Roleplaying versus Loreplaying

[Pinko]

About my time on Disco: As a generic rule of thumb, I wasn't really roleplaying. Mindblowing, revolutionising ideas weren't really my cup of tea. Instead, I'd try reading the lore of a faction, and just settle down and try to play it. Sometimes, I'd misinterpret things, put too much value on an infocard before looking at the larger picture. But in essence, I was trying to stick to whatever was written as best as I could.

Today, in retrospective, I affirm that I am not a Roleplayer, but a Loreplayer. A daily routine, with set players on a chess, each of the pieces with their set roles. This is what I was comfortable with. Nothing changing from day to day, as this is how it was written down by the mighty infocards and what was stated by that drunk outcast in Remote Empty System #37. I wanted to loreplay your average member of X faction, and see how it'd go out by interracting with others. More than once, I realized that my vision of the game didn't fit too well with that of the others, but I just couldn't get why. Today, I realize because I was playing the game wrong.

I've often ranted in the past about how X's faction role wasn't Y, but Z. I've even created factions over that matter. Maybe I was wrong about doing that, since players were having fun playing the way they did.

And yet, I can't get myself to appreciate any other ways to play the game, and I'm glad with that.

---

I want to get off Mr. Igiss' wild ride.

[Jansen]

I'd rather 'loreplay'(Which is a kind of roleplaying as well because you, well play a role?) an average person of faction X then playing a 10 years old orphan with cat ears that somehow became the Admiral of a big Libertonian fleet.
Why? Because that average person of faction X is going to fit well into the FL universe, the other one not so much. So I guess you are doing it right.

---

[Dane Summers]

Well, speaking of definitions - regardless, your still assuming a role, thus your roleplaying, even if your using lore as your bible, instead of a guideline.

But yeah - I see lore as a guideline - but then again, My Flag is in the zoner camp, where Lore doesn't give you a basis to follow like a creed - zoner lore is about being an individual, so your doing it right (most of the time) if you choose to head off the beaten path

Interestingly, when it comes to being in factions that are not this, I tend to try and adhere as closely to the model of what im representing as I can - So in a way, I kinda do the same thing you do.

---

[Pinko]

I'd rather 'loreplay'(Which is a kind of roleplaying as well because you, well play a role?) an average person of faction X then playing a 10 years old orphan with cat ears that somehow became the Admiral of a big Libertonian fleet.
Why? Because that average person of faction X is going to fit well into the FL universe, the other one not so much. So I guess you are doing it right.

It's not just that. My vision of factions and how they should interract often suffered as a consequence. (See: myself leading the Alster Union.)

Using what lore was written, I had determined that the best way to stirr up activity was through faction interraction, so I looked up several rumors and realized that yes, Unioners did have an era of artifact smuggling, and nothing really specified that they had stopped to do that. So, I studied the Artifact road and realized that the Hogosha would've been the Unioners' source, as they'd have gotten their arties from them in the sigmas. This lead to an odd era where the Unioners/Hogosha were actually good trade partners when I'd lead the AU, something I had some negative feedback about back then.

How much sense did it really make? I don't really know, but I figured it was the only way they'd have artifacts.

But, loreplay implies some more than that. It implies that you're set in stone about roleplay, immovable, and won't change your mind about an opinion or matter no matter how much player interraction happens, simply because it's not written down or something. A lot of players disagree with this.

EDIT: Another result of this was my view of the artifact/cardamine trade. You don't directly directly contact the Corsairs or the Outcasts when you want them, you contact those that can supply you. I've surprised many Hackers by teaching them that, indeed, they were involved in the artifact trades. "BUT WE'RE HOSTILE TO CORSAIRS!", I'd be told. Pfeh.

---

I want to get off Mr. Igiss' wild ride.

[Valinor]

I'd rather 'loreplay'(Which is a kind of roleplaying as well because you, well play a role?) an average person of faction X then playing a 10 years old orphan with cat ears that somehow became the Admiral of a big Libertonian fleet.
Why? Because that average person of faction X is going to fit well into the FL universe, the other one not so much. So I guess you are doing it right.

Ehy Jansy (hug)

That's so damn true.

---

Official member of the Hessian Conspiracy.

Recruitment | Message Dump | Information center | Criminal database

[Mímir]

It is an interesting and relevant discussion. Sometimes when arguments are on here in the forums, you get the impression that for some the lore isn't seen as something you can use to propel your RP and carry it forward, but rather RP as something that can enforce and strengthen the lore. There are a lot of "you should behave like this and this according to lore" arguments on here, as if we were expected to play out a lore-written script we don't really have any influence on, and I think that is a mistake. Of course, a balance has to be struck to create coherency for a specific faction or ID - but some take the lore-arguments to the extreme.

---

[Evan_]

I think one must have a healthy balance of both. Noone is really on the poles, some volume of 'roleplay' and 'loreplay' are present in every character. Even 'catgirl admirals' are bound to fit into the Sirius lore in a level, at least by the restrictions of the ID. Also the most 'common' representative of his faction will also reflect the personality of it's player.

As we need to populate Sirius, and provide it's feeling for other players, I rather blend in than stick out. I think where 'lp' fades out and 'rp' gets the upper hand is when you think about how your character reacts differently from 'you'. The more different the personality of my char from mine, the more interesting it gets to shape and play him.

The other one are the little things. What my character does when he isn't on a ship. Your's live on it? Too easy solution. Imagining (and referring to) the social and mundane environment of a char adds another level of immersion, and lore can't help too much in it.

EDIT: Damn, ninja'd. Wanted to be the first who uses the word 'balance' :)

---

[Alley]

I'd rather 'loreplay'(Which is a kind of roleplaying as well because you, well play a role?) an average person of faction X then playing a 10 years old orphan with cat ears that somehow became the Admiral of a big Libertonian fleet.
Why? Because that average person of faction X is going to fit well into the FL universe, the other one not so much. So I guess you are doing it right.

13 years old admirals are mainstream now.

---

Alley was right.

[Chev]

I'm not sure did anyone ever heard thing as "tabletop RPG" or "LARP (live action RP)" before... you can create whatever character you want, but it has to fit the "rules" and lore of the world. Because I've practiced these two for many years before, I think there's no differences between that "loreplay" and roleplay. Lore will always be part of roleplay to make sure that players won't destroy the world with their overdosed creativity.

As someone said: "rules are made to defend us from ourselves".

---

[Madvillain]

Lore will always be part of roleplay to make sure that players won't destroy the world with their overdosed creativity.

As someone said: "rules are made to defend us from ourselves".

Very true

---

Baila Morena | Toilet Trouble | Elder Presidente[TBH] | The Titan Combat Manual | Confession