Should Flurry be a national rule or a local rule?

Should Flurry exist at the standardized level or the LCO level?


  • Total voters
    92

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
My feelings regarding Flurry is that, ultimately, it changes the feel and approach to combat significantly, to the point where individuals who do combat with a sport-esque enjoyment will find combat less satisfying and leave the game.

As a result, I feel that this is a rule that is best used at the local level, as some chapters have completely different kinds playerbases than others.

I can say, personally, that I would never attend a Nationals/Regional game where this rule is present.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
A agree Evan.

I'm just waiting for a chapter to run an alternate campaign with 2.0 rules. Might as well. As long as it follows alternate campaign rules for transferring.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
This seems a pretty telling poll so far.
 

MondayMcGee

Scholar
San Francisco Staff
I could actually see it working really well as a recommended alternate rule. We had a fight in the pouring rain at Big West, and one of the Calgary folks suggested we use Flurry for that fight and it worked great. Plot could choose to use it for a mod intended for a group of brand-new players, or maybe in fights against the Big Bad so the NPC doesn't get smothered. But it would be great to be able to go without Flurry for 1-on-1 duels between experienced fighters, or in a mod that requires lots of rogue backstabbing, etc.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I could actually see it working really well as a recommended alternate rule. We had a fight in the pouring rain at Big West, and one of the Calgary folks suggested we use Flurry for that fight and it worked great. Plot could choose to use it for a mod intended for a group of brand-new players, or maybe in fights against the Big Bad so the NPC doesn't get smothered. But it would be great to be able to go without Flurry for 1-on-1 duels between experienced fighters, or in a mod that requires lots of rogue backstabbing, etc.
That sounds like it would function better as an LCO rule, then, used when needed by the chapter. There's nothing inherently wrong with LCO rules. In fact, I think they're a great way to customize the experience for your local players based on existing circumstances (new player mod, treacherous weather, theatrical reasons). But standardizing it means just that; it becomes standard, rather than the exception.
 

MondayMcGee

Scholar
San Francisco Staff
But it could be nice to have the rule standardized, even if the choice of when and if to apply it is left to the chapter. Then everyone, including traveling players, would be up to speed when told that a chapter/campaign/event/mod or whatever is going to be using Flurry. Just a thought.
 

Muir

Fighter
No matter which way you dice it, flurry is going to be an LCO rule due to the variance in definition of what a 'reset' consists of. In exactly the same way as our present variance on what constitutes a 'swing', and which joint should be moving through the specified range of motion.

We don't have any national-level certification or training for marshals, after all, so it is inherently going to be what the Owner (or their designated Head of Rules) believes is appropriate to enforce.
 

Cedric

Rogue
Marshal
I'm not sure that's entirely true Muir. Dystopia Rising uses a flurry rule and it's pretty consistent from chapter to chapter (at least from the 4 chapters I've played at). It can be implemented more nationally and consistently. (not saying I agree flurry is a good or bad things, I'd like to know why it was implemented in the first place).
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
But it could be nice to have the rule standardized, even if the choice of when and if to apply it is left to the chapter. Then everyone, including traveling players, would be up to speed when told that a chapter/campaign/event/mod or whatever is going to be using Flurry. Just a thought.
It would be unprecedented for a "toggled" rule like this to exist nationally. Additionally, by your own example, it would be up to an individual chapter to decide when it would be used, in what circumstances, etc. As such, it should be up to each chapter whether to institute a Flurry rule, and how Flurry works in their chapter. As an example, some chapters might want a Flurry rule for Special Attacks only, or maybe they want Flurry 5 instead of Flurry 3. Maybe one chapter simply wants to use Flurry all the time, when another wants it never.

If every chapter has their own version of Flurry (or none at all), this isn't a bad thing at all. That means a chapter is taking consideration for what their local players want, -as it should-.

I'm not sure that's entirely true Muir. Dystopia Rising uses a flurry rule and it's pretty consistent from chapter to chapter (at least from the 4 chapters I've played at). It can be implemented more nationally and consistently. (not saying I agree flurry is a good or bad things, I'd like to know why it was implemented in the first place).
I can promise you that even if Flurry is implemented nationally, it wouldn't be consistent, because it simply wouldn't fly for some chapters to be forced to fight in a way that drives away players.
 

Avaran

Baron
I'm not sure that's entirely true Muir. Dystopia Rising uses a flurry rule and it's pretty consistent from chapter to chapter (at least from the 4 chapters I've played at). It can be implemented more nationally and consistently. (not saying I agree flurry is a good or bad things, I'd like to know why it was implemented in the first place).
I agree with Evan (quoted below) for the simple fact that this game started with no Flurry rule, and over time, people have gotten used to Fighting a certain way. I would hazard a guess that DR has their Flurry Rule from the start, meaning players just did it from the beginning. I'm sure they even had discussions about what it would look like and generally got the kinks worked out after a game or two.

I think there's too much history/established habits around this game to really come to any sort of consensus - even now, chapters/regions play the game very differently and have a different feel to them. Flurry is its own example: Some chapters use it and love it, other chapters are scratching their heads wondering why the hell we'd need such a silly rule.

I can promise you that even if Flurry is implemented nationally, it wouldn't be consistent, because it simply wouldn't fly for some chapters to be forced to fight in a way that drives away players.
 

Sspyndel

Newbie
3 and out or 5 and out, either one works. Here, we often find ourselves in treacherous terrain and pressing the fight hard against new players and old diehards causes injuries. Pouring rains make large portions of our event area muddy, slippery and I've had some epic tumbles myself. Neither can many of our players be the athletes we dream of being. Should we not have something to encourage a wider base? More townsfolk who can't or choose not to get in major battles? We still have a group we know from experience who like to go hard. Maybe instead of flurry, it should be indicated to go hard. Safety ascertained first, then decided on, rather than twisting an ankle then implementing flurry.
 

Sspyndel

Newbie
We've always had this way of agreeing to go hard or not, with every new battle.. situations change.
 

Cedric

Rogue
Marshal
Sspyndel - By widening our base, we also lower it. Again, I hate to go back to DR (which has flurry and a lightest touch combat system), but from personal experience, yes you do get more players to play that style of boffer larp, but you also lose a bunch of them for it being too tappy and because of the flurry rule. Also down this road is one where we downplay OOG combat skill and emphasize character sheet skill. Is that what we want?

Again, I really want to know, what is the flurry rule trying to solve? Safety? Being able to count your damage better? Balance?

Personally, in the Denver chapter I'm in the minority that would like to see some sort of flurry rule implemented so that it's easier for people to take effects and count damage. It will make me less effective as a player imo but it will help newer players out more. I don't feel like it's necessary for safety or balance.
 
Last edited:

Kasuni

Squire
3 and out or 5 and out, either one works. Here, we often find ourselves in treacherous terrain and pressing the fight hard against new players and old diehards causes injuries. Pouring rains make large portions of our event area muddy, slippery and I've had some epic tumbles myself. Neither can many of our players be the athletes we dream of being. Should we not have something to encourage a wider base? More townsfolk who can't or choose not to get in major battles? We still have a group we know from experience who like to go hard. Maybe instead of flurry, it should be indicated to go hard. Safety ascertained first, then decided on, rather than twisting an ankle then implementing flurry.
I think it just interrupts the flow of combat the way many players *do* like to experience it, and I wouldn't want to limit those players.

That said, a part of me does want a "go hard" rule. Because, for real, I wanna yell "LARP nerds go hard!!!" at some point.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
3 and out or 5 and out, either one works. Here, we often find ourselves in treacherous terrain and pressing the fight hard against new players and old diehards causes injuries. Pouring rains make large portions of our event area muddy, slippery and I've had some epic tumbles myself. Neither can many of our players be the athletes we dream of being. Should we not have something to encourage a wider base? More townsfolk who can't or choose not to get in major battles? We still have a group we know from experience who like to go hard. Maybe instead of flurry, it should be indicated to go hard. Safety ascertained first, then decided on, rather than twisting an ankle then implementing flurry.
Just to let you know that this thread is not directed as to whether Flurry is a positive or not. It's directed as to whether or not Flurry is better implemented at the chapter level or the national level.

If your chapter absolutely benefits from it, then they should use it (or a version of it that works for them). In fact, would you not agree that such a rule should be customized for your chapter, rather than having a national expectation?
 

Avaran

Baron
Here, we often find ourselves in treacherous terrain and pressing the fight hard against new players and old diehards causes injuries.
This is more about fighting safely and being safe. You should never press a fight against someone who is in, or about to be in, treacherous terrain. No! Bad Nerds! *squirt bottle*

What we do here when we find ourselves in Treacherous Terrain? Move the fight to an area where it isn't. We don't fight on the sides of steep hills, in thick bushes/undergrowth, among roots, or other physical hazards. If I see that someone I am fighting against is about to back into a tree branch, a ditch, a root, an ant hill, or other hazard, I stop fighting them, pull back, and warn them. We then move the fight to a different area, or we reorient ourselves so our backs are to open, safe ground. And then we continue.

