TheRPGSite

One of the guiding design principles of the ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG (http://www.warhammerfantasyroleplay.com) was simplicity. We adopted this approach by eliminating the wounds/hit point maxim, using conditions and injuries instead (http://grimandperilous.com/?p=670). 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 (http://grimandperilous.com/?p=734).

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 (http://grimandperilous.com), 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 (http://www.warhammerfantasyroleplay.com) was simplicity. We adopted this approach by eliminating the wounds/hit point maxim, using conditions and injuries instead (http://grimandperilous.com/?p=670). 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 (http://grimandperilous.com/?p=734).

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 (http://grimandperilous.com), 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.

Quote from: estar;859997Whether 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.

Thanks for reminding me about Harnmaster Estar, Arminus pointed out on http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=842010#post842010 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=842010#post842010) that my combat system in Explore is like Harnmaster except simpler, and I haven't got round to looking at it properly yet. I like it when -3 means a serious wound whether you're a peasant or a giant.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;860093Thanks for reminding me about Harnmaster Estar, Arminus pointed out on http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=842010#post842010 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=842010#post842010) that my combat system in Explore is like Harnmaster except simpler, and I haven't got round to looking at it properly yet. I like it when -3 means a serious wound whether you're a peasant or a giant.

Harnmaster Light is only $10 + shipping from Columbia Games
http://www.columbiagames.com/cgi-bin/query/harn/cfg/single.cfg?product_id=4001L

For that matter the Combat Tables are free to download here
http://www.columbiagames.com/resources/4001/harnmaster-combattables.pdf

The only thing missing is a table of impact values for weapons. You can get a sense of their magnitude from the missile table. It is the second number after the slash.

How it works is that criticals are any roll ending in a 0 or 5. If you succeed it is a critical success if you fail it is a critical failure. This produces four levels of success. You crossindex and if you get a result like A *2 that means you roll 2d6 plus the weapon's impact.

You roll hit location and subtract the armor value. What left will tell you the exact amount of injury and any saves required.  With the cards on hand it combat rounds are resolved fast. Not as fast as classic D&D but a little quicker than other system with detailed combat like GURPS, Runequest, or Hero System.

In the game system I am helping to design, there are three categories of weapons-light, one-handed, and two-handed. Each does a different amount of damage (about 1:2:3). Reach, concealability, and combat economy (mostly being able to use in confined space/grapple and whether you can use a shield alongside) are the main differences for the weapons. However, each weapon type (say swords vs. spears) also has certain qualities such as grapple, entangle, bleed, bypass armor, etc.

This is one of those issues that should already have an answer depending upon the overall design philosophy of the game.

If the overall game is abstract, such as classic D&D then all the small nuances of different weapons do not need to be explored in depth. Combat itself is largely abstracted and taking one facet of that system and going into deep detail clashes with the rest of the system.

If the overall game is very simulationist/ tactical then leaving out something as important as weapon differences would stick out as a weak point in the design.

I can enjoy playing in both types of games. The right answer is to choose the method that best fits with rest of the game.

Quote from: Tod13;859984Maybe 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.

.

but from up close I can shiv you 10 times in a couple of seconds with a knife. If I combine it with a grappling technique I can pin or trap you then take very accurate shots to disable you. So if I can pin you then stab you through your visor, under your armpit or whatever you are done. That is impossible to do with a sword, not to mention if the sword is a weapon like a rapier, small sword or broadsword then the bottom foot of the blade probably isn't even sharp so my options at close quarters are really limited.

Quote from: jibbajibba;860165but from up close I can shiv you 10 times in a couple of seconds with a knife. If I combine it with a grappling technique I can pin or trap you then take very accurate shots to disable you. So if I can pin you then stab you through your visor, under your armpit or whatever you are done. That is impossible to do with a sword, not to mention if the sword is a weapon like a rapier, small sword or broadsword then the bottom foot of the blade probably isn't even sharp so my options at close quarters are really limited.

None of which changes anything I said as far as answering the OP goes. In close, a sword isn't any more difficult to hit with than a knife--either can be trapped, pinned, or controlled by an opponent.

The stopping ability (damage) from both is relatively similar under different usage patterns, with perhaps an edge (pun intended) to the sword, with cutting/slicing being better at stopping an opponent than stabbing. But that difference may (or may not) be interesting or useful for a particular game. Just as being able to better conceal a knife may or may not be important.

