TheRPGSite

Hello folks,

I was talking to a friend of mine about indie RPGs the other day. (Both of us were quite keen on them for a while, but have recently lost a lot of patience with them.) He made an interesting point I thought I'd share here.

What he said was that indie RPGs tend to buy into the idea of game designer as auteur. This isn't a new idea - look at the high regard the likes of Gygax and Jackson are held in - but it reaches its peak with the indie RPG movement, where pretty much every game is written by a single individual, free of all editorial oversight.

This has interesting effects - for example, indie RPGs tend to limit the GMs' power, but they don't really do it in a way which dramatically increase the players' power. In most indie RPGs - aside from stuff like Polaris, where it's debatable that they're even RPGs since the "PCs" and "NPCs" are a shared commodity - the GM's powers are constrained by the rulebook, but the players are equally constrained (if not more so), and the GM still has far more leeway in terms of inventing NPCs and situations and so forth.

There is, in fact, a certain kind of indie RPG - Dogs In the Vineyard, My Life With Master, and the Mountain Witch are good examples - where the individual with the greatest freedom is, in fact, the game designer. If you play them by the book, you *have* to run a game about solving problems in pseudoMormon communities or serving a mad scientist, and you *have* to buy into the game designer's ideas about how that sort of situation goes. Compare with D&D, or Traveller, or heck, even Vampire, where you can play a 100% by-the-book game and still come up with stories and games and puzzles and adventures which the game designers *never even imagined were possible*. I've got to the point where I view the DitV school of indie games to be not so much complete RPGs so much as reusable modules with a system attached.

Now, we can all cite games where the power is in the hands of the GM. Vampire and similar games take this to an extreme - these are games designed to assume that the GM is a brilliant auteur with a wonderful story to tell, and that the players need to be heavily constrained so that they don't derail the story, and give the GM the tools he needs to do that. (I played in an improvised Vampire: the Masquerade pick-up game on Saturday - it was loads of fun, because we junked storytelling and ran around shooting people,  but we did notice that character generation is designed to ensure that PCs will be as mediocre as possible.) The 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.

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.

I ... don't get what you're saying.  The game designer isn't playing.  How can he have more or less freedom at the table?  He's not even at the table.  He's (presumably) off somewhere enjoying the swanky lifestyle that comes with RPG publishing success ("But we'd still eat Kraft Mac and Cheese, right?"  "Yeah, but we'd buy really fancy ketchup ... DIJON ketchup!")

Quote from: TonyLBI ... don't get what you're saying.  The game designer isn't playing.  How can he have more or less freedom at the table?  He's not even at the table.  He's (presumably) off somewhere enjoying the swanky lifestyle that comes with RPG publishing success ("But we'd still eat Kraft Mac and Cheese, right?"  "Yeah, but we'd buy really fancy ketchup ... DIJON ketchup!")

what he is saying is that as a result of the effort to make the players have more power, designers have forced their way of playing on  the GM and players alike. In the end you endup with a gaming session as envisioned by the desinger not your gaming group.

Ahhhhh ... okay.  Sort of strange rhetoric for it.  I don't get that it's forced, unless you're actually sending thugs to rough people up if they don't play your game.  

I do think that some indie games are more focussed on getting everyone to play one particular type of game than on providing a toolkit that people can use to construct any type of game they want.  If we had two big guys named Bruno and Macky forcing people to play (for instance) MLwM then yeah, I'd say that's taking away power from everyone involved.  I just don't get how that still applies when people have chosen the game deliberately as the one they want to play.

I'm sure everyone here knows my feelings on this. I won't bother reiterating them.

-clash

Quote from: TonyLBAhhhhh ... okay.  Sort of strange rhetoric for it.  I don't get that it's forced, unless you're actually sending thugs to rough people up if they don't play your game.  

I do think that some indie games are more focussed on getting everyone to play one particular type of game than on providing a toolkit that people can use to construct any type of game they want.  If we had two big guys named Bruno and Macky forcing people to play (for instance) MLwM then yeah, I'd say that's taking away power from everyone involved.  I just don't get how that still applies when people have chosen the game deliberately as the one they want to play.

well, "forced" part is that if you don't play exactly the sort of game the designer had in mind, the game won't work.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong because I do like some indie games but I can see his point.

Which is why they aren't as popular as games that can be played in the GM/players individual fashions.

Tony,

I think Clash stated pretty damn clearly what he meant when he said they are more akin to Modules with attached Systems then complete Games.

Sure, you can change and adapt a module until it doesn't represent what you originally bought, but at some point you have to ask why you bothered to buy the damn thing in the first place if that's the case.  Sure, no one sends around Guido and Nunzio to break a few legs if you do, but its still pretty heavy handed 'forcing' people to play the game the Designer wants... at least compared to more traditional games.

I guess I just see it differently in a context where there are many such games available.

If I buy a hamburger, I'm not being forced to eat savory ground beef.  Yes, once I've bought that hamburger and started eating it I'm in for a certain experience.  But I chose the burger.  I coulda chosen an all-you-can-eat buffet if I wanted to have more choices after my initial choice of meal.

Is this analogy going anywhere, or does it only make sense in my head? :sweatdrop:

Tony,

The word "force" didn't pop up in my article, so let's steer away from there.

As far as "making the people at the table play the game they envisage", obviously indie game designers can't do this any more than mainstream designers can. What they can do is design a game such that if you want to play a game which isn't about (in the case of My Life With Master) being the minion of a horrible overlord, you have to seriously re-engineer the rules if you're going to get anywhere. If you play Dogs In the Vineyard completely by the book, you pretty much have to run a game about wandering from town to town solving problems. Conversely, I can take my beloved D&D Rules Cyclopedia and run a 100% by the book game which doesn't involve a single dungeon crawl.

Now, if you want to play a game about being a minion of a horrible overlord one week, then My Life With Master is your man. But that's an awfully specific sort of thing to want to play. More likely, when games night swings around your preferences are going to be somewhat more vague. "I want to play a game with lots of fighting and stunts" or "I'm in the mood for something slow and political" or "I'd like to play an investigative game where we hunt clues and solve mysteries". Broader, non-indie games tend to satisfy those sort of niches. Indie games seem to be aimed at a very, very particular experience. As such, while it's great if you have a table full of people willing to play MLwM, it's always going to be easier to find people to play a broader game.

Quote from: WarthurWhat they can do is design a game such that if you want to play a game which isn't about (in the case of My Life With Master) being the minion of a horrible overlord, you have to seriously re-engineer the rules if you're going to get anywhere.

Very true.

Quote from: WarthurBroader, non-indie games tend to satisfy those sort of niches. Indie games seem to be aimed at a very, very particular experience.

Some indie games, yes.  Also very true.

I still don't get what this has to do with the game designer having more power or freedom than the players.

Quote from: TonyLBI guess I just see it differently in a context where there are many such games available.

If I buy a hamburger, I'm not being forced to eat savory ground beef.  Yes, once I've bought that hamburger and started eating it I'm in for a certain experience.  But I chose the burger.  I coulda chosen an all-you-can-eat buffet if I wanted to have more choices after my initial choice of meal.

Is this analogy going anywhere, or does it only make sense in my head? :sweatdrop:

Your analogy is wrong. Bonus points for the smiley, though. ;)

Try this:

Say you buy a coffee machine. This machine lets you make all kinds of coffee: espresso, cappuccino, latte, whatever you fancy. Hell, you can even make coffee recipes that the manufacturer didn't think of!

Now, suppose there's another coffee machine. This one lets you make coffee too, but only if you use a specific brand (Illy) and make a very specific recipe (say, espresso with Balinese cinnamon).

Sure, both machines make coffee (*) and sure, the second one might make the greatest espresso with Balinese cinnamon ever, but what if I want a good ol' cappuccino? Hell, what if I want to add some cream to my espresso with Balinese cinnamon? Not only you cannot do that with the second machine, but its User's Manual says only a fool would do that. To all purposes, I'm drinking the coffee that the manufacturer wants me to drink, not the one I want.

That'd be a better analogy.

(*) For the purpose of this analogy, I'm going to sidestep the question of whether some indie games are RPGs at all or not. :hehe:

Quote from: JongWKTo all purposes, I'm drinking the coffee that the manufacturer wants me to drink, not the one I want.

Okay.  But you bought the Balinese espresso machine, right?  In fact, you probably bought it and some other coffee-makers, and chose to pull the specialized one out of the closet today.  If you just want coffee then why are you pulling out the Sharper Image catalog gizmo? ;)

Quote from: TonyLBOkay.  But you bought the Balinese espresso machine, right?  In fact, you probably bought it and some other coffee-makers, and chose to pull the specialized one out of the closet today.  If you just want coffee then why are you pulling out the Sharper Image catalog gizmo? ;)

See, there's the problem: why on Earth would I want to buy a Balinese espresso machine?

Quote from: JongWKSee, there's the problem: why on Earth would I want to buy a Balinese espresso machine?

Hey, if you don't want to then that's cool.  But that's a different thing entirely from saying that the designers of Balinese espresso machines are hoarding the power and freedom that should be in the hands of the coffee brewer.  Agreed?

From a practical standpoint ,IMO the GM should be the only one considered an auteur. No two games of DiTV for example, are the same. Even though there may be a very rigid structure, it all boils down to interpretation.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBHey, if you don't want to then that's cool.  But that's a different thing entirely from saying that the designers of Balinese espresso machines are hoarding the power and freedom that should be in the hands of the coffee brewer.  Agreed?

You're twisting the analogy so hard that I can almost hear it begging for a lawyer. ;)

Quote from: TonyLBSome indie games, yes.  Also very true.

I still don't get what this has to do with the game designer having more power or freedom than the players.

Because the game designer has decided the scenario which will be played through with his or her game, in the case of DitV/MLwM-style games, *and* in many cases how that scenario will pan out.

Note that I am not talking about choice of game here. You can always choose not to play a game. But if you choose to play one of those games, you have to accept that the game designer has already made a bunch of very important decisions - perhaps even the most important decisions - about what is going to happen. Within the context of a specific game, the game designer's own ideas are exerting more influence over what happens than those of the GM or the players.

Quote from: TonyLBHey, if you don't want to then that's cool.  But that's a different thing entirely from saying that the designers of Balinese espresso machines are hoarding the power and freedom that should be in the hands of the coffee brewer.  Agreed?

The analogy works better if you can only use one coffee machine at a time. If you want to switch them over, you have to pack them up (toss away all the old character sheets and crap) and then carefully calibrate the new machine (go over character gen and stuff all over again) - it's a real hassle. You know damn well - because you've used it a couple of times previously - that if you use the Balinese espresso machine you're only going to get Balinese espresso - and only Balinese espresso which fits the designers' ideas as to what Balinese espresso should taste like.

