Recent Posts

Here are the videos from the May event, sorry it took me so long to get them up
http://www.youtube.com/my_videos?feature=mhsn

http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/jj162/TSpray/RGG%20August%2010/

Here are the pics from Kitty's camera

These are great!!!  Thanks!

Just some quick basic photoshopping.  Enjoy!  P.S. Steph actually took these but with my camera thus is why I am posting them.

http://picasaweb.google.com/106772453155833660362/AugustLARP#

Well, a rules system is really just a list of exceptions to a singular standard. For example, the basis is that you are hit and lose the usage of the location you are hit. The list of exceptions are all the things that prevent or alter that standard, such as auras and so forth. The only issue comes when you have so many exceptions that it becomes confusing. You get exceptions to exceptions to exceptions. Of course if everything was an in-game call, then many abilities would be cut all together. The idea of such abilities is cool, you just have to keep in mind if you think the extra bit of confusion is worth the added ability. In larger games, this is generally not the case.

Re-nig on that!

IBGAs are up for our two new characters, but for some reason, they're linked to my account... I had *thought* I assigned them to the right account...

I'll let you know when I get the new and improved headache fixed!

IBGAs are up for everyone except our two new players; your IBGAs should be up in the next few days.

Nathan/Wade:

Nathan, you pretty much hit it right with your observations about large vs. small games.  When originally crafting the rules, Eric and I did have a similar discussion, and decided that we would have all protectives (except for a very select few) be IG simply to allow for our player base to grow without then having to do additional changes to the rules.  I do feel Wade's position, as poison is a bit of an unusual situation with that.  Magical spells and physical damage would probably be pretty obvious when they don't achieve their intended effect, so it makes pretty good rational sense there.  Mind effects and poisons wouldn't necessarily be as immediately obvious, but for consistency's sake we kept everything IP.

It's all good, I got over it a long time ago. It's just like Mind Over Body and such.

However, if you want to use the consistency argument, you need to actually employ it. The fact that you have unique things pin pricked throughout the rules that break your consistency, it throws a bit of that credence out the window. I'd rather see you take -everything- and make it an IG-call, rather then having small exceptions.

That, or you know, develop a more complex rule system to make accounts for these variable situations.

p.s.  How long before I can actually make sense of thistype of argument/discussion?

There are 4 stages:

1) I don't understand the rules.
2) I understand the rules.
3) ...and I have this idea on how to change them for the better!
4) OMG, I'm running a LARP, this is a lot of work.

Stage 2 is the optimum position and the place at which you will start understanding these discussions, but the act of absorbing the content of these discussions places you in serious danger of sliding to stage 3.

Josh:

No biggie, you made the right call.

Nathan/Wade:

Nathan, you pretty much hit it right with your observations about large vs. small games.  When originally crafting the rules, Eric and I did have a similar discussion, and decided that we would have all protectives (except for a very select few) be IG simply to allow for our player base to grow without then having to do additional changes to the rules.  I do feel Wade's position, as poison is a bit of an unusual situation with that.  Magical spells and physical damage would probably be pretty obvious when they don't achieve their intended effect, so it makes pretty good rational sense there.  Mind effects and poisons wouldn't necessarily be as immediately obvious, but for consistency's sake we kept everything IP.