Originality

[trix]

Original is meaningless. There's no point to being "original", really.
...
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.
...
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.

It depends on the aspect and instance in which that origionallity manifests itself. To say that nothing 'origional' will sell well is too general.

To claim that Dark Sun didnt sell well because it was origional and the related psychological ... is bollox.

In RPGs, it comes down to how long it takes to build the storyline, how easy it is to convey awe inspiring tranquility/beauty/fear. I would be playing Dark Sun if it is possible to play/GM at the level of RPGing required. Which is just about impossible.

The more awe inspiring the setting requires awe-inspiring adventures if it is to sell successfully.

Regretably, re: Dark Sun, its usually the gladiator type politics. Its origionallity brutally limits the playability within the world by demanding either extreme role-playing or epic level campaigning of armines - in which case you mightaswell play warhammer/whatever.

1) Being Origional and being Alien (which is origional but unplayable) is quite different.

2) Being an Awe-inspiring setting (Planescape/Planescape), typically demands awe-inspiring adventures. This is quite difficult. GMs are not professional novellists. The GM cannot give out chapters of behind-the-scenes happenings and intrigue.


When it comes to something like spelljammer, it suffers in the same way as Dark Sun. The setting might brutally limit the playability within the setting. The justification is the island-effect. An island within the middle of space is expected to be the horrific dwelling of some enemy/ally. If the DM mentions it, there is something to slay.

The weakness within spelljammer is a magnification of the weaknesses in roleplaying... in general. One cannot do justice within the spelljammer setting because its the small finer points, the day to day happenings within an intresting world which make it intresting, but are impossible to achieve within a 6 hour gaming session.

Those intresting points are achievable within novels, but not in roleplaying.

This thread with bearing towards the WotC setting search. Yes, I'd imagine they'd reject darksun and spelljammer and they dont want a yellow room painted blue.

Lets take the worst-case-bland scenario.

They would take the realms, kill all the known plot anchors (thay, elminter, sisters, drow, waterdeep, desert, etc, bleh). They'd replace them with pervasive social structures that change the adventure triggers and continue changing as much as possible.

The key point is that one shouldnt be looking at alien worlds, because they're difficult to roleplay. Instead, their origional anchor would be something that has some pervasive structure in which there are many more adventure triggers.

That would make GMing alot easier and improve the players enjoyment within the realm.

Spell Jammer has the problem that 'defending the ship', is the same as 'defending the caravan'. Pillaging the citidel is the same as pillaging... the citidel.

The big difference is that being in a 'spelljammer' world one might feel compelled to be space-faring throughout the entire campaign. That wouldnt have to be so, and infact, its almost silly, but anyway.

Enjoy,

-Tim

 

[Eysia]

First of all, I want to thank everyone for their responses. Other than the "there's no point in being original" posts, I learned a lot about people's approaches to creating something new, that's also of value.

But let's dig a little further.

The consensus of the thread so far, which we shall call our "assumptions" is:

1. The core rules need to be respected and encouraged (AV from WotC said this within the previous 54-page thread), but he didn't mind adding something to them (e.g. psionics).

2. Medieval technology level is paramount - but non-European cultures are okay (also AV from previous thread).

3. This thread came about discussing the WotC fantasy search so we're taking everyone's opinions with the twin grains of salt of marketability and profitabilty.

4. "The same as before but different" is the consensus approach. It seems everyone knocks SpellJammer and DarkSun 'cause they're too far left-field and therefore didn't sell well. This has nothing to do with their "orginality" or their grooviness; just a matter of sales.

Our next step is to examine our goals. Aside from being crowned Queen of the Setting Search, I believe that one should strive for two other goals:

1. Generate interest amongst old gaming sea dogs who have given up GMing/PCing and might be inspired to get back into it if a setting that grabbed their attention came out.

2. Expand the ranks of gamers by creating something that brings in new players (like Vampire the Masquerade did - as did Rifts and Cyberpunk in their day).