So, the Balinese espresso machine is going to gather dust and only going to come out occasionally. But WHILE THE MACHINE IS BEING USED the power's with the designers. They've chosen exactly what you're going to drink tonight!

Bottom line: my original point ONLY refers to the context of a game WHILE IT IS BEING PLAYED. Choice of game is IRRELEVANT.

Quote from: David RFrom a practical standpoint ,IMO the GM should be the only one considered an auteur.

Except the indie RPG movement seems to revolve around designer-as-personality. The very definition of an "indie" game - creator-owned and written - seems to preclude collaboration, compromise, editorial input.

QuoteNo two games of DiTV for example, are the same. Even though there may bea very rigid structure, it all boils down to interpretation.

No two grapes are the same, but there's still more similarities between a grape and a grape and a grape and a carrot.

Indie games are a bit more like boardgames.  Nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: StuartIndie games are a bit more like boardgames.  Nothing wrong with that.

Way better analogy Stu. I don't know why we were drinking coffee anyhow. :)

Quote from: WarthurBottom line: my original point ONLY refers to the context of a game WHILE IT IS BEING PLAYED. Choice of game is IRRELEVANT.

Well that's just silly.  That's like saying "butchers steal people's freedom" because you point out (rightly!) that it wouldn't be good to force-feed meat to vegetarians.

Focussed games appeal to the people who want what they're offering.  That choice ... that "wanting what they're offering" ... I don't see how you can talk about this subject without referring to it.

OK...I just want to get a gauge on where the discussion stands.

Are you agreeing, Tony, that these games - we'll call them "Indie" and taking that to mean owner controlled AND tiightly focused - do allow the designer to assert more control (in as much as someone not sitting at the table playing can assert control) once the decision has been made to choose to play one?

Risk asserts more control over the gameplay than most wargames -- especially more free form wargames with a game master, like the Army uses. And yet, you don't see people bemoaning this as a problem with boardgames.  It's just the way it is.

James:  Uh ... I'm honestly not sure.  That's not a way I would even think to phrase it.

I mean ... I don't think that there is any way that the designer exerts control, except that people can voluntarily choose to play the game that designer wrote.

I certainly agree that games like MLwM and DitV offer a much narrower range of possible stories than D&D or (at the extremes) GURPS.

D&D might well be the right choice for you if you want to play occult investigators, or scheming courtiers, or dungeon-delvers, or pirates, or other-worldly plane-walkers.

DitV is pretty much only the right choice for you if you want to play morally charged outsiders who pass judgments on the troubles of a closely-knit community.

I can totally see that that's a more tightly defined field of fun.  I just don't see how Vincent is "asserting control" over people who have said "Oh cool, let's play that specific type of game."

I 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.

See, for me, I'd rather people who buy my games take em and do what they want with them in terms of playing.

If you really want to use Hearts & Souls for high fantasy game: Why should I the designer care? (For the record one of the original playtesters did just that.)

Have fun, rock the game your own way.

Quote from: WarthurExcept the indie RPG movement seems to revolve around designer-as-personality. The very definition of an "indie" game - creator-owned and written - seems to preclude collaboration, compromise, editorial input.

:shrug: You are probably right. I did say "practical standpoint" , but that's just my bias showing because as far as RPGs are concerned, what interest me, is what happens around the gaming table.

I do think that not all indie games have the rigid structure of DiTV & MlwM. In Harms Way for instance does not fall into the same design style as the two games previously mentioned, but could still be considered an indie game. And I do think that Clash, IHW's designer could be considered an auteur, by auteur I mean someone who presents a unique style & vision, and whose games (and indeed many other indie games) do not necessarily have a rigid structure.

QuoteNo two grapes are the same, but there's still more similarities between a grape and a grape and a grape and a carrot.

I've always had problems with RPG analogies. The above is the reason why. Sure two games of DiTV have certain similarities, but if one actually played in two different DitV games, or any game for that matter, one would probably not even notice the similarites, but rather the difference. That's the beauty of RPGs.

Regards,
David R

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.

1） I completely agree with your posts.  Insightful.
2) Flyingmice, as usual, gets it right (many indie-alternative games are more like modules with system-attached)
3) Your point about traditional games assuming the GM is an auteur v. desiger-as-auteur is especially well-stated

I'm less interested with the digression into force that took several posts -- given the clarity of your post, I wonder why that was necessary.

There's a question floating around in my head about game-system as art... I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it, but it's something like this:

I think GMing and roleplaying a character is a kind of performance art. I don't mean fine art or high art of any kind; I mean that it's entertaining for the people around and can be fulfilling to the folks performing.

GMing, especially, is (I think) a kind of oral storytelling, which I think can qualify as honest-to-goodness art.

I'll note that Wikipedia backs me up -- I believe it lists roleplaying as a performance art.

Game design is trickier; clearly some designers see their games as art (both the physical product and the concept). I think that's probably valid, but I suspect that it creates a conflict of interest --

A traditional game is a text-book or cookbook that the players use to create their own art. The focus is on empowering the players (GM-inclusive). The system and physical product is often utilitarian.

An art-game is meant to be, itself, a work of art. It's less important that it be played; the act of creation / publishing is key.

Virtually all games fall on a spectrum (even the most text-book like games -- I'm thinking Star Fleet Battles) are probably viewed with a pride-of-owneship by their creators similar to what an artist or author would feel for his work... and clearly the most self-focused indie game designer would hope his creation would actually be played...

But if the focus -- at the end of the day -- is on the game and not the play that might explain your loss of patience... and it raises a question: if a game designer sees *himself* as an auteur, does that limit his ability to produce a work that is superior in actual play?

Fascinating stuff.
-E.

Hi David:

This is the first time anyone ever called me an auteur! I'm not, y'know - I'm just a GM who loves tinkering.

-E:

If there is any art in roleplaying, it's in the playing, not the game design or the physical product. The game designer is just the guy who supplies the tools to the artists - the GM and players.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHi David:

This is the first time anyone ever called me an auteur! I'm not, y'know - I'm just a GM who loves tinkering.

I hope I don't come of sounding like too much of a fanboy, but I think, if we are going to be throwing around terms like auteur, you should be considered one.

You mentioned that a game designer just provides the tools. Very true. Some designers provide tools for the construction of very specific types of games, whilst others provide tools that allow for more individualistic games. Both I think should be considered autuers if they contribute something interesting - I know, highly subjective - to the whole RPG scene.

But I may have lost the plot. I'm the guy who does not think that rpgs should be ghettoized into different categories or that there is a difference between professional game designers who make money from their games, and the amatuer who is doing out of love for the game .

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RBut I may have lost the plot. I'm the guy who does not think that rpgs should be ghettoized into different categories or that there is a difference between professional game designers who make money from their games, and the amatuer who is doing out of love for the game .

You're not the only one. :D

I do think that "Auteur" is a dangerous concept for a game designer. A game designer should be thinking about serving up fun for people, not making art.

-clash

Quote from: JongWKSee, there's the problem: why on Earth would I want to buy a Balinese espresso machine?

Because the multi-level marketers pitching them keep telling you how wonderful they are and how you can save mankind by selling your own custom espresso machines, too?

Quote from: flyingmiceYou're not the only one. :D

I do think that "Auteur" is a dangerous concept for a game designer. A game designer should be thinking about serving up fun for people, not making art.

I decided to look this silly French word up. We get so much confusion from using French, Latin and Greek when we should be using good English.

The term auteur (French for author) is used to describe film directors who are considered to be artists with their own unique vision. The style of an auteur is recognisable in his/her films regardless of their genre and subject matter. However, this style does not need to be purely visual—any unique point-of-view or obsession could be considered the mark of an auteur. It is more a stamp of the director's personality that marks a body of work as that of an auteur.

So in other words, an "auteur" is a wanker. He's a bloke (let's face it, people like this are almost exclusively male) who wants to control everything, and thinks he's really unique and special in what he creates.

God forbid that game designers should think they entirely control what you do with their game, or that they are unique and special. A "game" is not the book - a "game" is what happens when some people sit down to use the book in play. Until then, it's just a book. The game designer may design a game, but it's the players who create the game.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo in other words, an "auteur" is a wanker.

This is why I followed you over to this loony bin.  That delightful way you take big sounding concepts and reduce them to "wanker."  Bless you JB.

Although if an auteur is a wanker, then certainly quite a few game designers (and GMs and players too!) are auteurs.  


I think of RPGs as a framework.  An architect can certainly design a brilliant framework, the kind of thing you ooh and ahh at and dream of all the neat houses you could build onto it.  

The foreman who builds the house is the GM.  He does a lot of the real work, and decides what the house actually looks like.

Players are homeowners and interior decorators.  The people who gives a house life and cool shit inside and paint the walls red with the blood of their enemies.

Or something like that, but I think that game designers can make a very strong push towards an artistic method, like giving an artist really shiney paints and an awesome brush, but it's takes a good GM with good players to step up and make it into an artform.

Quote from: CodexArcanumThis is why I followed you over to this loony bin.  That delightful way you take big sounding concepts and reduce them to "wanker."  Bless you JB.

Cheers, mate!

*holds up stubbie of VB in salute*

Saking somewhat seriously, a "wank" is an act where you give yourself a lot of pleasure, feel really awesome about yourself at the time, but don't produce anything but a sticky mess. So a "wanker" is a person who tend to do lots of pleasuring themselves, feels really awesome about themselves, without producing anything worthwhile. Certainly many fancy film directors do produce good things, but if the self-pleasure:productivity ratio is high enough, we can still call them "wanker", because what they've produced is so insignificant compared to how much they pleasured themselves, and how highly they think of themselves.

Quote from: CodexArcanumAlthough if an auteur is a wanker, then certainly quite a few game designers (and GMs and players too!) are auteurs.  

Fucking oath, mate. And of course, we are all wankers at least some of the time.

I dunno about rpgs as houses. Mostly I think they're just inspiration for what happens at the game table. Often, you read the rpg after a game session or two using it, and find yourself thinking, "mate, this reads nothing like what we just had." Basically it's just that we have a social creative hobby. The rules are just guidelines so that the creativity has some reasonable and sane boundaries, is somewhat guided and channeled, so that not every rpg session is Rifts. It's like writing - lots of people have good and interesting ideas, but they chop and change from one idea to another, so never actually produce anything - the successful writers are the ones who stick to one or two ideas long enough to finish an article or story. Roleplaying game rules are like the guy who talks to you while you're getting the ideas and says, "that's good - now go write it up, mate. No, forget those other ideas - stick to that one!"

Quote from: JimBobOz
The term auteur (French for author) is used to describe film directors who are considered to be artists with their own unique vision. The style of an auteur is recognisable in his/her films regardless of their genre and subject matter. However, this style does not need to be purely visual—any unique point-of-view or obsession could be considered the mark of an auteur. It is more a stamp of the director's personality that marks a body of work as that of an auteur.

