Question for everyone -- why are there fewer and fewer encouraging responses and rigorous discussions in the Indie Game Design forum?

To me, that forum (and maybe Actual Play) is the single most valuable resource on these forums. And yet, the folks from whom I want to hear are largely absent. The "old guard" just doesn't post as much any more -- myself included. I lurk like crazy there, but many wonderful, creative voices have quieted.

What appears to be happening (please do correct me if my superficial scan is just wrong) is that we have a slew of "new guard" and some "middle guard" regulars who keep posting at most anything that comes along -- Pale Fire, for example, who's definitely a prolific poster. This is, of course, wonderful! New blood is great. My concern is: Why the loss, or at least reduction of the old blood, too?

As I write this, 9 of the most recent 40 posts on Indie Game Design have 0 replies, and 6 of the most recent 40 have one or two replies. That means that almost 40% of posts there are largely unreplied to. Well, ok it doesn't quite mean that, as one or two of those threads are simple announcements.

Other observations -- the forum has a much higher post turnover rate, unlike, say, last year at this time when 4 or 5 subjects would be discussed thoroughly for a string of days before a new crop cycled through. Now, we have two-day old posts falling off the first page. That kind of frequent, rigorous discussion is what I miss most.

Now, rather obviously, I'm as guilty -- probably more so! -- as the next guy or gal. I mean, let's face it, I just don't reply much -- certainly not as much as I used too -- and that's pretty irresponsible in several ways. Give and take, and all that. I have lots of reasons, like I'm busy with this or that (victim of my own success?). I'm sure many of the people whose commentary I miss have similar reasons or excuses.

In fact, I confess entirely selfish reasons for posting this -- I was eager to see some commentary from people I recognize regarding two recent posts I made on my new project, Nine Worlds. So far, Jonathan Walton, four weeping willows and Demonspahn have commented (and I certainly appreciate that -- don't mean to diminish their good feedback!). Other than their commentary (and, granted, we're not talking about months old posts here), feedback has been nil.

Now, I don't mean to suggest this as a means to get some feedback for me. I'm a big boy, and I already know what a good number of people think about my new game. For all appearances otherwise, I don't mean this to be me whining.

So, I guess what I'm saying is this: There's simply no denying the Forge has changed over the last year pretty dramatically. There's also no use in suggesting it wouldn't or needn't change! Obviously, that's so. However, has it changed for the better for you (and I'm speaking more so to the many regulars who've been here for, say, a year or more)? I submit that for me, at least, it's usefulness to me as a game designer has suffered noticably becaue the community of voices I seek has quieted noticably. It probably has improved for me as a vehicle to share my games with customers and potential customers.

Do you come for the Forge for the same reasons you used to? If so, are you still satisfied? If not, what's changed for you? Have things changed negatively? If so, would you like to do something about it, or see others do something about it? Have the change been more positive for you? How so?

Just a quick comment here Matt: I'm always wondering how to breathe more life into those subjects that I post. For some reason posting a long detailed analysis of something usually is exactly what kills it a thread.
I must be doing something wrong. Look at my threads, how many of the ones I started actually had the final post written by yours truly?
Pretty damn many of them.

Finally I've figured out that the best way is kind of throwing out a subject and then let people jump at it and discuss it amongst themselves without contributing. This method might yield 10+ comments compared to the 1 or two you harvest if you jumped in after the first comment.

But I guess most of the problem is in me. I must be doing something wrong to be killing off my threads even when I wish the discussion to continue.

The way I use the site is to hit the "Show posts since last visit".

This can lead to from 2 (average) to 5 (heavy) pages of threads with posts in them. Of these, I read many of them or at least skim them. Some topics I skip over entirely...others I always read when new stuff is there.

How much of the rest I read is dependant on how 'busy' the site is that day... mostly I 'bounce' from one post i'm following to another, with stops on 'interesting looking topics'. On busy days take long enough to plow through everything i'm already following.

Posting on them is something else...
I lurk a lot, and have been for months. I often don't have anything to add that hasn't been said first or better by someone else.

Regarding Nine Worlds... It seems to me like this past week saw a lot of posting of new game ideas and settings for them. I (checking back) started reading, then about halfway through skimmed down to 'others comments'. Saw the Demi-urge (sp) definition discussion going and said to myself "Lets check back on this when I have time to do it justice" Which I still haven't done to well...
(I love the planets tie-in...) (card mechanics....this could work with Tarot decks...a game around them is one of my interests)

So, after all that, its the busy-ness of the site

This may seem strange; I'm always eager to help someone design a game, but I don't read most of the threads on the Game Design forum. The reason for this is simple: too many of them begin with either a very long explanation of a game or a link to a complete draft of a game, and attempt to discuss the beast in its entirety. I have family waiting impatiently for me to finish the forums and spend time with them; I don't have time to learn twelve games a week (or the mental accuity to remember them in detail from one day to the next). Thus I will almost always read a thread which doesn't mention a particular game, because these almost always are focused on very narrow problems; I will almost never look at a thread whose title suggests that it's a very general discussion of the latest draft of something. I'll read a game-specific thread if there's reason to think it is very narrowly focused and I can contribute to it without learning the entire game.

I apologize for this; it may even prove to be unfair, as I have been contemplating asking the forum for feedback on a new game (something that's been in the works for a while, intended as an introductory game for people who don't know anything about rpg's) so I would be hoping others would do what I do not. But I only have so much time, and I can't read everything every day.

--M. J. Young

I'd tend to agree with M. J. Young. Speaking from expirience (of which I only have some) I've received much more feedback when I presented only a small portion of the game I'm working on. Then, when I feel like I've gotton some solid feedback, I move on to another subject. It's just easier to digest a game, and to get interested in one, if it's presented in small nugets.

Hey there,

I guess I count as a member of the "old guard", so here's my rambly, long-winded response.

My reading habits are strictly based on interest. I read what sounds interesting to me. Generally that means topic headings have to grab me, but sometimes I afford certain other people an automatic look based on name recognition alone.

Posting to a topic is a totally different thing. I only post to threads when I have something valuable to add (and sometimes, when an idea really strikes me, to heap praise at someone's feet, although this is pretty rare). This has always been my policy regarding posting; I'm not a systems monkey, so that sometimes leaves me with precious little to say.

I think it's worth mentioning that the problem Matt is having is one I noticed and dealt with a long time ago. I used to post a lot more than I do now (I do have over 500 posts to my name), but that was back when I was actively posting all of my new game designs to The Forge community for feedback. The problem with that was that I kept getting the same responses from the same people* (mostly Forge stalwarts like Mike and Ralph, who could be counted on to respond to just about everything - honestly, I don't know how they do it). My solution was to build relationships with these people, court their opinions through private discourse, and reveal my game designs to the online community only when they were further along in development.

* Herein lies another problem I had, which Matt and many others do not suffer from (but I'm almost certain many others do): I was designing and posting games purely for the "quick fix" I got from seeing people's responses. Almost as soon as the threads died, so did the games. Once I recognized my own behavior, I resolved not to post further about my own designs, at least not until I was ready to get down to brass tacks and design something real. That hasn't really solved any problems for my close friends, who still get to hear about every crazy idea I have, but I do think it's better to languish in this way outside the court of public opinion.

- Scott

P.S. Lumpley and Bankuei: I haven't forgotten about Lapdogs or Draconic, and someday I'll finish them.

Where have I been? I've been really busy.

I had a longer response, but I hit ctrl-R when I wanted shift-R, so all you get is the short form. Why don't I post on something?

It's already been said.

It's not in my realm of expertise.

I usually wait a few hours before posting on a new thread and often what I would have said gets said. If I see a glaring omission, I'll jump in, otherwise....

I don't do analyses. I'll comment if I see a game with an idea that treads ground I've gone over, but otherwise....

And then there's this:

Pale Fire wrote: For some reason posting a long detailed analysis of something usually is exactly what kills it a thread.

I must be doing something wrong.

But I guess most of the problem is in me. I must be doing something wrong to be killing off my threads even when I wish the discussion to continue.

I used to think the same way. Turns out I was wrong. When you post "a long detailed analysis of something," you tend to get it right. You nail it; there's just nothing left to be said.
You're not doing something wrong, you're doing something right!

Pale Fire wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I used to think the same way. Turns out I was wrong. When you post "a long detailed analysis of something," you tend to get it right. You nail it; there's just nothing left to be said.

You're not doing something wrong, you're doing something right!

Well, it has been politely suggested that people occasionally stop posting to my threads because they get fed up with my unfinished ideas and get too disgusted to keep on reading and replying.

So I can't say that I sit safe and believe that just because people don't reply it's because they have nothing to add. ...Notice how I beg for at least teeny-weenie feedback it sounds interesting or not. How does one interpret the silence then? ;) Probably that people fell asleep before they finished reading it.

I'm hardly "old guard," but I used to read the Indie Game Design forum, and post comments on occasion. I've mostly stopped. Damn thing's just too noisy. Too many people posting; I can't read every thread, and there's no way to tell which threads I'll find the most interesting, so I don't read it at all.

The same thing has nearly happened to RPG Theory. If it does, I'll probably stop visiting the Forge at all.

I originally liked the Forge because it was small enough that I could be interested in every conversation--almost like a mailing list, but with better organization. It no longer has that feeling.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: I'm hardly "old guard," but I used to read the Indie Game Design forum, and post comments on occasion. I've mostly stopped. Damn thing's just too noisy. Too many people posting; I can't read every thread, and there's no way to tell which threads I'll find the most interesting, so I don't read it at all.

The same thing has nearly happened to RPG Theory. If it does, I'll probably stop visiting the Forge at all.

I originally liked the Forge because it was small enough that I could be interested in every conversation--almost like a mailing list, but with better organization. It no longer has that feeling.

Hey Matt,

The short answer, I think, is that the Forge needs to evolve. There was a time when I could comfortably keep up with every active thread in the Forums. And it was my habit to do so. But, over the course of a number of months, I found my time investment was mushrooming like crazy. I have to believe there's been a 300% increase in the rate of thread creation since then.

You know how seven or eight people sitting around a living room is about the maximum number of partygoers who can have a collective conversation that doesn't fragment into little side discussions? I'm doubtful that there's any way for the Forge to re-pace and re-size itself to what it was when an 'old guard' could have one collective conversation about design coherence and actual play. I think those days are gone. The 'misfit games' threads a few months ago were my painful primal scream of awakening to this realization.

