Admittedly I lean towards balanced weapons rather than having superior ones (the long bow in AD&D2e really bugs me) which is a decidedly gamist take.  I also lean towards the idea that people pick a weapon that matches them physiologically.  That a bigger guy generally uses a bigger sword.

We're way off topic here, but whatever - this isn't the big purple or anything.

As for the whole detailed weapons and armor thing, I believe the biggest failing of most game systems is that the arms race between armor and weapon technologies isn't really relevant - the name of each piece of gear is really just a label we attach to a number on a scale (better or worse AC; higher or lower damage; etc.). The reality is that the diversity of high-medieval had weapons, and the complexity of the armor both arise from the fact that each was being continuously engineered to defeat the other. There is no reason for a military pick to exist without plate armor. The slashing sword is an amazing weapon, unless your target is fully covered in high density mail, a coat of plates or plate armor, in which case a slashing sword is about as useful as a spatula and you'd better get yourself an extremely pointy, strong thrusting sword or a different weapon all together. None of this means anything in most games. 1E AD&D is actually an exception; its weapon vs. armor type tables could be edited in a few minor ways, but it is basically a correct approach that captures the important points. The only problem is no one uses it. Rolemaster, in its original 'Arms Law' form, also addresses this dynamic, or at least has the potential to do so (I think a lot of the tables are too similar, honestly), but there is a super high activation energy to playing it because of all the time you have to invest in die rolling. GURPS is probably the sweet spot in terms of capturing the important issues but also being playable.

Quote from: David Johansen;1004435Admittedly I lean towards balanced weapons rather than having superior ones (the long bow in AD&D2e really bugs me) which is a decidedly gamist take.  I also lean towards the idea that people pick a weapon that matches them physiologically.  That a bigger guy generally uses a bigger sword.

Maybe. However, when you are short, you are already giving away a lot of reach. Giving away more by using a short weapon is questionable. That's why my Dwarf characters like spears.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1004383All potentially deadly hits aren't the same. I have a .38 bullet in my collarbone from 1976. if it had been a .45 I might not be  typing this. If it had been a .44 Magnum I would not be typing this.

Thing is, you have to account for the weapon when picking what constitutes the "potentially deadly hit". I can't speak for firearms, but a slash to the skull with a saber might well kill, or not. The same strike with a bastard sword, most likely will.
Slashing along the same line with a straight razor is only going to be deadly if you don't stop the blood.
(Mind you, I don't think a .38 bullet is the equivalent of a straight razor to the skull. My point is that the .44 to the same place would be the equivalent of the bastard sword).
Also, I like the houserule that light weapons roll 2d6 and pick lowest, the normal weapons just roll 1d6, and the two-handed ones roll 2d6 and pick the highest. You still have the same range from "likely dead" to "likely not dead", but the likelihood varies;).
And then you get retroclones like Havenshield, which takes this, runs with it, and adds a few more steps to account for battles becoming deadlier the longer they last:p.

Quote from: David Johansen;1004435Admittedly I lean towards balanced weapons rather than having superior ones (the long bow in AD&D2e really bugs me) which is a decidedly gamist take.

Well, all weapons are superior in some respect...but the situations where this matters might be more or less frequent. In some cases, they come up so rarely, you might as well not bother:).

QuoteI also lean towards the idea that people pick a weapon that matches them physiologically.  That a bigger guy generally uses a bigger sword.

Actually, it's not so straightforward, IME. You have to account for psychology, too. And then you have to account for mass separately from height. And cross-reference for upbringing and what his most likely opponents were like;).
And then people sometimes take weapons that accentuate their strong sides, and sometimes they go for weapons that cover their weaknesses.

A big, tall guy with long hands has no reasons to get up close, he uses a halberd or glaive. His equally tall, but less sturdy counterpart, uses a spear instead, because it's easier to control for him, due to having less swinging motions.
However, a tall and heavy guy who meets frequently with other tall guys, might well pick a shortsword, due to a preference for closing in with them and using the advantages of the shorter weapon.
Similarly, a shorter guy might use a spear to cover for his lack of reach, or an axe and shield to get up close and personal and use the momentum of the closing.
And all of this goes out the window if they grew up in areas where they had to use a tool regularly. Then most popular weapons are going to be close to said tool. Say, for people living in forests using axes is a natural choice.

And then, of course, if someone else is paying to arm you, he might not care what you prefer:D!

Some of us just don't give a flying fuck for that level of realism.

Heavy foot usually beats an equal number of light foot.  Armored foot usually beats an equal number of heavy foot.  Et cetera.

Medieval armies were armed with a variety of weapons.  None became absolutely dominant.  So, all one handed weapons are the same, and all two handed weapons are the same (2d6 damage, keep highest).

And for the most part medieval warriors wore as much armor as they could get their hands on.  Therefore, more armor makes you more survivable than less armor.

Is it realistic?  I don't fucking CARE.  Roll a d20 to hit and a d6 for damage and get on with the stupid game!

Also, this is a reaction on my part.  At one time I had separate stats for common sword, war sword or arming sword, estoc, falchion, cinquedea, scimitar, and short sword.

At some point I said to hell with it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004458Also, this is a reaction on my part.  At one time I had separate stats for common sword, war sword or arming sword, estoc, falchion, cinquedea, scimitar, and short sword.

At some point I said to hell with it.

You mean you didn't have separate stats for the falx, the mahaira and the kriegmesser;)?!?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004458Also, this is a reaction on my part.  At one time I had separate stats for common sword, war sword or arming sword, estoc, falchion, cinquedea, scimitar, and short sword.

At some point I said to hell with it.

I never took you for a Tunnels and Trolls man

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004458Also, this is a reaction on my part.  At one time I had separate stats for common sword, war sword or arming sword, estoc, falchion, cinquedea, scimitar, and short sword.

At some point I said to hell with it.

What about the pool noodle?! :confused:

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004458Also, this is a reaction on my part.  At one time I had separate stats for common sword, war sword or arming sword, estoc, falchion, cinquedea, scimitar, and short sword.

At some point I said to hell with it.

It's alright. At your age Low T is to be expected.

Low T?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004530Low T?

Testosterone.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004333Because it's derived from a game of mass combat.

100 guys in plate armor with swords vs 100 guys with no armor and swords.  Who you gonna bet on?

The side with better tactics. Or at least the brains not to wade out into really muddy terrain in heavy armour and then get slaughtered. (Which apparently actually happened.) Like high stats, great equipment wont help if the person using it is a moron.

Quote from: Omega;1004551The side with better tactics. Or at least the brains not to wade out into really muddy terrain in heavy armour and then get slaughtered. (Which apparently actually happened.) Like high stats, great equipment wont help if the person using it is a moron.

Agincourt again?
I'm sorry, no disrespect to you Omega, and it's tangentially relevant here, but my god does this one battle get used a lot in medieval warfare arguments.

I am all in favor making game rules have room for bonuses for correct tactics. Some games are better at it than other. But at least some of the good tactics include using the right tools. So in Gronan's example, the army that goes into battle without armor is in fact making a tactical blunder. Agincourt is just an example of wrongly using the  equipment available.

Quote from: AsenRG;1004444Also, I like the houserule that light weapons roll 2d6 and pick lowest, the normal weapons just roll 1d6, and the two-handed ones roll 2d6 and pick the highest. You still have the same range from "likely dead" to "likely not dead", but the likelihood varies;).

A bit basic for my taste, but an interesting concept. I have seen different die mechanics used effectively to allow the average to be the determining factor rather than max damage potential. For example 1d12, 2d6, and 1d10+2 being used for similar weapons. They more or less have the same damage potential but minimum damage and average damage change.

I've never really liked games than had weapons that can't cause serious injury. A .22 pistol and daggers often fall into the class of weapon that can only kill through the death from 1000 paper cuts model. In reality these clearly have less damage potential than a .44 magnum or battle axe, but both are quite capable of killing with a single well placed blow.