Craig mentioned a few days ago something about some new rules being worked on for after Mordavia (or something like that).
Is this a specific set of rules? Or was this a general description of what is happening with game ideas at diatribe?
Marc and I are certainly working on rules for the Warhammer game. And they’ll bear some resemblence to the Mordavia rules, while being quite distinct and specific to the campaign.
But I’m sure that any other fantasy games could have their own rules. There’s no idea of setting up standard rules for lots of different games to use.
Oh, okay. I have some ideas for rules that will encourage people to:
- build/bring their own equipment
- stop cheating with hit points
- play characters they are well suited to
- Give all PCs 1hp and make damage locational (limb shot wounds the limb, body shot incapacitates)
- Make leather armour “proof” against 1 handed weapons
- Make steel armour “proof” against 2 handed weapons
- Don’t have any “fighting” type skills (knockdown, extra dammage etc)
- You start with what you bring, nothing more, nothing less. If your costume is good, you may be noble.
Interesting system. Rule 5 sounds quite specific to a certain type of game. The rest sound nice and generic.
I’m not sure what you mean by PCs having 1HP, it sounds like a system with no HP rules at all (which I like). If you get hit on a limb it’s out of use, right? But you don’t lose a HP and get incapacitated. So really, there are no HP.
I like the way you’ve differentiated leather and steel, that’s always been a tricky one for one-hit-you’re-wounded systems. But what about chain? It’s steel, so should it give the same protection as plate?
Wouldn’t a chain hauberk then make you invulnerable to all attacks except to your hands/head/lower legs?
Likewise, full plate would make you invulnerable to all attacks.
And this is an added complication… but how about the idea of letting certain weapons puncture or crush through steel? Hammers, maces, morningstars. But then put length limitations on them, so they’re always shorter than lighter weapons like one-handed swords. Say limited to 70 cm? Probably too complex.
Certainly the second part is (“If your costume is good, you may be noble”). I believe this will encourage people to build stuff.
Sprung. There are no HP. It’s location based.
I could go either way with this. It could be “light” armour included leather and mail and “heavy” armour included scale and plate. This would probably be better because it’s certainly easier to cover the whole body in mail.
Yes. But you’d still be vunerable to magic!
Pretty much. There are some gaps of course. Armpits, backs of knees, insides of elbows etc…
You’re just trying to get rid of all those maces and war-hammers nobody purchased 
One of the things I like about the “armour is proof” and “limbs are wounds” concepts is at the moment a character with say 4hp and 4ap runs around until they fall unconscious at 0hp. Note: This can take anywhere from 8-20 blows to accomplish depending on how good they are at counting. They are supposed to “act” wounded, but they often don’t.
It also means:
- You can issue soldiers with a breastplate and they don’t die very often. They just lie around groaning on the ground.
- If you can place blows with accuracy, you can wound or incapacitate a person in one blow.
- It is nice for missile weapons which (lets face it) are completely useless at the moment.
- Back stabbing/assassination works.
- Skills like sapping work well ("…he’s wearing a cuirboilli cap, better use both hands…")
- You can build armour that works for you (i.e. Greek hoplite armour and a large shield)
- Hand and a half swords have a real reason for living (you can single hand them against peasants and double hand them against brigands).
- If every blow should either be ignored (because the armour is proof) or taken (because it isn’t proof) you can immediately see who is cheating.
- An unarmed peasant can raise their arms to ward off blows and it actually does something (for the first two blows anyway).
- A shot to the body is better than a shot to the wrist.
I’m leaning towards mail being “light” not “heavy”. That way, most people could toss the shield aside and sieze their weapon with both hands and have a go at the person. And, lets face it, we don’t want everyone in heavy armour.
You’re just trying to get rid of all those maces and war-hammers nobody purchased [/quote]
Yes.
So, how about this. Some weapons can be used two-handed, and some can’t. A 70cm sword (basically a short/arming sword) can’t be used 2H, but a 70cm hammer can (owing to it being so heavy IC).
On the topic of armour: if chain is the same as leather, no-one will wear chain. They’ll wear leather.
What happens if you get a leg wounded? Unable to walk without assistance? Must go down to knees? Hopping should be right out.
In terms of missile weapons, thrown weapons (spears, daggers, rocks) could count as one handed. Propelled weapons (arrows, bolts) could count as two handed.
Giants (and other “strong” monsters) could count one better. One handed weapons would do two handed damage and two handed weapons would injure through anything.
I think even a dagger can be used two handed to punch through mail. Likewise, a rock could be used two handed for extra impact. I think this is preferable because otherwise people will probably be discussing the weapon types during combat. “Excuse me, is that a club or a mace?”
This is pretty simple rulewise and I don’t think any of the extra complexity adds much (it might for some people, but I like simple rules):
Armour 1H 2H/Giant 1H Giant 2H
None Y Y Y
Light N Y Y
Medium N N Y
Remember that this is the area hit, not the whole person. So a person wearing a mail shirt with a steel breastplate and hardened leather vambraces has enough to think about already, given that they have areas that are none, light and heavy armour!
Possibly make it hardened leather as a minimum for “light” armour then. I think people will wear mail if they have it, because it look cool!
Fall to the ground, or use a walking stick or person to lean on. I’m not fond on the SCA convention of fighting from the knees, but something like that (maybe sitting on your bum or side?).
Actually, while I’m up on my soapbox, can I suggest the concept of experience points be shot?
Spell books. I love them! I think at least one type of mage should require spell books and they should copy spells into it before they can cast them.
AD&D used to have this cool thing with scrolls where it you read them, you could use them only once. But you could try to “learn” them and copy them into your spell book instead which was cool.
I totally agree.
Personally I like experience. But it doesn’t seem to fit the rules described above.
If there was XP in a game system I think it should give you fairly small advantages e.g and extra hit point, an extra spell or two. No sudden jumps in IC ability.
I agree. Spell books are cool. I think Aitrius was the only character ever to have one and I “liberated” it. I love playing a mage and keeping an eye on my scrolls was hard enough even when I could put them in my pouch or boot. A spell book is much harder to keep an eye on and much more rewarding to liberate.
It would have the interesting side effect of making people far less likely to make up a mage when there character died in the middle of a game. Not sure if thats a good or bad thing. I do remember a bunch of white mages being made one game when we were desperatly short of them.
XP is good for giving abilities in a fantasy game that wouldn’t necessarily be applicable in a real world situation.
My issue is, while this kind of system is kind of representative of a realistic-ish battle type system, it favours those who have heavy armor in their own kit. The fact that armor wasn’t invulnerable to any weapon seems to be overlooked but it was good at deflecting weak blows & inaccuarate shots.
It also lessened the impact of blows, making the wearer more hardy.
This is why people use HP systems, because it’s the next best thing but hardly the best.
It favours those who physically own armor at too much. I mean this is fine if you are a blacksmith or have had armor made for you but sucks if you don’t.
As much as I would love to, I couldn’t even afford leather armor, let alone anything else.
Would the magic be suitably powerful to balance this out? A lot of magic systems I have seen out of Orkland are really slow & a mage has no chance alone. Would spells ignore armor or be equivalent to 2H weapons?
I made an attempt at a locational damage system, 1 damage to a limb, 2 damage to a torso shot. People would have a massive 3 damage (without armor), my attempt as representing a limb shot hurting but a torso shot being incapacitating. At 0 damage they aren’t unconcious, they are hurt & can only crawl, -1 is so hurt they can only lie groaning & -2 unconscious.
Yes it sounds like a HP system but it achieves almost exactly what you described earlier.
Are you assuming that the armour has to be real ? While real chain looks best, I had no compunction wearing fake plastic stuff that kind-of looks like chain. As long as people can work out what kind of armour you are supposed to be wearing, that’s fine with me.
Also, my first armour at Mordavia was lame-ass vinyl. Meh.
I got less XP related to costume until I made my own segmentata out of sheet copper that I scored from a metal recycler on the cheap.
Oh yeah and how can you tell what weapon you’re being hit with? Larp weapons are light & quick. How would you know if you had just been stabbed with a dagger, shortsword or 2 handed sword if you are being stabbed in the back, or facing multiple opponents?
This sounds like a game that rewards people who have money far too much and penalises those that dont. In Real LIfe.
BASICALLY IF YOU CAN FORK OUT A GRAND IT MAKES YOU IMMUNE TO MOST FORMS OF COMBAT.
Sounds like Magic the Gathering to me, if you have the Power nine you virtually rule the game.
Whats to stop some uber mage player getting plate mail and sling spells to defend themselves. Sounds like power gaming not roleplaying. Roleplaying is about assuming the role of someone. If you have a costume that fits. You should be rewarded more for your roleplaying not for your bank balance.
Personally I think you will force people away with those ideas. Fantasy games need to be blanced so even those people with little money can be on an equal par with the rest.
I suppose that this is the case if you insist that armour be real, not just indicative of the armour it represents. You can make something that looks like armour using a $12 camp roll and some glue and paint.
You could spend $1000 if you wanted, but I’m pretty sure I could be mostly untouchable for less than $30 That’s just armouring the bits that get hit in one-on-one combat.
I never played Magic the Fleecing, but I take your point. The intent is not that rich larpers have more fun than poor larpers. The intent is that armour in the game would work like armour in real life.
Given the reference to “plate mail” which is an AD&D term not an historical one (plate is one form or armour, mail another) I would have thought you’d be familiar with the AD&D rule that prevents magic users from casting in armour.
Having an armour system that makes larp armour work like real armour does not prevent you introducing rules that also “balance” the game. Whatever “balance” means in this instance…
I believe that good role playing will always get a better reward than spending money on armour. I have talked and role played my way into and out of far far more problems than I’ve ever solved by spending money on my costume. In fact, one of the few times I wore serious quantities of armour to a game (as Sir Nigel of Hovan) it actually hampered me and meant that the 30 PCs chasing me through the woods were able to catch me, beat me up, tie me to a chair and torcher me. Something that would normally NEVER happen were I able to stretch my legs in a proper retreat! 
Having cast the first stone though, I feel obliged to toss it back. If you cared more about role playing than power gaming you’d accept that, in the real world, knights in armour tended to defeat unarmoured soldiers and that it should work the same in larping. Try role playing a character that is scared of an armoured knight in a fight because he realises that his two short swords are (literally) not going to cut it. Rather than crying “it’s not fair, I can’t financially afford to power game under these rules” consider that you may have to deal with an armoured knight with a solution that doesn’t involve hitting them with a sword. Personally, I’d try poisoning them (armoured knights are always thirsty), casting spells on them (they’re slow, who could miss) or getting some pretty young thing to seduce them (they’ll always fall for it because they’re so dashing they expect people to fall in love with them).
You are of course correct. There are a number of games I have no intention of ever participating in because I don’t like the combat systems. Stargate is an example of this. Having read the combat system, I have no desire to participate in the game. Having said that, I believe that it works for them and I don’t mind that they run games like that. In fact, I’m glad they run the games and find enjoyment doing it and I’d happily assist them building stuff for their games if they wanted me to, not that they need any help or anything … where was I?
Oh yes. You are correct, some people may look at these rules and think “nope, not for me, I want a combat system where I don’t have to invest a lot of time or money and I can still hold my own in a fight”. However, you may find that some people also prefer a system they believes is closer to real life.
- I don’t think games need to be balanced.
- I also don’t think that having larp armour work like real armour unbalances a game.
- Even if having larp armour work like real armour DOES unbalance a game, you can balance it up with other rules. Rules like “steel armour prevents spell casting” and “steel armour prevents healing spells taking effect”.
- I think that letting people have fun without spending a lot of time or money does not prevent these armour rules.
If your larp games are like paintball with swords (basically a series of fights and battles) then being armoured cap-a-pie and basically bullet proof would probably be a huge advantage that would probably offset the disadvantages of the armour. However, if you’re more interested in the role playing, being heavily armoured is actually a pain in the arse. Believe me, you sweat all day long and in the evening your wet gambeson is uncomfortable, you get callouses where the armour chafes, it takes you 20 minutes to go to the toilet and people keep trying to poison you, zap you with spells or seduce you! 
Correct me if i am wrong but i cant find any reference to using camping mat steel armour your original quote was
Oh, okay. I have some ideas for rules that will encourage people to:
- build/bring their own equipment
- stop cheating with hit points
- play characters they are well suited to
- Give all PCs 1hp and make damage locational (limb shot wounds the limb, body shot incapacitates)
- Make leather armour “proof” against 1 handed weapons
- Make steel armour “proof” against 2 handed weapons
- Don’t have any “fighting” type skills (knockdown, extra dammage etc)
- You start with what you bring, nothing more, nothing less. If your costume is good, you may be noble.
I thought you were talking about real armour not some cheap attempt at a knock off.
I do agree that there are ways around fighting and I am a great advocate for talking and roleplaying. But a system that gives armoured people so much of an advantage in combat is going away from the fantasy concept. Orcs did beat armoured Warriors in the LOTR movies so there was some advantage. But total immunuity was not the case.
Hit points do give players an ability to beat the armoured warriors but still give the armoured warriors an advantage.
Everyone has a different concept of fantasy.
Also, larp is a different medium to fiction, movies or tabletop roleplaying. In larp, I think making armour very relevant makes a lot of sense. The player has to wear the stuff, so it’s not just colour.
I still think it benefits armour wearers far too much. There should be some benefits but not to the extent of making the wearer immine to combat. Armoured foes were not immune to combat. Knights did die of crushing or piercing attacks.
Most however seemed invulnerable because they rode horses that shocked their opponents into submission and did not often get off the horse and into one on one or one on more than one combat.
If you are going to make them so immune you need to balance that by only allowing real Full plate armour have that benefit thus removing the benefit of manouverability that a cheap foam knockoff would have.
The problem I can see is how you can differentiate or make players take their hits. The whole scenario we know where a player was hit in the torso but only takes a leg shot because they say they were hit in the hip.
If an armoured person has vulnerable areas whats to stop them saying they were hit on the armour when they were not?
Also with Larp and the way it is body contact is frowned there is no way to grapple a knight and take them down to the ground. This removes a lighter fighters ability to win a fight even if in real life they could win.