[LoL] Strength or Prowess

[JarrodHenry]

If I have to choose, based on your question, I would say force for both slashing and melee.

Combat was basically fought with blunt weaponry back in "the day."  Whoever could swing harder usually won.  It had very little to do with accuracy at all, as most weapons were so big that being hit by them was damaging enough.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Before I start, JarrodHenry: please refrain from muddling the issue. I don't say this to be a jerk, but what you say flies against most expert opinion, so either you don't know what you're talking about, or you should explain the issue in much greater detail to us diletanttes. Your short post just confuses us.

  I feel that this is a design quesrtion. What influences the damage done by a Slashing weapon more, Force or accuracy? and Melee weapons?
  If it was your game, which would you chose? All other things being equal, which do you feel has more influence on the lthality of slashing weapons, which for melee?

OK, let's iterate this, maybe it'll be helpful.

First, the realism angle: It's stupid to talk realism in the Internet, because there's lots of folks talking of things they don't know and all that. But I'm a sucker, so here comes; realistically you need to fix these issues in your model:
- The division between the weapon categories doesn't make realistic sense if the categories are intented to model separate skills - that is, if you're saying that these edged weapons and "melee" weapons are learned separately in reality, you're flat-out wrong. Considering RL weapons techniques, the divisions are more about mass (limiting the practical possibilities), length (especially related to opposing weapon) and slash vs. thrust (I'm thinking of swords vs. spears kind of thing). It's downright moronic to group stabbing swords, maces and polearms into the same category while separating edged weapons into another, if we're considering realism at all.
- If you insist on two melee weapon skill categories and want to retain realism, I recommend military vs. duelling skills. Both include a wide range of weapons with dramatically different uses (especially if you're going syncretistic and mixing eastern and western weaponry), and make solid sense realism-wise for many time periods. If you insist on differentiating based on the weapons themselves and don't want more than two skills, my best bet is with the shield vs. without; the availability of the shield makes a much larger difference than almost any difference in weapons (discounting extreme cases I mention below)
- I also recommend having an exotic weapon mechanic, which would basicly mean having separate skills for a number of weapons that are genuinely different from the big family of slash/thrust implements. Things like the quarterstaff, nunchacus (however you spell that in English), pole-axe, zweihander, duelling knives, sword-catchers, whips and so on are idiosyncratic to various degrees, and do not benefit from technique studies with other weapons. However, even these exotic weapons benefit from general fitness, coordination and battle experience, so if you want to be realistic, it's best to simply have some kind of combat experience stat to give a slight base bonus to the veteran.
- You'll need to rework your basic attributes somewhat, depending on whether they're broad "pseudo-skills" or some kind of "natural affinities". If the former, I suggest a general attribute like "Fitness", which would realistically be one of the keys to combat provess. Of course "Courage" would be just as valid. If your attributes are natural affinities or genetic proclivities, on the other hand, "Courage" is definitely the way to go. Exercising battle skills improves your strength and agility, so they're already factored into the skill rating. If you have to have a base attribute (and I think you don't, necessarily) then Courage makes much more sense than either Strength or Finesse.
Why do I think I can talk about realism to you: I've read some books about medieval combat, and I'm pretty good at digesting information. But that's probably the best guarantees you can get by asking this kind of question in the Internet. It's probably better if you go to your local library and read up on the matter yourself, if realism is of high importance to your game.

Now, I recognize that realism isn't necessarily the important thing for you (if it were, I think you wouldn't have such strange notions in your system). What you should do is figure out how important it is for your design goals and act accordingly. Remember that while realism is optional, believability is not. So even if you decide that you don't really need more realism, I suggest you do need to fix the division of skills you have - it's so counter-intuitive that players will stumble on it.

Let me point at this juncture that the above discussion of realism should make it clear that your question about force vs. accuracy when using different weapons really doesn't make sense. It's couched in terms that do not find a foothold in reality, so to say. The answer is necessarily "both", because both types of weapons are used in fundamentally the same manner, and require the same proclivities from the user. It's like you asked us whether gas is more important for a car or a motorcycle to go... you see the problem, don't you?

Let me get constructive for a moment, for some reason I wax pedantic on your threads. It's probably because you so clearly need to do some background reading, and I have difficulty relating to your problems. Sorry. (If you feel like latching on this throw-away paragraph, don't; instead go and read Tunnels & Trolls, Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, Rolemaster, HeroQuest, Runequest and the articles on this site. Those should answer the kind of questions you seem to have about your game.)

So, what would I do in your shoes, assuming I wanted to make this kind of traditional fantasy attribute+skill+die roll adventure game? I'd ditch the notion of the separate fighting skills being based on weapons used, definitely. That's not necessary at all. My reasoning is this: you want to keep a sensible link between these components:
attribute -> skill -> success -> damage
You want a character with natural proclivities to be more skillful and want a more skilfull character to be more deadly, right? Also, you want the weapons to matter, because we're all weapon fetishists after too much adventure gaming. The mistake is definitely in equating a single weapon with a single skill. This was a Runequest idea, and while the skill system of the game was revolutionary, in this particular matter it was ass-backwards; combat skill is not divided neatly into "Sword-fighting", "Spear fighting" and umpteen others. There's even defence versions of the same skills in some variants of the system.

Now, you don't have to take my word on the above being gibberish, you can research the historical roots of the D&D Weapon Specialization feat yourself. There's basicly two sources:
- Fantasy literature, wherein exotic cultures and important characters now and then had their own "signature weapons". In times of sword & sorcery this was more of a situation-based gimmick (the natives use their hunting weapons against the hero, that kind of thing), while in Tolkien it's pure color (like, dwarves go to war beards braided and axes high, what does the professor care how sensible that is?). With post-tolkien writers and especially post-D&D writers you get the weapon fixations, wherein the same character only ever uses the one weapon; the point is, this is a literary convention which is used to characterize otherwise paper-thin personalities.
- Runequest, which due to some technical agendas of the designers did this foolish thing of dividing combat skill based on the tool, not the situation. I mentioned that above.
Question to yourself: do either of the above really seem like a reason to persist with weapon-based skill systems? Emulating fantasy literature while simultaneously wanting the weapons to make a difference is incredibly stupid. The end-result is that all weapons function the same and are equally good in all situations, because othewise you'd get situations where Billy-Bob invests all his character points on the axe just to later on realize that it's a shitty weapon, which we as designers do not want, of course. So we make all weapons basically the same.

Constructive solution to weapons-based skill paradigm: consider the cultures of fighting and the pedagogical realities. Remember, what you want is to make the attribute -> skill -> success -> damage flow to make sense. The skill->weapon->success->damage flow is secondary, because weapons take care of themselves! Just put in some situational bonuses into the weapon itself, or allow characters to get the Weapon Specialization feat if you really think that it should be possible. But don't make that the basis of your skill system! Instead, you can have all kinds of wonderful, useful and evocative combat skills based on real, sensible differences, which make the skill ave-inspiring. Just consider the following possibilities:
Legionary Craft: the skill of fighting in the manner of Rome. This is what legionaries are taught.
Judicial Duelling: The duelling practices and weapons of renaissance Germany judicial duelling.
Knightly Training: The gamut of weapons skills taught to French knights during the 13th century.
Samurai Training: The skills of the samurai in the Shogunate Era Japan.
... or, a little less culture specifically and conserning the methodologies:
Guerilla Fighting: the skill of setting ambushes and utilizing surprise in a fight.
Formation fighting: the skill of maneuvering and fighting in tight formation.
Horseback fighting: the skill of fighting on horseback.
Duelling: the skill of fighting a single opponent outside combat.
Monster slaying: the skill of slaying trolls, dragons and other inhuman opponents.
The important idea here is that your skills should be cool and evocative of the character, not bland "operation of the tool X" type shit. I as a player will consider my fighter loyally screwed if he comes to be the utmost grandmaster of the sword, defeating all the masters of the kingdom, and he still can't fight with a club worth shit. Doesn't make sense.

[JarrodHenry]

Before I start, JarrodHenry: please refrain from muddling the issue. I don't say this to be a jerk, but what you say flies against most expert opinion, so either you don't know what you're talking about, or you should explain the issue in much greater detail to us diletanttes. Your short post just confuses us.

I do not feel like fighting a little penis size war here, so I will extricate myself from this conversation.  I point you to the Society for Creative Anachronism and suggest you follow up with some of their experts on weaponry and warfare.  As has been suggested repeatedly throughout this thread.

Good day, sir.

[Callan S.]

Hi!
  Well, I think I have learned all I can from weilding foam weapons. Thanks for the tip though. If it was your game and you had this decision to make, what would you do?

If the question really interested me, I'd actually make it's determination the point of play. Make a game that's about determining exactly how stuff like this works, in the game world. Include resources, so it doesn't break down into 'little penis wars' or such. The mechanics would be slanted toward trying to buy the right to say how it works, but that price being cheaper if the other players let you get away with it, because they were impressed by your presentation and don't push for higher costs.