Give these consensual realities and ambitious goals, what can we do?

My method is in my "approach" to originality. I strongly believe that old gaming sea dogs HAVE seen it all (e.g. lesbian drow vampire constables) and getting them to wake up is fairly hard. Also new players are not easy either. We, as gamers, and specifically gaming GM's have to compete with the twin evils of television and cinema.

Do you guys read Penny Arcade (www.penny-arcade.com)? It's an amusing strip about video gaming, et. al. and the older character is always trying to get the young one to play a paper-n-dice RPG, when the kid will only play computer games.

That's the dilemna of the modern gaming enthusiast. We're out-classed! How do you compete with video games and their million-dollar budgets? Or how about Hollywood? It's so much easier to be passive and let things entertain you. It's mentally harder to role-play. I would guess that I'm preaching to the converted but I believe that this is a very serious point.

We *HAVE* to be better than TV and cinema to make gaming successful, not only for Hasbro but for ourselves. I'm not saying we should create PowerPoint presentations or quirky mood videos with Final Cut Pro or compete in any other multi-media way.

I'm saying that we grab the strengths of our medium (great storytelling, personal involvement with your character, comradery with your team, fantastic ideas) and run with them!

Given the obstacles before us, how can we settle for "kinda-like Forgotten Realms"?

Can't we come up with something that IS generally marketable AND inspiring? Something that's not just more of the same?

-Eysia

 

[trix]

That's the dilemna of the modern gaming enthusiast. We're out-classed! How do you compete with video games and their million-dollar budgets? Or how about Hollywood?
...
We *HAVE* to be better than TV and cinema to make gaming successful, not only for Hasbro but for ourselves.
...
Given the obstacles before us, how can we settle for "kinda-like Forgotten Realms"?
...
Can't we come up with something that IS generally marketable AND inspiring? Something that's not just more of the same?
-Eysia

In revese order...

Well, I dont believe you should be competing with video games and million dollar budgets unless you're talking about time. As a student, i used to have lots of it. Now, thats a different story, I only get time to roleplay at ICON/other game-con tourneys and have taken a liking to larps.

At the same time, a good DnD adventure is still one of the funnest things around. Getting the right group, or starting one up from scratch is usually one of the hardest things to get right.

Your last question above really is the key to what WotC wants from the settings search. They've probably been scraping the bottom of the well as far as DnD supplements are concerned. With modern technology and breadth of knowledge, who is to say that the next origional setting hasnt been found? nor that todays gamer wants what yesterdays gamer envied.

Honestly, WotC should find that origional gem, or they will never find it. I only hope that they give the author some creative license as to recomending which suppliments get to the shelf/not. One can have a great idea, but development might really screw things up..... unintentionally that is.

On the above, below:

1. The core rules need to be respected and encouraged (AV from WotC said this within the previous 54-page thread), but he didn't mind adding something to them (e.g. psionics).

2. Medieval technology level is paramount - but non-European cultures are okay (also AV from previous thread).

1 - I dont believe that origional setting will exist within only the core rules. Stuff needs to be unique such that the history is unique.

2 - Medieval technology is obvious, thats the genre they're wanting to replace(?). In addition, when it gets to cultures, i really hope that orientals/whatever, arnt in the East!! 'Eastern' is too much of a cliche nowadays. Cultural cliches need to be banished. Maybe its me having a different perspective nowadays, but corney doesnt seem good anymore. When it comes to history and culture, being origional, if not alien, is good. Aslong as the world/setting isnt alien or over-awe-inspiring, it should be easy to have a good adventure.

-Tim

 

[CRG]

When building stories - inside-out or outside-in - it helps if you can answer the question of "why?".

For instance.

Had an idea for a story a while back for a D&D module. It was called the "Entropy Machine". The basic idea was that a mad wizard had created a machine in which the trapped essence of demons (very lawful) was used to power basically a huge wand of wonder (very chaotic).

