Being fair, we don't tend to throw newbies in at the deep end unless they turn up mid year (which is unusual, and most of the time when that happens, its because they're existing larpers who have moved to the area, not people who have never picked up a weapon before). The campaign normally does start off slow, with lots of talking and just a few slow fights against unskilled (or they're supposed to be unskilled - I know faster fighters like Warren normally go to the effort of slowing themselves down, if anyone isn't, they need a -ve) opponents in the first games, and it gets ramped up from there.
Other ideas, and potential issues: 1) More practise. Run practise/warm up sessions before games? It doesn't have to be a long time or structured, it just has to be practise - play war games, put people through endless games of Rabbit, or circles of treachery, the sort of shit we used to do with the CP weapons practise for an hour or so. And be strict about it. No, you may not come along to chat. No, there will be no spectating. You are there, you pick up a weapon, and you swing. If you do not wish to do the latters, get your arse back to the carpark. End of point. Issues with this: Chances of getting people to turn up earlier on a Sunday morning? Minimal. You'll probably only get those who are keen already, and if they're that keen, chances are they aren't the ones to worry about. You also risk alienating people if you insist on it for new people, as one of the reasons start time for games is set when it is is so people can easily get there by public transport. Arriving earlier, especially if you come from out of the city, might not be doable. And making it mandatory for people who persistantly cause problems is all good and well but if no one else is there for them to practise against - or worse, only people as dangerous as they are turn up because they're made to - then there's no point as they won't improve.
2) Negatives anytime you cause an incident. We don't care if it was an accident. We don't care if it was a one off. We don't care if your weapon was harder than you thought/you got carried away/your hand slipped. You caused it, you get a negative. If it was a genuine accident, then it shouldn't happen too often, and everyone will end up with about the same number of negatives. If you're getting more negatives than you like, maybe its time to start thinking about the situations in which you have these 'accidents' and avoiding them. Issues with this: It might lead to a hostile environment as people become more defensive about blame or insist it wasn't them, which will lead to blow up arguements. There also is the potential for blaming the wrong person, as it's not always the person with the weapon who is being unsafe - example situation, a scout has snuck back to the party and steps into a skirmish having concealed themselves previously. Due to their actions, their party is not aware they're there, and they get caught by a backswing as they do so. At that point, it's the scout's fault for not having more battle awareness, not the weapon wielder, because they'd been as aware as they could be. You could cut across this by having a general rule of 'involved in a safety incident? Get a negative' regardless, but the idea of handing punishments to people like Weeza who are injured as a result of others doesn't sit well with me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2013-04-16 11:45 am (UTC)Other ideas, and potential issues:
1) More practise.
Run practise/warm up sessions before games? It doesn't have to be a long time or structured, it just has to be practise - play war games, put people through endless games of Rabbit, or circles of treachery, the sort of shit we used to do with the CP weapons practise for an hour or so. And be strict about it. No, you may not come along to chat. No, there will be no spectating. You are there, you pick up a weapon, and you swing. If you do not wish to do the latters, get your arse back to the carpark. End of point.
Issues with this: Chances of getting people to turn up earlier on a Sunday morning? Minimal. You'll probably only get those who are keen already, and if they're that keen, chances are they aren't the ones to worry about. You also risk alienating people if you insist on it for new people, as one of the reasons start time for games is set when it is is so people can easily get there by public transport. Arriving earlier, especially if you come from out of the city, might not be doable. And making it mandatory for people who persistantly cause problems is all good and well but if no one else is there for them to practise against - or worse, only people as dangerous as they are turn up because they're made to - then there's no point as they won't improve.
2) Negatives anytime you cause an incident.
We don't care if it was an accident. We don't care if it was a one off. We don't care if your weapon was harder than you thought/you got carried away/your hand slipped. You caused it, you get a negative. If it was a genuine accident, then it shouldn't happen too often, and everyone will end up with about the same number of negatives. If you're getting more negatives than you like, maybe its time to start thinking about the situations in which you have these 'accidents' and avoiding them.
Issues with this: It might lead to a hostile environment as people become more defensive about blame or insist it wasn't them, which will lead to blow up arguements. There also is the potential for blaming the wrong person, as it's not always the person with the weapon who is being unsafe - example situation, a scout has snuck back to the party and steps into a skirmish having concealed themselves previously. Due to their actions, their party is not aware they're there, and they get caught by a backswing as they do so. At that point, it's the scout's fault for not having more battle awareness, not the weapon wielder, because they'd been as aware as they could be. You could cut across this by having a general rule of 'involved in a safety incident? Get a negative' regardless, but the idea of handing punishments to people like Weeza who are injured as a result of others doesn't sit well with me.
(continued)