Belegarth

In preparation for my coming book Battle Gaming: The New American Sport, I have published the battle game system comparison chart from the appendix of the book. The chart allows new players to compare what they learned in the book with the Amtgard, Belegarth, Dagorhir, Darkon, SCA Youth, SCA Heavy, and SCA Rapier combat systems. It can also be used to cross compare any of the above mentioned medieval combat systems. Players from Amtgard, Belegarth, Dagorhir, and Darkon as well as the SCA are invited to view the document and submit any corrections they may find. The document can be found at: http://www.openbattlegaming.net/images/rules/wccomparisonchart.pdf

Feedback may be posted here or given through the feedback form at: http://www.openbattlegaming.net/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=5

I do appreciate all feedback (both positive and negative) and I have been incorporating it into each iteration of my work.

Thank you,

Dave Graham

I appreciate the thought and effort you put into this, but a few things concern me about this chart, hope I don't come off as being too harsh.

1. You're using your own terminology to describe what different combat sports have their own terms for. Belegarth doesn't have hit points. Neither does Amtgard. I use different terms when I'm talking to people from different games, "when in Rome..." Amtgard armor is very different from Belegarth armor for example and not just in how many points it offers.

2. I wouldn't mention anything about weapons tech. If they pass, they pass. Simply saying that all noodle weapons are good in Amtgard is false. Saying "layered padded weapons" implies that nonlayered padded weapons won't pass.

3. All of those organizations publish rule changes and errata regularly.

4. Whatever language or rules definitions somebody picks up from your book, they're going to have to forget it when they join a game like Belegarth anyway.

5. In the time it takes me to read that chart, I could just scan the Bel/Amt/Darkon webpage and get a better idea with better formatting and interesting pictures. If I saw that in a book, I would just google from there.

6. Don't use the term hit points. Just... don't.

That makes no sense what so ever.
The hit point **** is incomprehensible. I play 4 of those games and none of them have hit points, let alone 1/2 points for torso. What are you even trying to say?
If people with no experience with fighting read this crap and think they understand our sports, when they go to a park and try to play with normal fighters, they will be laughed at. Perhaps luaghed right out tof the park. If they are weird shut in homeschool kids, they'll probly cry and never want to talk to strangers again.
This is going to do you more harm than good.
Please use it as is in your book.
FB
Oh, and "twirling weapons" is the gayest thing I've ever heard.

Looks awesome, please publish this soon.

Also, please keep "twirling", "bonking", and "chucking" weapon types. I think they're neat.

For those unfamiliar with the term "twirling":

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ox0ZBrgRzZw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ox0ZBrgRzZw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Aye, it's THAT awesome

aye. its confusing but its good. i would also reiterate the use of hp. i see what you are doing and introducing your terms from your system into all the games you compared. i would add * foot notes at the bottom explaining this also add an * to explain in bel/dag that shield hp is only there against red weapons as they are the only ones that damage shields. as the way you put it to me seams that 4 hits from a blue will take out a shield

Everyone, I really feel like the chart would make much more sense within the context of the book. I understand what he's trying to do: Find conventions that are found across foam fighting, define them, then categorize each sport based on those conventions using the terms he's defined, for people that have never done foam fighting. It's not a terrible goal.

Correction, Draw cuts are allowed in SCA Rapier combat. As are push cuts if you want to get technical in your terminology.

Don Godfrey von Ravensburg. OWS

Once I read over your chart, the first thing that came to mind is that you have obviously never played in the SCA.

Or if you have, you were very much "doing it wrong."

That and a lot of the terms you use are very misleading and are going off the basis that the person is first playing your system. I think there are better terms that are used generically without shoehorning other systems into your own.

But hey, it's your book, and your game raight? Do what you want.

-Ramius

good job getting the word out on foam-fighting, but if someone was interested in medieval combat enough to buy a book about it, isn't it likely they already have heard of Dag/Bel/SCA by now?

I thought the first page was the best, started to loose me on the second. It is a very extensive comparison chart, so I didn't complete it.

