Mike Holmes and I have been working through a plan to publish the current Iron Game Chef games in a single tome. While there are likely a few kinks to work out, this is going to happen... so long as the authors don't mind.

To this end, I need a good chunk of the authors to lend permission to publish and edit their work on the IGC competition. After discussion, some retooling may be seen as necessary by the authors, however, I urge the authors to only make their systems "work", and add no more than a few pages of flavor text, if any. The games, as they stand currently, are brilliant, and we all know what happens when you fuck with brilliance.

The general guidelines Mike and I have discussed are as follows:

-no entry should expand to more than 150% its IGC-entry size
-you may add art, but the pieces will likely be B&W, and I urge a cover and maybe a character sheet only.
-yes, you will be given a portion of profits from the publication
-yes, the Forge is okay with this
-no, this will not cost you a dime
-Mike will be the primary editor (and when I say "primary", I generally mean "only")
-I will handle layout and graphic design stuff
-final publication will be in perfect-bound form

I would count it a blessing if the authors would either PM permission to both Mike and I, or just respond to this post with your "yes", concerns, or denials. If you deny me, I may cry, and you don't want to see me cry.

Thanks, kids!

Dav

I would definitely be interested in participating in this.

For the purposes of "finite rpgs", do you recommend that we make some attempt to make the game more conventional in form, or should we edit for structure and mechanics rather than larger issues?

I definitely suggest you edit for mechanics and "making it go" concerns. In terms of putting it into a more conventional form, I can handle that from my end (I'm thinking of having an IGC border and such). In general, I really just need a working manuscript from each person (and, if someone doesn't need any revision, I can just lift it from the actual IGC thread).

Don't worry, you make the game, I'll make it pretty.... ish.

Mike will even do what he can to make us designers sound like people with command of language!

Dav

First off, yes.

Second off, I like those rules, especially the no more than 150% expansion. It's a nice constraint, even though I personally want to add a lot more than that to mine. I think, in answer to Shreyas, that we can probably deal with the finite rpgs issues that we see and are concerned about within that 150% working room for revisions. I don't know that we'd need to make them more conventional--I think the charm of some of the games is that they are finite rpgs. I'd say if anything I'd like to use my revision to make it a better finite rpg rather than more conventional. That may just be me, though.

Rich

Not only do I say yes, but if you need help with grammar checking, I volunteer to help.

1) Any detail on marketing/distribution plans? I assume we're talking indie single publication rights and stuff as far as legalities go?

2) Timetable? When are the games due, when would the publication happen?

3) More detail on layout and graphics. Is it completely the designer's purview?

4) Who is this meant for, specifically? Really any and all IGC games from all competitions are eligible, or will you choose the best of the pick? More than one game from an author?

I might be interested, if I got some fresh vision on the real nature of my games. Not really sure if they are feasible within the size limits, and not sure yet if I'll be expanding them for single publication. Not sure if I have time to rewrite into publishable form, my games being to the rougher side as far as writing quality is conserned. Not sure of much, really.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: 1) Any detail on marketing/distribution plans? I assume we're talking indie single publication rights and stuff as far as legalities go?

2) Timetable? When are the games due, when would the publication happen?

3) More detail on layout and graphics. Is it completely the designer's purview?

4) Who is this meant for, specifically? Really any and all IGC games from all competitions are eligible, or will you choose the best of the pick? More than one game from an author?

I might be interested, if I got some fresh vision on the real nature of my games. Not really sure if they are feasible within the size limits, and not sure yet if I'll be expanding them for single publication. Not sure if I have time to rewrite into publishable form, my games being to the rougher side as far as writing quality is conserned. Not sure of much, really.

I'm in.

I was about to ask about which Iron Game Chef competitions were involved, but since that issue has alread been raised, might I suggest focusing on one set only for now, then release a second volume depending on the reception of the first volume.

another question: is this profit sharing + 1 copy, or do we buy our own copies? I'd like the former, but I can see how that might be a problem. of course, if it's "one PDF copy", that may eliminate the problem.

I've started editing and compacting IceRunner: a dweomerpunk fantasy setting and should have something pretty quick. as far as additional materials go, I think at the most I will list 10 or so traits for each "class", list 10 or so example curses and magics, and write out some examples of play. no real changes to the system.

I'll also try to do something about artwork, too.

First: certainly anyone who has a game in the published version gets a free copy.

Second: this ain't big bucks. You'll make some beer money.

Third: we want no claims of ownership to anyone's work. You keeps all rights and privileges, and can (and should) publish any games included on your own, in expanded or current form.

Fourth: Eero: I think you're making this more complex than it needs to be. The games don't need huge overhauls and contracting and all that jive, this is a simple offer to put people's creative works into publication, gain some spotlighting for the IGC and the Forge, and maybe make a couple dollars on the side. For the most part, the primary print run will likely be in the 500 copies range, with primary sales being direct, and distributors getting a fair share if they want some. I anticipate that I can move 500 units of this without any problem, as convincing a distributor to buy crap-in-a-box is as easy as calling them up and asking them. Generally, I can take this as far as it goes, but in terms of actual marketing... I'll definitely run the gamut of postings on various forums and outlets, as well as having a direct sales outlet on the Unfortuante Destinies website. I will not be taking magazine spots or generally sinking cash into the marketing aspect of this, however. This is an indie publication for an indie crowd, and I'm pretty determined to keep things on that level.

Lastly: for now, I would prefer to limit choices to the present IGC. Depending upon how the first printing does, I'd be open to revisiting other printings, such as a "Best of" version, or what-have-you. I'd rather not turn this into a full-scale mind-boggling hassle, and thus, I'd love to keep things reasonable for now.

I'd like to have a finished, or near-finished version of the IGC In Print by GenCon. This, of course, means that I need thirty days of print time. Check your calendars, kids, I want your work no later than mid-July.

Dav

talysman wrote: another question: is this profit sharing + 1 copy, or do we buy our own copies? I'd like the former, but I can see how that might be a problem. of course, if it's "one PDF copy", that may eliminate the problem.

I've started editing and compacting IceRunner: a dweomerpunk fantasy setting and should have something pretty quick. as far as additional materials go, I think at the most I will list 10 or so traits for each "class", list 10 or so example curses and magics, and write out some examples of play. no real changes to the system.

I'll also try to do something about artwork, too.

Mike Holmes wrote: With enough work put in, I think that almost all of the games submitted are acceptable.

Dav: I didn't try to imply any difficulties, just curious. Both the scale and rights situation are sensible and I'd go the same route. If the book is sold with the understanding that the games are incomplete competition versions, I see no problem with participation. As there's ample time too I'm in, but you can bumb me out if better games surface ;)

Mike: I'm not saying my games are unpublishable, it's just that I'm not completely clear on details. Which game, and how to cut and repair to get it in a near-playable condition? Especially as I see potential in each of them, but in forms different from this (fighting fantasy book, traditional gamefic and modular pdf, respectively). I'll have to think about which to develop for this, and what is the direction.

I like the idea of balancing between the rough versions and something really finished. Fix the obvious problems but keep the rough edge, with the implication that the reader really should fill the holes himself. It'll be a challenge to keep the style. I for one wouldn't mind some introspection from Mike and Dav on the extent of the work. Substantial rewrites or additions? Playtesting? Foolproof mechanics or brave risks left for the reader to navigate?

As to the game... The Brotherhood would be the easiest to make self-sufficient, but it could be the most pointless too (I'm rather envisioning it as a modular general fantasy right now). the Atlantis game could fly with slick writing, but it'd be a real challenge to transmit the heavily Situation-focused premises and themes (the Chairman didn't get half of it, for example) without a whole lot more text. The Battle of the Frozen Waste on the other hand is most probably unplayable without arduous playtesting, and it's really ugly as hell in certain respects. Hard choices.

I'll have to take the actual thinking on this to another thread, I suppose. Anyway, you can count on there being a game before July deadline (the seventh month, right?) if nobody cancels.

My concern is about the games being playable. I didn't playtest my game, and though I think it's playable, I haven't any guarantee. I'd love to see Terra Australis in the thing, so long as the purchasers understand that these games are the product of quick and inspired design, rather than drawn-out and playtested design. I'd hate for people to cry foul and review it with "only a third of these are actually playable" comments. Mike, I'm guessing you're covering this angle when you say "they'll know that not all of the games will be stellar." So, if you're covering my concerns with your forward, then awesome.

What format are you looking for? Something like the final entry submission? Or would it include the development posts? Technically, what file format & specs (dpi, color range) for the art & writing?

With a deadline of mid-July, I may be able to get some playtesting in. So how much can it differ from the IGC entry? My current Terra Australis draft is pretty different (cleaner, easier, better, but different) than the original IGC post.

[Edit: Oops, I see that rawness is encouraged. In that case, I should get the manuscript out in no more than a week. I won't playtest it, I promise!]

Christopher Weeks wrote: I think you might as well be explicit here. If there are some entries that you simply won't include, those authors need to know it before putting in any work.

What degree of rewriting is included in your editing?

And more specific suggestions about the art that you'd like the authors to secure would be helpful.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: I for one wouldn't mind some introspection from Mike and Dav on the extent of the work.

Substantial rewrites or additions? Playtesting? Foolproof mechanics or brave risks left for the reader to navigate?

Note this is the third post in a row for me - don't miss the previous two.

Zak Arntson wrote: My concern is about the games being playable. I didn't playtest my game, and though I think it's playable, I haven't any guarantee. I'd love to see Terra Australis in the thing, so long as the purchasers understand that these games are the product of quick and inspired design, rather than drawn-out and playtested design. I'd hate for people to cry foul and review it with "only a third of these are actually playable" comments. Mike, I'm guessing you're covering this angle when you say "they'll know that not all of the games will be stellar." So, if you're covering my concerns with your forward, then awesome.

What format are you looking for? Something like the final entry submission? Or would it include the development posts? Technically, what file format & specs (dpi, color range) for the art & writing?

With a deadline of mid-July, I may be able to get some playtesting in. So how much can it differ from the IGC entry? My current Terra Australis draft is pretty different (cleaner, easier, better, but different) than the original IGC post.

[Edit: Oops, I see that rawness is encouraged. In that case, I should get the manuscript out in no more than a week. I won't playtest it, I promise!]

Ooo yeah... I'm definitely in! Mark me down for a copy regarldess.

Oh, and I'll be posting a thread shortly regarding my game. I just finished my last paper of the semester and will have a little time to kill.

As always,
Asrogoth

PS For legal purposes:
I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of allowing my creation "God Lore: The Chronicles of the Immortals" role-playing game to be included in this compilation to be made by the Forge retaining all rights and privileges of ownership of the aforementioned intellectual property.

I'd just like to point out there were fewer entries in the first two IGC competitions put together than there were in this one.

Enough to make a seperate volume? Depends on how many people sign on.

-Chris

Mike: I think we can safely nix the treasure-hunting game from the hearts and minds of all people.

To Everyone: All entries in the IGC are acceptable. There is no true space issue, so people don't have to worry about being bumped for other games. If you submitted a game to the Fantasy IGC, you are eligible and desired for participation.

As to how the games read and play: this is more Mike's purview, so I elave that to him.

As to how they appear: well... I want them generally in a Word, Pagemaker, or similar application (I have complete control and access to a Kinko's, and thus, if you use a dreaded Mac or some odd file type, I will be able to make it go). As for art: 300 DPI max, 72 DPI min. B&W. As I mentioned before, I strongly suggest no more than a cover or opening piece and a character sheet. These should be in jpg, (irk) bmp, or psp (or whatever photoshop is calling their format nowadays).

You can send me a manuscript with text with headings where you want them... I'll make it pretty with fonts and layout from there. (Well, I probably won't, but my minions will)

Sometime Monday I will be stealing all of Walt's hard work on the index thread and transferring its contents here, with those who have given permission, denied permission, or not given permission listed. That way, it all begins to make sense.

And, of course, I will be saddened greatly if the winner and runners-up do not participate.

Dav

If previous IGC entries are to be considered, I'm in, even if it means going for a separate volume as Chris suggested. I'm sure there were some equally good games there as there are in the Fantasy IGC. I can see though, that you may be concerned about time constraints and so on as you have a definate release date in mind.

Mike, Dav,

First of all, I almost missed this thread entirely, because I don't normally read the "Connections" forum. I would recommend doing a brief announcement post in Indie Game Design that links here.

Talk about above and beyond the call of duty! This is going to be a wonderful publication. Jack had better get some kickass illustrations in for Chanter. I want Chanters in ceremonial regalia! I want duels to the death! I want a panoramic shot of the sloping egg-shaped skyline, with the sun triumphantly hovering overhead!

Or, if you only want 1 big illustration per game, just make it a picture of a duel to the death between two Chanters in ceremonial regalia, with the sloping egg-shaped skyline in the background, and the sun triumphantly hovering overhead.

*ahem*.

You absolutely have permission to include Snow Day in this collection. I have some very minor edits in mind (re-order some of the rules, do a top-to-bottom grammar sweep), but the game is basically complete as far as I'm concerned. I'll try to have a tidied-up draft done within the next few days - I need to get Snow Day done and put aside so that I can get back to Musketeers! and Memories Of Earth.

I'm in.

A question that occurred to me: is there layout guidelines, or can the games be laid out differently? I'm asking because my preferred way of writing rules text is highly regimented, with sidebars and boxed text galore. I'll have to take it into account if I'll be structuring the text with some limitations in mind. In that vein, what size publication are we talking here? How many columns? Any technical limitations due to press conditions?

All in all I'd like it if there were some common features to the games, at least a somewhat similar layout and some structural common points. I'm planning on including a short "comments from the designer" box in the text, as an example, detailing some key thoughts on the game in question and telling about possible future development. Something like that could be included in every submission.

Has it been decided who gets to write the introduction? Mike is a logical choice, but a twist is always possible, like with comic books that get introduced by creditable outsiders. Ron, for example...

