So for those that say "It won't work",we say "Yeah, it can if you give it an honest try". That's it.
I want to reiterate something about this bit of Cory's post. Things go into Playtesting for two reasons:
#1. The Owners think it's likely good for the game and vote to put it in. Playtesting is intended to find major unforseen issues and tweak/tune the thing.
#2. The Owners aren't sure but think there's a possibility it may be good for the game. Playtesting is intended to find if the thing is worth putting in at all or not.
As an example, "bigger shields" definitely fell under the #2 category while "remove Web" definitely fell under the #1 category.
Here's the thing, though - in both cases, and especially the second, playtesters need to be willing to try what's in the packet with an open mind and give it an honest shot. Maybe your initial reaction from reading the packet is only reinforced by actually playtesting. Maybe your initial reaction turns out to be different when the rule actually comes out on the field. But unless you approach items in the packet with an open mind, you're doing them a disservice. That's why, for the Feedback Form, we request that players have actually attended a Playtest to submit the form.
We can't know whether, for example, Flurry is worth putting in on a National scale without people actually trying it. I am 100% certain that some folks have posted on this thread based on their initial read
without actually trying it with an open mind. In the prior round where it was added as an A/B option, some Playtests appeared to have been run
almost entirely in just one mode - which doesn't really give us good data on what we should do. Thus the Owner choice to ask that it be included as mandatory for all of the 0.9 Playtests - because people have *not* been giving it an honest, open-minded try.
Personally (not in an official capacity!), I'll say that I don't think that Flurry rules fit with Alliance very well (I do really like them in
other LARPs that are built with Flurry in place from the ground up). But I
also acknowledge that I haven't attended a 0.9 playtest yet and I need to do so to see if my preconceived notion is right. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But until I do so, and give it an honest shot, I'm not going to comment here about my preconceived notions because they might be wrong and I want to speak with an informed opinion when I do so.
For those who haven't tried Flurry, I really think you'd do yourselves and the process a huge deal of good to really, honestly approach it with an open mind and try it out for a few hours (which is
specifically why the Owners asked for it to be included as mandatory in this Playtest round, instead of optional as in a prior round). Maybe it will grow on you, maybe it won't, but at least you'll have a firm ground for your view and Feedback Form submission.
-Bryan