Fact is, when you start a thread like this 'asking for opinions' and then you reach out for others input, that's exactly what regular play involves as well. You probably think "no, no, I just wanted an opinion", but ask yourself, did you enjoy pitching this problematic question to everyone? Further, did people flock in, willing to enter into it?

I think if you find yourself continually tinkering with the design but never quite satisfied and looking to others input, then that tinkering should become the point of play, rather than something you do all on your lonesome.

PS: The tinkering thing is merely a guess on my part and may be entirely unfounded.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Callan, this does not seem to be on topic. However, I am not working on my lonesome. I have different kinds of people reading it and am juggling two playtest groups, one at my house and one on-line. I have gotten some good feedback. The signal to noise ratio is really good on this board and I think that this community has a lot to offer.
  Anyways, I am analytical and I try to see things from different perspecitves. So sometimes I want some feedback from other designers.
  I am not asking for opinions, not any more than any other design question is. I am not asking if you like it or not, I am not asking if it is popular or if you think it will sell. I am asking if you had that design question, what would you do?
  It seems like I am catching a lot of flack on this forum, but I am sure once everyone gets to know me and my style, they will see that I am serious, dedicated and help out in a community when I can.
  Anyways, lets get everyone back on track. If it was your game and you had to decide between Strength and Prowess as the most important ability for slashing weapons, which would you use in your game?

[Eero Tuovinen]

JarrodHenry: Huh? I thought SCA is a loose history larping organization, not a martial arts club. If they disagree with the "western MA" movement of the last decade to that degree (and insist that they're historically accurate and not just twisting stuff for dramatic reasons), I don't really know what to say. For comparison reading I suggest starting with The School of European Swordmanship run by our very own Guy Windsor in Helsinki. They should direct anybody interested to other sources..

But, that's not the topic. I'm sorry if I incenced you, but I suggest that we take this to PM if you really think I gave your characterization of medieval warcraft the short end of the stick. I have the feeling that this discussion is worse than tangential considering Dave's goals.

Dave: What the folks are trying to say is that your question, which starts with "if it was your game...", is an opinion question. You don't want anybody to analyze or explain anything, just to provide plain opinionated choice between those two options. It's just a matter of local habits that we're reluctant to provide opinions without reasoning. Instead, tell us if you felt the suggestions in my last post useful at all; perhaps that will allow us to seek some useful directions.

I'd also like to say that I find Callan's contribution very interesting as a game design idea and as a viewpoint to this discussion. It's clearly a fruit of all that bricolage discussion. I hope that stuff is streamlined and utilized in games at some point.

[Callan S.]

I am not asking for opinions, not any more than any other design question is. I am not asking if you like it or not, I am not asking if it is popular or if you think it will sell. I am asking if you had that design question, what would you do?
  It seems like I am catching a lot of flack on this forum, but I am sure once everyone gets to know me and my style, they will see that I am serious, dedicated and help out in a community when I can.
  Anyways, lets get everyone back on track. If it was your game and you had to decide between Strength and Prowess as the most important ability for slashing weapons, which would you use in your game?

Heya,

No flak intended, I just think it's like there's $50 on the ground and your walking past it without noticing. Not yelling at you, just yelling to you.

Now , are you asking in a "How does the game world work?" way or at a designer level? At a designer level I could legitimately say "For some designs, I'd actually base it on charisma. For other designs, I'd base it on the size of the PC's guilt score"

At the designer level I make the choice based not on what's the most important ability, but what I want play to be about (about charismatic heroes, or guilty anti heroes, for example). If you ask yourself what your games about, will it answer the question?

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Is your game about the differences between fighting styles? Because this seems to be an awful lot of attention given what would otherwise be a teeny tiny detail, however "realistic" that detail is.

What kind of weapon did Culchullainm, Arthur, Zigfreid. or Beowulf use? I mean, sure, we can guess, but it's irrelevant to their heroic natures. They used swords that were appropriate to their day and place.

Culchullain could run on a flight of arrows. Beowulf could apparently breathe under water. The precise nature and quantity of wounding their weapons could do was not a question worth discussing; it's not what made them heroes and it's not relevant.

When it came to actual weapons, when they were discussed, Arthur had Excalibur, Beowulf had Hrunting, and their name was more important than any engineering description of them.

So I must ask: are you writing these rules because they're good rules that are at the core of the game's action, or because another game has ones that are similar?

RIddle of Steel goes into a great deal of detail about swordplay and has some other neat stuff besides. I second the recommendation of that game but  "I am trying to stay realistic, but with a heroic addon," doesn't mean very much to me.

Maybe a link to other threads where you explain what LoL is about would help get clearer answers?