Are variations on puzzles with an accepted answer acceptable despite the hints they may give?

Question

Assume a puzzle $A$ has an accepted answer. It gives you an idea for another puzzle $B$, in which you would, in fairness, include a sentence like "this was inspired from puzzle $A$". Then of course someone solving $B$ will have clues as to how $A$ might work, that were not intended by the OP. Is this ok if $A$ has already an accepted answer?

If not, is it ok after some time (how long)?

Would it be better to simply not make a reference to puzzle $A$ and disguise puzzle $B$ so that no one will make a connection?

The option of forgetting about puzzle $B$ seems frustrating.

[I found no relevant tags for this question such as "related-puzzles", "inspiration", "quoting-sources", feel free to add whatever relevant tags you can find.]

Answer 1

Deusovi has already given the general answer. I want to add one caveat.

“Inspired by” is quite different from adopting actual parts of the original puzzle’s solution path, and/or particulars of it, such that an answer to your question is inevitably a giveaway of significant parts of the other.

If you take inspiration from certain mechanical parts of a puzzle that are readily apparent—like the prefix/infix/suffix mechanic of the so-called “Riley riddle” or the whole thematic presentation of the “What is a ... Word™️“ series, or any of various logic grid or logical-deduction puzzle styles—where what you’re using is essentially “how this genre works” but not appropriating the specifics of a particular puzzle, then sure, that’s fine. Another solver will clearly see the resemblance and may even be able to apply methods or ideas they learned from the original puzzle to the new one, and that is perfectly fine—that’s learning and making use of experience, something I hope we all can do as often as possible :)

I do think, though, that a puzzle where you could cut and paste a meaningful part of the “inspired” question’s solution directly into an answer to the original, has crossed a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

It’s not clear what extent of “inspiration” you’re asking about. Reusing puzzle formats and rules is fine - that’s borrowing the idea, presentation, and/or visible mechanics of the original as inspiration for your own, and that is perfectly fine. Reusing an actual piece of someone else’s puzzle as an element of your own, with the same solution path through it and the same result, is not “inspiration” so much as actual copying, and I think that is not okay. And I don’t think the age of the original or whether it’s been solved in its entirety yet or not matters here.

Hope that helps!

Answer 2

There's nothing wrong with that. Puzzles give people ideas for how to solve different puzzles all the time, even without knowing that the two are related.

For example, I made a logic puzzle genre called Statue View and shared it here for the first time; jafe made a 3d puzzle where Statue View was a component, and linked back to my own puzzle. Solving jafe's puzzle first would familiarize you with some of the common deductions in the genre (and would therefore give you "some clues about how [my puzzle] would work"). But that's not a bad thing in any way.

Puzzles use similar concepts to other puzzles all the time. Knowing how to solve puzzles because you've seen something similar before is perfectly normal. So I don't think there's an issue with citing your inspirations at all. (Of course, if the solutions to the two puzzles are essentially the same, that's an issue, but not linking to the "inspiration" isn't going to fix the problem.)

Answer 3

After clear answers by @Deusovi and @Rubio, it appears that the only problem would be copy-pasting significant parts of the riddle, so that the solution to $B$ is a real giveaway to $A$.

I believe that the line between inspiration and copy-pasting is not clearly defined, so my own suggestion would be to kindly ask the original author for permission, on the original thread of their question, after describing briefly the puzzle that we intend to make.

The author of the original puzzle could choose not to be cited at all if they acknowledge the interest of a new puzzle but still want to avoid giving away too much of their own.