Bind <Legs> Safety Issue

[Polare]

If dozens of players telling us that one new rule is unsafe, both on here (where we've been asked to provide feedback), and live at playtests, and that isn't going to convince ARC, I seriously have to question the entire point of having these playtests at all.

Technically it's the Owners you need to convince, not ARC We make recommendations (based on feedback from the Feedback Form), but we do not vote to change the rules, the Owners do. There are plenty of ARC recommendations that the Owners choose not to follow, and plenty of Owner votes that go through without an ARC recommendation.

FWIW, the original proposal to change to the two-leg version of Bind *did* come from ARC (and was voted on and approved by the Owners). As with anything in the Playtests, we'll keep an eye on the feedback and make new recommendations as appropriate based on the feedback. I will note that earlier feedback forms resulted in a small number of comments asking whether the new version of Bind was safe and to review its status. We did not feel sufficient feedback was received on this matter compared to items higher on the list (like shield size and combat changes). As playtests continue, we will continue to narrow in on smaller items and recommend changes if we feel they are warranted based on the feedback, but at the end of the day the Owners vote on rules changes, not ARC.

-Bryan

 

[Muir]

The argument that it makes fighting unsafe isn't compelling either because, as was pointed out, continuing to try to fight is an option, but not the only option; furthermore, the rules already prohibit taking unsafe actions in combat. If you flail around and smack someone in the head because you tried to twist around and perform some crazy backswing antics the marshals aren't going to be particularly impressed when you lament that the Bind spell made you do it.

Dan, I think you're missing a very important point with your comparison. Storm casters aren't called on to physically fight while casting. In fact they can't. Melee combat requires a very, very different set of motions and behaviors than throwing packets, especially given the ability of an opponent to simply work to one side until a bound target is forced to fight at an unsafe or impossible angle. Most people would not do this intentionally, however in the heat of combat it is the reflexive action to seek a way to land shots, and that will do it.

If the rules effectively prohibit fighting when bound, then that is a significant power increase to a 3rd level spell by making it an effective take-out.

 

[ASFDan]

Dan, I think you're missing a very important point with your comparison. Storm casters aren't called on to physically fight while casting. In fact they can't.

No, I get it. I really do. But here's the thing-

a bound target is forced to fight at an unsafe or impossible angle

As Cory pointed out, the player isn't *forced* to attempt to fight. It's a choice to do so, and if they choose to do so they must do so safely.

Most people would not do this intentionally, however in the heat of combat it is the reflexive action to seek a way to land shots, and that will do it.

The heat of combat is not, nor has it ever been, an acceptable reason to fight unsafely. This is a new rule that will have an adjustment period, and as a marshal I now know to be watching for this and will do my part to educate and correct errant behavior, but at the end of the day each player is responsible for their own actions in combat.

 

[Tayl]

We have been asked to playtest the current rules, and we have found this problem with the current rule through our playtest. It is empirical data, and not an argument. We would be happy to continue to playtest the rules if more data is needed on this topic, but being told our playtests are wrong is not constructive.

 

[Draven]

I stress that one of the most important focuses of the Alliance rules has been safety in combat.

My opinion that this Bind change is unsafe is not absurd or grounded in fantasy. It's my experience in a number of sports regarding the importance of a stable stance when using such physical mechanics. It's the fact that combat occurs in a number of terrains, hilly and otherwise, while people are running through combat like chickens with their heads cut off.

And everyone who is defending this change seems to have the opinion that the rest of us are crazy.

No. We're not. We know that combat sometimes gets dangerous enough -as is- and for some reason, an unnecessary dangerous element is being introduced -because why not?-

So, "we need evidence" that it's bad? No we gosh darn don't, as a gosh darn marshal who has seen dumb injuries already occur in combat, I can gosh darn tell you that this is a terrible idea.

 

[mikestrauss]

I am a mechanics wonk. I will admit that. For mechanics reasons, I like the two foot bind. However, I also care a lot about safety because I have been on the receiving end of more than my fair share of unsafe play (more due to years playing the game than bad players).

Because I am concerned about both, I offer a suggestion for a compromise (which would have to be taken up by ARC or owners before it got any traction). Change the mechanic to forcing the player to kneel.

I know for a fact that many other boffer larps safely include kneeling in combat similar to ours. And since our game no longer reserves kneeling for armor refitting, this won't create a confusing signal. The end result is that the bound player is still extremely limited in mobility and ability to fight, but is on a more stable base, highly reducing the safety issues. Heck, the bind rule could allow either planted feet or kneeling, allowing people to decide based on their physical comfort.

-MS

 

[ASFDan]

So, "we need evidence" that it's bad?

If you're going to attempt to convince anyone to change the rule it would probably help.

 

[mikestrauss]

I would say they have provided the exact evidence they are supposed to provide. They have playtested the rules and provided first-hand experience of their interactions with the rules. However, I won't say (and can't say) whether they have provided enough evidence. People around the country will be playtesting. There experiences will be aggregated with the experiences of lots of other players. It is possible that their experience proves to be an outlier and that the other 90%+ of returned surveys outright state that they felt very safe engaging in combat while bound.

I consider that extreme to be about as unlikely as the extreme that every playtester will declare the new bind is unsafe. I expect the results will be mixed and the owners will have to look at percentages to make an informed decision. I don't have to make such a decision (thankfully). If I did, I'd probably put the threshold at about 20% - 25%. If roughly 1 in 4 or 5 players found a mechanic unsafe, I would consider that too high and look for another approach. Yes, it is a conservative way of thinking, but I'd rather change a mostly unimportant mechanic than risk the health of players unnecessarily.

