FlintlockJazz

I would like to second your proposal for, ahem, certain reasons...

If a wizard you should get a familiar, ranger a pet companion, etc, and if they can influence things like party conversations (such as party members not discussing their intended coup of your leadership when your pet is in earshot for instant) and have a personality then great. But not one who is a companion in the traditional sense, would prefer it to be unique to each character. All IMHO of course.

I just want to say for what this Rabbit's thoughts are worth I like the answers given to the questions, and it gives me confidence that the devs have put some serious thought into all these aspects. That is all, you may resume your previously scheduled programming.

It would be nice to have the NPCs react to how you've been acting, what you've done and your appearance. So if you walk around wearing full plate and carrying a huge sword and musket strapped to your back people should react to that, either by being intimidated and not trying to mug you or refusing entry to that high class tavern for the nobility (seriously, walking around looking like you are looking for trouble should be treated as such!), but I doubt they'll make it that reactive to be honest so I'll just hold out hope for the odd location that bares entry for those in armour, and that may be too optimistic too lol.

Nothing much really: went to work, did stuff, talk about my upcoming holiday to Disneyland Paris next week, the usual...

So far, you've managed to descend into "racism!", trying make a dignified retreat by having the thread locked, and started making personal attacks. All you need to do now is call someone Hitler and you've hit rock-bottom when it comes to fails on an internet forum. Some LARPs may enforce aesthetics, but the end of it is that the vast majority doesn't. You run around in foam swords and ridiculous outfits, pretending to be Gandalf-interpretation #321. Most LARPs are not about roleplay, but about dress-up disconnect from any mechanical merit, which was the entire point I was making with my, albeit extreme, example. Funny mate, it was you who started with the personal attacks. I'm done with dealing with you since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are just regurgitating what you've heard from others without wanting to learn any different so bye!!!

Yet it is, frequently, and people generally understand what it means. The idea is that somebody is more interested in being their character (i.e. dress up, house, fake rules, etc) than playing the game. Except that it has no bearing on reality and untrue. It would be like refering to all people of a certain ethnicity as thieves because "people understand what it means"... LARPing - serious business. Look, I'm sorry I started this - I just explained how the term was used on this occasion even mentioning that it has nothing to do with the real definition. I understand how you were using and while confused I don't have that much of a problem with it as long as people realise that it just appears that people like Luckmann doesn't and seemed to think that it does relate to actual larp activities... :S

In larp if your character wears plate then you need to wear plate. Everything you Luckmann have stated about larp is the complete opposite to the reality and is the same as GM allowing a kobold wizard of thay ie breaking the rules which is the point I was making. Someone 'larping' a crpg would want their character to be shown wearing what they were actually wearing ie be on the same side of the argument as you, which I was until you started acting like you did.

I think this thread has run its course, can I get a lock please Carole?

Yet it is, frequently, and people generally understand what it means. The idea is that somebody is more interested in being their character (i.e. dress up, house, fake rules, etc) than playing the game. Except that it has no bearing on reality and untrue. It would be like refering to all people of a certain ethnicity as thieves because "people understand what it means"...

This. The abstraction of terms is common in literature; as long as the distinction and usage is explained, I do not see how any of you could be confused. LARP in this context is used as a pejorative for "playing pretend in a game, claiming it to be meaningful while the game mechanics do not react to anything you pretend to do in any way", which is in essence what LARP does. In a LARP, you can theoretically dress in a blue robe and pretend to be a Wizard of Thay. You can bonk someone on the head with your sword and pretend that you are throwing magic missile. It's a total disconnect between visuals and mechanics. How often do you see a LARP where two orcs look the same? Not very often. In tabletop you can create a kobold wizard of thay if you wanted, its whether the rules are enforced which in a good larp they will be. If I bonk someone on the head they take damage just like in tabletop. There are quite indepth game mechanics but its clear you have zero comprehension or knowledge of larp and so I'm going to quit here.

Except LARP'ing means Live Action Role-Play and someone sitting behind a computer screen playing a game is not LARP'ing. Otherwise you could argue that 5 guys sitting around a table with character sheets and dice are LARP'ing, since that requires a hell of a lot more imagination than playing Fallout or Baldur's Gate. You don't say. Reading comprehension is not your strongest skill, is it? You be trolling. He's right that the term makes no sense when used in this regard.

Put up a poll, go to bed and come back to find it at four pages. :D Well I think its safe to assume that most people here are IE fans which admittedly I expected anyway, so if there is a large contingent of non-IE players backing it they don't seem to be hanging around here or are hiding (if the latter don't worry IE players don't bite! ).

Have you ever actually done larp? Why would you assume I'm a hypocrite? ??? Larping is great, especially contact-LARP.

Halberds, bills and other polearms

Have you ever actually done larp?

Something like the Storm of Zehir method could be good, perhaps making their interjections automatic though so you don't pick them but get different results depending on the NPCs own social skill level?

Well instead of working the cord and looking like an idiot trying to make it burn with your mouth, you use special key for lock to make spring move the wheel which has knurl on it. When you pull the trigger, wheel starts to turn fast and knurl scratches little piece of pyrite. That creates spark, and spark ignites powder. Cheers that helps alot! For some reason I always have difficulty visualising in my head how they work.

You can see plate gauntlet and armor on fingers only covering extern part of the hand, the inside is probably thin leather which is preferable for holding weapon more tightly. She probably would use a paper capsule with gunpowder of some sort, and everything else I think can be done with gloves on. If weapon have large moving parts and is fit for using in gloves, would there be a problem? What triggers? There's that lever which you put burning cord in, move a lever, cord hits powder, and gun shoots. Were there even triggers before serpentine locks? But I kinda suck at history of those kind of weapons. True, the game is supposed to use wheellocks though which were different but I honestly am quite vague on the workings of wheellocks in particular except that they were quite complicated. :D

Actually its more historically accurate than you think as plate and firearms developed together. Read up on Demi-Lancers who wore plate on horseback and wielded pistols. The Musketeers also wore plate cuirasses and was a deciding factor in some battles. The Spanish Konquistadors wore Cuirasses and wielded pistols/muskets for example. But a cuirass is not the same as a full suit of plate mail. True, but it shows that plate was still of use as late as then which is later than PE is technological set. The pic could fit in for late medieval fine I say, plus it just looks cool! :D

For me, the main problem is not the armor itself, but how she is gonna fire her gun with her armor-clad fingers. It was done. Can't remember if it required special gauntlets or not but they managed it. Also remember that the triggers wouldn't be as small as modern weapons and guns were not very...accurate then.

What's this order stuff? I haven't been to the forum in a few days and I wasn't aware that there was an order thing going on. Follow the link in my sig, if you increase your pledge by 8 then you get to have a special forum title like mine!

Some history buff will likely correct me in one way or another but I think platemail+firearms wasn't a horribly uncommon thing in the transitional era between platemail-clad knights and musket-wielding, lightly armored squares of foot infantry. This was mostly because the firearms of that era really sucked and plate armor was still somewhat useful against them. Indeed, except that the wearing of plate didn't stop even after then, it was just relegated to chest and head more.

Actually its more historically accurate than you think as plate and firearms developed together. Read up on Demi-Lancers who wore plate on horseback and wielded pistols. The Musketeers also wore plate cuirasses and was a deciding factor in some battles.

For some reason going back in forth between the two, i keep getting vibes that this one actually feels like the original, the other an edit. I dunno why. It just fits together better. I was thinking the same thing, something about how the boobplate was drawn just didn't seem to fit the rest of the drawing which was actually what was irritating me the most. It seemed too distorted.