What is "The Forge?"

[mythusmage]

You either have no fun, have fun at the expense of someone else, or have fun in a way that destroys the ability of your group to maintain fun gaming.

That covers most people, but nobody will admit it.

Could you expand on this? Why are people having no fun? What is it that drives people to have fun in a destructive manner? In your estimation.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the perception one engages in a game because one needs to. That not participating would, in some manner, disappoint others. That gaming is something you do because somebody else says you have to and not something you do because you want to.

Yes, there is something we agree on. I'd like to know your reasoning regarding this subject.

 

[Jim Hague]

The Forge is saying, "Come play."

What's the harm in that?

I don't understand the grief.

The problem lies not in 'come play', when it comes to the Forge. It lies in the Forgeites saying 'Come play...our way.'

I've read through the articles posted there, posted a few times myself, though the responses weren't precisely helpful, and the assertion that you need to immerse yourself in the community or be considered a wannabe is downright destructive. Some of it I found useful as GM, player and designer/writer/freelancer...some of it was, again, downright destructive - I cite as an example the assertion by the Dogs in the Vineyard author that there's nothing wrong with letting players kibbitz, disrupt the flow of the game, read books and generally lose focus. Bull, says I. When I have to stop the game, backtrack and explain to someone who's sitting there shooting the breeze and not paying attention, then that's destructive to the game. It's not fun. Which, ironically, runs counter to the Forge's stated goals.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Um, perhaps because quality of product doesn't mean diddly if you dont' have major marketing and distribution so that people hear about it and can get their grubby paws on it? Making a good product and reaching an audience with that product are two thoroughly separate activities.

What's the point in creating "the most superior, influential RPG in history" if you aren't attempting to distribute it? It's like people that claim to be great writers who never submit their work, or people that talk about what they could have done if they'd played college ball...it's worthless posturing. There have been plenty of games in the past that succeeded without a huge marketing push or distribution. Magic comes to mind. That M:TG was innovative and groundbreaking cannot be denied, and also that it served the gaming market with something it wanted. The same cannot be said for the Forge, which is why its grandiose claims are so ludicrous. The Forge has had zero impact on the roleplaying game industry.

You can fall back on "but it's distribution!" or "I can't market my game!", but they aren't convincing arguments. The market will find a way to your game if it's truly something the market needs, but I have to tell you that a new Take 10 mechanic and The Big Theory aren't going to revolutionize the hobby any more than the Action Die did. It's an eggheaded approach to a complex problem that fails to see the forest for the trees.

They love roleplaying? Great! They love spending their time dickering about obfuscated theories that are completely unsupported? Fine! I spend my time in much worse ways (boy is *that* a meta statement!). But until they prove they know diddly about the gaming market or game design vis-a-vis the future of roleplaying, they're just an internet community with a way overblown sense of its own importance.

In short, lack of distribution, marketing, and commercial success is an indicator of an inferior product (in relation to the market). We can game with inferior products, we've been doing it all along, but for the creators of such to deride successful games *with no basis in reality* is sad. They need to prove that their theories are sound via commercial success and a transformation of the roleplaying market. I hope they're interested in doing so.

 

[mythusmage]

So good gaming is having fun without impinging on the fun of the group or the game, but this always ongoing negotiation on the part of the players never has the force of a contract, not even in the categorical form you have given it here?

If I understand where you're going with this (and really I'm taking my cue more from the interest in poststructuralism you claimed earlier than from anything immediately visible in the text above), you want basically to do away with any totalizing concept of the game in favor of conversations about this game, someone's game, some group's game. From a design perspective I can see how that would take you to some interesting places, and it certainly forbids, as you said, a designer auteurism.

I don't know that I believe gaming has to be about fun, anymore than I believe art has to be about beauty, but the rest of what you're saying is interesting. The emphasis on fun, while no doubt necessary commercially, seems to conflict with it though. Then again, internal conflicts can be very productive as well.

Try this; a game needs to be engaging. It needs to get and keep the players' attention and interest. Any game that fails to do that is going to fail overall.

But the first person the game must engage is the GM. If he is not engaged, if he remains uninvolved, the game will not engage the players. How well a game engages its players owes a lot to how the GM presents it. If the game doesn't interest him his presentation of the game will end up boring his players.

But a gimmick, a gag, a schtick will only go so far. Once the gag has been used up the game will lose its appeal. For long term play a game needs a good background. It needs depth. Interesting settings, interesting situations, interesting people. And the game needs to model the setting in a manner that is comfortable to use. Hard to use mechanics will destroy the ambience.

