How about if you wrote, directed, produced and released a film that got rave reviews and went down in history, then in ten years time I came along having stolen your original print, and added a whole bunch of stuff that destroyed the sense of the original film. I think you'd be pretty annoyed, I know I would! Surely it's better for everyone if I invest my energy creating something new, rather than just modifying your work?
So you're against new Dungeons? And movie remakes?
Sophia : OK, let's say that a few additionnal (and optional) spells are set once for all in CSB4Win... Hey, they don't even have to be optional, as you are the one choosing your spells... They won't launch themselves!
I don't understand why that would take away your freedom of choice?
Another thing I miss in DM is the fact that missing a spell (or misspelling it, arf!) produce nothing... You'd think that an apprentice wizard playing with Fireballs would get toasted sometimes, no? Or that a priest(ess) overestimating his (her) skills should produce bad potions, no?
Or, did you ever tried playing with nunchakus? Well, you quickly get a severe case of crashed b.lls, or smashed nose... Why Fighter and Ninja skills should be safe to learn? Handling a two-handed sword half your weight could do some damage...
Call that self-inflicted critical hits...
Oh, and what about adding ninja weapons? Staff, Nunchaku, and so on...
Well, I DO know, that if someone creates a version of DM with new spell code, that not all DM players suddenly have new spells in their game (and if someone actually made this I'd be pretty impressed ;-))
Yet, if such a thing is done (I mean creating a version with new spells) it will be published on some web site and some people will play it, and I would like, that Dungeon Master will retain it's global sense of balance.
I don't think I'd like a thread like this: "...then you go down the stairs and banish the dragon with ZoGorSar..."..."...I thought ZoGorSar is to freeze Golems?..."..."...No, that is in DM alternate V0.2452355, this thread is about DM alternateB V0.235677..." you see...
And I agree in another matter with Gambit:
DM is a piece of Art. You wouldn't give a Picasso new colors. just because you don't like the original ones, would you?
Yet DM is not a painting, it is a game, and such is interactive. That means the players and their actions are part of the creation of the story unfolding. So they are somewhat more licensed to cast theit influence upon it, than they would be in regard to a painting. All I say about changes in magic spells is: If they are actually performed, they should be worthy of their precedessors.
Parting is all we know from Heaven, and all we need of hell.
The film making/work of art analogy is interesting. This has happened to a lot of films though, remakes sequals etc. Paintings are a little different as they are static. If you were to alter it to your preferences, it means you must have a copy BUT the original will still be there... Another analogy is Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, voted the best fiction book of all time. Comparable to DM in that respect, agreed? But the book you read is very different to Tolkien's original manuscript. It has been heavily edited to give us the version we read today. New maps have been drawn. His son has produced add on work. But nobody complains that the original has been mutated because not many of us has seen it.
The difference here is that we HAVE seen the original. And we all like it, respect and marvel how it still maintains an interest years later. But if changes are made they are not permanent, you can still go back to that original, the same you can watch the original Batman if you want. Changes, for better or worse add variety and as I have said before, a tribute to the originals flexibility and not a destruction of its integrety.
To D. Lacouture: The post right before your question to me answered that very question. You said that golems were generally immune to the spells currently in the game, so why not add an ice spell or something to harm them? For that matter, if we are adding spells, why not add monsters too? Such as, what if we add a fire monster that can only be harmed by ice spells? In that case, the choice is gone, again. If spells are added that can harm monsters better, or if spells are added to harm monsters that are added... then it forces people to learn those new spells. I currently know how to play DM and how to fight golems with the spells that I have. If there is a new one added, then I am at a disadvantage. It's not a matter of choice any more, it's being put at a disadvantage.
Spell additions would have to be global, because otherwise the problems Lunever and I have pointed out would manifest themselves. And global spell additions would put people who chose not to accept them at a disadvantage. Hence, my hope is that there are no spell additions. ;)
Yes, I am against film remakes in principle, as I generally don't see the point. Most of the time it's done by Hollywood simply to make money. A good example of a bad remake is the French film "Le femme Nikita" and it's Hollywood counterpart "The Assassin". Hollywood commercialised it, and destroyed a worthy piece of cinema, losing half the plot and most of the atmosphere in the process.
