I wrote about a new concept to map onto the term alignment some years ago here: https://spellsandsteel.blogspot.com/2015/12/alignments-that-arent-stupid.html. I wanted to write a little about using this system in action in a recent game.
The TL;DR of the above system is using the concept of alignment to denote who the NPC looks to for their opinions, and what is guiding their actions. Not Law or Chaos, or Lawful Good, or anything like that, but rather an alignment of "Reeve" (the character likes and supports the Reeve of the village, and agrees with them about most things), or perhaps "Outlaws".
What I've added to this system recently is the concept of true (or secret) alignment and open alignment - characters can act in public, or to strangers, like they are of one alignment (say, Reeve), but in private, they secretly are aligned with the Outlaws.
The setting is a village in Nottinghamshire in about 1347. The King is away in France, and in his absence, the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire (that perennial villain), is abusing his power. When randomly generating the families in the village, I added a line to the random generator which generated their alignment in the sense described above (with a chance of a second, secret alignment). Children under 18 didn't get opinions, but older children did (with a higher-weighted chance of having one of their parent's opinions).
So, when the players were canvassing their neighbours, looking for support, I would have entries for the village households like this:
Head of Household: William, 37; Sheriff (secretly Outlaws)
Partner: Alice, 34; King (secretly Sheriff)
Children: John, 14; Jane, 7
Right away, we have drama. William and Alice openly support the Sheriff and the King, so there's conflict there, but secretly William supports the Outlaws (who are working against the Sheriff) and Alice secretly supports the Sheriff (the natural enemies of the Outlaws). Maybe William is just sympathetic, perhaps because the Sheriff has wronged him or his friends, or maybe he actively aids the Outlaws with food or weapons. If the players can gain his trust, he could put them in touch with the Outlaws.
But Alice, who in public talks about the King's justice and how things will be put right when he returns, secretly supports the Sheriff. Maybe she was a childhood friend of the Sheriff, or one of his retainers. Or maybe Alice can just see which way the wind is blowing, and wants to throw her lot in with the winning side.
So, depending on who in the household the characters approach, and what tactics they use, I'm set up to roleplay an interesting encounter. If the characters are aligned with the Outlaws, William will be reluctant to help them publicly, but if they can get him alone and convince him of their bona fides, he could possibly put them in touch with the Outlaws or give them assistance. If they approach Alice, she's likely to rebuff them in public or private, talking about how the Outlaws are operating outside the King's justice and how the King will deal harshly with them when he returns - but since she's secretly aligned with the Sheriff, she's likely to inform him (directly or indirectly) of her conversation with the PC's, causing them trouble down the line.
Alexis at Tao of D&D talks about "features" in his book, How to Run. This is a design-mindset approach which asks, how will this thing be used? NPCs are there for the characters to interact with, but the traditional approach to character traits (distinctive physical features, backstory, verbal tics, mannerisms) are not features, and do not offer nothing for the players to interact with. Anything the players can't interact with is, in a real sense, irrelevant to the game.
Alignments, as presented, very much are features of the NPC: they define and colours all interactions with them, define whether they will support or oppose the player, and (with secret alignments) add depth and reward for continued interaction.
I will be generating alignments like this for all NPCs in my games going forward.
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
11 March 2019
16 August 2018
Healing: The Disabled List and Character Rosters
Major League Baseball has something called a disabled list. I'm sure other sports have something similar, but I only follow baseball. Athletes get hurt. Sometimes badly, and sometimes often. With limited rosters, teams need flexibility to bring in a replacement, usually from the team's AAA affiliate, sometimes elsewhere in the farm system, or more seldom by trade/free agency.
Adventurers also get hurt. Sometimes badly, and generally often. In most games, however, players don't have a roster of characters that they use. What if they did? And what if they could put a character on the disabled list in order to call up a fresh replacement "from the farm"? And what if, like a major league team, the roster size was limited, creating (hopefully) interesting decisions about when to DL a player, when to soldier on, and what to do about the roster crunch created by characters coming off the DL?
I feel a mechanic like this is especially important when using a descriptive damage system as I do. Characters tend to get pretty roughed up, and there needs to be a better way of dealing with it than bogging down the whole party going back to home base.
The active roster is 5 characters, and the secondary roster is 10 characters.