So a setting that intriques the players and mechanics that don't interfere with a setting's ambience (at the very least) will help to get participants engaged.

But even the most interesting game can do nothing when dealing with people who refuse to be engaged.

 

[WayneLigon]

You either have no fun, have fun at the expense of someone else, or have fun in a way that destroys the ability of your group to maintain fun gaming.
That covers most people, but nobody will admit it.

That really makes absolutely no sense what so ever. When you start overanalysing things to the point some of the Forge people apparently have, you lose sight of what you were after and you start to think others have as well. Gamers - most of them - still have more than adequate amounts of fun and they don't do any of thoese things.

 

[mcrow]

Justin Achilli?

Why would WW have done anything about it? He was the best thing they ever put online

No punches pulled, no bland "Corporate Speak", no time for whiners.

White Wolf would've been doing a grave disservice if they'd tried to rein him in in defetrence to some imagined level of "professionalism"



I'm tired of "professionalism". It usually comes across as barely-disguised ass-kissing, born of a fear that they might lose a sale. If the product can stand on it's own merits, I'm not really interested in hearing Company Reps treating every idiotic utterance as if it had legitmate merit.



I can't understand how this is an example of anything I would find interesting or compelling. Company reps either agreeeing with, validating, or stroking people who don;t like their game...or just shutting up?

It sounds suspiciously like Mr. Achilli took umbrage with some negative comment you had made at the expense of one of their games, and lit you up over it. Probably you got dogpiled by his fanboys.

Am I close? Or do you just plain have a love of very, very neutral, non-colorful commentary from Company Reps?

I can't think of anyone I know who would like to see more 9or expect more) "professionalism" on internet forums. Particularly if they had been insulted first.



Bleh :\

They do business like gangbusters, and they view their fans in a manner that seems to generate more every year.

Hey, I respect your position. Wil wanted me to explain my position so I did. I have never personally been insulted by Justin or anyone else @ WW, but I have seen the way he acts. The way companies act when the critics come out can either make me more intersted in their games or push me away. In WW's case it pushed me away. I'm not saying they have to agree with the critics, hell no, just do it in a respectful way.

anyway it just looks like we have differing opinions on the subject , no biggie.

 

[mythusmage]

That really makes absolutely no sense what so ever. When you start overanalysing things to the point some of the Forge people apparently have, you lose sight of what you were after and you start to think others have as well. Gamers - most of them - still have more than adequate amounts of fun and they don't do any of thoese things.

We call this, generalizing from the specific. The practice of taking what one person has experienced and saying it exemplifies the subject as a whole.

Individual experience applies only to that individual. It is only when others relate similar experiences can a tendency emerge.

 

[mythusmage]

Hey, I respect your position. Wil wanted me to explain my position so I did. I have never personally been insulted by Justin or anyone else @ WW, but I have seen the way he acts. The way companies act when the critics come out can either make me more intersted in their games or push me away. In WW's case it pushed me away. I'm not saying they have to agree with the critics, hell no, just do it in a respectful way.

anyway it just looks like we have differing opinions on the subject , no biggie.

I've read some of Justin's critics. There is a right way to critique somebody's work, and there is a wrong way to critique somebody's work. Saying that a passage doesn't work and explaining why is one thing. Saying a writer can't write because he's a doody head is another. When critiquing a body of work or a specific work you refrain from ad hominen attacks. A fundamental fact of the critic's art I've seen too many people ignore.

Justin gets attacked, Justin responds. I understand why Justin responds as he does, because I would not tolerate the sort of attacks he gets. Say what you like about what I say, but personal attacks will result in a very angry Mythusmage.

When judging a person's actions consider his motivations.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

In short, lack of distribution, marketing, and commercial success is an indicator of an inferior product (in relation to the market).

This statement just kind of jumped out at me. Ever heard of Betamax? Apple? The list goes on and on. An inferior product with superior marketing will almost always beat the reverse.

 

[Jim Hague]

This statement just kind of jumped out at me. Ever heard of Betamax? Apple? The list goes on and on. An inferior product with superior marketing will almost always beat the reverse.

Which is why Apple computers and Betamax decks comprise a teeny, tiny percentage of the market and are generally restricted to loyal hobbyists and a few specialists...? Your statement doesn't bear the weight of the evidence, sorry. Are you saying PCs are inferior? That's a value judgement, not evidence.