Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > Vanilla

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old January 29, 2019, 01:38   #17
Nick
Vanilla maintainer
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 7,650
Donated: $60
Nick is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangar View Post
It's righteous to enhance Angband with canonic Tolkien stuff, but at the same time - the most important thing is to preserve canonic Angband stuff itself.
I have a lot of sympathy with this, and want to try and make my position a bit clearer (in what will be a fairly unfocused ramble).

First, I should say that there is a lot of canonic Angband but non-Tolkien stuff that is remaining - yeeks, quylthulgs, icky things, etc. There's also a whole bunch of monsters which are derived from elsewhere but sufficiently generic that they don't feel too clashy - griffons, nagas, minotaurs, hydras (although the Lernean Hydra is a bit problematic), etc.

The things that have been removed so far tend to fall into two categories:
  1. Clearly identifiable in a different mythology - Kronos, Atlas, Polyphemus, eldraks, algroths...
  2. Tolkienian but don't feel like they should be fightable in Angband - Arien, Radagast - or seem like they're stretching the boundaries too much - blue wizards, Istari
It's worth noting that the category 1 removals have been going on for a while, with things like Gabriel, Azriel, Tiamat, having been progressively removed.

Then there are largish number of D&D derived monsters - kobolds, gnomes, dark elves, many of the major demons, umber hulks, etc etc. Many of these I am completely fine with. I start to run into trouble, though, when they come into direct conflict with Tolkienian creatures; the two really striking examples here are dark elves and gnomes. Dark elves are particularly problematic - Tolkien's Moriquendi were regular elves who never made it to Valinor to see the trees, whereas the current Angband Dark elves are essentially D&D drows, dark-skinned, white-haired, evil underground creatures.

So my current plan is to replace monsters that I feel are problematic with more thematic ones. I'm going to keep talking about what I'm doing, so people get a chance to object; also, I won't be maintainer forever, and someone else may revert some of my changes or make their own.

Player races, I think, need to be treated more carefully. People get attached to particular races, and want to keep on playing them. So my plan there is
  • Keep all the current races pretty much unchanged (as they all service a particuar gameplay niche), but possibly renamed
  • Add new races for new gameplay niches

So that's a lot of fairly unordered blather, but it goes some way to expressing my state of mind on these issues. Very happy to get opinions.
__________________
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Angband Philosophy II: Magic Nick Vanilla 186 May 30, 2017 17:20
hobbit, part iii (the movie) taptap Idle chatter 25 February 4, 2015 07:26
Angband Philosophy I: Player choice Nick Vanilla 48 July 8, 2014 14:14
Theme module - Orc cave trudge ToME 3 November 29, 2012 17:57
r1946->r1948: angband: No town monsters! SaThaRiel Development 7 February 27, 2010 21:51


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.