As can be perceived, I like metastructure in publications. I hope I'll get a chance to comment on the layout and details of covers, cover texts, introductions and such ;)

I started a thread on my triad of games to get some handle on what I'm doing to them for the publication. Feel free to check it out.

"No Press" was decided in the NPA threads as sort of an unofficial official "publishing imprint." In theory, if the NPA I does well, there will be an NPA II and so forth.

Would there be any harm in, well, appropriating the "imprint" for this project as well? Sort of making the "No Press" imprint the "unofficial official" imprint of such Forge-related community publishing projects? Such that this might be the "No Press IGC Fantasy" or somesuch?

Or is that just stupid?

Lxndr wrote:
Would there be any harm in, well, appropriating the "imprint" for this project as well? Sort of making the "No Press" imprint the "unofficial official" imprint of such Forge-related community publishing projects? Such that this might be the "No Press IGC Fantasy" or somesuch?

Or is that just stupid?

Mike is writing the introduction for the game. He started the IGC, he's the king, he gets his words in.

Also, Alexander: regarding making the IGC a No Press publication... Mike and I have talked a bit about this, and one of the few things I wanted to do on the published version was slap the Unfortunate Destinies logo on it. I'm going to be bearing the print costs for the project (such as they are), so I figured it wasn't a long stretch. However, I really don't have a problem with somehow working the NPA or No Press label in to some aspect of the publication.

Eero: As for general layout, figure a two-column format. As I said, I will be handling all the layout and design work across the board. If you want to include your own sidebars and boxes, that's largely fine. Each game will have a universal border, and a few other identifying characteristics, but pinning me down as to what it will look like when finished ain't gonna work until I have the collected manuscripts in my hands. If you want to, I'd be happy to work with you more closely when it comes time to begin the layout and production. Right now, I just honestly can't be all that specific.

Dav

A formatting and a logistics question:

By what date would you like to have the manuscripts by?

I have some bullet-lists and things in my piece, and have a basically complete HTML-formatted version. Are things like bullet lists okay?

Shreyas: Yes, bullet-points and minor formattings such as this are fine.

I'm setting the official due date for finished manuscripts by at July 8th.

This is, of course, when *I* need them for layout and printing. Therefore, Mike will have to have the editing done by then. Therefore, I am uncertain how much lead time he wants for the editing work, but he can work backwards from there to set a date that he wants the final edit copy sent to him by. I would anticipate a couple of weeks for editing, therefore, expect to have to get your stuff to Mike by late June.

Dav

I'd like to briefly question this publication... This is not to say that I don't want my game involved, if it happens (because I think it should be as complete as possible) but rather because it changes the nature of the Iron Chef contests from a rather casual endeavor to something more formal, and also may very well give a bad image to the Forge.

I think that the relevant quote comes from the "24-hour games" thread, although I can't find it right now (blasted search feature, you are my eternal nemesis!) It essentially comes down to "'Here are a bunch of games we threw together for a contest, now buy them' is not necessarily a good public face for the Forge, nor is it necessarily an exciting RPG product."

Worth considering, at least.

A secondary concern is that this might dilute the impact of the No-Press RPG anthology by causing some confusion and conflation of opinion between the two books. Which would be a shame, because this is really just draft copies, whereas the other is (one game excepted) finished and professional games. Both cool anthologies, but very different contents.

Just some thoughts. I'm in the middle of Polaris editing right now, although if this book comes off I'll have to decide how to hold back and how much to include.

yrs--
--Ben

Ben spake like so:
"I think that the relevant quote comes from the "24-hour games" thread, although I can't find it right now (blasted search feature, you are my eternal nemesis!) It essentially comes down to "'Here are a bunch of games we threw together for a contest, now buy them' is not necessarily a good public face for the Forge, nor is it necessarily an exciting RPG product." "


I respond as such:
"Honestly, Ben (and anyone else wondering), I couldn't give a flying shit less about how anything appears to anyone... ever. BUT, I just want to say this: the Forge has a public face... it is a friggin' website that is open and available to the public! Besides this, if you ever had a chance to hear me speak, you would realize that my involvement does nothing to make things more formal. I'm the least formal guy you'll ever find.

I really think that quite a few people running about the Forge have their panties in a twist over some perceived notion that the Forge has/needs/wants some image or street-cred thing. It doesn't. The Forge is a place where people come to wax poetic about gaming, and I'm even leaving off the "indie" bit, as many a-time, the games discussed aren't even indie. Look, if people want to prevent formalization of anything, I'm all for it. I REALLY cannot stand wading through mores and rules and codes of conduct (who woulda guessed?), so why don't we start by deformalizing the notions of those who participate at the Forge? Seriously, "too formal"? Have you looked around the Forge lately? All we GOT is formal! Policies and guidelines and this-is-right-this-ain'ts and regulations and how-to's and how-definitely-not-to's... Publishing the IGC ain't gonna change a thing... it won't make things better, it won't make things worse. It just will be.

As I look things over, I realize I am losing the focus of the topic here... Back to the subject: Mike, who started the IGC at the Forge, said he likes the idea. To me, since he started it, he is the beginning and end. Me, I think the Forge as a whole could use a serious overhaul, and the IGC was the first things in a long time that seemed to spark some creative life around here. It's a good thing.

As for people questioning the "should we" of the IGC publication: seriously, that's making much ado about nothing. You kids are thinking too hard about all the wrong stuff. Besides... it's going to happen, too late to question."

Dav

I think most folks are bright enough to realize that a published collection of draft-copies of games is different than a published collection of edited and polished games (especially as I'm guessing a statement to that effect will be included in the introduction to the IGC collection, making the "expected quality" obvious to all readers).

Hence, why someone not smoking crack would expect declared drafts to be comparable to final polished material, and thus judge the NPA book similarly when its contents are quite a different beast, is rather beyond me.

After all, are we going to go around and tell participants at the Forge whether or not they can mention the Forge in their work based on the perceived quality/polish of released material? And who is this Oversight Council of Forge Quality Standards comprised of?

Now, I understand your worry about "tarnishing the image of the Forge," but the Forge is not a publishing house, it's a discussion forum for independent game designers and collaborators, and as such, I think it is ultimately a non-issue what we designers choose to do with our creations.

Well, I agree with Dav's position, if not his tone. Properly handled a publication like this is unlikely to damage any image, and if improperly done, anything at all will hurt your image. It's just a question of trusting the people doing it, and I have no reason not to trust Dav, especially with Mike overseeing.

As to the confusion between NPA and this, that's where coordination comes in. Related but different, that'd be what I'd shoot for. I'd probably even use similar visual elements and the NPA name to hammer home the "line" we have here in the Forge. Then again, I don't have any agenda or stake apart from furthering Forge values, so you might disagree.

