SystemReset/Easter13AGM

CLSWiki | SystemReset | RecentChanges | Preferences | Main Website

Information

Welcome to the AGM motions page. For the Gory details on how the AGM works, see: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/tt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=155

Assume the following: The AGM will be both long and painful, the sooner it can be gotten out of the way the better.

AGM Motions: For the good of all of us, it is suggested that you write your motion on this page, at which point members of the society with opinions will surely write them here. It is very rude to remove peoples opinions on a motion, even if they have been accounted for. A given motion may go through several rounds of revisions to tighten wording or improve it or make it more agreeable to people. If it is starting to get long, don't be afraid to move all the discussion to a separate page and link to it, keep all the old comments on V1 of motion and totally rewrite up a V2 of motion.

A motion must be emailed to the Exec before midday on the 18th April. Putting it up here does not make it happen! A motion must have a proposer and a seconder (someone else who is willing to attach their name to it)

Remember the AGM is LONG! A goal is to keep debate to a minimum. Therefore a good motion is very specific. E.g. A bad motion is "The warrior melee skill is too powerful and should be nerfed." This would produce 20 different arguments at the AGM as to how. A better working is "The melee skill is is too powerful and should be replaced with the following ... (setting out your new melee skill)". This turns the motion into a single argument: "yes or no".

Please remember to thread and sign your comments, it makes discussion so much easier.

Past proposals

For reference, please note that "put single through earlier in streetfighter" failed at the last AGM. Resubmitting the same proposal is thus contraindicated. --Tea

For full details of which motions passed and failed at the last 3 AGM's see here on the website: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/tt/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=41&Itemid=242
I would like to point out that constitutionally people can sumbit any motion they want if they can find a seconder. Pointing out that things have failed in the past is useful may indeed save us time. However, people may feel that circumstances/opinions/the weather has changed and if they wish to propose something again, they are at their liberty to do so. (As an hilarious example, about 6 or 7 years ago I submitted a motion to remove hit doubling on the torso which failed) --dp

Model motion to copy and paste

Insert motion title here

Body of motion, phrased as a yes/no statement.

Explanation of reasoning

Comments

First Comment
Indent your comments on which thread they are using multiple : (and reformat the comment block as necessary) and make sure you sign them --Drac

Proposals

Permit thrusting attacks with collapsible-tip polearms

This motion is to permit collapsible tip polearms to be used for thrusting attacks, subject to the normal rules requiring two-handed use and polearm competency checks. Individual fighters will be required to be certain they are wielding a collapsible-tip weapon before making any thrusting attacks.

Reasoning: With Odyssey and Empire, among other games, more and more of the society now own collapsible tip polearms. These weapons are safe, effective, and tactically interesting when used to thrust. By not allowing them to be used one-handed, we avoid the potentially dominant fighting style of long spear + big shield, and by only permitting thrust-safe polearms for thrusting we avoid the option of buying a very short 'javelin' and using it as a sword to stab with. Tea is also volunteering to provide the armoury with a collapsible tip spear physrep, so we'll have at least one available in order that new players aren't shut out from using them. Before the AGM, Empire 1 will have happened, which is permitting a mix of both stabsafe and non-stabsafe polearms to be used on the same field in battles, and Tea intends to withdraw this motion in the event that such a mix proves to be a safety catastrophe.

This motion has been SUBMITTED

The specific submitted text was:

Permit thrusting attacks with collapsible-tip polearms 

   Proposed by: Tea
   Seconded by: Drac

This motion is to permit collapsible tip polearms to be used for thrusting attacks, subject to the normal rules requiring two-handed use and polearm competency checks. Individual fighters will be required to be certain they are wielding a collapsible-tip weapon before making any thrusting attacks. Empire permits such a mix of weapons, and has not had above-average issues with people being stabbed with unsafe weapons.

Tea volunteers to turn some spare core into a collapsible-tip spear or two to populate the armoury and therefore supply new players with such weapons if they wish to learn how to use them.

Comments

I am being a horrible person and starting the AGM debate, although I hope this one shouldn't be too controversial. --Tea

I err on the side of this is a safety nightmare as it is very easy to get polearms and brain mixed up. - Porange
If you aren't sure if a spear is stabsafe, don't stab. If you are sure a spear is stabsafe, but aren't sure how to safely stab with it, don't stab. If you pick up a spear off someone else in the middle of an encounter, don't stab. --Tea
Does not cover brain farts. - Porange
It's making a conscious decision to stab before each stab. That will cover every brainfart apart from "picked up a physrep and reflexively stabbed", which is already an issue due to lots of people playing games which allow stabbing. --Tea
I think it does cover brainfarts because your best option if you are worried is to totally ignore this motion ever existed and never stab which is no different that the current situation. As long as we have polearm comp cover both types and possibly get a bit tighter on briefing not to use polearms without comp, I don't believe it'll cause trouble. --dp
I've seen 2 safety problems with them, both of which the motion addresses: 1. people being generally unsafe, is no worse than regular polearms and we have weapon comp testing and advice for that. 2. People using them 1 handed when they are really not strong enough and having no control, we address that by forcing it to be a 2 handed weapon. --Drac

So, Empire 1 has now happened. Empire, notably, has a system where you can stab with a stab-safe polearm, but not all polearms have to be stab-safe. I therefore had a chat with PST and asked whether they had found this lead to dreadful confusion. Apparently there were "1-2 incidents" reported to him of confusion between a stabsafe and a non-stabsafe, causing no serious injuries (probably therefore a few more which happened and didn't get reported). And that's in a game with over 1100 people on the ground for the battles, and a much lower level of direct ref presence than we have. As long as we run sensibly, make sure to teach people about the difference, and so on, I think it should be fine. --Tea

I heard rather more than 1-2, from the refs briefing the Sunday battle, but still not enough to make me think this motion is a mistake. --I
He said "1-2 which got reported to me, so that doesn't mean there weren't a few more on the ground". My general assumption is that roughly 1/50 people will stab with non-stab-safes anyway, so I don't believe allowing stab-safe weapons as well has made a serious difference to the number of stabs with non-stab-safes at Empire. --Tea
I heard vague rumours that people had stabbed with *swords* which I think is a different kind of confusion. --Joey
I accidentally stabbed Tim with a mace at the last weapons practice. Roughly simultaneously, he said "That was a thrust" and I apologised for accidentally stabbing him. Stabbing with swords is a thing that happens occasionally by accident, I'd actually be more surprised to hear it *hadn't* happened at Empire. --MorkaisChosen

I also went and chatted to Chris of Saxon Violence, and got some instructions for how to make a stabsafe spear, so I'll turn a spare piece of core into one over the summer if we pass this. --Tea

Introduce a call permitting close-range archery without physically shooting an arrow/bolt

This motion will introduce a call, likely to be "LOOSE", to permit calling damage with a bow or crossbow at close range without the associated OOC safety concerns of actually shooting point-blank at someone. Use of this call should only be permitted at close range; suggest 3m because that is mass range so nobody has to remember a new distance.

There will need to be an implementation detail of the form "only do this if you have a clear shot" as per Backstab, and probably a rule that the arrow must be returned to the quiver and another one put on the bow before another shot can be taken, or something similar, perhaps with a time limit.

Explanation of reasoning

Being shot at close range often hurts. Bows aren't all that powerful stats-wise. Enough said.

Comments

Would there be a cap on the number of times this could be done per encounter? --Jacob

I think that the specifics of how this works should be nailed down a lot more, as there seems to currently be some confusion about details. --Tea
Yes please! I was hoping people who are better at writing rules than me would do exactly that :-) --Pufferfish
In the spirit of being helpful: "if you are in a situation where you could trivially shoot the target (bow drawn/crossbow loaded, aimed, clear line of fire), but you are very close to them due to e.g. a cramped bar or being charged, you call LOOSE [Damage call] instead of actually firing the projectile, and then unload and reload your weapon." --Tea
Addendum: "this is intended to make close range archery that would be IC sensible OC safer, not to provide combat advantage. As a first priority you should try to avoid shooting targets at very close range. If you are being e.g. charged down, but successfully load and draw before they actually reach you, this is the situation to use the Loose call in. Do not take the piss, please". --Tea
I have some experience of this being used and don't have a problem in principle. The biggest single issue I find is the possibility of doing it too often (as well as the fact some archers suddenly get much more accurate, especially if shooting into a melee). Since it only replaces a point blank shot which should not be taken for safety reasons, you could argue that at that stage the archer is effectively in a melee where it is often impractical to reload. Thus they should not use their bow again in that encounter, which gives some realism and hopefully discourages taking the piss. --TimB
I have a general habit of then running away for a while and fully reloading, at which point I think it's fairly justified to shoot again. This is because I've normally found a loose type call useful when I'm off to one side and someone decides to charge me, but I get the bow loaded just before they reach me. --Tea
Has anybody played in a system where this call is common? I do recall LT used to have it probably decades ago now but removed it due to abuse. I doubt it'd be a huge problem in a local system. The issues I do see are shields (comes under Tim's point of archers suddenly get a lot more accurate) and always hitting the body - potentially quite a decent mechanical benefit in the right circumstance. --dp
Is anyone with a shield in the right general arc at liberty to not-take the shot? Anyone with cover (and someone they are in melee with counts if in the right arc)? If there is ever a situation where someone who can use a bow at short range safely (and honestly, if not, I'm not sure they should be passing bow comp) wants to use loose instead for mechanical advantage, this rule fails. Crossbows are, at least, impossible to part-draw, so I can see a case for using it on the Fairbow style ones. --I

My only concern with this would be people using LOOSE to call strikedowns, and using the strikedown to put themselves into a position where they can call LOOSE again. This doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the system. --Tristan
Would it help to have a reduced damage call for LOOSE? Eg. if you could normally call 'TRIPLE X', your LOOSE call would be 'LOOSE DOUBLE X'. Might provide a disincentive to taking the piss, ie. 'you can be more effective if you leg it but if you must, you can shoot'. -Hobnoblin

Make the effects of Blessing 4 easier to remember

This motion has been SUBMITTED

Blessing 4 should also protect against DISARM

Explanation of reasoning

At the moment, Blessing 4 protects against all the other status effects and it looks like an oversight to me that it doesn't protect against DISARM. Protecting against DISARM would make the effects of blessing 4 easier to remember.

Comments

I wouldn't call it an oversight, because Valour buffs and Spirit Weapons are already excellent spiritual ways to protect against DISARM, and the list of things it protects against is stated in the description twice. There is a lot of DISARM resistance/immunity in the system already, and I'm not sure it's a good thing to offer more access to it. Could it be worded as "You may ignore two status effects that are not DISARM"? -Jim.
I don't think it makes a big difference to balance, and just makes things far simpler. --Steph
I'd probably vote for it on the grounds of "this is simpler" but it does look like it misses out DISARM for a reason there. -Jim

Allow elemental elves to use elemental human facepaint requirements

We propose that the elemental elf physrep requirement be altered to the following: "The physrep for an Elemental Elf is coloured make-up on face and (ideally) all visible skin. This may either be a solid colouring or lines of the given colour. They often wear clothes of their elemental colour (Dark=Black, Light=White, Earth=Brown, Air=Blue, Fire=Red, Water=Green). Elemental Elves have pointed ears, but it is acceptable to cover lack of physrep with a headband or hat as long as solid colour make-up is used."

