Change in Charge Skill Disruption

[General Maximus]

I like that you have to swing damage or take an effect to be disrupted. I just did not like the pokes and zero damage calls.

You also forgot the drop benchs on GM's head thing people do now and than

[NewGuy]

A) as an (unfortunately) impartial outside view, (stupid Colorado) with experience in the game, I think all of you solutions are obviously inferior to mine. I'd suggest merely specing every monster twice. When the PCs encouter the NPC, that triggers the NPC to quickly survey the situation and decide. The lower stats kick in if it's a REALLY small group alone, a group of all squishies, a sneak attack on PCs already engaged, etc. If you come across the whole town, or some high level characters, use the stats more appropriate. Just don't switch. If you surprise a weaponless sage, and (s)he gets the whole town, accept your beating with grace.

As an NPC out here, we've got half our PCs < lv 5, and half > 25, so that's how we spec everything.

B) My suggestions for D.M. as we're (you're) re-writing rules to fix other problems. As hold ground causes you to drop signifficantly after using it, I think D.M. should also have a cost (other than swinging 0) It suggest removing the ability to swing/block all together. If you're defensive, how can you make an aggressive action? Then keep 0 swings disruptive as they simulate shoving/hitting/kicking etc. you can't actually do to disrupt someone.

As for costs, I wouldn't mind letting PCs reduce damage by more than one, (5?) but putting a cap on DM time, or total damage it can absorb. EX, you become immune to all damage for 60 seconds, limit once per engagement, or EX reduces damage by 5 (to a minimum of 0), until the player negates 25 points of damage, or they choose to end DM, whichever comes first.

NERO has a similar effect (aura) which cannot be activated if you have any weapons on you. (their offensive nature dissrupts the harmony of the defensive aura. Having to completely disarm might deter cheesiery. (though doubtfull)

(NERO also has VERY weak monsters that serve the sole function of swollowing such defending players whole [killing blow]. Easily killed, but the punks that just go invincible are instantly killed, because the monster eats the weapons first leaving them unarmed, and short a few tags.)

C) as A victim of Corbyn, we should get Vince's oppinion on how to circumvent the PCs will to live via any means they can. He probably killed more PCs than a few NPCs have. Great Show ol' chap.

[dier_cire]

If you can't hit the non moving target with a charge up every third or fourth time, there's a problem. Back out of their range charge at the same time as a buddy monster, and then come in at once. One should get through. Or, have the mini boss have 4th level druid, and charge up a 5 crush. Or have him use packets for 5 magic...

I'd rather see this route. I'll be NPCing for awhile anyway, so I'll be happy to do it.

[Zaire]

My umbrage isn't to the skill, but to the fact that the GM's alter encounters to fit the PC opposition. And I will add I understand why it's done, but over the years I also have developed the opinion that it is not a good thing.

If the players, through combination of skills, superior numbers or some other method, over power an encounter/plot/module/adventure then so be. The GM's shouldn't adjust the challenge, they should adjust the reward.

For example a small band of goblins is report moving through the woods. If 4 1st level characters go to engage them, it would seem to me a challenging encounter, with a slight edge going to the PC's because of their ability to "think outside the box" as opposed to NPC's with instructions.

Now if 4 20th level characters go to deal with that problem, the goblins shouldn't "magically" get tougher to challenge the high level PC's. They should take care of the problem without breaking a sweat.

The GM's should reward the PC's from the first group with an amount appropriate for the low level PC's (say a few hide resources), but the second group should get nothing, the encounter posed no challenge.

This will force (and this is a good force) the high level PC's to allow the lower level PC's the chance to make a name for themselves, provide themselves with usefulness and just generally be helpful.

Granted things get a little wonky (I love that word) when you have a group of mixed level PC's. But I've discovered that if you adjust to challenge the higher level PC's in a mixed group the lower level PC's get beat, because odds are one of them is going to go up against the wrong NPC.

Now on to Defensive Matrix. If 8 warriors with DM form a box formation with two spearmen or archers or casters inside it would be very difficult to stop this formation, but it should be! It's a tactical formation made up by 10 players. It's called thinking smart and using your abilities in a smart manner.

It seems to me DM was designed so one warrior could "hold the bridge" while others ran to safety. If the enemy outnumbers him he's going to spend is energy defending (even if it is for a long time), but he's not going to get away. the minute he turns to run he's down. Also lucky shots happen and that's what kills cocky warriors who want to be heroes.

As for using DM and laying down, I'll agree that's cheesy. And cheesy equals lame and lame equals "Go home and find another LARP to abuse" in my book.

I'm not saying my opinions are the only good ones. But I have nearly 10 years of LARP experience and have written and run over 100 encounters/plots/modules for KANAR as well as tried to fix their broken rule system. (They have similar problems but they are of the belief that more is better, silly people). I fully understand the logistics behind organizing, briefing and running encounters and the frustration of "PC just though of something, damn them".

[Peace420]

You do not have a ton of options.

Look I know Takki hates it when I do this but if you dontbelieve me I will be happy to create a plot where everyone is forced to to play their characters at level 0. I will play a warrior with a key around my neck.

I will stick my back against a wall and tell the entire town you have 5 minutes to get the key or everyone dies.

So in that situation how confident are you that it is just peachy keen balanced?

I don't know if this has been answered but I'm positive we'd get that key, 2 warriors to occupy your focus and 3 rogues to 3 you to death.

I understand the concern but I don't think it's worth a rule change and I'm not sure how I feel about the charging thing. It makes it more complicated, if you get hit you lose the charge is as simple as it gets.

[GM_Chris]

As for using DM and laying down, I'll agree that's cheesy. And cheesy equals lame and lame equals "Go home and find another LARP to abuse" in my book.

This is indeed my only gripe. We haev been forced to change our skill set because of this cheese ball tactic.

We completely agree.

[General Maximus]

On a side note. A 4th charcter is not much differrent than a 20th or 100th level character in power. So the GM's can run encounters to a more standard power level. There is little difference between low level and high level characters in this game. Which some people like, and other don't. But it is about working as a team, not being the single hero.

[GM-Phil]

Once again I just have to input, Having played a warrior for some time now, and have used DM quite extensively.. even having used it by putting my backs to things.. it is only logical to do when you have a skill that has a downside about being hit in the back..

Now that said.. and what I am about to say has really already been said.. if someone wants to lie on the ground or stand with their back to a wall during an entire battle to save themselves.. so be it.. if the NPC's really are just swinging one, and have no other abilities for mor damage, or taunting, or pressing or anything.. then they should just look at that character and move on to killing someone else.. I have never in the 4-5 years I have plyed this LARP seen a situation where multiple NPC's are tied up by one PC in DM, plus I may have been in one battle where at least one NPC wasn't swinging 2 or some other weird ability..

It seems to me we are concentrating on an almost no percent happening and looking at skills that work fine, while leaving skills like Alchemy, Craftsman and Arcane the way they are, at leats in the Public forums.

As before I said I have used the laying and back to wall tactic, why? because I needed to buy my self a little time to rethink my strategy.. and any PC who just falls to the ground in DM and thinks they are invulnerable.. i would love to see their face when they get taunted, or hit bya 5 crush..

[NewGuy]

DM + Flee = fun

[Corbyn]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I do have a couple random opinions based on the last couple pages.

I am not a fan of 'swinging for 0' to disrupt an effect like taunt. I have seen several cave battles where a large group of PCs was protected for a very long time from the NPCs by a single warrior using DM. Eventually the NPCs changed tactics/stats and it became more of a battle. I would like to see the NPC opponents be a bit beefier across the board. This could take the form of better tactics, skill variety, or just swinging for more damage with more hit points. I have NPC'd many times, and in my opinion there has been slightly excessive concern about giving te PCs more than they can handle. I think the time is right to have this happen, to reflect the harsher condiitions of Caledonia.

[Peace420]

LOL man, I'm reading some really funny stuff in this thread. It's ok to lay down and reasses your posotion but it's not okay for the GM's to decide to swing 2 at that point? And the GM's think I'm the one that's always trying to make sure we don't get screwed over. It comes down to trust, I trust that the GM's aren't trying to win, I trust that they aren't trying to screw us over, even if it doesn't always seem like that. It's ok for PC's to change tactics within the rules but it's not ok for what is equivalent for a god to do so? Personally I like the fact that the GM's and NPC's try their best to give us a good challenge. One of the things I hate most about games in general is the "Dragon's Lair" game where you can literally close your eyes and rely on sound and timing to beat the game. I like the fact that games now adjust strategy and reaction to input. I'd really really hate a LARP where every monster swung 1 had 10 soak and never did any special skills.

And really, I think the disrupt charge thing is a non-issue has it cause alot of problems for NPC's?

