Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas info!

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by General Ludd

Absolutely. Do you have any idea what roleplaying is?

Yes, I know what roleplaying is. Man, your games must be bogged down by all that pointless minutiae. You seem to think that you either do all the things you're talking about (eating, washing yourself, brushing your teeth, taking a dump...) or you're not roleplaying. You seem to think that the essence of roleplaying consists in roleplaying these mundane activities: if you're not doing these things you're not roleplaying, you're merely rollplaying. What is roleplaying? Basically, it's assuming the role of a character in a fictional world. That's more or less the essence of roleplaying. I don't see why you can't assume the role of a character in a fictional world without having to roleplay such things as sleep, eating or brushing my teeth. It's still roleplaying to me. It's like saying that an actor isn't acting, since he doesn't eat or sleep in the play he's in.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by nostromo


Yes, I know what roleplaying is. Man, your games must be bogged down by all that pointless minutiae. You seem to think that you either do all the things you're talking about (eating, washing yourself, brushing your teeth, taking a dump...) or you're not roleplaying. You seem to think that the essence of roleplaying consists in roleplaying these mundane activities: if you're not doing these things you're not roleplaying, you're merely rollplaying. What is roleplaying? Basically, it's assuming the role of a character in a fictional world. That's more or less the essence of roleplaying. I don't see why you can't assume the role of a character in a fictional world without having to roleplay such things as sleep, eating or brushing my teeth. It's still roleplaying to me. It's like saying that an actor isn't acting, since he doesn't eat or sleep in the play he's in.

That comment was directed mostly at what I quoted. I could understand how sleeping and eating might be left aside from roleplaying (but that's bad roleplaying) but hygeniene grooming and fashion? Absolutely neccisary to depict any character with personality. How can you even describe what your character looks like without taking such things into consideration? "He might be clean shaven.... or he might not be. He just wears whatever"

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by General Ludd

That comment was directed mostly at what I quoted. I could understand how sleeping and eating might be left aside from roleplaying (but that's bad roleplaying) but hygeniene grooming and fashion? Absolutely neccisary to depict any character with personality. How can you even describe what your character looks like without taking such things into consideration? "He might be clean shaven.... or he might not be. He just wears whatever"

Of course, your character's appearance is important. But you can say that your character is, for example, a clean-shaven, fashion-conscious metrosexual and leave it at that. You don't actually have to roleplay it each and every day in minute detail: you don't actually have to roleplay taking a shower each and every day, you don't actually have to roleplay plucking your eyebrows every week or so, you don't actually have to roleplay shaving your genitals every month. Unless of course it furthers the story. Of course, you can roleplay all this if you want to.

That takes me to my main point, or one of my mean points. You seem to think that there's ONE right way to play RPGs. I don't agree with you on this. I'm more liberal. Some people who play D&D barely roleplay: they rollplay. And that's cool. Others do light roleplay: they create a character, but without going overboard. Most people who play RPGs are in these two categories. Then you have the "method roleplayers", gamers for whom roleplaying is almost everything. So our discussion amounts to this: I'm a light roleplayer and you're a method roleplayer. There's no point in discussing this any further. So lets agree to disagree. Unless you want your +1s, that is

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by nostromo


Of course, your character's appearance is important. But you can say that your character is, for example, a clean-shaven, fashion-conscious metrosexual and leave it at that. You don't actually have to roleplay it each and every day in minute detail: you don't actually have to roleplay taking a shower each and every day, you don't actually have to roleplay plucking your eyebrows every week or so, you don't actually have to roleplay shaving your genitals every month.

You do if you want to depict your character as fashion concious. Of course, applying this to the food example, you should still need to buy food. It needs to be there - you just don't have to roleplay every bite you make into the sandwich.

That takes me to my main point, or one of my mean points. You seem to think that there's ONE right way to play RPGs. I don't agree with you on this. I'm more liberal. Some people who play D&D barely roleplay: they rollplay.

My point exactly, there are rollplayers and there are roleplayers. Rollplayers, if they don't understand what roleplaying is, shouldn't be talking about what is needed to roleplay.

[Nostromo]

That's not my point. There are rollplayers and there are what I call method roleplayers and there are people in between, what I call light roleplayers. There's no right way of playing. Light roleplaying is still roleplaying. Like I said earlier:
so our discussion amounts to this: I'm a light roleplayer and you're a method roleplayer. There's no point in discussing this any further. So lets agree to disagree.

[General Ludd]

Roleplay only means one thing and details like food, hygeiene, and clothing tastes are vital to depicting any character that has an ounce of depth to their personality.

[Snotty]

I would rather my characters depth came from descriptions of their heroic deeds, rather than describing everyday banalities.

As for food in GTA, freedom to do what you want has always been the series strong point. Hopefully the penelty for not eating will not be too unfun.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Snotty
I would rather my characters depth came from descriptions of their heroic deeds, rather than describing everyday banalities.

So you only roleplay epic characters - you skip past all those boring levels and start at level 20?

It's personality that defines a character, not ability or deeds. What depth is there to an emotionless automaton that has slain thousands of monsters? Or, for that matter, how do the "heroic deeds" of a farmboy who's never even seen a goblin (ie. a fresh level 1 character) give depth and personality to the character?

[lord of the mark]

cmon luddy - think of novels.

There are some novels that go into every detail of what their protagonists eat "oh, for the smell of a madeleine" or whatever. And there are some where youre never gonna get a single word about what they eat, if they ate, etc. You just assume they did and that theres nothing about how they did so that matters. Now if youre reading robinson crusoe, lets say, that would be a terrible thing to abstract. And in a differnt way, Rembrance of things past. But if youre reading say, the scarlett letter, or crime and punishment, you can skip it (not sure if the respective authors did so)

Same in a game. You can abstract it and assume that the character always gets food where its convenient, and somehow gets money to do so, or forages. Unless the story and world and gameplay make this unrealistic.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
cmon luddy - think of novels.

There are some novels that go into every detail of what their protagonists eat "oh, for the smell of a madeleine" or whatever. And there are some where youre never gonna get a single word about what they eat, if they ate, etc. You just assume they did and that theres nothing about how they did so that matters. Now if youre reading robinson crusoe, lets say, that would be a terrible thing to abstract. And in a differnt way, Rembrance of things past. But if youre reading say, the scarlett letter, or crime and punishment, you can skip it (not sure if the respective authors did so)

Same in a game. You can abstract it and assume that the character always gets food where its convenient, and somehow gets money to do so, or forages. Unless the story and world and gameplay make this unrealistic.

First, there's quite a difference between reading a book and roleplaying a character. One usually relies on naration, while the other relies on acting in a very personal/intimate way.

But I don't mind a bit of abstractation. It's just removing the neccesity of food completely or saying "oh, I probably just happened to find a roast turkey leg down here in the depths of the undead catacombs. No worry." which is bad roleplaying. (just as a book that has people traveling over a wasteland without adressing how they eat is poor writing) And not having any taste in clothes, or hygiene and grooming habits is also bad roleplaying. How can you get into character if you don't even know how your character would dress?

Subtracting rations automatically on a basis of how long you've traveled, or including the price of food to a room at the inn, or taking it for granted that someone forages for food while resting in the wilderness is fine (provided there is a character in the party that would have the neccisary knowledge and skills to do that, of course). I don't expect people to document every crumb in their backpack and describe in full detail how they eat it.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
cmon luddy - think of novels.

There are some novels that go into every detail of what their protagonists eat "oh, for the smell of a madeleine" or whatever. And there are some where youre never gonna get a single word about what they eat, if they ate, etc. You just assume they did and that theres nothing about how they did so that matters. Now if youre reading robinson crusoe, lets say, that would be a terrible thing to abstract. And in a differnt way, Rembrance of things past. But if youre reading say, the scarlett letter, or crime and punishment, you can skip it (not sure if the respective authors did so)

Same in a game. You can abstract it and assume that the character always gets food where its convenient, and somehow gets money to do so, or forages. Unless the story and world and gameplay make this unrealistic.

If somebody would put his games in story-form they would look more like Seinfeld (without the humor) than Lord of the Rings.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by nostromo


If somebody would put his games in story-form they would look more like Seinfeld (without the humor) than Lord of the Rings.

Food was an issue in Lord of the Rings. It was even used in a key character development point with sam giving up his rations for Frodo so that he could continue on and be strong enough to resist the ring. It was also the center point of many other character interactions, particuarily between Sam and Smeagol. Food was also one of the gifts from the elves - obviously Tolkien reconized the importance of eating.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Food was an issue in Lord of the Rings. It was even used in a key character development point with sam giving up his rations for Frodo so that he could continue on and be strong enough to resist the ring. It was also the center point of many other character interactions, particuarily between Sam and Smeagol. Food was also one of the gifts from the elves - obviously Tolkien reconized the importance of eating.

Well, duh! But he didn't describe in minute detail each and every meal his characters had. If he had done this, LOTR would have been 30 000 pages long, and mind-numbingly boring!

[General Ludd]

Maybe you should read my reply to LoTM's post.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Maybe you should read my reply to LoTM's post.

Yes, I would tend to agree with what you wrote THERE. Now you're being reasonable!