Motion text V2:

We propose that the elemental elf physrep requirement be altered to the following: "The physrep for an Elemental Elf is coloured make-up on face and (ideally) all visible skin. This may either be a solid colouring or lines of the given elemental colour. Elemental Elves have pointed ears, but it is acceptable to cover lack of physrep with a headband or hat."

Reasoning:This is to make elemental elves a less daunting physrep requirement to new players, allow for more creativity with appearance and to compensate for some of the OC problems with physrepping Tomten and Drow. The requirement for solid make-up if pointed ears are lacking is the differentiate from an elemental human physrep.

Comments

There is also a suggestion that the physrep guide should recommend the use of non full make-up for Tomten and Drow due to aforementioned OC reasons.
I don't think there's any need to specify that elemental elves often wear clothes of their elemental colour. --Joey
I am vaugely unsure about any physrep requirement that has clothing as a component, and I feel like we could make the guidelines for this a little clearer. We also probably want a seperate motion to deal with Tomten and Drow. -- Salavant
I apologise for the clothes part as that is actually part of the current physrep requirement as is shown on the website that I copied. --Hark
Often is not always. For comparison the write-up for kender states that they are 'almost always distinguishable by their clothing'. However as a statement of what is usual in the game world rather than what is an OC requirement it might be better moved to the section on Playable Races under the Setting tab? -- SevenSecrets
I don't think the confusion of hidden ears between elemental elves and elemental humans is a necessary reason to make people block up, given that it already exists between true elves and true humans. I will second a form of the motion which simply states "lines in the elemental colour on all visible skin is now a valid replacement for block colour for elemental elves" or equivalent. --Tea
Yeah, agreed. If you have squiggles on your face people will know you are an EE. For ease of monster kitting esp, the ears are basically not that relevant. --Steph

So as someone who if returning to cambridge is likely to continue to play an elemental human (potentially occasionally wearing a hat) what would be the difference between my physrepping and the physrepping of elemental elves under this proposal --Malselene
Nothing. In the same way as you can't tell if someone is a human or a true elf if their ears are suitably covered. --Pufferfish
In slightly more detail, that you don't have pointed ears. This being, as Pufferfish notes, the detail that already separates humans and true elves. --Tea

Motion Submitted

Submitted text was:

Proposed by: Hark Seconded by: Steph

We propose that the elemental elf physrep requirement be altered to the following: "The physrep for an Elemental Elf is coloured make-up on face and (ideally) all visible skin. This may either be a solid colouring or lines of the given elemental colour (Dark=Black, Light=White, Earth=Brown, Air=Blue, Fire=Red, Water=Green). Elemental Elves have pointed ears, but it is acceptable to cover lack of physrep with a headband or hat."

Reasoning:This is to make elemental elves a less daunting physrep requirement to new players, allow for more creativity with appearance and to compensate for some of the OC problems with physrepping Tomten and Drow. The requirement for solid make-up if pointed ears are lacking is the differentiate from an elemental human physrep.

=== Recomend Tomten and Drow use amended physreps due to OC reasons===

We propose that assuming the motion 'Allow elemental elves to use elemental human facepaint requirements' passes that the following be added as a suggestion to players: "If you are planning to play a Tomten(Brown elf) or Drow(Black elf) we would recommend that you use the line based physreps for OC reasons."

This is to compensate for some of the OC problems with physrepping Tomten and Drow.

Comments

I am confused as to what the OC problems are for Drow or Tonton that are not present in the other elves? Having spent days with both black and brown makeup and not found the after effects any worse than the other colours --Drac
I believe the point is that Tomten and Drow makeup on white people could be confused for minstrel-show-esque blackface
by the general public leading to Issues. -- SevenSecrets
I'm not sure how necessary it is for Drow, as few people would mistake plain black makeup for vaudeville-style blackface. However, I completely agree when it comes to Tomten, so why not cover all bases? ~Pia
I'm not sure we actually need to bother making this into a motion. --Joey

Delete dwarf racial physrepping option of facepaint

Remove the physrepping option for dwarves of: a large solid block of silver/white/gray on both cheeks. Addendum: The refs may either provide some IC reasoning or just declare it has Always Been That Way (TM).

It often doesn't look obvious enough, particularly as the colours specified often don't show up well. Horns look way better. It will make it easier to allow non-solid coloured elemental elves with less confusion. Horns aren't expensive. We can allow horns drawn on the forehead with makeup if people are short of physreps, especially refs.

