Making a game
MrNay:
I am a bit curious. This is a bit longwinded, sorry about that, I am not sure where to start.
I having been playing rpgs for a while now, starting with Advanced Fighting Fantasy, then moving to Rifts then cruising through the New world of Darkness.
One thing I have noticed is my lack of interest in learning large amounts of rules, all I want to learn is what I need for the story/game.
Last year I discovered Indie style games and realized that people seem to be of the same opinion and are publishing their pet projects. So I have been buying, reading and playing the ones that take my eye.
Now I have this framework for a setting and a system that has been floating in my head for years (the setting, not the system it is an on going critter,) about a collective dreamworld accessed by lucid dreamers via a new street drug made of shamanic psychoactives.
I really would like to show someone what I have so far and get some tips from people who have been down this road before, but how much should you keep under wraps, do people poach budding games, repackage them and sell them as their own?
Ron Edwards:
Hello, and welcome.
About fifteen-plus years ago, a number of people independently decided not to worry too much about that issue, and to make their games available on-line. Some were finished, some were starting ideas, and some were in between. The medium was eminently copyable, obviously.
Some of us went one further and decided to emulate the publishing habits from RPGs of the late 1970s, in which citing games which had influenced one's ideas, as well as similar games currently available from other publishers, was ordinary.
The question is whether any of these things resulted in massive ripping-off. Did people get their ideas stolen? Did they lose a golden goose because someone slapped their name on it?
The answer is no. There have been no instances to date among the independent design community. I don't think it's due to amazing virtues, either. I think it's due to several other factors, including the essential inability of people who would do this to recognize a good system in the first place. I also think it's due to the fact that the initial fear is a little bit unformed, and informed only by rumor or associations.
Can you tell me, or those of us reading, exactly what you fear? It may be a legitimate concern that either has been negated already, or needs specific care for protection. Or it may be a bugaboo emerging from other industries or from rumors and misconceptions that are common in hobby subculture.
Also, I'll be moving this thread to the Publishing forum pretty soon. No big deal.
Best, Ron
MrNay:
Thanks Ron. It is just my initial caution at being in an unfamiliar situation. I havent come across any rumours for or against being completely transparent, that is why I thought I should ask those who have gone before.
Im not in this to get rich and dont think it is really that kind of hobby, too niche.
It is more of a vague fear of having someone else in a better position and more experience developing a near identical game and rendering mine redundant.
I would love to see my crazy setting become a book.
Jason Pitre:
Welcome as well.
I understand your caution, as someone relatively new to the design community, but as Ron so eloquently described it is less of an issue then you might otherwise assume. There are a few interesting little twists that make the "indie" community a tad unusual from other intellectual property generating groups.
1) Recommendations. One of the relatively early aspects of the "indie" designed games were that they included advertisements for other games which was logical enough considering how very niche our games tend to be in the larger scheme of things. Sorcerer and Dogs in the Vineyard fulfill entirely different gaming desires, but if you like one of them you might very well appreciate the other.
2) Citation. Many of the games (starting with Dogs, in a direct fashion? Ron?) specifically cited other earlier works as inspirations for the design. They would say "the Relationship mechanic was inspired by Game X, while the Ennui Stabbing theme was directly lifted from Game Y." Innovation was respected and games were built upon the shoulders of their predecessors.
3) Difficulty. Quite frankly, neat and compelling game design ideas are a dime a dozen. I am drowning in the things, but they won't do me a lick of good until I am able to perform the difficult task of actually implementing them in the form of a written game. Realistically, we are aiming to be rewarded for our skill in implementing neat ideas, rather then for the raw inspiration. While it's possible that another designer would take the same idea and run with it, there is very little time-savings on their end and it usually isn't worth the effort.
4) Transparency. Some of us are unusually transparant in our game design work. I think that Fred Hicks of Evil Hat Publishing explained it very well in a podcast of his which you can find right here; http://cdn1.libsyn.com/thatshowweroll/THWR-S2E4-Abridged-Transparency.mp3.
Best of luck and let us know if we can help you out in any way.
Ron Edwards:
Since you asked ...
I claim direct personal credit for re-introducing citations and recommendations to RPG publishing, always acknowledging that it was standard practice in the early publishing days of the hobby. I started with the first commercial version of Sorcerer in 1996 and pushed the concept heavily when I became active in on-line discussions in 1999. Clinton and I emphasized it as well when we began the Forge forums in 2001 or so.
It's not just about the influences, either. It's about acknowledging current games with similar topics and/or mechanics, what in other industries would be called the competition. Or to put it another way, I don't regard Dogs in the Vineyard, Dust Devils, Polaris, and Sorcerer as stealing sales from one another - if you own and like one or two of these, you are a prime customer for the other two, with a win-win for everyone.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page