Once a character has been put on the DL, they are an NPC and simply rest and heal for the duration. They are safe and will not die. They remain an NPC until their time on the DL is up (either 14-day or 60-day).
When you put a character on the DL, either roll up a fresh 1st-level character, take over a henchman or 1st-level hireling, or bring in a standby character from your roster.
The player doesn't have to play a gimped, wounded character in the meantime.
It encourages procurement and maintenance of a home base.
It gives the party more stamina to work more than a 15-minute adventuring day.
Characters get 2 "options". Optioning a character uses up an option.
Adventurers also get hurt. Sometimes badly, and generally often. In most games, however, players don't have a roster of characters that they use. What if they did? And what if they could put a character on the disabled list in order to call up a fresh replacement "from the farm"? And what if, like a major league team, the roster size was limited, creating (hopefully) interesting decisions about when to DL a player, when to soldier on, and what to do about the roster crunch created by characters coming off the DL?
I feel a mechanic like this is especially important when using a descriptive damage system as I do. Characters tend to get pretty roughed up, and there needs to be a better way of dealing with it than bogging down the whole party going back to home base.
The Character Roster
What?
Players have an "primary roster" (edit: also called the "active roster") of characters they can choose to adventure with (edit: adventure with as player characters). They also have a "secondary roster" which consists of their active roster and any henchmen they have.
The active roster is 5 characters, and the secondary roster is 10 characters.
Why?
Players can't just freely put people on and off the disabled list with no consequences. There's pressure to choose their favourite characters, creating interesting decisions.
How?
At the beginning of an adventure (i.e. when leaving "home base"), the player may choose to play any character from their active roster. They may take along any henchmen from their secondary roster.
The Disabled List
What?
There are 2 disabled lists, the 14-day DL and the 60-day DL. Characters on the 14-day DL are removed from the primary roster. Characters on the 60-day DL are removed from the secondary roster.
Once a character has been put on the DL, they are an NPC and simply rest and heal for the duration. They are safe and will not die. They remain an NPC until their time on the DL is up (either 14-day or 60-day).
When you put a character on the DL, either roll up a fresh 1st-level character, take over a henchman or 1st-level hireling, or bring in a standby character from your roster.
Why?
The character is healed of all flesh wounds after 14 days, and all (non-permanent) wounds after 60 days. The character is removed from the active roster, making room for a fresh character.
The player doesn't have to play a gimped, wounded character in the meantime.
It encourages procurement and maintenance of a home base.
It gives the party more stamina to work more than a 15-minute adventuring day.
How?
Declare you are moving your active character onto the disabled list, and specify which one.
Requirements:
- character is not in immediate danger (in combat, in quicksand, surrounded by fire)
- character could plausibly make it back to base safely (if they can't walk, someone has to go with them)
- they're not stuck in a pit; they're not surrounded by enemies; they're not being actively hunted for)
- must have a "home base" available owned/leased by the party (somewhere they can get food and warm bed)
Roster Moves
"Option"
The character is removed from the active roster and becomes an NPC henchman, with all that entails (they are an NPC with a morale score, they are nominally controlled by the DM but in practice are largely controlled by the PC, etc.).Characters get 2 "options". Optioning a character uses up an option.
"Recall"
A henchman becomes a PC, with all that entails."Release"
The character is removed from both the active and secondary roster. They are forever more an NPC, and leave the party to make their own way in the world. The DM is free to have the character resurface as a rival, friend, or acquaintance; or perhaps they will never be heard from again; or maybe they'll turn up dead - in any case, their fate is out of the hands of the player.12 August 2018
Archery: Variable Range Increments
Following up from yesterday's post. A reminder on methodology.
I've taken men's longbow classifications from the Braintree Bowmen in the UK, ranging from 3rd class to Grandmaster Bowman; analyzed them with a tool I made to convert archery scores into to-hit rates on a d20; and applied those results to a variety of ranges for a 65cm target, which I reckon to be comparable to shooting at a human torso.
Each line on the chart represents a score in a "720 round" of archery, converted to be hit/miss against a 65cm target at the stated range.
Analyzing this chart, a thought occurred to me: instead of fixed range increments and a rising attack bonus, what if we had fixed attack bonuses/penalties and range increments that vary with level?
What we get is a system that seems (to me) much more verisimilitudinous. At short range, there's little to no difference in skill. At long range, shots that are essentially impossible for an unskilled bowmen will be easy for a skilled shooter.
What we give up is some granularity in progression, as we probably don't want the range increments to change in such small steps between levels that it makes no real difference.
Now, how about changing target size? The following charts show the effects of changing the target size by doubles and halves.
I've taken men's longbow classifications from the Braintree Bowmen in the UK, ranging from 3rd class to Grandmaster Bowman; analyzed them with a tool I made to convert archery scores into to-hit rates on a d20; and applied those results to a variety of ranges for a 65cm target, which I reckon to be comparable to shooting at a human torso.
Each line on the chart represents a score in a "720 round" of archery, converted to be hit/miss against a 65cm target at the stated range.
Analyzing this chart, a thought occurred to me: instead of fixed range increments and a rising attack bonus, what if we had fixed attack bonuses/penalties and range increments that vary with level?
What we get is a system that seems (to me) much more verisimilitudinous. At short range, there's little to no difference in skill. At long range, shots that are essentially impossible for an unskilled bowmen will be easy for a skilled shooter.
What we give up is some granularity in progression, as we probably don't want the range increments to change in such small steps between levels that it makes no real difference.
| 65cm target | 0 | -5 | -10 | -15 | -20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3rd Class | 5m | 10m | 15m | 20m | 25m |
| 2nd Class | 10m | 20m | 30m | 40m | 50m |
| Bowman | 15m | 30m | 45m | 50m | 65m |
| Master Bowman | 20m | 40m | 60m | 80m | 100m |
| Grandmaster Bowman | 25m | 50m | 75m | 100m | 125m |
| World-Class Bowman | 30m | 60m | 90m | 120m | 150m |
Now, how about changing target size? The following charts show the effects of changing the target size by doubles and halves.
What we can notice is that for each doubling of target size, it's as if the lowest-skilled (31 score) bowman is shooting as if they were a middle-skill bowman (157 score). For the "Bowman", it's like shooting as a "Grandmaster Bowman", and so on.
So, changing target sizes can be fairly easily modeled by shifting the effective skill of the
archer - double the target size, increase the effective skill two
increments. So a "3rd-class" bowman shooting at a target 1.3m across
would use the "Bowman" row on the chart.
This is for considered shots in good conditions. Later we will examine more adverse conditions.
8 August 2018
Archery: Towards a Foundation
I was thinking of archery, and was immediately reminded that Delta had done some good work on the subject some time ago: http://deltasdnd.blogspot.ca/2014/04/a-model-of-archery-for-d.html
There's some good stuff there, and I think the methodology is promising, but I think some upstream errors make it less useful/accurate than it could be. With that in mind, I set out to build on those ideas.
Delta used an article in an old Dragon magazine by Robert Barrow (Dragon #58, pp 47-49) as his starting point, which in turn cites Archery by Longman and Walrond, published New York, 1894. I was not able to find that edition online, but did find Archery by Longman and Walrond, London, 1894, which surely must be different edition (likely the original edition) of the same book. Unfortunately, the page numbering is different, and Barrow's citation of pp 240 leads us to a discussion of the history of the Royal Company of Archers in Scotland, which, while no doubt interesting in its own way, bears not at all on the matter to hand. There is a helpful chart on pp 264, which I would have surmised is the one used by Barrow, except that when I tabulated the data, it doesn't quite match the figures he quoted.
Barrow quotes 92%, 81%, 54% hits at 60, 80, and 100 yards, respectively. I calculated 96%, 86%, and 65%. Perhaps there was an error in his calculations; it was, after all, 1982, and he likely did not have a spreadsheet to do the calculations quickly and easily. Or perhaps he was simply using different data from a different part of the book and the editions are even more different than seems likely. In any case.
What I've done is write a little commandline tool that allows us to enter in a wide range of archery scores and get back out a hit rate for a given range and target size. The Archery data was useful, as it had a hit rate and a score, whereas most modern sources only list the score, and this was very useful to make sure I was getting sane results. I can set the output and input ranges and target sizes to be the same, and the compare the hit rate my model predicted based on the score with the actual hit rate in the data set. I found results were typically within 10% or so, which I'd say is more than good enough for our purposes.
One thing I can tell you - modern archers are much, much better than the archers in the Archery dataset.
