[The Darklord]

True for many situatons power is irrelevant. Or how about where power itself can become a problem?

[Artemisia]

As for facing greater emotional challenges, now that you mention it I suppose that is what's going on in the wolf right now. We've never dealt with death in the way we did with Steve Silk's wake, nor have we ever tackled character romance (even of the courtly kind), nor have we ever dealt with a character with a speech  impediment.

-and no-one has thrown me out of the club (yet) for going all emotional. phew.
As far as I can see, one of the advantages of a small club like this, is that plot can change direction rapidly, determined by the players actions. A wonderful example being the orc mentioning, whilst sat at the dining table during the wake, that he had eaten human baby. The responses were diverse and may have challenging consequences - players responded according to their character's moral position, creating conflict which is unlikely to be resolved through an ability to strike to injure.
Personally after the emotional intensity of the last few events, some straight forward conflict would be a relief! Maybe it is not always 'taking things to the next moral/emotional level, where power becomes irrelevant' (Alec) but a sideways shift to a different moral/emotional challenge that presents players with variety, so a range of characters can respond. The same goes for varying the pace of events so that the difference between the mundane (low fantasy?) and the intensity of combat, high fantasy or tragedy can be felt. As in real life, rites of passage have their place to mark significant moments and stand as shared, unifying experiences allowing time for reflection.
Interestingly, when high powered players have been absent and responsibility for making decisions has fallen on the shoulders of others, beasties roaming around outside have even been dealt with by players locking themselves in the Inn and hoping for the threat to go away. Glorified hide and seek - lacking in heroism, but often done completely in character (with lots of giggling).
Vive la Difference!

As for power itself becoming a problem, is that an opportunity for characters to rebel and bring them down? hmm. It would require an element of self-sacrifice. I can see why LT would shift powerful characters into DPC/NPC roles.

[asamoth]

I was planning on staying silent as this can often be a good mode for me to be in due to several differences in perception, I seem to have when compared to other roleplayers and the rest of society. But the debates have spawned some questions and some… Well comments that are misconceptions.

Firstly, could people explain what they view as high and low fantasy? Some of the comments concerning this seem to be at odd with others, myself and perhaps there own perceptions? A comparison between the two sub genres could be advantageous. Should ‘sword and sorcery’ and ‘dark fantasy’ also be considered as different or should they fall into the two heading above? (Personally as I tired to explain in a humorous manner, I tend to develop tastes on a time to time system.)

Secondly, could ‘power gaming’ be clarified? When does a character progressing become a player power gaming? Escalation of a character’s strengths is natural as should be learning new skills, because the character should grow. Equally there is a point where the GM or player should step back and state enough is enough (if it has gotten this far.) Of course those comments tie back to the former statement. Power is also an interesting concept, the most ‘abusive’ character I ever played was for one Mr Dukes, he wanted me to play an influence mage, so the character could alter perceptions, a bit of roleplay and some interesting ideas and my starting character was commanding more power than any of the warriors present. At one of the ‘Wolf’ events run at the Vine concerning the crown, I played a humble Seer (no real title, armies or power) a lot of influence though, I seduced one of the ladies in waiting and got her to become queen, being a shifty little so and so. Was that power gaming, or courtly romance?

Thirdly, how should depth of character be measured? Is it the thought, plausibility and logic that should be a characters design or simply an amusing concept? Should other player’s emotions be considered when designing a character, or simply the effect that a ‘radical’ character can cause? I’ve seen a couple of views on non-human characters is, this general consensus or how do individuals really feel over the idea?

I doubt that all my questions will be answered but it would be nice if some of them are addressed.

A few further items. Speech impediments have been done, somewhat at the ‘Wolf’ often at LT events, without naming names and shaming too much Shutup, had some problems with addressing others. Romance tends to be a focal point with some Roleplayers, it is a powerful force in the real world and should be in a fantasy one this has been mimicked time and again in larps, if you see the fact is another story, one LT event I attended the ‘punch line’ was the bride was bearing someone else’s child. Wakes, death rites, high emotions have all come out, be them deep and ‘real worldly’ or other worldly, these tend to get addressed if the dear departed has been dear. Personally I loved my last funeral: 15 gold on the bar, and a skilled musician playing and free drinks while my name was mentioned. Gods I think I became the most famous person for a night lol

Emotional challenges are something that should be on going, dependant on the character, as I believe dark lord tried to explain. If you have designed a character that has no emotional depth, concerns or motivations… HOW! Characters tend to have some of your self within them if they have been well thought out. Be it a beastman, an elf or a human. Each should have emotions and goals/morality, unless you’re another psychopath. Logically these should fit with your character concept and continue though.

