hypothetical damage call question

Post by **GM_Chris** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:25 pm

In FH we have a simple damage call system..everyone swings a number without what I will call a descripter.

CARPS on the other hand has a million of them but the basic calls trnslateed to FH would be 1 edge or 1 blunt. The edge or blunt mean nothing unless you have a skill where it means something.

Do you feel the edge and blunt descriptions at the end of the number add an unnecessary complication or do you feel FH is missing out on some added skills and battle descriptions.

I should add for NPC's you can then have monsters that take different types of damage based on the description at the end of the call which makes weapons mean something more than they do now.

Hope I make sense..what are your thoughts?

Garritt · Post by **Garritt** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:32 pm

I hate all the top-end complication of the calls at Carps. However, the time I played, I thought the weapon damage descriptor, though it seemed for the most part unnecessary, tended to slow calls down to a reasonable speed. I.E. it stopped most cases of machine-gunning.

I think it would be kind of cool. Then, for instance, if you had Pikeman's weapon focus, you could swing 1 edge with a spear, but 1 blunt with a quarterstaff. Of an axe versus a hammer.

Wyrmwrath · Post by **Wyrmwrath** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:11 pm

FH/WH is the ONLY system I have played, out of 8 fifferent LARPS across the country that does NOT have a descriptor for normal non-modified damage just for the sake of slowing down swings.
I have heard about machine-gunning at FH/WH, but for the life of me cant tell when its happening since the standard damage happens as fast as what I am used to calling machine-gunning. Now it would be easy to detect, since if you cant understand the FULL call someone is swinging, they are machine-gunning.
I have been saying this needed to be changed/used since my first event. I am TOTALY for it. Even the word damage would be better than what it is now, but the edged/blunt call would add a cool fascet to certain monsters and could even lend itself to new path and discipline powers. Say a vampire only taking full damage form magical blades and none from blunt damage, or a gargoyle fleeing battle with several sword gripping knights that had been having little effect, because a pair of hammer toting dwarves arrived to the combat.

When do we start?!?!?1

:BIG:

Dallid · Post by **Dallid** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:53 pm

I'll always be a supporter of FH remaining as simple as possible. But I do see the use of a generic descriptor to slow calls down.

However, I'm very against adding a variety of descriptors. I severely dislike being entirely ineffective against a monster, and so am against adding additional ways in which monsters may be immune to attacks.

"I used to be able to do normal damage. Now I can only do edge damage."

Post by **GM_Chris** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:52 pm

Good stuff!

Dallid..is your main problem with the descriptor that monsters might become completely immune to damage because that is a GM monster planning thing?

Also I have been having a hard time with the concept of complication of the descriptor.

For example: I consider a call to be like Vorpal..everyone needs to know what vorpal means..for the most part. Crush is probably another great example.

I do not consider "Edge" to be a call or fire, ice, water, poop, silllybutts, or anything else you can think of as they do not mean anything unless you have a skill where it means something.

BUT

IN FH when someone throws out a call, if you dont know what it is, at least you know it means SOMETHING and maybe you should stop and ask, where is if you add a bunch of sillyness, then you MUST know every real call hands down which probably makes it hard for new people

BUT
The number 1 complaint is variety at FH due to the simpleness of the game. Decsions..decisons..

Kalphoenix · Post by **Kalphoenix** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:36 am

If it's something added for the sake of slowing down calls, just make people call "1 Damage" or even "1 normal" or whatever.

This is something I haven't really went into a lot in my personal ruleset. So far I've played with weapon proficiency and swings costings an un-interuptable basic charge time. Heavier weapons take more time to ready but do more damage. For example, a small dagger can be swung quickly (Lets say a 1 sec charge) but only do one normal damage. A 2-handed sword might do 2 damage but take 2 seconds to charge and so on.

I think it involves too many numbers at once, though if I kept the charge and damage in line, it might work. I guess I'd have to playtest it but it still feels too complicated for me, and my ruleset is already slightly more complicated from FH as it is.

Salvatore_Tenhammers · Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:41 am

Possibilities:

"Edge"
"Blunt"
"Steel"
"Iron"
"Silver"
"Cold Iron"
"Wood"

just saying.

Ark · Post by **Ark** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:33 am

Salvatore_Tenhammers wrote:Possibilities:

"Edge"
"Blunt"
"Steel"
"Iron"
"Silver"
"Cold Iron"
"Wood"

just saying.

LOL i thought you didnt like D&D

i am mixed on this, i considered that it would slow down calls, but then i thought if you add these then different metals are not far behind, although if i can have an Aligned Metalline weapon im all for it

cole45 · Post by **cole45** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:42 am

I am pro "1 damage" but feel edge,blunt is unnessisary.

Wyrmwrath · Post by **Wyrmwrath** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:51 am

currently edged or blunt is un needed; but if it was used, the staff could then add a tad more depth to the critterd and disciplines.

It would be no more hassel than adding "damage", but provide a great deal more flexability and creativity to the game mechanics.

You could then have golems that take no more than 1 damage from any edged attack, but full damage from blunt weapons. Yes thats a pain for sword weilders, but it would balance out when the plant men or swamp trolls came a knocking and hammers had little or no effect and the warriors had to switch up to blades. It would also make the different weapon focuses more valuable.

I just see it as a win/win...and we all know winning just leads to tiger blood and all of us ending up as vatican warlocks that date goddesses....

Abaddon · Post by **Abaddon** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:14 am

what i could get behind is you call edge/blunt if there are no other calls. iter wise it gets ridiculous.

1 edge or one vorpal but not one vorpal edge.

Garritt · Post by **Garritt** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:21 pm

I would be behind trying some kind of playtest of just the two simple descriptors. It could even be at something like a sparring meet, or before an event, or hell, even during a game break at an event.

I agree with Bryan's post about the possibility adding just enough spice to the game, without being complicated. I mean, we already have monsters that magic works better against. How much more difficult would a 'blunt' or 'edge' call be?

And agreeing with Travis, maybe make a rule where "blunt" or "edge" only tags onto a call of 'normal' damage. And unless completely immune to normal damage, each call would still do at least a base of "1", not "0".

So a rock monster attacks, which are known to be resistant to edged weapons, and a rogue responds.

A "12 Edge" with a spear does 1 damage to the NPC.

A "12 blunt" with an axe/hammer does 12 damage to the NPC.

As special calls go, they wouldn't need to have the two tags added because:

"Vorpal" already has to be with edged weapons.

"Crush" has to be a headed weapon already.

"Magic" would, in this system, would make all weapons equally effective, as it's the magic doing the damage.

Post by **GM_Chris** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:55 pm

Very good point you need to either have a descriptor or a call, but not both.

and calls of course need to be limited to just 2 grouped together. You can call vorpal posion, but you cannot call vorpal magic posion..just my thought

Kalphoenix · Post by **Kalphoenix** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:45 pm

GM_Chris wrote:Very good point you need to either have a descriptor or a call, but not both.

and calls of course need to be limited to just 2 grouped together. You can call vorpal posion, but you cannot call vorpal magic posion..just my thought

Just a side comment, but an assassin with a level in enchant weapon can already do this in FH, lol.

I don't think a weapon "type" call is really necessary...there are options for slowing down damage that don't involve adding them.

Then again, I'm not AGAINST it in the current ruleset unless the desire would be to add more than edge and blunt (I don't want to see "silver" "wood" and so on). And even then, I'd really only be okay with it if these two calls do not stack with other calls, they ONLY represented base damage (Of course, then you are adding exceptions). You'd only have "# blunt" or "# edge" for example, not "# magic edge" or "# blunt poison" and so on and so forth. My worry is that adding a couple weapon types opens the door to people feeling we need more than just those two (See the suggested list above).

Realistically and technically, we already have edge and blunt represented in-game...they are vorpal and crush, respectively...or at least that is how I always saw them.

I personally feel that anything that adds what are essentially new calls to the rules is edging into dangerous territory regarding rule simplicity.

Wyrmwrath · Post by **Wyrmwrath** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:47 pm

1 edge or one vorpal but not one vorpal edge.

Very good point you need to either have a descriptor or a call, but not both.

Why not we already have drscriptors two or three types long.

"Magic" would, in this system, would make all weapons equally effective, as it's the magic doing the damage.

why would magic make them all equal? I dont see the logioc behind that.

A "12 blunt" with an axe/hammer does 12 damage to the NPC

You cant do blunt damage with an axe, it has a blade but is a "headed" weapon. The wording in the undead hunter discipline is innacurate for what it intends to do.

I dont see any issue with adding Magic, Silver, Poison(which should only wok with an edged weapon), to the edged/blunt call.

in most ever other larp the weapon design deginated blunt or edged to no call is needed, but FH has no such weapon construction rules. The order of priority most often is as follows:

.......silver*...................___________........................Magic
X.....Normal/damage.....poison/massive(like crush).....Elemental#

*(or other metal like iron against fae, wood or bone in a few )
#(fire/ice/lightening/earth)

I havent seen a call like Vorpal but one other time, but that system worked to different to compare.
So if you poison your silver dagger it would be "X silver poison". If you then get a spell cast on the weapon for fire or magic it would be "X Magic/Fire Poison". It was rare to have three descriptors elsewhere.

The worst I can see at FH/WH is "X Silver/Magic Edged Poison" which is no worse than "X Magic Vorpal Poison" which is already in the game, and will rarely happen since only assassins can use poison or if some NPCs are told to swing for fear or sleep. What we would see is Magic Edged/Blunt, or Silver Eged/Blunt since crush and vorpal already dictate weapon damage type as Heidi stated.

The only thing these will do is slow down swings a small bit and add some needed depth at no real extra complexity.