Is roleplaying multiple characters in an RPG LARPing?

[Zombra]

The technical definition of LARPing is what you said.

Well .... no. The original, literal definition is "Live Action Role-Playing", i.e. dressing up and running around in the woods. This is why I got confused when I first started seeing the term on the Codex. The Codex definition may be consistent within the Codex, but it's entirely spurious.

It's the same thing. In a CRPG it's virtual LARPing (in the sense that it's in a virtual context). In both instances you're making shit up on a whim with no real regard for consistency or reactivity.

But ... actual LARPers often have set rules for how things work. The only common thread I see is that imagination is used. By this metric, every P&P player ever is also a LARPer, when the term was specifically created to distinguish between P&P and dressing up. Face it, the Codex definition and the original, literal definition are completely different.

 

[Carrion]

But ... actual LARPers often have set rules for how things work.

So do cRPG larpers. "Take off your shoes before you enter your house" is a rule. So is "if you had a particularly good meal at an inn, tip the barman by bribing him".

Real-life larpers play make-believe in the real world, making up their own rules and guidelines and basing their actions on those rules while pretending that something happens when they do things, even though it's all imaginary.
CRPG larpers play make-believe in a virtual world, making up their own rules and guidelines and basing their actions on those rules while pretending that something happens when they do things, even though it's all imaginary.

It's a fitting word.

 

[Zombra]

But ... actual LARPers often have set rules for how things work.

So do cRPG larpers. "Take off your shoes before you enter your house" is a rule. So is "if you had a particularly good meal at an inn, tip the barman by bribing him".

Real-life larpers play make-believe in the real world, making up their own rules and guidelines and basing their actions on those rules while pretending that something happens when they do things, even though it's all imaginary.
CRPG larpers play make-believe in a virtual world, making up their own rules and guidelines and basing their actions on those rules while pretending that something happens when they do things, even though it's all imaginary.

It's a fitting word.

I see the supposed parallel now, but P&P is also a set of made-up rules that don't correlate to what the players actually experience. I've never been hit in the face by a goblin with a club. I'm being deliberately obtuse though.

Leaving that aside ... when real LARPers make up the rules, they are defining the game that they are playing, yet Codex "LARPing" apparently means imagining stuff outside the defined game ... so it still doesn't work.

 

[Lurker King]

Besides, this implies that you have zero role-playing agency when you’re conducting a party of characters from point A to point B. You’re just moving a bunch of units without agency until you have the opportunity to role-play with each one of them at a time. That is awful, really.

I don't see how this is any different from saying "We travel to the forest" in a P&P session. Like, I literally see no difference. In P&P, no one gets mad or feels sidelined when the party agrees on a shared course of action.

In a P&P you have other players that agree with the direction that the party is taking. You are not role-playing and controlling four players simultaneously. When you say “We travel to the forest” you go. When you move your party in W2, you have to walk along huge empty maps with your four automatons, have a bunch of filler combat, etc.

Also, in P&P, players don't all yell at the DM at once. People take turns talking there too. Whether it's four players with one character each, or one person with four characters, the structure is exactly the same. All roleplayers go "one at a time" ... unless they are literally LARPing, i.e. running around in costumes doing stuff simultaneously.

There is a difference in the structure, if you consider that your overall immersion is compromised by the four automatons that you control. In P&P is different because each player invest in his own character. If the game forces you to role-play four characters, the game sucks. If you still attempt to role-play four characters, you’re in larping territory.

[Weird, so you played W2 as a straight wargame? Welp, more power to you if it was fun that way. To me that seems very dull and lifeless by comparison.

But that is the point. Since the whole game is barren and lifeless in his role-playing aspects, I only cared about combat; but since the combat system also sucks and the game is plagued by trash mobs, there was nothing left to enjoy. Heavy C&C game with exploration + poorly made combat system with trash mobs and bloated enemies + bad writing = bad cRPG.

