Variation, derivation, innovation

[Julian Kelsey]

Some of my game design is based on reaction against or extensions to other games, sometimes uniquely developed ideas that I've belated realised are well developed in other games. Although some times my presentation might be as different as a new song over a the same simple chord changes.

If I want to present ideas like these to the public what's the best way to introduce them? If I know that my work is based on, or is a reaction to, someones work do I: Twist it to look more unique. Present it as an extension or module. Keep it for private use and discussion.

An example: I'm toying with a more involved combat system for Sorcerer. One of the things that I want is to reduce the number of rolls and simplify the timing of combat rounds; I'm interested in the play of unfolding rounds of action. My rounds are longer and represent an interval of employing a tactic, not simple actions. So a single roll per character and all rolls simultaneous, captures both active and reactive behaviour, no defense roll. But I want it to be possible for both/all characters to succeed or fail, the basic Sorcerer mechanic always has a winner (or a draw).

So I devised an extension that a tactic might trade one dice for two but that those two (different colours or rolled apart) only apply to the stronger part of the tactic. For instance if a characters balanced tactic has 5 dice then they can also engage in a tactic of 4 dice for actions and an additional 2 dice which are only considered when resisting.

Now this is leading me to additional rules and to disregarding published rules, as I explore it I discover all sorts of ways that it's not Sorcerer. Further I've got a particular setting I want to use with these ideas inspired by Sorcerer but involving AIs, their management and behaviour and powers are quite different from those described in Sorcerer. I'm consider dramatic actions from favourite sources that didn't previously suit Sorcerer and I'm finding I can describe them more easily this new way.

So when does my game become a substancially new game, an innovation, with a new mechanic in the same class as Sorcerer? For how long does it remain either derivative or even simply variant? When is it truly mine?

Perhaps this is a bit like the d20 bandwagon: Accept a lesser position licensed to a proven winner, it may mean greater exposure than trying to go it alone.

--
Cheers, Julian Kelsey.

[Mike Holmes]

Wow, that's a tough and interesting question.

I think that the standard is set pretty low. If you look at games that are published that are obviously derivative of other games, you can see tons of similarities. Take RoleMaster, for example. As a fix of D&D it retains much of the structure of the original game. Both have levels, classes become professions, Hit points simply Hits. But it does tack on a skill system which D&D didn't have at the time, and the mechanics are substantially different.

Look at how many games have six statistics that seem to match D&D stats. One of the best examples that I can think of is that Some company (Mayfair?) released modules during the T$R days (when they sued anybody including people on the internet for unlicensed uses of their intellectual property) under the title Role-Aids. These books had characters and creatures written up in a supposedly generic system, but one that had obvious parallels to D&D. For example there were six stats that corresponded very closely to D&D stats, I think they used the term rank instead of level, Hits to Kill instead of HP, etc. Obviously these were intended for use by the D&D audience, but they got away with it by just changing a few terms.

Part of this has to do with the idea from patent law of "previously existing technology". Desingers can't patent rolling dice as that existed long before RPGs. They might be able to patent a certain mechanic, but such would probably be hard to enforce.

So, I think that you can get away with murder in copying another designers game if you like. The question becomes one of ethics and marketing. First, do you feel that your product actually offers something genuinely new? Not necessarily even revolutionary, but just new. If not, maybe you should think about trying to work with the designer (for example, I know that Ron is amenable to supplements for Sorcerer) to integrate the product into the game.

Secondly, do you think that anyone will pick up on your product given that there is a tested game that resembles yours out there already. The answer is invariably, yes, there are a few. But is that enough to keep you interested in producing the game?

Originality usually ends up meaning taking existing stuff and mixing it up in new combinations. Truely new stuff is rare. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to make something entirely unique. Just put in enough effort to make the product something worthwhile, new enough.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,

I agree with Mike, in the main.

There are several options to consider.

1) Never publish anything but what is so new, so innovative, and so revolutionary that no one could ever dream of accusing you of being influenced by them. This option is flatly impossible.

2) Steal. Dress up pre-existing RPG material, add a few house rules, and publish it with no acknowledgment. The bad news is that this option is quite safe (contrary to popular belief), and although not COMMON in role-playing, at least it's KNOWN. I consider this option reprehensible.

(I'm kind of a hardcase about this - a lot of big-company publishing exercises a kind of parasitism on other companies as well as on their own histories, which I despise.)

3) Be "influenced" precisely as you describe. No artistic effort exists in a social/artistic vacuum, and none of us just design RPGs out of some void. This option is unavoidable.

What matters is how one decides to acknowledge it. I tend to go very far in this direction. I was heavily influenced in Sorcerer's dice mechanic by the game Prince Valiant, and I say so in the text - even though very few people would notice the similarity, or mind. It astonishes me that other games with much-more-obviously derived mechanics fail to include the authors' influences. I consider that shoddy, if it's by ignorance, or shameful, if it's not.

IN CONCLUSION
All I ask is "inspired in part from the design mechanics of Sorcerer, by Ron Edwards / Adept Press." It sounds as if you've tweaked the mechanic well past any concern of "just ripping off the system" anyway.

