Hi there! I'm new to this board, so I hope I've chosen the right sub-forum ;)...

I'm working on a universal role-playing system called Alter Ego which uses learning-by-doing skill development.

During a recent test session, my players and I have approached a problem concerning the categorization of weapon skills. As I'm striving for realism with my system, I'm looking for a categorization concept that best reflects actual combat experience. My original approach is to have weapon skills according to "weapon families", for example in a fantasy/medieval themed game world that would be:

Swords, maces, axes, staves, spears, bows, crossbows, shields etc.

One of my players has pointed out however that this weapon skills concept would be too specific. He has given an example of an experienced sword fighter who - in his opinion - would also be proficient with axes. So we've tried to find a different categorization concept and in the end, someone has come up with the idea of making weapon skills based on weapon usage, i.e. bashing, thrusting, stabbing etc.

Personally, I find this approach a little too general - however, I have to agree that weapon relations should be taken into account.

I would be interested in your ideas on weapon skills and weapon categorization. Which approach/concept would you prefer?

Ah, "realism". Sounds simple, doesn't it?

Unfortunately the real world is woefully overcomplicated. Not only is a person good with a sword not going to be good with an axe, in most cases they won't even be good with another type of sword.

But, actually, the moment you start saying that you want to pigeonhole peoples experience into broader skills (as "sword" is broader than "I remember my father grudgingly teaching me a few passes with willow wands... but he refused to talk about his days as a warrior, or the long scars that the villagers whispered were given him by a dragon") then I know that you're aiming for more than just realism. You're aiming for a system that will be at once realistic and abstract.

Abstractions can, as I think you're coming to realize, be drawn in many ways over the same underlying set of facts. Like the shifting borders of countries overlaid on the unchanging geography of a land, where the lines are drawn is crucial to how things feel.

So, IMHO, there is no objective "best way" to draw these lines. There may be a single best way given your goal for the game. If you'll tell me your goal for the game (i.e. "I want to support cinematic epic heroism, where moral issues resonate with action", or "I want to support squad combat at a tactical level, and explore the connections that bind such interdependent groups of people," or "I want to make it just like 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'") then I can give you more cogent advice.

Of course you're right - creating weapon skills or categories always means abstracting reality. But without abstracting, would we be able to design anything at all? ;)

Accordingly, when I use the terms "realism" or "realistic" with regard to RPG design, I think of game rules that feel real rather than being real/realistic. In my opinion, a realistic feel can be achieved by including aspects of common sense (and also scientific facts to some degree) into a game that most people can agree on. I hope this explains my word choice.

Part of what I've said above is already my answer to your question about my goal: I want to create a RPG system based on common sense to best support sceanrios, stories and character play (which also rest on common sense).

With regard to combat, this approach means creating rules that reflect what most people would expect from combat situations. In my opinion, this is a mixture of combat scenes shown in movies and described in texts and of people's real-life understanding of physical and biological laws (which is most often intuitive).

The word you're looking for is "Versimilitude" and it's a much more useful thing to have than realism.

I agree, "verisimilitude" is a better word for my design approach - unfortunately, many people simply won't understand it ;)...

Though I appreciate your efforts to correct my wording (no, really), I would like to get back to weapon skills.

Maybe I should rephrase my question:
For a RPG system that tries to find the perfect balance between "realism" (meaning verisimilitude or common sense) and playability, which concept would you use to categorize weapon skills?

What kind of decisions do you want your players to make?

I think that's the way to approach 'realism' issues. Don't ask "Does the rules set reflect the physics and mechanics of combat?" because that's a painfully difficult question to answer. Instead, ask "Are the players making reasonable decisions about combat?" That is soemthing that we can reasonably evaluate.

That being said, in my experience (mudanshia in aikido, brown belt in kung fu) there is _a lot_ of overlap between different weapons and also weapons and unarmed combat. Things like footwork, timing, distance, movement are universal. Give me something with an edge and a swing is a swing be it sword, ax, or the edge of my hand. Same movement with all three.

