Official Thread for "Non-Flashy Fighter Discussion"

[Anguirus]

How many weapon groups do you propose to have in total including ranged weapons? Or do you propose to not have weapon groups at all and make specific advantages and disadvantages for every weapon represented in the game? At that point how many different weapons do you intend to represent? As for misrepresenting your position, you implied very heavily that you don't want assassination to be a more viable option than direct combat. If that is not the case then I apologize.

[CatharzGodfoot]

In reference to an earlier comment made concerning weapon types, I think getting too broad in selection is a bad idea, because improvised weapons are fairly important and you shouldn't be crippled if you choose to use them (use a broom as you would a quarterstaff, for example). Now, how those two things tie together is on the facet that if you're too specific with how a weapon's designed to determine what properties it has and doesn't have, then gauging what an improvised weapon would equate to would be time-consuming.

Code: Select all

Weapons:
         | Small  | Medium | Large
---------+--------+--------+------
Bashing  |  sap   |  club  | staff
Cutting  | dagger |  sword |  axe
Stabbing | dagger |  sword | spear

A bottle would be small and stabbing. A chair would be large and bashing. A table would be extra-large and bashing. Sharp sticks aside, most improvised weapons would be bashing.

If you're using a abstract HP system, sand in the eyes should do HP damage just like a sword swing, it just won't deal wounds. Otherwise it could be a 1-round debuff.

[Elennsar]

I don't want assassination to be a) viable and b) appropriate.

It -is- easy to kill someone in their sleep. There's a lot of good reasons not to, which characters who care about such things actually care about.

Some of them are advantageous or can be advantageous, some are not.

If its taken for granted as the baseline behavior everyone and their brother exhibits that you let someone get to their feet when they trip (on a root or something), then you don't need a bonus for it, its just the "you're not a dishonorable person, with whatever dishonorable means." baseline - like not screwing your sister.

As for weapon groups, I propose that we actually decide what exact weapons we want people using (and what "improvised" weapons are useful enough to need to be roughly compatible - chair leg as club, woodcutter's axe as manslayer's axe etc. can be based on the latter but worse.) and then see what "groups" we can make.

It may well be worth it to make a curved sword better for cutting people (while on horseback) - with the advantage of a straightsword being that it thrusts better.

A spear may not be a great weapon in terms of damage (either vs. the armored or unarmored), but having reach could be immensely useful.

Or it could be merely convenient to have - you want one when boar hunting, but you fight your fellows with a sword.

I would like to emphasis the difference between a cutlass and an arming sword, and if they both are "slashing swords, one handed", the only difference that I can emphasis is when drawing my character.

[virgil]

While that table might work to an extent, it's very arguable that you can get some better combat options with some improvised weapons over others; that is supposedly the source of ninja weapons, styles/tricks developed with improvised weapons.

[Anguirus]

I don't want assassination to be a) viable and b) appropriate.

It -is- easy to kill someone in their sleep. There's a lot of good reasons not to, which characters who care about such things actually care about.

Some of them are advantageous or can be advantageous, some are not.

If its taken for granted as the baseline behavior everyone and their brother exhibits that you let someone get to their feet when they trip (on a root or something), then you don't need a bonus for it, its just the "you're not a dishonorable person, with whatever dishonorable means." baseline - like not screwing your sister.

As for weapon groups, I propose that we actually decide what exact weapons we want people using (and what "improvised" weapons are useful enough to need to be roughly compatible - chair leg as club, woodcutter's axe as manslayer's axe etc. can be based on the latter but worse.) and then see what "groups" we can make.

It may well be worth it to make a curved sword better for cutting people (while on horseback) - with the advantage of a straightsword being that it thrusts better.

A spear may not be a great weapon in terms of damage (either vs. the armored or unarmored), but having reach could be immensely useful.

Or it could be merely convenient to have - you want one when boar hunting, but you fight your fellows with a sword.

I would like to emphasis the difference between a cutlass and an arming sword, and if they both are "slashing swords, one handed", the only difference that I can emphasis is when drawing my character.

And you want to represent social reasons for not assassinating people in combat mechanics? Also you didn't answer my question -at least not directly. How many distinct groups do we have in your system?

[Elennsar]

I want to represent social reasons and pyschological reasons as part of the what-the-hell-is-important.

If "Easiest way to kill someone' is the "best way to kill someone" and we leave it there, we get poisoned daggers at night.

Not Indiana Jones - even the scene with him shooting the guy challenging him with a sword.

As for weapon groups: If we're only using a dozen individual weapons, I'm less concerned about weapon groups than if we're using thirty, so until we know what weapons we are using, dividing them up is kind of pointless.

In Arturius, for instance (and I'm not recommending this here - but it works in a game with a short list), each weapon might well be worth being a unique skill (with a "default" sort of like in GURPS for related ones, but if you want Short sword +10, you have to buy that up seperately from Knife +12.)

[Avoraciopoctules]

Also, dirty trick resistance is a fascinating idea. Wouldn't you assume that simply using a dirty trick would include some kind of resist check (or DC, whichever)?

Whatever your resolution system, I doubt you'd have a 100% chance of success with most combat actions. Resistance to "dishonorable" combat maneuvers could modify the success chance of the maneuver, reduce the effect if the maneuver is successful, and/or could allow you some kind of bonus against the attacker. Perhaps you can learn immediate-action interrupts that can only be used against someone pulling shenanigans.

This path means that you assume that not everyone will follow your code, and you carefully study dishonorable fighting methods. Rather than use them yourself, you develop special counters to them that do not violate your code. You may actually benefit from causing your opponent to resort to underhanded tactics, since your resistance might make them less effective than the opponent's standard actions.

I'm curious as to whether there would actually be some kind of bonus given if you 'follow the rules' and become more vulnerable to dirty tricks; though that only works for formal training, archetypically.

I could see a rage bonus that either ups damage or maybe gives you attacks of opportunity. You could play it so that the "honorable" character makes more powerful attacks when he or she is angry at the opponent breaking the rules the "honorable" character applies to the situation. Could be amusing when two people with different codes fight.

This could increase your vulnerability to "cheating", but compensate by making your conventional attacks more effective when the opponent starts thinking outside the box.

[ckafrica]

@E: You've post more than a third of the total posts on the last 2 pages, reiterating a position the majority of us have discounted. I'm actually trying not to be a dick to you here but your kind of filibustering the thread and this is (to me at least) the kind of stuff TGFB asked you not to do.

Perhaps if you are truly intent on debating the merits of highly specialized and hyper realist melee combat, could you spin it off to another thread?

I'd say a large number of people here are content with examining more broad weapon classes and more abstract combat resolution so if you are not game, perhaps you can just leave us to it?


Back on topic:

I am liking the idea that much of what makes the man is the man himself. Certain weapons can have certain advantages and disadvantages built in; we can have a chart for improvised weapons and what "real" weapons they emulate.

I have a question though: Is crushing vs piercing vs. slashing something we really care about? If so how should it matter? If it doesn't really matter than divisions between axes and maces is fairly pointless. And I'm ok with that, to be honest.

[Elennsar]

Perhaps if you are truly intent on debating the merits of highly specialized and hyper realist melee combat, could you spin it off to another thread?

Or you could actually consider it instead of refusing to see that there's any reason anyone would want it other than being someone who can't stand to have anything not focus maniacally on their special interest.

So if you want to discuss it at all, then discuss it instead of insisting that we treat every weapon between 2' and 4'-odd feet that is a slashing weapon as essentially the same and skipping any discussion of why it would be better not to.

Doing that, and then wondering how to make weapons different from each other enough to matter, is rather bad design.

So this is nothing like the behavior TGFB said anything about, but your behavior is very much unlike someone who is interested in a discussion with a different point of view.

I'm not interested in "hyper-realist" weapon design or combat representation. I am interested in representing that gee, maybe the reason people use daggers is because in close quarters, long weapons suck, not because daggers have some kewl power.

[Crissa]

Elensar, slow down, some of us understand the point you're making here.

I think there is definitely room for a game that makes mechanical differences between weapons and stances so you can have fun with things like throwing axes (which don't really work in current D&D) or stave-like weapons, etc.

-Crissa

[Avoraciopoctules]

I have a question though: Is crushing vs piercing vs. slashing something we really care about? If so how should it matter? If it doesn't really matter than divisions between axes and maces is fairly pointless. And I'm ok with that, to be honest.

