New Fantasy Rules?

As I see it having a system like Mordavia is better for those less skilled in combat allowing them to contribute. It also seems to promote the safety in numbers approach as several non armored people can bring down a heavily armored one.

Lots of LARPers are fairly light on the skill front. I’m ex-skilled myself having been out of training for some time. The newly proposed system would push most of them into making mages. I don’t know if thats good or bad but it does seem likely as people want to be able to compete in some way.

In any case I’m really noticing about 3 opinions in this thread. It’d be good to have some more opinions even if they just say which system they prefer.

The proposed system makes combat brutal and short. Take a hit to the torso, then you’re out. Take a hit to the legs, it’s just a matter of time (typically, seconds). You might be able to survive getting hit on an arm, perhaps by running way.

While I agree with I/S that assists social interaction, it also increases the value of First Strike, making it a lot more tempting to betray a social situation with a dagger in the back - the payoff is immediately effective.

One benefit of a HP/AP system is that I can take my armour off when attending a feast, and still have a reasonable chance of fighting my way out if attacked.

I think this is the nub of the disagreement in this thread. In this system, you are either on full points or you’re out. I stand by my position that Power Up is a default design pattern for games. This is natural, since most adventure RPGs are Power Up systems.

It means you can’t grind your way through a combat whilst conceding a few hits on the way. One hit, you’re out.

The obvious combat Power Up in the proposed system (can we give it a name ? - I propose Armour-centric) is to get more armour. You can’t increase HP (and thus develop a viable light fighter).

Hence, it just does not fit with how many of the current games work. It would not fit Skirmish or Quest. And that, I opine, is what the arguments have really been about.

Still, I’d like to play this system in a full game. And I’d like to try ninja123’s concept of the light non-mage fighter. My pick would be to use a long, two-handed weapon, and ranged attacks (e.g. throwing daggers). My tactic would be to camp the edges of a combat, and striking armoured opponents as at opportune moments.

I said:

I believe that your example challenges the HP + AP rules more than it challenges the “armour is proof” rule.

Having armour protect a location, rather than give you armour points, does not prevent you having other rules in your game. If as part of your combat system you want to have Zen powers that allow people to attack through armour nothing prohibits this. Mochida Moriji Hanshi is (literally in this case) an exception to the rules. >99% of people who do Kendo cannot knock a person out with a shinai, so it is better in my mind to have rules that encompasses the >99% of people and make the exception for the <1% that do have this special ability.

I’ve played with Kendo equipment and the helmets have a rigid set of bars on the front, but the top is basically an inch of folded cloth and padding. It is not hard shell armour. If you mean he could hit someone in a steel helmet designed for war and knock them out, then that is very impressive and quite frankly, I find it hard to believe. However, I’m sure stranger things have happened, so I’ll except that it might be true.

In a HP + AP based system, Mochida Moriji Hanshi would hit them on the head and do 1hp damage and they would remain standing. Unless there was some other rule like “Super Zen Knockout Power”.

I missed the question Ninja123 asked about claymores earlier because when people type lots of long posts in a short period of time, it’s easy to miss some posts. I see now that he asked me what I believed the effect of a claymore to the head would be. I’ll answer that now…

I believe that a claymore to the head, even while wearing a good helmet, would probably drop you in one swing. I don’t dispute that some weapons will kill you through armour.

However, if I look at the weapon combinations that I typically see being used at larps, I see about 90% one handed weapons. The typical adventurer uses a “mercenary broadsword” and the biggest shield they can be bothered spending character points on.

And this same example (claymore vs helmet) fails to work under the HP + AP system as well. (In some you actually heal points if you get hit in the head :slight_smile: which I think is a pretty cool rule!)

Conversely, it would seem that the system you want is Quest.

I do SCA fighting. I have also played with HP + AP under SCA rules. Yep, I do NAAMA fighting. I also play with steel weapons with the Auckland Norse doing light headblow combat. And with the Dawn Reivers doing WMA / HEMA combat in fencing masks. I did whatever the hell the fighting was at Taupo too. I’ve also been seen at AS&S from time to time. I also happily play HP + AP larp games with St Wolfgang. I would also play a larp that had armour as proof. I will fence with french bread and pot lids if I can find an adversary.

I can do all of these things, and enjoy them all, because I have an open mind. I can also, by virtue of my combined experience in all of these games, make some reasonable assumptions about what can and cannot work. Where I am unsure about how something will work, I am happy to experiment with ideas and let this new experience make up my mind. In this case, I was unsure about how it would work so I (twice) organised people to test play this style of combat. Before this experiment I believed as you do, that this would make people with lots of armour unkillable. That is why I wanted to test play the system; to see if my assumption based on my reasonably educated decision, was correct. After I play tested these rules I changed my mind; the rules did not make people unkillable.

It surprises me that someone would make up their mind on something like this without doing their own experiment.

Which seems appropriate. If someone stuck a sword in my chest, I wouldn’t be walking around hiting them back - I’d be lying on the ground wondering why my lungs weren’t working. And if someone hit me in the arm with an axe, you can bet that I’d be running.

If we want players to approach combat realisticly, then having realistic consequences seems to be a good way to do it.

Just like in real life (except that in real life, if you stuck a dagger in someone, you tend to get arrested. And in the middle ages, if you knifed someone in church, their mates tended to deal with you fairly quickly).

Or into fighting only when they really have to. So, it’s unsuitable if your LARP is a live-action version of World of Warcraft. But it can work quite well for other styles.

I had an interesting experience this morning, which is unrelated to this conversation, but this just reminded me of it.

Driving to and from work plus parking costs me about $150 / week, so I thought I’d try catching the bus to work. I caught the bus from Albany to the Britomart station and was unable to figure out which bus to catch up to Khyber Pass Rd, so I decided to walk.

Part way up Queen St a walked past Mrs Higgins and purchased two white chocolate and macadamia nut cookies, fresh from the oven. Mmmm, the fresh cookies tasted delicious as a wended my way slowly up Queen St, admiring the fashionably short skirts of the many inner city secretaries.

Suddenly, a rogue charged into me, knocking my cookies to the ground and continuing on his way, without so much as an apology or an excuse me!

I was crestfallen and I called after the cad, and told him in no uncertain terms what I thought of him! He ignored my comments, so I picked up one of the soiled cookies from the ground and cast it swiftly at his moving back. It was a reasonably long shot by this stage, with other pedestrians partially covering him. Fortunately, my aim was true and my cookie struck him a on the left shoulder, exploding crumbs into his hair and ear hole.

Feeling suitable paid back, I continued up Queen street, with the occasional backwards glance, to ensure he did not rush me unaware. After a short delay, it seemed the cookie had attracted his attention, where my verbal complaint had not.

The man bounded up Queen St, snarling and yelling and we attempted to hold a conversation, discussing the relative merits of each others courtesy and manners. Alas, his ability at communicating was as poor as his ability to walk around people, so biding him “good day!” I continued on my way.

Given that he had already once charged at me from behind, I continued to cast a wary eye behind me in case he should do it again. I was not surprised to see that he shortly reappeared; but I was surprised to see that he was hefting a large concrete paving stone on his shoulder.

He rushed at me, uttering a collection of random gibberish and profanity, that while lacking in academic merit, allowed me to gather that he was not pleased with me. The spittle alone that sprayed from his mouth was enough to clear many of the other pedestrians from the footpath and so I was given a clear area in which to confront him.

The assailant at this point attempted to cast the heavy concrete block at my head, but by a bit of luck and some tidy footwork, I was able to avoid it entirely.

I briefly weighted up the immediate short term pleasure I would gain if I were to introduce his nose to my clenched fist, versus the fact that I was running slightly late for work and didn’t want to start my six month employee review with an explanation of why I was covered in bruises, cuts and grazes. For, I am sure had I ventured further into the matter, we would both have been the worse for wear.

At this point, the crowd of pedestrians, suitably aghast, raised a hue and cry; true to character, the assailant decided discretion was better than valor, and legged it down Queen St.

So, if anyone hears any rumors of me tossing my cookies in public, I can only say “it’s true, but there were extenuating circumstances…”

That’s right, it all comes down to the kind of larp you want to promote. This system is excellent for promoting tension over actual combat.

