by Brennon EH » Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:25 pm
I think simplicity of rules, no matter what those rules are, is the best thing you can do to encourage cross-gaming.
The weight requirements on weapons, regardless of what you may think about them from a mechanical standpoint, are very cut-and-dry. 341g is 341g is 341g. If I weigh it in Texas it is the same as if I weigh it in Illinois. You can read that rule, make something that meets the standards, and then move along.
The issues that come up are rules that do one of the following:
1. Require an experienced person to adjudicate
2. Are not discernible in the normal course of combat
3. Require significant amounts of cogitation to determine how the rule applies in combat
The weight rule, while not normally discernible in the normal course of combat, operates off the assumption that any weapon on the field has been objectively checked in a factual way, and thus it isn't an issue.
The rule about different 'wound types' from piercing and slashing, on the other hand, is definitely confusing and cannot be easily determined in the normal course of combat. It can be determined by communication with your opponent, but this slows things down and (in some way) detracts from play.
The rule about what constitutes a safe stabbing tip is also confusing. You see in Bel itself a discussion between East and West about what constitutes 'safe'; Arnor believes that your normal slash padding is sufficient, while groups in California may believe that you need two inches of marine foam in order to be stab legal. It requires an 'experienced adjudicator', which means that new and isolated groups will develop different standards of measure and expectations. 'Sufficient force', while laudable and important, can also vary greatly based on isolation vs having an 'experienced adjudicator'.
Any of the rules that might confuse a new or isolated player will likely, to some degree, also hinder cross-gaming. It isn't insurmountable (as we have recently seen), but it is something to think about.
The best way forward for encouraging cross-gaming is to normalize the mechanics of combat to form a stable base for interaction between the games. We can standardize and harmonize things like padding requirements, hit locations, shot timing, damage, weapon definitions, etc.
We can also work on making clearer and more objective some things that are not the same between the systems. 'Sufficient force', for instance, might be better described so that a visitor has an expectation of what is needed to score a valid hit before they visit a field. Something along the lines of "shots must be percussive, stop on, or rebound from their target in order to be considered sufficient" would be a good first step in having an explanation that isolated people and cross-gamers can understand.
I'm very much interested in working towards something that promotes and eases cross-gaming. It wouldn't take a lot to get us there, and I think the returns are worth the investments.