Don't ask "Does the rules set reflect the physics and mechanics of combat?" because that's a painfully difficult question to answer. Instead, ask "Are the players making reasonable decisions about combat?"

That being said, in my experience (mudanshia in aikido, brown belt in kung fu) there is _a lot_ of overlap between different weapons and also weapons and unarmed combat. Things like footwork, timing, distance, movement are universal. Give me something with an edge and a swing is a swing be it sword, ax, or the edge of my hand. Same movement with all three.

JSE wrote:

That being said, in my experience (mudanshia in aikido, brown belt in kung fu) there is _a lot_ of overlap between different weapons and also weapons and unarmed combat. Things like footwork, timing, distance, movement are universal. Give me something with an edge and a swing is a swing be it sword, ax, or the edge of my hand. Same movement with all three.

Very interesting. So, you would rather propose a categorization of weapons according to their respective usage than by weapon families/types?

There are so many factors to weapons fighting that making it 'real' or 'believable' really should be considered in comparison to the rest of the system. Do you want a hyper detailed system where every training session you have had may have had effect (combat big feature) or one thats a little less intense?

I could see a system where you make a notecard for every training 'period'/fight and tell the techniques, weapons, etcetera you were trained/used in during it.

However, for it to be 'real', you would have to factor in many, many things, such as the state of the combatants(physically and mentally), the effect of the environs, and perhaps some luck as well.

JSE wrote: Hi there! I'm new to this board, so I hope I've chosen the right sub-forum ;)...

I'm working on a universal role-playing system called Alter Ego which uses learning-by-doing skill development.

During a recent test session, my players and I have approached a problem concerning the categorization of weapon skills. As I'm striving for realism with my system,

One of my players has pointed out however that this weapon skills concept would be too specific. He has given an example of an experienced sword fighter who - in his opinion - would also be proficient with axes. So we've tried to find a different categorization concept and in the end, someone has come up with the idea of making weapon skills based on weapon usage, i.e. bashing, thrusting, stabbing etc.

You should have a look at the skill list design section in the fate RPG rules. I found it increadibly helpful for working out what to do for weapon skills for my current game.

You can get it for free from here:

http://www.faterpg.com

wow, i'm just reading the fate rules and thinking, geez this would be really helpful to that dude with that question at the forge, and came here to say pretty much exactly what mindwanders said!

You really should check it out JSE. The entire game. It won Free RPG of the year award at Indie RPG Awards and has aspects (excuse the pun) similar to the game you are designing.

all the best,
Akuma.

If you use specific weapons skills, something to keep in mind is that you've got to avoid the "Harnmaster Syndrome" -- where the merchant ends up just as competent a fighter as the knight does, in practical terms. The merchant's single best weapon skill is as good as the knight's is, but the Knight has 7-8 weapons skills at that level while the merchant only has one or two. That's a real problem, IMO.

I think for medieval style weaponry going with the: cutting sword, slashing sword, thrusting sword (appropriate periods only), mass weapon (axe/mace), slashing polearm, thrusting polearm method is most effective.

Most combat skill is in having the nerve to actually engage in deadly combat, the will to actually kill, and training in situational awareness.

For the purposes you site above, I'd probably have 3 tiers.

1) Weapon Class (as listed above or similiar). This is what you'd take as your typical fighting skill.

2) Specialization (by specific weapon type). Slashing Sword (cavalry sabre), or Thrusting Polearm (pike). This would be what some characters would take to represent the duellist highly trained with a favorite weapon, or the professional soldier highly drilled with a specific weapon. It would be worth a couple extra "levels" on top of the Weapon Class skill.

3) The Combat Awareness Skill. This is a single skill that represents appropriate experience and aptitude for melee engagements. It would add to every melee skill, be a primary determinate of initiative, and be available only to those trained or bred for combat (from professional soldiers, to tribal warriors). This addresses Lee's point above and differentiates the knight from the merchant. For a well trained combatant half of the total "levels" of combat skill that the character has should come from this base skill.

