Should Flurry be a national rule or a local rule?

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


  • Total voters
    92

Alavatar

Baron
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 :)

Just because you can have an LCO rule should not be taken as an assumption that it is good for the National game. For instance, Seattle used to have LCO Sea/Ocean Elves as a PC Race. That was stopped to maintain the integrity of being able to transfer character cards without problems. The Flurry rule, in my opinion, should either be (a) adopted by the ARB and applied across the board, (b) adopted by the ARB as a codified Alternate Rule that chapters can choose to utilize, or (c) not allowed at all. I am of that opinion because, by my perception, an LCO Flurry rule is on par with an LCO Incantation Rule that adds on additional words or else the incant is flubbed, or that adds on to the machine-gun rule requiring an LCO "Must attack alternating opposites sides of your opponent unless you pause for 1 second".

Our "Must incant loud enough to be heard from 10 feet away" is something that, in my opinion, should be Nationally codified. It was implemented to prevent cheating as a clarification that "magic effects are IG visible"; so I don't really look at it as an LCO rule, but instead a clarification on how to implement a mechanic that is ill-defined in the ARB.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Marshal
I think chapters should have the ability to play the game how they want.

That said, the more variations in the rules that exist from chapter to chapter the harder it is for people to travel. It makes our "alliance" more into a set of distinct islands rather than a national tapestry.
 

Kasuni

Squire
Just because you can have an LCO rule should not be taken as an assumption that it is good for the National game. For instance, Seattle used to have LCO Sea/Ocean Elves as a PC Race. That was stopped to maintain the integrity of being able to transfer character cards without problems. The Flurry rule, in my opinion, should either be (a) adopted by the ARB and applied across the board, (b) adopted by the ARB as a codified Alternate Rule that chapters can choose to utilize, or (c) not allowed at all. I am of that opinion because, by my perception, an LCO Flurry rule is on par with an LCO Incantation Rule that adds on additional words or else the incant is flubbed, or that adds on to the machine-gun rule requiring an LCO "Must attack alternating opposites sides of your opponent unless you pause for 1 second".

Our "Must incant loud enough to be heard from 10 feet away" is something that, in my opinion, should be Nationally codified. It was implemented to prevent cheating as a clarification that "magic effects are IG visible"; so I don't really look at it as an LCO rule, but instead a clarification on how to implement a mechanic that is ill-defined in the ARB.

That's super fair. For me, I prefer no flurry. But I prefer chapter-specific choice to implementing flurry.

My hierarchy:

1) No flurry
2) Flurry is an LCO Option
3) Flurry
 

Draven

Count
Just because you can have an LCO rule should not be taken as an assumption that it is good for the National game. For instance, Seattle used to have LCO Sea/Ocean Elves as a PC Race. That was stopped to maintain the integrity of being able to transfer character cards without problems. The Flurry rule, in my opinion, should either be (a) adopted by the ARB and applied across the board, (b) adopted by the ARB as a codified Alternate Rule that chapters can choose to utilize, or (c) not allowed at all. I am of that opinion because, by my perception, an LCO Flurry rule is on par with an LCO Incantation Rule that adds on additional words or else the incant is flubbed, or that adds on to the machine-gun rule requiring an LCO "Must attack alternating opposites sides of your opponent unless you pause for 1 second".

Our "Must incant loud enough to be heard from 10 feet away" is something that, in my opinion, should be Nationally codified. It was implemented to prevent cheating as a clarification that "magic effects are IG visible"; so I don't really look at it as an LCO rule, but instead a clarification on how to implement a mechanic that is ill-defined in the ARB.

Like any approach to home rules, the presence of home rules may not be good for the game, but they may not be bad for them, either. LCO rules are just home rules; they exist to improve the experience for their intended audience.

I reject the notion that simply because a rule is LCO, it is inherently a poorer rule.
 

Alavatar

Baron
I reject the notion that simply because a rule is LCO, it is inherently a poorer rule.
If that was the implication you thought I was making then perhaps I worded it incorrectly. I was merely stating that the potential for an LCO thing to exist should not correlate to an assumption that the LCO thing is good for the game at a National level, whether it is used locally or globally.

LCO rules can be good. I have opinions on when that is or is not the case. I did not mean to imply my opinion is that LCO rules are inherently poor.
 
Another question pops up as old habits die hard.

National implementation: It takes everyone a few events to get used to it. Eventually most people can implement the flurry rule and have fun with it. But there are some folk who just can't seem to shake the old ways. What do we do about those that struggle, or outright refuse at times, to follow the flurry rule?

LCO-implementation: My chapter decides NOT to have the flurry rule be a thing. I play there MOST of my events. I go to a chapter that does implement it and now struggle super hard to keep to it. What will this chapter do with me?

LCO-implementation 2: My home chapter rule is defined as 5 and out. A different chapter is 3 and out. I go and play the way I'm most used to because habits are a thing. This could definitely lead to some confusion and frustration.

LCO-implementation 3: We've got the national event! And we're all there! And all fighting by different LCO flurry rules because that's what we are used to. Do we use the hosting chapter's LCO rule? Or none at all since this isn't an LCO event?

Those are all questions for another thread but relevant food for thought.

