Oh, and I'm now unstickying this thread, and opening it for anyone else who wants to post in it.

RPGPundit

RPG

n. Abbreviation for Role-Playing Game, in which a gamemaster creates a progressive storyline and other players control the characters within the story.

via the BGG Glossary

Quote from: RPGPunditYour point here might be valid, but the alternative you are proposing is no better than the terminology we are using now. In fact, it is far worse.
If you can think up a better term than Mainstream RPG, one that doesn't leave us ass-up with our back to the Swine, then feel free to suggest it.

As far as I've seen, it's far more common for exclusive indie role-players to use the the term "mainstream RPGs" than to use "adventure RPGs".  To use your terms for a moment, calling them mainstream helps them consider their own games to be unique and elite as opposed to the unwashed masses.  So they approve of your term, at least.  

Personally, I dislike the term "mainstream RPGs" because it doesn't say anything about what they are.  It's like the "modern" movement in art, which some stupid people a hundred years ago thought would be cool to call "modern" and "modernist".  When styles inevitably changed, the name just sounds stupid -- leading to the even more ridiculous term "post-modern" (though I suppose many of them were poking fun at modernists).  

I prefer terms which actually say something about what they're talking about.

Quote from: jhkimAs far as I've seen, it's far more common for exclusive indie role-players to use the the term "mainstream RPGs" than to use "adventure RPGs".  To use your terms for a moment, calling them mainstream helps them consider their own games to be unique and elite as opposed to the unwashed masses.  So they approve of your term, at least.  

Personally, I dislike the term "mainstream RPGs" because it doesn't say anything about what they are.  It's like the "modern" movement in art, which some stupid people a hundred years ago thought would be cool to call "modern" and "modernist".  When styles inevitably changed, the name just sounds stupid -- leading to the even more ridiculous term "post-modern" (though I suppose many of them were poking fun at modernists).  

I prefer terms which actually say something about what they're talking about.

Yes, as do I. It would be nice if we could just call our games RPGs, and the storygamers out there called their games Storygames.  I would have no issue with that.

As it is, the one thing Settembrini was making a good point about is the need for a better term than "Mainstream RPG", though I don't really buy the "You're only encouraging them" business (since they have shown to need no encouraging, so what exactly is lost by defining my RPGs as the ones that have widespread popular acceptance and recognition as actual RPGs, and their games as disconnected from that consensus?).

The better, more accurate terms would be "Real RPGs" and "games that are not RPGs", but I actually started using Mainstream RPGs here as a way of being a little less confrontational. Perhaps I should revert to the more accurate form?

RPGPundit

QuotePerhaps I should revert to the more accurate form?

I´d prefer that to using the awful "mainstream".
If you are a fundamentalist, do it thoroughly.

And I can ysmpathize with explaining: Adventure RPGs are what others consider real RPGs.

I've seen "traditional RPGs" vs. "indie RPGs" (where no matter what anyone says, 'indie' means 'alternative.').

I think that's ... 'pretty clear' (of course I also think Sorcerer is a pretty traditional RPG). In any event, while I don't subscribe to the idea that more-theme means less-adventure, I do think that having a useful language to talk about (erm) traditional RPGs apart from some of the more experimental stuff that can/does actually involve roleplaying and playing a game is useful.

So I tend to side more with Settembrini on this--and I doubt that someone calling DitV a roleplaying game is going to really hurt things any. When I played it, it seemed awfully like some games of GURPS I've played in terms of thematic content.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI doubt that someone calling DitV a roleplaying game is going to really hurt things any. When I played it, it seemed awfully like some games of GURPS I've played in terms of thematic content.

This just...well, it makes me laugh and cry at the same time.  So much conflict, so little reason.

I mean, part of me thinks - gee, they went through all that trouble on the Forge to, what, come up with a game that plays like GURPS?

Another part of me says, it's a shame that all of the passion had to get in the way of evolving (not revolutionizing) RPGs.

The last part of me thinks the Victoria's Secret Fashion show was at it's best...during the commercials.  My wife certainly thought so.

Quote from: MarcoI've seen "traditional RPGs" vs. "indie RPGs" (where no matter what anyone says, 'indie' means 'alternative.').

Indie should refer to the method of production / distribution, not the style of the game.  I'm working on an "indie" RPG, but it won't be a Forge-style Indie RPG.

Quote from: StuartIndie should refer to the method of production / distribution, not the style of the game.  I'm working on an "indie" RPG, but it won't be a Forge-style Indie RPG.

Well, at least, the official Forge definition of "indie" is about the method of production / distribution.  (That's the definition on the about page of the site.)  The same for the Indie RPG Awards, which have recognized games like Artesia and Perfect20.  

It seems like it's at least half people outside the Forge who have taken up using "indie" to mean "has a style typical of authors who post on the Forge" rather than independently produced and distributed / creator-controlled.

QuoteWell, at least, the official Forge definition of "indie" is about the method of production / distribution. (That's the definition on the about page of the site.) The same for the Indie RPG Awards, which have recognized games like Artesia and Perfect20.

It seems like it's at least half people outside the Forge who have taken up using "indie" to mean "has a style typical of authors who post on the Forge" rather than independently produced and distributed / creator-controlled.

That´s why I think it´s smart to have a decent term for "forgey". "Indie" is still around as a term though, but can then be used intuitively for a method of publishing.

Quote from: jhkimWell, at least, the official Forge definition of "indie" is about the method of production / distribution.  (That's the definition on the about page of the site.)  The same for the Indie RPG Awards, which have recognized games like Artesia and Perfect20.  

It seems like it's at least half people outside the Forge who have taken up using "indie" to mean "has a style typical of authors who post on the Forge" rather than independently produced and distributed / creator-controlled.

I once PM'd Ron a list of links of people who on the Forge used "indie" to mean "alternative."

It's more than half there too. There's a whole lot of identity tied up in this stuff (same as with alternative music, I'd guess).

-Marco

Quote from: jhkimWell, at least, the official Forge definition of "indie" is about the method of production / distribution.  (That's the definition on the about page of the site.)  The same for the Indie RPG Awards, which have recognized games like Artesia and Perfect20.  

It seems like it's at least half people outside the Forge who have taken up using "indie" to mean "has a style typical of authors who post on the Forge" rather than independently produced and distributed / creator-controlled.

Oh please, the Forge itself does this, all the time. The idea of the "Indie Press Revolution", the whole image, is to try to claim that Indie is not just what they offer as the textbook definition, but also a question of being rebels, of being cool, of being an elite.

Not to mention Edwards deciding that independent games he doesn't like are just "Fantasy Heartbreakers" and not true Indie games; and deciding that games he really loves that are obviously NOT indie by the textbook definition, like Heroquest, get to be "considered Indie" for no particular reason.

The average Forgite would bristle at the thought of having to consider RIFTS an "Indie" game, even though if you go by the textbook definition of it all, its clearly the current most successful Indie Game of all, easily King of the Indie Games.  But let's face it, its so blatantly obvious that RIFTS is NOT what you guys are talking about, or the game you would like to hold up as the vanguard.  That's because the Forge isn't about being a nice little place for independant publishers to hone their craft at all; its an ideological training camp for GNS-Theory and the promotion of subverting the RPG hobby with an aggressive Storygaming agenda.

RPGPundit

One more reason to lump them together under "Thematic Games".:cool:

Quote from: RPGPunditThe average Forgite would bristle at the thought of having to consider RIFTS an "Indie" game, even though if you go by the textbook definition of it all, its clearly the current most successful Indie Game of all, easily King of the Indie Games.

By "textbook" you mean "Forge", right?

Because in every other industry, Indie means "not distributed by means of a standard three-tiered system."

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBy "textbook" you mean "Forge", right?

Because in every other industry, Indie means "not distributed by means of a standard three-tiered system."

This is where thinks get, well, hinkey.

In just about every industry, indie explicitly means, as you say, not distributed by means of a standard three-tiered system – literally short for independent.  Problem is, in every other industry, it's also used, colloquially, as "alternative," "cool," and "rebellious." By using the term indie, the Forge not only gets the distribution definition, but all the others as well.

Whether or not this was intended is certainly only known by those that decided to use it. Whether or not both “textbook” and “colloquial” versions are now used interchangeably is barely debatable, if at all.

PS: Forgot "elite" and "quality." And to point out that all of these other terms are wrapped up in the term independent due to the historical nature of the content that ends up being made/distributed independently. It was stuff that traditional distributors wouldn't touch for lack of profitability.