Of course, some remakes can be very enjoyable and and can certainly add something to the original film. I still find "La Jetée" a compelling and intruiging static film, but the Hollywood version "12 Monkeys" extends the concept and makes for a more accessible mainstream film. It's not necessarily better, just different.
There are other films that don't work either way: "Planet of the Apes" for example. Many say the original is still better than Tim Burton's remake because it's "a classic", but if you look objectively at both films, they are both pretty dire. I don't think I've ever seen a remake that has surpassed the original.
Sorry, that went a bit off topic! :-) What I wanted to say was that I think you're missing the point somewhat in my quote. I wasn't suggesting that I would be remaking PaulH's imaginary film, I was suggesting that I would be bastardising it. That's what I find offensive, pointless and ultimately the easy option, and it's that point that I'm trying to get across.
"And global spell additions would put people who chose not to accept them at a disadvantage"
"It forces people to learn them new spells"
If say new spells are added to existing dungeons, then the existing dungeon becomes new, not neccasarily easier, harder, longer or shorter but different. For this to happen though, you physically are going to have to patch new files in. Where are you disadvantaged? Don't do it, it ain't gonna do it by itself!
What you mean is, "I want any new dungeons made to suit MY style of play".
Correct me if I am wrong!
But I can see why you think that, and I respect your view but some people do want something new and may think your view is a little, how do I put this.... selfish?
I had better make this clear, that my last statement refers to how people MAY interprete your message and does not therefore necessarily reflect the view of others on this forum or myself for that matter.
I doubt if the process will be "patching new files in." It's more likely that the new spells, if they are added, will be added like new features always are-- just incorporated into the next program release.
You're right in that adding new spells will make the dungeon new, in that there will be more spells available-- but I don't understand how you think that having *more* tools at your disposal, being able to do things that you could not do in the original DM, could ever make the dungeon harder? It's easy to point out examples of how new spells could make the dungeon easier. For example, those land mines would make killing gigglers much easier. An ice blast that harmed golems would make killing them a lot easier. And so forth, and so on. How could having more tools at your disposal ever make the game harder? (Other than learning them, of course)
Of course I want dungeons suited to my style of play, as does everyone! I'm not trying to squash anyone else's desire to play how they want to, either-- but if the game they want to play is so changed from DM that it doesn't seem like DM any more, maybe they shouldn't be pretending it is, and just play something else. It goes beyond "being selfish," I recognize that there are many different styles of play, what I'm trying to do is say that I want want any new dungeons made for a program supposedly based on Dungeon Master to be playable by someone who has no understanding of the game other than the original FTL Dungeon Master. That's not selfish, that's just a simple desire to hold onto what the game is supposedly making itself out to be. The more we add, the more we get away from that.
You know, back on some of the old DM boards in the 80s, people would write about their dreams for the future of DM. They envisioned an online, truly 3D experience, with all sorts of cool features. So far, there really hasn't been anything quite like that, with the true DM spirit. Although I personally probably wouldn't play a DM with new spells (except maybe one to make Ful Bombs), I would be really interested in a completely updated version of the game.
Guess some of us don't like change(or adding in that matter).
Celine: There were message board in the 80's? Do you mean internet board or something else like a bulliten board or something cause I though the full use of the internet didn't come out till the 90's(would know was too young then).
Meaningless quote:
Words cannot have meaning unless they're given a meaning, words cannot benifit or harm unless they are allowed to.
It is not about making the dungeon 'harder', or 'easier' but different to allow new dungeon designers to implement new techniques and puzzles into their game. There are about 15 or so add on dungeons currently, all enjoyable in their own way and I agree new spells added to these may (or may not) spoil (which is a term open to definition) them as they were not designed with these in mind. But if we don't do it we'll never know. And you don't have to implement them. Some designers are finding it difficult to come up with entirely new ideas, and rely on using the same or modified ideas. It works to a degree, they play well, but a variation on the theme I believe will enhance some players enjoyment.
