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

>On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:
>
>> Come to that, having now read Shockforce, there a many distinctly
FMA-style
>> elements in that - they've stuck to D6s rather than polys, but they
use the
>> opposed rolls, the free activation alternation and so on......
>
>Let me get this straight: You're not saying you invented opposed rolls
>and free alternating activation, are you?

I might have guessed that something in that posting would rattle your
cage,
Mikko!!  <BIG GRIN>

To answer your question, No. (Just to get that one straight....)

What I AM saying is that when you combine a number of individual
mechanisms
into a rules system, they have a definite "feel" that defines that
system.
Someone commented in an earlier post that there seemed to be a lot of
the
same elements we used in FMA in the new WH40K, but having had a look I
can't see them. Shockforce was used as an example of a game that DOES
have
a number of the same elements we used. 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.

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:

1) The use of different kinds of polyhedral dice, with circumstances
causing shifts up and down the die scale;
2) Opposed rolls between players for most events using the above sliding
scale of polyhedral dice;
3) A "free choice" alternate activation sequence that does not rely on
any
kind of initiative priority system;
4) Chartless resolution for combat etc. based on mainly unmodified die
scores, with high-beats-low.
(There are more, but these are probably the most fundamental).

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.

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?

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 |