Real life experience vs. n00bs

Community
#1

I was at an SCA event on the weekend and I tried SCA fencing for the first* time.

For those who have never tried SCA fencing it uses some of the aspects of modern fencing, like the mask and other safety equipment, and other aspects from renaissance fencing like being able to fight with rapier and main gauche or rapier and cloak. It was quite a lot of fun.

One of the interesting things that they did to level the playing field between the experienced fighters and the new fighters was to restrict the experienced fighters to less effective weapon combinations than the newer fighters.

The most experienced fighters usually ended up fighting with a single rapier against less experienced fighters with whatever combination they wanted to use. Usually they’d opt for a dagger or buckler in their off-hand which made them more effective.

This is pretty much the exact opposite to what we do in XP based larp campaigns. In these campaigns we artificially reinforce real life experience with character based experience so not only do players get the benefit of their own real improvement in skill but their character gets the benefit of being tougher as well.

This pretty much guarantees that new players will never manage to catch up to the experienced players who started playing the game before they did.

This “reverse experience” system seems like an interesting way to encourage new players to me.

*I’ve kind of tried it before, ~20 years ago, but never in a tournament.

#2

I like this idea.

#3

Reminds me of an idea we were tossing around about using status as a limiting factor for weapon choice - low status individuals are often equipped with/allowed to use large shields and long weapons, where higher status individuals have shorter and smaller weapons and armour. Means that you can ‘rise through the ranks’ by starting at the bottom and slowly using more and more difficult to use equipment based on your OOC improvement in skill, and rewards playing with a harder weapon set with social status.

#4

I like it. Could have like some kind of magical degradation mechanic: “Over time in this plane of reality, your physical strength erodes away, being replaced by other more aethreal benefits.” etc etc.

Thanks for the idea Derek =)

#5

This is a really cool idea.

Did they let you decide what your experience level of combat was? I know some people who have told me they’ve been larping for many years, but are terrible at combat, would they basically just put down what level of fighting they are? Or did the organizers have some kind of assessment based system?

#6

[quote=“Helikaon”]This is a really cool idea.

Did they let you decide what your experience level of combat was? I know some people who have told me they’ve been larping for many years, but are terrible at combat, would they basically just put down what level of fighting they are? Or did the organizers have some kind of assessment based system?[/quote]

SCA has rankings a bit like martial arts so they ran with them and it worked really well as a leveller.

I don’t think it’d really work in larp. Although maybe you could give all new players an extra HP for their first character…?

I just found the contrast interesting: In experience based larps we tend to have characters get tougher over time. In the SCA and reenactment (where nobody ever gets extra hit points) the tendency is to try and level the playing field by giving beginners an advantage.

#7

The problem you’d have in LARP would be, as Jordan alludes to, that just because someone’s been around for a while doesn’t mean they’re necessarily any good. It’s an interesting idea, but I think what would be necessary to implement something similar would be:
A) Discrete proficiency ratings, ie. beginner, average, experienced, expert, with some kind of markers or specific things to look for so one can identify one’s own skill level.
B) Initially people categorise themselves, because it’s too much of a burden to place on GMs.
C) GMs and senior crew have the right to re-rate somebody if they think it’s necessary, but we try to rely on people to be somewhat honest about their own skills.

Initial ranking could be organised by some sort of informal tournament, with people who are unsure of their skill level then able to spar against people of known skill to figure out where they fit in.

Of course, I’m just throwing ideas around…

#8

Or your could just use an honest and self judgement system. After all, it is just a game and using better equipment doesn’t guaranteee winning, especially if others band together to take you down.

#9

I don’t know if it’s a problem. I don’t think that having XP and having characters get tougher is a problem either. But it’s interesting to look at the difference in attitude.

I think that having more hit points (or skills) because you’ve been to more events smacks of the worst aspects of entitlement.

#10

I don’t know if it’s a problem. I don’t think that having XP and having characters get tougher is a problem either. But it’s interesting to look at the difference in attitude.

I think that having more hit points (or skills) because you’ve been to more events smacks of the worst aspects of entitlement.[/quote]

It’s hard because I still like the idea of characters progressing into new skills, or researching a new -something- and being able to do it. Growth is interesting. Representing it in a fun way that doesn’t heavily disadvantage newbies is tricky though.

#11

But is xp the best way of granting this? Is it even a good way? Derek has made one argument in favour of it being a bad way to represent progress, and I might suggest another - xp, and the skills purchased, don’t usually bear any relation to things that have happened in game.

If growth and development are desired, perhaps game masters can work in IC growth opportunities - Masters that can take on apprentices and teach a skill for the next game (if you can win their favour IC); items that can be found such as equipment or a Derek of Knowledge. This still leaves new players at a disadvantage, however.

Alternatively, ‘growth’ can be left as a conceptual thing - that is, the story arch the character goes through.

#12

It was interesting in Wolfgang’s, at least half of the research on how to beat up the baddies was IC knowledge. For example, some could be defeated by throwing rice on the ground, some with free wooden stakes, etc.

That meant you got knowledge progression and that n00bs could just be told “you can beat them with X…”

#13

I don’t know if it’s a problem. I don’t think that having XP and having characters get tougher is a problem either. But it’s interesting to look at the difference in attitude.

I think that having more hit points (or skills) because you’ve been to more events smacks of the worst aspects of entitlement.[/quote]

I agree, that’s why I’m more a fan of campaign experience as opposed to attendance experience.

If players all have the same experience, then there is plenty of opportunity for skilled players to take the less useful abilities, and for low skill level players to have that all important bump to be able to be useful.