Overall, we can quite easily put aside all notions of "the public face of the Forge", as Dav suggests, or we can try to work up some social engineering, or marketeering as it's called in America. Both are possible, and while building brands and cooperating to generate consciousness give added value, they also subject us to the threats Ben outlines. It's a choice to be made, and one to be taken seriously. Ron and Clinton have taken a concervative route concerning this, keeping Forge very strictly out of all kinds of public projects. Despite this there is many things where the line could be drawn differently by different people, like cooperation between NPA and IGC for example, and the degree of Forge, NPA and IGC brand used in marketing. These are things that will come to haunt us as either missed opportunities or flawed impressions later on, so there's no reason to avoid discussion.

Ben voices rightful concerns, but the proper way to answer them is to make sure things he fears do not happen, rather than dismissing them out of hand. So if you please Dav, tell us your stance on NPA and how it affects the publication. Ben didn't try to kill the book.

Frankly, I think the conjunction of "These games were written in about a week" and their sheer quality and consistency can say nothing but good about their writers.

You'd think that what Raven says about intelligent people having reasonable expectations, when told in plain English what they're getting, would be true. And yet, the hazard Ben points out is real.

Me, on the phone to a client: "I'm going to send you a prototype of the [computer] game, so you can check out how the game works. Remember, this will be a prototype with scratch art. It won't be the real art. The art in the next version will look different."

Me, in the cover letter to the prototype submitted to the client: "This is a prototype of the game play only, so you can check out how the sprites move and how the controls work. The art isn't in it yet. The version with the art will have a completely different look."

Me, in the intro text that appears on the screen when the prototype is started up: "Prototype for sprite movement and game controls. This prototype has scratch art only. Please pay no attention to the art."

Client, after receiving prototype: "I don't like this game. The art sucks."

Expecations aren't always reasonable and they tend to be indifferent to context. It can be a problem.

- Walt

Acciddental double post deleted.

Hi, this is Michael Mendoza. You definitely have permission to print my game "Dilmun, Islands of Dawn:Assualt of the Black Ice."

Do you want it as is, or should I add examples for each mechanic? I.e., in the Assualt (Combat) section, I could add examples for Close the Gap, Take the Measure, and Finish It! attacks. The only thing is that I'm kinda busy right now, as I have to revise Signature (the game system Dilmun uses), plus possibly email copies of Signature if people start buying it, plus revise and sell my e-pamphlet "How to Write Stories," plus some other stuff like maintain my website, etc.

So, basically, I'd like to know what the prority is on me for giving examples for Dilmun, so I know where to fit it in my schedule.

Ack. It's "Dilmun, Islands of Dawn: Assault of the Black Ice." Got my a and u mixed up.

Michael Mendoza

Y'all certainly are welcome to print my little entry, once I beef it up a little.

That said, I suggest all the nuts and bolts stuff -- "I prefer RTF, no more than one illustration" etc. that have come forth in this thread be, at some point, put in one place, so you don't have to go searching through the whole thread for the data. :)

(Just as a note, if this happens, Polaris will be in it, because I feel that it ought to be as complete as possible. This is not a "take my game out" post.)

Hey, Dav: I'm not trying to piss in your cornflakes. I'm trying to point out some real problems with the project and, even if you're dead-set on doing it, I think it might be worthwile to hear me out, just to understand the risks and possibly ablate them slightly.

As for the formality, which perhaps is the wrong word -- I think that printing and distribution, even on a small scale, entails a very different set of artistic concerns than a bunch of friends having a game-writing contest together. I certainly would have done things very differently with Polaris if I had assumed that it was going to be published in anything near its present state and, likely, I would have been much more conservative in the design, and the game would have come out the worse for it. Now, this is partially my own pecadillo, but can you understand how publication and distribution changes the tone of the event, particularly when people know in advance that there will be a publication?

Imagine the difference between "Hey, we're all going to get together and practice our writing" and "Hey, we're all going to get together and write short stories for publication."

Also, as far as I know, the idea of an "RPG Anthology" is a totally new one. The No-Press was pretty much going to be the first, followed perhaps by others. Releasing another anthology at the same time will invariably result in some confusion between them, especially if they are seen as both being "products of the Forge," which they probably will be. So people are going to read the "IGC Anthology" and say "these RPG anthologies are just a bunch of good-for-nothing games that people threw together" and be bitter and turned off. Or, people are going to read the no-press first, and buy the IGC expecting that level of art content and ironing, and be very disappointed and get bitter and turned off. I don't think I'm alone in saying that bitter and turned off is bad.

This goes triple if the two books are "co-branded" or made to look the same.

Again, these are just considerations.

yrs--
--Ben

I agree with Ben's concerns. Looking at it now I think we should have first considered whether we should do it, rather than running straight into how. I think Ben is right that this radically changes the nature of this and all future Iron Game Chef's.

I also strongly disagree with your stance on this, Dav - it is not just for Mike to decide what happens with the Iron Chef contest and it's entries - the games are ours not his. And "Besides... it's going to happen, too late to question" is simply false - you cannot proceed without us.

As with Ben, this is not a 'take my game out' post.

In terms of other issues raised. I would prefer the Iron Game Chef anthology to be published without any publisher's imprint marks, and I would hate to see 'No Press' become a brand, rather than a product.

Of the issues Ben's raised, I can see the potential dangers of changing the nature of the IGC by setting a publishing precedent. And yeah, as far as keeping RPG anthologies and stuff produced at the Forge separate in their heads, and whether people will/can be expected to do that, I'd say Walt's example is a good one. But I'm not as concerned about the IGC and the No Press somehow being competition, or having bad effects one way or the other on each other. I'd be damned excited to buy an RPG anthology. Two? Yeah, that's even cooler.

I don't think the publication of the IGC is quite as problematic as you're painting it. It's based on the assumption that we're just going to be churning out some crap. But I don't think that's the case at all. Take another look at those games. Aren't there are some really, truly excellent games in there? Could they use some revisions? Sure. Will revisions be allowed? Yup, sure enough. Does the IGC editor have a very sharp eye for game designs and a matter of fact way of letting you know what looks problematic? Again, yup. I trust these games going through Mike's hands and getting revised to meet whatever standards he's set.

Remember, when we first got the No Press Anthology together that we didn't decide whether your games would be allowed in or not based on some flat out editorial policy of "this makes it, this doesn't." Sure, we edited. Sure, I gave as much feedback as I could. And sure the games have been revised. But are they necessarily all necessarily slicker and more playable games, every single one of them, than every one of the games that might be in the IGC? Well, you'll have to make your own call on that I guess when you read them. Can we assume that they must necessarily be better because we started working on the project first? I dunno. We can assume it. Does that make it true?

What I'm saying is, while I do understand your concerns, I don't know how useful comparing the IGC to the NPA is. Do I think the NPA is a great product? Yes, I do. Do I think the IGC could be as well? Yes. I do.

There seem to be a lot of assumptions that the IGC games simply won't be that good. Now I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read them all carefully. I was too busy working on my own to do so. So I can't say whether they're a bunch of great games or a bunch of half-assed almost games or a bunch of just ideas. But Mike has read them all carefully. If he thinks they're worth publishing, or that with a little work they can be made worth publishing, I'm inclined to trust his judgment.

