The Armour Archive

Just what the topic says. We have the rules of the list published in Corpora and republished in the Marshals Handbook along with the specific rules governing rattan and rapier combat. Do the rules lay out what is permitted (and by extension anything that is not covered in the rules is forbidden) or do they lay out what is forbidden (and by extension anything else, consistent with safety, is tentatively permitted)?

Very hard to make a black and white call on. Totally depends on where you are, and who you ask, I think.

Got an example of one that can go either way?

I know for weapons the tendency (here, YMMV) is that if its not specifically allowed, its banned.

Maeryk

Permissive rules – rules which tell you what you can do.
Restrictive rules – rules which tell you what you can’t do.

Most rule sets are going to be a mix of both. Also before you can start to decide the types of rules, you also should have a clear statement of what the rules are trying to accomplish. Also permissive and restrictive rules can both be well or poorly written. And there are situations where a permissive, telling you what you can do, is the only choice. That said, for the most part rules involving action should be proscriptive. Telling you what you shouldn’t do. Why? In part it can be to encourage simplicity, there are so many possible actions out there that if the rules have to tell me what I can do, they could quickly become too complex. More though because it limits the process of learning, permissive rules often require that you change the base rule set in order to do anything new.

In general I feel the rules for SCA combat should be viewed as restrictive. In general terms we have a good idea of what we are in general trying to do out there (although you have to get that from a fairly chaotically laid out and most people pick them up culturally rather then by reading the rules). I mean this in the sense of wearing protective gear and getting hit with weapons simulators, not in the War vrs Tourney argument. By having a decent context you allow for experimentation within the context using restrictive rules.

Permissive rules do have their place. For example the armour standards are fairly good permissive rules. They tell you what you can use, but use fairly general terms, so can be adaptable (the infamous “or equivalentâ€Â

To give an example to back myself up, say I’m fighting and pull a muscle. I tell my opponent I cannot continue and yield. That’s ok right? Well the rules don’t say I can (at least a the society level), but I would say that the majority of fighters out there would agree that it’s a perfectly fair action. Think how many other behaviors on the field fall into the category.

I thought the rules specified you could yield at any time?

Lemme twist that one tho..

you are fighting, and you injure yourself.. are you then REQUIRED to yeild, because you are no longer in your top form, and may be a danger to others, (or yourself) if you keep fighting? I think someone under the pain of say, a torn muscle, or a dislocated shoulder would not be clear headed enough to fight safely.

Maeryk

People who fight on when injured like that are often taking "The Wierd Al Challenge".

"Dare to be Stupid!"

Restrictive can also be defined as what you MUST do.