|
Post by King Mir on Aug 18, 2009 2:22:25 GMT
I'm thinking we should some sort of poll going in order to sort out forever the matter of what we're calling the suits. Personally I don't mind what suits people want to use, but as Spritznar pointed out to me, if we leave it too fluid we'll end up with 10 suits that don't symbolise anything and there will be mass confusion and rioting in the streets (possibly). So, shall I set up a poll here? I agree with a poll. But how? I mean, how will you put down the options? See my table above. Of 6 options, not counting nikita's, whichever gets a majority will be what we use. If after a time, nobody gets a majority, we have a runoff of the options that have a chance if others are eliminated. We'll also need another set of polls for the label, but that can come after we commit to themes. Some of the themes suggest different suits.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Aug 18, 2009 2:37:54 GMT
Oh is this where we start voting?
Then I vote for my idea, because it makes sense, the items are actually related to the comic, and you would be able to find plenty of scenes from the actual comic to use (such as the 10 of swords shown a moment ago).
|
|
cnthelogos
New Member
Aspiring Philosopher King
Posts: 4
|
Post by cnthelogos on Aug 18, 2009 5:44:32 GMT
Funny, the things that will inspire a long time reader to make an actual post to the forum. In addition to liking this comic a great deal, I have a small collection of tarot decks, read with them a little, and enjoy the card games when I can find someone willing to play, so I suppose I might as well add my two cents.
I prefer "coins" to any substitution, be it "pentacles," "gears," whatever. Coins is the classical name for the suit, and if you're using the other classical names it doesn't make sense to change coins to gears and keep clubs/sticks/wands. I've seen quite a few swords in Gunnerkrigg Court, but I can't recall anyone using a stick or a literal magic wand. I wouldn't mind keeping that suit the same, but it makes more sense to keep everything consistent.
Another thing. Why not have indices on the cards? I totally support illustrated minors, but I've always thought it a shame to have a nice deck of cards that are too hard to tell apart for anyone to bother playing games with them. It's no problem if you're just interested in divination or the artwork, but the standard occult practice of writing the full name of the card on the bottom doesn't really help if you're trying to look for a card in your hand. I don't think it looks good either, although that's just my opinion, influenced by my addled brain's love of conciseness and symmetry.
The proposed pictures and the artwork I've seen so far all looks great. The only thing to watch out would be sudden developments that might change what a character would mean in a reading (e.g. Jack seems to have gotten a lot creepier as of the latest comic) but since it's doubtful anyone will print these out beyond making a copy for themselves, cards can easily be altered as the story continues.
Keep up the good work guys. I'll watch further developments with interest.
|
|
|
Post by Ulysses on Aug 18, 2009 17:43:06 GMT
Thanks for setting up the theme poll, Mir. I'll sort out a Names poll. Edit: After the themes are decided, of course. Didn't see that some of the names are dependent on the theme.
cnthelogos - By indices, do you mean the Roman numerals I've seen at the top of some of the 'official' decks? If so then I agree with you, especially with regard to the larger numbers. It shouldn't be necessary to count the swords (for example) to know how many there are, although obviously it wouldn't take that long. Besides, I think they look better with the numbers at the top.
|
|
cnthelogos
New Member
Aspiring Philosopher King
Posts: 4
|
Post by cnthelogos on Aug 18, 2009 22:10:26 GMT
cnthelogos - By indices, do you mean the Roman numerals I've seen at the top of some of the 'official' decks? If so then I agree with you, especially with regard to the larger numbers. It shouldn't be necessary to count the swords (for example) to know how many there are, although obviously it wouldn't take that long. Besides, I think they look better with the numbers at the top. You know how in a deck of playing cards, the number (or letter for the court cards) and suit symbol of the card is in the top left and bottom right corner of the card's border? Something similar to that is what I'm referring to. Of course you could play around with that; the minors in the Marseille decks I've seen have roman numerals on the side of the picture, in the middle rather than the corner,* and the trumps have the number at the top and the name at the bottom, like you're talking about. Or put the number in the corner and write out the suit or trump name after it, writing out the name for court cards as well. It could be done any number of ways. That said, putting the number in the middle, at the top of the card is almost as good for gameplay and some may find it a bit more dignified for reading. But in that case the numbers need to be bold or at least clearly above the rest of the art; I don't even like to read with the original Rider-Waite and decks based on it because I've got to squint to see the tiny v or x in the middle of the picture. ...You know, this thread totally makes me wish I had actual artistic ability. I'd try to draw the six of swords or the seven of cups, except even my stick figures look terrible. Someone better make those look good. *Except the coins have their numbers on the bottom and/or top of the card for some reason. Not sure why that is, but coins are easy to count anyway, so it's not a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Aug 19, 2009 2:09:49 GMT
people could possibly do two versions, one with the number however for artistic purposes and one with the index number. not sure how other people do it but i draw the art seperate and add the number and boarder on the computer so it would be pretty easy to do two different numberings. of course we also don't need to be making extra work for people... but if they felt like it *shrug* i might do alternate versions of the ones i made... possibly after redrawing the ten of swords... it would look the same, i just like that drawing of bullbot less every time i look at it if people do decide to do indices, any clue what we might use to symbolize the suits (which we can't even decide on yet)? a small sword is easy enough but a small stick/wand just looks like a line... i suppose we could use the club from standard card decks but that might just add to the confusion...
|
|
|
Post by pepoluan on Aug 19, 2009 8:18:50 GMT
Hmm... now that the poll is up... should one contribute *now* or wait until the results of the poll is in?
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 19, 2009 12:37:13 GMT
I say wait. Also, it'd bee good to create a simple template for the cards - what format they have and where the number and suit symbol goes etc. Just so everything is roughly in the same place and size on every card.
|
|
|
Post by Ulysses on Aug 19, 2009 19:07:01 GMT
We didn't have any of that stuff standardised in the Major Arcana. Do we really need it to be in the Minor? I'm thinking more of the format and number placement here rather than suit placement, as representations of the suit are used -in- the picture so they'll be obvious.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 19, 2009 20:17:23 GMT
hm.... okay. I'm only takling about a very basic template. Only where to put the number and the format (width-to-height ratio ). Because I think it's nice to have cards that are all similar, but are otherwise totally different.
|
|
|
Post by pepoluan on Aug 20, 2009 12:36:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pepoluan on Aug 20, 2009 12:49:05 GMT
Generally, the above designs: - Have easy to read name of the card on the lower end - Have a "visual separator" between the design and the name of the card The above show wands, but other decks sometimes say staffs. And, I also stumbled to this: www.aeclectic.net/tarot/project/It's like the GC Tarot project; Aeclectic has completed four full tarot decks made by various contributors.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Aug 20, 2009 23:56:34 GMT
I prefer "coins" to any substitution, be it "pentacles," "gears," whatever. Coins is the classical name for the suit, and if you're using the other classical names it doesn't make sense to change coins to gears and keep clubs/sticks/wands. I've seen quite a few swords in Gunnerkrigg Court, but I can't recall anyone using a stick or a literal magic wand. I wouldn't mind keeping that suit the same, but it makes more sense to keep everything consistent. There are plenty of trees though. Especially with the forest theme, having some long strait trees standing out would not be out of place. I suppose we could call the suit "Trees" but that would unduly prevent other suits from including trees. More of a concern is the suit of Cups. There is no Gunnerkrigg theme of cups. We might see a beaker from time and or that broken glass, but no cups or chalices. Even if somebody proves me wrong, and finds the one cup in the whole story, that's hardly enough to base a suit on. I wish that suit were changed, but I'm not sure to what.
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Aug 21, 2009 0:11:51 GMT
Excuse me for asking, but when will we be definitively deciding on the suits for the cards? I'm thinking of starting some in the Pentacles suit, but as far as I know, it might turn out being gears or something else.
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Aug 21, 2009 0:14:12 GMT
for the size, i seem to recall someone suggesting 500x1000 pixels for the major arcana so that's the size i've been doing. looking through the finished cards only 4 have those dimensions (including the 2 i made) although 6 are close (540x1000 for example) so i don't know if i just made up that number or maybe the suggestion was made and got lost as the project went on so only the earlier cards were that size... *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by pepoluan on Aug 21, 2009 5:01:09 GMT
I think a height of 1000 is enough. As to the width, why don't we check out the cards in the site I posted above and find out the rough proportion?
After all, the cards there are, especially the top ten ones, are professionally drawn and even available commercially.
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Aug 21, 2009 15:36:50 GMT
I think the dimensions for most cards are strictly on a 2:1 ratio of width to height, so 1000x500 would be pretty much the ideal thing to shoot for. Not that we have to be too direct, I'm sure 1000x450 would look just as good.
|
|
|
Post by pepoluan on Aug 21, 2009 15:49:11 GMT
Well, the cards I posted above have the following dimensions ==> proportion (width:height)
185px × 333px ==> 1:1.8 185px × 316px ==> 1:1.7 185px × 261px ==> 1:1.41 185px × 291px ==> 1:1.57
1:2 in my opinion is too thin or too tall.
Of the above cards, the one I like most, proportion-wise, is 1:1.57. That means, for a height of 1000 pixels, you'll get 1000/1.57 = 637 pixels width.
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Aug 21, 2009 16:30:13 GMT
It seems a little wide in my opinion, but I suppose I can manage, although I might deviate from it a bit since I draw everything by hand.
|
|
|
Post by Ulysses on Aug 21, 2009 17:20:48 GMT
Excuse me for asking, but when will we be definitively deciding on the suits for the cards? I'm thinking of starting some in the Pentacles suit, but as far as I know, it might turn out being gears or something else. Don't worry about waiting for the poll, go do your thang. Nobody's going to shout at you for doing Coins if Gears do get chosen. The polls are only to choose a preference rather than a strict rule.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Aug 21, 2009 18:45:29 GMT
1:1.41 is the typical European paper ration. More precisely given as 1:√2. If we standardize the ratio, I suggest we use that.
EDIT: That's if we standardize the size at all. I don't mean to imply that we should.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 21, 2009 19:51:37 GMT
If the professional cards are between 1:0.57 and 1:0.8, we could choose the golden ratio 1:0.618 which lies somewhere in between. That'd be 1000x618.
|
|
|
Post by pepoluan on Aug 21, 2009 19:51:50 GMT
1:1.41 ... isn't it too wide?
For papers it might be pleasing, but for cards?
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Aug 21, 2009 20:05:38 GMT
Hm. Conveniently enough, my sketchbook is actually a little more than 1:1.6. Unfortunatly, my scanner is unable to go into use, as was discovered when I tried putting up my rendition of the Four of Coins(?) and it refused to cooperate with my new computer. Tomorrow I'll go and get what I need, but it's unfortunate because I had it all done today...
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Aug 21, 2009 20:44:23 GMT
1:1.41 ... isn't it too wide? For papers it might be pleasing, but for cards? I just measured a playing card and It has a ration of 1.42.
|
|
|
Post by Mishmash on Aug 21, 2009 23:46:16 GMT
Can't you just call the suit coins and then people can use gears, symbols, whatever they want, depending on what best fits the picture they draw?
I am not sure I am going to draw a minor arcana card, but I thought I'd chip in to remind everyone the major arcana project was no where near as strict as some people are taking this. People just took the character suggested, researched the card themselves and did whatever they wanted and I thought that was really nice.
To give an example, I drew Kat as The Magician, who has a table with coins, cups and knives on it and holds a wand. I drew coins with the bismuth and antimony symbols, as well as Anja's necklace for coins; the glass that Annie broke in the flashback, Kat's anti-grav unit and Mort's lampshade from when he eavesdropped as cups; Mr Eglamore's knife (that Surma gave him) and Robot's arm for knives; a feather from Aly as the wand. My point being, I didn't adhere too strictly to the traditional items, just drew Gunnerkrigg-related things that were sort-of similar.
In short, I think everyone should relax on trying to standardise the cards and just let everyone who wants to have a go be creative and do what they feel like.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Aug 22, 2009 4:11:04 GMT
To give an example, I drew Kat as The Magician, who has a table with coins, cups and knives on it and holds a wand. I drew coins with the bismuth and antimony symbols, as well as Anja's necklace for coins; the glass that Annie broke in the flashback, Kat's anti-grav unit and Mort's lampshade from when he eavesdropped as cups; Mr Eglamore's knife (that Surma gave him) and Robot's arm for knives; a feather from Aly as the wand. My point being, I didn't adhere too strictly to the traditional items, just drew Gunnerkrigg-related things that were sort-of similar. This sort of thing is not really possible for the minor Arcana, because there is no widely established set of symbols for each card. There are specific decks, that use specific symbols, and it is true we could commit to one. Instead I suggested to take the opportunity of flexible imagery to make a deck that is genuinely GC themed. I think it would be really cool to capitalize on GC's story depth in this way. But doing this requires a consensus on what themes to use. Later we will also need to compile a list of possible card elements, much like Ulysses has done, except not based on the Rider-Waite deck. There have been some partial suggestions already. Compiling this list would not hold up drawing however, since having a good idea for a card relevant the the theme is enough to make into the deck. Also, as others have pointed out, some agreement on how to distinguish face cards, particularly from each other is desired. This will also need consensus. On top of that there is the question of what to label the suits, since there is some variation among tarot decks. Although the suggestion of changing pentacles to gears complicates this, this question would have to be addressed irregardless of whether we make the deck GC themed. Finally, cnthelogos pointed out that since the Minor Arcana can be used for playing, it may be worthwhile to put some effort to make this easy. Specifically He suggested putting an index in the corner, and the idea of standardizing detentions was also brought up. This is a reasonable point, and we have to decide to what extent we want to address it. So in short, making Minor Arcana is inherently more complex then the major arcana, and we aren't just unduly standardizing what was left up the the artist in the Major Arcana.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Aug 22, 2009 22:18:06 GMT
Now that the theme is decided I'd like to post some of my ideas on the cards. Some of these are from pepoluan. These are just ideas, feel free to do what you want. For face cards: | Chalices | Batons | Gears | Swords | | Harmony | Forest | Court | Conflict | Page | Annie | Shadow 2 | Kat | Parley | Knight | | Ysengrin | Deigo | Eglamore | Queen | Surma | | Anja | Jeanne | King | | Coyote | Headmaster | Sir Young | Ace | Medium dude | Wooden Hand | Court Entrance | Glowing sword flying |
With these we need to establish some symbolism that will make people distinguish a knight from a king and page, and a queen from a female page. For the ace cards I suggest not including people, so that they are not confusable with the face cards. For the number cards, in no order:Chalice -- Harmony:Kat + Aly(as bird) Mort Cherry tree scene Batons -- EatherFairies Rey as a fox Mollt-y-nos Moddey-dhoo Mutt Gears -- scienceKat doing physics Kat's Science fair Protein Zimmy's abomination Horsebot Power station Barber bot Robot HQ Diego’s Robot lineup Swords -- ConflictS1 Robot possessed Fighting Dogs Bullbot (already present)
|
|
somnium
New Member
Ora Lege Relege Labora Et Invenies
Posts: 21
|
Post by somnium on Aug 24, 2009 8:50:21 GMT
Have the cards been chosen? As in who's going to do what... If not I may take a crack at one of them.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Aug 29, 2009 1:17:55 GMT
Gees, I didn't mean to scare everyone away with my long posts. I declared the themes decided and suddenly no one is talking about tarot any more.
I know there were people who were eager to start the suit names threads.
No they haven't. Somebody did the ace of wands, and somebody else the 10 of swords. Everything else is free.
Currently though, there is non consensus on the names of the suit. So you can make a drawing, but it might be necessary to change the label. And if the suggestions to standardize the dimension ratios or put in indexes are adopted, then you may need to make changes to conform.
|
|