steve1
Experienced Poster
Posts: 240
|
Post by steve1 on Aug 28, 2007 18:47:21 GMT
Also i disagree that having a house/clan will make people lazy when inventing their background. It would be an addition, a tool to aid it, nothing more. steve
|
|
|
Post by diesel on Aug 28, 2007 21:59:01 GMT
The point I was making for the idea, was that as exactly Steve had put it, as added colour to your character. The thing I like about the free flowing lines is that your character doesn't have to be apart of one if they don't want to, or players may attempt to start a new one together with in-character friends. However I do agree with starting with the basics first and perhaps this can be something that can be built upon as the game develops.
Alexandra
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 29, 2007 7:58:54 GMT
Wasn't stamping over anything Steve, as I said I'm not reffing Twilight, been involved in the rules writting and creation but I'll only be around for the next 2 games so not really making a say on long term decisions. Was just expressing my opinion that, particularly based on the amount of meaning that was attributed to vampire clans, I don't think it's a great idea to further divide the player base. And I think if it were to happen it's something which should be left for a good few months and decided after we see how the Lumen vs Atrum aspect pans out.
Though I'll concede your right that my point of view was mainly on the bad aspects of reffing. Vampire was a nightmare for undue admin and detail that wasn't always necessary and in writting Twilight we've made efforts to make it less ref intensive. I spose you're right in that house heads etc will not necessarily need to be NPCd but they'll still have to be named and listed and as I said, I'm not always keen on having dozens of NPC names who will never enter the game (barring an occasional plot for one of them).
Equally, concede Alex's point which I think I misunderstood at first, about not necessarily having to play as part of a house, can be an independent. I'd say you couldn't move once you'd sworn loyalty though as it makes the decisions to be in one (either through character background or IC oath) more significant.
As I said, still not overly keen on it, but if people are going to go for it anyway I'd offer the following from my own view of the game world; there's no need or reason that every race would have a structure or organisation, nor even that they like their own race. Way I see it: Vampires - organised through bloodlines and those who'd sworn loyalty to that line (e.g. the Noble houses of BB, there's the nobles and those who've sworn in as members of the house - not given the same respect as such but protected none the less). Extreme emphasis on age and respect for the Elders, rather underworld like. Weres - Roam in packs (not necessarily all werewolves!). Often based on families coming together, bit gypsie/traveller like, but may well welcome in new members easily and grant them equal respect. Alpha male in charge. Celestials - independent with little common unity actually. They "pop" into existence so no reason they'd easily meet other Celestials and when they do they may be rather suspicious of what their purpose is, what their methods are etc. Obviously doesn't mean they can't make friends, just no common backgrounds here. Spirits - I view the average spirit as a bit of a loner and don't see them having common groupings etc, let alone an organisation or structure. Again, it's cause 2 spirits are unlikely to have a common background. Fae - Those in noble houses or those who are independent, people can swear loyalty to a house if they started off as independent.
|
|
|
Post by shepboy on Sept 3, 2007 16:14:44 GMT
I personally think it's a good idea, but only once there are a sufficient number of people playing to make it viable (probably somewhere around 30 min). Otherwise you're in a family, tribe etc of one person, and James' argument of not needing a family to define you character is true.
However, once you have (I would estimate) at least 3 people per family and 2 or 3 families per species, then you have a recipe for internal politics within your species, which is a starting block for some good roleplaying
I still don't see a problem putting something like that into your background to make it more colourful, but for now that's all it would be - something to make it more colourful
Chris
|
|
|
Post by Marcus Trent on Sept 4, 2007 13:07:47 GMT
I think if players want houses then they can set them up for themselves. I would be against having them as an integral part of the plot.
Something that really held vampire back for me was the element of multiple powerbases with much more power than the players. It means that the way to get things done is to try and manipulate the greater powers to what you want, which in the context of a larp this size feeds everything through the refs and left too much of the process down to ref calls as opposed to RP. A big part of what I'm looking forward to about Twilight is that without these non player influences it puts the flow of the game much more in the hands of the players and will hopefully make the playerbase much more proactive (did any of you get the impression you were just sitting in that room waiting for plot to hit?)
Have the players at the upper echelons of power and you will get interesting proactive plotting and RP. Anything which puts the players further down the rungs leads to lazy RP and I'm against it
Will
|
|
|
Post by nick on Sept 28, 2007 14:10:04 GMT
I think that if players want to have houses and clans then the House / Clan would be player led and a background for the house would need to be submitted for the ref's if they wanted to stick the House / Clan in the plot.
Nick
|
|