The Forge is definitely an unintentional brand. It's not fundamentally good or bad, but it can, like everything else, be harnessed to whatever goals you may have and it may, like everything else, trip you up if you're not careful about it. (Hint: none of the big successes in indie games have identified exclusively with the Forge.)

As for what happens when the Forge finally disappears... I'll wait and see.

Posted By: jhkim
While it exists in a sense -- the Forge as a community does help promote people's games. At the Forge booth at GenCon, there was a banner with the logo of the Forge. So there is a visible brand in a sense.

A brand is a brand, no matter if it's protected by any sort of copy or trademark. The Forge is *definitely* a brand - it's not a *trademark*, but it is a brand.

I can't speak for Ron or Clinton, but when in the past someone was planning to collect several Forge Game Chef games into an anthology and wanted to label it as Forge games, Ron stated that he did *not* give permission for this and did not want to use The Forge as a brand. Unless he's changed his mind, I think it's pretty much required that we correct any branding misperceptions when they arise. We can't totally prevent other people creating a de facto "Forge brand", but we can set the record straight wherever possible.

The Forge is a brand, as has been said, the same way that OGL and D20 are brands. The same way that certain types of online communities are a brand.

For clarity's sake.

1. There is no Forge imprint. That's the actual point Clinton and I have made in the past and we'll continue that course. It goes along with a number of other policies, for instance that no one vetts the games at the GenCon booth. The Forge isn't a publisher, or even an official organization.

2. Some of you guys are using the term "brand" to mean a cultural phenomenon, which is to say an uncontrollable perception "out there" among people, who say X or Y or Z about the Forge, for good or ill. As I've mentioned before, this is uncontrollable. It's also real. My thinking is that for quite a lot of people who've invested time at the Forge, or been mutualistic about activities there & associated, have benefited from that perception. So, on the balance, well and good.

Now, why posts like yours, Kuma, seem to mix up these two notions, I have no idea. They're obviously not the same things. To insist upon and enforce #1 does not limit or damage the benefit of #2. To my thinking, the opposite is the case.

Best, Ron

Also - the idea that a Forge trademark would add nothing to the community is just wrong.

Even if the only contractual requirement is for the user of the mark to report numbers of copies sold and breakdown by country/state, that would add data to the machine and help those that come after by understanding who it is buying these games.

[Edit: Here's the entry for 'brand' in Wikipedia.

Honestly? I think the thing that's actually gonna end up overtaking the Forge in Ron's #1 point is Indie Press Revolution. Which does vett it's products, and does have access to all of the sales data of its members - and is the entity that has a strong Con presence representing Indie games outside of Gen Con (and Brennan was in charge of the cash register there, as well).

Hey Kuma,

Here's what you wrote:

... the Forge is getting to be a powerful brand, for good or ill. Being casual about it is fine, but being casual and worrying about the confusion isn't.

I agree with you 100%. Since I'm not worrying about any confusion, as my post above clearly states, then I am, by your statement, "fine." That's good to know.

Best, Ron

'Cause what you're saying is not the vision. I'm a fanatic. I have the vision of what I want to accomplish, and that's shared very greatly with Clinton's vision about the same stuff. The Forge has not only stuck by that vision, but brought about incredible things way beyond what we imagined.

So given the last six years, is there room for a new vision? Sure! Let someone else have their own and bring it into existence. Andy K is obviously the key figure here with all the contests and sites and stuff, but lots of others are moving and shaking too. Fine.

But the Forge isn't their vision. It's ours, just Clinton and me. And not only that, Clinton and I (I keep saying both of us because we talk about this stuff, and I'm representing those talks right now) want to keep the Forge's function right where it started - finding people in the canebrake, struggling with their designs, or having produced an amazing design but not knowing what to do with it. We like it working best and most for the guys with a crappy Geocities website and a neat game idea, who aren't quite sure how the internet can help them further.

As long as the Forge lasts, it serves those guys first, and that same spirit/attitude of theirs which both Clinton and I individually try to preserve in ourselves. That's why it is not, and will never be, an imprint of the kind that would force membership or identity of any sort on someone just considering or along-the-way of developing their own game and perhaps company.

The GPA exists for that. You can pay to join, to benefit from the accumulated experience there, and to have their logo on the back of your game. The Forge is run by a different vision in which the organized activity at the site, and associated spin-offs, is what matters. The product (labels on games, imprints, everything) is wholly personally the creator's, and in terms of the Forge, it represents what that game creator wants to take out of the Forge, if anything.

The fact that the cultural-brand you're accurately recognizing, and excited about, is helping and serving a number of people is great. Yes, there's a banner at the booth which exploits or at least expresses that reality.

But the booth isn't about that banner as a representation of Sorcerer or the Burning Wheel, at least not primarily. It's about Kevin Allen Jr. being at all able to sell his awesome game Primitive at the premier hobby-games convention in the world (possible exception of Spiel Essen). I'd far rather keep working to make the Forge useful to folks about two years behind where Kevin is now, than to develop the brand to benefit, say, Vincent Baker, further. It already benefits him immensely, and as far as I'm concerned, that's way way in the black, huge gravy, relative to anything we ever expected.

It's hard enough as it is for me to preserve my focus on that vision I'm talking about. As far as I'm concerned, the Forge is actually a bit in the red in that regard, relative to its first couple years of existence. Clinton and I do have work to do with what the Forge "is," culturally. We've discussed it. It doesn't prioritize actively building the cultural brand into an institutional one to benefit established companies further. That work has to turn more grass-roots, more punky, and more toward those folks like Doug Bolden, James V. West, Jeff Diamond, and others, as they were back then. (I name these guys because the Forge ultimately failed them, unforgivably on my part, which I see as a far greater indictment of it than Vincent Baker's success is a vindication. Clinton has his own list of casualties. We remember them even if others don't.)

That's why the First Thoughts forum is key. I wish more of you guys would spend time there, and use your pride and success in getting your companies off the ground as a fuel for outreach to these guys as they appear or are invited ... and rediscover the chance to learn [from them 'Cause that's where the great ideas really are, out among the wacky little guys who think they're alone in the brush. Not in the modern blogspace and not in the (thank th'Lord defunct) theory forums.

That's way more important to me than saying, "OK everyone, you can now purchase shares in Forge Corp and gain the privilege of putting the little cartoon logo on the back of your game." Would that help sell more copies of Perfect, Dogs in the Vineyard, Universalis, and so on? Probably so. Would it help the game-store retailers to grab a clue and order these games and market them in a coherent, unified fashion? Absolutely yes. Would Clinton and I make big bucks off monetizing it in some way? You betcha.

But it's not the vision. I don't think doing that would benefit the incoming folks, and in fact I think it would destroy their single greatest contribution and potential - the new ideas, the unfamiliar angle of attack, the intellectual/cultural mutation (new variants) they represent. I am a fanatic. I know exactly that that is what I want to promote and facilitate, and that's what the Forge is, or should be at its best.

If Jason Valore, Brennan Taylor, Andy Kitkowski, Jonathan Walton, or any other inspired, motivated, constructive people want to form some kind of unified label or device for established companies to share and benefit from, more power to'em. If I like the model they propose, I'll join in myself if I'm welcome.

But the Forge ain't that thing.

Best, Ron

If there was a label for "Story Games" to be put on games, I would fucking puke blood. Probably doubly so for "The Forge".

That's not a very rational or well-explained reaction, but that's my reaction.

-Andy

Heya,

I've been wanting to say this for a long while but never really had a good context. Now, I believe, this thread provides it. The Forge is an amazing thing. It's six years old, and as far as I've can tell hasn't changed all that much since I first started lurking there back in late '01. That's incredible in my book. Just look at how much RPGnet changed. I started going there back in '97 when it was nothing but a information portal with a big huge list of all the companies that produced RPGs. Now it's....well, it is what it is.

I really have to credit Ron and Clinton for being so superhumanly vigilant in keeping the Forge in line with their vision. Ron has thousands and thousands of posts. I'd hate to know how many of them are moderator posts, but I'd wager my lunch money it's getting close to around half if not past half already. The mental fortitude it must take to be that consistent over such a long period of time in a venu that is known for loosey-goosey freewheeling discussion is beyond my ken. Those two guys deserve a salute from everybody for working so hard to create the community they did and keep it going in a healthy and constructive way so long.

Now about Ron's vision for the Forge. The thing is, I trust Ron. He has a track record of things working way better than anyone thought they could. Take the Forge Booth for instance. I imagine when the idea was first proposed it was pretty radical and experimental. It's something that was totally unique to GenCon, that's for sure. But look how it turned out. This year, it grossed over thirty thousand dollars. Whoa! Ask how many small press booths there did the same. Not many, I'd bet. Take closing the Theory forums. When Ron made the decision to do that (preceded by those awesome war story posts everyone should read on a daily basis, I know I do) the whole RPG internet scene was in an uproar. You can find multiple posts and articles all over the sites we frquent debating that move. So what happened? There's been an explosion of really awesome blogs and Story Games, Go Play, and RPG Theory Review were born. Who could have predicted that? No one. But Ron and Clinton knew what they were doing. It turned out to be a great decision.

I can't grasp Ron's vision completely. I'm not him. I can only see part of it, understand part of it. But I know that what the Forge is, is what it should be. I have no doubt that Ron and Clinton will support anything else that comes along to fill in the spaces the Forge does not. Take for example: IPR and Games on Demand. They're warriors and they have a vision not just for the Forge but for how the Forge can help the community (read those war posts guys, it's in there). And I look forward to seeing that vision realized- along with Andy K's, Jonathan Walton's, Brennan Taylors', and the visions of all the other really kick ass people we have in our midst. We are surrounded by giants folks, but not the kind that smash your house and eat you, but the kind that help you build your own creations and make them better.

Peace,

-Troy

Hey, here's an important hypothetical situation:

Kuma, let's say you produce a game. It's really good. It innovates in the right places and can attract the right audience. It's engaging to play and accomplishes your goals. It's attractive and easy to read. You put a Forge logo on it with pride.

Now, let's say that the year before you release it, Pickles Numpkin released a game. It was rampant crap. The derivative, task-based mechanics didn't work in some places and actively drove a wedge between the players in others. The book was ugly, derivative, and expensive. Pickles put a Forge logo on it to gain some sales because otherwise there was nothing to attract someone to the book. And it worked. Lots of people bought it, exceeding Pickles' expectations. Now he's abrasive and insulting to his own players in public because they don't understand how to play The Forge's® game.

Now you have to deal with the Taint of Pickles when you put the Forge logo on your game. And so do I.

No one's going to say what games can carry this label and you're suffering for Pickles' idiocy because of the pure encouragement nature of the Forge. Pickles is kind of a dick; he made crap and put a label on it that demonstrates excellence because there was no facility to stop him and every reason for him to try.

Now, The Forge is a common law trademark at this point. I'd recommend that the logo and name grow a â„¢ because it strengthens the case that it's an owned thing, that it can't be used without permission (which would presumably be Clinton's to give, since he first opened the Forge, if I recall). In the meantime, anyone can put the Forge anvil logo on the back of their book and we'll have to deal with that if it happens. It's not a behavior Ron, Clinton, Vincent, or I consider appropriate (we've all talked about it at some point, and I'm sure lots of others have, too).

IPR is offering that type of editorial process, as someone else mentioned up top. Brennan has his own standards that he keeps to like Ron keeps to his. The vision of IPR is different than the vision of the Forge, but no less rigorous. Brennan has turned down games because it's important to his vision that there be a certain standard of quality — his particular standard of quality.

Conversely, it's important to Ron and Clinton that someone with no experience designing games be able to build something that fits their own aesthetic. I think Ron agrees with me when I say that it doesn't matter if he, Clinton, Vincent, Ralph, Mike, or anyone else likes the end product; so long as the Forge has pushed the designer to challenge assumptions and accomplish their vision, to take total ownership of the design, and to take it as far as they can.

At a slight angle to this discussion, I'd like to mention the term "freebrand", which a friend of mine called Mark Laurent made up in conversation with me.

A freebrand is (and the Forge is not) a brand that is jointly owned by a number of independent producers, who use it to gain public recognition of the fact that they have something in common and if you like X's stuff, you may like Y's stuff.

The Forge is not a freebrand; it's a community, the name of which is becoming loosely brandlike. Ditto Story-Games.

IPR is not a freebrand, although it's similar, because it isn't owned by the independent producers, it's a separate entity which serves them jointly.

There may be some space, however, for a freebrand to arise in our midst.

Posted By: AndyIf there was a label for "Story Games" to be put on games, I would fucking puke blood.

Andy, you tempt my perverse mind to do terrible things. Cause a Story Games label would have to look beyond dorky. Something like:

JBR...you tempt.

Posted By: Ron EdwardsDo you see any reason on this earth why I should trouble to answer a question of yours in the future? 'Cause I don't. Apparently you wanted to fight. Apparently you didn'twantan answer to the question which made sense. Apparently receiving one makes you say there was no point to talking in the first place.

I don't post here or elsewhere in order to play emotional games. With any luck what I've posted will serve some purpose for someone, because I can't see one of yours that was worth my time.

Best, Ron

It did make sense, of course. But since neither Clinton nor yourself are interested in the idea, then the Forge as an 'official' brand is a dead ball.

I don't discount anything that you've said, nor your Vision. I just don't believe that any other brand (with the rising exception of IPR, which I think should get in the game of 'commissioning' games from folks - like Netflix is doing with independent films) has the same cache as the Forge, indie-wise. The amount of work necessary to penetrate the market and generate brand identity for some new mark is untenable (on the economic scale that we're talking about) compared to just creating brand identity for your own name/company.

This seems enough for me to say "right then" and find our agreement as the bright spot, and be happy. So, I apologize for my nasty post.

Three years as an admin at RPG.net, with Gareth-Michael Skarka in attendance. It'll take more than that to chap my considerable ass. :^)