(Untitled)

Jul 25, 2007 08:10

Was going to post this to Helbling's LARP post, but decided it was a little long and a tiny bit off topic, so thought I'd separate it off here... and made it a bit longer ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 9

fourmyle July 25 2007, 08:27:18 UTC
the interesting alternative is to run a military-free year.

The only reason to run 'mixed' parties IC is because the military can't do everything, or don't have the manpower.
The only reason that disruptive characters are allowed on missions a second time is OOC, it nullifies their character.
This last year, we had people being mercenaries and the like, due to manpower shortages, but I would have preferred more military.

The irony - If all characters in the patrol are military, the class restriction 'never leave any citizen in danger' stops being an internal problem, which (at the moment) makes it a huge restriction, and turns into just, 'people-you-meet'

Reply

yamamaya July 25 2007, 13:16:03 UTC
The difficulty, of the non-military year, I thought of, was believibly excluding defenders whilst allowing for integration with other characters after the first year.

In my opinion a Barberian campaign would own, with the players making up a Clan (or part of). A fun concept could be the journey from the North to the Kingdom and allows for ultimate integration with the Barony characters. But I'd guess not everyone would want to play a Barberian.

Actually, I'd be tempted to run that if there was enough interest, though I'd bet there wouldn't be enough "slots" for a low level essentially seperate campaign.

Your last point, about protecting citizens, I think would extend to all members of your squad, but yes, in a different way it does atm. Although it may remove some of the more problematic restrictions, I think it could open up a lot of options too...

Reply


almosthonest July 25 2007, 09:40:40 UTC
Hurrah and amen. ;-)

Actually, there are two solutions, zooming out slightly. Either yours, where everyone acknowledges that they're trying to fit into a military group and campaign, or, we admit that everyone's free to play whatever style character they like, and take away all traces of military need for discipline.

Right now we overlap both; allow nearly all alignments and attitudes, but lean on military (and Justice!) characters to keep them all in line, too.

BTW, Leonie says hello, and asked after you. I have to report on how long your hair is at the moment, apparently... Also, um, I'm meant to er, give you a hug from her, but I'm sort of hoping we can find a female go-between for that one. ;-)

Reply

yamamaya July 25 2007, 13:27:35 UTC
Unfortunately, all these options are essentially limited to a single campaign year. After the first year, of course, the old players would turn up and it'd be back to the same old problem. Unless we started to allocate a certain number of games to "Military" games and some to open games.

I don't have a problem with this, but I'm sure some people would.

My hair is now almost pony-tailable again these days (though why this is relevant I don't quite understand). In your search for a female go-between, please do your best to make her single, tall and attractive. Eastern European is optional, but I find they tend to come with a selection of the other requirements as standard.

Feel free to return the hug (if only verbally) and make some cutting remark about her dress sense, assuming it contains some polka-dotted and/or pink item.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

fireydrake July 25 2007, 23:04:06 UTC
I agree. If you can describe the character's motivation, and the reason the military want them to come then you should be gold. And sometimes conflict will be natural and IC (for example, a superior insisting you need to take someone along and listen to their expertise, even if they are a buffoon ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up