[brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species/Cultures?

Discuss the development of other free/open-source games, as well as other games in general.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

User avatar
eyerouge
Posts: 380
Joined: June 29th, 2007, 4:37 am
Location: wtactics.org
Contact:

[brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species/Cultures?

Post by eyerouge » July 28th, 2010, 3:27 pm

Image
What & Legal
How would you imagine a new species or culture in the Wesnoth universe? Share your thoughts in here.

Please follow the criteria below if posting, and also keep in mind that this is not intended to be a discussion about what should go into the mainline BfW or not: It's only a thought experiment, a place to gather a pool ideas on species you'd love to see in the Wesnoth universe but that, for whatever reason(s), are not part of it.

Notice: By posting you agree that the open source card game project WTactics may use your submitted material in any way it sees fit and license it under one or several open source licenses, i.e. GPL2 or later. If your material is ever used proper credits would be given to you on that site. You do of course always keep your own copyright as well.

Criteria
  • Don't violate copyright laws: Only post content you have written or drawn yourself.
  • Keep it fantasy themed: I.e. no lasers, no kryptonite, no crap.
  • Be concise & exact.
  • Only add a species or cultures that are supposedly enough different from already existing ones in the Wesnoth universe.
  • If you lack art: Describe the appearance of the species as detailed as possible. If you lack own art please feel free to post direct links to references on the net. (Again, don't post pictures themselves if you don't own their copyright)
  • Describe it's attitude - what does it like, live for, how does it do it, what are it's enemies, passions etc.
  • If you include an epic tale that spans 10 pages describing it's history and so please do so at the end of your post, in a separate section - don't mix the tale and background fluff with the above two descriptions.
Example: The Emata
  • Fast, more agile than strong, able to make great leaps. Avoids confrontation until it really has to engage.
  • Some individuals have plants growing out of their body, as an integrated part of it.
  • Lives in the forest. Sometimes encounters the Elves, but keeps to itself most of the time. Avoids cities & "modern" civilizations. Is not interested in others business. Vegetarian.
  • All Emata that have been within the vicinity of each other for 2 or more years have a telepathic link: Using it they can communicate by sending short verbal messages and/or very close copies of their own feelings.
  • Natural, tribal, simple, guided by instincts, but fully capable of abstract and rational thinking.
  • Non-alphabetic & religious culture, traditions are spread via other means of communication.
  • Struggles only to preserve it's homelands and territories it requires to live a normal and peaceful life.
RaceConcept1.jpg
RaceConcept3.jpg
Last edited by eyerouge on August 8th, 2010, 10:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
thespaceinvader
Retired Art Director
Posts: 8414
Joined: August 25th, 2007, 10:12 am
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by thespaceinvader » July 28th, 2010, 4:38 pm

Ugh. Those are cool concepts and everything, but Wesnoth has WAY mroe species than we know what to do with already.

Lessee:

Humans
Elves
Orcs/Goblins
Dwarves
Merfolk
Nagas
Drakes
Woses
Ogres
Trolls
Saurians
Undead

It's relatively unrealistic that a world should spawn one sentient species, let alone 12! It's worth remembering that it's more realistic, interesting and effective (IMO at any rate) to make different cultural groups of the same species, (and thanks for not using the word 'race' btw :D) than it is to make new species. Fitting them into existing canon makes life kinda awkward. It's easier to believe, to me, that a different racial group of an already-known species could make a relatively quiet appearance (or indeed, have been represented by current species for lack of new art, like the planned northerner humans faction Jet has had in mind for some time, or maybe even the Khalifate, thoguh I have different ideas for their origin), than that a whole new sapient species could just pop up out of nowhere unannounced.

In short, I'd suggest giving these guys their own world to play in ;)
http://thespaceinvader.co.uk | http://thespaceinvader.deviantart.com
Back to work. Current projects: Catching up on commits. Picking Meridia back up. Sprite animations, many and varied.

User avatar
ancestral
Developer
Posts: 1108
Joined: August 1st, 2006, 5:29 am
Location: Motion City

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by ancestral » July 28th, 2010, 4:50 pm

I'd love to see a new, well-developed world with own history and unique creatures. I think having an alternative setting to Wesnoth could be awesome.
Last edited by ancestral on July 28th, 2010, 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wesnoth BestiaryPREVIEW IT HERE )
Unit tree and stat browser
CanvasPREVIEW IT HERE )
Exp. map viewer

User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 1756
Joined: February 10th, 2010, 1:06 am
Location: $x1,$y1

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by Dixie » July 28th, 2010, 5:15 pm

ancestral wrote:I'd love to see a new, well-developed world with a new history, its own history, and unique creatures. I think having an alternative setting to Wesnoth could be awesome.
I've seen quite a few such universes, and I find it hard to be really creative and imaginative. I mean, if you're gonna have that quiet, long-living and a bit snob forest people but with green skin and pointy, why are you gonna call them Daelwenas instead of Elves (even though their skin colour has been changed)? To me it just feels cheap. Even if they were less similar to elves: shorter lives or any other cultural difference... I find that it eventually all gravitates around the same themes. It's really hard to be original in those regards. As a matter of fact, I've found that the most successful original fantasy settings are often those that do not try to emulate that multi racial element. Or tone it down considerably, anyway. Ever read Robin Hobb's Realm of Elderlings, for instance? Sometimes, it takes very little to have a world feel very unique, take the first few books of S.P. Somtow's Inquestor series, for instance (although those one are Sci-Fi).

Anyway, more on topic, I think since Wesnoth is pretty Lotrish already, it could certainly use Halflings (there was a neat UMC faction made by Mystic X and Velensk 'bout those, btw). Any D&D monster type could fit, too: kobolds, gnolls, mindflayers... Not very creative, I know, but heh ;)
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny - Frank Zappa
Current projects: Internet meme Era, The Settlers of Wesnoth

User avatar
eyerouge
Posts: 380
Joined: June 29th, 2007, 4:37 am
Location: wtactics.org
Contact:

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by eyerouge » July 28th, 2010, 7:14 pm

invader:
thespaceinvader wrote:It's relatively unrealistic that a world should spawn one sentient species, let alone 12! It's worth remembering that it's more realistic, interesting /../ to make different cultural groups of the same species,/../ It's easier to believe, to me, that a different racial group of an already-known species could make a relatively quiet appearance
few vs many
I agree that it's generally a bad idea to just keep adding species after species just for the sake of it. I also think we agree on it being a better idea to have fewer and more well developed species around than having plenty of shallow ones. In the end, it's not about quantity - it's about quality, however we'd define that in this interesting topic.
invader:

It's my impression (and it may be wrong..) that many games, especially when aiming towards a younger audience, rather go with quantity than quality and have a zillion species around, with very little to differentiate them other than the artwork itself in best case scenarios.

Thus, I wouldn't suggest or advocate that new species are included in the game itself: On the contrary, seeing new characters within each faction or species family would interest me far more on a personal level.

Despite that, I still want people to post their own visions of what they would picture is around in the Wesnoth universe. To me it's fascinating to see how somebody perceives the potential of the Wesnoth universe and how it could maybe look like to different individuals.

I'm curious, because it tells me something about their own creativity and interpretation of the game. I'm confident many of the suggestions (if ones are ever made) would of course be generic and overlap - as Dixie writes - it's hard creating something new under the sun ;) That alone should however not discourage people from trying. Instead, they should just try harder, if they're interested in this kind of stuff at all that is.

realism
Discussing what's real or not in a fictional fantasy world is hard for me.

My guess is that when people do it they have some kind of paradigm they use, some kind of framework that defines the reality of their world. We seem to have been around the forum an equal amount of time using these nicks, but I openly admit I am clueless about Wesnoth lore and how/what officially defines the framework I write about. Hence, I don't question what's real or not in Wesnoth, even if I enjoy discussing the process of creating reality.

In my mind Wesnoth becomes whatever it's developers, and to an extent community, make of it. As a ridiculous example and for all I know Santa could be introduced into the game if the dev team wanted it enough ;) People could easily make up whatever fiction that explains his presence in a "realistic enough" way, and so on. Sufficient to say, a lot can be explained (away) and incorporated if somebody puts his/her mind to it.

Now, I'm still not suggesting this should be done, as that's not this threads purpose. I'm only replying in response to the realism argument. Clearly, what's real is what you guys "make real". It brings me to the means of measure:

Here I suspect, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the reality in the Wesnoth universe as I guess you and several others, myself included, picture it is pretty close to our own in several regards: For example, the same physics seem to apply (an apple doesn't fall up into the sky ; ) and you mention the probability of how many sentient species a planet could spawn. I agree it's, as we know our own world today, very unlikely that a planet would have many "intelligent" species rampaging around.

That said, I don't think that should necessarily lead to the conclusion that a "good fantasy world" shouldn't have 12 or more species around. As somebody else mentions in this thread, the LotR world seems like a popular one. I'll try not to discuss if that entails it's a good one or not ;) but what we can objectively agree on is that it has plenty of sentient species in it. (Or does it? Hrm.. small homoerotic dwarfs that tickle each other and laugh aka "halflings", orc and goblin(?) guys, humans, undead, real dwarfs, elfs... and more? Ah, I'm clueless about this too...)

As for realism, let's make this challenging and "keep it real": I could still picture a very huge planet with several separate continents and eco-systems spawning more sentient creatures than a smaller one where all is linked. I'm not a biologist and don't know if what I suggest holds any merit, it's a simple guess, judging from what we can observe here on earth today. This does of course tell us nothing about the "actualities" of the planet (Irdya?) where Wesnoth is taking place.

The strongest argument against filling a planet with species is, perhaps, the one you initiated with - the one about getting cultural depth instead of shallow quantity and quasi-identities. That alone is often a good reason to not branch out a game too wide species wise. :) Actually, because of this post and your reply, I'll add this into the WT design documents.

racial groups of known species coming out of the closet
I'll change the initial post and welcome them as well. :) Bad call by me to exclude them to begin with.
In short, I'd suggest giving these guys their own world to play in ;)
Yeah, I have no intention of ever making them real into BfW in any shape or form, but would also not mind it a bit if somebody took whatever and put into a custom campaign. Actually, the example with the Emata that I posted was merely food for thought & daydreaming, as well as researching if there's a need or interesting concepts to include in WT, inviting the rest of the forum as well. :)


Btw, thanks for your reply - it will make me add some good & valid points about species dev. for WT.

ancestral:
ancestral wrote:I'd love to see a new, well-developed world with own history and unique creatures. I think having an alternative setting to Wesnoth could be awesome.
That would of course also be very intersting, even if it wasn't my aspiration to make people develop a whole alternative to the Wesnoth universe as much as to develop alternatives that could be included in it (at least on an individual level and understanding of it, even if it never becomes official or leaves this thread or the authors mind). I think there's a difference in replacing a universe and creating a brand new one, and expanding an existing universe by adding to it.

I guess my question would be why one would prefer to create a brand new one instead of expanding the existing one, unless of course, one really wants a totally separate concept or finds the existing very flawed.

This also brings up another relevant issue: What is world building? Is it writing lore etc in forum, and having some accompanying art? Would that be enough? I imagine it could suffice if well done, I mean, that's what I've done when we gather on the carpet in a room and roleplay - the world has been read or told, and by roleplaying we also create it (the game play itself is actually not needed at all, or is it in this particular case with BfW as a computer game? Interesting... *scratching head* I guess it could be if one wants to understand it fully through the campaigns etc...)

dixie:
I've seen quite a few such universes, and I find it hard to be really creative and imaginative.
Part of that depends on you: You have the ability to see abstract similarities, classify and see patterns etc. Compare your skills at those things and your massive experience of fantasy worlds etc with a 4-year olds and you'll probably notice that what is innovative to him/her is not to you or someone else.

