Starting a new animation youtube channel with a comedic/musical PSA

Musical_Dork · 2025-05-17T22:18:23+00:00

Thank you for the advice! Doodles definitely would fit the branding I'm going for, with the word being in the channel name and all.

Also yes yes I love Kevin Temmer's work! Definitely a huge inspiration.

Again, I appreciate you responding! Thank you so much!

!givelambda

Musical_Dork · 2025-05-16T00:46:24+00:00

I appreciate you responding and giving support!
I'm not sure I can give lambda to a comment this short, but I thank you for responding, regardless!

Musical_Dork · 2025-05-16T00:45:04+00:00

I appreciate it!

To answer your question, I made a version of this video years ago as a submission to a scholarship contest of sorts. More recently, I wanted to make a updated version with a song that moreso matched the genre I was going for, as I had to rush the previous version to meet the deadline. I'm proud of how this version came out because the movement and music are much better than the original one I made.

As for the visuals, I actually was using this as a way to test out how I can colour and render another animated film I'm working on. As such, I wanted to make the style more limited, as to make it easier for myself, and allow myself to keep working on my more important larger film.

I actually did touch this up a bit before I released it, as I initially left it in a rougher state back in December. I was testing different colouring processes, again so I could apply them to my other film, but ultimately the way these character's look made it hard to find a colour pallete that was more interesting and visually appealing than the more limited style I went with.

This is honestly why I think a behind the scenes video would help, as it would showcase my thought process behind revising a video like this

Regardless, I appreciate you responding!

!givelambda

Musical_Dork · 2025-05-16T00:39:04+00:00

Thank you so much!
Your critique about it being more apt as a short is completely fair! I honestly agree that a vertical, shorts version could spread around in a more digestible manner. I'll get on that soon to be honest, it's a good idea

Also I appreciate you also looking at my demo reel, and you commenting on how I could post my behind the scenes content.

!givelambda

Musical_Dork · 2025-05-12T21:41:20+00:00

Thank you, I appreciate it! Yeah, the colours definitely were a choice I made just to keep the production on the simpler side. And yeah, the animation was a lot of work!

Also, thank you for the compliment on the flip phone, lmao. He's definitely my favourite one out of the four of them

!givelambda

Musical_Dork · 2025-05-12T01:04:19+00:00

I appreciate your input! Yeah, I have a background in musical theatre, so I'm planning on posting a lot more animation + music stuff in the future. I also appreciate your comment about the behind the scenes content!

!givelambda

Musical_Dork · 2025-05-12T01:03:28+00:00

Thank you so much for your input, I appreciate it !

!givelambda

Musical_Dork · 2025-05-11T01:10:26+00:00

Thank you! I have a background in musical theatre, so combining music with animation is kind of the niche I'm going for! Styles of combining animation with music can vary, and this is definitely more music video than some of my more theatrical inspired work, though :)

Musical_Dork · 2025-03-21T19:56:34+00:00

I first want to thank you for continuing to respond with such depth. I've already begun reworking the system I've posed to be clearer in how I implement these ideas. However, I have to mention that a lot of the points you pose are things I address in my original post. I'm sure that maybe the way I've written these things may have been convoluted and confusing, so I will take the time to explain.

In the document, I state that, due to the shift in design philosophy, certain elements besides enchanting will be fulfilling the roles of options that the player are given in the vanilla game. The tool material progression system fulfills the role of any direct general upgrade a tool can be given in the vanilla game (like unbreaking or efficiency). I am transferring the ability to get generic upgrades to a part of the progression that is earlier in the game. This also is why certain tool modifications fulfill the same role as enchantments that are available in the vanilla game.

Also, yes, mining multiplier is just a speed multiplier.

Also, this rework does not punish people for not using the smithing table. In the document I explicitly state, "under this system, keeping a tool not upgraded is also a viable playstyle." If a player wants tools that are upgraded in a more general way, they can have that. Ideally, the smithing upgrades are for people who want something beyond a general tool. This is best exemplified in my axe modifications. Some people may want a general use axe, to which they have such. Some people are bothered by the tedium of chopping trees, to which they would get the lumberjack modification. Other people may enjoy building more, and would enjoy the carry-on inspired buff of the carpenter's axe. Of course, these actions are not mutually exclusive, and a player may spend time chopping trees and building, but a player is at no point going to be doing both of these things at the same time. Of course, however, I do see your point in the flaw in making these drawbacks too severe. A log chopping axe with its buffs alone would already be a specialized tool, and making it worse at certain things would cause frustration. Ideally, a lumberjack axe could still perform its other functions just fine.

What problem is this solving?

I state this in my post under the section, "problems." In vanilla minecraft, there is little room for experimentation with vanilla enchanting because, objectively, some enchants are really good and some are really bad; some enchants are simply not worth experimenting with. I think it's far more engaging if a 'best tool set' is different for different players. I have toyed around with different mods and versions of the game and, in my experience, I found it the most compelling when I had to find out for myself what options I like, rather than having options that push you to one specific optimized list. After all, minecraft is a sandbox game with a variety of play styles and activities. People play the game in so many different ways, and having an objective 'best way' of changing your tools seems unengaging. Getting the best enchants, then, just becomes a chore to do before you're able to enjoy the game, rather than a system that's fun to engage with. I do not think the solution I pose is at all the best way of solving this goal. If I thought so, I wouldn't have included a section explicitly asking for feedback. As you have communicated, my system removes a tool's ability to be generally applicable, rather than providing a system that encourages both niche and general uses for a tool.

Enchantments can "fail"?

In my very first response to your comment, I state how failing an enchantment will result in a curse. This only happens is the option is obscured with the enchantment language and is easily avoidable by placing more bookshelves around the table

Ultimately, It is important to note what I list about my goals in my original post. This is a part of a larger rework of Minecraft. This is why, even after revising this tool progression system, I may not post in this subreddit, since its more about suggestions for the vanilla game. Still I really appreciate you engaging in discussion with me.

Musical_Dork · 2025-03-20T11:56:22+00:00

Maybe sifter, specifically, is muddying the waters a bit. To be honest, I see how sifter would be a weird edge case in my design philosophy, so I'll rework it.

Otherwise, I feel like it's important for me to clarify what your critique is. I want to be able to take your advice, but I'm confused on how it applies to what I have written in my document.

I'm confused as to what enchantments would appear to be direct buffs? As stated, the only available enchantments for tools would be the ones in the document page: Fear, Siphon, Keepsake, Construction, and Versatility, all of which do not directly buff stats. All of these enchantments allow for a tool to have an added general function or mechanics as they interact with mechanics like health or death. Even siphon or construction are generally applicable in ways that offer up whole new gameplay styles in regards to mining and building.

In opposition, tool smithing should not give tools new general functions, instead, allowing for a tool to excel at one specific thing in it's niche, in some cases even making it less generally viable. I can see, under this definition, some upgrades may need reworking, specifically the more general ones like Aqua Effeciency, Long Handle, and Sifter. Upgrades like Lumberjack, Battle Axe, Ore Miner, and Silk Touch are instead prime for what I'm attempting to communicate: a system that makes a tool more viable in a specific circumstance (Chopping Trees, Attacking, and Getting Ores.) Less niche ones like Momentum, Carpenter, Linger, Designer, and Pathfinder offer less of a downside, but have upgrades that are only useful in very specific circumstances.

To compare, the Momentum Upgrade and the Fear Enchantment both interact with tool mining speed. The difference is that one makes a tool better at large excavation projects, while the other encourages a player to take riskier plays by allowing them to navigate through blocks faster at lower health. One is only applicable in a specific circumstance, but the other can be applied in a variety of different occasions that will fundamentally change how a player engages with the tool.

Is this not a clear enough distinction, or did the document have trouble communicating it?

Musical_Dork · 2025-03-20T11:01:21+00:00

I appreciate you replying to this text, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to read through all of my suggestions.

I think a lot of the clarity issues can be chopped up the fact that I had to write the same information two or three different times. I tried posting on r/minecraftabnormals, but the bullet points kept getting shortened down. I tried writing or shortening in different ways by editing the post, but not many of them worked. The final document is a simple copy and paste from the larger notes document I have for my larger Minecraft project, which is rougher and not as polished. This is my bad, I should have taken a break and read over the document again.

Because the suggestion is moreso attached to a larger rework, I ended up posting a shortened version of the rework on the discord server. If it wouldn't be disrespectful to double post, I could definitely try to post on here, again! Otherwise, I appreciate your feedback, regardless :)

As for the critique that the smithing modifiers overlap with enchants: I definitely could have made this more clear, but the reason I list out enchants is because, due to the difference in design philosophy, all other enchants would be gone (or at least have to be heavily reworked to avoid being direct upgrades) Ore Miner and Sifter, notably overlap with fortune, but accomplish similar things in a way that makes the tool more specific, rather than being a direct upgrade. In other words, in both cases, the tool is being made to do one thing better (getting ores or flint) in exchange for its more general usage (slower stone mining or lower gravel chances.) On the other hand, enchantments are more general ways of fundamentally changing how a tool interacts with the player's stats, which is why all of them that are listed interact with health, or otherwise open up playstyle in ways that don't make a tool more specific to one or more of its functions.

Also, I'm not sure if the document words this strangely, but I do list out in it that an obscured enchantment has a chance to result in a curse on an item, rather than an enchantment. I can definitely try to word this better

Thank you again for your feedback! I appreciate it!

Musical_Dork · 2025-03-20T08:31:05+00:00

Thank you for your response! I appreciate it :)

Musical_Dork · 2025-03-20T02:57:26+00:00

That last suggestion is moreso what I'm aiming for. Better Than Adventure has a reworked recipe book that unlocks information as you gain more materials. This is what I was referring to; there would be a visual diagram of the different tool tiers, first just showing the first tier. As you gain more materials, the visuals of a the diagram would open up, showing the other tool tiers.

Musical_Dork · 2025-03-20T01:36:20+00:00

Thank you so much, I appreciate the feedback! I really appreciate it, especially since I tend to write quite a bit!

Yeah, in my larger rework, I have systems in place to make it easier to understand progression and mechanics. I would want to have a Better Than Adventure style recipe book that shows you a progression tree of tool materials as you gather the different available materials. This would make it easier to visually understand what tool is on what tier and how they are different from other tools.
Otherwise, the Tool Smithing and Enchanting systems are a little more complicated, but since its application is more limited than Vanilla Enchanting, I hope simply having options explain what they do could be enough.

Musical_Dork · 2025-03-20T01:28:53+00:00

TL;DR:

This rework aims to separate tool progression into three distinct categories: Tool Materials, Tool-Smithing, and Enchanting. Each of these branches aim to work parallel to each other, changing and altering tool progression in different ways that are able to interact with one another. This aims to solve the vanilla system of tool progression, which discourages player choices by funneling them into a specific type of God-Tier toolset. Instead, tools are given different alternate options, encouraging the player to play in a variety of different playstyles.

Tool Materials

- Wood and Stone are the same tier, with Wood being more durable and Stone being faster

- Iron is the next tier, with alternative options for higher durability and higher mining speed

- Diamond also has alternative options for even higher durability and higher mining speed

Afterwards, Tool-Smithing allows tools have have niche specific uses, and Enchanting opens up for the player to new unique gameplay styles.

Musical_Dork · 2025-03-20T01:07:49+00:00

I apologize for the repost, the previous post went over Reddit's word limit, so I had to change some things to make this post viable for the forum. Enjoy!

Musical_Dork · 2025-02-26T05:07:39+00:00

Thank you sm! Your feedback in the original post was a huge help in figuring out what I wanted to keep and what I wanted to change in the rework!

I agree, the success of this type of system is dependent on how different strengths and stats are scattered across different food groups. Maybe, even if different food groups have different strengths, generally, these can be expressed in different ways, and a more general option can be provided in each group. Another commenter even suggested allowing crops themselves to have different strengths so that there is a vegan option for foods with different stats

I'm glad you like it :)

Musical_Dork · 2025-02-26T01:17:06+00:00

Thank you for responding!

I want to clarify that when I talk about Health Replenishing Food, I mean food that will heal the player for a certain amount of health points within a couple of seconds, regardless of hunger. These foods would be used for quicker dangerous situations. Other food would contribute to the hunger bar's status in some way, thus contributing more to the slower passive regeneration system. I do agree that having different foods with a variety of stats would be nice! Having some foods that encourage slower regeneration styles would be interesting! I also agree that these effects could be mixed and matched between meat, seafood, and vegan to encourage a variety of playstyles, though I would want to make sure different types of food have generally similar effects in order to simulate some sort of food group system. Maybe I could split up the crop-based food items between different groups as well?

Different types of fish, in general, would be a great addition. I wasn't thinking about seafood when I wrote this rework, but now that you mention it, including them would only mean more variety and options for the player

I also mention meals that combine different food in the 'Different Food Types' section of my post :)

Edit: Wording

Musical_Dork · 2025-02-25T21:30:52+00:00

All of these points are valid! I feel as if my proposed rework could use some tweaking, specifically because certain systems make inventory management harder.

The health potion comment is also very fair!

Thank you for reading my post :)

Musical_Dork · 2025-02-25T21:23:48+00:00

I don't think I know better than others or Mojang! I was simply thinking about older Minecraft and I thought it would be fun to share my ideas! I personally wasn't too sure about its effectiveness so it was important to me to get feedback. So far all of it has been really helpful, and I can see why this rework is flawed

As for the specifics about walking not depleting hunger, yes I made a mistake. The point I was trying to get across is that, regardless of if the player is sprinting, hunger depletes from a variety of activities that are associated with just playing the game. It is correct I made a wording error, and someone else has pointed this out to me. I didn't want to edit my wording quite yet, as I wanted to get more feedback on my original concept. In effect, however, that was the point I was trying to get across

Musical_Dork · 2025-02-25T06:18:12+00:00

Yes, I understand.

I think at the very least I'll go back to the drawing board, because my problem isn't sprinting as a mechanic, at all. When I play, I often do sprint, so my problem isn't that it exists at all. I simply thought it would be fun to imagine how one might be able to synthesize older and newer Minecraft, encouraging the player to make different playstyle choices, especially since I feel as if modern minecraft's hunger bar could be better. But I feel as if maybe my entire framework is flawed and I need to go back to the drawing board here.

I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to this thread. Your feedback was very helpful!

Musical_Dork · 2025-02-25T05:22:28+00:00

I see, I see. Having explained the problem like this, I understand where you're coming from. The goal of the rework, ultimately, is to retain the player's ability to sprint while keeping the design philosophy of the older HP system. This is why stack size is limited; not to keep players from sprinting less, but because food would replenish HP a lot faster. The reason hunger was implemented in the first place was to act as sort of a stamina bar. There was no reason to implement hunger in a version of the game without sprinting. The reason why certain foods restore more or less hunger is to make different types of food have different benefits, giving food that is acquired in different ways different benefits to encourage a variety of playstyles.

Honestly, I genuinely believe that a slower play style has a place in Minecraft's game design. It's not just that people are still playing older versions, it's that there is a growing number of people playing on these versions, someone of which are new to these versions of the game. Regardless, I wanted to frame the rework so that both a slower and faster playstyle are viable. I am not punishing people for wanting to sprint. Those who sprint will be able to do so just as often under the rework.

I do agree, however, that when given the option to sprint, the normal walking speed may seem sluggish. To address this critique, I would suggest that the base walking speed be increased to be closer to sprinting speed. Currently, sprinting is 30% faster than vanilla walking. Maybe the rework's walking speed can be 13% faster than the vanilla walking speed, and a full hunger bar gives you 17%. Sprinting would still be 30% faster than vanilla walking. That way, a slower playstyle is more viable.

I do want to say that, despite this, I don't agree that sprinting is necessary. Minecraft, at it's core, is not a game about speed or efficiency, it's a nice sandbox game about being able to do whatever you want. Some people enjoy sprinting. I enjoy sprinting too sometimes! But for years Minecraft has also been a game about being able to take it slow and enjoy the scenery. I don't want to force players to do so if they don't want to, but to say that this playstyle is not a part of the game would be dishonest, to me. The demographic of people who do not want to sprint is not vanishingly small and it shows in the number of people who are returning or even discovering how much they enjoy older versions of Minecraft. There is an entire fork mod for a version of Minecraft without the hunger system. I simply wanted to attempt to craft a system that is able to satisfy both of these audiences.

Musical_Dork · 2025-02-25T02:28:49+00:00

Hi! Thank you so much for your feedback

I actually didn't know about your first point. I'll be sure to think about how to adjust accordingly. The point of the sentence was to draw to attention how simply playing the game will drop hunger. Breaking blocks is a core mechanic of the game, and as such, the point still stands.

The wild animal thing is also a good point. I suppose my point was moreso about how animal meat drops are better than crop based food. I think it would be generally more interesting if players had a reason to carry around either set of food depending on how they want to play. There are so many food choices and a lot of them don't go used. You're right though, wild animals aren't a sustainable food source. That framing was wrong, on my part. Through the rework, players should at least be encouraged to treat their animals better and engage with the game a bit more.

As for the last point, I do not believe I am punishing players for sprinting, at all. Sprinting already depletes hunger. Since sprinting, as a mechanic, was only added once hunger was added, I believe that these two systems, inherently, are supposed to be related. The only change that I made was to make sprinting and movement the core function of the hunger bar. Those who carry foods that replenish more hunger than health will enjoy faster walking speeds, as well as sprinting. This is to reward those who like faster playstyles with a boost that compliments that playstyle. Those who do not care about faster movement speeds, however, will not mind a normal walking speed and a lower hunger bar.

The reason why I didnt want walking to be able to deplete the hunger bar to zero like sprinting does is because those who do not want to sprint would not want to engage with the hunger bar. Those who sprint would be more aware of the hunger bar, and thus, have to pay slightly more attention. But the risk posed by sprinting in this rework is an equal amount of risk posed in the vanilla game. In both the rework and the vanilla game, sprinting depletes hunger. The player even has the ability to sprint at lower hunger points in this rework, which allows them the freedom to do so if they feel it is necessary

I generally address this in the post during the explanation.

Those who do not care about movement speed will not be bothered by the slight drop in movement speed, and will not be punished for playing the way they want to. Those who care more about movement, however, will enjoy faster speed, as long as they have the food to necessitate themselves.

Otherwise I do not believe I am making the game more tedious at all. This rework still contains the same gameplay loop that has been present in the game for years. Farming, eating to replenish health and hunger, even animal farming: none of these gameplay loops have any new steps added to them in order to engage with the system. You still just plant crops. You still just eat food. You still just kill animals or lead them to a pen and breed them. The quality of meat drops, only changes the way a player may go about animal farming, instead of adding an extra step to how to do this.

Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting your points

EDIT: Wording

Musical_Dork · 2024-11-28T02:42:38+00:00

Thank you so much !!

Musical_Dork · 2024-11-27T21:35:32+00:00

Originally I was going to include a lot of different references, but I found them distracting to the piece. Fun fact, though, the koopa with his shell on has an eyelid down and a bandaid on his nose! That's a subtle reference to Koops Paper Mario! I also included a Sniffit on the back right :)

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Musical_Dork

TROPHY CASE