[Zaire]

LOL man, I'm reading some really funny stuff in this thread. It's ok to lay down and reasses your posotion but it's not okay for the GM's to decide to swing 2 at that point?

I think it's bad form for a GM to change the stats of an encounter in response to PC's being better, faster, tougher, smarter or more tactically prepared for said encounter. Doing so is a slap in the face of the player.
It basically says to the player "No matter what you do I'm better." And any GM with that attitude is bad for a game.

It's ok for PC's to change tactics within the rules but it's not ok for what is equivalent for a god to do so?

Who's equivalent to a god? The GM? That's a joke and a misconception that far to many people bring from the table-top into LARPS. In Live Action, the GM is a storyteller, the GM is a moderator, the GM is a foil to the PC's actions. He is not a god. Anyone who treats them as such is just feeding an ego.

I like the fact that games now adjust strategy and reaction to input. I'd really really hate a LARP where every monster swung 1 had 10 soak and never did any special skills.

I'd be bored of that game too. And I'm not advocating 'cookie-cutter NPC's". What I'm saying is that if an encounter is planned and the PC's out think the encounter, out plan the encounter, or overpower the encounter, then that's what happens.

Changing the encounter because the PC's are winning is a pile of horse-poop and a sign of weakness is planning on whoever is running the encounter. A GM has the ability to think outside the box in all situations, but they should plan outside the box as well.

If the PC's have been encounter wandering trolls that are raiding and every time they run into trolls that have the same stats the PC's will begin to plan and plot around that fact, but if the GM's also have 1 troll in 10 that has different abilities, that fact could throw the PC's off or it might not.
Also remember that anything a PC can do an NPC can do as well.

More planning will result in a better game and not the appearance of a petulant GM who is made that the PC's are winning.

[GM_Chris]

Let me assure you that you grossely missunderstood my comments to like the 10th power.

My problem is when players use cheeseball tactics. It is not about outhinking an enounter it is when a player lies on the ground or put their back against a wall to gain immunity to damage.

Also when I spoke about changing stats I was really not talking about plot related monsters. I was talking about wandering monsters that are not tied to any specific plot.

Also, I agreed with you that it is cheesey for GM's to change stats so we will make sure our NPC's our built more like PC's and thus have skills that will allow them to fight the back against the wall scenerio so I am not even worried about it anymore.

Also, I am sensing, and perhaps it is the board, that you seem to have a real bad expierences from the past. I assure you that the GM staff here at FH does not have any type of ego issue. We only care about putting together a good story. People like Erik who have been with us for 11 years and across 2 games can attest to that fact.

What is funny is, I live in Iowa. I am not on the plot team. I do not even come up with these encounters. The only thing I use to work on are rules and I decideed to greatly limit my capasity in that manner. Sooo I guess in the end I am not really a GM anymore. I am not envolved. I should change my name.

[Adam]

I'm going to jump in here and say that, as an NPC for the last 2 years at Final Haven, and several years total (3-4) at CARPS (different rules yes but my point for any LARP is the same), I can say that, when given stats for monsters, I play those stats (I may fudge a LITTLE, but never enough to change the outcome). But a lot of times, on any given plot, there are not such stats given and we DO adjust things on the fly to give the group that is on that plot a FUN and CHALLENGING encounter.

That really is the point of the game. FUN. To say that DM's from ANY game, table-top or LARP, don't make things up as they go, within certain peramiters, is fooling themselves. I've myself in my D&D game changed what I rolled for monsters because my players were rolling badly as well, and didn't want to kill them with a random encounter. I wanted my Big Bad to try and do that.

That being said, I do think that changing stats for any LARP encounter midstream should be heavily discouraged. They may have come with more people than expected, or a more powerful group than expected (in Final Haven "power" is a relative term) but some leeway needs to be there for any such encounter. Thus comes in the trust factor Eric talked about.

I NEVER (as an NPC or PC) want to see the PC's lose. We are the storytellers after all and this is the PC's game, but we do get to change some of the story elements if we want to as well, hopefully giving the PC's a fun outcome.

Also, I am sensing, and perhaps it is the board, that you seem to have a real bad expierences from the past. I assure you that the GM staff here at FH does not have any type of ego issue. We only care about putting together a good story. People like Erik who have been with us for 11 years and across 2 games can attest to that fact.

I can as well.

[GM_Chris]

You know I thought of somethig that might be confusing.

Stats are usually changed at the time we see the group not after we start fighting.