(Open spoiler for long winded reply.):D

Spoiler

From an Aikido perspective, the knife is easier to handle as a defender than the sword. For a high level practitioner, there's no difference, as the techniques are the same. For a lower level person, the knife gives more leeway--you're less likely to hit yourself with it taking it away or while controlling the other person.

As I mentioned, stabbing is a pretty difficult way to stop an attacker. It is one of the least effective methods to damage the targets needed to stop an attacker with a blade. You really want to cut particular blood vessels or muscles in order to stop someone. Stabbing the lungs, heart, or even brain, is relatively ineffective. (They may die, eventually, but they won't be stopped. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Just that one is more effective as a general rule.) Knives just aren't as good as swords at cutting.

Swords are more useful in close, at least as the Japanese use and design them, than you seem to think. And you can target very small areas effectively. Lots of Japanese swordwork is done inside of arms reach. For a European squire, taking out the opposing knight, knocked over by his side, a long thin knife is probably more useful.

A dull portion of blade at the base (by which I mean capable of being grabbed in the hand for stabbing as some European schools do) is only important for slicing (dragging a weapon down the target). For a cut (or stab) or even a bludgeon (not as effective), it isn't important. Not all schools, even European, practiced that technique.

Quote from: jibbajibba;860165but from up close I can shiv you 10 times in a couple of seconds with a knife. If I combine it with a grappling technique I can pin or trap you then take very accurate shots to disable you. So if I can pin you then stab you through your visor, under your armpit or whatever you are done. That is impossible to do with a sword, not to mention if the sword is a weapon like a rapier, small sword or broadsword then the bottom foot of the blade probably isn't even sharp so my options at close quarters are really limited.

Yes but what people forget that the use of a broadsword is not just about bladework. It differs as to time period and specific weapons but it combines think like body slams, using arm locks, etc.

For example this is just one of the position illustrated in a German Sword fighting manual.

(http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/7/6/e/0/event_225990432.jpeg)

Quote from: jhkim;860032I 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.

The interesting discussion comes in around the stuff in between: knife, sword, and pistol. (And don't forget the whole pistol caliber argument. LOL) And that goes back to the system being used and how it models and represents things, which ends up deciding what is important.

I find that what matters most to me these days is the effect of injuries sustained in combat. Can I continue to fight as effectively?

I care about the differences between weapons as they relate to the likelyhood of causing different degrees of injury. Is knife more or less likely to disable you than a baseball bat?

The problem I have with many "hit point" systems is that a fighter may perform as well at 1 hit point as he did at 100. I think a fighter who is "nearly dead" should be quite impaired in fighting ability, as should one who is winded and battered. This is different than a one hit kill. Those long dying speeches in Shakespeare after someone has been run through with a rapier are appearently accurate. It took quite a while to die from those wounds, even if you couldn't do much more than talk.

Sometimes even a minor wound can be quite debilitating. Death from a sprained joint is rare, but it sure is an incapacitating injury for a lot of purposes. I put an axe through half of my thumb, for weeks I was effectively one handed while it healed.

Quote from: DavetheLost;860175
The problem I have with many "hit point" systems is that a fighter may perform as well at 1 hit point as he did at 100.

This may not be as true nowadays. I've been reading/researching a lot of RPGs lately. And a lot of them have some sort of fatigue system or minuses to skills, combat, etc. at certain damage levels or even express damage strictly as minuses.

I notice this because I dislike it, as exceeding my paperwork threshold. :o

The software developer, simulationist portion of me likes it. :cool:

all the fancy shenanigans aside you all forgetting Spoon vs the Werewolf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JI_Jfw22To

45 seconds in ... try doing that with a broadsword or a katana .....

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 have five categories:

• d2 -knife, fist, kick, dart


• d4 -dagger, billyclub, hatchet, small hammer, plumbata


• d6 -short sword, hand axe, club, javelin, horseman's hammer/pick/mace/flail, spear


• d8 -sword, axe, footman's mace/pick/hammer/flail, spear used in two hands, lance, polearm


• d10 -two-handed sword, Dane axe, pike, heavy lance

Then I have "tags" like * or + or boldface to show any special properties, like which weapons can be thrown.

I was the person who first suggested different damage for different weapons in OD&D.

Interestingly, I no longer use those "Greyhawk" damage tables and have gone back to all weapons do1d6, with a couple tweaks for 2 handed weapons to compensate for the loss of the shield.

