realism in RPG's

[Ian Charvill]

You're probably already aware of it but GURPS - especially the supplement Low Tech - has a lot of stats for different historical weapon and armour types, including some of the obscure ones you mention.  Also, old 3rd Ed Runequest (and quite possibly the earlier eds going back to the 70s) both has mechanics dealing with weapons reach and historical armour types including brigantine, etc.  If I'm remembering rightly, the RQ combat system was written (ar at least revised) by a number of SCA types.

Generally, I'd suspect there are a fair number of older systems that do what you're wanting newer systems to do.

It's probably worth observing that you slip very quickly from 'in my experience' to 'this is the way it is'.  I have several years of silat-based weapons training and a couple of years of medieval weapons training (bill mainly, some sword).  I would definitely cite points of departure from some of your assertions.  It may be worth sticking a few more YMMV tags in there.

[simon_hibbs]

As a result, the line between cinematic or cartoon like rules systems versus those ostensibly meant to be realistic has become increasingly blurred, and sadly, there has been a general dumbing-down of the technical aspects of RPG's in general. What we are left with by default is more influenced by popular films and TV than history or the old fantasy literary tradition; a kind of a Hollywood version of the medieval world, a "Disney dark ages."

This is an interesting article for those interested in realistic simulations of melee combat, but frankly I'm not one of those people. It all comes dow to the purpose of RPGs, what is an RPG trying to do?

I do not believe there are very many RPGs that are seriously trying to simulate the real world. Most of them are clearly attempting to simulate one or other genre of fiction. Therefore for most RPGs the question isn't whether the combat rules model reality, but whether they model the kinds of action commonly presented in fiction.

Historicaly RPGs have spent an enormous amount of their page count to combat rules and very little space to other forms of interaction or competition, whereas in many genres of fiction actual combat makes up a minority of the action. What you seem to regard as a dumbing-down of RPGs to me seems to be a refocusing on what is actualy important to creating the kinds of experiences the gaming audience is after.

For some 15 years my favourite fantasy RPG was Runequest, in one or other of it's incarnations. It was designed by members of the Society for Creative Anachronism who weren't entirely ignorant of what relaistic melee combat is like, and tthe game system still stands out as one of the more realistic such systems. The state of the art in gaming has moved on though, and while I still rate RQ highly, I haven't actualy played or run a game of it for about 6 years. That's because while newer games might not model combat as realisticaly, they do so many other things so much better, and enable climactic conflicts so effortlessly that I wouldn't consider going back for anything other than nostalgia for a retro gaming experience.

Frankly a hollywood version of the medieval world may well be a lot more fun to play in for most people than a realistic one.


Simon Hibbs

[Drifter Bob]

I've had this in my S combat rules for some time (about 2 years I think). I don't think you'd like them though, as they're based on movie and Eastern style combat. Weapon length determines who gets to go first in a melee duel and who can't attack (because their weapon isn't long enough.) When played, it seems to generate similar behaviour to movies and realistic (I think) Eastern style combat. I'm always open to more suggestions on improvements for weapons, as this is an area I feel is lacking in my set of rules. I'm interested in reading your next article's list of suggestions

I've got nothing against Asian combat or movie related rules, I pointed out I like Feng Sheui though it's based on kung-fu movies.  It sounds like your system is much more realistic, more like something based on Kirosawa samurai movies perhaps.  I think those Akira Kirosawa films are by far the most realistic depictions of sword combat I've ever seen in any movie.  I support you 100% in your endeavors, the only downside is I don't know nearly as much about Asian weapons or martial arts as I do about European weapons and martial arts.  I might be able to provide some insights into the general effects of armor though.

Anyway, sounds like you are on the right track.  Is your system available for review online somewhere?

JR

[Jack Aidley]

I'm sorry to say Drifter that I found little to impress me in the article. I found your attempt to equate unrealistic RPGs with being dumbed down (professional wrestling!) inaccurate and insulting. And comments such as:

It's use within RPGs is based on all kinds of weird assumptions such as the idea that a suit of armor made of stiff, cured leather would be less bulky and cumbersome than say, a mail shirt or a fitted suit of gothic plate armor.

to be missing the point. Many of the 'unrealistic' choices in D&D and similar games have been made so that different armour (or weapon) types each have a valid reason for using them.

