Why can't fantasy RPGs be more original?
- Thread starter Proto Cloud
- Start date
Recommended Videos
blame Tolkein.. he's the one that created the rich wealth of races and fictitious culture that people are so infatuated with. it isn't that people are not creative, it's that people are so drawn to these Tolkein-esque conventions that they'd rather wallow in their fan fiction than dream up something random.
i mean, who wants to play a videogame based on the Spelljammer pen & paper game?
i mean, who wants to play a videogame based on the Spelljammer pen & paper game?
Wow...I didn't realise people actually did that, I thought books were just to be, y'know, read. Kind of like riding a bike. No need to go into the details of it, or why it does, just enjoy the ride for what it is. Then again, I guess some people like figuring out how the bike works just as much as riding it, and if they see it as badly constructed, it affects their enjoyment of riding it...Lord_Seth said:
Anyway, back to fantasy RPG's...to the topic title, I guess, it once again, *sigh*, goes back to what is likely to -sell-, and if it looks like something is going to deviate too much from an established formula that has proven to work... Luckily though that seems common, there will be a shiny light of creativity in time. Hopefully...
This has as much value as saying it isn't sci-fi unless there are lightsabers.Indigo_Dingo said:
Here?s an idea I got after I read that post about the Mayan themed RPG.
How about an RPG set in the Great Plains of the United States, and based on Native American folklore of that region? I?m pretty sure that there?s a legend about these monsters that ravaged the land, but were eventually defeated by beings known as Thunder Birds. The plot would revolve around a Native American who returns to his tribe from hunting to find that it?s been completely destroyed. The protagonist then finds gigantic tracks left by a huge animal (one of the old monsters of course).
The protagonist then makes it his mission to warn the other tribes that the monsters have returned. Eventually you realize that your best hope is to bring back the Thunder Birds so that they can defeat the monsters again. Along the way, you meet up with your animal spirit guide, which would be chosen for you based on your actions up to a certain point, and who gives you advice and helps you out.
The game play would revolve around combat using your spirit guide to unleash different kinds of skills and abilities. For instance, if your guide is, say?a wolf, one of your abilities could be calling upon a wolf pack to maul your enemies.
Since the Native Americans of the Great Plains didn?t have all that many permanent settlements, a map would be useless, so instead of a map or any kind of navigation system, you would have to find other tribes by observing smoke from cooking fires and such. There could also be a Tracking skill that would allow you to find various animals, people and, of course, the monsters. As your tracking skills grow, you?d be able to track more dangerous animals.
I think that the choice of whether or not you want to form a party would be interesting as well. For example, if you found a puma or something, instead of killing it, you could use a chant to make it loyal to you. Similarly, when you come across another tribe, you would have the option to sit at a fire and tell them of your exploits, thereby drawing other people to your cause.
Weapons could include bows and arrows, tomahawks (maybe), knives and spears. You could even customize them with materials you find (flint, obsidian, animal bone)
Maybe there could be a class system as well: Braves, Hunters and Medicine Men, or something along those lines.
What do you guys think?
How about an RPG set in the Great Plains of the United States, and based on Native American folklore of that region? I?m pretty sure that there?s a legend about these monsters that ravaged the land, but were eventually defeated by beings known as Thunder Birds. The plot would revolve around a Native American who returns to his tribe from hunting to find that it?s been completely destroyed. The protagonist then finds gigantic tracks left by a huge animal (one of the old monsters of course).
The protagonist then makes it his mission to warn the other tribes that the monsters have returned. Eventually you realize that your best hope is to bring back the Thunder Birds so that they can defeat the monsters again. Along the way, you meet up with your animal spirit guide, which would be chosen for you based on your actions up to a certain point, and who gives you advice and helps you out.
The game play would revolve around combat using your spirit guide to unleash different kinds of skills and abilities. For instance, if your guide is, say?a wolf, one of your abilities could be calling upon a wolf pack to maul your enemies.
Since the Native Americans of the Great Plains didn?t have all that many permanent settlements, a map would be useless, so instead of a map or any kind of navigation system, you would have to find other tribes by observing smoke from cooking fires and such. There could also be a Tracking skill that would allow you to find various animals, people and, of course, the monsters. As your tracking skills grow, you?d be able to track more dangerous animals.
I think that the choice of whether or not you want to form a party would be interesting as well. For example, if you found a puma or something, instead of killing it, you could use a chant to make it loyal to you. Similarly, when you come across another tribe, you would have the option to sit at a fire and tell them of your exploits, thereby drawing other people to your cause.
Weapons could include bows and arrows, tomahawks (maybe), knives and spears. You could even customize them with materials you find (flint, obsidian, animal bone)
Maybe there could be a class system as well: Braves, Hunters and Medicine Men, or something along those lines.
What do you guys think?
Maybe the real reason isn't the debatable influence of Tolkien and gygax, but rather the fact that after spending months on getting a working IP most game designers are too lazy to give a s*** about fantasy stereotypes.
Or they just lack imagination full stop.
Either way its not likely the general public will ever accept the idea that the geekdom is schisming over to what degree Tolkien should be revered. To most people in the street Tolkien is some great fantasy author, with some other thing about making a language up.
On a related note I've been working on some RPG mechanics that are based on archetypes rather than classes, the archetypes are supposed to be the influencing factor to a character's decisions. I started this rather quite terrible system due to the fact my Druid, who was true Neutral, was forced to keep killing innocents to counter the effects of shredding so many orcs and demons.
Or they just lack imagination full stop.