Okay concerning LT *grimaces* you don’t become an npc/dpc because you’re powerful. The game doesn’t run around a single player because you think it should and the Easter bunny doesn’t give you chocolate eggs. Yearly I curse that bunny…

Restrictions on powerful characters at LT are self imposed somewhat, sorry you don’t become staff by being ‘hard’. Ref’s and Marshall’s might ask you to down play your character, but that is for the story. Major stories are designed to encompass several thousand people, some of which are poor roleplayers. Some of which are great roleplayers. I am sure you get the idea. Vague comments can be misleading, but as stated they are general, prejudices and misconceptions carry weight, if they are backed with empirical information then they should be considered, if they are backed purely by feeling/out dated modes of belief then they should be assumed to be…

I am sorry for digressing again. Oh titles can be set I believe by the webmaster, though normally they are for levels of post. I would rather like to be considered Jr. You can all work out who shot me?

[Elmyra]

I have been reading through this heated debate now for a little while and I guess I should throw in my two stell/tinnie/pence worth. Probably the best way is to give some of my own answers to a few comments and questions that have arose, (bearing in mind this is just my POV and I do not claim to be the all knowing)

Take my half humorous gripes at the LT beastkin idea (and before you say it - yes LT requires characters that are fairly shallow) - There are no complex relationships, wrestling with difficult issues, making and breaking friendships, making moral judgements based on the character's perceptions - eat, drink, shag and fight is their all.
I really disagree on this one. As I have played my ‘shallow’ Beastkin now for pushing 5ish years I find that the standard eat drink mate fight character I started with has developed so much it is a different character now most defiantly, she has complex relationships involving many and varied characters, hell runz even has her own personal nemesis, when I play my character everything I do I use what has happened in her life. She is there constantly making difficult decisions and pulls on everything she knows and what she has learned. There is a huge moral code for runz, and although eat drink shag fight is there, because of her personal experiences there is a whole lot more.

Some of the comments made remind me a little of the first Shrek movie, because the surface of a character is a drunken, brutish, sex crazed, eating machine then that is all the depth there can be, pretty much like the perceptions of ogres in the aforementioned movie
Very true, Beastkin we iz like onions.

I may have been unfair to the beastkin but they appear to epitomise the L.T ethos of shallow roleplaying if I'm wrong there are three possible reasons.

1) Lack of personal first hand experience (most likely in all fairness, but not borne out by many of the OOC chats I hear between players.

2) Their image lends itself well to a well known group that can be a scapegoat for my LT frustrations

3) Our perceptions of depth, or our position on how the hobby actually evolves may just be widely different.

