A question to scenario designers

[M.Koch]

How many times have you come up with an idea for a scenario and developed it, only to be beaten to the punch by someone else´s design?
And how did you react? Did you drop it or keep going?

 

[von Marwitz]

How many times have you come up with an idea for a scenario and developed it, only to be beaten to the punch by someone else´s design?
And how did you react? Did you drop it or keep going?

The existence of scenarios depicting one and the same action is a living proof that some designers kept going (provided they were aware of the "double").

If I wanted my scenario to be completely developed, then I would keep going without much ado. If I found playtesting the damn thing a chore, well, then I might have just been relieved from the work by someone else.

If you are concerned about the "other guy" saying: "Hey, you stole my design!" or "Hey, you are plagiating my design!", I would not give a damn.

To be crystal clear though:
I would take offence if someone really copied my published design, rehashed it and then sold it as his own (we know that such things have happened...). Such a thing is not ok.

However, I do believe that if two separate designers create a scenario depicting the same action independently from each other, the chances are very small, that these will happen to take place on the same geo-boards or that the OoB's will only differ by a unit or two. Which is one of the reasons, while I would keep going.

von Marwitz

P.S. If Vinnie happened to be the other scenario designer, there's always the option to shoot him.

 

[Fort]

I don't look at other's designs. I just find something I want to cover and do it.

 

[Zakopious]

ASL 145 - SHANGHAI IN FLAMES, is based on the 1937 battle for Sihang Warehouse which is located on Suzhou Creek opposite the British International Settlement Zone.
Some of the Embassies in the Zone had movie cameras and filmed the battle from a distance.
The archival footage can be seen on YouTube.
The building is still standing and is a War Memorial in Shanghai.
There is a movie about the Battle called, "The Eight Hundred."
There is another scenario about this same battle with different boards and a different order of battle: AP54 - 800 HEROS.

 

[Fort]

800 Heroes

 

[sswann]

It has happened to me many times.
Gona, Armored Trains, Chaco War, Spanish Civil War, etc and more etc especially on individual scenario designs.
But I still just do my thing anyway (even if for my own satisfaction).

 

[Psycho]

I just use my time machine to go back and get my design out first!

 

[Peter J]

How many times have you come up with an idea for a scenario and developed it, only to be beaten to the punch by someone else´s design?
And how did you react? Did you drop it or keep going?

A twist to the question: If you see a scenario that would benefit from an update (eg more recent historical studies have provided new detail at odds with the original design), do you update/re-design?

 

[sswann]

Why Not?
Real History (when known) should always take priority.

 

[Old Noob]

I developed a scenario about the Marine Raiders on Guadalcanal, attacking east of the perimeter 9/42. [Prior to Operation WATCHTOWER]
Submitted to CH, don't know if it ever saw print there.

 

[BattleSchool]

How many times have you come up with an idea for a scenario and developed it, only to be beaten to the punch by someone else´s design?
And how did you react? Did you drop it or keep going?

At least three times and I've yet to publish anything! Granted, two scenarios are with MMP.

One I set aside after I saw Ken Dunn's Beyond Their Capabilities. Maybe a little disappointed, but it compelled me up to create something with less, hence Huns on Wheels, formerly Rubber Hussars. This Hungarian-Russian encounter has proven to be an enjoyable beer-and-pretzel card with enough replay value to provide two-for-one evening entertainment.

A second was an ASLSK number by Brian Youse: Dutch Trucks. I've stuck with my version, largely because I've gone with an unorthodox approach. I offered to showcase Tin Omen at this year's Canadian ASL Open. However, the powers that be opted for Booty Call, which, to my knowledge, hasn't been done by anyone.

A third, by Mike Augustine, was published in a third-party scenario pack. However, my design differs enough to make, well, a difference. For example, Mike has hillocks, I have hills with "caves." I tested Tug of War as recently as a week ago. It's probably my least favourite of the 18 or so of my designs currently in play test. But it's hard to let go given the amount of time I spent researching and developing it to this point. I find it more fascinating than disappointing to compare my work with Mike's. He's a far more experienced designer than I am and his design motivated me to reconsider at least one of my design elements, hopefully for the better.

Two outta' three ain't bad.

 

[GeorgeBates]

A twist to the question: If you see a scenario that would benefit from an update (eg more recent historical studies have provided new detail at odds with the original design), do you update/re-design?

Contact the original author

 

[wrongway149]

I am often intrigued by another designer's choices. Board layout, SSRs, sometimes even squad types.

Like writing songs -- sometimes the cover is better than the one released first!

 

[wrongway149]

One I set aside after I saw Ken Dunn's Beyond Their Capabilities. Maybe a little disappointed, but it compelled me up to create something with less, hence Huns on Wheels, formerly Rubber Hussars. This Hungarian-Russian encounter has proven to be an enjoyable beer-and-pretzel card with enough replay value to provide two-for-one evening entertainment.

What is it with that Dunn character?

When WO 35 'Hero's Day came out, I was working up one on the same battle - same title even. I hadn't quite made all of my creative decisions yet (and he had the benefit of a new map just for the occasion-- which I often have as well, so fair game).

I moved on, and haven't felt a desire to go back to it. One scenario on that action is probably enough.

 

[Tooz]

Scenario designers do not have “dibs” on history. Each designer has his own idea on how to portray a famous battle. Regular ASL scenarios later see the light of day in future HASLs. We are free to portray any battle—which is often just part of that battle anyway—as we would like to portray it. We do not have a copyright on depicting battles in ASL terms. Plagiarism should be avoided. We have so many boards now that we have many tools to use to portray OUR depiction of the fight and have that same fight be portrayed differently to our taste. If the end result is a fun scenario, good!

 

[Robin Reeve]

How many times have you come up with an idea for a scenario and developed it, only to be beaten to the punch by someone else´s design?
And how did you react? Did you drop it or keep going?

The Monkeys with Typewriters contests stemmed from a discussion about the portraying of the Tardijksfjell battle (Norwegians and French vs Germans in 1940) by three scenarios.
My take on the question is, as ASL is more an "impressionist painting" than a very precise simulation, scenario design has an "artistic" dimension.
The aim is not, as we say in French to "count the buttons of the gaiters", but to produce a fun scenario, which gives the feel of the historical situation.
This means selecting significative details and ignoring others.
That analogy can apply to historical books : the angle of approach allows to have several books, say, on Barbarossa.

In addition, the small surface covered by the typical ASL (about a square kilometer or even less) means that we don't often have access to that level of detail.
When we read situations at batallion (or division, or corps...) level, there is a lot of space for adaptation and imagination.
The "variable OBs" in some scenaros could reflect the partial fuzziness of the data at low tactical level; and they are welcome: they allow more replayability and you have the pleasure to "choose your toys" (a satisfaction not to be neglected).

Besides that, historical events have no copyright.
I would say that designers covering the same situations offer different ways to get the feel of them.
It would be sad to refrain from publishing a scenario because someone else has also worked on it.

TL;DR : scenario design is an art, so I am all for different pictures of a given historical situation. Historical plausibility must be conjugated with a good, immersive fun factor.

 

[GeorgeBates]

There is always more than one way to skin a cat. Witness Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein.

 

[BattleSchool]

I received a parcel yesterday with eleven books on military history, nine of which concern WWII. After looking at one of them, I did a quick search on the Scenario Archive, only to find that a scenario idea that had popped into my head had already been done. It was released in Journal 10, the latest in a series of six cards dedicated to the subject!

It just occurred to me as I write this, that Lionel Colin's Vichy Strikes Back was another of those scenarios that I stuck with even after I was beaten to the punch. I didn't have access to the arid boards that LFT released concurrently with the Colin's design. Still, I think Day of the Jackals is different enough to stand on its own.

So at the risk of being labelled unimaginative, I'm going to explore the prospect of creating a DASL version of the battle portrayed in Journal 10. Wish me luck!

 

[Sean Deller]

TL;DR : scenario design is an art, so I am all for different pictures of a given historical situation. Historical plausibility must be conjugated with a good, immersive fun factor.

This pretty much sums up my take.

I don't care how many scenarios cover the same action, as long as they have meaningful design differences. The more fun and interesting scenarios we have, the better.