New Campaign and Weapon Rules

No record. I made three weapons based on requests and with the understanding that they would be up for modification, approval/disapproval. Greg had one he'd been using for a while. Rumormill and complaints ensued, no one spoke to me about the nature of the complaints, and flatblades were poo-pooed.
 
Dave,

Please read this, and consider the entirety of it, not just one part.

Masticon said:
The reasoning that flatblades weren't allowed were simply that they weren't legal and were much harder than pipe insulation blades. There were two categories included in this.
One was weapons made by online larp stores frequently classified as "Latex Weapons" which did not meet the minimum padding requirements nor did they contain the necessary thrusting/waylay tips.
The other were weapons made by gluing together two pieces of blue camping foam and then placing an additional line of padding directly over the core thereby gaining the necessary level of padding. The issue with these weapons was that they did not hold up over the course of an event. While passable at the point of inspection inspection over time would indicate that the core had become lose as there was no strong way to attach it to the two pieces of foam.

The final decision came out that flatblade and latex weaponry and was not disallowed because they were flat, but rather that they were either illegal or unstable. Other weapons have been permitted that were either flat or latex based but they all fit the minimum requirements for a weapon and were constructed utilizing the common accepted practices for weapon construction.
Click to expand...

In addition, we had a number of complaints of injuries recieved from flat blades and their wielders. I happen to disagree with many of those complaints, but we had to respect the desires of those players as well.
 
I am openning a discussion in the staff forums on this so we can discuss the former testing and see what's what on that. In the mean time, I would ask one question from the Marshals -
Is there interest in flat blades?
 
There is quite a bit of flatblade / latex weapon interest in the northwest larping community. In fact there is a game I have playtested in that uses them and it's my perception/observation that the only reason people don't push for using them in the Alliance more is because it was previously made very clear that the Alliance wanted nothing of it.

In effort not to speak for others I would say that I think flatblade/latex weapons add a lot to the game and should be allowed with the understanding that safety training and enhanced crackdown on unsafe combat should also occur.
 
I like the way they look, they definately add more to ones costuming that a traditional boffer weapon does.
 
Even with safety training and even if it was made a visible thing (like page bands are for pages), you still have the hazard of someone grabbing for any-weapon-that'll-do in the dark when they've suddenly lost theirs. There's not much difference in the weight and the way the grips feel on the ULs are better boffer-smiths make and flatblades.

So, if it's training per individual on who can and cannot use flatblades, I'm not interested.

*IF* it's a general training on who can use a boffer at all, regardless of shape, then yes I am interested.

All or none.
 
Since the first level of training and authorization would be to use boffers, then yes, I think it would be all. Of course any flat blade testing would initially have to be done outside of the game itself.

Authorization is another discussion entirely. Should we start a new topic?
 
Dave said:
Since the first level of training and authorization would be to use boffers, then yes, I think it would be all. Of course any flat blade testing would initially have to be done outside of the game itself.

Authorization is another discussion entirely. Should we start a new topic?
Click to expand...

No "levels" of training. Either you're authorized to use ANY boffer that your character has the skill for, or none at all. This would be regardless of PVC brick, UL, or flatblade.

ALL types of boffers, or NONE.
 
I think you're going way too complex, Dave. It should be as simple as "Here are a list of legal weapons. Here is how to use them safely. If you don't use them safely, you're out. If you think you might not be able to use them safely, come to a fighter practice and learn." The game is not the SCA, with weapon training and combat as a separate function of participation from roleplay, crafts, and the like.
 
That's something that has bothered me from the start, though. A page can turn 14, pick up a weapon with no training and begin hitting people, yet not before. A person with no experience with boffers in any fashion can come into the game and begin hitting people with not even a rudimentary level of ability verified.

The SCA sytem of authorization is there for a different kind of game. they are hitting each other with real sticks wrapped in duct tape, rapiers, real arrows with combat blunts, and tennis balls launched at high velocities (and boy do they hurt!). I am not seeking to adopt something that complex, but I do think that there needs to be some amount of verification of skill in the weapons before we allow them to hit people at 3:00 am in an ambush in 23 degree weather.

What I am seeking is authorization on weapon classes. Single hand edged, single hand blunt, two handers, staves, spears, and thrown weapons - not in UL, PVC, flat blade, etc.
 
Not to be overly blunt about it, but anyone playing who can't pick up a weapon in the dark, blindfolded, or otherwise blinded, and can't tell the difference between a toobstick and a flatblade in 1.5 seconds shouldn't be playing. It's called "Grab the blade, what shape/texture is it. Oh, it's that kind. Never mind then." I don't think we have anyone currently playing that falls into that category, and anyone who shows up that does should be pulled aside and 'splained to, or pulled aside and asked not to play. I know people have concerns, and I'm not saying their completely unjustified, but really it IS a contact sport and people will play/fight to the level of gear we use. I see maybe one hold an event from an errant thrust of a weapon, but probably half a dozen step backs from packets to the eye/throat/junk, but no one has ever argued the safety of spell packets, even when they turn to cement in the puddles.
I think we have some very talented weapon crafters out here on the WC: Matt, JP, and Sarah just to name the ones that I know people order weapons from regularly. I feel quite certain that those three and some others who don't do as much publically could easily come up with ways to make flatblade weapons, latex or non-, that people could feel comfortable with, and then put down instructions for making said weapons in a way that most people could follow, just like they do with regular boffers. I for one would really like to see that, along with a look at dumbing down the safety factor on thrown weapons. Ye gods we could make some daggers that won't hurt but are smaller than a zucchini!
 
