I bought a larp sword from calimacil. It's... interesting. It's a "pirate" model, I think. So the form is a falchion/cutlass - pointed single edged blade with the top third being double edged, and a simple but effective knuckle guard.

The total price including shipping was just over fifty quid. So this isn't the cheapest of the cheap, but it's not expensive for a larp sword.

Construction:
It seems to be moulded rubber or rubber-like substance, over a barely-flexible core. The rubber is in two grades of hardness - the blade is softer silver stuff, handle and knuckle guard are harder black stuff. The knuckle guard is actually sturdy enough that it probably won't buckle when hit with a larp sword, so that's nice.
This construction method should be pretty durable, and should retain its current appearance well too - there's no paint to come off.

Appearance:
The handle and guard are all black, and the blade is a uniform shade of silver. There are visible mould lines, and a couple of air bubbles in the back of the blade. So it's uglier than most larp swords. The shaping and lines are nice, though, and the blade cross-section is pretty. So if I removed or covered the mould lines and repainted it, it would be very pretty. On the other hand, that would involve quite a lot of work on something I bought new, so this is a point against.

Competitiveness:
It's about 32" long, so even if it was the lightest and flickiest it could be, it would still not be a terribly competitive toy. It compounds this by being rather heavy. I mean, it's nowhere near the weight of the re-enactment swords I use, but it's obviously heavier than all the other larp single-handers I have, and indeed it's heavy enough that flicky wrist actions are going to be a considerable strain. So this is not a competitive toy at all. The bright side here is that if you want to roleplay big heavy cutting actions, the toy will help you do that.

Safety:
It's not dangerous per se - I mean, it deforms when hit and it's lighter than metal. But, if you're used to lighter larp toys this one will need using in a different way. Slower and more cautiously. In itself that is no bad thing, but if you're getting one of these you should absolutely get it ahead of time and practice with it, rather than going straight on the field with it. Obviously that's generally good advice, but here it's more important than usual.
Also, the grip is the wrong shape. It's fairly standard - wider at the top, narrows a bit as it goes down - but then at the bottom it widens again but only on the finger side. This means if your hand slips down the toy slides by default into a point-forward more fencing grip. This would be fine if it were a thrusting weapon. But it isn't, and I mention this in the safety section because as I put cuts in, this grip configuration is altering my hold on it toward the end of the swing. This means I'm losing track of where the toy is, right as I'm about to hit something! Obviously this is a problem.
I'm trying to work out a fix. The grip is slippy enough that this is going to keep happening. I could wrap the grip and that would help, but it's already pretty wide so that might not be comfortable. I could wrap just the bottom part I suppose. Or I could hold it toward the pommel to start with, so that at least my grip won't be changing. But none of these are good options.

Overall conclusion:
For a HEMA or re-enactor type, this would actually be pretty good as a safe waster. For a larper - well, I think a few people would love it. But for most people I can't recommend it. It doesn't look great and you'll probably hurt someone.

Larp (again

Jan. 6th, 2014 07:04 pm
I have two things I want to write down:

First, most Larps are badly designed.
I'll elaborate: I played a game called Fiasco recently. It's a role-playing "game", in what seems the purest sense of "role-playing" and quite possibly a misapplication of the word "game". You don't have stats, skills, or even win conditions that you can work towards. Your character is in the first instance defined by relationships with other characters, where you only have 50% of the input into those relationships, and that 50% is itself constrained in selection. There are good and bad outcomes available for the character, but you can't choose to work towards a good outcome - the will of other players combines with the whims of the dice to give you the ending. And each game is an intrinsically one-off scenario, so your character doesn't develop, except within the context of the immediate story, which is a heist that goes wrong (that's not a spoiler, it's built into the game).
So... you're roleplaying. In the sense that you're creating a character within limits, and you're playing that character. But you don't get to choose outcomes - or a least, not enough to have a meaningful impact on the final result. They just happen to you.
I've played it once, and it was a lot of fun. It was really engaging and hilarious. In fact, it was a lot more engaging than most larps, which is where this point comes from. Because larps contain within them all of the things that make fiasco fun, and then a bunch of other stuff as well, where the other stuff is supposed to be "features", like growth, exploration, numbers, soft skills, etc etc. If all that other stuff, which (I think) can be summarised as "system and setting of the larp" added to the stuff that's in Fiasco comes out as less engaging than Fiasco alone, then "system and setting" must be overall negative. Which means the larp is badly designed.

Second: game balance.
Some people don't care about game balance, and that's fine. But... I usually do! And if I'm going to play a game where "in character success" is any kind of motivating factor (which is most larps), then I care a lot about game balance.
So as a designer, first you need to work out whether you want people like me in your game. Don't worry, I won't be offended if you exclude me because I'm somewhat gamist in approach! In fact, I'd rather you did that than lie to me in order to get me into a game I will then hate. So, work out whether gamism is a concern in your game. If it is, then try to make your game balanced, in power terms. That's somewhat difficult, but you can make things easier for yourself with two important steps:
First, publically acknowledge that balance is a consideration, that you're not perfect, and that therefore the rules are subject to revision if something becomes a problem. Just saying that will make people like me more likely to play.
Second, publish all the rules. And I do mean, all of them. Publish the rules for the magic that not everyone gets. Publish the tech tree that other systems would have kept secret. Publish the list of possible powers for monsters. Doing this will reassure gamists that they aren't going to get their arses handed to them by something they couldn't have planned for. It will also reassure us that you aren't hiding all the unbalanced bullshit behind a "find out in play" excuse. In character "find out in play" is okay. Out of character "find out in play" is "you lied to me and I'm not coming back". Don't expect us to trust you with the game balance issues (which are hard to get right, and which can break the game for us) while refusing to trust us to roleplay our in-character ignorance.
As an addendum to this last point, experienced players generally have an advantage within games even when playing new characters, becase they understand the meta, both the state of the game and the hidden things in the rules. That's actually a bad thing, because it puts new players off. You can't help the meta state-of-game knowledge from happening, but if you publish all the rules you can remove that part of an experienced player's advantage.

Profile

aumentou

July 2016

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
1011121314 1516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2017 08:49 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios