New Fantasy Rules?

Community Game ideas
#21

I probably didn’t say camp mat armour was fine. But I probably didn’t say that rubber swords were okay either, yet that was implied. I believe that steel armour at larps is an unnecessary danger, especially helmets at night when people are sprinting around in the dark. Nothing says ouch like sprinting into a heavy helmet with your face.

My reasoning for this is simply that I WANT more equipment and costumes in games. How often do players not bring kit to games because their character cannot afford to purchase it under the game rules? All the time! I’d love to see battalions of armoured knights walking around the place.

I’m not really fussed if people want to use or ban rubber armour. I can do either. I’d hope that players who are in for the long haul would eventually put together some steel armour.

Orcs WERE armoured warriors in LOTR movies. :smiley:

I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to cut through steel armour. I have. It’s bloody solid stuff. If someone stood very still and let you really wind up on them, you could probably not put a one handed sword through a steel helmet. I base this on the fact that I cannot and I hit harder than most people I know. You could probably lay them out on the ground though.

Hit points and armour points work reasonably well and I think they will remain the most popular form of combat resolution for fantasy larps, especially ones with unrealistic amounts of combat. They have a lot of things going for them; they work well with magic, buffs, healing, boss monsters, races etc etc etc. But they do fall down when you look closer and the rules just grow and grow and grow trying to patch a logically flawed system.

Lets look at an example of play using the Mordavia rules…

Bob has 2hp + tough (1hp) + mail shirt (2ap) + a helm (1ap) for a total of 3hp + 3ap = 6 total points.
He heads off into the woods and encounters an bandit who hits him once on the right arm before Bob kills him. Bob now has 3hp + 2ap because armour points are lost before hit points, even when the armour is not struck.

Frodo the thief sneaks up on Bob and grabs the helmet off his head and runs off into the woods. Has Bob just lost a point of armour or can he assume the lost piece was damaged? Frodo puts the helmet on. Does Frodo gain an armour point or not?

This is just one of the many many flaws that you’ll encounter with hit points and armour points. There are a hundred other questions that can be asked about the same rules:

  • why, if I was shot in the bare chest with an arrow, are all my greaves and vambraces damaged?
  • why, when I loot the dead after a battle, is every piece of armour completely stuffed?
  • why is a mail hauberk, that has been hit twice with a club, completely stuffed?
  • why does wearing a single greave offer me no protection, even if I get hit there three times and nowhere else?
  • a person is armoured in just a helmet, I hit him in both shins with the edge of a shovel, why can they still sprint?

I’ve done a reasonable amount of fighting in full armour with rattan weapons. These hurt where you don’t have armour, but where you are armoured with plate, they don’t hurt at all (except heavy head blows). We have from time to time done poleaxe combat in heavy transitional harnesses (think mail hauberk with steel limbs, steel breastplate and steel helmet with mail aventail). You get so completely tired doing this style of combat that sometimes you just take a break from parrying and let the other guy whack you while you recover some energy. A few solid blows on the shoulders really doesn’t do much so as long as you protect yourself from face thrusts and stay on balance, you can just suck it up and recover some energy. Unless the person physically throws you to the ground and levers open your visor, you’re pretty much safe.

Ninja, you should try playing a game in full steel armour and see if you think being invulnerable to weapons would actually be worth the pain and suffering.

#22

If we can forget for a moment all the things we think we know about fighting, role playing etc and look at what is realistic.

Two friends Paul and David are walking through a shopping center when two huge P addicts run out of the local PostBank they have just robbed. One is armed with a baseball bat the other with a large kitchen knife. They are so high they can see the back of the moon.

The P addict with the baseball bat trys to hit Paul in the head with the bat, Paul raises his arms in the way and gets his left elbow smashed with the bat. He is knocked into a wall and falls to the ground.

The second P addict grabs David and stabbs him in the neck with his large kitchen knife. David falls backwards onto the ground and starts spraying blood all over the PostBank window, staining the recently painted Christmas decorations.

