Why do indie games have to suck so bad?

[wotmaniac]

I posted this elsewhere, but wanted to cast my net as wide as posible:

The title says it all.

Is there a difference between indie suckatude, and that of more "big names"?  Clearly, there must be a different standard; but do those 2 standards have to be so far apart?

What purpose is served by having a chart for what would seem to be a codified skills mechanic, only to then tell the players that they just make up what skills they want, like out of thin air?
And seriously, do we really need to have a huge chunk of a game that's supposed to be about survival to revolve around "sex moves"? 
WTF?

Or am I missing something?
Somebody, please shed some light.
I've only recently been trying to seriously expand the breadth of my RPG repertoire, and I'm really having trouble finding something that isn't repulsive.

[caelic]

Talking about "indie games" is like talking about "indie films."  Some of them do indeed have a suck factor that knows no bounds.  Others are pretty damned remarkable and groundbreaking.  Ars Magica was an indie game; Dogs in the Vineyard is an indie game.  While neither one may be a given player's cup of tea, I'd look seriously askance at someone who tried to claim that they sucked.
 

[wotmaniac]

Calling Ars Magica an "indie" game is like calling one of Spielberg's movies "indie" because he happened to have used his own studio instead of Paramount.

DitV, on the other hand ... well, Vince Baker is definitely "indie". (with probably enough credits under his belt to called the indie guy)

Speaking of VB -- perhaps you can help me on a couple of things:
I've looked over a few of his games, and the vibe of them just loses me.  Don't get me wrong - he's a good writer, and he definitely has clear vision for his games .... they all just seem a little too Mary Emo-Sue for me -- it's seems like he grew up under the tutelage of White Wolf, and then turned it up to 11.  Is that what you mean by "cup of tea"?  Also, I don't like how vague the settings and GM section are.  It just doesn't seem like a whole stand-alone product to me.  If there is going to be that much left up to user input, then charging me that much ('cause VB does have a relatively high price point for his stuff) is rather insulting -- don't fucking charge me for MTP.
Oh, and AW really turned me off with its "sex moves".  I mean, fuck, really? (yeah, that one is really bothering me -- like, to the point of actually pissing me of).  I don't think I even want to know what an actual session would look like.

A lot of these games (i.e., indie games in general) have this free-form thing going on; and to me, this just comes off as being lazy with your system.  You can tell that a lot of these are made with a very particular play style (not just game style) in mind .... like the game(s) was custom-made just for this guy's own personal play group -- which is just rather myopic, IMO.

[GreatRobo]

There is a large difference (just like with incomes in many countries) between the budget of indie companies and large companies. As we all know money buys everything... Good ideas get bought up by large companies and many idea makers are all too happy to take the money over the true creative control.

[JohnnyMayHymn]

My reflex from the title was to spout off about Minecraft and Terraria and the like; but, after actually reading the post; yea, I agree; it, reminded me of the BOEF, a novelty I guess; but, who wants to sit around and actually RP that stuff; not, me; nor, do I want to end this marvelous sentence; however, I will say that I have been enjoying Castles & Crusades; if, only for it's simplicity; and, an excuse to dig through OSRIC, AD&D and 3.X; and, play them together; it's, kind of like the Perl of RPG's; in that, it glues them together.

[savagehominid]

There isn't that much of a difference between "indie game" and "mainstream games", outside how the games are published. You can found very well designed, traditional style games that have been published Indie. Likewise Marget Wies has been publishing kind-of out there stuff recently, using a traditional model.

Now on suckatude, you have to look at them as individual games. Each has rules designed for specific and different purposes, also different audiences.

I have a few games that directly involve Sex. It doesn't bother me at all, I like to have sex, and sex can be a powerful motivator in stories (like life) as well, so why not include it in a game. I'm glad for games with Sex with rules, or as part of the focus. However, not all games should have sex though, much like not all stories should be either.

Now on the whole skill list thing you mentioned, I'm thinking you are talking about PDQ or HeroQuest. Well the point is to highlight whats important about the character to the player, and the GM. Also play then becomes focused around that in a very tight fashion, problems get resolved, characters develop and advance. It is a different model that works.