So in other words, an "auteur" is a wanker. He's a bloke (let's face it, people like this are almost exclusively male) who wants to control everything, and thinks he's really unique and special in what he creates.

God forbid that game designers should think they entirely control what you do with their game, or that they are unique and special. A "game" is not the book - a "game" is what happens when some people sit down to use the book in play. Until then, it's just a book. The game designer may design a game, but it's the players who create the game.

Believe me, I fear more, way more, auteur/wanker GMs than auteur/wanker game designers. At least auteur/wanker game designers don't play with you (although they can do a lot of damage with bad advice).

Oh, bad GMs are fearsome beasts, of that there can be no doubt.

There comes a time in every gamer's life when they must rise up, and remove an unfit GM by bloody force - or perhaps by tempting them away with cheetos, whatever works - and replace them with a better one.

Quote from: JimBobOzHe's a bloke (let's face it, people like this are almost exclusively male*) who wants to control everything, and thinks he's really unique and special in what he creates.

You just described my GMing style. I put forward the whole GM as auteur  earlier on in this thread. I don't think auteur translates to wanker, but I'll allow your Cheeto indulgence. Guess we are not meant to game together :D

*Katherine Bigelow
 Jane Campion
 Mira Nair
 Using your definition of auteur, women can be wankers to. But of course      your definition of auteur is wrong...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI've always had problems with RPG analogies. The above is the reason why. Sure two games of DiTV have certain similarities, but if one actually played in two different DitV games, or any game for that matter, one would probably not even notice the similarites, but rather the difference. That's the beauty of RPGs.

You're assuming I haven't played DitV. I've played with several different GMs, in several different groups, and noticed a whole pile of similarities. Heck, our Care Bears In the Vineyard game resembled an average Dogs session more than it did the Care Bears cartoon.

But hey, thanks for assuming I was talking from ignorance.

Quote from: -E.1） I completely agree with your posts.  Insightful.
2) Flyingmice, as usual, gets it right (many indie-alternative games are more like modules with system-attached)
3) Your point about traditional games assuming the GM is an auteur v. desiger-as-auteur is especially well-stated

I'm less interested with the digression into force that took several posts -- given the clarity of your post, I wonder why that was necessary.

Same here. It's frustrating, especially since that the original post never mentioned force.

QuoteBut if the focus -- at the end of the day -- is on the game and not the play that might explain your loss of patience... and it raises a question: if a game designer sees *himself* as an auteur, does that limit his ability to produce a work that is superior in actual play?

I'm of the opinion that if you go into something believing that you are an auteur, setting out to produce a Work of Art, chances are you'll come up with trash. This applies to both game designers and GMs (God save me from GMs with a Very Special Story to tell). Conversely, if you go in just to run a game (or design a game, or draw a picture, or write a story) the best you can, with a vague hope of entertaining your audience and perhaps making a point, you... might still end up making crap, but at least it wouldn't be pretentious crap, and I suspect that people who set out deliberately to make a Work of Art end up sabotaging themselves more often than people who just go and do a thing.

Quote from: JimBobOzI decided to look this silly French word up. We get so much confusion from using French, Latin and Greek when we should be using good English.

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

Quote from: JimBobOzThe term auteur (French for author) is used to describe film directors who are considered to be artists with their own unique vision. The style of an auteur is recognisable in his/her films regardless of their genre and subject matter. However, this style does not need to be purely visual—any unique point-of-view or obsession could be considered the mark of an auteur. It is more a stamp of the director's personality that marks a body of work as that of an auteur.

So in other words, an "auteur" is a wanker. He's a bloke (let's face it, people like this are almost exclusively male) who wants to control everything, and thinks he's really unique and special in what he creates.

It 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.

Quote from: WarthurBut hey, thanks for assuming I was talking from ignorance.

Warthur, I wasn't assuming you were talking from ignorance (and I apologize if my post gave you that impression), just that I didn't think your analogy was appropriate. I guess we just had different experiences with the game.

Regards,
David R

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. :p

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.

Quote from: James J SkachStuart - 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...

It's not an analogy.  That's literally what the term means.  It's also not a value statement on films pre 1950's.  Auteur films are not inherently better than studio system films.  Casablanca was a great film.  House of the Dead was not.

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.

I'm saying the primary customer of indie gaming is most likely already an inhabitant of the forgie wind-tunnel. Either it's a guy who is already a designer, or a guy who desperately wants to hang around with that crowd.

This is fairly obvious whenever you guys do those once-quarterly "What Game Do You Wish You Were Playing Right Now" discussions and then you all hilariously namecheck each other with incestuous fervor.

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.

Fine, let's drop the power angle. What I'm arguing is that the game-designer-as-auteur attitude which certain parts of the Forge tend to take is going to naturally give rise to narrow games, not because of Forge theory but simply because it assumes that game designers are going to be making a lot of the decisions about a game.

I can't find the exact quote right now, but Warthur is just repeating a statement made many times on the Forge: It was something like...

"We don't want games that allow you to 'do anything'. We want games that tell you precisely how to play."

This ties in naturally to the forgie dogma that all "creative agendas" are either narrowly defined (it's either G.. or N.. or S!) or "incoherent", with "incoherence" being connotated as a bad thing.

The nice way of saying it is what Stuart said; "Theyre more like boardgames".

I'm not sure anyone is actually arguing that this isn't so, except TonyLB who is doing so from a place of dishonesty and public relations, as usual. So I dunno...

Further to my previous reply...

Basically, if you know the name of the person who directed the film, or designed the game -- it's an auteur film / game.  Again, this isn't a value judgement -- it's just what the term means.

So auteur directors would include:  DeMille,Hughes, Von Stroheim, Welles, Spielberg, Cronenberg, Lucas, Ford Coppola, Burton, Kaufman and even Boll.  The director of your favourite episodes of Everybody Loves Raymond, Law & Order, or Sex in the City -- not auteurs.  They need to follow a style set for them so that other directors can produce similar work.

Game designer auteurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-style_board_game#Game_designer_as_auteur) would include Teuber, Knizia, Gygax, Cook, Nixon, Edwards and so on.  Games designed by large teams, or that are produced by a company with little prominence given to identifying the game designer -- not auteurs.  Heroscape, and possibly some d20 games would fall into this category.  I'm not sure about D&D.  Probably.

Quote from: StuartGame designer auteurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-style_board_game#Game_designer_as_auteur) would include Teuber, Knizia, Gygax, Cook, Nixon, Edwards and so on.  Games designed by large teams, or that are produced by a company with little prominence given to identifying the game designer -- not auteurs.  Heroscape, and possibly some d20 games would fall into this category.  I'm not sure about D&D.  Probably.

Well, Tweet, Cook, and Williams. Later expanded by everyone who ever worked in R&D at Wizards.

Yeah, I guess this is why Auteur doesn't really fit. Some designers design with flexibility in mind, so the terms can't be synonymous.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm not sure anyone is actually arguing that this isn't so, except TonyLB who is doing so from a place of dishonesty and public relations, as usual. So I dunno...

Actually, Tony isn't arguing against it. He's arguing that it isn't a power thing, which has been conceded.

-clash

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm saying the primary customer of indie gaming is most likely already an inhabitant of the forgie wind-tunnel. Either it's a guy who is already a designer, or a guy who desperately wants to hang around with that crowd.

I don't know about all this primary stuff. I do know a few folks (not many) who play forge games and don't have anything to do with the forge. They just like playing different games. They (we) play all sorts of games.

I've never visited the site...well, I have seen some threads, stuff which folks post on sites like tBP and here. I've never visited the forge, although I once visited a place called the Forge or something like that.

I think it was a S&M site. My Life With Master took on a whole different meaning. But it wasn't so bad because I said I was a Game Master and deprotaganization was the goal of their games....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Stuart....would include Teuber, Knizia, Gygax, Cook, Nixon, Edwards and so on.  Games designed by large teams, or that are produced by a company with little prominence given to identifying the game designer -- not auteurs.  Heroscape, and possibly some d20 games would fall into this category.  I'm not sure about D&D.  Probably.

I'd add Tweet, Mearls, Laws, Borgstrom to name a few...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: StuartFurther to my previous reply...

Basically, if you know the name of the person who directed the film, or designed the game -- it's an auteur film / game.  Again, this isn't a value judgement -- it's just what the term means.

So auteur directors would include:  DeMille,Hughes, Von Stroheim, Welles, Spielberg, Cronenberg, Lucas, Ford Coppola, Burton, Kaufman and even Boll.  The director of your favourite episodes of Everybody Loves Raymond, Law & Order, or Sex in the City -- not auteurs.  They need to follow a style set for them so that other directors can produce similar work.

Don't you think a definition of auteur that has room for both James Cameron and Francois Truffaut in film, Edwards and Gygax in RPGs, is so broad as to be useless?

As useless, in fact, as basing the definition of "indie" on a distribution model, joining up as that does the auteur of HYBRID with the auteur of Sorcerer?

What is it with you indie guys and your lack of rigor when it comes to cultural analysis?

Quote from: David RI'd add Tweet, Mearls, Laws, Borgstrom to name a few...

Yes, absolutely.  If you can easily identify that the game was designed by Person X -- that's an auteur game.  So any of the people posting here who have created their own games, including Kyle/JimBobOz -- are auteurs.

So auteur doesn't mean a particular style, quality, or experience as a designer.  It's

Quote from: Pierce InverarityDon't you think a definition of auteur that has room for both James Cameron and Francois Truffaut in film, Edwards and Gygax in RPGs, is so broad as to be useless?

As useless, in fact, as basing the definition of "indie" on a distribution model, joining up as that does the auteur of HYBRID with the auteur of Sorcerer?

What is it with you indie guys and your lack of rigor when it comes to cultural analysis?

I didn't invent the term.  I'm just explaining it.  It's about the role the designer has in the overall project / finished product -- did they have creative control, or were they a smaller part of a broader creative team.

Edit: I'm not that familiar with it, but I don't think Hybrid (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/8515) is an auteur game.

Quote from: StuartEdit: I'm not that familiar with it, but I don't think Hybrid (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/8515) is an auteur game.

Welcome to the world of pain...

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4345

OK Stuart, I believe we have miscommunication (most likley on my part).

When you wrote this:

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.

it appeared to me as if you were implying (perhaps it was simply me inferring) that films were just "cranked out" before Auteur's came along in the 50's - and that this was not necessarily a good thing.

I guess I'm countering with Howard Hawks as an example - Bringing Up Baby (38), His Girl Friday (40), Seargent York (41), The Big Sleep (46). Was he "Auteur"?  If so, then it's useless to put a time frame on it (as you did with the 1950's) as "auteurs" obviously existed before that. If not, then why not?

