Motion: that the mechanical flaws will no longer be available to new characters. If players wish to role play these effects they are welcome to do so, but they receive no mechanical benefit or disadvantage in terms of bonus XP. Existing characters will not have to re-stat.
These provide needless overcomplication and deter characters from linearing. Taking out the purely mechanical effects of these flaws allows players to take a more free form approach to their characterisation and to be more flexible.
- Proposed: DaveP?
- Seconded: Malselene
Erm. "Deter characters from linearing" sounds like you think the same characters would freely linear without those flaws, something which makes me feel just a little insulted. I really don't think anyone intending to linear a character would take one of these flaws and then complain that they couldn't. --Pufferfish
- I think it's entirely true that a fair number of frail characters would sometimes linear were it not for those flaws (c.f. Rosamund...); I don't think there's any implication that *all* of them would. --Jacob
- FWIW, Rosamund would not have lineared any more without mechanical frailty than she did with it - that linearing would be Really Stupid IC was the whole point. (I also note that it didn't stop her on a couple of occasions.) Also, the restrictions of frailty are so not worth the xp. --Locksmith
- "Frail characters would linear if they didn't have frailty" is not the same as "frailty is stopping characters from linearing". Frailty is not a flaw you take if you wish to go on linears. Nobody is forcing you to buy the skill at character creation. Also, I like having frailty codified in the system, because then the refs can inflict it on people as one of those non-lethal consequences we were talking about further up the page. --Valtiel
- This is what I have been trying and failing to put into coherent sentences. Thank you :-) --Pufferfish
- I like the mechanical effects of frailty and weakness being a definate thing, even if they give no bonus xp (meaning inability to call damage, reduced hits). --Porange
- I agree with Porange here; I think there is a separate problem of people with no premeditated reason for frailty being enticed by the promise of extra XP, but I like it existing as a mechanical thing and don't mind people choosing to start with less hits for no extra XP if they want! --Chevron
- I really, *REALLY* don't think anyone has ever taken Frailty for the XP, and it's something I trust the refs to stamp on if they tried. And at only 24 it really isn't worth the disadvantages it gives you if that's all you care about! --Pufferfish
- I took frailty entirely for the XP as Argus (less than 24 due to being an elf so on fewer hits already), as I wanted to play a multiclassed multicoloured elemental elf and have at least one actual Thing I could do in each of Grey Magic, Brown Magic and Alchemy on day one to go with my fine snaz and elf ears combo. I would have preferred to be able to buy it off later (eg: even with my first xp earned going to this) as I took it entirely for the ability to start with a foot in each of those doors and no other reason. On the other hand, I was fine with Argus not being a linearing character and had I lineared, then I would have happily expected to be swiftly turned into a pile of sand by a monster that I couldn't run away from, and I did then extract Fine Roleplay from being noticably wussier than not only Blake but also Dot :-p. --Zebbie
- ''What Pufferfish said. It isn't worth the xp you'd get from linearing regularly, given the disadvantages. I think that going "oh, I want to play a human on 2:1 who can't run" actually overcomplicates things far more than having an established "package" called Frailty that you can point at and go, "That." People can play it up or down as they wish, but I don't believe removing it from system would add anything or solve any problems. --Locksmith
- Please note that I am agreeing with the existence of Frailty as a package, just questioning why we give out XP for taking it. People who want to take frailty for the role play and stat effects will do so, and as such characters are by definition unlikely to be involved in combat from a roleplay standpoint and hence will take skills in other areas, so why give out extra XP to compensate physical weakness? --Chevron
- I have in fact taken Frailty solely for the additional xp, I did then work it into my character concept and I think that it was totally worth it in a mechanical sense as it allowed me to do what I wanted with the character without having to spend a term waiting for xp. On the other hand, I'm in favor of this motion on the grounds of unfairness, we don't give extra xp to blind people, and making the system simpler. --Joey
- I think that having frailty as a mechanical abilities granting at least token XP is valuable specifically for first-time players. When you're new to LARP or to a specific LARP, the range of possible character concepts and what does and doesn't work can be overwhelming, and looking down the list of skills, seeing "Frailty" in big letters and thinking "hey, I could hang a character concept around that" is a very useful peg, in a way that "you could roleplay an ill character without mechanical effects" isn't. I'm not sure NC has the same value, though. Come to that, I can think of numerous iconic frail characters, but I'm not sure I know of anyone who's ever taken non-combatant... --Jacob
- This. It worked for me playing my first character, after all. I would consider supporting a motion to get rid of non-combatant, though- I think it occasionally gives Frailty a bad name --Pufferfish
I would consider supporting a motion to remove Non-Combatant. That is one that I really think doesn't add much except a "here, have some free xp for your pure mage/pure priest that you weren't going to give warrior skills to anyway" (feel free to correct me!) It's entirely possible to play a character defined as being unable to wield weapons (eg Heresy) without this skill, and I don't think its being mechanical adds anything. --Locksmith
- I did play a noncombatant for which it was a large part of her story (Thea) but tbh I mostly did it for the XP and I ditched the flaw when I restatted her... --ChessyPig
Discussion moved to [BanPopes] --V
- More of the (silly/weird/interesting - please take your pick of terminology) builds I have seen involving frailty have been multiclasses than popes. I don't think this is a solution to that problem. However I think by this point I am arguing for the sake of arguing and have utterly stopped caring. --Malselene
- Does crazy multiclassing matter? I can't see it breaking anything, and if people want to play very suboptimal builds for the sake of the character, I'll personally support them every step of the way. Harder to stat a linear for admittedly, but no less so I think than someone who doesn't give their 150 or 90 xp character any xp for ages. I'm not trying to be dismissive here, I just think I might be missing something. --Locksmith
- I view this as a side-point to the issue rather than a solution to frailty/noncombatant per se. Pope builds are not ideal to me with or without frailty, and I'd support a motion limiting them regardless of whether we also changed the mechanical flaws. As such, let us not let this end the discussion on removing or altering the flaws. -TheKremlin