Re: (OT) Rules "inspiration" (was [OT] Bring and Battle

>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:
>
>> To answer your question, No. (Just to get that one straight....)
>
>Ok. Just checking if you were still sane :-)

Well, I think so - despite the best efforts of some people.... :)
>
>> Shockforce was used as an example of a game that DOES have
>> a number of the same elements we used.
>
>Frankly, I fail to see (a blatant) connection there. "High roll/card
beats
>low roll/card" has been around for ages. So's alternating activating
>units.

I don't dispute this. Though in my experience most alternating
activation
rules have in the past also had some kind of initiative sequence that
restricted the choice of who to activate when.
>
>> BATTLE ROAR/RAGE (sorry, can't find
>> my copy right now and still can't remember the title properly), on
the
>> other hand, appears to be quite blatantly lifted from DS/SG because
it
>> combines a large number of the same mechanisms that interact in the
same
>> way.
>
>Can't comment on that.
>
>> To me, the FMA "system" (that, in modified form as appropriate, forms
the
>> core of DSII and SGII) relies for its "identity" on a number of key
>> mechanisms, and they way they interact. These include:
>...
>> 4) Chartless resolution for combat etc. based on mainly unmodified
die
>> scores, with high-beats-low.
>
>How is DSII chartless? The chit pull is just another way to roll
results
>from a (admittedly huge) chart. Not that the chit pull is a
particularly
>new innovation...

"Chartless" in the sense that you don't have to get your numbers (die
rolls, chit pulls, card draw, whatever) and THEN go back to a
cross-reference chart to index this number against other circumstances
to
see if you've got a result. You total the valid chits (most people
should
be able to remember what colours are valid for the weapons they are
using
after a turn or two), and if it is better than the armour you've got a
kill. I think the sheer size of the chart that you need to duplicate the
variability of results that the chits can give you speaks for itself in
this case. YMMV, of course.... :)
>
>> I am unaware of any game published before we brought out DSII that
combines
>> these particular elements in the same or a similar way; if you know
of one,
>> I'd be interested to hear of it.
>
>All in the same package? None that I recall right now. But separately
>they've been around.

No dispute on this, it's exactly what I was saying.
>
>> At the end of the day, I guess the real question is at what point
does a
>> collection of mechanisms (very few of which are individually
"original", as
>> with so many games on the market almost everything has been done
before
>> somewhere) actually become definable as a "Rules System", and
therefore
>> become an intellectual property of the designer and thus
"protectable" in
>> an ethical if not a legal sense. I don't think I've got an answer to
this
>> one. Have you?
>
>Legally, you're on shaky ground. And I'm glad you are. Because if you
>weren't, T$R might have sued the entire gaming industry out of
existance
>back in the 80's. GW still might (just look at some of the absurd
claims
>in the Demonblade case). WotC already pretty much did with the CCG
>industry.
>
>Maybe that's why game houses like to tie their products strongly to
easily
>identifiable (and copyrightable) game worlds.

Yup.  :)
>
>Is it bad to have derivatives? I love Chipco's Fantasy Rules!, which
quite
>frankly is DB* fantasy done right. If PhilB, with his well known love
of
>fantasy gaming, had had a stranglehold on opposed rolls, FR! wouldn't
be.
>But FR! is a different game. It's sufficiently different than even
HotT,
>Phil's shot at fantasy DB, to rate as an original work IMO.
>
>I think the key issue is added value. Nothing is created in a vacuum
>anymore, but combining existing elements in a new and unique way, or
>significantly adding something new is what sets the new original works
>apart from the ripoffs.
>
>A lame copy will always be a lame copy. Sadly sometimes a lame copy
gets
>the publicity while the original lies forgotten, but c'est la vie...
>
>Not having seen the Battle-whatever I can't say for sure, but it might
>have redeeming value if it did something new with the system instead of
>just renaming DFFG as Dragon Breath.
>
>As a software designer, my ideas are constantly "ripped off". Frankly,
I
>don't mind -- haven't stumbled upon an exact copy yet, and probably
never
>will in my narrow field -- and I return the favor when I see a
>particularly good way of doing something. But I did mind when some twit
>copied one of my web pages and added lame ads in the text...
>
>Let me throw back a question: If I devise a rules mechanic that
produces
>statistically identical outcome with a published mechanic, but using a
>different execution method, am I infringing on someone's intellectual
>rights, legal or ethical?
>
>(IMO, no. And this is pretty much the basis for patent law.)

I agree, no. This means you've put some real intellectual effort into
devising a new (and hopefully better) way of doing whatever it is, which
is
very different from doing it the same way as the other person did but
just
changing a few bells and whistles to skirt the grey areas of the law.

Hey, Mikko, do you realise we've actually agreed on quite a few things
here?? better be careful, it might set a precendent.... <GRIN>

Jon (GZG)
>
>--
>maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)	    | A pig who doesn't
fly
>+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice   | is just an
ordinary pig.
>Maininkitie 3C14 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?    |	       - Porco
Rosso
>http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      | hateme.html |