However, if that's not what you were trying to say, I guess I'm at a loss...

Did EGG have less influence over D&D design than, say, Baker did over DitV? I doubt it. So if EGG and Baker are auteur, what does it tell us? Not a damn thing, I say. And that's not on you.

I think the term is simply being misused in an otherwise intersting hypothesis.  This isn't about whether the designer is Auteur...it's about whether or not narrowing the focus of a game provides for the designers ideas to become more influential in actual play.

I think....

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWelcome to the world of pain...

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4345

Oh, THAT hybrid. :)

I'd say it's an auteur parody-RPG. It sort of reminds me of Owlbears (http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/Owlbears.php) which they erroneously credit to me, when all I did was upload Sammy Clemens work...

Quote from: James J Skachit appeared to me as if you were implying (perhaps it was simply me inferring) that films were just "cranked out" before Auteur's came along in the 50's - and that this was not necessarily a good thing.

I guess I'm countering with Howard Hawks as an example - Bringing Up Baby (38), His Girl Friday (40), Seargent York (41), The Big Sleep (46). Was he "Auteur"?  If so, then it's useless to put a time frame on it (as you did with the 1950's) as "auteurs" obviously existed before that. If not, then why not?

I was too lazy to check the actual dates in my film textbooks.  I ballparked it. ;)  Those were the directors that auteur theory was based on (in part).

Quote from: James J SkachDid EGG have less influence over D&D design than, say, Baker did over DitV? I doubt it. So if EGG and Baker are auteur, what does it tell us? Not a damn thing, I say. And that's not on you.

It tells us whether an individual had overall creative control.  If it's "their" game, or if it's the product of a large team and/or company.

Quote from: James J SkachI think the term is simply being misused in an otherwise intersting hypothesis.  This isn't about whether the designer is Auteur...it's about whether or not narrowing the focus of a game provides for the designers ideas to become more influential in actual play.

I think....

This is a completely different concept.  You want something like broad focus vs narrow focus or toolbox vs pregen.  Neither of those things is part of auteur theory.

A nice intro to Auteur Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur) is available at Wikipedia.

QuoteIn film criticism, the 1950s-era auteur theory holds that a director's films reflects that director's personal creative vision, as if he or she were the primary "auteur" (the French word for 'author'). In some cases, film producers are considered to have a similar "auteur" role for films that they have produced.

Auteur theory has had a major impact on film criticism ever since it was advocated by film director and film critic François Truffaut in 1954. "Auteurism" is the method of analyzing films based on this theory or, alternately, the characteristics of a director's work that makes her or him an auteur. Both the auteur theory and the auteurism method of film analysis are frequently associated with the French New Wave and the film critics who wrote for the influential French film review periodical Cahiers du cinéma.

I guess my ballparking the 50s wasn't too bad. ;)

Quote from: StuartI guess my ballparking the 50s wasn't too bad. ;)

Actually, it looks like the theory is from the 50's...which means the movies he was using to create the theory were from before that...

Stuart, you need to make up your mind whether according to you the auteur model is a historical relic from 50s film "theory," as you just argued; or whether it should be broadened and updated to include 2000s RPGs, as you argued earlier; and if so, why, given the stated objections.

As for pre-50s directors, Truffaut et al. were claiming their work as precedents for the theory they were fleshing out in the 50s. That's perfectly legit and tangential to the discussion in hand--can we now return to it?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityStuart, you need to make up your mind whether according to you the auteur model is a historical relic from 50s film "theory," as you just argued; or whether it should be broadened and updated to include 2000s RPGs, as you argued earlier; and if so, why, given the stated objections.

I didn't argue that it's a relic.  When did I say that?

I got thrown off by your tangential sparring with James.

Now... can we get back into the thick of the discussion? Care to address the objections head-on?

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.

Is anyone really claiming that games -- of any kind -- coherce people?

If I said, "In D&D, you're forced to choose a class for your character, unlike GURPS, which does not have that restriction," would people wonder if D&D was secretly packing heat, while GURPS was less aggessive?

I think it's overwhelmingly clear that in this case the use of the term "force" simply meant that the games being looked at had more restrictions of certain kinds than games other games.

The term "force" didn't imply a fascist boot of oppression of any kind (RPGing is a leisure activity -- in that context any force applied or restrictions observed must be voluntary).

Am I wrong?

Why did people get hung up on that?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityDon't you think a definition of auteur that has room for both James Cameron and Francois Truffaut in film, Edwards and Gygax in RPGs, is so broad as to be useless?

Possibly, but I'm not sure it's relevant. Mainstream game design doesn't hold up the game designer as auteur as much as indie design does - at least these days it doesn't. Sure, the Gygaxes and Jacksons and Tweets and Cooks will get their props, but as far as mainstream games are concerned I don't think people sweat it too much if a game was designed by an individual or by committee.

Indie RPGs, on the flipside - partially because they're born out of people's frustrations with working with larger RPG companies - put everything in the hands of the game designer when it comes to publishing the thing. No editorial oversight, playtesting optional, collaboration discouraged.

Quote from: James J SkachDid EGG have less influence over D&D design than, say, Baker did over DitV? I doubt it. So if EGG and Baker are auteur, what does it tell us? Not a damn thing, I say. And that's not on you.

EGG wasn't participating in a subculture which exalts the designer-as-auteur, however. He didn't have a web forum (or closest pre-internet equivalent) full of people saying "You go for it Gary! Be true to your unique vision! And don't let the big company grind you down!", he had people saying "When's AD&D going to come out Gary? Is it going to have psionics? Did you think about changing the racial level limits? Did you read my idea about weapons-vs-AC rules?"

Gygax has said in interviews that things like psionics and variable weapon speed probably shouldn't have gone into AD&D, but he put them in because of popular demand. This is precisely the reverse of what the Forge encourages game designers to do, which is to stick true to their vision and self-publish so that game company editors can't force them to compromise their art.

Quote from: WarthurEGG wasn't participating in a subculture which exalts the designer-as-auteur, however.

First, I've agreed with your OP and called it interesting, so don't take this as too combative...

WTF?

How does the culture around him matter when talking about whether or not he is auteur?  I mean, he clearly is.  Look at his body of work.

And this leads to the modified agreement I have with what I think is your intent in the OP...that the current approach to Forgery game design is that it encourages the focus of games to the point where auteur matters.

Nobody cared if EGG was or was not auteur. They (we) took his game and played it for all it was worth - house ruling where we saw fit.  Now house-ruling (in Forgery) is looked down upon.  I don't know if I'd call that Auteur or some other term, as Stuart has given a good argument that Auteur doesn't have the kind of implication I think you're making.

And all of that made no sense....my apologies to those who have bits of brain leaking out of your ears...PM me and I'll send you my BCBS group number to give to the emergency room nurse.

Quote from: -E.Is anyone really claiming that games -- of any kind -- coherce people?

If I said, "In D&D, you're forced to choose a class for your character, unlike GURPS, which does not have that restriction," would people wonder if D&D was secretly packing heat, while GURPS was less aggessive?

I think it's overwhelmingly clear that in this case the use of the term "force" simply meant that the games being looked at had more restrictions of certain kinds than games other games.

The term "force" didn't imply a fascist boot of oppression of any kind (RPGing is a leisure activity -- in that context any force applied or restrictions observed must be voluntary).

Am I wrong?

Why did people get hung up on that?

Cheers,
-E.

I think its a trait of Internet discussions. If you can't argue against the strong point, attack the wording used.  

Technically, no one was hung up on anything. If they were Hanged you might have been making a relevant point. Only.... I didn't see any rope or hooks or anything...:what:

Quote from: James J SkachFirst, I've agreed with your OP and called it interesting, so don't take this as too combative...

WTF?

How does the culture around him matter when talking about whether or not he is auteur?  I mean, he clearly is.  Look at his body of work.

The subject wasn't his entire body of work - we were talking specifically about his work on D&D. And where AD&D was concerned, he wasn't just working as an auteur (if he was, he would not have included the psionics rules, because they didn't jibe with his vision).

Also, WTF straight back at you - the culture surrounding someone doesn't matter when it comes to examining their writing? What the hell?

QuoteAnd this leads to the modified agreement I have with what I think is your intent in the OP...that the current approach to Forgery game design is that it encourages the focus of games to the point where auteur matters.

Yes, that's it. The culture of the Forge is such that it will tend to encourage auteur games more than mainstream gaming culture does.

Quote from: WarthurIndie RPGs, on the flipside - partially because they're born out of people's frustrations with working with larger RPG companies - put everything in the hands of the game designer when it comes to publishing the thing.

How many indie RPGs are born out of people's frustration with working with larger RPG companies?  Is there even one?  Someone working at a large RPG company actually left, went to the Forge, and created an "indie" game?

The culture of the Forge reality of indie publishing is such that it will tend to encourage auteur games more than mainstream gaming culture working for larger companies does.

Pretty basic stuff.  Not all that earth shattering.  It's the same deal for comics, films, music, etc.

The Forge may get lots of things wrong (theory, jargon, what will be popular) but picking on indie published games for being more "auteur" than games from big companies is pretty weak.

Quote from: David RKatherine Bigelow
 Jane Campion
 Mira Nair
 Using your definition of auteur, women can be wankers to. But of course      your definition of auteur is wrong...

You are right, and I was wrong. Not all auteurs are men. Plenty of women are wankers.

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.

That may have been the original meaning, but nowadays "auteur" carries other meaning, including the idea of Director As Special Artist With Unique Vision.

It's interesting to consider the original meanings of words, but there's no sense insisting on them. When I date a woman and she says, "I would like only a Platonic relationship with you," it does not really help me to say, "originally, a "Platonic relationship" was Plato's ideal relationship: where an older man takes on a younger man, teaches him about philosophy and has homosexual sex with him."

Words change in their meaning over time. "Auteur" no longer means, "one poor bugger who has to do all the work by themselves."

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut 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 what they say, but I always wonder how they'd feel if they got what they wanted. They seem to enjoy feeling Special, and Alone Against The Tide of Ignorant Masses. It's like, lots of people would like to be a Duke or a Baron. But if the Queen suddenly issued 1,000 million Duchy and Baron titles, so that everyone had a title, it wouldn't feel too special anymore, would it?

Quote from: James J SkachThe amount of designer influence on the actual play is proportional to the focus and inversely proportional to the flexibility...

Makes sense to me. The more attached the rules are to the setting, the more ideas about play style the game designer slips into the rules, the less flexibility there is at the game table.

Quote from: JimBobOzWords change in their meaning over time. "Auteur" no longer means, "one poor bugger who has to do all the work by themselves."

It never did.

