Skip to Content
 

Existing Game + My Improvements = My Own Game Design?

7 replies [Last post]
NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011

Hello all,
I've been working on developing a double blind strategy game for quite a while now, originally inspired by sirlin's article about RPS interactions and game design.
At one point I stumbled upon a game called "Waving Hands", designed by Richard Bartle in 1977.
(original rules can be found here http://www.gamecabinet.com/rules/WavingHands.html)

It was, in a way, exactly what I was trying to achieve, but it wasn't beginner friendly, and I didn't want any book keeping (waving hands is entirely book keeping, btw).
I went in circles for a while developing different systems for double blind strategical games, then finally was struck by an idea that would take the exact game play of waving hands, and remove almost all need of book keeping by using a card and board system I came up with for a different game I'd been designing.

So I have the idea to take the waving hands game, re-theme it, design cards and a board that keeps track of everything so players don't have to, and make this into a creation of my own.

I'm certain that if I had different 'spell' effects and different gesture combinations, it would be entirely unique, but were I to use the same effects and combinations of gestures (even if all were re-themed), what the effects actually do would obviously be recognizable as copies from waving hands.

Given all of this, how much do you think I'd have to change to make this my own game, rather than a remake of Richard Bartle's?

Would the card/board addition be sufficient?
Should I remake all of the effects?
Should I use the card/board idea only, and design everything else from scratch?

It seems like a shame to not make use of any of Bartle's great design.

thanks for your input!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Cool ideas here!

NomadArtisan wrote:
*Snip*
At one point I stumbled upon a game called "Waving Hands", designed by Richard Bartle in 1977.
(original rules can be found here http://www.gamecabinet.com/rules/WavingHands.html)
*Snip*

Well after sorta reading the concept behind the game (sorry it's a little late and I did not have the patience to read the contents of the entire game), one thing that I found interesting about it is how he uses gestures to compartmentalize spells. It is somewhat interesting to see someone break spells into gestures (components).

It is the reverse of something *stuck* in my brain. In my brain (obvious a variation of theme) elements would be used to summon different dragons. The other theme using the same concept would be to a futuristic theme with corporations mining different elements to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Anyhow I think this form of compartmentalization (into components or elements) is interesting.

duchamp
duchamp's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/25/2012
Quote and ask

1. This is just a usual incident in any development process. Doing some research and finding out, somebody else had the idea before yourself. Usually, drop the idea and pick up the next one. You are creative, aren't you?

2. However, if you think, there are enough differences, make sure that the GAMEPLAY is different. To testify this, play the original game a couple of times, to see, what is happening. The game is not the rules or mechanisms, but the interaction between the players. Double blind stuff is rather common (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/5382/he-knows-that-i-know-that-he-...) When your game is playing totally different, you have a different game.

Note: I haven't quite got, where the similarities between your idea nd Waving Hands occurs. If it is the "programming part" - then it is even more common:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/68015/games-with-a-programming-mec...

3. It is no problem to lend a single "mechanism", it is a problem to take a single mechanism, when the whole game consists solely of this mechaniusm, as does your own game. If the mechanism ist the CORE in both games, we are in a grey zone. Check again for differences. If I were you, I would not go further, when both core mechanisms were the same, no matter what kind of scoring, bookkepping, additional material, and so on, is added.

4. Wherever you end up with your game, give credit to "Waving hands", even if there are only vague reminiscents to the game in you final design. This is courtesy and should be done much more often. Bruno Faidutti often tells us, where some original ideas for his new games are coming from in the rules, for instance.

5. Eventually (or first), ask Bartle. Tell him, what you are thinking and what you want to do, and if it is okay with him. http://mud.co.uk/richard/

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Actually, there was a kick

Actually, there was a kick starter project called "Serpent's Tongue" that seem to be a spell casting game with hand gestures.

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
Thank you for your thoughts

Thank you for your thoughts so far.

Normally, if I have an idea very similar to one that's already out there, I'll drop it and come up with something else, but the concept I have here seems so effective it'd be a shame to drop it.

The difference between my idea and how Waving Hands currently handles it...

Waving Hands- you write down gestures and after gestures are revealed each turn, you look at the sequence of gestures you've chosen over the last few turns and see if they create the sequence to cast a spell.

My Idea- you make use of a board and move pawns along branching pathways based on what cards you play each turn, when a pawn reaches a space with a spell, it activates that spell.

The method of execution, and arguably the 'core mechanism', is different in this regard, however what actually occurs based on a player's choices remains the same. For example, where SWD is a sequence that casts Fear in Waving Hands, In my concept you play an S card to move the pawn to the S space, next turn you play a W card and the pawn moves to the W space branching off the S space, and next turn the D card to move the pawn to the D space branching from the W. When the pawn moves to the D, you activate the Fear spell.

I definitely want to contact Bartle about potentially using parts of his game design, but I may just create my own effects so as not to infringe on his creation. As well, I'd like to publish my version some day.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Wow... looks amazing!

larienna wrote:
Actually, there was a kick starter project called "Serpent's Tongue" that seem to be a spell casting game with hand gestures.

Where do you get this information??? I have never heard of this game until you mentioned it. It sounds like something really cool with the the language and the codex book...

One thing, looking into the Serpent's Tongue is the fact that it is about *Incantation* and therefore SPEECH and not gestures... So you have a language (the Adamic language - the language used by Adam in the Garden of Eden) with short incantation words (verses) like "Nas" "El" "Fos"... There is a page in the codex with the incantation verses.

But the Serpent's Tongue looks very cool. And the project generated $195,000 dollars!

In comparison to "Waving Hands", Serpent's Tongue seems easier to play because it uses verses rather than gestures...

Here is the Kickstarter page for Serpent's Tongue in case you want to have a look (pretty cool): http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/500894669/serpents-tongue-a-new-magi...

NOTE: The game is still in PRE-ORDER status...

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
duchamp wrote:1. This is just

duchamp wrote:
1. This is just a usual incident in any development process. Doing some research and finding out, somebody else had the idea before yourself. Usually, drop the idea and pick up the next one. You are creative, aren't you?

Why drop it? Look at the other game and see if they have some things you like and could reuse, or change some parts of your design to deliberately avoid it being to similar. Your game is probably the result of thinking through and testing a great number of different mechanics, and there are probably many variations to try that might be as good or even better than what you currently have, so changing the design should not be a big risk.

Quote:
3. It is no problem to lend a single "mechanism", it is a problem to take a single mechanism, when the whole game consists solely of this mechaniusm, as does your own game. If the mechanism ist the CORE in both games, we are in a grey zone.

Grey zone for what? Legally you can use mechanics from other games, and you should when you find that mechanic better than your own. Except in the rare case the game mechanic is patented, but patents can only last 20 (or is it 25?) years, so that does not apply to a game from 1977.

Quote:
4. Wherever you end up with your game, give credit to "Waving hands", even if there are only vague reminiscents to the game in you final design. This is courtesy and should be done much more often.

Fully agree. This is also great as a player to know other games you might want to check out. More designers should do this.

Quote:
5. Eventually (or first), ask Bartle.

No. Never do this. I have only (one) bad experience with this. The original designer has NO legal right to prevent you from publishing a similar game or legal claim to be paid royalties. But if you ask him he might try to convince you otherwise and who knows how ugly it can get (bad comments online, even lawyers). Worse, if designers start asking for permissions we might end up with permission being de-facto expected/required, which could even affect court decisions in the end.

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
Thanks for the replies all.

Thanks for the replies all. I'm definitely not dropping the game. I think I'll continue working on it, I'm sure it will stray even further from waving hands before it is finished, but I will certainly include that game in my list of inspirations.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut