In RPGs there are different layers as well as different kinds of creativity. Creativity as a concept is usually connotated with positive attributes. Still, there are many areas in which creativity is left to lie fallow, and some are even made impossible by specific RPGs. On the other hand every RPG lets room for creativity of some sorts, so generally speaking about creativity is basically meaningless unless creativity is further defined.

As I´m unaware of preceding categorizations for creativity in RPGs, I´ll introduce some words to better differentiate. If there are other terms that have more of a history, please feel free to point that out.

situational: An attribute delineating the ad-hoc nature of the creative task.
Example: Using a lie to pass the guarded gate to Waterdeep.

design: An attribute delineating the planned nature of the creative task.
Example: Creating Waterdeep

recombinatorial: the creativity can be described as recombinatorial, if it takes the building blocks of the game system, be they true rules elements or setting chunks, and arranges them in a new way. This can be done for changes sake, or to solve a problem.
Examples:Most D&D 3rd Edition characters, designing the power structure of a Vampire, the Masquerade city with it´s clans etc.

constructed: an attribute regarding the nature of the creative work. If it follows axioms, for example, it is constructed. Many game systems provide codified construction rules.

original: A point could be made that nothing is original, and everything is derivative. This stance shall be relegated without further discussion into the realms of sophistry. For something to be talked about as original, the context must be preserved. In critical discussion of RPG Settings for example, a rather objective approach must be taken, whereas in the discussion of situational creativity, a more lenient usage of the term seems natural.

derivative: a strong case could be made that all creativity is derivative in one form or the other. For the sake of our discussion, a strong understanding of the term shall be our standard, e.g. if the lineage of the creation is obvious and non-subtle.
Now, as we haver introduced this concept, we must further stratify, as the cultural source is important for an aesthetic judgement, as well as being fruitful for discussion.

primary derivate: real-world source material is translated into RPG building blocks
secondary derivate: literary works, which are based upon real-world source material, are translated into RPG building blocks
tertiary derivate: Gaming source material is translated into new RPG building blocks

The definitions are a bit limited, but can be easily expanded to other media. For example, an RPG about Margaret Rutherford´s Miss Marple would be a secondary derivate, as the movies are already derivative of the novels. Delta Green is definitely a tertiary derivate for obvious reasons.

More strata could be introduced, as they are relative in nature. So, for actual discussion the degrees of seperation between primary source material and RPG building blocks should be spelled out. As the Delta Green example shows, some building blocks can be secondary (X-Files) while the structure of the games is tertiary. Again, actual discussion must spell out what is talked about in which context.

So, what´s the point?

The point is one of Calithena´s mind blowing threads, wherein he laments RPG design theory as having it gotten all wrong.

He implies, that the foremost interest he has in RPGs, is the creative aspect, situational as well as design.

And he says, that no RPGs are constructed/written to actually cater to situational and design tasks. He also argues, that these forms of creativity haven´t been systematically reviewed, no one cares or knows what helps them, no one cares or knows what furthers them.

I, back in the day, argued that his stances ultimately lead to the abolition of all commercial RPGs.

How did I come to this conclusion?

The inherent value attached to certain forms of creativity in Calithenas posts.

IF you value original or primary derivative design and if you value situational creativity, there is nothing else left, than to write your own setting and possibly rulesset.

Because playing OD&D is just as playing 4th Edition, creatively speaking. Maybe OD&D leaves more room for situational creativity. But the building blocks would be all secondary or even tertiary derivates.
Whereas Gary Gygax was original or primyry derivative when designing the building blocks (Monsters, Spells, magic Items) for the game. And everything in D&D is still derivative of his building blocks.
The prevalence and staying power of Gary´s building blocks is frightening if you compare D&D versions. Smart people like M. Cook or M. Mearls have NEVER EVER been as creative as GG with building blocks.
That´s astonishing, at least to me.


Sure, there´s tons of settings being way more creative than Greyhawk, in any direction that word can take. But the Gygaxian building blocks rule everything in D&D. There is no escape.

So, if these building blocks are the real genius, you must kill Gary with your Crossbow. And start doing it yourself. Only in this way can you really get creative in an objective sense.

Don´t limit yourselves to a recombination of someone elses building blocks made out of HIS literary background.

Bake your own building blocks out of YOUR literary background.

Quote from: SettembriniDon´t limit yourselves to a recombination of someone elses building blocks made out of HIS literary background.

Bake your own building blocks out of YOUR literary background.

In order to do what, PRECISELY?

Create a whole new game using totally different building blocks interlocking in a totally different way, or create a new set of building blocks for a new kind of D&D?

The former seems extremely easy (VtM, duh), and the latter extremely difficult, because it may well be inherently contradictory.

Also, examples would be nice. I'm struggling to distinguish this idea from what's known as "homebrew."

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIn order to do what, PRECISELY?

Create a whole new game using totally different building blocks interlocking in a totally different way, or create a new set of building blocks for a new kind of D&D?

The former seems extremely easy (VtM, duh), and the latter extremely difficult, because it may well be inherently contradictory.

To what end? That is for everyone to decide for himself.
Ultimately, you have to satisfy yourself.

Who am I to know what your "creative agenda" is?

I´d argue though, that there have been original game structures for primary derivate building blocks in Traveller for example. The Traveller tropes are derived from Sci-Fi, the structure of interaction is original in an RPG sense.

If you are concerned with getting enjoyment out of the creative aspect, than you have to make up your mind what degree satisfies you.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAlso, examples would be nice. I'm struggling to distinguish this idea from what's known as "homebrew."

There is no inherent difference. I´m argueing that to reach true originality and to keep the degrees of separation down, you have to homebrew.
Thusly a longing for thorough creativity is a longing for the death of the commercial hobby.
Maybe replaced by a community of homebrewers who chat with each other sharing methods and the like.

Quote from: SettembriniBecause playing OD&D is just as playing 4th Edition, creatively speaking.

I'm not so sure about that.  Let's go back to your example of creating Waterdeep.  3.5 provides some structure for building a city.  OD&D, not so much.

QuoteThusly a longing for thorough creativity is a longing for the death of the commercial hobby.
Maybe replaced by a community of homebrewers who chat with each other sharing methods and the like.

You're one small step away from being able to call the Forge sell-outs.  Why did you hesitate?

Quote from: jrientsI'm not so sure about that.  Let's go back to your example of creating Waterdeep.  3.5 provides some structure for building a city.  OD&D, not so much.

Splendid point. I was exaggerating, but it´s exactly observations regarding creativity like this, that I think are fruitful. For this aestehtic debate, that is.

Quote from: jrientsYou're one small step away from being able to call the Forge sell-outs.  Why did you hesitate?

I´m not sure I´m getting you. Care to elaborate?
I don´t see them generating any building blocks.
Maybe structures but heavily, if not solely, slanted towards shoehorning
situational secondary derivative creativity. Of a very special aesthetic quality.

I mean, there´s more new building blocks in your Asteroid Supplement than in three random Forger products. Or the whole Forge?

Oh, and @Waterdeep:

You can´t create Waterdeep in 3.5. It already exist. just as you can´t create the magic missile spell anymore.

@others:

Keep in mind, this is a continuation upon an idea originating in the "All RPG design theory is fucked" - thread.

Does any RPG Theory deal with creating building blocks? Does any RPG theory exist that explains how the awesome came into Rifts?

How Kevin S. does his shit?
How Jeff Rients pulled together his fabolous Asteroid-Module?
Does any Design theory even consider design creativity as a force unto itself?

These were the questions in that thread.

Quote from: jrientsYou're one small step away from being able to call the Forge sell-outs.  Why did you hesitate?

Not "sell-outs", traitors. There's a subtle but significant difference.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SettembriniI´m not sure I´m getting you. Care to elaborate?

It was just a joke.  You were talking up the opposition of creativity and commercial success.  The Forge seems to want to have their cake and eat it too in that regard, so it looked like an easy jab to make.

Oh, ok.

Now, the problem is not commercial success. if YOUR setting is commercially successful, then YOU were creative in some fruitful way!

BUT: Playing in an established setting written by SOMEONE ELSE makes us all tools, and let´s us be creative only within our allotted boxes.

Do I delude myself by seeing a middle ground between homebrews and spoonfed settings?  The sandbox settings (Spinward Marches, original Greyhawk, etc) seem to leave a lot of room for creative endeavor.

Yeah, that´s why I introduced the terms above.

So we can talk about different degrees and kinds of creativity.

Frex:

My Megatraveller campaign was a sandbox campaign in the Far Frontiers sector. I created the sector all by myself.
The basic framework was constructed using the MT-Rules.
The extrapolation of the UPPS into real worlds was a mix of using published sub-models, and original, primary and secondary derivative contributions from myself. When I dropped some detailed planets from published Traveller into the sector, like Raschev or Darkmoon, I was being tertiary derivative.
The Imperium, Droyne, Zhodani were recombinatorial tertiary derivative additions to the sector .
The Nations within the sector were a mix of the original (League of Free Worlds, based upon my experiences in South East Asia), and primary derivatives (God Emperor of Dune), with some secondary derivatives (Star Republic Vesta = Space: Above and Beyond, which is the Sci Fi version of a "greatest Generation" Pacific War America).

When I used published modules, I forfeited design creativity, but maintained situational creativity for me and the players.

What is good or bad in being original or not only depends on the creators intentions and standards.

But ultimately, Calithenas longing for originality leaves only one way open: total homebrew.

Anything short of that is the situation what we already have.