One of the guiding design principles of the ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG was simplicity. We adopted this approach by eliminating the wounds/hit point maxim, using conditions and injuries instead. As a part of this, we eliminated the differences in damage output by weapon, focusing on qualities of the weapon to distinguish each from one another. I posted a recent article on the website here about it today.

Most role-playing games use different weapon damages, depending on the size of the weapon. This is mostly driven by gut instinct from a design perspective, as there is simply no way to factually indicate that a dirk is less dangerous than a sword with all the factors that come into play during combat.

My question for you is this: which do you personally prefer in the RPGs you play? And, help me understand your perspective. I am looking to potentially revisit this option in ZWEIHANDER, and need some constructive thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of this approach with respect to other role-playing games.

Thanks!

Different damage and different qualities.

All else being equal, a solid hit to the ribs with a two-handed sword is going to do more damage than a solid hit to the ribs with a policeman's baton.

A two-handed sword is going to be more burdensome to carry than a baton and a lot more difficult to conceal under a trench-coat. And the guy with the baton needs to get inside the reach of the zwiehander to be able to hit his opponent. Once he does, the zwiehander wielder may be at a disadvantage and will certainly need to use his sword in a different manner (hilt or pommel punch perhaps). A main gauche, a stiletto, and a Bowie knife are all daggers, and whether the damage is the same or different, their ability to trap an opponent's blade, stab through a small gap in armor, or be thrown for deadly damage should be different.

Well, if you get the qualities right so they don't offer stupid results, I'd be fine. For example, a close-up quality that allows you to kill faster with a knife than with a sword, as long as you're up close? Then I'm totally fine with damage being the same, otherwise, as long as the zweihander also has a quality which means that at distance, it might not need to hit you a second time.

But in general, like Bren, I'd prefer both, unless the damage you're using is quite abstract.
If it's the d20 level of abstract, where hit points represent everything that keeps you alive, I think all weapons dealing 1d6 is better than different weapon damage.
The more specific damage gets, the more I like different damage per weapon.

Same damage but different qualities is an interesting concept. I would have to see how it is actually written up and plays out before I can judge. Bren gives good examples though, different things are going to cause different damages. Yes, I'd rather be hit by a police baton than a battle-ax or halberd. It's one thing if your talking about just humanoids, another if you expand to large animals, dinosaurs and other "monsters." I'd rather face a monster with a sword or halberd in my hand than a dagger or a billy club.

Maybe make it a two-tier system. 1d6 for most 1-hand weapons, 1d10 for 2-h, leave it at that. (Then there are muscle and momentum bonuses, but I presume you already have those covered. And skill too. A well trained guy with a knife can do more damage in 3 seconds than an untrained guy with a sword can do in 5 or 10. Just a few days ago I watched the final episode of Dexter where he kills a guy with a couple stabs of a pen. Dexter is just that skilled and knowledgable.)

Maybe it is my experience in Aikido and Iaido, but I don't see a knife being easier to hit with in closer than a sword. As a defender, the knife is still smaller and easier to deal with than a meter or two of sword. But then, Aikido is designed for, by, and with that sort of work.

That much aside, a sword can stab deeper and from further away than a knife. A sword has more mass/momentum/leverage than a knife when cutting. (Sorry, if a knife is 2 feet long, regardless of what you call it, it is still a sword.)

For the targets for quick incapacitation or inability to fight back, arteries/veins in the neck, along the spine, inside the wrist, back leg muscles, and the arteries around (but not the heart itself), are all more readily damaged appropriately to incapacitate a person by cutting rather than stabbing. (The idea here is "stopping" the person, not damaging them enough to kill them. Since a lethally damaged person could still have enough time to kill you.)

A big deal is concealability. Movies and TV aside, unless you're doing nothing but standing there, nobody is going to not notice the 30+ inches of blade under your trench coat, especially if you have to sit.

That all said, as long as 1) smaller knifes are more concealable than larger swords and 2) bigger swords on average do more damage than smaller knives, I'm good.

As someone else suggested, if everything does 1d6 with humans having 4-6 HP, I'm good with that too, if it fits the system. I'm a fan of simplicity and as far as humans and medium sized game is concerned, that's fine.

I have each weapon giving bonuses to hit, to parry, and to kill. Each weapon has a different set of bonuses, thus giving them a different feel. Off hand weapons (and shields) all give a total bonus of 3, one-handed weapons give a total bonus of 6, two-handed give a total bonus of 9. So everyone gets a bonus of 9, but you can choose your weapons for mechanical effect, or for flavour without it impeding your effectiveness. (Though some weapons are sub-par and don't get a full bonus, e.g. club). Note that bonuses in my game are all equivalently good, this might be tricky to pull off otherwise, but I'm sure there'd be a solution.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;859987I have each weapon giving bonuses to hit, to parry, and to kill. Each weapon has a different set of bonuses, thus giving them a different feel. Off hand weapons (and shields) all give a total bonus of 3, one-handed weapons give a total bonus of 6, two-handed give a total bonus of 9. So everyone gets a bonus of 9, but you can choose your weapons for mechanical effect, or for flavour without it impeding your effectiveness. (Though some weapons are sub-par and don't get a full bonus, e.g. club). Note that bonuses in my game are all equivalently good, this might be tricky to pull off otherwise, but I'm sure there'd be a solution.

That's a nicely elegant setup. I may steal that if it becomes necessary.

I've been playing in a Mazes & Minotaurs campaign and was surprised to find that I quite liked that all weapons do pretty much the same damage. So I feel better about taking the weapon I feel my character would have rather than going after the 'best' one.
Same damage but different qualities would be something of interest as well.

All in all I can't say I have a preference as long as it doesn't slow down the game and doesn't give wildly implausible results.

I don't understand the poll choices, so I voted Hybrid/other. I like a GURPS-like approach, with even more emphasis on weapon size/type. That is, different weapons should do appropriate damage in terms of wound severity, ability to do penetrate different types of armor, and effects of damage. Strength of wielder should also affect not just ability and ease of use, but also damage for weapons that use the muscle of the wielder, at least up to a certain point (e.g. a dagger might have a max damage because both a 17-year-old and Conan might be able to bury it in someone's head with equal effect, though Conan would be much more likely to get the max result each time).

If in a game named after one of the largest types of sword ever used in battle, Zweihander, were to have such weapons give the same results as any other weapon, it would quickly rise to the top of my list of examples of inexplicable game designs.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;859952One of the guiding design principles of the ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG was simplicity. We adopted this approach by eliminating the wounds/hit point maxim, using conditions and injuries instead. As a part of this, we eliminated the differences in damage output by weapon, focusing on qualities of the weapon to distinguish each from one another. I posted a recent article on the website here about it today.

Sorry I am a bit meh on this. It is hit points just reskinned where attacks can do 1,2, or 3 hit points depending on damage dice total compares to what you call the damage threshold.

Whether an RPG has damage tracks (Fate), or a low amount of hit hit points (Runequest, GURPS), or a high hit point total (D&D) it hard to get away from subtracting numbers from another number.

The only system I seen that really gets away from this is Harnmaster. But even it has a pool of numbers called injury. As you take more hits you keep adding to the the injury pool. The injury total only has one effect, it makes ability saves and skill rolls more difficult.

Every strike has the potential of sending the character into shock/unconsciousness. Harder hitting attacks can make a characters stumble or fumble. And the Hardest hitting attack of course can kill or maim. These are handled by requiring the character make an ability save. The more injuries you have the harder it is to make the save.
 

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;859952Most role-playing games use different weapon damages, depending on the size of the weapon. This is mostly driven by gut instinct from a design perspective, as there is simply no way to factually indicate that a dirk is less dangerous than a sword with all the factors that come into play during combat.

Sure it matters.  As the damage is a result of force inflicting trauma. Force is computed by mass times acceleration. The weapon design focuses the energy of the combatant's arm motion in a useful way. Weapon design changes over the centuries because of how Armor changes.

In GURPS where one roll = one swing of a weapon in a one second round. The exact characteristics of a weapon is important. In Harnmaster with how they do armor and hit location it is important to how know how well a weapon does blunt, edge, or point trauma.

With that being said does F=m*a matter when a combat round is more about the action that occurs over tens of seconds to a minute? Probably not. The most abstract combat is the less important the different characteristics of weapons have.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;859952My question for you is this: which do you personally prefer in the RPGs you play? And, help me understand your perspective. I am looking to potentially revisit this option in ZWEIHANDER, and need some constructive thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of this approach with respect to other role-playing games.

I don't like damage tracks. I find them too coarse. In that case I rather the system be more like Harnmaster where damage is about you becoming ineffective and injury is about failing saves.

If I am to have hit points then I like how GURPS and Runequst do it. For something more heroic I prefer how OD&D and D&D 5e handle hit points.

Quote from: Simlasa;859990I've been playing in a Mazes & Minotaurs campaign and was surprised to find that I quite liked that all weapons do pretty much the same damage. So I feel better about taking the weapon I feel my character would have rather than going after the 'best' one.
Same damage but different qualities would be something of interest as well.

This is pretty much the approach I prefer for much the same reasons. You can add a bit of variation and injecting a bit more colour without moving away to far from this principle. At least that is what I aimed for in Cyberblues City.

I like the idea of weapons being grouped into three broad size categories, each doing a different die of damage (eg.: small is d6, medium is d8 and large is d10). Extra differentiation is handled with little rules or "tags" (eg.: spears have "reach" and "ready").

Quote from: Necrozius;860005I like the idea of weapons being grouped into three broad size categories, each doing a different die of damage (eg.: small is d6, medium is d8 and large is d10). Extra differentiation is handled with little rules or "tags" (eg.: spears have "reach" and "ready").

From what I recall, this is similar to how RPG Pundit handled it in his Dark Albion book. I am unsure if he introduced additional tags, but I do seem to recall there being a general 1d4/1d6/1d8 ruleset for weapons.

Quote from: Necrozius;860005I like the idea of weapons being grouped into three broad size categories, each doing a different die of damage (eg.: small is d6, medium is d8 and large is d10). Extra differentiation is handled with little rules or "tags" (eg.: spears have "reach" and "ready").

I prefer this. I'm not interested in little differences in damage, but there should be a difference between a fist and a sword, or a sword and a shotgun.

A knife is as deadly as halberd, when used correctly. Different qualities is the way to go in Zweihänder, IMO. Bigger damage dice is just simplification for deadliness factor, and not quite what I imagine you are after in your game.