Hey, this kinda fell squarely between Theory and Site Discussion, so I'm posting it here.

So there's another yearly meltdown over at "My House", RPGNet (don't bother. seriously.) about the definition of Independent Games, and how it's used here. Usual stuff. Happens once a year, with the similar "What's the Best Supers Game?", etc topics. EDIT: I love RPGNet, spend a lot of "free time" there each day, and don't mean to crap on them at all. It's just that this happens systematically like once every 9-15 months.

Anyway, I just wanted to copy Valamir AKA Ralph's response here. To me, I thought it was very telling as to why the distinction is used here. I'm sorry that I don't have much more to add here, and this specific point may have already been discussed before, so if it has feel free to rap me.

Just thought the distinction bore repeating: Not in a Aquainas "Use these arguments to Protect Your Faith against Unbelievers" sense, or even as a self-affirmation for us, but rather to folks who, like me, have been here for a while but haven't quite figured out, historically or contextually, what the whole indie distinction came from.

The bold is my emphasis. I'm breaking his post into two parts, the top part is his backdrop, and the bottom part is the one that "stuck" with me, and could use some reflection.

The whole Forge Indie definition is not really that hard.
Some people have their own reasons for trying to MAKE it look difficult but that effort usually stems from trying to make the issue a binary one when really its a spectrum.

See, if you try to create two buckets "Indie" and "Not Indie" you can find examples where it isn't clear which bucket it goes into and that gives you "grounds" to trash the definition. Instead the definition is a spectrum: Indie at one end and Not Indie at the other with a whole lot of different structures in between that has elements of each.

That's where the whole "Ron likes Hero Wars so it goes in the Indie Bucket when really it should be Not Indie by his own definition" nonsense comes from...the idea that there are two distinct and seperate buckets and each game must fit into one and only one of them. Instead Hero Wars is a game that does in fact have some non-indie elements to it...a lot more non-indie elements than say...Inspectres has. But it is in the main clearly on the Indie side of the spectrum, even if its not all the way to the end point. Similiarly Atlas games always gives people trouble when they try to fit their stuff into a bucket. Like Hero Wars it has elements of both, but in the main is slightly farther towards the non-indie side.

So what's the point? That's the thing that most people who want to criticize the definition don't understand. The definition IS NOT intended to provide a taxonomy of game and game companies. If it floats peoples boats to go out and list every game in existance and play "where does it fit" great...more power to them, but that's not what the definition is for.
The definition promotes a specific agenda. An agenda that's never been secret or hidden but proudly trumpeted. That agenda is to disabuse people of the notion that if they have a game that is really good and they want to see it in game stores that the only way to get it there is to get some "publisher" to publish it for them. The agenda is to raise awareness of what exactly that means when you do that and how little control having "Creative Control" actually means.

Many of these publishing contracts (and I've seen a couple and heard about more) contain language that is very one sided. I've seen at least one that basically says "if you have a problem with us you have no recourse, but if we have a problem with you we can terminate the agreement or seek mediation".

The agenda is to encourage people to self publish to be independent. Independent of what? is a common criticism. Gaming is such a niche there's nothing to be independent from (they say thinking in terms of Indie films and big studios).

Independent from having to consult with other people on the choices you make with what to do with your game. That's what you're independent from.

YOU choose how much money to spend or not spend on printing. Whether to go with hard or soft cover. Whether the submitted art is good enough or needs to go back. You approve the art and layout. You decide to sell pdf direct to the customer or use a POD service like RPGnow. You do enough of the writing that the actual content is yours as opposed to someone elses content that you simply edit. You don't have to consult with partners, or the company president, or anyone else. You are the Author and Owner and Decision Maker (for better or worse). That's Indie.

Its really that's simple. And yes it means we could spend hours debating where on the spectrum Steve Jackson Games lies....but know what...the answer is completely irrelevent. Because the goal is not to provide a taxonomy but to promote an agenda. Steve Jackson doesn't need the Forge to promote his agenda...he's doing quite fine on his own, so whether he's "indie" or not is completely immaterial... which side of the line is it on now? Don't care, and it doesn't really matter.

