Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Retro turn-based RPG, good indie idea?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
47 replies to this topic

#21 Ravyne   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 7116

Like
6Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:57 PM

I can sympathize with the sentiment, but you have to ask yourself why the industry is in decay. Part of the reason D&D and other tabletops have declined in popularity is because other things have come along -- back in the day, if you wanted to play a fantasy-based role-playing game with deep plots, tabletops were your only real option. Today, MMOs like WoW provide those same themes, role-play, similar social interaction, and the accessibility of playing whenever you choose without having to herd 4+ friends together at the same place and time. Modern interactive games also provide more immediate gratification. As a video gamer who recently gave D&D a good shot, one of the things that struck me was the glacial pace with which the game moves -- with 5 other players, a single turn takes an hour, 50 minutes of which I'm essentially idle and disengaged. In an MMO or any other game I'm always actively doing something. All of this is to say nothing of all the other competing styles and genres of games available today, and other kinds of entertainment that have never been more accessible and immediately available.

 

I think the more classic experience does still appeal to some people -- the industry may be a smaller part of the overall entertainment pie today, but I'd hazard a guess that its probably as large or larger than its ever been in total numbers today. Large publishers, indeed large companies of any kind, tend to ignore the small slivers, which makes them a sort of "cottage industry" as far as the wider gaming industry is concerned, even though the sliver may be entirely viable in its own right.

 

What I'm getting at is that you may very well be onto something, but its naive to think that everything is horseshit just because its mainstream -- horseshit doesn't sell like mainstream products do, they may not appeal to you, you may be desperate for something different, but that's clearly not what the mainstream audience wants. Is that lamentable? Probably, on some level. Anyhow, if the impetus behind your business plan is that the mainstream is crap, and there's a conspiracy (or unwillingness) by the mainstream publishers to keep table-top-style games from returning to the mainstream, I think you'll be disappointed with that thesis.

 

Personally, though I don't much like tabletop games, I think there's actually a market to be had in creating an online platform for these kinds of games -- that is, one which allows people across large distances to play together without being too difficult to use and to author content and rulesets for. That's of course different than what you seem to describe.

 

But regarding whether you need AAA graphics, real-time 3D, or other chrome, I say no. What you need is art that looks professional for what it is, and which has style. People know production value when they see it, regardless of what form it takes. Its that property of the visuals (and audio) that says to people "this game is worth my time" -- shoddy production values say "not even the author thinks this game is worth his time". Plenty of successful games have "simple" graphics, be they in 2D or 3D, and nearly all of those have obviously high production value. Ultimately it comes down to time and resources, and simpler graphics with higher production value are more appealing than complex graphics with low production value.



Sponsor:

#22 JustinS   Members   -  Reputation: 186

Like
-7Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:49 PM

I can sympathize with the sentiment, but you have to ask yourself why the industry is in decay. Part of the reason D&D and other tabletops have declined in popularity is because other things have come along -- back in the day, if you wanted to play a fantasy-based role-playing game with deep plots, tabletops were your only real option. Today, MMOs like WoW provide those same themes, role-play, similar social interaction, and the accessibility of playing whenever you choose without having to herd 4+ friends together at the same place and time. Modern interactive games also provide more immediate gratification. As a video gamer who recently gave D&D a good shot, one of the things that struck me was the glacial pace with which the game moves -- with 5 other players, a single turn takes an hour, 50 minutes of which I'm essentially idle and disengaged. In an MMO or any other game I'm always actively doing something. All of this is to say nothing of all the other competing styles and genres of games available today, and other kinds of entertainment that have never been more accessible and immediately available.

 

I'm a veteren of D&D and GURPS. I have NEVER seen a turn take more than ten minutes, even with a dozen people playing. Not a single time. More importantly, there are advantages to actual tabletops that video games can never provide, such as the ability to do anything at any time, even if the creator of the game didn't think about it or write rules for it.

 

EDIT:

Excluding the turns we decided to take breaks during. Normally, we wait until after combat, but sometimes breaks have to happen suddenly. And even then, you'd have to be counting the break into the duration of the turn, and I personally don't.

 

Further, WoW is considerably less engaging. As the party tank, you can just push the autoattack button and walk away, and it won't hurt your effectiveness any. The other classes don't take much extra. The game requires barely any input, and it bores the shit out of me. Add on how insanely repetitive it is, the lack of customization and the lack of incomparable removing all options from advancement and it's the sorriest excuse for an RPG I have EVER seen. It makes Skyrim look deep.