Comments

I actually quite like that there are two different physreps (and there are established IC reasons for it), but I agree the current one has issues. -- Salavant
On the other hand, there are certainly IC things that could cause one of the physreps to vanish. --Joey
We have had about seven PC dwarves in play this year. The silver facepaint option has been used by one of them. It's never been used by a monster. Says it all, really... --Tea
Indeed, but I would perhaps favour a better alternative physrep, but retain having two. -- Salavant
cheek scales. In a colour. Nice tough skin for going down t'mines - Porange (who is aware that dwarves aren't a minign species in TT particularly)
No other race has two totally different physreps and I've not seen any suggestions that we should add a second totally different physrep for kender/elves/humans/skaven/orcs because it's somehow useful. I don't see the point - it just adds another element of confusion to the system. Horns are a very cool physrep for dwarves which I expect is why everybody uses them. Why allow a less cool option? If people want to tinker with the alternate option, they will have to put in a separate motion since I'm happy with this one as it stands. --dp
It was originally put in to give the refs an easy way of doing dwarf NPC's (make up being easier to bring in quantity than horns), rather than for players. In the year when this motion was passed almost all dwarf NPC's had used makeup rather than horns. --Drac
The difference is that this year, we commissioned 3 sets of horns from Tea which didn't need gluing on to faces and so were much easier to kit up. I agree with Salavant that there are good IC reasons for 2 physreps and that the game would lose out if we got rid of one. I think a sensible way to do physrepping would be "Dwarves have horns, which may either be a natural colour or obviously metallic. This retains 2 distinct flavours of physrep and makes them both the easy-to-recognise horns -Jim.
This might work. --MorkaisChosen
How is have two different colours of horns possible as racial physreps any different from just having a simple physrep requirement of horns? --Malselene
There's some Plot behind it. Not sure how much detail is public, but on the linear last year when the Dwarven Ancestors showed up, one was shiny and one was horny. This suggests some sort of link. --MorkaisChosen
Speaking as someone who knows the plot from both sides, I believe that just deleting the physrep option by AGM would be entirely workable and not cause any huge issues. It would be trivial to resolve across Easter term and the start of next Michaelmas. --Tea

Simplify and clarify XP system

SUBMITTED

Propose change of wording to "All players gain 6xp a week to be split amongst characters played at that interactive. If a character is between 240 xp and 360xp then that character may only gain up to 5xp. If a character is above 360xp, then they may only gain up to 4xp. Any xp that cannot be assigned to any character is lost.

The XP is calculated according to XP earnt, not XP spent - it is fine to be saving up for an expensive skill or merely forget to update and spend your xp for a while, but not to use this to try and qualify for the faster rate of further xp gain after level 4 or 6.

If you monster an interactive for at least 30 minutes but do not play any of your characters you receive 3XP as if you had monstered a linear."

CURRENT WORDING to be replaced: "Interactive xp is awarded for attending an interactive based on the amount of XP your character has already gained. If your character has less than 240XP (end of Level 4), then you gain 6XP for that character after each interactive. If you have at least 240XP and less than 360XP (end of Level 6), then you gain 5XP for that character. If you have at least 360XP, then you gain 4XP. The total is based on the amount of XP the character has gained, not the amount spent - it is fine to be saving up for an expensive skill or merely forget to update and spend your xp for a while, but not to use this to try and qualify for the faster rate of further xp gain after level 4 or 6. If you monster an interactive for at least 30 minutes but are unable to play any of your characters you receive 3XP as if you had monstered a linear.

If you play multiple characters with XP levels such that they are in different groups, then you gain XP for the character that currently has the lowest amount of XP and you may not assign more XP to the highest-level character than they would gain if they were the only character played. For example, if someone plays Bob the fire mage on 160xp and Ben the Johnite on 250xp, he will gain 6XP for the interactive, but can spend a maximum of 5XP on Ben."

Reasoning: this will simplify working out how much XP you gain in a week, as it's always 6; it also removes the perverse incentive to play a third character and never give them any XP so you have more to spend on your main characters. For example, while John and Justin were both in the 240-360 range, I gained 5xp a week, of which at most 5 could go to either character - but had I played a pointless beggar PC for half an hour every interactive, I would have had 6, which I could split up solely between John and Justin, leaving them better off because I played them less. This is a bit silly. I do also believe this tweak simplifies the system, however.

Comments

If I play 1 character on 360+xp then I gain 6xp of which I can spend 4 on my character. What happens to the other 2xp? --Joey
It is eaten by a grue, as mentioned by one sentence hidden in the middle of the wall of text - "XP that cannot be assigned to any character is lost." --MorkaisChosen
Is it just that this wording is a little clearer? I can't off the top of my head think of any situations where this is mechanically different. --Chevron
John and Justin on 250. 5xp, at most 5 to any one character under current rules - say 5 to John. Under this rule, 6xp, at most 5xp to either, so I can give John 5 and Justin 1. Notably, this removes the stupid little loophole where playing Dave the Peasant for 30 minutes exactly gives me 6xp, of which at most 5 can go to John and 5 to Justin - so I can give 5 to John and 1 to Justin. This is mechanically different. --MorkaisChosen
I have an alternate suggestion - we just make it 6xp/interactive per player and remove the tailoff. The tailoff was to reduce the gain at the top end, however, we now have the 'you must retire after a year above level 6 rule which I feel deals with the same problem much better. Further to this, if you're stuck at 4xp/interactive, it can be quite difficult to get to level 8 within that year if you particularly care. --dp
I wouldn't object, but that's a bigger change to the system than this proposal, and I incline to not making large changes. --MorkaisChosen

Wording simplified - thanks Biscuits. :-) --MorkaisChosen

All players get 6xp per interactive they play

All players now get 6xp per interactive to divide between the characters they played at the interactive however they like. (This does not intend to change the rules on how long you must play a character for before you can award them XP).

Explanation of reasoning

We now have a rule that high XP characters have to retire after a year in play. The xp tailoff was an attempt to do the same thing but it's now not necessary as the retirement rule has proved effective at the same thing.

General Skill Dueling

Replace Dueling in Warrior with:

General Skill: Dueling (1XP)

You may make the call TOUCH with a melee weapon. This represents a controlled strike that only breaks the skin. it does no damage and will not break halt or interrupt casting. You have 2 calls of RESIST to TOUCH calls per duel. Duels end when a PC takes a TOUCH call.

Reasoning

Comments

This gains nothing on the system and nullifies what I believe the original purpose of dueling was in the first place - aka allowing people to have swordfights with hard skills only. (which has admittedly been diluted with the later levels of it). --Drac

Note that this a) removes duelling progressino, so is now hard-skills only, basically, and b) removes the ability of touch to break halt or interrupt casting. I'm undecided about the inherent dodges, but they do help avoid silly one-touch swrodfights - maybe the general duellign contract being to three touches would work better though. --Tea
I retract the comment which was due to poor reading on my part. --Drac
I think that an IC social contract to three touches would work better because I think that the negates make duelling a bit silly because it often pauses for a bit while people try to remember what level of duelling they have and then they say 'ah, no, you didn't hit me even though it looked just like you did'. But I also think that actually, we should just remove the duelling skill completely and people can call NOTHING. --Joey
Duelling rules already require you to withdraw after each touch is landed (or more likely, DACed). Silly tactics will still be effective, but require repeating. Oh, and how does this interact with DAC? --I
I was thinking "However it does currently, that seems to work". TOUCH is a damage call, DAC negates it. I think that 20 points of DAC skill should count for some small advantage against hardskills, but the base Dueling skill should be a cheap buy. --Jim

Playable Fuegans

Fuegans should be confirmed as a player race and their racial package made public on the website. We have had one Fuegan PC played by Rakdos as a test of the race for players, and numerous NPCs for plots. They should be public.

Specific Damage Calls For Backstab

Replace current Backstab wording with: ‘’’Backstab 1-4 (8xp) [Requires Streetfighter 1, Subterfuge 2, 4, 6, 8]’’’

The character knows how best to strike an opponent who isn't expecting it, or is otherwise engaged. To backstab, you must be standing behind the target and strike them in the rear of the torso with a weapon less than 18" long (but see Improved Backstab). After backstabbing, you may not backstab that target for ten seconds - people have an inconvenient tendency to flail around in agony, which really spoils your aim.

1. Your blow calls DOUBLE THROUGH for a sharp weapon, or SUBDUE DOUBLE for a blunt weapon.

2. Your blow calls TRIPLE THROUGH for a sharp weapon, or SUBDUE TRIPLE for a blunt weapon.

3.Your blow calls QUAD THROUGH for a sharp weapon, or SUBDUE QUAD for a blunt weapon.

4. Your blow calls QUIN THROUGH for a sharp weapon, or SUBDUE QUIN for a blunt weapon.

Replace Improved Backstab requirements with:

‘’’Improved Backstab (Requires Streetfighter 4, Subterfuge 5)’’’

‘’Reasoning’’ Since you have to have Streetfighter to Backstab, there is no longer the case where it will be adding damage to a natural call of HALF. Therefore it is simpler to have designated damage grades like for Targeteer. This would also prevent combining Warrior 5 or Wilds 6 with Improved Backstab for more damage than a dedicated backstabber. Not a big deal, nobody has ever done this so far and it’s cheesy anyway. Subterfuge can now be given DOUBLE without up-powering Backstab.

Comments

Didn't we change backstab to come off streetfighter last AGM or something? --Steph
Yes. What Jim wants to do is replace: "backstab N: call +n through" with "backstab N: call n+1 through". The difference is when you have e.g. the ability to do double already. Under the current wording, with melee 5, backstab 3, and improved backstab, you can call QUIN THROUGH (DOUBLE, +3 degrees natural damage, and THROUGH). Under this you could only call QUAD THROUGH. I'm not convinced this is a widely exploited problem which needs fixing, tbh... --Tea
It is not a widely exploited problem, but why not just close this loophole? Changing it would make the system simpler to read and prevent future changes from causing Stacking Massive Damage. Also this changes the Streetfighter requirements to be "ability to call SINGLE with the weapon you Backstabbed with" as opposed to "your character only ever carries a knife but must OCly buy 6 levels of proficiency in long weapons to backstab with it" -- Jim

I oppose this motion. It reverses exactly the aim we were looking for when we made backstab hang off streetfighter last AGM - to prevent poping up backstab without buying streetfighter as well. --Tea

Is there a reason why a character who specialises in using a single knife to kill people who are unaware should have to buy skills in dual wielding longswords? -Hark

Introduce Subterfuge Doubles

Thug (8xp, requires Streetfighter 4, Subterfuge 5)

Your PC is a true expert in dirty fighting and alleyway ambushes. You may call natural DOUBLE with any weapons from 24-42” that you may call SINGLE with. (If previous Motion did not pass, add: You may not use this skill on a Backstab)

Reasoning

This is the equivalent of Weapon Expertise, at a lower level because it Streetfighter doesn;t give polearm access and this doesn't allow two-handed weapon DOUBLE . Subterfuge is totally melee combat based in its unique skills unlike Wilderness. Wilderness combat is mainly from Targeteer with added melee skill for those players or concepts without bows, and it got DOUBLE added, so why not Subterfuge?.

42” swords would have a use in Streetfighter as something you can’t ever Backstab with, but can use for DOUBLE and a bit of reach. Having combat power at a reasonable level wouldn't require double buying up to SINGLE THROUGH. This will not stack with Backstab for Crazy Damage, and there is less of an incentive to take edge-case backstabs when you can call DOUBLE if you’re not sure. The prerequisites mean that Kender don’t have to buy empty levels of Streetfighter for this.

Comments

A: Weapon Expertise doesn't give double by polearms. It gives doubles by two handed weapons or shorts (stuff over five foot are excluded as in the two handed skill). This is a proposal for an equally powerful skill for less xp at a lower level
Entirely correct. I said polearm access not polearm DOUBLE for that very reason. -Jim
B: Calling Wilderness a shooty tree is like saying that alchemy is a healing tree. Its a feature, not a complete definition.
--Malselene
It is when I'm referring to its means of combat. Subterfuge is set up so the unique combat skills are melee. Wilderness's unique combat skill is Targeteer. This has been changed to read better -Jim
In response to A, if we bumped it to 10Exp and subter 6 - streetfighter 4, would that sound more level/exp appropriate? --Hark

IIRC we had "put double into streetfighter" in last year, and it failed? Also, what Malselene said. --Tea
If it was then it was not in the minutes, there was a subter related proposal that failed to come up due to a previous proposal of overhauling streetfighter that failed. Could that have been it? --Hark
Yeah, that makes sense. I think it was that the proposed streetfighter replacement left a dead level, and then a second proposal was going to put double in there. --Tea
Tea is correct. I have a copy of the agenda for that AGM if people would really like all the details. --Malselene

Changes to Streetfighter

Prop: A thing that holds up a mine. also dp. Maybe he holds up mines or something.

Sec: A type of wine. Also salavant.

Change levels 4-6 of Streetfighter to the following:

(For informational purposes, levels 1-3 remain as:

1: SINGLE damage with a weapon of up to 18" in length and parry with an off-hand weapon of up to 18". [unchanged but fluff cut for clarity]

2: SINGLE damage with an off-hand weapon of up to 18". [unchanged but fluff cut for clarity]

3: SINGLE damage with an on-hand short weapon (of upto 36" in length). [unchanged but fluff cut for clarity])

4: Pick one of: They can do SINGLE damage with an off-hand short weapon. OR: They can use a" buckler of up to 15" in size. OR: May wield a 42" weapon in their on-hand for Single

5: Pick one of: They can do SINGLE damage with an off-hand short weapon. OR: They can use a" buckler of up to 15" in size. OR: May wield a 42" weapon in their on-hand for Single

6: May call DOUBLE with a 24-36" weapon. (permits ambidex doubles)

Submotion if passed: Streetfighter 6 does/does not stack with backstab. (Jim's motion may make this unnecessary)

Notes: it's intentional that you only get 2 of the 3 abilities from levels 4 and 5. Are you a kender/dwarf? Don't take 42"s, Do you hate bucklers or not want to buy one? Don't take them. Do you want to swash and buckle? Take a 42" rapier and a buckler and swash away. Do you not want any of these things? Buy warrior. You'll probably be better off! Don't like fighting? Probably buy something else. Don't like LARP? WHY ARE YOU READING THIS???

Gives SF and subterfuge a bit of love but shouldn't be stupidly overpowered. Removes dead level particularly for dwarves/kender. Puts doubles somewhere but clearly less good than in Warrior

Allow more backstabbing

This motion has been SUBMITTED

In the 'backstab' skill, the wording "strike them in the rear of the torso" should be replaced with the wording "strike them in the back of the torso or head".

This allows people to e.g. knock people out using subdual damage by hitting them on the back of the head which people seem to find very intuitive and also, the head is often less armoured than the torso.

[Previous version of motion, left because it is referred to in comments.

Option 1: Allow backstab to the head in addition to the torso (from behind)

Option 2: Allow backstab to any location (from behind)

Option 3: Make head and torso into a single location

There are a number of things that this motion might achieve depending on which options(s) I go for:

Option 2 would make it simpler to deliver and take backstabs due to less worrying about whether you are hitting an arm or a torso in the dark and less worrying about whether someone called through damage on you due to backstab or due to some other skill.
Option 1 would mean that people could knock people out using subdual damage by hitting them on the head which people seem to find very intuitive. This brings a slight situational advantage because people wear armour on the torso a lot more than armour on the head.
Option 3 (combined with option 1) removes the slight improvement that option 1 would give to backstabbers but does have rather wide-ranging effects on the rest of the system and so on.]

Comments

I would possibly limit this to just subdual damage to the head. I really like the roleplaying aspects of whacking someone from behind to knock them out, but using through damage (effectively slashing the back of their scalp) doesn't seem nearly as intuitive. Folks would obviously have to be quite careful when going for the head from behind; would there be a safety issue? (Personally I'm really nervy about being hit on the head, and while the RP bit is great, OC I'm not so sure.) Additionally I think option 3 could be interesting to discuss as a separate motion (it'd be quite major) but am not willing to propose it. --Hobnoblin
People would probably be more likely to go for the torso when using through damage because they don't need to worry about armour. --Joey

End Treasure Trap System and Setting

Reasoning

Lots of players go on and on about how they intend to create or could create a better system than CUTT. I propose giving them that opportunity. At the end of the 2013/2014 Year, The Society shall cease to run a campaign set in Grantabrugge using the current CUTT Rules. The Society shall encourage its Members to produce alternative systems and medieval campaign settings to be voted on at the next AGM.

Comments

This is a genuine, non-comedy motion. If there's support for this, it would allow us to start afresh without 10 years of continuity in the way and design a new system from the ground up. It fits with the Constitution, which only specifies that "The Society will run and maintain a medieval live action roleplay system ("The Game") for its members.". If no good ideas turn up after a year, we simply vote the current system back in as its own successor.

This is a poor way to achieve this end. Specifically, b, 33, ii, x roughly applies. The correct way to achieve this is to form a refteam and write a game pitch which you bring to an AGM as a replacement. --Tea
That would be one way to do it, yes. It would not be the only correct way. The point of this motion is make the continuation of the TT campaign an active decision on the part of the society. The reason I am not suggesting a system is that nobody has got round to completing one. You have an idea with SimpleTT?. Ahdok has one. There's another couple knocking around. This is clear in its objective, which is not "Present this system" but "End the current system and campaign, solicit alternatives". It offers a year for members to polish up and playtest their own systems and for new players to contribute to design, and an obvious means to stop it breaking everything (Vote TT campaign back in). It means that systems are presented competitively so that we end up with the proposal that the most players favour, not the first alternative to TT that someone thinks up. I've got thoughts on what might potentially replace TT, but I don't believe it's unconditionally the Best. TT's had a good 10 years, but the rules and continuity are a decade of papering over the cracks. --Jim

===Vote for a System and Setting for the Game===

This motion has been SUBMITTED

(Note: this motion requires a 2/3 majority due to constitutional implications)

At the 2014 AGM, The Society shall hold a Vote for a new Game. Each Game shall be proposed as a combination of Refteam (The Members who will run the new Game for the initial year), System (a complete set of Game rules) and Setting (the fictional world in which the Game is based). Games should be submitted in line with the normal deadline for motions, but this AGM encourages widely publishing the Game well in advance.

The Vote will be conducted using the STV system, with the intention of electing ONE Game to be run for a year. The decision as to what happens subsequently shall be left to the 2015 AGM: possible outcomes could include running a different Game, the same Game with different refs, or if the Game ran was not CUTT, reverting to CUTT. We view that as a decision that is better made at the time, when the situation is clear.

The default expectation will be that the future of the Game will run on a CUTT-esque model of a refteam which changes yearly while retaining the System and Setting. If a Game wishes to run by a different model, they should specify that in their proposal.

Relatedly, the Constitution specifies the Game as "a medieval Live Action Roleplaying game". This will change to "a Live Action Roleplaying Game" if this motion passes, but does not imply any other change in the Game ran at this time.

===Rationale=== Various people have drafts floating around for replacement systems for CUTT or for other LRPs they'd like to run of a similar scale. We propose giving them that opportunity. We are hopeful that the main outcome from the motion will be a creative discussion of the various things people write, so that even if a system is not chosen as a replacement for CUTT it will still exist as a possible thing that could be run in some manner.

Different emotions for alchemy and mind control

This motion has been SUBMITTED

The mind control miracle 'Induce emotion' should have its list of available emotions (Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride, Ennui, Paranoia, Remorselessness.) replaced with the following list: Anger, Calm, Sorrow, Joy, Regret, Pride, Fear, Passion, Impulsiveness

The alchemy lesser psychological effects should also be replaced with the same list.

I find some of the emotions boring, difficult to roleplay or obscurely named, so I've proposed a list I like better.

Comments

Alchemical psychological effects should only last 5 minutes

This motion has been SUBMITTED

The alchemical psychological effect potions should only last 5 minutes.

5 minutes is the same length of time as the mind control miracles, so this would make things easier to remember. Additionally, 30 minutes is an awfully long time for some of the effects (e.g. Agony)

Comments

This would make the Kender's resistance to them less useful (minor point) but more importantly would mean that there is no advantage to alchemying your target, which I feel there should be, because it's much harder to spike your target's drink than to cast a miracle on them. -- Ivan
I was considering allowing each dose to affect 3 targets instead of 1 which makes spiking the drinks in the bar a lot less ingredient intensive. --Joey
That would be excellent, as it's much more fun to work out what the dodgy drink is than to have one PC mindbent for longer. Or to be able to poison all your crafted potions with emotions. But yeah, the alchemicals are much harder to deliver and need a notable advantage--Jim

Inflict length spiritual buffs should have the same drawbacks as blessings

This motion has been SUBMITTED

Inflict length spiritual buffs (e.g. Preservation and the armour miracles) should have the same requirements as blessings, the person they are cast on should be required to keep the strictures of the priest.

Otherwise there is consequence free transferable power.

We should send this soon?

Comments

There should be a rite to allow 5 min duration blessings

====Not submitted===

There should be a rite to allow priests to bless (if above motion passes then those also) people without requiring them to keep the strictures but at the cost of the blessing only lasting for 5 minutes.

This would allow priests to use the blessing tree even if there aren't other people of the same faith as them around.

Comments

Deprecated and TOTALLY SERIOUS GUYS motions

Make Blessing 3 work more like Grey Resists

Blessing 3 should read: "Call "Inflict 3: You may ignore any two damage calls you would otherwise take, except for a call containing [COLOUR] or MAGIC. These do not have to be the next two calls you suffer"

Explanation of reasoning

Dispel Magic and Dispel Damage explicitly state that you can't resist SPIRIT calls with them. This is because Magic and Spirit interact poorly. It seems logical to mirror that description here so that Spiritual Defences don't work against Magical attacks, and vice versa.

Comments

In the basics of basics sense. Question: Does this make the system more complicated. Answer: Yes. Therefore I consider it not a good idea. --Malselene
Also fundamentally this doesn't make sense. Spirit on a metaphysical level is more intelligent than magic and does 'stop damage'. 'Magic dispels only dispel other magic. See under dispel magic. It also doesn't work on " a weapon blow, a call containing 'Spirit', SLAY, DROP or a potion". Spirit is only one of the things it can't deal with. Blessings and Grey anti magic stuff really aren't the same. --Malselene
+1. Magic defenses are a shield of magical energy. Spirit defenses through Blessing are a spirit of the god sitting on your shoulder blocking weapons for you. --Tea
On perhaps a related note: the current wording means that Dispel Magic resists work on, e.g. the Smite Soul tree, as these calls don't contain Spirit in. This doesn't seem to be what is intended. Possibly this should be fixed? -- Salavant
I can't think of any way to do this that doesn't result in Too Many Words or a similar form of 'oh gods no'. --MorkaisChosen
+inf --Tea
Add "Spirit" as a modifier to such effects?
As an addendum to numerous points I agree with above, Priests get a lot less spirit than mages get mana. This is balanced by the fact miracles are generally a bit better, spirit damage is harder to resist than magic and that priests can solve TPKs by committing suicide. --TimB
This is easily explained as "Smite Soul is Complex Religion and there's this big lump of interfering, incompatible magic dicking with the Spirit trying to puppet you. A Spirit Punches You in the Face is simple.". I don't think we need an fix that makes Smite Soul better than it already is. -Jim
If something doesn't have a Spirit, it technically shouldn't be affected by Smite Soul miracles, I think? METAPHYSICS -- Salavany
"MASS SPIRIT STRIKEDOWN 30" is exactly what I meant by Too Many Words. Having played a variety of casters and noted that "strikederp, um, strikedown 10" happens anyway, adding an extra two syllables to allow two spells and a few monster roles to work in a slightly more nuanced way seems like too much effort. If we were DUTT, with Halt being a miracle and Cage of Light a spell, I'd be all for this, because it doesn't add more words and confusion to calls, but we aren't; we have a unified call system, and I think a spell being useful against priests as well as mages is much less bad than more call length. --MorkaisChosen
Ironically, put this forward in an attempt to make things simpler by having all the magic/spirit interactions work the same way, as opposed to different ways. Magic and Spirit are incompatible, so put it all the way through. I find it easier to remember one more complex effect than a bunch of simple but varied ones. If more people don't, there's no point in this. Retracted for now.-Jim
This isn't a spirit magic are incomparable comparison though. This is magic doing dispel magic and spirit doing very nice protection buffs with a downside that the spirit involved will get highly pissed off if stricture are broken. There is no metaphysical similarity. Just a slight similarity in implementation. --Malselene

Tidy up and Simplify some aspects of the system

We propose that all skills in the system be removed and character progression eliminated. At start-up character recieve 1XP which they can spend on a background skill of their choice, on the ability to call SINGLE with any weapon physrep, or on a gecko familiar who follows them around all the time (physrepped by a ref or member of the monster crew in a green Zentai suit). The ref team is mandated to accept bribes on choice of physrep for the gecko. If two geckos meet, they may engage in a dance-off, the judging of which shall be conducted in the 4 categories of style, control, damage and aggression. The only call in the system shall be SINGLE and HARM ELEMENTAL CRITICAL VITALS SLAY, the latter causing two points of damage. Character shall have 3 global hits, and armour as worn. Armour has no mechanical effect.

Comments

I am confident that this will improve the game for everyone. - Salavant
How about Tea/SimpleTT, when I get it finished? --Tea
That just doesn't provide the elegant verisimilitude I am looking for in a system. -- Salavant
There are not words to describe the level of improvement this would cause--Drac
Anyone who opposes this motion is 100% pure demon gecko, and there is no room for them in polite society --kangaroo
Being a demon gecko is worth exile from polite society! I mean, c'mon, DEMON GECKO! -- SevenSecrets
I'm convinced. I will be opposing this motion. --MorkaisChosen

Introduce a new skill to Warrior - "Three-handed"

Introduce the three-handed skill to Warrior at level 3, allowing people to use three-handed weapons for "BOOM FNAR LIZARDS EEP IMPALE SQUEAK EXPLOSION THROUGH CRITICAL VITALS HEAT METAL SEPTIC DEMENT". Third hand must be real - having a third hand IC but not OC does not give you access to the three-handed skill. A second level of Three-Handed may be bought at Warrior 5 to be able to call "BOOM FNAR DOUBLE LIZARDS EEP IMPALE SQUEAK EXPLOSION THROUGH CRITICAL VITALS HEAT METAL SEPTIC DEMENT".

In light of recent advancements in medical science, it is now possible that LARPers can have third arms added. I feel that LARPers who go to this extreme should be rewarded and allowed to take advantage of their new additional limbs.

Comments

I think that this damage call is too short - anyone who has gone to that awesome a level of physrepping / OOC murderising should be rewarded with a few extra things to shout. WHY, AM and BUTTS being three obvious missing elements along with HELP DROWNING. --kangaroo

Do you really want to be responsible when porange starts chopping people up for spare parts? --Jacob

We think that as a natural follow on to this motion, the Two-Handed skill should be changed to only permit calling as much damage as you have hands. Members of the society with less than the standard number of fingers should now call (for instance) 1.95 instead of Double, this being compensated for by the additional confusion it will cause. Extra 0.05s round down after combat. --Pfish Gestalt

Three-Handed Two is underpowered compared to using two swords and a shield for DOUBLE, which has vastly better damage potential as well as defence, in my extensive experience of fighting with one sword or polearm. I suggest "KABOOM HURR DOUBLE DINOSAURS ARGH EVISCERATE SQUEE NUCLEAR MYSTIC CRITICAL VITALS HEAT METAL ANTIMATTER SLAY" --MorkaisChosen

Remove AGMs

Proposer: Porange

Seconder: Biscuits

Reasoning: AGMs.

Solution: Porange volunteers to become the Tyrant of TT, she will be a kind and genourous ruler ^w^w^ evil despot, and will handle all proposed rules changes via the medium of them requiring to be presented to her in person, with cake, after crossing the moat of her doom fortress (so a carboard box surrounded by lego bricks). There is no possible way this is a bad idea.

-If you are not submitting this, I am. You have 2.5 hours, Porange. -Jim

CLSWiki | SystemReset | RecentChanges | Preferences | Main Website
This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited April 19, 2013 9:13 am by redexch1.red-gate.com (diff)
Search: