Hey everyone,

I'm disinclined to publicly stir the pot further on Matt's "fear" thread, but as the descendent of prophets I somehow can't help but stand behind my prediction: if one year from now we are still operating as if being a resource for design feedback and playtesting is the primary expression of our shared sense of purpose, we will be far less significant on the landscape of the hobby than we would be if we evolved in the ways I suggested. Disagree?

Paul

Sorry, can you redirect me to your evolutionary suggestions...

Hey Ralph,

From my post to the "we fear change" thread:


...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

No, Paul, I don't disagree.

(Wait for it! Here's the "but" part)

But, two points

Firstly, how does what you're suggesting honestly differ from what RPG.net is doing, especially in its Freelancer, Business and Art of Game Design forums? It seems to me that kind of discussion goes on there fairly regularly. So, what's the distinction, if any, between what you're suggesting and what RPG.net does?

I argue that it's likely there's only one point of distiction -- the makeup of the communities. Here, we might offer similar advice, but may or may not have more "expert" advice. There are, after all, some pretty savvy folks who hang there and not here (or at least post).

But what is different is our community's approach and understanding of one another. Its tighter knit, it has more far-out examples, and it's far more capable of organizing something like the GenCon booth.

Secondly, how does doing what you're suggesting exclude what I'm clamoring for there? Which is to say, why does becoming a kind of publishing (in whatever form) consulting community prevent us -- and I mean the "old guard" (god, I'm really hating that term now) -- from contributing more profound feedback and even initial posts on Indie Game Design?

One issue I'd like to bring up is the apparent assumption that the old guard have graduated to other things. Really? Like what? Is that to say that you won't be designing NEW games, which no doubt need some rigorous criticism and discussion. Or, do we think think we've learned it all, not much to innovate, etc? I think those are faulty assumptions. Or perhaps we feel we need that criticism, but have moved that "indoors" to private discussions, or otherwise cordoned off communities.

If that last points true, I sure do feel like the last guy picked to play kickball, 'cause I don't know where that discussion is going down.

I don't get it. How's this different from what we do now?

Mike

Hey Matt,

Firstly, how does what you're suggesting honestly differ from what RPG.net is doing, especially in its Freelancer, Business and Art of Game Design forums?

Their discussions are not informed by the same notions of design coherence and pro-indie sentiment.

Secondly, how does doing what you're suggesting exclude what I'm clamoring for there?....One issue I'd like to bring up is the apparent assumption that the old guard have graduated to other things. Really? Like what?

I brought this discussion here, because I think it is different from what you're clamoring for on that thread. It wasn't my intention to continue a discussion of that thread here.

Paul

Hmmm...no, I'm not sure I agree with that Paul...at least not as stated. Could you give some reasons as to why that is the direction you want to go.

I find the Forge most unique (and thus must irreplaceable by other RPG sites) because it starts with high level esoteric theory and then gets under the hood with the actual nuts and bolts of design to see various ways in which that theory manifests in practice.

Moving away from nitty gritty, down and dirty game design discussions seems like the opposite of what we want to do.

I think the issues that you mention are absolutely important. But what about them couldn't best be handled by a single article or a topical FAQ. Why would forum based discussions be the ideal format for those issues. And how would they maintain interest...to me they sound like that vital information everyone ought to know but is real dang boring to actually talk about at length...

Paul Czege wrote:

Their discussions are not informed by the same notions of design coherence and pro-indie sentiment.

Paul Czege wrote:
<FONT COLOR="RED">Secondly, how does doing what you're suggesting exclude what I'm clamoring for there?....One issue I'd like to bring up is the apparent assumption that the old guard have graduated to other things. Really? Like what? </FONT>

I brought this discussion here, because I think it is different from what you're clamoring for on that thread. It wasn't my intention to continue a discussion of that thread here.

Hey Mike,

How's this different from what we do now?

How many threads have you seen on the Forge begin with inquiries like the example thread subjects from my post? The Forge is perceived by newcomers as a resource for design feedback and playtesting by a community of individuals with common notions about design coherence. I'm suggesting the site needs to evolve that perception, to where it's seen, bluntly, as a place to learn how to exploit other resources.

Paul

Paul Czege wrote: Hey Mike,

<FONT COLOR="RED">How's this different from what we do now?</FONT>

How many threads have you seen on the Forge begin with inquiries like the example thread subjects from my post? The Forge is perceived by newcomers as a resource for design feedback and playtesting by a community of individuals with common notions about design coherence. I'm suggesting the site needs to evolve that perception, to where it's seen, bluntly, as a place to learn how to exploit other resources.

Paul

The first big change you'll see on the Forge in the near future is a real article and review submission policy and request. I don't know if this is everything Paul wants, but is a change from a place where you come and request feedback to a place with resources to leverage - new articles equal new resources.

Sorry for the density here, Paul. What other resources? Can you give a somewhat more elaborate example?

Dude, RPG.net. If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, and then come back to you tomorrow for another fish. If you teach a man to fish, he eats for the rest of his life. RPG.net is a huge pond. People should come away from the Forge with knowledge of how to present themselves and their designs to the community at large, knowledge of how to create enthusiasm in potential playtesters, of how to get meaningful answers and how to interpret them in support of design coherence, and in general, knowledge of how to be a dominant creative force that exploits existing resources rather than overfishing.