1)   This may possibly be the truest one, I belive that listening to an ooc where the general jist is normally, “yes well its uzzzzzzz we kill them and then eat them.” “But what about chaos knights of hardness” “kill them and eat them because we are clearly harder” is completely different to listening to them IC get passionate over taking on the large bad guy who has just killed several of their mates and thus they wont be stopped for anything! It’s a different experience.
2)   Your LT frustrations are there we know, and see. But unfortunately it can’t always be a scapegoat for every other argument. The original topic was which is “better high or low fantasy” not “who likes LT here… not me!”
3)   I think essentially we all have the same idea you play a character who has their own story, and progresses within the story. I think the perception on how to get to that point is the thing that differs the most.
-and no-one has thrown me out of the club (yet) for going all emotional. phew.
The marching orders are coming next week!
Firstly, could people explain what they view as high and low fantasy
I will give this one a bash…now there is my opinion, low fantasy would be a mainly human area, hardly strange races more like going back in time, yes there is the odd elf wandering about but generally he or she would be revered as a freak occurrence, incredibly low magic, that totally shocks everyone when it happens, no magical healing just potions made from herbs and getting arms stitched, possibly a higher power like a god or two but nothing that constantly shows its face and overcoming obstacles like other invaders uprising of peasants etc.
High would be you regular magic, your orcs elf beastmen and any other magical race appearing as an every day thing. The healers calling constantly on healing powers and generally less skills. Wikipeadia states..
High fantasy is a subgenre of fantasy fiction that is set in invented or parallel worlds. Built upon the platform of a diverse body of works in the already very popular fantasy genre, high fantasy came to fruition through the work of authors such as C. S. Lewis and, foremost, J. R. R. Tolkien, whose major fantasy works were published in the 1950s. While it is far from being the oldest fantasy subgenre, high fantasy, along with sword and sorcery, has become one of the two genres most commonly associated with the general term fantasy.
Low fantasy is an umbrella term, describing various works within different sub-genres of fantasy, to contrast specific works with high fantasy. Though a very vague term, features that may indicate low fantasy downplaying of epic or dramatic aspects; includes de-emphasising magic; real-world settings; favouring of realism, cynical storytelling; and dark fantasy. The archetypal example of low fantasy would be a story taking place in a historical setting where the protagonists lack magic, and where conventional fantasy elements especially typical fantasy species such as elves or dwarves, are lacking.
Secondly, could ‘power gaming’ be clarified?
Again in my opinion on powergaming/munchkining/flange I belive I explained it best when I created a forum game and placed it in my rules.
Flanging is when people use the rules to find themselves little loopholes to make themselves godley, it is also known as powegaming and being a pleb when it comes to playing the character.
For example
Wikpidia states Powergaming/Flanging is a particular way of playing in which the emphasis lies on developing a player character that is as powerful as possible, usually to the detriment of other aspects of the game, such as character interaction.
Also in game flanging means a blatant disregard for any type of logic, for example:

Basically flange is anything which isn't covered by the rules and if you think your cocky enough you can try and get away with it.
A good example of flange is a powerful mage who walks away from the scene but forgets to pick up his staff. Does he sheepishly go back and collect it? No! He makes some impressive looking gestures, bellows 'Staff, to me!' However in my game this is highly unlikely and you will get slapped for it! The staff will not come to you and you should of picked it up, or I am a lighter than light character hates undead and necromancy with a passion yet I suddenly am wilding a large all powerful undead sword that does particularly harsh damage to a living creature.
I played a humble Seer (no real title, armies or power) a lot of influence though, I seduced one of the ladies in waiting and got her to become queen, being a shifty little so and so. Was that power gaming, or courtly romance?
In a word no its not powergaming you kept it all in character, and did it as the sneaky bastard you were playing.
I think that kind of covers most things that have been said here. I don’t claim to be a wonderful player with vast knowledge and I am learning all the time about things. However I do try to shed some light on various queries!

[alec42]

Firstly, could people explain what they view as high and low fantasy?

I'm going to start with a cop-out. I have no fully worked out answer to this and today I've resolved to avoid my usual tricks and not throw any half baked ideas into the mix to see how they fly.

Secondly, could ‘power gaming’ be clarified?

Of course, power per se is no bad thing. I would also say that it's fairly axiomatic that doing well by playing your character as they are is no problem at all.

As always, it's easier to give examples than to define, so here is something I think was power gaming. At one of the dungeon events in the baptist church hall in the late nineties I played a mage. I knew I'd probably only have to play him once. So I picked up a set of £1.99 ears that would enable me to half the cost of magic points and wrote him up with magic missile, turn ethereal, 10 hit points and 400 magic points. It wasn't big, it wasn't clever but it did walk through walls and have missiles of light oozing from every orifice. I'd like to think that I've learnt something since then.

Thirdly, how should depth of character be measured? Is it the thought, plausibility and logic that should be a characters design or simply an amusing concept?

I'm not sure it can be measured. To a degree however it doesn't matter to anyone but you. If your deeply thought out and carefully constructed character interacts with someone who's playing a characiture, you'll still feel the same reactions to their words and actions, won't you?

As for an amusing concept, if I were a good enough actor I'm sure I could play a convincing role based on a single sentence, don't you agree?

I’ve seen a couple of views on non-human characters is, this general consensus or how do individuals really feel over the idea?

