It's the system, stupid

[Matt Snyder]

Holy hell and double damn. I composed one helluva reply, then lost the damn thing (even while using Word.)

Anyway, I'll try to recapture what I said:

A compliment makes sense, but needing a reminder says we're forgetting.  Hence my bristle.

Fang, I just don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this one. I completely fail to see how my reminder automatically accuses you of forgeting some vague duty. Rather, my "reminder" is something akin to: "I have observed of late that we've not yet won the good fight. Keep it up, though, and we will." Perhaps that bristles you less, but it's not my concern.

I'm getting the feeling I should add something to the imponderables thread, like 'What more can we do?'  Hey, if we knew the answer to that, we'd be doing it!  I mean, that's a way-open question, also not a good place to start a thread.  (Worse, it almost always comes off as a rhetorical introduction to someone's beliefs about 'how things should be.')

Fang, what are you saying here? My understanding is that you've said that my initial post has no validity, or at least is "not a good place to start" because there is no answer posed. I guess I see asking any question pertinent to gaming as a valid reason to post anything here on the Forge. The day we agree .. or are "encouraged" to stop asking questions like this is the day I stop visiting.

Further, isn't it hubristic to say that since we know all we should be doing and are doing it, then there's no reason to question the work we're doing? I kinda think it is.

And more importantly on the "Are we doing enough?" question.  Why not start a thread like this (since it seems to beg no question) with an answer (not necessarily the answer) to 'what more can we do?'  I'm a little tired of being reminded to do something I'm already doing; it begs me to do more as though I am forgetting something.  I like compliments (I am flattery operated, after all), but if all you're saying is 'don't forget' you're adding gristle, not meat.

It really gets me in that spot I can't 'itch.'  'Should we do more?' overlooks if we can.  'Are we doing enough?' begs if we can do more and implies that we aren't even if we can't.  'Can it be better?' has so obvious an answer I'm forced to wonder why you're asking it.

I have no idea what you're saying here, Fang. You seem to have desconstucted each of my core questions, or accused them of being tiring to you. Aren't the questions valid at least because they offer something to a relative Forge newbie who's working on a game and has something to learn from the discussion? I think the questions DO beg an answer, and you've not provided one of your own. Meat, gristle; teapot, kettle.

Further, what are you doing currently? What works for you? Where is Scattershot? How will it affect the system does matter agenda? This is not an affront or challenge -- I'm plainly unaware. That fact that I don't know your answers makes my questions worth asking, I think. I have something to learn. You and everyone else likely has an analagous relationship here on the Forge alone. The reminder is worth that observation alone.

As for presenting an answer, I'll take up that gauntlet:

How can we do better?

More money.

Since that hardly grows on trees, I offer these instead:
[list=1][*] Better marketing / promotion, including:
   Continued sharing of publication space among game publishers
   Better viral marketing via blogs, email lists, yahoo groups, etc.
   Better cross-linking among publishers' web sites.
   Better web site design and functionality, including better interactivity
   Broader reach (as in outside the Forge) for online community featuers (aka d-groups!)
   Improved cooperation in promoting other indie games on discussion groups & listservs
[*] Better graphic design and publication presentation to appeal to customers.
[*] Co-op style efforts like a pool of pubs. paying one guy to handle distribution (not my idea, alas!).
[/list:o]
The Co-op approach is the one that mosts interests me most. Why isn't Dust Devils, kill puppies for satan, the Pool, octaNe, etc. etc. not in your local store? Money. The creators don't have the resources to enter a huge, lousy, expensive distribution chain sustainably. But, via a co-op, which might cover anything or everything including game design, writing, editing, layout/design, marketing, distribution, promotion, playtesting, etc., they might be able to create a "real" book, or at least some other "greater whole" than the "individual parts."

Some of this happens at the Forge already, and that's great. I participated in the creation of five games/supplements by doing what I think are top-notch layouts for Trollbabe, Universalis, octaNe, Charnel Gods and Cartoon Action Hour. These games might have have far less appealing presentations otherwise, and I think it greatly helped their visibility. I know it did help satisfy these games' creators.