Paul curls up into the feotal position and manages to protect his head with his arms and his torso with his shins. He is beaten three more times with the baseball bat before the P addicts make a run for their stolen Subaru Legacy. They speed recklessly from the carpark, knocking over an old lady and her shopping carp before being T-boned by a concrete truck. One is killed the other spends the rest of his life in a wheelchair doped up on painkillers paid for by our taxes.

Despite a broken elbow and severe injuries to his knees and shins, Paul tries to dial 111 on his mobile phone but discovers it has been destroyed in the fight. He crawls to David and using his hoodie as a compression bandage manages to staunch the bleeding.

David loses a lot of blood and is rushed to hospital. It’s touch and go for a bit but after a couple of days he’s out of hospital and mostly recovered. He is scarred for life.

Paul is able to walk to the ambulance but despite treatment he never recovers full use of his left arm.

Real unarmoured combat is a bitch. The idea of getting hit with a weapon while unarmoured should scare the shit out of people. I don’t see this in larps that have hit points and armour points. What I normally see is people who have a bunch of hit points, armour points and buffs who can’t even be bothered running to avoid combat.

It’s difficult to display any sort of bravery in a system where there isn’t any fear of unarmoured combat.

#23

[quote=“Derek”]Real unarmoured combat is a bitch. The idea of getting hit with a weapon while unarmoured should scare the shit out of people. I don’t see this in larps that have hit points and armour points. What I normally see is people who have a bunch of hit points, armour points and buffs who can’t even be bothered running to avoid combat.

It’s difficult to display any sort of bravery in a system where there isn’t any fear of unarmoured combat.[/quote]

Yeah, you’re right! It’s a problem here, in Germany, too, that people don’t play their wounds. I like cineastic fights and the sick bay atmosphere after the fights.

How will you get the PC to enact this?

I reckon screwing on armour points is not the best way to do it. Rewarding for good role play is the key, I think. Give special roles, extra exp or something like that and take away their fear of dying. If they don’t have this fear ooc, they can play more free in game.

#24

I have fought in Sca a few times and I agree it is a a nightmare to walk around all day in armour. However you are not fighting with steel weapons which is what the LARP rules are supposed to simulate. A knight did not come at you in the 1200’s with a rattan cane sword. He had 30-40 inches of sharpened steel. I personally would have had 60 inches of steel as I love fighting sclaymore/sweihander. Lets not really get into semantics.

LArp rules do not allow grappling for safety reasons which leaves the armoured person at an advantage with the rules as they are. You cannot grapple a knight to the ground and take their helm off or pin them to put the dagger in or slit their throat

You cannot Shield bash and go Cor a Cor with them this is against the rules. However certainly a valid option if you were on a fight with an armoured knight in real Life.

Therefore there needs to be some form of simulation tht allows a person who decides not to be armoured to defeat a knight in combat without all of the problems of broken legs etc that come with grappling a person in armour to the ground.

If your issue is people not having kit then maybe you reward those that have kit with extra experience. or those without kit half experience maybe players with kit are the only ones that can play character the others have to monster until a minimum standard is reached.

#25

Cool, who did you fight with?

Sure, SCA combat isn’t a perfect simulation either. But I think it’s safe to say that if you don’t feel a small amount of discomfort from a blow with a piece of rattan, it’s unlikely a real sword would have caused serious injury. I don’t believe that armour is “proof” against weapons, but I do think that a rule saying armour will stop a sword hurting is about as close as you can get to real life and still have a simple system that doesn’t have lots of unanswered questions.

After all, would a mail hauberk be wrecked after being hit twice with a club?

