Suggestions for Indie Manifesto?

[kwill]

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.

historically, that would require having some sort of exhibition and being insulted by a well known critic

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The discussion has me thinking about other media.  WHat we're talking about seems less like "indie" RPG and more like "alternative" RPG

Like alternative music or alternative comedy.

I don't know what the hell alternative comedy is supposed to be, but "alternative comic" Andy Kindler said something profound on the subject:

"People are always asking me how we can make alternative comedy more popular.  I know how to make alternative comedy more popular.  Make it more mainstream."

The term "indie" is a lot like "indie movie studio."  Of course, all of the major movie studios own at least one so-called "indie" studio.

And alternative music was the popular style of music for a while there. (or so it seemed)  Funny how the term "pop" comes from then word popular.

Tragically hip: No one goes there anymore.  It's too crowded.

While drawing lines in the sand is a good idea so that we're all on the same page, but I'm wondering where that line should be drawn.

• Creator owned and operated with the creator scrimping, saving and risking a second or third mortgage on their house to start their own publisher to publish their game
• Creator owned but they sell or license it to a publisher while retaining full ownership and control.
[/list:u]

This is a question that doesn't really require an answer or response.  I merely question if excluding the second guy is really fair.  He just used an option that was available, possibly because he simply couldn't do the first one or wasn't willing to take the risk.

But then this might be the idea.  Rebelling against the establishment.  Like when Peal Jam tried to tour without using Ticketmaster.

Hopefully this can be more successful.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jack,

Excluding your second guy from ATTENTION is unfair. But excluding him from "indie" is exactly my point.

This site was founded on the principle of creator ownership and control. Selling one's material into the control of others, in any way, means exclusion from the category of interest.

Now, of course, all RPGs exist in relationship to one another, indie or not. That's why our discussions about design and play can be about any RPG, because indie game design exists in one matrix of variables with everything else. But as for PUBLISHING and the resources available on the site, it's about the indie thing as defined here.

Best,
Ron

[Anon LeBlanc]

i]sold out.From the Blank Generation!  Viva BlankReg!

[ This Message was edited by: Anon LeBlanc on 2001-08-23 09:29 ]sold out[/i].From the Blank Generation!  Viva BlankReg!

[ This Message was edited by: Anon LeBlanc on 2001-08-23 09:29 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Earlier, this was posted:
"What if someone payed Ron $2 million to buy & mass-market Sorcerer? And he agreed? Would it still be an indie game?"

My answer: absolutely not. It would have been indie before that, and after that it would not be.

My original plan for Elfs was for it to be published by another company, for me to get 60% of all profits after print costs were recovered (we hoped), and for me to retain "retraction" privileges, i.e. the option to cancel the whole contract whenever I wanted.

Now, I regard that option as flawed, for me. It's fake-indie, and I'm happy that Elfs was and will remain mine in every possible way.

The economic-control issue is the central one for me. Please don't misunderstand. I do not think it's the One True Way to publish, and anyone can publish in any way they please. However, I do think self-publishing (ownership) has advantages that are not well-known, and that's why I advocate learning more about it and taking it very seriously as an option.

Best,
Ron

[John Wick]

For me, "indie" means next to nothing. "Creator-owned" on the other hand is self-evident.

Everybody's got their own definition of "indie" and "sell-out." Exceptions to the "indie" definition occur multiple times per day. I don't know what an Indie game is other than "self-owned." HERO WARS is indie, ORKWORLD is indie, SORCERER is indie, but then again, so is ALL FLESH MUST BE EATEN and WITCHCRAFT.

Are Cheap Ass Games "indie?" How about James Ernest Games (color versions of Cheap Ass Games)?

As far as I'm concerned, if a term isn't self-evident, I don't want it in my vocabulary. Its a little short-sighted, but it makes communicating a whole lot easier. :smile:

Carpe deum,
John

The truth is always simple. It's liars who want things complicated.
- The Tao of Zen Nihilism, a Self-Hurt Book

[Jeffrey Straszheim]

I think the Forge, as a whole, need to do some soul searching on this topic.
There are at least two things folks might want to talk about regarding
"indie" games.  One is what Ron is talking about.  Namely, games owned,
controlled, and published by their creator.

However, I think a lot of folks here are interested in talking about, for the
lack of a better term, "alternative games", games and ways of playing that
not well supported by the more mainstream roleplaying communities.  There
are many games of this sort that are not creator owned.  Nobilis comes to
mind.

