Commonly Confusing Effects

[llywelyn]

As we go into the 415 year, I thought I would post on a few effects that are frequently misunderstood. Sometimes these misunderstandings happen because they used to work a particular way in an older version of the rules, sometimes they occur because it sounds like it should be one way and it is actually another, and sometimes they happen because other, similar LARPs do them in a particular way.

The first of these is Berserk (ARB 1.2 pg 111). This is a command effect that lasts 10 minutes or until dispelled. This puts the victim into a mindless killing rage. You will still use basic weapon skills (and your shield and any claws), but you will not use any times-per-day ability or use any defensive abilities (automatic defenses, such as spell shield, work as per usual). You won't stop to give a killing blow, and also remember that the closest target may be behind you. You shouldn't throw away your weapons: you'll use them if you have them. If you don't have any weapons or any weapon skill, you shake you fists and yell at people.

The second of these is Paralysis (ARB 1.2 pg 121). The victim is completely immobilized. This can be observed by any outside observer by asking the OOG question "Are you paralyzed?" Basically representing the time it takes to look over the person and observe the total lack of movement (you don't get to announce it). There is no expression of "visibly paralyzed": They must take the time to observe it. Remember that this continues even when you are dying. Someone who is paralyzed cannot voluntarily move themselves in any way, but can be moved by others.

 

[Traceroo]

Question on Berserk: "You will not use... any defensive abilities."

I assume the intent here is about defensive abilities with a tagline or call in the game (Parry, as an example).

I have a question on roleplay on a nitty-gritty stickjock level of thinking:

Is it cool roleplay to physically defend one's self in a fight? For example, Dame Katherine gets Berserked, and turns to her good friend Squire Graham and lays into him, trying to cut him into 45 evenly divided and oddly specific pieces. Even though she's consumed with an irrational killing rage, somewhere in the back of her lizard brain I imagine that fighter training kicks in and says that if she doesn't physically block his incoming strikes, he could take her out instead. Therefore I'd think that taking an aggressive stance in a fight rather than a defensive one, but still fighting smartly makes sense.

Is that appropriately playing this effect?

Thanks,
Trace

 

[llywelyn]

Therefore I'd think that taking an aggressive stance in a fight rather than a defensive one, but still fighting smartly makes sense.

I think so. It says that you also keep your shield, so I'd put that firmly in the camp of "legitimate interpretation."

 

[Jesse Grabowski]

Yes, Trace. You will still fight to the best of your physical abilities by blocking incoming attacks, it's just that you will NOT use "Parries" and the like. It's not like playing a zombie NPC. lol

 

[Graham Wolsey]

When you are paralyzed because you lose the use of your muscles do you fall over? Or do you stand in place like a statue? I've seen it done both ways IG.

 

[llywelyn]

When you are paralyzed because you lose the use of your muscles do you fall over? Or do you stand in place like a statue? I've seen it done both ways IG.

Stand in place like a statue. You are rendered completely immobile, per the text.

 

[Alex319]

Also, as for Berserk:

- To clarify, since Berserk makes you attack the nearest target, this generally means that you will be attacking one target until it goes down, then moving onto a different target. When you are attacking one target, you are in melee with him so you are basically right next to him. It's only if another target moves even closer that you will switch to that target.

- Of course, it is possible that a target is behind you and you are unaware of him. Does this mean you need to periodically turn around to check for targets behind you?