 

 

 

I think the more classic experience does still appeal to some people -- the industry may be a smaller part of the overall entertainment pie today, but I'd hazard a guess that its probably as large or larger than its ever been in total numbers today. Large publishers, indeed large companies of any kind, tend to ignore the small slivers, which makes them a sort of "cottage industry" as far as the wider gaming industry is concerned, even though the sliver may be entirely viable in its own right.

 

 

 

 

 

What I'm getting at is that you may very well be onto something, but its naive to think that everything is horseshit just because its mainstream -- horseshit doesn't sell like mainstream products do, they may not appeal to you, you may be desperate for something different, but that's clearly not what the mainstream audience wants. Is that lamentable? Probably, on some level. Anyhow, if the impetus behind your business plan is that the mainstream is crap, and there's a conspiracy (or unwillingness) by the mainstream publishers to keep table-top-style games from returning to the mainstream, I think you'll be disappointed with that thesis.

 

THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID AT ALL.  I do NOT hate all AAA games for being mainstream. I hate most AAA games for a short list of specific reasons. I hate AAA shooters because there's a whopping three styles: CoD, Halo and GoW, the most popular of these is a completely mindless twitch-fest that requires nothing beyond hands and a dozen or so functioning braincells. The rest would be fine if they weren't being ripped off on a daily basis. (Seriously, people, stop cloning Halo. If people want to play Halo, they'll play Halo, not your clone of it.) I don't really hate AAA RPGs yet, but I am strongly disappointed in the direction they are taking. They are being watered down over and over again, becoming more and more casual with less and less choice and freedom. Give them five years, they'll all look like Fable III and Final Fantasy XIII: straight-ass fucking hallways with no challenge, no choice and no fun. I don't give a shit about racers or social games, so I'll skip them. I haven't played a fighting game since Soul Calibur V, and I haven't played an RTS since Command & Conquer 3, but that's not really out of dislike. The only games I really care about now are RPGs and shooters, and I have very specific reasons why I think the AAA industry is doing a shit job making those.

 

 

 

Personally, though I don't much like tabletop games, I think there's actually a market to be had in creating an online platform for these kinds of games -- that is, one which allows people across large distances to play together without being too difficult to use and to author content and rulesets for. That's of course different than what you seem to describe.

 

HOW is that different, exactly? Because that appears to be EXACTLY WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED. It's a 2d representation of a tabletop game, with multiplayer. It comes with a modding kit, which allows for custom content and rule adjustments.

 

 

 

But regarding whether you need AAA graphics, real-time 3D, or other chrome, I say no. What you need is art that looks professional for what it is, and which has style. People know production value when they see it, regardless of what form it takes. Its that property of the visuals (and audio) that says to people "this game is worth my time" -- shoddy production values say "not even the author thinks this game is worth his time". Plenty of successful games have "simple" graphics, be they in 2D or 3D, and nearly all of those have obviously high production value. Ultimately it comes down to time and resources, and simpler graphics with higher production value are more appealing than complex graphics with low production value.

 

Extra credits did an episode on that once, I believe it was called "Graphics vs. Aesthetics." Also, you don't know what "production value" means. "Production value" means "the amount of money put into production." It has nothing to do with quality. At all. What you are thinking of is "aesthetics."


Edited by Jeremy Williams, 10 July 2013 - 01:50 PM.

No man is an island,

Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee.

 

-John Donne


#23 Ravyne   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 7116

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:46 PM

Jesus, you sure don't know how to have a productive conversation do you? You seem to be more concerned about arguing how right you are about everything, even when you're not -- If production value meant production cost, they would have called it that. You can have high production value on a shoestring budget, or poor production value on a blockbuster budget. There's a sliding relationship, sure -- you might accept a certain standard of work having paid $100 for it, but not accept the same standard having paid $1000 for it -- but monetary input does not have a causal relationship to quality output. Production value is the same as any other value, it means to get the best standard of work you can get, given whatever budget you have.

 

Anyhow, I'll take my leave of this conversation. No point having a discussion with someone so convinced of their own infallible superiority. Good luck transferring that attitude into the leadership skills that'll be required to make your idea a reality.



#24 JustinS   Members   -  Reputation: 186

Like
-8Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 04:37 PM



Jesus, you sure don't know how to have a productive conversation do you? You seem to be more concerned about arguing how right you are about everything, even when you're not -- If production value meant production cost, they would have called it that. You can have high production value on a shoestring budget, or poor production value on a blockbuster budget. There's a sliding relationship, sure -- you might accept a certain standard of work having paid $100 for it, but not accept the same standard having paid $1000 for it -- but monetary input does not have a causal relationship to quality output. Production value is the same as any other value, it means to get the best standard of work you can get, given whatever budget you have.

 

Anyhow, I'll take my leave of this conversation. No point having a discussion with someone so convinced of their own infallible superiority. Good luck transferring that attitude into the leadership skills that'll be required to make your idea a reality.

Funny how you completely ignore all the times you are blatantly wrong and can't jump to semantics. Like your claim that a single turn of D&D takes an hour, which is complete bullshit and everybody knows it. Or you describing EXACTLY what I'm doing here and saying it's "different from what [I] seem to describe." Or your explanation for my distaste for AAA games being in direct contradiction to my own statements on the matter beforehand. Basically, everything in the entire post.

 

You shouldn't be trying to correct other people, you should be drooling at the TV and waiting for the next Friedburg and Seltzer movie.


No man is an island,

Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee.

 

-John Donne


#25 Dragonsoulj   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2086

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 05:54 PM

Let's ease off the hostility

 


Funny how you completely ignore all the times you are blatantly wrong and can't jump to semantics. Like your claim that a single turn of D&D takes an hour, which is complete bullshit and everybody knows it. Or you describing EXACTLY what I'm doing here and saying it's "different from what [I] seem to describe." Or your explanation for my distaste for AAA games being in direct contradiction to my own statements on the matter beforehand. Basically, everything in the entire post.



You shouldn't be trying to correct other people, you should be drooling at the TV and waiting for the next Friedburg and Seltzer movie.

 

D&D turns can take an hour. When players are slow doing math, or have several things they need to do per turn, it can very well take an hour. I've witnessed it. Usually, though, with those situations it is about 15 minutes.



#26 JustinS   Members   -  Reputation: 186

Like
-4Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 06:27 PM

Let's ease off the hostility

 

It's worth noting that I'm returning fire here. Shooting more accurately doesn't change that.

 

D&D turns can take an hour. When players are slow doing math, or have several things they need to do per turn, it can very well take an hour. I've witnessed it. Usually, though, with those situations it is about 15 minutes.

 

Funny, considering I've played over 1,000 hours of D&D and never seen a turn take more than ten minutes. Although there have been a few that certainly felt like an hour, I was looking at the clock a lot during those times (as one tends to do when waiting) and it wasn't much longer than a normal turn. Of course, it's entirely possible my group just played fast, because of my thousand hours over eight hundred were with the same five others.


No man is an island,

Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee.

 

-John Donne


#27 Dragonsoulj   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2086

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 06:55 PM


Funny, considering I've played over 1,000 hours of D&D and never seen a turn take more than ten minutes. Although there have been a few that certainly felt like an hour, I was looking at the clock a lot during those times (as one tends to do when waiting) and it wasn't much longer than a normal turn. Of course, it's entirely possible my group just played fast, because of my thousand hours over eight hundred were with the same five others.

 

It's based on the individuals involved. About a minute or so per player is what I'm used to. The long 15 minute turns are when people are controlling several different monsters at once.



#28 JustinS   Members   -  Reputation: 186

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 06:58 PM

It's based on the individuals involved. About a minute or so per player is what I'm used to. The long 15 minute turns are when people are controlling several different monsters at once.

I think this thread has been derailed enough, don't you?

On topic:
Nobody presented a single theory on any of the symbols' imagery? That makes me a bit sad.

No man is an island,

Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee.

 

-John Donne


#29 Dragonsoulj   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2086

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:13 PM

Soldier: A dead child being eaten by a dog, lying inside a black, heart-shaped box held by an iron hand.

Warrior: A child bearing a sword, facing a threshold with a large horned shadow coming through it.

Martial artist: A child, hand up, with a velvet-gloved, iron hand guiding their wrist.

Guardian: A child clutching a heart-shaped box to their chest. Several adults are visible through the box's lid.

Lawman/Lawwoman: A dead child being beaten with an iron fist.

Scout: A child, in a tree, with a looking glass.

Bard: A child with a lute, writing with a quill upon parchment.

Ranger: A child, arm outstretched and a bird landing upon it.

Rogue: A child hiding behind a counter holding a knife and a loaf of bread, before a threshold with a large horned shadow standing in it.

Mystic: A blind child holding a hand of cards: The World, The Fool, The Tower, The Lovers and The Devil.

Savant: A child sitting on a chair, reading a book by candlelight.

Artisan: A child sitting at a desk, sketching.

Noble: A child wearing a black coat, with a red right hand clutching green paper to their abdomen, fingers in their coat.

Worker: A child, holding a pickaxe, being struck with a whip.

Shaman: A child sitting against a tree watching a dog, while the dog watches an owl and the owl watches the child.

Priest/Priestess: A pile of burning books and an iron fist beating a dead child with a rod.

Physician: A headless child kneeling next to a beheaded adult, trying to put the adult's head back on.

Wizard/Witch: A child wearing goggles, holding a vial and a quill.

Sorcerer/Sorceress: A child, arms outstretched like wings, flying through the sky.

Mage: A child with a looking glass, sitting on the crescent moon.

If nobody can figure this out in three days, I'll explain the lot of them. Don't be afraid to spitball.

 

Before I comment on these, can you elaborate on the solider, the lawman/woman, the priest/priestess, and the physician?

 

The physician I think I understand, but I'm trying to understand your logic.



#30 JustinS   Members   -  Reputation: 186

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:24 PM

Before I comment on these, can you elaborate on the solider, the lawman/woman, the priest/priestess, and the physician?

 

The physician I think I understand, but I'm trying to understand your logic.

 

 

If you're concerned about the dead children, keep in mind that it is a metaphor. What I can say is the the child in each represents the self. They are that person's individuality, free will and humanity, everything that makes them a person. Any adults present collectively represent other people. The iron hand present in all of these... really doesn't need an explanation, does it? It's an iron hand, it's a stock metaphor. Since it's subtle, I can say the rod represents religion (there's a biblical basis for using a rod to represent religion) and that the heart-shaped boxes represent the "heart" or "soul." I can also say that "metaphor A is metaphor A." If something represents one thing in one symbol, it represents the same thing in all of them.

 

From this, you should be able to figure the rest out.


Edited by Jeremy Williams, 10 July 2013 - 07:31 PM.

No man is an island,

Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee.

 

-John Donne


#31 Dragonsoulj   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2086

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:35 PM

I'm not concerned about the children being dead, but why the solider is a child in a box being eaten and the priest/priestess is beating a child. How do these represent the classes? The rod and burning books, I get. The iron hand and the heart-shaped box I get. Why is the lawman/woman beating a child? Are you taking a particular view on each of these? Law keeping individuals down, religion attacking individuals, soldiers just being fed to the dogs?



#32 JustinS   Members   -  Reputation: 186

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:44 PM

I'm not concerned about the children being dead, but why the solider is a child in a box being eaten and the priest/priestess is beating a child. How do these represent the classes? The rod and burning books, I get. The iron hand and the heart-shaped box I get. Why is the lawman/woman beating a child? Are you taking a particular view on each of these? Law keeping individuals down, religion attacking individuals, soldiers just being fed to the dogs?

 

You missed the metaphor completely. The child IS the person with the class. That is their "self." The priest/priestess isn't beating a child, the priest/priestess is being beaten. Same for the lawman/lawwoman and the soldier. The child represents the "self", so the child being dead means that their "self" has been lost. The circumstances are showing what is responsible and why it is happening.

 

And the dog eating the child is another metaphor. The self is dead, and its death is strengthening the psychological aspect this dog represents.

 

And yeah, burning books are a pretty stock metaphor as well, aren't they?


Edited by Jeremy Williams, 10 July 2013 - 07:48 PM.

No man is an island,

Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee.

 

-John Donne


#33 Dragonsoulj   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2086

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:57 PM

I mis-worded what I meant.

 

Why is the priest/priestess religion beating the class/self/character/player?

 

Why is the soldier, the child, dead, if the class should be alive? You say the self is dead and this death is strengthening the psychological aspect the dog represents, but shouldn't this symbol represent the self, the child, instead of the dog? This one seems to be expressing the defeat of the self. I can see the soldier being the one that is holding up the heart-shaped box, but if the class is the child, then it isn't the soldier holding up the box.

 

Why is the lawman/woman being beaten if the child is the class?



#34 JustinS   Members   -  Reputation: 186

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:06 PM

I mis-worded what I meant.

 

Why is the priest/priestess religion beating the class/self/character/player?

 

Why is the soldier, the child, dead, if the class should be alive? You say the self is dead and this death is strengthening the psychological aspect the dog represents, but shouldn't this symbol represent the self, the child, instead of the dog? This one seems to be expressing the defeat of the self. I can see the soldier being the one that is holding up the heart-shaped box, but if the class is the child, then it isn't the soldier holding up the box.

 

Why is the lawman/woman being beaten if the child is the class?

