Hey,

On the "Imp" thread, James wrote:

If I shy away from doing games similar to his, then I’ll never do games again.

I didn't want to derail his request for feedback on the game, but I think this is an interesting concern, so I'm starting a different thread.

I think Scott said he found two or three other games named "Nightwatch" when he was writing his InSpectres supplement of that name. He decided to use the name anyway, because at least one of the games seemed like vaporware, and the others seemed dissimilar enough from what he was planning to do. But still it was something he explored and concerned himself with. And I wonder if this is a meaningful activity, or just a strange self-imposed pressure, perhaps an outgrowth of an unrealistic self-envisioned creative competition among game designers? James notes similarities between his Imp concept and Elfs. And The Forge's own Matt Machall has his game Imp, which is less similar in concept but duplicates the name. The question is whether designers should worry about this kind of thing? And if so, I'm interested in knowing where they should draw the line.

I have a feeling that RPG designers worry about stealing setting and concept ideas from other RPG's more than they do about stealing ideas from science fiction or fantasy novels. And I'm not sure why that is. The Blue Planet game has Long John ore as a motivator for corporate interest and activity on the planet Poseidon. Reviewers of the game have likened it to Dune, with corporate interest in the Long John resources of a water planet, as opposed to political and family interest in the Spice resources of a desert planet. Similarly, Space 1889 had Liftwood as a motivator for nationalistic interest in the resources of Victorian-era Mars. I've been working on a setting for The World, the Flesh, and the Devil, and it needs something similar to Long John or Spice as a motivator of corporate interest and activity. Yet I feel pressure to avoid duplicating a Spice-like or Liftwood-like transportation resource, and a Long John like immortality resource. Is this ridiculous? Is worrying about this kind of thing an important activity for a game designer? Or are we driving ourselves crazy for no good reason? What do you think?

Paul

..

When I want to sell a game like, say, Blue Planet to my players, I'll use shorthand. I hadn't realised until recently how I mixed up setting/premise/genre and a bunch of other things, and muddled my descriptions of games. Blue Planet is, nominally, a cyberpunk game. But the theme of the game is something atypical for the 'cyberpunk gaming genre'. The theme is, I dare say, why the game is worthwhile. It's a fresh approach to the man+technology equation we've seen in ShadowRun, Cyberpunk, Traveller, etc. Analysing Blue Planet further, we see the setting is a little different to Cyberpunk, and the premise is very different.

It's been difficult defining Sorceror for my group because on the surface, it's 'a game about summoning demons'. So isn't it just like Mage? Or Witchcraft? Or Whispering Vault? There's been a similar thread about this on the Sorceror forum. Obviously, Sorceror is only slightly about summoning demons. The premise is core to the game, and there's bugger all setting to hook players. Sorceror just isn't about the setting. The premise is what I must sell (and how few games really express their premise well?)

My point is... unless one sits down to write a game that's just like Call of Cthulhu, or Elfs, or Fringeworthy, one will naturally approach it with different priorities. One will almost certainly have a different premise in mind, or a different setting, or whatever. The basic elements of 'magician', 'apocalypse', 'antigravity' or 'investigation' can be combined in a zillion different ways.

But a casual glance at the end result may mean that gamers would feel that Sorceror is just like Mage. They both have guys with magic in 'em, right? And your typical gamer is going to buy Mage, because it's made by a larger company, has a nice purple binding, and nifty pictures inside. Unless you can really kick that gamer and show them on the cover blurb how the game is different, you've lost 'em.

I think that's why James might feel he's treading on toes. He might not be able to show his audience how his game is different to a couple of established products.

I'm not explaining this terribly well, but my girlfriend rented 'The Usual Suspects' expecting it to be a comedy crime caper, because the cover picture shows a 'wacky' line-up. I'm sure you all know it. There was nothing (on the cover at least) to show her this wasn't the same sort of movie as Take the Money and Run.

Joe.

Thanks for starting this one, Paul.

I do in fact struggle with these issues all the time. Back in the 90s (c. 1994), I was really into game design. I wasn't part of a game design community of any sort, I was just doing it on my own, perhaps working with a friend here and there. One of my greatest acheivements was to come up with a system I thought was simply awesome. It involved breaking things down to a simple target number and having a pool of dice to roll to beat it. Before this, I had never played a game usind dice pools. I had never heard of one. So, in essense, I invented the concept.

Then it happened I was in a hobby store (a place I rarely went to) and I picked up Vampire for the first time and read some of the rules. THey were virtually identical to my own new rules sytem. I was so friggin bummed I literally quite designing games for several years.

So, yeah, this issue has weight with me. I dont' want to do something that's going to be looked at as "Oh, he must have just bought John Wick's new game and now he's trying to mimick it.". Its a personal thing.

And I believe its a bad personal thing.

You have to be original if you want to be successful (whatever that means). But, you can't be so anal about it you never have motion for fear of looking like the next guy. You have to just ignore all this shit and do it. Simon Bisely's artwork is like Frank Frazetta's. And yet, it isn't. If he was worried about that comparison, he would never have made it as a fantasy illustrator (whatever that means).

Right now, as I type this, I have no less than three game ideas that are similar to games already made or in the works by other designers. Imp is similiar to Elfs (in style). My S&S idea Iron Devils is probably similar to Ron's S&S supplement, at least in some ways. And I have a project called Pangean Plains that hits on several elements I just found out are being explored by Jared Sorensen in his Tooth & Claw. Does that mean I won't continue with these projects? Should I put them away, or alter them?

Yes, I'll continue with them as I see fit. Changing them is iffy. If I read something about Elfs that is straight-up like something in Imp, I'll alter it a bit, if it's just too similar. Jared's game seems to be about dinosaur cultures, while mine is about lost races of intelligent mammals and lost gods so I doubt I'll make any changes there. Iron Devils is probably more tongue-in-cheek and blood-n-guts than Ron's game, so I doubt I'll make alterations to that idea.

I think we worry about a lot of shit that don't make no nevermind, if you catch my drift. Its probably painfully obvious when a game was too-heavily inspired by another game, or just blatantly ripped off. But having similar ideas is the mark of like minds, not theiving ones.

James,

Don't worry about it, chum. I'm known among my friends as the guy who wrote a game just like Fading Suns (mine called '13th Crusade') the same year FS came out. I was practically suicidal. Then, I had the sweetest idea for a virtual reality game (with Carrollian elements) that died because The Matrix came out and had better coats/boots/shades.

You did invent dice pools. =)

My ex-girlfriend knew the guys who made 'The Last Broadcast'. You may have heard of this because it was the movie that's fairly like 'The Blair Witch Project'. You may not have heard of this because it was massively eclipsed by The Blair Witch Project. I heard it's scarier. Smarter. More eerie. It was certainly first. But it doesn't matter; Blair Witch sold.

I *don't* think writing has much to do with originality. I think great minds think alike, and their products aresimilar because human beings have a certain sense of what makes art 'great'. Look at Stephen King. My favorite quote from him is that he 'pours old wine from new bottles'. His books have no single element we haven't seen before. But ooh, IT scares me.

(Hmm, and I'd never thought Bisley was like Frazetta, apart from them both having a lot of muscles in their art. (You *do* mean Simon Bisley who does art for 2000AD, right?))

Today, I had a gruesome, horrible, heinous idea for a horror scenario that turns out to vaguely resemble The Brood. I was bummed, as you say, and it's difficult to escape that feeling. So pow, I doubt I'll be able to turn it into anything, at least right now.

Joe.

Of course, just by adding a "G", you get a radically different game idea. It could be the Pulp Fiction spinoff ;)

Hi James,

We are seeing two sides of you in this thread, one which agonizes and the other which dope-slaps the first one. My sympathies are with the second.

I think game design has a lot more to do with IIEC, power sharing, and scene framing than with "dice pools," or rather that two games who use a similar dice pool system may be very different in these other terms - and thus they are extraordinarily different games.

There is perhaps an aesthetic guideline to stick by that is more useful than simply "Be original, do something no one's done." My guideline is, "Value added." That can be due to a tweak or use of the existing mechanic that makes it easier or more fun to use, or it can be an angle of interpretation or context (all that IIEC stuff) that totally changes play.

By this guideline, someone can provide a bizarre new dice mechanic (e.g. d30) that is "amazing and innovative" - but oddly, actual play ain't anything different at all. d30 just slices up a % distribution using different increments from any other single die, if you're reading "roll equal to or under" and treating it like a percent-competency. Hence the game is - to my mind - same-old same-old, for better or worse, with all claim to innovation being incorrect.

Best,
Ron

I can only encourage you to make more games. Who cares if they are similar to existing ones? Gaming is the only creative endeavor where people are worried/judgemental about one genre = one product. Which isn't right.

There seems to be a general sentiment of: "Horror? You want Call of Cthulhu. Fantasy? D&D" in gaming and gaming media. It's frustrating for us designers, but probably good for the publishers who've cornered the market.

What's great is to see more games emerge in a genre. It's not happening everywhere, but now it's more a matter of "Horror? Lovecraftian is Call of Cthulhu, if you want something lighthearted, try Deadlands. You want to _be_ a monster? The White Wolf line is good for that ..."

Things seem to be looking better in that regard. So don't stop writing games!! I'm glad you're biting the bullet and continuing to design!

You're right, Zak. Other mediums don't worry about "too many fantasy" this or that. So rpgs shouldn't either.

A few months ago I tried turning some of the furry community on to the idea for The Questing Beast. I got only a tiny bit of response, and half of it involved statements like "We already have Ironclaw, why do we need another game?". Someone else couldn't understand why I didn't just make it d20 with beast-like races. How discouraging people can be.

I do have this awful streak in me that acts like a demon whose need is for me to obey it. Its the demon that says I can't even let my stuff be similar to another contemporary. Its nuts.

James V. West wrote:
... and half of it involved statements like "We already have Ironclaw, why do we need another game?".

James V. West wrote:
I do have this awful streak in me that acts like a demon whose need is for me to obey it. Its the demon that says I can't even let my stuff be similar to another contemporary. Its nuts.