"It won't work, trust me. No, just trust me," is possibly the most infuriating phrase in existence. I may as well be patted on the head, given a chocolate bisuit and sent back out to play again. I still can't see why people now view the symbols as optional, unless they mean that people are free to wear/not wear them as they wish. Wearing something else will get you at the very least inquisitive thoughts from people who think, "there's a perfectly good symbol alread - why do we need a different one?", if they don't go the whole hog and ask entirely.
I have played and monstered in all kinds of larps, from the completely original to the outright plagiaristic. I was expressing a preference for original games. I never said that all parody games were poor. I said I would have preferred them to have had an original plot, and didn't think that parodies were as good. I had binned the Wheel of Time game I had written because I had realised this and didn't want to force it on other people long before I decided not to try running a game again.
I'd like to see what people were saying about the NPC backgrounds that they claim invalidated their character. I will agree that the terms "Paladin's Accepted" and "Searcher" may have defined too much, and I was willing to remove them, but I don't see how anyone else can have had a problem. This is how these particular people came to be how they are, and every time someone has brought something up claiming otherwise I have explained this to them. I was asked to produce these backgrounds by the committee, who claimed they looked at them and there was nothing they wanted changed. I would not try to create any more, because just giving an NPC a name defines them in history and makes them an unchangeable constant that potentially affects someone else's character. People display a penchant for glossing over the bits of unequivocal definition they do by saying that it doesn't affect anything. It does, they just don't like to admit it or they'd get torn into the way people like myself and Lawrence do.
"But you cannot exclude people that have a different level of interest, nor can you go trampling on people’s charecters or their plot. Both these things are important to serious roleplayers and you can’t blame people for lashing out when they feel something important to them is threatened." Are you defending me or attacking me here? I am having my opinions excluded because I have a different level of interest. I have had my characters and plot trampled on. Does this imply that I am not a serious roleplayer because I'm expected to get on with it and should not feel offended by the wave of negativity that every idea I have is washed away by?
Re: And the last bit... Opinionated little bitch aren't I!
I still can't see why people now view the symbols as optional, unless they mean that people are free to wear/not wear them as they wish. Wearing something else will get you at the very least inquisitive thoughts from people who think, "there's a perfectly good symbol alread - why do we need a different one?", if they don't go the whole hog and ask entirely.
I have played and monstered in all kinds of larps, from the completely original to the outright plagiaristic. I was expressing a preference for original games. I never said that all parody games were poor. I said I would have preferred them to have had an original plot, and didn't think that parodies were as good. I had binned the Wheel of Time game I had written because I had realised this and didn't want to force it on other people long before I decided not to try running a game again.
I'd like to see what people were saying about the NPC backgrounds that they claim invalidated their character. I will agree that the terms "Paladin's Accepted" and "Searcher" may have defined too much, and I was willing to remove them, but I don't see how anyone else can have had a problem. This is how these particular people came to be how they are, and every time someone has brought something up claiming otherwise I have explained this to them. I was asked to produce these backgrounds by the committee, who claimed they looked at them and there was nothing they wanted changed. I would not try to create any more, because just giving an NPC a name defines them in history and makes them an unchangeable constant that potentially affects someone else's character. People display a penchant for glossing over the bits of unequivocal definition they do by saying that it doesn't affect anything. It does, they just don't like to admit it or they'd get torn into the way people like myself and Lawrence do.
"But you cannot exclude people that have a different level of interest, nor can you go trampling on people’s charecters or their plot. Both these things are important to serious roleplayers and you can’t blame people for lashing out when they feel something important to them is threatened."
Are you defending me or attacking me here?
I am having my opinions excluded because I have a different level of interest. I have had my characters and plot trampled on. Does this imply that I am not a serious roleplayer because I'm expected to get on with it and should not feel offended by the wave of negativity that every idea I have is washed away by?
Thank you. Thank you very much indeed.