Is Originality important ?
- Thread starter questing gm
- Start date
Herobizkit
Adventurer
Emphasis mine. I have a complete episode guide for the original Kung Fu series, and I have plans to run a campaign based entirely on this work. I will definitely change the setting, but the plots for each adventure will remain the same. I wonder how long I can run through the "season" without my players catching on...Dannyalcatraz said:
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Yes. As a player, I get tired of playing variations on the same game/campaign over and over again. This kind of broken record roleplaying (combined with a disdain for current trends in gaming at the time) is what caused me to hang up the dice bag for the better part of five years prior to last Fall. As a GM, I have trouble throwing myself into a setting/campaign that is entirely familiar ground for me. All of that said. . .
Originality doesn't necessarily mean "brand new ideas" -- it can just as easily mean "using old ideas in new and different ways" (Eberron is a good example of this, in fact). Also, note that "original" doesn't necessarily mean "good" -- I've seen plenty of 100% original crap over the years. In fact, I think that Sturgeon's Law probably applies here.
Originality doesn't necessarily mean "brand new ideas" -- it can just as easily mean "using old ideas in new and different ways" (Eberron is a good example of this, in fact). Also, note that "original" doesn't necessarily mean "good" -- I've seen plenty of 100% original crap over the years. In fact, I think that Sturgeon's Law probably applies here.
Even Shakespear wasn't exactly original in his day.
The real question is what do you want the session/adventure/campaign to do. How many time have you watched your favorite movie? Or rewatched a particular television episode? If that is the feeling you are going for then go ahead and post a big flashing neon sign that says "This was blantantly ripped off from [whatever]!!"
If you want to do a creepy murder mystery than you may have to work a bit harder.
There is a nice middle ground though. If you have a prominate NPC, physically describe them similar to someone from a popular movie or TV show. Sure, players may pipe up and say "Hey, that's so-and-so!" This may even be a good thing. This way players will have a better mental image of the character. It works when my DM describes certain characters. I have much better image of what they look like in my head and it helps me when my PC talks to them because I "know" who I'm talking to.
You can even be a RBDM using this method. You have a character that is supposed to be a red herring? "Cast" them with a villain from a movie or TV show. Your players will likely latch onto Snape or Barbosa as the primary suspect and ignore Han Solo.
The real question is what do you want the session/adventure/campaign to do. How many time have you watched your favorite movie? Or rewatched a particular television episode? If that is the feeling you are going for then go ahead and post a big flashing neon sign that says "This was blantantly ripped off from [whatever]!!"
If you want to do a creepy murder mystery than you may have to work a bit harder.
There is a nice middle ground though. If you have a prominate NPC, physically describe them similar to someone from a popular movie or TV show. Sure, players may pipe up and say "Hey, that's so-and-so!" This may even be a good thing. This way players will have a better mental image of the character. It works when my DM describes certain characters. I have much better image of what they look like in my head and it helps me when my PC talks to them because I "know" who I'm talking to.
You can even be a RBDM using this method. You have a character that is supposed to be a red herring? "Cast" them with a villain from a movie or TV show. Your players will likely latch onto Snape or Barbosa as the primary suspect and ignore Han Solo.
This is a good question. Is "originality important"?
-No
Why: because its how your players deal with whats presented that creates the "originality".
Never loose sight that it is the players themselves that write the story, you...the GM...only supply the ink and paper and a few bare bone facts ("your in a village on the edge of a forest, locals say there's a hidden temple at its center" period. What do you want to do?
If your players start getting bored its probably not the lack of originality (as in have they seen this or that trick or trap before) but rather they're detecting routine (say going into a crypt 20 times in a row). I disagree with a few of the above posters, however, about making copying really obvious. This is "tounge and cheek" and purposely reminding players of other modules may be funny, but will remind them they're only playing a game, remind them how they handled this or that problem before, and start to muddle the two gaming experiances. Chances are, players won't remember or even care if you reuse the same old stuff, because they are focusing on other things (the setting, their PCs personality, the new random encounters they have etc.). AS GM NEVER assume your players even care about "originalty". Most don't. Just mix it up a bit. It's like your a chief with only ground beef to cook with, make: hamburger one night, meat balls the next, then sloppy joes etc.
Infact, when it comes to modules, I am a big "anti-original idea" guy. When people start evaluating if a dungeon was good or not based on how many novel tricks or traps it has, or interesting situations, there missing the point of the game IMO. Forget about original ideas. What makes a good module is a cool setting, variety, and situations that allow each class to shine throughout the game. Also, the inability for the players to predict whats going to come next. Infact, you could have a module with zero original ideas, yet feel completely fresh. And you could have a module with 20 fantastic and original tricks and traps, but stick these in some sickly straight jacket linear story plot, or cornball setting with tons of nonsensical filler and it'll be a snoozer....and worse yet, these original ideas will look to the player to be nothing more then an attempt by the writer to cover up a rushed development/writing job with cheap gimmics. Unfortunately, many new modules are rushed out, with little thought about if there fun to play, to the writers what matters is "is my story evocative, and is it "original", as if its sold to read as a complete romance novel rather then a catalist for the DM to flesh out. I think Dragon Lance started this trend, and it continues today.