That was a gimick. From there, you build out in layers. This is similar to the thread about the pig-farming-pirate going on over here. Why in heavens would the adventures be there?

Well, it helps if the mad wizard or whoever operates the machine now is some sort of threat, either by direct or indirect means. Throw in a little town being terrorized with the population being carried off as fodder for experiments.

I like plot twists, so layer-in the fact that a group of adventurers has already tried to stop the menace some weeks back and never returned (and now are the undead animated slaves of the machine). Throw in that the chief "fuel" at the moment is a powerful fiend and when he's freed, he's not hostile to the party - he's in their debt. Another twist. Now feel free to build the life of this mad wizard up a bit - maybe he's dead (or undead) now as well. Maybe he's been turned into a pizza. Either way, build all of this information. For each of these twists and layers, make it possible for the party to figure these things out (at least after the fact). Now you've got a basic story.

At this point you can "game it up". You can go draw maps or install challenges as you see fit from here on.

I took the same approach to the two submissions I sent into the setting search. Start with a few things I'd call "gimicks" if standing on their own. Layer out. Make it more realisitic. Throw in some twists. Frankly, with each of my settings I had something indicating that basically in each of them some combination of the standard, fantasy stuff was around. There are dragons and knights and kingdoms of elves and humans and dwarves, etc. I think the fact they they are there is somewhat important (espescially if you want to play D&D) but really, as far as the story goes, I didn't "game anything up" in my setting proposals.

 

[Eysia]

Frankly, with each of my settings I had something indicating that basically in each of them some combination of the standard, fantasy stuff was around. There are dragons and knights and kingdoms of elves and humans and dwarves, etc. I think the fact they they are there is somewhat important (espescially if you want to play D&D) but really, as far as the story goes, I didn't "game anything up" in my setting proposals.

CRG, that's a very intelligent approach and I figure most of the good proposals did exactly that: take a D&D world (knights, kingdoms, elves, etc.) and gave it a twiiiiiiiiist.

The "twist" is what I'm interested in. We all know that we create the standard fantasy setting so that our future players and DMs understand its basics and WotC will feel comfortable investing in it and marketing it, but how far do we go with the "twist"?

I'm gaggin' to tell you guys what I did (bad, bad, BAD! Must fight need to blab!). Instead of specifics, I'll tell you that I focused on the PC's goals. Yes, mine is mostly a standard fantasy setting but why the players are heroes and what they're doing IS the 'original' factor.

You can create whatever kind of characters you want. They all have a place in my world. And still my world goals should be able to interest and enlighten... I hope. ;-)

How did you guys handle your "twist"?

-Eysia

 

[Furn_Darkside]

How did you guys handle your "twist"?

Salutations

This contest came at the worst possible time of year for me- and I was really busy.

I threw together a proposal the last day in a few minutes- and used a concept I developed for a m.u.d. I ran during college.

I figured the "twist" made sense considering the nature of third edition.

Respectfully submitted
FD

 

[Agback]

'Eastern' is too much of a cliche nowadays. Cultural cliches need to be banished.

Well, insofar as "Eastern" means a mishmash of half-understood elements from Japanese and Chinese movies, yes, "Eastern" is passé. But let's not forget Persia, India, and Burma-Thailand-Vietnam-Malaysia-Indonesia, which are respectably 'Eastern' but quite different from the melange du jour.

As for cultural cliches, I understand and share your dislike of them, but I am afraid that they might be indispensible. A completely different culture is an enormously complicated and detailed things, very hard to convey to character-players (or indeed anyone else) in any sort of concise way. Almost no-one has the time or patience to slog their way through the 100,000 words it takes to describe a culture unless the material is thoroughly sugar-coated with either interesting story or outstanding writing. One solution to the problem is to set adventures in a context that players already know fairly well, such as modern setting, or the setting of an unusually detailed and readable series of fantasy books. Another is to convey only a framework to the readers, and to allow them to interpolate details.