 

The child is part of the individual, not the class. The child being dead simply means that their sense of self is lost. They've lost their individuality, their free will or their humanity. The lawman/lawwoman has lost themselves directly due to the law's conscious effort to break them. Physically, they are fine. Psychologically, not so much. The priest/priestess has lost themselves to their religion, which is an instrument of the law. They too are physically unharmed, but they are no longer an individual. The soldier is the most telling, as the psychological aspect represented by the dog is the persona. The law has their soul in the palm of its hand, suggesting this is the law's will that they lose their sense of self to strengthen their persona. (This is actually the primary purpose of military training, to break down a recruit and rebuild them into the soldier persona, an expendable part of an expendable unit.)


No man is an island,

Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee.

 

-John Donne


#35 Dragonsoulj   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2086

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:15 PM


The child is part of the individual, not the class. The child being dead simply means that their sense of self is lost. They've lost their individuality, their free will or their humanity. The lawman/lawwoman has lost themselves directly due to the law's conscious effort to break them. Physically, they are fine. Psychologically, not so much. The priest/priestess has lost themselves to their religion, which is an instrument of the law. They too are physically unharmed, but they are no longer an individual. The soldier is the most telling, as the psychological aspect represented by the dog is the persona. The law has their soul in the palm of its hand, suggesting this is the law's will that they lose their sense of self to strengthen their persona. (This is actually the primary purpose of military training, to break down a recruit and rebuild them into the soldier persona, an expendable part of an expendable unit.)

 

Now your classes all make sense. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you mentioned potentially needing to explain these to others. I wasn't sure about your train of thought with these, so maybe finding some way to explain some of these in game? Perhaps when letting someone pick a class, add a little bit of the description that helps the player understand the metaphor?



#36 JustinS   Members   -  Reputation: 186

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:26 PM

Now your classes all make sense.

 

Really? Because I still think the shaman class is a bit... esoteric, the noble relies on knowledge of '90s pop culture and 18th-19th century French history in the same image, and, of course, some knowledge of tarot's use in fortune telling would help with the mystic's hand. And what of the warrior and rogue? They've barely been explained at all.

 

Although I already figured the physician projecting would be pretty easy.

 

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you mentioned potentially needing to explain these to others. I wasn't sure about your train of thought with these, so maybe finding some way to explain some of these in game? Perhaps when letting someone pick a class, add a little bit of the description that helps the player understand the metaphor?

 

No, I think I'd prefer to let the interested players toss it around in their heads. Although the class descriptions might provide a few hints, and the insanity traits six of these classes possess might give a bit of insight. (Warriors are paranoid, shamans are narcissistic, physicians have hero complexes, priests are obsessive compulsive, savants are simply obsessive and bards are manic depressive.)


Edited by Jeremy Williams, 10 July 2013 - 08:35 PM.

No man is an island,

Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee.

 

-John Donne


#37 Dragonsoulj   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2086

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:36 PM


Really? Because I still think the shaman class is a bit... esoteric, the noble relies on knowledge of '90s pop culture and French history in the same image, and, of course, some knowledge of tarot's use in fortune telling would help with the mystic's hand. And what of the warrior and rogue?

 

The shaman I understood a bit. The noble I looked at as some high official from the description, an important person. Tarot cards are fairly recognizable but not necessarily the individual cards. A mystic is occasionally portrayed as blind, so that does help. The rogue was fine. A thief was the assumed class from the description, which is sometimes a name given to a rogue. The warrior seems fairly straight forward, someone wielding a weapon, facing an enemy.

 


No, I think I'd prefer to let the interested players toss it around in their heads. I mean, the class descriptions might provide a few hints, and the insanity traits six of these classes possess might give a bit of insight. (Warriors are paranoid, shamans are narcissistic, physicians have hero complexes, priests are obsessive compulsive, savants are simply obsessive and bards are manic depressive.)

I didn't mean you needed to explain each one to the player but providing some hints to the direction your metaphors go would help.



#38 JustinS   Members   -  Reputation: 186

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:44 PM

The mystic's self being blind represents a lack of natural perception, it's their motivation. They can't understand things themselves, so they turn to outside sources. The individual cards are important as well.

For the noble, look to Napolean Bonaparte and the song "Red Right Hand" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.

As for the warrior and rogue, there's a lot more shown there. The horned shadow represents the same thing for both, their weapons and the context also matter.

For the shaman, it's just the owl that's missing there. It represents awareness, the dog is their persona and the child is still their self.

No man is an island,

Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee.

 

-John Donne


#39 Dragonsoulj   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2086

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:11 PM

Have you decided if you plan to follow through and make this game?



#40 JustinS   Members   -  Reputation: 186

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:12 PM

Have you decided if you plan to follow through and make this game?

Yes, we're going to do it. Why?

Edit:

I'll be adding more info about the game soon. Think it should be here or in another thread?

No man is an island,

Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee.

 

-John Donne





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS