Matt Snyder brought up a good point over in the Game Designer Challenges, and I want to continue that discussion.

Posted By: Matt Snyder, the demon himselfIf you're going to make a game, make a game. A playable, thorough game. Which means it has to be playtested. And, that the goal of doing is is making a fun game, rather than measuring each others' cocks and nodding in approval.

If you're going to make a joke (or, you know, not make one) then do that. Make it actually funny.

Stop confusing the two. Because our "games" are starting to look like cocks with tick marks. PUNCH THEM.

To throw in my two cents:

Posted By: myselfBe aware that although your Masterpiece and your Cock Waving Joke are very different in your own mind, someone who's taking a first look into indie games might not "get it".

Now, Matt's thrown his opinion of the issue down in a lot of places. Sometimes it's felt like untimely venting, because it was off-topic and derailing. So, I'd like to see a place where that discussion was on-topic. In the Ashcan Front discussions, there was too much planning and not enough issue addressing for me to really get much out of it, personally.

So, Matt, others...

There's an issue with an informal community. We all want to share in this Forge reputation, and the indie games "movement", and a sense of collective energy... But so often momentum takes away from planning and right process and critical feedback. People get gung-ho (see the "Awesome!!11!!!!" discussions), people get frantic, and people let slip their own and the community's standards of excellence.

Because I'd like to believe I take part in a community which has standards of excellence.

And I'm interested in learning how a group can, without centralized leadership or any hierarchy, can maintain standards of excellence as it grows alarmingly fast, and as it becomes something new.

I've got my own answer, and anyone who wants to hear how *I* now roll can ask, but I'm interested in hearing your stuff.

At Forge Midwest, and previously in several different phone and email conversations I've had, there is concern that:

• Constant mutual praise is toxic to good game design


• Bad games are being published and left in that state to date


• The "diaspora" has been a failure in that it lacked reliable, useful, critical, honest feedback and reinforcement

Discussion of these above issues happened repeatedly during the gathering -- over lunch and dinner, at the bar when we were having beers together, in the lobby, etc.

And, ultimately in a whole group discussion in our hotel meeting room where the Forge Midwest event actually took place. Some people had left by then, but everyone who was there for Forge Midwest on Sunday around noon or so was involved in the discussion. Not everyone spoke, although many people did. No one spoke up in dissent, though that certainly doesn't mean there was none -- I can easily see how people would not feel comforable dissenting during that particular discussion. I estimate that 25 people where there participating. I'd further estimate that at least a dozen, perhaps more, spoke about the problems I listed above and what we could do as a community to handle them.

I expect to see specific communication from people, like Ron, who indicated they would do so this week in the online space (not sure if that means here, at the Forge, etc.). One of the topics of the day was speaking out to others to share these concerns, point out some of the perceived problems, and suggest means to improve the situation. Which is why I have said what I've said so far. More to come, no doubt about it.

toxicity of mutual praise

I think the most damaging thing ever is when people kept saying "When can I buy this?" in various threads, instead of "How can I help you in this?"

This community makes amazing, wonderful, well-designed games. It also makes games that I don't like very much. So far, for me, the former outnumber the latter by at least 5 to 1. Probably higher than that.

I totally agree that we can do more to help our designs be better, and to have standards of excellence as a community. I support that idea 100%.

I do not agree that we are in the midst of an epidemic, slump, or disaster of any kind. I do not see evidence that too much praise is creating a toxic environment for good design. I do not see evidence that the diaspora as been a failure. I see honest, critical feedback and I see enthusiastic cheerleading and I see a wealth of great games being made along with a few that I don't love.

I say: If you see what you think is bad design (either before a game is published or after), and you care about its impact on the community, then you either step up with honest, critical feedback and help, or you don't. I really can't see how ranting about what the rest of the community should be doing is very helpful.

So, let's hear it Matt. I do not doubt your good faith in any way. I consider you a friend and a good person. But if you have criticisms to level and help to offer and standards to suggest, get on with the business of doing it already.

(Edit to say: I agree with Christian's post above completely)

(Edit again to say: I recognize the ashcan front as a great step in this direction! Wouldn't say otherwise.)

I am doing something about it. I am putting over $500 to begin the Ashcan Front booth, organizing that booth, and seeking out participants. I fail to see how I could be doing more, honestly. I am, and have done, everything my resources allow to promote excellence in indie game design.

Furthermore, I am not alone. I think the reaction that I'm chicken-littling here is premature. John says nothing's wrong. I say there is. And, that'll shake out one way or the other. Many people have spoken up about this to me. None of them have done so yet today here on S-G. But, you know, it has been brought up here before. Thor Olavsrud spoke up about it last summer/fall. He says the largely unresponsive reaction to his criticism about lack of playtesting was very off-putting to S-G. Now, maybe that's Thor's problem, you might say. But, I can't think of one person who does a better job critiquing games well. He's extremely perceptive and knowledgeable about games, editing and actual play. I'd rather have him here than not.

John, will you be revising Agon? Or considering it? Because many people pointed to it this weekend and previously as one important example of a game with huge potential that needs improvement. If not, why not? And, if so, do you have a timeframe in mind? Have you received critical feedback for it? My understanding is that you have previously said the game is what it is, and you'll move on to the next thing. Is that accurate? And, if so, why is that your plan, rather than going back to revise and improve? Do you agree that it could improve? And, if you do agree but still don't want to do so, how is that not a problem for the community?

Others? Is your game as good as it's gonna get? Not perfect, but sound? Do you have plans to revise? Have you received criticism? Have you dismissed it? Do you know, deep down, that so-and-so was right to point out Problem X, Y, or Z, but that it was too painful or stressful or whatever to go through all that work again?

And, speaking of, unless you wrote one of about three A+ indie games, your game is not perfect. If no one told you a criticism that you can earnestly defend, then you need to revise your game. But, that choice is yours. Seek out that criticism, because if you're not hearing it, someone's blowing smoke up your ass. Or, just not saying anything to be nice.

