Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • 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.

Interview Pete Hines on Oblivion and Fallout.

Aug 4, 2005
I live in your mind.
1. It will always be limited to who you are. You can say you learned whatever skill, but saying you learned it and really knowing it well is another thing. Years of experience is needed. It seems you are very commited though, considering what you said about your combat training.

You don't have to realy know anything, just know enough that you can make some informed desicions in fake situations. My combat training was not for LARPs, I work at renacenance fairs as a hobby.

2. Fantasy and most roleplaying games in general is there to escape reality. Being around with real people in real enviroments is hardly going to help there. It would only demand more imagining on your side to believe that something you see with your own eyes is not what it is. Now, some years ago I was thinking about joining LARP, but never did and now I don't feel I would ever do that. I see nothing wrong in you liking it though, I can understand the attraction.

True. All systems have their downsides. I personaly like LARPs the most, but then again I'm crazy and I like to hit things, so it figures. :)

Anyways, I personaly think it's a much better experience, but then again it better be for $100-$300 for a weekend event.

3. We have a "number of players involved" against "Numbers of characters involved". While a PnP can't have to many players, it have infinite numbers of characters. LARP on the other hand have a upper number based on the number of players. Now if you could get some 1000 persons involved it could be a grande event (altough I can't imagine how difficult that would be to arrange), but as it is you have to be limited in playing the non-populated wilderness LARPs.

Not true at all. I've gotten the pleasure of working at a smaller LARP. We had a cast of 10 people working there (not including characters) yet we had info written up for about 200 NPCs. Costume switching my freind. I once had to play a giant rat, a caravan master, and Thor (Norse God of Thunder) within one hour. You do need quite afew costumes to run a LARP, but thats what it takes to put on a good game.

4. The problem with LARP here is that everyone involved "thinks", but the others don't know what you think. Participants may think to differently and so on. I do get what you mean by living into your role though.

I'm not sure I cought what you said.

5. I fail to see the benefit in memorising incations.

It's role playing. Getting into character. I mean it's kinda silly and geeky, but it realy makes you feel like a wizard. I know that sounded stupid, but it realy dose.

6. What you basically is saying here is that you want to play yourself in another enviroment. If you play a role then you win depending on who you play and who the one you fight play. If you fight to see who is the best fighter between you and someone else then you play yourself and he play himself. I can understand the thrill of that, but we moved far from the subject and are no longer talking about roleplaying.

No, not realy. When I got drafted to play a giant rat, I fought in a cowardly manner, left my self open, turned my back, and generaly was a horrible fighter. When I played Thor (I actually got to fight as Thor, some stupid player thought it would be funny to try to snag my hammer) I fought as hard as I could.

Anyways, if I want a raw matchup of skill, I do a dual of some sort. Role Playing is playing a role. If I do a wizard character, I'm going to try to stay out of combat, and I'm going to relax my gaurd when I'm in combat; If I play a theif, I'll use my full combat skill, but be more cowardly, and never go for a direct fight; and if I play a warrior, I'll charge headlong into the enemy and go for a head on fight.

Now I understand that not everyone will restrain themselves. But people forget that there are ways to moderate this ina computer setting. You want somone to be a bad fighter (other than less damage)? Make their attack rate slower, give them more clunky controlls, have them suffer more recoil when they try to block somone, ect...

Unfortunetely OB isn't doing this, but their combat system looks much less skill based when you realy look at it.

7. In a computer you can put up a simulation of a swordfight using your own skills, it is not roleplaying, but I can see it would appeal to you.

See my above post. Though that is true, this would apeal to me. In fact there is no game out there that I know of that puts the atention to detail and realism into medivel sword fights as you get with the amount of detail put into FPS games. But thats a completely different story.

8. Yes. but from I gathered you don't want to play a role, you want to see yourself in other scenarios. Nothing wrong with that, that is one of my favourite pasttimes.

Not realy. Last time I checked I wasn't a cleptomaniac cat-person. I just want to feal like I'm in my role a little more. I mean controlling a character on screen from overhead through a bunch of numbers and mouse clicks is a very non-personal experience. If there was a way for me myself to realy get into character with that kind of system, I would like to see it.

Also, I like fast paced action. It's fun, plain and simple.

9. i just said that how I want them to do things and use PC skills instead of player skills, that would make it more into a roleplaying game and appeal more to me. that is all.

Plenty of non player skills are still the main focus. No matter how good the conditions are, Your not going to be sneaking up on anyone if your sneek skill is 5. Since the best you can do in combat is reduce the amount of damage done to you, your not going to be taking down golden saints at level one....and magic...That is obviousely isn't player skill based.

10. Block seems strange as you described it. If a block is succesful then it should stop all damage as soon as the shield is not broken or the opponent strong enough to break your arm/shoulder. Having something like "block stops 50% damage" is just unrealistic and IMO retarded.

May be unrealistic, but it is a balancing act. This makes it so that character skill still matters.

12. Will they bounce on plate armor? anyway, I am sure more realistic physics will be a improvement on the game and something I support

I don't know, I'll tell you when you play the game. I'm hoping they will bounce off if they fail to do any damage.

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Top Bottom