Well you could always do a retelling. I've thought up a retelling of TTGL that maybe people would be interested in, but I'm not good experienced enough to GM yet so at this point it's a no-go.
Yeah, please reserve a spot for me :D
I think taking concepts is plagiarism unless they put a spin on the concept, because at that point it would be inspiration; and if, by chance, they use the name of the feature then they should in someway at the very least reference the one who came up with that, if plagiarism doesn't apply in such a case it should be done at the very least out of respect and/or gratefulness. I mean, gijinka are simply anthopomorphized pokemon, but I think if that GM wants to use what was created by someone else which was made from the theory of anthropomorphism, they should at least give credit where credit is due in some way, shape, or form. I mean, obviously Saph didn't create Anthropomorphism, but she did create the entity that is "Gijinka". Now if they had named it something else then it wouldn't be a Gijinka, just an anthromorphized Pokemon, and that's fine.
I'm tempted to go on a schpiel about how, in this case, "Gijinka" is the name of a species rather than a simply a word and therefore a simple meaning wouldn't refute the claim that she created "Gijinka", as the translation alone can't define the species as Gijinka and Anthromorph aren't the same word, they just hold the same meaning, thus what I said would still be "Gijinka" and translating would be wrong as I was referring to a race rather than a word, but that would require me to go through a lot of crap for something that could make this go on for several more posts.
Don't feel bad, debates like that are fun to me (and hopefully fun for others as well), and as I said:
So there's really nothing that can be done about it, and really, nothing that needs to be done, especially due to the amount of otaku, weeaboos, and psuedo-weeaboos on this forum.
