This past week I've been mulling over a concept for a game! It's an RPG where the player assumes the role of a humanoid out to discover the world. Clans takes place in an open arid world populated with highly adaptable humanoids and assorted creatures. The humanoids actively mutate during the course of their lives and thus, despite sharing a common descent, can vary greatly both physically and mentally. The technology is strongly archaic with only simple tools. The high yield of crops due to fertile grounds made it possible to live together on a fairly large scale and made it unnecessary to develop technology. Multiple languages are spoken by different classes in the societies.
The story of Clans revolves around a central metropolis where political conflicts spill over into physical combat as the story unfolds. The invention of ranged weaponry becomes a strong theme as historically the world made no use of these weapons. They are by and large viewed as dishonourable and weak, but their military use is so successful it will only through the story become clear whether or not they will become staple weapons.
The player creates a character with certain visual characteristics (that can be altered easily throughout the game), picks a base orientation (that is by no means fixed), and controls his character from a third-person perspective. The character can climb, fight, swim etc. The unique twist to developing the character comes from the physical and mental evolution that takes place as the character is leveled more and more towards certain skills. Heavy weapon users will become large and powerful but slow; dagger users will become lithe and quick but will lack strength etc. This is reflected in the physique of the character, making it very unique.
The leveling system in Clans is split in two parts; Skills and Traits. In general, skills have an impact on actions and skills are linked to Traits. Traits are static attributes of a character (or object), and develop in certain ways largely determined by the development of Skills. For example; a character primarily using a heavy weapon will gain more exp to spend specifically on Traits that affect the use of a heavy weapon, such as strength and endurance. A players can still "multi-class" with their arsenal, and they will become generalists, exceeding at nothing in particular.
The Skills are:
- Lock Picking
- Persuasion
- (Light Weapons); Dagger, Swords, Axes, Shields
- (Heavy Weapon); Two-Handed Axes, Longswords, Warhammers, Tower Shield
- (Long Weapon); Spears, Halberds, Staves, (Bows, Blowpipes)
The Traits are:
- Strength <-- determines how hard a character can hit and how much it can carry.
- Toughness <-- determines how much damage a received blow causes.
- Agility <-- shows the maneuverability, jumping and climbing skill of a character.
- Stamina <-- determines how much a character can do before having to rest.
- Reputation <-- governs how in-game characters will respond to you.
- Health <-- determines how much damage a character can take before KO.
The style of the game is slightly simplistic, taking a step away from realism and into fantasy. A slight cell-shaded look might not be out of place and the overall tone will be exaggerated to each emotion. Expect to see grandeur and massive decay, but very little of the grey areas in between.
donderdag 22 oktober 2009
woensdag 14 oktober 2009
Why love should always be conditional.
"Parents should love their children unconditionally" is one of the mantras of our time, and I think it's a damn poor one. It falls into the same vein of "respect your elders" or "listen to your parents" in the sense that they all assume that the social status of a person implies responses such as love, respect or obedience.
Unconditional love is worthless, empty, and it does not care for the individual or its achievements. If you are loved no matter what, why bother even being anything, let alone something loveable? You could be mucus and still loved, a killer and loved, deeply miserable and loved etc. The great thing about love is that it's rooted in a very personal affection for a single person. When you're in love, the greatest thing, to me at the very least, is knowing that the other loves you. Not someone like you, you. That's what gives the love its value. The relationships that crash are often those that impose unconditional love or affection on it, allowing annoyances and other problems to take root and fester. The greatest relationships are the vocal ones, where the mutual love is time and time again confirmed and where problems are tackled together.
Children who are given unconditional love seem to often end up as whiny, insecure people because they've never had to gain someone's love or respect. Paradoxically, in order to actually feel loved, that love must be conditional.
But what are parents to do then you might wonder? Well, in my opinion parents should simply --as a rule of thumb in parenting-- assume their children will be totally different from themselves. They should keep all options open and encourage their children (and everyone else for that matter) along the path that's right for them. It doesn't mean you can't steer or guide; it simply means you don't dictate a child's life. The reason I mention this is because the other side of the coin is that parents give no love or affection to their children no matter what they do, which is just as bad, if not worse. I think parents should never give up on their children, allow them to in part shape their own lives and let love manifest itself where it's due. Don't devalue love by forcing it in.
