When I started posting here at the Forge, I thought people might appreciate my POV. I've been working in the game industry for 11 years professionally, and in that time I've been a freelancer, a staff designer, a creative director, and a company-owner. I've worked for the tiniest start-ups and the biggest companies in the business and I have a very broad base of experience. If there's one thing the "Supplement Treadmill" thread has driven home though, it's that Ron's whole academic pretense is a sham. He isn't interested in having an honest debate with people like me; he's interested in perpetuating his own narrow point of view, based on his extremely limited experience in the game industry. When challenged, he turns to tricks of rhetoric ("Your facts are irrelevant, my unfounded point still stands!") or resorts to absurd trolls that would make the lowest rpg.net denizen proud ("You're only saying this because you have low self-esteem.").

For the record, Ron, I will continue to say whatever the hell I please. Feel free to ban me if you'd like. Then you can carry on with your whole John the Baptist routine without me bringing up inconvenient facts and counter-examples. You may want to do your readers a favor and just admit that you don't actually know the first thing about GAMA, its (supposed) influence, or its history, but that's likely too much to ask. Any Forge readers who would like to have an actual conversation about publishing, please feel free to contact me privately.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a game to design.

Pramas wrote: When I started posting here at the Forge, I thought people might appreciate my POV. I've been working in the game industry for 11 years professionally, and in that time I've been a freelancer, a staff designer, a creative director, and a company-owner. I've worked for the tiniest start-ups and the biggest companies in the business and I have a very broad base of experience.

Chris:

A couple of quick points (or lack there of, I tend to do blunted edges so the kids don't poke their eyes out):

1) What in fuck's name does this have to do with publishing? You mention game design at the end there, maybe moving it to Indie Game Design?

Now that's out of the way:

2) I agree with you about GAMA. Ralph started a pretty nifty thread about this (well, more about GAMA, I talk about its pointlessness) entitled "Another departure from GAMA" (yeah, no link cuz I'm a bastard like that, but it's only a few down in this forum). You could weigh-in there.

3) You definitely have something of an unusual point of view here at the Forge. You've helped make a lot of d20 products in the last few years. That's... well... I don't know, <insert something nice>. The fact of the matter is, I don't really give a shit about any of this pointlessness and arguing over at the Supplement Treadmill bit. Who cares? Well, obviously, you do, but I mean, other than that...

4) Debate is like showing your penis to all your friends. Yeah, you have one, some of them have one, some are bigger, some are longer, some are just plain funny-looking... in the end, unless one of your friends is willing to stroke it, why bother pulling it out? You made your point pretty early on in the Sup. Tread. thread... I read it. I even agreed with about 60% of it. I knew Ron would disagree with much of it, cuz he and I have talked about this a lot. Here's the thing: you both should've left it there. This constant back-and-forth seems... well, like there was some sort of penis off, and I'm not certain what the rules were. (It felt vaguely like there were a bunch of people standing around, then you and Ron had penises out yelling "touch it!" While an amusing mental picture, I promise you, I didn't understand it.

Of course you feel this way about supplements and the treadmill... your company sits firmly in that path. You make supplements. Green Ronin does not create games, it lives in the shadow of another company that makes games. If the supplement treadmill fails, so does Green Ronin (which is not to say that you (Green Ronin, not Chris* <--footnote thingy) couldn't *make* a game... you just haven't to date).

You've worked some pretty big games: Feng Shui, Warhammer, D&D (hey, Guide to Hell, never figured WotC would publish something like that!), etc. But, while none of them have been an indy project (even Green Ronin makes D&D supplements), you do have some game industry experience. Maybe it is one-sided, but hey, you've got some game to you. In the publishing forum, business, marketing, all of that, well, that makes a difference. Running a profitable business is something that lends a lot of credence and validity to your points on running another successful business and such.

But, you're different. It's okay, you're not "put him in a room" different, you're "silver spoon" different. You run from a perspective of always having made it from another guy's sweat (Feng Shui, Warhammer, D&D, d20)... someone else put in the time, the effort, the money to make the product GO. You came in during or after this process to give it a handy shove. From a business perspective, that is brilliant. Never be the first guy in. First rule of entrepreneurship: if you have a way to increase your odds, take it. You did, you have.

That all said, here is my end point:

You and Ron disagree, which is fine, which is even good. Ron has this great way of arguing which is some sort of "passive resistance" thing, flowing around you smacking you around thing that I've never quite mastered (though I have tried... I just don't have the willpower to wait it out). Anyway, rather than become "One Of Those" guys that takes something rather contained and staid and blow it up and posts it publicly for all to see, and throws a fucking fit... when you could very well resolve this with some Private Messaging to Ron back'n'forth, asking for clarification (y'know, doin' the "WHAT THE HELL!!??" type thing... though nicely, I guess... I dunno, nicely ain't my forte`), you become one of those things that starts his own topic and posts this bleeding fucking heart thing gettin' all "takin' my toys 'n' goin' home" thing.

Yeah, that's where it sucks. Let it the fuck go. I recently had some weird almost-argument thing with John (and he has a last name but I forget it, and I'm not going to my messagebox to check because if I had to type this all over again I would have to hunt Clinton down and killed him)... but we get all Private Message about it, and it gets all happy, and now he owes me a drink at GenCon (which will surprise him, because he said he wasn't going to GenCon, much less that he owes me a drink).

But anyway, better ways, tempers hot, that whole idiom family... toss 'em around, I don't want to.

I probably had a #5 or #6 somewhere up there, but honestly, who cares about the numbers anyway?

Stay, go, do what you want, just don't do this public bitchfest again... especially in the Publishing forum. Do it in the RPG Theory forum, I really don't read that forum. Or the GNS forum, I never even look in that one.


Dav (if you want my resume`, I can post it) Harnish

*have you designed a game? Seriously, not sarcastically, I don't know. You've worked a lot of them, but have you started a design from scratch and developed it to publication?

Wow, Chris, I really don't see what's got you so rankled.

I have gone on record (in the post in question) as disagreeing with portions of what you said in the "supplement treadmill" thread. But, this kind of cantankerous reply is really frowned upon in Forge discourse -- whether or not one agrees with Ron's viewpoints on the RPG industry.

You have taken what appears to be a very negative emotional reaction to issues raised. I think it unlikely, therefore, that you'll wish to debate actual concerns (for example, whether Ron did or did not indeed dismiss facts, as you claim). And, what's more, I'm really not interested in those topics at this point in time.

Being a member of the Forge -- that is, being any human who posts and replies any kind of message here ("members" of the Forge have no special meaning beyond registering to post here) -- means you conduct discussions in a civil manner. It means not presuming to know more about any given topic than any one else out of the shoot (but offering your informed perspective as an equitable member of the community). It means not getting all riled up getting censured for how you say things, rather than what you say. (The former happens occasionally. The latter happens here almost never, which is not to say that serious debate does happen.)

You are not the first person to react very negatively to (A) What substantive thoughts Ron Edwards has to say on the RPG industry or hobby or (B) How Ron Edwards moderates this form. These are two different things, and the vast majority of Forge members operate extremely well here precisely because they give Ron enough credit to make that distinction between A and B.

The confusion of A with B has often lead to absurd and, frankly, broadly insulting ideas that Ron Edwards unduly unfluences thoughtful, adult human beings in a manner that parodizes the worst of cult behavior.

In other words, we're big boys and girls here, and we get along pretty damn well, thanks. This is true even when we do disagree with Ron on the merits of his substantive posts, which happens quite frequently. Please keep that in mind, and you'll find the discussion treats you with great respect in kind.

Matt Snyder wrote: But, this kind of cantankerous reply is really frowned upon in Forge discourse --

This thread makes me sad.

Matt Snyder wrote: You are not the first person to react very negatively to (A) What substantive thoughts Ron Edwards has to say on the RPG industry or hobby or (B) How Ron Edwards moderates this form. These are two different things, and the vast majority of Forge members operate extremely well here precisely because they give Ron enough credit to make that distinction between A and B.

The confusion of A with B has often lead to absurd and, frankly, broadly insulting ideas that Ron Edwards unduly unfluences thoughtful, adult human beings in a manner that parodizes the worst of cult behavior.

Ron Edwards wrote: Chris,

You've been sarcastic and patronizing on this thread. You are expected to cease instantly. I tell you this very seriously: the contemptuous smack-down behavior that's standard on industry websites and lists is absolutely not tolerated here.

1. "Falsehood?" You corrected my mistake, fairly. I accepted that then and do so now. This is an example of correct comportment on my part - accusing me of actually lying ("falsehood") is an example of poor comportment on yours.

2. The observed phenomenon I'm talking about (sudden drop in rate of publication of core books; boom in supplements) dates back, yes, to 15+ years ago. GAMA meant a lot more back then.

3. Regarding tones and intents, what you're doing is in fact projection. Furthermore, it's of no interest or use to take on the role of defender of others. No one has expressed contempt for you, yourself. Take care of yourself; leave "others" to do it for themselves if they want to.

You've participated here long enough to recognize that only one person's judgment reigns here, regarding comportment: mine. If you don't like it, there are ways to appeal, but otherwise, it might be time to decide whether you're contributing or gaining anything by posting here.

This thread amounts to a giant temper tantrum thrown on the net.

Chris

I think that both of you (Chris and Ron (Ron the person)) need to go sit in a corner until you can agree to disagree. Go on! --> *stamps foot and glares*


Now, to dodge accusations of mutiny, I'll appeal to Ron (the moderator) to close, lock, move, or delete this topic, which clearly does not belong in the Publishing forum. Such threads (as well as the pertinant posts in the supplement treadmill topic) taint the forge's image.

I read once, Ron, that you said you can be mighty harsh when you put on your moderator hat, even with yourself. Well, it's my humble opinion that now is one of those times. My only regret is that this very post of mine must necessarily contribute to the detriment of the professional image of the forge, if intended to help set it right.

-Ben

Ravien wrote:

Now, to dodge accusations of mutiny, I'll appeal to Ron (the moderator) to close, lock, move, or delete this topic, which clearly does not belong in the Publishing forum. Such threads (as well as the pertinant posts in the supplement treadmill topic) taint the forge's image.

This thread probably belongs under Site Siscussion, under "How come we drive away people who have useful alternative points of view".

To suggest that the Forge "drives people away" is nonsensical. People come and they go. Freewill is involved in both.

Chris, if you're still reading the Forge: it was just one exchange, and you seemed to be blowing a lot hotter over it than Ron.

I'd love to have you around, especially if you disagree with Ron, or anyone else round here.

I just re-read the thread, and you know what? Big storm, tiny cup. You call foul on Ron for calling projection on you for calling hubris on the forge... for using the phrase "so-called industry."

Chris, you dissed the whole community round here. For using one of the most commonly used phrases in any discussion of RPG publishing I've seen in the last 20 odd years. What did you expect? "Gosh, your right, commercial success IS the only yardstick of quality!"

We had Mearls & Erick taking part, taking some assumptions to task, and just plain engaging on that thread. I hope you'll be able to do the same soon.

And, oh yeah, hubris. Sure. That's me. Hubris boy. Call-Me-Achilles. I just got finished comparing the whole of conventional RPG's to reality TV, and my published output amounts to one whole article in a free 'zine, so you can certainly ignore me.

John Kim, unsurprisingly, I disagree.

What's Ron supposed to do? Make two posts? First, he posts as moderator. Then posts again with "real" content? How in the world is that in any way going to solve the issue? Is anyone really going to say, "Oh, well, excellent. At least Ron made two different posts, and therefore didn't confuse me. I was going to get really mad, but now that his messages are separated by two background colors, I'm cool."

You may agree that this will happen. I don't find it likely. My point was precisely that we're all smart enough to parse this out on our own and not have knee-jerk reactions . . . or are we? Sigh.

Hello,

The forum placement issue is not relevant. This thread can't continue, because the person who started it has removed himself from the discussion. It's therefore an empty thread: parting shot, slamming door, whatever you want to call it.

The embedded issues are already under discussion, or could be added, in the right place, in Site Discussion. So let's take it all over there.

Best,
Ron