forums.rs

Forums

History of the Kinshra - Edits

Quick find code: 341-342-323-65566452

of 20
William Witt
Aug Member 2023

William Witt

Posts: 12,465 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Well, then, in no particular order - I'll begin by raising another point. There seems to have been a misunderstanding of our usage of the term 'march'. 'March' in this case was meant to refer to a border region controlled by a marquess - Hence explaining why Lord Valzin had a mansion out there. He was the feudal lord placed in charge of the border region between Asgarnia and the Wilderness.

I assume this misunderstanding (which changed the text to 'led a perilous march') is also why mention of the Kinshra leaving Falador has been removed, because they no doubt thought it redundant (believing the Kinshra to *already* have left in the 'march').
The Asgarnian ale must flow.

08-Feb-2015 13:40:43

Nolhiir
Mar Member 2019

Nolhiir

Posts: 1,732 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Lord Bilrach said :
At this point the whole thing with King Vallance is something I've been aware for awhile but for the life of me, I can't source. Does anyone remember where it was officially revealed in game that the White Knights more or less usurped their king and took away the Kinshra's political power?
I believe one of the Burthrope commanders/guards/other relevant peoples says that. Newest Disciple of Xau-Tak

08-Feb-2015 23:58:17

William Witt
Aug Member 2023

William Witt

Posts: 12,465 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
It could be changed, or it could be retained but with the inclusion of a note to Jagex explaining the meaning and not to change it. It could be educational to players if kept as is - Apart from the Shadwell descent bit, which I believe should be made as accessible as possible, I think the rest can afford to be slightly confusing (as long as it's for good reason) as it doesn't have as direct a bearing upon what the quest was before the book came out.

For the same educational reasoning, I also want to get the 'petty kingdom' thing in - Though that could be similarly confusing, and thus should probably also include a note to Jagex.

That being said, I'm not entirely resistant to changing it - What does everyone else think?
The Asgarnian ale must flow.

09-Feb-2015 05:09:09

Lord Drakan
Sep Member 2010

Lord Drakan

Posts: 7,043 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Well, both Jagex and the person who wrote the Valzin wiki article interpreted it wrongly, so it'd probably be best to use a synonym of 'march' to avoid any ambiguity.

As for Shadwell, could you please explain why you want to reference him? As far as I know, that dialogue was supposed to give Dulcin family ties to the founder of the Kinshra, whom we have established to be Valzin (hence the latter's name), with Shadwell's mention being a mistake. It makes sense for Daquarius to respect the Valzin ancestry, but Shadwell? Sure, we could make Dulcin be related to Shadwell and Shadwell to Valzin, but that would be a bit silly. As I said before, I think Shadwell should be left out completely. Thoughts? Bizarre Boron Fusswell, scryer extraordinaire. OSRS: POH ideas & RS3 minigames & achievement ideas !

Perhaps you're half right; perhaps we can't win. But we can fight.
— Zanik

09-Feb-2015 07:15:59

Mod Stu

Mod Stu

Jagex Moderator Forum Profile Posts by user
Quick contribution:

Original message details are unavailable.
Kittyphantom's text above would be a great opening paragraph, and it's good to have that right at the top as a summary for the lore-curious who don't yet want to read too much into the details.

I said this over a year ago, and preferences change. :) I don't think you need worry about including an extract at the start of the book. I expect players interested in this book and the history of the Kinshra will want to read the whole thing. IMO, better to just work those details in wherever it best suits the flow of the text.

I'm happy to change reference to Dulcin's heritage in Dulcin's journal to better fit the expanded lineage. Please just include the replacement text snippet in your bullet-point list of changes when you reach an agreement, so I can ensure it's addressed in the bug fix.

09-Feb-2015 13:11:37

William Witt
Aug Member 2023

William Witt

Posts: 12,465 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Thank you, Mod Stu, but I meant whether you object to the whole text of the book being treated as an extract from a larger book (see sMJMZgr1). I do think that lets the text work naturally *and* makes the detail of Dulcin's descent accessible. [EDIT: I think this kind of thing may have precedent - Other ingame books that are also implied to not be the whole text, I think.]

Unlike the rest of the book (which is history that doesn't have much bearing upon the quest) this particular bit is part of the original plot/'mystery'.

I think it's very plot relevant to know that Dulcin is descended from the founder, without that being buried deep in a text that someone might not want to read just then.
The Asgarnian ale must flow.

09-Feb-2015 15:12:48 - Last edited on 09-Feb-2015 15:20:47 by William Witt

Mod Stu

Mod Stu

Jagex Moderator Forum Profile Posts by user
William Witt said :
I meant whether you object to the whole text of the book being treated as an extract from a larger book

Sure, I'm okay with that. The text is comparatively short for the number of pages in the book, after all. ;) The player may just be reading a few pages of the full volume; or even if it alludes to a larger external text that may never be implemented, it's nice to imply a greater scope where we can.

09-Feb-2015 18:47:31

Quick find code: 341-342-323-65566452 Back to Top