Quote from: JamesVI have to agree with Tony's point, that indie games, no matter how focused are not inherently opressive at the table for two reasons:

1) If you're buying such a narrow focused game, your've done some checking and you have a pretty good idea of what you're getting in return. You're spending your money because you're willing to give the game a shot. To follow Stuart's more astute analogy, you're not buying Scrabble so you can replicate the experience of playing Clue.

2) Even then it's just a book which is more than vulnerable to the house-ruling whims of the average owner. Since there's nothing that can stop you from buying Polaris and chucking it in the paper shredder, there's even less to stop you from taking the rules and setting from that game and trying to turn it into a more traditional RPG experience.

Yeah, I'm struggling with this whole thing too, it's artificial to take the decision to buy and play the indie game out of the equation.

So, if I decided to buy one of these games, and then presumably having read it decide to play it, I don't see why it's a problem that it's applications are fairly narrow.  Presumably I want those applications or I wouldn't be playing it.

I mean, it's not as if all the other rpgs are going out of print so we only have the indie stuff left, it's more choice, not less.

Oh, and now I really want a Balinese espresso maker, that just sounds cool.

Quote from: WarthurDude, if you remove the French, Latin and Greek from English you're left with German.

And good, honest Pictish!

QuoteSo, if I decided to buy one of these games, and then presumably having read it decide to play it, I don't see why it's a problem that it's applications are fairly narrow. Presumably I want those applications or I wouldn't be playing it.

I mean, it's not as if all the other rpgs are going out of print so we only have the indie stuff left, it's more choice, not less.

That's kinda where I started. "Hey, this is just more choices". That was my total attitude to it, way back when.

But more and more often I seem to come across many of these indie people yearning to actually see all other gaming fail or simply stop so that they can be more . I dunno.. prevalent? That's fairly hostile, especially when you understand that many of these guys simply don't game that often, or can only game online, or have aligned themselves with the indies out of a sense of resentment, failure, and self loathing. Nobody would willingly accept the gaming life of the indies if they had anything going on at all.

Indeed many of these jackasses don't actually create anything whatsoever-- they just occupy a niche of "very important fan" or "stealth marketer" or "Melinglor" or whatever.

So the ideal of "More choice, not less" would be great, and I doubt anyone- even the Pundit (and certainly not me) would ever have a problem with more choice. But the reality is-- it's a lie. They don't actually want people to have more choices at all. And that's why I'm so hostile to them. Amongst other reasons. (Thats a big one, though).

Because once people have a choice, they tend to pick the best thing, given all the variables of personal preference, situation,  and taste. In which case, the indies are rarely chosen.

Balbinus - I agree. Assuming you buy the game and did your homework, you presumably want the game despite or because of the focused nature of the game, therefore no problem. I am much more distressed by the auteur status thing in and of itself. I don't think that's a good trend.

-clash

Added: Dang it! I said I wouldn't post my position in this thread! AARRRGGGGHHHH!

Quote from: Abyssal MawNobody would willingly accept the gaming life of the indies if they had anything going on at all.

Well, I would.  So that's one person.

QuoteWell, I would. So that's one person.

You already are one. You basicly just said "If I could, I'd be just like TonyLB. By the way, my name is TonyLB!"

I mean like.. normal people.

Quote from: StuartIt might help if you consider the other way that films were made up to the point that French term was coined.  The Hollywood studio system (pre 1950s) in which films were put together in an assembly line type fashion.  They just cranked 'em out, and the Director really had very little input on how things were put together.  So an "Auteur" was a director who actually had some control over the overall film.  So unless d4-d4 was something you did at a "working for the weekend" job, you too are an auteur.

Stuart - I'm calling you on bad analogy (let's have a Bad Analogy Day so we can get them all out of our systems at once! Me included!).

Go back and think of movies pre 1950's - and tell me again why they were bad?  I mean, just from a few of my favorites - The Big Sleep, Casablanca, The Thin Man, And Then There Were None, Maltese Falcon, etc.

You seem to be asserting the opinion that games pre 2000 weren't of as good a quality as those done post 2000 because the designer wasn't seen as important (like director's, you seem to imply, weren't pre 1950). It's just not gonna fly...

(This is a derailment of the thread but yeah..)

Cecil B. DeMille... Howard Hughes... Erich Von Stroheim...

Heck, there were even more Auteurs back then.

Quote from: BalbinusYeah, I'm struggling with this whole thing too, it's artificial to take the decision to buy and play the indie game out of the equation.

So, if I decided to buy one of these games, and then presumably having read it decide to play it, I don't see why it's a problem that it's applications are fairly narrow.  Presumably I want those applications or I wouldn't be playing it.

I mean, it's not as if all the other rpgs are going out of print so we only have the indie stuff left, it's more choice, not less.

Oh, and now I really want a Balinese espresso maker, that just sounds cool.

I don't think that anyone is trying to say that if you like that kind of game (or research it and want to try it or whatever) that once purchased that part of the choice is unimportant.

But, let's say you purchase D&D and I buy DitV. Then what?

I think the point is that after that part of the choice has been rendered, what choices follow.  I think - and please someone correct me if I'm wrong - is that after purchase, the former provides more leeway in the direction of the game, whereas the latter is more focused.  And if I read the OP correctly, the hypothesis is that this can, in some way, be linked to the idea of Designer as Auteur - that because the game is so tightly focused, the influence of the designer on the game played is greater - and meant to be that way.

I think...

Quote from: WarthurThe indie designers have been trying to get the pendulum to swing back towards the players, but I suspect what they've actually done is aligned it towards the game designers instead.

As a phenomenon you may be right. As for anyone seeing issues beyond that, let me remind you that the designer ain't at the table. You can write whatever you want in the book, but it's the buyer's choice what to do with it. For all of the hammering Palladium does about distributing house rules or conversions, I still hear plenty of stories about folks who buy RIFTS, rip off the setting bits and run it with a completely different system. Some 'autuer'-made game about the high-stakes world of commodities trading isn't any different. It has no special "It is against Federal Law to play game in manner inconsistent with its back cover blurb" line.

Either way, if you're going out of your way to spend your hard-earned cash on some focused game that in many cases you can only hear about and purchase online, you either know what you're getting, or just don't care.

In other words, people who think this is actually a problem is being way too sensitive about it.

Quote from: Abyssal MawYou already are one. You basicly just said "If I could, I'd be just like TonyLB. By the way, my name is TonyLB!"

I mean like.. normal people.

So ... are you saying that nobody would ever choose to play indie games unless they are one of those wierdos who likes indie games?

I guess I can't argue with that logic.

Quote from: James J SkachI think...

You're right. Or at least, that's what I got from the OP too. Or maybe we're both wrong.

Just to add (even though I've said it before) I don't think designers who design games with limited choices are the only ones who can be considered auteurs. Any game designer no matter the game can be considered an auteur, IMO. This off course is not how the OP defined it.

Regards,
David R

I mean, I suppose you could look at it like a mathemtical relationship...

The amount of designer influence on the actual play is proportional to the focus and inversely proportional to the flexibility...

Or something like that.

And in strictly cold terms, that would make sense, wouldn't it?  I mean, the more the constraints in design, whether the designer is a "wanker" or not, the more likley the designer influences the actual play - no?

Quote from: TonyLBSo ... are you saying that nobody would ever choose to play indie games unless they are one of those wierdos who likes indie games?

I guess I can't argue with that logic.

Be careful, Maw just sentenced you to a gaming lifetime in the junk heap of history.

That auteur term is a really really bad idea to bring into a discussion on RPGs in the 21st century.

1) By 1968 latest, when it was clear that the opposite of commodified culture can't be snowflake subjectivism, its tackiness was obvious to all & sundry, and in the last quarter-century no one, French film maker or otherwise, has wanted to call himself that.

2) If you think about it, "auteur" smacks of WW storyteller empowerment. "Welcome to my game." Emphasis on "my." So that's very unwelcome.