Combat!!
Pedro Bedard
someone who is interested in playing, I would like to learn as much as I can.
If some of you could take the time to give me a brief rundown on you
favorite system and how it works, I certanly would appreciate it.
You can be as brief or as graphic (no pun intended) as you wish.
Please e-mail me as this server is erratic at best but at least it keeps
my mail for me.
I thank you all in advance.
Pedro.
mend...@esslink.com
Wow, you have no idea how really BIG a question that is!
Rather than going over all the different types of LARP combat systems -- and there are nearly as many combat systems as there are
LARPS -- I'll just go over the basis of ours, I'm sure other games will talk about theirs, too.
1. The whole system is based on safety. People use safe "boffer" weapons, in our case, made of PVC or CPVC core, pipe insulation,
covered with duct tape to keep it together, the points padded with open-cell foam (like what couch cushions are made of). You can
have throwing weapons such as knives but these must be entirely soft-sculpture (open-cell foam covered with tape, no core). Also
certain things are not allowed, also for safety reasons, such as head & groin shots, shield bashing, tackling, etc. These basics define
what can be done.
2. In our system, each character, monster, etc. has a certain number of life points. Armor, if worn, essentially adds to this. In a fight,
each hit you take -- regardless of the weapon used -- reduces your life points by 1 (unless a skill is used).
3. When your character fights, YOU must actually fight. To compensate for the fact that no player can really have the level of skill
his or her character would, we have certain combat skills which you can use. Among these are Disarm, Critical Attack, Trip, Parry,
Lethal Strike, Sever. Without going into all of these & what they do, you call the name of the skill & if you hit, your opponent must act
accordingly. For example, if you call Trip & then hit someone's leg, they must fall to their hands and knees -- you've tripped them!
4. There are related stealth skills, such as Backstab, Waylay and Assassinate. Anyone using these must take their opponent by
surprise and from behind -- our usual test of success here is that the person can't see the weapon before it hits. The skill name can
be whispered. The person hit must act accordingly.
5. Your last life point can only be removed if you're hit in the torso. Getting hit anywhere else doesn't matter. For instance, you are
down to 1 life point & orc keeps hitting you in the legs. That means you are still up & fighting. (This simulates the idea that it takes at
least one really good hit -- i.e. to the torso -- to really knock someone down.)
6. Once ALL you life points are gone, you are unconscious. You are also bleeding to death & will die in 30 minutes, unless someone
tends your wounds (this is a skill), or otherwise heals you. If you get no such help within a half hour -- you become spirit and you go
to Judgment. Hopefully Volgen will return you to life!
That's about it, in a nutshell.
-Dennis J. Halnon
Fantasy Quest Setting Director
********** Live the Adventure! **********
Marcus Hill
>5. Your last life point can only be removed if you're hit in the torso. Getting hit anywhere else doesn't matter. For instance, you are
>down to 1 life point & orc keeps hitting you in the legs. That means you are still up & fighting. (This simulates the idea that it takes at
>least one really good hit -- i.e. to the torso -- to really knock someone down.)
Errrgh.... non-locational hit systems. Sorry, I just can't stand 'em. And the
example above shows why. You can stand there and hack at someone's unarmoured
legs for ages with a huge axe and they won't be affected in the realistic way,
i.e. they fall to the ground legless. Furthermore, why does the final hit have
to be torso? A head hit (if they're allowed) works as well, or, if you think
about it, so would enough hacks to the limbs - if you were to seriously maim
someone's limbs IRL they'd soon be unconscious from shock and then die from
blood loss.
**** LARS/NV at http://cs1.un.umist.ac.uk/societies/LARS/ ****
Fortuna Audentes Juvat.
Marcus.
**************************************************************
MD Horrill
: Errrgh.... non-locational hit systems. Sorry, I just can't stand 'em. And the
: example above shows why.
Eek, a non-gathering thread!
I hate em as well. Players use locations but monsters don't in a lot of
systems which makes taking prisoners a real pain (you can't hack the legs off
and then stop the bleeding so you can question them).
/>>=-
/< Mike Horrill
*[=========((*))||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=-
\< E-Mail M.D.H...@lut.ac.uk
\>>=-
mend...@esslink.com
> mend...@esslink.com wrote:
>
> >5. Your last life point can only be removed if you're hit in the torso. Getting hit
anywhere else doesn't matter. For instance, you are
> >down to 1 life point & orc keeps hitting you in the legs. That means you are still
up & fighting. (This simulates the idea that it takes at
> >least one really good hit -- i.e. to the torso -- to really knock someone down.)
>
> legs for ages with a huge axe and they won't be affected in the realistic way,
> i.e. they fall to the ground legless. Furthermore, why does the final hit have
> to be torso? A head hit (if they're allowed) works as well, or, if you think
> about it, so would enough hacks to the limbs - if you were to seriously maim
> someone's limbs IRL they'd soon be unconscious from shock and then die from
> blood loss.
>
#1. It works. It's simple. People understand it.
#2. Sure, life points are an abstraction & very unrealistic. However, this is FANTASY,
by definition.
Take it however you like, I s'pose....
Mark Ayen
>
>
>I hate em as well. Players use locations but monsters don't in a lot of
>systems which makes taking prisoners a real pain (you can't hack the
legs off
>and then stop the bleeding so you can question them).
>
Yah, but then, how reaslistic is it that a non-surgeon could hack
someone's legs off without them bleeding to death. I suppose magic(k)al
healing could do the trick, but "realistically" they would either die
immediately from the shock or in about 30 seconds from blood loss through
the formoreal (sp?) arteries.
> />>=-
> /< Mike Horrill
> *[=========((*))||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=-
> \< E-Mail M.D.H...@lut.ac.uk
> \>>=-
Mark
Mark Ayen
>
>Even more to the point, it's nearly impossible to do hit-by-location
>without a Marshal. In the type of events that we run (The we being
Fantasy
>Quest and NERO, among others) there will rarely BE a Marshal present. As
a
>note, however, it is entirely possible to kill someone by hacking on
their
>leg until they die, or hack on it until they are unconcious. You can
even
>hack it off by hitting it until they are unconcious while stating tyou
are
>severing it.
>
>Ford
>NERO
At LIONE, we don't use positional hits for much the same reason; it's
hard enough keeping track of non-locational hits in the fury of combat.
If you want to sever somebody's limb bad enough, you can do it by holding
a weapon against the limb and calling, "one maiming blow, two maiming
blow, three maiming blow." The same trick works for scarring blows and
killing blows (characters don't die automatically by going to negative
BPs, but they do bleed to death 60 seconds after going negative).
Mark
NeroNat
#2. Sure, life points are an abstraction & very unrealistic. However,
this is FANTASY,
by definition.
Take it however you like, I s'pose....
-Dennis J. Halnon
Fantasy Quest Setting Directon
============================================
SBorlick
sometimes confusing, it just makes more sense to me, and makes the fights
more interesting.
For those not familiar with the system, each weapon has a set damage
number, based on class/level. Each limb has a certain amount of points,
again determined by class/level. When your hit, you subtract armor/spells
from the number, and take that many points. If it exceeds the number of
hits you have in that limb, it's useless. These points also aply to your
total 'till unconsciousness and death.
mend...@esslink.com
> Even more to the point, it's nearly impossible to do hit-by-location
> without a Marshal. In the type of events that we run (The we being Fantasy
> Quest and NERO, among others) there will rarely BE a Marshal present. As a
> note, however, it is entirely possible to kill someone by hacking on their
> leg until they die, or hack on it until they are unconcious. You can even
> hack it off by hitting it until they are unconcious while stating tyou are
> severing it.