The Hit Points section is very confusing, I am not sure what it means. Looks like you have room to use non-numerical terms like "kill" and such where hp don't apply. Many people have only heard heard one or a handful, of these, not all.

I am confused as to what these terms mean:
-Weapons are not Shields
-Underarm

Also, it might be good to bold ether yes or no so they are more easily differentiated. Especially when you get in to a section that is 99% all yes or 100% no.

One of the last 3 pages, one of the left hand rules says "picture wounds" when it means "puncture wounds"

Also, warrior healer is listed as an unofficial class in Belegarth, but that doesn't apply because unlike Dag we have no healing rules.

I agree on the hp section being confusing and not really applying to us.

Other than that I think you forgot that we use rocks in our game, (even though some people don't like them). They apply to some portions of your charts and are omitted.

The optional combat rules section gets confusing as there is no definition of what some of those rules are. If you have a section in your book detailing them, then it is a moot point, but as a stand alone chart it is confusing.

It seems like a legend/definition section would make the whole thing more approachable.

Cool idea overall, will read the book when it comes out.

pg 4 Use of OBGS optional combat rules. What is "No Corkscrew"?

Yeah I'm lost on many of these terms. "Twirling"? The example video tells me nothing. How you move the sword prior to hitting is irrelevant. Whether it lands a solid hit is the issue.

Well, under Amtgard it says "small only". I can't think of ANY Amtgard rule that regulates "twirling" motion, much less one that relates to a specific type of weapon.

I don't get the 1/2-pt torso. Also, you left off "dead leg". In some games like Amtgard, a dead leg is immune to later hits, which is rather significant.

No game uses 980 ip bows. That whole row is not correct. First off, AFAIK no game uses IP as a measure for handbows. If they DID, a typical bow might be 665 ip.

Ozong, the video is a joke.
Twirling damage means damage from thrown weapons that have to "twirl" end over end to hit, like a throwing knife. Not that in combat ANYONE can make the determination that a hit from a randon direction felt as an impact only, that the weapon was "twirling".
That's the stupid part about this whole thing.
The dude here has obviously mastered the art of visualization and has imagined every concievable scenario and written out rules for them. Only, no one can track and assess all the **** that happens in combat. You CAN track 2 things relyably in combat: hits and where they landed. This is hard enough to do. Adding in all kinds of other damage types and deathcounts in a fastpaced battle only results in half your people thinking the other half are cheating.
We keep things simple becuase thats how it works best.
People in games that expand what you can do are lame, confusing and in every case those extra abilities are only used in certain battles.
Amtgard and I believe Darkon, groups that have TONS of extra **** rules, fight most of their battles without using them. Amtgard has Ditch battles(which all amt-fighters profess is why they fight in that group) and Drkon( I believe) does the same type of thing with another name.
The rest of the groups that use extra stuff rules are **** stupid and constantly loosing their * and reforming, excpet Nero, which is just for **** homo's. And furries.
FB

Forkbeard wrote:We keep things simple becuase thats how it works best.
People in games that expand what you can do are lame, confusing and in every case those extra abilities are only used in certain battles.
Amtgard and I believe Darkon, groups that have TONS of extra **** rules, fight most of their battles without using them. Amtgard has Ditch battles(which all amt-fighters profess is why they fight in that group) and Drkon( I believe) does the same type of thing with another name.
The rest of the groups that use extra stuff rules are **** stupid and constantly loosing their * and reforming, excpet Nero, which is just for **** homo's. And furries.
FB

I am on record as having stated I prefer Bel/Dag style combat over Amtgard rules combat. That said, I for one do enjoy battle games and class battles when they are done well. When those games ARE done well, it's amazing fun. The bad part is, if it's NOT done right, it's done really REALLY bad and can almost make your soul bleed. So I do understand the statement of "every Amtgarder will profess ditching is why they fight in the group" to an extent. I wouldn't go that far myself. I think if that were true, they (myself included) wouldn't play Amtgard at all as Bel and Dag also can easily accomodate this game. The biggest issue for me anyway, is just the level of skill in Bel/Dag isn't quite there yet to make it worth dropping, AND Amtgard has a society which Bel/Dag sorely lacks, AND there is no geographical grouping for Bel/Dag. It's basic nuts and bolts fighting where the top end and average end are so far apart, its just not as much fun. I kinda view Bel like I view Amtgard class battles. The few that can play the game well, makes for amazing fun, but when you go up against the more likely not so good players... my soul bleeds.

Back to the battlegames and flurby aspect of other LARPS, I like it to a degree. I do enjoy going up against say, a Troll, or what have you. I am starting to embrace the fun for fun's sake aspect of Amtgard more as time goes along, because it is fun. I would assume I'm rather unique in that I actually have been to a real war and really have seen death up close and very personal. I don't need to validate a macho fantasy ideal of who I might "really really" be if I closed my eyes really hard and wished on a star. I suppose for some, fighting with foam swords offers that same sense of accomplishement, so I do understand.

Will

What I am saying is that when playing our highspeed combat oriented games, overloading the system with lots of different kinds of weapon effects and damage types is a waste of time. People can only keep track of so much information when physicly exerting themselves the way good combat sports require.
I was not trying to say anyhting about all the other aspects of role play fighting. All that other crap can be managed just fine in a multitude of ways, so long as it doesn't interact with full speed feild battles. In a day long adventure type setting, sure, you can have tons of * extra stuff and it can be fun.
But in a regular field battle, people can not be counted on the keep track of whether the thing that just hit them in the back was twirling or not. To ask them to is to ask for problems before you even start.
FB

Oznog wrote:Yeah I'm lost on many of these terms. "Twirling"? The example video tells me nothing. How you move the sword prior to hitting is irrelevant. Whether it lands a solid hit is the issue.

Forkbeard wrote:Twirling damage means damage from thrown weapons that have to "twirl" end over end to hit, like a throwing knife. Not that in combat ANYONE can make the determination that a hit from a randon direction felt as an impact only, that the weapon was "twirling".

See, that's funny. Because I thought twirling weapons would suggest a class of throwing weapons that are used by twirling them, like with a sling.

And it may just be because I started in Amtgard and was consistently Reeves Qualified, but I generally find the Amtgard combat system easier to understand, even when you throw in magic. Contrast that with the 4 years I've been playing Belegarth where I still have to pause sometimes to process green/blue/red/yellow - hacking/piercing damage.

Really Giggles?
I had not idea you rode the short bus.
I've never thought of different types of Damage in Bel.
When I loose an arm, it goes behind my back. The only time I play out the stabbed libm rules is in tournaments to help my team, or when it's a very entertaining fight. Otherwise, I just die from any 2 limbs.
I have always found our system the best. Hit in chest=dead. Hit in limb=limb gone. 2 limbs=dead. Easy.
The only stab rule I always follow is the no stabing(one handed) through armor. I love that one.
I always figured this was because I learned to fight in retarded LARPS with tons and tons of stupid extra rules. We could never get anyone cool or serious about fighting because the rules were too complicated. The nerds wanted to keep it complex to support thier lack of skills. When I first saw Dagorhir(back then, Dag was all there was) I was told I didn't hit hard enough. I was down for life after that first fight.

Forkbeard wrote:I just die from any 2 limbs.

I have always found our system the best.

This just is funny to me... you love our system... that you don't really use.

no hatin on giggles. he's a good cross-over fighter and a great guy. it is totally understandable that keeping track of the weapon classes would be confusing for someone from a different system.

as for calling pierced limbs dead limbs, i take it you don't want to be monty pythoned by an archer?

Acorn wrote:
as for calling pierced limbs dead limbs, i take it you don't want to be monty pythoned by an archer?

