Game supplements: using the rules and dropping the Setup

[Doyce]

[Originally mis-posted in Lumpley Games -- my bad.]

In reading a ton of great one-sheets and "Variation" proposals for everything from Sorcerer to Trollbabe to My Life with Master to Dogs in the Vineyard (and working on game ideas myself) one thing has stuck me kind of oddly with the way such things play out on the Forge.

Most... forgive me the term... most "forge games" tend to have two things going on with them that are identifiably "Part of the Game":

1.  Some kind of setting or premise (something I generically call a 'setup') that creates a situation that's central to the Idea of the Game.
2.  Resolution mechanics that may or may not be intrinsically tied into the *expression* of this Idea/Premise/Setup.

The trend I've noticed in responses to 'variations' on a Game is automatically assuming that 1 and 2 are linked at the hip, and that both have to exist within the variant, whole cloth, for it to be a 'true' child of the parent game.  Frankly, in some cases I think that's kind of weird, but I also think it's because we've never tried to divide the two very much.

I'd like to give examples of the kinds of games I'm talking about and the different levels to which (1) is tied to (2), so as to avoid misunderstanding. If I inadvertently step on toes with the following examples, well... I can only say I certainly don't mean to -- I have the utmost respect for all these games.

Sorcerer:
1. The basic setup, regardless of other backdrop considerations, is essentially "You are someone who has a lot of power, and you're in a dysfunctional relationship.  Now, something happens that tips your whole world on it's head."
2. The system within sorcerer is pretty integrally tied to this: Humanity is always THERE as part of the system -- there HAS to be stuff set up in each game to define the conditions for it's loss and gain or the Stat itself is meaningless. The dysfunctional relationship is pretty much always there  in the form of demons (even in games like Urge or Schism where the bad relationship is with yourself), and that "thing that turns your world upside-down" is hard-wired right into character generation as the Kicker.  Really, part of the game (since the basic book is so wide open) is the fun of putting these problems into various settings and backgrounds, but saying that it's not really Sorcerer with those elements (Humanity, Kicker) taken out is a legitimate claim.

My Life with Master:
I'm not even going to break this one into distinct points of setup and system.  You can't extract the setup -- a world of Reason vs. Fear in which Love can overcome your Weariness and Self-loathing --  from the system -- one is meaningless without the other.  I can totally agree with someone who says that renaming the stats to Strength, Wounds, Law, and Chaos, dropping the Master and running a Stormbringer game is really just coming up with a new game entirely.

Trollbabe:
1. The setup for the game is essentially "you're someone who is part of two different worlds -- both human and troll, and you're powerful: the kind of person who can come into a situation in which these two worlds are in conflict and really DO something.
2. The system within Trollbabe is vanilla Narrativism -- the dice/stat mechanic is simple and straightforward, the reroll/resolution system is designed to put the players in the driver's seat.  However (and I'm working to illustrate this point in one project, so I might be biased), there's nothing within the System that is intrinsically tied to the Setup; obviously, anyone can disagree, but in my mind this is a great 'generic' narrative system that could be used in anything from a Western game to Lovecraft horror to friggin' Toons, if that's your bag.  To put it another way -- unlike Sorcerer/Humanity -- there's nothing in the System that 'breaks' if the characters being made aren't "someone in the middle of two worlds" like the traditional Trollbabe setup -- all that's really required of the setup is that your are a character who Makes Things Happen (required because of the narrative control inherently given to the player).

DitV:
1. The setup of the game is that you're a young man or woman who essentially acts as judge, jury, and executioner to the Faithful towns on your route.  Paladins and preachers both, if you like.  It's genius: go buy it.
2. The system (the *core* System, not the add-on bits for doing exorcisms or the like), is designed to (beautifully) model Conflicts Between People -- starting with verbal debate or arguments, escalating from there to fisticuffs or gunplay as the situation warrants.  It is, again, a genius system, but there's nothing within it that inherently *requires* a setup that involves leaders of the community handing out judgment -- what you *need* for the system to have meaning is a setup in which Conflicts Between People and the ways in which they escalate and create consequences are common and central to the stories -- that's it.  In those terms, you could do a legitimate DitV-riff with any kind of drama -- West Wing, MI-5, Firefly... heck, even a soap opera.

-----

Great, so what's my point?

Only this: we put a lot of 'game variants' out on the Forge that tend to be an "everything and the kitchen sink" approach -- or which are criticized for *not* using that approach.  "It's not a Trollbabe game if the players aren't at the crux between two different peoples," or "but... how can it be a DitV game if the PCs aren't some kind of authority and it doesn't end with the judgment on a town?"

Maybe this is a spin on the 'system matters' argument, but it all really boils down to this question -- when you're spinning off your own riff, how do you differentiate between riffing on the Game-as-a-Whole from the System -- right now, if I were going to do a DitV-riff set in the Firefly universe, I'd obviously be dropping all of the judgment stuff -- hell, most of the religion entirely -- and just focusing on the character development and conflicts, but if I posted something that said "here's a DitV-based game," I should probably expect some of the feedback to be "but... this doesn't have any Demons... no Town with a Problem you expose... it's not really DitV, is it?"

I dunno... is it?  What do you call it when it's using the system OGL-style, but sticking on a completely different Theme?  What's the keyword to use when you introduce something that uses a game's core mechanics WITHOUT any relation to the original game's "setup"? (And yeah, I included Sorcerer and MLwM in my examples to acknowledge that some games really can't separate one from the other.)

Sorry for the meandering post -- I'm just trying to think out loud and get some input.

[timfire]

Maybe this is a spin on the 'system matters' argument,
...

What do you call it when it's using the system OGL-style, but sticking on a completely different Theme?

Well, this does go to the whole "System Does Matter" thing. Rules influence actual play. The games you mentioned were tailored to support very specific situations/premises/themes - what you call 'setups'. If you change the setup, what you get is a situation where the rules support one style of play, but you and the players are trying to play another style. Things won't work very well. Trying to run a dungeon-crawl with MLwM won't work (well). Either y'all will become disatisfied with the game, or you'll start to drift to the way the original game was played.

However, you can pull individual rules out of these games and it'll work fine. For example, you can grant bonus dice for sincerity, desperation, and intimancy. Given that it's used appropriately, it'll work in another game. But trying to extract an entire system (or most of it) from these games won't.

[Doyce]

Well, this does go to the whole "System Does Matter" thing. Rules influence actual play. The games you mentioned were tailored to support very specific situations/premises/themes - what you call 'setups'.

In some cases, I'll buy that argument.  Sorcerer, yes.  MLwM, yes.

Trollbabe and DitV?  I don't think that's the case.

I think there are some games out here on the Forge that have a system that yes, sure, works with the situation/premise/theme very well, but can also be lifted entirely out of that situation/premise/theme, inserted into something else entirely, and work just as well.    In some cases, the Sit/Prem/theme and System are married to each other -- in some cases, they're just friends.

Not all games, no.  Some? Yes.   That's my opinion -- I may be the only one who has it, and if that's the case and that's what i learn from this conversation, then that's useful information too :)

[timfire]

I think I may not be fully understanding what you mean by "changing the setup." Could you give us an example of changing the setup for Trollbabe or DitV?

I'll give you what I consider to be a fairly common example of "changing the setup:" Using DnD 3e for political intrigue or social conflicts. d20 in general is set up for dungeon crawls. You get experience for killing stuff, which then gets spent on making yourself more powerful (ie, increasing levels), which then allows you to kill more stuff. You can use the basic resolution system to determine political intrigue, or to resolve social conflicts, but then what? The default system doesn't really reward that type of action. You can grant XP for that stuff, sure, but then what? You can only spend that XP on levels, which makes you more powerful for killing things, not for increasing political intrigue or social conflict.

What usually happens in the above situation is that characters end up being thinly-veiled combat machines, and at some point the players end up reverting to good ol' fashion combat.

This goes back to what I said eariler. Either the above players become disatisfied with DnD and seek out a new system, or they continue to drift towards combat-oriented play.

[Doyce]

I think I may not be fully understanding what you mean by "changing the setup." Could you give us an example of changing the setup for Trollbabe or DitV?.

Sure.  Using the system from Dogs in the Vineyard, I know that I need a story where dialogue can solve problems, but violence is an option.  I like Vincent's comments about thinking of it as a television show, so I come up with a "Big Space Station" type of show with the characters as permanent members of the station staff or something.

What I've kept is the system (conflict resolution et al).  What I've discarded is the religious judgment, standard Dogs PC roles, town creation, and the basic storyline of a standard Dogs game, replacing it with a mashup of Babylon Five and Deadwood.

So I suppose the question then is: is it a Dogs-based game?  Why or why not?  If system matters (IMO, it does), and I still have the character conflict/escalation stuff that the system essentially demands, but I dumped PCs-giving-judgement (which the system doesn't demand), where did it stop being a "Dogs" game, or did it?

[hanschristianandersen]

Doyce,

I think you're right that DitV's conflict resolution system doesn't demand PCs-giving-judgement.  But DitV's system as a whole is more than just the conflict resolution mechanic.

After all, there are town-creation rules (which explicitly generate problems derived from the Pride->Sin->Heresy progression), a system requirement that all PCs take "I'm a Dog" as a Trait or Relationship (which marks every single PC as one of the setting's designated problem solvers), and Reflection Fallout rules (which forces the end-of-session rewards to be rationalized with how and whether the problems were solved).

If you're running a space station game without all three of these components, you're talking a very significant change to the System.

[Doyce]

Doyce,

I think you're right that DitV's conflict resolution system doesn't demand PCs-giving-judgement.  But DitV's system as a whole is more than just the conflict resolution mechanic. [snip] If you're running a space station game without all three of these components, you're talking a very significant change to the System.

Right.  I see your point.

I guess what I'm looking for is some concensus on where the breakpoint is between "significant change to the system" and "different game entirely".  

EXAMPLE: I've seen some pretty extreme modifications to the standard d20 system -- Mutants and Masterminds (heck, a lot of Green Ronin stuff), the BESM d20 Supers game, Grimm... and they all have that loverly little d20 stamp on them </snark>... no one's claiming they came up with a new system.

And neither would I, if I were to actually write up this fictional space station game using the DitV system as described above -- after all, system-wise, it's obviously a wholly-derivative work (twisted around a bit, yes, but certainly far less than some of those d20 products I mentioned). But at the same time, by Forge lights, it's not seen as a DitV game either, which puts it in a weird limbo (on the Forge, at least) of Obviously being based off that game, but just as obviously not a great deal like it during play.  Neither Fish nor Fowl.

The range looks something like:

[[DitV-ish game]----[clearly using the system, but not themes]----[Obviously a new game]]


I don't like that middle-Limbo.  I'd like it not to be.

[Note: just to stave off any misinterpretation, I have no plan whatsoever to create such a game; I'm just using it as an example.  When I finally run DitV (and I willl... oh yes, I will), it's going to be a standard game, and I'm going to love it.]

[hanschristianandersen]

I've seen some pretty extreme modifications to the standard d20 system...(snip)... no one's claiming they came up with a new system.

Umm, excuse me... *raises hand in the back of the room*

I think that many, or even most of these variants are different systems.  Sure, they use a shared underlying chassis, and very similar resolution subsystems.  But they each bring very different subcomponents and attitudes the game, and the totality is something new.

For example, "the d20 system" describes the concepts of classes and levels and feats and skills and spells.  D&D 3.5e has that framework, plus a set of classes and levels and feats and skills and spells of its own.  From where I'm sitting, though, it's the specific relationships between the D&D classes, the D&D feats, the D&D this, the D&D that...  THAT'S what gives D&D its play-identity in my mind.

Meanwhile, d20 Modern has a sufficiently different set of This & That plugged into the same framework, which gives it a very different feel in actual play.

Are D&D 3.5 and d20M more similar to each other than they are to, say DitV?  Heck yeah.  But does the net totality of their rules sets create the same play experience?  My personal experience suggests "no".