Dave said:
That's something that has bothered me from the start, though. A page can turn 14, pick up a weapon with no training and begin hitting people, yet not before. A person with no experience with boffers in any fashion can come into the game and begin hitting people with not even a rudimentary level of ability verified.
Click to expand...

That is a fairly recent failing. Some time ago there were mandatory safety introductions. They were originally very 'classroom', but have gotten more and more informal over the years, to where the most recent ones have come down to "Don't smack me in the face, here's your stick." This is something that is easily remedied, simply re-instate the newbie training course.
 
Dave said:
That's something that has bothered me from the start, though. A page can turn 14, pick up a weapon with no training and begin hitting people, yet not before. A person with no experience with boffers in any fashion can come into the game and begin hitting people with not even a rudimentary level of ability verified.
Click to expand...
[/quote]
It seems like you're mixing two separate complaints.
1 - If you can find an insurance company to cover Greg or Jeff pummeling a ten-year old, have at. Personally, I would rather discourage players below a certain age for both safety reasons and for maintaining a mature game atmosphere.
2 - The general principle of the game has always placed responsibility for safe participation on the participant (or their guardian, where applicable by law), not the group. The rules encourage moderation in strength used, and only people who cannot do so should be noted and required to go through some form of disciplinary action.

It is the distinction between a sport and a physically-active game. Potato-sack racing can be risky business, but I don't think we need a class on it, either.

This statement: The SCA sytem of authorization is there for a different kind of game. they are hitting each other with real sticks wrapped in duct tape, rapiers, real arrows with combat blunts, and tennis balls launched at high velocities (and boy do they hurt!). I am not seeking to adopt something that complex is not conducive with this one: What I am seeking is authorization on weapon classes. Single hand edged, single hand blunt, two handers, staves, spears, and thrown weapons - not in UL, PVC, flat blade, etc.. (As an aside: you seem to feel that beanbag-chucking requires no safety-checking, but open cell foam blocks do?)

obcidian said:
That is a fairly recent failing. Some time ago there were mandatory safety introductions.
Click to expand...
Maybe locally, but certainly not when I started playing, nor when I worked for other chapters, both pre- and post-split..
 
I will disagree, and here's why -

The authorizations within the SCA are exhaustive testing of the rules and safety involved in each one of the disciplines. They test for safety in use as well as in dangerous situations. Our purposes are simply to test whether or not a person know enough about the combat to know not to swing too hard, what charging is (and isn't) and whether they can take their blows.

It would be a far easier test than the SCA one, and require far less training on a personal level. After all, we would have to be able to train and pass the new NPC's at each and every game, as well as checking anyone visiting from another chapter. I think it would reduce the amount of injury and complaint from hard blows.

Lastly, as to the complaint on pages turning 14, etc.? It was more on the fact that a person who knows the game but has never wielded a weapon coming in and doing so with no real training. The insurance issue is moot, since anyone under 14 is covered by the scouts anyway as a "possible future Venture crewmember or family member of an attending adult leader" to quote my rep.
 
Dave said:
Our purposes are simply to test whether or not a person know enough about the combat to know not to swing too hard, what charging is (and isn't) and whether they can take their blows.
Click to expand...
None of that is weapon-type specific, though, which is what you suggested.
 
If you break it out, it is. Safety requirements are different for the different weapon types. Someone safe with a one handed weapon may not be with two, etc.
 
Dave said:
If you break it out, it is. Safety requirements are different for the different weapon types. Someone safe with a one handed weapon may not be with two, etc.
Click to expand...

Our purposes are simply to test whether or not a person
1 - know enough about the combat to know not to swing too hard
Knowing that you shouldn't swing too hard is equally applicable across all weapon types. A swing that is too hard with one type is too hard with all types.

2 - what charging is (and isn't)
Charging is a fairly static definition that does not change based on weapon used.

3 - whether they can take their blows.
Whether you count your hits or not is defined by what weapon you are using.
 
Knowing that you shouldn't swing too hard is equally applicable across all weapon types. A swing that is too hard with one type is too hard with all types.
Click to expand...

I disagree. What is too hard with each type of weapon differs. Especially when dealing with two handed weapons. It is very easy to hit hard with a two handed club, and not as easy with a one handed sword.

As to the charging, granted that it is a static definition, but the practicable enforcement of that definition does change with the weapon type. A person with a two hander has a different means of recognizing that standard than someone with a sword and board.
 
Charging is NOT an effect of weapon length or even *arm* length. Charging is action that creates a situation where physical contact in combat is imminent or occurs.

So if I step inside your two hander so that you can't swing it at me to swipe at you with a dagger, I am *not* charging.
 
Agreed, but someone using a two hander has to be more aware of their distance in this since it will take them longer to slow up and they will be in more danger of charging. I have seen it happen and done it myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top