I for one would be very interested to know how Issaries is considered an independent game company by Forge definitions. Is this entirely because Greg Stafford has final approval over content and marketing?

Does this mean, then, that as long as I come up with the initial concept for a game, I can farm out the actual production to freelancers and still have it considered independent, so long as the idea was mine and I ultimately approve everything?

If not, what are the specific exceptions and restrictions? At what point, for instance, does Vampire stop being independent? Mark Rein*Hagen created the game, co-owns the company and could theoretically execercise his fiat over anything made for the game (and its successors) and any aspect of its production -- but obviously, the term isn't meant to include Vampire.

To choose another example, look at Fading Suns. It's a self-published game by a collection of pros who went into business for themselves and still retain incontrovertible control over the game's design and marketing.

Finally, I wonder if the D20 decency clause doesn't automatically disqualify D20 logo-using games, because the terms of the license specifically cede on form of editorial control to WotC.

I'm not ragging on the definition, but these anomalies make me curious about it

Malcolm,

Well, I can refer back to what Ron said a little earlier in the thread:

Ron Edwards wrote: For those who are interested, I recently contacted Greg Stafford and asked him lots of questions, because I was concerned that Issaries had crossed that line with its post-HeroQuest publications. By "concerned," I mean for the Forge's Issaries forum, not for Issaries (he can do what he wants, it's his). Greg characteristically was gracious, professional, and savvy, and explained all sorts of things about how the company operates - and it's independent, period.

All the quote tells me is that Issaries is "indie" beceause Greg Stafford is a nice chap. While the definition that comes from this ("indie" is whatever Forge moderation calls indie) is a coherent definition, I suspect that this isn't what Ron means, because if it is, it doesn't have any broad applicability at all.

Also, I don't see how an agreement to self-censorif necessary is not a barrier to "indie" status, because the term *does* have a wider definition beyond this forum, and that definition is definitely tied to efforts fo keep corporate decision-making from twisting creative efforts. If the Forge's definition does embrace censorious publishing agreements, than I find that definition problematic. If it embraces work that is created with the help of RPG freelancing (i.e writers who create content but do not retain the rights to that content), then I also find the definition problematic. In Issaries' case, that begs the question: Does Robin Laws own the material he wrote for the game? Questions like that certainly seem relevant.

First things first: "indie" can only be applied to a particular product. Attempting to do otherwise would be futile. Given that, we could by extension call a company independent because all of their products are.

eyebeams wrote: Also, I don't see how an agreement to self-censorif necessary is not a barrier to "indie" status, because the term *does* have a wider definition beyond this forum, and that definition is definitely tied to efforts fo keep corporate decision-making from twisting creative efforts. If the Forge's definition does embrace censorious publishing agreements, than I find that definition problematic. If it embraces work that is created with the help of RPG freelancing (i.e writers who create content but do not retain the rights to that content), then I also find the definition problematic. In Issaries' case, that begs the question: Does Robin Laws own the material he wrote for the game? Questions like that certainly seem relevant.

I apologize that you find things problematic. That is, of course, no one's problem but your own.

I've seen people online get all up-in-arms about some sort of co-option of the term "indie." In the end, the term is irrelevant, and all arguments about what it means are circle-jerking, not to put too fine a point on it.

Personal-vision RPGs: RPGs which are an expression of one person, and as such, all creative and publishing decisions are done by that person. Usually, all writing's done by that person, but if Greg Stafford sat down, knowing "I want Glorantha to work like this," and then paid Robin Laws to make it work that way, that's not much different than me paying Jennifer Rodgers to make "The Shadow of Yesterday" look like I want it to.

I understand Malcolm's point. There is a grey area to the way Indie is presented that I find rather disquieting. "Creator Owned" is a useful marketable tag line, but as a definition its not very rigorous

So let's take apart what "creator owned" really means. The real definition boils down to money. He who controls the money ultimately controls the content. If both the controller of the content and the controller of the money are the same person...its indie. If not, its not. If you control the content, but not the money...then you don't really control jack. If you control the money but not the content...then you are the one in charge but you aren't indie.

This definition itself, however, has some interesting grey areas.

"who controls the money" is not always all that easy to determine. If you have employees, if you have office space, if you have long term financial commitments...do you really control the money? How much control of the money do you really have if the majority of your budget is nondiscretionary?


Here is where I go perhaps a step further than Ron (maybe). For my purposes, budget breaking nondiscretionary expenditures are sufficient to disqualify you from being indie.

Why? because as soon as you have to start making business decisions based on trying to come up with the revenue to meet your financial obligations you no longer control the money. The money is controling you. On paper you may have total creative and business control. In reality, however, your creditors, vendors, employees, and anyone else with an on going reoccuring claim to your revenue has the real control. They demand to be paid, and you must pay them. Once you enter into an agreement where the day to day, month to month choice about whether to write the check or not is made for you your indie status is in jeopardy.

Ramshead's expenditures are 100% discretionary. If I want art, I pay for art. If I don't I don't. etc. There is no decision I have to make (for my business) predicated on my ability to "pay the bills". Therefor I and only I control the money.

That to me is the root of being independent. It means never having to make a decision based on cash flow needs.

I understand Malcolm's point. There is a grey area to the way Indie is presented that I find rather disquieting. "Creator Owned" is a useful marketable tag line, but as a definition its not very rigorous.

So let's take apart what "creator owned" really means. The real definition boils down to money. He who controls the money ultimately controls the content. If both the controller of the content and the controller of the money are the same person...its indie. If not, its not. If you control the content, but not the money...then you don't really control jack. If you control the money but not the content...then you are the one in charge but you aren't indie.

This definition itself, however, has some interesting grey areas.

"who controls the money" is not always all that easy to determine. If you have employees, if you have office space, if you have long term financial commitments...do you really control the money? How much control of the money do you really have if the majority of your budget is nondiscretionary?

Here is where I go perhaps a step further than Ron (maybe). For my purposes, budget breaking nondiscretionary expenditures are sufficient to disqualify you from being indie.

Why? because as soon as you have to start making business decisions based on trying to come up with the revenue to meet your financial obligations you no longer control the money. The money is controling you. On paper you may have total creative and business control. In reality, however, your creditors, vendors, employees, and anyone else with an on going reoccuring claim to your revenue has the real control. They demand to be paid, and you must pay them. Once you enter into an agreement where the day to day, month to month choice about whether to write the check or not is made for you your indie status is in jeopardy.

Ramshead's expenditures are 100% discretionary. If I want art, I pay for art. If I don't I don't. etc. There is no decision I have to make (for my business) predicated on my ability to "pay the bills". Therefor I and only I control the money.

In short, I think it's important to support creators who want to be financially successful and who freely enter into contractual agreements to make it happen, for the purpose of viably producing material that is unequivocally theirs. It may not be "Forge indie," but it isn't "industry" either.

Clinton, what you quoted is not the whole of my point.

Is this thread "devoid of content?" I don't think so. Valamir's reply struck me as being substantial and useful. "Bah," does not.

As for a "special label" -- well, this site already approves of that in principle. The question is whether or not further classification has any utility -- and I think it does.

When we have words to talk about different facest of game creation, everybody benefits. It benefits folks who value the creative efforst of designers because it's possible to atttach a tag to a game that says that it's being produced under a particular set of creator-friendly conditions. It benefits marketing and sales because it allows people in every side of things to identify what people want.

Maybe, just maybe, "Bah on that" is not an alternative that gives something to discussions, to gamers and to gaming.

It's certainly no great leap to observe that the Forge values semantic accuracy. Certainly, in past discussions I've beeen reminded of that repeatedly. Over the years, Ron and others have worked to tighten the terms used in theory into being as unambiguous as possible.

Why, then, is there resistance when it comes to doing this for the creation and production of games? Aside from deflecting rhetorical absurdities (like the Vampire example, which is *intentionally* absurd) with something substantial, it opens up the basis for discussion more.

In any event, the fact that there has been repeated online and face to face taalk about this indicates that it isn't just my personal problem and that dismissing its importance doesn't seem to do anything useful. I didn;t bring up Issaries; Ron did. I didn't bring up dissatisfaaction with usage; Ron did.

Despite my differences with the dominant thinking here, I do believe the community here is useful and interesting.

In closing, here are five useful things that would come from tightening up and diversifying categories:

1) People who want to create and people who are willing to do production without sacrificing the creator's vision can be hooked up with unambigious terms smoothing the way.