What if the IGC is a great product? What if it reflects well on the Forge and on that other game anthology. We probably wouldn't be so worried about people getting them confused then.

Rich

I'm saddened by a lot of these posts. I hope that if I make some things clear to help people see it in the light that I do.

First, I have no idea how the NPA got included in the discussion. That's Luke's baby, and we have nothing to do with it. Period.

Now, I'd be flattered to have a NPA brand logo on the product if Luke thought it was a good idea in order to cross-sell. But there may be some serious considerations there, and I would completely understand if Luke didn't want that to happen. As such, I think that everyone can just shut up about the NPA (which it happens I'm a designer for), until Luke says something about us all getting together. If that doesn't happen, then these are completly separate products.

And yes, I can say that without reservation. Ralph and I produced Universalis with support from this site - should we have been concerned that others might have been producing a product that would somehow interfere with the sales of Universalis, just because it, too, was involved with the Forge in some way? That's ridiculous. So let's just set that aside for the moment.


Next, while Walt is correct about perceptions, all we can do is put a blurb on the back or something that tells people what it is that they are buying. The introduction will make it as clear as I humanly can what the scope of the product is. I'm even willing to do individual intros to each indivisual game if that helps people understand the state of development in which the particular game is currently at when published. What can we do besides try to inform people as to what the product is about? Given that anthologies are, as mentioned, almost non-existent, I think that, itself, will go some way to making people aware that the games inside are somehow different.

The way I see it, they won't so much be buying a bunch of RPGs, as a text that shows the outcome of a contest. Which just happens to be RPGs. As such, developed quality doesn't matter at all. Remember what I said before: originally Dav and I were contemplating just wrapping up the texts as they stand now and publishing them without alteration at all. To make it more explicit that these weren't neccessarily complete RPGS. What we've decided upon is to allow people to do essentially whatever they want to improve them before the publication comes out, making the book a bit more potentially useful to the buyer. I would entertain ideas about going back to the really rough format, sooner that I'd consider....what? What's actually being proposed? Just not doing anything?

I think that some people have some sense that we'd be trying to bamboozle the buying public somehow. That's not the case at all, we want to make explictly clear what's going on, and what the product is. As such, I know, that I'm going to be proud to have my name as that of editor of the product on the book. There is no question in my mind.

Note that, in terms of economics, what we're looking at is selling the book for possibly $10 with as many as 20 games in it (maybe more, who knows). That's only $.50 per game - at that price, I don't think that anybody can complain about the content.

Also, at that price, none of us are going to make much money. If the run sells out, we'd each make on the order of $100-$200. Enough to pay for any art you might want to purchase to include, and a little left over for your time and effort. Really the publication is intended to be to pump up The Forge, to show people what goes on here, and get each author some experience and exposure. Again, in the original concept, we were going to give these away for free in a largely unformatted pamphlet. The idea was to have it as a freebie available for people to pick up with purchases at The Forge booth. There are problems with this due to the volume of material, however.

And, looking at it, the entries are of really great quality. As such I thought that we could make people more interested by charging for it. Again, if you charge a nominal price, people will read a product far more than if you give it away for free. Pamphlets that are put into bags would be mostly chucked, I'm certain. Also, by going with multiple distribution methods, I think we get into more places than we'd get into by just distributing to people who are Forge Booth buyers.


In the past two competitions, despite some excellent entries, and despite me encouraging and trying to help authors, I can't think of one of those games that's been published in any meaningfully improved way. Sure, some of them have their own webspace, etc, but none were made into books and sold. None. That's really depressing, people. Here we have this event that generates so much creativity, and the games produced just languish doing no good.

I want to see these games published for people to see, and hopefully play.

Now, if people have plans to do that on their own, that's great, I'd love to hear about it. But there's nothing about this publication that says that A) you have to participate (it's only going to be a cross-section in the end), or B) that you can't publish the game in some other form after the fact. So, if you publish with us, that means that you will have had a minimum of success with the game at least, and it doesn't prevent you from going further. In fact, I'd think that this product would make an expanded edition all the more desirable.

So I'm not seeing a downside.


For those who don't like the idea of the fact that Dav is going to have his logo on the product, I suggest that you publish on your own. Dav is putting up the money, and considerable other resources to make this possible, and I think that a logo is a small price to pay to get this product out. In any case, it's not happening without Dav, because I can't afford it, nor am I willing to try and organize a couple of dozen people into some sort of conglomerate for so small a project (in financial terms). It's important to keep this simple.


As for "damage" to the IGC competition, first off, just because we do this one book now, doesn't mean that we'll ever do another. Again, as a promotional tool, essentially, I think that it might only ever be useful to do one. I won't rule in out, OTOH, which means what in terms of the pressure on people? That they might want to try harder so that they might have a better game for a potential book? That's a lot of if's. I don't think it'll have much effect at all. And what effect it does have, I think would be good, personally.

So, I'm sorry Ben, if you think that it would hurt your participation somehow, but I'm not seeing why, I don't sympathize, and I think that it's indeed something that you'll have to deal with on your own.

Now, if somebody can give me a convincing argument for why it's a bad idea, other than they wouldn't like it, I'll have to consider it. Because, indeed, I take my privilege in being the only person allowed to run these contests here very seriously. Before even considering doing this, I asked both Ron and Clinton what they thought about it. Ron has some concerns about just how "indie" the whole thing is (he'd like to have you alll publish on your own - which I encourage you all to do if that's really your intent), but outside of that, they don't have any problems with the idea.


So I remain largely unconvinced that there is any problem at all with this project - rather the opposite, I see a really neat and innovative produt. I hope that what I've said here will give some of my vision on my thinking and that this may clarify anybody's perceptions of what's going on to their satisfaction. I'll continue to hear arguments about this, but I sincerely hope that I've made a positive impact with these statements. Because, as I said at the top, I am saddened that anybody sees this as anything but an attempt to improve The Forge's reputation, and the reputation of the games that come from work here. That's been my intention and Dav's intention from the start.

Mike

Formatting question: Dav (and Mike, since you'll be editing), what kind of formatting notes would you like? My manuscript has headings, subheadings, bulleted lists, IGC-flavor text, rules text, and potentially some example-of-play callouts. I figure if we all present you with the same style of notes, then it'll make your job easier and quicker.

Hi kids,

I've only skimmed this thread -- since I am farking busy with the Monster Burner and the NPA -- so don't sue me if I've missed a relevant point.

Here are my bullet point thoughts:

Iron Games Compilation: Yes. Do it. Why the hell wouldn't you? More potential audience (in print) for a bunch of very cool games that are likely a completely unique entity in the rpg world. I'd play up the coolness of them.

NPA vs IGC: Let's fight! Wait, no. Let's join forces! Nah, screw it. Wait, no. Actually, I think these are two very distinct projects that there will be absolutely no confusion between whatsoever. They are going to look completely differently and have completely different content, and be marketed differently. (at least I hope so. I did find some suspicious spyware on my computer the other day...)

