Official 2.0 start date and race change info

Auric

Auric

Administrator
Moderator
Alliance Owner
2.0 official switchover date
Starting May 31st, Alliance will officially switch to the 2.0 ruleset. Any events held on or after this date must run with the 2.0 ruleset. Work on the official rulebook is underway and we intend to have this completed before the May 31st launch date. We will make an announcement when the finalized book is available until then you can find the latest 2.0 changes by going to https://alliancelarp.com/forum/threads/alliance-2-0-prerelease.39024/

Under 2.0 ruleset players and logistics staff will be required to use the new Character Management Application (CMA). Over the past few months, many of you have been able to log in and interact with this in preparation for the official 2.0 launch. Starting on or around May 26th current character data in the CMA will be cleared out to make room for the latest data from your logistics staff. If you have created an account, your account and password will remain the same. Due to the effort involved in transferring the old databases to this new application, we will be requiring chapters to submit their databases for uploading starting May 26th. This means any blanket requests that come in on or after May 26th will have to be entered in the CMA. These blankets will then be awarded under the new 2.0 XP rate.


Race change
Due to the significant changes in 2.0, the owners have decided to award all characters with a free race change along with the spirit forge they will be receiving. There are no restrictions on this race change, you'll be able to switch to any available PC race in the 2.0 ruleset.
 
Why is there a hard date for change over before a hard date for a copy of the new rule book?

I am sorry if this is not the place for this question. I would just feel more at ease with some time to familiarize myself with a solid set of rules in one place before I am expected follow them at an event that people paid hard earned money to be at.
 
The great thing about the 2.0 Rules is that they already exist, even in the absence of a formal rulebook release.

If you check out this post you'll find a link to the rules and rules changes so that you can know them front to back before you play an Event.

Also, even if your Chapter hasn't taken the opportunity to make use of the CMA and run Playtest Events you can play with Character Builds and get familiar with the CMA by using the Freeplay Option created for that purpose
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for the link. I have been playing a few years now and can figure it out with this information.

The bigger issue is how this type of thing might turn a new player away. My brother has shown interest in attending an event or two this season. With a 2.0 rule book I could drop it off to him and with a couple of sparing sessions he could be familiar enough to attend. Currently I have to drop off my old rule book and the a list of things that have changed for and event that may be only 2 months out. This could daunting to a new player and maybe damage what ever interest they had.
 
Our experience while running playtest Events for most of last year is that the 2.0 Rules are actually much more approachable for newer Players. I hope that your brother decides to come out.

Also, we've got an Event this weekend with 9 new Players, who've only had access to this information and they all seem very excited. I hope that come Monday I'll be able to report that they all had a great time.
 
It's unfortunate that the plan isn't to run play-tests with a full rule book, and worse that there's a start date before the official rule book is completed.

Feels like the cart is going before the horse here. Especially since play tests to this point have been off an evolving packet that players have been asked to reconcile with existing rules and ARC rulings.

It'd be a far better idea to release a full rule book and let your players and plot teams run full and proper play tests and edit checks instead of feeling the need to rush this out. We've waited this long, a few more stress tests with a full book wouldn't hurt and would potentially weed out a chunk of early edits.
 
Sita said:
It'd be a far better idea to release a full rule book and let your players and plot teams run full and proper play tests and edit checks instead of feeling the need to rush this out.
Click to expand...

Again, the link above takes you to all of the changed rules, the information that isn't contained in that document isn't changing. While it will be nice to have a new version of the rule book to have a single source for all this information, at this point that is more a matter of form over function. We know that it's possible to run great Events with these rules in their current state because Chapters will have been running full Event playtests of these rules for over a year by the launch date. Given that the process of creating the 2.0 rules has gone on for substantially longer, I am hard pressed to see how the 2.0 rules have been rushed.

It is unfortunately that not every Chapter opted to take advantage of the opportunity to run full weekend events during the playtest period, but we as Owners unanimously agreed that the 2.0 Rules are ready for launch. We hope you enjoy them as much as we do.
 
Last edited:
"Given that the process of creating the 2.0 rules has gone on for substantially longer, I am hard pressed to see how the 2.0 rules have been rushed."

I didn't say the rules had been rushed, however setting a date for switch over without a full rule book in place is. If the rule book isn't out when play-testing ends, you're asking players to continue to interact with a game that has rules in different locations and to cross-reference those. That's cumbersome for new pleyers, existing players, and plot teams.

Mathis said:
Again, the link above takes you to all of the changed rules, the information that isn't contained in that document isn't changing.
Click to expand...

I've read the change documents, and participated in full event play tests. Based on prior iterations of the rule book, it's interesting that there's an impression that the rules won't be changing, adjusting, and being interpreted by ARC as they're gone through and continued to be experienced by players and plot.

With full rule book testing, that allows:

1. Players and Plot to interact with the full set of rules and rule flow as intended by the owners.
and
2. For outside eyes to check for consistency, flow, and give feedback.

This has been a heck of a process. I find it unfortunate that the Owners have decided to go ahead with a release prior to complete testing and a proper release of the 2.0 rule-book.

**edited due to first quote being cut off.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that it would feel more professional to have a complete and available rulebook prior to official release, the packets have been workable for playtest events. New players have been able to build characters in the CMA, have been able to participate in the game, and ultimately have an enjoyable time. It hasn’t been a simpler startup process, but it hasn’t been a complete obstruction, either.

I don’t think we need playtest events with a full rulebook, as that would imply there’s something mechanically different between .12 and the full book. Outside of some wording changes, this isn’t true.

However, from a marketability standpoint, it does hurt our appearance to be running an official ruleset without an official book. While existing players can make it work, people who are shopping around for a LARP to try are less likely to try a game, even an established one, that has messy resources.

That being said, I don’t think it’s worth it to make a big deal about it. The course has been set, and we’ll eventually have a full book.

Edit:

Regarding feedback - Feedback is all well and good, but it’s not being gathered at this time. There won’t be any major changes prior to release. I expect that the soonest any changes will occur will be 2020 Symposium, and I doubt they’ll be particularly big ones, if any. So the opportunity for feedback is pretty much over.
 
Some new players. I've a friend with a reading disability that's struggled hard with the resources as they've been presented. Is your stance that they should figure it out since others have? Heck, I've been playing the game for a few years now, and find it obnoxious to switch between the packet and old rule book just to continue to play.

Now, with no full rule book, the Owners are asking players to deal with the mess and accept that there will be zero changes, ARC clarifications/rulings, and/or necessary flow edits? That's unfortunate, and disappointing. And I flat disagree that you can have a full -actual- play test without a full -actual- rule book. There's a lot to back and forth that's missed when such a large body of rules isn't compiled clearly and in one place.

Am I going to table-flip and pass on Alliance? Not yet. I want to see how the actual rule book shakes out. But, from the last Oregon play test 2.0 still had some pretty solid issues. The remaining rule book still had core issues. If that was the last update, zero feedback on what play tests were still happening, I don't hold out a ton of hope for the full 2.0 set.

My original post was to provide feedback and dismay that the Owners are pushing forward without a complete rule set. If the continued debate on if providing players and plot a rule book along with a few more play tests needs to be elsewhere, I'm happy to continue this conversation on a more appropriate board.
 
Something that hasn't been talked about a ton yet, is how much of a living rulebook will this be? Meaning, before because we had a "print" rulebook you could buy, it was hard for us to make changes to the rules. Thus years and years of ARC clarifications from the forums. I was under the impression (and I don't remember where I got it from) that this rulebook would have changes applied to it more often, maybe on a semi-regular basis? If that is the case, I think Sita's point is less of an issue (though I still your point). If it's a static rulebook and changes aren't being planned for it, then it's a much bigger issue. I trust Bryan and Matt to deliver us a good rulebook, but even then things can be missed.
 