No. I like non-human characters, and I think they offer great opportunities. I've played beast kin, I probably will again. Who's the better actor, the person who solves the puzzle or the person who has known the answer for hours but just keeps on chasing the stick because they're playing a dog? I think it's the dog. Of course it's not really about being 'better' but you see my point (hopefully). I think you put it well when you say:

"Characters tend to have some of your self within them if they have been well thought out. Be it a beastman, an elf or a human. Each should have emotions and goals/morality, unless you’re another psychopath. Logically these should fit with your character concept and continue though."

Should other player’s emotions be considered when designing a character, or simply the effect that a ‘radical’ character can cause?

Personally, I think that going for shock value for the sake of it is a little crass. Of course, there are usually good reasons why one would want to shock people, so it depends on the situation.

Emotional challenges are something that should be on going, dependant on the character,

I disagree in part. Certainly a character should have emotional continuity, but I see no problem with emotional challenges being episodic or discrete, i.e particular dilemmas that present themselves independently.

Okay concerning LT *grimaces* you don’t become an npc/dpc because you’re powerful.

Of course. I was generalising, perhaps carelessly, to establish a point.

I actually admire LT. I didn't stop going because I have a problem with their system or their philosophy, I just ran out of time and money and fell out of the habit. I'll probably go back at some point in the next few years because I think they do what they do remarkably well. I know there are divided feelings pro/anti LT, but that's for another thread... 

I doubt that all my questions will be answered but it would be nice if some of them are addressed.

I gave it my best shot. Now my eyes hurt... screen break time!

[Scaryfatmaniffer]

Reading most people's comments on this thread from the past fortnight (particularly my own), seems to suggest that the great demon Nick Briggs has possessed us all - flitting from one facet to another in a strange and illogical way.

We should be wary for Phil Cooper will be hunting us all down with the wrath of God and righteous fury, and sticks, ninjas and vast amounts of twatting ...

[Scaryfatmaniffer]

I've just realised that technically I have replied to myself ...

but to put my slant on a few of Alec42's points...

High fantasy in my view is where magic, gods, monsters are REAL - full stop. A character cannot disbelieve in sorcery, griffons, elves whatever and not be a candidate for the loony bin.
Low fantasy is variable - (dark fantasy is either based on the fluffiness or otherwise of the world and its outlook - struggling fro the right words here - current literature has dark fantasy synonymous with horror in terms of genre) - but has differing levels of " the unreal" - I like to quote Robin of Sherwood as a good example of this - there were monsters, sorcery, magic weapons etc. but they wern't in your face all the time. It is quite possible to disbelieve in it all.

Power gaming is using the SYSTEM to your advantage in a way that cannot be rationalised sensibly and in a balanced way that is good for the plot/setting/player group as a whole. Strike to Injure - once per combat (is the combat every individual orc that charges you or the battle of Helm's Deep as a whole)
Playing by the spirit of the law not the letter of ...
I would think the following examples were powergaming:
Playing another race because hit points are cheaper and avoiding associated racial prejudices
Buying street fighting to get your fencing sword damage up one even though you are an honourable duellist.
Only taking base damage from a pistol even though it has been discharged into the back of your head, unsuspectingly at point blank range.

Depth of character cannot really be measured except in a way that gets really cheesy such as asking 15 random questions that I could ask the player (who would respond immediately) , would the charcater respond the same.  And as Tom says about a lot of LT characters - this builds over time. Should we judge a character that is being built gradually? I think not !
but ... I worry about players who constantly play themselves in another guise or worse still put on a costume and come to beat up the wights and orcs with rubber swords.

Don't get me wrong - I am not down on non-human characters other than that there should not be too many of them if you are trying to run a low fantasy setting - the real world had the elephant man - I used to know a slim six foot plus girl who had slightly pointed ears  (Oh God! - said in a Jarvisesque way) - but they are not the norm.
They are also potentially risky in terms of emotional detatchment from the rest of the players (but lets not go down this road).

I wouldn't rush into shocking a character for the sake of it but just remember there are consequences. It is a story - live by the sword die by the sword - play like a twat - die like a twat. There are enough similar incarnations of the same charcater strapped to millstones on the bottom of Eldoria's harbour to vouch for this.
but if you want to play an idiot - great (as long as you don't spoil the other players  fun and as long as you don't mind living with the consequences - or not as the case may be.

