DISQUS

Len · 1 year ago

You know, I am really looking forward to GAMING with these guys and gals!

Thanks Clyde, a real good show, despite the technical difficulties!

Daniel M Perez (The Gamer Trav · 1 year ago

This was an interesting episode, and honestly, I feel I'm still chewing on it. I'm trying to let it sink beyond the gut reaction I had while listening of "poor famous game designers" because I know it really wasn't about that.

Also, to the creators out there, and I mean this with all the love in the world: you don't get to decide if you have fans, but you do get to decide how you relate to them. Don't be an asshat. You can define how you relate to your fans and turn them into, at the very least, acquaintances, if not outright buddies or friends.

Something I'd like to see on the subject of half-baked games (cited as one of the reasons for the creation of the Ashcan Front): NAMES! Name the games, people. I know you run the risk of pissing someone off, but those of us who want to learn from the problem can't do so if we don't know what to look at.

Anyway, I'm gonna let this marinate a bit more and perhaps come back to it.

Ryan Macklin · 1 year ago

I still need to listen to this ep, but I'll throw out a pre-listening comment based on the post.

So what can we do to make folks who don’t have games or aren’t working on games feel like they have a part? Or is that on them for not finding another way to participate? What are other ways to participate? How do we draw attention to other ways to participate?

I found my part by starting one of the first (if not the first) RPG design podcasts. And there is still room in that arena, though it's slowly filling up. So, it is not impossible to find a new way to participate.

luke · 1 year ago

Daniel,
Your comments "to the creators out there" aren't helpful in this context. Clinton's very clear in the interview that he's struggling with this issue.

-L

clyde · 1 year ago

Hi Luke,

I'm not reading Daniel's post as a shot at Clinton. Am I right there Daniel?

So Daniel,

I think the reason people are leary to publicly call out specific games is that it's not like calling out a company with multiple employees. You're calling out mainly the work of one individual. Someone that you are likely going to be sitting down at a table with at some point in the future.

Think about how often you hear RPG podcasters calling out other RPG podcasters. I don't hear anyone in that community saying, "so and so has a crappy show," or even saying, "So and so's most recent show was crappy." Are there some crappy shows out there?

This is one of the reasons I was considering doing a review podcast for Indie games, but I just don't feel that particular fire right now.

clyde · 1 year ago

Hey Ryan,

I hear you. Let me ask a follow up. Is podcasting a way to participate, or something that someone is doing in addition to game design? I can't think offhand of someone who is podcasting but not game designing... wait that's not true, I can think of Storn. That's it though. At least off hand. I'm not saying it can't be a vehicle, just that the pattern doesn't seem to quite fit at this time.

I think one thing we can do is try to focus more on play, like Jason was saying, pointing out the good players. How many Carl Rignys are out there? I know Ogre Cave and 2d6 Feet in a Random Direction have talked him up enough that I know his name even though I've never met him.

I think another venue could be zines. What those would look like...? Another thought might be organization. We certainly couldn't be hurt by more folks who like to organize things like Nerd NYC.

Ryan Macklin · 1 year ago

Clyde,

Actually, Carl was another person I thought about, but didn't say. And Fred credits me with being a hell of a Don't Rest Your Head GM, so there's something there.

But to answer your question (and man, is your comment box small), podcasting is totally a way to participate. It doesn't have to be in addition to anything. Hell, that's two damned jobs -- I know, I work my ass off on my podcast and then try to find energy to make games. Just because the pattern isn't there doesn't mean it's not a vehicle -- the same way that people don't see being an awesome player as a vehicle. They see what's in front of them.

I had another thought I wanted to bring up about status. So, listening to this show, I had some "yeah, I know who they're talking about probably" when names were deliberately not mentioned, but here's what I was left with: "man, you want to talk about toxic status? how about the fact that you aren't free to mention names of things you think are bad/wrong/needs more work/are something negative/whatever?"

That, and the "not naming names" thing is ivory tower bullshit.

- Ryan

luke · 1 year ago

It's called tact. Slinging mud and calling people names in a public venue is counterproductive. We address that there is a problem in public and roll it around between us. In private, we have substantive discussions that involve names. This prevents personal bullshit from becoming poisonous and toxic.

Ryan Macklin · 1 year ago

Luke, I agree that tact can be employed. But that's what language is for -- you don't have to say "Fuck Macklin and his shitty game." You can say "One of the examples is Macklin's game 'Super Primo Facestab.' A lot of people had X complaint, and I agree with it. Now, Ryan's a good guy with a couple neat ideas here, but..."

So, yes, tact is necessary to keep shit from getting toxic. But so is being willing to be vocal. That is to say: refusing the name names promotes toxicity as much as shouting them with feral abandon.

Ryan Macklin · 1 year ago

I hate that I said it wrong at first. This is very much about public, because publicly people only get around to naming names when they become irate. When people name names publicly around here (and often elsewhere), it's because they don't have a release valve for their bile. So, yeah, it does no one any good to be bilious publicly, but that'll be what happens if people are unwilling to say anything publicly in normal conditions.

We all need to grow up and start treating each other like adults who are responsible for themselves. I include myself in that statement, which is why I am starting to name names publicly (wholly expecting mine to also be named). That isn't easy, but then if it was there wouldn't be any need to discuss it.

Comrade Andrew · 1 year ago

While listening to this, I couldn't help but think that there must be a distinction between "fans" and "customers" somewhere, and it depends on what you want to do with your game. Your guests sound as though they don't want customers, they just want to share the game and the price of doing that is the necessary involvement of money.

Also, there appears to be a distinction between "public acknowledgement" and "inclusion". As soon as there is an award ceremony for Best GM or Best Player, there'll be people clamouring for it. Rewards will often encourage behaviour, and having awards ceremonies and podcast interviews with people because they have designed a game will necessarily exclude people who have not. It's part of the price of acknowledging someone's good work in designing a great game.

All in all, I thought this was an interesting discussion on coming to terms with some consequences of designing a successful game.

Comrade Andrew · 1 year ago

I found something interesting at the P2P foundation that seems to relate. Here's the link
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/what-kind-of-busi...

The statement of interest is this:
What is the most fundamental reason that drives normal people contributing to the Web? And my answer: People contribute to the Web so that they can be recognized at present and be remembered ever after.

Kuma · 1 year ago

I liked the show overall, but the one point that really stuck in my craw was all of the folks present skirting around the, apparently earthshaking, changes at the Forge, referring to it instead as 'that'. Or 'That', I suppose.

They all expressed the idea that the community feels different, that it doesn't have a center anymore. Well, that would probably be because the the center was disintegrated, not by the collective will of a community, but by the decision of a handful (or maybe just one) person. Now the community has several centers: Story-Games, Knife Fight, and Levi's site, whose name eludes me at the moment.

Why is this being skirted so widely? Both this show and the show on Mutualism both dealt with issues in the community that stem *directly* from the changes at the Forge, but in both shows that decision receives no open recognition or discussion.

This episode was an awesome, very open, discussion. The mention of 'that' change in the community (and a lack of follow-up or delving into that issue by the panelists) was a sad moment for me.

Kuma · 1 year ago

I also have to agree with Ryan - in the podcast, the idea of happy-hippie 'everyone who participates (i.e. decides to design a game) should have their creation lauded is called 'bullshit', and creative criticism is agreed to be a good thing.

Yet I see less and less honest, open criticism in all corners of the community. The fear of appearing tactless is outweighing the need of any creative community to give people truly honest feedback. Try not to step on enough toes, and you wind up standing still.

Are people going to be upset if their game is pointed out as being less-than-stellar? Sure. Does that mean that the criticism isn't valid? No. Criticism isn't throwing bricks through people's windows - it's the medicine that designers need to become better designers.

Hell, I'd prefer people ripped apart my GC entry than just stayed silent because they didn't want to offend sensibilities.

Luke Sineath · 1 year ago

I know what you mean about hardcore. Once a band from California (Black Fork) played in my friend's bedroom, which was also our practice space. The drummer just used my drum set. There were about six of us there and we sat on the floor.

There's something really cool about setting up your own shows and seeing a band where there's no stage and you're just standing there next to them. You're all in it together and there isn't this weird divide between band and audience like in larger shows.

Oi Polloi was the biggest show I've been to. Big shows have a sort of community to them, too though. It's like joining something larger.

Daniel M. Perez · 1 year ago

Luke, Clyde is correct, my comment "the creators out there" was not a shot at Clinton or really at anyone. I understand that Clinton, as he mentions during the show, is struggling with the issue. I just feel that it is perhaps worrying too much about things that are beyond your control. You can control the game you make and producde and publish, but once it's out there, that's it for you. At that point all you can do is control your reaction to what the game elicits.

I guess it could also be that I look at it from a different angle. I have made a concerted effort to make myself known in the industry, and every action I have taken with Highmoon Media and the podcasts has been with that goal in mind. It isn't about ego, but about the potential continued work having that level of recognition can bring.

I do agree wholeheartedly that the class structure between gamer and game designer is crap and something that should be done away with, and to be honest, most game designers I know feel the same way.