In the end Rules are part of the process of play. Changing those rules alter the process, and leads down different roads which can lead to unexpected outcomes.

Remember, its not an us and them. Gaming is a niche as is, not every game will be for everyone. Me? I do not like D&D3.x/d20, WoD, or Shadowrun  (my anti-fun is a d20 powered Shadowrun as published by White Wolf).  I can tell you why, but do those games suck? Not really, they do what they do. Sometimes well, sometimes a little aimless.

So if you have a specific problem with an indie game, look at it that way. What does it do differently, sometimes trying it out.

[wotmaniac]

I think the crux of the issue for me is probably a result of the checks-and-balances in the development/production process (or lack thereof).  The fewer eyes that cross the material, the worse.
Of course, I guess the other extreme would also be a problem (i.e., too many cooks in the kitchen)

[savagehominid]

I think the crux of the issue for me is probably a result of the checks-and-balances in the development/production process (or lack thereof).  The fewer eyes that cross the material, the worse.
Of course, I guess the other extreme would also be a problem (i.e., too many cooks in the kitchen)

And care to illustrate this example? Because I disagree completely. I've seen professional material written and edited more poorly than indie games, example: Burning Wheel Gold vs D&D 4e. How much errata is in one and not the other? How much more useful is the index? Etc.

[caelic]

Calling Ars Magica an "indie" game is like calling one of Spielberg's movies "indie" because he happened to have used his own studio instead of Paramount.

...if we assume that it was Spielberg's first movie and he made it out of his garage on a shoestring budget, sure.  And, yeah, I'd call that an "indie" movie.  Nobody starts off as one of the big names.  Spielberg didn't, and neither did Tweet or Rein*Hagen.

Speaking of VB -- perhaps you can help me on a couple of things:
I've looked over a few of his games, and the vibe of them just loses me.  Don't get me wrong - he's a good writer, and he definitely has clear vision for his games .... they all just seem a little too Mary Emo-Sue for me -- it's seems like he grew up under the tutelage of White Wolf, and then turned it up to 11.  Is that what you mean by "cup of tea"?  Also, I don't like how vague the settings and GM section are.  It just doesn't seem like a whole stand-alone product to me.  If there is going to be that much left up to user input, then charging me that much ('cause VB does have a relatively high price point for his stuff) is rather insulting -- don't fucking charge me for MTP.

High price point is the bane of indie games; when you're printing 500 copies, you can't get the same rates as someone who's printing 5,000.

And, yeah, that's largely what I mean by "cup of tea," though I wouldn't exactly describe DitV as "emo."  Baker does tend to focus heavily on the psycho-drama, but there's a lot in there I think is of merit.  He's not the only person to structure games in a style that's explicitly episodic, rather than linear, but he does a good job of laying out the reasons for structuring the game that way.  (Mind you, I'm biased--I happen to think tabletop RPGs work better in an episodic format.)

I generally put indie games (at least as they tend to be defined today) in the same category as, say, stream-of-consciousness writing a la Joyce or Faulkner.  It does new things, a lot of more mainstream writers may be inspired to incorporate some of those new things into their own writings--but not really what the typical reader wants to pick up and read.  Thomas Pynchon would be another great example.    The large majority of readers tend to give up on it afer a few chapters, because it's so frigging inaccessible.  On the other hand, there are a lot of writers out there who have been influenced by the book, and that influence shows up in their own writing, which is more accessible.

I'd argue that the main impact of good indie games on the RPG industry as a whole is like that.  You're never going to see DitV or Sorcerer or SotC become a competitor to Pathfinder, but you will see concepts from those games popping up in Pathfinder and similarly-popular systems.

A lot of these games (i.e., indie games in general) have this free-form thing going on; and to me, this just comes off as being lazy with your system.  You can tell that a lot of these are made with a very particular play style (not just game style) in mind .... like the game(s) was custom-made just for this guy's own personal play group -- which is just rather myopic, IMO.

Depends on your design goals.  If you want to become a rich, famous, and successful game designer, then yeah, it's absolutely myopic.  (Mind you, I'd also say you've taken some pretty good drugs, since becoming a rich, famous, and successful game designer is about as likely as becoming a rich, famous, and successful breeder of pedigreed show hamsters...but I digress.)

On the other hand, if your goal is actually to say, "What can be done with the RPG medium that hasn't been done before?" then you have to be prepared to accept the fact that a lot of what you try is going to just outright fail, and a lot more of it is going to leave many people scratching their heads and saying, "Huh?" 

Pretentious?  Maybe.  I'll admit, my own RPG writing tends to be about as mainstream as you can get; I'm aiming for clean, comprehensible, and fun, not for groundbreaking art.  On the other hand, I've seen some damned good ideas pop up even in indie games I otherwise considered pretentious crap.

[wotmaniac]

@ savagehominid:
Exception does not disprove the rule.
4e's problem is that it is being micro-managed by a company that does not understand its target audience or this niche industry that they butted in to.  Not to mention that there has been nothing resembling stability -- how the hell do you expect to have quality anything without a culture of trust and stability?    That being said, higher production does inherently set higher expectations.
I don't know much about Burning Wheel; but the fact that you specifically mentioned the "Gold" edition implies a lot.  But whatever.

As to your question:
VB has the habit of having his games go out of its way to create drama for the simple sake of creating drama (i.e., all of his games) -- the point and focus is the creation of drama itself, without much care for the source or substance of said drama.  His goal is to be "deep and dramatic"; but it's actually pretty shallow and annoying; and is evidence of a Mary Sue drama queen.
HeroQuest is so vague in its PC expectations, that I don't know how any game ever has anything approaching consistency or stability.

Shall I go on?


@ caelic:
point taken.

[savagehominid]

@wotmaniac

Okay, so...exactly what is your experience with indie games. I own quite a few different indie games, by quiet I mean pushing the 40 mark. As in 40 different game systems, not just supplements for existing systems. Some books are quite beautiful, like Burning Empires or Shock Human Contact. Most are well organized, or at least as well organized as traditional game books (the intro, char gen - powers, combat, other rules, GM advice, monster/adventure format). Nearly all the lengthy ones include an index, and most are at least proof read.

OH on Gold? Ya, when a print run was out he revised his game. So taking pot shots at an improving product, real class.

On VB games. The point is the creation of drama itself? As in dramatic conflicts between people. Whats wrong with that? This isn't "Mary Sue Drama" about moping, it is about driven characters in conflict with each other.

Heroquest is not vague. Even in the generic rules, it tells you about setting up those expectations for what PCs do, as a group. This plays into how the difficulties are set.

The fact is, a lot of these games do things differently. They aren't about mapping character abilities to simulate a fictional reality, nor about things that make "traditional game balance" sense. What do you consider good games, and why?

Also...again, how much experience do you have with Indie Games? Playing and reading...not reading about on forums, or skimming through a book. Also what about them do you not understand (specific cases please), instead of just making judgements...care to offer some actual observations?

[wotmaniac]

OH on Gold? Ya, when a print run was out he revised his game. So taking pot shots at an improving product, real class.

aaaaaand now we've gone ad hominem -- and missing my point in the process.
My point was that a revised edition isn't quite a fair example -- the original release had quite a bit of handling before the update, so of course "Gold" is going to be a solid product (presumably speaking -- I haven't actually played it).  The fact that you intentionally chose the revised edition just came off as disingenuous as to the point that you were trying to make.


Moving on ...
I'm sitting on about 10 games right now, and all of them leave me wanting.  However, the tone of your argument is coming across as "stop not liking what I like, and I won't let it go until you do" type of thing. 
I have neither the time nor patience to sift through 40+ games to find something I actually like.  If it can't grab me with a casual once-over, I'm not gonna waste any more time on it.  If it does happen to grab me on that first once-over, but doesn't inspire me to actually play it, I'm probably gonna put it down and forget all about it.
Hell, most RPGs in general (regardless of production level) fail to make it past stage 1 with me.