Personally, I prefer more combat rather than less, and this is reflected in the larps that I run.

Still, I’m looking forward to playing this system as soon as someone gets a game together.

How much do we actualy care about reality in our larps? I mean we could ban all magic and that would be a huge blow for reality but I don’t think this is a good idea. AP just seems like more fun to me.

Dylan

I personally don’t go to larps for “reality”. But I prefer to have a game where I don’t need to spend time thinking about the rules. I find with HP and AP I spend too much time thinking about the rules. Things like:

I normally have 2hp + 3ap, I have been wounded for 1 point of damage, my helmet has fallen off while I have been running, how many hp do I have? 4 or 3?

Now generally when confronted with a situation like this I’d say “you just take whichever interpretation is the worst for you, that way nobody can think you’re cheating”. But when a similar situation occurs…

I normally have 2hp + 3ap, I have been wounded for 4 points of damage, my helmet has fallen off while I have been running, am I dead or alive? Why?

I’m at a quandary as to what to do. Part of me says “fall down dead, you just dropped your last hit point” and part says “WTF! I’m not dying because my helmet fell off! What if I just took it off to clean the sweat out of my eyes?”

HP + AP rules remind me of badly written software or a badly designed database. It’s like 1990 accounting software that doesn’t support dynamic data. Now I’m the first to admit that badly written software holds the world together, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have some that hasn’t been designed broken.

I’m less after reality than consistency.

I don’t doubt that other consistent rules could be made that don’t make armour as tough as this one. Though I believe that it isn’t as tough as some people believe. For example, you could try something like:

“Armour (mail, plate and scale) protects all the areas covered from one handed weapons.”
( use wounds as described in the rules some 8-9 pages back )

This would mean in paper-scissor-rock terms:

  • 2h weapon beats armour
  • armour beats 1h weapon
  • 1h weapon beats no armour

That’s pretty simple and it’s doesn’t suffer from the “I dropped my last hit point” problem. It also allows for strategy when fighting; “should I keep the shield and aim for an opening, or ditch it and go two handed?”

One thing that I find interesting though is that I can see several problems with the “armour protects” rules that really were glossed over. The whole balance and money arguments have been thrashed around a lot, but I think a poor case has been made for situations like “how do I represent tough monsters in this system like stone golems or cave trolls?” We want them to be able to take a hammering, but they have to be killable after a bit of an epic slog. If they have a weak / unarmoured spot, someone could potentially kill it on the first shot, which isn’t desirable.

So I don’t dispute that there are situations where HP and AP are a good solution, but it is fundamentally like a boat with a hole in it. Usable, but bogged down.

Off topic also: Sounds like my friends story. Hes at home his car being broken into goes outside asks people what they are doing they charge him thgouh open house door. He steps back (Been doing Aikido, Judo and other martial arts for 20+ years) grabs rolls with person into arm bar and holds them while flatmate calls cops. LOL

BAck on Topic: I think we are re coming to a happy medium those rules do work much better than the original ones.

Your argument about the helmet falling off is really just an ethical dilemma though. However if you are wounded and take your armour off to get healed properly (If someone was using first aid for example should that Kill you? i think not.)

In you last post where you said players could have hit points. I also agree with this I know boxers that can take a pounding but people who with one hit go down (Different hit points)

What would happen if someone had a bastard sword was using it one handed (Maybe attempting to fence cut back behind armour or defences for a leg sweep etc) and then changes to two handed style (Do you then overcome armour or does the weapon have to be of a sufficient length? such as a Claymore, Flamberge etc

I still think that experience is important. I also think every player shouild start on an even keel at character creation but players that have been playing for a long time should accumulate new skills and new abilities (experience) as even in life we leqarn new things. I am not saying quests system is perfect especially in this respect rogues are very nasty. However, the framework for the experience system is there just need to be modified to make the classes even and fair for all. So players will chosses a diverse range of characters and not push them into one class or another.

We don’t know that because we’ve never tried them. Or, more correctly, you’ve never tried either of the suggested systems and I’ve only played one of them.

