Quote from: BalbinusTo clarify, usage is determined by use, naturally enough.  The term indie for a certain type of Forge game is so widespread as a usage that I think it is the most logical one to use, the term as defined by the Forge is used by almost nobody, including by and large indie gamers (by which I mean of course gamers focussing primarily on focussed thematic games typical of a certain family of Forge design)

I don't agree.  There are a number of people who use "indie" to mean independent.  They might be in the minority -- but as far as I've seen, the other people don't have a consistent and clear definition that they're going by.  Instead, they're just like "Uh... indie games are kinda like the Forge, because, well, it's indiegames.com"  And they'll waffle about -- sometimes including only GMless or distributed-GM games; but sometimes including combat-heavy adventure games like Burning Wheel or even wargames like Mechaton.  

I believe that language changes, but I also think there is such as thing as a common mistake in usage.  

If there was a sensible alternative that were proposed, I'd seriously consider it.  However, I've never heard anyone give any other half-way decent definition for what an indie RPG should be -- never mind there being agreement on that definition.

John, with respect only one person had been at all confused about what we were discussing, and I clarified it for him within the terms of his query.

My goal here is to discuss a particular idea, and that has been working fine even with the imprecise use of indie which I don't think has at all interfered with communication.  There is no clear and single definition of the term, nor do I particularly think there needs to be as long as in context it's clear how we're using it (and I think that was clear here, as the responses generally indicate).

As for the Forge's definition, I think it's nonsensical.  Creator owned is creator owned, that doesn't of itself say anything about whether or not a game is independent as opposed to mainstream, which is how the term indie is normally used in general language.  If we wish to talk about creator owned games, then it is simpler just to say that.

Gurps is as far as I know creator owned, but I don't think Ron sees it as an Indie game.  Indie in the strict Forge usage is simply another example of Ron's dreadful penchant for taking a word and defining it as having a specific meaning which is sufficiently close to the ordinary meaning as to be confusing but sufficiently far away that you can't extrapolate from the ordinary meaning.  He is appalling at coining jargon, and much trouble with GNS et al could have been avoided if he'd been a bit more careful in the first place in his creation of terms.

GNS for example, based on GDS with enough similarity that it causes confusion and with meanings that are not particularly close to the ordinary English uses but which are close enough that people can again get confused.

This whole semantic debate is off topic, but I don't particularly feel bound by the Forge's mangling of the English language and other than Stuart's easily answered query nobody here was struggling to understand my meaning.  As such, my usage in context was I think fine.

Yes, there are common errors in language, but here there is no consistent usage to be in error from, merely a wide variety of usages which must be determined from context and which here easily were determined by context.

Hi John:

Using "Indie" as a label for all small press/creator owned games doesn't work. Since most people use the term solely for Forge-influenced/Forge-style games, using it in any other way merely sows confusion. People looking for an "indie" game and getting a trad small press game will most likely be disappointed, and folks looking for a trad small press game and getting an "indie" game will most likely be disappointed, no matter the quality of the game, because it wasn't what they were expecting. This is why I have pushed - fairly successfully - over the years for using the term "small press" to refer to traditional style creator-owned/controlled games. It works, there is no confusion, and customers are getting what they were looking for, plus there is no particular onus to be creator owned - PIG's small press, no matter whether Brett wrote the game or not. Most folks couldn't care less whether the game is creator owned or not. It's just a lot simpler all around.

-clash

Quote from: jhkimMaybe if I had suggested that they saw themselves as "edgy" or "cool", this would have some meaning.  But I didn't, so this is a non-sequitor.

NOT so fast: you said this:

QuoteWell, in general, people who self-publish have a certain amount of ego in their creations -- this is just as true of indie D20 publishers or Senzar as others.

Now. a certain amount of Ego is definitely different than having a hilarious perception of yourself as being edgy or cool, sure. But that's the sin we're realy talking about. The phrase used before I added mine was "...desperate psychological desire to feel hip."

I mean, come on. That's the real problem in a nutshell, isn't it? I was shorthanding that.

Quote from: Abyssal MawNOT so fast: you said this:

Quote from: jhkimWell, in general, people who self-publish have a certain amount of ego in their creations -- this is just as true of indie D20 publishers or Senzar as others.

Now. a certain amount of Ego is definitely different than having a hilarious perception of yourself as being edgy or cool, sure. But that's the sin we're realy talking about. The phrase used before I added mine was "...desperate psychological desire to feel hip."

I mean, come on. That's the real problem in a nutshell, isn't it? I was shorthanding that.

OK, we're arguing different terms here.  I do not agree that there is a sharp difference where D20 self-publishers release for pure love of the game and story game self-publishers do so solely to pose at being cool.  

All of the story game self-publishers that I know play their own and similar games, and enjoy doing so.  I've observed and participated in such games.  They are generally very excited about their own games and similar games.  They might be a niche audience out of touch with what the majority of role-players want, but they're in touch with their (admittedly small) core audience.  And yes, they try to sell their games as cool.  That's what people are supposed to do about their games, in my opinion.  The better D20 publishers and other publishers also make their products sound cool.  


The people to slam on would be people who praise indie story games that they haven't actually played.  This isn't most of the designers, as far as I can see, but it might include some of the more numerous RPGnet crowd.

For what it's worth, I'm with John. And my response earlier in this thread was based on the "true" meaning of indie. Indie does not mean Forge. Never did, never will.

Quote from: flyingmiceUsing "Indie" as a label for all small press/creator owned games doesn't work. Since most people use the term solely for Forge-influenced/Forge-style games, using it in any other way merely sows confusion.

There is some truth to what you say -- that is, a lot of people are using it to mean a vaguely-defined "Forge-influenced/Forge-style".  However, I don't think that this means the term has to be abandoned.  

To take a very practical case: these days I'm administering the Indie RPG Awards, which were established back in 2002 when the creator-owned definition of indie was more in use, and there was less of a distinction of Forge-associated games being distinct from others.  So, the question is, should these be renamed "The Creator-Owned RPG Awards"?  That sounds sucktastic to me.

Sorry guys - has, does, and will continue to mean "Forge-style stuff"

Indie movies have a certain meaning - otherwise jokes about gay cowboys eating pudding wouldn't work. Indie starts out meaning independently produced and/or distributed.  But it always takes on the connotation of the work that predominates needing to be indpendently produced/distributed.

If it was "mainstream" material, it would be produced by one of the big boys.

So what happens is that indie starts out with it's true meaning. It then takes on the meaning of the set of products that have to be indie as the big boys won't produce it. At the same time, it takes on the cache of cool because who doesn't like to stick it to the man. At this point, an indie could produce something akin to a big boy product and remain indie - it depends on their previous accumulation of indie cred.  Not enough? Then they sold out!  But heaven forfend a big boy who tries to dabble in indie products.

And those that are successful start to get bigger - and sooner or later, they lose the street cred of being "indie." And then you sometimes see them fighting to get back to indie - "returning to our roots."

It's the cycle of life.

That whole 'indie cred' thing is for teenagers. Grownups like what they like and don't worry about whether it has cred.

Sometimes I like to listen to the Carpenters. Nobody I know rates them, except for some girls. It doesn't seem to affect my relationship with my friend Clive, who constantly seeks out new and obscure music (which we seem to hear a few months before the radio plays it).

Quote from: BalbinusCreator owned is creator owned, that doesn't of itself say anything about whether or not a game is independent as opposed to mainstream, which is how the term indie is normally used in general language.

This is an excellent point. The insistence on defining "indie" as meaning the same as "creator-owned" causes people to go into verbal gymnastics when referring to other games. "Mainstream" is the term that people use as the opposite of "indie" when they're not thinking too hard about it, but even worse are the alternatives of "non-indie" and "non-creator-owned". There's no accurate positive term for these games.

Therefore while I'll try to remember the technical definition of "indie" when it comes to the Forge, or the Indie RPG awards, or just generally talking to John, I'm going to press for using "creator-owned" and "small-press" in general conversation.

Quote from: James J SkachSorry guys - has, does, and will continue to mean "Forge-style stuff"

Indie movies have a certain meaning - otherwise jokes about gay cowboys eating pudding wouldn't work. Indie starts out meaning independently produced and/or distributed.  But it always takes on the connotation of the work that predominates needing to be indpendently produced/distributed.

Words always have certain connotations and stereotypes.  However, that doesn't mean that we have to follow the pattern of abandoning what a word means and instead embrace everyone's misconceptions.  

So, for example, there are stereotypes of what a French movie is like, or what a Hollywood movie is like, or what a Hong Kong movie is like.  Does this mean that now "French film" now means self-involved arty film and we have to find a new word to refer to films like "La Femme Nikita" and "Taxi" -- that they aren't French films any more?  

If that is the case, then we have to admit that a role-playing game is a game played online with lots of other people -- and we should be searching for a new term for older games like D&D.

Quote from: jhkimThere is some truth to what you say -- that is, a lot of people are using it to mean a vaguely-defined "Forge-influenced/Forge-style".  However, I don't think that this means the term has to be abandoned.  

To take a very practical case: these days I'm administering the Indie RPG Awards, which were established back in 2002 when the creator-owned definition of indie was more in use, and there was less of a distinction of Forge-associated games being distinct from others.  So, the question is, should these be renamed "The Creator-Owned RPG Awards"?  That sounds sucktastic to me.

I ought to know, as I have been sponsoring the awards since the beginning. Which reminds me, I have a pay pal to send!

I argued this a bit with Andy when he started them, because he wanted to be inclusive, but call them Indie. I still think Small Press would be more inclusive a name, but I like what the awards are for, and I'll continue to support them no matter what the name.

-clash

Quote from: jhkimAnd yes, they try to sell their games as cool.  That's what people are supposed to do about their games, in my opinion.

Not quite what Abyssal is arguing. He's pointing to something close to fetishization as it's been discussed at S-G. To help sort things out:

Do you design a game because doing so feeds your need to identify yourself as a game designer?

Or do you design a game because you actually enjoy designing games?

Or do you design a game because you enjoy making other people happy?

Or because you can make money from it?

Or because designing a game is a way of getting a game that you will enjoy playing?

Answering "yes" to the first question shows a greater or lesser degree of fetishization. Is it a real phenomenon? I leave that up to the reader.

I answered "yes" to all those questions except the first. The first one I'd respond with, "I didn't care if I felt myself a game designer, I just wanted people to think I was cool for writing a game."

Oh, also a qualified "yes" to the bit about making money. I thought it would be a pocket-money amount of cash, and I was right. I aso noticed that if you really want people to read the thing thoroughly and play it, you have to charge them for it. Otherwise it just joins the sad ranks of games which are much-praised and rarely-played.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNot quite what Abyssal is arguing.  He's pointing to something close to fetishization as it's been discussed at S-G. To help sort things out:

Do you design a game because doing so feeds your need to identify yourself as a game designer?

Or do you design a game because you actually enjoy designing games?
...

The whole fetishization thing sounds like psychobabble to me.  How can I tell if I'm feeding a fetishized need or whether I actually enjoy something?  So, for example, I enjoy it when my players are happy.  Does this mean that I'm fetishizing my need to be enjoyed?  If I enjoy praise from my friends, does that mean that I crave attention and fetishize it -- or am I just, y'know, human?  

I'll repeat -- as far as I can tell, the indie story game designers that I have met all genuinely enjoy playing their games and similar games.  So, for example, I played three games with Ben Lehman this past weekend: Basic D&D, The Face of Angels, and A Thousand and One Nights.  (Ben's author of Polaris -- a GMless game about fairy-tale knights at the North Pole, and thus is presumably grade-A swine.)