Emotion should be part of the character full stop - you have to motives and ways that you behave - even if that is as simple as anxious, inquisitive, lazy, hyper or whatever.

My thought on LT is its not really for me - I don't look down on those who like it but as I have always said I come at role-playing from a different angle to most and for all my whinging on Nick missing the point I always felt that he came at the hobby from the right angle. He was not hung up in rules, giving a charcater an "edge",
or trying to "win". He wanted to act as a character albeit often a complete oddbod but ...

[Artemisia]

Reading most people's comments on this thread from the past fortnight (particularly my own), seems to suggest that the great demon Nick Briggs has possessed us all - flitting from one facet to another in a strange and illogical way.

But this is a chat not a debate, which has pulled a range of related issues and opinions to the surface. If the discussion had been tightly limited to our taste for high or low fantasy, we would not have started to think about issues otherwise left buried (or simmering just below the surface). 
It would be tragic if people felt that they could not contribute unless they had the clarity of thought of a barrister. Voice an opinion, it may turn out to be a hidden gem, -or it maybe bollocks! At least the discussion is happening. Any wild divergence can either be explored - or readily brought back on track.
But if you read through the posts again, the thread is maintained and built upon. Those more skilled at discussion have sumarised points and developed questions. Thank you. This has allowed those of us who ramble, to have a fighting chance of joining in.
The passion which has been is shown is superb and should be appreciated.
I'll say again - Vive la Differance!

[The Darklord]

Well said Artie.

I feel that its only polite to answer Azamoths questions so I will have a go, may you all forgive me for adding yet more rambling.

1: High and low fantasy definitions

To be honest I was considering putting my definitions of these terms in my opening post but in the end I decided against it as I didn't want to push any possible replies along paths of my thinking - I wanted other peoples ideas.  Ok then that said, I don't think my definitions are probably all that differnt from Elmyras.  High fantasy I tend to see as being very magic intensive, perhaps even to the point where the setting could not exist without it.  Non human races should be much more common than in low fantasy and the feel of the whole thing should be a sweeping epic, the players actions should really be determining the fate of worlds or even entire universes.  Whearas low fantasy magic can be far more low key (though potentially terrifying) there can be a lot of wiggle room between beliefe and reality - what exactly is in that potion of stamina because the effect is great but oh man the come down!! If you get my drift.  Also I find low fantasy done well can lend itself to the "human stuff" much better than big epics sometimes do - Screw the rampaging orks, how the hell do I pay the mortgage on the inn? 

But, I think the dividing line between the two have always been blurred by the best fantasy authors.  Tolkein regularly gets cited as an example of high fantasy.  Well ok he pretty much defined much of what we think of if someone says "elf" or "dwarf" etc and yes he does do the sweeping epic very well.  But hang on, Gandalf powerful as he was did not lightly toss around fireballs.  For him using magic in combat was pretty much on a parr with the nuclear option.  The most powerfull wizard of middle earth had to resort to hack and slay quite a lot for a high fantasy don't you think?  And look at The Hyborian age.  Conan is fantastic low fantasy but there is some pretty dark and powerfull magic all the same - immortal things from the very dawn of time in some cases.  SO maybe the difference is one of focus far more than actual content?

Same with dark fantasy (my natural abode in many ways).  Magic should become dangerous to its wielders as well as its victims, the cost should always be high and sometimes surviving is the closest you will come to victory - surely high or low fantasy could be considered dark depending on the style and tone?

2:  Power gaming. I'm not sure it can be defined.  Using the rules to the letter of them rather than the spirit can certainly be considered power gaming but so can the out of character domination of a game.  How fair would it be if Chris gave those of us who he had known the longest automatic advantages in character?  That would be serious powergaming no?  Or if an event organiser constantly let a large group bend the rules to breaking point because if they were stopped they would take their money elsewhere?  There is nothing wrong with playing a scheming backstabbing power hungry monster (though they are a bit common in some roleplays so it can be boring) as long as you do so purely in character and keep in mind other people want to have fun.  Purposefully spoiling a great hobby for others is perhaps the only real sin in larping, well that and being a tool.