Branding: I'd love to cross-brand, but frankly, we don't have a brand and neither do you. We've got a cool name (and logo) that we've cooked up for the NPA, but that's it. No one knows a damn thing about us and it is going to take a lot of people a lot of hard work to get the word out. I know the Forge seems like the center of the universe, but it's really just a few chickens in the chicken coop (pardon the strange analogy) makin a lot of cluckin. Just cause we cluck up a cool idea, doesn't mean anyone cares. We've got to make them care.

Branding 2, The Forge: I love this place, but Ron has let it be known that it is not an imprint, brand, publishing house or money laundering front. I'm not planning on using the Forge at all in marketing the NPA, I recommend the IGC does the same. Let's make our own brands.

To Review: IGC? Yes. NPA vs IGC? We're friends doing two different things, let's keep it that way.

Please don't start any discussion about the NPA here. If you need to, we can start another thread.

-Luke

Zak, forget what I said about RTF. See Dav's comments about formats. I can deal with all of these, so let's do that. Dav will give all further guidance about formatting. I will deal with content only.

Luke: about what I thought. Cool.

BTW, and FWIW, everyone, both the NPA and this publication do have stuff saying that they were created at The Forge. Like Luke said, not an imprint, but really just sorta advertising for The Forge more than anything else.

Mike

C. Edwards wrote: I'd just like to point out there were fewer entries in the first two IGC competitions put together than there were in this one.

Enough to make a seperate volume? Depends on how many people sign on.

-Chris

This publication will only feature games from the IGC Fantasy competition.

Formatting and style guidelines: you can give me detailed notes, or pdf mockups of how you think the pages should be put together, or just give me the text and let me run amok. Any of these are fine.

Dav

All right kids, the initial list. I have divided them into "Yes", "Maybe", "No", and "I haven't heard word one from these people, and I don't know if they have seen or heard of this thread (which I am just now rolling into "Maybe" at the last minute and I am too lazy to delete and edit this section out)"

"YES" (meaning they posted publicly saying yes, or PM'd me, or phoned me, or somehow let Mike or I know specifically)

Timfire: The Mountain Witch

Jack Aidley: Chanter (AWWWWWW YEAH!)

Eero Tuovinen: The Battle of the Frozen Waste, The Fall of Atlantis and Dawn of Human History, and The Brotherhood (and all three should be included, as they are all DEFINITELY worth playing)

Mike Mendoza: Dilmun, Islands of Dawn: Assault of the Black Ice

Hans Christian Anderson: Snow Day (or Fort Joey Must Fall!)

Asrogoth: God Lore: The Chronicles of the Immortals

Rich Forest: Trouble in the Island Kingdoms

Jonathon Nicol: Fantasy Ice Breaker #1: The Dragon's Lair

John Laviolette: IceRunner: A Dweomerpunk Fantasy

Christopher Weeks: ICE

Zak Arntson: Terra Australis

Xiombarg: Children of the North: Assault on the Frozen Isle of the Lich-Lord

Ben Lehman: Polaris

Dav Harnish: Broken Vows

Designer X: Four Walls and a Funeral: Roleplaying Behind Bars

".5 Yes, .5 Maybe" (now with their own category! And because I can)

Scott Knipe

Greyorm (The Good Rev.)


"MAYBE" (meaning they've seen this thread, heard about it, but don't know if they will have it done in time or have otherwise not given me a definitive answer)

Bill White

Johnathon Walton

Piers Brown

Alan Barclay

Darcy Burgess

Crackerjacker

Dev

Redivider

Dalek_of_god

James Sterret

Shreyas Sampat

Alexander Cherry

Walt Freitag


"NO" (meaning... well... no or "go take a piss" or something similar)

nobody as yet.


I'm going to get in direct contact with the Maybes during this week, so, if it is you, then by all means, get in touch with me first, if you wouldn't mind. I will be posting all specifics in a final post to this thread by Friday, so if you could all sit tight until then, I would appreciate it. Thanks, kids, you've made this wondrous (mostly... heh, I say this before the work really begins).

Also, please note Matt Snyder's recent post under Publishing (which, I could link for you, but I don't do HTML tags so much... so just look, please). My reply in that thread specifically regards space in both this publication and the UDMMIV publication. Ad space is free, and if you have something you want adified, by all means contact me.

Thanks for the time, see you soon.

Dav

(edited as updates are made)

Here's me giving you a definite maybe!

No, seriously, let me think about it until Friday...I've got other projects eating at my time right now, so I want to make sure I have the time to add enough flesh to the bones that I'll feel comfortable releasing it (even as a free, "look what I did" draft).

Wow, I was just preparing to bug you under your Indie Game Design thread. Fair enough, if you can't make it, I will shed some tears, light a candle, and intone my dark gods to drag you screaming to... well, let's not worry about how it will affect me.

I would love to include At The Dawn, especially as I know you would do your own cover piece for it and your art is worth killing over (and, in some alleyways of Chicago... it is killed over). Think well, good sir, think well.

Dav

Giving you a definite Yes!

Two questions:

-- Please provide a June deadline for submission to you (Dav) so you can format. July 8 to Mike is all well and good, but I need the deadline for me to send out the file. :)

-- How much editing can I do? As you're all aware, my game has some significant problems, and I'd prefer to solve them for any printed version. However, that does present a significantly more polished game than was submitted for IGC itself.

Perhaps the intro can note that we all had a crack at revising?

Free ad space? Damn, Glenda!

Reserve a page, or half-page, for me.

Mike -- you have my polaris text. Edit and suggest as you see fit. There is a revised text that is sitting on my hard drive, but I don't think it is right, for several reasons, to stick it in this volume (it's nearly a complete textual rewrite.)

yrs--
--Ben

Ben:

Duly noted, and the space will be available.

James:

WOOHOO! You are mentally added (I didn't realize... after 3+ years of being on the Forge, that I only have 60 minutes to edit a post). Therefore, I will update the list on Friday.



Dav

edit postscript: Bill White is in! YEEEHAW! (that will be the ONLY time I ever say that... er... type that. You know what I mean)

AND Frigid Bitch! HOOHAH! Mentally reshuffling the list as I think.

Frigid Bitch is a definite yes (it's slightly changed, but the attitude is the same).

The other two... are right now maybes of various stripes and colors. I'll get back to you.

Would it be worth having short 'about the author' sections for each game? Probably with a URL linking to our other work?

Jack Aidley wrote: Would it be worth having short 'about the author' sections for each game? Probably with a URL linking to our other work?

I guess I should officially say "Yes". I have been meaning to start up a thread to deal with the problems pointed out in Habakkuk's review, but work has been keeping me busy lately. Hopefully I'll get around to that in the next day or so.

I've been bandying about the idea of a paragraph of meta-text for each game. I think this would assuage each author's worries about where his game is at. We could explain just how raw or edited the entry was, or other notes on why it is what it is. I think it would add a lot of interest.

Thoughts? Again, just a paragraph, I don't want it to take up too much space.

I have no problem with including a URL - Dav? I don't think we want to do bios, but we could mention other works maybe? Really makes it sink in that it's a compilation of independents.

