We want Forum Feedback!

[Cinnamin Draconna]

It's a case of improper control after the fact.

 

While any dragon is still in the conception and creation process, it belongs to the artist.

 

But AFTER it becomes part of the game, that control should be removed. At that point it belongs to the game and the public (aka the players).

 

Once it goes public, it's fair game for everyone. Letting one person veto a good suggestion then is totally selfish. If the players come up with a BSA that makes sense and fits the guidelines, why should ONE person be allowed to nix the idea? Sure, the artist created it, but after it becomes part of the game everyone has a stake in it. It becomes part of the collective consiousness and is no longer just one person's concept.

[RainDear]

This is my opinion, just my opinion. I do not presume to speak for anyone else.

 

I have found that usually when the artist has shut down suggestions it has been based on the abilities of the dragon in question, i.e. "A ____ Dragon couldn't be trusted to tend an egg or hatchling. They would be far more likely to eat it." ____ Dragons don't have the strength to carry eggs or dragons over long distances.", "_____ Dragons don't have the magic required for that." It seems reasonable to me for the person who knows the breed best to point out their limitations in this manner. Hopefully the encyclopedia will include enough information on our dragon breeds that we will know without the artist having to tell us when a concept doesn't fit a certain breed.

[Fuzzbucket]

This is my opinion, just my opinion. I do not presume to speak for anyone else.

 

I have found that usually when the artist has shut down suggestions it has been based on the abilities of the dragon in question, i.e. "A ____ Dragon couldn't be trusted to tend an egg or hatchling. They would be far more likely to eat it." ____ Dragons don't have the strength to carry eggs or dragons over long distances.", "_____ Dragons don't have the magic required for that." It seems reasonable to me for the person who knows the breed best to point out their limitations in this manner. Hopefully the encyclopedia will include enough information on our dragon breeds that we will know without the artist having to tell us when a concept doesn't fit a certain breed.

I'm with raindear here.

[Thuban]

It's a case of improper control after the fact.

 

While any dragon is still in the conception and creation process, it belongs to the artist.

 

But AFTER it becomes part of the game, that control should be removed. At that point it belongs to the game and the public (aka the players).

 

Once it goes public, it's fair game for everyone. Letting one person veto a good suggestion then is totally selfish. If the players come up with a BSA that makes sense and fits the guidelines, why should ONE person be allowed to nix the idea? Sure, the artist created it, but after it becomes part of the game everyone has a stake in it. It becomes part of the collective consiousness and is no longer just one person's concept.

See, I'm torn on this. With my own concepts at least.. I always leave wiggle room, so that if someone comes up with an idea, it can be worked in.. but others have very, very specific concepts, that they prefer to allow to work the way they decided they work.

 

I think if the artist is someone other than the conceptor, the conceptor still maintains some veto power. I dont think full rights should go to ONLY the artist, unless thats the agreement made specifically between them (the conceptor and the artist).

 

I dont have anything in cave.. but within my own public concepts, I have some I could use for examples...

For example: Cliffhoppers description is very specific. They have to live in certain areas, they have a very specific way of living, hunting and raising babies.. and anything that is outside of those specific conditions just flat out will not work with them . I d not have them tied to any specific element, so any suggestions to give them any elementally based BSAs would not work.. but, any ability that falls within their specifically announced description, could be worked in. They /could/ have a hatchy incubate option, but ONLY if the way it works, fits the way they live. They arent magical, so no magic ability could ever be applied.

 

However, Gnome pygmies.. those arent really well defined. Theres lots of wiggle room in what they can and cant do. At the time they were made, their only purpose was to be tiny, annoying dragons. If someone is creative, and comes up with something that a majority of people like, then I would be perfectly happy to consider it. I'm not sure if Fiona would feel the same way (as she did the updated versions that are still in the thread).

 

Long story short: I dont quite agree that the artists shouldnt still maintain the right to say yes or no for what their dragons can or cant do. Some concepts are very specific, and if something wont work with the breed, it wont work, HOWEVER, I do not believe that an artist should be able to say no as a "because I said so". If the dragons cant do something, and the information isn't public, then it should be up to the artist to explain exactly why their dragon cant do it. That way, down the road, there is a clear reference to exactly why the dragons in question cant do what we are trying to make them do, with clear concise explanations of what the dragon and what it CAN do. Vague references to why something cant be done isnt enough. If its against the concept, and the information isnt public, then how is anyone supposed to know?

[olympe]

I think that the conceptor of a breed knows best what would fit it or not. Not necessarily the artist. Unless, as is the case with some concepts, the artist is the conceptor.

 

On another note - there are things in the cave which have several artists listed. Right now, someone gets art credit for merely editing a few lines - which might be no more than a couple of altered pixels. With only a couple of altered pixels to their credit, people now get the right to decide over what may or may not happen with a dragon. That just needs to be fixed. (Maybe declare a main artist for pretty much everything that still needs to get into the cave? Sure, if one person did the sketches and another the sprites, that's one story where this doesn't work. But if there's someone credited who really only altered a handful of pixels - they should get some kind of "art help credit" with no rights for decisions.)

 

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[purplehaze]

I think that the conceptor of a breed knows best what would fit it or not. Not necessarily the artist. Unless, as is the case with some concepts, the artist is the conceptor.

 

Most of us, though, don't even know who the conceptors of the dragons are. Other than the artist, maybe TJ, and avid followers of the DR forum, who would? There is not public credit given at this point, although I know it has been suggested.

[Obscure_Trash]

On another note - there are things in the cave which have several artists listed. Right now, someone gets art credit for merely editing a few lines - which might be no more than a couple of altered pixels. With only a couple of altered pixels to their credit, people now get the right to decide over what may or may not happen with a dragon.

At this point, I am following along in the conversation, but I'm more interested in hearing user opinions on this than inserting my own. However, I just want to speak on this one point: While there is no delineation of who did what on cave, artists remember just how much work they put into each sprite. If they feel their contribution is too small for any credit, they do not need to be credited. I myself have had to ask on one thread that I not receive credit as - for the end sprite that was picked - all I did was change the color of the eye, no shading even necessary there. I know I've seen at least one other artist on several occasion decline to be in the credits because they just nudged a few lines or fixed the toes or something. BUT even if artist contribution is small, I have seen nothing but courtesy from artists over this - if their contribution was small to a sprite and they were not the main artist nor conceptor, they always point PM'ers in the direction of whose permission they do need to obtain. And I've never seen a spriter edit something minor and then demand control over a sprite for it. As well, with the artist permissions if someone disappears, we now still have access to decide what may happen artistically with a sprite. And in the end, I think final permission lies with TJ - if he thinks something will fit in the game or if it doesn't belong or if he has his own headcanon for how it works or what. The only things I have shut down by conceptor request were BSA ideas and I do not think that is something extremely common in the BSA section. I do agree that dragons need to be accessible by all and BSAs are particularly difficult as often there's more info to the dragon that users get to actually see and that's what conceptors point out as the ability not making sense. I am listening to discussion on this from what users think and am filing away opinions and ideas to hopefully discuss on how to better the BSA section.

[Cinnamin Draconna]

One of the biggest problems I see with who did what and who gets the credit is that most of us outside the artists community don't know what's going on anyway. We're outsiders and usually totally in the dark, so the ONLY thing we have to go on is what winds up in actual print on the dragon descriptions. That's all we have to go on; the text on the view page and who's name is in the credits section.

 

So we don't know the 'insider' facts that might have been tossed around during the creation process. All we know is what is can actually see and read. So we don't know how big a dragon is.. or how ferocious it is or isn't.. or if it's a carnivore or only eats pink gumdrops. Without those details, we can only go by what is publicly available. And when we get ambushed by facts not in evidence, we can sometimes get upset. Especially if it comes after a long, drawn out discussion that we've almost settled. Then bing bada boom one person comes along and throws a monkey wrench that NO ONE ELSE knew about and shuts the whole thing down. That sucks bigtime.

 

That's why I say that AFTER a dragon is in game, anything NOT in evidence is NO LONGER relative. If it wasn't published, it isn't true.. regardless of what might have been intended.

[CNR4806]

One of the biggest problems I see with who did what and who gets the credit is that most of us outside the artists community don't know what's going on anyway. We're outsiders and usually totally in the dark, so the ONLY thing we have to go on is what winds up in actual print on the dragon descriptions. That's all we have to go on; the text on the view page and who's name is in the credits section.

 

So we don't know the 'insider' facts that might have been tossed around during the creation process. All we know is what is can actually see and read. So we don't know how big a dragon is.. or how ferocious it is or isn't.. or if it's a carnivore or only eats pink gumdrops. Without those details, we can only go by what is publicly available. And when we get ambushed by facts not in evidence, we can sometimes get upset. Especially if it comes after a long, drawn out discussion that we've almost settled. Then bing bada boom one person comes along and throws a monkey wrench that NO ONE ELSE knew about and shuts the whole thing down. That sucks bigtime.

 

That's why I say that AFTER a dragon is in game, anything NOT in evidence is NO LONGER relative. If it wasn't published, it isn't true.. regardless of what might have been intended.

The trouble with the in-game breed description lies in the fact that it can't be too long, or it would end up cluttering the page (and pushing user descriptions down to the other side of the planet). To give an idea of how long a detailed breed fact sheet might be, the Flamingo breed bio might be a good example.

 

I suppose this technical issue can be resolved by the upcoming encyclopedia. And after that there would be no excuse for the artists to suddenly pop up in the middle of a BSA thread stating things that were never said anywhere else before.

[Fiona]

I know for myself, if I wasn't the person who came up with the concept for a dragon I'm not going to consider myself the go-to person for what they can or can't do. I'd refer you to the person who did come up with the concept. Gnomes are a great example that Thuban referred to earlier. Thuban came up with the idea. Yes, I am heavily invested in the artwork, but it's her concept. If someone were to propose a BSA for them that I thought didn't fit the breed I'd let Thuban know, not try to answer it myself. Cuz, not my concept. I may know, but I don't know, if you see the distinction.

 

I think that's true for most of the artists. If we didn't come up with the idea, or didn't contribute significantly to the development of concept, we aren't going to speak up. We'll send you to the person who did.

 

I'm really hoping that the encyclopedia helps with the lack of deeper information that is irking Cinnamin. There is normally much more information in the conceptor's head than can be communicated in the adult description. I know for certain that's true for both shadow walkers and coppers. Did you know, for example, that shadow walkers' favorite food is pumpkins? Or that coppers can walk through the forest so quietly that you'll never hear them? That a male copper won't eat himself until he's sure all the hatchlings in the group have gotten enough?

[HeatherMarie]

That's one thing I like about the wiki (and yes I know it's not official), it often shows quotes from spriters/etc giving more info about the breed. That extra info is really the only reason I'm looking forward to the encyclopedia, so I'm *really* hoping it'll be there.

[diaveborn]

The way I'd ideally like to see it is, there would be a lot of extra breed info in the encyclopedia, and then BSA ideas would have to fit *on-site* info. Any info that's not on dragcave.net would potentially be talked about during BSA discussions and maybe would shape the ideas, but not able to completely close down a BSA idea - if the BSA idea fit the on-site info but not the extra info, that would be okay.

 

But thinking about how things are now, there's some changes I'd like to see -

 

Right now there's the potential for someone new to the BSA section to come in, read the section guidelines, and then think they're doing the right thing by just looking at the description on one of their dragon pages and having their BSA idea fit that. Since that isn't all that's required, I'd like to see something added to the section guidelines about how there's additional info out there, and to expect that it might come into play - that breed creators have extra info that a BSA idea has to fit, and to know that they might come into the thread and say something will or wouldn't work. In combination, I think I'd like to have the artists/conceptors be encouraged to say "as the conceptor of this dragon, I think..." when responding to BSA threads.

 

I've seen where an artist can post in a BSA thread without saying they're the creator/artist, and if you're not in the know, it seems like any other opinion from any other person in the thread. (And then the person starting the thread can keep going with their idea, not realizing the creator turned down the idea. Obviously other people will say "hey, so and so was the creator and they said it's not okay" and then the thread creator will know and things can get back on track. But... I can imagine if you've looked at the section guidelines and tried to follow the rules, and then ended up breaking rules you didn't even know about, being in a situation where you accidently weren't respecting the wishes of people you're supposed to respect, it could be incredibly discouraging.)

 

The example in the paragraph above comes from an actual thread, but of course I don't know the feelings of the thread creator. But I know how I could have felt in that situation, and it makes me think that the BSA section isn't a very user-friendly section of the forum.

[Nectaris]

I really have not seen artists shoot down ideas that often, I kind of think this problem is being exaggerated a bit. And most of those that have been shot down by artists were already pretty much condemned as either being completely illogical(growing faster by daydreaming for example) or gamebreaking already and really was just the final nail in the coffin. With the exception of daydream BSAs, I really see more ENDORSED by the artist than shot down.

 

Personally I would like to see the ability to speculate on a breed within a BSA. While yes, some shoehorning would occur, it would also allow people to find a match that would actually WORK with the breed. I don't think speculation would actually hurt anything, the worst anyone can say is no, it doesn't work for that breed. Even if it wasn't allowed on thread, it would be nice to have a thread dedicated to finding a breed.

[KageSora]

I'd like to see a thread or just lifting of the restriction about "breed first then BSA" myself. I'm sure people already do the "hey, cool thing I want, what breed works?" plenty as it is--aside from those who get told "no, can't do that, must think of breed before bsa".

 

To me it makes mroe sense to think of a cool idea you want ot suggest, then to see what dragons--if any--might be capable of putting it into action. And if not, suggesting a dragon or whatnot.

[Cinnamin Draconna]

Hard to believe, but I agree 100% with Kage on that topic.

 

Finding the dragon to fit the BSA first is difficult.. ESPECIALLY when you don't have much info to work with.. or you are missing info from the creator.

 

That's one rule that needs to be dropped, because it hinders the creative process. What difference does it make if you have the BSA idea first, then thru discussion figure out which dragon to use. Heck, that makes sense.. the current rule is just stupid and restrictive.

[CNR4806]

Finding the dragon to fit the BSA first is difficult.. ESPECIALLY when you don't have much info to work with.. or you are missing info from the creator.

Much agreed.

 

Whether the concept of "breed before action" is sound or not is debatable, but it is definitely not practical when the information we have is so laughably inadequate for this purpose.

Edited June 17, 2014 by CNR4806

[LibbyLishly]

Hard to believe, but I agree 100% with Kage on that topic.

 

Finding the dragon to fit the BSA first is difficult.. ESPECIALLY when you don't have much info to work with.. or you are missing info from the creator.

 

That's one rule that needs to be dropped, because it hinders the creative process. What difference does it make if you have the BSA idea first, then thru discussion figure out which dragon to use. Heck, that makes sense.. the current rule is just stupid and restrictive.

Agree agree agree agree agree.

 

It makes far more sense to allow for corporate brainstorming in the form of "Here's an action that could actually be useful for all players. Is there a breed that might fit?" That way, creators and players can all pop in and give recommendations. To insist that the breed must come first, especially given the number of well-that-just-BARELY-fits BSAs that have already been implemented, seems completely arbitrary.

[olympe]

I guess I have to agree with that statement, too. This would also help with finding out if one BSA might be applied to more than just one dragon, either with or without slight alterations.

 

For example, Reds have Incubate.

In the BSA section, we discussed an Incubate-like BSA for Spitfires that has some random element added to it. It would make sense, and the Incubate of a Spitfire is still different enough from the Incubate of a Red.

[LibbyLishly]

I guess I have to agree with that statement, too. This would also help with finding out if one BSA might be applied to more than just one dragon, either with or without slight alterations.

 

For example, Reds have Incubate.

In the BSA section, we discussed an Incubate-like BSA for Spitfires that has some random element added to it. It would make sense, and the Incubate of a Spitfire is still different enough from the Incubate of a Red.

Not to mention the multiple versions of 'Heal' or 'Protect' or the variations on refusal reversals and egg freezing. People already try to fit a breed to a useful action; they're just not allowed to say so publicly, and if it's too obvious, they get viciously lambasted. Getting rid of that rule would do a lot to relieve some of the nastiness in that forum section.

[edwardelricfreak]

Yes yes yes please. Often times I find myself quoting that rule, only because right now it is one. It's my least favorite, honestly.

 

I would rather have a thread for a BSA, and then a list of all compatible dragons, not the other way around. Or if it does have to be the other way around, I really wish each dragon had a thread. Right now the BSA section is so cluttered. The only way to find anything is through that pinned topic, and a lot of the BSAs are essentially duplicates of each other for multiple dragons.

 

And besides, if we don't find any dragon that fits, someone could then just go make a new dragon in DR with that BSA.

[KageSora]

I really think you should be allowed to go either way. As it is, even if you come up with the dragon first then the BSA, it still will get shot down if you try to force a BSA onto the dragon which doesn't fit it.

 

And, as has been said, since it basically happens obviously as it is just without it being publicly said, I don't really see it leading to a huge increase in people trying to force BSA's that don't fit onto a dragon or anything.

 

I can't see a downside to removing that rule, especially when there's no practical way to enforce it besides reading the minds of people or hoping they slip up and admit it.

 

Either way, if you make the BSA for the breed or pick the breed for the BSA, if you try to force a BSA that won't work you'll end up having it rejected all the same.

[TJ09]

This is partially just a side effect of my avoidance of using absolutes, but there is no actual written rule saying you can't just say "I want to be able to do this, there should be a BSA for it." The guidelines topic says to "try" looking for actions that fit a breed, not "you must" go about the thought process in a very narrow way. It's also technically unenforceable. If you go through that train of thought in your head ("I want X, let's find a dragon that could possibly do X") then post it, no one will ever know.

 

The mods do currently enforce it that way in terms of posts (topics that don't target a specific breed aren't kept around), which is mostly historical but also partially a matter of practicality. I don't think I've seen any attempts to go from "action -> find a dragon that fits" that have been successful at coming up with a valid explanation for the action. Given that you need to come up with some justification why a breed is able to perform the action anyways, I don't find it super-limiting (though I'm also not opposed to not enforcing it has a hard rule).

 

And despite some of the objections in this thread to "RP reasons," it's very unlikely that a BSA that doesn't fit the breed will be released. Sorry, you might not care about trying to build a setting that isn't completely incohesive (loldoublenegatives, lolfridgelogic), but that doesn't mean everyone should do without them.

 

Which, you have a much better chance of accomplishing that if you keep the breed in mind instead of shoehorning actions onto something. ("I want hatchling incubate, so I propose that whiptails be able to shake their tails at hatchlings to make them grow faster because whiptails are my favorite breed" isn't going to fly).

[KageSora]

Personally, I'd like to just have it stop being enforced as a proper rule and left instead as a suggested method due to the unenforcability without admittance to the thought process and the way that BSA's that aren't able to be properly reasoned out in relation to the breed are unlikely to get by anyway.

 

 

If users just can't come up with a passable RP reason, the thread'll be closed just like it is now if somebody can't reason out their idea well enough.

 

At the very least, having a single thread where you can discuss "Hey, I like X idea. Here's how I'd propose it--does it work with this breed/are there other breeds it can work with/is there another way to reason it out that fits with another breed?" would be nice.

[HeatherMarie]

At the very least, having a single thread where you can discuss "Hey, I like X idea.  Here's how I'd propose it--does it work with this breed/are there other breeds it can work with/is there another way to reason it out that fits with another breed?" would be nice.

Totally agree here.

 

Personally, I get annoyed at the sheer *number* of threads posted that aren't thought out at all, that *are* basically just "I want this, so let's make (breed) do it". It's annoying, honestly. But one thread to be all "hey, I know this would be really interesting, is there any breed that could do it?" would be much better, I think.

[CNR4806]

At the very least, having a single thread where you can discuss "Hey, I like X idea. Here's how I'd propose it--does it work with this breed/are there other breeds it can work with/is there another way to reason it out that fits with another breed?" would be nice.

It already exists, just very, very underused when all the people who don't bother using their brain beyond "oh I want this BSA" just click on the New Topic button anyway.