The Campaign Builder's Guild

So i've been feeling very anxious lately, and I think one of the reasons is is that i'm not really working on anything. So I'm going to begin writing out my ideas for stories, and trying to flesh them out into worlds, characters, and possible plots. There's no way I'm going to be able to turn them into comics for a couple of years, but I'd rather be working on something now and have something to do with my spare time.

But I tend to get a lot of ideas going through my noggin at once, and it's hard to commit to working on just one. But that's not the issue right now.
My concern is how far does one become "influenced" by something, but not rip it off.

I am a huge fan of the "ring of fire" series by Eric Flint. And I had the idea of a story where an american town gets thrown into a medieval fantasy land and forms a united states there. I began this out by playing with some friends over a game of Eberron, and as you may well remember it was my first posting on here at the guild, but now that i think about it i posted this idea on two other forums and now i'm worried that somebodies taken my idea (hopefully they have vanished in the obscure backlogs).

But still I can't help but feel a certain degree of guilt. Once again, here i'm being paranoid about my idea which i pretty much got from reading a guys novel series which i'm a fan of.

So I must ask again, what's the difference between being "influenced" and just plain ripping off someone?

It's a matter of degree. Drawing and hard-and-fast line that fits every situation would be difficult. If the plot you describe is more-or-less the plot of the other guy's book, you may have crossed the line. (I am not familiar with Ring of Fire so I can't comment more.)

If we're talking about actual plagiarism, the rule of thumb is you copyright implementations, not general ideas.

Also, when your consience says there is an issue, give credit.  It's not plagiarism if you cite sources.

There is also such a thing as creating an homage to something. I don't think anyone would call that a rip-off. The line there is more to do with the manner in which you use the elements of the inspirational work - with an homage you specifically want people to see the imitative parts in your creation, and the entertainment comes from the imitation.

I feel like "ripping something off" should really only be a worry when you're actually publishing something.  If you're just using a setting for personal gaming purposes, why worry about it?

In terms of actually making a distinction, I feel that the difference between being influenced and ripping off is, as Phoenix said, purely a matter of degree.  Are the characters and places the same but with their names just changed?  I think a more useful distinction might be between being derivative - just rehashing the same story/setting/idea as someone else - and using someone's work creatively, doing something new with the old material, or modifying/adding to an idea in an inventive way.

If it helps...

QuoteI am a huge fan of the "ring of fire" series by Eric Flint. And I had the idea of a story where an american town gets thrown into a medieval fantasy land and forms a united states there.

Flint was essentially "ripping off" Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court... but on a much larger scale with that piece :D. Flint's idea is not a new idea, in fact, he just repurposed some very old ideas.

More constructively, I'll echo what Steerpike said.

Deep down, you'll know.

It is my opinion that to a certain extent, we are influenced by almost everything we read or watch or otherwise consume, whether or not we are consciously aware of that influence. Our minds are magpie minds, always stealing bits of whatever's shiny and building nests out of that stuff.

Further, I suspect that any creative work tends to benefit, in general, from having a larger number of influences, and tends to suffer from having a small number of influences. (This is why I think so many writers voraciously read.)

If you are concerned about minimizing the appearance of impropriety, two bits of advice follow from the above ideas. Secondly and firstly, that you should strive to spread out your influences a bit, so your ideas don't all come from the same (ripped-off) place and instead are drawn from a variety of far-flung sources, custom assembled by you in a totally unique way (as is inevitable). Firstly and secondly, that you should stop flagellating yourself for appropriating small bits and pieces, because that is more or less how everybody rolls.

Ask yourself, at the end of the day, "did I create a new thing?" Because if 85% of your inspiration is a single source, you're not going to feel like you did. You're going to feel like you stole someone else's work and filed off the serial numbers. Otherwise, you are going to get that "I made something unique" feeling, even if it's a uniqueness that comes as a result of combining strong influences in an unexpected ways. If you pitch to me your new idea thus: "It's Buffy the Vampire Slayer meets The Golden Girls," I'm going to start with the assumption that that's a new thing, even though literally all I know about it is that it draws heavily from two established things.

