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.

We did get drinking in though.

Hey Fred,

Thanks for putting the effort into creating the content.

Hey Daniel,

Yeah I noticed that right away. I check itunes right after I finish since about 40% of my people get the show through itunes. The problem is with Feedburner, and I’ve been unable to fix it yet.

Did you get The Digital Front fixed. I had to listen to 5 shows this week to get caught up. Heh. I really liked the newest one, as I wasn’t aware people were creating folding models and maps with pdfs.

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!

I have never heard ef em rah, nor have I ever heard the first syllable pronounced if. But then, I do live in Canada.

Thanks. I peeked at them. Likely I won’t have time to thoroughly read, and digest them until next week, as Forge Midwest is this weekend, and I’m really busy trying to have something playtest-able, and getting ahead on the podcast since I won’t have this weekend to edit.

Heh. Thanks to both of you. I’ll try to remember. Yoki, you’re right it’s probrably not my most solid work, but I felt it was only fair before I tackle explaining exploration.

Thanks for listening, both of you.

You can find out how to pronounce “Ephemera” on MW’s site, they allow you to listen to the pronounciation:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ephemera

Decent show if a bit odd, but for people just jumping in it’s a good starting point, as they quickly find out what you’ve already covered.

Keep up the good work,

Yoki

eff em rah

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ephemera

Well, that’s the beauty of Nordic theory - the discource takes the form of published articles.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~hohakkar/meilahti/foreword.html

http://users.tkk.fi/~mmontola/diegesis.html

http://temppeli.org/rpg/process_model/

Thanks. I haven’t run out of theory though, it’s just I always have interviews I’m sitting on. They’re about all worked through now for the weekly schedule. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, there’s lots of The Big Model left to cover. I’ve been covering it as it’s the one I know. The podcast grew out of a desire to present the big model in a more understandable manner than through the Forge forums.

I really know nothing about Nordic theory. Is there a place where the ideas are presented in a clear, all encompassing manner? I don’t even have much time to go to the Forge anymore, so trying to dig out the whole of ideas, from say a forum or discussions across blogs, is well beyond my ken. I would love to learn more, if it doesn’t involve months or years of digging like I’ve done for the big model.

Also if the folks you mention don’t hit the few large American conventions I go to, it will be hard for me to interview them in person. I’ll do Skype for a discussion based thing like Discussions from the Closet, but interviews I do in person. I make a janitor’s wage so it’s unlikely I’ll be going overseas anytime soon.

However, it seems that you’ve ran out of theory to comment on or get out of the closet. That’s because, you’ve exclusively focused on the Forge-theory.

I would really like, if you’d get back to what makes this podcast special and bring new theory from the closet. Check out the Nordic stuff next or whatever else that is new. I’m sure that for example Montola, Hakkarainen & Stenros would have a lot to say about the Meilahti school and beyond. The Solmukohta books have a lot of interresting articles and persons behind those.

I’m not sure informative would be the term I would use. Heh. I wouldn’t read too much into these results, there really aren’t enough for any kind of statistical significance.

Strange that I have played MW numerouse times, but so many others have not. Maybe a regional thing? Makes Forge Con that much more interesting…

Just in case anyone has been waiting, please feel free to post again.

Thanks. I understand you much better now.

The cultural expectation / demand really hits home as that is where I was at. I think I just expected help as a right, that folks should just be reaching out and giving advice rather than me needing to ask / deserve help. I find this interesting as it is well outside my normal behavior. I’m still growing it appears.

I’m not sure I agree about Mutualism dying at the Forge, but that’s likely not a fruitful discussion as it has to do with perception. Also having my thoughts turned over from this podcast, I’m not certain exactly what I think. Heh.

Mutualism appears to have arisen as a phenomenon within the group. It starts as friendly help by people willing to be involved in something … anything … to help develop this new thing. From the account given in the interview it seems as though the phenomenon encountered two difficulties: the success of an individual as a result of community effort; and the movement from mutualism as a phenomenon to a cultural expectation/demand.

In the face of these two difficulties it seems that the group was unable to maintain itself as a single group, but is forced to collapse under its own weight. Theoreticians of mutualism as a political movement would suggest this is a good thing, because it prevents the community from building a tower of Babel (so to speak) and forces the group to engage in genuine giving rather than a giving that comes from cultural or societal expectations.

Did mutualism die at the Forge? It sounds like it, and I venture that it was probably necessary so that it could be resurrected in smaller groups over a larger scale.

I’m a bit hesitant to reply as I’m not sure what tone to read your comment in. It seems it can either be read friendly with a bit of flippancy for fun, or an attempt at a jab.

I would normally just ignore the second, so to make sure I’m respectful to someone I haven’t interacted with yet… I’m assuming the friendly tone.

I think it’s interesting that you draw the conclusion that Mutualism is dead, especially since I came to this discussion with that opinion and left convinced that mutualism isn’t dead. I somewhat get what you are saying about the center not holding. I made that statement at some point during the podcast which Vincent quickly objected too. After having time to think about it I’m not sure I agree with Vincent. That’s likely a conversation for another time….

I think we have likely just exceeded Dunbar’s number (150), or… those other guys who say 290… anyway, there was a bit of splitting with a lot of cross connections still maintained. On the other hand, I’ve had help from folks from all over so maybe I’m wrong.

What I’m curious about is how you come to your conclusion? Can you explain further? Thanks.