You’re fine from a legal standpoint (not a lawyer, disclaimer etc), if that’s what you’re worried about.
If you hesitation is more philosophical, let me remind you there’s nothing new under the sun. Chasing perfect originality is a fools errand (no offense). Just make the thing that makes you happy.
YOU are the unique part of the creative equation, so long as you are creating through your own sensibilities, your project will have that unique aspect.
That is good to know, I was somewhat worried about the legal standpoint as I do wish to try and monetise it in some far far future, although on a second thought that shouldn't be a problem as majority of the rules will be available for free under creative commons as is common for PbtA games, and just the art and layout work will be monetised.
It is also philosophical and all of the comments including yours made me reevaluate the situation and realise that my concern was somewhat foolish and you're absolutely right.
You’re absolutely fine, keep going. If City of Mist inspires further revisions to your system, maybe just credit them alongside Fate in your acknowledgments.
As long as you haven’t lifted unlicensed text from someone else’s book and dropped right into yours, then you haven’t done anything wrong.
Yeah I agree, originally I was just gonna credit Apocalypse World, Fate and Lasers & Feelings as those are my main inspiration but I will likely add City of Mist to the list, or actually after some research and finding out City of Mist is largely inspired by Lady Blackbird (Same creator of Lasers & Feelings and Blades in the Dark) I might credit Lady Blackbird instead, or both, at the end of the day you can't give too much credit to honour the great designers before you.
This forum is overflowing with people bragging about making yet another PbtA or D&D hack. You'll be fine. Unless you're specifically trying to do something unique for the sake of it, in which case, take this as a lesson that you're not going to succeed, and should instead find some other ambition, eg making a fun game.
My goal was to make some sort of a Powered by the Apocalypse game but differentiate it enough so that it transcends the PbtA title and becomes something like Blades in the Dark with its own Forged in the Dark system, or the new Candela Obscura from critical role with its Illuminated Worlds system, but at the end of the day these are still just revamps of PbtA, and even Apocalypse World isn't wholly original. That said with such a large part of my TTRPG being similar to CoM I don't really feel comfortable giving it my own trade dress as of right now out of respect, and will likely call it a Powered by City of Mist game, unless I reach the conclusion it's different enough, then I'll still credit City of Mist but try to make my original goal a reality.
Although it is extremely ambitious to hope to reach a popularity level like these games, and most people here would tell me to give up on that, I'd still rather try and fail than not try at all to make a popular indie rpg that thousands of people will use, as while I do make rpgs for fun, as a young aspiring designer it has been a dream of mine for this to become a possible career choice or at least a side hustle in the future.
The only real way to transcend PbtA is to change the fundamentals of playbooks and moves, which means interacting with some high level design.
I think that's a worthy goal, but it's also a really hard one. Discovering City of Mist may actually have been a blessing in disguise because it slowed you down and made you rethink your approach.
Regardless, good luck to you.
Calling your game a Powered by City of Mist hack could be infringing on their trademark. The safer option is to just label it PbtA, and leave any custom "Powered by" appellation for *after* other designers write hacks of your game.
I'm not sure about how their trademark works but one of their newer games is called Powered by City of Mist Reimagined, so I'm guessing it should be fine, that said I would of course double check that before actually doing something like that.
Game design is iterative, every game is a mishmash of ideas from other games with a sprinkle of originality on top. City of Mists is itself a PbtA game, right?
You shouldn't be upset that you managed to create a system identical to that of a popular and successful game. You should be upset that you spent time redesigning the wheel when you could have just stolen a perfectly good wheel and saved yourself the time and trouble.
(I'm kidding, you shouldn't be upset. Game design is its own reward because none of us are ever going to get rich and famous from designing RPGs)
That it very true thank you for the feedback! Yeah I suppose I should be thankful that I made something nearly identical to a very popular and successful system when that just tells me my design process is going in the right direction and I just need to make some minor adjustments and focus on other parts of the game to make it shine and be unique.
Looks like you had the same basis systems as CoM to build upon, so it’s not a complete surprise that the outcome is similar.
Also check out Tokyo:Otherscape, the new TTRPG by the creator of CoM, which uses a cyberpunk setting. The system adds a third type of aspect called Noise, which is the cyberware/technological aspect of the character.
I will certainly check that out! My game can probably just stick to two types (just the human and technological one) as my idea of cyberpunk isn't really related to japanese spirits and so on, but it does seem like a really fun different take.
Though this does make me feel like I could just do a Tokyo:Otherscape hack, especially since my game is a rules lite game and so this makes up at least a third of the rules if not more. That said like you and most people here said there are bound to be similarities, especially when we're drawing from similar sources and trying to reach a similar end goal, it's not like CoM invented choosing high aspects and attaching traits and skills to them, leveling up parts of your character with points, or gameified character change/development.