And here's what's really getting me -- you're worrying this like a dog on a bone despite the fact that I have already admitted to unfairly applying a biased expectation and conceding many of the points that have been made.  What else do you want?  I've evidently hit a nerve, and you seem to be taking this personal.


and still moving ....
Creating drama needs to have a point -- the simple existence of drama is not a point.  So yes, drama for the simple sake of drama is shallow, pretentious, and uninteresting.  A game that exists as nothing more than a happenstance venue for melodrama, IMO, falls strongly in the category of "suckatude".  It ain't High Art -- it's a fucking game.  (of course, much of White Wolf falls in to this category as well -- make of that what you will).  In addition of everything that VB has done, stuff like Sorcerer and The Shadow of Yesterday falls in to this as well.


A lot of games suck -- throughout the range of production values.  I happened to have zeroed in on indie games because that's what I've been churning through lately ..... after realizing that so many of the "bigger" games suck as well.

The only 2 games that have gotten my attention lately are The Riddle of Steel and Mazes and Minotaurs (though, TBH, that second one's got me only because of the "Affectionate Parody" value).

[savagehominid]

aaaaaand now we've gone ad hominem -- and missing my point in the process.
My point was that a revised edition isn't quite a fair example -- the original release had quite a bit of handling before the update, so of course "Gold" is going to be a solid product (presumably speaking -- I haven't actually played it).  The fact that you intentionally chose the revised edition just came off as disingenuous as to the point that you were trying to make.

I just looked at the first book on my shelf. Most of the indie games I have, from my reading are a bit more carefully edited.

Moving on ...
I'm sitting on about 10 games right now, and all of them leave me wanting.  However, the tone of your argument is coming across as "stop not liking what I like, and I won't let it go until you do" type of thing. 
I have neither the time nor patience to sift through 40+ games to find something I actually like.  If it can't grab me with a casual once-over, I'm not gonna waste any more time on it.  If it does happen to grab me on that first once-over, but doesn't inspire me to actually play it, I'm probably gonna put it down and forget all about it.
Hell, most RPGs in general (regardless of production level) fail to make it past stage 1 with me.

Thats fine, but your tone of "These all are less well polished etc" really flies against all my experience I've had.

And here's what's really getting me -- you're worrying this like a dog on a bone despite the fact that I have already admitted to unfairly applying a biased expectation and conceding many of the points that have been made.  What else do you want?  I've evidently hit a nerve, and you seem to be taking this personal.

I would agree with that, except you seem to not get it. See below...

and still moving ....
Creating drama needs to have a point -- the simple existence of drama is not a point.  So yes, drama for the simple sake of drama is shallow, pretentious, and uninteresting.  A game that exists as nothing more than a happenstance venue for melodrama, IMO, falls strongly in the category of "suckatude".  It ain't High Art -- it's a fucking game.  (of course, much of White Wolf falls in to this category as well -- make of that what you will).  In addition of everything that VB has done, stuff like Sorcerer and The Shadow of Yesterday falls in to this as well.

You see "oh, I have different expectations" but still deride these games as suckatude, and pretentious. The difference between these game and White Wolf is very evident in play. White Wolf is about "personal horror" (har), wrestling with inner desires and stuff. Where as Sorcerer and Dogs in the Vineyard are both about characters in positions of powers, because of  this they are thrust into unstable situations. Thats what leads to the dramatic tension and escalation. By drama, let my clarify. This is external character conflicts, all the internal wrestling is not the point. We at the table, want to see what happens in play. It could be "dramatic", sometimes its just out right horrific.

You may not like that, thats fine. But goings "its a game, its not high art" is much like "its just a movie, I don't need no high art in that". So what? Once again your expectations are just different. I don't take people who love blockbuster movies to a David Lynch movie.

So WHAT are you expectations for games?

A lot of games suck -- throughout the range of production values.  I happened to have zeroed in on indie games because that's what I've been churning through lately ..... after realizing that so many of the "bigger" games suck as well.

The only 2 games that have gotten my attention lately are The Riddle of Steel and Mazes and Minotaurs (though, TBH, that second one's got me only because of the "Affectionate Parody" value).

On taking it personal. I'm not, nor do I want you to admit much of anything.  Your points baffles me, why the focus on indie games. You say you concede expectations, but then you hold firmly onto what the point of games should be. Especially on the dramatic standpoint, The Riddle of Steel is all about character drama, as well.