3: Depth of character shouldnt be measured although if its there it will be noticed sooner or later.  I have met people who will happily spend events talking about their character rather than actually roleplaying it - some of these people have given hours days weeks of though about there character yet the experience of trying to interact with them has given me the same amount of time spent questioning why the hell I bother.  Depth of character as others have mentioned will tend to develop over time.  I am proof of this because I will confess to you all right now that I am a complete fraud when it comes to character development.  I dont spend hours thinking of a characters motivations - the characters I have thought out carefully are all still sat in my head waiting for the perfect time that will never come.  The characters I have loved playing have all started out as either cardboard cutouts or in fact me in fancy dress.  But then again would anyone who has played with them for any length of time say there is no complexity in the likes of Tuan or Anarion or Turtle?  Maybe there is a lack but to be honest so what, If I'm not there yet at least I'm on my way and I'm going to enjoy the ride.

To be honest I like the fact that much of this thread has gone away from what was a very basic question.  I like that people are talking and agreeing, disagreeing and rambling.  Remember this is a fun hobby, our conversations on here about it can and maybe even sometimes should be serious but most of the time we are talking about idealised versions of the game and the important thing is to enjoy it. Sometimes its fun to just bash orcs, sometimes its fun to spend the night weeping because you've just had to execute your best friend because he's a traitor.

[asamoth]

Firstly I would like to thank everyone that took the time and effort to respond to those questions! I’ve personally found the various responses very stimulating. I suppose I should attempt to address my own questions, though I fear I might be rambling as well.

1) I came across this rather neat little definition:

High fantasy, fantasy set in a fully imagined Secondary World, according to Boyer and Zahorski, as opposed to Low Fantasy which concerns supernatural intrusions into the `real' world.

Now it isn’t without flaws, if the story is set in dark ages England and an army of orcs appear, it would be Low Fantasy as its set in the ‘real’ world, equally if I imagine a world populated purely with humans, being very normal and natural without magic or odd races, it is high fantasy. But I still think it’s a neat little definition and certainly workable and to the point. As to Dark Fantasy, well it could easily fit into a Low or High Fantasy world; it is more a flavour or style than anything.

2) Wikipedia once more has some interesting views on Power Gaming and other associated terms (I like munchkin and the French variant Gros Bill [Fat Bill]) if anyone would care to read them they can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Gaming

That doesn’t massively give my personal view, so I will attempt to. Power gaming, is seeking as much power as possible within the game, normally through manipulation of the rules, though other forms exist as mentioned by Dark Lord. Power gaming also tends to spawn some of the odder racial mixers, Mr Scaryf can I be a half-elf half-ogre so I get both hit points and magic points at half normal cost please! Equally it leads to a desire to play races outside of the normal listed ones, so as to gain more power. (Though sometimes people just want to play something different) There are some amusing tests that can be performed to see how far someone is willing to power game as well, such as the party finding a tea cosy of plus ten magic, can only be worn on the head. The pink summer dress of protection (how many male warriors will wear it if its better protection than the plate armour?) that sort of thing.

3) Character Depth I feel as been addressed fully, I am unsure if there are any worth while comments I can add to that subject without rewording what has already been said.

Concerning shock value, I agree with Alec42 though I would add it can be very easy to design a ‘Shock Character’ that inadvertently upsets someone as it may be seen as mocking there beliefs, afflictions or people they know. Of course people being over sensitive is a possibility, but it is something to consider?

My thoughts and feelings regarding LT are somewhat mixed and has been said should most likely be discussed in another thread or better still over several ales

With regards to discussions, personally I enjoy them as it gives me a chance to see other peoples perceptions regarding matters and thus a chance for me to evaluation my own. Part of the reason I enjoy various forms of fantasy is that it gives me chance to see inside someone else’s imagination, be it dark and gritty or bright and fluffy.

Once more I would like to thank everyone that took the time and effort to answer those enquiries.

[Scaryfatmaniffer]

Asamoth - are you not somewhat disturbed by this frenchman "Gros Bill" or Fat Bill - given that Blythyn has been AWOL for such a long time

[The Darklord]

Asamoth - are you not somewhat disturbed by this frenchman "Gros Bill" or Fat Bill - given that Blythyn has been AWOL for such a long time

It had occured to me too but when I think fat bill in relation to anything french I just think of the grotesque amounts some french restaraunts charge for food that even the uzzzzzz would find hard to stomach.