But, I was paid for all that work on an individual basis -- it wasn't a real co-operative wherein I worked for a pool of publishers. Such a pool could achive extraordinary efficiencies given the small nature of each individual. There are myriad talents here on the Forge, and we could better capture those with a working co-operative agreement/organization.

p. s. I'd like to think a compliment is reminder enough; anymore sounds like parenting.

Fang, I'm at a loss here. Why in the world are you hinting that I'm scolding you? I have neither the intention nor time to do so, and I'm not at all sure why you've said even brought this up. Not least of all, it seems entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Matt Snyder]

You seem to want to describe "system matters" in such a way that ignores when it works correctly. I think that we do agree, and that system matters universally, not in some funky regional anthropological way. I really see no way at all that your anthropology argument works, nevermind that it's about "how" we are discussing this, not "what" we are discussing.

For example, I said:

I think it's harmful to put forth the "if it ain't broke" solution. That's a purely negative viewpoint on why you play your games. We should (and are) take a positive viewpoint, a proactive and complementary stance that system does matter for your enjoyment, not just for your dynfunctionality.

I don't see how have you've responded to this, and I think it's a crucial point.

We are in fact agreeing that system does matter, but for you when it works and should be emulated and I when it doesn't work and should not be emulated. It is now that I believe we are in the larger discussion that it is overall that Game Matters. Perhaps it is not sytem nor setting we should be drawing attention to but games as a whole that are well thought out designed to a degree that surpasses the larger companies that tend to just churn out product with no real care as to whether all of it's parts work well as a whole?

No. It's system we're discussing. All that other stuff may be valid, but it's not my concern here. It's system, system, system.

I fail to see why you're even bothering to make the distinction between "my approach" and "your approach". Either this concept applies in BOTH approaches or it doesn't. Again, I agree that system matters when the system is broke. And, I think it's crucial (and overlooked?) that system matters greatly when it DOES work for a group. I just fail to see why you bother saying "Oh, I'm not really concerned about that part of the idea." It is not separate. It is not a pick-and-choose agenda. It matters in all instances or it doesn't. You as an individual need not concern yourself, but the agenda is universal to everyone. I think it's a matter of fact, not interpretation or modular application. The idea, the agenda of system does Matter applies to BOTH instances. Breaking them apart in some way is disingenuous.

[Sylus Thane]

You seem to want to describe "system matters" in such a way that ignores when it works correctly. I think that we do agree, and that system matters universally, not in some funky regional anthropological way. I really see no way at all that your anthropology argument works, nevermind that it's about "how" we are discussing this, not "what" we are discussing.

Actually Matt, I don't want to ignore when it works correctly, but by showing how it does not. Perhaps it would be better to discuss this as the differences of when System Works or Does Not Work than whether system matters/ doesn't matter. This way we don't have to worry about the funky subjective anthropological points of view. :) Overall what MATTERS is so subjective between people that we lose what we are talking in points of view. But, if can agree on a set of common guidelines when looking at a system to say whether or not it Works/Does not Work then I think we can eliminate these differences of point of view that get in the way of things being accomplished.

Overall I personally feel that it is the Game that Matters not system. What I need to know is whether the System Works/Doesn't Work? This is the only way I feel that system Matters, but not unless taken as part of a whole that Mattters More.

I hope this makes a little more sense so that we don't get grumpy at each other.

Sylus

[Matt Snyder]

Actually Matt, I don't want to ignore when it works correctly, but by showing how it does not.

You lost me. Can you clarify this statement?

Perhaps it would be better to discuss this as the differences of when System Works or Does Not Work than whether system matters/ doesn't matter. This way we don't have to worry about the funky subjective anthropological points of view. :)

No, that will not jive. That changes the very nature of the argument. There's little doubt of arguing what works and what doesn't. That's subjective according to each gamer's tastes and preferences. What's objective is the realization that system is what MAKES it work (or what makes it incoherent or otherwise unworkable), regardless of a gamer's specific preferences.

Overall what MATTERS is so subjective between people that we lose what we are talking in points of view. But, if can agree on a set of common guidelines when looking at a system to say whether or not it Works/Does not Work then I think we can eliminate these differences of point of view that get in the way of things being accomplished.

Again, it is not subjective. Please refer to Ron's old essay, with the caveat that it's, well, old and subject to change slightly, I'd wager. I need to do the same, actually.