Some larp rules don’t allow grappling; some are more flexible. In Nightmare Circle, we all jumped on Jack and wrestled him to the ground because we couldn’t think of anything else to do. Swords wouldn’t injure him and the only way we knew to hurt him was to put something against his chest and cast a spell. Jack wasn’t going to let us do that so we have to jump him. We didn’t stick out fingers in his eyes or anything, we just sat on him (while he crushed my ribs). :frowning:

Oops, we just did, our bad :slight_smile: Providing people are considerate of each other, I think a little physical contact isn’t a bad thing. Grabbing someone from behind and holding a knife at their throat creates excellent opportunities for role playing, even if some larp rule sets wouldn’t allow it. If I try that under the Mordavia rules I may have to stab the person 6-8 times to have any effect and I’m probably breaking at least two rules.

Again, if you make shields with soft edges and aren’t too reckless, I think you can.

If we ever did get the odd 100% armoured player at a game, I think it would only add to the fun, not detract from it. You’d actually have to think about how you were going to beat them. I’ve never yet seen a person in a larp in full heavy armour. They always have some little hole somewhere that a skilled person can stick a well placed two handed dagger. I’d suggest trying inside the elbow or knee or the feet as being likely targets.

XP is another conversation entirely. I’m not fond of XP either. I think it’s like saying “You’re new, so you’ll have less fun”. It’s prejudiced against new players and I think that it will only discourage people from playing. Why would anyone want to play in a game where when they start everyone else is tougher than them??? This is light sarcasm by the way, where I compare in game XP to out of game money. I hope the similarity is not lost people.

#26

I fought in Tauranga with Roel I came to St Catherines many years ago. I used a greatsword though.

With SCA you do go into it with an amount of expectation of physical contact.

With Larp Not so much i guess. Quest has rules forbidding physical contact like shield bashing and grappling to allow people who do not want to have that sort of physical interraction to be attracted to the games. Also makes it less likely that someone will get hurt. Although I guess this could be added into the signing away liability of injury issue.

Personally I would love the combat to be a bit more physical. So would my friend. We both fight unarmoured with Shinai at the moment. However, There are some people out there though that just dont like getting hit with a sword so much and physical contact would not be liked at all (surprises me that they pick up a sword though)

ninja123 wrote:
In saying that you cannot grapple a knight to the ground and take their helm off or pin them to put the dagger in or slit their throat I was talking about the grappling them not the slitting of throuats. Quest does have those as part of the Brotherhood of shadows backstab/ Death blow skills. Also a dagger across the chest or back does 3 times more than a limb (Not neck as it is a safety issue).

We do have rules about foam edges and shields not made from wood but again the problem of ability versus roleplaying. Shield bashing an inexperienced person could lead to falling over and injury. Of course I would be anaethema to shield bash anyone who I didnt feel “signed up” for it. UNlike the SCA where you are “Signing Up” for a bit of pain.

I agree with youre statement about the funness of an armoured person. However again the issue of taking hits especially when it is only mall areas that a person could say weel you got me on the armour so i wont accapt it or i didnt feel it so i wont accept it really needs to be addressed. The Hits per location does address this with more HP for an armoured fighter.

With Xp - you gotta start at the bottom. Do you think that Frodo was as good a fighter as Aragorn. No way not the experience but they adventured together. Adventurers need to start somewhere. people get better In real Life skills and experience simulate that. Not everyone becomes an Archmage overnight or the worlds greatest warrior. Experience simulates RL progression. You learn more spells, get more powerful have a greater pool of mana are more adept at fighting even if you are not (can take more hits)

Perhaps a player does not have a negative xp count for the first four games or someother random number decided by the GM and if by then they have not got realistic kit which is really your arguement.

XP is another conversation entirely. I’m not fond of XP either. I think it’s like saying “You’re new, so you’ll have less fun”. It’s prejudiced against new players and I think that it will only discourage people from playing. Why would anyone want to play in a game where when they start everyone else is tougher than them??? This is light sarcasm by the way, where I compare in game XP to out of game money. I hope the similarity is not lost people.

#27

When the concept of invulnerable armouring was originally raised, my understanding was that there would be IC restrictions on accumulating armour, so the invulnerable tank option was limited to a few high level characters.

In a setting where you can take full plate if it suits your character’s background, then this will make heavy armour much more frequent.