-MS

 

[Muir]

Mike, I'd have some reservations about kneeling. Someone with a full sized shield who is kneeling does not present many if any legal striking targets, and attempting to take shots at those visible has an increased chance of unintentional face and head shots due to the downward striking angle. This is even more a concern if the current playtest regarding unlimited shield sizes goes into play.

This seems like another point where we could avoid increasing the chance of accidental combat safety problems.

 

[Inaryn]

Mike, I'd have some reservations about kneeling. Someone with a full sized shield who is kneeling does not present many if any legal striking targets, and attempting to take shots at those visible has an increased chance of unintentional face and head shots due to the downward striking angle. This is even more a concern if the current playtest regarding unlimited shield sizes goes into play.

This seems like another point where we could avoid increasing the chance of accidental combat safety problems.

That's a negligible argument in the new rules, since melee disarm and shatter only have to land on the target now.

 

[ASFDan]

I would say they have provided the exact evidence they are supposed to provide.

Agreed, and to clarify my statement, I'm not saying no one is providing evidence- just that, contrary to what some are suggesting, it's what they'll need to do if they want to try to get the rule changed.

 

[IMoriarty]

Mike, I'd have some reservations about kneeling. Someone with a full sized shield who is kneeling does not present many if any legal striking targets, and attempting to take shots at those visible has an increased chance of unintentional face and head shots due to the downward striking angle. This is even more a concern if the current playtest regarding unlimited shield sizes goes into play.

This seems like another point where we could avoid increasing the chance of accidental combat safety problems.

Indeed, they present no legal targets, nor do they have to, since all the turtling rules have been revoked in 2.0.

 

[Muir]

They don't have to, no. However even without any question of turtling I'd never really encourage fighting a large shield from your knees as a tactic, and given the easy availability of low-level bindomancy this is likely to be a common situation.

 

[Tevas]

There are rules marshals from different chapters, past playtesters, current playtesters, and individuals with extensive multi-sport foam fighting experience who are saying that this is unsafe. Precedent has been set now across multiple playtest cycles, and the individuals responsible for this change have been duely advised against it.

We are still being asked, as playtesters, to "prove" that this is unsafe. From a liability standpoint, and from a standpoint of individuals who should all be concerned for the well being of their players, is this really the message that the Owners and ARC want to send? What will it take to "prove" this? Does someone need to get hurt? Does someone really need to sustain an injury to adequately demonstrate what we've been saying? Do I, as a coordinator, need to provide a disclaimer at each of my playtests that the individuals responsible for this rules project have received ample advisory that this behavior is unsafe, and have dismissed it?

This is not an "I told you so" that anyone should want on their hands.

 

[ASFDan]

PM'd.

 

[Gilwing]

If you're going to attempt to convince anyone to change the rule it would probably help.

Its not the rule yet.

 

[Avaran]

Do I, as a coordinator, need to provide a disclaimer at each of my playtests that the individuals responsible for this rules project have received ample advisory that this behavior is unsafe, and have dismissed it?

I think you should provide a disclaimer which clearly states that unless a sufficient number of players across all play tests bring up a particular issue, it will most likely be ignored and that their time spent play testing with the intention of giving feedback could very well be a waste.

I think the response we should have gotten to this should have been something like this: "Okay, your concern is duly noted and we'll talk about it at the end of this current play test cycle, when appropriate. Do you have any further concerns, or can you expand upon, this rules change that we should know about?"

Instead, we get....this thread....with an owner (and an ex-owner) essentially telling people they are doing it wrong and that the rule is fine, despite the fact that this feedback is coming from people who have actually play-tested. And we're basically told that not enough people are speaking up about this, so it's not even being listened to.

To say that I am disappointed in this entire process would be a massive understatement.

 

[Auric]

I think the response we should have gotten to this should have been something like this: "Okay, your concern is duly noted and we'll talk about at the end of this current play test cycle. Do you have any further concerns, or can you expand upon, this rules change that we should know about?"

That is exactly what I came here to write. I've asked Tevas to make sure this thread is documented for us so when the round ends it will be discussed between Owners and ARC.

 

[mythic]

Instead, we get....this thread....with an owner (and an ex-owner) essentially telling people they are doing it wrong and that the rule is fine, despite the fact that this feedback is coming from people who have actually play-tested. And we're basically told that not enough people are speaking up about this, so it's not even being listened to.

Sorry, but I could have sworn I said that the players need to say something in their feedback form and that it would go to ARC and then the Owners... oh wait, I did say that. Then the thread just continued along.

Please remember, there are lots of playtests going on. ARC will review all the feedback forms (when they are posted for playtesters to fill out) and bring it to the Owners (with suggestions). At that point the Owners and ARC will make a decision on any and all things brought up in those forms.

 

[marceasue]

As a newer player, this seems like a real easy fix. It feels like some people are taking the new rules changes too personally. As a teacher we always says there is room for improvement. What does it hurt to just have the pin mechanics for binding legs? We have evidence that it is unsafe, even if it is not unsafe for everyone it is better to be conservative than risk someone getting hurt. For example, there is a reason why I do not allow my students to run around with scissors, yes a majority of them will not get hurt but a couple could so let's just walk when we hold them. That is all we are asking. This should not be a big deal. And to be quite honest if a small rules tweek over saftey causes this much issue then it scares me to think of what it will be like for the bigger discussions.