It's been 11 years since I first registered here. Wow, time really flies! Seems a good point to take stock.

What have you published? How?

Several free things on the Internet (back in 2001 and ongoing). That's how it all started, anyway. Posting freebie game ideas. Not really playtested, just thrown out there for people to pick up and play. People did. People liked them. Ron reviewed Bedlam and it encouraged me to take things a bit more seriously.

I contributed one of my games, The Agency, to the Nopress Anthology in 2004. That was something. A random collection of people from around the 'net get together and put out an anthology of roleplaying games. Something that wouldn't have happened without The Forge. Worth tracking down the original threads in the archive, if they're still there.

In 2006 I published Covenant, which was one of those games I wanted to exist, but didn't. It sold moderately well, but was always a harder sell than other games. I followed that up in 2008 with a miniatures skirmish game, Pulp! Then last year I revamped The Agency as its own book. I'm really pleased with how that came together as a product, definitely the culmination of various lessons learned in process.

How have you distributed it?

At conventions, selling in joint booths of various types (in the UK, US, Finland and Germany). Also via websites like IPR and RPG.NOW. I also had translations, from the nice folks at Coyote Press in Italy, where they handled distributing.

What has helped you reach the most people? Make the most sales?

Definitely convention attendance and running the game. Play your game with new people, you may sell it and you get to meet nice folks too! Also getting a posse of like-minded folks together and helping them produced reciprocal benefits.

What's the biggest mistake you've made in design & publishing? Or disaster you've experienced?

Tendency to keep tweaking, rather than get something out and played is my biggest failing.

Who have been your communities of design? Who is right now? How do you work with them?

Here at The Forge in the early days. Later, though it's been quiet of late, the Collective Endeavour worked well for me as a group of like-minded UK designers. We banded together in an ad-hoc way at conventions and as a support network. Also, a random cluster of Forge escapees on various social media, mostly Google Plus at the moment.

What are your next steps?


Some experimental stuff with new fangled media, plus finally getting that fantasy city game I always wanted to do, done.

Thanks Forge folks, it's been a great time!

-Matt

It's been a ride. Thanks everyone!

Y'know, before The Forge I didn't know what I was. I thought maybe I was a creatively blocked author. Or worse, a low motivation author. Now I know what I am. The Forge taught me what I am. So, thanks for that. A lot.

Paul

Well, with this mechanic alone I would run into a very similar problem. How could I check that the GM really rolled an 8?




Split: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=33123.0


Actually, that's a really good idea! The players could just remember which number they called, and then they could check the number after the information is revealed. There is also very little overhead involved in this method.




Well, since we are playing GURPS we have very little representation of the fictional situation in the mechanics... But the way this is handled in The Mountain Witch sounds really good.

This thread is a split from here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=33110.0
I thought that this topic deserved a seperate thread.



Ok, I will start off by asserting that there is in fact such a thing as a 'neutral GM', followed by a description of what a neutral GM does. I suspect that I just haven't made it clear enough what I want from the GM, and what I mean by 'fair' or 'neutral' in this context, so I intend to do so now: I use the term 'neutral' in the legal sense of 'impartial'. So in the same way that an impartial judge doesn't favor anyone or discriminate against anyone, a neutral GM doesn't favor anyone or discriminate against anyone. In both cases, the only acceptable means of arraving at a descision is the law or the system, respectively. But that doesn't mean that neutral GMs may never follow their own whims: Just as most legal systems include some room for interpretation, to allow the judge to deal with the details of a specific situation, most roleplaying systems leave some things to the GM... And as long as the GM doesn't use this freedom to favor anyone or discriminate against anyone, that's ok.

So to summarize, a GM is 'neutral', if the following two conditions are met:
a) The GM follows the system (the rules are never directly broken)
b) The GM doesn't favor anyone or discriminate against anyone

That being said, the problem I am talking about ("GMs indulging on their own whims") is not about GMs who use the freedom they are given by the system, but about GMs who either break the rules or unfairly favor some players over others. That's the reason why I want to be able to check if the GM manipulated hidden rolls: If I discover that a particular GM did that, I can start looking for a non-railroading GM that much faster. As a side effect, a mechanic like that could also prevent some GMs from doing it in the first place. To stick with the analogy to the legal system: The reason why public trials are a human right is to discourage judges from giving arbitrary verdicts. If everyone can see a violation of the rules, a violation of the rules becomes less likely.


About the machine thing: Actually, there are some areas where I want to GM to indulge. The setting, the atmosphere, the NPCs and the details of the challenge we face are some examples of areas where I want the GM to have a great deal of freedom. I don't know of any machine that can set those things up reliably and in good quality. Now, one could ask "what's the difference between a GM who sets an arbitrarily high challenge and a GM who breaks the rules?". To me, there is a big difference. Facing a big challenge is just like playing a computer game in "hard" mode: Yes, we might not have a very high chance of succeeding, but when we do, it's really, really sweet. If the GM breaks the rules, we might have an artificially high or low chance of succeeding, but if we win, it doesn't feel like we have accomplished anything, and if we lose, it just feels like we have been cheated out of victory. So, neutral GMs can set up the situation in any way they like, but once the situation is set, then they should stick to it and handle our actions according to the rules, or at least in an impartial way if the rules don't cover it.

So, if our characters are plotting against each other, the GM can set the setting that we use for our plotting arbitrarily. It is up to us to take best advantage of our surroundings. However, if the GM wants to be neutral, all identical actions by all players should be handled the same way, and the rules should never be broken. That's all I am asking for. As long as we have a fair playing field for our plotting, the GM can do as much whim indulging as needed.

I...too much.

Thank you.

Thanks to Ron and everyone else who has helped make this place what it's been. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

I have seen hidden die rolls used to great effect in The Mountain Witch.

Duels are resolved with such rolls.
The duelists roll a die and hide it.
If either wants to press the attack the two results are exposed and compared, high wins.
If both parties hold their action, they get to roll another die, and again choose to press the attack or hold again.
A third round of rolling is possible.

The tense expectation of when the blows will start to fall exists in the fiction.  It also exists in the resolution procedure that the players are engaging.

That parallel between fictional situation and player behaviour is rarely accomplished in RPGs.  I love it when it does happen.

Yeah, thanks for being strong and changing the RPG industry. It's been a great 11 years. :)

Peace,

-Troy

Before the forum closes down, I also wanted to say thank you to Ron, Vincent, and Clinton, but in particular to Ron, for maintaining the Forge all these years. Say what you want about the moderation style but that moderation style has made it possible to have productive, focussed discourse on the internet. I guess that speaks for itself. And having moderated open internet forums myself, I have some feeble idea of what a Hercules labor that must have been.

Cheers, Frank