Should Flurry be a national rule or a local rule?

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


  • Total voters
    92

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Flurry provides no language supporting quarter for people struck in the head / face / neck / groin or having sustained any type of injury or disorientation, or who are in immanent physical danger. That is simply a function of responsible player culture.
 

Tayl

Newbie
Those in general that argue against it are people that would lose and advantage from it

I believe that the flurry rule does make combat more even by slowing down those that are more skilled at boffer combat. I think this is a bad change, since we should incentivize player skill. If a player is better than another at boffer combat, then that should be clear in the outcome.

To put this into perspective, I gain an advantage from the flurry rule since I do not use any weapons and am solely a spellcaster. I am not arguing against this for my sake, I believe that this change will make the game less fun for other players.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Marshal
If you strike someone in an area you aren't supposed to our local culture demands that you apologise and ask them if they are ok.

The flurry rule is totally unneeded to have that culture. If someone becomes injured as a result of combat the HOLD rule is in place. The flurry rule by itself does not even require the attackers stop attacking the injured person. This seems like a total non sequitur to me.
 
I believe that the flurry rule does make combat more even by slowing down those that are more skilled at boffer combat. I think this is a bad change, since we should incentivize player skill. If a player is better than another at boffer combat, then that should be clear in the outcome.

To put this into perspective, I gain an advantage from the flurry rule since I do not use any weapons and am solely a spellcaster. I am not arguing against this for my sake, I believe that this change will make the game less fun for other players.
If you believe that the flurry rule exists to punish skilled players and level the playing field, I believe you are mistaking the intent. One of the reasons the flurry rule is advantageous for a LARP with unrealistic combat using damage calls (such as Alliance) is that it allows players time to call their appropriate defenses and reactive abilities. If two combatants are swinging at each other at the same time, throwing out attacks whenever they can and never pausing to assess the fight, it becomes a chaotic jumble of "did I actually hit them, did they call a defense"?

If you are after a realistic combat style that rewards player fighting skill above all else, Alliance's combat system does not facilitate that at all. Flurry exists not to grind combat to an agonizing halt, but to alleviate the problems that arise when you have a system using damage calls and effect calls. If Alliance did not bother with damage and effect calls, and had a different combat system to accommodate, then I would not see a reason for the flurry rule.
 

MondayMcGee

Scholar
San Francisco Staff
Chiming in as another person who the flurry rule is apparently designed to help. I'm a new player (about a year) and could generously be called a mediocre boffer fighter. But I enjoy the physical challenge of fighting, and look forward to improving that skill on an OOG level. I think Flurry would take away a lot of that challenge.

As for Flurry's role in helping a new player to keep track of blows and call their defenses, I don't feel it's needed. In my experience players and staff were very courteous when I was starting out about not overwhelming me with blows faster than I could handle, as well as allowing me a moment where needed to remember what protectives applied to my situation, etc. (The mini-hold rule that our chapter uses was very helpful here.) And it took me just a few games to feel like I was more or less up to speed.
 

Ruki

Scholar
Chiming in as another person who the flurry rule is apparently designed to help. I'm a new player (about a year) and could generously be called a mediocre boffer fighter. But I enjoy the physical challenge of fighting, and look forward to improving that skill on an OOG level. I think Flurry would take away a lot of that challenge.

As for Flurry's role in helping a new player to keep track of blows and call their defenses, I don't feel it's needed. In my experience players and staff were very courteous when I was starting out about not overwhelming me with blows faster than I could handle, as well as allowing me a moment where needed to remember what protectives applied to my situation, etc. (The mini-hold rule that our chapter uses was very helpful here.) And it took me just a few games to feel like I was more or less up to speed.

Fighting with flurry is still plenty challenging, I can promise you that.
 
Chiming in as another person who the flurry rule is apparently designed to help. I'm a new player (about a year) and could generously be called a mediocre boffer fighter. But I enjoy the physical challenge of fighting, and look forward to improving that skill on an OOG level. I think Flurry would take away a lot of that challenge.

