The Forge Archives

I recently wrote the first half of a two part article about realism in Role Playing Games for Swords Edge Magazine.  I'd be interested in any reactions or response people might have to my article and to this issue in general, which I think is key to RPG design.

The article is at:
http://www.swordsedge.net/Issue15/ArticleMechanicsOfMelee.html

Jeanry Chandler

Quote from: Drifter BobI recently wrote the first half of a two part article about realism in Role Playing Games for Swords Edge Magazine.  I'd be interested in any reactions or response people might have to my article and to this issue in general, which I think is key to RPG design.

BL>  At this point, this is largely a grousing session about how people aren't hardcore enough about melee realism in RPGs.  Whilst grousing sessions can be fine, they aren't really that useful except in
1) Getting your aggression out so you can concentrate and write.
2) Entertaining yourself and those who already agree with you.

To develope this into a functional manifesto, which will get you or others moving on design, you might want to consider the following things:
1)  What, specifically, constitutes melee combat realism in RPGs?
2)  What things might be regarded as melee combat realism but aren't (you touch on this briefly, but not enough.)
3)  What sorts of things have been done, can be done better, ought to be done, or remain as unsolved problems?  (off the top of my head: missile/melee interaction and wounding rules need a lot of work in any game.)
4)  Why, in particular, melee combat realism is important to you?

I'm sure there are others, but that's off the top of my head.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  Disclaimer:  As I don't particular care for hardcore melee combat realism (love RoS, though, for its tactics and narrative devices), I probably won't contribute further to the discussion, just because I don't have a lot to add.

I didn't spot any errors in info or logic. Works for me.

Actually, the point of the piece was primarily to do partially what you suggested.  The purpose of the article was to list the ways in which Role Playing Games are specifically unrealistic, and if not so much specifcially how to fix then, to at least point out what the differences are between combat in role playing games and combat in history or in realistic historical simulations, such as what is practiced by modern Medieval fencing schools.  Theoretically, RPG designers could use this as a basis to form their own ideas.  I think the problem needs to be clearly defined before the solution is explored, specifically, what real pre-firearms combat was like, which surprisngly few of the thousands of people with a seemingly fanatical interest in the subject have a the vaguest clue about.

I tried to point out, for example, how kit (i.e. weapons and armor) is innacurately portrayed, something very easy for a game designer to fix with a little effort, such as by perusing real historical and archeological sources rather than the last generation of RPG equipment lists.  I also pointed out the differences in attack types versus different types of armor, and perhaps most importantly, the absolutely effects of reach in melee combat, something almost always ignored by RPG games.

If I failed in this attempt, I'll try to be more clear in the second half of the article.  Dont forget, what you read (or skimmed) was just part one of two.

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

Drifter Bob:

Just wanted to say that in the context of your last post (i.e. you're speaking to the choir of those who favor more realism), your article looks pretty good.  I don't see any glaring logic holes.

I will take issue, however with your contention that more realism = adult.  There are some pretty intense games that deal with adult themes built 'round these parts that aren't anything at all like realistic - but are, in my opinion, a heckuva lot more adult than a game about elves and dwarves that happens to use a more historically accurate basis for melee combat...

All I'm saying is: sometimes it helps to check your personal bias at the door and be really clear in your language usage.  I'm sure, for instance, you were saying that to you more realistic = more adult, and didn't mean to suggest for all of us in the hobby that more realistic = more adult.

Cheers,


Jason

This is not the aspect of the article I was interested in discussing, but I feel like I need to explain myself here.

QuoteI will take issue, however with your contention that more realism = adult. There are some pretty intense games that deal with adult themes built 'round these parts that aren't anything at all like realistic - but are, in my opinion, a heckuva lot more adult than a game about elves and dwarves that happens to use a more historically accurate basis for melee combat...

I did not contend that.  That wasn't even the purpose of the article, which I must not have written clearly enough.  I think maybe my tone is just too naturally sarcastic.  I tried to address this issue when I wrote:

I should add that I am not opposed to games which are silly because they are meant to be silly. There are always going to be RPG’s where orthodox realism is neither appropriate nor necessary. Sub-genre games such as Call of Cthulhu and The Dying Earth, and cinematic oriented games such as Feng Shui for example all have combat systems modeled after the their own unique settings. Comedic and super hero games can do away with realism altogether.

For the record, I like games which are in this intentionally unrealistic category just fine.  I remember one a long time ago called "Paranoia".  My only real beef, if I expressed one in the article, is with games which seem to be intended to be at least somewhat realistic, but simply are not in the least.

QuoteAll I'm saying is: sometimes it helps to check your personal bias at the door and be really clear in your language usage. I'm sure, for instance, you were saying that to you more realistic = more adult, and didn't mean to suggest for all of us in the hobby that more realistic = more adult.

Again, I do NOT feel that more realistic = more adult.  I think Adults have as much fun with Lewis Caroll or Monty Python as they do with Herodotus or Daschell Hammet.  What I think Adults don't like is middle of the road mediocre.  Lets use cartoons as an example (I know I'm going to get more angry reactions for this but what the hell).  I LOVE buggs bunny, and I loved Johnny Quest.  I HATE modern pokemon cartoons, most Hanna Barbara fare (other than Johnny Quest), and frankly most cartoons out there.  I like Sponge Bob, but hated "He Man- Masters of the Universe"

I guess the theme here is internal consistency.  It doesn't have to be realistic like a Kirosawa movie, OR unrealistic like the 1980's film Excalibur, but it should BE whatever it is and do it well.  I liked both of those flicks.  It can even be somwehre in between, like say the original Highlander, which was kind of vaguely realistic but also really fake in a lot of ways, but had it's own internal logic which it was fairly consistent in.  

I guess the point I'm making, is that there the most common, most popular game systems out there are really an inconsisent, illogical, unfunny, non-immersive mish mash of mediocrity, which is ok for kids the same way Gilligans Island was, but pretty tedious for adults.  

I also poined out

There are several war-games for example which are very realistic while simultaneously remaining quite abstracted.

Meaning that even when inserting realism, one can do it in a way which is still abstract.

As for games with elves and dwarves, I meant this to apply to those middle of the road games yes.  But this is antoher anlogy with popular entertainment which I could make.  In my opinion, though Tolkein had his faults as a writer, he is the ONLY modern writer who ever used elves and dwarves in a way which was effective and didn't come across really corny and sophomoric (I am ducking as I write this, I know there are millions of "swords of shanarra" fans out there!) it relates to another point I was trying to make which was the value of going back to the primary sources.

Tolkein had great internal consistency, he was a gifted and profoundly knowledgeable linguist and created a richly nuanced background which was firmly rooted in real (primary source) history, mythology and literature.  His imitators were derivative not of primary sources and real knowlegde of real things, but were derivative of earlier derivatives.  They pale in comparison.

Other masters of fantasy (just as case in point) like Fritz Liber, Michael Moorcock, and Jack Vance for example, were similarly well versed and well grounded in actual real history.

Anyway, I think I just fanned more flames than I put out, so I'll quit before I go any deeper.

jR

Realism has a few drawbacks, the massive character turnover being one of them. Lets say that we have our heavily armoured knight in full, traditional plate mail with his mace (swords were usually reserved for cutting through peasants, maces being much more effective against those in armour). He swings at a peasant waving a pitchfork. Squelch.

Another peasant comes up behind him, since he'll probably be pretty much surrounded if he's off his horse. Takes a knife. Slips knife into the gap in the armour behind the neck, at the base of the spine, behind a knee, under the groin of the armour. Your knight is now effectively dead, there's very little he can do to save himself.

The big problem is that in real life, combat is and was absolutely lethal. You would generally either escape with little more than surfact cuts, or you would be dead or maimed. On top of that, a good archer suddenly becomes close to indestructible. An archer with a longbow can punch an arrow through plate mail quite happily, even at a fair range. An arrow punching into or through your body is going to make you stop, if not just kill you on the spot. So everyone becomes an archer.