In either case, an analogy to some other setting can be extremely helpful. And the difference between this being highly original and it being a cliché is only a matter of time. Before FGU brought out Bushido 'Eastern' settings for RPG were cutting-edge. Since WotC brought out The Legend of the Five Rings they have been trite. A friend of mine has a setting based on a people rather like the Indians of the Vedic period invading a region rather like pre-Columbian America. That's original and different now. But if WotC buy it and publish a raft of fantasy products set there, in fifteen years it may be cliché.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Lizard]

Or.... is there really no such thing as an original idea?

-Eysia

Correct. All there are are original variations, original combinations, original angles and views.

There are no new ideas. Anyone who thinks there are has probably just not been exposed to enough of the art of the past.

 

[MulhorandSage]

Re: Re: Originality

Correct. All there are are original variations, original combinations, original angles and views.

There are no new ideas. Anyone who thinks there are has probably just not been exposed to enough of the art of the past.

I've seen this argument before, Lizard, and I hate it. It makes as much sense philosophically as the fuel line on a Pinto.

If there are no original ideas now, when was the last original idea? And if an original idea was possible then, why isn't it possible now?

If there was *never* an original idea, then what the hell are we calling ideas?

Aside from the philosophical problems, most of the time I see it, it's a cop out. I'm not intending to disparge you personally Lizard, or to put words in your mouth, but most of the time I see this statement, it usually comes from hacks (or their defenders) who think, "Everything's just a variation on a cliche, so it's okay if I don't push myself creatively and I can pat myself on the back when I regurgitate stereotypes."

Okay, nearly all creative ideas *are* combinations. Maybe Joe Hack, Writer of Cliches, is accessible to a general audience because he's writing in the language of stereotypes, and Anton Artiste, Seeker of the Font of Originality, will never be understood because he's just so out there. Maybe RPGs are, at their heart, as imitative and derivative an artform as they get, with an audience of popcorn chewing Bubbas who just want to sit down, throw some dice and have fun, and a smart writer should service them. That's fine. But I do hope at least some designers continue to strive for the holy grail of originality, because those that have tried (Jonathan Tweet and Robin Laws come to mind) have produced some interesting work.

Scott Bennie

 

[Lizard]

Re: Re: Re: Originality

I've seen this argument before, Lizard, and I hate it. It makes as much sense philosophically as the fuel line on a Pinto.

If there are no original ideas now, when was the last original idea? And if an original idea was possible then, why isn't it possible now?

If there was *never* an original idea, then what the hell are we calling ideas?

All thought builds on other thought. The first sharpened flint tool was an attempt to imitate a naturally sharp piece of flint. Then someone figured out that if you can poke things with a stick, you can put the flint on the stick, and have a spear. Then the spear becomes an arrow...

The modern computers owes itself to the Babbage engine, the Babbage engine to the clock, the clock to the waterwheel, and so on, back through history.

Hell, look at D&D. It grew from fantasy wargaming, which grew from historical wargaming, which grew from military training exercises, which grew from actual military planning. Add in Tolkein, who borrowed from Nordic and Celtic myth, which were based on forgotten legends from even older peoples.

Or, all life itself! Man is a modified ape, apes are modified shrews, shrews are modified lizards, which are modified frogs, which are modified fish, which are modified gods-knows-what, some form of larval arthropod probably, and it all goes back to whatever-it-was that crossed the line from 'complex self-replicating molecule' to 'life'.

How does that saying go? "Genius consists of looking at what everyone else has looked at, and seeing what no one else has seen."

It's what you add to an idea, or how you combine ideas, or how you twist, shape, distort, mutate, or change ideas, which matters. A 'great innovator' is someone who manages to leap ahead a dozen mutations at once, going from shrew to man in a single jump.