Of course it's a long known truism that for maximal verisimiltude you should scrap analytic structures altogether and go with organic ones. Two possibilities:

1) Freely definable skills. Maximal verisimiltude, because the players know what is right in their opinion. Used in games like HeroQuest, becoming very popular in certain circles.

2) Predefined skill system that arises from the world at hand. Overlapping skills defined through the game world, not a priori. The best example is probably the Vampire Disciplines, which conseivably represent game world facts instead of an unified system of superpowers. Of course it's both, but still.

The latter is probably more along your alley, so I'll espouse some more:

Consider: which is more realistic, a "Using sword" skill or "Taught in Capo Ferro style"? The latter of course. Now, is the Capo Ferro skill a skill to use the sword in a duel? Of course it is. But is it a skill to use the dagger? It is that, too! It's also applicable to all the other weapons that belong to the Capo Ferro system. On the other hand, it hardly prepares one for war, or for using the axe in murderous intent, as both disciplines fall outside the school.

The key to this kind of system is scrapping any idea of analytic tidiness from your thoughts. It might be that Capo Ferro can be used in the same situation as "General brawling experience". So what? It might also be that there is situations where no skill applies. It's all realistic. If the people of the world in question do not actively train in, say, "Perception" (who would?), do not include it as a skill. Only put in stuff that the people themselves consider skills or discernible skill packets.

This way you get exciting skills. If somebody has the skill of berserking, it literally means that he has been taught in the art of berserkangar by holy warriors of Odin. Does it help in intimidation? Sure, I'd be afraid. Does it help in battle? Definitely. Does it help in using your sword to split a fly? Of course not, that's only sensible because roleplayers live in a dream world.

This is the path to ultimate verisimiltude. Forget the skill of "Bashing weapons", that's a complete fiction. A real knight is taught in "Knightly battle", which includes using lance, sword and mace from horseback as well as unhorsed, and has little to do with dueling. Nobody is simply going to learn "Bashing weapons", as there is no such thing. The weapons are different and are used in different manner and for different reasons, and a war mace has more in common with a sword than with a staff. In a "realistic" fantasy world you get people who know how to use the sword and the war mace, because they've been taught to use both. Model that, not some internal idea about how your modern-bred head thinks weapons work. Trust me, you don't know, and certainly cannot build an analytic system with tidily differentiated classes of skills without referencing the actual realities of the world you model. Do you think that those knights are stupid when they don't specialize in "Sword" or "Bashing weapons"? Do you know better?

So; what kind of culture your game tells about? Is there a warrior class? Is practice of weapon skills limited to such a class? Is there hunters? What kind of hunting weapons? Martial arts? What kind? What kind of units are in the armies? How they fight? Answer these questions and list the different approaches to fighting you meet in your world. That is your skill list. It might be simple: if I were to do a game about knights, they all would have the same basic fighting skill simply because in my world knightly combat is very uniform, or at least we know so little that any differences would have to be developed. On the other hand, if the game was about martial artists, I'd list the different traditions of martial arts as skills. A competent fighter can use all kinds of weapons, it's pure madness to imagine spear-specialized monks running around the countryside. Or rather, if they are specialized, then they are that because of their fighting style, not because the player put points only in the one weapon skill (which is usually a smart move, as games have less verisimiltude than morning cartoons).

Feel free to ignore the above suggestion if you suddenly realize that you don't want verisimiltude, but rather tidiness. Most do after realizing that they cannot have both.

First of all, thank you very much for your great ideas and suggestions. They are really thought-provoking and helpful.

@ salkaner:

salkaner wrote: Just an hint: there is already an Italian RPG with that name
http://www.narrazione.it/

I dont' think Garmaigol is going to lawsuit you, but maybe i's not a good idea to create a game with the same name

Development points are earnt on a 19% chance for each roll. These are the values:

1
2
3
4
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
96
97
98
99
100

Of course, I forgot to mention the following important condition: The skill development system is only meant for actual skill use in critical/stressful situations. Training in safe environment produces development points MUCH more slowly - based on the consideration that this form of training simply cannot replace experience earned in "real-life" situations. Apart from that, skill development is always subject to GM discretion, i.e. the GM always has the last say on whether a development point is earned or not.

I'm back and I think I've actually come up with a good way to handle weapon skills: I just treat weapon families (like swords, axes or crossbows) as specializations of the following main skills:


• Melee Combat (swords, daggers, axes, grappling, dodging, shields etc.)
• Missile Weapons (bows, crossbows, slings etc.)
• Throwing Weapons (spears, axes, knives etc.)


Skill specialization works the following way: Characters never use or develop main skills directly, but always specializations. However, if a specialization is developed to a certain degree, the character can adopt some of this knowledge/expertise to related fields. In game terms this means: The score/essence of a main skill (und thus every undeveloped specialization) is 1/3 of a character's highest specialization of that skill. For instance, a fighter with a swords skill of 35 can use an axe with 11.

Please tell me what you think of this conception. Any further ideas on this topic are also very much appreciated.

Note: If you are new to this thread and would like to get an impression of my system Alter Ego, have a look at my post above (first post on this page).

Hi,

Here's a possible variant:

Keep the Melee/Missile/Throwing as a 'baseline'. Add 'broad groups' (eg 'swords', 'bows', 'thrown spears') and 'tight groups' ('shortsword', 'longbow', 'thrown javelin')

When a character passes a 'development test' they gain 3 points in the 'tight group' of weapon they are using, 2 points in the 'broad group' and 1 point in the 'baseline'.

For example:

Ragnar survives a combat while wielding a broadsword. He checks for development and succeeds. He gains 3 points in the tight group 'broadswords', 2 points in the broad group 'swords' and 1 point in the base skill 'melee'.

This only works well if you keep a running total of all of the skill points earned, rather than calculating skills for new weapons 'on the fly'.

You may also need to change the 'scale' at which development points raise skill scores.

However, this may be the sort of thing that appeals.

Regards,

Doug

PS For extra fun, consider allowing weapons with dual use (melee/hurled) to augment each other in this way. For example, every 3 points I gain in hurled javelin also increases my melee skill with a javelin (but not my base melee skills.)

I might suggested a layered system. You have a basic "Combat Skill" and also a more specific 'usage' skill (polearms, single-edge swords, slashing swords, thrusting swords, axes), then both of these skills can improve, providing a kind of synergy bonus implicit in the system. At the same time, a users preference becomes rather obvious when they have nearly twice the skill with a katana than with a spear.

Obviously, this is not even close to a valid system in many cases, but it is something for you to think about. You might choose to average the two (or more) layered scores, thus reaching a full 100% with a sword leaves you at merely 50% with an axe.

EDIT: Ooops... This is why you should read more than the first page of responses. It didn't look like anyone was going to suggest this idea though... ^_^;;;;;

A bit of the system that I am working on.
Each player has a set of general skills such as Hand-to-hand, Weapon, Archery, and Throwing Weapons.
Instead of specializing in specific weapons it has attributes of weapons.
Each weapon, this includes punches and kicks, does 1 damage and has a set of attributes.
Once a character learns an attribute of a weapon he can then gain the advantage of that attribute. Attribute usually add to damage or allow special moves to be performed. A character must learn the attributes separate from the skill.
Since multiple weapons can have the same attributes this allows the character to be highly skilled with one weapon and then have various levels of effectiveness with other kinds of weapons depending on how many attributes the other weapons have that he knows.

I made sure no one said this before I offered this post. ^_-

JSE wrote: Experience and development
Alter Ego has no "experience points" or the like - it uses a learning-by-doing system instead to measure a character's development. Thus, skills and abilities are directly improved by using them throughout the course of play. Skill development works as follows: Whenever a certain skill is involved in a test and one of the following situations occurs, the appropriate skill earns a development point:


• A 1-5 is rolled.
• A 96-100 is rolled.
• The roll's ones digit shows a "0".


Development points are recorded for each skill and whenever a character has earned 5 development points for a certain skill, that skill's score (and its essence accordingly) is increased by 1.
Ability development is a more subtle process and is solely handled by the GM rather than a mechanic. As a rule of thumb, the GM allows a player to improve the score (and essence) of a frequently and regularly used ability by 1 each year's quarter.

On the skill classifications, someone mentioned CORPS. I think that or a similar model might do the job. You have a more expensive overall skill (say melee weapons), then a less expensive but more specific skill (like bladed weapons) and then a final specialization (like sabers). This may not be the most realistic system, but it does allow the sort of thing your player was looking for.

I'll digress on the game description (which might spawn another thread). I notice there are 12 Attributes, 4 of which are the senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell), yet there seems to be only one to deal with endurance, recuperative ability and things like running speed (constitution). Are the individual senses that important compared to the constitutional attributes?

For any sort of "realistic" rpg design, you should always first apply the test to yourself. That is, are you capable of designing a system that is accurate to a 1% level? If not, and you want to use percentile ratings anyway, at least round things to convenient numbers like 20% and 5%, not 19% and 4%.

Greg
BTRC

JSE wrote: I'm back and I think I've actually come up with a good way to handle weapon skills: I just treat weapon families (like swords, axes or crossbows) as specializations of the following main skills:


• Melee Combat (swords, daggers, axes, grappling, dodging, shields etc.)
• Missile Weapons (bows, crossbows, slings etc.)
• Throwing Weapons (spears, axes, knives etc.)


Skill specialization works the following way: Characters never use or develop main skills directly, but always specializations. However, if a specialization is developed to a certain degree, the character can adopt some of this knowledge/expertise to related fields. In game terms this means: The score/essence of a main skill (und thus every undeveloped specialization) is 1/3 of a character's highest specialization of that skill. For instance, a fighter with a swords skill of 35 can use an axe with 11.

Please tell me what you think of this conception. Any further ideas on this topic are also very much appreciated.

Note: If you are new to this thread and would like to get an impression of my system Alter Ego, have a look at my post above (first post on this page).

Again, a lot of interesting thoughts and ideas - thank you and keep it coming. ;)

@ Doug Ruff:
So, you propose two groups of skill specializations - a "broad" and a "tight" group... Certainly, this would result in a more differentiated and "realistic" system than simply having main skills and skill specializations. However, keeping track of a huge number of partly interrelated skills with different development rates would result in a too complicated game in my opinion. Apart from that, I would like combat skills to work the same way as all other skills - and I can hardly imagine creating broad and tight skill groups for things like fishing or acrobatics.

@ John Uckele:
1.) As far as I understand this "layered skills" concept, it works similar to the concept I have presented in my previous post - having three main skills (melee, missile and throwing) and specializations of each. However, I have based my specializations on "weapon families" rather than weapon usage - as I already incorporate weapon usage into my combat system.

2.) Regarding skill development, you certainly have a point there. A slower development rate at higher skill scores would be more realistic and would give novices a chance to catch up. Furthermore, characters wouldn't become "superheroes" too quickly. However, I don't like this "second roll" variant very much as it slows down play. What do you think of the following alternative:

From skill essences 1 to 50, characters get a development point in a skill test every time they roll a 1-5, a 96-100 or whenever the ones digit shows a "0". From skill essences 51 to 100, characters get a development point only when they roll a 1-5 or 96-100.

Another interesting alternative would be to make skill development dependent on the difficulty of the respective skill test.

@ tj333:
Interesting conception. It takes weapons' individual features into account. However, as I've said above, in my game I would like combat skills to work the same way as other skills.

@ btrc:
1.) Something like "more or less expensive skills" does not apply to Alter Ego as PCs do not purchase their skills here but receive them during the creation of their background. However, your basic approach is similar to the system of mains skills and specializations I have presented as more overall skills are developed at a slower rate than more specific ones.

2.) In my opinion, constitutional attributes (health, endurance etc.) are all somehow interrelated, whereas sensory attributes are all apart from each other. Of course, you could be more differentiating - but in my opinion, 12 attributes are sufficient ;)...

3.) A self test for RPG design? Well, I deem myself capable of creating a system that is based on 1% levels. Any doubts? ;)

@ Lee Short:
Actually, your comment about the "Hârn Master syndrome" was among the reasons why I have decided for more general combat skills (melee, missile and throwing) to avoid it. But as a long-time Hârn player I promise to be careful ;)

JSE wrote:

@ Doug Ruff:
So, you propose two groups of skill specializations - a "broad" and a "tight" group... Certainly, this would result in a more differentiated and "realistic" system than simply having main skills and skill specializations. However, keeping track of a huge number of partly interrelated skills with different development rates would result in a too complicated game in my opinion. Apart from that, I would like combat skills to work the same way as all other skills - and I can hardly imagine creating broad and tight skill groups for things like fishing or acrobatics.

3.) A self test for RPG design? Well, I deem myself capable of creating a system that is based on 1% levels. Any doubts? ;)

JSE wrote: 2.) Regarding skill development, you certainly have a point there. A slower development rate at higher skill scores would be more realistic and would give novices a chance to catch up. Furthermore, characters wouldn't become "superheroes" too quickly. However, I don't like this "second roll" variant very much as it slows down play. What do you think of the following alternative:

From skill essences 1 to 50, characters get a development point in a skill test every time they roll a 1-5, a 96-100 or whenever the ones digit shows a "0". From skill essences 51 to 100, characters get a development point only when they roll a 1-5 or 96-100.

Another interesting alternative would be to make skill development dependent on the difficulty of the respective skill test.

JSE wrote:
@ Lee Short:
Actually, your comment about the "Hârn Master syndrome" was among the reasons why I have decided for more general combat skills (melee, missile and throwing) to avoid it. But as a long-time Hârn player I promise to be careful ;)

Skill specialization works the following way: Characters never use or develop main skills directly, but always specializations. However, if a specialization is developed to a certain degree, the character can adopt some of this knowledge/expertise to related fields. In game terms this means: The score/essence of a main skill (und thus every undeveloped specialization) is 1/3 of a character's highest specialization of that skill. For instance, a fighter with a swords skill of 35 can use an axe with 11.

Please tell me what you think of this conception. Any further ideas on this topic are also very much appreciated.

This back tracking somewhat, but what the heck!
The problem with most games is they don't reflect the realities of training to use weapons. Someone mentioned about training with a style/master, that would give a package of weapon skils that would be learn't. Even in cultures, where there would not be 'Masters' teaching skills, where skills were learn't more as part of the culture one would have a package of skill that would be learn't. Therefore the initial skils to be built on would be part of developing the PC to start with

Now on to developing skills. Speaking as someone who teaches people to use weapons for a living I would make the following points.

Much of a persons ability to adapt to different weapons is down to their apptitude to the skill in the first place. One can train some one to a reasonable skill but if they don't have an aptitude for it, it will be much harder forthem to make the transition into different styles and weapon types. There fore a merchant, who unilike the knight has not been trained to use weapons from boy hood, might become proficient with one weapon, though less so than the knight, but whould find it hard to apapt to a weapon they were not already familiar with, unless they were an exceptional person.

The ability to make a transition between styles and weapons, increases with the base skill, so a person who is highly skilled with a single handed sword with make an easier transition to other single handed weapons. Where the less skill full fighter would be less able to thnk out of the box and make transition.

Again though it comes to how one deals with weapons in the first place. Generally in history, the types encountered in one period are fairly narrow, with the weapons classes staying in fairly tight types. Therefore medieval swords all share fairly similar charecteristics and the transition would be easier than if one were to suddenly through a rapier in to the equation. Though again my argumen is that thee more skill full fighter would immediately use the rapier based upon its design, where as the less skillfull would use it in a fashion based on the style they were previously familiar with.

Just some thoughts
Jonathan