It is an ethical dilema. But it’s just one example of many where I have to make up my own rules, because the rules aren’t precise enough. Also, some people are less ethical than others, so I prefer no have fewer ethical dilemas when it comes to interpreting the rules. I’d prefer the ethical dilemas were things like, “we’ve just raided the bandit camp and killed the bandits, what do we do with the nine month old baby in the crib?” :smiling_imp:

I’d prefer it if only “boss monsters”, giants and the like used hit points.

HP + AP suit some styles of games. Power up / dungeon crawl games are probably a good example. But I don’t think they make combat feel dangerous. When you are well armoured, it’s like driving around the country watching the petrol guage slowly fall. You know you have a certain amount of time to find a petrol station before you run out of gas. Odds on you have a healing potion / spare tank of gas in the back as well.

I think any weapon used two handed should count the same. Not becaues I think a small stick used in both hands is anything like a claymore, but because I like simple, easily playable rules. Otherwise, you’re back in the situation of having to make snap decisions again, such as: “A stick doesn’t do additional damage two handed, but a mace does. What about about a club with nails in it? What about the haft of a spear?”

To me, this seems like a “power gamer” attitude. Your definition of “power gamer” may vary, but I typically think of power gamers as the type of people who want to be the toughest character in the game and they focus on getting the most hit toints, the best armour class, the wizziest spells etc so they can be as tough as possible. The idea that someone else could come along and just create a character that is tougher than their character without “earning” it, somehow offends them.

I don’t mind if a newbie walks into a game and has a character that is tougher than me. But, I accept that this is probably not the attitude held by many people.

There seems to be a widely held belief that people who have played longer are somehow more deserving of “fun” or “power”. I suppose that in some ways this encourages continued participation as players see that if they play ten gamnes they will have these cool spells that allow them to kill n00bs from a distance.

So I guess XP could be looked at as larp flybys. I don’t do flybys in real life and I don’t feel the need for them in my larping either.

The combat system under discussion is actually two things: a health system and an armour system.

It would be possible to just use the locational armour system, alongside some other health system like hit points. You could do this for all characters, or just for really tough monsters. I would prefer not to do it for all characters, because I think the locational health system is simpler, more intuitive, and a good “match” for the locational armour system. And even if you used it for really tough monsters, I think it would be more fun if those monsters often had locational armour (whether metal or natural) as well as hit points so PCs could use their well-practiced aiming skills.

As for two-handed weapons penetrating armour, I still don’t think it’s playable without verbal calls (because of night fighting, attacks from behind, and the confusion of mass melee where you can’t tell how many hands your assailant is using). And I would prefer to avoid verbal calls.

On your side-story: do you think the world is a better or worse place as a result of your cookie throwing?

I guess there is a split… This discussion just highlights peoples differences.

I mean you havn’t really addressed the why you think this system will appeal to the mass market. Where all i have been trying to do is address that situation.

You think it will work and is a fair representation of combat - but not real life.

In real life, Fantasy, and everywhere else people do not start life and uder princes, or uber warriors or whatever they want, they have to work at it.

How do you think your concept is going to hold the attention and imagination of its market?

I believe experience holds the imagination of the mass market as they can see tangible goals, and like to work on gaining power. I would soon get bored with a game where I start at uber level or not so uber level and never changed.

Change is good and makes things interesting. This is just how i feel the majority of the people we are looking at attracting would feel.

However changing a system to what you believe is a good combat system does not change the fact that there is more to a game than combat and I am attempting to put that forward to you.

If you can give me a really good argument as to why being able to make up whatever you want based on your costume will promote the longevity of the game and promote it better than a fair and eqitable Experience based system then I am all ears

At the moment though you have only really argued your combat system. To which my experience and belief is your last modification is better and certainly more equitable.

The people with the most enthusiasm for the system are me and Derek. While we’re both capable of running a larp using it, unfortunately I’m guessing that neither of us are likely to find the time to do it right now.

I’d actually really like to see two things:

  • a campaign based on Derek’s one-page system (including the free equipment rule) with a setting that uses a well-developed Machine framework to keep it ticking. I think such a larp would be awesome for attracting new larpers and it would be a breath of fresh air in its simplicity and focus on fun through roleplaying rather than fun through rules.