So, with this tool in hand, I set out to find some data on how good archers are. I didn't just want a soup of scores, I wanted some guidance/interpretation of what those scores meant. Eventually, I found this site, which helpfully lists scores for 6 "classes" of archers, from 3rd class to Grandmaster. It didn't go all the way to Grandmaster for the 720 round scores I had calibrated my tool for, but this site helpfully allows you to convert a score from one type of round to another (using a similar approach to the CLI tool I made).
So, this got me scores with meanings attached, and my tool allows the conversion of these scores into hit rates for any target size and any range. Results of my investigations in a subsequent post.
There's some good stuff there, and I think the methodology is promising, but I think some upstream errors make it less useful/accurate than it could be. With that in mind, I set out to build on those ideas.
Delta used an article in an old Dragon magazine by Robert Barrow (Dragon #58, pp 47-49) as his starting point, which in turn cites Archery by Longman and Walrond, published New York, 1894. I was not able to find that edition online, but did find Archery by Longman and Walrond, London, 1894, which surely must be different edition (likely the original edition) of the same book. Unfortunately, the page numbering is different, and Barrow's citation of pp 240 leads us to a discussion of the history of the Royal Company of Archers in Scotland, which, while no doubt interesting in its own way, bears not at all on the matter to hand. There is a helpful chart on pp 264, which I would have surmised is the one used by Barrow, except that when I tabulated the data, it doesn't quite match the figures he quoted.
Barrow quotes 92%, 81%, 54% hits at 60, 80, and 100 yards, respectively. I calculated 96%, 86%, and 65%. Perhaps there was an error in his calculations; it was, after all, 1982, and he likely did not have a spreadsheet to do the calculations quickly and easily. Or perhaps he was simply using different data from a different part of the book and the editions are even more different than seems likely. In any case.
What I've done is write a little commandline tool that allows us to enter in a wide range of archery scores and get back out a hit rate for a given range and target size. The Archery data was useful, as it had a hit rate and a score, whereas most modern sources only list the score, and this was very useful to make sure I was getting sane results. I can set the output and input ranges and target sizes to be the same, and the compare the hit rate my model predicted based on the score with the actual hit rate in the data set. I found results were typically within 10% or so, which I'd say is more than good enough for our purposes.
One thing I can tell you - modern archers are much, much better than the archers in the Archery dataset.
So, with this tool in hand, I set out to find some data on how good archers are. I didn't just want a soup of scores, I wanted some guidance/interpretation of what those scores meant. Eventually, I found this site, which helpfully lists scores for 6 "classes" of archers, from 3rd class to Grandmaster. It didn't go all the way to Grandmaster for the 720 round scores I had calibrated my tool for, but this site helpfully allows you to convert a score from one type of round to another (using a similar approach to the CLI tool I made).
So, this got me scores with meanings attached, and my tool allows the conversion of these scores into hit rates for any target size and any range. Results of my investigations in a subsequent post.
5 October 2014
Things I'm Thinking About
Mostly just posting for my own benefit. These are the things I'm thinking about these days. Mostly things that have come up during play.
Alternative casting rules
I'm finding that using a d6 dice pool is resulting in spells either being more or less automatic (for easy spells) or more or less impossible (for hard spells). I had thought there would be a tension in rolling each round to cast spells, but it turns out that currently most spellcasting is outside of combat.
And spamming of low-level spells (especially detect magic type things) annoys me. It makes magic very mundane.
So, a new system is required for that.
New Spells
I'm finding that magicians, especially, are not enjoying combat as much as perhaps they could, as they currently don't really have any combat-applicable spells.
So, I'm thinking about what spells I can add that keep the flavour I want for magicians, but that can be used in combat. Illusions are something I'm leaning towards.
Descriptive damage rules for large creatures
The descriptive damage system I outlined a while back (in this post) is working swimmingly for humans and humanoids.
It does not currently have anything to say about large creatures. The couple times I've had to run large creatures since implementing descriptive damage, I simply used a basic hit point system. And that worked ok, but I'd like to be able to include the grit and interest of the descriptive damage system into fights with giant creatures.
Making Burglars more interesting
Both in combat and out. The main thought I'm having at the moment regarding this is making them a little better at combat than they currently are, and including some social abilities, persuasion-type stuff. We shall see how that plays out.
XP and Advancement
For want of a better system, we're currently just using a negotiated level up system. When the party has done a remarkable feat (or a few), we chat about it, and decide if they're deserving of a level up. This is working fine, and is essentially what most systems boil down to in any case, but perhaps a little more guidance would be good for a published game.
Something sort of similar to Paolo's system in Adventure Fantasy Game sounds plausible, but instead of treasure being the driving force, using great deeds (which he also supports, actually). His advancement system is worth checking out, as is his game.
While I've been a defender of XP for Gold, and while that is a perfectly workable system, I'm not sure it's right for Spells and Steel. For one thing, cash is scarce in my world, and I don't have the kind of economic system in place yet that Alexis does, so I'd have to be coming up with cash equivalents for all the treasure...
So what I'm thinking at the moment is guidelines for the kinds of feats and challenges are appropriate to trigger a level up. More thought is required.
Things that are working well
Descriptive damage is great. I've also got some rules on hand for infections and disease, which I'll get around to putting up when I feel like it.
Combat in general, and the Fighter class are working very well. Which makes sense, since that's where a lot of my effort has gone to date.
Classes are strongly differentiated, which is something I wanted, but I'm starting to wonder if that's such a good thing.
I've been avoiding "+X" magic weapons, and am loving it (something I talked about before, as have others). The players actually have yet to identify any of their magic items, but they are using them and benefiting nonetheless.
Alternative casting rules
I'm finding that using a d6 dice pool is resulting in spells either being more or less automatic (for easy spells) or more or less impossible (for hard spells). I had thought there would be a tension in rolling each round to cast spells, but it turns out that currently most spellcasting is outside of combat.
And spamming of low-level spells (especially detect magic type things) annoys me. It makes magic very mundane.
So, a new system is required for that.
New Spells
I'm finding that magicians, especially, are not enjoying combat as much as perhaps they could, as they currently don't really have any combat-applicable spells.
So, I'm thinking about what spells I can add that keep the flavour I want for magicians, but that can be used in combat. Illusions are something I'm leaning towards.
Descriptive damage rules for large creatures
The descriptive damage system I outlined a while back (in this post) is working swimmingly for humans and humanoids.
It does not currently have anything to say about large creatures. The couple times I've had to run large creatures since implementing descriptive damage, I simply used a basic hit point system. And that worked ok, but I'd like to be able to include the grit and interest of the descriptive damage system into fights with giant creatures.
Making Burglars more interesting
Both in combat and out. The main thought I'm having at the moment regarding this is making them a little better at combat than they currently are, and including some social abilities, persuasion-type stuff. We shall see how that plays out.
XP and Advancement
For want of a better system, we're currently just using a negotiated level up system. When the party has done a remarkable feat (or a few), we chat about it, and decide if they're deserving of a level up. This is working fine, and is essentially what most systems boil down to in any case, but perhaps a little more guidance would be good for a published game.
Something sort of similar to Paolo's system in Adventure Fantasy Game sounds plausible, but instead of treasure being the driving force, using great deeds (which he also supports, actually). His advancement system is worth checking out, as is his game.
While I've been a defender of XP for Gold, and while that is a perfectly workable system, I'm not sure it's right for Spells and Steel. For one thing, cash is scarce in my world, and I don't have the kind of economic system in place yet that Alexis does, so I'd have to be coming up with cash equivalents for all the treasure...
So what I'm thinking at the moment is guidelines for the kinds of feats and challenges are appropriate to trigger a level up. More thought is required.
Things that are working well
Descriptive damage is great. I've also got some rules on hand for infections and disease, which I'll get around to putting up when I feel like it.
Combat in general, and the Fighter class are working very well. Which makes sense, since that's where a lot of my effort has gone to date.
Classes are strongly differentiated, which is something I wanted, but I'm starting to wonder if that's such a good thing.
I've been avoiding "+X" magic weapons, and am loving it (something I talked about before, as have others). The players actually have yet to identify any of their magic items, but they are using them and benefiting nonetheless.
2 September 2013
Noisms and D&D Combat
Passages in italics are quotations from Noism's post D&D Combat is More Abstract Than You Think, which kinda got me riled up, so I apologize in advance for the acerbic tone.
...it's important to remember that the D&D combat rules evolved in a context of a 1 minute combat round: in OD&D and AD&D 1st edition, the combat round is a minute in length.