>
> Ford
> NERO
>
Another, quite nearly as bothersome: what I call "Monty Python" syndrome. The games I've been in which had hits-by-location also
allowed bizarre things like people hopping around on one leg 'cause one of 'em got hacked up. Please! How lame can you get? No
pun intended ...
Then again, there's the famous old law of KISS: "Keep it simple, stupid!"
I think games just run a lot smoother, and it's easier on everyone, when you've got a hit-point system. If "realism" is so important to
you that you simply MUST have located hits ... well, I've gotta wonder if medieval fantasy role-playing is where you belong in the first
place ...
Just my view, fire at will!
-Dennis J. Halnon
Chris
>From: mend...@esslink.com
>Subject: Re: Combat!!
>Date: 4 Sep 1995 15:21:01 GMT
>> Even more to the point, it's nearly impossible to do hit-by-location
>> without a Marshal. In the type of events that we run (The we being Fantasy
>> Quest and NERO, among others) there will rarely BE a Marshal present. As a
>> note, however, it is entirely possible to kill someone by hacking on their
>> leg until they die, or hack on it until they are unconcious. You can even
>> hack it off by hitting it until they are unconcious while stating tyou are
>> severing it.
>> Ford
>> NERO
>That's probably the Number 1 argument in favor of non-locative combat systems.
What, that you need to have a marshall present? 8->
I'd venture to guess that it's probably more a matter of what you were first
exposed to. And there are good points and bad points to both systems.
>Another, quite nearly as bothersome: what I call "Monty Python" syndrome. The
>games I've been in which had hits-by-location also allowed bizarre things
>like people hopping around on one leg 'cause one of 'em got hacked up.
>Please! How lame can you get? No pun intended ...
If you still have life force left, what is lame about this? Ever hear of the
animal that got it's leg caught in a trap and gnawed it off to get away! I'll
bet it limped! And it more closely mimics real life to do this. (And yes,
before you say it, that animal probably died later, from shock. But a sentient
creature would have the sense to head for help.)
>Then again, there's the famous old law of KISS: "Keep it simple, stupid!"
You *can* get too simple, Dennis.
>I think games just run a lot smoother, and it's easier on everyone, when
>you've got a hit-point system. If "realism" is so important to you that you
>simply MUST have located hits... well, I've gotta wonder if medieval
>fantasy role-playing is where you belong in the first place ...
Where is this coming from?
There are certainly different strokes for different folks, Dennis. Please
don't cast aspersions on the different ways of counting hits. It isn't
productive, and will only nire us in useless debates about the merits of one
vs the other.
Let's try to put it this way:
Having locational hits just seems to make more sense to some people. Hence the
mechanics that allow for it. Having only total life seems to make more sense
to other people. Hence the mechanics that allow for it.
I could have chosen to say that those who don't like the locational hit system
dislike it because they have poor math skills. And it is a problem that I have
observed, but only in the crudest of clinical aspects. I chose not to, because
it would serve no purpose.
Let's get on to more important things, which could be just about anything
besides this one...
Best,
Chris
Right Said Dax: I'm too sexy for my host.
Neil Harmer
>From: mend...@esslink.com
>Subject: Re: Combat!!
>Date: 4 Sep 1995 15:21:01 GMT
>
>> Even more to the point, it's nearly impossible to do hit-by-location
>> without a Marshal. In the type of events that we run (The we being Fantasy
>> Quest and NERO, among others) there will rarely BE a Marshal present. As a
>> note, however, it is entirely possible to kill someone by hacking on their
>> leg until they die, or hack on it until they are unconcious. You can even
>> hack it off by hitting it until they are unconcious while stating tyou are
>> severing it.
>>
>> Ford
>> NERO
>>
>That's probably the Number 1 argument in favor of non-locative combat systems.
>Another, quite nearly as bothersome: what I call "Monty Python" syndrome. The
>games I've been in which had hits-by-location also
>allowed bizarre things like people hopping around on one leg 'cause one of 'em
>got hacked up. Please! How lame can you get? No
>pun intended ...
>Then again, there's the famous old law of KISS: "Keep it simple, stupid!"
>I think games just run a lot smoother, and it's easier on everyone, when you've
>got a hit-point system. If "realism" is so important to
>you that you simply MUST have located hits ... well, I've gotta wonder if
>medieval fantasy role-playing is where you belong in the first
>place ...
>Just my view, fire at will!
I do most of my roleplaying in F&H and we use a locative hits system. It
causes no problem with keeping track of how damaged a person is for one very
simple reason.
...every PC has a single hit per location...
Well... this is not quite true. Armour and certain spells can augment this but
never by any great amount.
This has one good effect in that combat is a far more careful business than
you would find in some other systems. Because you can die from a single hit
there is less of the 'wading in there and trading blows' syndrome that seems
to prevail in some systems and more of the 'cagily weighing up the opponent'
type action. This also means that players and monsters are less likely to go
charging straight in and thus cause unintentional harm.
Such a system also promotes nice uses of strategy in combat in that you know
that if you take out someone's sword-arm ( a REAL possibility in the F&F
combat system ) they are going to be disadvantaged - something that is not
possible in an non-locative hit system.
Now please don't get me wrong. I'm not really trying to say that locative is
better than non locative or fewer hits are better than many. It all depends on
what you like. In the end, if it works, it's a success. For my money, though,
I know which type of combat I prefer.
Yours (desperately trying to be unoffensive)ly
Neil the Geordie.
*********************************************
The above views are my own and in no way
represent the corporate views of Logica.
*********************************************
Fizgig454
games I play hit points are the way to go. while yes, a shot to certain
areas of the body would be more destructive than others, not all the
opponents in these games have human bodies. Golems, for example, what
would be a kill point for them? or perhaps that nasty slug beast, or
insects, etc... In a re-creation game, perhaps location works, but in a
fantasy game where magic is considerably more commonplace, well you have
already severely wounded realism in favor of playability.
Oh yeah, in the games I play (mostly Nero based) limbs can be disabled
through various means, like wither spells, or creature effects, or even
the odd skill.
I think that anyone who shows up for a weekend long game and then loses a
swordarm during the first fray he encounters is gonna be slightly put out.
(thank god for restore limb!)
Ah well... Ramble I will, and ramble I have.
Fiz
MD Horrill
of thing. I also suspect that what you were first intorduced to has a big
effect on your view of things.
: > Even more to the point, it's nearly impossible to do hit-by-location
: > without a Marshal.
I have to disagree with this statement. Hit by location systems do not
require a marshall and what is more all of the systems I know of that are
designed to be battleboard free use hit by location systems. (Most of the
battleboard systems also use locational as well.)
: That's probably the Number 1 argument in favor of non-locative combat systems.
: Another, quite nearly as bothersome: what I call
: "Monty Python" syndrome. The games I've been in
: which had hits-by-location also
: allowed bizarre things like people hopping around
: on one leg 'cause one of 'em got hacked up. Please!
: How lame can you get? No
: pun intended ...
I must admit that that sounds pretty awful and may well have put people off
locational hit systems if it is something they have encountered. Apart from
the standard "all blows should be role-played" quote there are also the (I
though universal but I was obviously wrong) rules of:-
If a leg is crippled fall down and kneel. You may still fight from the
ground but locomotion is only possible by dragging yourself along with your
arms.
If both legs go lie down (and scream).
If an arm goes drop whatever is held in it. You may pick it up with the
other hand but no throw and catch tricks.
If its head (*1*) or body which are reduced to zero the oops, fall over
and don't move or say anything (and you will probably bleed to death unless
you recieve aid pretty soon).
I think locational hits work better in a one weapon, one hit style of play,
if you start having the sword does 6 points style of game then perhaps total
hits is the way to go as it keeps things simpler but I personanly don't like
having to count to more than about 3.
Non locatioal hits make it hard to incapacitate people without killing them.
There will often be a case where a fight will be unavoidable but you don't
want to actually kill the opponent. Non located hits make it very difficult
to incapacitate poeple without killing them.
: I think games just run a lot smoother, and
: it's easier on everyone, when you've got a hit-point system.
I don't see that a system with 6 locations and 2 or 3 hits per location is
too bad to keep track of. Perosnally I find it easier than 12 hits total but
then again it is what I am used to. Remeber with locationl hits you only
need to remeber what has been hit, you can forget about the rest of it.
: If "realism" is so important to
: you that you simply MUST have located hits ... well, I've gotta wonder
: if medieval fantasy role-playing is where you belong in the first
: place ...
I find it is more of a case of plausability than reality. With non locatioal
hit systems I have seen things as bad as the "Monty Python" syndrome but I
feel that locational hits remove a lot of the problems.
As a side gripe I know a lot of places use locational hits for players and
total hits for monsters. To me this suggests that there is something wrong
with the system used for tracking player hits if it is so complex that
monsters can't use it as well.
On the reaslism side I also know of laces that use both systems. Say 2
hits per location and 6 total. In my view this may be realistic but it is
getting silly in terms of game play.
Someone elsewhere also mentioned soemthing like a golem that might not have
a vulnerable locaton like humans do. Things liek this might work by
different rulings (even total hits) just as a creature with a weak spot
might need to work by locational hits in a total hit system.
*1* I have no intention of debating the viability of head hits here. Some
clubs allow thier use and others don't.
David Miller
> Then again, there's the famous old law of KISS: "Keep it simple, stupid!"
Why?, I may not be stupid... ( d-[ )
So what's wrong with AMYB ? (Amaze Me, You Bastard!)
> I think games just run a lot smoother, and it's easier on everyone,
> when you've got a hit-point system.
I think not. It's a function of whether you battle board or not as
to whether any cheating moves from mind to paper.
I regard the battle board as my friendly damage accountant.
I'm also a big enemy of "one hit per location, usless you have armour
type X when its Y, one hit of damage per weapon blow" Phah!
Differnet things do different things to different people.
> If "realism" is so important to you that you simply MUST have located hits
> well, I've gotta wonder if medieval fantasy role-playing is where you
> belong in the first place ...
> Just my view, fire at will!
(a) so who are *YOU* to say what genre I or anyone should be entitle to?
(b) *I* belong to High-Fantasy, Proto-Medieval game worlds, thankyou
very much, where e.g hydrostatic shock is not commonly lethal.
Roleplaying doesn't require Game Mechanics.
Game Mechanics are just a way of accounting for creative solutions.
(do I beat up the Big Bad Orc, or causally warp him onto the
elemental plane of fire ?, can I really brow-beat the guard, or
do I resort to Beguiling him?)
--
D.M.
David E. Miller, Harlequin Ltd, Cambs UK
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jax-Ur at The Gathering, Orinoko at Labyrinthe, Obsidian at Mayfest
mend...@esslink.com
> In article <42f5gt$g...@webbsco.esslink.com> mend...@esslink.com writes:
> animal that got it's leg caught in a trap and gnawed it off to get away! I'll
> bet it limped! And it more closely mimics real life to do this. (And yes,
> before you say it, that animal probably died later, from shock. But a sentient
> creature would have the sense to head for help.)
>
Wait ... you must be joking. There just can't be any other explanation.
You mean to tell me that, if your leg got hacked off, you'd be able to hop around
on the other foot & keep right on fighting as if nothing were wrong?
Please. Be serious. In real life people can be felled by much less than the
loss of a limb.
> >Then again, there's the famous old law of KISS: "Keep it simple, stupid!"
>
> You *can* get too simple, Dennis.
>
> >I think games just run a lot smoother, and it's easier on everyone, when
> >you've got a hit-point system. If "realism" is so important to you that you
> >simply MUST have located hits... well, I've gotta wonder if medieval
> >fantasy role-playing is where you belong in the first place ...
>
> Where is this coming from?
>
Hey, don't get bent out of shape, just think about this for a minute. I was
responding to earlier allegations that "hit point" systems aren't "real"
enough. I'm questioning what value "realism" has when you design a LARP
combat system. It's a valid observation, not a put down. Once in a while
in our game someone comes up with a suggestion and says we should do it
'cause it's more realistic. But realism in itself is NOT enough reason to
include something in an FRP LARP design.
If someone is so hung on "realism" that they can't accept an abstraction such as
a "hit point" combat system, are they also in a position to accept things like
magic, monsters, etc.? I genuinely have to wonder about it.
Every LARP in existence HAS to make one or more compromises. For example,
I don't know of any game (that I'd want to be part of, anyway) which uses
REAL weapons rather than boffer or other kinds of safe weapons. You can't
expect any game to last if players wind up in the hospital. OTOH, most
LARPs use "safe" weapons but players act as if they're lethal.
Same thing with a "hit point" system. Look, I've been involved with both
kinds of games. After having laughed at all the idiots hopping around on
one leg -- don't try to excuse it, to me it just looks funny -- I've found
that "hit point" systems simply work the best. They're definitely easier
for newcomers to live gaming to get used to. And the game just runs a lot
smoother.
>Having locational hits just seems to make more sense to some people. Hence the
>mechanics that allow for it. Having only total life seems to make more sense
>to other people. Hence the mechanics that allow for it.
When I started live gaming we used locational hits. Seemed to make sense to me.
(I fully admit there's a certain amount of "realism" in it.) However, aside
from the laughter, there were several problems with it, from a game-design
standpoint.
1. Armor -- why wear it? With locational hits armor has little benefit. (Note:
I didn't say NO benefit, just LITTLE benefit.) In a hit-point system the armor
simply adds to your hit points.
2. Grazes. Since EACH hit counts in a locational system, "grazing" hits become
a real problem. If I get grazed in the arm, does it mean the arm is useless? Or
does it mean that I can go on? Under a hit point system, you can either define
"grazes" as being true hits or you can tell people to ignore them.
3. New players. Not everyone who comes to a game is a veteran of games like
Rune Quest which have locational hits. In fact some may never have played a role
playing game before in their lives. Do they really want to be confronted with
the complication of tallying wounds in different parts of the body? I have seen
new players come into both types of games and I can state categorically that hit
point systems are VASTLY easier for novices (to gaming) to understand.
All of this comes from extensive experience in all kinds of role-playing. I'm
not simply "theorizing" that hit point systems are better, I'm saying I've tried
both and, for what we are doing, a hit point system works better for us.
Now, if you are in an area where locational hits are common and are "the norm"
for a LARP, then I'm sure it would be well worth considering. If that's what
players like best, they you give 'em what they want. If all your players are
veterans who like this sort of system, and you don't care about bringing in
new players, then that's fine too.
But, above all, no one should say that locational hit systems are superior
because they're "realistic." It may well be more realistic, but that's not a good
enough reason to design something into your LARP. In itself realism can't have much
value in an FRP LARP -- which by definition is "fantasy."
-Dennis J. Halnon
******** Live the Adventure! ********
mend...@esslink.com
> As a side gripe I know a lot of places use locational hits for players and
> total hits for monsters. To me this suggests that there is something wrong
> with the system used for tracking player hits if it is so complex that
> monsters can't use it as well.
>
monsters/NPCs?
Stuart J Maher
>
> > M.D.H...@lut.ac.uk (MD Horrill) writes:
> > As a side gripe I know a lot of places use locational hits for players and
> > total hits for monsters. To me this suggests that there is something wrong
> > with the system used for tracking player hits if it is so complex that
> > monsters can't use it as well.
> >
> monsters/NPCs?
At BUTT, we use the old Trap version. The PC uses Life points eg: a first
level Fighter has 36/12 Life points, and a Hit from a weapon goes up in
multiples of 6 (single = 6, Double = 12 etc). Monsters, to make their life
easier have 'Hits'. A hit is a hit from a weapon, double damage doing
two hits. An equivalent Monster to the first level fighter has 6/2 hits
with the exchange 1 hit = 6 life.
Are you really confused now, I am???
>
> -Dennis J. Halnon
>
> ******** Live the Adventure! ********
Stu.
Chris
>From: mend...@esslink.com
>Subject: Re: Combat!!
>> cgv...@access.digex.net (Chris) writes:
>> In article <42f5gt$g...@webbsco.esslink.com> mend...@esslink.com writes:
>> If you still have life force left, what is lame about this? Ever hear of the
>> animal that got it's leg caught in a trap and gnawed it off to get away! I'll
>> bet it limped! And it more closely mimics real life to do this. (And yes,
>> before you say it, that animal probably died later, from shock. But a sentient
>> creature would have the sense to head for help.)
>>
>Wait ... you must be joking. There just can't be any other explanation.
No, I'm serious.
>You mean to tell me that, if your leg got hacked off, you'd be able to hop
>around on the other foot & keep right on fighting as if nothing were wrong?
Not as if nothing were wrong, and not for long at any rate. But if I knew that
hopping a few times to somebody who could provide me with succor, you bet I'd
damned well try!
>Please. Be serious. In real life people can be felled by much less than the
>loss of a limb.
Yes, but adrenalin is pumping, life is on the line, so, for a few short jops,
it isn't tough to think it possible. It isn't easy, but it isn't impossible,
either.
>> >Then again, there's the famous old law of KISS: "Keep it simple, stupid!"
>> You *can* get too simple, Dennis.
>> >I think games just run a lot smoother, and it's easier on everyone, when
>> >you've got a hit-point system. If "realism" is so important to you that you
>> >simply MUST have located hits... well, I've gotta wonder if medieval
>> >fantasy role-playing is where you belong in the first place ...
>> Where is this coming from?
>Hey, don't get bent out of shape, just think about this for a minute. I was
>responding to earlier allegations that "hit point" systems aren't "real"
>enough. I'm questioning what value "realism" has when you design a LARP
>combat system. It's a valid observation, not a put down. Once in a while
>in our game someone comes up with a suggestion and says we should do it
>'cause it's more realistic. But realism in itself is NOT enough reason to
>include something in an FRP LARP design.
First, I didn't get bent out of shape. Trust me, if I had, you'd know damned
well that I had! 8->
Second, I agree that realism for its own sake is hardly a sound rationale for
a campaign mechanic, rather it is a rationalization. However, if you can do
something because it makes sense, and it works, then there's noting wrong with
it.
>If someone is so hung on "realism" that they can't accept an abstraction such
>as a "hit point" combat system, are they also in a position to accept things
>like magic, monsters, etc.? I genuinely have to wonder about it.
First, whether you have locative hits as well as total hits, or just total
hits, you have a hit point system. The distinction is with locational hits or
not.
Second, since just about everything in our games are abtsractions, it is
really only a question of personal choice, neither system is, in and of
itself, inherently better than the other. And using the KISS principle is not
necessarily the answer to game mechanics. Life and death is very complex; it
*can* follow that the mchanics for them are also complex. My arm can be killed
without killing me; logic then dictates that my arm has life of its own. That
life can be taken away, and diminsh me in the process, without necessarily
taking my total life with it.
>Every LARP in existence HAS to make one or more compromises. For example,
>I don't know of any game (that I'd want to be part of, anyway) which uses
>REAL weapons rather than boffer or other kinds of safe weapons. You can't
>expect any game to last if players wind up in the hospital. OTOH, most
>LARPs use "safe" weapons but players act as if they're lethal.
And this analogy leads us to... exactly where? Real weapons are dangerous,
fake ones, while not completely safe, the fake ones we use, are relatively
safe. Total hits with location its as well has a net effect of 0, zip, nada,
nix, nothing on the safety of the players as it relates to a total hits only
system.
Survey says: "BZZZZZZZT!"
>Same thing with a "hit point" system. Look, I've been involved with both
>kinds of games. After having laughed at all the idiots hopping around on
>one leg -- don't try to excuse it, to me it just looks funny -- I've found
>that "hit point" systems simply work the best. They're definitely easier
>for newcomers to live gaming to get used to. And the game just runs a lot
>smoother.
Since I've also seen both, and not seen the idiocy of every monster/player
hopping around for forever on their one good leg at every event, and since I
was introduced to the total plus locational system, I'm comfortable with it.
What's more players get comfortable with it.
The games are made not just for the newcomers. A better answer, if the reason
is ONLY for newcomers, is to have an experienced player explain things to the
newcomers, and help them until they become comfortable with it.
>>Having locational hits just seems to make more sense to some people. Hence
>>the mechanics that allow for it. Having only total life seems to make
>>more sense to other people. Hence the mechanics that allow for it.
>When I started live gaming we used locational hits. Seemed to make sense to me.
>(I fully admit there's a certain amount of "realism" in it.) However, aside
>from the laughter, there were several problems with it, from a game-design
>standpoint.
Dennis, your limitations are not everybody's limitations.
>1. Armor -- why wear it? With locational hits armor has little benefit.
>(Note: I didn't say NO benefit, just LITTLE benefit.) In a hit-point system
>the armor simply adds to your hit points.
That depends upon whether or not your armmor is "ablative", or "always on", to
use some Champions jargon. Ablative armor works until the armor is whittled
away, at which point you have only the life points of the location/total life.
Always on armor is not additional life, but true protection. It has a certain
value (based upon the type of armor and its quality and as modified by any
skills learned in the use of that armor).
NERO and its clones use ablative armor, which is to say that the armor acts as
extra life until it's used up, and then you have to fix or replace it.
Cambrion Adventures, MYTH and HeroQuest (among others), uses always on armor.
In tihs case, the armor points protect against blows by reducing the damage.
This may mean that no damage gets through (if the armor value is equal to or
greater than the damage value of the blow), or is reduced (if the damage value
is greater than the armor value).
Perhaps in a system that uses ablative armor locational hits are not
important. In an always on armor system, they are a sueful and integral part
of the game mechanics.
Broaden your horizons Dennis. Find out about others systems a little better
bfore you go passing judgement upon them.
>2. Grazes. Since EACH hit counts in a locational system, "grazing" hits
>become a real problem. If I get grazed in the arm, does it mean the arm is
>useless? Or does it mean that I can go on? Under a hit point system, you
>can either define "grazes" as being true hits or you can tell people to
>ignore them.
Since most systems at least claim to be light touch, isn't a graze a hit? A
hit, by definition, is an instance when the fake weapon comes into contact
with the body of a target, intended or not. Let's not split hairs, then, if
that's the case.
>3. New players. Not everyone who comes to a game is a veteran of games like
>Rune Quest which have locational hits. In fact some may never have played a role
>playing game before in their lives. Do they really want to be confronted with
>the complication of tallying wounds in different parts of the body? I have seen
>new players come into both types of games and I can state categorically that hit
>point systems are VASTLY easier for novices (to gaming) to understand.
Designing rules on the sole reason that they benefit newcomers is not a very
good foundation for making that rule. If benefitting the newcomers is a
by-product, then it's OK.
>All of this comes from extensive experience in all kinds of role-playing. I'm
>not simply "theorizing" that hit point systems are better, I'm saying I've tried
>both and, for what we are doing, a hit point system works better for us.
Well, at least you've finally admitted it's for you only. However, I find it
hard to believe that you could be so opposed to total plus locational hits if
you had either played in or seen the rules for systems that have them.
Trust me, they do work.
>Now, if you are in an area where locational hits are common and are "the norm"
>for a LARP, then I'm sure it would be well worth considering. If that's what
>players like best, they you give 'em what they want. If all your players are
>veterans who like this sort of system, and you don't care about bringing in
>new players, then that's fine too.
Your assertion that systems that have total plus locational hits provide
barriers to new players is completely unfounded. Cambrion Adventures has not
been hampered in any way by employing this quite useful tool. Further, many of
the UK systems use it, too. And they've been around quite a long time. And
just in case you hadn't guessed it yet, Dennis, NOW you got my dander up.
>But, above all, no one should say that locational hit systems are superior
>because they're "realistic." It may well be more realistic, but that's not a good
>enough reason to design something into your LARP. In itself realism can't have much
>value in an FRP LARP -- which by definition is "fantasy."
Dennis, I'm not going to beat you up on this last bit. I'm sure plent of
others will be. I hope for your sake you've donned asbestos underwear...
Chris
>From: fizg...@aol.com (Fizgig454)
>Subject: Re: Combat!!
>Date: 5 Sep 1995 19:21:07 -0400
> locative hits... well I can't say I like the idea too much. In the
>games I play hit points are the way to go. while yes, a shot to certain
>areas of the body would be more destructive than others, not all the
>opponents in these games have human bodies. Golems, for example, what
>would be a kill point for them? or perhaps that nasty slug beast, or
>insects, etc... In a re-creation game, perhaps location works, but in a
>fantasy game where magic is considerably more commonplace, well you have
>already severely wounded realism in favor of playability.
You use locactive hits and hit points as tough they are distinct and separate
things. Not true.
In Cambrion Adventures, you have total life, which is how much damage you can
take and still be alive. (More, and you are dead, and it takes an elixir of
life or a resurrection to bring you back to life.) You divide your total life
by 3 to determine how much life you have in 6 locations. The number you arrive
at is the amount of life you have in each arm, each leg, and your head. You
divide by 3, then multiply the result by 2 to see how much life your body
(torso) has.
That means that if you have 12 total life, you have 4 on each arm, leg and
your head; your torso has 8. A hit for damage reduces the amount of life on
that location, and from total life. For example, you have 12 total life. You
get hit for 3 to your right arm, so it goes down to 1, and your total life to
9. Later, before healing, you get hit for 6 in the torso. It is now at 2, and
total life is at 3. (You'd better seek out some healing quick- more than 3
points more damage total and you're dead!)
While it is more math intensive, it isn't by too large a degree, and it *is*
more realistic.
BTW, MYTH uses this system, as do several of the UK campaigns.
> Oh yeah, in the games I play (mostly Nero based) limbs can be disabled
>through various means, like wither spells, or creature effects, or even
>the odd skill.
>I think that anyone who shows up for a weekend long game and then loses a
>swordarm during the first fray he encounters is gonna be slightly put out.
> (thank god for restore limb!)
The same can be said for the locative hit systems as well.
Best,
Chris Van Gorder
Player Representative, Cambrion Adventures
Richard Caller
>>
>>> Even more to the point, it's nearly impossible to do hit-by-location
>>> without a Marshal.
What gives you that idea, personally I'd find a non-locational system rather
odd, it is remarkably difficult to kill someone by hacking at their foot let
us say.
In the type of events that we run (The we being Fantasy
>>> Quest and NERO, among others) there will rarely BE a Marshal present.
The Gathering uses a locational hits system with relatively few problems,
thats about 3000 people, there is almost never a referee there when combat
takes place.
>>Another, quite nearly as bothersome: what I call "Monty Python" syndrome. The
>>games I've been in which had hits-by-location also
>>allowed bizarre things like people hopping around on one leg 'cause one of 'em
>>got hacked up. Please! How lame can you get? No
>>pun intended ...
I agree hopping around is rather silly, personally I would not allow it, if
your leg isnt working you are not going anywhere except at a crawl or leaning
on something.
>>I think games just run a lot smoother, and it's easier on everyone, when you've
>>got a hit-point system. If "realism" is so important to
>>you that you simply MUST have located hits ... well, I've gotta wonder if
>>medieval fantasy role-playing is where you belong in the first
>>place ...
Personally some reallism is extreamly important, we are trying to create a
realistic fantasy world based, loosely on the real world. But I wouldn't say
locational hits systems were vital, just that they aren't really that hard to
do.
>I do most of my roleplaying in F&H and we use a locative hits system. It
>causes no problem with keeping track of how damaged a person is for one very
>simple reason.
{Description of one of the two standard hits systems deleted}
As many people have said here before there are two different ways of
calculating injury etc. used in the uk,
There is the one hit per location, armour gives you extra hits up to a max of
about 5. This system is very popular being used by the Gathering, F&H and
quite a few others. It has the advantage of needing far less referee
involvement than the other system but has the disadvantage of not allowing
much character type variety.
Then there is the hit point system which uses locational and total body life
points with weapons doing a starting damage of about 6pts and armour reducing
the damage of each blow. This system is more complex and does require referee
involvement but allows much more variety in character, armour, weapon etc.
This system is used by NV, any of the TT based systems, Labyrinthe and quite a
few more.
Actually the reason this second system tends to be used is because all the
systems mentioned above were formed almost immediately after the original TT
closed by ex TT staff so the systems used were all based on the original
system.
Personally I don't really mind which one of these systems is used
>This has one good effect in that combat is a far more careful business than
>you would find in some other systems. Because you can die from a single hit
>there is less of the 'wading in there and trading blows' syndrome that seems
>to prevail in some systems and more of the 'cagily weighing up the opponent'
>type action. This also means that players and monsters are less likely to go
>charging straight in and thus cause unintentional harm.
I don't think this is necessarily true, I've seen both types of fighting in
both types of system.
>Yours (desperately trying to be unoffensive)ly
That was pretty unoffensive from my POV.
> Neil the Geordie.
----**** LARS/NV at http://cs1.un.umist.ac.uk/societies/LARS/ ****----
Aiya Eldelai, Ai Atanutan, Utelien Aure, Enteluve Lome!
Hear, Oh People of Elves and Fathers of Men, Night is Passing
and Day Will Come Again.
Rich
Marcus Hill
>> total hits for monsters. To me this suggests that there is something wrong
>> with the system used for tracking player hits if it is so complex that
>> monsters can't use it as well.
>>
>monsters/NPCs?
Because we battleboard players. The players tell the ref what hits they've
taken and the ref works out the details after each encounter - if we did
this for every monster, each markup would take hours. Major NPCs are generally
played by people experienced enough to battleboard themselves mentally, and
so they use the same hits system as PCs.
****** LARS/NV at http://cs1.un.umist.ac.uk/societies/LARS/ ******
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At
best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes,
bathe, and not make messes in the house." - Lazarus Long
Marcus.
J. Thaddeus Klopcic
On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Chris wrote:
> In article <42k5n3$h...@webbsco.esslink.com> mend...@esslink.com writes:
> >From: mend...@esslink.com
> > I've found
> >that "hit point" systems simply work the best. They're definitely easier
> >for newcomers to live gaming to get used to. And the game just runs a lot
> >smoother.
>
> Since I've also seen both, and not seen the idiocy of every monster/player
> hopping around for forever on their one good leg at every event, and since I
> was introduced to the total plus locational system, I'm comfortable with it.
> What's more players get comfortable with it.
>
> The games are made not just for the newcomers. A better answer, if the reason
> is ONLY for newcomers, is to have an experienced player explain things to the
> newcomers, and help them until they become comfortable with it.
As a relative newcomer learning the intricacies of the Cambrion hit
location system, I thought it would be appropriate if I chimed in here.
First of all, the system is not counter-intuitive. I have two arms, two
legs, a head, and a torso. It's rather simple to remember that I have
these locations and notice when one of them has been struck. Also, 12
points of total damage is also an easy number to recall.
It's a little bit more complicated (for me, at least) to keep a running
total of damage in my head. It's a bit simpler, at first, to remember:
"If you just got hit multiple times for a lot of damage, fall down." If
it's just a couple of blows, I can remember where they struck and know if
they were heavy enough to instantly capacitate by mentally comparing the
damage of the blow (which is always called out when the blow is struck)
to my memorized location. "OK, he just hit me for two, my arm is four,
so if I take another arm shot, I'm in trouble. I think I'll disengage."
Fortunately, after a major skirmish, in which a large number of blows
have been exchanged, there is usually a timeout for a battleboard. The
battleboard is just a notebook with characters names, their current hit
locations and totals, and amount of spell power and damage (which I won't
go into since I don't understand the magic system yet). Since I can
recall how many times I've been hit and where the blows fell (more than
five hits and I'm probably dead anyway), I tell the ref what hits I took
(and subsequent first aid/healing), and he/she will add them to my
current totals and tell me how bad it was. I can then memorize my new
totals (only six numbers, plus total) and go on my merry way.
I picked all this up in only a weekend. With proper coaching and a
little practice, I think most people could learn. Of course, once you
add in armor and spells, it gets a little more complicated, but Cambrion
seems to take it easy on newcomers.
Besides, newcomers expect to face some sort of learning curve. Figuring
out the combat system should only be part of a much larger education. As
long as the rest of the players are willing to teach and make allowances
for the "new kids", I don't feel too many newcomers would be discouraged
by a system that may be a little more complicated than D&D. At least
they don't have to calculate THAC0.
JTK
Richard Caller
>> I think games just run a lot smoother, and it's easier on everyone,
>> when you've got a hit-point system.
>I think not. It's a function of whether you battle board or not as
>to whether any cheating moves from mind to paper.
Actually I'd say that the one hit/location system works best at the two ends
of the event size scale. It works at small events because almost no one
cheats at all and it works at really large events because no other system
would work at all. At medium to large clubs it can be a problem, when you
don't know all the members really well you can never tell who is following the
rules and who isn't, a battle boarded system has the advantage that you are
getting stuff written down and there is a ref around to keep an eye on things.
>I regard the battle board as my friendly damage accountant.
>I'm also a big enemy of "one hit per location, usless you have armour
>type X when its Y, one hit of damage per weapon blow" Phah!
>Differnet things do different things to different people.
Personally I really do not mind which system you use so long as the
roleplaying etc. is reasonable.
>> If "realism" is so important to you that you simply MUST have located hits
>> well, I've gotta wonder if medieval fantasy role-playing is where you
>> belong in the first place ...
Why not, we've been running locational hit systems for years and years and
they definately work fine.
MD Horrill
>5. Your last life point can only be removed if you're hit in the torso.
>Getting hit anywhere else doesn't matter. For instance, you are
>down to 1 life point & orc keeps hitting you in the legs. That means you
>are still up & fighting. (This simulates the idea that it takes at
>least one really good hit -- i.e. to the torso -- to really knock
>someone down.)
"I'll have a wall shield please."
Whilst I can see the argument here I can also see problems. Apart from the
fact that limbs are crippled and then fall off if you hit them enough it
makes big shields utterly gross.
In a tight situation I don't bother about trying to protect extremities, more
blows there won't kill me or incapacitate me, I just keep my shield tight
to my body and watch for outflanking manouvers. If I have a friend we go
back to back and are virtually unkillable, three of four of us in a
triangle/square are completely impregnable.
If we now take a 30-40 man long shield wall such as The Wolves you are
"laughing all the way to the bank" so to speak.
MD Horrill
: M.D.H...@lut.ac.uk (MD Horrill) wrote:
: Yah, but then, how reaslistic is it that a non-surgeon could hack
: someone's legs off without them bleeding to death.
Not very. Then again the leg is probably only maimed and not actually cut
off so a quick tournaquet and bit of healing will keep the poor sucker
alive long enough to get a bit of infomation out of him and if he is lucky
he just might survive so co-operation is in his best interests.
Marcus Hill
>> cgv...@access.digex.net (Chris) writes:
>> In article <42f5gt$g...@webbsco.esslink.com> mend...@esslink.com writes:
>> If you still have life force left, what is lame about this? Ever hear of the
>> animal that got it's leg caught in a trap and gnawed it off to get away! I'll
>> bet it limped! And it more closely mimics real life to do this. (And yes,
>> before you say it, that animal probably died later, from shock. But a sentient
>> creature would have the sense to head for help.)
>>
>
>Wait ... you must be joking. There just can't be any other explanation.
>
>You mean to tell me that, if your leg got hacked off, you'd be able to hop around
>on the other foot & keep right on fighting as if nothing were wrong?
>
>Please. Be serious. In real life people can be felled by much less than the
>loss of a limb.
OK, let's give an explanation in fantasy terms: if you have a limb hacked off,
you go into shock. If it's merely incapacitated, you can drag it along. If
it's off and someone magically heals the wound (without reattaching the limb),
this heals the effects of the shock, so the person is now an amputee. And
therefore can either crawl, hop or use walking aids as appropriate to roleplay
this condition.
>
>> >Then again, there's the famous old law of KISS: "Keep it simple, stupid!"
>>
>> You *can* get too simple, Dennis.
>>
>> >I think games just run a lot smoother, and it's easier on everyone, when
>> >you've got a hit-point system. If "realism" is so important to you that you
>> >simply MUST have located hits... well, I've gotta wonder if medieval
>> >fantasy role-playing is where you belong in the first place ...
>>
>> Where is this coming from?
>>
>
>Hey, don't get bent out of shape, just think about this for a minute. I was
>responding to earlier allegations that "hit point" systems aren't "real"
>enough. I'm questioning what value "realism" has when you design a LARP
>combat system. It's a valid observation, not a put down. Once in a while
>in our game someone comes up with a suggestion and says we should do it
>'cause it's more realistic. But realism in itself is NOT enough reason to
>include something in an FRP LARP design.
>
And I'm questioning the value of simplicity in designing a LARP campaign
that will appeal to anyone who wants the campaign to seem *plausible*.
Sometimes we think a certain rules change would make things simpler - but
simplicity in itself is BY NO MEANS WHATSOEVER enough reason to include
(or exclude) something in rules design.
>If someone is so hung on "realism" that they can't accept an abstraction such as
>a "hit point" combat system, are they also in a position to accept things like
>magic, monsters, etc.? I genuinely have to wonder about it.
Ah, you obviously have an exceedingly simple magic system. When we (at NV)
design rules, we try to make things as *plausible* as possible in light of
the previous rulings. We place magical effects and their relationships with
the various types of "mystical" forces - Magic, Spirit, Necromantic,
Demonic, Gymieric, Siedar, Runic, Cotic, to name about half. Yes, this is
by no means simple. It means that new players have to learn a bit at a time -
but this is fine in a refereed system, nobody *needs* to know all the rules,
only those relating to their PCs. When we are willing to enter into deep
logical and metaphysical arguments about rulings, using an oversimplification
such as the "total hits" system seems ridiculous - we don't want everything
to be as complex as possible, we want it to be complicated enough to be
*plausible* - which total hits is not.
[irrelevant weapons safety bit deleted]
>Same thing with a "hit point" system. Look, I've been involved with both
>kinds of games. After having laughed at all the idiots hopping around on
>one leg -- don't try to excuse it, to me it just looks funny -- I've found
>that "hit point" systems simply work the best. They're definitely easier
>for newcomers to live gaming to get used to. And the game just runs a lot
>smoother.
>
Doesn't look as funny as someone getting hit repeatedly in the leg, being
absolutely fine and still walking until - *whack* - another hit on the leg
kills them. Now THAT's silly. And when a newcomer comes along, I don't think
we need to assume he or she is an idiot - it's just as easy to tell a ref
where you were hit as to say how many times. Or to keep track of your
own locative hits, for that matter.
>>Having locational hits just seems to make more sense to some people. Hence the
>>mechanics that allow for it. Having only total life seems to make more sense
>>to other people. Hence the mechanics that allow for it.
>
>When I started live gaming we used locational hits. Seemed to make sense to me.
>(I fully admit there's a certain amount of "realism" in it.) However, aside
>from the laughter, there were several problems with it, from a game-design
>standpoint.
>
>1. Armor -- why wear it? With locational hits armor has little benefit. (Note:
>I didn't say NO benefit, just LITTLE benefit.) In a hit-point system the armor
>simply adds to your hit points.
>
Only if you use the unrealistic/implausible "ablative" armour system.
In fact, total hits systems make armour very complicated - I'm wearing
metal back and breast, studded leather vambraces, a mail coif and leather
leggings. How many hits do I get? Even in an "ablative" locational system
this is easy - the armour gives hits to each location. In the more
realistic "barrier" armour style, it's even easier - armour reduces the
damage of *every* blow. If the blow doesn't hit armour, the damage isn't
reduced. In a total hits system, would I be able to take as many hits if
someone was striking my (unarmoured) upper arms as if thy hit my metal clad
chest? And, just to put you right, armour is easily the most sought after
commodity in NV - because it is of such great benefit.
>2. Grazes. Since EACH hit counts in a locational system, "grazing" hits become
>a real problem. If I get grazed in the arm, does it mean the arm is useless? Or
>does it mean that I can go on? Under a hit point system, you can either define
>"grazes" as being true hits or you can tell people to ignore them.
>
Whoa, hold on. What happened to KISS? A hit is a hit is a hit. Once you
start differentiating between good hits and "grazes", especially in
non-refereed systems, you start opening the door to arguments about whether
a particular blow was a graze or not.
>3. New players. Not everyone who comes to a game is a veteran of games like
>Rune Quest which have locational hits. In fact some may never have played a role
>playing game before in their lives. Do they really want to be confronted with
>the complication of tallying wounds in different parts of the body? I have seen
>new players come into both types of games and I can state categorically that hit
>point systems are VASTLY easier for novices (to gaming) to understand.
>
This doesn't arise in a reffed system, and (at the risk of being brutal) do
we really need to pander to the needs of the stupid end of the market?
Locational hits are obviously more complicated than total hits, but any
reasonably alert person should pick the system up quickly enough.
>All of this comes from extensive experience in all kinds of role-playing. I'm
>not simply "theorizing" that hit point systems are better, I'm saying I've tried
>both and, for what we are doing, a hit point system works better for us.
If it works for you, go with it. But listen to your players - make sure they
want simplicity over plausibility.
>
>Now, if you are in an area where locational hits are common and are "the norm"
>for a LARP, then I'm sure it would be well worth considering. If that's what
>players like best, they you give 'em what they want. If all your players are
>veterans who like this sort of system, and you don't care about bringing in
>new players, then that's fine too.
OK, you've been talking quite sensibly from your POV, but now you're talking
utter shit. Plausible systems and complicated campaign backgrounds are the
things that *attract* new players. If we were to have total hits and kill
off the convoluted background, the rate of recruitment would plummet.
Furthermore, the players we want are the intelligent sort who can see the
basics of a system and realize it's worth persevering for the sake of an
infinitely more plausible set of rules. If someone gets put off by the
system being complicated, there are plenty of oversimplified systems out there.
Don't get me wrong, the system here is quite easy to get into on a basic
level, there's just a lot of other stuff which you don't need to know to start
playing and understand what's going on.
>
>But, above all, no one should say that locational hit systems are superior
>because they're "realistic." It may well be more realistic, but that's not a good
>enough reason to design something into your LARP. In itself realism can't have much
>value in an FRP LARP -- which by definition is "fantasy."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Maybe realism is the wrong word - that's why I've been
stressing "plausibility" - but just because something is "fantasy" doesn't
mean we have to kick all realism out. If you did that, your players could
say "I want to leap that 50' chasm" - "But you can't - no human being can
leap 50'" - "But this is fantasy, realism is no excuse...". Anything is
possible if you don't see realism as having a bearing on fantasy, so that
argument looks pretty shaky. We have to keep things *plausible*. To do that,
we start from realism - "a human hit by things is affected differently
depending on where he or she is hit" - and then adding the new fantasy elements
in a rational way - "we've said spiritual healing instantly heals most wounds
and their ill effects - thus, rationally, healing the stump of a cut off
limb would heal the shock, turning the person into a fully conscious amputee."
IMO, plausibility FAR outweighs simplicity in making rules - yes, you have
to keep things *playable* but making them simple to the extent of being
childish defeats the sense that this "fantasy" world is plausible, that it
works in a rational way.
Richard Caller
>logical and metaphysical arguments about rulings, using an oversimplification
>such as the "total hits" system seems ridiculous
I'd say we were probably rather odd in working out our rules from the
physics and metaphysics of the world. This is because the campaign world is
the real focus of NV rather than the rules. The rules are there to make the
'world' work rather than the world being a place that is shaped by the rules.
alley cat
>
>If we now take a 30-40 man long shield wall such as The Wolves you are
>"laughing all the way to the bank" so to speak.
>
alternatively, laughing all the way to the barbed wire fence *grin*
alleycat
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| you mean you've never felt the red mist | alleycat |
| come down and then woken up to find you've | myra of the wolves |
| bitten 30 people to death? (TP - IT) | the lady lirium |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
all...@sun.aston.ac.uk http://www.aston.ac.uk/~allenkm/index.html
Dave Barnett
>
>>systems which makes taking prisoners a real pain (you can't hack the
>legs off
>>and then stop the bleeding so you can question them).
>>
>healing could do the trick, but "realistically" they would either die
>immediately from the shock or in about 30 seconds from blood loss through
>the formoreal (sp?) arteries.
He didn't mean literally hack them _off_. Just, that you need to be able to
take down a monster by making him immobile.
>Mark
>
>
--
Dave the Troll @ RL |
of Trollware Fashions and Brutality | "With peers like these,
D.Bar...@lut.ac.uk | who need inferiors?"
Alfred @ Ravensmark | - Bugs Bunny
Cathdiad @ Mountains Cauldron |
Karl @ ZoneMUSH |
Marcus Hill
>All I can say is:
>
>#1. It works. It's simple. People understand it.
You don't need things that simple - I'm sure a simple locative hit system
would be just as easy to understand (or are you goig to tell me that the jokes
about Americans being stupid are true?!)
>#2. Sure, life points are an abstraction & very unrealistic. However, this is FANTASY,
>by definition.
The argument that in a fantasy environment you don't need *any* realism is
deeply flawed. In order to suspend disbelief, the fantasy setting has to
a) Make sense in being internally consistent - for instance, the types of
magic interact in a sensible way.
b) Have a certain resemblance to our reality so that people have a mental
anchor for the fantasy - for instance, the major race is homo sapiens,
and h. sap. (magic aside) behaves in a way similar to us - yes, the
fantasy version is often hardier and can perform amazing physical feats,
but being hacked repeatedly in the leg with a big axe should remove said
leg.
(OK, the last one is IMO, but it seems sensible to me).
OK, we're starting to go round in circles here. Maybe we should drop it and
agree to disagree.
Steve Turnbull
> . When we are willing to enter into deep > >logical and metaphysical
arguments about rulings, using an
> oversimplification>such as the "total hits" system seems ridiculous
> > I'd say we were probably rather odd in working out our rules from
the > physics and metaphysics of the world. This is because the campaign
> world is the real focus of NV rather than the rules. The rules are
> there to make the 'world' work rather than the world being a place that
> is shaped by the rules. >
You may say that, but I imagine it's less true than you or anyone could
hope. All worlds are shaped by the rules of their operation (very
meta-mystical but true nonetheless).
If you have combat then the style of combat play is moulded by the rules
and how they are applied. F'rinstance, at Spirit (and now Nemesis) the
rules encourage a "get stuck in and beat the hell out of them" approach
rather than the more delicate approach used by some other systems.
The effect of this was such that when some Spirit players decided to try
out a paint-ball game, they totally wiped the opposition because they
were (um) careless of the damage they received.
The same goes for magic, if you have wham-bam magic you get wham-bam
(ooh- er missus) mages.
The rules modify the world whether you like it or not.
Steve Turnbull
"Poetry is of graver import than history" Aristotle
Roz Horton
>Another excellent point - we help new people along with the rules at NV in
>a pretty substantial way, but what most newcomers need understanding and
>helpful guidance on is the *campaign* - the combat system isn't that
>important, but when a lot of stuff is going on we have to constantly
>remember that, although the Kounos N'Gai
the wot???
>and Gom's Hive (f'rinstance) need
>no explanation for the old crowd, we need to do a quick resume of the
>history of the Concilium war and the Daka Shea for the newcomers when they
>are mentioned in a report.
Roz
(member of the old crowd with stringmail memory)
Patrick F. McGehearty
Marcus Hill <mbb...@ma.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>mend...@esslink.com wrote:
>
>>All I can say is:
>>
>>#1. It works. It's simple. People understand it.
>You don't need things that simple - I'm sure a simple locative hit system
>would be just as easy to understand (or are you goig to tell me that the jokes
>about Americans being stupid are true?!)
While some may find locative hit too complicated to bother with (not too
complicated to able to learn, just too much bother), there are many American
groups which use it.
The one I'm in, IFGS, uses a locative hit system and protective, not
ablative armor. As noted before, it takes a little practice to get the hang
of, but we like it for "plausibility" and for the greater variety it allows
to a combat. For example:
Grog just lost the use of his arm, so Smash runs forward to distract the
nasty monster while Wipple provides a touch of healing magic to restore
Grog's arm. Then Grog can get back in the fight. This can happen several
times if the monster is that tough. A lot more fun than
"Grog is hit and down, so much for poor Grog".
- Patrick McGehearty
pat...@convex.com
Marcus Hill
>
>As a relative newcomer learning the intricacies of the Cambrion hit
>location system, I thought it would be appropriate if I chimed in here.
>
Aha, from the horse's mouth...
>First of all, the system is not counter-intuitive. I have two arms, two
>legs, a head, and a torso. It's rather simple to remember that I have
>these locations and notice when one of them has been struck. Also, 12
>points of total damage is also an easy number to recall.
..
>Fortunately, after a major skirmish, in which a large number of blows
>have been exchanged, there is usually a timeout for a battleboard. The
>battleboard is just a notebook with characters names, their current hit
>locations and totals, and amount of spell power and damage (which I won't
>go into since I don't understand the magic system yet). Since I can
>recall how many times I've been hit and where the blows fell (more than
>five hits and I'm probably dead anyway), I tell the ref what hits I took
>(and subsequent first aid/healing), and he/she will add them to my
>current totals and tell me how bad it was. I can then memorize my new
>totals (only six numbers, plus total) and go on my merry way.
>
>I picked all this up in only a weekend. With proper coaching and a
>little practice, I think most people could learn. Of course, once you
>add in armor and spells, it gets a little more complicated, but Cambrion
>seems to take it easy on newcomers.
Yup, that's the way I see it - so long as newcomers can cope and not be
totally bamboozled - and can see that they will soon get the hang of it -
then a system is OK, and you can then make sure it's plausible/intuitive.
>
>Besides, newcomers expect to face some sort of learning curve. Figuring
>out the combat system should only be part of a much larger education. As
>long as the rest of the players are willing to teach and make allowances
>for the "new kids", I don't feel too many newcomers would be discouraged
>by a system that may be a little more complicated than D&D. At least
>they don't have to calculate THAC0.
Another excellent point - we help new people along with the rules at NV in
a pretty substantial way, but what most newcomers need understanding and
helpful guidance on is the *campaign* - the combat system isn't that
important, but when a lot of stuff is going on we have to constantly
remember that, although the Kounos N'Gai and Gom's Hive (f'rinstance) need
no explanation for the old crowd, we need to do a quick resume of the
history of the Concilium war and the Daka Shea for the newcomers when they
are mentioned in a report.
Chris
>From: Marcus Hill <mbb...@ma.man.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Combat!!
>Date: 18 Sep 1995 14:46:48 GMT
>"J. Thaddeus Klopcic" <j...@aws.com> wrote:
***CLIP***
>>totals (only six numbers, plus total) and go on my merry way.
>>I picked all this up in only a weekend. With proper coaching and a
>>little practice, I think most people could learn. Of course, once you
>>add in armor and spells, it gets a little more complicated, but Cambrion
>>seems to take it easy on newcomers.
>Yup, that's the way I see it - so long as newcomers can cope and not be
>totally bamboozled - and can see that they will soon get the hang of it -
>then a system is OK, and you can then make sure it's plausible/intuitive.
>>Besides, newcomers expect to face some sort of learning curve. Figuring
>>out the combat system should only be part of a much larger education. As
>>long as the rest of the players are willing to teach and make allowances
>>for the "new kids", I don't feel too many newcomers would be discouraged
>>by a system that may be a little more complicated than D&D. At least
>>they don't have to calculate THAC0.
>Another excellent point - we help new people along with the rules at NV in
>a pretty substantial way, but what most newcomers need understanding and
>helpful guidance on is the *campaign* - the combat system isn't that
>important, but when a lot of stuff is going on we have to constantly
>remember that, although the Kounos N'Gai and Gom's Hive (f'rinstance) need
>no explanation for the old crowd, we need to do a quick resume of the
>history of the Concilium war and the Daka Shea for the newcomers when they
>are mentioned in a report.
Just to throw in some thoughts, here:
My job as Player Representative includes, among other duties, responsibility
for integrating new players into the campaign. It can include some
hand-holding if necessary, but usually just means being on hand when they have
questions (which are almost inevitable), and to conduct their initial
"training" by explaining the basics and giving them some simple but useful
examples of things that might happen and how they should react to them.
Since I took the time to explain the basics to Thaddeus, it must have made
things go much more smoother for him. He had questions in-between encounters,
but never during. And that's a definite plus.
I can only guess that the reason that campaigns such as NERO, LIONE and their
clones don't have locative hits would be because it does mean somebody has to
be available. And those campaigns certainly don't want that level of
interaction between marshalls and players.
Chris
Why can't women remember to put the seat back up?