New Fantasy Rules?

Okay Maybe what I meant to say was: Not Everyone starts as an uberpowerful son of zeus, uberprince with the best trainers in the world

if you model a game around everyone being what they want you are going to attract powergamers who will get miffed when the other powergamer upsets their powergaming because they do something that dertracts from their characters game or story.

Not every person you attract is going to have the strength of character not to powergame and to act out the Scenario you provided

Thats why i believe equity is important. To attract all players powergamers who try to minmax still can do so but within a boudary of rules preventing upsetting game balance and those roleplayers can make up characters suited to what they want to roleplay. players who just want to play the mercanary are not going to feel overshadowed by the Zeus high poriest smiting them into obivion for sneezing.

I also think if your main issue is playing what you want then powergamers will not make the game very fun unless you ban them.

Not everyone can do everything. That is why skills and experience are developed to depict a characters progression in life.

And if you let every player be a prince or king or gods son if they want to be i thinkyou are going to turn away those people that already look at LARP as a bunch of nutters dressing up and playing with latex and probably more.

Also as a reflection in life. How many princes and 400 year old elven wizards do you think would be in a group of people at once. Do you think those princes and the Wizard would even keep company with the ORC?

Would a prince even risk his life or send his lackeys. How many powergamer lackeys do you think you could get?

On the one hand, whether you get a lot of “important” characters depends on the players and how you put the setting across to them.

On the other hand, it wouldn’t be unusual if there were more important people around. In many fantasy settings there are more “important” characters around than you might expect. Look at the Fellowship of the Ring:

Aragorn: king of Gondor in waiting
Legolas: prince of Mirkwood
Gandalf: magical agent of the Valar (gods)
Boromir: heir to the stewardship of Gondor

Gimli is a kind of dwarven noble and Frodo is the richest hobbit alive. Pippen and Merry I vaguely recall are well-connected in their families. Only Sam is definitely a commoner.

Personally I picture a larp based on the one-page rules as fairly light-spirited. I could imagine there being a number of “princes” or whatnot around.

Yes that book did have a fellowship of the “Champions” of their races and as the future of the world was at stake an agent of a god. The Hobbits were there for separate reasons.

If you could get a game that emulated that style of fantasy go ahead. I do not think every person in a large game could be that well connected though.

I think the agree to disagree scenario is best in this instance I disagree you agree so perhaps two separate system building threads could be made where only constructive criticism to build a system based on Experience and one not built on experience occurs to make that system the best possible version of that system.

Then at the LArp Conference we could have 2 games and let the public decide what they like?

What do you think? Because this thred is just a number of people arguing for what they think is best? Whitout any tangible argument or empirical evidence.

Personally I dont think youcan keep a campaign together without rules of some sort. Even in The Fellowship of the ring the characters even though they were powerful had limits they could not do anything or else Sauron would have been toast. The Writer chose what each characters limits were going to be in the greater scope of the story. It meant the story sounded feasible. There was drama, diversity of character, believeability, sorrow and loss. Each character had their limits.

If you let everyone do what they want without limits then you are opening yourself up to a campaign witout scope.

If you limit everyone to what you want them to play to allow your campaign to have scope then you are not allowing them to play what they want.

So having a campaign idea with scope means having limits thus limiting the breadth of skills characters can have to allow your campaign to work.

Alternatively arguing for the open campaign players create their own stories did that system not have rules to bind it?

Sure. We’ve probably exhausted the avenue of trial by fire.

I think there will be a certain amount of natural selection in terms of what larps become popular, there’s no need to force a competition.

Derek’s one-page ruleset has clear limitations. Your character can only do things you can do, plus clearly defined magic. The only “unlimited” thing is what equipment you can have.

So what you are saying quintessentially is a representation of real life

If i am a nuclear physicist (Not that i am but assuming i was ) then I can build a nuke and take out the workld and none of you know how to disarm it so sayoo nara to you.

That also means no one can be a mage becaue no one can really cast magic (Okay did not see the clearly defined magic) although Alista does make nice animal Balloons? No assassins (Are there any hit men out there?)

This really is not Fantasy at all come on. A fantasy is something that is not reality.

As for the two games bring on more. You are right people will choose the one they like and stick by it.

Emphasis mine :slight_smile:

I was going to write that the skills have to be appropriate to the setting, but I thought it was so obvious it doesn’t need stating.

Read my post, and the one-page rules. It’s very clear that there are rules for supernatural things. You’re attacking a straw man.

But you have been arguing that people could be anything they wanted. The Nuclear physicist was for argument purposes. Lets just then say I am an Alchemist making a toxin that can be spread by the wind and i could (For instance)

So if i wanted to be a cooper or an Armourer (however i do not have the skills) then i could not. That would limit Armouring to really a few people. Probably the same ones that have armour (because it is so expensive).

Does not seem like a Fantasy to me.

In a fantasy I imagine myself to be an Armourer making plate mail for the king (However because i have no idea how armour is made in real life my fantasy image is making armour that would not work in real life. Lovely fantasy image not how it would work in real life.)

This system seems to reward those people with life experience and also the money to have good stuff. Or those re-enactors that have been around for ages studied medieval arts and crafts and practiced swordplay etc.

I think Wulfen hit the nail on the head when he said not everyone wants to spend all of their time practicing the re-enacting arts.

Still not convinced.

You could obtain armour (either real or imitation) in real life and your character could explain “here is some armour I made earlier…”. Same goes for any other product-related skill.

What the rule is really about is that there will be no IC skills for Dodge, Hide or Sneak etc (and some games overseas have IC calls to simulate a character doing these things) or anything else that a character would normally do themselves. Either you can or you can’t.

Only for the stunted version of the fantasy genre promoted by D&D and its clones. But while its a popular trope, “callow youth becomes great warrior” is not the be-all-and-end-all of fantasy stories, and neither should it be the be-all-and-end-all of fantasy LARPS (besides which, there’s lots of people in those stories who aren’t callow youths. Surely they should be in the LARPs too?)

“Game balance” is an artefact of RPG’s roots in wargaming, preserved because the target market is typically teenagers whose gaming style has not yet matured beyond powergaming. But we don’t necessarily have to carry it over to LARP. Unless of course what we really want is live-action WoW.

Plot and story, things that make the players care about their character’s goals, rather than only about metagame ones like “powering up”?

thanks I try hard

[quote=“ninja123”]So what you are saying quintessentially is a representation of real life

If i am a nuclear physicist (Not that i am but assuming i was ) then I can build a nuke and take out the workld and none of you know how to disarm it so sayoo nara to you.
[/quote]

Hi Ninja, you do rememmber that I really am a nuclear physicist. I can do you a nuclear reactor for about 10,000 gp. Nuclear physics is a very specialised branch of magic, but it is achievable with materials found in this country. If you have the reactor i am sure that you can find an alchemist that will purify a bit of the substance Plu-tonia for you. you can then use the magic spell, “Mushroom Cloud” to achieve your ends. Else more directly find an alchemist to supply blue water, put the whole reactor upwind of the orcs and pour the water through the magic box. the magic steam will induce a disease spell that will kill all the orcs in 7 to 14 days. Really cool.

Can I do it? Please? Please? Not many people would notice if Auckland disappeared.

Yep and a rocket scientist IRL excuse the sarcasm

I think I have 10000 gp spare

Idiotsavant: As for Gaming systems dont talk to me about systems, I have probably played more than you can care to imagine and probably own more than most. I know people who have been using Dungoens and Dragons for great campaigns for a long time.

Roleplaying is quintessential to them.

I believe If you really want to limit your game to mature players who have done there dues and are fantastic roleplayers then there is no place for new players and it will stagnate.

Alista’s comment about why do you think D and D is the most common system and my answer

That it give people with little imagination or roleplaying maturity a place to build their repertiore of skill.

(Snip penis-size war about who’s been gaming longest etc. Go wave it somewhere else)

[quote=“ninja123”]Alista’s comment about why do you think D and D is the most common system and my answer

That it give people with little imagination or roleplaying maturity a place to build their repertiore of skill.[/quote]

The problem is that if all your LARP is is live-WOW, then people can get that a lot cheaper, a lot better, and with a lot less discomfort at home through their computer.

That’s the fundamental problem with offering a game focused on powering up now: you’re competing with computers. If you want to drag people away from their screens, you need to offer them rather more than that.

