| |
Seeing as the list of characters will prove to be extensive, what would be a
good way to categorize it (similiar question to structures)? My thoughts on the
general segregation so far are:
1) Villager - your standard folks
2) Knight - your warriors by profession (part of bigger whole)
3) Rogue - lone adventure seekers
4) Leader - the main person in a group of any kind
5) Warrior - a lone Knight
6) Sailor - sails the Legoceania
7) Merchant - sells goods or services
8) Traveler - wanders the known land
9) Explorer - seeks to discover the unknown land
10) Outlaw - wanted by the law in a specific kingdom - or all of them?
11) Servant - serves Royalty
12) Royalty - Kings, Queens, Barons, Lords, etc...
13) Priest or Priestess - uses non-attacking Magic, as well as your regular
church minifig (healers, etc)
14) Sorcerer or Sorceress - plenty of attacking Magic, fortune teller, etc.
15) Public Servant - Judges, etc...
I'm sure I'm missing something, but for example wizard would be a subcategory of
Sorcerer, as would Necromancer, mage, etc... Thanks for your input.
-- pn
|
|
| |
What are you up to that you need all these lists of stuff, Pawel? I presume
its a CastleWorld thing, but I am not sure I see where it leads to...
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> Seeing as the list of characters will prove to be extensive, what would be a
> good way to categorize it (similiar question to structures)? My thoughts on • the
> general segregation so far are:
>
> 1) Villager - your standard folks
> 2) Knight - your warriors by profession (part of bigger whole)
> 3) Rogue - lone adventure seekers
> 4) Leader - the main person in a group of any kind
> 5) Warrior - a lone Knight
> 6) Sailor - sails the Legoceania
> 7) Merchant - sells goods or services
> 8) Traveler - wanders the known land
> 9) Explorer - seeks to discover the unknown land
> 10) Outlaw - wanted by the law in a specific kingdom - or all of them?
> 11) Servant - serves Royalty
> 12) Royalty - Kings, Queens, Barons, Lords, etc...
> 13) Priest or Priestess - uses non-attacking Magic, as well as your regular
> church minifig (healers, etc)
> 14) Sorcerer or Sorceress - plenty of attacking Magic, fortune teller, etc.
> 15) Public Servant - Judges, etc...
>
> I'm sure I'm missing something, but for example wizard would be a subcategory • of
> Sorcerer, as would Necromancer, mage, etc... Thanks for your input.
>
> -- pn
Pawel, while that list certainly contains all the general character types of
any good fantasy roleplay game, I think that there is possibly too much room
for crossovers. For example, I have a wandering band (Travellers) containing a
warrior leader (Knight & Leader), an excommunicated elf (Outlaw), and a Mage
(Sorceror), so each of these characters fits into at least two of the above
categories, and possibly more, depending on whether they are being roguish,
exploratory or merely wandering on any given day.
Wouldn't it be simpler to really narrow the groups down into, say, Peasants and
Servants, Villagers of Import (shopkeepers, magistrates, etc.), Soldiers (of
whatever Royal allegiance), Royalty, and Adventurers, and then you can
categorise any character within those groups as an Outlaw, Magic-user, or
whatever.
Keep up the great work, and count me in once my dad gets his digital camera in
a couple of months!
Stu C.
University of Glasgow
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Stuart Curtis writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> > Seeing as the list of characters will prove to be extensive, what would be a
> > good way to categorize it (similiar question to structures)? My thoughts on • the
> > general segregation so far are:
<snip>
> Pawel, while that list certainly contains all the general character types of
> any good fantasy roleplay game, I think that there is possibly too much room
> for crossovers.
An excellent point.
> Wouldn't it be simpler to really narrow the groups down into, say, Peasants and
> Servants, Villagers of Import (shopkeepers, magistrates, etc.), Soldiers (of
> whatever Royal allegiance), Royalty, and Adventurers, and then you can
> categorise any character within those groups as an Outlaw, Magic-user, or
> whatever.
Hmm...well, arranging them geographically would be the easiest way, but I
think that Pawel was also pondering a 'master list'. Maybe there should
be a recognized set of 'keywords' and then, well, basically a database of
characters. That way you could say, 'show me all the entertainers' or
'show me all the innkeepers' or even (if you wanted to program this much
detail into it) 'show me all the left-handed stable boys under the age of
16'. I think that would be the best and most useful.
The 'master list' of keywords would be important because it would let
people know what there eas to search. Often the problem with keyword
searches is that people think differently, and where I might be searching
for 'noble', some other people might have used 'nobility' or 'royalty'...
Oh, and with a keyword-type system, each character could have multiple
keywords - so if you have a wandering minstrel who just happens to be the
king of a nation travelling incognito, he could show up under
'entertainers', 'wanderers', and 'royalty'.
What would be excellently cool would be having a database of characters
much like the Pause set database, which would generate the actual pages
on the fly. Then you could have a page for each character, with a
picture, vital statistics, and links to other people they are connected
with and the country they are from.
I'm not sure how the Pause database works or if the host of this site
would be allowed by his ISP to have such a thing, but it's something to
look into...
J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Stuart Curtis writes:
> Pawel, while that list certainly contains all the general character types of
> any good fantasy roleplay game <snip>
Uh O, roleplaying game? Is that like D&D? I have no interest in that at
all!
I thought there were sites where that was being done already, or so I
understood.
What exactly were you trying to set up, Pawel? I am all into telling stories,
but not at all into playing a game where dice decide how things turn out.
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> Seeing as the list of characters will prove to be extensive, what would be a
> good way to categorize it (similiar question to structures)? My thoughts on the
> general segregation so far are:
Well, I gave my 'keywords' thought in my last post, so I'll restrict this
to ideas for more keywords.
> 1) Villager - your standard folks
> 2) Knight - your warriors by profession (part of bigger whole)
This might be a bit broad. Not all soldiers are knights...
> 10) Outlaw - wanted by the law in a specific kingdom - or all of them?
Criminal might be a good idea also. A cat burglar might not be an outlaw.
(only because he hasn't been caught yet...)
> 11) Servant - serves Royalty
> 12) Royalty - Kings, Queens, Barons, Lords, etc...
Technically, 'Royalty' would be the sovereign and his family. All the
lesser titles (Barons, Earls, Counts, Viscounts, Dukes, Archdukes,
Grand Dukes, Baronets, Grafs, and of course their female counterparts
plus many I'm forgetting) would be 'Nobility'.
> 13) Priest or Priestess - uses non-attacking Magic, as well as your regular
> church minifig (healers, etc)
> 14) Sorcerer or Sorceress - plenty of attacking Magic, fortune teller, etc.
This seems rather D&Dish to me, especially with the division of magic like
that. I would classify as 'Religious Figure' (which would include priests,
monks, nuns, rabbis, ministers, lamas, and whatever else people come up
with) and then have 'Magic-users' as the second category, which would be
wizards, witches, sorcerors, mages, healers, hedge-wizards,
thaumaturgists, demonologists, theurgists, mediums, augurers, oracles...
There might be overlap, but there's no need to force it.
> 15) Public Servant - Judges, etc...
>
> I'm sure I'm missing something, but for example wizard would be a subcategory of
> Sorcerer, as would Necromancer, mage, etc... Thanks for your input.
The big one I see left out is Entertainers. Jongleurs, troubadors,
minstrels, bards, players, tumblers, performers of all sorts...
J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Uh O, roleplaying game? Is that like D&D? I have no interest in that at
> all!
>
> What exactly were you trying to set up, Pawel? I am all into telling stories,
> but not at all into playing a game where dice decide how things turn out.
A minor nit: not all roleplaying games use dice or even randomizers of
any kind to determine the outcome. In fact, not all of them have rules,
although I'd personally hestitate to call those "games" (although they are
still "role-playing")
Anyway, since nobody's made mention of dice or even rules, I think you are
safe in assuming that this is a roleplaying "game" only in its very
broadest sense - that is, a bunch of people telling interactive stories.
J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Uh O, roleplaying game? Is that like D&D? I have no interest in that at
> all!
>
> What exactly were you trying to set up, Pawel? I am all into telling stories,
> but not at all into playing a game where dice decide how things turn out.