Simply, real life does not suit heroic situations. Yes, realism would be nice, in a way, but unless you want to spend half the night rolling up characters it has to be limited.

Hey there drifter.

The points of your aritcle are well taken as they apply to a particular set of pirorities in a game.  You have essentially stated in the article (as I understand it) that you are interested in haveing combat and other systems emulate real life by taking into account a myriad of complex factors including weapon type, tactics, kit, etc.  And that those things be consistantly accounted for throughout the game.

All I can say to that is "how intersting, old chap," and  "do you have The Riddle of Steel?"

What is unfortunate about your article is that, conciously or unconciously, it presents a system that emulates gritty combat and the particulars of that as somehow superior to systems that prioritize other issues.  In many games that I, and others, play, we might prefer to make one roll for overall success of the entire fight, based soley on a 'fight' stat (such as in Trollbabe for example) and then describe it as we will.  Such systems, I contend,  are not less worthy by any measure than those that your article advocates.  They may simply prioritize another aspect of play.

Reading your other post, I see that you acknowledge other games whose prioriteis are different and you instead put forth that what bothers you is games that mean to emulate combat in a complex and gritty fashion, but then do a poor job of doing so.  Is there a particular game you a criticizing here?  I'm not sure that a blanket accusation of this type is understandable.  Your article gives the definite impression that I detail in my last paragraph.

For your consideration.

regards,

Trevis.

This post is a pretty typical example of the kind of cliche's which have been disseminated throughout society about medieval combat.  It also misses my point about realism in rpgs.  I'm going to answer it twice though, first to address the issues regarding RPG's and balance.

QuoteRealism has a few drawbacks, the massive character turnover being one of them. Lets say that we have our heavily armoured knight in full, traditional plate mail with his mace (swords were usually reserved for cutting through peasants, maces being much more effective against those in armour). He swings at a peasant waving a pitchfork. Squelch.

First of all, I was not demanding that all RPG's be 100% 'photorealistic', if you will, simply that some people would prefer that to whatever extent a game is meant to have some basis in reality, that it be done with some accuracy.

Moving toward a bit more realism is a far cry from making everyone die of bubonic plague all day long.

What you are actually talking about is game balance, which is really a seperate issue.  

Incorporating some realism into an RPG game does not necessarily have a negative effect on balance issues like player survivability AT ALL.  For example, incorporating the defensive value of a weapon into someones defense, just as most RPG's allocate a defensive value to a shield, hardly makes anybody more likely to be killed.  To the contrary.  It means that the unarmored wizard who is armed with a staff can fend off sword strokes somewhat, instead of being utterly helpless.  That is both more realisitc and probably more fun for the wizard character.

Similarly, making some allowance for reach hardly causes players to die every 5 seconds.  Again, in the staff-armed wizard example, it helps him fend off the cut-purses who menace him with knives, just as it would in real life.  Even making rules where one type of weapon works better against a specific type of armor doesn't have to make things more or less lethal, it just gives you a few more tactical decisions you can balance.

Nobody is hurt by any of this, and it doesn't necessarily mean you have to create 100 new tables or roll 50 dice either!

As for those rules which might mean a higher lethality, such as say doing more realistic injuries lowering the maximum number of hit points in D&D, can be offset by other things.  I think there are ways to balance this, but I'm going to address that in part 2 of the essay.   It's funny how these injury rules are the way 90% of realism attempts in the past have been made, but realistic injuries are only one way.

I say if the current game balance is very important to you, and you feel that in your game players must never or very rarely get killed, then improve realism (if you want to) where it does not effect balance first, and then if you still want to make things more realistic, deal with the second carefully.  If you try you might find that it is not impossible

JR

Quote
This post is a pretty typical example of the kind of cliche's which have been disseminated throughout society about medieval combat. It also misses my point about realism in rpgs. I'm going to answer it twice though, first to address the issues regarding RPG's and balance.