-No
Why: because its how your players deal with whats presented that creates the "originality".
Never loose sight that it is the players themselves that write the story, you...the GM...only supply the ink and paper and a few bare bone facts ("your in a village on the edge of a forest, locals say there's a hidden temple at its center" period. What do you want to do?
If your players start getting bored its probably not the lack of originality (as in have they seen this or that trick or trap before) but rather they're detecting routine (say going into a crypt 20 times in a row). I disagree with a few of the above posters, however, about making copying really obvious. This is "tounge and cheek" and purposely reminding players of other modules may be funny, but will remind them they're only playing a game, remind them how they handled this or that problem before, and start to muddle the two gaming experiances. Chances are, players won't remember or even care if you reuse the same old stuff, because they are focusing on other things (the setting, their PCs personality, the new random encounters they have etc.). AS GM NEVER assume your players even care about "originalty". Most don't. Just mix it up a bit. It's like your a chief with only ground beef to cook with, make: hamburger one night, meat balls the next, then sloppy joes etc.
Infact, when it comes to modules, I am a big "anti-original idea" guy. When people start evaluating if a dungeon was good or not based on how many novel tricks or traps it has, or interesting situations, there missing the point of the game IMO. Forget about original ideas. What makes a good module is a cool setting, variety, and situations that allow each class to shine throughout the game. Also, the inability for the players to predict whats going to come next. Infact, you could have a module with zero original ideas, yet feel completely fresh. And you could have a module with 20 fantastic and original tricks and traps, but stick these in some sickly straight jacket linear story plot, or cornball setting with tons of nonsensical filler and it'll be a snoozer....and worse yet, these original ideas will look to the player to be nothing more then an attempt by the writer to cover up a rushed development/writing job with cheap gimmics. Unfortunately, many new modules are rushed out, with little thought about if there fun to play, to the writers what matters is "is my story evocative, and is it "original", as if its sold to read as a complete romance novel rather then a catalist for the DM to flesh out. I think Dragon Lance started this trend, and it continues today.
Last edited:
greywulf
First Post
twofalls said:
I think two needs to drink less coffee before starting to type.
What can be original is how you use the tools available. Scenes, plotlines, characters, etc, are just tools, nothing more. Pick them out of books, movies, wherever. It's how you mix them that can create something original.
That said, originality doesn't matter. A game can be great fun if you run a completely cliched scenario, but do it well. So what if it's a murder mystery and the bulter did it, or the Evil Wizard lives in a Tower, or the king is under the spell of his greedy advisor? If you're having fun, that's all that matters.
Wulf: "That said, originality doesn't matter. A game can be great fun if you run a completely cliched scenario, but do it well. So what if it's a murder mystery and the bulter did it, or the Evil Wizard lives in a Tower, or the king is under the spell of his greedy advisor? If you're having fun, that's all that matters."
Bingo!
Bingo!
LizardWizard
Explorer
Well, my players typically don't demand anything original from me (in fact, they clamor for a good ol' cliché), but their cries are lost on me 
.
Nothing ordinary. Weirdness, rare monsters and unorthodox villains rule the day in my games.
It's not everyone's bag of tea, though.
.Nothing ordinary. Weirdness, rare monsters and unorthodox villains rule the day in my games.
It's not everyone's bag of tea, though.
sckeener
First Post
As many others have said, mix -n- match. Take some obscure plots and blend them together.
I believe in one episode of STNG, Data comments that his playing of the violin isn't original. Picard reminds him that Data mixed several different styles together making it original.
Since I've been DMing younger crowds lately, I've been enjoying ripping from Dr. Who....the 3rd one...starting in season 8. They have no clue...especially since they weren't even born when the shows first aired.
I believe in one episode of STNG, Data comments that his playing of the violin isn't original. Picard reminds him that Data mixed several different styles together making it original.
Since I've been DMing younger crowds lately, I've been enjoying ripping from Dr. Who....the 3rd one...starting in season 8. They have no clue...especially since they weren't even born when the shows first aired.
You know, maybe its DM burn-out thats the problem. When games start getting predictable or "stale" somehow, sometimes it helps to switch hats and see how someone else DMs for a while. Even original ideas have a kind of style...where they don't seem all that original anymore (because some elements in them remind your players of another "original" trap or situation you made the week before. )
DM Burn-out is a fun killer.
DM Burn-out is a fun killer.
Similar Threads
