"Nick is going to butcher the game"

[wobbly]

Trying to think which roguelike has quicksand. Ragnarok I think?

[Nick]

Sandtrap, now that's a good idea!

+ to shots, surely

[AmyBSOD]

My NetHack variant has quicksand terrain (called "shifting sand" after the stage in Super Mario 64), and if the player walks into it there's a yes/no prompt whether they really want to step in (unless confused or stunned, then there is no confirmation). Flying makes the player immune, but otherwise the player will have exactly three turns to move back to a non-shifting-sand tile or die. Magical breathing doesn't help, because as soon as the player is completely submerged they're essentially "buried".

What I didn't do, though, was to make some stat check or other effect that hinders the player's escape from the quicksand. Movement still works normally, unlike sinking in lava where the player has to succeed at some stat check to pull themselves out in time.

[tangar]

Angband: why DnD influence is good

I find it hard to believe that you make this suggestion with a straight face. The most popular - by what measure? Famous - maybe in that everyone has heard of Dungeons and Dragons - but not the actual details of the bestiary, which tends towards being quite generic as has been pointed out above.

The good thing about DnD and other tabletop fantasy RPG universes that they are truly 'evolving' - evolving in a good way, becomming richer. As Derakon said before about Moria vs Angband:

Angband was basically "maximalist Moria" when it first came out. Moria has 50 levels? Angband has 100! You can beat Moria at around clvl 30? In Angband you can go all the way up to clvl 50! Moria has warrior, rogue, paladin, mage, and priest? Angband has rangers too and everyone (except the warrior) gets twice as many spellbooks! Moria has ego items? Angband has artifacts! Moria has 150 monster types (or however many it was)? Angband has 500, and some of them are unique!

'DnD' (by this acronym in current discussion I mean not only DnD, but actually all pool of fantasy pen-and-paper role-playing games) also going this way, constantly. It provides more and more content! Each next edition (for example, classic DnD itself got already 5th editions) gives something new. And it's fun to have new stuff, especially when it make sense!

Not all introducted in new table-top games editions stuff is good, but it's Angband advantage - to choose what to take; some monsters could make Vanilla Angband lore better, more rich and exiting.

At the same time - Tolkien lore is STATIC. I'm sorry, guy, but Tolkien is dead. He won't write new stuff and won't 'create' new monsters. His universe is quite brilliant, but it was created long time ago, dozens of years before DnD appeared (not speaking about PC RPG games). Tolkien's bestiary can not evolve, it's 'canonic' and 'Tolkien's heritage' protect his lore from any changes or 'evolvement' - which is pretty silly (as all attempts of copyright forces to restrain other peoples creative).

So while Vanilla Angband is open to new 'DnD' (and other pen-n-paper fantasy worlds) influence and take ideas from it - it's great advantage. Restricting game to pure-Tolkien and wiping DnD stuff from it - not only removes 30 years flavour which everybody get used for, but also makes game more 'STATIC'!. So when you speak about 'evolving' - it's not evolving, guys, but a building a border; whats Nick doing:

1) wiping DnD stuff
2) making pure-Tolkien border around what left in there

Yep, it's new high fence around Angband lore. It's like stuff which Saruman made to Isengard - from diverse beautiful land with trees - he put everything in 'order' by cutting trees down and made his land covered with similar grey stone - the same thing Nick is doing with Angband lore right now.

So despite of some opinions in this thread - I'm not after making Angband static - vice versa! But it should be enrichment, taking all the best from fantasy worlds; not restrictions by one universe. Of course, each new addition should be discussed - how it would fit into the present lore (so we won't have rockets in Vanilla lol).

Vanilla Angband traditional lore - mixed Universe. It's pretty special - with the 'core' of Tolkien (Nazguls, hobbits, Azog etc) and with RICH DnD flavour around it. And it's fun to play with such game. It's not boring as some other 'pure' Tolkien games and it's evolving! Without DnD it would be boring static.

Angand Vanilla is: Tolkien 'core' enriched with proper DnD stuff. Dark elves, kobolds, gnomes and other old fellas - fits good in it, there is no need to wipe them!

This is yet another point to add to previous 9 points which in my 'last word'. So now it's now 10 reasons to save Vanilla Angband lore.

p.s.
I again wanna repeat quote from my first message in this thread:

How come that I'm as a huge Tolkien fan (damm I even runned in the forests with wooden sword in real life) - do not like current Angband tolkienization? Because it's a conflict of interests - Tolkien lore VS Angband lore. Sorry, but Angband is not a fanfic Tolkien website to bend it like this. In Angband 'game' it's lore and traditions more precious then Tolkien heritage.

[takkaria]

This is yet another point to add to previous 9 points which in my 'last word'. So now it's now 10 reasons to save Vanilla Angband lore.

I think you rather overestimate your persuasive abilities. You're not going to win this one. You also don't really respond to what other people say in any meaningful way, which means that replying to you or reading what you have to say follows the law of diminishing returns...

(PS Nick isn't 'purging' D&D influence from Angband. The game as a whole is clearly very influenced by early D&D. And I'm sure if anyone else had made the effort to create new monsters for Angband or incorporate ones from other non-clashing bestiaries, and they made sense from a balance perspective, and people liked them, they'd have a fair chance of being included. No one has though!)

[Derakon]

(PS Nick isn't 'purging' D&D influence from Angband. The game as a whole is clearly very influenced by early D&D. And I'm sure if anyone else had made the effort to create new monsters for Angband or incorporate ones from other non-clashing bestiaries, and they made sense from a balance perspective, and people liked them, they'd have a fair chance of being included. No one has though!)

I think my favorite "recent" addition to the monster list is the bronze golem. Those things are pretty scary-sounding, despite the terse description: "A gigantic four-armed animated bronze statue of demonic shape, glowing with great heat."

There's a bunch of monsters in variants ripe for the picking, if someone wanted to review the monster lists and find the ones that seemed the most "Vanilla-like".

[tangar]

I think you rather overestimate your persuasive abilities. You're not going to win this one.

Ok, repeating in 100500 time in this thread:

...Nick, you've won this 'dispute' from the beginning. I said about it in several posts in this thread - I'm among minority and this discussion won't change anything:

The goal of this discussion is to show that there are people who cares about Vanilla and it's lore and to spread the truth, not to change your mind (it was clear from the beginning that it's impossible).

Next.. Considering this:

You also don't really respond to what other people say in any meaningful way, which means that replying to you or reading what you have to say follows the law of diminishing returns...

I respond to all messages which require my answer, I don't flame/flood without meaning, just to say something. My 10 points just a good example, that I have a concept behind my words, it's not just bla-bla-bla as other side got (but you are free to post there your 10 points, if you could write them lol).

Also I do not reply to stuff with I approve and agree, like this one:

One of the advantage of some of the more DnD and mythology based monsters is that when a new player sees them, they instantly know what it is that they are encountering. Anyone who has played Dungeons and Dragons, Everquest, Elder Scrolls, or Warhammer, or who is familiar with Norse mythology is likely to have a good grasp of what they are looking at when they see a creature named "Dark Elf Archer", even if the dark elf in question doesn't quite mesh with the Tolkien dark elves. You can't expect the same level of built-in knowledge with some of the more obscure bits of the legendarium - many players aren't going to know who the Stonefoots or the Blacklocks are.
The monsters from Greek mythology have a similar built-in understanding. Through cultural osmosis, most players will have some idea of who Medusa is and what she is capable of, even if they aren't familiar with the story of Perseus.

By avoiding these cultural touchstones, less experienced players will have a harder time pulling these creatures in to the theater of the mind, reducing immersion.

This is the very right point and described much better than I could do it with my crude English language. But I won't jump out of bushes every time when some one would post good ideas - so 'establishment' won't blame me for 'taking too much space' in this thread. Nick would be glad to find reasons to ban me and I don't wanna give it to him too easily.

(PS Nick isn't 'purging' D&D influence from Angband. The game as a whole is clearly very influenced by early D&D.

Heh. If there was a vote with this simple question, something like:

Do you want to remove 'Dark Elves' from the game?

I doubt there would be majority for this decision (without Nick artificially forcing it). People like DnD stuff which you, guys, removing right now. And you know it! But argue with your position means to choose 'enemy side' - Nick proclaimed me as 'unwanted' person and kinda his enemy (are there anyone else at this forums who is 'banished' by him like me?), threatened to ban and said that he want to close this thread. It's clear signal from Nick: "if you do not support me - you are going to be hunted down". 'Tolkien-puritists' lobby prevail there.

So people just swallow 'dark elves' changes. Even if they liked this monsters

[Voovus]

It could, but I'm reluctant to close it because

1. I don't like any closing down of discussion and
2. I think this sort of discussion would just move to a new thread; if this one is still here then it might keep this from spreading to other threads.

If you have a more specific reason for wanting it closed, let me know, by PM if you wish.

There has been plenty of interesting material here, but in its current form this thread appears to be generating more negative emotions than helpful dialogue.

There could probably be a good discussion on "what you'd like Angband lore to look like in 5 years time", provided it focuses on the bright future rather than on the ongoing (contraversial) changes - otherwise it's likely to deteriorate into the rather unhelpful "Nick is going to butcher the game" vs "go and make your own variant".

There could be a philosophical discussion on what makes Vanilla Vanilla. (Again, with no reference to the ongoing changes.)

There could even be a serious discussion on how the community would like Vanilla maintenance to work. (But I'm not convinced this is a good idea. I might slip on the ring if things head that way...)

[Pete Mack]

I had always assumed the Mirkwood Elves were svartalfar (via myrkalfar alternate name.) Dark elf is a less interesting name, but is surely the same base?

[Nick]

Nick would be glad to find reasons to ban me and I don't wanna give it to him too easily.

*Sigh*

I'm sorry about that post. It was Monday morning, I was feeling kind of grumpy, and you popped up accusing someone else of being counterproductive and it just all got a bit much.

I'm not looking for an excuse to ban you, the only accounts I've ever banned here have been spambots and I'm not planning to change that. I understand you're saying what you're saying because the game is important to you. You have every right to say it, and airing different points of view is good.

I'd like you to at least try and see it from my point of view, though. I've been maintaining the game for a few years now, and I've had a fairly coherent plan that I've been very public about all along. That said, I'm also listening to constructive feedback and adjusting things as I go along. So it's frustrating for me to have you repeat the same points in the same way regardless of what I say about it.

Also, I think I need to repeat that I'm not removing all D&D things from the game, and I'm not trying to make it all pure Tolkien lore. I have had specific reasons for removing the things I have removed; that doesn't mean I'm right or I can't be persuaded otherwise. Dark elves seem to be a particularly sore point, and my reason there is that there were two conflicting types of dark elves in the game - the D&D drows, and Eöl and Maeglin. This seems jarring to me. But even then, I would have been (and would still be) open to having my mind changed on that if it had been approached in a constructive manner (as people like Grotug, who is clearly also not happy with everything I'm doing, have done).

So the problem I have is not that you are pushing back on my changes, or that you are disagreeing with what I say. It's the way you are doing it, and I don't mean the fact that you're not a native English speaker. The fact that you titled this thread what you did (apparently quoting someone who was too scared of me to even post here) is a representative example of this.

So, to be clear, you're free to say what you like and I will try to be patient and not rise to the bait. But I would appreciate it if you tried to consider where other people are coming from a bit more.

[Derakon]

Put another way, tangar, your Diplomacy roll (or I guess in D&D 5e it'd be a Persuasion roll) failed. And this isn't one of those situations where you can just keep trying over and over again.

Tone matters.

[Chud]

For what it's worth, though I've made a few pro-this and con-that comments in other threads, I'm definitely in favor of the recent changes. Thanks for putting in all the work!

[dos350]

this isnt about winning, its about angband,,

i think that honestly dehumanizing opposition is only making us hurt more,,,
if everyone wants all the change so much, why are things getting reverted in other thread?

im not trying to abuse anyone, but i feel ignored and abused: dehumanized

all for the game i love so its worth it, but before u complain that som1s persuasive skills are low, consider that they are trying to preserve a very special thing, not insult u~ why so defensive?

[mrfy]

For what it's worth, though I've made a few pro-this and con-that comments in other threads, I'm definitely in favor of the recent changes. Thanks for putting in all the work!

Same here. I'm excited with the changes, it has made the game more interesting.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

As for banning Tangar, I've already self-banned him. I no longer read a single thing he posts.