RE: Fortannis? Non-fortannis? Huh?

[jpariury]

Thank you for posting some clarification on what people were talking about. I was pretty confused.

It was our intention to go non-Fortannis exclusively when the opportunity was first given to us.
Why? And when you say "our", are you speaking for yourself in the royal "We", or was this a decision by the staff (listed here) as a whole?

This changed, as Mike V decided to hinge offering the new contracts to having Fortannis games. This introduced problems.
What does the contract offer that makes it so desirable? Did the existing contracts expire, or were they court-ordered as null and void?

Lastly, This isn't a NERO knock-off, it's using the Alliance rules with slight rules changes to allow more lattitude in plot. I do not intend to allow major rules changes, though it will allow us to test proposals for changes to Alliance rules as a whole (laminated tags, battle boards, new flat blade variants, etc.).
Isn't that pretty much the definition of "a NERO knock-off"?

There were comments about a "West Coast Campaign". Who all are included in that? Presumably, this is the "non-Fortannis" campaign, yes? Is it intended to have a central body of people determining rules and how the chapters interact (transfer policy, inter-chapter politics and plot, etc.?)

 

[Sarah]

From what I had heard, it was intended to have the three west coast chapters, Seattle, Oregon, and California as a campaign with governing bodies for the appropriate things (Rules, etc.) comprised of individuals in those chapters.

I know one of the things that was being looked foward to was not having some guy on a message board from the east coast telling us we're doing something wrong because that wasn't the intent, no matter what the rules may indicate (or not indicate).

It's unfortunate that Mike is having second thoughts.

 

[Alavatar]

Lastly, This isn't a NERO knock-off, it's using the Alliance rules with slight rules changes to allow more lattitude in plot. I do not intend to allow major rules changes, though it will allow us to test proposals for changes to Alliance rules as a whole (laminated tags, battle boards, new flat blade variants, etc.).
Isn't that pretty much the definition of "a NERO knock-off"?

I had/have the same thought. Especially since all of the logistics (coin, tags, blankets, items) will all be seperate and different from Fortannis.

There were comments about a "West Coast Campaign". Who all are included in that? Presumably, this is the "non-Fortannis" campaign, yes? Is it intended to have a central body of people determining rules and how the chapters interact (transfer policy, inter-chapter politics and plot, etc.?)

From what I gathered: Seattle, Oregon, and California were all planned to be part of this "West Coast Campaign". Oregon is still not sure whether or not they want to be a part of it. (I hope they stay Fortannis since most people play different characters there anyway, but that's just a personal opinion)

The idea was that WCC would have their own ARC, would not allow WCC characters to transfer to Fortannis, would allow characters from other non-Fortannis campaigns that have a Transfer Agreement, and potentially experiment with different rules (which I look at as "House Rules").

 

[Seattle_Dave]

JP -
1. Yes, this was "our" as from the last staff meeting held.

2. I view a NERO knock-off as having far more sweeping changes. Legacies is a NERO knock-off. SOLAR is a NERO knock-off. They have rules systems which diverged very widely from the base NERO rule set. I do not intend for that wide a divergance to happen. I fully intend and desire that each Alliance Seattle campaign would still be recognizable as an Alliance game, simply in a world which allows for more plot diversity than the current rule set will allow.

3. The contracts were expiring, yes. As far as court ordered, I do not know for certain. There are certainly rumors that this is true. In order to be able to use the rule set in the fashion we have been and will continue to do so, we have to have a contract with Mike.

4. The West Coast Campaign was originally hoped to be Oregon, San Francisco and Seattle. As it stands, Oregon has stated an intention of remaining Fortannis While San Francisco and Seattle have agreed in principle to being in the WCC. It is our hope that other chapters will also join in on this campaign. Our plan was to have a rules commitee, logistics comittee, etc., for the campaign to be able to maintain and assure a high level of campaign standards.

 

[jpariury]

2. I view a NERO knock-off as having far more sweeping changes. Legacies is a NERO knock-off. SOLAR is a NERO knock-off. They have rules systems which diverged very widely from the base NERO rule set. I do not intend for that wide a divergance to happen. I fully intend and desire that each Alliance Seattle campaign would still be recognizable as an Alliance game, simply in a world which allows for more plot diversity than the current rule set will allow.
Without seeing what you intend by that, I'll wait and see. If it were as simple "NERO with deities", that's one thing, but if it's "NERO with a half dozen new skills, and deities, and oh, we also are testing out these new rituals, and maybe improving the treasure policy, and logistics will be different", I think it very much becomes a NERO knock-off.

3. The contracts were expiring, yes.
That part is weird, given that, for instance, SanFran only just got their contract. It seems odd that they would have signed up for a contract set to expire so soon (not that you're privy to their contract, but the blanket statement of all chapters' contracts approaching some expiration date doesn't seem to jibe with my own limited observations).

In order to be able to use the rule set in the fashion we have been and will continue to do so, we have to have a contract with Mike.
I'm not entirely clear on that. For instance, I can hold a Monopoly tournament and charge an entry fee without having to pay a licensing fee to Parker Bros.

The West Coast Campaign was originally hoped to be Oregon, San Francisco and Seattle. As it stands, Oregon has stated an intention of remaining Fortannis While San Francisco and Seattle have agreed in principle to being in the WCC.
Gotcha, thank you for clearing that up.

Thanks again for coming forth with the 411.

 

[Sarah]

SanFran indeed sign a short-term contract (I happened to be down there at the time they got the go-ahead). There reasoning was "we don't care, we want to start running our game."

 

[meltedwing]

JP brings up a good point. Why do we have to sign a contract with Mike V in order to run larping events that use the alliance rules system that are not within the fortannis campaign? Everything I've seen over the last ten years points to the reality that we don't. If we are going to be moving to a primarily non-fortannis game, then why not have the non-fortannis games be completely unaffiliated with the Alliance?

This is as much a question as it is a suggestion.

 

[krieger]

I can't friggin' wait, not to sound overly bitter or anything, but I remember when peeps down in cali came up with dragon magic, and it was swiped, shelved, and npc'd, and I remember as I'm sure some of you of the old school do some of the other jackassery that has transpired. Nero is a great system because it allows people from all over, to go to other games, and enjoy them nationwide ... woo...

That being said I hunger for a game that is not made for the lowest common denominator, that has some rules that make sense and allows for plot more advanced than a 152 page teenage horror novel.
I just think this is a golden opportunity to take our game to the next level, a level that we've wanted but never really went after hardcore, and should not be passed up.

 

[Shikar al'Basteua]

If we are going to be moving to a primarily non-fortannis game, then why not have the non-fortannis games be completely unaffiliated with the Alliance?

This is as much a question as it is a suggestion.

If it would prevent local players from buying XP from other chapters (and, preferably, our own since this would take away the stated intent for the policy's existence) I would be all for it.