@ Somewhere i was reading that the Forge has gained many newbies who might be 'diluting' the pool (the quality of discussion/work). This gave me an idea of having a sort of inner circle to the forge. i call it The Crucible (in keeping with the forge theme).

@ The idea is that in order to join you must (have) publish(ed) something. To stay in you must continue to publish and help others publish.

@ By publish i mean, make publicly availible, esp in some Open Source format. For instance, to release some Mechanic under Copyleft or the GNU/GPL. Continuing to publish requires shipping one new(or improved) something each month. Assisting others in publishing requires that members provide constructive critique and what ever other services you can provide. If you are a grammar wiz, offer yourself as an editor. If you are an artist, offer up some drawings.

@ This is in part based on the hacker ethics of "gift culture" and "no problem should ever be solved twice". Only those who contribute good stuff get mad props. Also, if someone needs a mechanic for a such-and-such setting, they don't have to reinvent the d6. Over time The Crucible will contain a massive arsenal of mechanics, systems, art work, essays and settings that anyone can use.

@ i'll have more to say about it later if intrest is shown. i can also offer webspace for it. If The Forge is not interested in doing this, i will do it on my own, but it would be better to have its support.

Smacks of elitism to me. There are plenty of folk on The Forge who have great things to offer but who don't publish something once a month. The value to noise ratio here is better than any other RPG-related site anyway, why try to reinvent the wheel?

Brian.

apeiron wrote: The idea is that in order to join you must (have) publish(ed) something. To stay in you must continue to publish and help others publish.....Continuing to publish requires shipping one new(or improved) something each month.

Brian Leybourne wrote: Smacks of elitism to me. There are plenty of folk on The Forge who have great things to offer but who don't publish something once a month. The value to noise ratio here is better than any other RPG-related site anyway, why try to reinvent the wheel?

Brian.

I just released like 500 pages of stuff and it took a hella lot of effort and a hella long time. Not only wouldn't I qualify, but in order *to* qualify, I'd have to cut back my work on my own projects.

Would the pay-off be worth the cost? I see no reason to think it would be.

-Marco

I do forum postings six days a week (used to do seven, but decided I had to take a day off for live play); do they count?

@ i think a product could be just about anything of value to someone else. It could be an article, a bundle of spells, a drawing etc. It could be a another iteration of an existing work. i'm not talking about whole books here.

Something new each month is a lot to ask of any creative person, particularly given the demands of the work.

@ Hmm. i think that would depend on the depth of the work. i personally have more ideas to write about than i have time to write them.

For how long have we been awaiting Ron's Narrativism article?

@ Did he have a deadline? Is there anything motivating him in/externally? Work tends to fill the availible time. If you give yourself a month to do it, it will take you a month to do it. Likewise for a week.

I'm right now working on the next Book of Worlds, and the one after that, and four sequels to the novel, and a CCG, and three board games, and two role playing games, and a game conversion--but not one of those will be published before the end of the year, and it's doubtful any two will appear in consecutive months.

@ One of the options i mentioned is versions. A version could start off as an outline. Lets say you have a game in mind. Version 1 is a paragraph describing the theme of the game. Version 2 is an outline describing the basic elements of the game. Version 3 will be a fleshed out mechanics. And so on. We're not talking whole books or whole games being produced on a monthly basis.

Maybe you should clarify what your "once per month" means.

@ On the first of each month.

And maybe you should explain why those who are involved in the Forge to a significant level should be interested in the Crucible. I find it very unclear what benefits you're envisioning.

@ Check out the link i provided on hacker ethics, much of what i mean is there. The benefit is an explicit structure and goals, a commitment to not merely talk about making games, but actually make them. To benefit from the help the group can give you, you must give unto the group. If you are a mechanics genius, offer help on that front. If you need help with art work, ask the group for help. Another benefit is having a selection of free systems, mechanics and whatnot at your beck and call.

Marco wrote: I just released like 500 pages of stuff and it took a hella lot of effort and a hella long time. Not only wouldn't I qualify, but in order *to* qualify, I'd have to cut back my work on my own projects.

Would the pay-off be worth the cost? I see no reason to think it would be.

-Marco

Hi Apeiron,

That's an interesting suggestion, and an interesting set of principles underlying them. I think that the idea probably would do better at another website, though. If someone wanted to start up such a thing, they'd be welcome to cross-participate at the Forge, but a process like you're describing isn't going to be a policy here.

Best,
Ron

I love how everyone uses kid gloves around here.

Apeiron, for someone that appears to have posted 17 times, you've got a tremendous amount of hubris to say "let's start up an exclusionary organization with near-impossible standards!" Some of your assumptions ("Work tends to fill the availible time. If you give yourself a month to do it, it will take you a month to do it. Likewise for a week.") belie your naivete or inexperience, and are just plain insulting or wrong.

For what it's worth, I'm a large fan of open-source development of anything, but your assumptions make the same mistakes as many organizations - they assume people would want to be members.

I think that the biggest problem is with your base assumptions:

Somewhere i was reading that the Forge has gained many newbies who might be 'diluting' the pool (the quality of discussion/work). This gave me an idea of having a sort of inner circle to the forge. i call it The Crucible (in keeping with the forge theme).

I have to say that a "publish or perish" ideology seems to be awful similar to the "supplement tradmill" that is so often decried here on the Forge -- which doesn't exactly capture the Forge spirit at all.

On the other hand, like Ron, I'd be interested in how such a project would turn out, tho I wouldn't be able to participate.

@ As far as i know there is no single database of open source game material. Most of that kind of work is scattered far and wide. The goal here would be to collect all of that creativity into one place.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Apeiron,

That's an interesting suggestion, and an interesting set of principles underlying them. I think that the idea probably would do better at another website, though. If someone wanted to start up such a thing, they'd be welcome to cross-participate at the Forge, but a process like you're describing isn't going to be a policy here.

Best,
Ron

@ i was going to reply to each post but i found myself angry and trying to be right. i was also hearing what sounds like anger and fear from some of you. But being right is less important than getting what i want and getting results. So instead i will resubmit my proposal in a different way and hope that you all will help me develop the idea and/or come up with new ones rather than engage in debate. If you are going to reply, i ask that you make sure of your intentions, ie don't post in anger or to argue. Anyone can complain and find faults, it takes intelligence and courage to offer solutions and help. Also, please accept some responsibility for your interpretations, if you don't understand, ask me for clarification rather than lash out.

@ What would motivate people to work together to create open source game products and to maintain a level of productivity? If i hear a better idea i will support it whole heartedly and even get the domain name and webspace for it.

My Assertions:

1) There is an incredible amount of creativity on this and other forums, and even more talent sitting idle in notebooks and hard drives

2) Open Source/Freeware ethics can produce great results

3) The internet is a great tool for connecting people to people and products to people

4) That for some (not all) people, explicit structures such as goals, deadlines and expectations of peers can motivate people to do more

5) Gathering (and more importantly, sharing) all of that creative energy and intelligence would be awesome

6) No one is an expert at drawing AND mechanics AND copyright law AND writing AND so on.

7) Helping others is rewarding

8) Having high expectations and holding people accountible tends to yield better results

What i want:

a) A place where game designers can present their works to each other and to the world, it would be stored in (at least) one place permanently (threads are not permanent)

b) A expectation of professionalism and productivity to prevent extraneous diversion of creative talent and to prevent great ideas from withering on the vine

c) An environment where all members have declared a commitment to support each other and be productive. Those who don't want to help others or be productive would be free/intived to leave. No one is forced to join, but those who wish to remain should live up to their commitments.

-------

@ If you want to argue that the whole idea is bad and feel that you for some reason HAVE to derail my purpose, or wish to call me names, send it to me privately.

Hey,

So instead i will resubmit my proposal in a different way...

I like your new approach.

@ What would motivate people to work together to create open source game products and to maintain a level of productivity? If i hear a better idea i will support it whole heartedly and even get the domain name and webspace for it.

I think what might motivate me to participate would be a carefully crafted policy for how the communal material can be used in games that participants publish independent of the community. Ron's Sorcerer mini-supplement policy, for instance, totally works for me. He has to approve it, and it can only be sold from his site, but the writer/designer makes the money from sales. Greg's policy in Epiphany doesn't work for me, even though I think the system is fantastic and I'd like to do something for it.

Paul

Edited into non-existence.

Ben Lehman wrote: Game systems and settings are not subject to copyright, only the expression of that system or setting in particular prose, tables, or artwork.

RaconteurX wrote:

Ben Lehman wrote: Game systems and settings are not subject to copyright, only the expression of that system or setting in particular prose, tables, or artwork.

Both systems and settings are governable by trademark, however, and you will find that trademark laws are considerably more draconian than their copyright counterparts mainly because you can lose a trademark if you fail to defend it. A particular iteration of a system or setting is still a copyrighted work, but it is the trademark which prevents you from "filing off the serial numbers" and rephrasing Player's Handbook (or any other game book) so you can claim it as entirely your own original work.

Whoa - definitely time.

Discussions of trademark and copyright need to be taken to the Publishing forum, big-time.

This thread, which presented Apeiron's notion and my and Clinton's response, has been resolved and is now closed.

Best,
Ron

H'm, on reflection, I think that I was a bit hasty. Further discussion of the Crucible idea is permitted here, if anyone wants. And thanks to Apeiron for being willing to make a further effort to communicate what he's after.

Nix on that copyright talk though - that really does belong elsewhere.

Best,
Ron

Well ...

I really wasn't gonna post (I think the Crucible idea is not such a good one as stated) but ...

In writer's circles you bring your stuff and everyone else brings their stuff and you read their stuff and they read your stuff and you discuss. I think *that* (which is not so dissimilar to the Crucible idea--but writiers circles have about 5 people vs. many) would be decent.

I mean, Valimir posted an adventure--last I looked (and I checked the adventure out--but haven't had time or energy to write a response) there was nuthin. Responses to the JAGS posts were not bad but a *little* anemic (IMO--I'm not complaining).

If I knew I'd get a full round of discussion on my latest world book then I'd make time to make sure I had time to go over other people's stuff.

But like I said, small groups. And no "must be published" stuff.

-Marco

Apeiron,

You may want to post on the Connections forum to find other folks who might be interested in doing this.

As Marco said, starting a small working group of people committed to giving feedback on one another's games might be a worthwhile way to pitch it. Instead of a whole new game a month, the commitment could be a new draft a month, or substantial text/rules etc.

Having a committment like this from a group would have certain advantages over the indie games forum as it stands. Each person would be guaranteed regular creative input from their fellow designers. Continuity of criticism would be great too--these folks would have seen your game at various stages, and would probably end up with a fairly in-depth understanding of it. Comraderie and peer pressure help keep on on task. But asking everyone to come up with a whole new game each month doesn't sound feasible.

Finite term commitments might be a good idea too--take 5 people who commit to working together for 6 months with a finished product being the goal at the end of that time, or a year, etc.

And, if you're not familiar with them already, there are several creative ways that people (well, Mike Holmes and Philip Reed) have found to spur on the production of games on the Forge. See the following threads:

"Iron Game Chef" Lives!
Iron Game Chef - Simulationist!
24 Hour Game

Bon chance!

Regards,
Emily Care

Hey Marco, Em,

Y'know...I'm not sure he cares about writer's group style feedback and quid pro quo. Unless I'm misreading, apeiron is more taken with the idea that folks will produce stuff, and then other folks will produce improvements and variations, and gradually the truly excellent stuff floats to the top. Perhaps the closest thing we've seen to this are all the Pool variations. James is cool with people doing it, so we've had variations, and variations of those variations, and we've had scenarios written for variations.

Paul

Probably not--but I'd have to get something out of such a group to want to participate. What I suggested was, IMO, a valuable variant on what he was suggesting ... kinda like one of those Pool variants you mentioned.

-Marco

Marco wrote: In writer's circles you bring your stuff and everyone else brings their stuff and you read their stuff and they read your stuff and you discuss. I think *that* (which is not so dissimilar to the Crucible idea--but writiers circles have about 5 people vs. many) would be decent.
If I knew I'd get a full round of discussion on my latest world book then I'd make time to make sure I had time to go over other people's stuff.
But like I said, small groups. And no "must be published" stuff.

-Marco

Emily Care wrote: Apeiron,

You may want to post on the Connections forum to find other folks who might be interested in doing this.

As Marco said, starting a small working group of people committed to giving feedback on one another's games might be a worthwhile way to pitch it. Instead of a whole new game a month, the commitment could be a new draft a month, or substantial text/rules etc.

Having a committment like this from a group would have certain advantages over the indie games forum as it stands. Each person would be guaranteed regular creative input from their fellow designers. Continuity of criticism would be great too--these folks would have seen your game at various stages, and would probably end up with a fairly in-depth understanding of it. Comraderie and peer pressure help keep on on task. But asking everyone to come up with a whole new game each month doesn't sound feasible.

Finite term commitments might be a good idea too--take 5 people who commit to working together for 6 months with a finished product being the goal at the end of that time, or a year, etc.

And, if you're not familiar with them already, there are several creative ways that people (well, Mike Holmes and Philip Reed) have found to spur on the production of games on the Forge. See the following threads:

"Iron Game Chef" Lives!
Iron Game Chef - Simulationist!
24 Hour Game

Bon chance!

Regards,
Emily Care

Paul Czege wrote: Hey Marco, Em,

Y'know...I'm not sure he cares about writer's group style feedback and quid pro quo. Unless I'm misreading, apeiron is more taken with the idea that folks will produce stuff, and then other folks will produce improvements and variations, and gradually the truly excellent stuff floats to the top. Perhaps the closest thing we've seen to this are all the Pool variations. James is cool with people doing it, so we've had variations, and variations of those variations, and we've had scenarios written for variations.

Paul

Paul Czege wrote: I think what might motivate me to participate would be a carefully crafted policy for how the communal material can be used in games that participants publish independent of the community. Ron's Sorcerer mini-supplement policy, for instance, totally works for me. He has to approve it, and it can only be sold from his site, but the writer/designer makes the money from sales. Greg's policy in Epiphany doesn't work for me, even though I think the system is fantastic and I'd like to do something for it.

Paul

Hey,

What are these Pool variations? i would like to know more.

James V. West designed The Pool. Lots of folks have played it, and lots of folks were inspired by it to write variants. James has collected a lot of the variations here, but there are more floating around. Snowball is Alexander Cherry's variant. It inspired Guy Jobbins to write a scenario.

Paul

Apeiron,

For the Pool, go to the "Resource Library" link at the top of your screen and search on "pool".

Check out The Creative Commons for ideas on lawyer-vetted alternative licensing.

Invisible City Productions' Games Section puts out a new game every month. They seem to really be into the whole free-as-in-freedom/open source trip. The games I've checked out have been pretty neat, running the gamut from parlor games to board games, with some role-play elements on occasion.

Of course, I never get tired of tooting the wiki horn--do a search at google on "wiki" and feast your mind on a technology that facilitates collaboration very nicely.

I think this looks like a neat project. Kudos to all for de-escalating the snarky beginnings of this thread.

--JB

This I dig way more than your first explanation of what you're after. This is something I could go for. However, I do have the question: how is it all that different from the Forge?

Alright, I can probably answer my own question: dedication? Correct?
The point is to have a team of individuals supporting one another and hashing out a variety of projects together -- and dedicated to it.

Second difference, game designs are archived, or stored in some fashion...sort of a "project database" of sorts, which I very much dig (there's lots of gems on the Forge I wish I could go back and dig up easily, but either don't have the time or an easy place to start looking).

Anything else I'm missing?

BTW, I salute your excellent attitude:

apeiron wrote: @ i was going to reply to each post but i found myself angry and trying to be right. i was also hearing what sounds like anger and fear from some of you. But being right is less important than getting what i want and getting results. So instead i will resubmit my proposal in a different way...

2) Open Source/Freeware ethics can produce great results

4) That for some (not all) people, explicit structures such as goals, deadlines and expectations of peers can motivate people to do more

6) No one is an expert at drawing AND mechanics AND copyright law AND writing AND so on.

8) Having high expectations and holding people accountible tends to yield better results

Here's my interpretation on the whole motivation thing. The reason most of my projects fall by the wayside or disappear into design limbo is that i am rarely convinced of their value. When i first come up with an idea i'm like "wow, that would be cool, i'll get to work." I get some stuff together, toss a post up on the Forge, and watch it die at less than 10 posts.

The main advantage i see in the idea for the Crucible is that there's a commitment from everyone involved to not only read, but provide feedback for everyone else. If the idea is a good one, the feedback will reflect that and the project will probably take on a life of its own since it's good. If the idea's not so hot, it will either be improved by discussion or eliminated.

The Forge isn't able to do this because it's really something we do in our spare time, we look at designs that interest us personally. We provide feedback on the things that really grab our attention. There's nothing wrong with that, but i feel that a more involved setup where everyone is expected to contribute something to pretty much everything would be great. Of course this would seem to indicate that there's a practical upper limit on the number of people who can be involved since there's only so much time to devote to this kind of stuff...

That's me...

Thomas

LordSmerf wrote: Of course this would seem to indicate that there's a practical upper limit on the number of people who can be involved since there's only so much time to devote to this kind of stuff...

Actually, i was thinking of some sort of cell idea, but i must say that yours is much more ambitious (not to mention just better) than mine. Rotating cells, propositions, etc. very nice. Anyway, i think it may be time to take this one step farther... We should probably begin moving this over to the Connections forum. I think we may be ready to start getting some real commitment...

Thomas

Hey Thomas,

The reason most of my projects fall by the wayside or disappear into design limbo is that i am rarely convinced of their value.

Now that's a topic for conversation.

The point at which I knew My Life with Master had value was the very first playtest at GenCon 2002. It was a seven page document that was mostly just the core mechanics and the Endgame and Epilogue stuff. It lacked Master creation rules entirely.

I knew by the reactions of the players. And I knew because I'd played widely and determinedly and could evaluate it against other games. After that playtest, there wasn't a doubt in my mind that it had value.

The main advantage i see in the idea for the Crucible is that there's a commitment from everyone involved to not only read, but provide feedback for everyone else.

I don't think a forced feedback scheme will work to produce motivation. Throughout most of the late 90s, a buddy of mine pretty much constantly pitched us on various game ideas. Ostensibly, he was assessing interest. Truly, he was seeking an external source for the motivation he personally lacked. We had lots of conversations, and made up lots of characters, but he never ever ran a game. There is no such thing as an external source of motivation.

So, if not forced feedback, then what?

Greg's policy in Epiphany is unarguably practical. You can write and release whatever you want for free. But only BTRC can publish and make money from it. It is a reasonable policy that makes complete sense. But it's hard to get jazzed about it. In my mind, Ron's mini-supplement program is generously respectful of the folks who take part. So it excites you when you hear about it, and you want to take part.

My recommendation would be that the Crucible have a generously respectful policy that allows folks to publish and sell designs based on the stuff created by the members. The membership you want are folks who get excited about seeing their creative work and their mechanical notions used in published games. The membership you want are folks who are motivated to contribute more to the community, and to produce and publish complete games of their own when they see their clever ideas and creative work being used by others. "Dammit, why didn't I do that game," is the response you want...followed by a renewed personal commitment to their own idling game projects.

Paul

@ Thanks again everyone for your contributions to this thread. i am formulating a response that will reply to all this great material. You've given me lots to consider. You guys rock. i think this idea will work.

@ While i'm working on that, what do you think of the name Crucible? i'm trying to capture the idea of concentrating creative energy, combining different elements to create new materials.

J B Bell wrote: Apeiron,

For the Pool, go to the "Resource Library" link at the top of your screen and search on "pool".

Check out The Creative Commons for ideas on lawyer-vetted alternative licensing.

Invisible City Productions' Games Section puts out a new game every month. They seem to really be into the whole free-as-in-freedom/open source trip. The games I've checked out have been pretty neat, running the gamut from parlor games to board games, with some role-play elements on occasion.

Of course, I never get tired of tooting the wiki horn--do a search at google on "wiki" and feast your mind on a technology that facilitates collaboration very nicely.

I think this looks like a neat project. Kudos to all for de-escalating the snarky beginnings of this thread.

--JB

greyorm wrote:

Alright, I can probably answer my own question: dedication? Correct?
The point is to have a team of individuals supporting one another and hashing out a variety of projects together -- and dedicated to it.

Second difference, game designs are archived, or stored in some fashion...sort of a "project database" of sorts, which I very much dig (there's lots of gems on the Forge I wish I could go back and dig up easily, but either don't have the time or an easy place to start looking).

Anything else I'm missing?

2) Open Source/Freeware ethics can produce great results

I agree. In fact, I just finished helping with "Liber Mysterium" -- a Netbook for d20 -- contributing to the editing, illustration, and even a couple sections of written material. I personally think the book rivals (if not exceeds in a few cases) published for-pay materials currently on the shelf.

4) That for some (not all) people, explicit structures such as goals, deadlines and expectations of peers can motivate people to do more

Yes, yes, and yes. I know I'd work more on certain things if I had people buzzing in my ear about them. Support and interest are very good things.

8) Having high expectations and holding people accountible tends to yield better results

Here's my problem: How?
Holding people accountable indicates some sort of enforceable reward-punishment system which actually means something to the individual who is rewarded by or punished by it.

LordSmerf wrote: Here's my interpretation on the whole motivation thing. The reason most of my projects fall by the wayside or disappear into design limbo is that i am rarely convinced of their value. When i first come up with an idea i'm like "wow, that would be cool, i'll get to work." I get some stuff together, toss a post up on the Forge, and watch it die at less than 10 posts.

The main advantage i see in the idea for the Crucible is that there's a commitment from everyone involved to not only read, but provide feedback for everyone else. If the idea is a good one, the feedback will reflect that and the project will probably take on a life of its own since it's good. If the idea's not so hot, it will either be improved by discussion or eliminated.

The Forge isn't able to do this because it's really something we do in our spare time, we look at designs that interest us personally. We provide feedback on the things that really grab our attention. There's nothing wrong with that, but i feel that a more involved setup where everyone is expected to contribute something to pretty much everything would be great. Of course this would seem to indicate that there's a practical upper limit on the number of people who can be involved since there's only so much time to devote to this kind of stuff...

That's me...

Thomas

Paul Czege wrote: Hey Thomas,

The reason most of my projects fall by the wayside or disappear into design limbo is that i am rarely convinced of their value.

Now that's a topic for conversation.

The point at which I knew My Life with Master had value was the very first playtest at GenCon 2002. It was a seven page document that was mostly just the core mechanics and the Endgame and Epilogue stuff. It lacked Master creation rules entirely.

I knew by the reactions of the players. And I knew because I'd played widely and determinedly and could evaluate it against other games. After that playtest, there wasn't a doubt in my mind that it had value.

The main advantage i see in the idea for the Crucible is that there's a commitment from everyone involved to not only read, but provide feedback for everyone else.

I don't think a forced feedback scheme will work to produce motivation. Throughout most of the late 90s, a buddy of mine pretty much constantly pitched us on various game ideas. Ostensibly, he was assessing interest. Truly, he was seeking an external source for the motivation he personally lacked. We had lots of conversations, and made up lots of characters, but he never ever ran a game. There is no such thing as an external source of motivation.

So, if not forced feedback, then what?

Greg's policy in Epiphany is unarguably practical. You can write and release whatever you want for free. But only BTRC can publish and make money from it. It is a reasonable policy that makes complete sense. But it's hard to get jazzed about it. In my mind, Ron's mini-supplement program is generously respectful of the folks who take part. So it excites you when you hear about it, and you want to take part.

My recommendation would be that the Crucible have a generously respectful policy that allows folks to publish and sell designs based on the stuff created by the members. The membership you want are folks who get excited about seeing their creative work and their mechanical notions used in published games. The membership you want are folks who are motivated to contribute more to the community, and to produce and publish complete games of their own when they see their clever ideas and creative work being used by others. "Dammit, why didn't I do that game," is the response you want...followed by a renewed personal commitment to their own idling game projects.

Paul