The main problem I have with the spells is that if you see a monster it invariably gets blasted by a fireball. I think this gets a little boring. You say a bank of new spells will make it easier to kill monsters. Well it depends how powerful they are, and if you can add new spells you can modify existing ones. Killing wasps would be a whole different kettle of fish if poison and fire didn't work against them. And maybe we could have weapons that work only against certain monsters. I think that discovering that your favourite tactic for killing that worm that you have used for the past 15 years does not work anymore, and now you have to use the grey matter a little more is going to be a lot of fun and may bring back that very first feeling we had when we played the dungeon eons ago. ie 'bloody hell, I am going back up them stairs!'
One problem though is that you can discover the spells before you find the scrolls, a problem that RTC has found a solution for.
As I have said many times, the changes are not absolute and will not spoil the enjoyment of existing dungeons. I see that you like the original format a lot and well thats fine. I think the 15 or so is a lot of dungeons and is a lot of playing for anyone, but if new dungeons are to be made I think a few changes may need to be made so things don't get repetetive. I do not know if you are making any dungeons personally (I am in the middle of my second, and it is hard going) but maybe if you did you'd understand what I mean. You are a consumer of sorts, though a none paying one, so I think any dungeons you gain are a bonus. Though you, of course are still entitled to your opinion.
>that's just a simple desire to hold onto what the game is supposedly making itself out to be. The more we add, the more we get away from that<
Does that include the new dungeons, the hacked items, new characters, new hex tricks, coloured monsters etc. Where do your draw the line?!
In my opinion, as soon as we make a new dungeon we are moving away from the original. You either stick with the original dungeon, or you do not.
I will still play the original dungeon for the time records, or to try new theories out. I will always have the original dungeon. The 'change' will mostly apply to 'new' work, and I think we need it if we want any new work.
After reading through the posts, I think that a standard has to be recognised to avoid the 'which version am I playing?' syndrome which I agree would arise if every creator went their own way. I wouldn't mind personally, I am sure others would and respect that. I am not sure how many, or what type of spells can be created or how they are going to be implemented, so this whole thread maybe a little premature. This is something that needs a lot of thinking over we shouldn't jump in with both feet.
So to sum it up, I believe the implementation of new spells, objects and monsters are for the next generation of games and designers, and does not have to be a new standard, just an alternative.
First of all, I do understand what you mean, because I am in the process of creating my own dungeon... and it is pretty hard, but it's fun. And, I'll admit, I'm doing a few things in it that are pretty "un-DM." But it's nothing that someone who has only played the original FTL DM (and/or CSB) couldn't grasp.
Which brings me to my second point... I also agree with you in your comment that as soon as we make a new dungeon, we're moving away from the original DM. If we add some new champions, we're moving a little further away (but no more than CSB did)... new monsters, new items, they move a little more away, but they're not really as big of a deal because they're not subject to the global/local debate as much as spells are. Granted, I could create a new item with the same graphic as someone else, but the number of "symbols" available isn't nearly as limited as with spells.
Anyway, my point is merely that, yes, by adding things we are moving farther away from the original DM, and what we have to consider is how far we want to move. To be honest, if a new spell were to be added, and it "felt like DM," I wouldn't complain. Of course, that's very subjective, so what might feel right to some people wouldn't to me, or the other way around, so you never know.
I do agree with one of your last points also, though... this does need a lot of thinking, we shouldn't jump in with both feet.
* Teleport : teleport the group in a place previously designed as the receptacle (4 destination possible, one per character), even if not on the same level. The amount of Mana required will be proportional to the distance, of course!
NO!
* Receptacle : see above...
NO!
* Heal : same as the potion, but no more fumbling in the inventory while trying to flee the oponent... (will cost twice as much, but you can't have everything, huh?). Can be extended to nearly every potion... This could make Priest levels a little more important, no?
