Offensive (again)

Jul 21, 2008 18:32

Paraphrased from the Elysium Larp playtesting
Read more... )

Leave a comment

drabbit July 22 2008, 01:44:27 UTC
The differences hidden amongst the familiar is what is doing my head in at the moment... Have tried to read it all through solidly and been reminded what it's like to be a new starter in the system...

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

drabbit July 23 2008, 03:04:11 UTC
Not just hit on, rather just experienced for the first time in a while.

Of course, with a democratic run rules system, there's potential for great change coming in very quickly, and possibly being very quickly reversed. This may cause even more confusion.

Reply

xanthipe July 23 2008, 11:54:48 UTC
Once the initial test phase finishes (probably end of August), changes will only be made on a yearly basis.

We'll be arguing them all year round mind - we're still larpers, after all ;)

Reply

fourmyle July 24 2008, 08:14:25 UTC
... so you end up with all the changes Flo wanted to make in automatically, with no come back - but everyone else would have to try and argue against the random overpowered changes?

That's amazing.

Reply

lucy_k_p July 24 2008, 09:34:51 UTC
No. Because there were more people involved in rewriting the rules than just Flo. If I thought he was making a mistake, I said so. If I thought something didn't make sense, I said so. Sometimes I was convinced by other people's POV and sometimes they were convinced by mine. Points of contention are still being discussed so that everyone gets a say.

What particularly did you think was overpowered? If you could drop me an e-mail I'll see the stuff goes on the boards for discussion.

Reply

fourmyle July 24 2008, 18:49:25 UTC
not sure I have your email...

It's not an overpowered thing (as such) - it's how the rules have been 'rewritten' - or the write up of the rules changes.

It's impossible to see how things have been balanced, from the rather random Appendix A and the post playtest rewrites.
For Example
1. Rework barbarians:
• Increase life cost from base 1.0 to base 1.5 (yielding 1/3/2)
Why?
• Change staff to be the same for WD and Shaman
Why? Witch doctors had mage cost, Shamans Priest...
• Witch Doctors can no longer buy religious skills
...Why not?
• Bring Shaman consecrate in line with ceremony skills
A repeated phrase in the rewrite 'In line' seems to be 'what I think it ought to be' - with no other reasoning.
• Lower Shaman rec creature, undead, smell skills to 6, 3, 6
Why? What's the balance?
• Lower Shaman rec miracle and read/write skills
Hinting that Barbarians are becoming less, well Barbarbic...
• Nerf Witch Doctor spell slots: You now need to re-cast the ritual
Okay... • Change Witch Doctor spell slot cost from 2 ∗ (level + 1) to ( ... )

Reply

florain July 24 2008, 19:08:41 UTC
http://elysiumlarp.org.uk/index.php?cmd=page&arg1=rules&arg2=19

This summary is more concise and much easier to follow than working your way through the entire changeset.

Reply

fourmyle July 25 2008, 07:05:07 UTC
Yes. But it's not really complete - you still have to look at one section, then look again at where else it appears before you can really say whether something is broken, going to break or just plain wierd.

Reply

florain July 25 2008, 09:23:41 UTC
That is the nature of change summaries. They point at the changes, not contain a complete write up of them.

Reply

fourmyle July 25 2008, 11:27:43 UTC
no. I mean they are not complete. there are sections where the wording has been changed, and it doesn't mention it at all.

And some of the Clarifications are more poorly worded than ever. For Example - Gladiator 'restrictions'

Reply

florain July 25 2008, 11:32:42 UTC
In the style of free software development, I encourage you to submit a patch to the rules to rectify this.

Reply

fourmyle July 25 2008, 17:24:05 UTC
I won't. For the following reasons ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up