Member Discussions

Discussions regarding the article.

http://www.mudconnect.com/articles/dm/stheft.html

I think the stealing (simply 'using' or 'borrowing' would be more apt in some cases, though) of settings is only natural. Two settings are given in the article: Tolkien and DBZ. Tolkien stitched together his world with completely original ideas, as well as ideas that heavily borrowed from Western lore. DragonBall Z, which of course borrowed from DragonBall, has a huge amount of material taken from the Chinese classic Sai Yu Xi, including even the main character's name.

But with DBZ, as with Tolkien, there is an original twist put into each setting that makes it unique. I think that taking a setting is a great thing to do, as it gives you a solid framework with which to build a game =).

(Comment added by unifex on Mon Nov 25 12:56:43 2002)

I said DragonBall Z 'borrowed' from DragonBall, but I meant that it 'followed' from it instead.

Actually Tolkien considered his world to just be rediscovered. A lot of things such as wraiths and elves were already there in folk lore and such, he just put them all together.

In my opinion the article was a bit harsh. I think that everyone who reads a good book ultimately thinks what it'd be like to be in that world and how they would react to a situation. Setting a mud in that world allows people to do that, and if the creators remain as faithfull as they can to the setting I think it helps enhance what the author intended, not take away from it. Granted there are a lot of muds out there that take a setting and utterly destroy it, but there are also plenty that make the world vibrant and exciting.

Sure your mud will still be seen as generic and just another one in the group, but that doesn't mean it can't be enjoying to a large group of players.

Agreed. The article almost seems to take MUDs and set them as some kind of art, something separate from a plebian game, something with some kind of nobler purpose.

And I’m sure there are three or four out there that are. Good for them.

But on average, MUDs are played for people to enjoy. The author does not apparently enjoy Tolkien or DBZ muds. Quite welcome to the opinion. I don’t like them either. But not liking them does not make them worthless, stupid or worse than the completely-original, all-from-scratch “our character creation takes ten times longer than yours” MUD. It simply makes them different, and to claim otherwise puts a very narrow view on MUDs, and ultimately on creativity, indeed.

And on the growth point, just because a MUD is based on a book or movie or series, must it follow that exactly? No.

And on a completely unrelated note… Before I read it I thought that article was going to be on the pros and cons of the thief class (Ahh, poor butchered class that it is, when so many MUDs remove player stealing and dwindle backstab to a slap on the wrist. ;-)

Personally, this has to be the worst article I've read so far. Not that it wasn't an oppinion and I can't hold it to him anymore then any of my oppinions, but here are my views.

When Jordan himself did something drastic, or Boromir dies, is that considered a butchering of the plot? No... Why? Because the author does so, and It is the authors work. It always irks me when a mud follows the EXACT plot to the letter, because there is no room for anything else. I run a completely original world, but it has many influences from some of my favorite authors (Go Robin Hobb!) and while I enjoy it alot, I wouldnt think worse of myself If I had a mud in which everything except one main thing was changed. What if the Balrog had killed frodo and his group? That to me is what I enjoyed about muds based upon books and such, the ability to deviate while still using a history and a rich world that people enjoy.

Having never unstood, or liked anime, DB, DBZ, DBX or whatever the hell its called now adays I can't really comment about that part to it.

Conversly I thought the Bond movie was worth the 6 bucks that I paid to see it. Probably now the full 8.50, but the discount tickets would probably cover it;)

Paragon

When it comes to establishing a theme the prospect of strictly adhering to established stereotypes strikes me as being relatively uninspiring. It can lead to a time capsule environment, elves are governed by such and such rules and always will be, James Bond never gets hurt etc.

In my opinion the interesting aspect of environmental development is that environments have the potential to change, adapt and evolve in relation to circumstances or creative input.

If, in the example given, the genre and theme set established by Mr Flemming was strictly adhered to then the time frame would remain set in the 1960’s. We would not have story lines and current day technology featuring within Bond plot lines he would remain confined to Aston Martins and E-type Jaguars. Alternatively the timeframe would have progressed in real terms and he would have aged and be zipping round in a wheelchair with pop up machine guns.

However things change, and elements of a genre are often given a twist by new writers, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Characters or areas within an established genre are fleshed out and taken in new directions. Just because something was creating to be such and such there is no overriding reason for it remaining so ‘it should be like this because it has always been like this’ is a very poor argument in my opinion.

Perhaps elves are no longer prolific or aloof with other races.
Perhaps integration with other races and the affects of increased birth rates applicable to such races has changed the elven way of life. Perhaps forests have dwindled as cities expand removing their natural habitat and decreasing their population forcing them to adapt.
Perhaps they have integrated more and the curiosity of younger elves has caused shifts in the skills, outlook, and maybe the genetics attributed to the race as a whole.

I don’t see evolving the work of an author as being necessarily disrespectful. I am quite sure that where Fleming still alive he himself would have updated the character of Bond, inline with new possibilities. Generally authors are fuelled by creativity, with the exception of notable plagiarists like JK Rowling, and would be the first to speak out against any that would seek to deny creative expression.

Tolkein on the other hand wrote the Lord of the Rings to provide England with a work of mythology after seeing the developed mythologies of other countries, irrespective of L’morte De Arthur etc. Indeed the actual story line, the tales surrounding Bilbo et al, was of secondary importance to him. What he considered most important, was the inherent linguistic aspects and the Silmarillion that he continued to change and modify through out his life and never personally released. He was interested in creating a living breathing and believable fantasy world. To enforce preservation and stasis upon such a world and deny it a chance to evolve and grow is far more disrespectful to the intentions of the author than creative, yet considerate, realistic and well documented, change.

One thing I do find disrespectful to authors, in relation to setting theft, is the manner in which some MUDS label themselves as being Original in theme when they are obviously not. Indeed if a MUD features races and elements associated with themes, of an established pedigree, then in my opinion it is a Derivative work and not Original. To affix such a title detracts from the contribution to literature by the author and in essence claims that the work is the sole creative output of MUD in question. Only MUDS that have general themes, races and worlds created entirely from scratch should be allowed the label ‘Original’.

By the way I though ‘Die Another Day’ was a nice piece of escapism, although three similar glib remarks about point as it applied to weapons was a bit weak, no ‘I shall sabre the moment of your death’ variances etc. The hanging ice vehicle and flip over ejector seat sequences where also painfully absurd, keeping in line with the genre but painfully unrealistic.

I think one of the best things that Tolkien did for the fantasy genre was to create and classify a vast lexicon for fantasy terms; after all, the stories as written are not that fantastic. Before him, dwarves, faeries, elves, pixies and the like were interchanged frequently, and had no real distinguishing features. Tolkien gave them all distinct racial types, differentiated them from each other and gave them definition.

I've tried muds before where I had to choose be either Micholonicaloid, Algroberthan or Xyxypopalotl, with no clue what any were. It turns out the Michs are short with great strength for their size, and like axes. The Algros are lithe with an affinity for magic and bows, and the Xyx were either a) greedy traders or b) generic inbetweeners. Why not just call them dwarves, elves and humans?

And I bet you could see where that paragraph was going. You knew they were dwarves and elves. That's the legacy that Tolkien has left us. I like it. I don't see why it's "bad" to use it.

Kas.

"I think one of the best things that Tolkien did for the fantasy genre was to create and classify a vast lexicon for fantasy terms"

Never really thought of it like that before, but your almost right...
What Tolkien did is totally stuffed it for everyone else.
After Tolkien, if an author wanted to write about dwarves, they better be short, stumpy and have long beards or the readers are going to think the author is on smack.

It sort of reminds me of Poul Anderson's "The Broken Sword" which was written before the realease of the flobbit/lotr (so it wasn't tainted by Tolkienism), there is no way anyone could write a book like that now :< .

'I think one of the best things that Tolkien did for the fantasy genre was to create and classify a vast lexicon for fantasy terms'

Never really thought of it like that before, but your almost right...
What Tolkien did is totally stuffed it for everyone else.
After Tolkien, if an author wanted to write about dwarves, they better be short, stumpy and have long beards or the readers are going to think the author is on smack.


I'd have to check but Disney's movie 'Snow White' may have had a bigger impact on the changing view of dwarves. In any case prior to both Tolkein and Snow White (the movie), dwarves were viewed almost universally as foul and evil little men in both fantasy and myth. They were used very much like the fox is used in children's stories.

Norwegian lore is very similar to Tolkien's fantasy. One Norwegian tale (found in the book 'Eaters of the Dead') told that families that bore dwarves thought it was a great blessing, because dwarves were thought to have magical powers. They'd bring any dwarves that were born to a specific point (usually a mountain), and leave them there for the society of dwarves which lived there to take. The weapons and armor they forged was highly prized, because they thought the dwarves instilled some of their magic into it. Even the great Norwegian warriors were reverent when they asked the dwarves for equipment.

Yui Unifex

(Comment added by unifex on Wed Dec 4 10:03:22 2002)

But I think you're right about the lore of other cultures; a lot of them regard dwarves as sly and mischevious.

Oh yeah that's right I forgot about the Norse legends. Perhaps in a way that's how the negative dwarven viewpoint originated in the old English, French and Iberian fairy tales, as they were sick of being invaded and pillaged by the Norse. Hmm... that's food for thought. :-)

There is quite a bit of merit to your point. I am a firm believer in avoiding cliche however. I, myself, chose to "borrow" a theme, but I chose one that in my long career, I have never seen attempted before. I chose The Dark Carnival. Based on the works of the Insane Clown Posse. Now, I fully believe that tried and true works like tolkien and dbz should have been retired ages ago. I also believe the medieval might and magic theme should have as well. While primitive fantasy worlds do allow for the broadest range of creativity, they also bring with it a sense of redundance. Sure you can invent a whole new combat system, 100% new code, but you will still be doing it with orcs, elves and pixies. Of course if it worked the way I would have it, there would be many less games to play, but those who managed to succeed would be the true elite and the players would have the true quality they deserve.

Dude, people who make these DBZ muds WANT to be restricted by the rules of DBZ. If they had wanted to make an entirely original system and not be known by DBZ standards, it wouldn't be a DBZ mud. Beyond that, I don't know what your problem with these muds is. I don't go around preaching that there shouldn't be anymore games with medieval themes (and you're not going to tell me there aren't tons of THOSE) why can't you let people who enjoy DBZ muds do just that? I enjoy them. Heck, I sometimes build them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and type up a rant because your 50 billion SMAUG muds are taking up precious bandwidth. I don't care about medieval muds, since I don't play them. I know there are a lot of DBZ muds out there, that's because it's a popular series. Just leave us alone, though. Go yell at everybody in Midgaard. (btw, don't bother yelling at me on this, chances are I won't visit the site for another week or so, and by then I'll probably have forgotten I've posted something)

I don't go around preaching that there shouldn't be anymore games with medieval themes (and you're not going to tell me there aren't tons of THOSE) why can't you let people who enjoy DBZ muds do just that?
Because DBZ is legally protected intellectual property and the medieval era of Europe isn't? Could that possibly have anything to do with it? When DBZ becomes public domain like medieval legends and pre-medieval mythology, I'll gladly let people enjoy DBZ MUDs.