OK, but 1-minute rounds are just stupid. Just because it was in 0e or 1e doesn't mean it made any sense, or that it's good game design. There's any number of things in the old editions that are stupid and that have been houseruled away by generations of gamers.
One of the big parts of the OSR is our willingness to deconstruct the rules and modify them to suit us, not point to them as gospel.
...the famous idea of Gary Gygax's that a D&D fight should resemble the sword fight between Robin Hood and Sir Guy of Gisborne in the Errol Flynn iteration.
Firstly, the notion that Errol Flynn-style combat is worth emulating is far from a universal notion. It bears no similarity to reality, it has no real risk or danger, and is extremely ill-suited to a dice-driven system like D&D.
That kind of combat exists for one purpose only: advancing the plot of a film. It's more the kind of combat you see in a story game, where the relative advantages and disadvantages in the fight reflect and comment on the dialog of the characters, and no-one gets hurt or dies except for maximizing the dramatic effect.
It is literally the exact opposite of old-school D&D combat, which is random and messy - people die and get hurt with no consideration for what that might mean for the "story". The dice reign supreme, as opposed to the story.
D&D combat bears exactly zero similarity to that style of combat, and that combat bears exactly zero similarity to real life (except that there are humans, and they have swords). That Gygax said that says it was his inspiration says little about his knowledge of combat or game design.
So much for the idea of Errol Flynn combat.
You're rolling to see if, over the course of 1 minute, you manage to wear down your opponent's defences, either through actual physical damage or moral 'damage' or exhaustion or whatever.
Your hit points represent you capacity to stay in the fight, which slowly gets reduced over time (the higher your level, the longer this takes).
I covered this in my recent post on Hit Points.
Hit points exist as a proxy for your defensive abilities, not your physical or mental stamina, or physical ability to absorb damage. The notion in (0e, at least) was that a single blow would kill a normal person about half the time - that is to say, you essentially don't have any HP, you are simply killed by a single hit and have a base 50% chance of "save vs. death".
This can be seen as an evolution from the Chainmail 1 hit = dead every time, no chance to survive. The move to D&D gave you a 50% save vs. death built-in.
So HP are, in a real sense, nothing. Trying to map them onto stamina or morale or life force or blood pressure doesn't work, as they're a statistical increase to the average life expectancy, nothing more.
And your movement rate, which seems absurdly slow, represents the fact that you are scooting around and manoeuvring for position while avoiding blows, missile attacks, what have you.
There can literally be no defense of 0e's absurdly low movement rates. There is no way you can slice them that makes a lick of sense.
They are most likely an error in the move from Chainmail mass battle to D&D single combat.
The fact that only one or two shots are permitted in a 1 minute round indicates that the archer is waiting to pick his moment to fire.
There's probably a reasonable middle-ground between 1 arrow every 6 seconds to 1 arrow every 60.
If you're taking a minute for an arrow, though, that's definitely excessive. Your odds of hitting are going to be much higher sending more shafts downrange than waiting for that "perfect chance" that may never come.
I would question why there really needs to be even an arbitrary length to a combat round of 1 minute.
Yes, and - as I said before - I agree. If you interpret D&D combat as you clearly do, then do away with rounds altogether. Just make an opposed d20 roll to see who wins.
What is the purpose of a combat round? It gives a chance for everybody to decide what they want to do and then act.
Well, it's supposed to give a way to direct a continuous action in discrete steps. As such, you need to know how long the step is going to be so you can plan your action.
It doesn't matter: there is no credibility to stretch because we are not dealing with a system which has to make sense in the way that a less abstract one does. We are not rolling dice 'to hit', despite the name: we are rolling to see how far we attrit (that is a word: I looked it up) the opponent.
If character A can attrite (I've always seen it with the 'e', but apparently both are used) character B by an average of 3 'units' per 10 seconds, then yes - it does matter one hell of a lot how long a round is. If character B has 10 'units' to attrite away, then he can last 4 rounds of 10 second, or less than 1 round of 1 minute.
I don't see how this is so hard to grasp...
Whether you're using a highly abstract system or a highly detailed one makes no difference, unless you're abstract to the point of story-gaming.
Another good reason for preferring abstract combat is just that realism may be something of a fool's errand.
It may be, but as I wrote before here, realism is to be infinitely preferred to not-realism (all other things being equal).
