Different races

[Bloodwyn]

I think an interesting addition to VS could be the choice of playing as different mythological races; each race would have pros and cons, and it would add to the overall vision. Here are a few very briefly described races that could be potentially added:

Elves: Less health, but higher acrobatic skills. Boars and wolves would be less likely to attack an elf, perhaps. 

Dwarves: They could fit in 1x1 holes(?) and could get better drop chance when mining, but would run a bit slower than other races. This would cause dwarf players to prefer to live in proximity to mining areas.

Halflings: Like dwarves, could fit in 1x1, but instead of getting better mining drops, they could have stealthy characteristics that would avoid aggro from hostile npcs.

These are just a few that I could see fit in perfectly in the world of VS as it stands. 

[Erik]

Tyron (Developer of VS) has stated that he won't include magic and fantasy elements other than the monsters and the event that caused them in the game and focus on realism instead. So this won't be implemented, but could be made into a mod.

BTW: This topic would fit better into the suggestions subforum.

[redram]

Ya, currently the player is a "seraph", which hasn't really been explained yet, but is apparently different from regular humans, which will eventually be present as villagers.  But aside from that and anything else specific to VS's specific story, my understanding is that we're not going to be getting other stuff.   Probably especially not the extremely overused stereotypical high fantasy stuff.  Which btw makes me sad, I wish the game were more open to fantasy.  But I don't make the plans.

[Bloodwyn]

34 minutes ago, redram said:

Ya, currently the player is a "seraph", which hasn't really been explained yet, but is apparently different from regular humans, which will eventually be present as villagers.  But aside from that and anything else specific to VS's specific story, my understanding is that we're not going to be getting other stuff.   Probably especially not the extremely overused stereotypical high fantasy stuff.  Which btw makes me sad, I wish the game were more open to fantasy.  But I don't make the plans.

Overused? Some elements of traditional mythos are "overused" for the same reason castles and swords are overused. They're rooted in thousands of years of legend, and it hurts my soul to see someone refer to them as "overused". Dragons, dwarves, elves.. These elements of fantasy will never be "overused", they're just part and parcel of an entire genre and that's a good thing. Sorry for the tangent lol, I just want to emphasize the fact that these are safe bets if one wants to go about taking the player customization route.

So, I'm not sure what to think. On one hand, Erik is stating that the Tyron won't include fantasy elements, yet there clearly already are a number of fantasy elements. To top it off, I've spent a bit of time today talking to Saraty and she seems very open to the possibility of adding mythological creatures like Dragons. Now, I must say that it was a vague conversation, but it does hint at a vision friendly to fantasy. 

VS already has Drifters, which are fantasy creatures, and is set in a secondary world. I'm guessing that the consideration of fantasy archetypes isn't too far-fetched.

[redram]

35 minutes ago, Bloodwyn said:

 To top it off, I've spent a bit of time today talking to Saraty and she seems very open to the possibility of adding mythological creatures like Dragons. Now, I must say that it was a vague conversation, but it does hint at a vision friendly to fantasy.

Well Saraty is definitely a much better authority than Erik or I.  She certainly reacted very positively to that dragon MC mod Doan posted.  I'm just saying what's been the impression I've gotten to this point: heavy on realism, having only some very specific 'made up'  stuff that is part and parcel of the VS 'backstory'.  Also Tyron just mentioned in discord he'd totally be up for gryphons, so I guess just throw what I said out the window. Tony is going to be disappointed no doubt.

As far as fantasy, there's kind of a big difference between things that are a 'fantasy staple' but actually existed irl, like castles and swords, vs entirely fantastic things.  I just get tired of the same tolkien-esque archetypes.  Elves are pure good, live forever, love bows, and are all lithe and pointy-eared.  Bo-ring.  Dwarves all speak with a scottish (or whatever) accent.   Orcs are barbarians with tusks.  I really enjoy it when these names are applied in a different way.  I want to see fat, evil elves that are woods-dwelling savages.  I want orcs who have a samurai-like society.  I want things mixed up a bit.  Of course if different names are used altogether, even better.

[Bloodwyn]

1 hour ago, redram said:

Well Saraty is definitely a much better authority than Erik or I.  She certainly reacted very positively to that dragon MC mod Doan posted.  I'm just saying what's been the impression I've gotten to this point: heavy on realism, having only some very specific 'made up'  stuff that is part and parcel of the VS 'backstory'.  Also Tyron just mentioned in discord he'd totally be up for gryphons, so I guess just throw what I said out the window. Tony is going to be disappointed no doubt.

As far as fantasy, there's kind of a big difference between things that are a 'fantasy staple' but actually existed irl, like castles and swords, vs entirely fantastic things.  I just get tired of the same tolkien-esque archetypes.  Elves are pure good, live forever, love bows, and are all lithe and pointy-eared.  Bo-ring.  Dwarves all speak with a scottish (or whatever) accent.   Orcs are barbarians with tusks.  I really enjoy it when these names are applied in a different way.  I want to see fat, evil elves that are woods-dwelling savages.  I want orcs who have a samurai-like society.  I want things mixed up a bit.  Of course if different names are used altogether, even better.

 

Oh I'm TOTALLY on board with you there mate. For instance, in RolePlay settings I made in the past, Elves were short like hobbits, but had grey skin and big light eyes; they lived underground near rivers, and lived an archaic primitive life. They were also super aggressive and behaved more similarly to goblins than LOTR elves for instance. (Pic of them here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/394880088694456351/395882539165810690/2017-12-28_00.46.51.png )

I get what you mean now, you're not against the mythological creatures themselves, but would like to see different interpretations. I would also like to see deviations from the common interpretations. Elves, for instance, were cruel little beings in much of the European folklore, but are almost never portrayed this way.

Also, this is why I put this in Discussion. I wanted to spark a discussion, not make a suggestion.

[Balduranne]

I think Tyron et all want to make the setting more unique. I don't think playable races other than Seraphs are going to be a thing. I know the game world has lore behind it, but that's still being introduced

 

[redram]

Ya, and actually fantasy player races don't interest me overly much.  What I do wish was more open to fantasy was metals.  Mithril, adamantium, orichalcum, etc.  I'm a bit skeptical of how having 7 varieties of steel is going to play out, but we'll see.

[Stroam]

The setting of the VS is mundane and primitive. Going from the paleolithic technology to the medieval ages ending around 1500's. Everything the player can do is purposely rooted in realism to give higher contrast to the unreal aspects of the game. Think of a call of Cthulhu campaign. They have many different setting but the world, by and large, follows realism up to the point it starts dealing with Cthulhuian lore. This is a purposeful design element and without it, the strangeness would cease to be strange. You don't notice one shade of green in a forest but you do notice the only thing colored red in an otherwise black and white photo.

If you start adding in fantasy elements you start softening that line between the mundane and fantastical. The dev team is always pleased to see anything added to the game as a mod. The more mods the better. I don't speak for the dev team but I don't see fantasy fitting into the vanilla game. And yeah, if a mod added fantastical dragons like that, Saraty would play the hell out of that mod.

[Bloodwyn]

12 hours ago, Stroam said:

The setting of the VS is mundane and primitive. Going from the paleolithic technology to the medieval ages ending around 1500's. Everything the player can do is purposely rooted in realism to give higher contrast to the unreal aspects of the game. Think of a call of Cthulhu campaign. They have many different setting but the world, by and large, follows realism up to the point it starts dealing with Cthulhuian lore. This is a purposeful design element and without it, the strangeness would cease to be strange. You don't notice one shade of green in a forest but you do notice the only thing colored red in an otherwise black and white photo.

If you start adding in fantasy elements you start softening that line between the mundane and fantastical. The dev team is always pleased to see anything added to the game as a mod. The more mods the better. I don't speak for the dev team but I don't see fantasy fitting into the vanilla game. And yeah, if a mod added fantastical dragons like that, Saraty would play the hell out of that mod.

But there already are numerous fantasy elements in the game as is, and the team has stated explicit interest in other fantasy elements. Adding totally organic and realistic intelligent humanoid races wouldn't break the realism at all. Drifters, for instance, are humanoid (not as intelligent), so how would a dwarf that follows every law of nature ruin the realism? Besides, elements like Temporal Gears hurt realism a lot more than a species closely related to humans. Neanderthals or Denisovans were around not that long ago, so it wouldn't be far fetched to add non-magical cousins of the race currently ingame. I'm not advocating for any outlandish magical creatures.

[Erik]

38 minutes ago, Bloodwyn said:

But there already are numerous fantasy elements in the game as is, and the team has stated explicit interest in other fantasy elements. Adding totally organic and realistic intelligent humanoid races wouldn't break the realism at all. Drifters, for instance, are humanoid (not as intelligent), so how would a dwarf that follows every law of nature ruin the realism? Besides, elements like Temporal Gears hurt realism a lot more than a species closely related to humans. Neanderthals or Denisovans were around not that long ago, so it wouldn't be far fetched to add non-magical cousins of the race currently ingame. I'm not advocating for any outlandish magical creatures.

You didn't get Stroam's point: Making the world filled with fantasy elements will cease their uniqueness and will make any fantasy element mundane. It's comparing Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones, in LotR the world is littered with fantasy elements, but they cease to be unique, the trolls in LotR don't feel special, they feel trivial. Im GoT a giant is something mystical, because they are not believed to exist by most people, seeing a giant in GoT is much more unique and fascinating. Magic ceases to be magical if everyone is a mage.

I think adding overused, yes they are overused, cause they are used in almost every high fantasy setting, fantasy races, like dwarfs, elves, orcs, would make VS setting very mundane and stereotypical. 

[Bloodwyn]

19 minutes ago, Erik said:

You didn't get Stroam's point: Making the world filled with fantasy elements will cease their uniqueness and will make any fantasy element mundane. It's comparing Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones, in LotR the world is littered with fantasy elements, but they cease to be unique, the trolls in LotR don't feel special, they feel trivial. Im GoT a giant is something mystical, because they are not believed to exist by most people, seeing a giant in GoT is much more unique and fascinating. Magic ceases to be magical if everyone is a mage.

I think adding overused, yes they are overused, cause they are used in almost every high fantasy setting, fantasy races, like dwarfs, elves, orcs, would make VS setting very mundane and stereotypical. 

That's totally a matter of opinion. I think fantasy is mundane in a place like WoW, but the fantasy in LotR is completely mysterious. GoT is the pop music of literature, so that's a very poor example to present. Magic in LotR is not common at all. Wizards are regarded as extremely elusive, so I really don't understand what you're talking about at all. Magic in LotR is less common than even Greek or Norse mythos. Again, saying that these bread and butter elements of fantasy are overused is about as helpful as saying that swords and castles are overused in medieval settings. Humans have come to view fantasy through the lens of traditional mythos, and this means dragons, elves and ogres. As I've already stated, these elements have been part of fantasy for thousands of years, and it's very shortsighted to dismiss them as if they're some unimportant cliche. You may not like them, and that's fine. 

Comparing LotR to GoT is incredible. I think it's on par with the comparison of LotR to Harry Potter. An example that would make your case a bit better would be the Odyssey or Norse Sagas. But if you really want to draw the comparison, Game of Thrones is set in a secondary world, it has magicians, it has fantasy creatures and it has magic super villains. The difference is that LotR's appeal doesn't come from the softcore adult content that is the sole reason for GoT's success.

[Erik]

5 minutes ago, Bloodwyn said:

 Comparing LotR to GoT is incredible. I think it's on par with the comparison of LotR to Harry Potter. An example that would make your case a bit better would be the Odyssey or Norse Sagas. But if you really want to draw the comparison, Game of Thrones is set in a secondary world, it has magicians, it has fantasy creatures and it has magic super villains. The difference is that LotR's appeal doesn't come from the softcore adult content that is the sole reason for GoT's success.

Have you ever watched GoT or read the books? The world of GoT has magic, but it's very spare. In fact, many in the world of GoT don't even believe in magic, like the maesters, the authority of knowledge in the world of ice and fire. The plot is centered around magic returning to the world, I'll give you that. The only fantasy creatures that exist in the GoT world right now are three dragons, two giants, three children of the forest and thirteen white walkers, there is no magical super villain (The nightsking may turn into such a thing in the TV show, he may not even exist in the books/no mention of him yet). Saying that softcore adult content is the sole reason of GoT's success is like saying the sole reason of LotR's success was Gimli being funny in the movies. The world and history of Westeros (the continent GoT is mainly set on) is as expansive, or even more expansive than Middle Earth (and I know how expansive that world is).

But back to LotR: The wizards in LotR are Ainur, lower godly beings, that's true, but their existence is recognized by the population of the world, as is the existance of magic. Not only wizards can use magic in LotR, the elves (and probably humans) can also use magic. Magic is very common in LotR.

41 minutes ago, Bloodwyn said:

Again, saying that these bread and butter elements of fantasy are overused is about as helpful as saying that swords and castles are overused in medieval settings. Humans have come to view fantasy through the lens of traditional mythos, and this means dragons, elves and ogres. As I've already stated, these elements have been part of fantasy for thousands of years, and it's very shortsighted to dismiss them as if they're some unimportant cliche. 

Thousands of years is definitely an overstatement: The idea of dragons (flying serpants) originate probably 5 thousand years ago, but has evolved a lot in recent history, the idea of modern dragons is at most a thousand years old. Elves and dwarfs originate in norse mythology (only a thousand years ago and only in a very small region of the world), but where mainly shaped and popularized by Tolien. The genre of fantasy was invented by Tolkien, fantasy, while often based on mythology, is a very recent thing. And thinking every fantasy world needs dwarfs, elves and dragons is very narrow minded.

1 hour ago, Bloodwyn said:

You may not like them, and that's fine. 

I love LotR, I have nothing against the idea of dwarfs/elves/dragons, but I don't think every fantasy world needs to be the same fantasy world, with the same creatures, the same races and the same magic. Fantasy thrives on originality, not on copying popular archetypes. A copy of LotR is usually worse than LotR. Not every fantasy setting needs a dragon, not every game needs a crafting system.

[Bloodwyn]

4 minutes ago, Erik said:

Have you ever watched GoT or read the books? The world of GoT has magic, but it's very spare. In fact, many in the world of GoT don't even believe in magic, like the maesters, the authority of knowledge in the world of ice and fire. The plot is centered around magic returning to the world, I'll give you that. The only fantasy creatures that exist in the GoT world right now are three dragons, two giants, three children of the forest and thirteen white walkers, there is no magical super villain (The nightsking may turn into such a thing in the TV show, he may not even exist in the books/no mention of him yet). Saying that softcore adult content is the sole reason of GoT's success is like saying the sole reason of LotR's success was Gimli being funny in the movies. The world and history of Westeros (the continent GoT is mainly set on) is as expansive, or even more expansive than Middle Earth (and I know how expansive that world is).

But back to LotR: The wizards in LotR are Ainur, lower godly beings, that's true, but their existence is recognized by the population of the world, as is the existance of magic. Not only wizards can use magic in LotR, the elves (and probably humans) can also use magic. Magic is very common in LotR.

I have read one of the books at one point, I didn't enjoy it much. I disagree with you on the quality and depth of GoT, and I think we'll just have to leave that to opinion. There is an extremely limited amount of wizards in Middle Earth in proportion with the amount of different cultures, races and so on; magic is recognized by the various peoples, but it's such a legendary thing that the vast majority of Middle Earth's population has never seen its manifestation. This is the reason why I stated that magic is rare and elusive, and it could very well questioned in some corners of the world.

10 minutes ago, Erik said:

Thousands of years is definitely an overstatement: The idea of dragons (flying serpants) originate probably 5 thousand years ago, but has evolved a lot in recent history, the idea of modern dragons is at most a thousand years old. Elves and dwarfs originate in norse mythology (only a thousand years ago and only in a very small region of the world), but where mainly shaped and popularized by Tolien. The genre of fantasy was invented by Tolkien, fantasy, while often based on mythology, is a very recent thing. And thinking every fantasy world needs dwarfs, elves and dragons is very narrow minded.

You're saying that thousands of years is an overstatement, yet you show how I was completely accurate. Not sure what you were trying to do there, my friend. It doesn't matter how many different interpretations of dragons there are. Now please don't take this as me being "that guy", I'm not trying to be pretentious at all, but the genre of fantasy was not invented by Tolkien. You could argue (on a fine thread) that Tolkien invented modern high fantasy, but I would dispute even that claim. However, this is a game of semantics that is totally devoid of value, because I'm one to consider epics as fantasy, since the fundamental elements are the same. 

28 minutes ago, Erik said:

I love LotR, I have nothing against the idea of dwarfs/elves/dragons, but I don't think every fantasy world needs to be the same fantasy world, with the same creatures, the same races and the same magic. Fantasy thrives on originality, not on copying popular archetypes. A copy of LotR is usually worse than LotR. Not every fantasy setting needs a dragon, not every game needs a crafting system.

I never said that every fantasy world needs to be the same fantasy world. I don't even think anyone in the history of humanity has ever suggested that. I'm not sure where you got that from my arguments, and I'd be glad if you'd point it out so I can correct it! Also, you can be original while including some traditional archetypes in the story. A world filled with totally unique, never before seen elements isn't necessarily going to thrive, while a world that has elements already seen isn't necessarily going to lack originality. What fantasy thrives on isn't as simple to state as that. Originality does not equal quality. Also, nobody is suggesting "copying" LotR.. I'm really not sure where you're getting that either. You are aware that elements of fantasy that I described above are not native to Tolkien. However, even if they were, it wouldn't be copying unless you literally copy, so let's be careful about our choice of wording. They are simply creatures that originate from ancient mythos. Again, I never said every fantasy needs dragons, but excluding them (or any element) solely for the sake of being a hipster and being different is nothing but a loss. Tyron explicitly showed interest in adding gryphons among other things. Would he be copying Dungeons and Dragons? I think not, and I welcome down-to-earth fantasy elements like creatures. 

I will end this by stating that one ground we can shake hands in, is the question of magic. I could also not care less about the inclusion of magic in the VS universe.