NO! NEVER! flasks are essential parts of dm.
* Seal : creates a temporary wall...
NO! would destroy far too much puzzles and traps
* Mane : create food (barely nourrishing, just to avoid dying)
NO! this would (again) totally unbalance, it should be in the hand of the designer to make food short or not
* Bless : add some points to the Luck hidden attribute...
ok, why not ;) and reveal the luck attribute please
* Curse : lower the opponent's Luck attribute...
for what? wouldnt use that anyways
* Uncurse : pretty obvious... Could be proportional to weight of objet, maybe...
same than curse
* Alter Time : slows the flow of time for everything except the group's moves.
NOOOOOOOOO!
* Dream : the immaterial being detachs itself from the group. No action could be made (opening doors, for instance), like at the start of the game. Monsters can be passed through, and the time is frozen. At the end of the spell, the being is of course returned to the group (a wonderful scout!, but very costly in mana).
i see no reason for that and i dont think that scouts are needed in dm, they would destroy much of the surprise-> NO
* Equilibrum : Stamina and Mana are (more or less) levelled, depending on the strength of the spell...
this would again unbalance-> NO! (kazaii with 900 stamina and 100 mana-> level it-> both 500-> sry, NO)
* Suffer : the opponent shares your sufferings. Very short spell, and lasting one blow only.
sounds funny
Ice Bolt: Vi Ir, Wizard spell, defend against it with Anti Magic
yeah, ice!
Kath Bomb (lightning potion): Oh Kath Neta, Priest spell, defend against it with Anti Fire (?)
lightning is defended with anti-magic, spell sounds very nice
Poison Blob (same spell Poison Slime casts): Ya Ven, Wizard spell, defend against it with Vitality (?)
sounds nice
Aura of Attribute Damage: Zo Gor Sar, aura around a monster (or champions) which decreases all secondary attributes. Works like the auras in DM2 but affects all the attributes. Wizard spell, no way to defend
no, i hate the auras.
Theft: Des Ew Ros, steals an item from a monster (or champion) (must have an empty hand), Priest and Ninja spell, defend against it with Dexterity and Anti Magic
i steal via killing
Freeze Life: Vi Ir Sar, Freeze monsters (or champions) (same as magic box or Spiral Staff), Priest spell.
NOOOOO, unbalances totally
Pew Bomb (confusion gas): Oh Gor, Causes monster to retreat, defend against it with Wisdom, Priest spell.
u can retreat monsters with des-ven, thats enough.
i do not mind adding any spells, but as a creator of dungeons i wish the possibility to turn them off for my dungeons, some of these would totally destroy gameplay and balancing, i veto any of these i wrote a NO in capital letters.
A)
i think we should make 1 poll for each spell if it should be included, with the options [_]yes, [_]no and [_]VETO. veto=no in any sense but 2 vetos meaning a spell will not be included.
B)
give the creators the option to turn off any spell in their dungeons.
C)
lets discuss the needed runes for any spell very carefully to balance the mana costs.
Talking about the Mana cost: That HAS to be given by the runes used. Claculating Mana use for example by the distance of a teleport spell, is absolute nonsense. In this system of magic distance would have to be dependent on the power level invoked.
Parting is all we know from Heaven, and all we need of hell.
Lunever : Well, that's not how I wanted to turn it. I wanted to say that the power level needed for greater distance would be higher, else the spell fails... You see, just by comparing power level Vs. distance and skills.
Well, let's state another rule for this : for a spell to be accepted, it should be DM-compliant, i.e. no graph changes, no long-time traps, etc...
Oh, by the way, what do you think about a "no-magic" zone? Or a magic-weakening zone...
Huh, that sure would be giving us some serious heartbeat from time to time, no?
Some of the spells you vetoed can be used well, and have certainly been used in other games such as EotB and Black Crypt. With the correct research, balance and mana cost there is no reason why D. Lacouture's or anybodies spells cannot be implemented to good effect. We need more people to contribute ideas.
