I really don't have a problem with that and I apologise for sounding harsh.  I'm personally looking forward to playing a (pillowstuffed) fat merchant some time who's response to danger is to waddle away in alarm.  

Fine, works well for me as a veteran, this connection is being useless, so I won't dig out the part where specialist fighters are supposed to be a "credible" threat to non-specialist fighters.  Currently they're not, but that's ok.  You're happy with it.  If you weren't happy with it, I might want to help and do something about it.  I'm not posting to take the piss, I'm posting to _help_.  The issue I thought there was has vanished.

Which is where the problem is for me.  I don't know you, but presumably you'd be happy to take my money for this fest?  Or if not me, someone like me who hadn't been writing stuff on a forum.  :-9  So, if you want me to come and share your vision and not "take the piss" then you need to let me know where I stand.

Skills I won't be picking: one's that need a ref.  Why?  Because it spoils my game having to find some berk in a dayglo tabard when I want to do something.  I just want to get on, roleplay, have fun and interact with PC's not people who "aren't really there".

But fine.    You want to do all your work at the event and have people go with the same old bitter and acrimonious whinging that's fine.   Currently, you're giving me the _strong_ impression that if I'm not your mate then I'd better not need a ref.  That's fine for small invite only games where you have ref support right next to you all the time, but for a fest then you sound like you're setting up to abuse your customers for "taking the piss".

I guess it depends.  Were you looking to run a piss up in a field with a bit of a mosh, or did you want your players to do things on their own?  I don't really want my hand held if it's all the same with you, ta.

i CAN, I JUST DONT QUITE AGREE WITH YOU

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.

NO, THEY SHOULD ROLEPLAY HOW GOOD THEY FEEL THEY SHOULD BE

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

ITS NOT DEVALUING, ITS GIVING HER THE ABILITY TO ADD TO HER SOFT SKILLS NOT TAKE AWAY FROM OTHER PEOPLES HARD SKILLS UNLESS THEY WANT TO ROLEPLAY IT THAT WAY

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. 

I CAN DO THE MATHS BUT DISAGREE ITS THAT COMPLICATED, I USED TO DO IT ALL THE TIME, IF IT HITS SOME ARMOUR, THE ARMOUR PROTECTS YOU, FORGET WHAT HITS UR ARMOUR IS ON, ROLEPLAY, ARMOUR REPAIR WILL BE EASY AFTER EACH FIGGHT SO YOU ONLY HAVE TO REMEMBR NUMBERS FOR A FEW MINS AT A TIME

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?[/quote]

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)

Fine, works well for me as a veteran, this connection is being useless, so I won't dig out the part where specialist fighters are supposed to be a "credible" threat to non-specialist fighters.  Currently they're not, but that's ok.  You're happy with it.  If you weren't happy with it, I might want to help and do something about it.  I'm not posting to take the piss, I'm posting to _help_.  The issue I thought there was has vanished.

I KNOW UR TRYING TO HELP, BUT THIS IS A 2 WAY DISCUSSION, I SEE THAT GIVING A SPECILISIT FIGHTER THROUGH, SO WHEN THEY GET THEIR HITS IN MENAS THEY ARE DOING DAMMAGE IS A GOOD BALLANCE, TO AID TO THEIR HARD SKILLS, AND GIVING THEM DISARM MEANS THEY ONLY HAVE TO PARRY AND CONCENTRATE ON DEFENCE FOR 10 S TO COMPLETLY TURN ARROUND A FIGHT ITS A MASSIVE WAY TO MAKE THEM CREDABAL, SURE THEY WONT BE ABLE TO TAKE ON THE BEST VETS, BUT THE VET WILL STILL NEED TO BE VERY AGRESSIVE TO WIN A FIGHT IN THE IST 10 SECS, SOMTHING THAT AS A NON SPECILIST FIGHTER (ESPACILY A 20 YR VET) SHOULD HEZATATE ABOUT ROLEPLAYING

CRUSH IM STILL THINNING ABOUT

BUT YEY I SEE YOUR POINT THAT HARD SKILL MAY SEAM TO SOME AS DEVALUING SOFT SKILLS, BUT I SEE THE SOFT SKILLS AS PURELY AN ADDITION TO THE HARD

Which is where the problem is for me.  I don't know you, but presumably you'd be happy to take my money for this fest?  Or if not me, someone like me who hadn't been writing stuff on a forum.  :-9  So, if you want me to come and share your vision and not "take the piss" then you need to let me know where I stand.

THATS WHY WE ARE HAVING ALL THE WAH HERE, SO WE CAN TRY AND FIND THE BEST WAY TO IMPART OUR VISION, I APREICATE THAT YOU WONT LIKE ALL OF OUT DECISIONS, JUST AS WE WONT LIKE ALL YOUR SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE ARE ALL JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE GAME WE FEEL IS BEST FOR US ALL

Skills I won't be picking: one's that need a ref.  Why?  Because it spoils my game having to find some berk in a dayglo tabard when I want to do something.  I just want to get on, roleplay, have fun and interact with PC's not people who "aren't really there".

I AGREE, AND WHEN I GET THRO TO BITCHING ABOUT THEM I WILL

But fine.    You want to do all your work at the event and have people go with the same old bitter and acrimonious whinging that's fine.   Currently, you're giving me the _strong_ impression that if I'm not your mate then I'd better not need a ref.  That's fine for small invite only games where you have ref support right next to you all the time, but for a fest then you sound like you're setting up to abuse your customers for "taking the piss".