Quote from: Light Dragon
If it helps...

QuoteI am a huge fan of the "ring of fire" series by Eric Flint. And I had the idea of a story where an american town gets thrown into a medieval fantasy land and forms a united states there.

Flint was essentially "ripping off" Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court... but on a much larger scale with that piece :D. Flint's idea is not a new idea, in fact, he just repurposed some very old ideas.

More constructively, I'll echo what Steerpike said.

Thanks for that LD. I began looking into Mark Twains work, and there's actually a ton of stories that take the "flinging 'modern' men into the past, and try to make it a better place" sort of concept. It makes me feel a lot better to know that I can take my inspirations and make them my own ideas.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
Deep down, you'll know.

It is my opinion that to a certain extent, we are influenced by almost everything we read or watch or otherwise consume, whether or not we are consciously aware of that influence. Our minds are magpie minds, always stealing bits of whatever's shiny and building nests out of that stuff.

Further, I suspect that any creative work tends to benefit, in general, from having a larger number of influences, and tends to suffer from having a small number of influences. (This is why I think so many writers voraciously read.)

If you are concerned about minimizing the appearance of impropriety, two bits of advice follow from the above ideas. Secondly and firstly, that you should strive to spread out your influences a bit, so your ideas don't all come from the same (ripped-off) place and instead are drawn from a variety of far-flung sources, custom assembled by you in a totally unique way (as is inevitable). Firstly and secondly, that you should stop flagellating yourself for appropriating small bits and pieces, because that is more or less how everybody rolls.

Ask yourself, at the end of the day, "did I create a new thing?" Because if 85% of your inspiration is a single source, you're not going to feel like you did. You're going to feel like you stole someone else's work and filed off the serial numbers. Otherwise, you are going to get that "I made something unique" feeling, even if it's a uniqueness that comes as a result of combining strong influences in an unexpected ways. If you pitch to me your new idea thus: "It's Buffy the Vampire Slayer meets The Golden Girls," I'm going to start with the assumption that that's a new thing, even though literally all I know about it is that it draws heavily from two established things.

Thank you for the advice, oh noble gas-colored wax stick, of artistic propriety. I did begin to reflect on my own work, and there's plenty more I could do with it, so for now I'll put it on the shelf and work on some of my more original ideas.

I often and openly rip off other settings, but with the exception of what might end up (sadly) the most original setting of all, I usually change a lot of stuff and call it my own.  I might reference the original ideas if I have to give a brief description, but I rarely use things as is in my settings.  The one that will borrow large swaths of setting from WH40K I consider more of a reimagined warhammer where the bits that bug me are removed.  This is the "gothic space opera" setting I've mentioned on the boards a couple of times.

Personally, I think the line between "inspired by" and "stolen from" depends on how much you file off the serial numbers.  I usually take the ideas from one or two sources and then look at them through the lens of other settings or just mash them wth a hammer until the pieces do what I want them to do.  I find both methods tend to yield relatively "inspired by" results.

Ever read a Discworld novel? Especially one set in Ankh-Morpork?

Go read Ill Met in Lankhmar.

I second what both Kindling and Steerpike have said; homages should be all right and even if you are publishing, they might be accepted. I'm sure there are lots of examples.

There are no new ideas, just amalgamations of old ideas.

If you twist something you like enough, it becomes something new.

Say you want to add Space Marines to your Sci-Fi setting. Well, you can twist the idea several ways to make it less derivative. What if instead of worshiping a God-Emperor, they worship aliens who once posed as Greek Deities? What if, instead of being created to save Humanity, they were created to keep Humanity inline and only grudgingly fight aliens when the need arises? What if their armor looked more like a traditional Knight's armor, supplemented by advanced shields? What if they used high powered Laser Guns instead of Bolters? What if each of the 12 principle Olympians had their own Battalions with separate histories and credos? What if they were called Star Knights instead of Space Marines?

When a person sees Star Knights for the first time they may think "Oh, kinda like Space Marines," but they will not immediately jump to "THAT'S A RIP OFF!", like they would have had you just taken the entire space marine concept, filed off the serial numbers, re-dubbed them "Star Knights" and dropped them into your setting whole hog.

Hey, here's another example of Ripoff-versus-Homage (more toward the former, imo):

[ic="The Hidden Fortress (1958; Akira Kurosawa)"]A tall, thin conscript, a short, fat conscript, and a samurai escorting a princess through enemy territory after her country was destroyed in hopes of reaching a rebellion she can lead to ultimate victory against those who defeated her people.[/ic]

[ic="Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977; George Lucas)"]A tall, thin robot, a short, fat robot, a mystic-force-wielding sword-toting warrior, and a cavalier cowboy escorting a princess through enemy territory after her planet was destroyed in hopes of reaching a rebellion she can lead to ultimate victory against those who defeated her people.[/ic]

Ultimately, Lucas' movies created an original story, but his first one really was little more than The Hidden Fortress in spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace.

Quote from: Humabout
Hey, here's another example of Ripoff-versus-Homage (more toward the former, imo):

[ic="The Hidden Fortress (1958; Akira Kurosawa)"]A tall, thin conscript, a short, fat conscript, and a samurai escorting a princess through enemy territory after her country was destroyed in hopes of reaching a rebellion she can lead to ultimate victory against those who defeated her people.[/ic]

[ic="Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977; George Lucas)"]A tall, thin robot, a short, fat robot, a mystic-force-wielding sword-toting warrior, and a cavalier cowboy escorting a princess through enemy territory after her planet was destroyed in hopes of reaching a rebellion she can lead to ultimate victory against those who defeated her people.[/ic]

Ultimately, Lucas' movies created an original story, but his first one really was little more than The Hidden Fortress in spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace.

That is not an homage, that is blatantly derivative and barely twists the plot to become something new and different. Star Wars also brazenly copied the framework of The Heroes Journey by Joespeh Campbell (but then again, so do most mass market action/adventure movies these days).

An homage acknowledges where the inspiration came from, or at least gives a nod to it.

The Clone Wars episode "Bounty Hunters" is an homage to Samurai 7. The episode blatantly copies the one of Samurai 7's main story lines and even includes analogs to all 7 of the samurai. At the beginning of the episode they mentioned Akira Kurosawa (the creator of Seven Samurai, whose work inspired Samurai 7).

To me, an homage recognizes and gives credence to the inspiration. A re-make gets official permission to copy the work. Derivative work is inspired by the source but takes the concept and twists it enough to be different. A rip off blatantly steals from the source and does not alter the material in any meaningful way.

Quote from: Elemental_ElfStar Wars also brazenly copied the framework of The Heroes Journey by Joeseph Campbell.

Campbell's heroic journey is meant to be an archetypal myth: that is, a type of myth-structure universally common, found in multiple cultures and traditions.  The whole point of the hero's journey, for Campbell, is that it's a kind of monomyth, cropping up again and again, whether or not it's deliberate: there's something about it that's archetypal, that has universal mythic appeal.  Gilgamesh, Beowulf, The Odyssey, Harry Potter, fairy tales - all of these things follow the heroic journey to some extent.  You can't really "rip it off" since by its very nature it's meant to underlie all heroic myth to one degree or another.

I'd agree that Star Wars pretty brazenly copies The Hidden Fortress, but I'd argue it owes as much to Dune (desert planet, psychic/mystic order, powerful empire, messianic rebel leader, elements of feudalism-in-space), Flash Gordon (complete with Chewbaca-esque aliens, another evil empire, sky-cities, dogfighting spacecraft, and an overall pulpy feel), and WWII (lots and lots of Nazi imagery, the trench run sequence is cribbed from a WWII bomber movie, etc).  Star Wars is highly derivative in a certain sense, but it's influenced by lots and lots of stuff - it's not just stealing from one source.  That's what makes it creative and, in a perverse sense, "original."

Everything is citation.  Nothing appears out of whole cloth.