Now instead of chiding or going haha (hey I'm an ass), I'll ask you this.

From your read though, why does the Riddle of Steel appeal to you as a dramatic game, and the others do not? Explain the best we can, I'd like to have a conversation and fill out your expectations

I feel it would've been more helpful to go "oh hey, all these games suck and here is why?" Then explain why, you feel they don't accomplish their goals. Or what facets of games you just dont dig. Yo...

[wotmaniac]

Sorry, I should have made a disclaimer at the top of this thread -- since the switch-over, I'm not yet tall enough to ride the BLYHT ride, and I needed to vent.  So, this is mostly venting, and of the stream-of-thought persuasion (though, I really do appreciate all the feedback so far).

That having been said, let's break this down:
1) you just asked me "why the focus on indie games" -- despite me having just explained that very thing.  Oh, look -- you even quoted it.
2) my reference to "expectations" was directed at production quality -- i.e., I have, twice now, admitted to wrongly applied a double standard and have backed off of that
3) I have several times explained that I don't like gratuitous melodrama -- which is the way I interpret games like Sorcerer, TSoY, and anything by VB.  (I threw in White Wolf because they seem to have pioneered the gratuitous melodrama schtick -- thus paving the way for aspiring designers everywhere to think that this type of supersexycool artsy-fartsy crap was okay)
  3a) I've mentioned specific games, and said what I specifically don't like about them.  Just because you don't agree or don't understand the perspective doesn't mean that I haven't done it.
  3b) I haven't yet gone in to these games' goals or how well they do/don't accomplish those goals -- that's not yet been part of my contention.

Now, the point of that little break-down was to show you that (1)you're running me in circles, and (2) you're not paying attention.  I get it -- you don't agree with me ... cool.
I've already gotten what I needed from this thread:  GreatRobo and JohnnyMayHymn confirmed to me that I'm not alone (thus helping to perpetuate the idea that I'm not totally crazy -- but that's still up for debate); and caelic and yourself gave convincing counterpoints.  Cool -- just what I was looking for.  As a matter of fact, that is explicitly what I was looking for.  Thanks.

And then I got to the last 2 paragraphs in that last post -- and something in your verbiage caught my attention ... <*does google search*> .... yep, just what I thought.  Only a Forge-ite talks like that about games.
Look, I've gotta level with you -- I'm not looking to be convinced in to liking something that I don't like.  Like I said at the top of this post -- I was mostly just venting; and was hoping that someone would be able to give me some food for thought so that I could adjust my perspective -- which has happened.


Now what am I missing?

[savagehominid]

1) Hm, I see that they are on your mind. I agree with that. The issue I'm having is that you are lumping any creator owned game into the same category...but hey, now I get you are talking about some specific games.

2 and 3b) Okay, so you expectations were at production quality. Then why did you go off about "emo/melodrama". I rolled this into one, and yes, I get you have a certain perspective on games with a dramatic focus. However, lumping them in with White Wolf style is very different. WW is about characterization, where-as other game are about making choices. Now I can see the overlap, especially if you like more adventury games. However, both styles of games go about this differently.

3/a) Here is my issue. You essentially go, oh these games are like X, and offer no...reasoning other than a judgement, and a I don't like this. Then I'm like "Ooooh kay, how did you come to reach this conclusion". Now I haven't gone to this in the best way, I mean hell, I often just stream my thoughts, and was quiet baffled.

FORGE-ite? I guess. *shrug* I just lurk the Actual Play threads, and post...not so often. So okay, before you ascribe me to that camp. I am genuinely interested about the question I asked.

1) I'm not looking to convince you, I am more curious on how you reached that conclusion. I like conversations about differences, ya, I get a little ranty too. Its just my personality (working on that). So I can totally see where I misread you, and I was trying to engage in a different conversation as well.

A side question: What do you see as warning signs about the verbage I used? Perhaps I should've said! "Hey, RoS is also about character drama? So what about RoS versus the other games make it more enticing to you?"

[Unbeliever]

Do you have a list of indie games in mind?  I'm not ultra-familiar with what qualifies as an indie and what doesn't nowadays, outside of not being published by about 3 companies.  And, those seem to be going out of business.