I could see big axes, hammers, and maces fitting into the same category. I would be fine with a weapon group proficiency system as simple as:

- light weapons (knives, brass knuckles, gauntlets)
- one handed weapons (swords, clubs, maces)
- heavy weapons (big maces, hammers, axes)
- polearms (spears, pikes, halberds)

I'd probably want some room for different weapons within each category, though.

[Elennsar]

Elensar, slow down, some of us understand the point you're making here.

I think there is definitely room for a game that makes mechanical differences between weapons and stances so you can have fun with things like throwing axes (which don't really work in current D&D) or stave-like weapons, etc.

None of you (you refering to the "some of us" you, Crissa, refer to) are doing anything to actually get a discussion going on how far we do want to go - I'm serious with the saber/scimitar vs. straightsword/arming sword example - historically, that was a close-enough-that-people-used-one-and-stuck-by-it thing, so obviously both concerns are important (IRL) and both claims are equally true (or false).

Do we want that, or is a scimitar just a curved "Generic sword"?

That would work - they both do serve the same general niche, after all, and nothing I've read indicates the advantage of a curve to the blade makes enough of a difference to be decisive (too much use of straight swords in the bad old days for it to be overwhelming, put it that way).

But having "So what if this weapon takes more room to swing than I have to swing in?" means that weapons designed for close quarters aren't necessary, which gimps daggers and short swords artificially.

Similarly, if having reach is a minimal advantage, having a spear for some situations even if you prefer a sword as a general purpose weapon does not work - but it works very well if there are times you want every bit of reach you can get.

So unless and until the discussion stops racing towards "One handed weapons, two handed weapons, and longer two handed weapons" as our weapon choices in terms of "what we need to know", I am not going to "slow down' being irked with it.

[Psychic Robot]

Oh noes, a game where people using swords focus on the swordplay.

Apparently, looking at what axes and daggers (or the like) actually do do well would be too much like work.

The direction the game is going = shitty implausible garbage.

Since Virgileso is either incapable of or unwilling to try and understand anything I'm saying, I propose that we ignore his posts until he actually tries to understand what other people in this discussion are saying.

Or you could actually consider it instead of refusing to see that there's any reason anyone would want it other than being someone who can't stand to have anything not focus maniacally on their special interest.

Elennsar, stop being a dick.

Aside from that, fighting dirty should be advantageous, but it should also carry social repercussions. If you're known as "Billy the Groin-Punter" throughout the country, don't be surprised when a group of guys that you've kicked in the testicles beat the hell out of you and steal your stuff.

[Elennsar]

PR: Stop ignoring why someone would be annoyed at the way things are going and less than polite about it.

If you've some issue with the fact politeness is treated with disdain on the Den, then you've been curiously silent about it in regards to most of the rudeness recently.

If you just object to those posts, well, I object to what inspired them.

Aside from that, fighting dirty should be advantageous, but it should also carry social repercussions. If you're known as "Billy the Groin-Punter" throughout the country, don't be surprised when a group of guys that you've kicked in the testicles beat the hell out of you and steal your stuff.

Not so advantageous that not doing it means you lose in an even fight.

A sliver of advantage, fine. "Your opponent is blind.", no and fuck no.

[Bigode]

... trying to fundamentally change the game design philosophies and principles of the Denizens when you know they are not interested is trolling, and will no longer be tolerated.

[Elennsar]

I'm not interested in changing anyone's design philosophies.

I am interested in seeing a game about swordsmen actually be about the swordplay, not the dirt clods laying on the ground.

[Bigode]

I'm not interested in changing anyone's design philosophies.

I am interested in seeing a game about swordsmen actually be about the swordplay, not the dirt clods laying on the ground.

The closest to doubt benefit I can give you's pointing you've been multiply requested to take it elsewhere (showing plenty of "they aren't interested"*). I figure not doing so'll count as trolling.

*: if you intended to point someone had any interest, those're free to follow you to said elsewhere.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

@Elennsar I liked your post about daggers before you edited it. I've noticed in real life the advantage of say a long sword length weapon vs. a dagger weapon when the 2 opponents have some distance from each other.

However, when the 2 opponents are close up or in an enclosed area, the dagger is extremely advantageous vs. a longer weapon since the longer weapon is not maneuverable enough. This is a point where D&D stops being a simulation in real life because for D&D you can make a dagger or long sword attack from 5 ft. away and there's no disadvantage or advantage (except damage).

