"Feel" of Alliance?

Alavatar

Baron
How far can changes to the ruleset go before the "feel" of the Alliance system is no longer represented?

Is maintaining the "feel" of Alliance a valid reason to prevent change?

(Bonus question: Is this the right forum for this discussion?)
 
I think it's gonna vary based on each person. I'm a newer player (1.5 years), and I don't think the 'feel' has changed. To me, 2.0 is a patch. Fixing things the owners think no longer work and adding/removing things for the better.

And if change is for the better (in the mind of the owners), I say go for it. Feel be damned.
 
The rules have changed multiple times since I first started playing in 1993. I have seen spells added to the game, removed from the game, added and then removed, moved from Earth aspect to Celestial (or vice versa), and changed so radically that they are effectively brand new spells. I still want to use spell incants from two editions ago (or more) when I am under pressure.

Similarly, I have seen major changes to the proficiency rules and backstab rules that fundamentally changed the balance in fighting styles. These changes have included rules for handedness, costs for various classes, the removal of scaling costs (yes, the concept of scaling costs for Prof/BS has previously existed within the game), the addition of 1.5x multiplier for two-handed damage, and changes in how BS/Prof affect ranged/thrown weapons (multiple changes).

I have seen three classes added to the game. I have seen the advent of fluid classing. I have seen changes in armor maximums for classes and body formula for characters / classes.

I have seen changes in weapon size maximums, minimums, and construction rules. I have seen major changes in archery (real bows were once a thing... and they were awful) and rock rules (so many corner cases). I have seen multiple changes for calculating armor. I have seen trap rules changes multiple times. I have seen the cost of production items change (from a 4 copper piece scale to a 5 copper piece scale... a system artifact that explains why characters start with 1.2 silver) and the introduction of both labs and batching. I have seen both the introduction and removal of a variety of effects (drain life was the most awful effect known to man in the early years). I have seen major changes to the duration of effects. I have seen multiple massive changes to how Gypsy Curse worked before it was removed.

I remember a time when players had to pay silver (in increasingly high costs) in order to obtain a full blanket for a weekend (only half the blanket came free). I remember when certain effects could be pre-cast and then activated at will at a later time (maximum of four such effects in reserve at a time). I remember when strengthening a weapon or armor didn't just cost money, but also required a hard-to-acquire in-game item (adamantine, I think). I remember when each resurrection cost 10 silver pieces. I remember when you only had a 10% chance of remembering the last 10 minutes (or maybe an hour, I forget) before you died when you resurrected.

I remember a game without wands or high magic or evades or ripostes or stun limbs or a whole slew of other things that we now take for granted.

The rules of the game I started playing in 1993 would be practically unrecognizable to someone that started playing the game today. Yet the game still "feels" pretty much the same to me today as it did back in the stone age.

-MS
 
Last edited:
I find the question to be misguided. If another LARP community today started playing by the rule book of Alliance - they wouldn't necessarily acquire the same "feel".
Ruleset doesn't make "feel" of Alliance. Mindset does.
 
I find the question to be misguided. If another LARP community today started playing by the rule book of Alliance - they wouldn't necessarily acquire the same "feel".
Ruleset doesn't make "feel" of Alliance. Mindset does.

I don't entirely disagree with this, but at the same time I find that when discussing rules, there are frequently times where I like a particular rule, but do not find that it has the "feel" of this particular game.

For instance: allowing people to change class and respond build before every event. I think this is a neat rule that allows people to change skills based on a number of different things (how they want to play a particular event, what they think will be most effective, what will be the most fun, what will compensate for missing team members or what is needed in a particular chapter), but I don't think the rule "feels" Alliancey.
 
The thing is that I get a different feel for the game with each chapter that I visit. The main thing that makes it 'feel' like Alliance in every chapter are two things. First is that I'm playing the same character that has built up a reputation and connections within the world. So when I head up to Seattle and run into Baron Polare, it has the feel of the Alliance in the game. The second thing is the rulebook. Seeing Half Orcs, having anyone who casts Necromancy as being evil, no religious figures, Dragons being the most powerful beings in Fortannis and Fae being their equals when they're in this realm. Yes, the amount of treasure policy, how I have to fight in order to bring someone down, that I can completely die twice before worrying about it and all of the rules also gives a feeling of Alliance.

And technically, I also believe that if some group of people who never played Alliance before picked up the rulebook and begun running events, it would feel like an Alliance game. It may not fit in with other games flavors 100% but that is due to individual chapter flourishes added to the game. I could go to that new, independent game and know what to expect from Hoblings, Kobolds, that I can still dodge X number of attacks while my Dragon's Breath does 40 points of damage and I should be arrested if I cast chaos. So it would feel like an Alliance game. But at the same time, I could go to a NERO chapter and have it feel 'Alliancey' because of the system, races, combat, resurrections, etc.

However, I do not believe maintaining the feel of the game equates to making the game better. The issue becomes what one person considers 'better' is what another would consider 'worse'. For example, I felt the introduction of the Shatter Spirit carrier would (and does - again IMO) change the dynamics of combat so that people aren't just running forward, slaying everything in front of them with full knowledge that a simple cure light spell/potion/alchemy/etc will bring them right back up. However, when this was brought forth in a past national event, some players had very negative, physical responses to it.

You'd want to maintain the basic setting, storyline, background, laws, etc. But the mechanics can (and have) changed over time. There was a pretty good change a few years back to the rules (such as being able to deliver backstab damage via ranged weapons) and it seemed to improve things overall. The rules may change but as long as we're in Fortannis, it will be Alliance.
 
2.0 to me (and several others) doesn't feel like the Alliance, it feels like a completely different game.

Mithril is the word you're looking for Mike Straus
 
Real bows were both awful and spectacular.
Mithral to strengthen was cool.
I remember when leather and metal armor had different tags, and there were XP chits.
 
What I was getting at in my OP was that there have been several comments in relation to changes being made to the effect that "if X gets implemented then it won't feel like Alliance". I want to understand where the blurry lines are of characteristics that define this game as "Alliance" such that changing them will me it no longer "Alliance".


Additionally I am curious on if people feel that maintaining "Alliance" as a valid reason for not changing. Or to what degree.
 
I can think of a few things that might actually change the "feel" of Alliance for me. Like dropping one of the 4 core rules (particularly no contact or alcohol) or disposing of damage calls in fighting. Whether it'll be the same feel or not - I'm not staying here for specific mechanics (I'm used to significantly more careful and merciless combat and significantly less bureaucratic spellcasting for example), I'm staying for the community and story.
 
Back
Top