I've often thought that someone who was smart could figure out a way to create an 'indie playtesters network', that is, a lot of different gaming groups who receive compensation in some way from some kind of conglomerate to playtest games. A publisher who wanted in would kick in to the conglomerate. They would hopefully have a highly diverse population (i.e. not all people who spooged over the latest narration-passing hippie game), and would definitely have a required, iron-clad required format and detail level for their playtesting feedback. In other words, you wouldn't get, "we played it, it was okay" or "we didn't really get chapter 2", you would get detailed reports from each player and maybe a recording of the session, from prep through cleanup.

Playtesting is better than critiquing by about nine thousand percent. It hurts that much more too, and is that much harder. Importantly, you would know exactly who hates your game - hopefully the diverse population would guarantee someone would think it was the worst game they've ever played.

Maybe I will do that someday if I get smart.

Do other people have a right to criticize our creative process, or only our creative output?

I'm *very* touchy at the idea of telling other people *how* they should write, design, paint, play.

Let me bring up another important point here, folks:

I think we should focus on helping people get the tools and feedback they need.

Does everybody here know how hard it can be for people to get playtesters? It was easier for me, writing a primarily two-player game (and the group testing was still very important; see my thread about one of those sessions during Go Play PDX at the Forge). But I know more than one designer who are very frustrated about even finding people willing to test their game.

This might not be an issue if you're someone with already-published designs and an established fan base. This IS an issue, however, for many newcomers. So Matt: I think there's more you can do than the ashcan front. I think you can offer to play someone else's design-in-process. Not that you HAVE to, god forbid. But THAT'S what most people really need.

Matt Snyder, can you just whisper me your email address?

I'm trying to ask you a question and I get the feeling S-G isn't the place you'll answer it.

Does everybody here know how hard it can be for people to get playtesters? It was easier for me, writing a primarily two-player game (and the group testing was still very important; see my thread about one of those sessions during Go Play PDX at the Forge). But I know more than one designer who are very frustrated about even finding people willing to test their game.

This might not be an issue if you're someone with already-published designs and an established fan base. This IS an issue, however, for many newcomers. So Matt: I think there's more you can do than the ashcan front. I think you can offer to play someone else's design-in-process. Not that you HAVE to, god forbid. But THAT'S what most people really need.

Christian,

What I was talking about upstream, about how the internet is a place where a lot more energy gets wasted than put to use... playtesting is a large part of that. I've been focusing locally, and the results have been amazing. There's a lot more investment in each other's work, and I think investment in each other's work is what playtesting is and needs to be all about. Reading a post on a thread is often a one-off, no committment thing. You can stop mid-post and do the dishes instead.

Doing a playtest means reading the rules, organizing people, running the game, working out kinks, reporting back, engaging discussion, and at the very least overlooking new developments. That's a shitload of work and investment, and I feel that unless you are in some way connected with the person that it takes a lot of drive to do this yourself.

So yeah, I used to think that developing locally was a BAD THING, because maybe the game sucked to people in Virginia as a result. But now I feel, more and more, that cultivating designers and design feedback from within your group is the way to rock it.

Well, my comment was boiled down to two sentences from, oh, seven pages over the course of about a month or so. If that's not well thought out enough ... I don't think this is the right place to discuss it.

I welcome discussion.

Don't piss on it, please.

Posted By: joepubI've been focusing locally, and the results have been amazing. There's a lot more investment in each other's work, and I think investment in each other's work is what playtesting is and needs to be all about.

I've seen this too. Mo got some good C&P playtesting for a time from the net. However the local playtesting has been even better, sustained, and with incredible energy. Indie Games Toronto and our local group are all rocking people.

For what it's worth, this is the kind of thing that makes me, as someone who is a game design enthusiast but not published, reluctant to post and publish games. I don't mind people telling me that a game I created could be improved, critiquing it, etc. but I am very put off by the idea of people telling me that I am somehow obliged to continue working on it and honing it even after I have lost the desire to do so, like I owe it to someone other than myself. Just because a game is created in this community doesn't mean that the author is somehow obliged to uphold the ancient and honorable standards of the Forge Community and so forth.

John, sure we can disagree. I was seeing crossed signals more so than disagreement. Not so, it now seems, which is fine.

I've no problem disagreeing about the degree of any problem. And, really no problem disagreeing that there is no problem whatsoever. I've been convinced otherwise. If I can't make the case, someone else might. And, if they don't, it's ok. "If people don't want to come to the ball park, how you gonna stop 'em?"

After thinking about it some, I do think one thing I'm seeing here and Ben's link above is that I'm crashing anyone's process. And, really that's not it. I am indeed judging (and am not alone) end products. I see things that can be better. I'm seeing them less as a really good critic of game texts and play (I'm not especially good at it, others really are good at that), and more as someone who's been through it more than once with my published games. And with other game designs I decided were not worth publishing.

I'm saying we (we being the indie RPG scene) have several game products that are not as good as I believe the people can make them. And, no one's forcing any publisher to do better. But, of course, with that goes judgment. If I say someone can do better, but that person doesn't want to do it, then their product is failing to meet its potential. It is, in my eyes, an inferior product. In some cases, it may not be a functional product. I think that's bad. You don't have to agree. I certainly hope you do agree, or that I might convince you constructively.

If you make a cake, and people say "Well, I like chocalate but this really needs more flour" why would you bother saying "Well, this is how I make cakes. I don't HAVE to make cakes with more flour!"

But, people don't have to eat it then, do they? That's worrying enough because I don't want anyone to fail to meet their goals. But it's also more worrying to have people come along and decide that eating any cake at all just isn't worth it.

"Indie Games Toronto and our local group are all rocking people. "

Brand, do you want to talk (either here or in another thread) about how Indie Games Toronto is set up, and how you guys interact? I'm lookin' for best practices right now, because I'm playing a fairly instrumental role in getting the Random Acts of Story (indie games vancouver) community and forum airborne.

I feel weird posting about this :-(

Mainly because I have never been a part of the forge booth or published my own game. But I was at Forgecon and am really good friends with many forge game designers and publishers.

