Write the question first
The concept method selects precedents by design question. A detective, court or business setting does not require references from that same genre. You may need question order, evidence comparison, time pressure or remembered relationships.
Write: “Who is the player, what recurring job do they do, and which step is unclear?” In an original ferry story, the player schedules passengers across limited departures. The source establishes pairs who cannot travel together. The question is how scheduling and reading those constraints become clear choices.
A primary reference explains the loop; an auxiliary one answers a distinct gap. Remove references without a named purpose. A long list is not deeper analysis.
Turn observations into a usable record
| Record | Observe | Decide |
|---|---|---|
| Actions | What the player does | Form of participation |
| Loop and pressure | Carryover and why not everything is possible | Required trade-offs |
| Mastery | How judgment or skill improves | Source of growth |
| Borrow and omit | Useful mechanism and excess scope | Slice boundaries |
For real references, separate direct play, official material and inference, and attach evidence. Check sales, rankings or platform facts only when they change the decision; they do not replace gameplay evidence.
Replace “good pacing” with an observable process: inspect demand, place people, revise a conflict; or hear testimony and return to question an earlier witness. The record should guide a design decision.
Example: the source changes the plan
This original paper design describes no real game and reports no play results. The ferry concept considers a scheduling loop: inspect requests, assign departures, execute and handle feedback. It omits unrelated city-building or production chains.
The source’s relationship constraint must affect actions. Knowing that Ahe refuses to share a boat with her former employer, the player changes departures, seeks consent or bears a broken agreement. Her past cannot remain a prologue while later scheduling simply fills seats.
An auxiliary presentation reference addresses only how known constraints are visible; it does not supply copied maps, characters or screens. Specify visible facts, player changes, accepted or refused execution, and carryover.
Test the borrowed mechanism
Attach a question to each borrowed mechanism: “Can players recognize the relationship conflict without a long explanation and make distinct plans across departures, promises and time?” Build only enough to answer it.
If narration repairs every plan into one ending, there is little causal choice. If understanding needs many locations, reduce scope. If removing source names leaves actions, costs and responses unchanged, bring more source rules into the loop.
Reference analysis serves a decision. Deliver a compact record, explicit trade-offs and an unrun test plan. Decimal scores cannot replace evidence. Report outcomes after actual play.
FAQ
Does each concept need many references?
No. A primary reference explains the loop; useful auxiliaries fill distinct gaps. A list without purposes adds little evidence.
Do it with the skill
Use $game-concept with the existing SOURCE_BIBLE and PRODUCT_BRIEF to analyze gameplay references: design question, actions, loop, pressure, mastery, evidence, borrow/omit decisions, source-specific changes and a minimal test. Do not choose from genre resemblance or sales alone.
Read the method: Types, precedents and validation trade-offs