Another way of putting it: The more you have read, seen and experienced, the less likely you are to be impressed. I'm not trying to prove you wrong here, but part of the explanation to why what you claim can be very true to you but not to somebody else could be such simple psychological variables.
I mean, if you're gonna have that quiet, long-living and a bit snob forest people but with green skin and pointy, why are you gonna call them Daelwenas instead of Elves (even though their skin colour has been changed)? To me it just feels cheap. Even if they were less similar to elves: shorter lives or any other cultural difference...
Well, why not? Why would it be "cheap"? And how is it any more cheap than any artist - musician or otherwise - that could easily be connected to a zillion artists before him/her stylistically? Isn't rock n roll all the same thing, over and over again? << Good example of what I tried to capture above...

Elfs have become a generic fantasy element. Most elfs, and the other arch species like orcs etc, all act alike, and that's pretty good in a sense since it allows the audience/reader to easily and immediately understand the rough outline of what is going. It allows authors to pick basic fantasy elements, throw them in, skip explaining them, and instead focus on something else, like for instance intrigue, developing personalities, relations between characters etc instead of explaining what an x is. I guess that it could be quite a benefit, but in the end it breaks down to what one wants to create.

I probably agree with you on the cheap-factor - I often get that feeling myself when I see generic works, read stories etc. However, I think that interesting non-elf people in the forest can be created, and that their huge cultural differences and different ways of living etc can warrant their existence if they're what the author wants to deliver.

To me it seems that you condemn certain concepts because they - even when the differences are huge according to yourself - can still be interpreted as derivations of generic fantasy elements. Right? It sounds to me that you claim that we can take out "the blue long elf smurfs" from Avatar and replace them with some semi-generic Elf tribe, and end up with the same thing.

If so, I both agree and disagree: I agree on the meta-level, where you operate when you analyse all this.

I disagree when I'm on the lamer level where the masses and Hollywood operate. Clearly "Avatar" was a success measured from a commercial viewpoint and I also honestly believe many of the people that went to see the movie actually saw something new in that universe, while "you, me and everyone we know" (har har, watch that one for good sheit..) were maybe bored to death and wanted our money back because we had seen that world a million times already, not to mention thet tale itself that was so generic that I almost puked myself.

I find that it eventually all gravitates around the same themes. It's really hard to be original in those regards
Well, all does, the whole popular culture: There has happened very little since ancient greek drama. You still have good guy bad guy, jealousy, love, war etc etc. Humanity is still around. And it reflects it's own disgusting self in the fiction it creates, no matter if it's tickling halflings in LotR or blue giant sexy elf-smurfs from Jamaica... :)

If you with "original" mean "never before done in any remote way" you are right, it is very hard. And each living generation makes it even harder for the coming ones, at least if they know their history.
As a matter of fact, I've found that the most successful original fantasy settings are often those that do not try to emulate that multi racial element.
Now I'll be cheap: Maybe it relates to that they actually has to develop another level of quality, that thespaceinvader and I write about above? I wouldn't know, we haven't read the same works, but it would be interesting to know how you believe it comes it is so.

User avatar
shadowm
Site Administrator
Posts: 6543
Joined: November 14th, 2006, 5:54 pm
Location: Chile
Contact:

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by shadowm » July 28th, 2010, 7:34 pm

Dixie wrote:Anyway, more on topic, I think since Wesnoth is pretty Lotrish already, it could certainly use Halflings (there was a neat UMC faction made by Mystic X and Velensk 'bout those, btw).
No.

Precisely the reason why I liked Wesnoth's setting when I started playing it in 2005-2006 is that it wasn't another cheap Middle Earth clone with all the stuff we'd expect from such. We have worked hard on giving Irdya's races an unique identity of their own despite the obvious clichéd similarities to existing fantasy literature and games, so including races such as Halflings would be, in my opinion, pretty lame at this point. By "we" I mean several mainline developers, user-made content developers, and last but certainly not least, artists from the user community such as Kitty, LordBob and TSI.
Author of the unofficial UtBS sequels Invasion from the Unknown and After the Storm.

Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3984
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by Velensk » July 28th, 2010, 7:59 pm

Personally I do think of Wesnoth as a LotR knockoff (though not a cheap one) but this doesn't bother me in the least. I have no problem with the idea of halflings in Wesnoth (I designed a halfling faction infact), however I do think that you can continue to get content simply through adding cultures to the various races already in existence and get all the verity you need that way with a number of added benefits.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."

Blarumyrran
Art Contributor
Posts: 1700
Joined: December 7th, 2006, 8:08 pm

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by Blarumyrran » July 28th, 2010, 8:38 pm

Tumonker
  • Has arms with blades on them to use as weapons
  • Attacks everything that moves that is larger than a dog, except other tumonkers
  • Doesn't think rationally
  • Doesn't reproduce
  • Doesn't communicate, even with other tumonkers
  • Doesn't hear
  • Doesn't smell
  • Doesn't sleep
  • Lives alone or in small groups
  • Can live longer than can be observed in practice
  • Is some 5 meters tall, +- 2 meters per specimen
  • Does see, although barely
  • Moves slowly
  • Lives in places with fertile soil
  • Eats/drinks and moves with the root
  • Tastes like raddish
* * *

Image

User avatar
thespaceinvader
Retired Art Director
Posts: 8414
Joined: August 25th, 2007, 10:12 am
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by thespaceinvader » July 28th, 2010, 9:09 pm

I've already posted my ideas ont his score, by the way - check my sig. I went with the new cultures route, rather than the new species.

I feel that we do wind up either making cookie-cutter enemies in different clothes, more or less, or making poorly developed minor enemies that could have just as easily been culturally different from the forces they were attacking, and giving us a politically interesting society, rather than species vs species, only being against each other more or less because they;re different species.

And I know, my UMC does that, but it's mainly, IMO, because the species exist already, and developing them is easier. As you rightly suggest, it's much easier to make unique looks with different species. But at the same time, it is possible to do otherwise - the elves, but for pointy ears, are basically human. The dwarves could be stood at full height and be human. The orcs could be given a less unusual skin tone, and be more or less human. I'd be happy with four species, however, rather than 12. We don't need several of the current sentient races at all - they only show up as occasional campaign foes.
http://thespaceinvader.co.uk | http://thespaceinvader.deviantart.com
Back to work. Current projects: Catching up on commits. Picking Meridia back up. Sprite animations, many and varied.

User avatar
A-Red
Art Contributor
Posts: 495
Joined: May 6th, 2009, 1:21 am

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by A-Red » July 28th, 2010, 11:16 pm

thespaceinvader wrote:I'd be happy with four species, however, rather than 12. We don't need several of the current sentient races at all - they only show up as occasional campaign foes.
And add flavor and depth (or at least a sense of detail). Having the lesser races serve this role still leaves room to focus on four main races, or species if you like.

Anyway, it's only 11 species. The undead aren't one--in fact, they're depicted as human, making them a separate culture rather than a separate species, which is what you appear to be advocating.

The one case where I agree with you wholeheartedly is the drakes, whose apparent importance in the world is not at all backed up in-game; they don't add anything to single-player so far, except as a lesser flavor race, and there are plenty of those around. Still, it would be such a shame to get rid of all that beautiful new art, and I'd never push for such a thing.

User avatar
shadowm
Site Administrator
Posts: 6543
Joined: November 14th, 2006, 5:54 pm
Location: Chile
Contact:

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by shadowm » July 28th, 2010, 11:24 pm

A-Red wrote:The one case where I agree with you wholeheartedly is the drakes, whose apparent importance in the world is not at all backed up in-game; they don't add anything to single-player so far, except as a lesser flavor race
Turin? Is that you?
A-Red wrote:[...] Still, it would be such a shame to get rid of all that beautiful new art, and I'd never push for such a thing.
Aw, I was hoping you were Turin in disguise. :P
Author of the unofficial UtBS sequels Invasion from the Unknown and After the Storm.

User avatar
thespaceinvader
Retired Art Director
Posts: 8414
Joined: August 25th, 2007, 10:12 am
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by thespaceinvader » July 29th, 2010, 7:30 am

A-Red wrote:Anyway, it's only 11 species. The undead aren't one--in fact, they're depicted as human, making them a separate culture rather than a separate species, which is what you appear to be advocating.
That's true, yeah. So it's only 11, not 12, that's a lot better :P The problem I have with the Undead is that they're somewhat cliche. The only time I've seen them really treated interestingly is in DiD, and the Spectre and lich brothers in NR. We're better then most on undead, but not nearly as good as some.
http://thespaceinvader.co.uk | http://thespaceinvader.deviantart.com
Back to work. Current projects: Catching up on commits. Picking Meridia back up. Sprite animations, many and varied.

User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 1756
Joined: February 10th, 2010, 1:06 am
Location: $x1,$y1

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by Dixie » July 29th, 2010, 3:22 pm

While I don't want to make a big issue over this, I will still try to answer you :)
eyerouge wrote: Part of that depends on you: You have the ability to see abstract similarities, classify and see patterns etc. Compare your skills at those things and your massive experience of fantasy worlds etc with a 4-year olds and you'll probably notice that what is innovative to him/her is not to you or someone else.

Another way of putting it: The more you have read, seen and experienced, the less likely you are to be impressed. I'm not trying to prove you wrong here, but part of the explanation to why what you claim can be very true to you but not to somebody else could be such simple psychological variables.
Of course, what you say is right, but I feel somehow you missed my point or something. I will try to detail that more below.
eyerouge wrote:
I mean, if you're gonna have that quiet, long-living and a bit snob forest people but with green skin and pointy, why are you gonna call them Daelwenas instead of Elves (even though their skin colour has been changed)? To me it just feels cheap. Even if they were less similar to elves: shorter lives or any other cultural difference...
Well, why not? Why would it be "cheap"? And how is it any more cheap than any artist - musician or otherwise - that could easily be connected to a zillion artists before him/her stylistically? Isn't rock n roll all the same thing, over and over again? << Good example of what I tried to capture above...
Well, I think it is cheap. To re-use your example, it would be like some band playing rock, but instead of admitting it, they said "Lookit, we've invented a new musical genre: ZookMusic; It is exactly like rock, but we wear green shirts and there's a guy blowing a whistle in the back". If you are gonna use a tired cliché exactly, well use it, don't change a superficial detail or two (such as skin colour and name) and try to make believe you are being inventive. I think that's cheap, it's kinda trying to pose for something you are not. Maybe it isn't the author's original intention, though, so such cases are always hard to judge without sounding like an arrogant know-it-all prick.
eyerouge wrote: Elfs have become a generic fantasy element. Most elfs, and the other arch species like orcs etc, all act alike, and that's pretty good in a sense since it allows the audience/reader to easily and immediately understand the rough outline of what is going. It allows authors to pick basic fantasy elements, throw them in, skip explaining them, and instead focus on something else, like for instance intrigue, developing personalities, relations between characters etc instead of explaining what an x is. I guess that it could be quite a benefit, but in the end it breaks down to what one wants to create.
Agreed, it is a powerful tool, albeit a non-original one. Not being original doesn't necessarily mean not having quality. Universes using the D&D setting, such as Forgotten Realms, for example, have about 0 originality, but the universe is still cohesive and of quality. Although one might argue the writing is simplistic and there are a lot of stereotypes and clichés - but it comes with the genre. As I see it, it is clearly aimed at teens (doesn't necessarily mean non-teens can't enjoy it, though).

Since I'm mentionning D&D, I'm gonna continue on that line: I think the real "cliché" is D&D, not LOTR, although LOTR might have been the one to start it all. LOTR is actually pretty original is its treatment of elves, or even halflings, in some regards, compared to a lot of other fantasy worlds.
eyerouge wrote: To me it seems that you condemn certain concepts because they - even when the differences are huge according to yourself - can still be interpreted as derivations of generic fantasy elements. Right? It sounds to me that you claim that we can take out "the blue long elf smurfs" from Avatar and replace them with some semi-generic Elf tribe, and end up with the same thing.