 

[Lurker King]

This thread is pretty much "I don't like how you guys enjoy your games". Good job men, good job.

Nope. It’s more like: cRPGs are not strategy games, and if you want the players to role-play their characters without larping, he shouldn’t be able to create his party out of thin air.

 

[Lurker King]

But the truth is, controlling a single character in video games has its heritage in the arcade and console.

Oh, really? Do you play a P&P game as if you controlled four characters simultaneously?

taking control of a party comes from pen and paper roots.

Taking control of a party comes from some oldschool games, especially blobbers and dungeon crawlers, which only managed to implement three aspects of a proper RPG: a combat system, a story and locations to explore. When the only available choices are different ways to kill things, you are playing an action game, not a cRPG. No matter how good the combat system is, or the fact that other cRPGs have worse combat system, it’s still an action game.

If some players want to use the customizable party to assemble the most optimal team built for combat or other mechanics-related function, that's fantastic.

When you only care about maximizing efficiency in combat with complete disregard for role-playing and immersion aspects, you’re playing a cRPG as a strategy game.

What we don't need are more single character special snowflakes, prefabricated writer's avatars. Dungeon Masters and software developers alike need to keep their damn hands off the player's characters.

A single character RPG does not imply the chosen one syndrome. See AoD.

 

[Lurker King]

By most of those weak-ass Larping definitions in this thread, doing an ironman playthru of a game that doesn't support intrinsic ironman mode would be flawless larping as well.

Iron modes are about challenge, not larping. The player wants to see if he is able to beat the game in a harder context.

If you pretend to be your fucking characters in a game then... yeah... you're a dirty E-Larper.

Immersing yourself in the game as the character is not larping, because that is what you were supposed to do in the first place. That this an implicit assumption in any cRPG is showed by the fact that you can name your character, choose his appearance, make choices that will affect his survival, etc. You can call these options as mechanics motivated by this assumption. However, this common assumption has nothing to do with adding imaginary assumptions about the game world. The immersion assumption also applies to other genres in which you are not the main character. Would you consider immersing yourself in the fictional world of a novel larping because that is not an explicit rule about reading books? No, of course not.

 

[Lurker King]

My point is precisely that, since LARPing is taking an interest in something that the game doesn't recognise, then you can stretch the definition to include someone who picks a class not because of the (actual) gameplay difference, but because he doesn't like warriors / rogues and doesn't want to play as one, even in the event of a game where both these classes would be objectively superior. The game doesn't recognise his notion that mages are cool, warriors are dumb and rogues are cowards. LARPing is all about the why, and I'm sure a lot of us play classes or races much more than others accross different games, independently of whether they are any good in gameplay terms.

Your reasoning goes like this: everything that is not a game mechanics is larping, but since everyone add to their gameplay assumptions that are not game mechanics, everyone is larping all the time. I think that larping involves adding additional assumptions about the game that are not supported by the game mechanics, game world or implicit game assumptions such as that you role-play as the character you create.

 

[Lurker King]

But more in line with my point, LARPing actually starts to develop organically in very very good CRPGs where it ends up being beneficial to the player to act in a consistent manner within the framework of the game's universe. See Age of Decadence. This is a game that wants you to treat its world with logic and care. In this way, LARPing in a good CRPG is a completely different thing than LARPing in a bad CRPG. In a good CRPG like Age of Decadence, you end up playing a role organically, because the world makes sense and rewards realistic behavior. In a bad CRPG like Skyrim, you end up LARPing because the world is essentially a bland sandbox bereft of notable interaction or consequence, where imagination is literally necessary to create some sort of carrot on a stick to keep you holding W toward the horizon.

On the contrary, the best cRPGs don’t let you with much time in your hands to larp, because the game world is already rich and complex enough to let you immerse yourself. Such is the case with FO or AoD. I don’t need to role-play that Teron is dangerous, because the developers already did this for me. In a sense the quality of cRPGs are inversely proportional to how they allow larping. Besides, any imaginary assumption that is in accord to your character, game world, setting and game mechanics, is not larping. If you think that Miltiades is a scumbag and call him names, that is nor larping; but if you keep talking to Lorenza because you’re roleplaying this as a technique of seduction, that is larping.

 

[Zombra]

In a P&P you have other players that agree with the direction that the party is taking. You are not role-playing and controlling four players simultaneously. When you say “We travel to the forest” you go.

That makes no sense. So if the different players who control characters A, B, C, and D all say their characters agree on something, it's okay and good roleplaying; but if it's one player who controls A, B, C, and D, and he says the characters all agree on something, it's bad and not roleplaying? Why?

When you move your party in W2, you have to walk along huge empty maps with your four automatons, have a bunch of filler combat, etc.

I'm very confused. So what? Yes, in a game, you sometimes have to walk across game fields instead of simply hitting the fast travel button. What does that have to do with anything? Not trying to be a dick here, I really don't see your point at all. Having to walk home means you have no agency?

Also, in P&P, players don't all yell at the DM at once. People take turns talking there too. Whether it's four players with one character each, or one person with four characters, the structure is exactly the same. All roleplayers go "one at a time" ... unless they are literally LARPing, i.e. running around in costumes doing stuff simultaneously.

There is a difference in the structure, if you consider that your overall immersion is compromised by the four automatons that you control. In P&P is different because each player invest in his own character. If the game forces you to role-play four characters, the game sucks. If you still attempt to role-play four characters, you’re in larping territory.

No ... there's a difference in structure if I agree that immersion is compromised by the existence of multiple PCs. I absolutely do not agree, and you're not making any arguments to support this assertion; you just continue to assert it. Which is what started this whole conversation by the way, and there's still no answer.

Why is it role-playing when I have just one character, but LARPing if I have more than one, if in both situations I treat and play my PCs exactly the same?

But that is the point. Since the whole game is barren and lifeless in his role-playing aspects, I only cared about combat; but since the combat system also sucks and the game is plagued by trash mobs, there was nothing left to enjoy. Heavy C&C game with exploration + poorly made combat system with trash mobs and bloated enemies + bad writing = bad cRPG.

Hey, it's OK with me if you didn't like Wasteland 2 ... just sad that you didn't get as much out of it as you could have.

Immersing yourself in the game as the character is not larping, because that is what you were supposed to do in the first place. That this an implicit assumption in any cRPG is showed by the fact that you can name your character, choose his appearance, make choices that will affect his survival, etc.

But cosmetic choices don't have any effect on the game. They don't get you xp, so they are LARPing, right?

If it is not LARPing to name your character, write his bio and choose his beard color, then it is not LARPing to select which character is speaking when choosing a conversation keyword, as these actions are both supported by game controls, and have equal impact - zero - on "number stack vs number stack" gameplay. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Ellef]

Naming your character and choosing beard colour are both represented in the game world. I fully agree biographies are e-LARPing.

 

[shihonage]

But cosmetic choices don't have any effect on the game. They don't get you xp, so they are LARPing, right?.

Actually in most games, naming your character means the world will address you by that name. This is gameworld reactivity, therefore not LARPing. Also, in a good RPG, choosing your race and gender should affect your stats and how NPCs treat you in the world. And what armors and weapons you wear, obviously affect your gameplay experience as well, either in combat, or even by reactions from NPCs.

There are bad ways of customizing appearance, of course, which can be seen in Bethtard and Biotard games. Detailed facial customization which is a more complex feat of programming than the rest of the game, yet completely disconnected from gameplay.

I would also say, if you have a Golden Shield Of The Eagle, in a single-player RPG, and decide to dye it black to fit with the rest of your armor, you're LARPing. If this was a multiplayer game, it might would get a different aesthetic response from human-controlled characters, it could also be potentially intimidating or make people jealous, therefore it would not be LARPing.

 

[Zombra]

Naming your character and choosing beard colour are both represented in the game world. I fully agree biographies are e-LARPing.

So if it only exists in the UI, it's LARPing, but if it appears in the game field but has zero impact, it's meaningful gameplay. Thanks, we're getting closer to that "true definition".

 

[Zombra]

Actually in most games, naming your character means the world will address you by that name. This is gameworld reactivity, therefore not LARPing.

Interesting. So if the game responds in any way, even a completely cosmetic or counterintuitive way ("Your name is Joe? Hmm, unusual name."), it's not LARPing. I would say then that clicking a character to make them say a keyword even though it doesn't matter which PC says it falls under this category. The game makes a 'click' sound when I select a character. It acknowledges what I chose, regardless of statistical impact or lack thereof.

Also, in a good RPG, choosing your race and gender should affect your stats and how NPCs treat you in the world. And what armors and weapons you wear, obviously affect your gameplay experience as well, either in combat, or even by reactions from NPCs.

Sure, we would all love everything to have game impact.

There are bad ways of customizing appearance, of course, which can be seen in Bethtard and Biotard games. Detailed facial customization which is a more complex feat of programming than the rest of the game, yet completely disconnected from gameplay. I would also say, if you have a Golden Shield Of The Eagle, in a single-player RPG, and decide to dye it black to fit with the rest of your armor, you're LARPing. If this was a multiplayer game, it might would get a different aesthetic response from human-controlled characters, it could also be potentially intimidating or make people jealous, therefore it would not be LARPing.

Hmmm. Again these are completely cosmetic results that are acknowledged by what is displayed in the game, which seems to contradict what you said before (unless empty dialogue is somehow more legit than direct visual feedback). Clearly there are nuances here that need to be explored. Also, you and LF_Incline should apparently fight it out since you disagree on this point. If putting dye on a shield is LARPing, then picking your beard color is certainly LARPing as well.

 

[Ellef]

Well I mean if you're dyeing your shield specifically to LARP being a member of the BLACK KNIGHTS OF EDERON, then yes. Maybe you just found some dye and want to try it out. Clearly some sort of meaningless graphical representation can be classed as LARPing, and only pure Roguelikes aren't guilty.

 

[Zombra]

Hmmmm. So it's LARPing if "my character wants a black shield", but it's just you being a cool player if "I want my character to have a black shield".

 

[Ellef]

By my definition I barely thought about 20 mins ago, something like that. If your thought process begins with 'my character wants', its probably going to be LARPing.

As long as your actions don't represent anything like http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Roleplaying , you don't have to check yourself in for schizophrenia.

 

[Excommunicator]

But ... actual LARPers often have set rules for how things work. The only common thread I see is that imagination is used. By this metric, every P&P player ever is also a LARPer, when the term was specifically created to distinguish between P&P and dressing up. Face it, the Codex definition and the original, literal definition are completely different.

Having a rule in the back of your head that you're vaguely following isn't the same as an actual rulesystem. If you decide to stop following those rules what's the chance anyone will care or even notice? Almost nothing because they're too busy LIGHTNIGNHT BOLT LIGHTING BOLT LIGHTNING BOLT

Naming your character and choosing beard colour are both represented in the game world. I fully agree biographies are e-LARPing.

So if it only exists in the UI, it's LARPing, but if it appears in the game field but has zero impact, it's meaningful gameplay. Thanks, we're getting closer to that "true definition".

Choosing a beard isn't LARPing because you're not changing your behaviour based on something imaginary. You're just selecting a game option. If on the other hand you're pretending people look at you as a sly devil for choosing that pencil moustache and then acting that out, then yes.

Actually in most games, naming your character means the world will address you by that name. This is gameworld reactivity, therefore not LARPing.

Interesting. So if the game responds in any way, even a completely cosmetic or counterintuitive way ("Your name is Joe? Hmm, unusual name."), it's not LARPing. I would say then that clicking a character to make them say a keyword even though it doesn't matter which PC says it falls under this category. The game makes a 'click' sound when I select a character. It acknowledges what I chose, regardless of statistical impact or lack thereof.

If the game recognises it, you're not LARPing. That doesn't meant the game is well designed or even a good game. LARPing is a player response, not a facet of the game itself.

Also, in a good RPG, choosing your race and gender should affect your stats and how NPCs treat you in the world. And what armors and weapons you wear, obviously affect your gameplay experience as well, either in combat, or even by reactions from NPCs.

Sure, we would all love everything to have game impact.

Yes, and this is what an RPG aspires to. And this is the bane of LARPing. They want to have full reactivity. Obviously you can't have full reactivity in everything so it's up to the designer to create a robust game that reacts to as much as possible, with emphasis on the most important decisions. Pretending the game is reactive just excuses the designer from creating a proper RPG system (see bethesda)

There are bad ways of customizing appearance, of course, which can be seen in Bethtard and Biotard games. Detailed facial customization which is a more complex feat of programming than the rest of the game, yet completely disconnected from gameplay. I would also say, if you have a Golden Shield Of The Eagle, in a single-player RPG, and decide to dye it black to fit with the rest of your armor, you're LARPing. If this was a multiplayer game, it might would get a different aesthetic response from human-controlled characters, it could also be potentially intimidating or make people jealous, therefore it would not be LARPing.

Hmmm. Again these are completely cosmetic results that are acknowledged by what is displayed in the game, which seems to contradict what you said before (unless empty dialogue is somehow more legit than direct visual feedback). Clearly there are nuances here that need to be explored. Also, you and LF_Incline should apparently fight it out since you disagree on this point. If putting dye on a shield is LARPing, then picking your beard color is certainly LARPing as well.

There's no contradiction. You're conflating two very different things. You need to differentiate between in-world rationalisation and the player interface.

Putting dye on a shield isn't necessarily LARPing but you must ask yourself: Why are you dying the shield? Are you pretending the characters in the game care? Are you pretending that's what your character wants? Or do you just like the colour black? When I dye a shield it's because of the latter. I don't pretend the NPCs know what I'm doing. That would be silly.

 

[Zombra]

By my definition I barely thought about 20 mins ago, something like that. If your thought process begins with 'my character wants', its probably going to be LARPing.

As long as your actions don't represent anything like http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Roleplaying , you don't have to check yourself in for schizophrenia.

Thanks again, just trying to get it straight.

 

[shihonage]

So if the game responds in any way, even a completely cosmetic or counterintuitive way ("Your name is Joe? Hmm, unusual name."), it's not LARPing. I would say then that clicking a character to make them say a keyword even though it doesn't matter which PC says it falls under this category. The game makes a 'click' sound when I select a character. It acknowledges what I chose, regardless of statistical impact or lack thereof.

When you make the thief ask thief questions and warrior ask warrior questions etc, you're imagining that it reacts to your choice in a more significant way than it actually does. With name selection, there's no such phenomena. The functionality is very straightforward, and mirrors our natural expectations. When you give someone your name, you expect to be addressed by it. The game fulfills that function faithfully, without provoking you to fantasize that something bigger is taking place than this simple interaction.

 

[Zombra]

When you make the thief ask thief questions and warrior ask warrior questions etc, you're imagining that it reacts to your choice in a more significant way than it actually does. With name selection, there's no such phenomena. The functionality is very straightforward, and mirrors our natural expectations. When you give someone your name, you expect to be addressed by it. The game fulfills that function faithfully, without provoking you to fantasize that something bigger is taking place than this simple interaction.

So expectation is part of it? Interesting.

And thinking about it, I'm really not ... I'm not imagining different reactions from the NPCs. I'm just thinking, my thief is most interested in the gold, so she's the one who asks about it. It just makes more sense than the wizard who only cares about knowledge asking about the gold, so I play it that way. I'm really not imagining anything that isn't there, except that my characters have personalities in the first place - if anything, that's what makes me a dirty LARPer - viewing the characters as ... well ... characters.

 

[Fowyr]

In a P&P you have other players that agree with the direction that the party is taking. You are not role-playing and controlling four players simultaneously. When you say “We travel to the forest” you go. When you move your party in W2, you have to walk along huge empty maps with your four automatons, have a bunch of filler combat, etc.

When you say "we travel to the forest" DM asks how you travel and can throw dice or two. Do you heard about table of random encounters?

Nope. It’s more like: cRPGs are not strategy games, and if you want the players to role-play their characters without larping, he shouldn’t be able to create his party out of thin air.

Most old party based games had starter party (e.g. M&M3), sometimes even whole bank of characters. (e.g. Wiz7)

Oh, really? Do you play a P&P game as if you controlled four characters simultaneously?

Sometimes, if one of players is missing this session and previously agreed to it - why not?

Taking control of a party comes from some oldschool games,

Play Hired Guns with its split screen or Bloodwych in two players mode then.

especially blobbers and dungeon crawlers, which only managed to implement three aspects of a proper RPG: a combat system, a story and locations to explore. When the only available choices are different ways to kill things, you are playing an action game, not a cRPG. No matter how good the combat system is, or the fact that other cRPGs have worse combat system, it’s still an action game.

Action game. You are tripping hard.

When you only care about maximizing efficiency in combat with complete disregard for role-playing and immersion aspects, you’re playing a cRPG as a strategy game.

Your "roleplaying" is just a part of game mechanic and world's reactivity to player's actions.
Player in M&M1 intendedly hunts for good creatures and thus changes alighment of his party to evil.
Is it roleplaying?
Player creates evil alignment party and always chooses "evil" options in quests if possible.
Is it roleplaying?
He effectively roleplays in P&P sense, but no, you need special snowflake character with long legend. Only WHEN you can roleplay. Just go play adventure games, I think they suit you more.

 

[Courtier]

They're RPGs because you are playing a role, the extent of which you do so depending on the rules, amount of freedom and player agency, and what is left to the player's imagination. You've got these ''hardcore build fags'' trying really hard not to be caught RPing in any way while playing a roleplaying game, because otherwise they might be mistaken for 'one of those gay larping nerds that don't minmax their toons'. But on closer examination the average faggot that unironically uses this term can barely disguise the fact that all they play is popamole cancer. I mean look at this source being posted: Oblivion, really? Action games? Jesus Christ. If you only want to see numbers rise, ProgressQuest is the game for you. Or just grab a calculator and start tapping away.

All of the examples I see being posted of ''larping'' are just examples of stupid players taking it too far, and this says nothing about roleplaying in general or about the OP's question. You might as well call people that do challenge/ironman runs larpers as well. As long as the game provides the opportunity to take multiple PCs character into account, (e.g. alignment in Wizardry, differing dialogue throughout the game for each of your characters in IWD I/II*, which is what the OP was talking about in the first place) then it's perfectly valid. Or are you trying to tell me that say, choosing to forfeit the reward when the paladin heads the party one time, and tricking the NPC through a bluff when the rogue does the talking another time is some sort of masturbatory escapist fantasy?

Remember, in IWD you don't always get to pick who holds the conversation. The game itself even mentions this.

*There is unique dialogue specific to your characters' classes and alignment

 

[Eyestabber]

By most of those weak-ass Larping definitions in this thread, doing an ironman playthru of a game that doesn't support intrinsic ironman mode would be flawless larping as well.

Way ahead of you.

 

[Irenaeus III]

"Larping" as understood by Codex is something completely OK thing to do in games. Not doing means you have no imagination whatsoever. That you are barely above a spear-chucking savage.

If you can't directly control 6 different personalities at the same time, you have failed as a RPG player. You are better playing fallout 4 or some other popamole game.