A minor nit: not all roleplaying games use dice or even randomizers of
any kind to determine the outcome. In fact, not all of them have rules,
although I'd personally hestitate to call those "games" (although they are
still "role-playing")
Anyway, since nobody's made mention of dice or even rules, I think you are
safe in assuming that this is a roleplaying "game" only in its very
broadest sense - that is, a bunch of people telling interactive stories.
J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Richard Marchetti writes:
> What are you up to that you need all these lists of stuff, Pawel? I presume
> its a CastleWorld thing, but I am not sure I see where it leads to...
I'm pretty sure it is a Castle world thing.
Pawel prolly wants to have some categorization in order to organize the
creations.
HTH,
Shiri
|
|
| |
I for one like this categorization scheme. You should probably add
"mercenary" to it.
--
Paul Davidson
Pawel Nazarewicz <verneer@utk.edu> wrote in message
news:Fow6AF.BnI@lugnet.com...
> Seeing as the list of characters will prove to be extensive, what would be • a
> good way to categorize it (similiar question to structures)? My thoughts • on the
> general segregation so far are:
>
> 1) Villager - your standard folks
> 2) Knight - your warriors by profession (part of bigger whole)
> 3) Rogue - lone adventure seekers
> 4) Leader - the main person in a group of any kind
> 5) Warrior - a lone Knight
> 6) Sailor - sails the Legoceania
> 7) Merchant - sells goods or services
> 8) Traveler - wanders the known land
> 9) Explorer - seeks to discover the unknown land
> 10) Outlaw - wanted by the law in a specific kingdom - or all of them?
> 11) Servant - serves Royalty
> 12) Royalty - Kings, Queens, Barons, Lords, etc...
> 13) Priest or Priestess - uses non-attacking Magic, as well as your • regular
> church minifig (healers, etc)
> 14) Sorcerer or Sorceress - plenty of attacking Magic, fortune teller, • etc.
> 15) Public Servant - Judges, etc...
>
> I'm sure I'm missing something, but for example wizard would be a • subcategory of
> Sorcerer, as would Necromancer, mage, etc... Thanks for your input.
>
> -- pn
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Paul Davidson writes:
> I for one like this categorization scheme. You should probably add
> "mercenary" to it.
<snip bulk of list>
Heh... I'd appreciate that, even if no one else did. ;)
Given that my castle creations center around a mercenary company, and all...
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Jeff Johnston writes:
> A minor nit: not all roleplaying games use dice or even randomizers of
> any kind to determine the outcome. In fact, not all of them have rules,
> although I'd personally hestitate to call those "games" (although they are
> still "role-playing")
I never played a D&D style game in my life, so I was expressing myself as a
true ignoramus here -- nitpick all you want -- almost anyone would know more
about this topic than myself. And I wasn't criticizing it at all, just
pointing out that it wasn't for me...
> Anyway, since nobody's made mention of dice or even rules, I think you are
> safe in assuming that this is a roleplaying "game" only in its very
> broadest sense - that is, a bunch of people telling interactive stories.
Interactive stories I can sink my teeth into. I hope your clarification of
the issue holds true...
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Jeff Johnston writes:
> > A minor nit: not all roleplaying games use dice or even randomizers of
> > any kind to determine the outcome. In fact, not all of them have rules,
> > although I'd personally hestitate to call those "games" (although they are
> > still "role-playing")
>
> I never played a D&D style game in my life, so I was expressing myself as a
> true ignoramus here -- nitpick all you want -- almost anyone would know more
> about this topic than myself. And I wasn't criticizing it at all, just
> pointing out that it wasn't for me...
>
> > Anyway, since nobody's made mention of dice or even rules, I think you are
> > safe in assuming that this is a roleplaying "game" only in its very
> > broadest sense - that is, a bunch of people telling interactive stories.
>
> Interactive stories I can sink my teeth into. I hope your clarification of
> the issue holds true...
I think it does. I don't know too much about D&D or any roleplaying either,
but this is definitely more continuous stories about your creations and such,
maybe just a touch of roleplaying by the fact that over the web, people can
have virtual encounters between their characters, that would never habe
happened in reality (because one of the guys lives in Japan and the other in
GB, for example).
HTH,
--Shiri
The Lion's Cove is there. It's moving on. Towards... YOU!
See the Lion's Cove teasers and more on:
www.geocities.com/shiri_lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Shiri Dori writes:
>
> The Lion's Cove is there. It's moving on. Towards... YOU!
> See the Lion's Cove teasers and more on:
> www.geocities.com/shiri_lego
Very cool! I can't wait 'til it is finished! :)
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Jeff Johnston writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > Uh O, roleplaying game? Is that like D&D? I have no interest in that at
> > all!
> >
> > What exactly were you trying to set up, Pawel? I am all into telling • stories,
> > but not at all into playing a game where dice decide how things turn out.
>
> A minor nit: not all roleplaying games use dice or even randomizers of
> any kind to determine the outcome. In fact, not all of them have rules,
> although I'd personally hestitate to call those "games" (although they are
> still "role-playing")
>
> Anyway, since nobody's made mention of dice or even rules, I think you are
> safe in assuming that this is a roleplaying "game" only in its very
> broadest sense - that is, a bunch of people telling interactive stories.
>
> J
Yeah, my point was that those type of games are excellent *source* material
when it comes to engineering medieval characters and such - I'm not expecting
any cyberspace encounters between different folks' characters to be a constant
barrage of e-mails along the lines of "I just rolled 67 on Charisma, which
means we're starting off in a friendly conversation" or "My halberd inflicts
two damage points, minus one for your tear-shaped shield, which means your
guy's dead".
Although I guess there should be some kind of ruling system over encounters -
obviously, there's gonna be fighting and death in these meetings, so there
should be some rules over whose characters bite it, whose characters are mates
with each other, etc.
Stu C.
University of Glasgow
|
|
| |
> Although I guess there should be some kind of ruling system over encounters -
> obviously, there's gonna be fighting and death in these meetings, so there
> should be some rules over whose characters bite it, whose characters are mates
> with each other, etc.
Stu,
There will be fighting, but think of it in terms of the WWF - great show, all
prearranged, yet still looks good;) If two people want to fight, they come up
with a mutually beneficial story (if you are captured it leads to a rescue, if
you are destroyed you can rebuild a bigger and better place, etc...)
I will be posting a FAQ section up soon. Any suggestions on what to include?
Obviously the purpose and procedures will be in there .. as well as the
distinction between this and role-playing.
By the way - thanks for your "characters" suggestion. It sounded like the best
alternative for the time being (after we get a database and a search engine
(ever?), we will go more complex)
-- pn
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Jeff Stembel writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Shiri Dori writes:
> >
> > The Lion's Cove is there. It's moving on. Towards... YOU!
> > See the Lion's Cove teasers and more on:
> > www.geocities.com/shiri_lego
>
> Very cool! I can't wait 'til it is finished! :)
Thanks! This is just a start, I'll be working on it every spare minute. I just
got some orders from S@H that will help me accessorize :-) and I took apart my
6091 (only a few days built) to use the pieces. Bugdet allowing, I might buy
another one or Bull's attack, so I'll have some more pieces for it. All my
castle walls and BURPs are in Israel and I won't be going there 'till
summertime... too long to wait ;-)
I'll post updates and such every once in a while.
-Shiri
Queen Cleo is urging her son, Franz, to get married. Will he find that special
someone? Check it out, on:
www.geocities.com/shiri_lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> > Although I guess there should be some kind of ruling system over encounters -
> > obviously, there's gonna be fighting and death in these meetings, so there
> > should be some rules over whose characters bite it, whose characters are • mates
> > with each other, etc.
>
> Stu,
>
> There will be fighting, but think of it in terms of the WWF - great show, all
> prearranged, yet still looks good;) If two people want to fight, they come up
> with a mutually beneficial story (if you are captured it leads to a rescue, if
> you are destroyed you can rebuild a bigger and better place, etc...)
How did you know I was a WWF fan? Maybe I can come up with a way to get my
Undertaker and Stone Cold minifigs into my storylines! :-)
I like the idea that this will be pre-arranged: capture -> rescue, murder ->
vengeance, romance -> well, lots of possibilities there... war, marriage,
regional unions, maybe even a kid.
Oh, that brings me haphazardly to a question I had: how long in real-time is a
year in Castleworld? We're in year 0 now, when does year 1 begin?
Stu C.
University of Glasgow
> -- pn
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Stuart Curtis writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> > > Although I guess there should be some kind of ruling system over • encounters -
> > > obviously, there's gonna be fighting and death in these meetings, so there
> > > should be some rules over whose characters bite it, whose characters are • mates
> > > with each other, etc.
> >
> > Stu,
> >
> > There will be fighting, but think of it in terms of the WWF - great show, all
> > prearranged, yet still looks good;) If two people want to fight, they come • up
> > with a mutually beneficial story (if you are captured it leads to a rescue, • if
> > you are destroyed you can rebuild a bigger and better place, etc...)
>
> How did you know I was a WWF fan? Maybe I can come up with a way to get my
> Undertaker and Stone Cold minifigs into my storylines! :-)
>
> I like the idea that this will be pre-arranged: capture -> rescue, murder ->
> vengeance, romance -> well, lots of possibilities there... war, marriage,
> regional unions, maybe even a kid.
Yep - endless possibilities! That's the best part!
> Oh, that brings me haphazardly to a question I had: how long in real-time is a
> year in Castleworld? We're in year 0 now, when does year 1 begin?
I guess whenever we have a considerable amount of creations. Oh, and when the
website is ready. (i.e. maps are done, character pages are ready, story area,
etc.)
-Shiri
http://www.geocities.com/shiri_lego/
|
|
| |
I'm a bit late talking on the subject, but I seem to remember some of
the posts brought up a list along the lines of:
outlaw
ruler
soldier
[etc - for brevity]
This of course, brought up the stuff of Whether a soldier was in a
standing army, or perhaps a strong arm for hire, etc.
Now, this idea isnt entirely fleshed out, I just thought I'd try
to lend my dubious creativity to the pool...
What about (That system could cover everything but would have to be
really long) something that breaks it down to perhaps two categories
Such as...
Caste / Skillset
[not the best choice of words]
Something like..
Social Class [and] Career
Social Classes would be like:
outlaw, nobility, commoner,untouchable[Cant imagine this in a lego
society etc though.. :)], etc
And Career/Class/etc would be like
Ruler [as in the ruler of a nation, town, burg, etc]
Warrior
Academic/Sage
Priest/Religious figure
etc
Now, this is a little weak without a suitable list, but I think it could
be potentially done interestingly -
With the single "class" or classification system, You
Wouldnt know anything about a person much by him being a "Ruler"
but Outlaw - Ruler would be the category of a bandit kind, etc.
Wizard under Outlaw would be something like Necromancer or some other
such 'unclean' fellow.
Etc.
Ok, I know it's a little weak, but I think there are some merits to it,
perhaps. If there is neet of a system of categorization at all
(This, I think , would be useful mostly if there was to ever be
any sort of database, etc.)
That is, if someone wanted to find out how many members of Royalty were
around in a kingdom, which is likely an entirely different number of
people from how many RULERS there are at any one time, etc, etc.
-Michel Mooser.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> Seeing as the list of characters will prove to be extensive, what would be a
> good way to categorize it (similiar question to structures)? My thoughts on the
> general segregation so far are:
>
> 1) Villager - your standard folks
> 2) Knight - your warriors by profession (part of bigger whole)
> 3) Rogue - lone adventure seekers
> 4) Leader - the main person in a group of any kind
> 5) Warrior - a lone Knight
> 6) Sailor - sails the Legoceania
> 7) Merchant - sells goods or services
> 8) Traveler - wanders the known land
> 9) Explorer - seeks to discover the unknown land
> 10) Outlaw - wanted by the law in a specific kingdom - or all of them?
> 11) Servant - serves Royalty
> 12) Royalty - Kings, Queens, Barons, Lords, etc...
> 13) Priest or Priestess - uses non-attacking Magic, as well as your regular
> church minifig (healers, etc)
> 14) Sorcerer or Sorceress - plenty of attacking Magic, fortune teller, etc.
> 15) Public Servant - Judges, etc...
>
> I'm sure I'm missing something, but for example wizard would be a subcategory of
> Sorcerer, as would Necromancer, mage, etc... Thanks for your input.
>
> -- pn
p ~
i think interesting allowances could be made so that "gypsies and nomads"
could be added to the list. their Realm could be made to "float" over
unoccupied Realm spaces. interesting, no?
later ~ craig~
|
|
|