Let's not make up new meanings for existing words here on this fourm.  We've got the Forge forums if we want that sort of thing. ;)

I think it happens sometimes.  I think there are games that are significant works of art with a singular focus drawing from one author's creative vision.

They're generally called flops, or heart breakers in the industry.  There's nothing quite like a rigid vision to narrow a game's potential audience.

Still, there's a few, Runequest 1&2, Pendragon, Adventure/ Abberent/ Trinity, Spacemaster: Privateers all seem to have the auteur's singular vision.  And none of them could really be called huge successes in the sense that Call of Cthullu, Traveller, D&D, Twilight 2000 were.  I should probably remove D&D from that list as nothing has its level of success in that particular sense.

I'm also uncertain whether one can assess whether something like Hybrid is in the real of what we're trying to quantify.

A big company CAN produce auteur games.  It's not an auteur = Forge-Indie sort of thing.

White Wolf Announces Monte Cook's A World of Darkness (http://www.white-wolf.com/index.php?articleid=639) -- his name is even bigger than WOD in the little LOGO they've made!

Troll Lord games "Gygax" page (http://www.trolllord.com/gygax.htm) -- how many times can you count Gygax on this page?

This new games have a singular focus drawing from one author's creative vision.

Yeah, I hate to do it, but this really gets into the definition, both actual and perceived, of Auteur.  Since I don't know either to any great degree, I'm  at a loss.

It seems as if the intent of the OP equates Auteur with Prima Donna.  Stuart seems to be asserting that it does not include that connotation. This argument appears to be heading in the direction of a disagreement over this.

So I'm bowing out with my current Law of Designer Influence...cause it goes to 11!

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's interesting to consider the original meanings of words, but there's no sense insisting on them. When I date a woman and she says, "I would like only a Platonic relationship with you," it does not really help me to say, "originally, a "Platonic relationship" was Plato's ideal relationship: where an older man takes on a younger man, teaches him about philosophy and has homosexual sex with him."

Actually, that sounds like the ideal thing to say to a woman who says she wants a Platonic relationship.  I'll have to remember that.  :D

Quote from: James J SkachBut, let's say you purchase D&D and I buy DitV. Then what?

Then you're a Swine?







I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist it, it was too tempting...

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.

Hm, I sometimes like them, does that make me a were-wierdo?

Quote from: WarthurFine, let's drop the power angle. What I'm arguing is that the game-designer-as-auteur attitude which certain parts of the Forge tend to take is going to naturally give rise to narrow games, not because of Forge theory but simply because it assumes that game designers are going to be making a lot of the decisions about a game.

Quite possibly, I think that may well be right.

Quote from: -E.Is anyone really claiming that games -- of any kind -- coherce people?

If I said, "In D&D, you're forced to choose a class for your character, unlike GURPS, which does not have that restriction," would people wonder if D&D was secretly packing heat, while GURPS was less aggessive?

I think it's overwhelmingly clear that in this case the use of the term "force" simply meant that the games being looked at had more restrictions of certain kinds than games other games.

The term "force" didn't imply a fascist boot of oppression of any kind (RPGing is a leisure activity -- in that context any force applied or restrictions observed must be voluntary).

Am I wrong?

Why did people get hung up on that?

Cheers,
-E.

I thought that was precisely what was being argued, though it looks like I was wrong.

Dude, it's the internet, I've seen it seriously argued that playing Vampire causes physical brain damage.  Nothing is so fuckwitted I can't believe someone would post it.  I didn't think the OP was fuckwitted, but I did think he was arguing that there was a cooercive element.

However, his argument was subtler than that, but misreadings happen, I don't think one need leap to the assumption as happens later in this thread that I was picking semantic battles for the sake of it.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm not sure anyone is actually arguing that this isn't so, except TonyLB who is doing so from a place of dishonesty and public relations, as usual. So I dunno...

Over the last few months, I've been trying to speak up when I see something posted about someone that I really disagree with.

TonyLB is not in my view remotely a dishonest poster (does anyone here not know the kind of games he likes after all?), rather I think he is a poster with a real love of the hobby who likes to discuss theory and learn from it, when we speak (and we come from different takes on the hobby) we don't always agree but I always feel he is listening and I have never thought him dishonest.

Doesn't add anything to this thread, but I thought this statement merited challenging anyway.  TonyLB is alright by me, I think if more theory posters were like him I wouldn't have such a distaste for theory.

Quote from: BalbinusOver the last few months, I've been trying to speak up when I see something posted about someone that I really disagree with.

TonyLB is not in my view remotely a dishonest poster (does anyone here not know the kind of games he likes after all?), rather I think he is a poster with a real love of the hobby who likes to discuss theory and learn from it, when we speak (and we come from different takes on the hobby) we don't always agree but I always feel he is listening and I have never thought him dishonest.

Doesn't add anything to this thread, but I thought this statement merited challenging anyway.  TonyLB is alright by me, I think if more theory posters were like him I wouldn't have such a distaste for theory.

Agreed with 100%! I already posted my challenge.

-clash

Quote from: BalbinusI thought that was precisely what was being argued, though it looks like I was wrong.

Dude, it's the internet, I've seen it seriously argued that playing Vampire causes physical brain damage.  Nothing is so fuckwitted I can't believe someone would post it.  I didn't think the OP was fuckwitted, but I did think he was arguing that there was a cooercive element.

However, his argument was subtler than that, but misreadings happen, I don't think one need leap to the assumption as happens later in this thread that I was picking semantic battles for the sake of it.

Point taken... and I've done the same thing (misread a reasonable position as being insane), come to think of it.

To be clear: I didn't think you were picking battles for the sake of it; I wasn't sure what was going on -- but I wouldn't have guessed that.

Cheers,
-E.

Balbinus & Clash although I understand the need for AM's statement to be challenged, you have to remember that AM in his own words has a dislike for Tony (an irrational one at that - again his own words). His statement was just further evidence of this. I find most of the stuff that AM post interesting, but I tune out this nonsense.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RBalbinus & Clash although I understand the need for AM's statement to be challenged, you have to remember that AM in his own words has a dislike for Tony (an irrational one at that - again his own words). His statement was just further evidence of this. I find most of the stuff that AM post interesting, but I tune out this nonsense.

Regards,
David R

Actually didn't know that, David! Thanks! I thought it seemed a rather gratuitous swipe...

-clash

Quote from: David RBalbinus & Clash although I understand the need for AM's statement to be challenged, you have to remember that AM in his own words has a dislike for Tony (an irrational one at that - again his own words). His statement was just further evidence of this. I find most of the stuff that AM post interesting, but I tune out this nonsense.

Regards,
David R

It's not about him, it's about me.  It lessens me not to speak out when someone gets slammed and I disagree.  Abyssal has every right to his views or not to like Tony.

When Tetsujin28 died it hit me very hard, I decided at the time to make much more of an effort to tell people when I had something good to say about them, while there's the chance you know?

Quote from: BalbinusWhen Tetsujin28 died it hit me very hard, I decided at the time to make much more of an effort to tell people when I had something good to say about them, while there's the chance you know?

I understand completely.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David JohansenI think it happens sometimes.  I think there are games that are significant works of art with a singular focus drawing from one author's creative vision.

They're generally called flops, or heart breakers in the industry.  There's nothing quite like a rigid vision to narrow a game's potential audience.

Still, there's a few, Runequest 1&2, Pendragon, Adventure/ Abberent/ Trinity, Spacemaster: Privateers all seem to have the auteur's singular vision.  And none of them could really be called huge successes in the sense that Call of Cthullu, Traveller, D&D, Twilight 2000 were.  I should probably remove D&D from that list as nothing has its level of success in that particular sense.

I'm also uncertain whether one can assess whether something like Hybrid is in the real of what we're trying to quantify.

David, just to be clear, I agree both with your examples (so far as I'm familiar with them--Adventure and Pendragon) and your argument, which I think is different from what I've seen in this thread.

What I don't like is when people borrow terms like auteur which have long become obsolete in order to make claims that are either pretentious or empty.  Pretentious, when the implicit point is that pre-Forge people were uncultured fools but that indies are artistes like Truffaut. Empty, when people retreat from that so that auteur is merely synonymous with name recognition or "creator-ownership" (as with Hybrid's auteur).

None of that's to say that there aren't games by a single author that are awesome. I love Pendragon. Your examples show that the pre/post-indie divide is meaningless, and that people can be creative even when they're working for ICE!

Lastly, why don't you publish that game about kids you wrote???!

I'll use an analogy I've often used: Game Designers aren't artists, they're craftsmen.

And here's what I mean: when you make a chair, there are limits on your creativity imposed by the functional requirement that it BE a chair, that it work.

So it needs a back, a seat and four legs. Once you put those together, you have a chair.

Now everything else you do is more or less window dressing. Cusions, making the chair rock, making it recline, adding all sorts fancy carving on the legs, those might be preferred by some customers but they really aren't changing the chair fundamentally.

Most indie RPGs, for me, end up falling into one of two extremes: either they're really great for a narrow range of options (the best work chair, the best rocker or the best recliner ever- but not a general chair for work or relaxing in front of the tube) or they're SO artistically overwrought that they're more or less useless (either they're great to look or read but not that comfortable to sit in, or the designer really let his juices FLOW and made me a three-legged chair that redefines chairs FOREVER).

Quote from: Pierce InverarityLastly, why don't you publish that game about kids you wrote???!

You mean the one about metamorphic canibalistic creatures?  Because I think it would fly like Tekumel, or Jorune, or Children of the Sun, or Mechanical Dream.

I think, that the hobby is generally built on the collective subconscious and cultural mores.  It's neccessary due to the consensual form of play.  Most people want to be Legolas or Bruce Lee.  They don't really want to make something of their own because they've been taught that their ideas are bad.  Really our society tends to teach that anything that isn't manufactured and polished, and glossy is bad.  In the end our hobby community is far more conservative and myopic in its outlook than we like to think.  We like to think we're creative, intelligent, and avant garde.  We like to think we're above the masses.  But really we're just another mass.

So, I guess, while a game designer might be an autuer, I can't imagine it'll ever break even or prosper.  Publishing costs money.  Doing a proper job of production takes a team of people who need to be paid.  I write what I like and give it away.  That way I have no financial commitment to my readers.  No deadlines, no obligations to meet.  I just write stuff that I think is cool and if people like it that's great and if they don't, it doesn't really matter.  The internet is full of delusional kooks just like me with other stories to tell.

I think games are often better, as a lot of creative arts are, when they come from a single mind. A consistency of vision and aim is a good thing and stuff that is created by committee is often flavourless and dull.

I like the auteur approach, I like work (in all fields) that challenges me and has that consistency, even if I don't agree with the view expressed.

