Yes. Your "character" is a tool made of pixels. If you believe those pixels have "wants" of their own, you are a larper and a loony.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Is roleplaying multiple characters in an RPG LARPing?
- Thread starter Lurker King
- Start date
Yes. Your "character" is a tool made of pixels. If you believe those pixels have "wants" of their own, you are a larper and a loony.
Interesting. So when you read a book or see a movie, you don't see "characters" with motivations and interests? After all, they are just blotches of ink on a piece of compressed wood.
What the fuck do computer games have to do with movies or books? Do you care about "motivations and interests" of the second pawn from the right when playing chess?
What the fuck does Chess have to do with RPGs?So you're saying that a story with believable characters is OK, good, artistic if it appears as blotches of ink on paper.
You're saying that a story with believable characters is OK, good, artistic if it appears as patterns of light projected onto a large screen.
You're saying that a story with believable characters is OK, good, artistic, if it appears as patterns of pixels on a smaller screen viewed from a couch.
You're saying that a story with believable characters is NOT OK IN ANY WAY if it appears on a smaller screen sitting on a desk, with input from the person sitting at the desk, and that anyone attempting to enjoy or participate in such a story must be ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็ insane!! ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็
That's a completely ridiculous double standard. Face it: if you've ever thought "I hope Alice gets away from Jason", or "Why can't Helena and Demetrius seem to make it work?", or "The Joker is cool, he's not even scared", you're just as much of a "loony" as I am for thinking "Sir Valiant is being attacked by a level 60 dragon, that must be stressful for him".
Last edited:
Chess is an early, highly abstracted wargame. An RPG is an expanded wargame with sandbox playing field and out-of-combat activity slapped on top.
Increase the board to 200x200, randomly place enemy figures in small clusters all over it, make your figures upgrade to stronger figures as they kill enemy figures, add some "treasure" cells that can only be unlocked by a bishop to increase a figure's movement points and add additional moves...gee, I wonder what kind of a game did we just got here?
An RPG needs about as much story as Rocco Siffredi's Anal Slaves 2. Here are dungeons with enemies and treasures. Go forth and
... an RPG? Are you saying that's an RPG?
OK, now I get where you're coming from. "Books and movies are only for insane people."
Hmmm, I don't see where it says role-playing game. Did they scratch it on there in lemon juice?
Everybody knows D&D evolved from Chainmail. (Look! I can link old things too, regardless of relevance!) That's not news, dude. Tell me though, was that the final evolution of the form? Because I think I heard of an RPG one time that was released even later than 1974.
Everybody knows D&D evolved from Chainmail. (Look! I can link old things too, regardless of relevance!) That's not news, dude. Tell me though, was that the final evolution of the form? Because I think I heard of an RPG one time that was released even later than 1974.
Nowhere. Swell, ain't it?
The concept of "roleplaying" has evolved from "this time, I'll play the role of a fighter and you'll be a mage", then some misguided morons took it way too literally, and since then are trying to ruin the game for the rest of us.
"We changed it. It's better now." Hi, moviebob.
Oh, and
I assume you include Gygax and Arneson themselves among those "misguided morons".
I assume you include Gygax and Arneson themselves among those "misguided morons".
They grew unhealthily attached to their units, that is true. That didn't affect the way the game is played in the slightest, however. Unlike Fallout and AoD fanboys (and their bioturd cousins), they did not attempt to come up with some pathetic "no tr00 scotsman" revisionism and rewrite history, professing the genre to be something else than it is.
By who? You?
And countless others, who see the beauty of the original RPG gameplay and piss upon larpers and storyfags who attempt to "reinvent" it.
I see. So you're a member of a vast army or wargamers who hate role-playing (and hate the creators of RPGs), yet proudly call yourselves role-playing gamers; and think yourselves superior because you are limited to the enjoyment of numbers, instead of being able to appreciate numbers and other things also.
Do not lie, larpers and storyfags cannot into numbers, and dream of getting them removed. Numbers tend to get in the way of teh roleplaying and teh story.
And we don't hate the creators of RPGs, even if we find their eventual obsession with their Bigbys and Mordenkainens rather silly. Other than that, yes, that much is true.
Nice, I guess I must not be one then. Turns out I'm "one of you", a real role-playing gamer after all. Thanks for clearing that up!
Excommunicator
Arcane
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2010
- Messages
- 3,524
mondblut takes his views on this to an extreme that I don't necessarily agree with but we agree on the core point. LARPing occurs in the absence of good RPG design.
Metro
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 27,792
Yes, it is... fuck this moronic 'immersion' shit. Also good thing Zombra put me on ignore so he can't see me call him a huge E-Larping phag-mo.
Ellef
Deplorable
Larping generally occurs in the absence of a sound mind. The absence of good RPG design should generally lead to alt+f4
Courtier
Prophet
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 441
''Stop liking what I don't like!!'' + vague definitions, buzzwords and this Codex meme that butchers an established term repeated ad infinitum. You're crying about a boogeyman that can nary be found on this whole site while flexing your e-penises, none of you having addressed the original question at all. That is to say:
Given that your characters in Icewind Dale all have different dialogue options based on their race, class and alignment, and you don't always get to choose who speaks, would choosing a response that fits their character (i.e. roleplaying) be ''larping''?
No, no, don't mind me. Just keep circlejerking about the evil larpers and how immershun is the devil. The non-addled people will be laughing from over here.
Given that your characters in Icewind Dale all have different dialogue options based on their race, class and alignment, and you don't always get to choose who speaks, would choosing a response that fits their character (i.e. roleplaying) be ''larping''?
No, no, don't mind me. Just keep circlejerking about the evil larpers and how immershun is the devil. The non-addled people will be laughing from over here.
Mustawd
Guest
If you never RP'ed/LARPED the rookies, sergeants, or Captains in this game then kill urself.
Topher
Cipher
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,860
I view the characters as inanimate, they are the tools I use to progress the game; however, with that said, they are often very easy to anthropomorphize.
In Fallout my character had a background, he was the vault dweller and was good with small guns and science, but that character made all of the same choices I would make. I didn't follow any precept of choosing the options that fit his personality. Beyond the basic background, provided by the game, he was 'tabula rasa' and preformed as my proxy within the game world. When I played Fallout as a female I had an image of that character in my mind, based off her skills and the in-game art, but the in-game decisions were still reflective of that characters status as a proxy within the game world. I don't developed a background beyond what the game provides and I don't interact with the game world based on that background.
I think that it is easy to anthropomorphize, i.e. to see the character as something more that your proxy, and I think that it's even easier in game like X-com where everyone is faceless. These character don't act as my proxy, they act exactly in the same manor as pieces on a chessboard; however, that doesn't stop me from getting a bit attached, they're more life-like that a pawn and therfore easier to anthropomorphize.
I don't consider anthropomorphizing a character to be larping, attachment to a pawn does not alter it's function. Some rudimentary background or attachment doesn't constitute larping because it doesn't reflect in the action taken by the player in the game. In ToEE my thief doesn't steal from my other party members, he fights to the death like a badass because he's a cog in my machine of total victory.
Each game, and style of game system, lends itself to this anthropomorphizing more or less that others. In Mount and Blade my character's a female motivated by revenge, those are both traits supported by character creation, and somewhere in the back of my mind I wonder if perhaps her husband and children were brutally murdered, it's natural for the human mind to connect points and form stories, but in the game world she forms a warband and beats ass, exactly like every other character I've ever played. However, it's not purely mechanical, I'll bring along whichever NPC's fit best... I don't know what criteria I use but I know that different character bring along different NPC's based on what I see as fitting; though I suspect that it has a lot to do with mixing up the party composition in order to mix up gameplay.
On the grand scale I will say that I think it's the easiest to anthropomorphize blank slate characters in a RPG; even though they also lend themselves the most to acting as a proxy.
They're always my character, never their own character, they're always me, never themselves and maybe I develop some degree of attachment because I'm a narcissistic bastard. Who knows?
In Fallout my character had a background, he was the vault dweller and was good with small guns and science, but that character made all of the same choices I would make. I didn't follow any precept of choosing the options that fit his personality. Beyond the basic background, provided by the game, he was 'tabula rasa' and preformed as my proxy within the game world. When I played Fallout as a female I had an image of that character in my mind, based off her skills and the in-game art, but the in-game decisions were still reflective of that characters status as a proxy within the game world. I don't developed a background beyond what the game provides and I don't interact with the game world based on that background.
I think that it is easy to anthropomorphize, i.e. to see the character as something more that your proxy, and I think that it's even easier in game like X-com where everyone is faceless. These character don't act as my proxy, they act exactly in the same manor as pieces on a chessboard; however, that doesn't stop me from getting a bit attached, they're more life-like that a pawn and therfore easier to anthropomorphize.
I don't consider anthropomorphizing a character to be larping, attachment to a pawn does not alter it's function. Some rudimentary background or attachment doesn't constitute larping because it doesn't reflect in the action taken by the player in the game. In ToEE my thief doesn't steal from my other party members, he fights to the death like a badass because he's a cog in my machine of total victory.
Each game, and style of game system, lends itself to this anthropomorphizing more or less that others. In Mount and Blade my character's a female motivated by revenge, those are both traits supported by character creation, and somewhere in the back of my mind I wonder if perhaps her husband and children were brutally murdered, it's natural for the human mind to connect points and form stories, but in the game world she forms a warband and beats ass, exactly like every other character I've ever played. However, it's not purely mechanical, I'll bring along whichever NPC's fit best... I don't know what criteria I use but I know that different character bring along different NPC's based on what I see as fitting; though I suspect that it has a lot to do with mixing up the party composition in order to mix up gameplay.
On the grand scale I will say that I think it's the easiest to anthropomorphize blank slate characters in a RPG; even though they also lend themselves the most to acting as a proxy.
They're always my character, never their own character, they're always me, never themselves and maybe I develop some degree of attachment because I'm a narcissistic bastard. Who knows?
oldmanpaco
Master of Siestas
When I play chess I am the King. Or sometimes a Knight who is nailing the queen on the down-low.
Also I'm way to lazy to read this thread but when I play a multi-character RPGs I make one PC who represents me and the rest are just henchmen. Or more usually henchwomen.
Last edited:
Metro
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 27,792
Just 'cuz you donated doesn't make you any less of a newfag.... and a larping one at that.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.