  • a campaign using the simple combat system, but with costs associated with equipment and a strong Economy/Ecology framework. I think such a larp would be excellent for mature roleplayers who want a structure to compete in the setting through their characters in a dynamic and believable setting, and a larp that models the real world so that you learn about political and economic realities and about yourself while playing it. No Man’s Land could be such a larp, and I have another similar design, but I don’t know when either might see the light of day.

I’m also looking forward to your Multiverse setting because the setting and apparent style of play appeals, regardless of the rules.

I think that something would have to replace powering up as the motivator. I would suggest:

  • achieving your character’s goals and your group’s goals in the setting
  • uncovering and using the mysteries of the setting
  • being part of a larp where rules don’t get in the way

Being heavily armoured or “rich” may not help that much in any of these things (because your goals may require a lot of problem-solving or people-solving), so a rich or heavily-armoured character is not “uber-powered” in the context of these goals.

[quote=“ninja123”]I mean you havn’t really addressed the why you think this system will appeal to the mass market. Where all i have been trying to do is address that situation.

How do you think your concept is going to hold the attention and imagination of its market?[/quote]

Paintball had very simple combat rules (if you’re shot, you die) and yet that had no trouble appealing to the mass market.

I realise that but verbal calls can almost seem like a battle cry.

“Double!” feels really good if you have adventured for years have gone through battles and earned the ability or an magical weapon that allows that.

I guess your argument there however about armour allowing double handed weapons to bypass is a moot point especially at night or in large groups of combatants like you said not knowing what hit you can make it difficult to decide what happened. At least with Hit points you get hit does not matter what weapon it is it reduces your health total and there is no confusion, but open the can of worms again about cheating and taking hits.

Yep i like to paint ball too - but it is a different Genre and different customer base.

Paintballing attracts people who want to gibe paintball a go. There are people who Larp that probably wouldnt want to paintball (Pain) and a lot of paintballers that wouldnt want to larp (Crazy people give me a gun).

The question is how your combat system will attract the widest range of players. How will the widest range of players with a disparate level of skills and fighting abilities react to your system. You are all reasonable fighters i assume from your talk so as reasonable fighters you find it a good system.

Which I agree if you are using it as a test of fighting prowess it is a good system and one that will promote l;earning to fight, because you gotta be good to aim shots. But for a generic newbie who just picked a sword for the first time joined as a fighter they would not be able to compete in this 'Fantasy System" because they dont have the skill to aim shots effectively and The person in armour is more than likely a much better warrior.

To make it a fair fight are you going to “Dumb Down” your fighting skills to allow a fair fight?

So if you are not do you think this is going to attract people to join in and why?

It wasn’t the rules that was appealing, it was the fact that everyone has a complete understanding of what paintball is modelling. In my experience, it’s relatively easy to get a paintball game together. Try getting the same people along for a combat oriented larp (Skirmish), and suddenly they aren’t interested, even if they spend most of their free time on WoW. It’s a comfort-zone thing.

Fact is, we don’t know whether this will be popular or not and there’s exactly one way to find out: get a game happening.

Yeah, right.

People are born princes. In fantasy, they are born special (Heracules was born with super human strength, he didn’t earn it with XP. Archillies had 99% complete immunity from weapons from the age of three weeks old). People almost never gain the rank of prince by experience; they are born into a life of priviledge, get a better educatuon, with private tutors and the best schools. They start life with wealth and political connections. On the flipside, some people are born into poverty, with no chance at an education, poor nutrition that causes them to grow up physically deformed and to die young. In fantasy, they are born the missing king with birthmark and the magic amulet…

Sure, to become a great warrior you’ll need to work hard, but if you start with the best education, super human strength or bullet proof skin it makes life a little easier.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that MOST examples of fantasy & mythology have the hero starting out special or super human in some regards and not really improving. Heracules started as the strongest mortal and aside from picking up a few magic items, he really didn’t advance in skill.

And besides, If I decide to play a 400 year old elven wizard, how come I only know as much as the 16 year old orc fighter?

Giving people a set number of character points so they can pick some skills from a list has a type of “balance” to it. But please don’t try to convince me that this is a reflection of life. It’s just a game mechanic to support a particular style of game.