There are lots of folks who will change the way they play because of Flurry, whether it be implemented nationally or LCO. There will be plenty of folk who will stop playing entirely, sure. Can't make everyone happy. I enjoy it more when things are codified at a higher level. Others would prefer some more freedom to choose in their own chapter.

My standings are National, then LCO, then not at all.

I am absolutely 100% a stick jock. I love fighting, fast and furious. I didn't mind being being a big bad who would fight the entire town at once. I'll still be playing even with a 3 or 5 hit and reset.
 

Draven

Count
@RuffianDragon,

To my knowledge, National events cannot use LCO rules (I admit I could be wrong on this).

If I'm correct in this, I, for one, won't participate in events (or chapters) where this rule exists. I have no interest in adjusting how I have fun for the sake of playing a game. I don't reinvent games that I dislike in order to make them fun for me; I play games that are already fun for me.

Some people who absolutely abhor Flurry will simply leave Alliance. Those people matter, and the message that this change would send them is that their patronage to the game -doesn't-.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Marshal
I think it's really important to not fundamentally change the nature of Alliance in the rules rewrite unless players and owners universally agree a part of the game is broken. In my mind there are only two areas where this is true:

Magic Item Bloat

Crafting

Fighting style and a shift to theatrical combat from sport combat is not one of them and I think it betrays a lot of players vision for the game and main source of fun to do that.
 

Avaran

Baron
I think it's really important to not fundamentally change the nature of Alliance in the rules rewrite unless players and owners universally agree a part of the game is broken. In my mind there are only two areas where this is true:

Magic Item Bloat

Crafting

Fighting style and a shift to theatrical combat from sport combat is not one of them and I think it betrays a lot of players vision for the game and main source of fun to do that.

QFT

Because simply hitting "Like" isn't enough.

I think it's pretty obvious that there is NOT a universal agreement on the combat system being broken and in need of the Flurry change. Far from it.

Some people who absolutely abhor Flurry will simply leave Alliance.

As a simple statement of fact, I will likely be one of those people when/if 2.0 hits, especially if it stays as-is.
 

PirateFox

Scholar
Wyoming GM
@RuffianDragon

Just to point out, the regional event was not in a chapter with Flurry rules, but some marshals were still calling it as though Flurry was a national rule. I'm fairly certain that wasn't regional policy, but it is what happened, and Flurry isn't even national rules at this time. Whether they're LCO rules or national rules, people drag their baggage with them from home. This is part of why I don't want to see this flurry rule go anywhere but the recycle bin...it is badly written in its current form and I've seen it used for nothing other than punishing players who use/like sport combat. If totally rewritten with an eye to improving the game instead of abolishing sport combat, maybe. As is, this pushes for a playstyle that many of the chapters have little interest in.
 

Draven

Count
@RuffianDragon

Just to point out, the regional event was not in a chapter with Flurry rules, but some marshals were still calling it as though Flurry was a national rule.

That's really weird. The only active Marshals at the regional event were Seattle/Oregon Marshals, and we weren't given any such direction. I hope feedback was provided.
 

PirateFox

Scholar
Wyoming GM
That's really weird. The only active Marshals at the regional event were Seattle/Oregon Marshals, and we weren't given any such direction. I hope feedback was provided.

I can assure you it wasn't a Seattle/Oregon marshal. Yes, feedback was provided. :)
 

IMoriarty

Newbie
Marshal
That reminds me - what was with the random 2.0 bleed into Big West about 2/3's through the event?
 

Kasuni

Squire
That reminds me - what was with the random 2.0 bleed into Big West about 2/3's through the event?

For what it's worth, the Flurry incident is the only thing I heard about, and the Flurry rule was *not* in place for Big West, so that was an error. There were not officially any 2.0 rules pulled in.
 

IMoriarty

Newbie
Marshal
Oh, because there was a span of time there a lot of effects and defenses were called that I only recognized from the playtest. I assumed I'd miss some sort of announcement.
 

Kasuni

Squire
Oh, because there was a span of time there a lot of effects and defenses were called that I only recognized from the playtest. I assumed I'd miss some sort of announcement.

Looking into it now, but it sounds like the <Type> Guard ability from the ARB was used (p.73) and Denver maybe just hasn't seen that on monster cards yet :)

Not a 2.0 thing, just a somewhat infrequently used Monster Ability from the current rules set!

(Sorry, I pulled things off topic! Back to Flurry!)
 
Some people who absolutely abhor Flurry will simply leave Alliance. Those people matter, and the message that this change would send them is that their patronage to the game -doesn't-.

As a simple statement of fact, I will likely be one of those people when/if 2.0 hits, especially if it stays as-is.

What it comes down to is I guess, what is good for the many vs what is good for the few or the one.

Is this a change (both Flurry and the 2.0 as a whole) that the Alliance needs to stay viable in the ever changing American LARP community? Probably yes, we do run on an older system and it's not the greatest but hey, times change.

I don't feel like this Flurry rule is moving towards a more theatrical style of combat. A bit slower, yes, but slowing down calls and combat to provide less holds and confusion is something I am all about. I think that intense combat will continue to be a thing.

I'm not here to change hearts and minds about the rules change. I very likely can't and I don't have the heart to do so. I am going to push for the things that I think will make Alliance a better game and try to provide evidence from my experiences as a game designer, a former staff member and a player.
 
Top