Additionally … I would have thought that taking the Armour skill was an abstraction for:
[ul][li]Knowing how to put armour on[/li]
[li]Knowing how to take armour off[/li]
[li]Having spent enough time in armour to be able to move around effectively[/li]
[li]Having gotten used to the extra weight and different balance[/li]
[li]Having trained in armoured fighting, and thus able to fight effectively[/li]
[li]etc…[/li][/ul]
Thus, even if the GMs decided it was allowable for an untrained person to wear purchased armour, it would seem to me that the character would:
[ul][li]Be unable to put on or remove their own armour[/li]
[li]Be stiff, slow, and clumsy as they move around[/li]
[li]Tire easily[/li]
[li]Probably topple over from time to time (particularly if it’s heavy armour)[/li]
[li]Be pretty much doomed in a fight from slowness and clumsiness[/li]
[li]Perhaps not even be able to stand unassisted[/li][/ul]
If your character was somewhat pompous, clumsily strutting around in armour they had no clue how to employ properly, then maybe an allowance for unskilled players to wear armour could work … but I suspect other people would want to be “clumsy untrained armour wearers”, that would suddenly become nimble and skillful for combat.
You could always turn up with your purchased armour in a bag slung over your shoulder/dragged behind you as part of your RP/character story, perhaps?
I think we can safely assume that the various armour skills (and most of the weapon skills) are just a way to try and “balance” the game and NOT because of any foundation in reality.
Essentially, they give a reason not to take magic as a starting character.
As someone who has spent a huge amount of time in armour, and who has put a huge number of unskilled people in armour, I can assure everyone that most of the benefit of armour is still realized by people who have no skill in wearing it. Being smacked in the head with a sword is infintly more preferable wearing a helmet, regardless of your skill level.
So, much like Mordavia, Wolfgang’s and Jade Empire where you spent CP/XP on ‘armour’ it’s the same in Teonn.
I’m personally not a big fan of armour and weapon skills, because I think they break more in game than they fix, but the inclusion in Teonn is no less valid than in Wolfgang’s, Mordavia, Jade Empire.
The main difference is the mechanic:
In Wolfgang’s and Mordavia you only spent CP/XP).
In Teonn and Jade Empire you spend CP/XP and money.
EDIT: This is fine. We don’t want everyone playing mages in armour.
There were no armour or weapon skills in Mordavia. Anyone could use any equipment.
I dislike equipment skills too, and I regret that they’ve crept into our local larp designs. It’s actually been a graduated process. At Mordavia you spent income to buy equipment, but could also use anything you found in game. At St Wolfgang’s you spent CP to start with equipment and be able to use it, but there was just one skill for all weapons. Teonn has gone the next step of breaking weapon-use skills down into small, medium, large. This trend introduces complexity for no benefit.
At Wolfgang, the only reason it cost CP to buy weapons was because we had no monetary system. Anyone could use any weapon or armour they found in game, spending CP on it just guaranteed you would start every game with it in your possession. It more represented you spending resources to acquire the item rather than the skill.
You know, that’s how I remembered it as well. But then I double-checked the rules:
[quote=“Wolfgang’s Rules”]Equipment Or, sometimes the hammer of God really is just a hammer.
You may also purchase combat equipment with your character generation points. In purchasing a weapon, you also purchase the ability to use it.[/quote]
It sounds like you didn’t mean it that way, but I’d imagine some players took that to imply that you had to purchase weapon and armour in character creation/advancement to be able to use weapons and armour.
Oh, look at that, it does say that We ended up not playing it like that for most of the campaign and any questions I got answered as per my post above. Oops.
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]
I dislike equipment skills too, and I regret that they’ve crept into our local larp designs. It’s actually been a graduated process. At Mordavia you spent income to buy equipment, but could also use anything you found in game. At St Wolfgang’s you spent CP to start with equipment and be able to use it, but there was just one skill for all weapons. Teonn has gone the next step of breaking weapon-use skills down into small, medium, large. This trend introduces complexity for no benefit.[/quote]
The same arguments, time and time again…
It’s simply a balancing thing, based on the notion that you don’t want everyone being plate-wearing, greatsword-wielding magic users, and that just because you can pick up a sword and swing it you’re not going to be as good as that soldier next to you that’s been practising for the last umpteen years. Maybe it’s not ideal, but it could be a lot worse.
Even using SWVH as a model, you have to remember that each purchase was for a single weapon, so in a way it’s an overly-simplified way of having individual weapon proficiencies…
[quote=“TequilaDave”][quote=“Ryan Paddy”]
I dislike equipment skills too, and I regret that they’ve crept into our local larp designs. It’s actually been a graduated process. At Mordavia you spent income to buy equipment, but could also use anything you found in game. At St Wolfgang’s you spent CP to start with equipment and be able to use it, but there was just one skill for all weapons. Teonn has gone the next step of breaking weapon-use skills down into small, medium, large. This trend introduces complexity for no benefit.[/quote]
The same arguments, time and time again…
It’s simply a balancing thing, based on the notion that you don’t want everyone being plate-wearing, greatsword-wielding magic users, and that just because you can pick up a sword and swing it you’re not going to be as good as that soldier next to you that’s been practising for the last umpteen years. Maybe it’s not ideal, but it could be a lot worse.
Even using SWVH as a model, you have to remember that each purchase was for a single weapon, so in a way it’s an overly-simplified way of having individual weapon proficiencies…
I still wish I’d made that war-cabre…[/quote]
This same arguement can be used to promote calls in systems - the rogue who has been in the trade for 15 years knows where the weak points in a guards armor is thefore is able to ignore them with a high xp skill. Where as a mage can have the same effect from range with a fireball.
The key point is balance:
Making sure a system is balanced is always hard and I think Muppet and Niki have done a really good effort on this one.
To be honnest it smacks alot of trying to please every one (hence the low calls) but at the end of the day I give them the thumbs up and a pat on the back for putting in the effort. Most people just don’t care enough and either go for a no calls / poem calls or go full call tastic!.
That rationale doesn’t fly for me, because I’ve seen games with no equipment skills where characters were still highly diversified. So to me, you’re making a theoretical point that doesn’t actually hold true in practice.
Equipment skills are an attempt to enforce fantasy stereotypes: armoured warriors and unarmed mages. But those stereotypes emerge naturally without equipment skills, because players like playing those stereotypes. We had plenty of each in Mordavia, with no rules to enforce it.
Conversely, if players in a particular game don’t want to play those stereotypes, why enforce them? If you want to play a Gray Mouser type character, a skilled duelist with some hedge magic and knowledge of the arcane, why should that be a less valid or less encouraged combination of skills? That character already won’t be as tough as a Fafhrd, or as powerful as a dedicated mage, because they’ll have to split their character points between buying health points and buying arcane abilities. So why complicate the system to make them even less capable at both fighting and casting? The gear skills and the paths have that effect.
In terms of game balance, warrriors can spend their money on arms, and mages can spend their money on spells (if it works that way). Warriors can get more durable, mages more powerful in terms of arcane. None of that requires the added complication of gear skills, and it has complete flexibility.
The reason this keeps coming up is that I can’t figure out how people are missing that gear skills are redundant. They’re like a fifth leg on a pony - more legs doesn’t make it run better.
I think there are other ways to do this that add coolness to the game instead of breaking the laws of physics. For example, you could decide that iron disrupts magic, so wearing heavy armour or carrying swords stops wizards casting. They’ll naturally gravitate to bronze daggers and quarterstaffs. So, instead of creating a game-ish rule that says “you can’t do it because you haven’t spent the points” you create a law of magic which can be role played and adds to the world.
This’d also mean that you could slap a wizard in irons to stop them casting
A problem with saying you need skill to wear armour and swing a sword is you have a whole class of society (e.g. crew / bit parts) who cannot possibly hurt anybody because they don’t have a weapon skill:
The stable hand can’t pick up the pitchfork to defend herself (4xp 2-handed weapon skill).
The bar wench probably can’t pick up a frying pan and attack an annoying patron (1xp - light weapon skill)
Raising a peasant levy and slapping a breastplate on the blacksmith’s son makes no difference to him at all…
etc
Having said all that. We can also say, the biggest problem with soccer is people can’t pick up the ball. It’s a game and it really doesn’t matter what the rules are
[quote=“Derek”]
This’d also mean that you could slap a wizard in irons to stop them casting[/quote]
Little did you realise that the merchant from whom you sourced your shiny new “iron” chains was a mage himself … >:-D
I love that and not just because I’m in the middle of latexing four Bronze Daggers, and planning on making some staffs…[/quote]
FYI its not not a hypothetical situation Derek was mentioning. Back in the days when he used to do table top roleplaying, this was the case in the Dragonquest system (which I also play). And indeed the examples he used have really been used. Also there were interesting situations of trying to stop mages by the fighter in platemail getting in close with them; and when the mage-fighter had power boosting / protection spells with a decent duration, they would cast them first thing in the morning before getting into armour. And then cursed about dis-robing after a fight when the spells needed to be re-cast.
Mages tended to go for the silvered weapons as soon as they could afford them. Because the silvering affects more magical creatures, and the bronze weapons were softer than the iron, so did less damage.
Unless you know some kind of magic i don’t, I think this is hypothetical
My point (and I was actually trying to make one) is that I think you can get a similar result with a different rule – assuming “balance” was what you were after.
Besides which, this only really affects starting characters. Once you have a few games under your belt, a mage can pick up heavy armour, shields etc with your XP.
That rationale doesn’t fly for me, because I’ve seen games with no equipment skills where characters were still highly diversified. So to me, you’re making a theoretical point that doesn’t actually hold true in practice.
Equipment skills are an attempt to enforce fantasy stereotypes: armoured warriors and unarmed mages. But those stereotypes emerge naturally without equipment skills, because players like playing those stereotypes. We had plenty of each in Mordavia, with no rules to enforce it. [/quote]
You’re assuming here that one skill has to preclude the other, which doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. To me it’s more a case of different skills to be acquired, that could potentially, after much time and learning, be obtained by one person. As an aside - where these characters diversified because of their skill set, or because of the nature of the character itself (or the people playing them)?
And that’s a great idea, and it’s good to see alternatives being suggested It still raises the question of what can warriors do with their XP (if a system has such a thing) other than buy HP, which I’m still not sold are that big a deal.
Got any ideas?
[quote=“Derek”]
A problem with saying you need skill to wear armour and swing a sword is you have a whole class of society (e.g. crew / bit parts) who cannot possibly hurt anybody because they don’t have a weapon skill:
The stable hand can’t pick up the pitchfork to defend herself (4xp 2-handed weapon skill).
The bar wench probably can’t pick up a frying pan and attack an annoying patron (1xp - light weapon skill)
Raising a peasant levy and slapping a breastplate on the blacksmith’s son makes no difference to him at all…
etc
Having said all that. We can also say, the biggest problem with soccer is people can’t pick up the ball. It’s a game and it really doesn’t matter what the rules are[/quote]
This is one of the points that leans be towards Ryan’s taste for a lack of weapons skills, though at the moment I’m more of an opinion that skills for such things should be dirt cheap. Also bear in mind that for Teonn, 2-handed weapons come with the rather distinct and lethal advantage of doing double the damage. I’d like to see some sort of mid-way between the two extremes, which exists in other systems, where some weapons are free because it makes sense - which would include frying pans - and the bigger & badder stuff requires a little more investment, as marginal as it might be.
We ended up not playing it like that for most of the campaign and any questions I got answered as per my post above. Oops.