On a related note; I never automatically respect or obey anyone based on their age, status, profession or whatever. I treat each person as an individual, and how I view someone is always singular. I do assume that older people are more likely to be knowledgeable than I am and that doctors know more about surgery than I do, that's not the point I'm trying to make here. I simply denounce pure authority-based arguments. If you want my respect, you're going to have to earn it (not that my respect is worth anything except to me, but if you do care now you know).
A mind that's hasn't been stunted by unconditional love or crippled by fear of authority is a strong, independent mind that can change everything in a heartbeat, and I think anyone who takes this lightly is likely to be a fool.
Cheers.
Unconditional love is worthless, empty, and it does not care for the individual or its achievements. If you are loved no matter what, why bother even being anything, let alone something loveable? You could be mucus and still loved, a killer and loved, deeply miserable and loved etc. The great thing about love is that it's rooted in a very personal affection for a single person. When you're in love, the greatest thing, to me at the very least, is knowing that the other loves you. Not someone like you, you. That's what gives the love its value. The relationships that crash are often those that impose unconditional love or affection on it, allowing annoyances and other problems to take root and fester. The greatest relationships are the vocal ones, where the mutual love is time and time again confirmed and where problems are tackled together.
Children who are given unconditional love seem to often end up as whiny, insecure people because they've never had to gain someone's love or respect. Paradoxically, in order to actually feel loved, that love must be conditional.
But what are parents to do then you might wonder? Well, in my opinion parents should simply --as a rule of thumb in parenting-- assume their children will be totally different from themselves. They should keep all options open and encourage their children (and everyone else for that matter) along the path that's right for them. It doesn't mean you can't steer or guide; it simply means you don't dictate a child's life. The reason I mention this is because the other side of the coin is that parents give no love or affection to their children no matter what they do, which is just as bad, if not worse. I think parents should never give up on their children, allow them to in part shape their own lives and let love manifest itself where it's due. Don't devalue love by forcing it in.
On a related note; I never automatically respect or obey anyone based on their age, status, profession or whatever. I treat each person as an individual, and how I view someone is always singular. I do assume that older people are more likely to be knowledgeable than I am and that doctors know more about surgery than I do, that's not the point I'm trying to make here. I simply denounce pure authority-based arguments. If you want my respect, you're going to have to earn it (not that my respect is worth anything except to me, but if you do care now you know).
A mind that's hasn't been stunted by unconditional love or crippled by fear of authority is a strong, independent mind that can change everything in a heartbeat, and I think anyone who takes this lightly is likely to be a fool.
Cheers.
zaterdag 3 oktober 2009
The Phallacy (no pun intended) of Porn Society.
Sex, porn, fucking, more fucking, more porn. It seems to be the way of our world today; everything seems to be valued in accordance with how much it can get you laid. Money, power, music, looks, skills etc all focused on that next fuck. It's like walking to the top of rainbow mountain, you always think you're almost there but you never are.
We live in a sex-centered world where the ultimate goal is the hedonistic search for fornication. If you can't fuck it you might as well not bother. And you know what?
I don't really mind.
It's in human nature to go in search of sex, and well why not, it's fun, feels good, never gets old and can completely replace your morning walk if you have any sense.
"Why the article then Mats" you ask? Allow me to explain.
We tend to forget that having sex is as much an emotional is it is a hormonal activity. Simply put; sex implies a connection. There is no such thing as simple sex where you can use one another and move on to the next fuck. But this simple human phenomenon seems to be shunned these days, and I think that's a shame.
"What do you care" you might say.
How might I respond? More on that later.
We live in a sex-centered world where the ultimate goal is the hedonistic search for fornication. If you can't fuck it you might as well not bother. And you know what?
I don't really mind.
It's in human nature to go in search of sex, and well why not, it's fun, feels good, never gets old and can completely replace your morning walk if you have any sense.
"Why the article then Mats" you ask? Allow me to explain.
We tend to forget that having sex is as much an emotional is it is a hormonal activity. Simply put; sex implies a connection. There is no such thing as simple sex where you can use one another and move on to the next fuck. But this simple human phenomenon seems to be shunned these days, and I think that's a shame.
"What do you care" you might say.
How might I respond? More on that later.
Abonneren op:
Berichten (Atom)