Best,
Ron

[Julian Kelsey]

On 2001-11-08 10:25, Mike Holmes wrote:

I think that the standard is set pretty low.

Yes, and I like the moral high ground. I think gaming and game design resembles pop culture in general in that it doesn't like to admit to being derivative, doesn't like to credit building on past influences, even when it plainly does.

Which is a shame and of course not a universal position, congratulations to Ron Edwards. I enjoy studying culture and history and I am infected with a sense of incompleteness if you can't see how things relate to what is around them and preceeding them. (Which makes it hard to present a brief argument).

Part of this has to do with the idea from patent law of "previously existing technology". Desingers can't patent rolling dice as that existed long before RPGs. They might be able to patent a certain mechanic, but such would probably be hard to enforce.

Interesting, I was thinking in terms of copyright law and the examples you make of credited and uncredited derivation sound like the industry as a whole is working more in terms of copyright.

But, you've jumped straight to game mechanics patents, and the hazy legality of patenting novel processes (not allowed in many countries), but in fact there are a number of gambling systems that are patented, superficially card games which are just processes for manipulating and interpreting tokens.

Perhaps the work of tuning and refining a mechanic, with the investment of play testing, and quite often some substancial numerical analysis, puts a game mechanic on par with a song or poem rather than prose, maybe the copyright issues there are a source to consider.

That all said, developing patents is part of my job description, and the last time I was dealing with a patent lawyer he said that it would better to get product to market and protect it by market share and user base, rather than arguing too and fro on a debatable patent.

Discuss: Every DnD derivative sells a copy of DnD.

Secondly, do you think that anyone will pick up on your product given that there is a tested game that resembles yours out there already. The answer is invariably, yes, there are a few. But is that enough to keep you interested in producing the game?

There's two ways I think my vanity could be salved: First I produce something cool and original that gets nice reviews and looks nice. Second, I make something smaller and less original that fits in with an established product, reinforces the original product, and gets used by real people to tell good stories.

Really I think I'm going to get more gratification from a contribution that reinforces an existing product.

Caveat, I read a quote that described game design as a activity akin to writing a poem or drawing pictures, something done for personal edification and self investigation. There is a sense that writing the whole thing is an attempt to capture my personal views on the expression of character and the dramatic movement of conflict and story telling in general. I have never expected to sell my poems.

What's my goal here? I want a mechanic that encourages conflicts to unfold in a certain way, specifically vying for advantage culminating in decisive moments. I've got settings with potential for all sorts of stories half formed and players eager to explore them.

The sense of vying and of risk, the parallel between the alien intelligences and motivations of Demons and AIs, draws me to Sorcerer, along with it's lean sleek mechanic.

Perhaps my present goal is best served with a supliment and setting which becomes something of a brief to my players, and also house rules to give a certain flavour to the play. I think it would be attractive to other gamers as well.

And once that demon is purged perhaps I can think more clearly about what is really mine and really original, and how to manifest those ideas best.

Even saying it gets me thinking of what's going to serve the game best, and to be honest playing the game and telling the stories is were the real gratification comes from for me.

--
Cheers, Julian Kelsey.

[Julian Kelsey]

On 2001-11-08 10:38, Ron Edwards wrote:

I agree with Mike, in the main.

Yeah, so do I, much of what I said in my response to him applies here.

IN CONCLUSION
All I ask is "inspired in part from the design mechanics of Sorcerer, by Ron Edwards / Adept Press." It sounds as if you've tweaked the mechanic well past any concern of "just ripping off the system" anyway.

No question of crediting your work, but I'm likely to go down a few paths:

Firstly a study of AI (perhaps advanced computing in general) in fictional and scientific literature and popular media in a style that would make it a useful suppliment to Sorcerer and other games. I love the flavour of Sorcerer and Sword, it's firm grounding in it's sources, and it's presentation as guidelines for building a setting rather than the setting itself.

Second I'll present my dice mechanic ideas as a house rules, and I'll let every one know how they go. The basic goal is to make each round of a multi round conflict go as quickly as possible to encourage more tactical thinking over the course of several rounds. Trying to build up the feel of advantage flowing back and forth, by making rounds rather indecisive or random if you don't have a clear advantage.

My broad schemes and other ideas will remain in development and perhaps manifest as a game latter. Or perhaps I'll be happy with them as a set of essays about game design and roleplaying.

Although, I've got this other idea...

--
Cheers, Julian Kelsey.

[Julian Kelsey]

On 2001-11-08 20:03, lotekboi wrote:

On 2001-11-08 10:38, Ron Edwards wrote:

IN CONCLUSION
All I ask is "inspired in part from the design mechanics of Sorcerer, by Ron Edwards / Adept Press." It sounds as if you've tweaked the mechanic well past any concern of "just ripping off the system" anyway.

No question of crediting your work, but I'm likely to go down a few paths:

Which is supposed to mean, I'll certainly quote you as a source and influence, but rereading I realise the comment above might not sound quite like that.

--
Cheers, Julian Kelsey.