Because I find that the more abstract combat is, the more the players concentrate on other possibilities within the game.

It depends a great deal on the scale and scope of the game.  In a detailed duel I want weapons that reflect how they are used.  Preferably with a small range of statistics rather than an endless list of special case rules.  In a fast flowing mass combat oriented game a distinction by size may be enough.

Much as I love Rolemaster I think Palladium's Strike, Parry, and Throw modifiers are one of the best reflections of usage within a small range of characteristics.  I'd probably add a penetration / tissue damage and speed characteristics if it was my game.

So, a knife is +2 to throw at first level, a broad sword +2 to strike, and a large shield +2 to parry.  They get a lot of millage there but a warhammer could be +2 penetration and a spiked mace +2 tissue damage.  A flail gets +2 penetration and damage but is -2 speed and so forth.  

Because I want weapons to have roles and purposes rather than being special effects.  And yes, you can have that surf board sized sword but it's +2 to penetration and damage and -8 to speed.

Quote from: Moracai;860091A 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.

That's actually a Hollywoodism.  With a knife you have to strike multiple times, or in the right locations, and even then it's often death by blood loss.  One hit with a halberd, can often end the fight right there.  'Used correctly' is a nice fantasy.

Both are lethal, but one takes more work to kill with.  It's the amount of shock and trauma you can do to a body when using weapons that slow.  With a bullet, moving at MACH speeds (or close to, depending on the calibur) it's actually speed that causes the 'damage', momentum + impact = trauma/shock = sometimes death.  Which frankly, physically, is minimal compared to an axe or sword.

Thing is, this is gaming, which means whatever the designer is emulating, or even believes is what the system will do.

Personally, I like varying damage by class of weapon, combined with type of damage.  Daggers do less, swords and one handed weapons of a certain length do another number, two handed weapons do more, and no one uses a polearm for adventuring because it's a battlefield weapon better suited for formation fighting in groups larger and more uniform than the average adventuring party.  Then we add in bludgeoning, piercing, slashing to the mix, to deal with some monster types, and I'm happy.

Although I do like the Barbarians of Lemuria system, in which everything does a D6 in one hand and D6+2 if it's meant for two.  Some weapons can only be used with a certain way, but other than that.

Quote from: Elfdart;860248I have five categories:

Reminds me slightly of Ryuutama. I was re-reading it last night and realized I really like how they handle weapons. It basically uses three of the four stats in the game for the various weapons. I might play with this idea more, as I like the idea that certain weapons (light blades below) do damage based on intelligent use, not strength. Bows are based on Dexterity. Unarmed is still based on STR, but I could see using DEX or INT on that if you wanted to represent a martial art like Aikido. Depending on how "spiritual" you wanted your art, the fourth stat Spirit could be used for that.

(spoiler has Ryuutame weapon stats)

Spoiler

Light Blade (one handed): dagger, short sword, wakizashi, etc.
Accuracy: [DEX + INT] +1
Damage: [INT] -1

Blade (one handed): broadsword, rapier, katana, etc.
Accuracy: [DEX + STR]
Damage: [STR]

Polearm (two handed): longspear, trident, lance, etc.
Accuracy: [DEX + STR]
Damage: [STR] +1

Axe (two handed): battleaxe, greataxe, etc.
Accuracy: [STR + STR] -1
Damage: [STR]

Bow (ranged, two handed): shortbow, longbow, crossbow, etc.
Accuracy: [INT + DEX] -2
Damage: [DEX]

Unarmed (two handed): unarmed combat, using a stick, etc.
Accuracy: [DEX + STR]
Damage: [STR] -2 (Using an improvised weapon makes this -1 instead)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;860267
Although I do like the Barbarians of Lemuria system, in which everything does a D6 in one hand and D6+2 if it's meant for two.  Some weapons can only be used with a certain way, but other than that.

I agree with most of what I snipped away.

BTW, BoL: Mythic Edition changed this slightly. Weapons now do d6L (roll two, pick lower, which is generally 1-3), d6H (roll two, pick higher, which is generally 4-6), and d6. Unarmed or improvised is d3. Generally, your Strength or 1/2 Strength are added to damage. (For reference, max starting stat is 3 and the best armor in the game, plate, stops 1d6-1 damage.)

Quote from: Tod13;860177This may not be as true nowadays. I've been reading/researching a lot of RPGs lately. And a lot of them have some sort of fatigue system or minuses to skills, combat, etc. at certain damage levels or even express damage strictly as minuses.

I notice this because I dislike it, as exceeding my paperwork threshold. :o

The software developer, simulationist portion of me likes it. :cool:

Indeed. About a month ago a friend showed me a game I hadn't even heard of (I forget, something like Buccaneers of the Seven Winds.) The game had no stats, just skills and character descriptive aspects. Taking damage meant reducing your skills or aspects. So an injury would look like:

GM: You took 4 levels of damage.
Player: I'll reduce my Climbing 2 levels and Love of Homeland 2 levels.

A character had a limited amount of skills so it worked out. A guy could only take a few blows before he was near useless. It was interesting for a one-shot, I don't know how it would work out for a long term campaign. I do kinda like the idea that the more beat up a guy is the less he can do and the less he cares about things on a social level.

I suppose that if Zweihander works a lot like WFRP it could stick to d10s only. In that case the weapon categories could all be d10-based. Eg: d5 for small, d10 for medium and 2d10 keep the highest for large.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;860267That's actually a Hollywoodism.  With a knife you have to strike multiple times, or in the right locations, and even then it's often death by blood loss.  

Yeah, sure (edit - forgot to add a sarcasm face: :rolleyes:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_injury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_injury)

QuoteIn the 1880s a severe liver injury would in most cases prove fatal in the first 24 hours after sustaining the injury.

QuoteLiver injuries constitute 5% of all traumas, making it the most common abdominal injury.

QuoteThis can occur through either a blunt force such as a car accident, or a penetrating foreign object such as a knife.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860251I was the person who first suggested different damage for different weapons in OD&D.

Interestingly, I no longer use those "Greyhawk" damage tables and have gone back to all weapons do1d6, with a couple tweaks for 2 handed weapons to compensate for the loss of the shield.

Because I find that the more abstract combat is, the more the players concentrate on other possibilities within the game.

:hatsoff:

Might I ask what houserules you use for 2 handed weapons?

Quote from: Moracai;860370Yeah, sure (edit - forgot to add a sarcasm face: :rolleyes:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_injury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_injury)

QuoteIn the 1880s a severe liver injury would in most cases prove fatal in the first 24 hours after sustaining the injury.

Because death within 24 hours from a perforated liver and death from the massive hemorrhaging that occurs when a halberd takes off your head or severs your femoral artery are all exactly the same result. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Bren;860384Because death within 24 hours from a perforated liver and death from the massive hemorrhaging that occurs when a halberd takes off your head or severs your femoral artery are all exactly the same result. :rolleyes:

Thank you.

Yeah, I know.

It probably wouldn't be very satisfying to play a character with a RL-equivalent liver wound in a setting that has pre WWII medtech level. Yet another reason why RPGs shouldn't try to simulate real life :)

Quote from: Moracai;860409Yeah, I know.

It probably wouldn't be very satisfying to play a character with a RL-equivalent liver wound in a setting that has pre WWII medtech level. Yet another reason why RPGs shouldn't try to simulate real life :)

Sounds interesting to me. At least it's not going to drag on.

Once I was doubtful if I'd want to stick with a certain GURPS campaign run by a GM who was at least trying to be realistic. I gave him my PC a low health so I might be likely to die off quickly. As it turns out, I was the last PC left alive. Later (out of game) he ruled that I'd get killed though.

Far too many assumptions built in the question.

If you are going to provide a choice of weapons, make it an interesting choice, or constrain it in some way.

This was my problem with the original 3 D&D booklets practically from day 1. I agree with Phillip (or at least what I think he was saying here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=860445&postcount=77)) that if you're going to have a well-defined mechanical effect of different armor types, then the same should apply to weapons.

How you do that--it depends. I've seen people suggest here that given D&D's level of abstraction in terms of how HPs and to-hit rolls work, it would be sufficient, even desirable, to just use the weapon-vs-armor modifiers and not use variable damage. (Quick thought: maybe use weapon-vs-armor when facing enemies who actually wear armor, such as humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, etc., and use the variable damage including vs. S/M and L when facing enemies whose AC isn't mainly due to actual armor.)

Again, it all depends on the totality of the combat system. From a quick glance at the pages linked in the OP, the approach advocated looks reasonable there in terms of effect, but rather convoluted in terms of procedure. Maybe that's just a matter of presentation in the blog and lack of familiarity on my part.

If the aim is to evoke Warhammer FRP, then (based on my distant memory) one thing that stands out is that using up the hit-point buffer is a prelude to serious specific wound rolls. I don't recall the details of the original, but differentiating more in terms of the latter might be interesting.

A nastier weapon might thus not do much to help you win the fight per se (that being more dependent on skill) -- but could still make a big difference in the consequences for him that ends up smitten more than smiting.

In fact, that's something I might do in my D&D house rules ... already had a deal of tossing to generate results at 0 HP instead of always simple death.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860251I was the person who first suggested different damage for different weapons in OD&D.

Interestingly, I no longer use those "Greyhawk" damage tables and have gone back to all weapons do1d6, with a couple tweaks for 2 handed weapons to compensate for the loss of the shield.

Because I find that the more abstract combat is, the more the players concentrate on other possibilities within the game.

That is kind of where we have moved our game over the years, at least for D&D and related games.

Out of curiosity, did Gary ever say what the reasoning was behind the weapon damages? Was it an attempt to replicate real world effects (like the weapon vs. Armor charts supposedly were), or some form of balancing measure? This probably is answered in many interviews, but I thought I'd ask since you are here.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;860617That is kind of where we have moved our game over the years, at least for D&D and related games.

Out of curiosity, did Gary ever say what the reasoning was behind the weapon damages? Was it an attempt to replicate real world effects (like the weapon vs. Armor charts supposedly were), or some form of balancing measure? This probably is answered in many interviews, but I thought I'd ask since you are here.

I'm also curious about this.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;860617That is kind of where we have moved our game over the years, at least for D&D and related games.

Out of curiosity, did Gary ever say what the reasoning was behind the weapon damages? Was it an attempt to replicate real world effects (like the weapon vs. Armor charts supposedly were), or some form of balancing measure? This probably is answered in many interviews, but I thought I'd ask since you are here.

Nope, he did it and said "here it is" and we said "cool."  It's obviously his attempt to give weapons some sort of real world correspondence as he saw fit, based more or less on CHAINMAIL, but we never really questioned it.

I like how Dark Heresy had handle weapons.  Just with 1d5 to 2d10 with qualities.  So hybrid all the way.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860663Nope, he did it and said "here it is" and we said "cool."  It's obviously his attempt to give weapons some sort of real world correspondence as he saw fit, based more or less on CHAINMAIL, but we never really questioned it.

When did he develop the weapon v. armor modifiers found in Greyhawk? Do you know what prompted that? When did he use them (i.e. consistently or occasionally; beginning from the time of invention to whenever you last played with him, or over some other period)?

I suppose he developed them about the same time.

He never used them and I don't know anybody who did; we saw it as way too much fiddle-fucking around.  I kind of liked the weapon damage chart because it drove fighters to use swords which was a nice piece of genre emulation.

But now I think simplest is best.

I found them very easy to use with the Dungeon Tac Cards published by Judges Guild. When 1e came out, though, there wasn't a corresponding set of cards available, and things got extra confused by the proliferation of armor types that overlapped in terms of armor class. (I.e. some armor without shield had the same AC as another armor without shield.)

These days if I wanted to use it with 0e or one on of the Basic lines, I'd pre-calculate the number to hit each AC with each weapon and have the player copy the line of numbers onto their character sheet.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860663Nope, he did it and said "here it is" and we said "cool."  It's obviously his attempt to give weapons some sort of real world correspondence as he saw fit, based more or less on CHAINMAIL, but we never really questioned it.

Hmm. Okay, thanks! I wish I had been more active on forums when he was still around and answering questions. I'd have loved to have asked about the s-m/l split, etc.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;860016From 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.

I didn't implicitly mark them as "indicators", but spears do have reach, for example.

Quote from: estar;860169Yes but what people forget that the use of a broadsword is not just about bladework. It differs as to time period and specific weapons but it combines think like body slams, using arm locks, etc.

For example this is just one of the position illustrated in a German Sword fighting manual.

(http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/7/6/e/0/event_225990432.jpeg)

Relevant to this: how people really fought with swords (http://kotaku.com/how-people-actually-fought-with-swords-1738583124).

Yeah, I rather figured Gygax's numbers were far more along the lines of "a polearm does more damage than a sword does more damage than a dagger" than any sense of the real life damaging power of those weapons.

Then again, c'mon, folks: since when was OD&D intended to be a hallmark of realism?

For my part, I didn't answer the poll question because there wasn't a result with which I could identify.  I do use GURPS, and therefore I use a system where weapons have different damage types and different damages, adjusted by strength.  But I don't mind more abstract systems, and a Little Weapon: 2/3rd X / Medium Weapon: X / Big Weapon: 1.5X / Honking Giant Effing Weapon: 2.5x system doesn't bug me.

Gary's Rule: If it's Swiss, it rules.

Quote from: Phillip;862117Gary's Rule: If it's Swiss, it rules.

I never realized Gygax (http://lastnames.myheritage.com/last-name/Gygax) was Swiss. Now everything makes sense.

FWIW, here are my 2c: 1d6 damage for all weapons, 1d6-2 small weapons, 1d6+2 for big weapons, BUT this +2/-2 is applied to things like backstabbing, defeating heavy armor and big opponents, so a big weapon is good versus "big" and a small weapon is good when wrestling, backstabbing, etc.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/10/single-digit-weapons.html

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.

I really like the elegance and fairness of this.

Quote from: Doughdee222;860303Indeed. About a month ago a friend showed me a game I hadn't even heard of (I forget, something like Buccaneers of the Seven Winds.) The game had no stats, just skills and character descriptive aspects. Taking damage meant reducing your skills or aspects... A guy could only take a few blows before he was near useless. It was interesting for a one-shot, I don't know how it would work out for a long term campaign. I do kinda like the idea that the more beat up a guy is the less he can do and the less he cares about things on a social level.

This is really interesting, too. Thanks for sharing!

In response to the OP, I'm in favour of  the same or very similar damage for most weapons, plus qualities for differentiation (if you and your group want that.) I understand that different systems are appropriate for different genres, but essentially I'm almost always looking for systems that provide fast, fair resolution and then get out of the way.

I don't see much of a point in having minute differences in weapon damage. Having things like certain special maneuvers that some weapons can do, or weapon speeds or reach or stuff like that is at least more interesting (though it can sometimes create the problem of everyone wanting to play with one weapon that for design-flaw reasons has a bigger advantage than any other).

Quote from: RPGPundit;863335I don't see much of a point in having minute differences in weapon damage. Having things like certain special maneuvers that some weapons can do, or weapon speeds or reach or stuff like that is at least more interesting (though it can sometimes create the problem of everyone wanting to play with one weapon that for design-flaw reasons has a bigger advantage than any other).

I agree with this. It's just a case of different strokes for different folks.

At least half of the group I'm currently playing in confess to getting a lot of their pleasure from poring over weapon lists, feat lists, etc. In contrast, the group I run are much more to my taste (though I've had to put on hold for a while due to work), as they prefer lighter, looser systems.

The challenge is that no system is all things to all men.

If the game has statistics for weapons, I prefer a limited number of weapon types with different qualities. Old School Hack is quite perfect for me.

tl;dr: Having no differences between things that are different, makes me not interested in a game.

I've always noticed that when I first start out considering playing a game, starting with when I only know the concept, I engage it as "oh, I have interest in playing a game about that". For example, I was drawn to threads about the game Zweihander, imagining a game where giant German two-handed swords would be an element of play. That sounds like it offers some satisfying heavy impacts, and lots of combat. Ok, I'm into that.

I've also noticed long long ago (age 8?) that there comes a point when, with most games, I grow disinterested. By age 15, I was pretty clear the usual cause: once I know how the game actually works, I start engaging the game at the the level of the rules, and if those rules are not like my ideas about the things the game is supposedly about, then I stop engaging the game as being about the things it pretends to be about - instead it's about game mechanics which work differently, and have little or no association for me to whatever the game represents. So for example when I read this thread and see it's asking if Zweihander should have any difference between a giant two-handed sword and a knife, and some people are saying something like "no, all weapons can do 1d6", then I am thinking Zweihander may be a strange name for an RPG about weapons that are all the same and do 1d6, or at least that the game is very unlikely to be very representative or detailed.

So why have "small" differences in stats for different weapons? Because if you don't, then they're not really different in the game, and it seems pointless or annoying to have them be called different things if they're really the same, unless they are really equivalent in use at the abstraction level of the game. But even then, the abstraction level shows the level where the game really lets you engage with the subject. So if you're not interested in the detailed situation of weapon differences, fine. I remain interested. If I'm a fighter, and the game doesn't make any difference between equipment, there's nothing for me to engage there, and I'm not interested in pretending to be someone whose interests and thinking is irrelevant and abstracted away - it makes me want to play games where those things are detailed, instead.

Weapons of Choice (or Necessity)

Historically, training seems usually to have trumped technology. Before the Romans, heavy infantry tended to favor spears rather than swords; maybe the former are better for citizen-soldiers, the latter for professionals. Tribes that didn't build cities tended not to field heavy infantry, but to adopt tactics suited to the weapons they used for hunting or protecting herds: the arms they knew how to use well.

If you haven't spent years learning to use a bow, you're probably better off with a musket. If you have spent years learning to shoot a bow from the saddle at a gallop, then any carbine short of a good breechloading repeater may be not much more than  a club to you.

Death of a Thousand Paper Cuts
"You can bring a knife to a gunfight, son, but if you bring a Form 2082(b) then it had better be in triplicate!"

A lot of things that could be deadly in a carefully planned assassination would not be sensible equipment for combat. In the interest of fantasy, some things that are more showy than practical might be rendered reasonably effective in the hands of a specialist gladiator or kung fu artist, but it does not follow that they should be so useful to others.

Plan B? What was Plan A again?
A soldier in any era might feel naked without a dagger. It's just the thing for when the scrap is basically a tumbling wrestle, as when you're pounced on by a beast fighting with fang and claw. It's advantageous for other special cases as well (stealthy ones for instance), and depending on design it might also be a fine working knife.

However, many generations of fighting men have found it definitely something to fall back on rather than to make their primary weapon. Even a great expert who sticks with knives probably does so  for the sake of a personal pleasure that matters more to him than tipping the odds in his favor. (It's like Celts going to battle naked, perhaps.)

Simple clubs are in the same category. A carefully shaped war club of hard wood may be in the same neighborhood as a mace with a head of stone or metal, but except for some sneaky killings something like a baton or baseball bat is not especially attractive unless you place a premium on taking captives. Even then, the Aztec would often use the flat of a stone-edged club resembling a sword.

Some weapons were carried mainly for throwing, and were probably in this category for hand-to-hand combat if the warriors typically carried something else for that.

Standard Equipment
Axe, mace, sword and short spear seem to have been about equally effective in trained hands. (A notable exception might be the Zulus' abandonment of traditional spear in favor of swordlike assegai.)

A thrusting weapon is better suited to close formations,while a swung one calls for more elbow room. Longer spears allow more ranks to get the point stuck in. Heavy swords and axes might suit warriors who are big on individual prowess and think little of unit cohesion.

Since FRP adventurers tend more to one-on-one duels, their weapon preferences might be different from those of soldiers bound for battle. For instance, the heavy two-handed sword might not be quite the rarity it is in proper wars.

On that pont, I'm thinking the greatsword might be -- in a master's hands -- as good as sword and shield in melee. Vulnerability to missiles would be a trade for a less encumbering kit, so you can outrun what you can't fight. It was deployed to make openings in pike formations, but so were sword and buckler men.

On a related note, the bronze-faced heavy hoplite shield could stand up to determined spear thrusts but had (perhaps by design) a grip that was not so good for fighting singly. The Roman legionary's shield was better for the latter, but definitely burdensome enough to make discarding it advisable for flight (or to pursue an enemy in flight). A lighter shield, of wicker and hide, could deflect or slow many incoming missiles while giving good mobility, but would not be so tough in melee. Macedonian pikemen had a smaller, shoulder-slung variation on the hoplite shield that let them use both hands to grip their weapons.

Special Weapons Section
Flails, bills, etc., were (a) modifications of peasant tools and (b) better for whacking the men on horseback than a hatchet. A problem with such a long weapon is that if the enemy gets past the business end, you've got to back up (or choke up) to be able to hit back. In a dungeon, you're not likely to have much room for that. If you've got a mass of guys in several ranks behind you, some of them can get in blows while you draw another weapon, but it's not really a very good setup for close quarters.

Even in the field, peasant levies were no match for phalanxes of well drilled soldiers able to maintain tight formation without stumbling over each other's weapons. Even crack pikemen would be hard pressed to keep gaps from opening on uneven ground. Getting outflanked could easily be disastrous; cavalry tended to be occupied keeping the enemy cavalry from making an end run.