Race discussion---

[freim]

Freim, you seem to be considering race background in the context of a story rather than that of an open-ended game setting. Drakes are an ongoing part of Wesnoth, not a novel (or a single campaign) that needs (or benefits from) a neat beginning, middle and end.

Anchoring the races in the World of Wesnoth is not incompatible with an open-ended game, but it is necessary to make a rich and exciting game world. There is nothing in the stories proposed that restrict the drakes in this sense.

What is a game setting without history, stories, myths, descriptions of societies, etc? just a bunch of stats if you ask me.

[irrevenant]

Freim, you seem to be considering race background in the context of a story rather than that of an open-ended game setting. Drakes are an ongoing part of Wesnoth, not a novel (or a single campaign) that needs (or benefits from) a neat beginning, middle and end.

The problem is that an open-ended game setting might be good for an open-ended game, but Wesnoth isn't one - the story and history are very linear and predefined, it's just that not all of it has been invented yet.

I'm not sure what you mean; maybe we're getting hung up on terminology? The point is: the Wesnoth setting has plenty of room to support a wide variety of new campaign stories, set both in the future and the past. It's not a single story, it's a framework that has to retain a capacity to add new stories to it.

[freim]

I'm not sure what you mean; maybe we're getting hung up on terminology? The point is: the Wesnoth setting has plenty of room to support a wide variety of new campaign stories, set both in the future and the past. It's not a single story, it's a framework that has to retain a capacity to add new stories to it.

Please stop sidestepping our reasoning by redefining our point of view to incorrectly be irrelevant for Wesnoth.

No one has proposed a single story which exludes everything else. The stories proposed are not the beginning, the middle or the end. They are a description of a single significant event in the history of the drake society which has had a major impact on them and which has potential hooks for further stories. There is nothing that 100% dictates what happened before or after.

[Jetrel]

In general terms, the drakish backstory according to the orcs goes as follows:

"Drakes are delicious."


That settles it.

[irrevenant]

Honestly, I don't think this is worth all the bickering. I've expressed my opinion; I think my version provides an interesting backstory with enough hooks and 'wiggle room' to support a number of new campaigns. You're free to disagree with that.

However, I don't appreciate the personal attacks. Perhaps I misunderstood your (and Zookeeper's) point, but I didn't 'sidestep' or 'redefine' anything. If I did misunderstand your (and Zookeeper's) point, I apologise, but perhaps some responsibility also lies in how the point was expressed.

Personally, I'm as happy with Jetryl's version as any...

[Darth Fool]

Honestly, I don't think this is worth all the bickering. I've expressed my opinion; I think my version provides an interesting backstory with enough hooks and 'wiggle room' to support a number of new campaigns. You're free to disagree with that.

I think that the thing is, everyone views their story in the same light. Each has hooks and wiggle room. Heck, my original story said nothing about whether the native lizard species that was being experimented on was sentient or not. They might have been the primitive scions of a once great empire, or just lowly lizards. In my opinion, none of the stories really exclude any of the others. including jetryl's. Unless someone is specifically saying that they can not be different perspectives on the same history, I suspect that we are all in violent agreement with each other, wanting a story that both has hooks for other stories to tie into, and sufficent "wiggle room" for people to have variations. All that is needed to end this argument is a general recognition that this is the case.

[irrevenant]

I suspect that we are all in violent agreement with each other, wanting a story that both has hooks for other stories to tie into, and sufficent "wiggle room" for people to have variations. All that is needed to end this argument is a general recognition that this is the case.

Okay, I recognise that this is the case.

Hmm, they can even all be rolled into the one story eg. "The events leading up to the Sundering are lost in history but one view is that <Freim's Story> while another is that <Darth Fool's> story.". You could even end up with civil warfare between the "Freimites" and the "Darthites".

I think that captures the strengths of all versions.

[freim]

Honestly, I don't think this is worth all the bickering. I've expressed my opinion; I think my version provides an interesting backstory with enough hooks and 'wiggle room' to support a number of new campaigns. You're free to disagree with that.

However, I don't appreciate the personal attacks. Perhaps I misunderstood your (and Zookeeper's) point, but I didn't 'sidestep' or 'redefine' anything. If I did misunderstand your (and Zookeeper's) point, I apologise, but perhaps some responsibility also lies in how the point was expressed.

What personal attack? You categorized our suggestions as "single stories" which are too unflexible for the Wesnoth world. I pointed out how this was incorrect. Dfool is right, all the stories proposed this far can accomodate for the wanted flexibility. Furthermore I don't disagree with that your story provide hooks and "wiggle room", I just found it to be rather boring. You are of course free to feel the same way about mine, what I object to is you defining it as "inapropriate".

[scott]

Characterizing an argument as a sidestep, hence as not directly addressing the point under contention, is not a personal attack. But, a person can still feel personally attacked compared to if more formal language had been used.

[JW]

Change of subject:

Let's say I invent a race of birdmen, so called because they have wings like birds but the bodies of men; would you refer to them as Angels because they can fly?

[irrevenant]

Characterizing an argument as a sidestep, hence as not directly addressing the point under contention, is not a personal attack. But, a person can still feel personally attacked compared to if more formal language had been used.

To me the use of very deliberate verbs made it read as an accusation that I was very deliberately engaging in something sneaky and underhanded (and hence that I was sneaky and underhanded).

However, I'm happy to accept it wasn't intended that way, so let's just move on.

[irrevenant]

Change of subject:

Oops. I posted as you posted. Totally agree re: change of subject.

Let's say I invent a race of birdmen, so called because they have wings like birds but the bodies of men; would you refer to them as Angels because they can fly?

I wouldn't because the term 'angel' carries a lot more baggage than just being able to fly with wings. This doesn't mean some others wouldn't call them 'angels' though (X-men 3, for example ).

[Jetrel]

Change of subject:

Oops. I posted as you posted. Totally agree re: change of subject.

Let's say I invent a race of birdmen, so called because they have wings like birds but the bodies of men; would you refer to them as Angels because they can fly?

I wouldn't because the term 'angel' carries a lot more baggage than just being able to fly with wings. This doesn't mean some others wouldn't call them 'angels' though (X-men 3, for example ).

It also doesn't mean that ming the merciless wouldn't subjugate their people, and forest people as well, embarking on a reign of terror until a star quarterback from the new york jets kicks their ass.

[JW]

dude, I hate that Ming guy.....he's so.....merciless....

[Rompcat]

Off Topic: I never noticed how that Ming guy also looks like a zombified Captain Jack Sparrow.