I dislike this idea as much as the next guy, but seriously?! Are you seriously insulting people and giving them crap for role-playing in a role-playing game? The discussed feature has no place in a single-player game imo, but leave the personal insults at home please, everyone enjoys games in different ways and there is nothing wrong with that.

What do I care what it means originally? I merely explained the usage of the term in this case - you started dragging real life definition into it.

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.

He's right that the term makes no sense when used in this regard.

 

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"...

A lot of time we used to complain about why my avatar looks the same when we change the weapon, clothes, etc. and Now this thread is about the opposite?

 

I hope them don't waste time just to look this thread. Anyone who wants nice clothes can go sites like this:

www.juegosdechicas.com and play to address the doll.

 

I'm still not sure how "I'd like to customize my characters look (or not have it change or not have pointy wizards hats or whatever)" = "I want to dress up dolls".

 

Instead of fighting for something pointless like this that CANNOT even be seen easily (considering the distance from the characters), ask for customization options you CAN see. Look at what the old IE did as far as allowing you to select the color scheme for each character. Now that IS somewhat visible.

 

What you folks are asking for will...

1. clutter up the UI

2. have next to no impact on what you can see

3. take up development time and money

 

All around terrible idea

 

One of the few times I played an IE game with a friend we both ended up looking exactly the same. Male fighter avatar in the same color scheme. It was funny the first couple of times we tried to click on each others avatars, but got old quickly (and I changed my color scheme and portrait). Mind you that's not an issue since, AFAIK PE has no multiplayer.

 

However

 

clutter up the UI - not sure how this follows since any of the various clothing requests (my crafting/blacksmith thread, this thread, Monte Carlo's wizard's dunce hats thread) only affect the avatar and character sheet

 

have next to no impact on what you can see - not sure on that, since even in the IE games you could tell the difference in what characters were wearing

 

take up development time and money - they have to create armor weapons art assets anyhow; heck if saving development time and money is the goal wouldn't not wasting time on additional art assets out of a handful of starting appearances actually be less time consuming?

I dislike this idea as much as the next guy, but seriously?! Are you seriously insulting people and giving them crap for role-playing in a role-playing game? The discussed feature has no place in a single-player game imo, but leave the personal insults at home please, everyone enjoys games in different ways and there is nothing wrong with that.

Moronic ideas deserve all the hate and vitriol they can get lest they somehow take hold. And frankly we should stop with this stupid notion that everyone should be enjoy games in any way they want - this way of thinking has brought us the current generation of "cRPGs" and should die in a fire alongside its proponents. I enjoy RTS games but suck terribly at them. It would never occur to me to demand they change just so I could see the story - I just cheated my way through Broodwars.

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

What do I care what it means originally? I merely explained the usage of the term in this case - you started dragging real life definition into it.

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.

Depends on whether we talk 3.5e or 4e. Because in 3.5e, no, you couldn't.

 

The 4e doesn't count, since I was clearly referring to the Red Wizards of Thay from 3.5e, what with the allusion to the colour of the robes, something also not necessary in 4e.

 

But it is clear that you have zero comprehension or knowledge of roleplaying games, so I'm going to quit here.

 

He's right that the term makes no sense when used in this regard.

 

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"...

Of course it has bearing on reality and isn't untrue. What you are having here is misunderstanding as of the meaning of words. The meaning of words lies in how they are used. If we all "understand what it means", whether we're referring to "LARP" or "Tattare" or "Roma", we all know what we are talking about. When there is any misunderstanding, we explain what we mean, with the power of language.

 

This is not rocket science to anyone who has ever read any kind of book where definitions have to be explained (a vast amount of philosophy books spend 1/3 of the book just explaining the meaning of words and context, so you can understand the latter 2/3).

 

 

I dislike this idea as much as the next guy, but seriously?! Are you seriously insulting people and giving them crap for role-playing in a role-playing game? The discussed feature has no place in a single-player game imo, but leave the personal insults at home please, everyone enjoys games in different ways and there is nothing wrong with that.

If anyone is going to be insulted, it is you for not reading the thread, before you mouth off. Playing dress-up is not role-playing. The Black Hat of Mordor is black. The Jester's Ballsack is multi-coloured. Deal. With. It.

Edited September 28, 201213 yr by Luckmann

Moronic ideas deserve all the hate and vitriol they can get lest they somehow take hold. And frankly we should stop with this stupid notion that everyone should be enjoy games in any way they want - this way of thinking has brought us the current generation of "cRPGs" and should die in a fire alongside its proponents. I enjoy RTS games but suck terribly at them. It would never occur to me to demand they change just so I could see the story - I just cheated my way through Broodwars.

 

Don't your first two sentences basically contradict one another?

 

Lets say a developer like Obsidian wanted to write a story and include something that a significant subgroup of RPG players dislike in their glorious new RPG. Would you spew your hate and vitriol on their moronic idea or would you accept that its a stupid notion that everyone should be able to enjoy games in any way they want?

 

Cause it seems to me your opinion is suggesting "I should be allowed to spew hate and vitriol on any idea I consider moronic and that would make it so I couldn't enjoy games in the way I want". Or am I missing something?

Edited September 28, 201213 yr by Amentep

He's right that the term makes no sense when used in this regard.

 

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.

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"...

 

That escalated pretty quickly, we're on to racism now. Doesn't really matter all that much about the accuracy of a the term.

 

I imagine everyone would be cool with armour dyes, no ? That's a good compromise solution.

I dislike this idea as much as the next guy, but seriously?! Are you seriously insulting people and giving them crap for role-playing in a role-playing game? The discussed feature has no place in a single-player game imo, but leave the personal insults at home please, everyone enjoys games in different ways and there is nothing wrong with that.

Moronic ideas deserve all the hate and vitriol they can get lest they somehow take hold. And frankly we should stop with this stupid notion that everyone should be enjoy games in any way they want - this way of thinking has brought us the current generation of "cRPGs" and should die in a fire alongside its proponents. I enjoy RTS games but suck terribly at them. It would never occur to me to demand they change just so I could see the story - I just cheated my way through Broodwars.

 

I didn't say the game should change to accommodate how different people enjoy games, or that we can't criticize bad ideas. All I'm saying is that arguing that people are enjoying things wrong or playing a game wrong is subjective. Heck, I agree that there shouldn't be armor transmuting or whatever. For example, I do enjoy playing a role-playing game and making choices as if I were the character, but I like to stay within the frame of the created world, what armor I find is the armor I find. If I don't like what I'm using either for stats or looks, that's just motivation to go find better armor.

Edited September 28, 201213 yr by Shardbearer

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.

Are you seriously insulting people and giving them crap for role-playing in a role-playing game?

 

We are insulting the idea of playing make-believe instead of actually 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"...

 

We've already explained it to you but unfortunately we can't understand it for you.

Moronic ideas deserve all the hate and vitriol they can get lest they somehow take hold. And frankly we should stop with this stupid notion that everyone should be enjoy games in any way they want - this way of thinking has brought us the current generation of "cRPGs" and should die in a fire alongside its proponents. I enjoy RTS games but suck terribly at them. It would never occur to me to demand they change just so I could see the story - I just cheated my way through Broodwars.

 

Don't your first two sentences basically contradict one another?

 

Lets say a developer like Obsidian wanted to write a story and include something that a significant subgroup of RPG players dislike in their glorious new RPG. Would you spew your hate and vitriol on their moronic idea or would you accept that its a stupid notion that everyone should be able to enjoy games in any way they want?

 

Cause it seems to me your opinion is suggesting "I should be allowed to spew hate and vitriol on any idea I consider moronic and that would make it so I couldn't enjoy games in the way I want". Or am I missing something?

Obsidian said they are going to make an old school game in the vein of BG and Fallout. People are coming in now and requesting features that would look well in DA. Damn right I am going to spew hate and vitriol on that. There are games that cater to their need - they are all the AAA titles being produced by EA and its ilk. PE should be a niche title with a niche gameplay which might not suit everyone and that's alright. What's not alright is behaving like some kind of virus trying to mold even this last vestige of traditional cRPGs into its modern frankenstein-like incarnation. It's been said on this board before but it bears repeating - the "I like games just not playing them" crowd should just go away. They can keep their money here and the knowledge that once in their lives they supported something that was not part of the decline should keep them warm at night, when the realisation that all the AAA titles are **** sets finally in.

Obsidian said they are going to make an old school game in the vein of BG and Fallout. People are coming in now and requesting features that would look well in DA. Damn right I am going to spew hate and vitriol on that. There are games that cater to their need - they are all the AAA titles being produced by EA and its ilk. PE should be a niche title with a niche gameplay which might not suit everyone and that's alright. What's not alright is behaving like some kind of virus trying to mold even this last vestige of traditional cRPGs into its modern frankenstein-like incarnation. It's been said on this board before but it bears repeating - the "I like games just not playing them" crowd should just go away. They can keep their money here and the knowledge that once in their lives they supported something that was not part of the decline should keep them warm at night, when the realisation that all the AAA titles are **** sets finally in.

 

Thanks for the reply; I think part of the problem is we know its going to be "like" old school isometric RPGs but with the features not more nailed down its easy to suggest things that aren't easy to implement or not necessary given what their goal is. Its also easy to take the fact that we're not literally looking at a new IE game to think of it as a new game full of possibilities forgetting what we know about the game already.

Edited September 28, 201213 yr by Amentep

I actually feel like a lot of the issues could be "side-stepped" by using an upgrade system similar to what was used in KOTOR II. Base weapons can essentially be "types" that have different "feels" to them, with the actual stats handled by slotted-in upgrades. Granted, unlike lightsabers or blaster rifles a massive warhammer is hardly "modular", but I figure something along the lines of enchantments, runes, sigils, etc could make even the most singular item into a modular thing.

He's right that the term makes no sense when used in this regard.

 

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 an idiot.

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.

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 an idiot.

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!!!

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 an idiot.

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!!!

And now you can't even retreat with dignity. That's just sad. Like a child that wouldn't be believed when he said his dad was Superman, you take your toys and leave. Go home to your mom, she might believe your lies, but I don't think anyone that's read the thread will.

Yeah, everyone back to your corner..