This is the happy version of such an evolution of a board game. It doesn't always work out like that. I recently bought a game that was recommended by some content creators on YouTube called Joyride: Survival of the Fastest. And now there is a huge discussion about the game, because Joyride is an evolution of an older game called Powerboats. The listed designer of Joyride had contacted the designer of Powerboats years ago, and even got a copy of the game from him, but the two sides apparently had been unable to agree on contract terms. But as you can't actually copyright game concepts and rules, the new company was able to make their game with a new theme (car racing instead of boat racing) and some changes and additions to the rules without being legally in the wrong. Different people have different opinions about whether this is morally wrong.

Despite some review bombing by people who are upset about the game rules being "stolen", Joyride still ranks a lot higher than Powerboats on BGG. Powerboats wasn't a great success, and is basically unavailable today. The physical availability of older board games makes this issue somewhat different than for older video games: If somebody sees a more or less dead older board game and evolves it into something successful, isn't he doing the players a favor? The upset crowd on the internet speaks about the design being "stolen", but if the old game isn't even produced anymore, where is the financial loss to the original developers? They *could* have made an improved version of the game themselves, but chose not to (or in this case evolved the game into something else, equally unsuccessful). So, somebody else did. The reason why the copyright laws have been designed to allow this, and you can't protect gameplay concepts and rules, is exactly that: Lawmakers didn't want somebody owning an idea, not using it, but preventing others from evolving it. I understand the original designer making his upset post on BGG and kicking off a shitstorm. It would obviously have been better if the original designer and the guy with the ideas for improvements could have come to a financial agreement. But people tend to overvalue the "idea" and underestimate the impact of the execution on the success of such a project. If Joyride really was the same game as Powerboats, then why is Joyride so much more successful?

Another different case of board game evolution is a game that had its crowdfunding campaign started yesterday: Tales of the Arabian Nights 40th Anniversary Edition. I looked at it, because I still own the original game from 1985, and my wife and me quite liked to play that together, even if the game is a bit random and lacks player agency. Obviously the 2025 version is prettier than the 1985 version, but the "main" change to the rules listed on top of the "what's new" section is the removal of gender restrictions for romance. There have been some minor changes and additions, but with much of the game being about the stories in the Book of Tales, and those not having changed much, there is very little reason for me to buy the updated version. I also found the $100 price tag, which with VAT and shipping ends up being $150 for me, to be overpriced. $80 buys me Tales of Arthurian Knights, a game with the basically same rules, but stories that are totally new to me. If I compare other crowdfunding games with a $100 price tag, the "what's in the box" section of those other games looks a lot more impressive, e.g. Avalon: The Riven Veil, which I backed. I would have backed Tales of the Arabian Nights if it had offered modern features like Forteller voice narration, or much improved player agency in evolved rules, but for this price tag it seemed to me that there wasn't enough evolution here to justify me buying this again.