Maybe he just likes the Amtgard combat rules better? LOL

Will

Oh, I use them. And I teach them the way they are in the BoW. I just usually, in pick up fights, don't take the time to notice more than the fact that I'm hit. I'm more than happy to be dead after that so I can watch my Orcs fight(at events) or help herald(at practice).
Whenever I'm in a "real" battle, with serious teams or a unit battle, I go get the armor and fight it out tooth and nail. I even throw a leg up to block my torso to use up all my armor. That works way more than it shoud.
In pick up fights, 9 times out of 10, I get hit by a sword anyway. It's not like I'm taking heavy archer fire at practice. I'm one of the only people with stab tips and a spear there as well.
I know giggles. He's a soggy freind of mine. That's why I'm shocked that he's ever had any difficulty with the rules.
Honestly I don't even think about the weapon classes. They are so well defined, it just doesn't go through my mind in a "class" type way.
I mean, I look at it like this.
One handed stuff kills you. You get one extra hit against this stuff with armor.
Big 2 handed stuff kills you. Armor doesn't stop it.
2 hand stabs go through armor.
1 handed stabs do not.(These 2 have nothing to do with weaponclass)
Flying **** can kill you in the head, goes through armor.
Sure, there is much more to our rules than that, but if you take hits that way, your not ever cheating. It's what I tell new people.
The stab rules have always been stupid to me, but I have to admit, I love not getting stabed, EVER, one handed, through my armor. It's the one cheesy rule I've always liked. For entirely childish and selfish reasons.
I will readily admit that the bare bones amtgard ditch rules are a little cleaner, due to the stab rules.
BUT! Not allowing sheild breaking in ditch battles really sucks. I understand the "no classes" balnket thing, but you guys should really consider loosening this up. Great weapons are some peoples bread and butter, just as much as S&B is for others. Getting good with them requires tons of practice which you guys are missing out on becuase of this rule.
And I want to break shields when I ditch with you guys.
Good god, I'm rambling.
FB

Forkbeard wrote:
Good god, I'm rambling.
FB

yes, you are. but it's a good ramble, so we forgive you.

i don't think about the rules either but then again, i don't really think much on the battle field to begin with. blood lust and all that. lol. we often have 3+ bows on the field and a guy who is ridiculously legit and javs, so piercing is kinda a big deal for us. but i can see in a normal fight where that isn't the case just ignoring it all together. plus, if you're really fighting hard, sometimes you can use the break of an early death.

just for good measure,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Forkbeard wrote:I'm one of the only people with stab tips and a spear there as well.

Well, there's yer problem.

Also, I look at fighting great weapon in in a ditch as an opportunity to learn more fakes, jukes, and obliques. Would be nice to have shield breaking threat, at least, though...

Exactly, the THREAT of me breaking your sheild forces you to approach me differently than if you have an indesturctable barrier on your arm. That difference in your approach is one of my biggest weapons.
Just like the threat of a shield kick or a grapple chages the way we look at combat. It's not that people use these moves all that much, but the mere idea that I can grab you and bear hug you until some one kills you make people position themselves differently.
Wow, I'm getting off topic.
I nearly forgot about the stupid chart.
But like I said, It's perfect as is, please use it in the book.
FB

Amtgard ditches are not completely classless. If they were, the ONLY things allowed would be daggers, shorts, longs. No great weapons, armor or shields. It wouldn't be stretch to change the ditch rules to what are viewed as "standard Bel/Dag" rules (excluding weapon weights and keeping the stabs/strikes rules as is of course).

The point of the ditchline is to use only melee weapons and not to rely on weapon "abilities". I guess it's a matter of taste ultimately, but breaking shields in a ditch has a similar nerfing effect as using spells to heat weapon or warp wood (shields). It does cross over the line of cheese to a large extent. That stuff is reserved for battlegames. You only bring to the ditch what you personally can accomplish. Since you have to be able to get the kill with the red weapon by striking a leg/arm/body, you need to figure out how to do that without blasting through a shield by pretend smashing it to bits.

Will

Fork, why do you care? Just ACTUALLY break one guy's shield with your glaive at the beginning of the ditch and then everyone will be afraid of you breaking their shield For Real.

true!

As someone who plays darkon here in MD as well as Dag and Amtgard, they fight similar to ditches except its more like militia battles and only certain abilities are allowed to be used on regular battle days. When they hold campout events is where all those adventure rules and other things come out. The system is not bad, it just needs fleshing out in its current state in my opinion.

Wisp wrote: you need to figure out how to do that without blasting through a shield by pretend smashing it to bits.

But if we do it for real, people get mad at us.