As for Flurry's role in helping a new player to keep track of blows and call their defenses, I don't feel it's needed. In my experience players and staff were very courteous when I was starting out about not overwhelming me with blows faster than I could handle, as well as allowing me a moment where needed to remember what protectives applied to my situation, etc. (The mini-hold rule that our chapter uses was very helpful here.) And it took me just a few games to feel like I was more or less up to speed.
It sounds like if you're getting the time to call your defenses and keep track of blows, you're already using the flurry rule, and just not calling it by that name. Flurry is just basic common courtesy when applied to combat, from my experience. I have heard stories from national-level events of players swinging so hard and fast that they're barely pronouncing their damage numbers and effects -- THAT is the behavior that flurry is meant to squash.
 

Tayl

Newbie
Winterborn, I understand the intent of the rule and I know it is attempting to alleviate the problems with being overwhelmed by multiple effects or characters at a time. I agree that this is a problem in alliance and should be solved.

Although the intent is not to slow down combat and level the skill differences, the flurry rule inadvertently does, and that will make the game less fun. I am not looking for realistic combat, I am looking for fun combat for everyone involved.
 

PirateFox

Scholar
Wyoming GM
We're now 4 pages into this thread, and I've seen the same points thrown into the mix over and over, without any progress made:
  1. Flurry is meant to slow down combat.
  2. Flurry is meant to give people time to call defenses.
  3. Flurry is meant to increase safety.
  4. Flurry is meant to help new players learn to fight.
  5. Flurry is required, because we said so (I hate putting it this way, but when people respond "you'll get used to it, it's fine" without explaining why we have to, this is really what they're saying).
What, really, is the goal here? I skimmed over the pages and pages of content, and the only ones arguing in favor of this are Calgary players...who've used it for years, from what we were told here. The rest of us have gone without it for much longer. Changing the entire game system to fit the views of one chapter seems very lopsided. If you enjoy having flurry, go ahead and keep LCOing it. I applaud you for improving your game as you see fit. Don't tell everyone else they HAVE to do something because one chapter likes it. This is definitely an "agree to disagree" topic, with one chapter very loudly pushing to change something most others don't think is broke (or shouldn't be fixed this way).
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Marshal
The Flurry rule as written does not do what you say it does.

1. It requires a pause and resetting of stance when no hits have landed and thus no defenses need to be called.

2. It does not require a pause when multiple players are attacking the same target.

3. It requires a pause when only damage has occurred and no pause is needed.

4. It requires a pause for melee after a number of swings insufficient to kill anything and does not require a pause for a caster after every attack (where defenses actually need to be called).

5. It does not require a pause when an illegal hit is taken, only based on number of swings.

6. It does not require a pause when an injury occurs, only based on number of swings.

7. It does not require a pause on terrain that is rough, only based on number of swings.

8. It does not allow Florentine users to get additional strikes in when attacking.

9. It does not distinguish between a blocked hit and an attack.


Even if written well, I don't support this rule, but as it is written it doesn't do most of the things supporters claim it does. I also question how much of this rule is fighting culture from a single chapter and how much of this is actually playing this rule as written.
 

Sspyndel

Newbie
For more realistic combat, may I suggest joining a Ludus, or other re-enactment group? For upping your own boffer skills, try a spar. Luckily, we have the newly formed Jade Cloud Dojo here, and while I haven't made it out much, it is an incredible boon. ( Thanks to our Marshals, and some of our famous long time heroes for stepping up, bringing this to our game!

edit. For some who have mentioned a wish to get better, faster, themselves... we have an in game bonus created to help us do just that, the Jade Cloud Dojo is Alliance, albeit LCO. It has been fantastic. Much love , much awesomeness.

For the request of a slight language change, I did in fact, use the suggested joining. :p easy to miss in the chaos.

I may have also mistaken some comments for realism as a wish for heavy combat, fast paced. Hence the suggestion not to leave, but also add in Ludus training..(a Gladiator school, for those without Latin )
 
Last edited:

Tayl

Newbie
I repeat; I am not looking for more realistic combat in alliance, I am looking for FUN combat, and this rule seems to take that away for quite a few players.
 

