Originality

[Tonguez]

Re: Re: Originality

Socrates and Plato thought that only gods had original ideas, but they had obviously never heard of Darwin or Buckminster Fuller.

Neither Darwin or Bucky came up with original ideas (the geodesic dome was invented by Walter Bauersfield) although Bucky did have some good insightful ways of looking at ideas.

As to the original question - I don't think there are truely original ideas only new and innovative applications of those ideas into a new and seemingly original form.

And when world building I start outside-in and then switch to inside-out changing the original premise as required...

 

[laiyna]

I worked my campaign idea from a few basic principles I always use. If I can answer these questions with an idea I like I usualy come with an original idea that actualy might work.

1) Political or None-Political
2) War or Peace
3) Player Mind Fu&ks yes or no
4) Recognisable yes or no
5) Technology level

These 5 points made me think and mix a world into each other. And an idea was born....

Especialy point 4 is important, if you want players who never played D&D before or any RPG they need to recognise what you are doing, and if you want that, the idea or setting can not be compleetly foreign or original. The new player would not recogise it.

But then you start in to fill in the details and the threads to base a campaign on, you got things that can be recognised easly but how it all fits together, that still can be unique and special.

Most people forget that a history of a world/campaign is details, yes it gives a feel of the world, but you notice that feel often just after half a year or more of playing in that world. How would you recognise if you played in a stone age campaign and you discover that the world you play on is after cataclism, and that the orcs are just mutated humans just like the elves. Does it realy make a difrance for the first few sessions? Its a nice details, but nothing more... History is proberbly lost or mutated.

Originality is just an idea of people and not always what you want, but to give your world that bit extra feel, that bit extra to make it special..... thats the trick.....

Laiyna

 

[Zappo]

I've developed my setting by taking a completely unoriginal idea (actually, it's about as far from original as you can get - practically the antithesis of originality- but I won't shed the detail until after I've been rejected ), throwing a very original wrench into it, and seeing what happens. The result is something that may seem vanilla D&D at a first glance, but actually has a very unique flavor. Of course, I've engineered the core ethos sentence (and the whole submission) so that the uniqueness sticks out more.

Since WotC explictly stated that they were looking for something like FR, GH and DL (all rather vanilla settings), I thought this would be the way to go.

 

[trix]

Hi, all.
...
my definitions:
Outside-in meaning that you come up with general archetypical themes (e.g. global apocalypse) that may be derivative but then fill in specific details that make your ideas unique (e.g. eating candy bars caused everyone to die off).

Inside-out meaning that you come up with specific archetypical details (e.g. "I'm not left-handed either" - from Princess Bride) and then expand to general themes that are unique (e.g. body-hopping space bandits have driven all left-handed people insane causing the global apocalypse).

Does this distinction matter to you? Is this a principle that you use in your work? Are there other techniques that you use to help yourself develop original ideas? Or.... is there really no such thing as an original idea?

-Eysia

Lateral thinking:

If you're good at it, you can quickly develop origional 'realistic' worlds off very few key ideas. You need to understand what lateral thinking 'REALLY' is. It comes down to not solving the problem, but asking the right questions. You then run through every possibility of those questions and come up with different scenarios, you then need to figure out which set of answers complete the origional premise.


So, the answers become:, The key ideas that make a world origional?

(in random order

1) Politics
2) Religion
3) Civilization
4) Geography
5) Magic
6) Technology
7) Good vs Evil
8) Historic Legends

Thats pretty much it. Jot down 5 unique ideas and 3 common ideas, then use some lateral thinking to understand why the system is stable. How things came to be, what will be the natural course of events, what major conflicts and resolutions will arise, etc.

You've got the option to be totally unique(8/0), but possibly alienating or being subtly unique in every aspect (8/0), or totally common with one unique aspect (1/7), etc. You decide. Your world should have foundations from which you can create your history.

Your key ideas are not necessarily known to your players. The world foundations may be hidden by layer after layer of politics, intrigue, history, war, etc.

-Tim

 

[AvarielAvenger]

Original is meaningless. There's no point to being "original", really. WoTC, apparently having someone bright running this search for a new campaign setting, has locked in on one of the fascinating traits human beings possess.

