CLOK BBS

Some details on the new clothing (including armor) system.

It's mandatory. If you haven't switched over yet, the next time you log on, please use report to tell any online GMs that you need to be switched.

Layered clothing means that your clothing can be put on or under other things. For example, if your'e wearing a shirt and put a breastplate over it, people will no longer see the shirt. Or, if you're wearing a necklace and neck armor, people aren't going to see the necklace. However, if you're wearing a shirt and vest, people will see both. Long-sleeves will cover wrists and bracelets and belts go over pants and other fullbody things (like dresses).

Some things you can't do: Wear a coat (or something similar) under or over torso armor. It's just silly. You also can't wear a tabard over nothing. You can't wear anything on your torso or legs under or over a robe.

Hopefully these changes allow for more dynamic and interesting character descriptions.

Just because I am curious but why can't you wear leggings, or for that matter, a tunic under a robe? I've designed and sewn many robes for my LARPing days and I always wore both under my robe.

There's some ambiguity about what robes are. Are they more monk robes, where you wouldn't really be wearing anything else, or are they Jedi robes, where you would? I made the system with the first in mind, and until somebody convinces me of a good way to have a distinction between the two, it will stay the way it is.

I'm not against changing it, but it will take some work, and I want there to be a good reason to do so.

Renarin is talking about monk style robes that he has made and we have both worn, at larps, with costuming under them. Pics can be produced if you like.

We believe you. What Rithiel is asking for is some way that we can distinguish monk style robes from full robes with nothing underneath. That way we can have both types in the system with a clear way to distinguish them within the code. Throw out ideas!

What about singular robe for the type with clothing worn underneath and plural robes for the type that are meant to be worn alone without clothing underneath?

I think Lae's idea is good. But I also think you should be able to wear normal pants under either type of robe, but probably not armor under the singular robe type. So you could wear some trousers under a robe, but not leg greaves or other types of armor.

I see monk robes and jedi robes as the same, what's the difference other than the monk robes are usually closed at the front while jedi usually leave them open? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to get a good picture of what the singular robe is supposed to look like. Any robes I can think of are pretty loose and seem like a fuller cloak with sleeves, resting on the shoulders. So for that kind I think you could wear just about anything on your legs under them.

If you're talking about eastern monk robes instead of western monk robes I can see how you wouldn't want to wear other things under the top portion, they seem a little snugger at the top when they're worn over one shoulder I guess, but the bottom still looks open and doesn't rest on the hips or anything. Unless the bottom is actually a separate piece and just always blends in in all these pictures I'm seeing, and we are assuming both pieces are part of a set and included in the single robe item that you wear. But that seems strange when our system has so far been separated into different pieces.

Sorry, got carried away wondering and googling.

I could go with the robes/robe thing.

I do wonder why people want to be able to wear pants underneath. I would likely make it so that the pants don't actually show, since this is still a robe we're talking about.

So you can kick your legs up and not worry about being taken away for indecent exposure! I've never worn robes other than bathrobes before except for costumes, and with those costumes I wore pants under them. It would feel weird not to wear anything other then underwear when it's so open down there, and the robes aren't permanently closed or anything. Like I have to be careful when I'm in my bathrobe, if I take too long a stride or turn the wrong way the robe could open up a little and everyone would get a peek. It's different with women wearing skirts for instance because those are usually closed, there's no split all the way up the garment along which it could accidentally open. Also note lots of women wear pants along with skirts.

I don't know how accurate this is but it's interesting, talking about what is worn under robes: http://prayerfoundation.org/faq_frequen ... 20Question I realize this only applies to one case but it is evidence that at least some people do wear pants under their robes.

Whatever the history or correct fashion is, I'm not saying everyone SHOULD wear pants under their robes. But in my opinion it should be allowed, even if they are hidden to others which completely makes sense. I would say shirts too, but I don't want to push it too much.

Just to point out - it's sometimes taken to be assumed that people are wearing pants. For example, greaves can be worn without pants underneath, and Rias says he just assumes that people are wearing pants, although I can look at changing that if people want.

I'll start thinking about ways to change up robes, although there's no easy way to do it the way the system currently is, so it may take me a while.

Well now that we have layered clothing we can wear pants under our greaves! I really like this feature, thanks so much for working on it.

Maybe it's more of an open robe or a short robe than harry potter type robes that are more full garments. I'm not too fussed either way. I wear leather and plate!

I need a flasher robe and a harry potter robe. Make it so!