2) People who want to be RPG conceptualists and producers can coherently talk about this and find writers to reproduce a process like the one Ron finds satisfying about Issaries.

3) People can talk about the varying goals of a project. Commercial or not? Government funded? What?

4) We can find ways to talk about the success and failure of different kinds of partnerships.

5) We can better critique existing games based on their mode of production.

This definition disqualifies anything that is a working business. It may even disqualify Sorcerer (which, as an admitted for-profit commercial venture, would be restricted by business realities as well).

Ralph is making my point more cogently than I am. (For the record, by the way , I'm not the editorial moderator here, so take everything I've said as what some guy thinks, not what a moderator thinks.)

How do I sum up? Ok. What does it matter if your game gets some "indie" label? After it's all said and done, if you like your game, does it matter what some guy on the Internet calls it?

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
How do I sum up? Ok. What does it matter if your game gets some "indie" label? After it's all said and done, if you like your game, does it matter what some guy on the Internet calls it?

Now, Ralph:

Lets first distinguish the term "working business"

A game company which is profitable, can support itself out of its own cash flows after an initial period of relying on start up capital is what I would call a "working business" and not at all excluded from this definition.

However a game company that enters into a corporate mentality of how a business should be structured will often run afoul of this definition.

By this I mean game companies that rent office space and pay sizeable numbers of employees and other such practices that may or may not be useful. There is absolutely no reason from a game design standpoint for any of these things. Many high quality wonderful games are designed by profitable game companies that have neither rented office or warehouse space nor salaried or wage employees.

So the decision to go that route is independent of the decision to be a for profit business. The issue is that once you go that route you now have to make decisions for reasons other than achieving personal vision.

You now have to be willing to sacrifice personal vision in order to pay the bills.

In my mind, no one who sacrifices personal vision in order to pay the bills can be indie. The only definition of indie that matters to me is one in which cash flow decisions never trumps creative decisions. The minute cash flow decisions start to trump creative decisions is the minute you've "gone corporate".

In other words:
Given a choice between A and B where A makes more money. If the decision has no impact on artistic vision than the wise indie publisher will choose A.

If the decision has an impact on artistic vision such that choice A makes more money and choice B is truer to the vision, then an indie publisher is one where the person who HAS the artistic vision gets to choose which way to go. The non indie situation is one where someone other than the person who has the artistic vision gets to choose which way to go.

It doesn't matter whether the other person also happens to choose choice A. If they do, great...if they don't...you wind up with corporate schlock. But either way its not indie. Corporate publishers are still capable of producing visionary games (the hypothetical choice A); but that capability doesn't make them indie. Nor does not being indie mean they automatically produce schlok.

Now you can say that you've found an arrangement that gives you the opportunity to realize 100% of your creative vision even though someone else is making the money choices, if so Great! But it isn't indie. May well be an absolutely fabulous game. May well be an absolutely wonderful relationship where the other party indeed gives you everything you could ever want without it ever turning sour. May well be absolutely the right business decision for you to make.

But it ain't indie if you're not the one controlling the purse strings.

It really is that simple.

Divest yourself of the Indie = good; Corporate = bad worry.

There is no need to try and force yourself into the indie box. If you're not indie, you're not indie. Fine.

The Forge isn't here to say Indie = better than Corporate; Corporate = crap.

The Forge is here to break the myth that Corporate is the only way or the best way to publish a game."

Before you run off to sign that contract with a publishing house, consider being indie. If you still decide the corporate model is for you, great, good luck with that, we'll look forward to checking your game out when it arrives. If you think maybe you might want to give indie a try, stick around...we can help with that."


That's all there is to it.

Now that said, I can see why some people might want to be considered indie even when they're not. In addition to being a great resource, the Forge has developed a kick ass brand, alot of recognition and cred, and a following of gamers who will eagerly try nearly any game that comes with a "forge" connection to it. Its a great buzz to have around a game.

But yeah, you only get to capitalize on that buzz if you are, in fact, indie. There are plenty of advantages the corporate model provides both in terms of finances, support, marketing, and distribution. The Forge currently is one advantage available to indie publishers, and only to indie publishers.

Hello,

Well well.

Point #1: the reason I was vague about exactly why Issaries Inc is independent by Forge standards is that the information is literally no one's business but Greg's. I was asking about aspects of his policies and finances which, if you asked me about them re: Adept Press, I might very well tell you to fuck off. Sure he comes off as a nice guy in my telling - because he really was.

As for whether what he told me qualifies for independence, well, you just have to decide whether to take my word for it or not. Because that's all you get. The information is privileged, and either you decide I'm including Issaries unfairly only 'cause I like it, or you decide I'm operating from a consistent standard. Which one is no one's choice but the individual's, and since I'm not running a company called the Forge, nor am I running for public office, any individual's opinion of me about this is neither bonus or nose-skin.

Point #2: where you get this "corporate" vs. "indie" thing is beyond me, unless maybe it's Sean's (Adgboss) discussion of the "corporate game model." One poster. Big whoop.

'Cause, you see, even Sean really doesn't mean "corporate." He's talking about a sort of corporation, that's all. Adept Press is a corporation. So is Behemoth3, so is Issaries Inc (obviously), and so is Apophis. Some of the others are too. And yeah, we all still are independents.

So I suggest losing this whole defensive thing about corporations. Incorporating is not the issue; self-publishing one's work is the issue.

Point #3: what in the world are you talking about, anyway? I really can't tell what you are on about.

a) Are you are objecting to the possibility of being labeled independent?

Good lord, man - take my word, you'll be labeled anything and everything by the time the day is over, by someone. If verbal labels were really stickum labels, I could have covered a dorm door with stuff about Adept Press by now. I can't imagine caring - or rather, if you go in caring about schmutz like that, you'll wear yourself into a little exhausted nub.

b) Are you objecting to the straightforward observation that the Forge does not extend many of its services to people who do not conform with its definition of independence?

Well, them's the breaks. Wouldn't it be nice if, say, Indie Design and Publishing were thrown open to discussing (say) the development of Eberron or Vampire: Requiem, pending the willingness of the creators and their whipmasters (whoops! employers! my client means "employers," your honor!) to do so?

Ahem. Getting over my own wittiness. Back to answering for real. Wouldn't it be nice if these forums were opened up to any committed and creative person involved in developing a role-playing game, without regard to ownership whatsoever?

Sure it would be nice. But Clinton and I are not nice people. We are activists. We have an overt political agenda - to empower those who are interested in self-publishing role-playing games to do so. To reduce the focus on that agenda is to dilute the goal.

All such activists (any sphere of activity, any side) seem irrational and even vicious, or small-minded, to those whom are they are not directly helping. My response? "Yup. I see why you see it that way. Have a nice day."

What's the difference between such an activist and a harmful, undesirable element? Well, you'll notice we don't practice any deliberately harmful policies toward the non-interest-group. We don't smear Hasbro, or people who work for them. White Wolf gets a nod for many of its excellent business practices in recent years, like paying its freelancers on time.

This is the punchline for the whipmasters crack above, for those who under-appreciate my nigh-cosmic humor. This is not an anti-un-independent website. Individuals have been noted to vent their spleen, certainly, but there is no direct or concerted effort here, as in a forum or a dedicated series of articles, to tell anyone why being non-independent (by our definition) is a terrible thing to do. Clinton and I claim no such thing.

We even conduct all of our work in public!! The creative folks in non-independent endeavors can come and read anything they like! And they do, daily.

That's the best you can hope for from activists, my friend - that they are the sort of people who would rather play fair, and empower those they want to empower, without trying to rip down or invalidate those they aren't interested in helping. Bluntly, people who do freelance work-for-hire and their employers can count their lucky stars about that. There are a lot of people out there whose jaundiced little fucked-up souls would love to have a site like this from which to launch their smear campaigns based on some moronic "information wants to be free" bandwagon. But this isn't it.

Best,
Ron

Point #1: the reason I was vague about exactly why Issaries Inc is independent by Forge standards is that the information is literally no one's business but Greg's. I was asking about aspects of his policies and finances which, if you asked me about them re: Adept Press, I might very well tell you to fuck off. Sure he comes off as a nice guy in my telling - because he really was.

As for whether what he told me qualifies for independence, well, you just have to decide whether to take my word for it or not. Because that's all you get. The information is privileged, and either you decide I'm including Issaries unfairly only 'cause I like it, or you decide I'm operating from a consistent standard. Which one is no one's choice but the individual's, and since I'm not running a company called the Forge, nor am I running for public office, any individual's opinion of me about this is neither bonus or nose-skin.