And so it seems to me that what the Forge needs to do is evolve. No longer can we be the internet's best resource for design feedback and playtesting for anyone and everyone who brings a game design to the site. The amount of time and energy required to meet the demand would necessitate a collective conversation among more individuals than could possibly have such a collective conversation. What we can do, however, is have a coherent conversation at a higher level. We can advise and consult with designers on how to pursue and obtain playtesting and design feedback from other sources. We can advise and consult with designers on how to provoke meaningful feedback from playtesters. And we can advise and consult with designers on how to interpret and evaluate playtest efforts and design feedback received from others. It seems to me that should the Forge forums remain a force of significance, it will be with threads entitled: Are these questions going to return the kind of playtest feedback I need?, How do I create interest in my game?, How do I get someone interested in reviewing my game on RPG.net?, How do I know when to stop tweaking my mechanics?, and Which of these design suggestions that I've received should I pay attention to?

Paul

Matt Snyder wrote: Ok, if this post isn't sending out LOUD warnings to folks, I don't know what else to say.

It's too much work, we're too busy, all the ideas are mediocre or have been there, done that. I don't want to keep saying the same things over and over. Whatever. It's becoming clear to me that the value of the Forge is diminishing. At least it is for me, and apparently is for a couple other folks like some of those who've posted above.

Problem is, the direction the Forge seems to be headed in right now just doesn't reward me like it used to. That's what I'm lamenting. It was a vibrant community.

The existence of this thread pisses me off. Here's why:

From what I see, we have a few older members complaining because of people like me. As a newbie, after seeing a thread which basically says "all these newbies are ruining the Forge" why should I even bother to spend any more time here? Too many posts on the boards??? It's A FORUM, PEOPLE! Read what you want, post what you will, and ignore the rest. That's how it works. That's how it SHOULD work.

There's such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophesy, guys. Keep up with this conversation and you'll probably get your wish, because newer members will take one look and not bother to come back.

Oh, and before you jump to any conclusions, I'm not taking this thread as a personal attack because I'm a newer member. And I personally have no intentions of leaving the Forge. I'm just VERY angry at what I see as basically undermining the makings of A Good Thing (tm), namely, a LARGE community of polite, articulate gamers. How could that POSSIBLY be a bad thing??????

I cannot continue to express with any semblance of politeness how much this thread has disgusted me, so I'll stop here.

Hey,

I've received a suggestion that I clarify what I meant by the phrase "coherent conversation" as it was used metaphorically throughout the latter half of my post. Please interpret my usage of "have a coherent conversation" subsequent to the party analogy to mean "be engaged coherently and collectively in the activity as the primary expression of our shared sense of purpose."

Paul

Silkworm,

I agree. I think this is a dangerous thread, at least to some degree. I secretly always wonder what the lurkers out there are thinking when they see stuff like this, and with that in mind, it was very difficult for me to compose even the simple little response I did somewhat earlier in this thread.

On one hand, I want to answer Matt's question. In some ways, I felt kind of responsible for this thread. After all, I privately encouraged him to post about Nine Worlds, but then failed to present him with any valuable feedback.

On the other, I want to avoid sending a message to newer members that might give them the wrong impression. I truly, honestly want new, creative game designers to have a place to post their designs, to enjoin in discussion a few levels higher than they might get elsewhere, and to feel comfortable in a community that's all their own.

That community exists, but it's not always going to be everything everyone wants it to be.

For my part, I've never lost that sense of community. I've made friends through The Forge - people I e-mail with, phone with, and even hang out with socially - and this is still the place we have in common. This is the place we come to talk about games, connect with other people, and maybe make some more friends in the process. What could better than that?

Take care,
Scott

First off, before I go "rebutting" you point, I'm with you man. I actually agree with what you've said, so I offer these observations mostly under the "yeahbut" principal, as in "Yeah, but ... "

Jonathan Walton wrote:
I think the key point here is FOR WHOM is the value of the Forge diminishing? Obviously, a lot of the "innovative" ideas that get posted nowadays are old hat to long-timers. You've seen them before. You've discussed them before. You don't really have anything else to say on the subject. However, for many of us "newbies," this may be the first time we encounter such things, and they are still worth discussing. Still, there is a tendency for old timers to crack down on this with comments like "well, here's a list of 5 other games, some of which were never finished or published, that do the exact same thing."

Jonathan Walton wrote:
However, I would be willing to bet that the sense of "community" the Forge has didn't spring up overnight. It grew out of a whole series of interactions. ... <snip> ... I'm also willing to bet that you guys didn't start out saying "oh, we've seen this before." That is only a reflection of the depth of experience you have all gained by participating in this community. Once the newer arrivals have that much info under their belts, they'll begin doing the same thing.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
I think what you're lamenting is the loss of the old sense of community. That doesn't mean that the Forge can no longer be a community, just that it must become a different community than it was before.

Silkworm,

I truly think you're reacting emotionally to an issue I have yet to contend. I have NOT said at any point that I have a problem with new folks coming to the Forge. In fact, I have said precisely the opposite.