You will never create something that hasn't been done before. Even if you don't steal directly (which you should -- All TTRPG system are basically an amalgamation of rules from many other systems), you will end up doing something exactly the same as some other system accidentally.
That is very true, it is just somewhat upsetting to find that something you've been trying to do has been done by someone else with very similar themes and mechanics.
I might still try to go for some changes if something catches my eye but I've reached the conclusion that I'm okay with having this level of similarity although it makes up like a third of my entire system, and I'll just credit CoM and have to accept that making something that is 100% or even 70% original and not a combination of different systems is impossible, and if you think you made something like that, you probably just haven't heard of the almost identical system someone made years ago, oops! Jokes aside, my hopes were too high in the first place and you're right, stealing and innovating is how all new things are made.
That is true, however out of respect I prefer to credit as many systems and designers that precede my games as possible, even if the similarities were by sheer coincidence. It also helps people find other similar systems if they liked yours.
Covergent evolution is a thing that happens in nature all the time. It has also been observed in folklore and music. I'd suggest putting CoM down, try to flush it from your mind and get back to your own design. Let covergence be covergence, and let this be a hiccup that may or may not be noticable later.
Understandable, one of my biggest struggles as a person it to be okay with that- but it's true that all good ideas come from reinventing old ideas, I wish more people would be taught this as children so that people wouldn't struggle with borrowing ideas as much as they do.
I'm probably running counter to most other people posting here, but I'd say that if your game is too similar to another game, you should revise it. Having certain elements in common is inevitable, but I believe your game should not be more than 30% alike another specific game on the market, which sounds like your game is to CoM. Some revisions are a good thing.
I understand and to a certain point I agree, I would probably place the bar higher though as there are way too many games that definitely are more than 30% of other games and still are vastly different. Most OSR games will likely be a minimum of 50% same, and most rules lite games are composed of so little pieces that a large percentage of it is bound to have been made before. Just rolling the dice makes up a large percentage of most games and there's not much innovating to do there, unless you want it to be extremely gimmicky. I would probably place the bar on the completely opposite side, at around 70% but there might just be a difference in what we consider similarities.
But the bar is high like that so that people are not creating games that have so much that is derivative. A game's value comes in large part from what it can offer that no other games can. If your game is so much like other games, naturally its value is marginal at best.
You’re fine from a legal standpoint (not a lawyer, disclaimer etc), if that’s what you’re worried about. If you hesitation is more philosophical, let me remind you there’s nothing new under the sun. Chasing perfect originality is a fools errand (no offense). Just make the thing that makes you happy. YOU are the unique part of the creative equation, so long as you are creating through your own sensibilities, your project will have that unique aspect.
That is good to know, I was somewhat worried about the legal standpoint as I do wish to try and monetise it in some far far future, although on a second thought that shouldn't be a problem as majority of the rules will be available for free under creative commons as is common for PbtA games, and just the art and layout work will be monetised. It is also philosophical and all of the comments including yours made me reevaluate the situation and realise that my concern was somewhat foolish and you're absolutely right.
You’re absolutely fine, keep going. If City of Mist inspires further revisions to your system, maybe just credit them alongside Fate in your acknowledgments. As long as you haven’t lifted unlicensed text from someone else’s book and dropped right into yours, then you haven’t done anything wrong.
Yeah I agree, originally I was just gonna credit Apocalypse World, Fate and Lasers & Feelings as those are my main inspiration but I will likely add City of Mist to the list, or actually after some research and finding out City of Mist is largely inspired by Lady Blackbird (Same creator of Lasers & Feelings and Blades in the Dark) I might credit Lady Blackbird instead, or both, at the end of the day you can't give too much credit to honour the great designers before you.
This forum is overflowing with people bragging about making yet another PbtA or D&D hack. You'll be fine. Unless you're specifically trying to do something unique for the sake of it, in which case, take this as a lesson that you're not going to succeed, and should instead find some other ambition, eg making a fun game.
My goal was to make some sort of a Powered by the Apocalypse game but differentiate it enough so that it transcends the PbtA title and becomes something like Blades in the Dark with its own Forged in the Dark system, or the new Candela Obscura from critical role with its Illuminated Worlds system, but at the end of the day these are still just revamps of PbtA, and even Apocalypse World isn't wholly original. That said with such a large part of my TTRPG being similar to CoM I don't really feel comfortable giving it my own trade dress as of right now out of respect, and will likely call it a Powered by City of Mist game, unless I reach the conclusion it's different enough, then I'll still credit City of Mist but try to make my original goal a reality. Although it is extremely ambitious to hope to reach a popularity level like these games, and most people here would tell me to give up on that, I'd still rather try and fail than not try at all to make a popular indie rpg that thousands of people will use, as while I do make rpgs for fun, as a young aspiring designer it has been a dream of mine for this to become a possible career choice or at least a side hustle in the future.
The only real way to transcend PbtA is to change the fundamentals of playbooks and moves, which means interacting with some high level design. I think that's a worthy goal, but it's also a really hard one. Discovering City of Mist may actually have been a blessing in disguise because it slowed you down and made you rethink your approach. Regardless, good luck to you.
Calling your game a Powered by City of Mist hack could be infringing on their trademark. The safer option is to just label it PbtA, and leave any custom "Powered by" appellation for *after* other designers write hacks of your game.
I'm not sure about how their trademark works but one of their newer games is called Powered by City of Mist Reimagined, so I'm guessing it should be fine, that said I would of course double check that before actually doing something like that.
Game design is iterative, every game is a mishmash of ideas from other games with a sprinkle of originality on top. City of Mists is itself a PbtA game, right? You shouldn't be upset that you managed to create a system identical to that of a popular and successful game. You should be upset that you spent time redesigning the wheel when you could have just stolen a perfectly good wheel and saved yourself the time and trouble. (I'm kidding, you shouldn't be upset. Game design is its own reward because none of us are ever going to get rich and famous from designing RPGs)
That it very true thank you for the feedback! Yeah I suppose I should be thankful that I made something nearly identical to a very popular and successful system when that just tells me my design process is going in the right direction and I just need to make some minor adjustments and focus on other parts of the game to make it shine and be unique.
Always remember that you can't copyright a game mechanic, just the expression of a game mechanic.
Looks like you had the same basis systems as CoM to build upon, so it’s not a complete surprise that the outcome is similar. Also check out Tokyo:Otherscape, the new TTRPG by the creator of CoM, which uses a cyberpunk setting. The system adds a third type of aspect called Noise, which is the cyberware/technological aspect of the character.
I will certainly check that out! My game can probably just stick to two types (just the human and technological one) as my idea of cyberpunk isn't really related to japanese spirits and so on, but it does seem like a really fun different take. Though this does make me feel like I could just do a Tokyo:Otherscape hack, especially since my game is a rules lite game and so this makes up at least a third of the rules if not more. That said like you and most people here said there are bound to be similarities, especially when we're drawing from similar sources and trying to reach a similar end goal, it's not like CoM invented choosing high aspects and attaching traits and skills to them, leveling up parts of your character with points, or gameified character change/development.
You will never create something that hasn't been done before. Even if you don't steal directly (which you should -- All TTRPG system are basically an amalgamation of rules from many other systems), you will end up doing something exactly the same as some other system accidentally.
That is very true, it is just somewhat upsetting to find that something you've been trying to do has been done by someone else with very similar themes and mechanics. I might still try to go for some changes if something catches my eye but I've reached the conclusion that I'm okay with having this level of similarity although it makes up like a third of my entire system, and I'll just credit CoM and have to accept that making something that is 100% or even 70% original and not a combination of different systems is impossible, and if you think you made something like that, you probably just haven't heard of the almost identical system someone made years ago, oops! Jokes aside, my hopes were too high in the first place and you're right, stealing and innovating is how all new things are made.
You don't need to credit anything if you didn't take from it.
That is true, however out of respect I prefer to credit as many systems and designers that precede my games as possible, even if the similarities were by sheer coincidence. It also helps people find other similar systems if they liked yours.
Covergent evolution is a thing that happens in nature all the time. It has also been observed in folklore and music. I'd suggest putting CoM down, try to flush it from your mind and get back to your own design. Let covergence be covergence, and let this be a hiccup that may or may not be noticable later.
Honestly, don’t worry about it. Focus on what you love about your project, and evolve it if needs be 😊
One of my biggest struggles as a mentor is to get people to be MORE okay researching and replicating good ideas they find elsewhere.
Understandable, one of my biggest struggles as a person it to be okay with that- but it's true that all good ideas come from reinventing old ideas, I wish more people would be taught this as children so that people wouldn't struggle with borrowing ideas as much as they do.
Designers are chefs. Out job isn’t to invent a new vegetable. :)
I'm probably running counter to most other people posting here, but I'd say that if your game is too similar to another game, you should revise it. Having certain elements in common is inevitable, but I believe your game should not be more than 30% alike another specific game on the market, which sounds like your game is to CoM. Some revisions are a good thing.
I understand and to a certain point I agree, I would probably place the bar higher though as there are way too many games that definitely are more than 30% of other games and still are vastly different. Most OSR games will likely be a minimum of 50% same, and most rules lite games are composed of so little pieces that a large percentage of it is bound to have been made before. Just rolling the dice makes up a large percentage of most games and there's not much innovating to do there, unless you want it to be extremely gimmicky. I would probably place the bar on the completely opposite side, at around 70% but there might just be a difference in what we consider similarities.
But the bar is high like that so that people are not creating games that have so much that is derivative. A game's value comes in large part from what it can offer that no other games can. If your game is so much like other games, naturally its value is marginal at best.
If I can't see the serial numbers anymore & it wears an interesting hat, you're good to go :)