But anyway, back to your fictional space station game.  I think the range looks more like :

1 [DitV]
 |
2 [DitV with same mechanics but cosmetic tweaks, OR DitV with small mechanics tweaks]
 |
3 [Using some portions of the DitV system to accomplish some DitV-like goals]
 |
4 [Using some portions of the DitV system to accomplish something else entirely]
 |
5 [The Wild Blue Yonder]

I contend that a game stops being its progenitor somewhere around 3, and I contend that your hypothetical space station game also lives somewhere around 3.  DitV's themes are baked into its system, so playing DitV without the themes NECESSITATES ripping out that part of the system.

[Doyce]

3 [Using some portions of the DitV system to accomplish some DitV-like goals]
 |
4 [Using some portions of the DitV system to accomplish something else entirely]
 |
5 [The Wild Blue Yonder]

I contend that a game stops being its progenitor somewhere around 3, and I contend that your hypothetical space station game also lives somewhere around 3.  

I guess it's that 3 to 4 range that makes me uncomfortable as someone who wants to write a game that would fall in that range -- I have the utmost respect for the designers and writers of the original games and I don't know what to DO (legally, morally) in such a situation -- I don't even know that the creators do either.  

How far out to the Wild Blue Yonder do you have to go before you're clearly on your own?

What if you don't want to go out that far, because you'll have to drop something you really want to keep from your original inspirational game?

How do you become comfortable in that "Very close, but awfully different" space that a game like that inhabits and work with the original game's author?

I suppose it works differently each situation -- unsatisfying, but probably accurate.

[timfire]

I guess it's that 3 to 4 range that makes me uncomfortable as someone who wants to write a game that would fall in that range -- I have the utmost respect for the designers and writers of the original games and I don't know what to DO (legally, morally) in such a situation -- I don't even know that the creators do either.

Legally, as long as you legitately re-write the text, you have have no obligation towards the original author of the rules.  Dice mechanics cannot be copyrighted.

Morally? Give credit where credit's due. Somewhere in the text, write "I want  to thank so-and-so, author of game X, whom I ripped the whiggit mechanic from, and was greatly influenced by."

But if you're writing a design that's around that 3 or especially the 4 range, why pretend it's the same thing? What's the benefit? Why not say it's its own thing?

[DannyK]

I personally like the mini-supplement idea, as Ron Edwards has pioneered for Sorcerer.  I could conceivably write a mini-supplement one day, if I:
1) played lots of Sorcerer
2) developed my own variant that seemed to break new ground and have lots of potential
3) wanted to do a game-publishing project as a creative experiment.  

On the other hand, I will never, never design my own game, even a game "inspired by X."  Why?  To paraphrase Pulp Fiction, designing games ain't my business.  It would take a lot of skills and experience and thought that I don't have the time or interest to acquire.  

So far I haven't felt the need or inclination to publish my creations beyond posts in various internet fora, but it's nice to have outlets.  

This is a bit like the situation with Quake mods, isn't it?  I don't know much about them, but I gather there's a huge online community with mods varying from somebody's little pet project to massively playtested mods that approach professional quality.

[Doyce]

Legally, as long as you legitately re-write the text, you have have no obligation towards the original author of the rules.  Dice mechanics cannot be copyrighted.

That's a good point.  Makes the whole thing slightly more comfortable from my point of view.

But if you're writing a design that's around that 3 or especially the 4 range, why pretend it's the same thing? What's the benefit? Why not say it's its own thing?

It's an interesting question: I guess my answer would be "it just seems fair".

But I suppose there's also an appeal to the perceived 'built in audience' such a spin-off might benefit from -- seems awfully commercial and pointless for something that's indie and boils down to a labor of love, though :)

---

Hey everyone, thanks so much for your thoughts and input on this thread -- it's been a great help in helping be (a) identify what was bugging me (b) getting over it. :)

[b_bankhead]

I think I may not be fully understanding what you mean by "changing the setup." Could you give us an example of changing the setup for Trollbabe or DitV?