The fact that you guys fight in Treacherous Terrain is the issue, imho. You shouldn't be doing that. If there is no safe ground at the site you play, perhaps your chapter should think about holding events at a different site.
 

Kasuni

Squire
Just to let you know that this thread is not directed as to whether Flurry is a positive or not. It's directed as to whether or not Flurry is better implemented at the chapter level or the national level.

If your chapter absolutely benefits from it, then they should use it (or a version of it that works for them). In fact, would you not agree that such a rule should be customized for your chapter, rather than having a national expectation?
I do think this is a good wrap-back to the original topic. And a good point.

For my part, based upon my own knowledge *and* feedback from my players, flurry is *not* right for Seattle. That said, it sounds like it is *super* right for Calgary. Other chapters have similar strong differences in opinion on it. For that reason, I would prefer that be a by-chapter decision.
 

Alavatar

Baron
The concept of LCO combat rules feels anathema to me. Sure, effects and such can easily be created for LCO behavior, but I feel there are core aspects of a National level game that should be the same across all chapters. To me, those core aspects are: Races, Classes, Skill, and Combat Engagements. There should not be LCO races, LCO classes, LCO skills (or LCO skill costs), nor do I believe there should be LCO rules on how to engage in combat (i.e. Flurry vs. No Flurry). If Flurry is not integrated into the ARB, then players should not be able to ignore attacks/effects that exceed whatever LCO Flurry limit is in place.

In my opinion, the only legitimate way to implement the option to have alternate Combat Engagement rules is to establish Alternate Rules. These rules would then be posted on the Chapter's website and announced before game-on. Kind of like the settings for a computer game, "Here we use the Flurry Rule, the Create Undead stops you Death Timer rule, and the Earth Scholar Healing/Chaos Wand Rule". If they are codified in the ARB then people can understand what "settings" are in place at that chapter rather than each chapter having their own page of alternate rules in place; that can potentially get cumbersome to a traveling player that has to learn all the different LCO rules and the nuances between chapters ... "There they use the Flurry 3, here is Flurry 5, and that other place Flurry 3 for melee and Flurry 2 for magic/alchemy".

However, implementing Alternate Rules is currently unprecedented in Alliance (even though many chapters have had LCO rules that alter existing rules or create new ones over the decades Alliance has been a thing). And Alternate Rules would be counter to the perceived target of the 2.0 rules to reduce complexity.
 

Kasuni

Squire
The concept of LCO combat rules feels anathema to me. Sure, effects and such can easily be created for LCO behavior, but I feel there are core aspects of a National level game that should be the same across all chapters. To me, those core aspects are: Races, Classes, Skill, and Combat Engagements. There should not be LCO races, LCO classes, LCO skills (or LCO skill costs), nor do I believe there should be LCO rules on how to engage in combat (i.e. Flurry vs. No Flurry). If Flurry is not integrated into the ARB, then players should not be able to ignore attacks/effects that exceed whatever LCO Flurry limit is in place.

In my opinion, the only legitimate way to implement the option to have alternate Combat Engagement rules is to establish Alternate Rules. These rules would then be posted on the Chapter's website and announced before game-on. Kind of like the settings for a computer game, "Here we use the Flurry Rule, the Create Undead stops you Death Timer rule, and the Earth Scholar Healing/Chaos Wand Rule". If they are codified in the ARB then people can understand what "settings" are in place at that chapter rather than each chapter having their own page of alternate rules in place; that can potentially get cumbersome to a traveling player that has to learn all the different LCO rules and the nuances between chapters ... "There they use the Flurry 3, here is Flurry 5, and that other place Flurry 3 for melee and Flurry 2 for magic/alchemy".

However, implementing Alternate Rules is currently unprecedented in Alliance (even though many chapters have had LCO rules that alter existing rules or create new ones over the decades Alliance has been a thing). And Alternate Rules would be counter to the perceived target of the 2.0 rules to reduce complexity.
I totally get that view too Seth, especially since part of the draw is that it is a national game. My thought it that the base ARB rule would be *no* flurry. However, chapters could have the option to have their own LCO rule that is like Flurry - just like Seattle has historically had some LCO rules (incants must be able to be heard from 10 feet away, etc). There is nothing stopping a chapter from adding Flurry as an LCO rule at this time - case and point, Calgary has already done so, and could continue to do so :)
 
Top