I run small conventions (60-90 people) in NYC often focused around supporting independent games. And I organize a lot of gaming groups and have my ear to the ground among consumers and publishers.

In the past, when people complained about broken and/or unfocused RPGs in NYC they were often pointed to Forge games as alternatives. I've know many gamers who swore off games for 6-10 years that came back into the hobby after playing Forge games. These games include Dogs in the Vineyard, Prime Time Adventures, My Life With Master, Burning Wheel Revised, The Mountain Witch, and many more. These games didn't need house ruling to function, were quick reads, reasonably priced, unique, and fun. A lot of this was tied into the idea of collaboration and playtesting through the Forge (not always in public threads but also person to person from relationships born from the Forge), the use of RPG theory to focus game design, and much more. The idea was that when you bought a Forge game, there was a certain guarantee of quality. Now, the Forge is a message board, not a type of game. I know this. But none the less, this was the reputation.

The number of games offered through the Forge booth at Gencon exploded. A lot of new games were purchased and brought home.

They didn't hold up to the Forge's reputation.

I feel like that makes me sound like an asshole. I'm not trying to. And I feel bad saying that because who the fuck am I to critique as I have not gone through the process myself. But this is what I kept hearing again and again.

There are many questions.

Why?

- Forge grew too big.
- Low barrier to entry.
- Pressure to release by Gencon.
- Pressure to fit in.
- Pressure to make money.
- Original designers didn't mentor enough.
- There are games that uphold the Forge's reputation, but with such an abundance of new releases, the ratio of games that are not ready to be published that were is much higher overshadowing everything else.
- Forge community splintering.
- Not every game is going to be Dogs or Burning Wheel.
- Too much attention on commerce.

Is it a problem?

- Is this a social, economic, reputation, or community problem?
- Does this conflict with the Forge's goals?
- If the Forge is strictly about independent game empowerment, does the content matter?
- If the content matters, do quality restrictions need to be put in place?
- If people are buying these games anyway, does it matter? Or will the effects not be felt in the short term?
- Maybe not all Forge games need to be products?
- Maybe the concept and expectations of a Forge brand distract from the main goal?
- Maybe there is no goal other than independent publishing?
- If there is, what is it?

My goal here is not to tell you what is what. Just to be honest about my observation and propose questions to further our mutual understandings and dig deeper together.

I hope that is helpful.

Rock,
John

EDIT: Crossposted with Fucking Everyone.

Posted By: WiredNaviI don't mind people telling me that a game I created could be improved, critiquing it, etc. but I am very put off by the idea of people telling me that I am somehow obliged to continue working on it and honing it even after I have lost the desire to do so, like I owe it to someone other than myself.

I think that's the thing though, but it may be hard to wrestle that out of the attitudes above.

What Matt appears to be doing is saying:
Please, pretty please, think twice about releasing a non-playtested, non-critiqued work onto the scene. Because at that point:

1) It probably sucks in some big, perhaps unforseen ways that could be corrected if you wait a little while between having the idea and publishing the game.
2) More often than not, if you really want to make the game into something good, you'll have to turn right around and draft a second edition or revised edition or whatever. (see Conan RPG)

In your case, if you put more time into the game up front, there's probably really no need to go back in one year, six months, or even as your first edition hits the press to revise the game and make it into something that could have been awesome straight off the presses.

-Andy

Posted By: Brand_RobinsThis thread is making me want to start doing some critical reviewing of Indie games on my shelf. The good, the bad, the ugly -- all in all.

I would love to see that, and not for the destructive glee.

I think there's a lot to be said for not wanting to speak up when your buddy releases a game that's critically flawed: It's their right to release a flawed game as they see fit: That's the Power of Indie and all that (Fugazi!!!). However, I feel bad about the fact that I can't encourage people to pick up Game X. Or if person asks "Should I buy Game X?", I'm the person who PMs or emails them saying, "No. And here's why" instead of saying it in public. It's not a Forge Kool-Aid thing, it's a "I don't want to hurt my friend's feelings" thing.

Matt and Paul are working at something that, at it's core seems to be the kind of thing that, if someone were to enter this Ashcan Machine, be it with a CCG, a miniature game, a D&D clone, or a hippy patchouli-oil smelling game, there's a much better chance that when they emerge they'll have something that people involved wouldn't hesitate to get behind.

On a personal note, I used to simply buy any game that I came across in relation to The Forge. More often than not, there was some cool ideas there and I could get a really hot gaming session or two out of it, if not run a killer campaign. These days, though, I basically wait to buy a game until I have it in my hands and flipped through it (or read comments or hear firsthand reports from my friends), because I've gotten really burned on some spot purchases over the past two years: Games that really meant well, but needed far more work to do what the author wanted them to do. If it was an ashcan, I could have taken a big dump of a feedback/critique on it and said, "Your game is awesome, and yet, poo". I can not do that with games that are finished and ready to purchase. I just can't. So I don't buy the game, don't say anything about it, and if I see people ask about it in public I'll whisper, PM or email them with my real opinions.

Posted By: JDCorleyI've often thought that someone who was smart could figure out a way to create an 'indie playtesters network', that is, a lot of different gaming groups who receive compensation in some way from some kind of conglomerate to playtest games.

This is brilliant. In fact, this is something that really should have spilled forth from The Forge, but for some reason simply has not yet. A real network of real feedbackers, with real rules, regulations, and everyone knowing up-front what they're getting into.

Posted By: John HarperHey Matt, I thought we were having a conversation. I know my last post was kinda rude, but I felt like you were being rude too. Are we going to actually discuss the issue? ...I figure you didn't just show up to say your side and walk away.

I hope not, too. I think this is an important discussion, and would love to see more dialog, and less drama. I'm hoping that people join in and continue the discussion, and put their "antagonism switch" down to "1". OK, maybe "3" or so. EDIT: Matt responded, keeping the conversation going. Nevermind, crossposted.

-Andy

Posted By: Jason MorningstarMatt, it might be helpful if you outlined what you see as an optimal set of behaviors. Because there seem to be some philosophical underpinnings to what you are saying that may not be universal. How do you decide a game is done? When do you feel obligated to revise? How does iteration compare, as a value, to innovation? Are the answers to these questions constants, or can they vary from person to person and still produce quality work? I want to know where you're coming from before I jump all over your shit*.

*joke

I think, Jason, that if you were going to try to sum up that "big group conversation" it would be very close to what you just said. Something like: "It would undoubtedly be helpful if we outlined an optimal set of behaviors, with regard to playtest, critique, revision, and editing. We dont' have that right now, and it's hurting our output, and it will very likely get worse on average, as such things do."

John,

You shouldn't apologize for giving your honest and well thought out opinion.

The most important thing I've taken from the Forge is that the people who play games are just as important (if not, moreso) than the people who design them. Or to put it another way, the act of playing a game is as important as the act of designing them.

Criticism is an important part of any creative process.

Judd

On another note, the only thing that bothered me about the Agon text was the rule for Aristeia and when John and I started IMing, I brought it up to him straight away. I didn't bring it up in a nasty way, more like, "I love your game but the Aristeia rules didn't work for me."

I thought AP threads were supposed to be places to have this kind of criticism too.

I think this is the mosty interesting discussion I've seen here in a long time. I like Storygames a lot, but more discussion like this would be welcome.


Jake

Personally, I'm not planning to do a revision ... like, ever. I'm also not planning to release perfect products. I'm planning to do the best I can at the time,in the same way that an apprentice or (I flatter myself) journeyman craftsman of any sort would follow his current skill and knowledge of his craft with diligence and patience, finish a work-piece and start the next.

Capes is imperfect in ways that I now know in excruciating detail. I could revise it, but I'm not gonna. Misery Bubblegum will not be imperfect in those same ways (though it will, doubtless, be imperfect in others).

I will continue to create and develop, leaving a string of my previous works behind me for all the world to see and to scorn.

Whether this makes me a good member of the community or a bad one sort of depends upon what you think the community is meant to be doing. If you think that the indie community is meant to gather together to help each of us to achieve commercial success and to maintain a level of consistent and reliable quality then my attitude is selfish in the extreme. Personally, I think that the indie community is meant to come together in order to encourage people to design games and to develop as designers. In that context, I feel pretty good about my decision, and I feel pretty skeptical about a "don't release until it's perfect" attitude.

I think constructive criticism and editing is absolutely a great resource for helping a craftsman to develop, but I think it is very easy for it to go beyond where it's helping people develop, and into where it is hurting their ability to do so (roughly, "If the best game you can make right now would make indie games look bad then do not make a game"). Since I see the primary purpose of the community to be encouraging our apprentices, I worry quite a bit about applying journeyman (or master!) level standards of quality across the board.

Sure, actual play is great. Unfortunately, by that time, you've already sold an unbaked, only somewhat playtested game to a bunch of people who had the expectation it was done.

And that is going to color those people's perception of other indie games. And that includes their perception of indie games not associated with the Forge. To be really blunt, those people would have some justification if they felt they were ripped off.

You don't have to care. That's your right. But if you do care, if you don't want to give game players and game buyers a negative perception of the quality of the games produced by your colleagues, then you should listen to what Matt is saying.

The first step is not to think about putting out a revised edition. Instead, it's to recognize that many games that were released at Gen Con at The Forge last year weren't finished games. They were ashcans. They were ashcans with pretty, perfect bound covers and polished looking layout, but ashcans still.

And don't get me wrong. This is not the first time the problem has reared its head. In 2005 we released a slew of revised editions of games, many of which had been first released in 2004.

Calling them ashcans is not meant to be derogatory. Most of the games from the early days of The Forge spent some time as ashcans. Some spent years that way. The ashcan step is a healthy part of the game design process, when you get outside criticism and playtesting.

And just to be clear, the problem is not that these games were sold. It's perfectly acceptable to sell an ashcan. Michael Miller showed us that. A number of early Forge games allowed people to buy ashcan versions of PDFs with a discount for the eventual finished game. Ashcans can be sold, given away, or just demoed, depending on your preferences.

The only caveat is that people need to know they're paying for an unfinished, unseasoned version of the game and that their feedback will help lead to a finished, polished version of the game. Once that happens all my issues vanish. I think Matt and Ron and Paul and others feel the same as well.

My suggestions:
1. The rush to Gen Con is proving hugely destructive, in my opinion. It's ok to slow down. It's not really ok to skip outside playtesting, outside criticism or editing in order to get it ready by Gen Con. Bring it as an aschan instead if it's not done.

2. Playtest, playtest and playtest some more. You need both in-house and blind outside playtests.

3. If you don't want to post your rules text online (perfectly valid), send it to picked colleagues who can provide some honest and constructive feedback.

4. Listen to your playtesters and critics, consider what they have to say, and make changes if you feel their comments are valid.

5. Hire an editor. And I don't mean a copy editor (though it would be good to have one too). Let them help you organize your text. Let them help you find text that is missing or rules that are poorly explained.

6. Bring your finished text to Gen Con (or not) and kick ass!

Please say them. For my convenience, please say them here.

Posted By: AndyI think that's the thing though, but it may be hard to wrestle that out of the attitudes above.

What Matt appears to be doing is saying:
Please, pretty please, think twice about releasing a non-playtested, non-critiqued work onto the scene. Because at that point:

1) It probably sucks in some big, perhaps unforseen ways that could be corrected if you wait a little while between having the idea and publishing the game.
2) More often than not, if you really want to make the game into something good, you'll have to turn right around and draft a second edition or revised edition or whatever. (see Conan RPG)

In your case, if you put more time into the game up front, there's probably really no need to go back in one year, six months, or even as your first edition hits the press to revise the game and make it into something that could have been awesome straight off the presses.

The difference between what you're saying and what I've been hearing is that you're talking about why non-critiqued, non-playtested etc. games are bad games and thus bad for the publisher, while Matt seems to be talking about how they're bad for The Community, because they don't uphold the high standards of awesome that people have come to expect from a 'Forge Game'.