Examples of a changed setup for Trollbabe can be seen in the threads here:
Nightbabe
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12567
Genebabe
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12249

Nightbabe was a vampire game that lasted 9 sessions, Genebabe only one. Genebabe was a post genetic apocalypse game. My player was a kind of genetically engineered hybrid between the mutated Trolls that lived in the outside world and the pure strain humans that lived in sealed domes.

In terms of Doyce's typology I would say both of those games came out as a '2' in terms of migration. The only change was in Nightbabe magic was defined as Vampire Powers and in Genebabe it was defined as shape shifting and gene absorbing type ability. In all other ways they worked like Trollbabe.
I am presently working on a Trollbabe variant for Lovecraftian horror whose working title is Cthulubabe (any  reccomendations out there for a real title? I'm leading toward Eldritch Tales...) I think my game is a 3 as there are quite a few differences:
1. Setting creation steps
2. Changed 2 of the stats
3. One of the new stats (Flight) allows a character end a scene
4. Players start with fewer rerolls
5. There will be rules for acquiring rerolls
6. Players start with different rerolls
7. Added a whole new relationship type (Eldritch)
8. Balance between mundane and eldritch relationships
affects character scene framing.

But underneath Trollbabe can still be discerned.
I think one issue for any of this kind of work is 'how much new material do you need to rewrite the trollbabe rules as a whole and how much to do just a supplement and how much for a one sheet?


As original designer I think would be an guilt salved  by paying them a royalty for the privilege of putting a 'based on' logo on the game. It would be a win-win for him. Free publicity and free money is hard to say no to....(and I believe in strategic partnerships among the Indie RPG community.)

[b_bankhead]

I think I may not be fully understanding what you mean by "changing the setup." Could you give us an example of changing the setup for Trollbabe or DitV?

.

Examples of a changed setup for Trollbabe can be seen in the threads here:
Nightbabe
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12567
Genebabe
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12249

Nightbabe was a vampire game that lasted 9 sessions, Genebabe only one. Genebabe was a post genetic apocalypse game. My player was a kind of genetically engineered hybrid between the mutated Trolls that lived in the outside world and the pure strain humans that lived in sealed domes.

In terms of Doyce's typology I would say both of those games came out as a '2' in terms of migration. The only change was in Nightbabe magic was defined as Vampire Powers and in Genebabe it was defined as shape shifting and gene absorbing type ability. In all other ways they worked like Trollbabe.
I am presently working on a Trollbabe variant for Lovecraftian horror whose working title is Cthulubabe (any  reccomendations out there for a real title? I'm leading toward Eldritch Tales...) I think my game is a 3 as there are quite a few differences:
1. Setting creation steps
2. Changed 2 of the stats
3. One of the new stats (Flight) allows a character end a scene
4. Players start with fewer rerolls
5. There will be rules for acquiring rerolls
6. Players start with different rerolls
7. Added a whole new relationship type (Eldritch)
8. Balance between mundane and eldritch relationships
affects character scene framing.

But underneath Trollbabe can still be discerned.
I think one issue for any of this kind of work is 'how much new material do you need to rewrite the trollbabe rules as a whole and how much to do just a suplement and how much for a one sheet?

As for the original designer I think would be salved  by paying them a royalty for the privilege of putting a 'based on' logo on the game. It would be a win-win for him. Free publicity and free money is hard to say no to....(and I believe in strategic partnerships among the Indie RPG community.

[M. J. Young]

On the moral question, let me suggest you contact the game designer about it.

Obviously if you're using a modified piece of this and a fragment of that and a nuance of something that's pretty common generally but one variant thereof works for you, this isn't a case of plagiarism, and although the designers might recognize their influence and you might want to acknowledge that somewhere in the text, no one expects you to get permission or anything.

On the other hand, if you were to do a variant that was that closely inspired by a particular game that it landed in the #2 or maybe #3 category, it would be worth your while at least to attempt to contact the designer and talk over with him to what degree he thinks you're copying his design, and what would or would not make him comfortable with that.

--M. J. Young