[MUD-Dev] weapon choices (was re: DESIGN: Why do people like weather in MMORPGs?)

[Travis Casey]

On Tuesday 11 January 2005 08:52, Miroslav Silovic wrote:

> If the game strives for some level of realism (and the tradeoffs
> involved), I don't see why a game character would /want/ to have a
> two-hander in an underground cave in the first place. It's noisy,
> clumsy, and tends to graze the walls and fellow players just as
> often as often as monsters.

Hm?  A two-handed sword is no more noisy than any other sword, and
if you believe one is clumsy, you've never seen one wielded the way
they're supposed to.  It does require some space to wield, but
nearly as much as you'd think.

> Of course, if the game system is derived from AD&D, the answer is
> clear: because the designers of AD&D thought that a character
> should be forced into a single (rather narrow) weapon type.

Where do you get this idea from?  A few classes had a very
restricted range of weapons they could use, but warriors were
definitely not forced into a "single (rather narrow) weapon type".
Even in the worst-case scenario, a first-level fighter in AD&D1 gets
four weapon proficiencies... and can use any other with a fairly
small penalty.

The current version of AD&D lumps most weapons into two broad groups
-- "simple" and "martial".  All warriors are by default proficient
with all of them.  Only "exotic" weapons require learning each
weapon individually.

> I think this is both wrong from the realism value (two-handers are
> only good in certain specific situations, and they just get you
> killed in a duel against, say, a rapier),

Two-handed swords are, in fact, good in quite a wide variety of
situations, while rapiers are not.  This is why two-handed swords
have a long history as military weapons, while rapiers were
primarily used for civilian defense.

> and from the gameplay point. It makes much more sense to build
> some tradeoffs in each general weapon type, make all the players
> reasonably proficient with just about any weapon (with some
> smallish bonuses for practice, and accounting for facts like that
> Raistlin couldn't lift a morningstar or a two-handed sword off the
> ground).

On average, real two-handed swords intended for combat use weigh
around four pounds (Medieval "greatswords" tend to weigh a little
less than that, while Renaissance "two-handed sword" weight a bit
more, on average).  A morningstar weighs less than that.  xD&D
weapon weight are, unfortunately, grossly exaggerated.  Part of this
comes from factoring in weights of scabbards and such, but they're
still too high even with that.

(Part of it also comes, as do many other mistakes, from the simple
fact that D&D was written in the late 60s and early 70s, relying on
even older sources than that for information about medieval weapons
and armor... and later versions have stuck to that, in the name of
backward compatibility.)

> So if you are on horseback, you want something with long reach,
> and able to just kill the enemies from the distance, like two
> hander or a lance.

As far as I know, true two-handed swords were never used on
horseback; they were infantry weapons.  If you really want to kill
enemies from a distance, though, the Mongols had great success with
using composite bows from horseback...

> If under ground, you need a light and something small and
> convenient - like dual-wielded shortsword and torch.

<Small wince.> The term "shortsword" is one of those D&D-isms...
For that matter, xD&D misuses a lot of other weapon terms, and their
misuses have carried over into a lot of other places...

I'd suggest that in reality, having torchbearers would be much more
convenient -- moving a torch around rapidly in a fight is not
conducive to having good light to see by.  In a fantasy game,
magical light sources would probably be preferable to either.

> Yes, you should be able to parry and counter with a torch.

Yep.  It should be noted, though, that medieval people were not
stupid -- and rather than use a simple wooden torch for this, they
likely would have come up with something better.  E.g., I can easily
envision an iron-shafted "torch" with a holder on the end for
oil-soaked rags, a nice grip with guard, and a projection to help
catch blades.  Think along the lines of a Japanese jitte or
Renaissance "sword-breaker".

--
       |\      _,,,---,,_     Travis S. Casey  <efindel at earthlink.net>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev