|
|
|
Wag
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:45 AM
Posts: 1,048,
Visits: 1,523
|
|
Smitt (9/8/2006)
Would you accept playing a character who only ever spoke in questions?
Why on earth would you do that? 
Of course people have played such things before but what about playing all of the above at the same time? Whatif you had two or three restrictive rules would that spoil your enjoyment of the game?
I'd like to register a vote against the "so long as there are good IC reasons for it" groundswell. The aim of LRP is to enjoy yourself, it's all too easy to back yourself into a corner where you don't enjoy an event for perfectly good IC reasons without going out of your way to create them in advance.
I'm pondering such limits and wondering if a game in which each character had certain restrictions would be played or even playable.
I think you're right to ponder it. Stuff the IC reasoning, if you're looking at a game, think about if this will produce enjoyable play for the people involved first and foremost.
Restrictions on actions can make a character much more challenging and therefore enjoyable, but restrictions on the what a player can do as a character can also restrict a player's ability to characterise and get involved. Wisdom and judgment are needed to separate the wheat from the chaff.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:03 PM
Posts: 160,
Visits: 314
|
|
| Hmm, yes, it seems I misunderstood. Allowing a player to choose to obey limits, either from a list that you've thought up or not - good. Forcing all players to choose the same limits - unless for genre emulation (you may not bring assault rifles to this Renaissance game) or safety (you may not fight within 20 feet of the trebuchet set-piece) - can be much less good. Fundamentally, a game is defined by the restrictions it places on the behaviour of those participating in it. Or to put it another way: Some people enjoy playing catgirls. If everyone had to play a catgirl, your game would be about catgirls. You want your game to be about catgirls, that's fine. But you're not going to get the player who hates everything furry.
----
Maelstrom: Auriel, Seraph of Fire and Stone, Lieutenant of the Teacher's Host in the Lands of Hell, Celestial Messenger of Lord Sun.
CUTT Head Ref 2007/08
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:21 PM
Posts: 143,
Visits: 151
|
|
I'm adding my general voice to "what they said above" - a decent reason IC is needed for mechanics with no sensible OOC justification (like drawing your sword at certain times), but you can gloss over IC reasons for not being able to walk into the space where the crew hut is because there is a clear OOC problem with people doing so.
I'd say that placing restrictions on characters adds deeply to the entertainment, and I am a huge fan of encouraging character Flaws or similar at creation to give people inherent negatives to their character (apart from anything else it discourages people from imagining their character as all-powerful and then having that illusion shattered in the game).
In particular, character codes of honour, mystical geas, and religious beliefs are fablulous ways of creating a controversial charater that will create its own plot simply by following its natural course.
_____________________________
Maelstrom - Carl Whitesnake
|
|
|
|
|
Squire
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:59 PM
Posts: 35,
Visits: 186
|
|
I would accept (as an OOC restriction) anything which seemed to have a half-decent justification, and looked to improve the game of the majority of participants.
A decent IC justification doesn't really come into it - although that would be nice.
Making a good game. That's the thing.
(A game with daft *IC* restrictions... Well, we tolorate Maelstrom...)
PD: Stuart Marshall
LT: Mephisto
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:49 PM
Posts: 1,033,
Visits: 896
|
|
Smitt (9/8/2006)
Would you accept playing a character that was not allowed (as an OC rule) to draw his sword except between the hours of 4-7pm?No. Would you accept playing someone who would never lie? Erm yes... I wouldnt voluntarily choose to do it. laso... you ... know.... youd have to define 'lie' really carefully Would you accept playing a character who only ever spoke in questions? No. But this is because its next to impossible. Its an old improv game and extremely difficult to do even if your blisteringly good at it. Watch some "whose line is it...." Possibly pull it off for a short mopnster or NPC part... but a character all weekend.... no, youd never do it. Of course people have played such things before but what about playing all of the above at the same time? What if you had two or three restrictive rules would that spoil your enjoyment of the game? Hold on decide what your talking about. Are these IC rules that I impose on my own character or rules imposed by the refs at a game? Is it not the rules but the reasons behind them that matter? No. You cannot have a rule without a reason. they are interlinked in importance. I'm pondering such limits and wondering if a game in which each character had certain restrictions would be played or even playable. Gibberish or Genius? Gibberish really, you need to expand this idea and define terms to have a useful discussion. You need to tell folk what your talking about.
|
|
|
|