unforum

[NashCarey]

I, Puppetmaster

[Guest]

[colin]

[imbri]

I may have more than just a few words on this subject later, the reality is that it's almost 6 AM and I've yet to see my bed. In the meantime, I'll just respond to this...

[StercusMaximus]

[Varin]

[jamesi]

I personally enjoyed this article, as I am a firm believer in TINAG. Some of the statements made were strong, but I don't think that judgement needs to be passed on the message of one opinion article alone.

Every PM has their own agenda and ideas about how their game should be presented. While some PMs think that they should not be seen or heard from until the post-game credits, this is not the model that all PMs should feel that they need to follow. What we all have to remember is that this is genre, in many ways, is still in its infancy, and that suggestions about the mechanics of the gaming are going to come from many different directions. There are no right or wrong paths right now. There are no experts for this new genre of gaming, despite what others may tell you.

I think the message from the article was a good one to hear -- that there are players out there who are turned off by certain elements of ARG. Yet, you can't have an ARG without having criticism, can you? Can you really please all of the people all of the time? Even the almighty Beast surely had a number of people who were interested at first and then lost interest because of one factor or another. To base ARG on the model presented by a particular company/team/individual would be wrong, imho. Rather, we should be thinking about ARG in the terms of a gaming world that takes place in real-time with real world interactions. To me, that is ARG.

While we all sit around and META each other until we are blue in the faces, we are shaping the genre to meet and exceed our gaming needs and wants. This is the dawn of a new gaming revolution, and we are at the forefront of deciding what it might (and could) look like. Let's keep the lines of communication open (without denouncing ideas as 'bad' or 'wrong') and enjoy the innovations that PMs are constantly coming up with.

[bill]

I have to admit to be a bit disturbed by this article on several levels.

First, who is 'line' and what makes this person an authority on how any game should be created? If you have something to say, take credit for your words because 'line' has no credibility with me.

Second, I understand that this was an opinion piece, but statements like, "Why are the anonymous PMs able to retain their discipline and professionalism while others succumb to socializing with players and taking their bows (in some cases) before the game has even begun?" are inflamatory. They presume that not being anonymous is unprofessional which is crap.

If you want to hang back and wait for Beast II developed by Megacorp, Inc. and hope for another million dollar production with a major media tie-in so you can recapture the glory days of #evanchan, knock yourself out. In the meantime, please don't piss on the rest of us who are experimenting with ideas and doing it with little or no funds while holding down full time jobs and maintaining families that also demand attention.

These issues are not excuses for puttting bad games out there, but it does mitigate the need for a PM to stick his head out once and while to ask for help.

It's easy to take pot shots from a pedestal when hiding behind anonyminity. Maybe you have creds and have accomplished wonderful things -- I really have no idea. But being a critic is easy. Instead, why don't you propose some ideas to address real issues like funding, building the community, and educating potential PMs? Make a real difference.

[dmax]

A lot of the original article is similar to some things that I've thought - and said - for a while.

I totally love that the ARG concept is new and relatively undefined. I appreciate that NashCarey is seemingly expanding the definition - and it might "stick" or not.

One thing that I've appreciated about the game is the opaque curtain. I particularly don't like pretending to get information from a character if I'm certain that the character is someone I'm already chatting with in "RL." I interacted a lot with Dr. Kendra in CTW, and it was a good thing that I'd never met/heard of the actor playing her role before. If it were Scrappy or Imbri it would've felt much more childish. Instead, it was exciting.

Personally, I prefer the dream without the interruption.

[Diandra]

Basically anonymous editorials like this are bullshit to me. If you're gonna get up on a soapbox and share your views, have the courage to share your identity, too.

If we go by the title, I, Puppetmaster, the writer would lead you to believe that (s)he has produced ARGs in the past. Well, I guess this is the author's way of getting that recognition (even if indirectly) that (s)he faulted other PMs for receiving.

I haven't read too many author unknown books. In fact, the author's name alone can make me purchase a novel, because I like his or her work. The same thing goes for ARGs. Knowing who produced a game can make me want to play it all the more, and can also bring the added benefit of knowing who is receiving any personal information I choose to provide.

Corporations producing ARGs for the sake of ARGs (as a commercial enterprise), and not as a promotional opportunity for product placement (like the examples in the editorial), have meta sites. I see no problem with a grassroots campaign having a meta sight as well. Some games lend themselves to meta sites; some don't. However, making generalized, sweeping statements about the reasons for PMs creating meta sites is, to me, absurd!

Some games have meta sites; some don't. We all have our opinions about the issue. I just don't think it's necessary to hide behind a curtain of anonymity to discuss it. The author could have easily not admitted to being a PM in the article, and stepped up to discuss the curtain vs. no curtain issue.

Perhaps we also need a discussion about integrity, and how iron curtains can be used as shields by PMs who use them ex post facto to issue anonymous editorials publicly bashing others for not doing things in a particular manner.

Dia

[Wolf]

Here's my two cents.

I'm not at all bothered by whoever wrote the essay remaining anonymous. They make some points I agree with, and some points that suggest to me that they haven't ever been behind the curtain.

Personally, I'm all for a strong curtain, the stronger the better. I think the PMs shouldn't even tell their real-life friends what they're up to if they can possibly avoid it. It should start out as a riddle, turn into a mystery and end with the credits. It's unreasonable to me as a writer to expect the talent to just shut up, walk away and disappear when it's over.

It was great to see the Lockjaw community adopt a phrase I wrote as kind of a slogan during the game but I didn't feel the need to go to their forum and say "Thanks, that was really just something I tossed off in a couple of minutes' time. Now back behind the curtain I go." It was for the plot, the characterization, and the advancement of the game. It certainly wasn't for ego (more on ego farther down).

To me, at least, keeping well out of sight is an important step in maintaining the thought in the minds of players that they might not really be playing a game. Knowing up front via accident, announcement or what-have-you that you're playing a game spoils the fun for me, which is why I don't play pre-announced games. I like the mystery of not really knowing.

That said, there are people in the genre who do like knowing up front who's behind what they're about to embark upon. There are people who don't want to give their contact info to a person or people they don't know. Telling people they MUST have an iron curtain and they MUST stay behind it stifles some of the innovation. Maybe some day someone will find a way to incorporate TINAG with an advance announcement or something similar and come up with a truly groundbreaking hybrid…but by stating that there are boundaries that must be enforced you're effectively squashing any room for taking risks.

We'll never all agree on whether staying solidly behind the curtain is critical or not. It needs to be looked at on an individual basis. I'm not even sure that "ego" is the correct word to apply to PMs. I don't recall there being much room for ego when you're behind the curtain, working together to PM a game. Perhaps I've just had the good fortune to work with rather grounded, level-headed people in the games I've co-PM'd, but I doubt it. Once is coincidence. Twice is a pattern.

And speaking of ego, I can think of a lot of ways to feed my ego that don't involve putting my writing out for the world to see and comment on, for better or for worse.

[imbri]

First of all, I would like to thank Line or, as I like to call you, "oh Mysterious One" for the thought provoking article. Unlike some of the others, I welcome your mysterious air. Sometimes it's great to be driven to debate by thoughts provided under a pseudonym. So, welcome oh Mysterious One and I do hope that you continue to provide your thoughts and opinions on ARGN. And, seeing as people are enjoying making assumptions on your identity (as one that doesn't offer other things to the community, as a former PM, as a Porn Star… ok, I haven't seen that one yet ), I'm going to make a bold assumption of my own… Steve Peters wouldn't have a contributing author on a ARGN that wasn't a contributing member of the ARG community. So, whoever you are, I thank you for what I assume you have done in the past and I look forward to what I assume you have to offer in the future, whether that's on ARGN or here or for some upcoming experience.

That all said, I agree and disagree with some of the things you said. I've been thinking about this on and off all day (not to mention getting into it in chat… Bill, Nash, you know it's all in the spirit of debate and I do like you guys ) and I'm still torn on my feelings. I love that.

The biggest issue that I have to take with the article is that while we didn't know the actual PMs on the commercial ventures, we did know the entity (entities) behind them. We were given the opportunity to decide from that information if it would be worth our time and effort or if we wanted to give over some personal information. I'd also argue that the only games to date where the PM was unknown were MU and Mnemosyne and the Widow's Son. With Acheron, we knew "LC and the Acheron team" were behind it, with LockJaw we knew that "a bunch of former CMs" were behind it. While we didn't have the actual identities of the PMs, we did have enough information to make some judgements. So, a complete iron curtain, while really cool, isn't always the best idea because people want to be able to make that judgement.

That said, I think the biggest difficulty or issue here is that we know a lot of the grass roots people and so that greatly taints our ability to immerse into that world. It makes it more personal on a meta level and less personal on the experience level. For that reason, I believe that if the PM team is known or if a single PM of the team is out, it's the PMs responsibility to do what is best for the experience and that is most likely to shut up and fade away while the game is live.

I have no issue with PMs that want to take credit for their work. I agree with wolf that it's not all about ego, at least not at end game. It's about finally being able to talk about it and you get to talk about it with people that understand and don't give you a blank stare like you've lost your marbles. It's about finally being able to express your admiration for the people that have made being behind the experience so very worth it. It's about finally being able to joke around people that you've come to know and it's about being able to talk to them and get some good feedback on things that you've done so you know whether to repeat it in the future.

So, while I do like the idea of encouraging PMs to remain behind the curtain, I'm a bit more forgiving about it and can even think of occasions where it's necessary. Yet, for future PMs out there, I would urge you to err on the side of caution and to take whatever steps need to be taken to obscure your identity, esp when the experience is live.

-b

[vpisteve]

Ahem. Well, nothing like a little spirited discussion to liven things up.

Let me address a couple things, and hopefully lay some things to rest regarding this (and future) editorial content on ARGN.

First off, let me say that in approving this article, I considered it to be a fair opinion of the current state of ARGs in general, and I didn't feel that it bashed anyone or any game in particular. No secific game was mentioned in a negative way, and I know that wasn't the intent of the author. Also, I guess I need to point out that any editorial opinions expressed on ARGN are those of the author, and don't necessarily reflect the views of ARGN itself.

As far as the author goes, I've recruited several people to start being contributors at ARGN. These folks will write all sorts of things, from general news and rumors to opinions, whether they be in the form of general editorials or reviews of specific games. There will be varying views expressed, I'm sure, as time goes by. You can agree with them or not, just as you can agree with your favorite film critic or not.

I can personally vouch for each and every one of them, as far as their credibility goes, and know they've all been around long enough to have a good feel for the genre and be able to write intelligently about it. Most will use their regular nicks, which will be familiar to those who hang around here, but line chooses to use a pseudonym, which isn't exactly unheard of. Oh, and I guess I should take this opportunity to proclaim that no, I will not divulge who line is, and no, line is not me.

As is the case with say, food critics, anonymity can be pretty important. Food critics go into a restaurant in cognito, so to speak, in order to make an accurate assesment of what's going on. Otherwise, folks would act differently around them. That is the case here, in my opinion, so line's request for anonymity is justified. Plus, I just thought it would be fun to have some sort of mystery-person reviewer, and the fact that the first article by line concerns not knowing the identity of an online persona (in this case, a puppetmaster) was an especially nice touch in this instance. Hey, what's wrong with a little mystery? Isn't that why we're all here?

While the views stated in line's editorial don't represent the 'official' view of ARGN per se, I personally have no problem with those views being shared, as I think it's a valid perspective. I didn't feel that line's comments were aimed personally at any individual in particular, so please don't take anything said personally.

Lastly, let me say this: ARGN exists to support and promote Alternate Reality Gaming and the ARG community in whatever way it can. We spend money and time to provide this, because we believe in the genre, and want to see it grow, evolve, improve and flourish. I'm in touch with numerous PM teams (wait, maybe I'm not!!), and I would hope they would all feel like this is so. I know firsthand what a tough labor of blood, sweat and tears it is to produce an ARG, and I hold all grassroots and professional PM teams in the highest esteem, regardless of which style of game they may choose to develop. At the same time, I think it would be a little intellectually dishonest to only gush about things, you know? I mean, what's the good in that? So, I think offering a platform for sometimes opposing viewpoints is an okay thing, don't you? I mean, I would hope that when it comes time to publish an actual review of an ARG at some point, that it will be able to be an honest critique without resulting in such outcry.

So, look forward to some opinions, editorials and reviews in the future, instead of just the same old boring factual news blurbs. Is that so wrong?

[drizjr]

loafty ideals

[dmax]

Re: loafty ideals