I'm pretty sure ARC is actually doing the editing of the book this time around. I can't speak to section flow, or future clarifications (one would think they'd be minimal/limited to edge cases since ARC actually put the 2.0 version together,) but with a lot of the flavor stuff (like, how to be a thief) being moved to a players guide, I imagine the rulebook will be fairly easy to read/revise as needed.

I do know that the final editing/polishing is being done for the 2.0 book, so I would expect to see a complete PDF at the very least prior to go live.
 
Sita said:
Some new players. I've a friend with a reading disability that's struggled hard with the resources as they've been presented. Is your stance that they should figure it out since others have?
Click to expand...

I think you know me better than that, Christine.

The Oregon community has been solid at supporting new folks, and I doubt that the transition has been any different. I think that communities need to be more connected with new players than they have been previously, if only to help them with this process. It’s a band-aid to a problem that will eventually self-correct. I agree that the book should be available, but it’s not world-ending that it isn’t.

Additionally, the actual play of 2.0 has been overwhelmingly supported by new players in Seattle. The flip side is that the character creation and conception stages are more complicated. But once that a player has gone through creation, actual play, and their first character updates? Most of the complication has been experienced and overcome at that stage. We have players that have been entirely existing within playtest/pre-release games.

If players are differently abled, such as the one you brought up, or have other obstacles that make the transition extra-difficult? The community needs to help that player.

Heck, I've been playing the game for a few years now, and find it obnoxious to switch between the packet and old rule book just to continue to play.

Now, with no full rule book, the Owners are asking players to deal with the mess and accept that there will be zero changes, ARC clarifications/rulings, and/or necessary flow edits? That's unfortunate, and disappointing. And I flat disagree that you can have a full -actual- play test without a full -actual- rule book. There's a lot to back and forth that's missed when such a large body of rules isn't compiled clearly and in one place.

Am I going to table-flip and pass on Alliance? Not yet. I want to see how the actual rule book shakes out. But, from the last Oregon play test 2.0 still had some pretty solid issues. The remaining rule book still had core issues. If that was the last update, zero feedback on what play tests were still happening, I don't hold out a ton of hope for the full 2.0 set.

My original post was to provide feedback and dismay that the Owners are pushing forward without a complete rule set. If the continued debate on if providing players and plot a rule book along with a few more play tests needs to be elsewhere, I'm happy to continue this conversation on a more appropriate board.
Click to expand...

I feel that the fatigue of the 2.0 transition has reached a point where the game does need to be launched. This journey has not been an easy one. This landing is going to be bumpy.

Throughout the years that 1.3 has been out, there have been questions, clarifications, and modifications. 2.0 cannot be expected to be perfect, because we’ve never had a perfect system, and we never will.

But we do need to be done with this transition.
 
You are correct - I do know you better. However, you made a blanket statement and I countered it. It's great we have a New Player support system. But right now what we have is a mess to hand those new players, and that's ridiculous.

I'm not asking for perfect. I'm asking for it to be complete and released prior to a launch date. Anything else is a disservice to the community that makes up Alliance. I'm happy to hear that it's looking promising to have a complete book out prior to launch - I would have been a lot happier if it was included with the announcement.
 
So, just as an FYI, as a former player who took a hiatus for a couple years and is coming back... I'm trying to read up on Oathsworn to see about converting my barbarian character into oathsworn. I keep hearing mentions of a prosthetic or makeup, but can't find the makeup requirements by searching either the forums or the document linked on this post. Lots of great flavor text, and certainly the abilities and discounts are listed, plus there's a picture which is great... but nothing explaining "here are the basal makeup requirements for an Oathsworn".

I eventually found a summary on a newbie guide that a player created and posted. But shouldn't it be in the rulebook update somewhere?
 
These two paragraphs and the photo from the 2.0 packet seem to answer the question:

“Oathsworn are particularly proud of the Oaths that they have taken, and will often display their Oathring for all to see on the outside of their clothing. Oathrings can be made of any material, but must be circular in design and at least 2” in diameter.

The First Oath is a shared burden between all Oathsworn in Fortannis. The connection to Fortannis and the Oath manifests physically on them as rocky or bone-like protrusions on their head, forever reminding them of their duties.”
 
tieran said:
These two paragraphs and the photo from the 2.0 packet seem to answer the question:

“Oathsworn are particularly proud of the Oaths that they have taken, and will often display their Oathring for all to see on the outside of their clothing. Oathrings can be made of any material, but must be circular in design and at least 2” in diameter.

The First Oath is a shared burden between all Oathsworn in Fortannis. The connection to Fortannis and the Oath manifests physically on them as rocky or bone-like protrusions on their head, forever reminding them of their duties.”
Click to expand...

I swear I read through it at least five times looking for something like that and didn’t see it. Ah well, minus points to me for reading comprehension I guess.
 
Draven said:
I don’t think we need playtest events with a full rulebook, as that would imply there’s something mechanically different between .12 and the full book.
Click to expand...

The mechanical differences of concern here are between 1.3 and 2.0.

I think the real concern here is the overall lack of participation and the likely Rules Shock that is going to be experienced by:

  • Chapters that have opted not to participate in the Play Tests.
  • Plot Teams that have opted to not run Events or keep up with the rules changes.
  • Players whose chapters and plot teams fit the above two criteria.
  • Plays who have decided to not keep up with or participate in the rules changes.
  • People who don't visit this forum - which has been pointed out to me countless times over the years is "a substantial amount of the player-base". Heck, before the higher-ups forced Seattle to migrate their forums here, I never visited these boards.

Who knows, maybe the participation level across the organization has increased since I last bothered to be involved, but if it hasn't, that has potential problems just waiting to blow up.

And I know this may come as an utter shock to some people here, but there are players who have nothing to do with the game outside of coming to events and perhaps submitting downtimes. That used to be me until I joined a Plot team and I felt I needed to get more involved. And thankfully it's mostly become me again since I learned my input literally doesn't matter and isn't even wanted (which I'm totally fine with, BTW) and I just stopped participating here. Feels good.

I'll STFU again now.
 
Avaran said:
The mechanical differences of concern here are between 1.3 and 2.0.

I think the real concern here is the overall lack of participation and the likely Rules Shock that is going to be experienced by:

  • Chapters that have opted not to participate in the Play Tests.
  • Plot Teams that have opted to not run Events or keep up with the rules changes.
  • Players whose chapters and plot teams fit the above two criteria.
  • Plays who have decided to not keep up with or participate in the rules changes.
  • People who don't visit this forum - which has been pointed out to me countless times over the years is "a substantial amount of the player-base". Heck, before the higher-ups forced Seattle to migrate their forums here, I never visited these boards.

Who knows, maybe the participation level across the organization has increased since I last bothered to be involved, but if it hasn't, that has potential problems just waiting to blow up.

And I know this may come as an utter shock to some people here, but there are players who have nothing to do with the game outside of coming to events and perhaps submitting downtimes. That used to be me until I joined a Plot team and I felt I needed to get more involved. And thankfully it's mostly become me again since I learned my input literally doesn't matter and isn't even wanted (which I'm totally fine with, BTW) and I just stopped participating here. Feels good.

I'll STFU again now.
Click to expand...

I’ve had a number of conversations with folks who I communicate with semi-regularity on this subject.

The TL;DR of my opinion is this:

1) Yeah, it would be way cool and helpful to have the rulebook significantly ahead of time.

2) While you’re right there’s going to be shock, and yes, this would help...I don’t believe it’s critical. The resources are available. They’re not concisely put together, but they’re available. The game will still, however, go on.

3) The resources that this game survives on is provided by volunteers, who do not have the bandwidth to deliver this faster. While preferences exist, man, they’re human and I’m hella surprised ARC hasn’t up and quit at times. I sure as heck wouldn’t have blamed any of them.

And I’m gonna leave it at that. If you want to vent at me, send me a PM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top