FinalHavenLarp.com

Well said Zydana!

Play with in your means. If you can't afford the the simple requirements of the path or race you want to play (I talking about $10 of dollars, not $100's), maybe this is not the game you should be playing. Maybe there are more important things you should be concentrating on besdies entertainment

Rember, this is for fun, a hobby, something you spend your extra money on to be entertained and hang with your friends. You do not go paintballing with out buying some paint to shoot!

There needs to be a basic standard of dress for costume and armor to keep the quality of the game up and help people emerse themselves in the larp. If you want to wear jeans and swing foam weapons, do it in your front yard. Or if you want to roleplay with out dressing up and hang with friends, play a sit down.

LARP is Live Action Role Playing. It is dressing the part, getting into physical fights, and role playing.

Thought of something else.

Shouldnt we accomodate those people who have alergies? Maybe they are allergic to leather, but need to wear it for their character? What about allergies to latex?

How about Peanut Butter! My kids school can't have PB becasue of that.

We'll I'm allgeric to lossing, can I always win

Doesn't quality work like that already? If it doesn't it used to.

Kinda. It says you can have one or the other. But that it get's confusing with the new armor upkeep rules. Seperating them makes it simple. What stops me from considering my quality heavy one catagory lighter and then a couple hours later decide I want the extra armor points?

SCA has an armor requirement and gets 1000's to pensic every year so I dont think requiring armor is a barrier to entry.

SCA has about a good amount of people who fight in heavy armor. But a lot of their armor is made of plastic, it's just hidden. Pennsic might have 2000 guys who fight Heavy, and a good lot of them are wearing plastic, with the exception of their helms.

I would love to see everyone in really cool armor and garb. I think everybody who plays these games want's better armor and garb. We can't all afford these things however. I think everyone does their best to costume themselves as best they can.

The middle path is good for us. Peer pressure does a good job of making us want to upgrade our stuff. Peer pressure as in "Damn, that dudes garb looks sweet! When I get some money I'm going to get something like that!". My first LARP event I wore a loaner gambeson and sweat pants. I would like to think after seeing people like Doug, Christen, and Melissa they are the ones who made me want to upgrade my stuff. Now I'm wearing some better gear because I wanted to look as good as them.

Call me crazy but I think what I just spent on armor isn't to bad of a price actually considering how much I've paid for latex swords.

GM_Chris wrote:Hmm elitism might be part of it, but not completely. The point is what type of setting do you wan and where you do draw the line?

We don't draw the "quality" line before flush potties, refrigerators, cars, electricity, non-period food, camping equipment, fabrics, tents, and so on and so forth. Why draw the line there, other than elitism?

So this means you expect NPCs are going to be in "appropriate" heavy armor and racial costuming 100% of the time then, right? I mean, after all if you can't afford that kind of gear, maybe you shouldn't run the game and should find a different hobby?

That is why I find this particular "quality" element of the argument hypocritical. When FH owns it's own land with it's own period buildings and it's own staff of "properly" costumed NPCs, and excludes the majority of anachronisms due to a "dress code," then you can make this argument valid.

When we are requiring other "period" gear exclusively (and an area that complements such "period" play), then you can tell me certain armor physreps should be "required."

Otherwise you are just trying to be exclusionist, which is a great attitude for the growth of a LARP (and is the reason WHY so many people look down on "roleplaying" in general).

I agree with Kyle. Let other players having great gear encourage them to get better costuming, don't penalize people who don't or can't. And if you LIKE wearing "period" armor and looking cool, that should be enough reward, and if it isn't, DON'T. And if people never reach "Fesco" standards, oh well. It's a fantasy game where we have to suspend our disbelief for a number of things MUCH easier to control than personal gear.

And they already receive a benefit: Free upkeep.

If you really want to impose a penalty, keep it similar to what we already have in play now, and just make the in-game upkeep of heavier armor more expensive for those who can't afford (or don't wear) better physreps. Keep it IN THE GAME.

GM_Chris wrote:What about the people who really really want to play an elf and do not have the extra money to pay for ear tips. Why should they be penalized? Why do those with money get the benefit of playing elves and the poor don't get to? Shouldn't the game come up with a cheaper alternative?

We've dealt with both this and the allergy situation at WH (We had a character who played an elf who couldn't wear ears because she was allergic to them. She had to try a lot harder to portray an elf. We tried to figure out alternatives, but we didn't outright tell her to "get out" because she couldn't wear the ears. We had a similar situation with a character who used tape on their ear tips. We didn't tell either of them that they "couldn't play that race."

GM_Chris wrote: Do you want a line of people in jeans with a colored plastic line over their head and you ask what you see and they respond an army of people in full plate?

For the second time in this thread, if it's about the visual aspect of what something is that players see, come up with a tabard system. Apparently people already accept it for monsters, so if this is acceptable, so should a "physical representation" for armor be acceptable visualization. If not, I want ALL NPC monsters/characters to be properly represented by their equipment 100% of the time as well.

General Maximus wrote:Play with in your means. If you can't afford the the simple requirements of the path or race you want to play (I talking about $10 of dollars, not $100's), maybe this is not the game you should be playing

Ok fine, if you are trying to make an argument about where to draw the line, but I doubt you can get me an "appropriate" $10 suit of full heavy.

You're probably right though, if this is the attitude shared by most of the playerbase, my personal beliefs and playstyle are probably NOT compatible.

We don't REQUIRE people to use latex weapons that look like "real" weapons. We let them use boffer weapons which are barely distinguishable as anything.

We don't require people to wear "appropriate" period costuming, we allow sweatpants a tunic and sneakers if they want to as a minimum.

We are not Pensec, we are not football, we are not a ball, we are not a renaissance fair, and we aren't Disneyland staff. This is Haven, where we play "let's pretend" at a boyscout camp with bathrooms, fridges and other "modern" conveniences. I think "real" armor is the least of our "immersion" problems.

Well we pay 25 dollars a game so I think we are gettin a pretty good deal. NERO out here is 55 and they don't try half as hard as our GM's when it comes to puzzles, garb, or hours of operation.

I bet if you ask why people don real full plate armor or why they wear tons of make up to phys rep their race or why they spent over a grand on a dress they will tell you it's because they get a real kick out of doing it. Not because they get free upkeep on their armor.

I get an in game advantage frome cool phys reps, I look like a total badass! Looking like a badass will make people go along with your little schemes, and stop people from questioning you. Just look at Corbyn...He looked like a badass and people just fell in line. I didn't know crap about what he could do in game but his overall look just made me shut up and listen to whatever he said. It sounds immature but we have a tendancy to flock to the coolest looking people on the field. It's human nature.

It's also a status symbol amongst larpers. If you got a full outfit head to toe and it looks good your basically saying "Hey, look at me, I'm a badass larper!". The state of your outfit can also denote how long you have been larping. Larp gear is an investment, usually the longer you have been playing the more you have and the better it looks.

We are not Pensec, we are not football, we are not a ball, we are not a renaissance fair, and we aren't Disneyland staff. This is Haven, where we play "let's pretend" at a boyscout camp with bathrooms, fridges and other "modern" conveniences. I think "real" armor is the least of our "immersion" problems.

I agree

So this means you expect NPCs are going to be in "appropriate" heavy armor and racial costuming 100% of the time then, right? I mean, after all if you can't afford that kind of gear, maybe you shouldn't run the game and should find a different hobby

?

I know you are trying to point out a place where I am being hypocritical, but I have had this conversation with the GM staff. Infact because I dont want to spend the money on equipment to get all of the NPC's dresed up, and because we dont want to charge more so we have the money like other LARPS do, I have considered not being part of the game. I mean how can you tell a player to do something you yourself are unwilling to do. Infact I put out a "help wanted sign" to help us in this exact area, but no one (and please note 1 person has PM'd me), has made a solid commitment to the cause.

don't penalize people who don't or can't. And if you LIKE wearing "period" armor and looking cool, that should be enough reward, and if it isn't, DON'T.

But you understand that you penalize the people who do wear armor. This is the argument that being a police officer is its own reward they shouldn’t get paid much. CRAP! A police officer should seriously be one of the highest professions a person can get into along side a soldier.

We've dealt with both this and the allergy situation at WH (We had a character who played an elf who couldn't wear ears because she was allergic to them. She had to try a lot harder to portray an elf. We tried to figure out alternatives, but we didn't outright tell her to "get out" because she couldn't wear the ears. We had a similar situation with a character who used tape on their ear tips. We didn't tell either of them that they "couldn't play that race."

I should end, incase anyone has not noticed yet, I am not advocating for any side. I voted for the current system so you should not be trying to convince me per say. Anyways, why is it wrong to tell a person with a latex allergy to play a human? Why must we accommodate? If a person in a wheel chair shows up and wants to play a warrior with simulated legs should we come up with a bunch of rules to put that person on par with those with legs or get a character concept that works within their situation?

Carlos Mancia does a bit where he is waiting in line for a roller coaster ride when a person with cerebral palsy get to take his spot at the front of the line because he was in a wheel chair. Carlos thought it unfair. Why does this person get to go to the front while he had to wait all day. After much discussion he looks the person in the eye and tells him he will give up his spot in line if the dude acknowledges that Carlos is better than him. The wheel chair dude wouldn’t do it so he kicked his butt back to the end of the line.

So I guess the question is should a person with less means get some kind of a handicap/welfare? You know you play golf against a person who is better you play with a handicap. That sucks! Who comes up with that kind of crud. Maybe we should accept financial statements and only allow those who fall in certain income brackets to wear less costuming. This would certainly mean I would have to upgrade.
Maybe we should have a progressive price so those who make more money pay more for the event and we can then take the extra profits to get more costumes and trickle it down in the form of free costume rental to those with less means.

What it truely boils down is unfair ingame advatanges folks are getting for wearing cloth and getting it counted as heavy. It is that simple. Wearing full armor is hot, combersome, limit's your running speed and combat movements. So where is the incentive of getting nice looking armor? It is not worth it from a mechanical side. It is just being pushed by peer pressure which will not work on the power gamers of LARPS.

And the upkeep clause is a joke for armor. There are few people who truely pay their full upkeep on a regular bases. My hats off to anyone who does pay their full upkeep every event becasue you are at a disadvantage.

It is about being fair and equal mechanicaly. If it is not, folks will bitch and feel cheated.

nope, i could make you a passable suit of heavy armor(for at least one location) for 10 bucks, easy.

thanks Maximus, i was waiting for yours or Reids take on the CR - armor thing

my thoughts were everyone would recive the 6 CR as default points, like life, the CR you get out of warrior would be on top of the 6, after all skilled warriors are going to be faster than your average person. but because you cannot loose more than the base 6 CR you dont have to worry about buying skills that you cant use.

yes CR regen, however, that does not help you WHILE your fighting, like the extra armor would. you can always extend the CR regeneration time, adjust the formula so there is a bigger difference than a 2-1 armor, CR ratio, etc.

if this was implimented base and mid soak would increase without the use of armor, however max soak and soak with armor would not increase.

this would i feel solve the problem of people wearing "bad" armor just to get a bonus in soak, nobody would "have" too wear it.

General Maximus wrote:And the upkeep clause is a joke for armor. There are few people who truely pay their full upkeep on a regular bases. My hats off to anyone who does pay their full upkeep every event becasue you are at a disadvantage

Without trying to get nasty here, I know you've been in the "a bunch of people are huge cheaters" mind-frame, but with that attitude, maybe we better just disregard all forms of balancing rules then, because people are just big cheaters. If you want to disregard a perfectly reasonable (and easily monitor-able, I might say) balancing possibility because someone "might cheat," you might as well not have any rules at all.

Maybe we could just take armor out of the game entirely, because someone could cheat about what it is or how much the upkeep is on it. Better take out magic items then, too, because someone might not be paying their upkeep on it. Hmmm, while we're at it, we better take out charged abilities, because someone might not be counting at the right speed. OH! Or lifepoint skills because someone might not actually take away a life-point when they were supposed to. C'mon now...

LARP is based on an honor system. If you can't accept that and want to just consistently accuse people of cheating (whether they are or not), then you are never going to be happy playing, period, regardless of what the rules are. Rules aren't for people who cheat, we make them for the rest of us who want to know how the mechanics of our abilities function. Why would we make the rules for people who cheat? If they cheat anyway, they don't care what the rules are.

We already disregard aspects of costuming. Let's go back to the elf ears example. I seem to recall a certain Tsunotaur player who rarely (if EVER) wore horns. When he did, it was a flat pair cut out of lined white paper taped to his helmet. I don't seem to recall GMs coming down on him and telling him: "You can't play a tsunotaur anymore, you have to play a human because your racial phys-rep isn't good enough." *rollseyes* It's similar to a GM saying "I'm sorry, that piece of armor isn't good enough to be heavy, it has to be medium."

It's different buying pieces of armor at conventions or faires because you can afford it and they fit or you like them and want to add them to your collection. It's not the same when you have to say: "I want to play a warrior this year. If I want my soak to be as good as other warriors, I now need to go out and spend a couple hundred dollars on physreped armor." A warrior without a full suit of heavy is hindering themselves. Penalties and bonuses should be based on in-game situations, not out of game ones.

And if you say there is a "requirement," then you need to standardize it and not base it on personal opinions: "Heavy armour must be phys-repped having a minimum weight requirement of %40 of the individual's body weight. Armour not made of a HEAVY material such as leather or metal must be a minimum thickness of three inches." Or whatever.

General Maximus wrote:So where is the incentive of getting nice looking armor? It is not worth it from a mechanical side.

Like I said (and Kyle also said), it creates an atmosphere for the character. It's an advantage to the "aura" of the character. And yes, peer pressure ("Wow they look cool, I wish my stuff was as cool as that.") IS enough of a motivator.

If you don't like wearing it because it doesn't confer enough of an in-game advantage for you to wear a big heavy set of armor YOU DON'T HAVE TO. I honestly DO NOT UNDERSTAND the bitching about OTHER PEOPLE'S GEAR when you can make the same decision as them IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

If you see it as a disadvantage, so be it. There are characters who put themselves at a disadvantage all the time for the sake of roleplaying who don't get any tangible benefit out of it.

Oh, and Chris, the lack of NPC (and PC, for that matter) physreps really doesn't bother me. I have an active imagination that doesn't at all hinder my ability, for example, to visualize Mike and Karen playing awe-inspiring dragon characters, or when you play a goblin or a monster of some sort. My issue is with DEMANDING the PCs be able to accommodate what NPCs cannot.

Toss the people in full plate (or amazing costuming or whatever) a damn hero point once in awhile for exceptional costuming and be done with it. I'm all about rewarding exceptional effort. I am NOT for penalizing people who can't reach that bar.

I have an issue with the people here for whom the focus seems to NOT be rewarding the people who CAN, but penalizing the people who CAN'T.

Celegar, if you don't need any particularly special equipment to do it, maybe you could walk me through the process and materials and I could attempt once more to do it myself over the winter. I might already have some of the items I'd need for it. I'm still guessing it wouldn't solve the "proper" "nice looking" physrep argument we are having here for heavy armour though. And I'm sure as hell not going to spend a bunch of time (Or ask someone) to spend a bunch of time (or even $30) on materials just to be told next year that it "isn't good enough for heavy."

Afterall, I could just spraypaint some cardboard silver and call it good, if that's all it took. :p

Ark,

Your CR idea would increase the over soak of the game but not increase the overall soak total. It is an interesting idea. As a person who min and max's, I would never wear armor becasue of all armors inherit real life pentalities. The extra 6 points of soak is not worth the upkeep, wearing the armor, and the time it takes to repair it.

I could easly handle running around with 10 life and 14 CR with no armor as a warrior with a repop time after combat of 9 minutes instead of 14.

The question is, do people feel the games soak is to low for non combat builds? I know I can play a warrior full emapth that has 16-18 soak with the use of armor and with the ability to use a shield and all skills. A warriors max is some where between 32-26. So I really don't see an issue with the current soak levels. One just needs to build a character for it. Yes you can create a character that has 4 soak, but that by choice, not game rule design.

Why do some people complain about people on welfare I mean we could all choose to not work too....

I have thank you for everyone who participates in these type dicussions. As we all can see, there are varying opinons which none are 100% right or 100% wrong. We all just want a fun, balanced, fair game we can play and enjoy.

Hedi,
Thanks for giving me a smile today. I think we can agree to disagree. It seems we are always have polar opposite opions. Which is alright
Can't wait for the next disscussion.