Personally, I would find it stupid and childish and probably wouldn't RP with you.
HOWEVER...
The tenacity of certain posters in this topic is unfounded. Anyone who has played online RPGs on roleplaying servers knows that it's completely acceptable to excuse/abuse a game mechanic so long as it does not create a bad roleplaying environment.
The argument that it is LOLOLOL FROM A POTION THEREFORE INVALID is logically flawed and ignorant of longstanding practices in this subgenre. So what if a gameplay mechanic says that you became a pretend-drake by drinking a potion? The whole point of roleplaying in videogames is to take the gameplay framework and build your own stories on it. If insiders to your roleplaying circle are willing to tolerate a drake RPer and ignore whatever little signs there are that its a fake drake from a potion, then it is fine because it isn't breaking the overall canon of the game unless you commit undrakely acts.
An example to highlight how flawed this thinking: By your logic, you would imply Neverwinter Nights roleplayers shouldn't perform physical emotes enabled by custom-script wands (to allow for emotes not normally performable). As you seem to imply, because the emote was created by an object rather naturally existing with the character's abilities, it's wrong and makes you a bad roleplayer. Another Neverwinter Nights example: players shouldn't roleplay as subraces not explicitly listed in the character creation menu, because the gameplay clearly says you're just a half-elf and not a half-drow or what-have-you. For some stupid reason, you're just a bad roleplayer for bending the rules of the game to create a plausible situation. Does any of that sound right? That's what I'm getting at with the 'potion' logic.
If you really want to keep arguing in that style of logic, where do you draw the line? A true roleplayer would insist all players look exactly the same , as, due to the same line of logic that the game only portrays an unthinking sand drake created by a potion, the game only portrays a limited amount of character customization options and therefore only those specific, exact options should be considered canon? A true roleplayer wouldn't do any raids/dungeons that have technically already been cleared out by other adventurers? A true roleplayer wouldn't use unique items that are already equipped by another player, because, technically, it is a unique item by moniker? A true roleplayer would refuse to treat any settlement in the game as a true city or town, as due to the gameplay limitations, they are really just transport+market+training hubs made of 100~ NPCs rather than true, fully functional cities? By nature of it being a videogame, there will be built-in mechanics that go *against* roleplaying (whether it's pretending you're a drake or the fact that the in-game combat system implies that you have to hit a thing with a sword 20 times to kill it, which is clearly not 'realistic' in the sense of roleplaying at all), yet these can be ignored in a consensual situation.
You are simply dead wrong in shooting down this player's proposal simply because of the hardcoded game mechanic. I understand your ultimate concern that it's probably a terrible, cheesy idea (omg guyz letz totally be DRAGONS!!!1111), but you're attacking it from an easy, but in the end, improper angle. If you have beef with the end result, that's fine, and bring that up directly. Don't attack the tool as it does no wrong by itself unless it the player makes a crappy end result out of it. Yes, he should expect to get alot of grief from outsiders who will likely see it as immature Mary-Sue-esque powerplay, but if there are insiders that he wants to limit it to, why not?
tl;dr: its a logical fallacy to say that bending hardcoded gameplay mechanics to fit a roleplaying scenario = not roleplaying. attack the quality of his drake roleplaying if you want to mount a proper argument.
HOWEVER...
The tenacity of certain posters in this topic is unfounded. Anyone who has played online RPGs on roleplaying servers knows that it's completely acceptable to excuse/abuse a game mechanic so long as it does not create a bad roleplaying environment.
The argument that it is LOLOLOL FROM A POTION THEREFORE INVALID is logically flawed and ignorant of longstanding practices in this subgenre. So what if a gameplay mechanic says that you became a pretend-drake by drinking a potion? The whole point of roleplaying in videogames is to take the gameplay framework and build your own stories on it. If insiders to your roleplaying circle are willing to tolerate a drake RPer and ignore whatever little signs there are that its a fake drake from a potion, then it is fine because it isn't breaking the overall canon of the game unless you commit undrakely acts.
An example to highlight how flawed this thinking: By your logic, you would imply Neverwinter Nights roleplayers shouldn't perform physical emotes enabled by custom-script wands (to allow for emotes not normally performable). As you seem to imply, because the emote was created by an object rather naturally existing with the character's abilities, it's wrong and makes you a bad roleplayer. Another Neverwinter Nights example: players shouldn't roleplay as subraces not explicitly listed in the character creation menu, because the gameplay clearly says you're just a half-elf and not a half-drow or what-have-you. For some stupid reason, you're just a bad roleplayer for bending the rules of the game to create a plausible situation. Does any of that sound right? That's what I'm getting at with the 'potion' logic.
If you really want to keep arguing in that style of logic, where do you draw the line? A true roleplayer would insist all players look exactly the same , as, due to the same line of logic that the game only portrays an unthinking sand drake created by a potion, the game only portrays a limited amount of character customization options and therefore only those specific, exact options should be considered canon? A true roleplayer wouldn't do any raids/dungeons that have technically already been cleared out by other adventurers? A true roleplayer wouldn't use unique items that are already equipped by another player, because, technically, it is a unique item by moniker? A true roleplayer would refuse to treat any settlement in the game as a true city or town, as due to the gameplay limitations, they are really just transport+market+training hubs made of 100~ NPCs rather than true, fully functional cities? By nature of it being a videogame, there will be built-in mechanics that go *against* roleplaying (whether it's pretending you're a drake or the fact that the in-game combat system implies that you have to hit a thing with a sword 20 times to kill it, which is clearly not 'realistic' in the sense of roleplaying at all), yet these can be ignored in a consensual situation.
You are simply dead wrong in shooting down this player's proposal simply because of the hardcoded game mechanic. I understand your ultimate concern that it's probably a terrible, cheesy idea (omg guyz letz totally be DRAGONS!!!1111), but you're attacking it from an easy, but in the end, improper angle. If you have beef with the end result, that's fine, and bring that up directly. Don't attack the tool as it does no wrong by itself unless it the player makes a crappy end result out of it. Yes, he should expect to get alot of grief from outsiders who will likely see it as immature Mary-Sue-esque powerplay, but if there are insiders that he wants to limit it to, why not?
tl;dr: its a logical fallacy to say that bending hardcoded gameplay mechanics to fit a roleplaying scenario = not roleplaying. attack the quality of his drake roleplaying if you want to mount a proper argument.
Edited by Humphreys on 1/12/2011 2:59 AM PST
