|
|
|
Squire
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:27 PM
Posts: 30,
Visits: 154
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 28, 2008 2:15 AM
Posts: 232,
Visits: 616
|
|
Ryan Paddy (7/24/2006)This discussion is just pushing me ever further into the position that all in-game armour repair is rubbish if you want a WYSIWYG larp, in the same way that flight abilities are rubbish. Non-damagable armour rules are looking increasingly preferable to me, for the style of larp I want. If I was running a fully immersive game with armour, I'd probably go with "once your armour is broken/lost it's points, that's it." unbreakable armour is just silly, if I applied unbreakable armour rules to the system I play in mostly (DUTT) then it's unbalance the game so terribly that it'd make playing anything that doesn't have lots of armour and through damage pointless. I'd rather go with increasing the number of armour points you can have, but once they're gone they're gone, rather than giving people unbreakable armour. not being able to fix armour on an adventure seems more immersive and realistic to me than having armour that never breaks.
Debating with Marios: Whoever wins, we lose.
PD: Gaelle [RIP Whisper!]
LT: Sir Henri
DUTT: Snaz and sparkle!
|
|
|
|
|
and Minimeister
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:31 AM
Posts: 960,
Visits: 1,402
|
|
Helly (7/30/2006)
Ryan Paddy (7/24/2006)This discussion is just pushing me ever further into the position that all in-game armour repair is rubbish if you want a WYSIWYG larp, in the same way that flight abilitiesare rubbish. Non-damagable armour rulesare looking increasingly preferable to me, for the style of larp I want.
If I was running a fully immersive game with armour, I'd probably go with "once your armour is broken/lost it's points, that's it." unbreakable armour is just silly, if I applied unbreakable armour rules to the system I play in mostly (DUTT) then it's unbalance the game so terribly that it'd make playing anything that doesn't have lots of armour and through damage pointless. I'd rather go with increasing the number of armour points you can have, but once they're gone they're gone, rather than giving people unbreakable armour. not being able to fix armour on an adventure seems more immersive and realistic to me than having armour that never breaks.
Soooooo.... something like 12 hits for heavy armour and say 4 for light? That would increase the incidence of "trying to not get hit".
There is only overconfidence and terror.
|
|
|
|
|
Squire
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:27 PM
Posts: 30,
Visits: 154
|
|
| what is the perpouse of armour repair, and what does it satisfy? is it the need for a blacksmith as a part of the economy system or is it for the realism in the combat system? from your experience as a system designer are this goals achieved by this? i am not sure this armour repair is essential in the games i was involved in the making of, and when we tried a similar thing with weapon smiths we failed misserably. we made our caculations then and come to the conclusion that it effectively serves none of our causes, and just make us obligated to enforce the rules. so i'm interrested in your oppinion and xp.
_________ deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:03 AM
Posts: 104,
Visits: 491
|
|
Helly (7/30/2006)
unbreakable armour is just silly, if I applied unbreakable armour rules to the system I play in mostly (DUTT) then it's unbalance the game so terribly that it'd make playing anything that doesn't have lots of armour and through damage pointless.Then you'd have to change all the other rules so that it wasn't unbalanced. Larp systems are delicate things, and it's normal that when you change a significant aspect everything else has to change to accomodate. I hadn't considered unrepairable armour using armour points. One problem with that approach would be that if you've got two opponents in armour, they would carry on fighting for ages until the armour points were spent. Then one would be defeated, and the other would be left with little benefit from their armour for the rest of the event. If you're running linears this isn't an issue, just give the monsters low armour to start with. But for scenarios with PvP you'd get the situation I described. Also, I'm not sure if it's believable. Fighting until your armour is ruined, then taking it off (as players would inevitably do)? Seems a bit odd. By comparison, undamageable armour is fairly believable. Most armour in tabletop roleplaying never (or seldom) takes damage, and armour damage isn't a big factor in fantasy fiction. Also, unlike armour points you wouldn't have to think about undamagable armour in play except for "did that hit my armour or me?" which is a pretty natural in-character consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:48 PM
Posts: 331,
Visits: 2,301
|
|
You could compromise by using similar rules to what shields get in a lot of systems, they work until they're hit by a 'Shatter' of 'Shield Break' special call. I suppose also sprinkling 'Through' in your monster crew might work in a similar way.
A voice was heard to say, “Who dares disturb the crypt of the Immortal Space Bitches?”
“I am Grimm Shado,” said Grimm Shado, triple wand claws extending. “And I am here to take it to the limit.”
|
|
|
|