Here's a relevant portion:

"Oh, okay," one might then say. "But it's still just a matter of opinion what games are good. No one can say for sure which RPG is better than another, that's just a matter of taste." Again, I flatly, entirely disagree.

I'm sticking to my guns in arguing that either System Does Matter is true or it is not. This is not a matter of interpretation or subjectivity. Either it can be applied to analyzing how people "do" role-playing games, or it cannot. Either it matters in the sense that it defines whether or a game is functional or dysfunctional for a group, or it doesn't matter. I think that it does. It matters in both making great games for

Overall I personally feel that it is the Game that Matters not system. What I need to know is whether the System Works/Doesn't Work? This is the only way I feel that system Matters, but not unless taken as part of a whole that Mattters More.

Again, Sylus, you're moving the argument into larger circles. I have said previously that I think it's worth discussing, but elsewhere. We're clearly discussing SYSTEM here. Not "the Game at large."

I hope this makes a little more sense so that we don't get grumpy at each other.

Don't take my rebuttals as grumpy. No ill will intended at all, but I will stick to my guns. I think the discussion has been everything but System Does Matter in workable games at this point.

And such fuss for two people who agree! Sheesh!

[Le Joueur]

I guess I see asking any question pertinent to gaming as a valid reason to post anything here on the Forge.

...There's no reason to question the work we're doing?

There's every reason.  Every reason to ask specific questions, not broad ones.

I have no idea what you're saying here, Fang.

Let me parse it out...

[list=1][*]Further, what are you doing currently?
[*]What works for you?
[*]Where is Scattershot?
[*]How will it affect the system does matter agenda?
[*]This is not an affront or challenge -- I'm plainly unaware. That fact that I don't know your answers makes my questions worth asking, I think. I have something to learn. You and everyone else likely has an analogous relationship here on the Forge alone.[/list:o]

[list=1][*]Learning to balance fatherhood, single income 'simplified' living, gaming, game design, web site management, keeping up a daily 'blog, DHTML programming, living with Asperger's Syndrome, managing my temper, and sleeping, in that order.
[*]Nothing.  Nothing but pessimism.
[*]All over the place.  The playtesters are so far ahead of me that they're using the 'oral tradition' version.  (Start Here.)
[*]I have 'bigger fish to fry.'  I use 'the agenda' only as a discussion technique; I rarely mention the phrase "System Matters" outside the Forge.
[*]Ah, but until now, all I was seeing was broad questions like 'what are doing?'  These are mighty fine specific questions; they make for excellent discussion.[/list:o]

As for presenting an answer, I'll take up that gauntlet:

How can we do better?

More money.

See, on a forum, this doesn't sound like tongue-in-cheek, it sounds like pure cheek.  I've as much problem sounding harsh when I'm deconstructing.  Maybe we both need time to make our posts sound more cordial.

Why [are] Dust Devils, kill puppies for satan, the Pool, octaNe, [and] etc. not in your local store?

I agree with the idea proposed that 'they don't belong there.'  Perhaps, just perhaps, "your local store" is a dinosaur that retards the growth of the medium and the market, that the three-tier system is helmed by a bunch who put money before both of these and quite probably need to be side-stepped.

But, I was paid for all that work on an individual basis -- it wasn't a real co-operative wherein I worked for a pool of publishers. Such a pool could achieve extraordinary efficiencies given the small nature of each individual. There are myriad talents here on the Forge, and we could better capture those with a working co-operative agreement/organization.

Why couldn't we have started with this?  Why the personal examples that apparently don't count in this discussion?  Why didn't you start with a clear, 'what things have we not tried; here's an example?'  I got so confused that I mistook much of it as brusquely toned indictment weakly guised as a compliment.

I'm hardly clearer.

Fang Langford

p. s. I'm done now.

[clehrich]

Matt,

I've now read through this whole thread (which wasn't here yesterday -- that was quick!), and it seems to me that you're asking the following:

1. If we agree that System Does Matter (tm), and
2. Our best games demonstrate this point [e.g. Dust Devils, Sorcerer, etc.], but
3. The damn things just don't sell the way they really ought to, then
4. Shouldn't we be out there fighting the good fight?

