Dealing with 2 weapon combo in combat system

[Christoffer Lernö]

Hi,
Hey Pale, I'd just like to chime in with a quick idea.  Wolfen makes a good idea about damage increase, I've seen this in other games and its always struck me as pretty cool.

My thought is a variation on this: how about an improvement in the attack roll?

Oh, I have considered that. Isn't that in my first posting already. However, considering the range of situations a fighter will encounter (from goblins to humans to giant monsters), it seems unlikely I could just add a single bonus and get away with it if my aim in adding the complexity of extra rules are to get more realistic results.

So I think we can safely say that ON AVERAGE there is no advantage to using two weapons, except for the increased options as pointed out by Jake already.

I don't feel I can justify adding a bonus to a roll just for the fun of it, because keeping track of bonuses here and there is something I've tried very hard to eliminate in the game.

A modifier doesn't seem like much, but if I don't have modifiers unless the situation is really unusual you get the feeling that two weapon combo is something just added as an "unusual situation" in the game.
This is not uncommon in games, but that doesn't mean it's good.

I think by treating 2 weapons and single weapons on equal terms one also gets around the problem which probably accounts for a lot of the bad 2 weapon rules there are out there: lack of testing because it's uncommon.

[Le Joueur]

I think by treating 2 weapons and single weapons on equal terms one also gets around the problem which probably accounts for a lot of the bad 2 weapon rules there are out there: lack of testing because it's uncommon.

What we did (in the more simpler form of Scattershot we used as our design basis) was think of all the skills necessary to wield weapons as 'skills that do damage.'  They have special requirements (except things like open-handed martial arts or pugilism); read that 'the weapons.'  They offer better results (blade cut versus a punch for example).  They offer certain strengths and limitations (daggers don't work at 'pike range,' but will function in close quarters).  Some have added appllications (a sabre can cut and pierce whereas a foil only pierces).

This last one is important here; since we abstracted all the skills to use the weapons into units not linked on a one-to-one basis to the amount of equipment needed, we can create the 'two weapon' skill with added applications.  By focusing on this skill's particular strengths and limitations (factoring in any damage improvements we desire) we are able to balance 'weapon' choice problems like you working out in this thread.

One thing I might suggest is considering whether the 'additional applications' may be dependant on 'high facility' (high skill levels) which are somehow harder to get than 'regular facility' (average skill levels).  This is also how we approached things like the claymore (figuring it did more damage, but was problematic for weaker or unskilled combatants).  Furthermore, this allowed us the option of having 'opponent adjustments,' or the ability to reflect that certain weapon/skill combinations were created to work particularly well against specific kinds of targets.

Just a little friendly mechanical advice.

Fang Langford

[Lance D. Allen]

Though this will sound redundant, I think that the effectiveness of 2 weapons -vs- one weapon is based mostly on the skill of the user. I have seen with my own eyes a brief encounter between a man fighting with two swords and one fighting sword and shield. They met and came to blows immediately upon encountering one another, and within seconds, the victor was striding away, leaving the loser (and myself, as a spectator) stunned. The two-sword fighter strode straight up to the sword and shield fighter, struck downward with one sword, had it blocked by the shield, and delivered a killing blow to the ribs immediately following, in a smooth 1-2 movement. He never even broke stride as he continued walking.

  In this same instance, however sword and shield can be considered two weapons as well. A shield is often used for bashing as well as blocking, where as with two swords one is almost always secondary to the other, and is used defensively, or as a feint to draw attention away from the weapon used to strike the killing blow...

  The primary point I'm attempting to make is that two weapons can be a decided advantage in the hands of someone who knows how to use them effectively together.

[contracycle]

 The primary point I'm attempting to make is that two weapons can be a decided advantage in the hands of someone who knows how to use them effectively together.

Even accepting that - does it need to be represented mechanically?

[Le Joueur]

 The primary point I'm attempting to make is that two weapons can be a decided advantage in the hands of someone who knows how to use them effectively together.

Even accepting that - does it need to be represented mechanically?

The tone of this thread seems to be making 'realism' the opposite of playability (okay, so I am oversimplifying, cut me a little slack, I'm going to suggest a different way of thinking), I don't think this is true; I think they're more unrelated.

Let's take a moment and step back.  There are basically two ideas rolling around here.  1) What really happens when someone wields two weapons to effect (and let's be serious, no one ever limited it to swords) and 2) how do you model whatever answers #1 using game mechanics.

I really can't say anything about #1, it's outside of my experience.  On the other hand, I am a mechanics grease-monkey, so I think I can offer a more abstract way of looking at the creation of mechanics.

Like most designing, the topic here seems to be about distilling mechanics from real world examples.  Take my word for it, that's bound to fail unless you have a really clear set of design goals.  In lieu of talking about precise design goals or design specifications, I would like to talk about 'total abstraction' of game mechanics.  What you need to do is strip away all the labels, all the numbers, and just look at how the parts interact with themselves.

Let's talk about the double-weapon user for a moment, but let's abstract it.  First of all, it has become apparent that we're not talking about just anybody picking up two weapons and getting some kind of positive modifier, we've been alluding to a specific trained ability in the practice.  That would abstract to what I call an 'optional fortune-driver' (skills are optional, stats are compulsory, and I'm assuming dice are used to mitigate the results).  Now consider what differentiates a one-weapon optional fortune-driver from a two-weapon optional fortune-driver from an empty-handed optional fortune driver; certain optional fortune-drivers require specific empowerment (in this case tools or weapons of a certain class).

One way to approach this is deriving requirements and special effects on a case-by-case basis determined by the source material, but to me that creates catalogs of situational modifiers; 'handling time' goes way up.  Our approach was to lay out criteria for the needs of requirements and the details of the effects.  It gets kind of tiered, but usually the more requirements, the better the effects.  When you tier them, the mechanics get simpler and the situational applications cluster into simpler categories.

So what it comes down to is you have a basic optional fortune-driver.  With some requirements (call it stage 1), they provide improved results (using a sword instead of a fist).  With more requirements (call it stage 2), you get more results and some side-effects (moving up to sword-and-shield; yes it is a skill unto itself).  The highest requirements (call them stage 3) give you the best results and most useful side-effects (using two swords is more than just weapons, there are freedom-of-movement requirements and you might also consider making them 'difficult' to learn).

So you can abstract most 'real world' situations into a fortune mechanic by segregating them into requirements, results, and side-effects.  This can be as explicit or implicit as the designer wishes (but I suggest that the more implicit carry guidelines for the end-user to conclude how to apply the above).  Many times I see a lurking mechanic like this in systems that have easy, medium, and hard skills (mapping onto stages 1-3).

Now all this can also be used to put 'how much trouble to go to' into perspective as well.  How much 'realistic' detail do you want in your mechanics?  Do you want to create extensions to each stage, requiring additional contemplation at each activation?  Will it positively impact the experience you want your game to provide if you complicate the combat (and by extension, the resolution mechanics)?  Do you realize that implies that the game is about combat?  And so on.

Fang Langford

[Edited because I hate homophones!]

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Damn good call all around, Fang. I was racking my brain to figure out how to say some of that, and you presented it in such a way that I can only say, "Yeah! What he said."

I strongly suggest that the topic of this thread can only be realized through addressing all the points that Fang made. The same goes for any questions that concern "how does X work in your game," when X is some physical act or interaction among the characters.

Best,
Ron