What I DID say was this: The folks who used to make the Forge really rewarding, the folks who used to foster new folks (like me, once) simply aren't as present and active as they used to be.

What's so hard to understand about that, folks? More than one person has missed this point.

Change here is inevitable. Adaptation and consistent quality is not.

As of right now, the Indie Game Design forum has lots and lots of neato ideas, and far, far less of the guiding hand and advice and criticism that used to keep those ideas sharp and engaging, even worthwhile to others working on other projects.

Oh, and I've got to say, when the hell did criticism of a potentially "politically incorrect" issue at the Forge become such a danger? Where the fuck are all those voices I keep saying I'm missing? I know Scott Knipe and M.J. Young and compnay aren't the only one's with opinions. I may have ticked someone off. So it goes. I'd rather have risked that, than shut up for fear of "politics" then later abandoned the Forge because it became something I can't enjoy or value.

silkworm wrote:
Oh, and before you jump to any conclusions, I'm not taking this thread as a personal attack because I'm a newer member. And I personally have no intentions of leaving the Forge. I'm just VERY angry at what I see as basically undermining the makings of A Good Thing (tm), namely, a LARGE community of polite, articulate gamers. How could that POSSIBLY be a bad thing??????

hardcoremoose wrote:
For my part, I've never lost that sense of community. I've made friends through The Forge - people I e-mail with, phone with, and even hang out with socially - and this is still the place we have in common. This is the place we come to talk about games, connect with other people, and maybe make some more friends in the process. What could better than that?

Here's an idea that might help restore the depth of discussion.

Rgulate the flow of new topics to the Indie Game Design forum. This requires someone (or someones) to act as gatekeepers, deciding which topics get talked about and which don't. This weeds out "not ready for prime time" topics, and the "been there, don that" topics. The obvious drawback is that there's a lot of work involved for someone, and the role is hideously political. In short, all of the filthy allegations about "X wouldn't let my game be discussed on The Forge" would suddenly become reality.

This, of course, still changes the nature of The Forge. We would in effect accept one problem to alleviate another. It's an idea, though.

Matt Snyder wrote: I'm not whining that the "good old days" are changing. I'm lamenting the fact that the people whose viewpoints were really valuable then simply aren't around anymore.

Ok, let's stop the whining and really look at what we want, and what we can do to get it.

Matt, you're looking for a specific type of input. Lay it out for folks so people know what you're looking for, whether they be new or old. Here's my list:

•Intelligent, focused, polite conversation
•Clear communication(you don't have to agree with the terminology, just be aware of it)
•Applied theory, and exploring the limits of game theory

Second, the "Here, check this out" thing is not to tell folks to not to design games, but to say, "Here's something someone else did, maybe you can do it better, or differently"

If you came to me to talk about a game you came up with about kicking a ball, I'd tell you to check out soccer and kickball, not to discourage you, but as research. If you love your idea, you want it to be good, you want to make sure you know all of your options and what you can really do with it.

As Ron put with Fantasy Heartbreakers, a lot of design assumes that certain things are necessary, which are not in any way. A lot of the threads or games folks get pointed to are a quick way towards breaking those assumptions and opening new horizons. You may find that something that sounded bad in theory is great in actual play, or vice versa.

One thing the Forge has done that I appreciate more than anything else is that it assumes you're an adult, and treats you that way. You are expected to provide clear reasoning, you are expected to read and acknowledge others points. You are capable of going into the archives and researching for yourself. If you're really interested, you'll take the effort and the responsibility for your design. People will guide you, clarify, and be willing to hear new ideas from you, but I don't think anyone's going to hold anyone's hand.

The only 'elitism' I've seen here is that you are assumed to be an intelligent functioning adult capable of upholding the basic social contract of politeness and reasoned discussion and treated as such.

If we're going to be doing anything productive here, let's look at what people are looking for from the Forge and how to encourage it.

Chris

Hey now, I'm an old-timer, but I post more often now than used to, even more than before I went into lurk mode for that extended period.

Just FYI and to maybe diffuse any black-and-white viewpoints anyone might be spouting. Then again, maybe my input sucks! Who knows.

However, the solution is obvious, to me, at least: there hasn't BEEN a changing of the guard, yet. What needs to happen is for the "middle-guard" to become the old guard by becoming more LIKE the old-guard...or perhaps that won't happen until after the newbies have settled in.

Vicious societal cycles.

Simply, there needs to be an exchange of information or "leadership" responsibilities that makes us say, "Oh HIM, we should listen HIM because he always has good things to say."

This developed naturally when the site first bloomed, due the usual interactions of members as they felt out their roles and learned about one another. Now, it may need to be ritualized in some fashion, public or obscure.

Bankuei wrote: Ok, let's stop the whining and really look at what we want, and what we can do to get it.

Matt, you're looking for a specific type of input. Lay it out for folks so people know what you're looking for, whether they be new or old.

Huh, I couldn't get through to The Forge this morning, and look what I miss.

I post more now than ever. In fact, I daresay I post at least twice what anyone else does. When told that I should not post "been there, done that" posts, I stopped posting to those threads where that was the case entirely, and that was all I had to say. Now I'm bad for not responding? I have an obligation of some sort to write to everyone who posts?

There is more material here than before. One can only post so many times a day. I'm averageing about ten a day lately, and frankly, I doubt that I could possibly post more. So what do I do?

The only thing I can do is filter, and post to the things that interest me most, or to which I think I have the most to offer. Am I wrong?

Matt, I wanted to see Dreamspires, and you gave me something else. You knew what I wanted to see. And you're surprised that I am not responding to your new game? Many of the games presented of late are about metaphysics, a subject that I am bored to death of. Am I obligated to respond to these? Sorry, just not interested anymore.

As for anybody else, well, I can only control my own actions, and don't care much to try to influence others.

Mountains, molehills. This too shall pass. I think people frett too much.

Anyone who wants to contact me directly to ask a question or to direct my attention to something in particular is free to do so, and will get a response. I have a personal address, and love to get mail.

Mike

Everyone,

The Forge, like most things, is cyclic. For example, I haven't posted at all recently. This is mainly from hermitism caused by unemployment. It's a great time to donate to the Forge, by the way. :)

I'm about to start posting heavily again as I settle in for the long no-job haul. I'm sure many of the "old guard" are taking a breather, too - we've all been amazingly productive. Look at all the great games that have come out recently or will come out soon, all started here.

A state of the union is coming, by the way - very, very soon. I'd expect next week.

Lastly, I think one reason you see less discussion from "old-timers" is that they've diversified their discussions. I have most of my serious RPG talk over the phone these days with a few friends, partially to recall that original Forge feeling.

This is the chrysalis of the Forge, folks. We started as a hardy, kick-ass caterpillar. We're changing and molting and becoming something bigger and different than we were. Hang on through the changing times, and I imagine you'll find it to be great.

Well I'll step in here, and maybe bail you out a bit Matt.

I know exactly the sentiment that you're talking about, and there is a bit of a sense of loss on my part as well. That loss being the somewhat cozy nature of a number of articulate people who knew each other (electronically speaking) very well from having had relationships here and other other forums for some time.

But that has been replaced with a larger number of articulate people who don't know each other very well yet and those relationships are still being felt out.

I think in the long run this is a good and welcome thing (and I know you do to).

But in the meantime what about the participation of those older members...has that dropped off?

To some extent I think it has and that this is a natural progression of the site. When many of us came to the Forge as a dissatisfied gamer seeking solutions to our problems we were all eagerly discussing, absorbing, debateing and at time argueing as we looked for those solutions. Now hopefully, many of us have found (at least in part) solutions that (at least for now) satisfy us and allow us to return to enjoying our gaming. So in that regard part of the decline in "old guard" posts may (hopefully this isn't wishfull thinking) be the result of people spending more time productively gaming and producing and who have less need of searching for answers.

Also "Old Guard" posting has dropped off a little intentionally (and there are a few requests by Ron for exactly this). There is a danger when making "Old Guard" "New Guard" distinctions for the "Old Guard" to become the scholarly mentors and the "New Guard" be perpetually relegated to apprentice student. By standing back and letting the "New Guard" take the lead in discussions of new games and new ideas we establish them as full members and no longer "newbies".

I find myself posting less and less but rather enjoying watching Jonathan and Chrisstopher et.al. (to many to list all of you, sorry) take a lead roll in the discussions. For one hearing the same thing from the same people a hundred times (or in the case of Mike H. and I...a thousand times) gets pretty old. Hearing other people articulate the same concepts in new ways is a good thing. Further, to extend the analogy of the "guiding hand", if indeed the "Old Guard" served as a such a guideing hand, than certainly we'd hope that the people we helped guide are now in a position to be guides themselves.

If the new Indie Design threads aren't as detailed as they used to be, I suppose there are several likely contributing factors. It could be that the "New Guard" is just beginning to feel their own way through the "guiding hand" process and will become more experienced at it as they go. It could be that some of the "New Guard" aren't certain yet that they "should" be offering advice and may be holding back waiting for "Old Guard" input. Hopefully a sentiment not held by many and quickly overcome.

A large part of it I think is that there are more new ideas on the Indie Design forum at one time than I have ever seen before.

To some extent this is a "good thing". It means that the reputation of the Forge as a place for good game design advice is spreading and that as a crucible for new ideas we're growing. However, it does mean that we need to work hard to preserve that reputation. Given that it is impossible for the "Old Guard" to possibly give as much detail and attention to the Indie Design forum when there are 5 new ideas a day as when there was 1 new idea in 5 days, we need to welcome and encourage the "New Guard" shouldering a big part of that burden.

That said, I would welcome "narrowing the choke" so to speak on the Indie Design flood gate, but truly that is for a largely selfish idea...so that I personally can enjoy them all, which now I can't because there are at least 1/2 a dozen I haven't even had time to read (and given that I'm on the Forge more than 9/10s of the active members that says something right there).

This also leads me to ask new posters of ideas to be patient. We just can't generate 2 dozen deeply inciteful comments for each new idea as we used to be able to when the pace was slower. To give the best analysis of your new ideas that we can, we need your help. That help includes following the forum policy guidelines (which could perhaps be expanded upon and reemphasized), taking in good stride the posting of older links. In all honesty its a huge time saver for us to have you read the older threads rather than retype all of those ideas over again, and ideally it should help newcomers learn some of the collective history of the site (so far everyone seems to be doing this with good cheer...thanks for that).

So to summarize, I think the answer to "where have all the old guard gone?" is
1) a step or two back to give the new guard the opportunity to step forward.
and ideally
2) we're off enjoying playing and busily designing again where before coming here we were struggling.

Hi there,

I'm happy to let people use this thread to vent a bit, discover one another's spiky edges a bit, and perhaps embarass themselves a bit. It's Site Discussion after all, and a certain amount of "spray" is expected.

What matters is that we continue to listen to one another - and, bluntly, to acknowledge it when someone accurately calls you on something. A couple of claims or reactions have been refuted very well so far, but the originators haven't owned up to it, which is not what a discussion here, even a venting one, is for.

Most of what I'd contribute here has already been said, recently, in this thread: Lots of new folks on the Forge, and I urge both Matt and Seth to check that one out if they haven't done so already.

I also think that many folks in our hobby tend very consistently to "gloom and doom" at things. It sucks. It's not like it was. Things are falling apart. We're not accomplishing anything.

Look at some of the net gains lately: how much actual play is turning out to be functional and fun? How many really great games have shown up lately, in various stages of development, and demonstrably benefited? (Answer: Lots! If you think otherwise, you're not looking.) What's the proportion among truly acrimonious vicious theory-discussion? (Way down; remember one year ago?) Has that theory-discussion moved to new places, never before discussed? (Yes! The LARP and computer-RPG discussions, for example.)

Matt, I suggest, just as I did with Paul a while ago, that you take a bit of time for self-reflection. You've been absent from the Forge since GenCon. You show up now, you look left & right for a matter of days, and you have a big reaction - and now that reaction is escalating into an anxiety or dissatisfaction.

I think the Forge is doing extremely well, pending what I called for in the thread I linked to above, as well as in the recent Moderators forum thread which you have access to (and I hope you've read). Also, a hell of a lot of discussion is going on behind the scenes about where to go from here, and perhaps, especially as a moderator, you might consider asking me or Clinton about that before assuming it's not happening.

Best,
Ron

Clay wrote: Here's an idea that might help restore the depth of discussion.

Rgulate the flow of new topics to the Indie Game Design forum. This requires someone (or someones) to act as gatekeepers, deciding which topics get talked about and which don't. This weeds out "not ready for prime time" topics, and the "been there, don that" topics. The obvious drawback is that there's a lot of work involved for someone, and the role is hideously political. In short, all of the filthy allegations about "X wouldn't let my game be discussed on The Forge" would suddenly become reality.

This, of course, still changes the nature of The Forge. We would in effect accept one problem to alleviate another. It's an idea, though.

Ron Edwards wrote: I think the Forge is doing extremely well, pending what I called for in the thread I linked to above, as well as in the recent Moderators forum thread which you have access to (and I hope you've read). Also, a hell of a lot of discussion is going on behind the scenes about where to go from here, and perhaps, especially as a moderator, you might consider asking me or Clinton about that before assuming it's not happening.

Hi Kester,

It was a good call on your part, though. The funny thing is that we did expand the forums not long ago, into their current two-page arrangement. I like it a lot, as it happens (and it doesn't seem to have marginalized the specialty forums as we feared).

As for a new expansion, I'm not sure. I think a stronger commitment on everyone's part to know and to enforce gently the actual focus for each forum would be my first call. Then I'

Just so everyone knows, I make decisions about these things on a very long-term basis. My current thinking is, "What's the Forge to be like, a year from now?" That's a lot different from the "Pissed now! What's changing tomorrow?" expectations that some folks have been known to bring to Site Discussion.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Yes, I know, the Glossary. It's a really damn hard problem, OK? We are talking about it.

Mike Holmes wrote:

I post more now than ever. In fact, I daresay I post at least twice what anyone else does. When told that I should not post "been there, done that" posts, I stopped posting to those threads where that was the case entirely, and that was all I had to say. Now I'm bad for not responding? I have an obligation of some sort to write to everyone who posts?

Mike Holmes wrote:
Matt, I wanted to see Dreamspires, and you gave me something else. You knew what I wanted to see. And you're surprised that I am not responding to your new game? Many of the games presented of late are about metaphysics, a subject that I am bored to death of. Am I obligated to respond to these? Sorry, just not interested anymore.

Matt Snyder wrote: I truly think you're reacting emotionally to an issue I have yet to contend. I have NOT said at any point that I have a problem with new folks coming to the Forge.

So, this isn't a personal attack, and yet you're "VERY" angry and can't politely articulate how pissed you are? That sounds like speaking out of both sides of you mouth to me. Either you're pissed off or you ain't. I've yet to meet a person who gets pissed and magically doesn't take it personal.

Hey all

Though it would seem this thread has already been posted out, I thought I would take the opportunity to vent/whine/complain or just plain "doom and gloom" a bit as well. If it doesn't get read, that would feel familiar as well, or at least the perception of it.

As to the old guard/new guard stuff, I am somewhat Old Guard, or at least should have been. I was around when there was a much more focused community here. But it seems most of them actually got their games done, and in many cases published. Which I didn't. Also, most of these people formed relationships that they pursued in other venues as well. Again, I didn't either. And there is always the nothing but crickets response to posts, which I have felt a number of times, even back in the heyday. (But that ties into the older issue of the Forges alleged anti-sim/rules heavy/gear head focus, something I have seen being recirculated somewhat, like the comment in the post someone made about BESM, or some such.)

So I guess I certainly empathize with Matt, though for my own pathetique reasons and such. As to the new guard, I feel like the guy who didn't graduate on time, everyone else graduated and I am stuck with the juniors and feeling very much out of place. No familiar faces, no shared history, and everyone excited about what I've already done or should have.

Rob

I'm going to avoid the "newbie-bashing" issue and stick to Matt's original concern.

Matt Snyder wrote: To me, that forum (and maybe Actual Play) is the single most valuable resource on these forums. And yet, the folks from whom I want to hear are largely absent. The "old guard" just doesn't post as much any more -- myself included. I lurk like crazy there, but many wonderful, creative voices have quieted.

Ron, I really need a clarification on several of the comments you've made in the "We Fear Change!" (a thread title whose irony has apparently eluded several)

First, you said:

Ron Edwards wrote:
Also, a hell of a lot of discussion is going on behind the scenes about where to go from here, and perhaps, especially as a moderator, you might consider asking me or Clinton about that before assuming it's not happening.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Just so everyone knows, I make decisions about these things on a very long-term basis. My current thinking is, "What's the Forge to be like, a year from now?" That's a lot different from the "Pissed now! What's changing tomorrow?" expectations that some folks have been known to bring to Site Discussion.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Matt, I suggest, just as I did with Paul a while ago, that you take a bit of time for self-reflection. You've been absent from the Forge since GenCon. You show up now, you look left & right for a matter of days, and you have a big reaction - and now that reaction is escalating into an anxiety or dissatisfaction.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Look at some of the net gains lately: how much actual play is turning out to be functional and fun? How many really great games have shown up lately, in various stages of development, and demonstrably benefited? (Answer: Lots! If you think otherwise, you're not looking.)

Hi Matt

Here's my deal, or my sensitive spot if you like. I think that anyone who has questions or concerns about "where the Forge is going" would do well to ask me or Clinton. It's really easy. The answer might be, "Um, I dunno," or "What do you want," or it might be "This this and this," depending on the topic. But you will get, no matter what, a behind-the-scenes look at what the plan is. I'm always thinking ahead; during the last "where are we now" blowup, I was renting tables for GenCon; during the one before that, Clinton and I were designing the services like the Resource Library. This information is available for the asking at any time, and if it isn't always satisfying, at least it's better than not knowing.

What gripes me is that people never ask. I get this as a general issue in internet-discourse a lot - "I perceive X ... h'm, or maybe it's X, I dunno ... what'll I do? I'll criticize X really sharply! Then I'll know, based on how he responds." You know, not one person on this Earth has ever asked me, flat-out, what the deal is with specific individuals who dislike me and/or the Forge. If asked, I would have told them. Grr ... anyway, so that's the hot-button that Forge Direction Meltdown posts always kick off for me. My problem, really, not yours.

Except ... you do have access to a forum in which everyone who wields authority at the Forge, in general or in their own forum, can ask or discuss stuff. It's especially well-suited to stuff about "What's the plan for the next six months" or similar; in fact, one of my goals for today was to submit a Moderator thread about that (which has not happened). Of course you didn't "have" to do this. If you wanted to bring it up at the community level, you can. I'm not saying you committed a political boo-boo. I'm saying you didn't use a resource that's available.

No, the bolded sentence you quoted in your post was not referring to you. It was directed to anyone who has not yet processed that on the Forge, a two-day lag in response to one's post, per person, is probably typical and desirable. I also confess to have been thinking specifically about Christoffer (in the interest of disclosure and aggressive-aggressiveness), in reference to the Glossary, which then prompted my uneasy feeling that he really had been patient, and thus I had an idea and posted my Glossary thread.

Regarding your activity at the Forge: I get your point. OK, so you didn't really disappear, and I'm judging by appearances, so I withdraw the accusation of "show up and spout off."

Best,
Ron

Paganini wrote:
Actual play is a natural repercussion of good design. If you see fewer people hashing out design theory and more people playing the games, that's a Good Thing (TM). It means the design theory is approaching completion, and that it really works.

You've made an extremely fair post, Ron. And, it's gone miles farther than any cooling off period on my part might have at easing my, um, unease.

I guess one of the things I'm getting at here is that the community has become somewhat fragmented and closed off, whether by inactivity or by private discussion. I count many of those in the "old guard" as my colleagues, and yet I have no real channel opened to them. So, like my good ol' mother told me, dust yourself off and do it yourself.

Frankly, had I considered asking you "what's up with the Forge of the future?" I'm not sure I would have felt it proper to approach you privately. Now I know otherwise. I may have posted such in Moderators forum, but I felt since it concerned "newbies" particularly, I'd voice it to everyone, rather than keep them out of the loop.

So, expect a private note soon, because this is of sincere interest to me. It probably not today -- good lord where has the day gone?!? It's time to play Riddle of Stee! Woo Hoo!

Greetings Ron,

Me thinks you might be a bit over worked.

Ron Edwards wrote: You know, not one person on this Earth has ever asked me, flat-out, what the deal is with specific individuals who dislike me and/or the Forge.

OK Matt, I dig the distinction between theory and design. But I'm not sure I see the problem, exactly. Are you just complaining that the old regulars are less active? I could understand that, but it doesn't seem like a big deal. People come and go. Phases are a fact of life.

But from your posts it doesn't seem like that's all that's botherng you. Are you saying that there aren't very many games being designed in Indie Game Design? In that case, I just don't see it.

We just had Iron Gaming Chef which produced, I think, something like 7 complete games. There's the GGD (Group Game Design) thread which is 6 pages long now. Pale Fire just completed Evil Tales (which we played), I've started this Solo idea. Zak produces a cool game every month or so. There are also a lot of games not directly inhabiting the Indie Game Design forum, but rather are in the forums of their developers. Fang just posted some new Scattershot stuff, for example.

If you're saying that you're not seeing *in depth discussion* of new designs, then you're right. But in that case my point about theory does hold. In depth discussions tend to deal with theory. As the theory nears completion, fewer in depth discussions are required, because relevant points have already been addressed by past discussions. Issues that were problems for past designers have already been covered in great depth. This is why people tend to post links to threads rather than going over the discussions again and again.

I don't see this as a bad thing. For my recent Solo game design thread I searched the forums for back threads and read them. If I'd started more or less at the top with "Is solo gaming an RPG? What solos exist? What makes a solo fun? Can you play a solo narrativist?" etc. I would have been wasting time: those discussions have already taken place. Most likely if I had gone about it in that manner - as opposed to searching the archives - I would have gotten back links to old threads anyway. Rightly so.

If I had an idea about something not covered in those threads, posting about it would likely have generated conversation.

My thread was more of an announcement and "hey, do you think this is cool?" post than anything else. It wasn't a plea for system dissection. It didn't need to be, because the questions I had had already been answered by previous threads. And then some. :)

Greetings Paganini,

How goes your Halloween?

Paganini wrote: We just had Iron Gaming Chef which produced, I think, something like 7 complete games. There's the GGD (Group Game Design) thread which is 6 pages long now. Pale Fire just completed Evil Tales (which we played), I've started this Solo idea. Zak produces a cool game every month or so. There are also a lot of games not directly inhabiting the Indie Game Design forum, but rather are in the forums of their developers. Fang just posted some new Scattershot stuff, for example.

Kester Pelagius wrote:
How goes your Halloween?

Now, wait a sec...

Ron Edwards wrote: You know, not one person on this Earth has ever asked me, flat-out, what the deal is with specific individuals who dislike me and/or the Forge.

Ron Edwards wrote:
What gripes me is that people never ask.

Hi there,

Actually, Alan, having been through all the waves of entrants to the Forge (and three to five such waves at GO before that), I don't see it as "noise" at all. I see it as amazing wealth. What I don't see is the realization that such wealth needs to receive a specific sort of interaction or it will fall away into noise.

Folks, without mentoring and modeling and to willingness to participate, the Forge will fragment and die. Look at the "Lots of folks at the Forge" thread that I referenced before. Bluntly, if you want the site to continue in the way you like, then you have to become ... well, a mentor, and a good role model. That means some effort.

Best,
Ron

Sorry for the point by point. I've been called on two counts - and I guess I'm guilty on at least one of them.

Ron Edwards wrote:


Actually, Alan, having been through all the waves of entrants to the Forge (and three to five such waves at GO before that), I don't see it as "noise" at all. I see it as amazing wealth. What I don't see is the realization that such wealth needs to receive a specific sort of interaction or it will fall away into noise.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Folks, without mentoring and modeling and to willingness to participate, the Forge will fragment and die. Look at the "Lots of folks at the Forge" thread that I referenced before. Bluntly, if you want the site to continue in the way you like, then you have to become ... well, a mentor, and a good role model. That means some effort.

Greetings Paganini,

Paganini wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote:
How goes your Halloween?

It goes well. Forge now, Tai Chi in an hour, and orchestra playing tomorrow. Life is good.

Paganini wrote: How about you? Just think, you could be watching A Charlie Brown Halloween! :)

Paganini wrote: But yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at.

My timing sucks.

Here I am four days into an eight day out of towner with limited Internet time and bandwidth, and this topic comes up.

I certainly see myself as representative of that "middle guard" or "next wave" or whatever you want to call it that's being challenged here to measure up to the kind of interaction with old-timers that I benefited from when I arrived here.

For what it's worth, I saw this coming. Months ago I was reading posts from Ron and Mike and Fang and thinking to myself, "self, you're going to have to learn how to do this." Some know this because they've received occasional "how am I doing in such and such thread" PM queries from me. My hope was to join, though, not replace, the old guard.

The surprising thing -- and here I come to the main point -- is that I joined less than seven months ago. That's quicker than I expected for me and others who joined at around the same time to be asked to step into a more meta role in the discussions. A zig and a zag in the population curve appear to have resulted in relatively few people getting their six-month badges at a time when the rate of new discussion to be involved in has gone up more quickly. I think this is a temporary glitch that time will help fix rather than make worse.

No complaints here or any particular insight either. Just thought it might look strange if I remained silent here. I'll be able to join back in in a few more days.

- Walt