Re: Armor proposal 1

[John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Greg Mowczko wrote:

> >
> > But why would the average person wear armor?  It is not really cost 
> > effective nor practical to wear going down the street to buy a fish from 
> > the Rougtero market.  It would be like me purchasing and wearing a bullet 
> > proof vest.  It is expensive and not really practical unless I'm driving 
> > a potato truck through Gary, IN.
> 
> The average person would only where it if they were in a situation where
> they felt it necessary and in most cases they won't have it.
>

I gotta say, I awfuly amused that a handful of people are arguing the barb
BJ threw out at me ... (I go home over the summers to deliver potato chips
for my family's Gary-based company)

And it's PERFECTLY SAFE ... why, Grant street was only closed by the
police ONCE this summer ... as opposed to the closings for the 2 shootings
LAST summer ...

Oh, and I don't have a lot of stock in the goodwill of man ... I just
don't walk around work in FBI swat regelia armed to the teeth with weapons
because it gets in the way of work, and I don't want the false sense of
security such implements would give to me.  If I ever think I can "handle"
or "deter" someone who has taken a sudden and thorough interest in
assaulting me, I am a fool.  However, if I pay attention to my
surroundings, mind my own business, and don't talk to anyone I don't know,
I'll be OK.

(Oh, to answer the obvious coming questions, about 6-8 stops along
Broadway, and the LC Correctional Facility in Crown Point ... Wednesdays
were a FUN day)
 
What I don't understand is the argument that:

(paraphrased)  Nobody MAKES THE CHOICE to wear heavy armor because they
don't WANT to have the movement penalties.

How is this unbalanced again?  If there is a trade off, and people are
considering the trade off, and making decisions based on it, how is it
"UNBALANCED?"

Further, if the argument is "It should have been innovated by now ..."
along with "Yeah, just look at this character that can make THIS much
better armor ..." I wonder where the interest is.  If all these phantom
people are making innovations, why do so few player warrior/auger/marines
exhibit ANY interest in MAKING better armor.

If fighting forces are those driving innovation
If adventureres are said fighting forces (taken to an Nth extreme)
If very few characters have actually developed improvements to armor

Why does it stand to reason that armor has been driven to it's most
effeicient form by now ...

Oh, as far as superefficient 16th/17th century armor in the real world and
historic references ... Rennaisannce.  Short of the Industrial revolution
(and potentially today's information revolution) NOTHING matched the
amount of scientific development made throughout the world ...

Now, make the point that Jaern has undergone some form of rennaissance,
and, as such , spur development of society in ALL areas (including war)
and I may play ball.  But I don't think such an assertion can be made.

(though with the Taurusian "knowledge police" weakened, the Augers have
the chance to do such things ... but that would change the setting of AQ
considerably)

John Hogg			johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu

"I am amused by the simplicity of this game.  Send me your finest meats
and cheeses!"				--Kenny Mayne