One thing I've noticed in my casual experience with indie games is that a lot of them are a bit more focused and gimmicky.  At one con a while back I saw a game where jenga was a major mechanic.  And, that's a cute gimmick and all, but that's all it is.  Another set of indie games try to focus on one cool thing, and that would be nice for a few sessions, but it's not enough to get me really fired up.  RPGs have, I think, a huge start-up cost -- learning the system and creating characters and just organizing people to play -- so it needs to be worth it to me.  There's that kids with monsters game, which BG reviewed a while back, which seemed to be along those lines. 

On the other hand, there's Godlike/Wild Talents, which I think is a triumph of good editing and pretty solid game design.  I don't know if indie games are worse than mainstream productions in this regard -- White Wolf, WotC, Palladium, etc. have made more than their fair share of crap products ... 

But, perhaps the core gameplay is "broader" (for lack of a better term) than many iconically "indie" games that seem content to be something you play a few times rather than the long-running multi-campaign model of  ye olde RPG.

[Solo]

Wotcmaniac, may I suggest you try... LEGEND?

[savagehominid]

But, perhaps the core gameplay is "broader" (for lack of a better term) than many iconically "indie" games that seem content to be something you play a few times rather than the long-running multi-campaign model of  ye olde RPG.

I look at it like Boardgame Nights. Sometimes, you don't want to play a campaign of Tides of Iron. You just want a gaming experience for night, and a fairly complete one. But yes, that is a cool feature. They are great at party? Dread which is the Jenga game is a horror movie game. As characters do risky things, you pull blocks, when the tower falls...you die a terrible death.

[Unbeliever]

But, perhaps the core gameplay is "broader" (for lack of a better term) than many iconically "indie" games that seem content to be something you play a few times rather than the long-running multi-campaign model of  ye olde RPG.

I look at it like Boardgame Nights. Sometimes, you don't want to play a campaign of Tides of Iron. You just want a gaming experience for night, and a fairly complete one. But yes, that is a cool feature. They are great at party? Dread which is the Jenga game is a horror movie game. As characters do risky things, you pull blocks, when the tower falls...you die a terrible death.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that if what you were looking for is an RPG, and you have in mind a particular model, then these games probably don't stack up well by comparison.  And, in all fairness to the consumer, "RPG" does tend to mean ongoing campaign and so on and so forth. 

If these games say as much on the tin, then more power to them.  I have no idea one way or the other.  But, if they don't, I could see people being very disappointed.  I think the monster game I alluded to in my previous post has an issue along those lines.

P.S.:  is Dread aiming to be a kind of light-hearted affair, along the lines of horror flicks like Friday the 13th part [insert irrational number here] or Evil Dead?  If so, then I can imagine it succeeding quite admirably.  For something geared towards more serious horror, and query how successful that can be in an RPG, I would suspect the jenga mechanic to be more silly and distracting than anything else. 

[savagehominid]

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that if what you were looking for is an RPG, and you have in mind a particular model, then these games probably don't stack up well by comparison.  And, in all fairness to the consumer, "RPG" does tend to mean ongoing campaign and so on and so forth. 

If these games say as much on the tin, then more power to them.  I have no idea one way or the other.  But, if they don't, I could see people being very disappointed.  I think the monster game I alluded to in my previous post has an issue along those lines.

P.S.:  is Dread aiming to be a kind of light-hearted affair, along the lines of horror flicks like Friday the 13th part [insert irrational number here] or Evil Dead?  If so, then I can imagine it succeeding quite admirably.  For something geared towards more serious horror, and query how successful that can be in an RPG, I would suspect the jenga mechanic to be more silly and distracting than anything else.

Usually the games say on the back, a great game for an evening of play, or good for a single session. The use that as a feature to sell the game! I've not seen one that doesn't, or at least doesn't make it very apparent right on the first few pages. One shots are a great thing to have, very low to no prep, just open the book, grab some paper and go!

On Dread, from what I read, and the game experiences it tends to fall more along those the camp, we are watching a horror movie for fun style. Thats why I alluded to horror movie, instead of a horror game. Hell, must "real" horror movies are consdidered th