Should Flurry be a national rule or a local rule?

[Draven]

I don't feel like this Flurry rule is moving towards a more theatrical style of combat

An Owner has openly expressed that, not only does it do this, it's one of the reasons he enjoys it.

 

[RuffianDragon]

Then it's my definition of theatrical that disagrees with his.

Theatrical combat is something that's super European to do and basically has no calls and is all about flourishes and style. A slower system that still has combat calls doesn't equal theatrical for me.

 

[Ruki]

I also think the flurry 3 system will be good for newer/prospective players. Less intimidating! Which means new players for chapters!

 

[Draven]

Then it's my definition of theatrical that disagrees with his.

Theatrical combat is something that's super European to do and basically has no calls and is all about flourishes and style. A slower system that still has combat calls doesn't equal theatrical for me.

That's reasonable. His definition, however, does match how others in our area define theatrical combat, from what I've heard. It's probably an American thing.

 

[Draven]

I also think the flurry 3 system will be good for newer/prospective players. Less intimidating! Which means new players for chapters!

This may just be my area, but I've never had any new players call our combat system intimidating. "Complicated," sure. But not intimidating.

 

[Tevas]

This may just be my area, but I've never had any new players call our combat system intimidating. "Complicated," sure. But not intimidating.

My experience aligns with this entirely. I have never experienced new players calling the combat intimidating. What I find intimidates them is having to learn a 200 page rulebook that's overly complicated.

 

[Cedric]

For me but it's depending on what you mean by combat. Swinging boffers? No. Understanding and calling spells/defenses, yes, that's the biggest confusion that new players have in our chapter.

 

[Ruki]

For me but it's depending on what you mean by combat. Swinging boffers? No. Understanding and calling spells/defenses, yes, that's the biggest confusion that new players have in our chapter.

And slowing combat down a smidge (to call defenses or clarify) is a huge boon for those newbies.

 

[Cedric]

Ruki - Personally I don't disagree. I want to solve this problem badly. I've been tentatively been on the fence of flurry for a bit. My biggest issue with flurry is there have been no codified reasons of why it's being implemented. Safety? Making combat more theatrical? Slowing down combat?

With how our playtest in our chapter went with it, at this point I think it is causing more issues especially with our current playstyle we are all used to for not much gain. Flurry just isn't fun for me or a lot of the players I play with (this is with me using flurry in DR for the last 2 years). I'd rather see us really attack the problem of making our system simpler first if that's the problem we are trying to solve (which we should be trying to solve).

 

[Muir]

And slowing combat down a smidge (to call defenses or clarify) is a huge boon for those newbies.

I'd agree, and have been doing so for several years. I also think this is best solved by firmer marshalling of the machine gunning and combat verbal rules rather than Flurry, so YMMV.

 

[Avaran]

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.

Magic items, specifically Cloak and Bane items and Expanded Enchantment are the biggest culprits here in my estimation/opinion because they allow for things that wouldn't otherwise be possible. (To a lesser extend, higher body/armor effectively does this too, particularly if you have significantly more than your opponent is swinging. If I have 100 body and 60 armor and my opponent is swinging for 3 or 5, I'm going to mostly not care if I get hit, I'll just land my Slay/Stun Limb, or out-damage/skill them)


In my experience, when someone knows they have Cloaks/Banes and/or defenses afforded them via Expanded Enchantment (say, 2/day Magic Armor or 5/day Spell Shield, etc.), they play more aggressively, have the ability to dump more attacks into the target (both because they can defend easily, and because they can also have additional attacks via Spellstrikes/per-day Expanded Enchantment), which means more defenses have to be added (and called) by the NPC. Further, having "Return" mechanics like Bane further slow combat down because there *has* to be a specific exchange between attacker and defender - things have to stop in order to resolve a Bane/Riposte/Reflect Magic/Return mechanic.

What all of that adds up to is a whole lot of being able to gang up on an NPC, and it typically doesn't matter whether it is a BBG or smaller fry (it's mostly worst for normal monsters because they often don't have the HP/defenses to deal with the above anyway).

So just with the MI nerf/change you're inherently going to have fewer defenses to call, fewer overall attacks, and fewer resources across the board. I am very certain that these changes will inherently slow combat down in most circumstances; at the very least, it will highly probably make PC's significantly more cautious and less likely to just engage.

And again, if we teach people how to fight properly within the Alliance rules (45-90 degrees, etc.), marshal verbals and machine-gunning better, and teach a culture of being courteous to NPC's (don't attack if there are already 3 or 4 already attacking that lone Crunchy), I think it takes care of itself without the need to legislate via codified rules.

I also think that if there is less pressure to take-out something ASAP because otherwise DOOM ON YOUR LANDS! would help some too.

 

[Sspyndel]

Yes, adding in flurry 3 or flurry 5 is largely for safety. ( As a brand new NPC crowded by 6 or more experienced players, it IS also very intimidating ) I have over 10 years experience on the Health and Safety team where I used to work, and that included taking courses in Accident Investigation, First Aid, and Hazard Assessments, which aim to prevent injury accidents. I had to go over policies, and procedures with a fine tooth comb so to speak, to satisfy the Canadian government, and the insurance companies, that we were paying attention, and cutting back these incidents.
Basically, by implementing a simple step in the combat rules, the insurance companies will find it tougher to claim that its your fault, for having a rough hobby.. it's there, across the rules book, a safety measure aimed to prevent slip and fall, broken or twisted ankles. Then add in after the flurry rule, the exception: A Marshall, upon checking the existing conditions, may further request flurry 3, or viewing safety, clear for full combat... or to that basic effect. Or don't add the exception,that could be LCO. Simply having that, could save owners and players a lot of legal headache in the event of a painful mishap.

Yup, we could fire people for rushing through hallways too often. Slippery when wet. We posted signs and sent you a message. Canada has spent millions lately on accident prevention training.. the insurance companies demand it and the certification .

 

[Sspyndel]

And again, if we teach people how to fight properly within the Alliance rules (45-90 degrees, etc.), marshal verbals and machine-gunning better, and teach a culture of being courteous to NPC's (don't attack if there are already 3 or 4 already attacking that lone Crunchy)

This too! Yes!

 

[Cedric]

As players, we should really worry about the playability, enjoyment and partially the safety issues. If a change to the rules need to happen because of legal issues, that is a discussion that the owners and CEO should have separately and I don't expect the player base to have much impact on that. That also should be stated when talking about why certain rules are being implemented or not.

 

[Sspyndel]

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.

We do just that as well.. the site is pretty safe.. but conditions change. ( Rain, snow, ice ) Some newer players want to go all in and forget to halt, warn, and move.. we don't fight in thick bushes, or at the fire, or at the horseshoe pits either. I really feel, that in addition to the legal side, it adds to the culture of watching out for your friends.

 

[Avaran]

Basically, by implementing a simple step in the combat rules, the insurance companies will find it tougher to claim that its your fault, for having a rough hobby.. it's there, across the rules book, a safety measure aimed to prevent slip and fall, broken or twisted ankles.

The worst COMBAT injury I have seen in my 15ish years of playing has been a twisted ankle due to a random gopher hole in a field, which no amount of rules is going to protect against. There have been a couple of worse injuries that I know of (when I was head of plot at OR, we had a younger kid who wasn't in combat jump over a rail and break his collar bone, and then someone who impaled their leg on a rebar sticking out of a hole in the dark. I don't believe he was engaged in combat at the time).

Further, insurance for a Sport/Active hobby/organization is very different from the sorts of insurance you're talking about in the rest of your post. "Sport" insurance specifically meant to cover "sporting" injuries that come from playing a game. Further, players do sign a legal release.

 

[Tevas]

The Flurry rule continues to be presented as a safety rule, but appeaes to add no unique or meaningful changes that actually support player safety.

The Flurry rule can trigger for people who are simply standing in place, like a deadlocked line fight, a caster, or an archer. There is no pressure from advances in either direction. There is no contribution from this rule to improve these individuals' safety.

During a fight, if my opponent feels forced to fall back in order to prevent me from colliding with them, I have violated the Charging rule, a safety rule that already exists. Flurry does not contribute in any unique or meaningful fashion to further improve the safety of either individual beyond the scope of what Charging already entails.

Terrain is either safe to fight on, or it is not. Adding the Flurry rule does not make unsafe terrain suddenly safe. Conscientious player culture surrounding sportsmanship, safety, and combat courtesy already provides for the "protections" that Flurry may seemingly attempt to offer in these situations.

I would appreciate any clarifications on the specific safety issues that Flurry is advertised to resolve.

 

[Daimyo Shi]

Here is my take on this, Flurry is a make combat more level for everyone, so everyone can get a feel for it and be able to some what be able partispate. Those in general that argue against it are people that would lose and advantage from it. Flurry helps book keeping, especially for NPC, because speed of combat is reduced. Alliance is a LARP as such the intent isn't for perfect combat simulation, the skill level are going to be wide, trimming the advanage of the people with good combat skills from whatever sources is hardly going to do serious damage to their effectiveness or enjoyment in a rational sense. They can claim al they want that if affects their fun but that just them reading so much of their own belief into.

 

[Draven]

Here is my take on this, Flurry is a make combat more level for everyone, so everyone can get a feel for it and be able to some what be able partispate. Those in general that argue against it are people that would lose and advantage from it. Flurry helps book keeping, especially for NPC, because speed of combat is reduced. Alliance is a LARP as such the intent isn't for perfect combat simulation, the skill level are going to be wide, trimming the advanage of the people with good combat skills from whatever sources is hardly going to do serious damage to their effectiveness or enjoyment in a rational sense. They can claim al they want that if affects their fun but that just them reading so much of their own belief into.

I think that "those in general who argue against...." is an unfairly broad blanket statement. I am, at -best-, an average stick jock. I am, by no means, equivalent to many fighters in Seattle, and I'm against this.

I also feel it's unfair to judge people who state this will affect their level of fun as being unreasonable (to summarize your statement), as many of these fighters enjoy the speed of combat. For them, it's about reflexes and sport and skill.

 

[Sspyndel]

Flurry also has this way of making you more attentive to your surroundings.. from personal experience. Which is safer. I took a blow across the throat once, before flurry, on safe grounds, but as an NPC facing 5.. that could have been a lot worse, but thankfully they all pulled back and slowed themselves. Almost like we had flurry at that time, and no blows came near my head after that.