If so, I both agree and disagree: I agree on the meta-level, where you operate when you analyse all this.
Well, sure, everything is a bit derivative at some point. Modern physics is a derivative of ancient greek lore, if you'll have it this way, and rock and roll is the meeting of the derivatives from millenar traditionnal african and celtic musics, with a bunch of other elements thrown in. I'm not saying that having the slightest hint of inspiration is automatically bad. But, if I were a self-respecting author/creator, I'd like my work to feel distinctive, not just a derivate in bulk of some other setting.

eyerouge wrote:
As a matter of fact, I've found that the most successful original fantasy settings are often those that do not try to emulate that multi racial element.
Now I'll be cheap: Maybe it relates to that they actually has to develop another level of quality, that thespaceinvader and I write about above? I wouldn't know, we haven't read the same works, but it would be interesting to know how you believe it comes it is so.
Yes, probably your statement here is part of the truth. But I also find that since the traditionnal LOTR/D&D setting is such a standard, somtimes picking just a few elements from it but leaving the rest aside can arise interest and curiosity much more effectively than using the whole thing. Sometimes, it can be something as simple as a few key words, for instance the Inquestor series I mentionned perviously: in the first book, you follow a girl issued from a people living in a giant, dead volcano, in perpetual darkness, on some planet, a people which has grown blind and deaf because of some other external elements. They communicate by drawing shapes on each other's arms, following markers on the walls and stuff. This girl, though, is an anomally and can hear and see, and for those two phenomenons only she can feel and she barely understands, she uses the words "wind-shapes" and "non-darkness". Just those two words, for me, contribute to set such a great unique mood and ambience, and it didn't even require any magic or extra sentient species or anything.

---

Appart from that discussion, another element that could be interesting as a race in the wesnoth world could be lycanthropes. I can really imagine a unit being a peasant/woodsman/ruffian at day/dawn/dusk, but turning into a clearly overpowered werewolf or something at night. Not really original or a distinctive species per se, but still, it could be pretty interesting.
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny - Frank Zappa
Current projects: Internet meme Era, The Settlers of Wesnoth

User avatar
Ken_Oh
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2176
Joined: February 6th, 2006, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by Ken_Oh » July 29th, 2010, 4:00 pm

I had an idea for a fantasy world a while back where every sentient being is based off of an animal (which, unfortunately, would run the risk of being a furry fest). Anyway, this would include humans. Just as a wolfman would be a wolf+man, a human would be a hu+man. The hu in question would probably be either a hairless monkey or lemur-ish creature. Attributes of the sentient races would be based off of the animal species attributes (hus would be highly social and intelligent, have high endurance but wouldn't be very strong), leaving humans even more social and intelligent but with weaker physical attributes (relative to size).

Then, there could be mongrel races, which combine 2 animals with the "man" template, but those would be smaller and less efficient with their attributes. One brainstorm I had was to take the last vowel sound and consonant ending (if there is one) of the primary animal, flip that, then add the first consonant of the secondary animal, and add a -lin suffix to the end. So, frog + bat + man = goblin.

Then, domestic versions of animals that a race retains would have to do mainly with their sociability attributes coupled with what the race lacks. Humans love dogs since they have the speed, sense of smell and teeth that we lack (amongst other things). Wolfmen, on the other hand, wouldn't need a dog as a pet. Neither would a Birdman need a falcon. I bet Birdmen would rather have domesticated apes to guard their tree nests. The question is, Wolf:Dog as Ape:????.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling. I hope someone else enjoys it and it helps them think. Either way, I enjoyed writing it.

Closer to the topic, what I think Wesnoth needs more than man-like races are races of megabeasts. Think Fire Dragon:Lizard as ????:some other animal. Titans, colossi, etc.

User avatar
johndh
Posts: 591
Joined: June 6th, 2010, 4:03 am
Location: Music City

Re: [brainstorm] New Wesnoth Species?

Post by johndh » July 29th, 2010, 5:47 pm

There was a faction from a user-made era that I played a long time ago (can't remember the name) called the Sidhe. Although an offshoot of the Elves, they had a much different flavor and were quite a lot of fun.
It's spelled "definitely", not "definately". "Defiantly" is a different word entirely.

Post Reply