In other words, while I support the idea of the creation of a 'realistic' RPG, I don't support your dismissal of unrealistic games. In fact I think many of these games can be improved by moving further from, rather than closer to, reality. As I believe can be demonstrated by Arcana Unearthed vs. 3rdEd. While you may be fascinated by the complex interplay between weapons and armour, I do not want to play in games developed around such a theme - I would rather the game was developed to make the choices on offer interesting and valid.

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Bob,

One factor you might be overlooking is the difference between rule systems as they are published, and rules systems as they are actually played at the table. I mention this because many of the realism-enhancing additions you suggest have been present in many popular published rule systems going way back.

Space requirements for effective use of weapons: see AD&D Players Handbook, 1978, pg 38, "Space Required" column of the Weapon Types table.

Adjustments for individual weapon effectiveness against different types of armor: ibid, "Armor Class Adjustment" columns.

Adjustments for differences in weapon speed: ibid, "Speed Factor" column; for rules see AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, 1979, pg. 66, "Weapon Speed Factor."

There are no adjustments for the defensive value of attacking weapon vs. defending weapon in this edition of AD&D. But in my 1985 edition of Fantasy Hero (pp. 71-72) there are adjustments for the relative weapon length between attacking and defending weapon, and an optional rule that the adjustment reverses once the wielder of the shorter weapon has rolled a hit, representing that the shorter weapon wielder has now gotten inside the opponent's effective weapon length. (Reversing again when the longer weapon's wielder scores a hit, and so forth.)

GURPS and Runequest have also already been mentioned by other posters; Rolemaster might also be worth a look.

The point is, most game systems gave up on these kind of rules because almost nobody was using them. This was not because the effects of those rules were insufficiently accurate representations of realistic combat variables -- though I have no doubt that accuracy was often poor or worse. It was because few players cared enough about realism to even try them.

The bottom line is, don't assume that game designers make the decisions they do for their combat systems because they're unaware of such arcane facts as "weapons need space to wield effectively," "weapons can be used to defend against attacks," or "armor is normally well-designed for its purpose." Take a look at what's actually in the text of fantasy melee systems (as opposed to how everyone remembers their being played at the table), especially in the early to mid 80s when the "unrealism" of AD&D appeared to offer the opportunity to promote competing systems for their superior accuracy. (See also the Fantasy Heartbreakers articles in the Articles section of the Forge.)

Your article will be stronger if it acknowledges that the improvements you suggest have already been tried, frequently. (And perhaps, explains why they either failed to make combat more realistic or failed to become generally popular, and what they should have done differently to avoid those problems). Currently the article makes it seem like you believe that no one else has thought of these issues before, when the truth is they've been intensively discussed and debated for the past quarter century.

- Walt

[Rob Donoghue]

The tone struck me as snobbish,  but as it is pitched as a condemnation, I suppose that's inevitable.  The emphasis on exotica seems to have more with showcasing the author's knowledge than genuinely informing the reader - 'It would be great if more games used X, Y and Z' is a reasonable assertion, but since they don't, I would say it behooves the author to present a reason for their use (of which I am sure there are many) besides their simple rarity.

So here's the question: who's the target audience for this, and what is being communicated?  
If it's to provide information to people who only have D&D or the like as a refence, it does not  seem particularily informative, except of course insofar as to tell them that they are terribly, terribly wrong, and possibly stupid.

If it's to illustrate the strengths of a realistic approach to combat for people who have preferred a different style of approach, it falls short.  It says very little about the strengths of that approach, instead simply asserting value, and proceeding as if it's a given.

If it's to create material for debates over esoterica of weaponry and combat styles, it's succeeded admirably, and to illustrate this, I point to what has made up the bulk of exchange on this so far.  And honestly, that's fine - people geek about what interests them most, and such debate is often useful.  But it's not going to be of value to everyone.

I'm sounding somewhat harsh, and I apologise for that, but this was a somewhat disappointing read if only because it clear that there's a lot of knowledge here.  This is a meaty subject, and one deserving of attention. Because of that, it suffers all the more when it turns away from that potential towards dwelling on unexplained esoterica or the kind of anecdotes that made Raven s McKracken a not-quite-household name.  

I'm genuinely looking forward to the second half, for two reasons.  First, I'm especially intertested in what you have to say about special training, as that potentially covers a very wide range of important material.  It's an arena that receives far, far less attention than the specifics of a Claymore versus a Rapier and the like.  Second, I'm curious where you will take this when you actually move to the subject of gaming and mechanics, since that's really what I'm here for.  You cite wargames which are both realistic and abstract, and that's a terrible tease - if you're building up to a workable suggestion that you consider both streamlined and realistic, I'm very excited to hear it!

Also note, the fact that I do not find this useful does not mean I find it bad by any stretch.  It's clear from the article and the discussion so far that what I consider exotica and minutae are of great imprtance to others, and if that's who you're trying to reach, that's great, but it's also kind of preaching to the choir. :)

[xechnao]

As for grousing, I tried to get through the description of the status quo or rpg design and the reasons why they are so unrealistic really as quickly as I could, because my purpose was not to argue about the need for realism.  I did point out that I think that more realistic games can be more fun if properly executed, but I don't have a problem with intentionally unrealistic games.  I simply expressed the opinion that games which are assumed by many people to be ostensibly realistic, are actually pure fantasy.  Arguing for realism against "pure" fantasy is another subject, I could discuss it but other people have already 'gone there' I think quite effectively.  There is little point in that debate in the long run, since many people who don't like realism for their own reasons won't be swayed no matter what they read, it's a lot like a religion for many gamers, particularly those who are canonical about "official" rules.

Personally I just feel that the rpg industry could use a new innoculation of realism for that wing of it which appreciates some grounding in reality if only for certain aspects of physics, as it recieved near it's inception from the work of Gary Gygax and others with the 1E DMG and some of the stuff in Unearthed Arcana and etc.  Whatever aspects of that realism which make for better game play will no doubt eventually filter into the rest of the RPG community to whatever extent is merited.

In other words, my main purpose is to provide a service to those already interested in more relaism.  I think there are a lot of people in my generation particularly, who have played rpgs when they were teenagers and would like to see something more adult.  Similarly, I think there are some younger people who have some experience of the real world, of what fighting is really like, who would also like to see that aspects of rpg's they play be a bit more immersive and believable.

To the extent that I'm actually advocating anything, I'm not so much advocating the domination of realism over pure vaguery or comic book science, I'm just advocating a re-injection of some back into the genre, to maybe push the pendulum back a little, because it's really pretty bereft right now.

JR

I quote this just to repeat it over here, as it seems necessary after some respones or reactions given above, to help reclarify the writer's sake.


By my personal reaction I should say that it is really interesting this analysis of the practice of medieval combat but on rpg terms speaking I would like to make a point.
Somewhere over here you confronted 50 rolls and 100 tables. I see it more than 100 tables rather than 50 dice rolls although you seem to reject both.
For example as you say the defense values of knife, staff and sword against a staff wielder differ. Again the defense values of knife, staff and sword against a knife wielder differ between them but also respectivelly differ from those of the above table. Furthermore the differences between the values also differ respectvally the above tables which makes necessary the use of both tables in this case.
I have nothing against this and actually there are some known examples that go that way. Rolemaster for instance, although it's analysis is just combatible whith its own rules and mechanics that unfortunatelly are not of my taste.  
A small parenthesis over here to add another rpg in the list of those that mention defense value of weapons and style(technique): the german "Das Schwarze Auge" but doesn't go to such expanded analysis.
I yet have to ask something. Be back in a while...

[Drifter Bob]

I'll try to get to each response individually if I have time, but for now, I'll try to make a few things clear which everyone seems to be misunderstanding.  

0) for the record, I recognize that my tone was probably too abrasive, I forgot how dogmatic and sensitive people really are about RPG rules.  It is truly amazing!  Well i just proved it, I am abrasive.  That comes with the territory.

1) I have said this now like 5 times, but I'll reiterate again: the point of my article was not to condemn intentionally unrealistic games.  As long as they are internally consistent, they are fine with me.

2) the point of my article was also not to convince people of the need for realism in games, though I do feel it has value in many games, and I do think that certain games like D&D should either abandon realism altogether (as some people would love!) or try a little harder to get real.

Yes, I know RPG's are based on fantasy.  I also know, that the fantasy authors who D&D got based on, Jack Vance (primarily) Robert E Howard, Fritz Lieber, Michael Moorcock, and Tolkein, had done their historical research well.  They knew the reality of the history and therefore, they could play with it effectively.  My point is that this basis in reality was useful.  Certainly what has been created in most rpgs is neither pure fantasy nor pure realism, but an uncomfortable mish-mash of the two.

3) I AM NOT TRYING TO DELVE INTO ESOTERICA.  This is just a way of dismissing my actual point, which may make people uncomfortbale.  Most of the equipment I mentioned, was NOT obscure.  That is my point.  They are only obscure in RPG's.  RPG's have made up a fairly complex system of weapons and armor and their relative merits, which is basically nonesense.  Brigantine and Lamellar armor were COMMON forms of armor Historically.  "Studded leather" was actually in 90% of cases misidentified Brigantine.  Similarly, "splint mail" and "banded mail" dont' exist.  Double headed axes and double heead flails couldn't exist.
The other weapons I mentioned, again, were not all that rare, they just got left out of rpg rule books.  Schiavonas were very popular swords for a couple of hundred years, for example, as were smallswords.  

I'm not trying to push esoterica on anyone, but if you are going to base your combat system on medieval weapons, then maybe you should find out more about them.  Otherwise do like Gene Wolf and have people dueling with venomous flowers or something.

My main point was that there is now a much richer store of source material available to the general public than there was when the last serious research in this area was done.  How do I know this?  Because most of the mistakes which are continually repeated from game to game are NOT left in for balance or for the pure Romantic elan of it, but just laziness and ignorance.  You can tell!  There is nothing bad about Brigantine and nothing especially wonderful about "studded leather"!  Assigning a defensive value of 1 to a dagger and 3 to a sword when you already have defensive values for shields does not tear the game down into a depressing miasma of grinding detail!  

4) Yes, I am aware of gurps low tech, rollmaster and runequest and the other early attempts to make a more realistic game.  I think those attempts, while they were interesting in their day, suferred from two major problems.  First they were generally overly complex, and usually seemed to be kind of a "band-aid" of pieces of realism applied over a core of flawwed dynamics.  Second they were based on a pool of research generally all done back in the 1970's (mostly by Gygax et all, and to a lesser extent by the SCA) of which general understanding was limited.  I think the clumsiness of a lot of these early attempts, combined with the quasi religious ferver which many cling to official rules, and a lack of knowlege of combat, created a backlash which is what turned people off from realism in the past, and is still strong today.  I did mention this in my article by the way, albiet briefly.

Yes, I know Runequest was influenced by the SCA.  But today, there are much more serious Western martial arts schools who have gained a much more nuanced and genuine understanding of pre-firearms combat than than the SCA, which really engages in a type of pseudo martial sport with all their rules, ever did, alas.  Perhaps more significantly, there has been a great deal of advances in the fields of history, historical literature, and archeology as well.  In the last ten years alone:  major new battlefields and grave sites have been excavated, including proof for example of the actual real life existance of real women warriors (scythian); dozens of the ancient fencing manuals of the middle ages and renaissance period have now been translated for the first time (none were translated back in the 1970's); and almost every type of common period weapons and armor have been reproduced, tested, and refined.  Weapons have been tested against armor, against meat and bones.

TROS is the only game I've seen which really seemed to be designed around a genuine understanding of combat from the ground up.  As a result it's not only realistic, but it's fairly elegant and simple.

4) On a technical note, I don't think you have to have mutlitple tables for how each weapon releates to each other weapon.  It doesn't need to be that complicated.  I think you need to understand the defensive capability, reach and speed of each weapon, and I think even a simple game like D&D could accomodate that.

You could assign a value, 1-4 say, to each weapon for defense, just like different shields have defensive values.  You could assign a reach value as well.  At it's most simple, the reach value would be a bonus at normal range, a penalty in grapple.  Simple.

How fare you want to take realism in a particular game is your choice.

The point, again, is that there is a lot of arbitrary stuff in there in D&D for example, the dynamics of a melee round with all the full actions and partial actions, is pretty tricky.  You could ditch a lot of uneccesary complexity and base it around something more real.  If you want to!

5) AS far as the D&D fixes which were added to introduce these rules in earlier editions, they were never effectively integrated into the rules, they were just patches.  For example, if I remember correctly the speed thing came in to play only as a tie breaker for initiative.  I gather this half-measure approach was due to fighting between Gygax, who wanted to try to do a more realistic system, and the TSR corporate people, who wanted to keep their moneymaker as it was, and the religious dogmatic fan base pretty much agreed with them.

6) An example of an abstracted but realistic war game.  off the top of my head, though the game itself was fairly complex, there was a certain aspect of Panzer Gruppe Guderian which meets this criteria.  This was a game simulating the early invasion of Russia by the Germans.  A small number of elite German units (10 or 12 divisions divided into 3 regiments each) had to smash through like 50 or 60 Russian divisions of very mixed quality.  A handful of the Russian divisions had good T-34 tanks, good leadership, and high morale.  Most had obsolete equipment, bad leadership, and poor morale (mainly due to Stalins pre-war purges of the officer corps).

What the deisgner had to simulate was not only the German player being unable to predict this unknown quantity (since the quality of each Russian unit and the value of the T-34 for example was unknown) and for practical purpsoes, the Russian commander did not know which of his own units were going to turn out any good in combat either.

So insead of making up millions of complex charts and tables to simulate this confusing situation, the designer(s) just put question marks on the backs of all the russian divisions.  You mix them up randomly and put them on the map.  You only turn them over when they get into combat.

Vioila!  Realistic, elegant, abstracted, simple!

Another interesting example in an RPG (other than Riddle of Steel which I often cite) is the Dying Earth Role Playing Game.  This is an intentionally unrealistic game, designed to fit into the genre of Jack Vance.  But they do an interesting thing with thier ultra simple (1 d6, no charts) combat system: each character or monster has a certain fighting style, and some can trump the other.  For example you might be someone who fights with a cautious technique, while your opponent relies on pure strength, and his ally upon Finesse, or Cunning.  Associate a speicific weapon type with each style, and you have a system with a realistic feel.  This is abstracted but to me, oddly realistic system.  It certainly is internally consistent with it's own logic.  And even though it is very simple, it seems to have some ring of reality to it, to me, where D&D or Shadowrun just don't.  Maybe I'm just crazy.

JR

[Rob Donoghue]

3) I AM NOT TRYING TO DELVE INTO ESOTERICA.  

Sorry if that hit a button. Perhaps esoterica is the wrong word.  Clearly, there are multiple possible levels of understanding and interest regarding the distinction between weapons, and if you feel there is merit to that level of distinction, I won't question your expertise, but since myunderstanding is not there, lists of weapon names that are unfamiliar serve no purpose to me as a reader if my layer of interest and understandign differs from yours.

If your goal is to encourage research, that's well and good, but I am rather selfishly looking for a value add. :)

All that said, the quoted response did point out that the target audience for this is people who already do make these distinctions.  I think that's a pity, but as such, queries withdrawn. Good luck with the rest of the article.

PS - This Comment:

For example you might be someone who fights with a cautious technique, while your opponent relies on pure strength, and his ally upon Finesse, or Cunning.  Associate a speicific weapon type with each style, and you have a system with a realistic feel.  This is abstracted but to me, oddly realistic system.  It certainly is internally consistent with it's own logic.  And even though it is very simple, it seems to have some ring of reality to it, to me, where D&D or Shadowrun just don't.  Maybe I'm just crazy.

Makes a stronger point, for me, than the entire weapons list.  Probably not a useful data point, but just illustrating different angles of entry.

[Drifter Bob]

Here is another way of looking at it.  

You have two types of RPG games out there.  One type, is the sub-genre game, like say The Dying Earth RPG, which is pretty much based in it's own internal logic, and self contained.

The second type, like D&D, has it's own genre but is partially based on some kernel of realism.  You can be detailed in that realism like runequest, or you can be very simplified, like the old "basic" D&D.   In either of these cases, you are basing a certain portion of your combat system (and many other aspects of the rules, which could also stand a look, but thats another issue!) on history, on historical reality.  

I'm not saying that runequest is better than D&D because it's more complex.  In fact, to me, both of those systems are based on a flawed idea of real combat which in the cases of newer games is derivative of older games, rather than on actual primary-source research.

The point of my article, was to explore what realistic combat was, so that rpg designers and players could better understand what that basis should really be.  I think that it is now more possible than it was in the past to really quantify this more accurately.  The precise level of detail you take from it is up to you as a player or game designer, I'm just saying to whatever extent you do rely on this core of realism, you can now adjust that core somewhat to better reflect todays "laymans state of the art" on the subject, which has advanced quite a bit.

JR

[M. J. Young]

This is not quite entirely off topic, but let me recommend the Charles Franklin article Hitting Them Where It Hurts in, I believe, the first issue of http://welcome.to/cggzine/">The Way, the Truth, and the Dice. Franklin uses military casuality and injury reports from the past century to suggest a wounds approach to combat injury that he maintains is more realistic than most currently in use, at least in terms of matching the known data about battlefield casualties.

--M. J. Young

[Rob Donoghue]

The point of my article, was to explore what realistic combat was, so that rpg designers and players could better understand what that basis should really be.  I think that it is now more possible than it was in the past to really quantify this more accurately.  The precise level of detail you take from it is up to you as a player or game designer, I'm just saying to whatever extent you do rely on this core of realism, you can now adjust that core somewhat to better reflect todays "laymans state of the art" on the subject, which has advanced quite a bit.

Sure, at least to a point.  I'd probably say that some of the early games didn't suffer from a lack of data as much as a lack of research, sometimes out of laziness and sometimes out of disinterest.  But in any case, with the breadth of easily acceptable resources out there, ranging from web sites to shows like Conquest and Warrior's Challenge (Bearing in mind that the ultimate relavance is not in the currency of the research, but rather its accessability) I've no problem accepting that the layman's state of the art has improved, and it's possible to reflect it in gaming.

The catch is, I think "Why bother?" is a perfectly valid question.

You seem to have taken the position that you're writing for people who either would not ask that question, or have asked it and already found a valid answer for themselves.  And that's fine and valuable.  Beginning from the premise that realism makes for better play free's you up to explore _how_ to use realism to improve play, and there's a lot to do there.

But if that is the premise, it seems less necessary to point fingers at unrealistic games - you presumably already have buy in on the point.  If you combine a premise that some people disagree with and criticism for no apparent ilustrative purpose (and I note: should you get to the point of using specifi examples to illustrate or refute a point, citing specific games is absolutely appropriate) and I think it's reasonable to expect that people are going to interpret the article in, perhaps, not the most positive of lights.

So why am I sticking aroudn to keep kicking at it? Well, here's the thing.

I completely agree with your premise.  100%.

The knoweldge of realism goes a long way towards improving the quality of a game, even if it is used solely to limit its application.  Consider the simple question fighting multiple opponents: In a real fight, multiple opponents can bring down even a vastly superior adversary, albeit with numerous factors to bear in mind: Psychology of both sides, Comparative arms, ability to work in tandem, and of course, sheer numbers.  Sounds complicated, but ultimately, there are a lot of ways to express that mechanically.  The decision of how useful ganging up as a tactic is has a lot of impact on the flavor of the system - it's a dial that can move from heroic to gritty very easily.  D&D favors the lone hero, so you can end up in situatiosn where the king is more dangerous than all his guards put together, whichis a little odd. In other games, it's exactly the issue of numbers that make guards useful and dangerous.

Just a tiny thing, but it's incredibly powerful, and there are lots of other decisions like that that can be made, and realistic awareness makes a huge difference in that.

Hell, FATE's combat system is tuned exactly to this.  Weapons and Armor have no explicit stats - nothing is intrinsically more damaging and more dangerous than anything else - they are judged solely in terms of _relative advantage_.  Got a weapon suited to punching through his armor? Advantage to you. DOn't have roomto swing it? Advantage him.  It's based on the idea that any group of gamers has a shared idea of this kind of realism, and the degree of bonus will be based entirly on their degree of attention to details.

Unknown Armies' Madness meters include a measure of the character's reaction to violence.  Most normal folks will freeze up in a serious fight under the system, but those who have been trained or been through experience have progressively higher thresholds as they become "hardened" to violence.  This is a beautiful mechanic, and accurately reflects why the stone cold killer successfully kills the olympic marksman, despite th emarksman's superior skill.

This is the kind of stuff I love. This is what I think about when I say "realism helps a game."

All that said, I generally don't care much about the specifics of the difference between the kit of a Roman Centurion versus a Spartan Hoplite unless I have some very specific reason to care, and even then, I care more about the one guy in 12 who has the stick for scrubbing their asses more than the size and specifics of their weapons and armor.

So when realism comes up, the first thing that comes out always seems to be the equipment.  I find that insanely frustrating, because while I think you _can_ get people to care about many of the implications of tactics and psychology, but years of evidence indicate that you can only get them to care so much about vastly detailed equipment lists.  There are exceptions, of course, but there always will be.

So there's my frustration.  If you're not going to take the time to discuss why realism is going to help someone's game (and you're certainly not obliged to), I wish you wouldn't open with what has become almost a sterotypical turn-off for the topic.  I was quite sincere when I said I'm looking forward to the second half of the article.  It sounds like that's where you start talking about the things that make things more realistic, rather than merely more historically accurate.

As it stand, I'm sort of commenting from the sidelines, because you're past the first really interesting point (Why realism helps) and not yet to the second really interesting point (How to apply realism) and I'm chomping at the bit to get to one or the other. :)  Those are, of course, ultimately reflections of my priorities, and there's no reason they should be yours, but I hope it explains why I'm so thoroughly schizophrenic about this.

I can't wait for the second half.

[xechnao]

4) On a technical note, I don't think you have to have mutlitple tables for how each weapon releates to each other weapon.  It doesn't need to be that complicated.  I think you need to understand the defensive capability, reach and speed of each weapon, and I think even a simple game like D&D could accomodate that.

You could assign a value, 1-4 say, to each weapon for defense, just like different shields have defensive values.  You could assign a reach value as well.  At it's most simple, the reach value would be a bonus at normal range, a penalty in grapple.  Simple.

How fare you want to take realism in a particular game is your choice.

JR

IF your matter of realism is a matter of realistic simulation I believe your last remark over here is a bit bogus. Does it makes sense to simulate far or less? ie for example half-simulate? When you say you simulate something you simulate this thing: nor far nor less.
For example you say you simulate combat. You can't say then I simulate less combat over here. It adds zero to may scope if it's about combat simulation. And you are talking about combat simulation, period:
games unrealistic in regards of comabt simulation could change.

For example over here you failed to mention the effectiveness of a weapon versus different armour types and also this combined with the weapon technique-style you get to use which in respect deals with the attack AND defense value you have with your weapon. And what about the weight and the speed of a weapon? A staff against plate armour won't do much but, for example a heavier maul that would do more makes you less agile in your fighting technique-stance. So would this mean mean lower defense value or initiative or perhaps less number of attacks as per Warhammer? You said yourself that this(intiative...) won't work for realism. There is an article (I can't find the link right now) of a confrontation of a katana vs a rapier which could explain the different defense values they could have on this case, the change of those defanse values in some other case such as katana vs katana and the change of those values in respect of armour worn: for one example a katana guy with armour vs a rapier and a katana guy without armour vs a rapier.

What I am trying to say is that I can't see another way of achieving this realism other than introducing more tables. Otherwise you could always find some rule or mechanic that won't fit realistically and complain as per initiative.

So if you want to put it like this and at the same time want to consider that more tables may be a negative example then Simon Hibbs has more than a point over his reaction on your article.

I still don't find any bad taste in having more tables as per se. But this is just personal taste.

P.S:While I was searching for the link I was talking above (still I wasn't able to find it) I found those too, which I thought might seem interesting to you.
One is about a rpgame and how it tries to implement combat:
http://www.devermore.net/surbrook/herosource/medievalma.html
And the other an article that shows it's all about specific equipment-kit combinations so it's up to different cases:
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/nobest.htm

Ok, I just found the link I was previouslly talking about:
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/katanavs.htm
Check out the last link provided in this page too(samurai vs knight)

And by the way another one that claims where the cliches come from and the exact role of fighters:
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/CommonPlace.htm

[Marco]

I examined the article--I still have to go back and read it very carefully but I had a couple of thoughts.

1. Realism with magical weapons is oxymoronic--and those weapons are a staple of many games--and the mechanistic effect of the magic outside the combat modifiers is sometimes pretty hard to guess at.

2. Morrow Project did, IMO, a really fine job of simulating gun fire (with leathality for hit locations taken from copious military wound damage, with severe blood loss, with real-world weapons whose damage was derrivied from ballistic chararacteristics). It did miss the "cool under fire" mechanic (and I don't recall supression rules)--but still--the article is focusing on *fantasy* hth combat but not, as far as I could tell stating that (yeah, it's in Sword Edge, I know ... context--but there were some early attempts to make realistic ranged-weapons games--and they were, IMO, pretty successful).

-Marco

[Drifter Bob]

1. Realism with magical weapons is oxymoronic--and those weapons are a staple of many games--and the mechanistic effect of the magic outside the combat modifiers is sometimes pretty hard to guess at.

Actually, I'm glad you mentioned this.  This is a good example of how realism can make a game more rich and nuanced. Understanding the real properties of weapons would only make it more easy and interesting to incorporate magical ones into the system in a more interesting way.

Lets compare, say the current D&D rules.  Magic weapons in D&D are very commonplace and mundane, and not all that exciting.  Not as exciting as they were in say, Tolkiens books, for example.  Basically you have two types, the incremental boost, your basic +1 or +2 sword, which is hardly breathtaking and has little if any personality, it's just the same as any of the other +1 or +2 swords that every adventurer has.  Or you have these super items which speak and cast spells and take over your life.  Acting as an NPC.  There are room for the latter types surely, but think how better realism could give you so many more options in betwen.

For example, if you have a combat system which recognizes speed, reach, defensive ability, weapon strength, and attack values versus different armor types, you now have 5 different ways to make a weapon unique, instead of just two (to hit and damage).  You could have a long sword which was as fast as a dagger, for example, or a dagger which could parry as well as a staff.  You could have a rapier which due to being made of magical material, was as strong as a mace.  Or a short sword which was blessed with a special ability to cleave through mail armor.

If you go on into material which will be in the second half of my essay, you have even more options to add on, special tricks that a sword could do, such as counterattacking or being a good weapon for half-swording, or for lunging, a weapon which helps you keep the momentum going...

To me, it's obvious that this would be an improvement!

2. Morrow Project did, IMO, a really fine job of simulating gun fire (with leathality for hit locations taken from copious military wound damage, with severe blood loss, with real-world weapons whose damage was derrivied from ballistic chararacteristics). It did miss the "cool under fire" mechanic (and I don't recall supression rules)--but still--the article is focusing on *fantasy* hth combat but not, as far as I could tell stating that (yeah, it's in Sword Edge, I know ... context--but there were some early attempts to make realistic ranged-weapons games--and they were, IMO, pretty successful).

-Marco

I liked Morrow Project a lot, but I think it had it's problems, mainly too much complexity and the genre was a bit too specific and obscure.  It was an interessting game though in it's day.

I have been using fantasy rpg's as an example but I think all rpg games apply to this issue.  Gun combat is somewhat better simulated in some cases than melee combat, but the basic dynamics of combat are pretty far removed from what they could be, as a rule.

JR