Of course, creator owned games are a very important subset of alternative
games.

For myself, I don't care what terms folks decide to use.  "Indie", "alternative",
"grassroots", whatever.  They're all fine with me.  I just hope we can land on
some consitent usage.

A thought that just crossed my mind for any "indie manifesto".  We can
look at two subjects, 1) our interests as players of games.  There is
no reason to reject games like Nobilis or the upcomming production
of Wyrd because they're not indie enough.  2) Our interests in the
production and publication of games, where the unabashed support of
true indie games is called for.  After all, folks with those big rich game
companies to support them don't need our help. :smile:

[John Wick]

There is no reason to reject games like Nobilis or the upcomming production of Wyrd because they're not indie enough.

On the subject of Nobilis or Wyrd "not being indie enough," I'll just say this:

I expect to print 3,000 copies of the Wicked Press version of Wyrd. We may sell through.

The PG printed 350,000 on its first print run.
Another 350,000 on its second print run.
They expect the third print run some time in November.

The White Wolf Monster Manual sold 35,000 in its first print run and 35,000 more on the second.

L5R first edition sold 10,000 on its first print run and another 10,000 on each subsequent print run (#7, I think was the last one).

Wicked Press is not "The Big Time."
I printed and sold 3,000 Orkworld. I don't expect to sell any more.

Just because you're in print don't mean you're playing with the big boys. Not by a long shot.

Carpe deum,
John

[Ron Edwards]

My thoughts on the matter continue in this vein ...

1) I'm not sure what the concern with "rejection" is. Let's take Nobilis - a popular game with some Forge members, not with others, but certainly a very distinctive game. It's not a creator-owned game, so I will not review it or accept reviews of it, and it can't have a forum here.

But "reject" Nobilis? Who's rejecting it? Any discussion of its design elements, the events during playing it, its business history, or anything about the game at all as it pertains to a relevant topic, all of that is perfectly welcome at the Forge.

Hell, people, talk about d20 all you want at the Forge,IF you are discussing issues that pertain to GNS, other elements of RPG theory, actual play, design of a creator-owned game - in short, in accord with the forum titles and goals.

2) This is not going to be a popular point, but ... the Forge members do not need to come to a consensus about the issue, because NO Forge policy is determined by consensus. If people who run the Forge (I am one) practice an intolerable policy concerning which games are featured/reviewed, then I think it would be reflected in user rejection of the site. If our take on the matter is at least tolerable, then we continue as is. But that take is NOT determined by polling and summarizing the views of the Forge members.

Are we totally uninterested in Forge members' views on the matter? Of course we're interested - hence my participation on this thread. Your input may raise issues that make a big difference in the outlooks I've stated in this post. Keep in mind, though, that this is not a town meeting to decide what "we all" will do.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

stimuli brought up a good point.

If we're talking indie games do we support (or The Forge supports, whatever that would entail) a game independantly published but which turns out to be little more than a D&D or GURPS clone?  Or are we looking for those games that go "over the edge" and push the limits to the hobby, even if it's published by Hasbro?

I think Ron has already implied the answer.  The Forge here supports indie games more-or-less in hopes that it will help games that do push the limits to be written, read and played.  Supporting indie design is more playing the odds than a guarrentee of such innovation.  Say what you will about WoTC or Tweet, but let's not forget that although they're responsible for this whole d20 thing, they also brought us Everyway, one of the most innovative games I have ever read.

Innovation is where you find it, but WoTC or Atlas or SJG do not need The Forge because they play the RPG publishing and distribution game and play it well.

It's the guys with his own little system (maybe big system) that's only available on his web page that we're interested in because few people may have heard of the game without The Forge.  

This is the sentiment I'm reading here.  Is it far off?

[Ron Edwards]

Jack,

Pretty close, but let me clarify again.

The Forge exists to promote and (hopefully) to service creator-owned games. At THIS level, I don't care if they're good, bad, original, or utterly cliche. At THIS level, the Forge is for anyone and everyone.

Then there's the feedback and interaction level. That's a whole different thing. If a proposed indie-RPG is, bluntly, lousy, I hope that the degree and type of response it gets here (review, discussion, whatever) can be constructive about it.

That's a hope. So far, the degree of innovation and desire to push the envelope has been very high, and so it LOOKS as if the Forge "favors" RPG design that is - for lack of a better word - alternative. But that is a SECONDARY issue, and not at all part of the baseline mission, despite the fact that I like it very much.

Best,
Ron