MondayMcGee

Scholar
San Francisco Staff
It sounds like if you're getting the time to call your defenses and keep track of blows, you're already using the flurry rule, and just not calling it by that name. Flurry is just basic common courtesy when applied to combat, from my experience. I have heard stories from national-level events of players swinging so hard and fast that they're barely pronouncing their damage numbers and effects -- THAT is the behavior that flurry is meant to squash.

Right, but the point I was trying to make is that I only needed that extra time for a few games. Now that I'm more familiar with the system, I can call my defenses more or less as quickly as I'm hit. If, in fact, the Flurry rule is meant to be a benefit to new players who need the extra time, my argument is that it's 1) already handled well by the sportsmanship/courtesy rules and 2) overkill to have a permanent change to the combat system to address a new-player issue that only persists for a few games.
 

Saephis

Squire
For more realistic combat, may I suggest joining a Ludus, or other re-enactment group? For upping your own boffer skills, try a spar. Luckily, we have the newly formed Jade Cloud Dojo here, and while I haven't made it out much, it is an incredible boon. ( Thanks to our Marshals, and some of our famous long time heroes for stepping up, bringing this to our game!

I'm not sure "If you don't like the proposed, currently LCO rule, go to another game" is the most helpful response.
 

Ruki

Scholar
We're now 4 pages into this thread, and I've seen the same points thrown into the mix over and over, without any progress made:
  1. Flurry is meant to slow down combat.
  2. Flurry is meant to give people time to call defenses.
  3. Flurry is meant to increase safety.
  4. Flurry is meant to help new players learn to fight.
  5. Flurry is required, because we said so (I hate putting it this way, but when people respond "you'll get used to it, it's fine" without explaining why we have to, this is really what they're saying).
What, really, is the goal here? I skimmed over the pages and pages of content, and the only ones arguing in favor of this are Calgary players...who've used it for years, from what we were told here. The rest of us have gone without it for much longer. Changing the entire game system to fit the views of one chapter seems very lopsided. If you enjoy having flurry, go ahead and keep LCOing it. I applaud you for improving your game as you see fit. Don't tell everyone else they HAVE to do something because one chapter likes it. This is definitely an "agree to disagree" topic, with one chapter very loudly pushing to change something most others don't think is broke (or shouldn't be fixed this way).


Except a majority of the owners would have to be in favor of it to even be in the playtest rules. Don't say it's Calgary trying to change the Alliance system, because that's just not true.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
For more realistic combat, may I suggest joining a Ludus, or other re-enactment group? For upping your own boffer skills, try a spar. Luckily, we have the newly formed Jade Cloud Dojo here, and while I haven't made it out much, it is an incredible boon. ( Thanks to our Marshals, and some of our famous long time heroes for stepping up, bringing this to our game!

The players objecting to Flurry seem to be voicing that they enjoy Alliance combat exactly as it is now. That's probably one of the reasons they started playing it. This post seems to sound like it's telling them to no longer play Alliance, and go play something else, so that this heavily contested rules proposal can be applied nationally?
 

Thorgrim

Artisan
We are not asking for combat that is realistic. We are asking to keep the combat system that many of us have been using for decades instead of changing to a new system that de-emphasizes boffer fighting skill just because math is hard.
 

PirateFox

Scholar
Wyoming GM
Except a majority of the owners would have to be in favor of it to even be in the playtest rules. Don't say it's Calgary trying to change the Alliance system, because that's just not true.

In here, it is true. Look over the 4 pages. It's all Calgary pushing for Flurry and telling us to just accept it. I don't know how owners are voting. I only know the demeaning and belittling way one chapter's players are treating others, which is what I object to. I honestly object more to the attitude than the flurry rule itself.
 

Sspyndel

Newbie
Wow, a suggestion for adding a spar to your experience is somehow telling you to leave?
 
Top