It might be interesting to have a system which expands these ranges into close (dagger) medium (sword) long (spear) and extra-long (polearm), and gives advantages or disadvantages at these ranges.

@ckafrica, I tend to agree, I don't consider slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing all that significant to build mechanics around, especially in a system where skeletons and oozes will be less predominant.

@everyone else, Elennsar is not being a dick. It's the clash of opinions that leads to the truth and a great game. If you disagree with him, so what? Not a big deal, and name calling will not make things better.

Edit: Maybe I should have read page 7. Reading page 8, his points seem reasonable.

[ckafrica]

Perhaps if you are truly intent on debating the merits of highly specialized and hyper realist melee combat, could you spin it off to another thread?

Or you could actually consider it instead of refusing to see that there's any reason anyone would want it other than being someone who can't stand to have anything not focus maniacally on their special interest.

So if you want to discuss it at all, then discuss it instead of insisting that we treat every weapon between 2' and 4'-odd feet that is a slashing weapon as essentially the same and skipping any discussion of why it would be better not to.

Doing that, and then wondering how to make weapons different from each other enough to matter, is rather bad design.

So this is nothing like the behavior TGFB said anything about, but your behavior is very much unlike someone who is interested in a discussion with a different point of view.

I'm not interested in "hyper-realist" weapon design or combat representation. I am interested in representing that gee, maybe the reason people use daggers is because in close quarters, long weapons suck, not because daggers have some kewl power.

Great well a lot of us flat out disagree with your basic design principles and would rather you bowed out of the discussion. I didn't tell you not to discuss it; I said we don't want to discuss it here.

You have been told

From the bottom of my heart, you are more than welcome to hang around and even contribute to the boards, but trying to fundamentally change the game design philosophies and principles of the Denizens when you know they are not interested is trolling, and will no longer be tolerated.

Seriously We don't care what you want. Not in even the slightest bit. It does not fit our philosophies of game design

So could you stop side tracking the thread so we can actually discuss what the rest of us are here to discuss.

Edit: Bigode beat me to the punch.
@Bill: E is a problem because he causes every thread he takes interest in to focus on him. You literally can not manage to discuss anything because he posts after every other poster and redirects the thread in the direction that he wants it to go. You can't ignore him because not everyone else is. Even if he makes some point of some validity his method of debate makes discussing with him unpalatable (for me at least).

[Elennsar]

The closest to doubt benefit I can give you's pointing you've been multiply requested to take it elsewhere (showing plenty of "they aren't interested"*). I figure not doing so'll count as trolling.

As none of those people have any control over this thread (OP powers go to PR, concept powers would go to me if I intended this to be "mine"), I figure that ignoring your insistance that you get to dictate what happens in this thread count as perfectly reasonable behavior and your arrogance does not change that in the slightest.

Elennsar I liked your post about daggers before you edited it. I've noticed in real life the advantage of say a long sword length weapon vs. a dagger weapon when the 2 opponents have some distance from each other.

However, when the 2 opponents are close up or in an enclosed area, the dagger is extremely advantageous vs. a longer weapon since the longer weapon is not maneuverable enough. This is a point where D&D stops being a simulation in real life because for D&D you can make a dagger or long sword attack from 5 ft. away and there's no disadvantage or advantage (except damage).

Indeed - but daggers are still fairly limited weapons because its a lot easier to keep someone at bay than to close in against an opponent determined to do so.

So while daggers are "very useful to have", and very good to be familiar with, taking a knife (and only a knife) to a sword fight is not much better an idea than a knife to a gun fight.

It might be interesting to have a system which expands these ranges into close (dagger) medium (sword) long (spear) and extra-long (polearm), and gives advantages or disadvantages at these ranges.

I'd add "short" - so <1', 1-3, 3-5, 5-8, 9+. Maybe something to squeeze between spears and two handed weapons - I wouldn't make polearms "extra long" though, but the concept of "close, medium, long, extra-long" is still solid (my preference for breaking it down a bit more is just that, a preference - its not necessary).

@ckafrica, I tend to agree, I don't consider slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing all that significant to build mechanics around, especially in a system where skeletons and oozes will be less predominant.

I know that wasn't to me, but speaking as the person who happens to be interested in how weapons really work (or one of those people), they are relevant in some regards - vs. some types of armor, vs. some locations on the body.

So could you stop side tracking the thread...

I am not sidetracking the thread by not accepting the "let's just simplify weapon choice to the bare minimal number of types."

If you have a thread you want to dedicate to "How I would build a nonflashy fighter game", dedicated to what you consider important, great.

In this one, no one has "This is my thread, about my game." powers.

[Bigode]

As none of those people have any control over this thread (OP powers go to PR, concept powers would go to me if I intended this to be "mine"), I figure that ignoring your insistence that you get to dictate what happens in this thread count as perfectly reasonable behavior and your arrogance does not change that in the slightest.

What fbmf's decree does say's exactly that enough people not wanting you here does make your presence here an infraction. And it's not just me.

[Username17]

I actually think that there is room for keeping track of weapon length, and having weapon length provide real solid benefits and detriments. If people's positions are tracked relatively, rather than in absolute squares or hexagons, then weapon which is longer than another gives a substantive difference in relative threat distance no matter how much extra length that actually is.

Let's say that your weapon has a short distance, an optimal distance, and a long distance. These are just numbers, no reason to get centimeters involved in this case. People outside the long distance of either opponent can pretty much just walk around, so whatever. Once people close to the range where at least one fighter can reach and attack, then you can make press rolls and opportunity attacks and such. Such a game could I think be very cool and still have using a large axe in a small corridor being contraindicated. Indeed, I find that to be a major selling point. If your positioning number is less than the long range of your melee weapon you're at minuses. If it's less than the short range of your weapon you can't use it at all. And suddenly: people want to use knives inside without the rules being overly complicated.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

Not other than by a definition that basically says "Hey guys you act like jerks, but more subtly, we can get rid of Elennsar.", which I'm reasonably sure was not the intent.

Discussing that, however, is off topic.

So maybe you should stop supporting "let's do all we can to pester Elennsar".

Bill and others interested in discussion: How many different weapons (as in distinct write ups with different abilities, however similiar) do you think should be used?

Because if we're not using cutlasses, then how effective they are is...kind of unimportant.

I would personally go for at least the following:

Dagger
Short sword
Arming sword
Axe
Throwing axe
Two-handed axe and/or Danish axe+staff (Kudos to Crissa for mentioning this)
Spear
Bill
Halberd
Glaive
Javelin
Bow
Bow (composite)
Longbow
Horse bow
Crossbow

Anything beyond that and we need some sort of idea "when" this is - it really doesn't make sense to have late medieval weapons just to have more stuff, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The 3x3 weapon matrix was really an example of what I would consider the minimum acceptable level of detail in a game like this. For an actual weapon system, I think that there are better damage categories than 'B/P/S', and those would lead to better descriptions of weapons.

Basing the damage types on the relative effectiveness of the defenses you'll encounter against different attack seems reasonable (if circular), as it's worth distinguishing the properties of hide armor and chainmail beyond 'chain is better'. Then throw in a few abilities based around how you swing the weapon. Weapons can also get special tags like 'fragile' (takes the amount of damage it deals).

It might be interesting to have a system which expands these ranges into close (dagger) medium (sword) long (spear) and extra-long (polearm), and gives advantages or disadvantages at these ranges.

Reposting in case you didn't see it:

Weapon reach could be incorporated into a system of maneuvering for 'mae'. If you're using a spear and someone with a dagger tries to engage you, you can make a check to maintain mae. If you fail the check, they now have mae and are inside your guard. If you try to re-establish your mae on your move, the dagger wielder gets the same check to stay inside your guard.

When you don't have mae, your attacks should be weaker. CAN is an obvious fit. I could see a system with three human-scale levels of reach.

So, why not drop your spear and whip out a dagger as soon as someone gets inside your guard? Well, that should be an option, but dropping your weapon should probably come with something equivalent to a D&D AoO.

[Crissa]

How come there's never a weapon group for Dane axes? (staff+battle axe)

-Crissa

PS: I think we locked away the topic where Elensar didn't understand even odds or even chances, so please don't press him on the subject.
Elennsar: A fair fight is one in which you have a chance of losing. Hence, in a fair fight, if you fought dirty, you'd win. However, general game design is that the 'dirty' is built into the system, so a fair fight where someone 'fights dirty' is even chances instead of tilted. But it's hard to constrain players from that option...