The Forge is, and has always been, explicitly about the publication of indie games. To the best of my knowledge, Story Games is not, and I hope the community at large as represented here is not. Were I on the Forge right now, I would expect to be told what Matt et al seem to be saying. I don't care to release a game I consider unfinished, or one which is not the best I can make it. But any game design work I do, I do for fun, because I like tweaking rules and coming up with new half-baked ideas and throwing system around.

In short, it chaps my hide to think that I am somehow responsible for 'the scene', and thinking about it that way really raises the bar in my mind. I don't know that I even believe myself capable of producing a DitV, a Polaris, or a MLWM, or anything worthy to stand next to them. For me, that was never really the goal. If that's become the point of the entire indie game design community, then I have to kinda wonder what I'm doing here. Maybe I should be wondering.

Thanks for your comments, Thor.

I see everybody dancing around the elephant in the room, which is a stack of games that people have serious issues with. It makes me paranoid. It's be instructive to know what those are, and what their obvious faults are.

Story games is not exclusively "about" game design, otherwise I wouldn't be here, since I don't design games and don't really have much interest in it. And when I left, you would all cry!

Don't cry.

In terms of new editions, my general impression is that if you issue a new and improved edition earlier than say one to two years after the original release you'll get a degree of backlash. I don't think that's indie related, I think that holds for most games unless there's some obvious terrible error a la first ed Conan that means the original game was fundamentally flawed.

I think also that it is a success of the indie gaming scene that Forge game is no longer a badge of quality, that sounds backwards, but what it means is that the volume of creation is now such that one can't simply assume the same small bunch of guys have created it after discussing it between themselves. I don't really see that as a bad thing, I think the Forge brand will suffer but I don't think it was ever intended that there be a Forge brand so I'm not sure that's a bad thing either.

Otherwise, is there an absence of criticism? I thought that was what the Forge was for? Storygames is a chat and generally pleasant hangout forum, if I were designing a game I wouldn't expect criticism here, I'd go elsewhere for that.

But yeah, lots of indie games ain't that great (edit, as in many aren't that good, not as in having lots of them is a bad thing), that's because there's far more of them than there used to be. That said, I have to admit I see no real criticism, in part I suspect because when people see issues they simply don't post at all. Round here things tend to the "if you have nothing nice to say say nothing school of thought", whether that's a problem depends in part on whether the Forge is filling that critical niche and that I don't know as I don't currently post there (too much traffic on the actual play fora for me to keep track more than anything else).

Hey, you know what I'd like to see?

People, whom I do not know personally, willing to playtest and critique my games. That would be fucking awesome. They're pretty hard to find, especially since the current one is yea about 120 pages. Oh wait, I know how to do this:

I will critique your game if you critique mine.

...moneywhereyourmouthisgoddamnit...

Edit: FYI, my current games are a sci-fi RPG called "Sufficiently Advanced," at about 120 pages and late-stage development, and a story-telling game called "Console Legends," which is about 30 pages and very early-stage. If you're interested in either one, give me a whisper, e-mail, smoke signal, some kind of message.

Another Edit: You know what, this needs its own thread. Join me over at "Hit my game with a hammer."

For me, I think Tony nailed it here (emphasis mine):

Posted By: TonyLBPersonally, I'm not planning to do a revision ... like, ever. I'm also not planning to release perfect products. I'm planning to do the best I can at the time,in the same way that an apprentice or (I flatter myself) journeyman craftsman of any sort would follow his current skill and knowledge of his craft with diligence and patience, finish a work-piece and start the next.

Capes is imperfect in ways that I now know in excruciating detail. I could revise it, but I'm not gonna. Misery Bubblegum will not be imperfect in those same ways (though it will, doubtless, be imperfect in others).

I will continue to create and develop, leaving a string of my previous works behind me for all the world to see and to scorn.

Whether this makes me a good member of the community or a bad one sort of depends upon what you think the community is meant to be doing. If you think that the indie community is meant to gather together to help each of us to achieve commercial success and to maintain a level of consistent and reliable quality then my attitude is selfish in the extreme. Personally, I think that the indie community is meant to come together in order to encourage people to design games and to develop as designers. In that context, I feel pretty good about my decision, and I feel pretty skeptical about a "don't release until it's perfect" attitude.

I think constructive criticism and editing is absolutely a great resource for helping a craftsman to develop, but I think it is very easy for it to go beyond where it's helping people develop, and into where it is hurting their ability to do so (roughly, "If the best game you can make right now would make indie games look bad then do not make a game"). Since I see the primary purpose of the community to be encouraging our apprentices, I worry quite a bit about applying journeyman (or master!) level standards of quality across the board.

What is the indie community in this specific context?

- Games that come out of the Forge?
- Games sold at the Forge booth?
- Something else?

What is that community's goal(s)?

- encourage designers to develop as designers
- maintain a level of consistent and reliable quality
- independent publishing of products
- commercial success

I think the answers change depending on the context.

If the indie community in this context is games sold at the Forge booth, then as a customer my hope is that one of the goals is to maintain a level of consistent and reliable quality.

If the indie community in this context is games that come out of the Forge, that may not even be published, then as someone who appreciates creativity and loves RPGs, my hope is that one of the goals is to encourage designers to develop as designers.

I want more games! In any form! These communities are amazing breeding grounds for innovation and creativity. The ideas can come in any format. It could be a PDF, it could be a TXT file, it could just be a forum post. I don't want to ever loose site of that do it yourself attitude. And I don't think commerce needs to be the driving force here. But when I go to a booth at Gencon, I expect certain things as a customer. And it confuses me when I see games with pretty covers and art but with unedited text and rules that haven't been fully playtested. Why release this as a product? Why not just make it a PDF? Why not give it for free? Even so, the game developer doesn't owe me anything. As a customer, it is my choice to buy. But it changes perception.

Max and John's comments made me think of something.

Yes, there has been an ongoing issue with games that people don't fully understand until they've read additional material online, possibly even asked the designer directly. There have been too many such questions about Sorcerer to exempt it, and there have been other games with the same issues. Maybe those games should have included a FAQ chapter based on questions that actually kept popping up? Who knows. That's not my main point.

My point is actually this: the older design crowd did some of the same things, at least in terms of editing or providing complete information, and now they're claiming about the same sorts of behavior in a younger design crowd. And what's more: other than complaining, they aren't doing anything about it.

I only visit the Forge on rare occasions, anymore. For the last full year that I was a regular participant, what I saw was: a lot of newer faces offering up their fledgling game designs and asking for help, coupled with reduced participation by the established designers. The only help they received was from each other, from people just as inexperienced as they. And on the rare occasions I go back to the Forge and check the First Thoughts or Play Test forums, I see that nothing has changed.

So, maybe people who frequent the Forge are publishing games before they are ready, and that bothers more experienced designers. But when the fledglings asked "Is my game ready?" where were those experienced designers? And if those experienced designers are seeing the Forge brand diluted by new unfinished games being sold at the Forge booth, where were they when it came time to decide which games to sell? Or, if the decision on which games to sell was based solely on cash, why complain now?

For some reason, my Quote function isn't working today. So it's all in one post:

JohnDoyce, that was all very well said. I think I still hold some basic philosophical differences regarding the production of creative work, but there's little I disagree with in your posts. Thanks for spelling that out.

No problem. I'd like to talk about those differences in the creative process. I don't know that I really think that what people are doing right now are badwrong parts of the creative process, I just think there are some later steps that matter as well, that (in any creative industry) frustrates the HELL out of the creative person at the core of the effort, but which is still necessary.

Ben Why are we talking about this on Story Games and not the Forge? Is the implication that Story Games is somehow more responsible for this phenomenon than the Forge is?

Not at all. The discussion is here at this time simply because because Ron said he'd post about it on the Forge, and he hasn't yet. This is the 'other' hub of indie creative goodness, and as such it also appeared here, originally in an off the cuff fashion that turned into it's own thread. It appeared here before the Forge simply because... well, because someone wrote something here before Ron did.

Okay, not all in one post, because this bit went long and it's maybe off topic a bit. For god's sakes whisper me if you want to take umbrage with this.

BrandOkay then, who is going to step up and name names?

I have no problem with mentioning the games that I, personally, used as examples in the conversations I've had on the subject, both at Forge Midwest and elsewhere. Hopefully no one puts me on a kill-list for using these examples to make the points I made elsewhere already.

Games I fucking Love that I think could be better with (in the example I was speaking to at that moment) a third party editor
In that part of the discussion, I specifically mentioned Shadow of Yesterday and Conspiracy of Shadows. Everyone with eyes and an account on either the Forge or Story Games knows I love TSoY, and I'm running a CoS game right now as well and like it a whole lot -- hell, Keith was in the room when I used the example. In TSoY's case, I feel that every word in the book is great, but that the organization is not optimized for in-game reference, or for good learning. I write and edit teaching texts, so I feel justified in that critique. I said essentially the same thing about CoS, with the additional mention that a straight copyeditor would be a benefit. There are certain elements of the rules that you shouldn't have to search for in a game text -- you should almost be able to let your hand fall on the open text before you, knowing it will land on that bit.

Games I love that I think could be better with either a revision or (in hindsight) an initial ashcan edition
Mortal Coil was an example I used. I love the game, and I'm GMing it with a glad heart, and I'd love to play it, but I also know that I as the GM need to come to the game ready to cover for issues that will arise in play -- things that, reading AP and Playtest feedback, have been there awhile. I think it's got a core of greatness and some pretty rough holes. Brennan's been addressing that stuff as it arises on the forums or in AP (his increasingly-more-complicated conflict examples thread on the Forge, though not done according to him, should, IMO be a standard inclusion in every game), but yeah, that stuff should be in a revision. Should he not have published? Of course not. Could it have benefited from an ashcan version last year that became a slightly thicker pretty version this year? Yes. Brennan's said as much up above. He knows I really really like his game, I hope.

I'm also going to man up and shoot a sacred cow and say that in my experience, the Mountain Witch is an elegant, beautiful game that, while gorgeously lean, could use more beef in the form of conflict examples (involving every fucking possible screwed up complicated permutation Tim can come up with). "A dozen more" would be a good starting place.

I mean... Primetime Adventures had revised edition -- so did Dogs (I have copies of both versions, and there's stuff in Afraid I wish were IN Dogs) -- it's not like even the best indie stuff hasn't been made better. Perfect? No. None of it's perfect. Nothing is perfect. "More done?" yes.

Games that require an internet connection and/or the author's email to really get humming
Note: I'm not saying "to get to run at all," I'm saying "to do it 'right'." I went old school for this particular discussion and said Sorcerer. Again, anyone who's read any of my AP knows I love that game, but come on: do you really think I built the SorcererWiki that forms the core of Random Average out of love? That was necessity all the way. I needed to compile that stuff (four years of rules explanations) to really feel like I got that game well enough to do it justice. I'm a good GM who gets most things, and I felt I needed that help. If you are someone who can play Capes, I feel Capes would be in this category.

Games that require an internet connection and/or the author's email to really get running
Capes (for me). I've read everything I can on the game, gone through the basic rules and the (brilliant) flash walkthrough (twice, in that case) and I still don't think I could either GM or play it, and I'm smart enough that that shouldn't happen.

Final note: You won't find me using examples like Agon or Perfect or (reads back into the thread) Shock:, because I haven't played them or run them. The examples I used I've experienced directly and used as examples for that reason. I've studiously avoided (and will continue to do so) using any games where the feedback I have on their current finished state (or lack thereof) is third-hand.

Yes, the whole list is subjective. As I am not polling the entire indie playerbase, it could not be otherwise.

No, I'm not calling any of these games on the carpet. Someone asked what games people were mentioning, so I answered that on my own behalf, to remove any haze of miscommunication.

Posted By: Rob Donoghue

Posted By: Doyce
Not at all. The discussion is here at this time simply because because Ron said he'd post about it on the Forge, and he hasn't yet. This is the 'other' hub of indie creative goodness, and as such it also appeared here, originally in an off the cuff fashion that turned into it's own thread. It appeared here before the Forge simply because... well, because someone wrote something here before Ron did.

Man, speaking as a failure of the diaspora, this really kicked me right in the little bit of my brain that twitches every time there's a blithe assumption that the relationship between this place and the forge is the same for everyone. As much as this is a conversation I'm mostly avoiding, it's an interesting one, and the very idea that it's happening here solely because it hasn't been picked up yet in the forge really sticks in my craw as a sleight to everything I like about the place.

-Rob D.

I'm sorry if it comes off that way, Rob. I should make a specific thing clear: What I said was entirely my own perception of how the discussion came to be here, at this time, now (growing from a comment of Matt's on another thread), and isn't at the Forge yet. I have not TALKED to Ron and asked him. It's just that (as far as I know, at this moment) it's not there yet. My immediate assumption, a bit cynical and again not specially informed, was that while we just sort of all dogpiled in and started talking about it here, Ron was actually going to do some prep work and release a fully-formed essayish type post on the subject.

I guess I expected it to happen that way, honestly. That speaks simply to the 'personality' of both sites, in my mind, and isn't a bad thing. I'm sorry that (a) it's coming off as a bad thing to you and (b) that I'm not fully grokking why that is.

Thanks for being honest, Thor.

You say the Agon text is "problematic at best." I really appreciate this honesty, but this is so far from my perception of Agon (and the perception of my trusted peers, players, editors, and customers) that I'm at a loss. I am hugely proud of Agon. I'll hold it up to any published game in terms of clarity, completeness, and readiness to play right out of the box.

I know I sound like the defensive designer here, which sucks, but I'm willing to risk it. I'm a member of the community who is constantly striving to improve as a designer and writer, and I care a lot about the indie community standards of quality. I would not have published Agon if I thought it was half-baked.

I'm not saying it's perfect, of course. Sure, there are a couple of mechanics that, in hindsight, could be better tuned. And there are probably bits of writing that could be improved. But that is a far cry from "problematic at best,", IMO. Agon is a solid, playable, good game. I stand by it.

I guess I'm just trying to dial in how your judgment of the game is so different from mine. If I have such a huge blindspot for my own work (and everyone I trust as a reviewer and peer has it too) then I really want to get to the bottom of it.

There's lots to respond to, so bear with:

The Forge Brand
I'm going to stand with the folks saying the Forge Brand is dead. It's functionally useless, it does not describe anything about the products, it has zero quality control or barrier to entry. Now, to be fair, Forge Brand was never anything formal or intended; it sort of just happened, and it was useful and reliable for a few years and now it's not. I don't think we should expect anything more from an accident of game design history. We can, however, learn from it and try to intentionally build brands to do what Forge Brand used to do. This might mean your own personal brand; it may mean something like the Collective Endeavor brand; it may mean something informal like the Those Guys In Masachusetts brand. This is where we can take a cue from Luke, who used Forge Brand as a springboard for launching his own brand, complete with little three-quarter wheel on fire.

Half-Baked Games
This is a problem, yes. It is not, however, a new problem. As with many things indie, Sorcerer is a prime example. The forum threads explaining how to play the game that you already bought the book for are well-known. There are multiple supplements that continually refine what Sorcerer "is." Ron has repeatedly said he has no plans on compiling those volumes together or releasing a revised edition. Now, from what I understand Ron is following a slightly different publishing model akin to academic publishing, where each book is an artifact of his thinking on gaming at the time. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Ron!) That's all well and good, and has some pretty potent advantages for the gaming community as a whole, as it lays out the practice of roleplaying and the developing thought on it and encourages readers to participate in that development. But it also directly conflicts with this aesthetic of a game book that you can buy, read, and play without any other participation.

In this thread, Tony has espoused a similar publishing aesthetic: the old games are there as signposts and the new games will be better than the old games. Or on the other hand, there have always been unfinished games at the Forge. Shatterzone, for instance, or 1984 Prime. I believe the former is dead but the latter is being revised, which is awesome. But the point is: this is not new. We should not expect indie games to be miraculously exempt from Sturgeon's Law -- especially since indie games are defined by their lack of gatekeepers and their standards.

Which is not to say that there's nothing to be done, of course.

Playtesting, Ashcans, and Editors
There are in fact many things to be done, and none of them are a magic bullet. "We need more playtesting" is like saying "The world needs more good people." While there is such a thing as too much playtesting, it's really really hard to get there. To my mind, there are two sides to the playtesting need: quantity and quality. It is very hard to get both. From my own experience, FLFS had a lot of playtesting but I received little actionable feedback. (This was not, as I told myself on occasion, because I was just that awesome and didn't need revisions.) With my later games, playtests have point-by-point guides on what needs thorough playtesting and what I'd like to hear back about. SoL may have a freaking form to fill out. This is not because I know everything that needs to be addressed, but because multiple, specific questions provoke people to think and develop their own understanding of their experiences -- and it's that understanding that I need, not "X was neat, but Y was kind of boring." I also have an absolutely awesome weekly playtest circle, more on which later.

I am intrigued by the ashcan thing. I am avidly watching this experiment, and have high hopes that it will develop neat new strategies to address the playtesting issue. My biggest concern right now, though, is one of volume: we already have more games than playgroups. If every game being developed goes through this ashcan stage, it seems to me we will see the same glut in ashcans that we saw in the "finished" books at the last GenCon booth. So: I await the Ashcan Front's results.

Beyond playtesting and revising the game design, jehosaphat do some of these games need some significant editorial work. To clarify: not "you have a dangling participle" but "the order in which you present these topics does not aid comprehension" and "the structure of the book is counter-intuitive." There is this really big step between "functioning game design described in a word document" to "physical book to be sold as a product" that a lot of games gloss over. This is a completely different step than playtesting, and I've seen many many designers conflate the two. The obvious solution is to hire editors, but to be perfectly honest I don't see this happening in indie games. That directly conflicts with the low-overhead DIY ethic of this community. I do not know what can "fix" this issue.

Playtesting Network
Somebody mentioned setting up a playtesting network or conglomerate. I am incredibly lucky to participate in a weekly playtest circle in Los Angeles. We have four designers and two just-players-(so-far), and about ten projects between the lot of us. That means that, just on our own, we usually have something to play/test/beat with a stick every week. However, we can and have traded playtests with other designers outside of our circle. The arrangement is simple: we'll playtest yours if you playtest ours. While we have the significant advantage of living in a major urban center, it really was not very difficult setting our group up, and I totally believe that it can be replicated elsewhere. Enough of these groups trading playtests back and forth would be a pretty potent playtesting network.

I'll reign myself in, here, but I think the jist of my point is thus: there is not, has never been, and never will be quality control for indie games. There can be, however, quality control of individual games and individual brands, and my money is on creating that. Doing it "for the community" is not going to work as long as "the community" has an open door. That's just a pyramid scheme. Quality control is about sustainability, and the first step for sustainability is in limiting what needs to be maintained. Once you do that, quality control is easily within reach.

Posted By: Doyce
That was actually my particular horse to beat at ForgeCon, though I think both editors (bigger organizational issues) and copyediting (dangling whatevers) are valuable.

We have editors in the community: hell, there were two that do it for at least part of their job, out of a group of 25, at ForgeCon. Seems as though there's a way to get them into the development loop without breaking the DIY bank.

And don't forget people like Snyder rock at layout. Guys like Remi have awesome artist contacts. Keith, Storn, and Ed all do good art. But the problems revolve around 3 things IMO: Trust, Money, and Time. At least I think anyway.

Peace,

-Troy

Posted By: Brand_RobinsOkay then, who is going to step up and name names?

Speaking as a consumer who knows about design, but not one who would call himself a designer... here are some examples (these aren't supposed to be purely negative, they're just examples):


I love The Shadow of Yesterday. Two big reasons are that I did read the text online before buying it, and that I got the revised edition. I'm of the opinion that the first edition mechanics are rather, err, lackluster -- there's just something about them that doesn't really click for me; if I had bought the old edition without being able to read it online and know what I was getting first, I would have probably been rather disappointed in the final product. Fortunately for me, I only got it this year, so it's the swanky revised edition instead. (The best thing about Clinton's use of the Creative Commons is that it lets you see exactly what you're getting, and he's got a product that's good enough that seeing what you're getting doesn't actually hurt. I really think he could sell a few more copies if he made the CC text a little fancier and more accessible.)

Sorcerer, to me, is inaccessible. I think the book is put together very nicely, but, just reading it, I don't understand how it's supposed to be different from a game of, say, Mage (maybe the problem is that I've never read Mage in detail): like, okay, I get the thematic differences in the way magic is represented, but, looking at the book, I don't actually understand how Ron's mechanics are supposed to produce fundamentally different play. And then I read stuff on the Internet and the game makes a hell of a lot more sense, and is TEN TIMES COOLER, though I'm still left a little bit wanting, as there seem to be a few super-cool scene-framing things that everyone alludes to but that I can't find in the text.

The Riddle of Steel was the first non-mainstream game I played. As far as the story-game-ish side of it, the book really doesn't show you the full potential of the Spiritual Attribute mechanics (though putting in Ron's little page about how SAs work with sorcery did a lot of good). Also, the combat system is really cool, but I'm someone who hasn't done ARMA or SCA or any other kind of combat with European swords: the game does a good job of depicting Renaissance-ish sword-fighting, but I needed an expansion book (The Flower of Battle) to figure out what Renaissance-ish sword-fighting was supposed to be like in the first place (surprisingly, that book is like 50% pictures of weapons, but I really liked it because it helped me get a much better picture of how European armor and weaponry worked, which was something I could take away from the game even if I wasn't playing Riddle anymore). I really feel like the game's skill and magic systems could have use a whole lot more playtesting -- the way they were put together in the book really made it seem like they were just cobbled-together around a combat engine rather than developed to work with it specifically. There's a lot of stuff that better editing could've greatly improved, like grammar issues. I'm also convinced that more fresh eyes looking at the combat charts could've helped find a new format for them (there are several online that are far superior to the ones in the book), and that a dedicated third-party editor could've convinced Jake (the core book author) to change the tone, which I found horribly grating whenever the book turned to how it was different form "other games" (i.e. D&D).

I think Polaris is a great example of a game that really feels, err, finished. For the most part, it's a very polished text. I think Ben really lucked out on the art, too. My one complaint is the appendices: given the careful style being cultivated throughout, a few of the star names really should've been cut -- X-with-some-number doesn't fit in at all. This is a really, really minor bit, which is why I point it out in the first place. (Incidentally, the thing that would really elevate the text to pretty much perfection would be an appendix of some cool demon names to play around with, because I read "Lord Long Summer" and was just blown away by the coolness of that name, and I'm sure Ben has many more awesome names like that in him. And maybe another half-page on how to use the negotiation mechanics.)


Incidentally, I don't think indie games are really doing badly on this front. There are definitely mainstream products with similar editing issues. Many RPG supplements and splatbooks don't get any playtesting at all (whether true or not, this seems to be a common criticism of D&D and Exalted splats). And I can find good examples of serious issues in video games, too (Bloodlines, for example, has some real gold in it but also has some poor mechanics and is quite buggy; Knights of the Old Republic 2 is deeply unsatisfying because it was rushed, forcing the writers to end a good game in a really worthless way). And the lesson from the video game industry is definitely that games that absolutely rock right out of the box are better than games that have a lot of potential but need three patches before they are really stable and playable (though the other lesson is that no game can be perfect right out of the box, of course).

Well said, Clyde.

Hey Brennan,

To be clear. I love the game. I love it's potential, and I specifically chose it to address as it's a perfect example of something that would have benefited if the Ash Can Front existed last year. It's why it was getting discussed at Forge Midwest, that and probably because you weren't there. It appears that within the Indie community theres a fear to be honest, because people worry about burning bridges. I don't blame you. I understand the pressure you must have felt to get done by Gen Con. It's totally understandable. If you make a new version that expresses better how the resolution system works, I will buy it. I actually formally request you to do that very thing.