I agree with Amber's point about heal. There should be NO heal spell, part of the challenge of DM is to have to prepare your potions in advance, or be forced to fumble around with flasks at the critical time.
It would, however, be kind of cool if a potion were in your action hand to have a "drink" action be available :)
Amber:What spell would you have in your dungeons then? You certainly vetoed alot of the ones that were though of(well most of D.Lacouture's at least).
D.Lacouture:The no-magic zone sounds like a good idea but I can already see that some people are not going to like that since in the game running out of mana is bad enough(of course difficulty increases shouldn't have to be a bad thing all the time).
From the looks of this it's gonna be difficult to think of spells since alot of player want to stay in the 258 rune limit and due to some spells not being DM-ish.
Meaningless quote:
Words cannot have meaning unless they're given a meaning, words cannot benifit or harm unless they are allowed to.
The heal spell has been used in DM via the Snake Staff and Csb with the Cross of Neta. But it only affected the caster. If heal were to be used as a new spell then simply make the health points gained very small compared to what you may have got from a flask.
sorry no, i wont change any one of the votes i gave to these spells. what i vetoed, is crap und VERY unbalacing.
if u insist, i can write longer explanations for each spells with examples how many traps and puzzles they could simply destroy.
quote:
Amber : if you read the other thread I created by accident, Paul has proposed an interesting idea : some of these new spells could have drawbacks...
Mane, for example, could seriously poison you... Heal could, say, ask a long time to cast...
This way, they won't be used lightly...
/quote
noooooo, not even drawbacks cant balance these spells.
and, when drawbacking these spells and stuff, whats the use of them? why cast healing which heals 5 points for 50 mana?? cast poisonous food (which u can antidote, effectively only increasing the manacosts...)??
each of these spells has to have an own thread where we can discuss about its balance, eventual drawbacks etc^^
quote:
Some of the spells you vetoed can be used well, and have certainly been used in other games such as EotB and Black Crypt. With the correct research, balance and mana cost there is no reason why D. Lacouture's or anybodies spells cannot be implemented to good effect. We need more people to contribute ideas.
/quote
examples plz
Heh! How about an Anti-Gravity spell that causes monsters
to fall through holes in the ceiling?
Just kidding.....sorta. Before we go off the deep end and
open a thread for every conceivable spell there are two questions
that should perhaps be asked:
1) Would the original authors have done this if they had had
the resources? Bigger levels? Perhaps. More actuators? Yes
because they obviously hit the limit themselves. A food spell?
I don't think so...because it would have cost almost nothing
and they did not do it. This is the main question I will be
asking myself if someone wants CSBwin modified.
and (my practical nature shows itself again)
2) Who is going to do the work? Is it possible to do without
rewriting the program? I think you better consult that person
before getting carried away. I don't think you are going to
be able to implement most of those spells suggested. And I
am not going to do the work.
------My personal opinion-------for what it is worth-------
This game does not lack 'Bells and Whistles'. I believe that
it has not been stretched to its limit. It is still a little bit
like a pile of bricks awaiting a great architect. The original
DM was astounding. Great fun. Too linear. CSB was marvelous.
Very hard to improve. Too small. Nobody is going to improve
on these gems without spending a year at hard labor, with or
without additional spells.
Other games have had more monsters, more spells, more levels,
more of everything. So why are we reading this forum?
better none of these is included than only one single spell too much...
I guess the ultimate authority in what spells get added is who's willing and able to do the work to implement them.
the second instance are the dungeon designers, if they dont use the spells, all the hard work was for nothing, i would not guess anybody wants to work for no result.
you may add spells, but you have to be VERY carefully with it. only 1 single spell can totally offbalance and destroy dungeon master. i name this as an example:
* Seal : creates a temporary wall...
this spell would destroy many traps (any shooter, like the diamond edge trap), in addition, it would change the balance when fighting monsters (why dodge a fireball, let the wall catch them...). thats enough to veto it out...