I agree experience on these debates mean nothing. People with no experience will always they think they know more than those who do it every day. Null arguement on this thread. Sorry Jamie, experience and knowledge does not win against ignorance on Diatribe.

Agree totally. One of the major attractions of WOW. POWER-PLAYING!!!

What is being advocated on this thread. POWER_PLAYING!!!

I agree that one should not be competing directly for the same market share, yet your postings say that we should emphasis the worst features of WOW.

This is turning into a pit of digressing ideas and beliefs. Where people believe they know what they want, but dont think about the bigger picture.

However, I do not enjoy people making an assumption that I have not experienced things or assume that because I am defending one thing means I have no experience in another. I deal with that on a daily basis at work. I dont want to deal with shallow assumptions out of work.

I think the only way to see what the public would like to play is to test and build a few systems and play the games and get feedback. There is my empirical reply. Not rely on the belief of opposed camps throwing stickc and stones at each other.

And its one I totally agree with. In Wellington, the standard response to people who want a certain type of event is “get together with some friends and organsie it; we’ll come”. If you want a LARP with a particular rulesset, then go ahead and run it. And if you want a National Fantasy LARP, then build a National Fantasy LARP. But don’t expect anyone else to do your work for you.

(Volunteerism has just ensured Wellington’s third tabletop con, Fright Night, will become an ongoing event. Huzzah!)

So in wellington do you not get any feedback from people before you try something and bandy ideas around suggesting what you think is a good idea to understand what people want? Or do you just go I want this ill ask some questions but in the end do it how i want it anyway.

From your comment i think you don’t I guess thats why parliament is there. Politicians dont ask questions or listen to the answers, seems to be the same with the populace.

When buiding a national game… the aim is for it to be a game played in multiple areas. Without getting the buy in of other game organisers and a concensus in system and what will work you run the risk of running a game that will be played once or twice then filed back in the realms of obscurity back to the drwaing board vicious circle.

That has happened with many roleplaying games. People think they have great ideas think they know what they want is what the public want go to a publisher who may not really have an idea and guess what.

Flop

I don’t really want a national game to be a flop. I want everyone to enjoy themselves. Thats why I ask questions and why I challenge what i think wont work with reasonable questions. This thread was around a national fantasy game so naturally I dont want it to flop because I have had that vision for some time but naturally I ask questions. I dont want a game to marginalise players and that is what this idea seems to be doing.

[quote=“Alista”]
Agree totally. One of the major attractions of WOW. POWER-PLAYING!!!

What is being advocated on this thread. POWER_PLAYING!!!

I agree that one should not be competing directly for the same market share, yet your postings say that we should emphasis the worst features of WOW.[/quote]

Actually, those are features that I loathe. Instead, I’d rather they were dispensed with entirely. And getting rid of “game balance”, with its underlying assumption that the game is a contest to be the biggest and the bestest is a good way of doing that. If no-one is mechanically better than anyone else, then there is no way to compete, and hence no contest. And this frees up the game to focus on things like story, plot, and social interaction - things which play to the medium’s strong points.

You know, I’ve been following this thread religiously, reading all the posts and I’ve completely lost track of who is advocating what.

All sides are accusing each other of powergaming, Hamilton is calling for more rules, Auckland is calling for less rules, Wellington just wants to do some roleplaying and the two things we’re all in agreement about are the facts that larping is awesome and we like to roleplay. After that, things get blurrier.

I’m very pleased there are are three cities weighing in with their opinion, but I’m getting concerned that things are getting a bit heated and nasty. Let’s not descend into personal insults, all right? Let’s keep this about larping, and respect everyone else’s opinions.

By this logic, the paintball industry would be non-existent since their entire market would be playing Battlefield 2.

Playing a PC game and larping are totally different experiences, even if they are attempting to model the same thing.

Few games are purely Power Up (Skirmish is probably the only one),. Typically a larp will have a range of interaction mechanisms in addition to direct competition.

Even though it was possible to power play in Mordavia, this did not stop the game from having an awesome atmosphere with great character interactions. Even the characters that could be accused of power playing added hugely to the larp experience.

Power Playing and great social interactions are not mutually exclusive.