Either way its not likely the general public will ever accept the idea that the geekdom is schisming over to what degree Tolkien should be revered. To most people in the street Tolkien is some great fantasy author, with some other thing about making a language up.
On a related note I've been working on some RPG mechanics that are based on archetypes rather than classes, the archetypes are supposed to be the influencing factor to a character's decisions. I started this rather quite terrible system due to the fact my Druid, who was true Neutral, was forced to keep killing innocents to counter the effects of shredding so many orcs and demons.
srsly, I wish someone would make Goodkind's Sword of Truth series a game. There are no elves, dwarves, or little people. In fact, the creatures take a very background role in those books, and most of them are new.
Yah, I don't really agree with ya. Lack of clarity? What? It's pretty clear what's going on in the book at all times. It's not a David Lynch film. It's LOTR.Eyclonus said:
Phenomenally predictable personalities? Phenomenally, even? It kinda sounds like you're grasping for straws. Bombadil was predictable? How so? How was it "phenomenal"?
Pathetically predictable narrative? Ok, that nails it. You're grasping for straws. First of all, why are you being redundant? Why not just say "Predictable personalities and narrative?" You really couldn't think of a third criticism could you? And, what was so predictable about it? The fact that you read it a few decades after it came out and knew what would happen? Or was it that you think you're too "deep" for a book like LOTR?
I don't care that you didn't like it, that's fine. I've only ever read them once, myself.. so I'm not exactly a raving fan. But your criticisms were awful.
I suppose they would to an extent, but if their ability were a once a day thing then it would be fine. And that's only if you make a game in the SoT world instead of following the books. If it just follows the storyline of the books (Richard as the player character) then I don't see Confessors being much of a problem.Eyclonus said:
Mieville criticizes him specifically for the emphasis on world-building, calling it irresponsible. It's easier to make up a new world than to figure out how to substantively improve the one we have. In general, I agree: world-building, especially for its own sake, is an essentially masturbatory act. And it's world-building rather than narrative that has really come to define fantasy fiction and fantasy games.mshcherbatskaya said:
There's that famous quote. Some guy called his work "escapist," right? Tolkien retorts that only jailers condemn escapism. Years later, Moorcock harps that jailers love escapism -- what they fear is actual escape.
"Fantasy," especially in games, has largely become associated with daydreaming about another world. It's uncritical and evasive.
-- Alex
But "works" means "sells to the same small crowd of people."scoHish said:
It's only fantasy video-games and a few high-profile franchises (like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings) that are actually successful in attracting a large audience. Fantasy books and fantasy hobby games only sell to a fairly small "geek" market.
-- Alex
First of all, there is a lack of clarity, half the names are interchangeble and the action seems to consist of a commentary on what is happening rather than a narration.
Number 2, it is phenomenal aside from that part about him being Strider, any reader with a third of their neural system could smell the archetype of the White Knight off him. Bombadil was the benevolent trickster, he plays about and never tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Third the narrative is predictable because it follows the old stories of saving the day from generic evil. I felt I didn't need a third criticsm because they each cover a huge f***ing area of narrative and character development.
If I were to say that the moon is bad because there is no possible way to establish prolonged occupation, you'd criticize me for only presenting one arguement despite its massive encompassment of the thousands of valid scientific reasons.
I didn't think I was too deep for the books. I wasn't even in high school, I was 11 when I read them.
Tolkien was genius at languages, I won't deny that, but he was typical of british upper class literaries "Only I can write a real and complete narrative." Have you read any other stories by Tolkien, not including The Hobbit? Most of the other Middle Earth texts are just lists of character's ancestors and all the sharp things they did to each other.
You can say that I'm grasping for straws, but at least I'm trying to pull myself out of the cesspit of generic fantasy fandom and misguided hero worship.
On a finally note Tolkien, as person, was a snobby jerk who condemned the working class of England as unwashed, ignorant throngs, and all the young fans/stoners as disgusting individuals soiling literature by reading it.
Number 2, it is phenomenal aside from that part about him being Strider, any reader with a third of their neural system could smell the archetype of the White Knight off him. Bombadil was the benevolent trickster, he plays about and never tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Third the narrative is predictable because it follows the old stories of saving the day from generic evil. I felt I didn't need a third criticsm because they each cover a huge f***ing area of narrative and character development.
If I were to say that the moon is bad because there is no possible way to establish prolonged occupation, you'd criticize me for only presenting one arguement despite its massive encompassment of the thousands of valid scientific reasons.
I didn't think I was too deep for the books. I wasn't even in high school, I was 11 when I read them.
Tolkien was genius at languages, I won't deny that, but he was typical of british upper class literaries "Only I can write a real and complete narrative." Have you read any other stories by Tolkien, not including The Hobbit? Most of the other Middle Earth texts are just lists of character's ancestors and all the sharp things they did to each other.
You can say that I'm grasping for straws, but at least I'm trying to pull myself out of the cesspit of generic fantasy fandom and misguided hero worship.
On a finally note Tolkien, as person, was a snobby jerk who condemned the working class of England as unwashed, ignorant throngs, and all the young fans/stoners as disgusting individuals soiling literature by reading it.
Weak or not it is the definition of fantasy as a genre. Also, yes and yes. But a legend may be a story people actually believe happened, unless it was created for entertainment a legend is better called "mythology."Alex_P said:
Random thought, but what about the idea of changing the setting to something other than the norm, like an RPG set in the toilet of some fat guy... imagine the natural disasters...lol.