The short version, for the lazy, is that if the system isn't realistic, then the players need to master the system to make sensible choices. The more realistic the system, the more the players can leverage their knowledge of the real world.
For example, in reality, dropping a 25lb 10ft down onton someone's head would probably at the very least stun them, and possibly knock them out cold, maybe even kill them.
In D&D, it would have one of two effects: none, or kill them stone dead. Since that's not what would happen in the real world, a player needs to know the system well enough to understand that even though in the real world X would happen, Y will happen in the game.
I really like the idea of Western Martial Arts but I'm not persuaded that they are entirely realistic; until people start actually fighting to the death using these techniques, and agreeing that if they are injured they will only use medical techniques that were in use in the 14th century, I think that "what happens in a real sword fight" is still a matter of considerable conjecture and will likely remain so.
Sorry, but that's just ignorant. I don't really know what else to say to that.
Your ignorant, uninformed opinion based on literally nothing compared to 30 years of dedicated scholarship and experiment? It's easy to see where the weight of evidence is, and it's not on your side.
I mean, what would you think if I said something like (I seem to recall that your field is philosophy of law, or something related - apologies if it's not), "I really like the idea of the philosophy of law, but I think that scholarship in that field has revealed nothing and that everyone who has ever studied it has completely wasted their time"?
That's literally what you just said about students of historical Western martial arts.
...it's important to remember that the D&D combat rules evolved in a context of a 1 minute combat round: in OD&D and AD&D 1st edition, the combat round is a minute in length.
OK, but 1-minute rounds are just stupid. Just because it was in 0e or 1e doesn't mean it made any sense, or that it's good game design. There's any number of things in the old editions that are stupid and that have been houseruled away by generations of gamers.
One of the big parts of the OSR is our willingness to deconstruct the rules and modify them to suit us, not point to them as gospel.
...the famous idea of Gary Gygax's that a D&D fight should resemble the sword fight between Robin Hood and Sir Guy of Gisborne in the Errol Flynn iteration.
Firstly, the notion that Errol Flynn-style combat is worth emulating is far from a universal notion. It bears no similarity to reality, it has no real risk or danger, and is extremely ill-suited to a dice-driven system like D&D.
That kind of combat exists for one purpose only: advancing the plot of a film. It's more the kind of combat you see in a story game, where the relative advantages and disadvantages in the fight reflect and comment on the dialog of the characters, and no-one gets hurt or dies except for maximizing the dramatic effect.
It is literally the exact opposite of old-school D&D combat, which is random and messy - people die and get hurt with no consideration for what that might mean for the "story". The dice reign supreme, as opposed to the story.
D&D combat bears exactly zero similarity to that style of combat, and that combat bears exactly zero similarity to real life (except that there are humans, and they have swords). That Gygax said that says it was his inspiration says little about his knowledge of combat or game design.
So much for the idea of Errol Flynn combat.
You're rolling to see if, over the course of 1 minute, you manage to wear down your opponent's defences, either through actual physical damage or moral 'damage' or exhaustion or whatever.
Your hit points represent you capacity to stay in the fight, which slowly gets reduced over time (the higher your level, the longer this takes).
I covered this in my recent post on Hit Points.
Hit points exist as a proxy for your defensive abilities, not your physical or mental stamina, or physical ability to absorb damage. The notion in (0e, at least) was that a single blow would kill a normal person about half the time - that is to say, you essentially don't have any HP, you are simply killed by a single hit and have a base 50% chance of "save vs. death".
This can be seen as an evolution from the Chainmail 1 hit = dead every time, no chance to survive. The move to D&D gave you a 50% save vs. death built-in.
So HP are, in a real sense, nothing. Trying to map them onto stamina or morale or life force or blood pressure doesn't work, as they're a statistical increase to the average life expectancy, nothing more.
And your movement rate, which seems absurdly slow, represents the fact that you are scooting around and manoeuvring for position while avoiding blows, missile attacks, what have you.
There can literally be no defense of 0e's absurdly low movement rates. There is no way you can slice them that makes a lick of sense.
They are most likely an error in the move from Chainmail mass battle to D&D single combat.
The fact that only one or two shots are permitted in a 1 minute round indicates that the archer is waiting to pick his moment to fire.
There's probably a reasonable middle-ground between 1 arrow every 6 seconds to 1 arrow every 60.