Man, I gave up on reading that thread after a while. The usual RPGnet descent into a massive bunfight about something when the initial question was something that didn't even point towards such an argument.

It's exactly the same as the old argument about what consitutes "indie" music. Is it a genre or is it merely the association whith a record label not owned by a major? You'll always get people arguing the toss over both sides.

To me, anything that supports 'grass roots' RPG creation is great. One of the fantastic things in recent years has been the increasing ability of unknown writers to have the means to produce and distribute some very fine works that might not otherwise have got to market (or, at least not to a broad market).

Cheers
Malc

Hello,

Here are the links to see, and the links cited in them ...

Discussion of the term "independent"
d20 D&D supplements: are they indie supplements

Andy knows these (as you will see); I'm postin'em here for anyone who's interested.

Best,
Ron

I think I understood this definition in a vaguely undefined sort of way, but it is good to actually see it put out in plain language... That is after all one of the primary purposes of language (those purposes being communication of ideas between individuals, and the ability to give those ideas structure and form). I was like you in that when I came here with Mage Blade, I was under the impression that I'd have to sell the idea, setting and system to some big publisher. I was rapidly disabused of this notion when I came here, and I think I've got a much better chance of making my game(s) happen now than I did previously.

Thanks kindly for sharing this with us. The definition might be mostly undisputed here, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't do good to air it. Thanks also to Ralph for making the definition clear and understandable.

Ron Edwards wrote: Andy knows these (as you will see); I'm postin'em here for anyone who's interested.

One last point: the term "indie" applied to the Forge was neither Clinton's nor my doing, although at the time, I agreed to it. The Forge first existed as Hephaestus' Forge, created by myself and Ed Healy. I didn't think the term "indie" was so loaded as it's turned out to be. My preferred term is "self-published" and/or "creator-owned." The "indie" in the title and URL is historical, which is why Clinton and I spend so much time emphasizing the local definition.

Hi Andy,

Actually, it matters quite a bit in a couple of ways.

1. A game can't be reviewed here at the Forge unless it meets the definition.

2. A publisher can't have a special forum here at the Forge unless the game meets the definition.

3. A non-independent game or publishing effort is not a permissible topic at theh Indie Design and Publishing forums.

That last part has its practical nuances. One of the current forums is present through grandfathering; it met the criterion at the time.

This next point is going to be very hard for many people to understand. It's composed of two parts.

- I do not think independent publishing necessarily produces "better games" than any other sort. Nor do I think anyone "should" publish independently, or is "wrong" to do otherwise.

- I consider non-independent publishing to be full of risks and compromises that in the main have negative effects for the creator(s). I also think that the circumstances of independent publishing facilitate better game design on the average.

These two parts are not contradictory. I reserve all value judgments, and present an observation - from that observation, the Forge's focus appears. The point is precisely as Ralph put it on RPG.net and as quoted in this forum: to advertise the benefits of independent publishing, and to make resources for it available.

If people want to project some perceived value judgment or some kind of elitist snobbery into that, they are free to do it. Discussions about those perceptions literally mean nothing.

Best,
Ron

Andy, I think you and Ron are both right. It goes back to the core purpose of the definition being to promote the Forge's agenda.

Asking "is this game indie" is a completely and totally useless exercise that serves only as a forum for angry disagreement with no content.

UNLESS we're talking about a game which is or is seeking or could benefit from participation in the Forge and the Forge agenda. Then as Ron points out it is important...for our agenda, which is the only reason it exists at all...to define what the parameters of THIS community are.

Thats why being able to identify the "Forge Indie" status of SJG is irrelevant...because SJG has no need or desire to seek publishing discussions from this merry band; while being able to identify the "Forge Indie" status of HeroWars IS relevant...for at least as long as the game continues to have a discussion forum hosted here.