However, I would also expect magik to be used more frequently against knights. I mean, you just have to take out the tank first, otherwise they’ll take out your more lightly armoured allies.

#28

Full armour in that system does have some humorous implications. For example, what if two knights in full armour fight when no-one else is around…

But given the casualness of Derek’s rules in general, I think it can be assumed that the players will sort out the result amongst themselves in those sort of exceptional circumstances. Perhaps by fighting until one is so exhausted that they can’t resist having their armour pulled up to allow a blow? :wink:

#29

It’s probably true that I’m less fussed about a bit of pain than most people. Looking down at my hands they are covered in little scars and marks from fighting, including five new injuries in the last six weeks :smiley:

Cheating isn’t unique in any system. I think it’s easier to cheat when you have to count hit points, especially at night fighting lots of encounters. It’s harder to cheat when any blow to an unarmoured location will cause a wound. Rather than saying “you hit my armour it doesn’t count” I’d like to think people would look at blows and say “part of that blow missed my armour so I’m wounded”.

I think this is a very AD&D attitude. I don’t think you NEED to start anywhere. I think XP is just a way for frequent players to feel they’re superior to new players. What you’re saying is, if a new player turned up with a full plate harness, a couple of pavilions, seige machines and an armoury of larp weapons you’d say “I’m sorry, you can’t bring that into the game, you’re too new…”

Do you ever wonder why you have trouble attracting people with lots of larping gear?

Umm, you’re arguing my case for me here… The first book of LOTR starts, new player wants to be Aragorn, they’re not allowed because they have to work their way up from the bottom.

Sure, and people will get better at playing the game without XP. XP is like saying once you’ve played 100 games of chess you can swap your rooks for queens to show you’re a better player. After 100 games of chess, you are a better player. After 100 larps, you will be better at larping. This is real experience, not XP.

I once had an eight level ranger who fell off a 100’ cliff and survived, he then got up and trashed a troll. XP/HP suck as a game mechanic :slight_smile:

Why the obsession with XP? You’re arguing for something like this:

  1. player does something like make a cool costume or role play well
  2. someone else picks a number out of their head and gives the player a number of XP
  3. player uses the XP to pick something from a list of things that make their character better like a new skill or spell which may be completely unrelated to the cool thing they did

I’m arguing:

  1. player does something like make a cool costume or role play well and recieves the immediate benefit without a middle man.
#30

I’m confused. The rules that I am reading do not seem to simulate combat in any era or setting. They seem to be created to advantage one single type of character. I am confused. How is this a balanced system?

#31

The intent is for it to represent generic fantasy or medieval combat with swords, spears, axes etc which includes both armoured and unarmoured people.

You are correct, the rules are created to give an advantage to the types of characters that wear armour. Traditionally, armour was created to give an advantage in battle and these rules reflect that. Similarly, awarding armour points for wearing armour “gives an advantage one single type of character”.

I don’t understand this question. How is it unbalanced? The same rules applies to everybody.

A mage, wearing comfortable robes and using a staff in both hands disables a knight with a single blow to the hands because the knight is only wearing leather gloves. The knight flees, abandoning his sword.

It can happen when armour is treated like armour.

#32

In Quest characters of all levels adventure in the same party this is not like Ad&D at all where yes only an 8th level can adventure with an 8th level (Not exactly true either)

Yes it does give players who have been around some advantage because they have been around and should be rewarded.

Alista was pointing out, that it is unfairly advantaging warrior types in real terms

#33

Most of the systems I’ve played are stacked in favour of mages.

Typically, if they can hit you with a spell bag, they can put you to sleep or otherwise incapacitate you so that you are helpless. The shield is often included as part of the target as well making armour worthless.

Once you’re asleep, bound or entangled it doesn’t take an rocket scientist to figure out a way to kill you.

Does Quest have spells like this that unfairly unbalance the game in favour of one type of character?

#34

One on one, characters of equivalent power or level, Quest favours fighters over over mages at around 3:2.
Generally.
Player smarts & tactics adjust the odds.
Quest ain’t perfect but fighter vs mage is pretty even.
Don’t talk to me about rogues though.

#35

Yep rogues are pretty cheesy.

Mages are only as good as their aim and I have found more times than i can count the number of area effect spells i have dodged because the aim was off. Or spell balls because the person could not throw.

However, in saying that. An 8th level fighter is only as good as his skill with the weaon and a rogue can quite easily take a fighter whos back is turned, which as a non guild rogue, Wizard, fighter does seem to happen more often than not (or at least someone else takes their attention away and you whack then in the back a four or five times depleteing all of their hit points.

I do believe quest is one of the more balanced systems out there

#36

Balanced or no I think the response in this line of thought is that, though balanced, Quest has a gamey feel to it. So it is probably, in Derek’s eye irrelevant in this discussion. Plus the Quest rules don’t fit on an A4 sheet, though most of the basics do, I believe Alista has some somewhere…

#37

In play I have noticed that the mages complain that the fighters are to powerful. I also note that fighters complain that the mages are to powerful. The clerics seem to stay the hell out of the way and the rogues just stab you in the back when you aren’t looking.

To me these are the signs of a nicely balanced system. If everyone is complaining the other classes are to powerful, that is great.

#38

I think you’re right Alista but still irrelevant to this thread I think.

#39

To me, these are the signs of a bunch of whining power gamers.

I think there is a big cultural gap here between what I want out of a game and what the Quest players want.

What I primarily want is a role playing experience where players are encouraged to make the character they want unburdened by restrictive rules; where the effort they put in to their character pays off immediately. I don’t really care if characters start at vastly different levels of power. I’m just as happy role playing a drunk ex-archer who lost an arm in the wars begging for coins in the tavern as I am playing a kick-arse knight with a company of soldiers wandering around looking for evil to purge.

The most satisfying larping I’ve participated in hasn’t been the ongoing grind of monster bashing while questing for XP and GP in the hope I can add another power to my character sheet. The best gaming I’ve played in has been when the players have portrayed believable characters with flaws and weaknesses added to make the game interesting.

A while back I went to a Nightmare Circle game. Craig (Exquire) was playing a blind man, with a cane. If he got into a fight, he was dog food. I remember at one point when I thought we were about to be swamped by ghouls handing him a revolver and having an interesting conversation about using it.

Me "Here is a revolver, it has six bullets, the safety is off."
Craig "I’m blind, I can’t see what I’m shooting at."
Me "I know. Don’t go backwards, because there is a cliff there. Just listen for the growls and when they’re really close, shoot at them, listen for my voice and try not to shoot me."
Craig "Okay…"
Me "…unless I start screaming, in which case empty the gun in my direction…"
Craig "!"
Me “…and you may want to save the last bullet for yourself.”

Can you imagine playing a blind character in a horror based larp? That’s shit-your-pants material. At Nightmare Circle, it’s bad enough playing an ex-soldier with a sawn off shotgun and a case of hand grenades, actually willingly blindfolding yourself and not bringing a gun is showing a dedication to “playing a role”.

#40

yeah but if we are just writing a game for what you think you want then we are not addressing the lack of gamers out there, What we want is a game that will attract a lot of players build on the character base and promote roleplaying that is why balance is important. There are power gamers and non power gamers out there in all parts of the country and world whose experience of roleplaying is that characters have levels there is experience and the accumulation of experience marks that players improvement. This leads to character progression and Hopefully better roleplaying. I think this approach would lead to players investing money in kit because they have invested time in a character and also lead to attraction of those fringe players that really cant think for themselves and make up a concept like you have described. (Believe me they do exist. Hmmm so this is barbarian number 14 now is it John same as before…)

Basically we just need to foster independant thought and creativity still allowing players who dont have a lot to join in the fun without thinking too much and those that do. I am sure can think around the rules and structure that form a cohesive game to create the characters they want.