Quote from: GRIMI think games are often better, as a lot of creative arts are, when they come from a single mind. A consistency of vision and aim is a good thing and stuff that is created by committee is often flavourless and dull.

I like the auteur approach, I like work (in all fields) that challenges me and has that consistency, even if I don't agree with the view expressed.

I think this is broadly right, ages back here I started a thread arguing that the great fantasy rpg creations were almost all the result of a single vision, as indeed are most of the truly awful creations for that matter.

A single vision breeds something singular, for good or ill, all too often a committee vision breeds something bland instead.

But bland games sell well apparently.  And are played by more people.  Sometimes I wonder if what we really want are encyclopedias of faerie.  Big, beautiful colorful tomes that are windows into another world.  Are rules just an artifact.  Does a world really need to be constrained to a set of game mechanics.

Sadly, systemless sourcebooks don't do well in the gaming market and the non-gaming market has very little interest in such things.

Quote from: GRIMI like the auteur approach, I like work (in all fields) that challenges me and has that consistency, even if I don't agree with the view expressed.

I agree with this.

I'm not going to open a can of worms by starting a derail about the concepts of homage and Mise en scene in rpgs...:D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BalbinusI think this is broadly right, ages back here I started a thread arguing that the great fantasy rpg creations were almost all the result of a single vision, as indeed are most of the truly awful creations for that matter.

A single vision breeds something singular, for good or ill, all too often a committee vision breeds something bland instead.

Eh... I don't know about this. D&D was certainly not "one man's vision" given that Gygax expanded on a core of wargaming rules and the work of Dave Arneson. And of course with later editions, the list of principal designers has expanded immensely.

Champions is also not the work of one designer... I always associated the original rules with two men but there often as many as four credited for the original design.

GURPs was written by one man but *ahem* borrowed so much from Hero that I also don't think I'd call it a one man design.

Runequest is also a group effort design wise.

Traveller is one man, CoC is one man.

So of the 6 greatest RPGs ever designed (my personal list anyway) 2/3 were the result of a group.

Quote from: David JohansenBut bland games sell well apparently.  And are played by more people.  Sometimes I wonder if what we really want are encyclopedias of faerie.  Big, beautiful colorful tomes that are windows into another world.  Are rules just an artifact.  Does a world really need to be constrained to a set of game mechanics.

Sadly, systemless sourcebooks don't do well in the gaming market and the non-gaming market has very little interest in such things.

Did you catch that?  I mean, I assume the implication is the D&D is bland, right?

What game sells the most?  What game is played the most? Ergo?

I could be wrong, but that certainly seems to be the implication.

So please, clarify.

Quote from: David JohansenSometimes I wonder if what we really want are encyclopedias of faerie.  Big, beautiful colorful tomes that are windows into another world.

They sell these in many bookstores.  (Hint: They're not in the games section... ;))

Sure, if you're Brian Froud or the Dinotopia guy.

Also, yes D&D in its current incarnation is as bland as a handful of white flour.

Quote from: StuartHow many indie RPGs are born out of people's frustration with working with larger RPG companies?  Is there even one?  Someone working at a large RPG company actually left, went to the Forge, and created an "indie" game?

Ron Edwards frequently tells people about how he offered a game (I think it was Sorcerer) to a big-name RPG company, but balked when he saw the contract involved and how much creative control he'd have to give up. Ron's work - and thus, a heck of a lot of the thinking behind the Forge - is apparently informed by that experience.

Whether Ron is telling the truth or not, only he knows, but I don't see what he'd gain from lying.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckTraveller is one man.

Well the core three books anyhow.  Much of the setting was the brothers Keith.  Marc's a system wonk.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckEh... I don't know about this. D&D was certainly not "one man's vision" given that Gygax expanded on a core of wargaming rules and the work of Dave Arneson. And of course with later editions, the list of principal designers has expanded immensely.

Champions is also not the work of one designer... I always associated the original rules with two men but there often as many as four credited for the original design.

GURPs was written by one man but *ahem* borrowed so much from Hero that I also don't think I'd call it a one man design.

Runequest is also a group effort design wise.

Traveller is one man, CoC is one man.

So of the 6 greatest RPGs ever designed (my personal list anyway) 2/3 were the result of a group.

Sorry, I was unclear, I meant rpg settings, not rulesets.  It doesn't hold for rulesets and I wasn't thinking of them.

Glorantha, Greg Stafford

Harn, the Harn guy

Empire of the Petal Throne, Prof Barker

Jorune, no idea but I think it was still one guy.

RPG settings tend to be more original, for good or ill, when the result of a single vision.

Incidentally, that doesn't mean my favourites do, I love CoC, am rather fond of the RC D&D and played Gurps for around a decade, I was posting (albeit unclearly) about original and great settings, not great rulesets nor my favourite rulesets.

Quote from: James J SkachDid you catch that?  I mean, I assume the implication is the D&D is bland, right?

What game sells the most?  What game is played the most? Ergo?

I could be wrong, but that certainly seems to be the implication.

So please, clarify.

D&D is pretty bland, out of the book, isn't that part of its strength? You can adapt it to your own settings easily.

Distinctive and original is a double edged sword, Traveller arguably is pretty bland in exactly the same way and I love that dearly.

Quote from: BalbinusD&D is pretty bland, out of the book, isn't that part of its strength? You can adapt it to your own settings easily.

Distinctive and original is a double edged sword, Traveller arguably is pretty bland in exactly the same way and I love that dearly.

Don't know Traveller...

But I played AD&D for years...never once found it bland. Still didn't when I went back at looked at OSRIC out of curiosity.

But you seem to be talking about settings, yes?  D&D doesn't really have one, though Greyhawk kinda is kinda isn't. So I'd say if you want to judge whether or not EGG was Auteur based on the setting of Greyhawk or something...well...I'd consider that en entirely different subject.

I'm more ragging on the implication that Mr. Johansen seems to be shoveling.  It's the elitist "D&D is so bland.  Yes I know alot of people choose it and play it, but there's no accounting for taste! People enjoy bland - the plebes."

And that just leads us to arguments that have come up in other threads asserting that D&D is only top-selling because, essentially, people are idiots/plebian/boring/etc, not cutting edge like those of us blah blah blah...

Quote from: BalbinusJorune, no idea but I think it was still one guy.

Andrew Leker designed it. But we should not forget the contributions of Miles Teves.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: James J SkachDon't know Traveller...

But I played AD&D for years...never once found it bland. Still didn't when I went back at looked at OSRIC out of curiosity.

But you seem to be talking about settings, yes?  D&D doesn't really have one, though Greyhawk kinda is kinda isn't. So I'd say if you want to judge whether or not EGG was Auteur based on the setting of Greyhawk or something...well...I'd consider that en entirely different subject.

I'm more ragging on the implication that Mr. Johansen seems to be shoveling.  It's the elitist "D&D is so bland.  Yes I know alot of people choose it and play it, but there's no accounting for taste! People enjoy bland - the plebes."

And that just leads us to arguments that have come up in other threads asserting that D&D is only top-selling because, essentially, people are idiots/plebian/boring/etc, not cutting edge like those of us blah blah blah...

Meh, I'm playing RC because I think it's a good system, I assume those playing other editions are doing likewise.

I posted on my LJ about this as well, but to sum it up:

A designer cab design a game that only plays one way, like DitV. No matter how you try to play a game the PCs basically are always on a Crusade. No matter what the GM or players do, the only adventure is going to be crusade like. Its like one giant railroad.

Quote from: McrowIts like one giant railroad.

You really think DitV is just one giant railroad ? Interesting.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: McrowA designer cab design a game that only plays one way, like DitV. No matter how you try to play a game the PCs basically are always on a Crusade. No matter what the GM or players do, the only adventure is going to be crusade like. Its like one giant railroad.

Can I ask whether you feel the same way about (for example) Toon?  After all, no matter how you try to play the game, the PCs basically are always in a Warner Bros. cartoon.  Is it, similarly, one giant railroad?

Quote from: TonyLBCan I ask whether you feel the same way about (for example) Toon?  After all, no matter how you try to play the game, the PCs basically are always in a Warner Bros. cartoon.  Is it, similarly, one giant railroad?

While I have never seen/played toon, the way you describe it, no its not.

The difference being that toon is always in the same setting, while DitV always has the same goal.

Quote from: McrowThe difference being that toon is always in the same setting, while DitV always has the same goal.

In CoC, unless I've been playing it wrong, the pcs always have the same goal of fighting ... well you know what they are fighting. Surely CoC is not one big railroad?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: McrowThe difference being that toon is always in the same setting, while DitV always has the same goal.

I don't think I understand what you mean by the game having a goal.  Are you saying that the players must pursue a specific goal ... and if so, what is it?

Are you saying that it's railroady because the PCs must be agents of judgment?  How is that different from saying that they must be ridiculous and over-the-top toons?

Quote from: TonyLBAre you saying that it's railroady because the PCs must be agents of judgment?

that is part of it. You must be agents of judgement, you must be a zealot (as I understand it), you must rid the town of sin, there are just so many "musts" with this game that by time you get done you are going to get the same game every time. It might take a different path every time, but its still the same end result.

Quote from: McrowIt might take a different path every time, but its still the same end result.

Uh ... really?  That's not my experience.

I've GMed a session where the players decided that nobody had really sinned beyond forgiveness, and they got everyone together and basically talked through people's misunderstandings and left everyone feeling healed and cleansed.

I've played a session where I (and another Dog) decided that the issues people were bringing to us (about the election of a non-Faithful sheriff for the town) were none of our damn business and that our religious duty was to get them to quit relying on us for secular guidance (and to beat the shit out of the Dogs in our party who wanted to sway the election ... that was fun).

I've GMed a session where the players decided that they would create one scape-goat for the towns sins, tell everyone that this one kid was the root cause of all the trouble, and then remove him from the town.  The big decision was whether to just shove the (mostly innocent, deeply repentant) kid into the next town over, or whether they were obligated to shoot him in the face in the city square.  They wimped out and let him live ;)

And I've played in a game where we Dogs decided that it was time to cast down gunpowder perdition on a sinning populace.  We about reduced the town's population by half, so that those who survived would be properly God-fearin', and not fall into such wicked ways in future.  Sometimes you have to cut off the limb (or a couple limbs) so that the body will live.

I'm hard pressed to see those all as the same ending, but maybe you can help me see where the railroad tracks lie.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm hard pressed to see those all as the same ending, but maybe you can help me see where the railroad tracks lie.

Maybe I need to play it more, but from the couple games I have played, it did seem a little repetitive despite our best efforts.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm hard pressed to see those all as the same ending, but maybe you can help me see where the railroad tracks lie.

