[Mandrake]

nice read, good input (jonas...email me...), but lacking in some areas. I think this article is a good thing to start discussion, so here's the link (in case you missed it: http://www.gamedeveloper.net/gdn/index.php?site=developerslair&page=viewresource&rid=911 ), and i think everyone should discuss disagreements and agreements.

I'll start. I disagree with his concept of using language as he suggested. First of all, never in lord of the rings have i heard "wither theee, etc" and other rennasiance colliquilisms. getting rid of slang is good, since, unless the characters are defined by the slang they speak (ie: Clockwork orange, the outsiders, etc), is usally a sign of bad writing.

Archiac language is not a must, but neither should slang be permitted ina medival style mythological game. I really think what destroyed DW on the nes was it's used of psuedo shakesperian ren-faire speak.

i'll have more later.

[Sirocco]

[Dasein Fiasco]

Let me throw in that good dialog doesn’t necessarily entail realistic dialog; just make it believable and consistent for the characters. This should be evident, but so many writers seem to fall for realism like a blind man going down a staircase with no railing.

[Bjorn]

A blind man on a staircase without a railing? How would such a blind man fall for realism?

I read the article and I agreed on mostly everything. But I'm not really into making Console-style or Classic-RPGs. It was usefull though.

[JonasKyratzes]

[JonasKyratzes]

I emailed you, BTW. Hope it arrived without any problems.

I'm not saying that archaic language is a must, it's just something that I think really fits into fantasy RPGs. But slang, at least modern slang, is something that does definitely not belong in a fantasy RPG.
_________________
http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net

[Mandrake]

Yeah, i got it, and responded as well.

I'm not sure "archiac" language is the right word, since that's not "truly archiac". It's mostly a toned down version of Renassiance slang. I mean, if you were to use actaul ren slang, most people would not be able to read/play the game (notice how must people struggle with the simplest of shakespear, or even Chaucer), and it would make the game less than readable.

I'm all for language evoking a mood and background in a literary sense in an RPG, i'm just certain that psuedo archiac language is more of a cop-out than a true beneficiary in this sense. Taking LOTR for an example, Tolkien did not use archiac language, but instead an interesting turn on the structure of english. Always the birlliant linguist, he took the tone and structure and rythm of ancient anglican (as used in Beowuf and Gawain and the Green Knight, both translated at one point in time by Tolkien himself) and applied it to modern english. This explains the diffrent feeling one gets from the novels, that mythgull agelessness.

Or take any modern, good fantasy writer (which there are few that come close to being decent...), and look at the way the characters speak...rarely will you find archiac tongue. It's just not accessible to the modern audiance. Take, for example, The wheel of time series. Not once is an archiac word spoken, but the reader does not lose his "suspension of disbleief".

Speaking of which, here is a rant:
I hate the concept of forcing players/readers/etc into suspending there disbelief for any form of art, espicially fictional works of art. The designer/writer should not have to worry about keeping a level realism, since, there is no true concept of realism to be applied. If there were, the game would be less fun. When the player/reader/etc, puts on/reads the meduim of the fictional peice (be it a game/novel or movie) they are entering into a bond with it's creator. The unspoken bond is this: I know you are lying to me. I know this is not reality. I am going to set aside any concept of reality before entering your world because I KNOW FULL WELL IT IS FAKE AND UNREAL.

If that person loses his suspension of disbleief during the media's length, it is not the creators fault but the user (readers, players, etc) fault since he is trying to force reality onto something that is not real, can never be real, will never be real. By dragging reality into this mythic realm he is forcing a beleif that is outside of the realm into it, and applying judgement where none should be.

It's akin to trying to prove gravity wrong by trying to fly in real life. If you get hurt, it's your own damn fault, not the fault of those who tried to tell you the laws of gravity in the first place.

/end rant.

I do agree with the idea of what you call "making it more epic", although, why should all RPG's be epic? Why can't they be small, fun and short? Anyway, i also disagree with your use of good verses evil being the only concepts for epic struggle. What about freedom versus opression? or <insert any timeless struggle here>? Anyway, i think what you are insisting on as epic falls very well into my article i did once upon a time about a priori worlds. Wish I still knew where a copy of it was.

The basic idea is in most RPG's, the world is static, unchanging. In an a priori world, the world would seem to exist outside of the player and be influenced byt the player. All ultima's before 8 are a good example of this.

I heartily agree with this idea. (as you extrapolated on in the detailed worlds section). Worlds should be filled with mythology, folklore, history abound. One of the things I loved about the early ultima games was this since of a mythological background that pre-existed the characters you played. You could feel the world come alive.

I would say check out more than Tolkien though. Yes, he is the father of the industry, so to speak, but try also looking into tabel top game worlds for an idea, since they are usually very well developed.

Or look into primitive mythology, the way the worlds worked. Think about adding in languages for other races to speak, myths that they tell. magics that they beleived in. A good resource for this is the amazing Golden Bough books. This series is perhaps one of the most infleuntial in the works of modern fantasy. Many books used this as a refrence guide for the wordsl they created, including Tolkien and (i forget her name write now) writer of the Mists of Avalon books.

You ideas on the menu is interesting, but these menu systems are well known. It keeps a freindly interface that people can figure out in just a few seconds because it is famaliar.

Your ideas on improving combat, although well meaning, have drawbacks. Special attacks....what is the point? When looking at it from a players point of veiw, they want simplicity, ease of use, and meaningfullness. If it's not important to the game itself, it's not important. It's not really combat startegy, since if one attack does more dammage, guess which one the player will use? That's right, the more powerfull one. Games like SaGa Frontier 2 tried the multiple attack method, and it didn't really work all that well. Or at all really.

I'll expand more on the startegical combat aspects later, since this is one I've given much thought to and have naught the time right now to expand on it any.

the magic comment is nice, but misdirected. you could explain it to general player x, but would he care? Is it just more than bkg flavor? If it is, then is it necassary to the game? nameing spells things other than fire1, ice1, etc is a nice idea, but then you get utter confusion. Take example the spells from Phantasy Star. Can you tell me what you think a Gafoi spell should do? Or how about Tzumzum? Ahh, but what Fire1 or Ice1 or heal? We are talking about one thing herre: and that is communication with the player. You want the player to look at a magical spell and go "ahhhh! a fire elemental! wwll, i'll just use Ice 1 on it!", not "a fire bogey nofurus monkey hand! i should probably use an ice based spell...ok, lemme see...mylars hand of a thousand esperos? wtf does that do? zippet von batchit? wth?" and then they quit the game and promptly type in rm -f stupidgame.out. (or trash bin for you windows types).

Now, I'm not against adding flavor and background to the magic system. Just keep the names to mean what the mean. If they are boring, so be it, but the player will thank you for the open level of communication you give him.
_________________
"Well, last time I flicked on a lighter, I'm pretty sure I didn't create a black hole."-
Xmark

http://pauljessup.com

[JonasKyratzes]

Well, I have this thing for detail ... but then I belong to the hardcore RPG crowd.
I'm going to write a longer response to this tomorrow, as I don't have the time now.

I just want to say once more that this article is only about some ideas I had. I'm not suggesting that these should be applied to all RPGs. Yes, a game could be short and easy, and fun, like Mattress Warrior. But a lot of games try to be epic and it doesn't work as well as it could. And the nature of the epic conflict could definitely be something other than good/evil. I'm all for this. I just think that if we're going for the archetypal good/evil thing, we could do it in a better way.
Personally, I've never made a good/evil game, and possibly it will take quite a while before I do - although I'd like to try to apply my theories on writing epic fantasy to a game at some point (yes I am working on a fantasy game, but the whole thing is a metaphor about life, so...).

This article is a bit different from what I usually write. Normally I write about profoundly changing games and the way we think about them. This article is just about some ideas I had that could improve console style RPGs without being impossible to apply.

Now, back to language ... yes, I realize that Tolkien just used archaic sentence structure and a few expressions. This is one way to do it.
The other way is to do it like Lord Dunsany. If you haven't read anything of his, do so as soon as you can. His language is quite archaic, and yet I find it rather simple to understand.

Now, you disagree with my ideas on naming spells. Yes, calling a spell 'Fire1' is easier. But why does everything have to be easy? I liked Phantasy Star's system once I got used to it. And I loved Ultima's system, which was even more complicated.
I guess it has to do with your target audience and with what you expect from your players. I guess I just expect more from them :).
_________________
http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net

[Bjorn]

Funny how I agree with both Johan and Mandrake, I do. Though I think spells should be cast by drawing pictures with the mouse, like draw a flame as well as you can when you run into some nasty frozen creatures. When you've drawn the flame you'll be able to fill in the amount of damage you want it to do. Of course, this would make people just draw a very quick and simple flame and then fill in a huge number for the damage. This issue is best handled by not using the number at all but instead deal damage according to the amount of time it takes the player to draw the flame, without telling the player about this of course.

Interesting how Mandrake has this small rant section in that huge rant of his. ;-)

[mandrake_mandrake]

[mzandrake]

bjorn- cool idea for spellcasting...reminds me of black and white's system. very interactive :). YOu should have a practice mode for spell casting so player can practive "tracing" the incantations. You would be neat (and probably a bitch to program...heh)? combinging that with a speach recgonition program, where you traced the rune, and then chanted the right incantation into a microphone. heh nifty :)

but either way, hand motion alone is just damn cool.

[Bjorn]

Yeah, B&W casting system was nice. But I was not really talking about gestures, and was really kidding a bit because I thought this thread needed some humor. I thought this was obvious when I suggested letting the player specify the amount of damage, and then not using the amount the player fills in, etc. Heh.

[Sirocco]

[darkpagan]

What I'd like to point out is this.Why is there no real history behind......magic in games?
I mean has anyone here read the original riftwar saga?
Most of the plot is concerned with the history of the magicians and their powers rather than the usual "those are magicians,they use magic n stuff and live in huts y'know".People tend to overlook the importance of what in fantasy can be considered run of the mill things.I mean why doesn't anyone explain how that mage in your party can cast destructive spells?
(except FF6)Thats just one example I thank you and digress.
_________________
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.

[Sirocco]