Re: Armor proposal 1

[Wright Frazier <khelek>]

> However, these are the SAME criteria you use to explain how and why armor
> ought to be improved.

There are also hundreds of other reasons why armor should improve.
Socially, militarily, and because of the design of the armor that
existsin the game.

> 
> First, I appologize for how wound up I seem to have gotten you.  While it
> was my intent to have the argument play out, it was indeed not my intent
> to piss you off.

Not pissed off, just getting tired of this.

> 
> Second, have you looked for any way with the current mechanic that armor
> could be diversified (i.e. have the DV's manipulated without creating some
> sort of uberplate)?  What comes close?  Could more task-oriented armors
> come out of the current mechanic?
> 
> I DO understand that Kevin in chain jogging down the hall moves faster
> than the book list movement.  I do understand that the mechanic is not a
> truly accurate mirror to reality.
> 
> However, pre20th century uses of armor as well as the average speed of
> someone in SCA grade armor today aren't any different than they were 10
> years ago (or whenever the mechanic was put into place).

It wasn't based on reality then either.

> 
> That is, the info you're presenting isn't new.  They were as available to
> you as they were to those that put the existing mechanic together.

And weren't used.

> 
> Yes, you have, very capably, shown me that your proposals DID take into
> account this outside data.  Yes, this is a strength of your proposals.
> 
> However, you've NOT shown me that these facts were not taken into account
> when putting together the current mechanic.

If they were taken into account then we wouldn't be having this dicussion.
Then they didn't have a guy running up and down halls in chain mail.
Or shooting a chainmail shirt with crossbows, stabbing chainmail with
weapons designed to pierce armor, having people swim in armor, etc...

I'm sure enough of it infact to be willin to put money on it.  Takers?

> 
> You've also shown that your mechanic is certainly more attractive to
> characters that would wear armor.
> 
> However, you've not shown that it is better in that it would not only be
> more attractive, but would also fit into the existing system at least as
> well as the exisiting mechanic.

It is better in that it would reflect better upon reality, and go with
the 'european feel' of castles and knights and wizards that the game
is supposed to give.  BTW, the last is a quote.  You don't have that
feel by having guys running around with a shield and helmet, but then
wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

You haven't shown how it would be bad either.  Its been shown over
the years that such armor is not unbalancing when its been given out.
I can think of many characters who have worn armor that protects
as the standard stuff does but with increased movement, but it did
not prove over balancing or unwieldy in the slightest.  The current
armor has proved to be unbalanced and against the intended theme of
the game.  Why? because people don't use it and its a swords and
sorcery game.  If people don't use something that they are intended
to be using, then soemthing is very definately wrong.  Armor is
intended for use by warriors..do warriors use it?  No.

> 
> Changing armor will indeed, to some degree, change how warriors chose to
> engage their opponents, what they will need to be more skilled in, what
> spellcasters will consider as courses of action against armor wearers,
> how ranged weapon users will engage, etc.

As was said, its intended to be a swords flashing heroic combat type
combat system.  Hince why the missile weapons thing was so touchy
about being adopted.  Don't really got that without folks wearing
armor.  Further it'll make fights be shorter with AP1(the prefered
one).  Why? Engagement times will decrease.  Further it'll leave
more options in combat because you'll actually beable to
have somewhat of a chance to get the hell away without being run
down by the guy in noarmor.

It might make the actual fights last a little longer as people now
wear the stuff, but I doubt it.  Warriors will still buzz people down
but maybe that'll last a round longer since folks will now wear armor,
and the lethality will go down a little as people might have that
one extra round to decide to run like a mad monkey instead of being
hacked apart in the standard 4 to 8 sec interval.

The flipflop might get a little less dangerous as folks might survive
more than the 4 to 8 sec opening melee round.

All in all..its a good thing.



> 
> In short, all those who desire to circumvent or exploit the
> characteristics of armor will need to reevaluate their courses of action
> if the characteristics of armor change.

Anything that relieves the bordem and makes me have to do more than the
standard "I multi attack him" is good with me and most other folks I
imagine.

> 
> Will this be a big change?  Will it be inconsequential?  Will it cause
> other changes in the system?  Is there a possibility of having armor that
> is too common?

Only one way to find out.  Some will some won't, some will still want
the unencumbered movement bonuses.  Note another gaming system has 
quite successfully for many many years allowed people to use quite
protective armor that leaves them either completely unencumbered or
only slightly slowed in movement with no difficulties.


> 
> You've discounted any raising of these questions rather than addressing
> them, and THAT concerns me.
> 
> What are you considering beyond "armor needs to be changed because it
> doesn't fit with the way it ought to be?"

Hmmm...how I will help this person get their computer working, when
my parents'll be in town, etc...

But seriously, See my above reasons.  My over riding goals are:
a) Combat to be a bit more realistic.
b) People to beable to survive a bit of it for more than 8 seconds.
c) Things to look cool while doing the above.

Either of the 2 proposals I submitted accomplishes the same goal.
Eitherway DVs go up.  With one people wear what we have now because
its now useful and worth wearing, or people see that the benefits
are at least on part with the penalties and its worth using.  Both
accomplish my ends, though AP2 does leave combat lasting longer.

That answer your questions?

Wright