I very much enjoyed what you wrote. I sometimes tend to be a very visual thinker. I can see what you were writing about very clearly. This speaks to me on so many levels. Primarily as a lab technician who streamlines an SOP to save on materials and time. Also, as a DM when I literally cut and paste D&D information of different editions to 'produce' a "new" system. One word I didn't see you use was the word "home brew". Every table that uses a variation on the rules are already doing this. Usually with a positive reaction. Thank you for writing this. It clarified things for me very much.
I agree with that 100%. I think it goes even further as in games, lots of people referring to: this is lika that movie, or that is the monster from…. and I think even in a game that just kills immersion.
To reduce something to something similar that happened before just belittle’s it.
It is likely a coincidence, I left a note/comment over another post where I explained my position in terms of creativity.
Firstly, two points from your great post: the first is that fits 100% scientific research and a bit less RPGs (for the simple reason that an RPG author can copy and reuse another idea without any problem), the second is that in the scientific field you want to write the preliminary reasearch activity is by way more structured: an RPG author is not in the position to carry out a reseach to check whether or not an idea has already been applied to a previous game... the later brings me to the conclusion I wrote some day ago: I honestly do not care if a part of a rule or piece of game mechanic has been already deployed in a game, for the 2 reasons above and a third one which is the most important one: if I have a purpose to achieve and I see that a rule is perfect for that purpose, then there are not enough good explanation that shoul hold me to use it (except the legal ones!). I am pretty sure that any bit of rule I made up for my game is not original, after all, 50 years have passed! But this is irrelevant to my eyes since I have a purpose...
In the videogames industry it's very common to pitch a game with a slide like:
"My game is X+Y with this twist".
I saw the drama about this only in the ttrpg space and only in player communities (e.g., Reddit).
I ignore them.
I very much enjoyed what you wrote. I sometimes tend to be a very visual thinker. I can see what you were writing about very clearly. This speaks to me on so many levels. Primarily as a lab technician who streamlines an SOP to save on materials and time. Also, as a DM when I literally cut and paste D&D information of different editions to 'produce' a "new" system. One word I didn't see you use was the word "home brew". Every table that uses a variation on the rules are already doing this. Usually with a positive reaction. Thank you for writing this. It clarified things for me very much.
I agree with that 100%. I think it goes even further as in games, lots of people referring to: this is lika that movie, or that is the monster from…. and I think even in a game that just kills immersion.
To reduce something to something similar that happened before just belittle’s it.
This is so good. I genuinely hope to be a part of that kind of discourse in the future. Thanks for sharing
It is likely a coincidence, I left a note/comment over another post where I explained my position in terms of creativity.
Firstly, two points from your great post: the first is that fits 100% scientific research and a bit less RPGs (for the simple reason that an RPG author can copy and reuse another idea without any problem), the second is that in the scientific field you want to write the preliminary reasearch activity is by way more structured: an RPG author is not in the position to carry out a reseach to check whether or not an idea has already been applied to a previous game... the later brings me to the conclusion I wrote some day ago: I honestly do not care if a part of a rule or piece of game mechanic has been already deployed in a game, for the 2 reasons above and a third one which is the most important one: if I have a purpose to achieve and I see that a rule is perfect for that purpose, then there are not enough good explanation that shoul hold me to use it (except the legal ones!). I am pretty sure that any bit of rule I made up for my game is not original, after all, 50 years have passed! But this is irrelevant to my eyes since I have a purpose...
Thanks for the opportunity you gave me here!