I should probably clarify. I've spent three years on and off training with various European fighting styles. Whether or not the cliche's are circulated, I know how easy it is to overcome a quarterstaff with a knife, or a sword with a staff. In the end you get a scissors-paper-stone scenario going.

Quote
First of all, I was not demanding that all RPG's be 100% 'photorealistic', if you will, simply that some people would prefer that to whatever extent a game is meant to have some basis in reality, that it be done with some accuracy.

The problem is deciding where you draw the line between realism and play-balance issues.

Quote
Similarly, making some allowance for reach hardly causes players to die every 5 seconds. Again, in the staff-armed wizard example, it helps him fend off the cut-purses who menace him with knives, just as it would in real life.

Actually knives can usually beat a staff without too much difficulty. Swords generally have more trouble.

Quote
I say if the current game balance is very important to you, and you feel that in your game players must never or very rarely get killed, then improve realism (if you want to) where it does not effect balance first, and then if you still want to make things more realistic, deal with the second carefully. If you try you might find that it is not impossible

Actually I've got no problem with players being killed if they go into combat. The main system that I run has incredibly lethal combat, which encourages the characters to avoid it, just as they would in life. However realism will always affect play balance, since real life is simply more dangerous than most game systems.

I also want to address some of the cliche's and common mistakes cited in this post.  Here are a few fact / reality checks:

QuoteAnother peasant comes up behind him, since he'll probably be pretty much surrounded if he's off his horse. Takes a knife. Slips knife into the gap in the armour behind the neck, at the base of the spine, behind a knee, under the groin of the armour. Your knight is now effectively dead, there's very little he can do to save himself.

Ok first of all, when we are talking about the medieval era, say the 5th century to the 16th, only the very end of that period saw the use of plate armor.  If you are talking about an armored knight, from the fall of Rome (or gradual collapse) in the 5th century until midway through the 14th, you were basically talking about a coat (hauberk) or shirt (byrnie) of mail.  Not this image of the lumbering knight you seem to be conjuring from a monty python skit, or Excalibur or some other Hollywood source.

Second, in the period where you did see really articulated suits of plate armor, mainly in the late 14th and 15th century, they weren't nearly as clumsy again as your image seems to imply.

Armor wasn't restricted to knights either as one might guess from popular mythology.  The most complete excavated medieval battlefield known to Archeology, at Wisby (or Visby) in Sweeden, was the site of 3 skirmishes between a band of Sweedish peasants and a group of Danish knights in the mid 14th century (I think 1361).  The battles were fought during the summer, and unusually, the bodies were not stripped, presumably because they rotted to quickly, they were herded into a mass-grave.

Almost all of the bodies had armor on them, mostly mail, padded cloth, and brigantine (a type of armor incidentially left out of most rpgs).  

Very interesting forensics from that battle as well, by the way... one guy had both legs cut off from one stroke.

Next, contrary to popular opinion, maces were not all that widely used in Western Europe, they were more popular in Eastern Europe and Russia, and saw some use in Italy.  Though lances (especially), maces, axes, flails, poll-axes, poll-hammers, and numerous other weapons were used, Swords were in fact the most consistently used weapons of knights throughout the medieval and Renaissance period.  Swords evolved into ever more sophisticated designs to deal with armor, the shape of blades changed and improved, as did the metalurgy.  In fact the eventual primacy of the thrusting sword (rapiers, schiavonas, cut-and-thrust swords, smallswords etc.) had a lot to do with weapons.  Technique was very important as well.  And as heavy armor began to decline with the rise of firearms, older types of slashing swords re-appeared.

Quote
The big problem is that in real life, combat is and was absolutely lethal. You would generally either escape with little more than surfact cuts, or you would be dead or maimed.

Yes and no.  Combat with sharp, pointy, and heavy weapons was and is lethal.  Yet, few people know for example, that broad-sword duels were typically fought to the first blood and rarely ended in serious injury to either party.  Many battles were fought in medieval times in which casualtes were very low (casualties in the hundreds with numbers of combattants in the several thousands were not uncommon).  

The key reason was ARMOR.  Armor could be defeated even with a sword, but it was very difficult.  Armor, even the lowly Gambeson (the quilted -padded coat which was worn under mail, and as solo armor by many poorer combattants) is much more effective than we are led to believe by Hollywood.  This is going to be the subject of another article I'm going to do, but to put it simply, Armor works.  In Hollywood, armor is mostly worn by bad guys and it doesn't work.  Here's a clue: even though it wasn't nearly as bulky as they make it out to be in film (and most rpg's) it is hot and heavy and expensive, and hard to maintain, and they wouldn't wear that crap if there wasn't a damn good reason.  Which brings me to my next point.

QuoteOn top of that, a good archer suddenly becomes close to indestructible. An archer with a longbow can punch an arrow through plate mail quite happily, even at a fair range. An arrow punching into or through your body is going to make you stop, if not just kill you on the spot. So everyone becomes an archer.

This is another silly cliche.  The English write most English-Language military history, since they are so much better educated than we yanks, and they love to go on and on about 'their' fantastic Longbow archers, (who were actually mostly Welsh) which makes them feel better about losing their own knights, but as with the Samurai and the Ninja, the prowess of the Long bow archer, as good as they were, was seriously exxagerated.  

In the battles where Enlgish Archers were most famously (or infamously, depending on which side of the channel you hail from) effective, Crecy and Poitiers in the 14th century, and Agincourt in the 15th, the Archers were employed as part of a sophisticated and integrated combat team, and their victory had to do with taking advantage of the arrogant disregard for tactics of the French knights as much as their own considerable abilities.

Here is one technical fact about Longbows.  Unlike legolas the elf, in real life an English longbowman could no more hit a man sized target 300 yards away than Jessie James could shoot a gnat out of the air.  As with most self bows, the effective direct range of an English Longbow was probably about 50 yeards.  English longbows could fire considerably further however, albiet without much accuracy, and therefore the archers in questions trained to fire volleys into large circular or square sheets, i.e. area targets.  They were used more like mortars or artillery than as direct weapons.  (Incidentally, Bows were used in this manner going back to ancient Greek times)

Furthermore, even those longbows did not actually pierce the armor of the French knights all that well.  Nor incidentally did the differently constructed but equally effective short composite bows of the mongols.  They actually shot their horses out from under them.  At Agincourt, in a typical situation, the French knigths foolishly continued to attempt to continue forward toward the English on foot, crossing a stream and a field of mud uphill on the way, before reaching the English line which was still defended against them by a pallisade of stakes and a heavy contingent of bill-wielding infantry and dismounted English knights.

On even partly open terrain, facing even a proportionally small number of knights without the protection of infantry, terrain, and light fortification, longbowmen would be in big trouble.  They might bring down a few horses, maybe even a knight or two, but they wouldn't be able to stop a charge and they would be decimated.  This actually happened to English (welsh) longbowmen acting as mercenaries for Charles the Bold in another 14th century battle.

And no, a longbow arrow didn't slice through plate armor like a knife through butter.  In some cases it could penetrate some armor and helmets at short range, but armor was made stronger and stronger as the threat of missile weapons became more prevalent.  By the 16th Centrury it was common to shoot a breast plate (cuirass) with a musket to test it, and mark the dent.  This where the term "bullet proof" comes from.

incidentally English historians will howl in indignation at this, but the actual end of the European knight came at the hands of Swiss infantry armed with pikes, crossbows and Halberds (later muskets and small cannon too)

QuoteSimply, real life does not suit heroic situations. Yes, realism would be nice, in a way, but unless you want to spend half the night rolling up characters it has to be limited.

Ah, I'm sorry, but you are wrong again.  Pick up a history book my friend.  Real life is FULL of heroes beside whom the typcial fantasy novel or rpg character is but a pale shadow.  Infusing some of this life back into the world of rpg's which I enjoy, is why I'm making all this (alas) unappreciated effort.

DB

Well, we don't agree, but at least this is much more in the vein of what I wanted to discuss

QuoteQuote:

This post is a pretty typical example of the kind of cliche's which have been disseminated throughout society about medieval combat. It also misses my point about realism in rpgs. I'm going to answer it twice though, first to address the issues regarding RPG's and balance.

I should probably clarify. I've spent three years on and off training with various European fighting styles. Whether or not the cliche's are circulated, I know how easy it is to overcome a quarterstaff with a knife, or a sword with a staff. In the end you get a scissors-paper-stone scenario going.

I've been doing no-holds barred stick fighting for 20 years, and I have a great deal of experience with street fighting.  I guarantee more than 95% of Americans.   I understand what you are getting at about a knife versus a staff, but if you really think it's "easy" to overcome a quarterstaff with a knife, then I don't think you have been doing realistic training.  Yes, you can rush, close to grapple etc., but against an equally experienced opponent with a staff, it is very likely that you will be struck first, probably more than once.  I personally have no trouble fending off a knife-armed opponent with any weapon from say six to three feet.  

Whether the impact will cause sufficient injury to incapacitate you before you close, if your opponent allows you to do so, is another matter.  

Something to consider for RPG rules, I think it's much easier to close in on someone with a larger wepon if you are in a confined space, than say an open field.  That kind of thing is a big issue in RPG's.

Another thing, I'm not sure if you are talking about Asian style half-staffing, or Quarter staffing.  A quarter staff is normally used to jab or tap with, form a defensive stance, thrusting hard or striking when the opportunity presents itself (like when the guy with the knife is trying to rush)

My point though wasn't the complex issue of shooting in against a staff when you are unarmed or armed with a knife, but rather whether standing free, as in most rpg's, you could as easily parry with a knife as you could with a staff, or a sword for that matter.  Rpg's usually have seperate rules for closing to grapple.  My point is that if a shield counts for defense, then weapons should count as well.

In D&D for example, a man standing there with a 12" dagger has just as good of a chance of being hit as an equally trained man with a six foot staff.  That is incorrect, and easy to change without disturbing play balance.

JR

Quote
I've been doing no-holds barred stick fighting for 20 years, and I have a great deal of experience with street fighting. I guarantee more than 95% of Americans. I understand what you are getting at about a knife versus a staff, but if you really think it's "easy" to overcome a quarterstaff with a knife, then I don't think you have been doing realistic training. Yes, you can rush, close to grapple etc., but against an equally experienced opponent with a staff, it is very likely that you will be struck first, probably more than once. I personally have no trouble fending off a knife-armed opponent with any weapon from say six to three feet.

I've had several live fights against people with quarterstaffs, myself armed with a foam knife. Admittedly I was helped by padding and a pair of good-quality bracers, but its much easier to ward off the quarterstaff than most people think, and very few people are willing to back away and fight defensively when they believe they've got the advantage. A staff can also be trapped, and doesn't need to be trapped for very long for the knifeman to get in close, at which point its pretty much all over.

Maybe some sort of mechanic where the person with the shorter weapon doesn't actually get to attack until they close, at which point their attacks become much more effective?

Quote
Something to consider for RPG rules, I think it's much easier to close in on someone with a larger wepon if you are in a confined space, than say an open field. That kind of thing is a big issue in RPG's.

Definitely, which is one of the things I've never really liked about D&D. "I'm going to swing my six foot staff at you in a narrow, short corridor with my allies standing either side and simultaneously fend you off without clouting any of my mates."

Quote
Another thing, I'm not sure if you are talking about Asian style half-staffing, or Quarter staffing. A quarter staff is normally used to jab or tap with, form a defensive stance, thrusting hard or striking when the opportunity presents itself (like when the guy with the knife is trying to rush)

Either, although quarterstaffing is harder to close on. And the gu with the knife shouldn't rush unless the opportunity presents itself, usually he should just move forwards as possible, but not moving his bodyweight too far forwards at any point, since he may need to leap back.

Quote
In D&D for example, a man standing there with a 12" dagger has just as good of a chance of being hit as an equally trained man with a six foot staff. That is incorrect, and easy to change without disturbing play balance.

Agreed, although it is highly dependent on the weapon that each is using. If you're going to throw in defensive adjustments for weapons, it might be worth adding in trapping/breaking with weapons.

JimmyB Wrote

QuoteI've had several live fights against people with quarterstaffs, myself armed with a foam knife. Admittedly I was helped by padding and a pair of good-quality bracers, but its much easier to ward off the quarterstaff than most people think, and very few people are willing to back away and fight defensively when they believe they've got the advantage. A staff can also be trapped, and doesn't need to be trapped for very long for the knifeman to get in close, at which point its pretty much all over.

I would guess you were facing guys who were less well trained, or who had less natural ability than you.   It is easy to rush if you are fast and a mistake is made, but it's alsy easy to strike you at leisure and fend you off.  The weakness of the staff as opposed to a pole -arm with some kind of blade is indeed that you can trap or bind it.   You can fight with a spear or a pole arm the same way though, and thats much more dangerous.

QuoteMaybe some sort of mechanic where the person with the shorter weapon doesn't actually get to attack until they close, at which point their attacks become much more effective?

NOW you are talking!  I think you are right on here.  I even mention this in the article, though briefly.  Yeah, a dagger should be at a great initial disadvantage when the opponents are at range, but at a vast advantage in grapple, say.  

QuoteDefinitely, which is one of the things I've never really liked about D&D. "I'm going to swing my six foot staff at you in a narrow, short corridor with my allies standing either side and simultaneously fend you off without clouting any of my mates."

Again, good point.  I think that something could be done fairly easily to address this, and painlessly too.  you could simply assign a 'room' value for weapons.  Some weapons need room to use.  Greatswords, Axes and maces (and quarterstaffs) may not be the best weapons for underground dungeon crawls.  Spears are better because you can thrust with them.  Short swords, perhaps made less valuable on the open field due to other realism rules, suddenly become useful again in the confines of a cavern or a crypt tunnel.

QuoteEither, although quarterstaffing is harder to close on. And the gu with the knife shouldn't rush unless the opportunity presents itself, usually he should just move forwards as possible, but not moving his bodyweight too far forwards at any point, since he may need to leap back.

Yeah, thats why I stick to quarterstaffing UNTIL the other guy actually rushes in.  From a quarterstaff position, you can usually poke the hell out of them and / or bash them on the back of the head before they get close enough, especially if you are nimbly stepping aside or back when they rush.  If you can transition to half staff when you realise the rush is inevitable, (kind of hard to remember to do in the heat of the moment), you can often get that one good strike from unexpected side and save the day.

QuoteAgreed, although it is highly dependent on the weapon that each is using. If you're going to throw in defensive adjustments for weapons, it might be worth adding in trapping/breaking with weapons

Thats another good point, and I agree.  You can even simulate this in a real simple game like D&D, by just making it an option to strike the weapon (rather than having some die roll factor it in on each strike) but yeah, you can parry the axe with your small-staff, but he can hack through it, and he definately could.  I've seen halfway decent replica swords chop right though two-by-fours with no problem.

These are the kind of issues I think which are fun to explore, and enlightening to the players as well as designers of RPG's.  Certainly we can find a few things to add to our games (and since one guy was asking WHAT games, I'll mention D&D and GURPS, as two examples my friends used to play) that can make them more realistic AND more fun.

JR

JR

Quote from: Drifter Bob

QuoteMaybe some sort of mechanic where the person with the shorter weapon doesn't actually get to attack until they close, at which point their attacks become much more effective?

NOW you are talking!  I think you are right on here.  I even mention this in the article, though briefly.  Yeah, a dagger should be at a great initial disadvantage when the opponents are at range, but at a vast advantage in grapple, say.

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.