Point #2: where you get this "corporate" vs. "indie" thing is beyond me, unless maybe it's Sean's (Adgboss) discussion of the "corporate game model." One poster. Big whoop.

'Cause, you see, even Sean really doesn't mean "corporate." He's talking about a sort of corporation, that's all. Adept Press is a corporation. So is Behemoth3, so is Issaries Inc (obviously), and so is Apophis. Some of the others are too. And yeah, we all still are independents.

So I suggest losing this whole defensive thing about corporations. Incorporating is not the issue; self-publishing one's work is the issue.

Point #3: what in the world are you talking about, anyway? I really can't tell what you are on about.

a) Are you are objecting to the possibility of being labeled independent?

Good lord, man - take my word, you'll be labeled anything and everything by the time the day is over, by someone. If verbal labels were really stickum labels, I could have covered a dorm door with stuff about Adept Press by now. I can't imagine caring - or rather, if you go in caring about schmutz like that, you'll wear yourself into a little exhausted nub.

b) Are you objecting to the straightforward observation that the Forge does not extend many of its services to people who do not conform with its definition of independence?

Well, them's the breaks. Wouldn't it be nice if, say, Indie Design and Publishing were thrown open to discussing (say) the development of Eberron or Vampire: Requiem, pending the willingness of the creators and their whipmasters (whoops! employers! my client means "employers," your honor!) to do so?

Ahem. Getting over my own wittiness. Back to answering for real. Wouldn't it be nice if these forums were opened up to any committed and creative person involved in developing a role-playing game, without regard to ownership whatsoever?

Sure it would be nice. But Clinton and I are not nice people. We are activists. We have an overt political agenda - to empower those who are interested in self-publishing role-playing games to do so. To reduce the focus on that agenda is to dilute the goal.

All such activists (any sphere of activity, any side) seem irrational and even vicious, or small-minded, to those whom are they are not directly helping. My response? "Yup. I see why you see it that way. Have a nice day."

What's the difference between such an activist and a harmful, undesirable element? Well, you'll notice we don't practice any deliberately harmful policies toward the non-interest-group. We don't smear Hasbro, or people who work for them. White Wolf gets a nod for many of its excellent business practices in recent years, like paying its freelancers on time.

This is the punchline for the whipmasters crack above, for those who under-appreciate my nigh-cosmic humor. This is not an anti-un-independent website. Individuals have been noted to vent their spleen, certainly, but there is no direct or concerted effort here, as in a forum or a dedicated series of articles, to tell anyone why being non-independent (by our definition) is a terrible thing to do. Clinton and I claim no such thing.

We even conduct all of our work in public!! The creative folks in non-independent endeavors can come and read anything they like! And they do, daily.

That's the best you can hope for from activists, my friend - that they are the sort of people who would rather play fair, and empower those they want to empower, without trying to rip down or invalidate those they aren't interested in helping. Bluntly, people who do freelance work-for-hire and their employers can count their lucky stars about that. There are a lot of people out there whose jaundiced little fucked-up souls would love to have a site like this from which to launch their smear campaigns based on some moronic "information wants to be free" bandwagon. But this isn't it.

Hello,

Whipmasters, whipmasters, whipmasters all! Slay them! Rise up ...

... shhh, Malcolm's listening. Everyone look friendly.

Malcolm, you asked this very thing in Indie or not? back in April. Raven listed several threads for you to reference, and I specifically invited you to contact me for further questions. You didn't do that, so any dialogue which would have determined whether your publishing was "Forge-called-independent" didn't happen. I still have no idea, so any sense that you have of being "rejected by the Forge" is your own doing.

I also defined this independence, as I've done many times. It's based on whether the creator owns the game.

Ownership is defined as final authority over content, development, and finances. Small groups of people are permitted, in addition to one-person shows.

1) Creator has full executive control over the property.

2) Creator is the publisher - responsible for printing costs, art costs, etc. (Note that this does not preclude organizing venture capital or startup stocks.)

3) Profits are received and managed by the creator.

Nuance: small teams of creators are possible rather than a single person.

The gray areas concern distinct degrees of work-for-hire (e.g. Robin Laws on Hero Wars).

What is not a grey area: having a company publish your game, meaning paying for printing and other production costs, with the understanding or contract that the creator retains the IP and will share in the profits once the publishing company has recouped its costs. That is what Atlas does with Unknown Armies and what Hogshead did with Nobilis.

Hello,

Whipmasters, whipmasters, whipmasters all! Slay them! Rise up ...

... shhh, Malcolm's listening. Everyone look friendly.

P.S. Ain't no reason on this earth not to keep yanking your chain about the whipmasters. It's too much fun to see you leaping like a goosed chambermaid. Small of me, I know.

Malcolm, you asked this very thing in Indie or not? back in April. Raven listed several threads for you to reference, and I specifically invited you to contact me for further questions. You didn't do that, so any dialogue which would have determined whether your publishing was "Forge-called-independent" didn't happen. I still have no idea, so any sense that you have of being "rejected by the Forge" is your own doing.

Ownership is defined as final authority over content, development, and finances. Small groups of people are permitted, in addition to one-person shows.

The full definition may be found in What indie RPGs came out in 2002?:

Quote:
1) Creator has full executive control over the property.

2) Creator is the publisher - responsible for printing costs, art costs, etc. (Note that this does not preclude organizing venture capital or startup stocks.)

3) Profits are received and managed by the creator.

Nuance: small teams of creators are possible rather than a single person.

The gray areas concern distinct degrees of work-for-hire (e.g. Robin Laws on Hero Wars).

What is not a grey area: having a company publish your game, meaning paying for printing and other production costs, with the understanding or contract that the creator retains the IP and will share in the profits once the publishing company has recouped its costs. That is what Atlas does with Unknown Armies and what Hogshead did with Nobilis.

It's also not very well understood by some of the folks who are active here at the Forge, hence a lot of dust clutters the air sometimes when it gets brought up. And some other folks who do understand it tend to focus on their own re-phrasings, like Ralph and his "vision" stuff. But there's one single authority, who is me, and that's the yardstick I use every time.

And, also to be clear: independence has fuck-all to do with whether I like a game, a company, or a person. I've demonstrated this so many times that it's actually archaic-sounding for someone to drag out the old saw about "whatever Ron likes he calls independent."

Hello,

"Personal issue," no. Nor do I perceive hostility. Yanking your chain is fun to be sure, but what I'm really mocking is any actual extremity on the part of an independent publisher. "Whipmasters" indeed. What bullshit.

(Californians love to impersonate points of view they disagree with, as a form of satire, often to the confusion of others who, gasp, cannot believe they would say something so awful, etc etc. I run into this miscommunication in the American midwest all the time, so must curb myself frequently.)

What I do perceive from you and other work-for-hire freelancers is conflict of interest. We literally make our money in entirely different ways. The way I and Clinton are empowering, successfully, isn't your way. I see your comments and others as resentment about that, for implied criticism and judgment of the way you've chosen to make this money. As if you were filthy or mercenary or something similar.

This resentment is especially expressed in a way which you claim it isn't: defense over the creative content of the games. You playtested it? Authored part of it? Helped create it? Fine - because you do not own it, nor did you have final authority over anything that I or anyone might be criticizing, then the "attacks" aren't your problem.

So why bother defending it? Defend your work in it, if you'd like. Explain why it's an awesome game, maybe by posting in Actual Play. Compare its features to similar games in RPG Theory. But who cares whether the game undergoes critique and its creative power-structure is called to task for perceived flaws? It's not your authority or input which is under fire.

That's why I think you are posting. I think it's economic conflict of interest, and that you think it's unfair. My response is that yeah, economics are unfair. People take different approaches to making money.

Since I don't think our actual, personal success(es) are threatened by one another, then I'm happy with peaceful co-existence. But those differences in outlook are going to be manifested - sometimes with bile (as in Sean's case), sometimes with open criticism of an approach to creative work on the work (as in mine, in the thread you mention), and sometimes with educated or uneducated comments that any number of people won't like. Any of these are subject to discourse.

Free advice: you won't get anywhere by identifying terms as evidence of values. You'll see whatever values you want to see, when you look at a site as diverse in outlook as this one. Criticism toward White Wolf? It's invective! Ha! Found the values. Must be the real values here - the whole community is in on it!