Along the way, lots of side points have come up, of which I'd like to note the following:

A. Your friend, who in a sense doesn't listen to reason.  She grants that shifting system changes the game, and that she likes some games more than others despite the GM, but doesn't admit that sytem matters.
B. Lots of gamers out there have been conditioned to associate "system" with "GM," leading them to think that system doesn't matter because a good GM can run anything.

Let me start at the end, and work backwards.

B -> A. If it is true that gamers in general associate system with GM, this is because they don't want to think about system.  The vast majority simply would rather leave such matters to others; this is why the whole "let's all GM together" thing never really spreads all that much.  Similarly, most people do not want to work on things like literary theory, figuring that they don't need it in order to enjoy literature.  And in the latter example, lots of people go so far as to say that since literary theory doesn't help them enjoy literature, therefore literary theory is useless, irrelevant, pretentious, and doesn't matter.  Similarly, if I can have a great, fun game with a cool GM, and not have to worry about system or whatever, then clearly system and theory and so forth doesn't help me enjoy my hobby, so clearly it's all stupid and pretentious and doesn't matter anyway.  

You can't win that argument, Matt, I'm sorry to tell you.  You just can't.  Look at the Forge: how often do nasty remarks come up about things like literary theory, or critical theory, or whatever?  This is a forum of theorists, but there's still a tremendous willingness to dismiss other folks' styles of theory, usually without a lot of knowledge, on what amounts to the same old practical grounds: "Doesn't help me enjoy X, so theory of X is useless."

Okay, so let me suggest something to you: stop arguing it.  You're only going to make yourself pissed off, and it's not going to sell games.  Keep your eye on the only two goals that matter: selling games, and having fun.  They don't understand theory?  Screw 'em.  They're stupid, or lazy, or ignorant, or whatever.  Can you educate 'em?  No.  Years at a university beating the stuff into them won't educate them.  

But can some of them learn?  Yes.  Can some change their minds, and see that actually you are right?  Yes.  So what will convince them, if they're ever going to be convinced?  Playing your cool game, and others like it.  And nothing else.  Nothing.  Ever.

You're not going to sell games on a theoretical basis, except via the Forge.  That's the basic logical fallacy in steps 1-4 above.  Just because system does matter doesn't mean that going out and convincing people of that fact will help.  If you actually succeeded at convincing them, it might help, but what's actually going to happen is that they're going to refuse to listen, or misinterpret your arguments, or shift to the old ad hominem "Yeah, you're just a pretentious dweeb," or whatever.

If you think we ought to be more concerned about selling games, and generally getting attention for the things we do here, OK, I'm cool with that.  [I don't happen to have very strong feelings, since I don't sell any games as yet, and even when I start I doubt I'll ever make back the value of the time I put in, but hell.]  But arguing theory with people who don't accept that theory is valuable isn't going to help -- it's probably going to make things worse.  Enjoy doing theory on the Forge for its own sake, and don't bother evangelizing -- you'll just end up with an ulcer.

[Matt Snyder]

Clehrich,

Your post is excellent, well reasoned, and well taken. But, please understand I have not called up the troops to go waving theory in anyone's face. In fact, I've said in at least two posts here (if not more!) that doing so is the wrong appraoch. Instead, I've done just what you're proposing (or perhaps simply agreeing with?)-- focus on getting playable, fun games in the hands of players.

I'm at a loss why anyone has missed this as my primary point in the thread, but that certainly seems to have been a problem thus far. I'm a practical guy -- my whole onslaught of posts boils down to a simple, practical point:

How can we get our games out there to more players?

In so doing, we get people to realize the play's the thing, and the system matters because of it.

It really is that simple. That's really all I'm espousing, though obviously there are many sub-points in that agenda. I can only get a game in their hands. Whether they go "A ha!" is up to them. My effort to "convince" goes precisely that far.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

With respect to all involved (and multiple agreements with many of the points), the dialogue is really getting deep into I-said-you-said that isn't addressing any topic besides who's in charge or who's most aggrieved. Thanks to Chris for presenting an excellent overview of the issue as I see it, and for boiling out the side issues.

If the real issue at hand is as Matt just stated,

"How can I get my game out to more players?"

... regardless of whether this was clear or really the original point or any other rhetorical thing ...

then it's time to start a new thread in Publishing, I think.

Best,
Ron