I've studied Psychology, and my father is a Psychologist. One of the many interesting things about human beings is how they like "different" things. Humans are used to a certain kind of thing, and they don't want a big change from that thing. However, they like slightly different things from what they're used to.


For example, say a person really likes a certain kind of food. This food is food he's eaten all his life, and while he enjoys it, he's looking for a change. However, he isn't looking for too big of a change. He wants something different, but not too different. This is one reason why varying foods from differing cultures are often found repulsive by people from another culture.

It is simply too different to be liked. Humans do like a slight variation on certain kinds of food, however, and that's why food with the same basic taste is served in so many different ways. Humans enjoy things that are slightly different from what they're used to, but not something that's greatly different.

Humans find large and great changes unsettling, while they enjoy slight changes to what they are used to. This has even been proved to be true from a physical standpoint. Tests were done, and it was found that when Humans put their hands in a pot of water, for five minutes, at a certain temperature.

These people would enjoy the sensation of taking their hand out and putting it in another pot of water that was within 5 degrees of the temperature of the water they had just had their hand in. However, if they put their hand in a pot with a water temperature that was, say, 20 degrees different then what the other pot of water was, they would find it unpleasant.

This was true for many varying temperatures, IE 75-80/70, 25-30/20, and so on. It's just the way the Human mind works.

And that's why WoTC is not looking for a unique, highly original world. They're looking for something that's similar to all the worlds they already have, worlds that people who play D&D are used to and like, but that is slightly different. And that's what will be successful. Same basic food, different way of serving it.

If you don't believe me, look at the three most successful campaign worlds. Notice how popular they all are. Notice how similar they all are, as well. Notice how highly unique and original settings like Dark Sun, Planescape and Spelljammer fared against the slight variations to the old theme.

It may not be fair, but the fact is the unique, highly original campaign world isn't what sells. The slight variations on the previous campaign worlds are.

 

[freedoms_edge]

It may not be fair, but the fact is the unique, highly original campaign world isn't what sells. The slight variations on the previous campaign worlds are....

Well said. I think the thing that we have to bear in mind here is that WotC are not really bothered if an idea is totally original or not. In fact, I would guess that of the ten 'semi-finalists', five would be highly original, and five would be variations, just to see if the original ideas can be done. In the end, none of it really matters, as WotC are in a no lose scenario here, as whatever world they choose as their new setting, some of us are going to love it, and some of us are going to hate it. Same as it has always been....

 

[AvarielAvenger]

Well said. I think the thing that we have to bear in mind here is that WotC are not really bothered if an idea is totally original or not. In fact, I would guess that of the ten 'semi-finalists', five would be highly original, and five would be variations, just to see if the original ideas can be done. In the end, none of it really matters, as WotC are in a no lose scenario here, as whatever world they choose as their new setting, some of us are going to love it, and some of us are going to hate it. Same as it has always been....

I would actually disagree. If the new campaign setting sells as well or better than, say, the FRCS, it's a success. If it doesn't, it's a failure. A win-lose scenario for WoTC.

This is the reason they want something that's going to sell to the majority of the customers, and I can guarantee a "highly unique, original campaign setting" will not do as well as one that has it's own flavor, but is similar to previous worlds like the FR and Greyhawk. And WoTC realizes this as well, from what I've seen.

 

[Aeolius]

I notice you left off one path: sideways-in. Thinking about one thing that give inspiration for something unrelated. Also known as "mental hopscotch".

Now I'm going to be singing Missing Persons tunes all day.

My online campaign is an amalgam of things that I enjoy. I am fascinated by night hags, so I use them in my games. Yes, this means there are lots of outsiders, including demons. I have saltwater aquariums and am mesmerized by the sea. End result: my game is set underwater. I like writing and can find little time for running live games, therefore my game is message-based. Add to that a touch of Greyhawk, a smattering of Atlantis, and a pinch of SpongeBob Squarepants.

If ogres are like onions, then my campaign is like a pizza.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I believe that some people are creators of ideas and transfer them to people that build. This is why you say "hey, that was my idea!", when you see something new.

I get a lot of my game ideas from the news or history, just apply them to my game.

 

[Desdichado]

Now that you said that, I have "Walking in L.A." stuck in my head!