I started pre-development on a new medieval fantasy RPG titled "Arcadia", and my fellow developers and I were wondering what you, as a player, would look for in such a game.

We want to avoid clichés as much as possible, but to us, the satisfaction of our players is key to the game's success.

Thank you,
TeamFS

Well...
I like the occaisonal small romance...
I also Like a Melee Character, a Speed Character, a Magic Character, and a Healer.

Good, but sometimes clichè make sense in certain contexts (:

Are you goin for a low fantasy or high fantasy?

Yeah Heisenmen has a point, Low or High?

Oh! Right, heh.

High Fantasy

Ah.
Probably,
Castles,
Dungeons,
Dragons,
Druids.

Well, of course xD
In fact, a conversation about Druids actually started this whole thing

Personally, I like my fantasy settings to be more like Discworld than Middle Earth. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a dry, clinical, deadly serious tone in what is supposed to be escapism. Have some fun with your setting and characters.

I'm not going for Middle Earth style, its Middle Ages. "Middle Earth" is a term used almost exclusively to describe the world of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of The Rings series.

My world, Falceria, is based more on the world in the story of King Arthur and Camelot, with a hint of Dungeons & Dragons.

King Arthur huh?
Is it based on King Arthur?

Haha, no, but the story definitely has some what of an influence on the story, and is even discussed later in the game.

What kind of influence? On the characters?
Such stories have special swords, like:
Excalibur, Naegling, Hrunting.
Or special characters with outstanding traits, like:
Guinevere (great beauty) Tristam (Great strength.)
And special items like:
Round table, horn of plenty, holy grail

Uh... the Round Table one isn't so much an item as it is an important piece of furniture that King Arthur used... I should know from reading all that I can that King Arthur wanted none to be more important than the other.

Hence why it's the Round Table instead of a square one... or rectangular, for that matter, as most tables in the era were more than definitely rectangular (especially for the royalty).

By the way, this had escaped me for a while, but what's the difference between low and high fantasy?

It's more of an era type influence, however, there are other bigger influences that I can't reveal now, as it will ruin the important plot based material of the game.

@Uzumaki: Low Fantasy is based in a real world setting, like Earth, and has more realistic qualities (like Call of Duty). High Fantasy is based in either fabricated adaptations of worlds or in completely invented worlds all together (like Final Fantasy).

Ah, I was wondering about that, thanks for clearing it up.

That's not what I was saying at all; Discworld is a very large series of novels that lampoons high fantasy in every way conceivable. You should read at least a few of them, their quality varies widely, but when Discworld is good, it's frickin' awesome. I'll take a fantasy story that, while maybe not an outright parody, doesn't quite take itself seriously, over something overwrought and "epic" like Lord of the Rings any day.

In essence, I was saying I like to have frequent moments of charm and a healthy sense of humor with my swords and sorcery.

If we're talking about arthurian legends then we are almost definitely looking at low fantasy but high mythic setting, where magic is pretty much a plot device rather than a tool at someone's disposal.

The reason why is because if you look at what Merlin really DOES in the books, he doesn't actually do that much. He can shapeshift, sure, but he's main power is the power of knowledge. He can see the future and the past in a limited fashion, and he is extremely knowledgeable. That's pretty much it. No fireballs, no flight magic, etc.

You have to remember, magic in Arthurian settings are very subtle. You never actually SEE Merlin transform or shapeshift. He simply just SHOWS UP in his disguises.

Just about every aspect of the Arthurian myths work in this fashion, and while the magical stuff can be very powerful, they are often not nearly as reliable nor is it as clear cut as your standard high fantasy. In fact, trying to compare this to dungeons and dragons is a HUGE mistake. Any game where you can potentially become Merlin is not a game suitable for Arthurian legends.

If you want dungeons and dragons, then you just have to go with your generic high fantasy stuff. Have multiple race/class combos to run with, some customization in there, and have wizards pretty much own the warriors at later levels. (Just make the spells kick ass and you're there)

If, however, you're serious about wanting to go the Arthurian route, you need to do a lot more research on the topic.

I suggest you watch the movie "Excalibur" by John Boorman (circa 1981). It's a pretty good flick to begin with, but it really does translate the essence of the Arthurian legends well.

The language they spoke in that time, a good game to get that from would be
DrakenGard ;-)

Also, it would be a good idea to, not too much, but modernise it a little, like airships (like pirate ships but with propellers and stuff)

are we talking high fantasy or magitek fantasy? airships are usually distinctively the latter.

MagiTek

but then that would make this whole thing anything BUT medieval. When the OP said the word "medieval", he could implying a LOT or maybe he's just utterly misusing the word as we know it.

Lol, i guess i was thinking of Final Fantasy 12

I would like to see characters who expose their flaws at some point, if not commonly throughout the story. I've always loved partly flawed characters who struggle with themselves to make sense of the situation before them, often times rationalizing their actions and thoughts.

But that's more general. In medieval fantasy I love to see wild fantasy. The world should feel untamed and plenty unexplored. A deep lore makes me smile

I like it when magic isn't the cure-all to every problem. The characters should be challenged even if they have a mage. If there's magic there should be anti-magic, as a lot of magic fuels war and thus people would look for ways to suppress, control, dampen and stop magic.

We'll leave it at that. The question is rather vague anyways.

there is an implicit assumption in this though, and that is magic is less of a mystical thing and more of a science. That is the main difference between say, a sword and sorcery game vs. a high fantasy. high fantasy while might play up the mystical portion of magic, it is often very sterile in the fashion it is treated. That is what makes high fantasy possible in the first place, the access and exposure to magic. With high access, it's only a matter of time before somebody decides to go all "magic factory" and start using magic very much like a tool. (For good examples of this, go look up a thing called the "tippyverse")

Id like a game where melee isnt the lowest end of fighting.

Some of you guys say you dislike high fantasy that takes itself completely seriously, but almost no video games do. I'm not sure I can think of a single commercial RPG that takes itself seriously. They all have ridiculous-looking monsters, silly sidequests, townspeople that say thing that are [meant to be] humorous, characters with absurd quirks like extreme-hunger or narcolepsy, etc. There might be one or two games out there that take themselves as seriously as books and movies do, but it's really rare. It seems to be rarer the longer the game is - like developers just get bored with creating reasonable monsters so they decide to toss in some land sharks.

Personally I can't stand that. Especially in a game where the main plot is 95% serious. If your game is supposed to be serious, make it serious. If it's supposed to be comedy, make it comedy. Either way is fine, just pick one. Making a serious game but tossing in joke monsters or easter eggs just ruins the game for me. It's neither epic nor funny - it's just a game with no discernable style.



Worlds where everyone has magic and it's not even noteworthy are extremely commonplace in RPGs. Magic has no element of mysticism - it's not special in any way. Its presence is often left totally unexplained, like people being able to shoot lightning bolts is just taken for granted. It almost seems like it defeats the purpose of including magic at all, if magic doesn't mean anything special.

Personally I like it when magic is the result of something special, and is a major plot element. If your story has magic in it, it seems like that makes sense to me. I'm working on a game right now where magic has just been discovered by the evil empire, and they're training their military to use it. Only two of the main characters can use magic - one is a former enemy soldier, and the other is a genius who understands how magic works the first time he sees it, and is able to mimic the spells he sees others cast (so he's a blue mage, essentially).

well, there is nothing wrong with a setting per se where magic is basically technology dressed up differently. In some cases, it can work. But in most cases, it stops feeling like fantasy and starts feeling more like sci-fi after a certain point. And certainly some games can get away with it. The default setting of the Warcraft world relies fairly heavily upon the assumption that magic while not exactly as accessible as say, a chemistry degree, is still fairly understandable. And that is fine in and of itself.

It's also not just what makes it special, but how is it used in the narrative. When you look at magic within say, most high fantasy, it is treated like a tool to be utilized. people might or might not understand it. But that's hardly the point. they will use it and that is that. It is, by itself, completely and utterly amoral. But in narratives where magic = mysticism, magic is not something you simply use. the price of magic is never quite understood beyond the basic heuristics. It is not something that people actually use. It is something that you try to influence to bend the odds your way, but it never outright control. And the desire to control it is often seen as evil. Sometimes, you can almost consider magic in these settings to be it's own character. It will act however it must. The people in setting could be exposed to it all the time, but never quite understand how it works, let alone control it. People can beseech it to act on their behalf, but to actually harness it and control it fully? that's never possible.

The moment magical powers are harnessed and controlled, it stops being mystical and it becomes technology. Think the difference in how the force is presented in the original Star Wars trilogy and the prequels and you have a good idea on the distinction.

I look for cultures other than western European ones.

It's not that the trope is played out, but I'm sure writers can find some more unique cultures to base their work on (maybe they don't like guns?)

It's definitely easier to set a game in a culture that you're familiar with. Though in high fantasy, most games have a completely fabricated culture that's not based on any real-life counterpart. Who the hell ever heard of an autonomous city ruled by a village elder, anyway? That sort of social structure is only used by, like... tribal communities or something, right?

I realize European castles are European, but I'm not sure the similarity extends beyond the architecture in most games. You might have a king, but you almost never see games with ranks of nobility, with lords presiding over peasants, etc etc.

Aye. The main influence is definitely northern or western european, though. There was sort of a tribal structure going on with the early germans and, to an extent, the celts. In western europe, Charlamagne attempted to consolidate the tribes that had been warring with each other in modern france, and somehow became Holy Roman Emperor.

Maybe I'm looking too deeply into it, but the typical high fantasy setting follows some kind of European model, notably the crusades-era stuff.

that's because 90% of the time, royality house structure is not the most fascinating thing to focus on. It can become tremendously important to focus on if you're going to be exploring the palace politics but as far as most games go, where the focus is on the adventure rather than on the political maneuvering, there's really not much of a payoff.

I'm a huge medieval fantasy guy, and my favorite trait is kind of weird, but here it is: I like archetypes with a twist. Preferably humorous. I like the virtuous paladin that's is a closet homosexual, the princess with a danger fetish, the evil queen that's a snobby art critic, the cleric with just a small touch of dementia, ect. Those were just some examples off the top of my head, but it really depends on your story though, so it might not fit. If you're going for a really dark tone, you're going to want something else. I just think that archetypes have power, and humorous twists on them retain the power but keep them from being cliches. Again, it might not fit,

Oh, and for the record, I'm a high fantasy fan.