Aura of Attribute Damage is not crap. It would be great if only monsters could cast it then. "no, I hate the auras." I don't really care about what you hate. Other people might like them.
Theft: I thought of this spell a long time ago and was thinking of DM2. Stealing items like a Horned Helm from an Axe man which they don't leave behind. It would be neat to be able to steal a Stone Club from a Golem but then the spell would be too powerful. In this case, I don't mind if it is used or not.
Pew Bomb: "u can retreat monsters with des-ven, thats enough." Um, yeah, you can retreat monsters with just about anything. With this you could also retreat monsters like Screamers which don't retreat. (not a "too powerful" spell, so why not?)
Freeze Life: How about making this one a monster only spell? That should be okay.
I veto Heal. I veto Teleport. I veto Recepticle. I veto Alter Time. I veto Mane. I veto Equilibrum. I veto Dream. I veto Seal. Have not decided about the others except the ones I listed. I vote yes for all but theft which gets a no (not veto). If the Aura and freeze spell are monster only spells then I vote yes.
By the way, I would rather it be 3 or 4 vetos that determine the spell no good. If not, then I don't veto any of them.
to Amber: If you still veto my spells, even with their changes, then I would like a longer explanation like you stated you would. I am also aware that you stated you would not change any of your veto votes, but I don't think you are that stubborn...
If spell-effects are coded they don't have to be activated by spells...you can leave them as weapon attributes instead of assigning them to runes until a consesus is reached or paul stevens lays down the final word : )
That's more balanced - you can't port items between dungeons, and you automatically have a charge limit even if you do have them placed
It would give a chance to play test using x spell effect without there being a version ofCSB4windows available with powerful spells
Was unable to (permenantly) kill off ian_scho (Haynuus), Ameena, oh_brother (Westian), money (Falkor), raixel (Petal) and Lord_Bones (Aurek) in the DM D&D game Time's Champions!
CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE GAME WHAT IT WAS - GREAT!
* Teleport : Was used in Black Crypt, though there spell system was very different. Could be limited by the level of caster, success ratio, random teleportation destination, limited range, etc.
Receptacle: Tech eyes?
* Heal : Used in one of the first DM clones Knightmare. It worked by fireing a bolt into the back of one of your party. Unfortunately you could also miss your party member and fire it at an opponent and heal them! I personally think the current Vi potion in DM is a bargain for the points and should be made a lot harder to cast.
* Seal : Black Crypt/EoB. Useful spell. Could work in DM if say it only lasted for a sixth of a second per power level, and had a high failure rate.
* Mane: Black Crypt. I could see why problems may be had using in DM if your dungeons revolve around finding food and water. But not everbodies do and continually feeding characters MAY get tedious for some.
* Bless : EoB. Very limited effect. Similar to Enchanted Blade in Bane. Was a mysterious spell so you cast it anyway.
* Curse : Knightmare. Reduced some opponent stat.
* Uncurse: EoB. If you picked up a cursed item (it stuck in your hand)
* Theft: Bane. Could work in DM. Give Lord Librasulus or Chaos an item that you need. Get my idea?
*Pew Bomb (confusion): Bane. Great spell. Adds variety.
* Alter Time : The only thing I can think of is REM from knightmare which increased the benefit of sleep. I think this is a good idea if limited, high cost and doesn't last long.
* Dream : Interesting idea, but I agree that it may spoil certain traps. I wouldn't go as far as saying it was 'crap' though, I have more tact.
*Equilibrum : I have seen this before but can't think where. Time to dust down the A4000 I think.
* Suffer : Same goes for this. Might have been Knightmare.
* Freeze Life: Used pretty much in them all. Again, can be limited THINK ABOUT IT MORE!
* Auras: Why not? Used in most RPGs.
People are dismissing spells without even thinking about them. The casting levels, duration and effects can be altered from the first idea that jumps into your mind, and not always to a benefit. Use your imagination!!!
