to get a little Indie-RPG Manifesto pamphlet ready for GenCon. It might be no more than a two-sided sheet; time is short.

Any suggestions for what it should say? Act fast, 'cause this is down to (say) a day of meaningful posting.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Obviously I reserve the "final cut" rights.

[joshua neff]

Well, obviously this won't speak for the entire indie RPG world, nor even everybody who regularly posts on this forum, but...

* System does matter.

* We have only begun to explore what RPGs can be & how they can work.

* The RPG "industry" is not necessary. All it takes to make an RPG is a piece of paper & something to write with. All it takes to publish an RPG is the will to do it. All it takes to play an RPG is at least 2 people. Everything else is optional.

[kwill]

nnnrgh... will think about this today and reply a little later -- would it be possible for the final product to be uploaded as a PDF somewhere?

there are several starting points for defining indie rpgs: which direction are you coming from?  simply anything author-controlled?

obviously a section on using the web as a promotion and publishing tool would be important, likewise support for the $0 price range

not directly related, but something about the validity of "navel gazing" too -- GNS and other deconstructions of roleplaying

overall, I guess indie is about experimentation: finding alternate methods and achieving surprising results
(well, that's my take anyway)

more coherency... later

[Supplanter]

Take the choicest bits from Nuking the Apple Cart. The parts about designing games to be played rather than to move product.

Best,


Jim

[John Wick]

What's the purpose of a manifesto other than:

a) We're independent, and
b) We design games?

In other words, what can a manifesto state other than the obvious?

_________________
---

That's just me,

John W.

[ This Message was edited by: John Wick on 2001-07-30 15:05 ]

[Dav]

My input:

"System Does Matter" -Ron Edwards
"Blowing Out the Nostalgia Candle" -John Wick
"GNS FAQ" -Ron Edwards, Logan
"Gettysburg Address" -Abraham Lincoln
A list of the known indie companies. -Clinton nixon, et al

(That Gettysburg Address thing, I don't really need that in the pamphlet)

Dav

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Dav,

I don't know if I'd use all those documents.  That might be too much information.

The FAQ is a work in progress so I definately would put it in.

"Blowing Out the Candle of Nostalgia" is a good article but I'm not sure it has bearing on the subject of independant games.

"System Does Matter" has some good ideas in it but decends into the GNS model.

I suggest taking the ideas from SDM and other ideas found around here about what we are trying to do with these tools would make a better document.  I wouldn't use any of the jargon already coined since it will turn most people off.  We're looking to turn people on.  I suggest we tease them by giving our goals but not tell them how we do it.  This way they'll have to check it out for themselves.

What are our goals?

• appropriate rules for the game in question
  
• no more unused/useless/stupid rules
  
• hooking the players
  
• in general, getting the most out of the role-playing experience
  [/list:u]
  
  There are probably more such goals, but this is a good start as it's what sold me so far.
  
  I would, naturally include the address for the Forge and listing several games but add "AND MANY MORE" in big letters at the bottom of the list.
  
  Then again, maybe a list wouldn't be appropriate since it would seem like a advertisement or would seem exclusive.
  
  I don't know.  You're choice.
  

[John Wick]

I guess I'm still wondering what the purpose of this document is?

Is it to advertise The Forge?
Is it to say, "Games should be free!"?
Is it to say, "Independant games are better than mass produced games?"

What's the purpose of such a document?

PS: Although I appreciate the desire to publish "Candle," you really shouldn't include any documents without the author's permission.

_________________
That's just me,

John W.

[ This Message was edited by: John Wick on 2001-07-31 17:08 ]

[Ron Edwards]

John,

My purpose is very clear in my mind: to serve the interests of people at The Forge and to advertise the philosophy that led me to found it. That philosophy is mainly contained in my two posted essays, although neither is just right for a pamphlet.

It has nothing to do with games-for-free. Don't mistake Jared for the Forge. Nor does it have to do with what any one special way a game should be played or published, except for the creator-ownership part.

As for your comment about using your essay without permission, I have sent you a private message.

Best,
Ron

[kwill]

I suppose what's important, then, is that supporting (and developing) creator-owned product pushes the boundaries of gaming:

indie rpgs are more likely (it would appear) to try out different methods of publishing (PDF, website, $0...) and explore different methods of play; an environment like the forge allows examination and musing about these methods and the process of developing them

[in another thread the need to throw out and change was questioned... I have obviously presented a 'revolutionary' take on what indie rpgs are about -- I guess it should also be noted that the forge also helps us identify and refine those elements of already-existing games that are useful and should be encouraged]

I think listing and briefly describing a few games would be appropraite to give a sense of the diversity of product already produced

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I've been giving this a bit of thought, even though it's too late for GenCon.  There's always GenCon 2002, right?

We'll start with the admittedly sucky definition on the main page:

What is an independent role-playing game? Our main criterion is that the game is owned by its author.

Perhaps "owned" isn't the word for it and maybe "author" isn't exactly the right word, either.

how about:

What is an independent role-playing game? Our main criterion is that the game is controled by its creator.

Owned may be part of it, but it is possible to own (in part at least) a property but not control where it goes.  This can include creators who do not exercise that right to control.  So long as they have the right.

For example, Kevin Eastman used to control the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle comic and property.  It was independant comic back then.  Then it became a phenomenom and some suits drove a dumptruck full of money up to his house.  While he retain royalty rights, he signed away all creative control.  

Creative control is an important part of it, I think.  Perhaps caring about the creative control is.  Otherwise it's just a product your exploiting.

Or maybe this is a rather heavy direction to take the whole thing.

[Le Joueur]

pblock wrote:
We'll start with the admittedly sucky definition on the main page:

What is an independent role-playing game? Our main criterion is that the game is owned by its author.

Perhaps "owned" isn't the word for it and maybe "author" isn't exactly the right word, either.

how about:

What is an independent role-playing game? Our main criterion is that the game is controlled by its creator.

I feel you're going in a very good and intriguing direction, but your terminology has grown entirely too vague.  I mean is this about published intellectual property or the 'balance of power' between gamemaster and player?

Creative control is an important part of it, I think.

Absolutely!

Or maybe this is a rather heavy direction to take the whole thing.

I really don't think so.  How about:

What is an indie role-playing game?  We think the main principle is that the game's design should remain the sole property of its author, who retains full creative control.

Just my 2¢ worth (stretching those old rules-lawyer muscles).

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-08-22 09:39 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Folks,

Defining "indie" has nothing to do with "should." I advocate owning one's own work, and I offer resources for doing so. "Should" is your business.

Ownership means FULL control over the property and any means whatsoever of its publication and commerce.

Retaining "creative control" clauses in a contract, or royalty payments, or any other sort of compromise with a fellow-owner that did not create the game, do not qualify.

This is why Orkworld and Hero Wars are indies, because Issaries Inc IS Greg Stafford's method of getting HW into print; because Wicked Press IS John Wick's method of getting Orkworld into print. It's also why UnderWorld is not, because Synister Creative Systems is the Jaffe brothers' venture and Gareth Michael Skarka is the game's creator. As an extremist, I tend to think that because SCS carries out this practice at all, NONE of their games are indie, not even Last Exodus, which they wrote.

[Do not misunderstand - an indie company can put out more than one game. Cat, from Wicked Press, will be an indie.]
[Do not misunderstand - I am not criticizing or denouncing the Jaffe bros or GM Skarka in any way.]

There are still gray areas. When Wicked Press publishes Wyrd, what will it be?

Best,
Ron

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-08-22 15:51, Ron Edwards wrote:

There are still gray areas. When Wicked Press publishes Wyrd, what will it be?

This is going to cause some heat, but it's not meant as any sort of disparagement.

I think the indie community is quick to accept its own. For example, I think Wyrd will be considered indie. Why? Because Scott Knipe is a great indie guy, and so is John Wick of Wicked Press. Both Scott and John (and correct me if I'm wrong) self-identify with the indie-punk scene, and the indie-punk scene accepts them.

Now, for example, take Pagan Publishing. Delta Green is (almost) a stand-alone game. (It's separate from Call of Cthulhu and for this discussion is a game.) Is it indie? I doubt you'd hear many yes replies, and not because anyone has anything against Pagan. It's because the writers of Delta Green (Adam Scott Glancy, John Tynes, and Dennis Detwiller) don't self-identify as indie and aren't a part of the group. They did however write Delta Green, and do own Pagan Publishing. So... what is it? (The same will go for Godlike, their role-playing game due out soon. It's written by Dennis Detwiller, who owns part of Pagan Publishing. Is it indie?)

I don't necessarily think this is wrong. Going back to Wyrd, I have no inside info, but I imagine Scott will still own all rights to Wyrd, and maintain creative control, with Wicked Press just publishing the game. But that doesn't exactly mesh with the definition, just as a compilation of indie games published under one imprint wouldn't.

It's a thorny issue, and one that will have to be decided before the lines are drawn - which will eventually happen.

[Zak Arntson]

I don't necessarily think this is wrong. Going back to Wyrd, I have no inside info, but I imagine Scott will still own all rights to Wyrd, and maintain creative control, with Wicked Press just publishing the game. But that doesn't exactly mesh with the definition, just as a compilation of indie games published under one imprint wouldn't.

It's a thorny issue, and one that will have to be decided before the lines are drawn - which will eventually happen.

I'm not sure we'll ever have to draw any lines.  But then, I start thinking ... if we say, "indie gaming is XYZ." then we suddenly exclude some seemingly indie folks, like Wyrd, for example.  But if we say, "anyone can be considered an indie," what if WoTC says, "We're indie gaming because of the OGL."

It's kind of weird.  What if someone payed Ron $2 million to buy & mass-market Sorcerer?  And he agreed?  Would it still be an indie game?  Sure it has indie-roots, but so did D&D.

Darnit.  Now I've got to think about the line being drawn.  I consider my own games indie.  Why?  I own them.  I have complete control over them.  I think that is the single-most important part.  Okay, so for me, there's two criteria:

* Creator-owned
* Creator stylizes self as indie author

It does get hazy.  If I started a 3-person company, we owned our game, published, and then I left.  I continued to write for them, sporadically, yet I didn't have any control over the property.  Would it still be indie?  Even if I voluntarily gave up control?

Of course, it's just a label for a handful of like-minded folks.  Having an actual title like bands of painters throughout history, would be fun.