How much change is too much change?

[jpariury]

There might be a good set of categories that could parse this out, but I feel like the answer is less "X%" and more analoguey. (Yes, I made up a word.)

Over the years, the game has distinctly changed from its roots to something substantially different. Gone are the days when additional profs cost more than their predecessors, gone are Doom and Magic Key and Capture Magic, gone are the myriad verbals for different spells, or multiple spell names for the same resultant effect. Now we have golems and wands and ultralight latex-coated weapons which may or may not cause birth defects in your grandchildren's grandchildren and finally bring us peace in the Middle East. I think it's probably fair to say that the game we play now is not the game we played then (heck, they even have different names!). If you took the people we were then and tried to change straight into our current game... well, I'm not saying people's heads would explode, but you might want to bring an umbrella.

Some of the changes are substantial, some are non-rational, some provide greater flavor, some provide faster learning-to-playing turnover.

That said, the older players among us probably still treat what we do now and what we did then as "the same game". Certainly I lay claim to having played "this game" since I was 15, in the least. So, with all that a premise, I ask you: what defines the "Alliance game" to you? How much change in the rules could you bear all at once and still feel like you're playing "the same game"? What if we switched from spell packets to "point-and-click", where you just tell the player what effect they take? It would be different, but would it be so different as to no longer be the same game? What if we did away with the words "Elf" and "Dwarf" and replaced them with "Sylvanites" and "Stoneworkers"? What if we started allowing bowless, steampunkesque "crossbows"? What if we ditched spellnames like "Dragon's Breath" entirely and simply replaced the calls with "I Call Forth 40 Magical Flame"? What are the essential bits of the game that allow you to say "I've played this game for X years", and what bits would have you say "Well, if we do that, we're no longer playing Alliance!"?

 

[Wraith]

Honestly, to me, Alliance is a brand name more than a rules system. You could rewrite the back-end entirely, and the flavor that makes it the game we know would still be there because it'd still be the same people.

 

[Tylo]

Good question, JP! I don't generally post anymore, but this brought me out of the woodwork.

For me, as an 11 year (with a hiatus) player of both NERO Alliance and Alliance, the core of what makes Alliance, Alliance, can be divided into about seven key points:
1. It is a LARP.
2. Its setting is medieval(ish) fantasy.
3. It is a national organization in which your character's stats (if not all their gear) are 100% transferable to any other chapter.
4. The core mechanic for conflict resolution is a combination of a "verbal" referencing the effect and a method of delivering that effect.
5. The most common delivery methods for effects are boffer weapons and packets.
6. Characters are built using a race and class combination and a point-buy skill system, with races having "hard-coded" abilities and restrictions and classes only determining what your skills cost.
7. The system strives for a balance between variety of effects and simplicity. (I note this because I have seen other systems that fulfill the first six points, but are either very complex (with upwards of 100+ different calls and very specific rules about how those calls interact), or so simple that characters are functionally identical. I know Alliance is more complex than it used to be, but the system still "feels" to me like it is trying to find the sweet spot between these two ideals.)

For me, a change that makes Alliance no longer fulfill any of those seven points would make it "not the same game," and a change that alters but does not remove any of those seven points is a "big change" (like the addition of Adept, Scout, and Artisan was, or seemed like it would be when it happened).

 

[Golgoth]

I started playing in 89 at the first event, and I have to say, the game maintains the same overall feel for me, but runs smoother with better costumes, safer/better weapons, and more coherent plots. The most drastic rules changes came in the first couple years, and at a very rapid rate. Even then, I did not feel like the switch from a level based system to the current skill system changed the feel. I think it would be difficult to say the game would lose its feel from any sort of mechanical change. I've seen the steampunk vibe hinted at through Mechanons, and a little sci-fi, like when Primus crashed from space. Again, I think without a drastic content shift, it would be very difficult to make Alliance not feel like Alliance. It's more about the people than anything else IMO.

 

[James Trotta]

Great question. For me a few changes have made me think 'wow this game (or at least part of it) is really different than the one I knew before'. Some changes I like and some I'd like to see undone but even though I think some changes were bad, I never thought any of them were 'too much'

1. Getting rid of the pay for max-out thing changed the game. I still remember telling a friend my second weekend event that I didn't have the silver to get my full XP. After events people would chat about if they earned enough to max out. Now we chat more about our favorite moments.

2. Getting rid of master profs and handedness and stuff. There used to be two kinds of fighters - the master prof kind and the kind who was good with a single weapon. I kinda miss that distinction.

3. Saying that damage aura weapons could be any color and that any weapon could be white. White weapons impressed me for years but now anyone could have 10 white swords if they wanted.

4. The celestial overhauls. Wands are very cool. Golems I liked better when your big choices were iron or bone. Bone for the power, Iron cause you could be healed more easily. Either way, celestial casters feel different now than they used to.

 

[Wraith]

James, I think the change on white weapons was specifically to allow nifty-looking latex reps that just didn't happen to come in white.

I think the thing that has been the biggest game-changer in my time playing has been the ever-accelerating speed of combat brought about by the switch to ultralights as the standard of weapons and a change in marshal enforcement of the clear verbals rules on fighters.

 

[James Trotta]

That's true too. I kinda forgot I used to play with log-like weapons and I had a heavy wooden shield. I used to have the old stylemaster skill so I could switch from sword and board to bow and sword to spear and sword and so on. It was kind of fun switching around (and sure you could still do that today) but I no longer have to. Back then my shield was too heavy and I couldn't use it for a whole day.

I do prefer wielding an ultralight but I'd also like to see melee combat slow down a tad. Overall I think I see a lot more charging now than I used to as well.

 

[Wraith]

That's true too. I kinda forgot I used to play with log-like weapons and I had a heavy wooden shield. I used to have the old stylemaster skill so I could switch from sword and board to bow and sword to spear and sword and so on. It was kind of fun switching around (and sure you could still do that today) but I no longer have to. Back then my shield was too heavy and I couldn't use it for a whole day.

I do prefer wielding an ultralight but I'd also like to see melee combat slow down a tad. Overall I think I see a lot more charging now than I used to as well.

I really think that the increasing speed of melee combat is a bigger problem than most people realize, because of the way it effects everything else's scaling. It makes spells and alchemy weaker by simply making it harder for their users to be effective. Combat at the speeds I see these days takes a great deal of concentration, and I cannot count the number of times I've seen spellcasters have to yell 'Did you get that <spell>?' because someone in a melee is too busy rapping out damage and defensive calls to pay any attention to things beyond arm's reach.

 

[Rezzik (NWC)]

There is one specific change that I feel has changed the whole dynamic of the entire game. This is giving fighters the extra half a prof for two handed weapons. Once upon a time the main goal for a fighter was to be able to swing an even 10, and the greatest fighters wanted to swing 10 with each hand. Now the main goal seems to be swinging 20. Some fighters are even able to swing much higher than 20 by streamlining their build. This type of damage output has created an entirely different game.

There has been a ripple effect based on fighter damage output. Monster cards have had their body raised significantly, and the amounts that they swing have also been raised to make them seem more menacing. The fighter has become much less like a tank, and much more like a glass cannon. While monster cards are being upped, the fighter still has the same body and armor points. Armor gets breached amazingly fast. Gone are the days of taking 5-10 hits and dropping back to refit. Now it seems that it only takes 1 or 2 hits to drop armor. Combat is getting increasingly faster as the fighter is trying to hit the monster card more time than they get hit due to their sense of vulnerability. Monsters are also coming out with more and more packet/spellstrike attacks to try and counter the fighter damage output.

The increase in fighter damage also effects other classes. Dragon's Breath used to be the ultimate spell, but now even throwing an elemental blast seems to pale in comparison to a fighter continuously swinging 20-40s all weekend long. As monster body raises it also lowers the effectiveness of damage spells. Throwing a flamebolt feels ineffective when monster cards have 100-200 body. Even a rogue feels less effective when their back attack is less than a fighter swings from the front. The increase in fighter output has really effected combat in Alliance.

Personally I miss the days where combats were more even between monsters and adventurers. It feels like combat has come down to damage per second. I miss being able to exchange blows on fairly even playing fields. When dropping out to refit armor was a valid tactic, and when a defensive fighter could parry and attack in a back and forth with a NPC and have it feel like a cinematic fight. I do not have fun playing a glass cannon, and I miss the fun that being a stick jock used to be.

 

[Gilwing]

There is one specific change that I feel has changed the whole dynamic of the entire game. This is giving fighters the extra half a prof for two handed weapons. Once upon a time the main goal for a fighter was to be able to swing an even 10, and the greatest fighters wanted to swing 10 with each hand. Now the main goal seems to be swinging 20. Some fighters are even able to swing much higher than 20 by streamlining their build. This type of damage output has created an entirely different game.

I believe that adding dmg to a 2hw was to increase diversity among the different weapons out there, instead of just another fighter with "sword and board". It gave a 2hw some worth. I personally like fighting with a 2hw (and feel I am great with it) when I npc.

The "goal" changing from 10's to 20's is a matter of levels increasing. There is just more build out there then there was in the past. An old nero friend asked me recently what the "sweet spot" for fighters is now, I told him 20's. He wasn't too surprised, he came from International.

 

[Alavatar]

If I can play the same character and others can play their same characters then it is still the same game to me.

 

[Dreamingfurther]

Yea, I would argue that 10's is still a pretty material 'sweet spot' for not supper high level characters, or for templar's or adepts.

While there may be 1 or 2 fighters out there at any given event that 'can' swing 20's... I feel like for the most part those guys are far more the exception, and usually the supper high level (mid-upper 30's and low 40's) folks who have been playing for a decade.

Yea it impacts the game, but at the same time have one or two supper powerful epic characters out there like that doesn't create a 'problem' imho...

 

[Avaran]

For me, there are only a couple of things that could change that would make me stop playing.

These are the very things that made me decide to want to play, because to me they make Alliance feel different from most other LARPs. Put simply, it is the BSA association and the things that go along with that as a result (no illegal drugs, alcohol, etc.). If I wanted any of that crap, I'd go play in the SCA. Being able to play the same character,being able to play with the same people of they (or I) want, and being able to chapter hop are other perks, but certainly not a game-changer like the BSA thing.

Everything else is just game mechanics, imho.

 

[jpariury]

Adam - is it the BSA association specifically, or certain things that go with it (specifically, the no alcohol bit)? Personally, if I had my way, I'd ditch the BSA, but keep the "no booze" rule, but are you saying that such a change would have feel that you were playing a "different game"?

 

[Avaran]

Adam - is it the BSA association specifically, or certain things that go with it (specifically, the no alcohol bit)? Personally, if I had my way, I'd ditch the BSA, but keep the "no booze" rule, but are you saying that such a change would have feel that you were playing a "different game"?

The things that go with the BSA association.

And yes, if real alcohol (or other things) were allowed, it would be a different game to me.

 

[Wraith]

Adam - is it the BSA association specifically, or certain things that go with it (specifically, the no alcohol bit)? Personally, if I had my way, I'd ditch the BSA, but keep the "no booze" rule, but are you saying that such a change would have feel that you were playing a "different game"?

The things that go with the BSA association.

And yes, if real alcohol (or other things) were allowed, it would be a different game to me.

That would probably be enough to get me to permanently quit as well. I don't mind drinking (I do more than enough of it myself), but after some experience at SCA and Dagohir events, I do not want it anywhere near my LARP. Same goes for any mind altering substances. We play a 24/7 game, so there isn't a safe point to not be in control of yourself.

 

[mguarino]

Just curious, apart from the no alcohol/drugs policy, what other aspects of the BSA are present in Alliance? I don't really know enough about either organization to notice, methinks.

 

[jpariury]

I believe there are a number of policies that are intended to be present by the grand-high-poobah council, but that local councils enforce to varying degrees. Your own mileage may vary with how much your local chapter adheres to a number of the policies.

 

[Duke Frost]

For me, there are only a couple of things that could change that would make me stop playing.

These are the very things that made me decide to want to play, because to me they make Alliance feel different from most other LARPs. Put simply, it is the BSA association and the things that go along with that as a result (no illegal drugs, alcohol, etc.). If I wanted any of that crap, I'd go play in the SCA. Being able to play the same character,being able to play with the same people of they (or I) want, and being able to chapter hop are other perks, but certainly not a game-changer like the BSA thing.

Everything else is just game mechanics, imho.

Alliance Larp as a whole does not have a BSA Association. Some individual chapters do.

I completely agree that the no alcohol is a must have rule, and it is an Alliance rule independent of BSA association. Illegal drugs...well...they are also specifically against the rules, but as they are ILLEGAL, people shouldn't even be considering them at an event in the first place.

Scott

 

[Talen]

There is one specific change that I feel has changed the whole dynamic of the entire game. This is giving fighters the extra half a prof for two handed weapons. Once upon a time the main goal for a fighter was to be able to swing an even 10, and the greatest fighters wanted to swing 10 with each hand. Now the main goal seems to be swinging 20. Some fighters are even able to swing much higher than 20 by streamlining their build. This type of damage output has created an entirely different game.

There has been a ripple effect based on fighter damage output. Monster cards have had their body raised significantly, and the amounts that they swing have also been raised to make them seem more menacing. The fighter has become much less like a tank, and much more like a glass cannon. While monster cards are being upped, the fighter still has the same body and armor points. Armor gets breached amazingly fast. Gone are the days of taking 5-10 hits and dropping back to refit. Now it seems that it only takes 1 or 2 hits to drop armor. Combat is getting increasingly faster as the fighter is trying to hit the monster card more time than they get hit due to their sense of vulnerability. Monsters are also coming out with more and more packet/spellstrike attacks to try and counter the fighter damage output.

The increase in fighter damage also effects other classes. Dragon's Breath used to be the ultimate spell, but now even throwing an elemental blast seems to pale in comparison to a fighter continuously swinging 20-40s all weekend long. As monster body raises it also lowers the effectiveness of damage spells. Throwing a flamebolt feels ineffective when monster cards have 100-200 body. Even a rogue feels less effective when their back attack is less than a fighter swings from the front. The increase in fighter output has really effected combat in Alliance.

Personally I miss the days where combats were more even between monsters and adventurers. It feels like combat has come down to damage per second. I miss being able to exchange blows on fairly even playing fields. When dropping out to refit armor was a valid tactic, and when a defensive fighter could parry and attack in a back and forth with a NPC and have it feel like a cinematic fight. I do not have fun playing a glass cannon, and I miss the fun that being a stick jock used to be.

Honestly, things like that are just icing on the cake to the overall powering-up of the game. It's gotten to the point where what I see reminds me of D&D games where the call of the day was "save or die"- either you had the defense or you were out of action, with very little in between.

IMHO, profs need to be less linear. Going from 0 to +4 should be easier than +5 to +8, +9 to +12 should be tougher still and so on. Constant damage is a literal big measuring beatstick for NPC lifespans. I'd rather warriors get more per-tag-cycle skills than the inevitable grind towards "I swing *bignumbers*". The more big numbers we stick in the game, the worse inflation devalues anything but the most potent method of generating them.