High production just makes followers/moth to the flame

I’ve been thinking that most of the games, whether it be video games or even table top RPG’s, have such alot of production and work in them that it’s a bad thing.

Think of it from your own perspective – there are these sparkly games that draw your attention and maybe spark your imagination. But do you have the raw production capacities to actually make one yourself? To various degrees, the answer is no. Perhaps if we rewind to early D&D, or to video games on the c64, yes. But otherwise no.

So your entranced and in love with something you can’t actually make yourself. This throws you into the position of follower only – you can’t lead, because you need to be able to make it to lead. You can only follow.

A mix of sometimes following and sometimes leading is alright, but always following? That’s a bad thing, if you happen to share any values I have on self guidance.

I’m looking at all these things again and thinking wow, all the fancy production just leads me into being a follower. Pah!

Edit: And why on earth can I google this new post I made only an hour or two ago, yet I can’t google my new blog?

8 thoughts on “High production just makes followers/moth to the flame

  1. This is why roleplaying games, open source games and games with level editors or other means of making content are great. The empower those who would otherwise be only consumers.

  2. Well, I’d say A: You have to learn how to use those editors – to do anything other than the basics requires some effort (this is not bad in itself) and B: You can’t sell what you make (that may not apply with open source, I’m not sure) – so your still not leading, your just making more content for them/working for them/following. If you make something brilliant, your still making something brilliant only within someone elses idea that they give permission over. Though if you want to argue the freedom to hand out whatever you put effort into for free, yes, that is there. But you don’t have the freedom the commercial entity has, the one that’s product inspired you to begin with. Without that, your still just following.

    D&D 3rd was different – clearly people made products and could sell them openly just by sticking their logo on your product or such like. I think that was to reinvigorate the property. With 4th edition that seems to have gone away.

    Also products like game maker, atleast for the current editions, allow you to make games with the free edition and sell them. But it’s a compiler rather than a game itself, so it doesn’t really count.

  3. A: Yeah. Much like almost anything worth doing.

    B: I see where you are coming from. Open source may not be the right model for one who sees commercial venture as inherently more permissive than non-commercial one, though it is possible to make money with open source policy. (It just requires a different appoach.)

    Also: You can sell roleplaying games you create by yourself and it does not require much technological skill, though game design is nontrivial to learn, too.

    D&D 4th: I think it allows making products and selling them, but they must create additional material, and they are not really that competitive due to the character builder software, I think.

  4. A is not the same – compare spending 20 hours learning how to write your own video game, Vs learning how to write new material in some video game or roleplay game. With the latter you’ve invested your life into something that can’t go any further than providing more content for the people who own that game/who actually lead.

    With roleplay games, I’ll grant it is possible to take what you’ve learnt and make something else that is your own property. But if you’ve invested in trying to make more material for a particular setting, well, you can take some of that with you but not all of it. Some of it’s just sunk into something which is just following.

    I think the point stands that one can easily be attracted into investing personal time and skill into something that can only ever support someone elses plans and goals.

  5. A: Aside from transferable skills (level building is a skill that can be applied over genres of games, so that a given map is probably interesting in most strategy games or none of them, say) and free games – free as in Creative commons, Open works license or GNU general public license, say, you are correct.

    I could dispute the “just following” part, but given what you seem to mean by the terms used in this conversation, it would be unproductive at best.

  6. Well, if you want to follow them you might call it something different from following. But if you want to, that’s okay, this is more about people who might go “Whoa, hey, I never intended to sign up for following!”. If you want to follow, then it’s not ‘just following’, but this post isn’t really about that.

  7. Before I go into it are you delivering the idea of rationalization as much as you yourself could be rationalizing? Statistically there’s a ton of people who will say others rationalize without a thought that that they could be doing so themselves. It’s caveman thinking. So can you dish it out but you can’t take it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.