Mike

Yeah. I'm all about giving the authors a quick "this is where it is, this is where it will be, and this is how it gets there". I think a URL or similar reference point would be great.

I agree, however, that it should be kept to about half-a-page or shorter. Something on the order of a paragraph or so.

Dav

Mike Holmes wrote: I've been bandying about the idea of a paragraph of meta-text for each game... I don't think we want to do bios...

Tim, just not really in the scope of the project, and also I suspect that some wouldn't want to include a bio. So just to keep it all nice and even, just comments about the game that I can provide even if the author doesn't want to say anything, and the links.

Of course there will be URLs to the posts here with the original games as well.

Mike

Someone needs to poke me outside this thread to remind me to re-edit my entry before sending it to Mike.

Also, reserve me a half-page for an ad. I think I need to advertise Unsung somewhere.

You can put me down for "definitely yes."

I'm a yes for Dance & Dawn (which I might rename "Midnight Waltz", perhaps?). Dav, what's the deadline scheduling looking like? (I still want playtest / more comments / etc).

What I'd like to see from each contributor, as soon as possible, is a note on where they are with editing. Have you done anything with the text of the game? If not, fine, let me know. If you have done work, let me know where it's at. If you have a draft finished, let me know where I can find it, or mail it to me (PM me to get the address).

My intent is to make comment on each and every game within a couple of days and get the contributors back to editing if neccessary. I'll work with each of you, back and forth until we have what we want to publish.

At that point, we'll be sending them on to Jonathan for technical editing (spelling, grammar, etc). When he'd done, they go on to Dav for layout.

Is that clear? The "deadline" is yesterday for letting me know where you're at. When I respond, then I'll let you know further deadlines individually.

Mike

Where I'm at:

The most updated versions of all three of my games are in my Atheneum, which is pretty much my rpg Half-Bakery (to steal a pun from numerous sources):

http://www.twistedconfessions.com/atheneum.php

I've renamed Dawnstorm to "Albraxas", but otherwise, what you see is what you get. What's up there is mainly just a cleaning up of terms and the like, but both Frigid Bitch and Dawnstorm have at least minor changes as, well, I typed them all up again basically from scratch to get them up there, and while I was doing that, I tinkered.

As you know, Mike, there's a Frigid Bitch playtest tonight in the indie-netgaming channel, after which there will probably be another critical look at the rules. The other two are "as is" for the moment, and still very much in "raw form."

Let's keep the updates to PMs, please.

Alex, thanks for the update. I'll be at the game tonight.

Mike

So, I just discovered this thread and my intial reaction is confused and rather negative. Here are my issues:

1. I don't want people to pay for a copy of my game. I want it to be free for everyone. I've already posted it in my RPGnet column, actually. Honestly, I don't think it's good enough to deserve being printed, even as part of an anthology of other rough games.

2. So, if my games aren't in the "Iron Game Chef Anthology," that would seem, in some ways, to invalidate my participation in the Iron Game Chef competition, especially if I'm the only one who doesn't want their games included. It would also seem to invalidate the title "Iron Game Chef Anthology" (or whatever) because it wouldn't include all the games that participated in the competition.

3. In effect, I feel trapped by the whole concept. I feel bad for not wanting my game included, both because of peer pressure, because everyone else seems excited about it, and because it feels like I'm retracting my game for being printed alongside the games it was created next to.

4. Honestly, the way you guys seem to be going about organizing this thing seems bassackwards and presumptive. Instead of putting forth the idea, seeing if people were interested, and going from there, you've basically decided you're going to publish all the Iron Chef games and then, after the fact, thought to ask us what we think about it. Dav's whole attitude of "this is going to happen, whether you like it or not" is a complete turn-off. No thank you. I don't think I want to be involved in something that's going to show that little concern for what I want to do with my own work.

Mike Holmes wrote: For those who don't like the idea of the fact that Dav is going to have his logo on the product, I suggest that you publish on your own. Dav is putting up the money, and considerable other resources to make this possible, and I think that a logo is a small price to pay to get this product out.

Jonathan, although I can see the merit in some of your points, let me make a few small points:

1. Who says your game doesn't still get to be free for everyone? I'm sure as hell not taking my IGC games down from my website, even if I put them in this compilation. It's not an either/or choice, and I don't mind a few people shelling out the money to see the results of the contest, since mainly they're paying for the privilege of having the book printed and compiled and edited, rather than for the games per se.

Heck, to divert attention a bit to the other anthology, Snowball is showing up in the NPA, sold for good money, but I'm not going to stop making it free from my site either. Nobody's asked you to make your game not-free, just to print your game in a book that will be for sale.

2. I wouldn't say that removing your games from the Anthology would invalidate your participation in the contest. A partial listing would make note of that fact, and it would definitely (in my opinion) point anyone and everyone to the thread itself, where your game will still be.

I also don't think the title is invalidated by only having some entries, any more than, say, an anthology of "Fairy Tales" is invalidated by not having a Hansel and Gretel tale, despite it being a fairy tale. So, in short, there's not much invalidation going on here.

3. I'm really sorry you feel trapped. There's not much more I can say about that, other than "I don't want to see you feeling trapped, and if the only way not to feel trapped is to not publish, well, don't." Although personally, I'll miss seeing Seadog Tuxedo in print form.

4. Um, I suppose yeah, they did things sort of backwards, first deciding to compile and then going ahead with it. I think that's enthusiasm rather than lack of thought. They are specifically asking for everyone's participation individually (Dav's first post is "this will happen - if the authors don't mind" and I really think that's the attitude that's continued from there). Sure, Dav is aggressively pushing for answers, but that's just 'cause if he wants a GenCon release, he's on a tight schedule and, well, sorta has to keep people on their toes.

The numbers they're saying are expected and/or are hoped for (20-25) is a significant chunk smaller than the 35 games that could be submitted (since Dav's 2nd game has already been excluded). Sure, they're putting some emphasis on wanting the winners and runners-up, but that's only because those are sort of the 'face' of the competition. Certainly the "upper crust", insofar as they were the highest rated.

Even so, it's obvious they ARE expecting some "no" answers. Whether or not they were expecting your 'no' is up to them, but they're prepared for it.

---

Finally, for whatever reason I was thinking that Dav, like most book publishers, would have his logo on the back or spine, not on the cover. But (a) I might be wrong, and (b) you might be defining cover as "both front and back" in which case, yeah, that's the cover.

That said, obviously Dav having his logo on the book bothers you more than it does me. It hasn't even really concerned me, apart from my saying "you know, maybe the No Press logo might make sense, isn't that effectively an open source logo?" (Which, apparently, turns out I was wrong about) I am, however, assuming that I'm going to be able to hawk my game company in the interior of the book, at least in the "author's blurbs" preceeding my game(s).

Thanks for your reply, Lxndr. Let me see if I can clarify my motivations:

Lxndr wrote: 1. Who says your game doesn't still get to be free for everyone?

3. I'm really sorry you feel trapped. There's not much more I can say about that, other than "I don't want to see you feeling trapped, and if the only way not to feel trapped is to not publish, well, don't."

4. Um, I suppose yeah, they did things sort of backwards, first deciding to compile and then going ahead with it. I think that's enthusiasm rather than lack of thought.

Finally, for whatever reason I was thinking that Dav, like most book publishers, would have his logo on the back or spine, not on the cover. But (a) I might be wrong, and (b) you might be defining cover as "both front and back" in which case, yeah, that's the cover.

John (Walton):

If you don't want your game in, that's fine. I'm not going to force you. As for feeling trapped, there's not much I can do about that, that's your call to make.

I think one of the big problems with collaborating *anything* is that everyone will want to have a vision of the finished product. I'm trying to do something that in no way precludes someone from taking their own stuff and doing it their way. I see this more as giving anyone who wants it a chance to spotlight their stuff in a published form... end of story. I want people to shamelessly point to other works and say: "this is what I did in about a week (some cases less), imagine what I do without the deadline... better yet, don't imagine, because it's right here."

There are plenty of people that have their own views about "image" or "professionalism"... personally, I don't buy it, and I don't care, so that has never been an issue for me. I mentioned this idea to Mike a bit ago, we talked about it, and decided that it had merit, and thus, we moved to the next step: announcing the idea and seeking support.

While I feel that people such as Designer X, who just said: "yeah, sure, have a blast, sounds fun and make sure it stays 'Designer X'," have the right idea, I don't see any reason to pressure people into this. You may not like my attitude, which is fine, there are a good number of people who think I'm an ass... and I may well be. I just think that anyone that feels pigeonholed, pressured, or what-have-you is putting far too much thought into this... or at least more than I am. This is just a simple, fun thing, and I really don't want it to turn into some bizarre NDA-required, contract-signed nightmare.

As for licensing: no. I don't want your license, I don't want anything. I want no responsibility for your works, I just want to put them in a single form and print it.

When you say: "I don't think I want to be involved in something that's going to show that little concern for what I want to do with my own work," I become confused. I honestly DON'T care what you want for your work, it isn't my work, it's yours. I expect that the average creator should care enough for themselves, without my need for involvement. What I want to see is more people getting their names, games, and ideas out to the public, and I see this as a no-risk, easily accomplished avenue... and I want to make it available to anyone that wants it.

And, as for the UD logo going on the back of the anthology, it was a request of mine for pushing my resources at the project. I also want to include a Forge logo and an IGC logo. I will also happily include anyone else's logo in the author's section for each game, as well as having openly stated that I am offering free ad space at the end of the product (and, incidentally at the end of the UDMMIV publication). I feel that is more than fair, and if you disagree, well, boys will be boys.

Your game will still be included in the full list of games submitted, as will all other games not participating, so you needn't feel excluded. If you have an alternate venue for distributing your game and you feel that this project will in some manner detract from it, by all means, you should do it your own way.

I do have enthusiasm for this project, and I hate it when people insist on "thinking/planning/whatevering things out". If there is one thing I have learned: too much thought stifles creativity (yeah, I know, seems counterintuitive, doesn't it?), and I refuse to have this project tied up in committee while people discuss every nuance they can get their hands on. I just don't work that way. (Hey, I'm making concenssions as it is, this will be one of the first products that I am involved with that doesn't have the line: "hey kids, smoking makes you cool." in the foreword.

Dav

Edited to note that I cross-posted with Dav.

Jonathan Walton wrote: 1. I don't want people to pay for a copy of my game. I want it to be free for everyone. I've already posted it in my RPGnet column, actually.

Honestly, I don't think it's good enough to deserve being printed, even as part of an anthology of other rough games.

So, if my games aren't in the "Iron Game Chef Anthology," that would seem, in some ways, to invalidate my participation in the Iron Game Chef competition, especially if I'm the only one who doesn't want their games included. It would also seem to invalidate the title "Iron Game Chef Anthology" (or whatever) because it wouldn't include all the games that participated in the competition.

In effect, I feel trapped by the whole concept. I feel bad for not wanting my game included, both because of peer pressure, because everyone else seems excited about it, and because it feels like I'm retracting my game for being printed alongside the games it was created next to.

Honestly, the way you guys seem to be going about organizing this thing seems bassackwards and presumptive. Instead of putting forth the idea, seeing if people were interested, and going from there, you've basically decided you're going to publish all the Iron Chef games and then, after the fact, thought to ask us what we think about it. Dav's whole attitude of "this is going to happen, whether you like it or not" is a complete turn-off. No thank you. I don't think I want to be involved in something that's going to show that little concern for what I want to do with my own work.

Um, no. I respectfully disagree. I'd much rather contribute my own money to help pay for the project than let Dav pay for it and get his logo on the cover. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that's an option. For a work that's so obviously collaborative to be published under the "imprint" of one of the contributors, just because they were the first person to volunteer funds, is a shame.

So, I guess this is the first "I'll take my ball and go home" post, and I'm sorry about that, but if you guys don't want to play nicely, you can leave me out of it.

Jon, what do you mean by "free for everyone"? Were you planning on putting it in the public domain, or something more limited?

"I don't want to sell this particular game, as it stands." If Seadog was going to be published and sold, I would want to do some pretty drastic things to it, and that's against the spirit of this anthology, I think.

JamesSterrett wrote: For what little it may be worth, Terminator Line doesn't deserve to be published & sold in its IGC-submitted form either, and will wind up in this volume with significant revisions.

xiombarg wrote:
Yes... I'll note that revisions are allowed, so long as the game doesn't go beyond about 150% of its original length. I know I revised my game quite a bit in reaction to Mike's comments.

No prob. Again, no pressure either way.

Mike

Dav wrote: I would love to include At The Dawn, especially as I know you would do your own cover piece for it and your art is worth killing over (and, in some alleyways of Chicago... it is killed over). Think well, good sir, think well.

When can we get page size information?

Chris

Any updates Mike or Dav?

Chris

Well, Dav's got everything, but it was kinda last minute. There was a problem with part of the process that I don't really want to discuss, because I don't want to implicate anyone. I will admit that I could have been quicker on the draw in getting some of the stages moving as well. But I am proud of the work that was done by everyone in getting it all together.

I only pray that Dav can pull off a miracle and get it printed in time. If he can't, he can't be blamed given the lack of time, but I have faith in his abilities.

Anyhow, given that he's probably stupid busy right now, I wouldn't be surprised not to hear from him before the Con (now it'll turn out that he's cross posting with me, heh).

Anyhow, if it unfortunately doesn't make it to GenCon, it'll be done shortly thereafter.

Again, thanks to everyone who participated. It's been more than educational. For one thing, I don't think I'll tackle trying to edit this many games (it has 23 going in) for anything in the future, just because it was a logistical nightmare. I'm sure that many of the authors may have felt that I could have been more helpful with the editing process because I was spread so thin. Maybe if I did this full-time... :-)

Anyhow, it's going to be a neat product when we finally see it. Fingers crossed.

Mike