So they come here, and we tell them to go to RPG.net?

I suppose that would alleviate some pressure...

Better question. How is what you propose better than what we have now? Or are you saying that you think we're at the evolve or die stage? Remember, I'm the one who doesn't see anything wrong with how things are going right now.

Mike

Wow,

The thread I wanted to start today in this forum seems to have begun without me.

Overall, I agree with ... well, everyone so far. Even though they aren't agreeing.

Here's what I have in mind in the short-term:

1) Stronger and excruciatingly friendly enforcement of the forums' standards. I'm actually pretty giving ... I do like the idea that anyone can post anything that's associated with a game in development, and not be told, "Oh, that's not good enough." But the standards of discourse do need to be propped up.

2) I've got the Glossary idea going. I'm given to understand that J B Bell has proposed another software idea that might be just right, perhaps even just righter considering my informal info/link gathering.

3) We have a new Review Submission policy. I'll post it to a new thread right away, so y'all can comment, and then it can go into effect after fixing.

4) Clinton is just about done with the Bookshelf which is looking really really good, and is very cleverly constructed to promote all the games.

Now for the long-term:

1) I have been giving a lot of thought to how to deal with the burned-out, bitter, lower-tier RPG publisher who comes by the Forge. A lot of people in this category have shown up since GenCon. We are very, very good at dealing with and (dare I say) helping the burned-out, bitter gamer. I want to see some developments in how we can serve the same purpose for people who go to GAMA and suffer and agonize and lose their shirts.

2) The Forge needs art. I have some nifty notions about how to do it that will help the artists and be spiffy.

3) The Resource Library is getting discussed and redesigned yet again, and we're even thinking of changing the front/forum to emphasize it.

All comments are welcome.

Best,
Ron

The Forge is turning into a place I don't like.

There is little to nothing I can do about this.

So, there ya go.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: The Forge is turning into a place I don't like.

There is little to nothing I can do about this.

So, there ya go.

I don't know how much I can add, but I think we're getting worked up over what looks like a phase, and maybe not even a transitory one. Admittedly, I've only been on the Forge since April, but the only real difference I see here is that instead of every thread being a conversation between Fang and Ralph and Mike and Ron now we have conversations with a much larger, seemingly younger, and sometimes dense populous. I haven't seen much change, really. Some surface ripples and a lot of people who sign up but never post, maybe, but no real change since I came on in April.

There are a lot more posts in Indie Game Design right now, and sometimes I don't read any of them. I don't think it's dying out, though. I posted game ideas at least twice early in the summer and no one responded. Then I post about my vampire game and everyone does. It's just moods, times, seasons, and what-not. I think that we can, to a large degree, leave well enough alone.

All I really see leaving the Forge is the click-esque atomosphere (which I admit does diminish the quality of many discussions). It's a give-take scenario.

Anyway, what I'm saying may not be what you're looking for--nor may it be welcome, seeing as I wasn't here "way back when"--but I think that it is worth looking at.

Jake

Hi there,

I tend to agree with Jake. I want to be sensitive to others' needs and perceptions, but in the Very Big Picture, frankly, I'm pretty happy.

Part of that, though, has to do with my notably long-term perspective, both into the past and into the future. I tend not to get stirred up by crises, but by problems, and to focus not on smooth-overs, but on transformations.

Best,
Ron

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: The Forge is turning into a place I don't like.

There is little to nothing I can do about this.

So, there ya go.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: The Forge is turning into a place I don't like.

There is little to nothing I can do about this.

So, there ya go.

Jared,

What is it that you don't like? We can't help if you don't inform us.

Hi there,

Actually, I think Jared's approach is a good one: focus on the parts that work for you, use them, find folks you like (and stay open to liking new people), and don't get too hung up.

All I ask is that you stay as open to the new folks as possible, so that you don't ignore them.

I mean, not to name names too much, but just look at Gwen, at Jonathan Walton, at Jason (deadpanbob), at S. Sampat (four willows weeping), at Judd (Paka), and geezus rice, look at what Eric (Pyron) has matured into. I also claim that Cristoffer (Pale Fire) is getting a raw deal right now, as he's backed off a bit on his fumbling 1000-word posts and settled down to helping others as well as working on his own stuff.

Look back - a good half of you (yes, you!) were all, "That arrogant Ron guy and those bastard Forge (or GNS, back on GO) snobs." Might be hard to remember, but it's true. Why not give a little back?

All I ask is that you don't ignore them. No need to coddle or help those whose posts interest you, although a little help in finding the gems (sometimes a little buried) is appreciated. And if you want to help out more, then be a link-finder and a welcomer as I've asked before.

Now for the big issue: yes, there's more stuff to do it in. (a) So what? There's more of us than there were, as well as a lot of non-moderators who are willing to do this too. (b) Again, if someone presents absolutely nothing of interest to you, or if you just don't feel like reading the last eighteen threads in whatever forum, don't. That's all right. I'm only hoping that one of you (or a good non-moderator) will do so, per topic.

Best,
Ron

Best,
Ron

I liked the (perceived) elitist, clique-ish atmosphere. It was a club...and although Ron is loving this (ie: lots of new blood, lots of exposure, indie gaming uber alles), I am not.