New spells discussion

[PicturesInTheDark]

I missed last week and pretty much of the discussion about the new spells, so here's my opinion on the subject.

First, any changes on the original game are by definition manipulations without the given permission. I do not think, that FTL minds much, but that is another point.

Second, personally I don't care about that since I have the originals and I suspect most of us here do. I am not falling for some endless, quite pointless discussion on ethics of downloads and coding, whoever disagrees needs not use any of the sources provided here and can chastise him-/herself privately, if he/she so wishes. You're welcome to disagree (no intention to insult anybody), but I won't discuss that further.

Third, any DM/CSB/DM2 enthusiasts will despise changes that miss the "classical" feeling, no matter if they are purists that don't want any changes or veterans looking for enhancements. This is hopefully never going to be Eotb...

Fourth, I agree with Sophia, that changes -if ever available- would be coded directly in the program and not be available as "patches", so whoever played with with that program would certainly need to embrace the changes or otherwise have a very hard life in dungeons working with them. I would therefore vote that dungeons should be accessible via both the original program as well as a -possibly- newly coded clone, if that was possible, to provide every player with the chance to play in his/her "preferred" surroundings.

Fifth, spells should be very well balanced and thought about. I think that fewer is more in that respect and as stressed before, I would hate to see DM go Eotb... that would be a tragedy and not the way to respect a work of genius, let alone intellectual property. So, although probably 233 spells could easily be found - who is interested in a magician that works like a children's trickster? If any -and I would LIKE to see some- new spells should ever be invented, those should be carefully designed to

a) fit into the story
b) keep the difficulty balanced (i.e. have drawbacks, are also useable by some monsters, can only be found as charges in certain items, cost proper amounts of mana)
c) represent the "right" runes
d) have a clear and useful purpose for the game (saying that I doubt if magical footprints or darkness -apart from being the opposite of light- have much clear use either, but that was the original)

Sixth, I would also like to raise the question, who is ever going to do that work. I am not a programmer myself, so I can't offer that, but this job would need a lot of thought, planning, coding and playtesting. If resources willing and capable to do so are not available, let's skip the discussion.

Seventh, I do not think an unanimous vote is necessary. There will always be those for or against changes, but if a group of some people would like to see new spells and others participate in coding, planning and testing, it should be possible. I am offering myself for testing since coding is out of the question, but I want to see a clear plan and a considerable part of the "regulars" commit themselves to that, otherwise we'll get nowhere.

That's my 2 cents worth, regards to you all

Pitd

[Lunever]

Agreed.

One more thing: Many years ago, when I found out how many puzzles worked without any help, I found the magic footprints useful from time to time (so you saw when you got teleported to a place where you had been before).

[PicturesInTheDark]

Actually, I also used them from time to time, especially to find monsters in a certain area, when I knew they had to be somewhere to make sure they did not appear in my back... ;)

I did not want to call the spells useless, just maybe less used than others, the point being: as included in the original they are valid by default. But for further spells, I'd hate to have various copies from other rpg's included just because one or two persons liked them there.

Spells should be carefully chosen, their actual result, drawbacks and other specifices subject to a poll for all interested visitors here.