Rules for The Flight of the Hindenburg

Auckland Chimera
#1

Rules for The Flight of the Hindenburg

The Flight of the Hindenburg uses a simple symbolic system. It worked very well in the run in Wellington, so the only change I’m making is a superficial one, encouraging players to play-act their actions so that everyone can see what is happening.

All players wear name badges. It shows your name and some special symbols. Players who need to know what these symbols mean will be informed. Name badges with a red border indicate the character is “Kick Ass” - more on that below.

If you get into a conflict, or are trying to succeed at something challenging, you play rock-paper-scissors against your target (or a GM if no other player is involved). You reveal on the count of three, not after. Keep playing until there’s a winner.

In combat, which would usually be hand-to-hand as weapons are rare, the winner can chose one of three outcomes:

  1. The loser is hurt and must retire to the infirmary for five minutes.
  2. The winner can force a truthful answer to a question from the loser.
  3. The winner can take one item from the loser.

Some characters are Kick Ass. A Kick Ass character will always beat someone who is not, there is no need for rock-paper-scissors.

Some characters have special ability cards, or special item cards. The cards explain how to use them. They sometimes need to be shown to other players when used on them. Where possible the item cards will be attached to props.

If you get into a conflict, first compare rock-paper-scissors or special cards, decide the result, then play-act it out. Be gentle, don’t use any force.

It’s a social scenario, so talking is as likely to get results as fighting or using abiilties. It would be strange if mass combat broke out.

I think that’s everything. There will be three GMs (myself, Stephanie, and Fraser) playing servant characters, and if you have questions or want to attempt something unusual during the event you can contact us. We can also be interacted with in character, so let us know quietly if you’re asking an OOC question.

#2

Characters who have their arms folded across their chest in an “X” are not visible. Please ignore these characters and carry on your roleplay as if they weren’t there.

#3

I’ve been thinking about this rule set, which I still really like for the speed of conflict resolution. I’m thinking that it could be made even faster if the “draws” for rock-paper-scissors didn’t have to be re-played until there is a winner.

What if the person who initiates a conflict, the “attacker”, immediately wins on a draw? That could represent the advantage of surprise, and it would make players more likely to take the initiative and create action.

#4

There is also the option One World By Night uses. Instead of initiative based, certain powers give you the win on draws ability.

#5

I like the win on draw rule. As you say, it gives an advantage to the attacker.

#6

I’ve been formulating a slightly more complex RPS system, which would allow some characters to win on draws.

All abilities would have three levels, called something like Unskilled, Skilled, and Expert. Expert always beats unskilled. If the ability scores are one level apart, the more skilled character wins on draws. If skill levels are the same, the initiator wins on draws.

Unopposed challanges would also have three levels of difficulty, and the player would RPS with a GM to resolve them. Same mechanics as above.

Personally, for most one-off pregen larps I prefer the simplicity of some characters being “Kick Ass”, and all other skills pretty much always working. But for a campaign with abstract mechanics, the system above could allow for a wider range of abilities and a small amount of upskilling.

#7

This is getting way too complicated - its supposed to be an easy larp that any one can walk in off the street and play - lets just drop the rock paper nonscence and just hit each other when we want a fight - its more realistic anyway.

#8

Sarcasm much?

#9

No im serious - you guys keep wanting to add more rules to a nice simple system… Just drop them completly tbh…

#10

I agree with keeping it simple for one-offs. The first suggestion I made, about the attacker winning on draws, would speed up conflict in the simple RPS system. I think it would be suitably simple for one-off walk-in larps, “attacker wins on draws” is an easy rule to remember, even for new players. It’s not even a new rule as such, just a different way of playing RPS. That’s the only rules suggestion I was intending for big convention larps.

The second suggestion with three ability levels wasn’t for convention one-offs, it was for longer campaigns with abstract resolution, where players are usually willing to invest a bit more time in learning rules. It’s still extremely simple compared to MET, Cthulhu Live, Rules to Live By, etc. The advantage of it compared to other abstract systems is that resolution is almost instantaneous, 1 RPS and you’re done. I like WYSIWYG larp without long pauses to resolve mechanics, which is why it appeals to me. Although to be fair, I’d almost always opt for foam weapons if it was suitable for a campaign.

As for “just hitting each other”, do you mean with foam weapons? Personally that’s my preferred play style, but there are some issues. Some people don’t like that sort of physicality, or their characters physical skills being based on their own skills, and the big convention larps are trying to appeal to lots of people not just foam weapon fighters. Foam weapons also require some sort of rules such as hit points, unless it’s one-hit-you’re-down, so typically they’re not any simpler. They can’t handle unarmed combat, which is what many of these convention-style diplomacy-based larps are set up for. And foam weapons can be problematic in indoor settings with windows, fragile props, technical equipment, etc.

For example, the theme for the big larp this year is a Victorian science and culture convention. While a very few characters might reasonably have concealed weapons in such a setting, and a couple of characters might wear them openly, most wouldn’t have any weapon at all. So combat most would likely be fisticuffs, which doesn’t lend itself to foam weapons.

#11

Thats cool - we just hand out some big foam hands and let people go at each other - that way we lose some of the realism… but its still way easier…

wavyhands.net/acatalog/Black-Pointy.gif

#12

There’s a larp called Prawn that’s played in a swimming pool. The characters are fish in a fish tank, and every now and then the owner’s hands - giant foam hands on poles - try to grab fish from the pool.

#13

Sounds more like one of those bizarre Japanese game shows than a larp.

#14

You shouldn’t have something happening on ties except from the redraw, and if you do want a conclusion defender should win. My main reason is that the games where this system will be implement are roleplaying high - fighting light games where combat is a thing you can do but not encouraged. If you make it that winners win on draws the chance of me winning when I initiate a challenge is higher than the current system, so it is more advantageous to me if I am a brawler to go and beat people up and not roleplay the encounter. It also hurts those people who are not making challenges that are brawlers as if someone were to come and fight them, they are at an immediate disadvantage.

#15

I agree with Muppet. In Hindenburg and other similar one off larps I don’t think you want to encourage people to physically attack someone else to get what they want. Giving the defender the advantage means that people will think twice before using physical force at what is essentially an elegant party. I don’t know about you but I have yet to see a physical brawl at a ball. The use of persuasion, guile, flirtation, social networking and outright blackmail are more to be encouraged as ways of accomplishing your goals.

admittedly this is from the girl who stabbed someone to death with a cigarette holder at Hindenburg :smiley:

#16

Perhaps if the GMs want to encourage conflict, the draw goes to the attacker, and if they want to discourage it, the draw goes to the defender?

If so, and knowing how Hindenburg actually ran, I would give the advantage to the attacker for Hindenburg. I regret having briefed people that it was a social event and not to expect a lot of combat. It’s a pulp setting! The game was a bit lethargic in the first half, and it wasn’t until in the second half when the conflict ramped up that it acquired some energy and widespread drama.

I actually wish that I’d briefed everyone to follow their objectives hard and do anything to achieve them for Hindenburg. That would have encouraged a lot more interesting interaction from earlier in the event, compared to emphasising the social nature of the event. I think I was too focused on the “party” atmosphere and not focused enough on the action-packed and high-drama nature of the pulp genre in the briefing.

#17

oh. lol. i guess i totally misunderstood the concept then… well, yup. I like your idea of letting the GM decide whether they want to encourage or discourage combat.

#18

I says ENCOURAGE. Without fightin we might as well have a care bears LARP…

#19

That’s an idea. Why did no one think of a Care Bears LARP sooner? Could attract the young people…

#20

[quote]The game was a bit lethargic in the first half, and it wasn’t until in the second half when the conflict ramped up that it acquired some energy and widespread drama.
[/quote]

Not so, there was a hell of a lot going on under the surface, many of us at that game were experienced masquerade players and used the subtlety we learned from that game to get a lot of plot moving without making it obvious.