I guess it depends.  Were you looking to run a piss up in a field with a bit of a mosh, or did you want your players to do things on their own?  I don't really want my hand held if it's all the same with you, ta.[/quote]

WE WANT YOU TO DO THINGS ON YOUR OWN, BUT WE WNAT TO BE IN A POSITION TO SUPPORT SOME THINGS THAT NEED REFS SO WE CAN PUT FORWARD A BIT OF OUR  VISION OF A FGANTASY GAME, SOME OF THESE THING NEED REFS UNTILL WE CAN WORK OUT A WAY OR WORKING IT

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)

coffmeister (5/23/2007)

---

But fine.    You want to do all your work at the event and have people go with the same old bitter and acrimonious whinging that's fine.   Currently, you're giving me the _strong_ impression that if I'm not your mate then I'd better not need a ref.  That's fine for small invite only games where you have ref support right next to you all the time, but for a fest then you sound like you're setting up to abuse your customers for "taking the piss".

I guess it depends.  Were you looking to run a piss up in a field with a bit of a mosh, or did you want your players to do things on their own?  I don't really want my hand held if it's all the same with you, ta.

erm - sorry but I'm with you and grateful for the critique up until you make statements like that.

Lets go through that one bit at a time and see if we can get something constructive out of it:

No, hence why we're putting this stuff up for discussion now - so we can try and get some pointers to areas we might not have thought of. Its not really to write rules by democracy but really to find the areas you think might not work and to understand where there might be confusion.

Obviously we're not looking to run "a piss up in a field with a bit of a mosh" - I think thats a little facetious to ask if we are, considering what we've discussed so far about the various aspects of the intended game. I don't follow that not agreeing with you on certain issues means that we don't "want players to do things on their own". Of course we do. The game is set up with that in mind. There are a few areas where we will need to include refs for games mechanics but I think the solutions we have are preferable, at least in my eyes, to those currently used in other games. Nobody intends to hold your hand - and again I'm struggling to see why you think we would want that.

Seriously - we're grateful for your input so far as it helps point out things but you do have a tendency to resort to hyperbole and thinly veiled insults when people disagree with you. Can we just stick to discussing the pro's and con's of the rules so we can try and design the best rules system its within our power to do.

Crazy like Croolis-Ulv!

If my paraphrase of your words is correct, then I agree and feel that would be an important and necessary addition to the rule book.  Possibly some sort of little side text box?

OK, seems fair.  I'm happier about game balance but feel that asking people to roleplay will get you only so far, I personally feel (to borrow from D&D) a dex fighter would be in keeping with the look and feel of the system. 

Fighting style you want to see is going to be partly an artefact of your "culture" i.e. the values you publically espouse in your rule book and partly an artefact of your rules.  I'd love the two to be complimentary rather than opposing.  Since you've clarified Andy's earlier comments than I can see where you're coming from.  I still think that no 50% armour rule is messing it up a bit because that promotes skilled targetted fighting.  Or "tappy shit" as it's frequently referered to.  I'd be _personally_ happier with global hits but that doesn't work with "crush" unfortunately (although see Eos LRP where crush breaks _armour_ not body.)

Why?  Easier for noobs to keep track of, doesn't encourage tappy doom, doesn't encourage head hits (heads being a) the most lethal and b) the most frequently unarmoured locations).  Disadvantages, could make your game _significantly_ more deadly.  Which could discourage PvP conflict (as happens in Maelstrom).

19 variables is a lot to remember, and I agree totally, can be learnt through practice.  However, it also seems _designed_ to drive away women who personally add a lot to my game. 

Coll.  I don't appreciate the personal attack on me (i.e. that you feel I'm trolling to cause trouble) and rather think you've missed some points.  1) I like to make things simpler.  If you read my posts you'll see that I'm in favour of simplifying things wherever possible ESPECIALLy in fights because that's where complication is least needed.

I agree that it has fantastic potential, that's why I'm talking about it.  I also agree that complexity in a fest is Bad (TM).

*edited to remove irrelevant to thread comments and questions*

The armour repair rules look effective and fun at the moment.  I'm reserving judgement until I hear whether armour repair works on a "global" (i.e. 1 min/hit all locs say) (good) or "locational" (i.e. 1 min/hit/loc say) (bad) basis.  I don't want to be messing round with armour when I could be beating monsters (or other players ). 

I agree wholeheartedly.  Once there in the public domain we can suggest simplifications to:

1) Cut down on the things that players need to remember, thus avoiding "lag" and needing a ref for obvious physical effects

and

2) Make sense of the relative values and waitings of the other skills.   Are you seeing a trend in simplification here?

Shelford

I like this one, a bit like the rules in PD (where dying means incoherent and immobile, but not unconscious). 

You are of course completely correct in what you say and I apologise unreservedly.  It's not my intention to use insults, thinly veiled or otherwise, and I apologise for any offence that I've caused as a result.  It's completely my fault for forgetting the first rule of reading a forum which is to stay dispassionate.  I was becoming heated because of my frustration to communicate my ideas in an effective and clear fashion.

I admire the innovation and daring of what you're attempting to do and am doing my best to support it as devil's advocate, rules lawyer whatever.  I draw comparisons to other games, not to belittle your work, which I think is good, but to show where others have encountered problems and sometimes resolved them.  I'd much rather you took what worked for the basics and used it rather than reinventing the wheel each and every time. 

This is purely selfish of me because I'd rather you get on with innovative and exciting FOIP things for me to play with, rather than be bogged down at events of "He said he crushed my shield, what happens?  Is it broken or what?" and then I can get on with my role playing and causing IC trouble.