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

[Miroslav Silovic]

efindel at earthlink.net wrote:

> 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.

This refers to the use of two-hander on the battlefield. I was
specifically refering to a dungeon crawl, in cases where you can't
seriously expect to get 'some space'. If I was a smart NPC and
wanted to guard my treasure from pesky PCs with two handers, the
first thing I'd do is make my dungeon confined.

The second thing I'd do is to shoot a crossbow along a narrow
corridor. With a *really* low ceiling, to mess with Elves. :)

> 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.

I haven't really encountered fighters who didn't take weapons
specialisations instead. This means specific type of melee weapon
and a specific type of bow. Why is it that getting more proficient
with swords longer whatever the longsword length limit is doesn't
make me any better with marginally shorter ones?

> 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.

3rd edition is now called D&D. I should've made it more explicit
that I didn't refer to it, and yes, they debugged weapon skills
there.

>> 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.

I used rapiers as an example, and didn't mean to imply that they are
more universal. We're still in the context of a 'realistic' game
(whatever that is chosen to mean), and I take 'battlefield' as a
certain specific situation (unless the game is designed around
fighting battles - but then, the topic is the use of torches
vs. tw). In certain games, the players could be expected to spend
more times in the cities than at the battlefields (even if they
spend the most time on dungeon crawling).

>> 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.

Wikipedia:

  Two-handed swords made for combat use are actually quite light,
  averaging around 2.5 to 3 kilograms, with the heaviest examples
  reaching 5 kilograms. Even so, with the mass distributed over a
  length of close to two metres, effective use would have required
  considerable strength. The swords have hilt-mounted side-rings and
  enlarged cross-guards of up to 12 inches across. Along the blade,
  some 4-8 inches from the upper gaurd, /parrierhaken/ ("parrying
  hooks") shaped like lugs or flanges acted as a guard for the
  /ricasso/ to prevent other weapons from sliding down the
  blade. These could be used in the attack of an opponent.

That's 5-6 pounds, and up to 12 pounds. With really annoying
momentum of inertia, which is what you care about while swinging
it. Again, this has nothing to do with using swords underground.

> (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.)

If you want to make a weapon unusable to wizards, and encode/explain
it in the rules, just use an average geek as a reference. :)

>> 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...

My bad. Cavalry lance it is, then. Or a bow.

>> 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'm an Amtgaarder, not a SCAer. Lose terminology, focus on fun, and
realism in practical, rather than historically correct terms. ;)

Although that means that I had to refrain from commenting on the
humongous air resistance that Amtgaard two-handed swords tend to
incur, if you go by 5cm sponge design.

On another note, fantasy RP weapons will /not/ be historically
correct, when you factor in different history and presence of magic
(if any). Realism as a design goal may mean something completely
different from just-copy-medieval-earth. Yes, I know I'm stating the
obvious here.

> 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.

Yep. Either way, requiring light in the dungeons mean that the
players have to make a potentially interesting choice, and light
spell becomes actually useful from time to time.

>> 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".

I did, actually. The idea of parrying with wood was discarded as
soon as it crossed my mind.

    Miro
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev