charging

Atrum Draconus · Post by **Atrum Draconus** » Mon May 11, 2009 12:34 pm

GM_Chris wrote:Lead weapon first and the problem we are seeing goes away. You might not see the problem, but it is not really with interpretation so much, as it is with literalists.

A literalist reads 2 feet. You can clarify and clarify what that exactly means, but in the end the literalist has an invisible ruler in thier head and if they interpret that the distance between you and them is less than 2 feet he/she will call a charge.

The way to fix the "problem" is to not give the literalist such a concrete number to argue over.

Whether it's a concrete number or a "vague description" like within arms length(who's arms?), which in my opinion is far worse and causes far more arguments, people will misinterpret it. The "literalist" as you call them will still call charging. Some people charge themselves and then turn around and call charging on someone else. I've seen it more than once. I heard that someone called charging because they got wrapped around their shield with a long sword, that's not charging it's good fighting and overcoming the inporportionate disadvantage a shield gives you in LARP combat. Basically jackasses will try and twist the rules to their favor no matter what they are.

Post by **GM-Mike** » Mon May 11, 2009 12:40 pm

It's really the "two feet" rule. I'm fine if it says a weapon between you and the person but don't give a number out. Just don't hit the other guy with your body, it's really quite easy.

And don't talk to me about needing two feet or not being able to hit a guy right next to you or a little behind because it is a "safety" rule. We have been doing this for 15 years and no one has ever gotten hurt by these practices.

But anyway, having a number (like 2 feet) is a BAD idea for teh reasons Chris said. If I am within someone's subjective view of two feet, even if they judge us to be 1.9 feet, THEY WILL NOT TAKE THE DAMAGE. This is retarded.

So why is this coming up? Because I was called for charging FOUR times this event. That is four MORE times than I have ever been called for charging...EVER. Only one of those times was I legitimately too close to someone (but i was not even attacking that person).

Therefore, the rule WILL be changed to something that everyone (as in all GMs) can be happy with. if it was just up to me the rules would be 1)there is no physical contact, ie body to body, and 2) if you knock someone on their butt, it's charging.

I realize that this is more extreme than people want so I will concede to the weapon between you version but the "2 feet" (and I realize I am repeating myself) WILL be removed.

That is all.

Atrum Draconus · Post by **Atrum Draconus** » Mon May 11, 2009 12:47 pm

That I can understand, But the literal translation "a weapon between you" makes wrapping, side stepping or hitting someone to the side of you a "grey area" that a jackass will call charging on.

cole45 · Post by **cole45** » Mon May 11, 2009 12:49 pm

mmm, erik has a point to. we could exclude those, but that would be alot of extra wording, and the more you get the less effective it is.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » Mon May 11, 2009 12:50 pm

Mike???? charging???? I've fought you a lot of times and you've never done that to me and we're talking the years of CARPS combined with when FH started.

I guess a little clarification should be in order for we have had a problem with a few doing it in the past.

Post by **GM_Chris** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:03 pm

Yeah you word smiths please figure it out. Maybe the best thing to do is to list this rule as a general Guideline of safe combat so it is no longer a rule. and then add a detailed video FAQ to deomonstrate what we mean. Could one of you put such video's together?

We remove 2 feet and you will have a person jump within a micron of another player (their target), use their long arms to wrap around to hit their target in the back. As soon as the person breaths, expaning their chest that 1 micron the person who charged will call charging on their target.

That is stupid.

Mike has a good point. We put in what we felt was a general idea of what we think was, and is "safe" combat. None of us ever thought literally 2 feet when we wrote the rule since it is more of a guideline.

But we have literalists that dont get what a guideline is, and we have cheese dickers who are trying to use a rule\Guideline to find an advantage in combat.

So again, someone write a Guideline for safe combat, that is not some hard and fast rule.

Atrum Draconus · Post by **Atrum Draconus** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:13 pm

If you can't put your forearm's out without hitting the other person they are too close. If you can't lean without bending your knees or waist or falling over without hitting the other person you are too close.

Kalphoenix · Post by **Kalphoenix** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:19 pm

Atrum Draconus wrote:If you can't put your forearm's out without hitting the other person they are too close. If you can't lean without bending your knees or waist or falling over without hitting the other person you are too close.

Lol, yeah, that. Like I said, but shorter and more concise. I'm a rambler. Everyone knows that, right?

General Maximus · Post by **General Maximus** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:27 pm

Wow, Mike got called 4 times on charging. That is plain silly. Mike is one of the safest people in game.

As for charging rules, just remove the 2 feet from the current description and add some minor subjective distance or even say the 2 feet is a suggestion. Or say as long as there is a weapon or shield from each person between them and the peoples shields or bodies are not touching, you are not charging. I just want to avoid the bear hug attack that is just plain stupid and silly. 2 weapon wrapping around a shield and leaving the front of the person undefended is not fighting and can be dangerous. A shield to the nose can hurt!

As for attacking people behind people, use common sense. If you find an opening, than attack. But don't reach over people heads or attack through people's legs. This just leads to people getting hit in either head. And you still need to have some distance between you and the front person. So it is rare that you will be able to hit a person that is standing behind another with out risk of charging or accidently hurting some one. It is just a bad idea. I know this from years of LARP expereince and martial art training.

BTW - You use the press ability to move the person out of the way so you can hit the person behind them.

Post by **GM_Chris** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:33 pm

I really think this "rule" should be listed as a guideline to safe fighting.

People can cheeze their ways around rules. People can't cheese their way around a guideline.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:38 pm

GM_Chris wrote:I really think this "rule" should be listed as a guideline to safe fighting.

People can cheeze their ways around rules. People can't cheese their way around a guideline.

Well said Chris

Post by **GM-Mike** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:40 pm

This is the one case that I can think of where being too specific actually made it easier to cheese

Fenn · Post by **Fenn** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:47 pm

MMMMMMMMMMMM, colbyjack.

General Maximus · Post by **General Maximus** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:48 pm

If it is a guideline, how would you tell people they are charging that are actually charging? How is a guideline different than a rule if both need to enforced?

It seems the charging calls have gotten out of control and people are doing it to gain an ingame advantage. This is so wrong I have no words for it. There is a line between safety and using a saftey rule to gain an ingame advantage.

What happened to common sense!!! It seems it has left people

Post by **GM_Chris** » Mon May 11, 2009 2:07 pm

Who says it needs to be inforced.

Instead you have "safe fighting" guidelines and say in those guidelines that people who repeatedly show they are not capable of fighting safe will be told they can no longer be able to participate in combat.

I can enforce a guideline as long as we are clear what is safe and what is not.