I know I'm late to this party, but your examples prove the point: every DitV scenario must be about religious enforcers dealing with a town. There doesn't seem to be any way to handle, say, deciding to go be silver miners or run away to sea -- not and continue being the same game.

The OP's argument was that, in the interest of redressing the GM/player power imbalance, indie games like this tend to do so by disempowering the GM -- by constraining the types of play or situations the game will support -- rather than by truly empowering the players in a more open-ended system and/or built-in setting.

I'm not an indie-RPG player or GM (yet), but from what I've seen in the game store and read online I think that argument is certainly supportable as a matter of opinion. All this talk of "what is an auteur" is a big red herring.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm more ragging on the implication that Mr. Johansen seems to be shoveling.  It's the elitist "D&D is so bland.  Yes I know alot of people choose it and play it, but there's no accounting for taste! People enjoy bland - the plebes."

David gets to say this because he's produced some really amazing work--amazing as in "CoC Dreamlands on acid." Not to say that D&D is all bland. "D&D" does not exist. The Realms and Arduin are worlds apart (pun intended). David is more of an Arduin guy.

Quote from: balzacqI know I'm late to this party, but your examples prove the point: every DitV scenario must be about religious enforcers dealing with a town. There doesn't seem to be any way to handle, say, deciding to go be silver miners or run away to sea -- not and continue being the same game.

Hence my comparison to Toon.  You can't choose Toon as your ruleset, then decide to play soldiers in a grim and fatal storming of Omaha Beach.  I don't view either of those as railroading.

Actually you can choose Toon and play it as "Tom and Jerry pvp", then turn around again, and run it as a Warner Brothers "Adventuring party of toons vs evil plot" (say a haunted house or a Yosemite Sam type villian) type thing, (the example adventures are mostly Warner Brothers classics) and then turn around, and play it as a Yellow Submarine-like quest.

We did all kinds of things with Toon in college. It's basicly wide open as far as what you can do with it- it's just a resolution system with a skill system and powers ("Schticks") tacked on.

As a player, couldn't I decide my cowboy wasn't going to put up with the corruption of the other Dogs in the Vineyard?  Maybe he'd decide to defend the townsfolk from the Inquisitors... for a Fistful of Dollars. :)

Isn't that an option?

Quote from: TonyLBYou can't choose Toon as your ruleset, then decide to play soldiers in a grim and fatal storming of Omaha Beach.

http://onastick.net/sitz/images/? ;)

Quote from: TonyLBHence my comparison to Toon.  You can't choose Toon as your ruleset, then decide to play soldiers in a grim and fatal storming of Omaha Beach.  I don't view either of those as railroading.

"[C]onstraining the types of play or situations the game will support" != "railroading".

and if you take the stance that a given game is more like a module with some rules attached than an RPG..........:confused:

Quote from: balzacq"[C]onstraining the types of play or situations the game will support" != "railroading".

I agree.  MCrow, back in #126 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=84626&postcount=126) said that he felt the game was "like one giant railroad."  I disagree with that, for pretty much exactly the reasons you're saying.  DitV does constrain the types of play or situations the game will support, just like Toon, Paranoia and many other narrowly focussed games.  That doesn't mean it's disempowering the players ... it means that you choose the game when you want that narrow focus.

Quote from: Mcrowand if you take the stance that a given game is more like a module with some rules attached than an RPG..........:confused:

Who, me? I have no problem defining these indie games as "role-playing games". They are, in fact, games, in which the players' primary activity involves playing a role through a fictional character in an imaginary world*; as opposed to card games or board games or sporting games.

But again, "what is an RPG" or "is game x an RPG" is a red herring and irrelevant to the OP's thesis about GM disempowerment vis-a-vis player empowerment in certain indie games.



* Not intended as an all-inclusive definition of RPGs.

I don't think the issue is that it disempowers anyone.

The issue is that it tells the same story every session.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI don't think the issue is that it disempowers anyone.

The issue is that it tells the same story every session.

thats my main gripe in a nutshell.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI don't think the issue is that it disempowers anyone.

The issue is that it tells the same story every session.

As someone said upthread, couldn't the same be said of CoC?  That also has a strong core narrative after all.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe issue is that it tells the same story every session.

Well, like I said, I've had outcomes (even from the same town, run with two different groups) that looked fairly substantially different to me.  But everyone's going to have their own standards for what it takes before two stories are different from each other.

If, for you, every story of outsiders passing judgment on the troubles of a close-knit community is the same story, then DitV is only going to provide that story.  Me, I figure that definition includes a gamut stories from Blazing Saddles to Seven Samurai, and many of them are very different from each other.

Quote from: BalbinusAs someone said upthread, couldn't the same be said of CoC?  That also has a strong core narrative after all.

As a matter of fact, yes, the same would apply to CoC.

Just to point out, that it does not mean the game can't be fun, but the replay value isn't going to be that good for most people.

Quote from: TonyLBThat doesn't mean it's disempowering the players ... it means that you choose the game when you want that narrow focus.

Here, I think, is where you (and others) and the OP (and others) are talking past each other.

To paraphrase, the OP says: "In order to redress the GM/player power imbalance, certain indie games restrict the freedom of the GM by restricting the game to certain stereotyped situations as opposed to truly empowering the players."

You say: "I can choose the game I want to run, and if it has a narrow focus then that's just the game."

I don't think you're addressing his argument at all. It's roughly equivalent to:

A: "Certain types of fashion statement are less becoming to certain body types."
B: "I like shoes."

So: do you in fact think that game-restricted situations or types of play represent disempowerment of the GM by the designer, and do you think that a published or hypothetical game that instead empowered the players without limiting the GM's freedom in this way would be better or worse, and what might such a game look like?

That's what we should be discussing.

Quote from: balzacqThat's what we should be discussing.

What ... again? :confused:

I'm not sure it applies to Call of Cthulhu. I mean, kinda.

You can have a Call of Cthulhu adventure in the mode of say.. exploring a haunted house or ice-locked cave where shoggoth dwell. Or soemthing like that. "Dungeon" mode.

You can have a CoC adventure that involves investigating a series of murders.. or a robbery. Going around collecting clues, interviewing NPCs, etc. "Mystery" mode.

You can have a Call of CThulhu story that involves travelling to exotic locations with persistent characters in order to get involved in notional "adventures", but also to pick up meta-clues to a greater conspiracy or threat (Nyarlathotep is a bit like this). This would be kind of like "Campaign mode".

You can visit the dreamlands.

You can do it as military-style missions (like Delta Green).

You could do it as straight historical roleplay (not that interesting to me, but I know of some people who do this, and mainly play CoC because they are fond of the era).

I'm sure there are other ways I'm not thinking of right now.

Now, the characters in Call of CThulhu are all occult investigators or people who somehow end up as occult investigators of some kind.. but you have a lot of leeway about what kind of story you want to tell.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm not sure it applies to Call of Cthulhu. I mean, kinda.

You can have a Call of Cthulhu adventure in the mode of say.. exploring a haunted house or ice-locked cave where shoggoth dwell. Or soemthing like that. "Dungeon" mode.

You can have a CoC adventure that involves investigating a series of murders.. or a robbery. Going around collecting clues, interviewing NPCs, etc. "Mystery" mode.

You can have a Call of CThulhu story that involves travelling to exotic locations with persistent characters in order to get involved in notional "adventures", but also to pick up meta-clues to a greater conspiracy or threat (Nyarlathotep is a bit like this). This would be kind of like "Campaign mode".

You can visit the dreamlands.

You can do it as military-style missions (like Delta Green).

You could do it as straight historical roleplay (not that interesting to me, but I know of some people who do this, and mainly play CoC because they are fond of the era).

Most of this is about setting not goals. Also fans of the game are always exploring the possibility of setting the game in another location/timeline etc but still retaining the goal of the game. I, myself thought about transferring Dogs to the 40K setting.

The one thing that remains in all your other settings examples for CoC is the goal of defeating C Meanies....

QuoteNow, the characters in Call of CThulhu are all occult investigators or people who somehow end up as occult investigators of some kind.. but you have a lot of leeway about what kind of story you want to tell.

Same with Dogs.

Another example is Midnight a d20 game. The goal is pretty limited just like in Dogs or CoC . You have to fight the minions of Izrador. Yet, I would not call Midnight a railroad...

Yes, the scope of the game is very focused, but using the term railroad is inappropriate.

Regards,
David R

I obviously disagree. You can change the setting all you want, (It's Jedi! It's Samurai! its whatever!) but it's still about a bunch of guys rolling into a notional town to impose their "morals" on the populace and experience conflicts and tackle issues and whatnot. Multiple settings are possible, but its a single mode of play.


In Call of Cthulhu, you can leave the setting completely the same and still get a different adventure mode. In one adventure the group gets together to explore a ruins. In another they investigate a mystery. In another they do some historical roleplaying as they interact with historical NPCs or whatever. In another adventure they just get together and roleplay a "1920s casino night" (something Ive actually played in Call of Cthulhu). Then in yet another session they get on a train and encounter some curious artifacts. Then later they end up tracking down cult figures.
 
But then, you can change the Call of cthulhu setting as well. multiple modes, multiple settings.

Quote from: TonyLBWhat ... again? :confused:

Well, I didn't say whether it had been done to death elsewhere. :D

Personally, here's my answers (to the extent of my experience):

(A) I do think that game-restricted situations or types of play represent disempowerment of the GM by the designer;

(B) I suspect that the goal of true player empowerment is either likely to end in tears when applied to almost all gamers, or in success only in groups that come to a consensus (spoken or unspoken) about what types of situations they can co-create without rancor, which is just arrival at limited situation by a different path;

(C) I don't see player empowerment as a useful success strategy in making games more fun (which is, after all, the whole point behind the Forge), in fact just the opposite; and

(D) there's nothing wrong with running a limited-situation game or an open-ended game, if that's what's fun for you and your players.


As for the OP's secondary point about whether indie game designers are auteurs, I'll fish the red herring for a minute and argue that in common English usage "auteur" typically connotes either:

(a) "Cinematic Genius with a Unique Artistic Vision and the Power To Make It Happen"; or

(b) "wanker".

Which meaning is operational depends on the director or producer, and the speaker's attitude toward them. The same is true of game designers, and I'm sure that my CGwaUAVatPTMIH is your wanker and vice versa. Thus the crimson fishiness of the discussion.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI obviously disagree. You can change the setting all you want, (It's Jedi! It's Samurai! its whatever!) but it's still about a bunch of guys rolling into a notional town to impose their "morals" on the populace and experience conflicts and tackle issues and whatnot. Multiple settings are possible, but its a single mode of play.

And CoC (whatever the setting) is still about confronting...you know.

QuoteIn Call of Cthulhu, you can leave the setting completely the same and still get a different adventure mode. In one adventure the group gets together to explore a ruins. In another they investigate a mystery. In another they do some historical roleplaying as they interact with historical NPCs or whatever. In another adventure they just get together and roleplay a "1920s casino night" (something Ive actually played in Call of Cthulhu). Then in yet another session they get on a train and encounter some curious artifacts. Then later they end up tracking down cult figures.

And you can't do this with Dogs? In one adventure, the Dog's are trapped because of a storm in a strange manor and have to deal with it's even stranger occupants. In another, they investigate the murder of another Dog in a seemingly idyllic town. In another adventure they come across an important historical figure - a sinfull (to their mind) figure.

QuoteBut then, you can change the Call of cthulhu setting as well. multiple modes, multiple settings.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere productive. My fault, I think. I do think that you are conflating goals and settings but I doubt any further discussion on this issue is going to be productive for either of us.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAnd CoC (whatever the setting) is still about confronting...you know.

Doesn't have to be. Or it doesn't have to be.. all the time. Plus the "you know" part, takes many different forms. It's true that the PCs are always investigators. Sometimes, the thing they investigate is outright monsters. Sometimes it's cultists. Sometimes it's magical relics. Sometimes it's normal mundane crime. Sometimes it's none of the above.. and thats all ok.
 

QuoteAnd you can't do this with Dogs? In one adventure, the Dog's are trapped because of a storm in a strange manor and have to deal with it's even stranger occupants. In another, they investigate the murder of another Dog in a seemingly idyllic town. In another adventure they come across an important historical figure - a sinfull (to their mind) figure.

Nope. You can't do that. Dogs is (and only is) about moral conflicts. Your bottom two examples can be recast into that, but the first one can't without a little work. There's nothing particularly immoral about a strange occupant. I suppose he could be recast as a .. I dunno... pervert or something so that the dogs could then hand wring a bit before shooting him, but the story will be the same regardless.

QuoteI don't think this conversation is going anywhere productive. My fault, I think. I do think that you are conflating goals and settings but I doubt any further discussion on this issue is going to be productive for either of us.

Fair enough, but I know perfectly well the difference beween a setting and a goal. And I'm saying the real thing here is a mode.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDoesn't have to be. Or it doesn't have to be.. all the time. Plus the "you know" part, takes many different forms. It's true that the PCs are always investigators. Sometimes, the thing they investigate is outright monsters. Sometimes it's cultists. Sometimes it's magical relics. Sometimes it's normal mundane crime. Sometimes it's none of the above.. and thats all ok.

Yes and these so-called different modes is about confronting Chuthlu (sp) - the goal of the game.
 

QuoteNope. You can't do that. Dogs is (and only is) about moral conflicts. Your bottom two examples can be recast into that, but the first one can't without a little work. There's nothing particularly immoral about a strange occupant.

There can be, that's the whole mystery mode of my example.

QuoteFair enough, but I know perfectly well the difference beween a setting and a goal. And I'm saying the real thing here is a mode.

This conversation started because Mcrow stated that the goal of Dogs was a railroad. Some games have very tighly focused goals. CoC, Midnight are two that come to mind at the moment. You have not really demonstrated with your modes of play argument how Dogs is a railroad.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYes and these so-called different modes is about confronting Chuthlu (sp) - the goal of the game.

I bet I can link you 20 CoC adventures in a single post that don't have anything to do with Cthulhu. Theyre about stuff like haunted houses, cults, ghosts, and just weird crap. (Ok, theyre all listed off of the Chaosium website. I was looking at them today).

This ability to have a variable mode -- is also why you can have such a thing as a Call of Cthulhu campaign. You can't simply play the same story over and over with swapped out names and expect to keep people coming back. But if you vary the mode, you can have the exact same character and have.. adventures. Adventures that vary, with different stories and plotlines.

For example:

Beyond the Mountains of Madness (http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showbook&bookid=1841)

That's 440 pages of adventures. Different kinds of adventures. Detailed adventures. Adventures that involve going places and doing different things. There's investigation, there's interviews, there's puzzles, there's battle. There's a whole bunch of crap in there.

You simply can't do that with with the mormon "escalating conflict" psychodrama.

QuoteThis conversation started because Mcrow stated that the goal of Dogs was a railroad. Some games have very tighly focused goals. CoC, Midnight are two that come to mind at the moment. You have not really demonstrated with your modes of play argument how Dogs is a railroad.

I'm not trying to demonstrate that its a railroad. I'm demonstrating that its the exact same story each and every time.

Now, I do beleive that in the exact same way that a GM can railroad players to force them onto the one-and-only path he wants the players to experience-- a game designer can set things up so that no other path is possible.

How about this: what we're really talking about is degrees of optimization.

Some games are highly optimized toward their designers' expected mode of play, and some are not.

DitV is highly optimized toward religious enforcers making moral choices while they clean up pseudoMormon towns in a pseudoUtah. So highly optimized that it's very difficult to twist play into other paths.

CoC is optimized toward 1920's investigators confronting Lovecraftian beasties, but you could probably without too much trouble play other games with it -- 21st-century moderns vs. LBs, 30's gangsters with no LBs, Old West gunslingers, etc.

Traveller is optimized toward the very broad concept of space-opera SF, but tends in play toward "ex-military vagabonds do crime". However, if you ignored the official universe you could play a very large range of SF settings with it, although you'd have trouble with a TransHuman Space type setting, and you really definitely can't do classic fantasy with it (I know this because I tried it once).

GURPS and other "generic" systems are theoretically deliberately not optimized toward any setting, but GURPS at least tends toward what I believe the Forge calls "simulationist" gaming (whatever that means this week). However, you could easily argue that the lack of optimization means that they do nothing well; I concede this point, although I think that having to master only one system to do any sort of gaming outweighs this consideration.

AD&D 1 & 2 were optimized toward "classic D&D fantasy" (they should be -- they defined what that genre was), but could do other sorts of fantasy well (neolithic hunters, Renaissance swashbucklers, etc.). They really couldn't do modern or SF, though. (And as far as I can tell from reading descriptions and actual play examples, D&D3.5 is optimized toward recreating a CRPG with pen and paper. Ick.)

Make sense?

Quote from: Abyssal MawI bet I can link you 20 CoC adventures in a single post that don't have anything to do with Cthulhu. Theyre about stuff like haunted houses, cults, ghosts, and just weird crap. (Ok, theyre all listed off of the Chaosium website. I was looking at them today).

So, these adventures are not really about Cthulhu then. It's just horror adventures using the CoC system, is this what you are sayin'?

QuoteThis ability to have a variable mode -- is also why you can have such a thing as a Call of Cthulhu campaign. You can't simply play the same story over and over with swapped out names and expect to keep people coming back. But if you vary the mode, you can have the exact same character and have.. adventures. Adventures that vary, with different stories and plotlines.

Who said DiTV players tell the same story. Sure the game is very tightly focused (as are many other games), anyone who reads it will tell you that, but telling the same stories over and over again , IME absolutely not.

The part I bolded in your post, is applicable to DitV too.

QuoteFor example:

Beyond the Mountains of Madness (http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showbook&bookid=1841)

That's 440 pages of adventures. Different kinds of adventures. Detailed adventures. Adventures that involve going places and doing different things. There's investigation, there's interviews, there's puzzles, there's battle. There's a whole bunch of crap in there.

Very interesting. Thanks for the link.

QuoteYou simply can't do that with with the mormon "escalating conflict" psychodrama.

Yes you can. The examples I've given demonstrate that you can have multiple modes of play in tighly focused games/settings.

QuoteI'm not trying to demonstrate that its a railroad. I'm demonstrating that its the exact same story each and every time.

And I'm tryin' to show otherwise.

QuoteNow, I do beleive that in the exact same way that a GM can railroad players to force them onto the one-and-only path he wants the players to experience-- a game designer can set things up so that no other path is possible.

Maybe, but as far as Dogs is concerned, I don't think this is the case.

Regards,
David R

AM, reading my replies, I come across, as a bit of a wanker. I get what you are sayin'. I guess my experience with the game is clouding my ability to articulate my points clearly. DitV is a more focused game than CoC.

I think the difference between CoC and Dogs, is that the former's goal is not so overt and the game lends itself more readly to different modes of play. Would this be a fair statement to make?

Regards,
David R

Certainly.. and of course your'e a wanker!







... but aren't we all

Quote from: David RAM, reading my replies, I come across, as a bit of a wanker.

Only because of the commas :p

I dunno if Dogs in the Vineyard was a railroady game or not, but it was sure as shit a depressing one.

Quote from: David RMost of this is about setting not goals. Also fans of the game are always exploring the possibility of setting the game in another location/timeline etc but still retaining the goal of the game. I, myself thought about transferring Dogs to the 40K setting.

The one thing that remains in all your other settings examples for CoC is the goal of defeating C Meanies....

Whereas in DitV, the method as well as the goals tends to be the same. You're always going to be in the "travelling law enforcer" mode unless you significantly retool the game, at which point... we're talking about a houseruled thing, not the game as written.

Quote from: WarthurWhereas in DitV, the method as well as the goals tends to be the same. You're always going to be in the "travelling law enforcer" mode unless you significantly retool the game, at which point... we're talking about a houseruled thing, not the game as written.

But is Dogs a railroad ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RBut is Dogs a railroad ?

Regards,
David R

Hmmm...

I think in games like DitV the situation is defined, not the path so a better analogy would be a sandpit rather than a railroad.

You have  defined area in which you can do whatever you want but you aren't directed on rails.

Quote from: GRIMHmmm...

I think in games like DitV the situation is defined, not the path so a better analogy would be a sandpit rather than a railroad.

You have  defined area in which you can do whatever you want but you aren't directed on rails.

I think I get what you're trying to say, Grim. But I do think that Dogs, carries with it a lot of baggage - which makes discussing the game difficult. As I said earlier in my reply to AM :

QuoteI think the difference between CoC and Dogs, is that the former's goal is not so overt and the game lends itself more readly to different modes of play.

Looking back, one of the reasons why most folks find Midnight a difficult setting to enjoy,is  because the very overt goal of defeating the minions of Izzrador in a war you know (it's right there in the main book -First Ed) you are going to lose is just too much of a downer but yet, I don't think folks would consider the game a railroad.

Like I said, Dogs carries with it a lot of baggage, but for my group who didn't know anything about the game, the consensus around the gaming table was it was an interesting RPG with "funky" mechanics but just a game , nothin' more. I ran three adventures, all very different in mode, but I do admit all were homages to Clint Eastwood movies either Sergio Leone directed or otherwise.

Lastly I think I'm doing a good job of establishing my Forge Swine cred, in this thread :D

Regards,
David R

David: Ya know what? When I first read Midnight do you know what my first thoughts were?

I can totally win this.

Seriously.

Of course, I have the second edition.:D