Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2024, 09:14:17 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 22, 2024, 08:37:17 PMOooh... We're touching on a subject which is near and dear to my heart.

For my money, if you want a fairly realistic approach to the way ancient/medieval/early modern weapons and armor interact, the optimum way is to address three factors for weapons:
.....

Admittedly, the level of complexity this requires is possibly too much to be practical. I haven't tried to implement it in my own games, but where I can, I do aim for half-measures that move towards the same effect.

This is useful, thanks. Maybe the problem is that I'm putting maces and rondel dagger in the same "defeat armor" category, but they defeat armor for different reasons...

Another thing I don't even want to consider is swords that cut AND thrust - or worse, swords techniques such as half-swording.

Yeah, the variations quickly get so complicated that you can see why D&D chose to just collapse it into AC and say if you beat their AC you must have wounded them somehow.

I'd even be uncomfortable putting a mace in a general "defeats armor" category. From what I've read on the matter, one-handed maces are actually close to useless against late-period full plate harness. You can bash your target around and maybe stun or tire them, but you're unlikely to kill or even seriously wound the target.

Oddly, I think the cut-and-thrust sword is something you don't really need to go out of your way to represent in a "weapon vs. armor" system. Generally (though not universally), there's a give-and-take in cutting and thrusting effectiveness in sword design, so a better cutter is often a worse thruster and vice versa. It think that means you can keep the penetration scores relatively similar for both. A dedicated thrusting sword will probably always be better at bypassing armor, but on the flip-side, a cutting or cut-and-thrust sword is generally easier to use and better for parrying, so it should have a better "wieldiness" score.

Half-swording gets you into the world of grappling, and that's another huge problem here. You can't really replicate the purpose of a lot of late-medieval weapons like longswords, rondels and poleaxes without a grappling system. If you're not prepared to implement a full set of grappling rules, I think you can get away with presuming the grappling capability into the attack and armor bypass rolls, and handling it through DM narration, but it's not a great solution.

The 2d20 system has an interesting, though poorly implemented, mechanic: If you can "break the opponent's guard", you invert the reach differential, so a dagger suddenly has a "reach" advantage over a spear. There's problems with how it works in the system, but on paper it's not a bad way of representing the utility of certain weapons in extremely close fighting.

Personally, I find that I have to improvise grappling rules for all of my games, just to keep the combat plausible. Grappling is a significant part of every medieval or renaissance fighting system we have evidence for, and it's not hard to see why. Not only is it practically the only way to bypass full armor, but whenever you have two people going at each other with high adrenaline and malice aforethought, there's a very good chance of them getting tangled up and having to wrestle it out.

I think there's two reasons RPGs don't much engage with grappling. The first and most obvious reason is that it's such a pain in the balls to write rules for. The second, though, is that a lot of gamers (and by extension designers) think of RPG combat in battlefield terms. I.e., they're thinking of ranks and formations, and the combat dynamics those produce. Realistically, people fighting in a shield wall or a pike block probably almost never got into grapples with their opposition. The more combatants are involved in a fight, the more you want to stay in ranks and not get tied up with a single opponent. Problem is that RPG combats are rarely at the kind of scale where close-order infantry formations would be relevant. They're much more analogous to a skirmish between light troops or even just a street brawl, and that produces a very different dynamic.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 23, 2024, 11:36:13 PMEDIT: You also have to remember that guards are not necessarily gearing up for life or death single combat. A polearm could easily be a very useful tool for crowd control. When performing more "law enforcement" type activities like breaking up fights or making arrests, they'd probably expect to outnumber their opposition and for the felons to be more likely to surrender or run away rather than stand and fight. Real people are a lot less likely to fight the local authorities to the death over a minor infraction than RPG players are. Plus, if you want to put someone down without killing them, a spear haft is going to do the job better than a sword. 

Plus, frequently a guard's job is not to prevent a concerted attack.  It's to intimidate people who have no intention of attacking but might be causing other trouble, stop an attack by untrained people who have underestimated what that polearm can do, or delay an attack by more serious opposition until help can arrive.  Reach is helpful in all three of those cases. 

In game terms, this is another example of what I said earlier.  Does your game have mechanics or encourage situations where any of those things matter?  How frequently?  If not, then such weapons are less useful.

For those Neon Blood and Year Zero fans, a new kickstarter will be out in a couple months.

Personally, I'm hoping this uses the step-dice version that Blade Runner and Twilight 2000 use so elements from both games can be lifted if needed.

Neon Blood YZE

QuoteCommunism in China led to millions of dead. In the late 1980s, Deng adjusted policies to allow foreign partners to come in, but with the Party still dominating. The result was that in two decades, they were able to lift 800 million of their people out of poverty with an ave. economic growth rate of 7 pct per annum. Some say that what they did is a variant of the East Asian model, which Japan used after WW2.

I think several months ago some Harvard professors conducted face-to-face surveys in China, with full assurance of anonymity and decreases in extraneous factors, etc. They found out that most Chinese aren't Communists but vote for the Party because the latter has been promoting the right economic policies, which in turn benefits them. In short, all the while for them it was all about doing business, but that shouldn't be surprising because early on Deng himself called for more prosperity.

What about Vietnam? It was part of containment policies promoted by the U.S., following what Kennan said, throughout the Cold War. The problem is that after the Cold War the U.S. switched to encirclement, and needed to protect the U.S. dollar by keeping other countries weak and thus dependent on the U.S. (That's what those 700+ military installations are for.) Kennan warned the government that if they kept pursuing that then red lines would be crossed and would lead to war. That's what happened in Ukraine, and the U.S. is pushing the same in Asia by using the Philippines, Japan, and even Australia to counter China.

Vietnam is caught in the middle but has been trying to play both sides. It's bullied by China but works with China on various projects, like oil exploration. It has Russia as a military ally but the U.S. has been trying to sell armaments to it. It's ruled by a Communist Party but the U.S. has an approval rating of almost 80 pct in the country. Here's the punch line: it has the most installations in the West Philippine Sea, which is claimed by the Philippines as part of its EEZ, and the Philippines is an ally of the U.S. Go figure.

Meanwhile, that's the same Philippines that's been acting as a martyr for the U.S. for many decades. The U.S. has very high approval ratings in the Philippines, with various U.S. Presidents of either party also receiving similar, and with ratings that are in several cases higher in the Philippines than in the U.S. itself. And yet the same Philippines has been abused by the U.S. for many decades, with the Bell Trade Act, support for the Marcos dictatorship to maintain bases, and then pro-U.S. politicians who followed for the same reason.

By following U.S.-style neoliberalism and liberal democracy, the Philippines de-industrialized across decades (like Ukraine), and ended up as one of the poorest in the region. Even Vietnam, a Communist country, is doing better than it on multiple factors.

It gets even weirder: recently, the U.S. told China that it will not recognize Taiwanese independence because it does not want to anger its trading partner. But it will continue arming Taiwan anyway. And remember China's claim that it owns most of the West Philippine Sea? The claim originates from Taiwan, which still maintains it. That means U.S. ally Taiwan is going against U.S. ally the Philippines.

Maybe that's the other side of the madness depicted in RGPnet and others, but I don't think even they are aware of the points above.

Excelent post, my friend.

QuoteSo you're telling us that NERDS wouldn't have bought big tiddies space babes?

We are not talking about big tiddy space babes, but about titties devoured by powerful pecks DRR "female" athletic team

QuoteNow riddle me this, how are you going to prevent the same bores (or the satanic panic ones) from spoiling your creation without copyright?

Why would I care? Like people can see easily - faking autorship is still illegal - whether it's mine or not, and if puritans or wokesters want their versions of my setting, then like whatever. Even with copyright they can really spoil whatever they want in vastness of fanfiction, and just because they can legally use world and terms does not make their creation in any way official.

Just like all expanded Cthulhu Mythos is not Lovecraft.

QuoteWhich is MY point, putting your setting in the public domain allows ANYONE to use it in whatever way they so choose, and if they have more money/influence than you outsell you thus supplanting your work from the public conscience.

I find it really doubtful unless your setting was bland vanillia shit to begin with.

QuoteAs I've said, don't copyright your IPs. You're signing a death warrant. If you want your IP to survive and not be ruined by corporate, release it into the public domain. You can still trademark it and derivative works aren't automatically in the public domain, so it's still attractive to publishers if you ever need funding. For comparison, Dracula is in public domain and still gets adapted all the time.

Or maybe copyright it for few years to control birthing spasms of fandom if there will be one?

Quote from: Mishihari on Today at 03:40:18 AMI'm going to offer a little unsolicited support to SHARK's position.  It really is about context.  In Luke 10:3-4, the Lord instructs his apostles

    3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
    4 Carry neither a purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

In Luke 22:35-26, he tells them

    35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
    36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

At first glance, these say opposite things.  And note in the second he told his apostles to carry a sword.  The scriptures are full of things that might seem contradictory when interpreted without an understanding of how, where, and why they are supposed to be applied.  IMO understanding the scriptures requires reading ALL of them repeatedly until you have the whole picture in your mind.

Greetings!

Preach on, brother!

And thank you, my friend. I did not have my Bible next to my computer, for reference. Just going by memory from studying the Word!

I was having a conversation with a buddy just the other day. I exhorted him with my observation, that when I was in college, philosophy, and discussing "Higher Criticism" and the usual Atheist's and unbeliever's critiques about the faith, that I jumped even more deeper into the Word. I searched books of Biblical commentaries that discussed the questions, usually from the viewpoint of several different Biblical scholars and strong preachers. Searching the Scriptures deeper, just dig and dig, and *BOOM*--the answers are there. There's always some BS the critics like to slide through, some distraction or obfuscation, but keep digging, listen to good men of God, and study. The Scripture is trustworthy, and powerful. Like the Word says, All Scripture is God-breathed, and sharper than any two-edged sword. Good for salvation, reproof, correction, and righteousness in all things. The Scriptures are as a lamp unto our feet.

Again, I am blessed by your encouragement and good faith!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm going to offer a little unsolicited support to SHARK's position.  It really is about context.  In Luke 10:3-4, the Lord instructs his apostles

    3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
    4 Carry neither a purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

In Luke 22:35-26, he tells them

    35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
    36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

At first glance, these say opposite things.  And note in the second he told his apostles to carry a sword.  The scriptures are full of things that might seem contradictory when interpreted without an understanding of how, where, and why they are supposed to be applied.  IMO understanding the scriptures requires reading ALL of them repeatedly until you have the whole picture in your mind.

Quote from: Domina on April 23, 2024, 06:00:20 PMIn what way does it harm the hobby?
Why is storygaming bad?

If only someone at the start of the thread had posted something like, I don't know, a video answering these exact questions....

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on Today at 12:41:52 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 06:03:38 AMGreetings!

Well, my friend, I personally oppose the Woke based on two things--(1) My Christian faith; and (2) Traditional American Values.

The Woke are Marxist, evil, and traitors to our nation, our Republic, and our people.

And yes, as long as Americans are divided, distracted, and brainwashed with weakness, then the Woke Marxists will win. Americans need to unite, and become hard and fierce. Americans need to harden themselves in doing what needs to be done to heal our land, our nation, and our people.

"Voting harder" will not cleanse our great land, and make us strong. The hard times are coming, and America will need hard men to restore our nation if we are to have any kind of future. Otherwise, we will be choked in diverse rainbow jello and enslaved to a Marxist elite tyrant mommy-state.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK,

How do you square your Christian faith with the commandments, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good", and "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

How can we defend the West from evil, without violating these commandments? This paradox vexes me. What are your thoughts on it?

Neoplatonist1

Greetings!

Well, my friend, do not be vexed! Everything within Scripture has *context*. God does not want us to be helpless, weak, pathetic victims, just bowing down to evil and tyranny. In the New Testament, Christ commands us to when we go about into the world, to carry a sword. The disciples asked Christ, why should we go forth into the world armed, Lord? To which Christ continued, saying, for we live in an evil world. If Christ had wanted us to always be peaceful and sweet, and never do violence, then He would not have commanded us to arm ourselves.

Likewise, the Scriptures talk about being armed, and ready to defend your home and community from the wolves, from the brigand, the robber and thief.

Furthermore, the Scriptures are full of histories and stories of where righteous people rose up--and violently defended themselves, and resisted evil, wickedness, and tyranny. The Old Testament is full of this.

Perhaps, by individual temperament, a person may be so tranquil and so peaceful, as to simply be paralyzed when contemplating violence. Likewise, an individual sincerely convinced and committed to pacifism. The US government has historically acknowledged a sincere conviction of pacifism, based upon a few verses and teachings in Scripture. However, as regards a broader world view, such Scriptures and context would be a minority. There are far more examples, exhortations, and instructions for the Christian to be armed, and prepared for violence, either defending his person, his family, his home, or his community. Defending all from foreign invaders, but also from domestic evil and tyranny.

Quakers, for example, are a historic community within America that have always been committed to pacifism. I don't agree with their interpretation and application of a few Scriptures, but, they have freedom to believe as they do. I think such freedom is not just vouchesafed within our own Constitution, but also I would agree some allowance for such within the spiritual traditions of the Christian faith.

As I mentioned, I believe there is far more Scriptural evidence that does not support Pacifism, and instead counsels courage, being masculine, prepared, and ready to fight. There are also Scriptures that speak against the coward, the traitor, the man who would not fight to defend his community, his family, and his people. The Scriptures focus primarily on men, being dominant, and active--but also applauds and honours even women that stand up against tyranny, and eagerly and faithfully stand together with their men.

Search the Scriptures diligently. All I speak of is truth.

Thus, I sleep well at night, thankful to my Lord Christ, and to my armoury of weapons.

"The Lord teacheth my hands for war"

I hope that I have encouraged you, brother!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 06:03:38 AMGreetings!

Well, my friend, I personally oppose the Woke based on two things--(1) My Christian faith; and (2) Traditional American Values.

The Woke are Marxist, evil, and traitors to our nation, our Republic, and our people.

And yes, as long as Americans are divided, distracted, and brainwashed with weakness, then the Woke Marxists will win. Americans need to unite, and become hard and fierce. Americans need to harden themselves in doing what needs to be done to heal our land, our nation, and our people.

"Voting harder" will not cleanse our great land, and make us strong. The hard times are coming, and America will need hard men to restore our nation if we are to have any kind of future. Otherwise, we will be choked in diverse rainbow jello and enslaved to a Marxist elite tyrant mommy-state.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK,

How do you square your Christian faith with the commandments, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good", and "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

How can we defend the West from evil, without violating these commandments? This paradox vexes me. What are your thoughts on it?

Neoplatonist1