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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Ryan

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

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

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

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

So Daniel,

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

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

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

-L

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

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

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

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

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

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