In the Experimental mechanic (context-free) thread, Nadav wrote:

Here's a half-baked idea that fell on me last night just before I went to sleep. It's quite possible someone else thought about it already, so I apologize in advance.

And now I'm over the edge and writing immoderately. In the past few days, Jack Spencer has posted an idea and we told him that Clinton had already "nailed it." Christoffer posted an idea, and we told him that it had been "presented in almost the same terms" in Orkworld.

And so now we have folks apologizing for posting their ideas.

I'm frustrated that we're coming across like the French Guard:

ARTHUR: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. If he will give us food and shelter for the night, he can join us in our quest for the Holy Grail.

FRENCH GUARD: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen. Uh, he's already got one, you see.

"Thank you for your suggestion, but one of our talented stable of indie designers has already developed this concept."

Don't misinterpret me. I'm not bagging on Ron. His replies to Jack and Christoffer just happen to be recent. I think the top posters on the Forge, myself included, have probably all contributed these kinds of responses at one time or another.

The thing is, there's a difference between someone starting a conversation, and one of us referring them to an older thread, and these kinds of replies to design ideas. The effect of referring someone to an older thread is to get everyone on the same page for further discussion. The effect of these kinds of replies to game ideas is off putting. Creativity is hard. And the fact is, if you go to art school, a great deal of how you learn is by doing work in imitation of the masters.

I know what we're trying to accomplish with these replies, the same thing as art school, but I don't think we're accomplishing it. I'm not worried about Jack and Christoffer, either. They're Forge regulars. They aren't deterred from creative design efforts, because they know how game designs manifest uniqueness through development. And I know we're all keenly aware that we can't possibly know that someone is trying to achieve the same design end result as an existing game just from an initial presentation of an idea in a post. The problem isn't however, how we relate to each other, but how it appears to guests and less frequent users. I think we're coming across as an insular community, protecting and defending our own significance and relevance, when our stated purpose is to support design efforts. When people feel motivated to apologize in advance for posting innovative ideas, that tells me we have a problem. I think we're creating a reputation we don't want to have.

I think our responses to these kinds of situations should be to point out prior games/mechanics that tread similar ground, but to also to comment favorably on potentially productive differences in tone or effect or detail.

What do you think?

Paul

Hi Paul,

That sounds good. We should all think about it and keep it in mind when posting to new folks, but I elect you as the primo rep for making this point when it's baldly necessary (ie other people forget).

Yay! Delegation.

I should clarify a little, though. I'm not being cheeky. Most of "what the Forge is like" is derived only from our collective behavior, not from a set of guidelines. Even the guidelines that do exist are only summaries of "what we do" that were compiled long after the Forge really got going.

Therefore, it's all well and good to say "New Guideline," but that's just top-down talk and doesn't mean much in terms of practice, by itself. When you have a concern with what people say and how they treat ideas on the Forge, the most important thing you can do as a participant here is directly to represent, through action and example, how you think the best way to handle it might be.

Plus some chit-chat about it here in Site Discussion is nifty too - but as I say, that's not in and of itself actually addressing the issue.

Best,
Ron

Paul:

Nice of you to express that concern. I think the issue for me is whether or not the designers consider their ideas sacred ground or not. If my rules idea is a little influenced by Ron's, is he gonna do some whupass on me?

And in the case that it's not hallowed ground, I'd like to be able to hear who "did it first" so I don't have to reinvent the wheel.

If I came up with a cool idea for improving abilities, and you wanted to use something like it, my thought is, cool, use the extra time to come up with a new idea for some other part of your game.

In a similiar vein, but a more positive one, I've been encouraged by the number of "context free" mechanics posts that have been cropping up. I know for an extended period all mechanical musings were put through the grinder of wanting to have a complete context for the mechanic.

While I think that's true of finished game designs, I like seeing these non contextual discussions too. Sometimes the innovation that will work perfectly for a given context is derived from context free thought exersizes.

So in that sense we have a little split personality going on. On the one hand you have the issue Paul brought up (and thank you for doing so, it was bothering me too) while at the same time in other threads such mechanical musings are being warmly welcomed.

So I'd conclude, as Paul did, that its not an actual attitude...just the risk of a perception of an additude that we can be more cautious about presenting.

Hey Ron,

I elect you as the primo rep for making this point when it's baldly necessary (ie other people forget)...Yay! Delegation.

My inclination is to decline. This thread is me voicing a commitment to take ownership of my own behavior, and raising the issue so that others see what I perceive are the consequences of them not doing the same: less relevance going forward, rather than more.

Paul

Hi Paul,

Actually, what you're describing is exactly what I'm asking, no more. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

Best,
Ron

My translation of Paul's request: Don't discourage re-exploration of "old" ground - in fact, encourage it. There's almost certainly more to be learned, and getting a new, creative take on the issue is something we should WANT to happen.

Sounds good to me. I'm signed up.

I'll just add - here're a couple somethings I've noticed for myself, that might also be good to communicate to other would-be designers. First, worrying about what's "new", "truly original", and etc., is not very useful. I've got ideas that (I thought) were original to my brain a year or more ago, and now they show up in someone else's game, before I can do anything with 'em - so what? I've got an idea that's really little more than Hero Wars' Action Points rotated 180 degrees (and I do) - again, so what? Ron makes the point somewhere (thread about Kickers in UA?) that it *does* matter that you know what your peers are up to, and I agree - but that is (as, if I remember right, his post also makes clear) very different from avoiding using "their" stuff, or needing "credit" for reaching the bleeding edge first.

The other something is . . . maybe just me. But I've noticed a TON of posts lately that touch on design issues I'm currently exploring, and I just *know* the best way for me to share my thoughts about those issues is simply to finish the bloody thing. So sometimes, maybe the best thing to do with these "that's already been looked at" issues is to point to the game/threads in question, and then make sure to add "show me YOUR design when it's ready - I look forward to seeing where you take things."

Because we (if I may be so bold) really do look forward to seeing these new twists, even if they're just small twists on some other design. I can't explain why, but we do. Maybe it's a sickness :-)

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote:
Because we (if I may be so bold) really do look forward to seeing these new twists, even if they're just small twists on some other design. I can't explain why, but we do. Maybe it's a sickness :-)

Thanks for addressing this issue, Paul. As an infrequent poster, I find that the wealth of ground that has been covered can be rather intimidating, and am often shy of posting my thoughts as "new" ideas.

My suggestion for handling it would be much like Gordon's: to continue referring folks to past discussions--it really does help, since many of us don't have the time to read all the post that more frequent fliers do--while at the same time simply being more clear that its OK to re-tread this ground.

A little positive re-inforcement goes a long way.

--Emily Care

(This is also my first time reading in the site discussion area, and I'm happy to see this sort of thing, but, of course, I never would have known about it if I didn't happen to be curious today.)

Thanks for keeping the beat, friends. :)

I also want to make it clear to people that something doesn't have to be new to be good. The discussion Paul referenced was Ron telling someone I'd already nailed their idea in Donjon. Donjon ain't nothing but my only mix of Sorcerer, D&D, InSpectres, and Over the Edge - I say if you have a good idea, even if you got it somewhere else, go with it.

This is a good guideline. I'll tell you what happened when I got this response to my idea. I felt discouraged. Seriously. Sails deflated. Which is odd since my little idea was basically a throw away idea to me. That's right. I have no real intention of doing anything with it at this time or any future time. Yet it was still discouraging. I can only imagine what someone who's posting an idea they are actually serious about feels when they get a response like this.

Perhaps it's not the response so much as this is all there is to the response. Using my idea as an example, perhaps if Donjon were not presented as a similar design *along with* some discussion of the similarities and differences between my idea and Dojon would be more helpful and come across less like "Thanks but this idea has already been done" and feel more like "Hey, here's a game that works in a similar manner here and her but not here. You might want to check it out."

Jack. I definately know the feeling you're talking about.

Especially "Perhaps it's not the response so much as this is all there is to the response.". I guess I've become used to it though. But sometimes I really wish it was a little different.