Yeah, your comments do read that paranoid to me. All I need to do is consider your position - how you make your money - and it all makes sense. You're defending the source of your income. OK, that sort of cuts any chance for discourse out of the picture.

Clarifications ...

You asked what I meant by "recouping cost" in the quoted text. Usually that means that the publishing company pays for printing and many other tasks involved in getting the book actually made as a physical product. Profits from the sales go first to the company, so that they make back their investment. Subsequent profits are split among the company and creators, according to whatever arrangement they've agreed to. Royalties are a common example, but I've seen others.

How would any of this "independence" stuff apply to Finnish Indrama? Good question. Might be out of the box, considering that all of my "independence" stuff was construed in a fully-capitalist context. Or maybe it's just not independent, period. I'd like to know more about the details to decide, or throw it open to discussion among people who know a lot about it, in order to learn more. RPG Theory topic for sure.

Your final question isn't a question. You've made up your mind, it appears, that I've used "corporate" as invective. Ah! Case closed, Ron hates White Wolf, awful terrible corporation that it is. Knew it all along. Found the values.

My final point: I welcome anyone and everyone to write off anything I post here, at this site and any other, as the ravings of a bad person. It strikes me that once so identified, my ravings would then best be ignored. After all, why bother debating with the ravings of a bad person? It won't make you any happier to do it, and the bad person certainly isn't going to change.

Saves us all a lot of trouble that way.

Best,
Ron

So if Ron Edwards rented an studio space, his company wouldn't be "indie" any more? As for numbers of employees, you haave Issaries and Driftwood, both of which have employed multiple people. I'm nto sure how sticking them in an office makes a difference.

After a certain degree of success you have to make a decision about how to expand. Let's look at TSR:

TSR in the early 70s was as "indie" as they come, but of course, it stopped being that at some point. When would that be? Well, perhaps you are partially correct of you say the answer was when they struck out looking for external capital. See, *that* is a real, honest to goodness dividing line. So would creative staff ultimately being subject to a corporate board in their day to day work.

These are actual meaningful definitions of "indie." I don't believe levels of profit and where your offices are are as useful. But this -- this is progress:-)

How can you tell? If my personal vision is to have an RPG that's full colour with gold-trim pages and artwork by Brom, am I a "sellout" for deciding that I can't afford that and picking something cheaper instead?

You can have people who don't change content to please but who get somebody else to publish it.

This is true, but it in no way implies that the creator has to be the publisher, either -- though technically, you now have "corporate publisher, indie creator." This makes sense -- it's the way actual games have been created.

You seem to think that all models make the publisher the default creator of the game. They are not. The designer creates the game. The designer is not necessarily the subject of a corporate body. He can make a choice.

I am controlling the purse strings. I made the contract with this publisher. They are my client.

As an alternative example, you have government funded games in Northern Europe. In interviews, Ron has said that he welcomes their presence here -- but by your terms, that don't control the purse strings for many of their works, either.

Well no, that isn't "all there is to it," outside of the indie sphere. That's the problem. There are many ways of getting a game out.

I'll be honest - I can jusify the . . . testiness on all sides here, but I wish it wasn't happening. From anyone. But then I'm told I'm "too nice", sometimes.

It seems to me the core of it is this: surrendering actual publication of your work to another party is a risk. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Of course using a layout guy is a risk, using an artist is a risk, hiring Robin Laws is a risk . . OK, maybe that's not a risk. But hiring someone to write your rules is a risk.

So risk (of bad product, of unfulfilled promise, of financial loss) exists everywhere. But Ron and Clinton believe that the particular risk of a second-party publisher is unnecessary, and many people (NOT all) would be better off not doing that. They created the Forge to support that belief. To evangelize that belief. People who think they are better off taking that risk don't qualify for full-on "support" at the Forge, though I'm grateful we can hear about, say, Nobilis in Actual Play, or see UA referenced in Theory, and etc.

Malcolm, as a reader/low-key participant in this thread/issue, what I really want to know is does that make sense to you? I'm fine with you not liking it, but I'm really hoping you understand it boils down to "Ron and Clinton like the idea of a creator controling his own publishing. They use the site to support that belief."

I also have no problem hearing even more about WHY they like that idea so much, but I think I know a good part of it.

Gordon

It's pretty simple:

1) The Forge exists to support companies that fit Ron's definition. It also exists to criticise RPG design.

2) If the Forge wishes to coherent criticise RPG design, it must comn\e to terms with the way RPGs are designed and produced.

3) Finding out what 2) is is not fulfilled by guesswork or uselessly broad categories.

4) Guesswork and uselessly broad categories are the current analytical tool of choice when it comes to figuring out how people make games, thus:

5) Thanks to 4), not only is it difficult to justify any statements people here make about them, it is difficult to justify why the indie method would actually be desirable, except where it feeds into whatever value you put on the Forge's community.

This isn't about my yearning desire for "indie cred." (As I said, I have two games -- Jianghu and Heartbreaker -- in line for that next year, when I get around to them). It's about how things said here can be made more meaningful for me and, I suspect, for others, by tightening the language used to describe how games are made.

Discuss. Refute in detail. Just leave the thinly veiled ad hominems and jabs at my suspected intent behind. I said what my feelings about game design are when I replied to Clinton.

I have to say that I expected better. Years ago I had a conversation on GO with Ron about game design that ended in disagreement but I was touched by the sane, respectful tone he displayed. That, more than anything else, has kept me coming back here to read and occasionally post.

Naturally, I believe that that level of dialogue is capable of being used here, or I wouldn't have bothered.

You know, this is simply not going to be pleasant...

eyebeams wrote: In what way is the "whipmasters" comment neutral? I know you probably intended for there to be some irony -- but when it comes to the stance of many members of the community here, it's not ironic at all.

Suffice to say that any hostility here is a function of your own inference, not my intent.

Hello,

Well, it's been a night's sleep later.

I guess it's time for us to stop ganging up now. Four responses: mine, Ralph's, Gordon's, Raven's; five, actually, Clinton too. Five very different people, but the net effect is one of ganging up. With any luck, the array can be seen as five different people, not (5 x 1).

Anyway. The real issue, and Malcolm, you did state this nicely just now, is whether discourse at the Forge typically makes use of guesswork and uselessly broad categories when non-independent games are brought into the dialogue.

And he's right about that, people! Yes, in order to address issues of design and publishing in our limited sphere here, it is necessary that such issues be understood for games outside that sphere as well. Otherwise the site is an incestuous hive.

So! Do we rely on guesswork and uselessly broad categories when non-independent games come into the picture?

Well, it depends, now doesn't it? As with any website (especially one dedicated to permitting grass-roots entry), people come in with all kinds of misperceptions and emotional baggagge. It's very hard, for instance, for many to grasp that TSR is not the flagship, numero uno successful game company of all RPG history. Getting past that is part of getting educated about RPG publishing.

And furthermore, a lot of brutal truths have to get spoken too - White Wolf did not have a happy sunny time, financially, in the middle-to-late 1990s. No bankruptcy ... but if all the insider accounts I've garnered are true, it was definitely whispering in the company's ear like the Nemesis in Wraith. The "big four" first games and their fill-the-walls supplement publishing context were not financially sound.

Who can tell the emotional/misperception baggage from the brutal truths? I tell ya, in a single thread, it's not possible. Nor is a little tolerance about the former, in the interest of long-term education, easy to tell from over-stating the latter.

And how about the corrective posts which try to keep such things "right"? When do they turn into kneejerk defensiveness? Unfortunately, within moments, especially when economic interest is involved.

That's the environment we're in. The question is not whether the place is perfect, but rather whether it is better, in terms of guesswork and useless categories, than it might be. I think it is, but so what. The answer is up to the individual participant.

Best,
Ron

Malcolm, I'm going to try this one more time and then bow out.

Your last post answered none of the questions I raised for you. You didn't even do me the courtesy of acknowledging that you understood what I was saying.

So please. What is your agenda on this thread? You say its not because you want indie cred yourself, fine...so what is it?

What is that ultimate point you're pursueing here Malcolm, because I have to admit while you started off making what I thought was a valid point you've since buried that point in a lot of bluster and rhetoric.

Specifically, what is the point at which you'll be able to read a post on this thread and say "ahh, yes, that's what I was looking for, thanks". What aspect of the Forge definition needs to be changed or clarified for you to be satisfied? That way we can either do it or explain why we won't do it and the conversation can come to a close.