Sorry, my bad, I thought it might have been squirreled away in there.  Since this system seems to currently be saying, "bring a shield" I think that would balance it a bit.   Essentially if there's a way round shields the reach of long weapons is really good.  When you have no way round shields, as at present, then they become significantly more poo.  Oooh... that's a point, will stab safe spears be allowed?   

I was rather hoping someone else would have a look at unarmed combat as I didn't want to open yon can of worms.  I remember Grand Design decided to bring in forearm blocks which seemed to be ok at that open fest system.  I'd agree that grapple could, in the wrong hands, lay you open to charges of common assault or some such.  (Not a *real* lawyer, so dunno.  ;-))

Possibly: Level1 gives you "strength" which allows carrying of unresisting targets i.e. you say, strength, you have to get up and come with me? Possible restraint of others by placing your hand on their shoulder and saying "strength"   Very useful for your apothecary on the move.  Level 2 gives you forearm block say?

Hmm... that could be a good level 3 skill.  "Bouncer" ;-)  Possibly with a low level fear effect?    (Aside: does anyone else miss wh40k 2nd ed psychology rules including fear and terror?  Paralysing terror anyone?  ) 

edited to include

Oh yeah, you could carry seven swords to overcome shatter effects but people would point and laugh.

I don't recall anyone ever laughing at Taecyn.  Possibly because a magic missile in the face often offends and possibly because it wasn't obvious that he was, some of them _were_ short swords.

we will have stab safe spears permitted and shields are good by design in the rules

grapple/throw is essentially phys repped by the victim - entails nothing more than laying a hand on them (more if by mutual consent). Whilst I'm all for going back to a more "hardcore" style of LRP this is not represented in this rule which is essentially touch and make a call of "grapple" or "throw" as appropriate. Note you must previously grapple someone to be able to throw them (this will be reflected in version 1.01)

re armour -  we'll put this in the rules but when we've got closer to concensus on it within our team. We're close now so I might just type it up. Re your example it looks like you're deliberately trying to complicate whats really not that hard to understand. The system is as complicated as you want it to be. If you wear a full set of medium armour then it gives you 3 hits per. If you want to reduce this for style reasons (or to save cash!) then you can armour only some locations and just take the hit minus armour if you get hit there. We haven't really considered mixing and matching - eg heavy armour on torso, medium on arms and nothing on legs - but if players choose to do that then personally I don't really care. They're not retards, they can count to 10 or even beyond sometimes.

As stated you have ONE torso location - the locations are: head, left and right arms, left and right legs, torso. No need to complicate it further - if you get hit with crush anywhere on the torso then your armour is destroyed.

I'm still not seeing a problem with warrior skills or the noob example we've given. We've made some steps towards alleviating it but don't claim to solve the problem. At the end of the day this is LIVE roleplay. If you're playing a warrior you're going to have to learn how to fight.

Please discuss more so my poor addled brain can understand.

Crazy like Croolis-Ulv!

The just roleplay mechanic should be prevalant throughout

www.mandalastudios.co.uk www.kangena.co.uk

RL - Mark (Coventry)
CP - Urtsi (Ael) [Ex Head Weapons Checker/ Ref]
Mandala - Wookie (Ref/ Props)
PD - Wookie (Ref)
GF - Organiser
Dark Secrets - Philip Stanley (Tech Assistant)

Hmm... So blacksmith's can't fight? Must explain why Conan's dad went down in the films, nothing to do with the horses, he was just roleplaying.

Marvellous idea, love it. Except, what if the crafter has weapon use, as discussed in previous posts, or they're a ranger with lots of rangery skills like, ooh, track and rope use, pehaps rangers don't know how to fight either?

I'd love it if thorough roleplay was the whole of the answer, but if it was, well, wouldn't need rules would we?

Armour.  Bah. Why can't you work this out for yourself? OK

Through: soft skill represents finding chinks in enemy armour.  To allow warriors who aren't that good to represent "credible threats".

"No 50%": a hard skill now allows you to erm... find chinks in enemy armour. 

So, roleplay a ranger, used to fighting bandits etc. should suddenly lose their _OOC_ ability to go for unarmoured locations?  Feh, we might as well be playing paper scissors stone.

Fiona has brought a skill which you are devaluing.  Why are you doing that?

Right, let's get on to actual armour.  I oppose this "no 50% cover" because you're complicating things unnecessarily. 

Let me define "variables".  This is the amount of things you have to remember and change at one time, like say a phone number could be 0121 340 560, only 3 variables to remember.

Armour locations are MUCH harder to remember because these numbers change. 

I calculate that in a GLOBAL hits system with "through" you have 2 variables to think about. 

In a LOCATIONAL hit system WITH 50% armour AND "through" you have 12 variables.

In a LOCATIONAL hit system WITHOUT 50% armour AND "through" you have 19 variables to think about, assuming your armour is symmetrical.

Do you want me to work you an example?  It's a lot of effort on my part and you can do it yourself. 

Basically, it's a more crucial issue, do you want to:

a) encourage "tappy hand hit" fighting (doubtless with said taps being fully swung)?

or

b) encourage something else?

Marvellous idea, love it.    Except, what if the crafter has weapon use, as discussed in previous posts, or they're a ranger with lots of rangery skills like, ooh, track and rope use, pehaps rangers don't know how to fight either? 

[/quote]

Isnt that taking it all a little too far, Shelford was just saying roleplay, and i was agreeing, you know by letting people make informed judgements about how good they think their chracter could and  should be. You wnat to play a killer in the woods take woody type skills and ninja your heart out, you want to play passive tracker, take woody skills and delibratly dont fight well, same skill set diffrent chr. The skills should be ther to aid hard skills in combat not replace them,

if jilly the noob wants to be a ninja fighter, againts bob the 20 yr vet she better learn, or she will get her ass handed to her, you know what im happy with that, coz beyond a little helping nudge from a skill set, this is live roleplaying, and if we wanted fights to be purely based on chr stats alone we would be playing MET, which smells of wee

well we dont realy, its just people like them, and it helps everyone get some idea of with breaches rule 7 for any particular game, hell for some of the games i have run, we had in the front of the rulebook

" here are the rules, followthem, unless you are doing somthing better inwhich case do that instead"

know what it worked, but that was for a small invite only game so we could trust everyone to have the same vision, with this i like to think of the rules as a kinda vague systemised way of portraying a vision

www.mandalastudios.co.uk www.kangena.co.uk

RL - Mark (Coventry)
CP - Urtsi (Ael) [Ex Head Weapons Checker/ Ref]
Mandala - Wookie (Ref/ Props)
PD - Wookie (Ref)
GF - Organiser
Dark Secrets - Philip Stanley (Tech Assistant)