Bind <Legs> Safety Issue

[mikestrauss]

Independent testing is fine. But it needs to be clearly indicated that such testing was completed in a way not intended.

Consider, for instance, if you chose simply to test the wand damage reduction without also testing the other changes at the same time. It is almost certain that you would come to the conclusion that it was harmful to casters and didn't add value. However, that rule change isn't supposed to exist in a vacuum. It is supposed to exist in an environment where all the rules changes were made.

I am not accusing any playtest group of testing the leg bind rule without also including the flurry rule. As I previously stated, while I can justify the leg bind rule mechanically, I am still completely undecided on the safety of the rule. I am simply stating that any group that is testing the rule without testing the flurry rule at the same time is testing it in an environment that it is not intended to exist in and are thus, potentially, making incorrect conclusions about the rule.

-MS

 

[Draven]

I am simply stating that any group that is testing the rule without testing the flurry rule at the same time is testing it in an environment that it is not intended to exist in and are thus, potentially, making incorrect conclusions about the rule.

-MS

I disagree with your assessment, because Flurry is intended to be a change to combative approach, where the Bind change was intended to create a streamlined effect (if poorly). While there may be dovetailing, there's no indication that I've seen that this in intended one way or the other (unless I've missed that note somewhere). If Bind Legs and Flurry work well together, that appears to be an accident, at most.

After all, hasn't Calgary been using the Flurry rules for awhile, now, in the current environment?

 

[Saephis]

After all, hasn't Calgary been using the Flurry rules for awhile, now, in the current environment?

If memory serves (Which I'm certain I'll be corrected if it isn't ), Calgary has been using "for the most part", with exclusions increasing as players' comfort with combat increase and safe combat, largely derived from experience, becomes easier.

 

[mythic]

Have been using it for about 4 years now. After a couple minor injuries on ice, snow and rain. Then it became habit in all situations. Now it is extremely common place. We teach it to all of our new players. Yes, we have exceptions. If I am 1 on 1 with a very experienced fighter and we are making a "show" of it. We can hit an extra time or two. Or I crank into their shield to make a horrifyingly loud "THUD" that gets attention etc. But that is an outside case that happens only, maybe once a weekend or less.

I know there are tons of players that say "Flurry 3 does not work". And I know this will get "quoted" and responded too; but we are proof that it can, and does work. We have awesome, safe, theatrical fights that players talk about for years afterwards. We have BIG monsters, we have small monsters just like everyone else. Hell, we have a Beholder on Standby if I want to toss a really big monster out there. I firmly believe that once a chapter actually tries it out for a "good length" of time (as I said, we are now on year 4 or 5 of Flurry 3) it just becomes second nature and a good habit. Trying it out for even a longer playtest (8ish hours) still will not give you the sense of what it can truly be like.

So yes, when we tested Bind Legs, we had no issues. Because we are already trained to think more of the fun and theatrical aspect of Flurry 3 rather than a fast and furious beat down of a PC or NPC. Heck, we even just left the PC to stand there while we, the NPCs, "took care" of the other threats.

To be clear, I am not "talking down" or "not listening" to the concerns brought up by players. We (and I mean all the playtesters as I asked them point blank regarding safety) at no time, felt that having both legs was unsafe. So that is our viewpoint. It is not shared by everyone from all chapters and I acknowledge that.

The flurry rule with the back off every few attacks seems like it would bias the results for the double leg bind toward a favorable result. Calgary is a pretty non standard chapter where a lot of things would work differently then they would in most normal chapters.

I will take that as a compliment. But think of it this way. If everyone adopted this "non-standard" chapter's approach to safe and fun combat, would we have these issues? And I'm not exactly sure of what you think we do differently. We have the least amount of LCO "things" that other chapters put into game from what I have read. We are a pretty "by the books" chapter when it comes down to it. We have just practiced and placed the Flurry 3 rule and love it.

 

[Draven]

Not everyone wants a theatrical fight, however.

 

[mythic]

Not everyone wants a theatrical fight, however.

So you just "pound into" each other until someone falls over? No grunts to show the pain of a heavy blow, no backing off to mock your opponent's lackluster attempts to defeat you? Seems to me that is missing the point of role-playing. In some instances, absolutely, let the foam fly! But if you have the chance to add in some RP into the fight, why not?

When I say "theatrics" I don't mean quoting Shakespeare monologues. I don't mean "the great vampire death in Buffy" (although we do that once in a while as it is hilarious!) or grand swings (those are illegal). I mean bantering back and forth etc.

 

[PirateFox]

So you just "pound into" each other until someone falls over? No grunts to show the pain of a heavy blow, no backing off to mock your opponent's lackluster attempts to defeat you? Seems to me that is missing the point of role-playing. In some instances, absolutely, let the foam fly! But if you have the chance to add in some RP into the fight, why not?

When I say "theatrics" I don't mean quoting Shakespeare monologues. I don't mean "the great vampire death in Buffy" (although we do that once in a while as it is hilarious!) or grand swings (those are illegal). I mean bantering back and forth etc.

While I respect the philosophy and prefer more RP in my combat...you're demanding that the rest of the country shift their games from sport-fighting to theatrics, simply because that works for you. That's not respectful in the least to other playstyles, chapters, or the history of the game.

 

[Saephis]

This isn't really convincing me that this needs to expand past a local combat ruling. Forcing a LCO policy on the stance of "Give it years of practice, and you'll be used to it" is almost Stockholm Syndrome-esque in the reasoning of why "its good for you/the game". If it works for Calgary, great, but saying "Everyone, you have to use this" seems needlessly forceful of a stance.

 

[Cedric]

Different larps have different fighting styles they try an emphasisize and build their systems around it. Some prefer a more realistic style (and often times use a heavier weapons) like Bel/Dag. Some prefer a lightest touch game (Dystopia Rising/IFGS) to allow for a greater entry level for people that are nervous about the physicality of boffer fighting. Some prefer more Amtgard style, pushing a more martial style where OOG skills matters more to how well you perform in game. Alliance really needs to decide on where they fall on this spectrum and from there base their rules mechanics, safety rules and weapon construction standards on that decision. It's commonplace in LARP to make claims that this or that is unsafe...where other LARPs have been doing it for years without injury.

Until this conversation can be had with the owners and their players, largescale changes to the type of LARP combat that happens at Alliance (and the safety margins), in my opinion shouldn't be changed.

 

[mythic]

lol. Well, for one, it did not take us "years". We have just been using it for that long. New players "get it" and are used to it after a full weekend. Players coming in from other LARPs take a couple weekends to get used to it as well. We just remind them if they swing too many times (a quick "Check swing") and coach them. Have never had anyone "rage quit" because of this. In fact, a few independant games that have popped up are also adopting this style.

Please remember, I am only one owner. If it was just me the Flurry rule would not be being playtested. There was a majority that voted on it's inclusion.

 

[Saephis]

Please remember, I am only one owner. If it was just me the Flurry rule would not be being playtested. There was a majority that voted on it's inclusion.

I understand that, and I assume others do, as well. But understanding where you're coming from, and our attempts to explain a counterpoint mean we're talking to you. With Calgary being the "source' of the system and almost guaranteed proposal, it stands to reason that it was through you that other owners were convinced to push to through to the Playtest.

One piece that I recall seeing on previous cycles, specifically regarding Flurry, is that few chapters had interest in even testing it, leading to its inclusion in the play test cycles that followed its initial "showing" into the packet. That, too, seems sufficient reason to ask 'why is this needed game-wide, if players testing and coordinators don't even want to try it out?', which is furthered by your statement that eight hours of testing wouldn't even be sufficient.

 

[Avaran]

So you just "pound into" each other until someone falls over? No grunts to show the pain of a heavy blow, no backing off to mock your opponent's lackluster attempts to defeat you? Seems to me that is missing the point of role-playing. In some instances, absolutely, let the foam fly! But if you have the chance to add in some RP into the fight, why not?

Yes, I just go at my opponent. Why? Because that is fun to me. That doesn't mean I break the machine-gunning rule (which, I think, is the real root of the whole problem - better enforcement and a better understanding of Machine-gunning would negate the need for a "flurry" rule) and that doesn't mean I don't play/fight safely.

But the "flurry" style and adding theatrics to a fight isn't fun for me. Period. And no amount of "oh, just give it a try" is going to change that. That attitude reminds me of that scene in Saving Private Ryan when the German guy is stabbing the American and going "ssshhhhhh, shhhhhhhh, ssssshhhhhh, just let it happen". (@#*$*$ no. Just...@($*(*@(@(#@(#$ no.

 

[Draven]

So you just "pound into" each other until someone falls over? No grunts to show the pain of a heavy blow, no backing off to mock your opponent's lackluster attempts to defeat you? Seems to me that is missing the point of role-playing. In some instances, absolutely, let the foam fly! But if you have the chance to add in some RP into the fight, why not?

When I say "theatrics" I don't mean quoting Shakespeare monologues. I don't mean "the great vampire death in Buffy" (although we do that once in a while as it is hilarious!) or grand swings (those are illegal). I mean bantering back and forth etc.

I do, yes. But we have players with a wide variety of approaches to combat. Some prefer to see combat as a sport-like/MMO-like experience. Maybe they aren't avid roleplayers, and this isn't for them. Theatrical combat isn't bad, but it's not something that Alliance has built up its playerbase encouraging, as far as the ARB is concerned, and it sounds like you want to force that element onto the whole of the game, because it works for your locale.

 

[mythic]

I understand that, and I assume others do, as well. But understanding where you're coming from, and our attempts to explain a counterpoint mean we're talking to you. With Calgary being the "source' of the system and almost guaranteed proposal, it stands to reason that it was through you that other owners were convinced to push to through to the Playtest.

It actually wasn't me who proposed it a couple symposiums ago. I am just one of the "leads" on it as we practice this here in Calgary.

 

[Tantarus]

I will take that as a compliment.

It was neither and insult or a compliment, it was just a statement of fact. Let me ask this, in the early playtests before they started adding in the flurry rule, did you test with normal combat?

I think I would feel alot better about the flurry rule if it was just added by itself. But adding it with a ton of other melee nerfs makes it really hard to judge what helped and what hurt the system. I guess I view it like a science experiment you need to reduce the number of viables to know what is causing the changes in results.

 

[Gilwing]

So you just "pound into" each other until someone falls over? No grunts to show the pain of a heavy blow, no backing off to mock your opponent's lackluster attempts to defeat you? Seems to me that is missing the point of role-playing. In some instances, absolutely, let the foam fly! But if you have the chance to add in some RP into the fight, why not?

When I say "theatrics" I don't mean quoting Shakespeare monologues. I don't mean "the great vampire death in Buffy" (although we do that once in a while as it is hilarious!) or grand swings (those are illegal). I mean bantering back and forth etc.

No we don't do this. I can run at full speed and fight to the best of my ability, drag people out of harms way all while taking on 4 people at once, popping a slay for each one (which has made a great scene btw) regardless of having 100 body or 1.
Nero/Alliance combat is NOT theatrics. It is not a skillful dance of showmanship.
We've had people come by who had experience with fencing and sword play. I just laugh and tell them how it won't really help them in this game.

Oh and all the other chapters have proven that Flury 3 isn't needed. I said it before and you said you won't address it but it is the solution. More NPCS! That will fix the issues of npcs getting pounded on but yea, let's change some rules instead of working on advertising, incentives and other stuff to get more traffic, more players, more npcs and more revenue.

 

[Kasuni]

For what it's worth, due to all the negative feedback on flurry via the forums here, if that is also what comes through in the playtest feedback, I intend on bringing up revisiting that decision with the other owners

 

[Tulbor]

This one came up a couple of times during our last playtest, I got tagged with it at least once myself, I didn't have any problems with it. If they get behind you and you want to twist to defend, go for it. If you think that it's not safe for you to do so, then don't and take the shots.

 

[Draven]

This one came up a couple of times during our last playtest, I got tagged with it at least once myself, I didn't have any problems with it. If they get behind you and you want to twist to defend, go for it. If you think that it's not safe for you to do so, then don't and take the shots.

"Either fight unsafely or be at a disadvantage."

That's literally what your suggestion breaks down to, even if you're phrasing it differently.

Additionally, part of defending yourself is fighting back. Do you suggest folks swing backwards, too?

Because if you want accidental headshots, that's how you'll get 'em.

 

[Tulbor]

"Either fight unsafely or be at a disadvantage."

That's literally what your suggestion breaks down to, even if you're phrasing it differently.

Additionally, part of defending yourself is fighting back. Do you suggest folks swing backwards, too?

Because if you want accidental headshots, that's how you'll get 'em.

Oh ffs, you got hit with a spell, yes you're at a disadvantage! That's the whole damn point of it. They got you with it to keep you from running, or so they can run away, or so someone can come up behind you! I was able to block a few shots from the sides, there was nothing unsafe about it.