If you're taking a minute for an arrow, though, that's definitely excessive. Your odds of hitting are going to be much higher sending more shafts downrange than waiting for that "perfect chance" that may never come.
I would question why there really needs to be even an arbitrary length to a combat round of 1 minute.
Yes, and - as I said before - I agree. If you interpret D&D combat as you clearly do, then do away with rounds altogether. Just make an opposed d20 roll to see who wins.
What is the purpose of a combat round? It gives a chance for everybody to decide what they want to do and then act.
Well, it's supposed to give a way to direct a continuous action in discrete steps. As such, you need to know how long the step is going to be so you can plan your action.
It doesn't matter: there is no credibility to stretch because we are not dealing with a system which has to make sense in the way that a less abstract one does. We are not rolling dice 'to hit', despite the name: we are rolling to see how far we attrit (that is a word: I looked it up) the opponent.
If character A can attrite (I've always seen it with the 'e', but apparently both are used) character B by an average of 3 'units' per 10 seconds, then yes - it does matter one hell of a lot how long a round is. If character B has 10 'units' to attrite away, then he can last 4 rounds of 10 second, or less than 1 round of 1 minute.
I don't see how this is so hard to grasp...
Whether you're using a highly abstract system or a highly detailed one makes no difference, unless you're abstract to the point of story-gaming.
Another good reason for preferring abstract combat is just that realism may be something of a fool's errand.
It may be, but as I wrote before here, realism is to be infinitely preferred to not-realism (all other things being equal).
The short version, for the lazy, is that if the system isn't realistic, then the players need to master the system to make sensible choices. The more realistic the system, the more the players can leverage their knowledge of the real world.
For example, in reality, dropping a 25lb 10ft down onton someone's head would probably at the very least stun them, and possibly knock them out cold, maybe even kill them.
In D&D, it would have one of two effects: none, or kill them stone dead. Since that's not what would happen in the real world, a player needs to know the system well enough to understand that even though in the real world X would happen, Y will happen in the game.
I really like the idea of Western Martial Arts but I'm not persuaded that they are entirely realistic; until people start actually fighting to the death using these techniques, and agreeing that if they are injured they will only use medical techniques that were in use in the 14th century, I think that "what happens in a real sword fight" is still a matter of considerable conjecture and will likely remain so.
Sorry, but that's just ignorant. I don't really know what else to say to that.
Your ignorant, uninformed opinion based on literally nothing compared to 30 years of dedicated scholarship and experiment? It's easy to see where the weight of evidence is, and it's not on your side.
I mean, what would you think if I said something like (I seem to recall that your field is philosophy of law, or something related - apologies if it's not), "I really like the idea of the philosophy of law, but I think that scholarship in that field has revealed nothing and that everyone who has ever studied it has completely wasted their time"?
That's literally what you just said about students of historical Western martial arts.
31 August 2013
Hit Points: What the REALLY Are
I previously wrote that hit points don't actually represent anything.
That's true, but it ignores the role they play in the mechanics of the system.
See, it's absurd to think that as a fighter progress in martial arts that they improve only at attacking and not at defending.
The obvious solution is a straight-up Red Queen scenario where every level the Fighter gets +1 Attack and +1 Defense. For whatever reason, D&D didn't do that, and has forever confused people since.
What D&D does is increase your Hit Points as a proxy for your increasing defensive abilities.
To understand this, we have to recall that in Chainmail, one hit equals one kill. Heroes take four hits, and Super Heroes take 8. Notice that it's no harder to hit Heroes - simply harder to kill them (or so it seems).
But is a Hero really any harder to kill than a normal man? Of course not. Sever his spine and he'll die like the rest. What he has is exceptional defensive ability that allows him to turn aside three blows that would have killed a lesser man.
Remember that in 0e, every hit die is a d6, and every damage die is a d6. This means that one die of damage (on average) removes one Hit Die. So your Level 1 mook is dead in one hit, and your Level 4 Hero is dead in 4. Just like Chainmail (but a little more random).
So it's clear that increasing HP is a proxy for increasing Defense (or AC, as D&D calls it), and nothing else. Every Hit Die is really a mulligan representing your increased ability to defend yourself.
How to reconcile this with healing rates and whatnot? You can't. That's because this is a stupid way to do things that causes no end of confusion, and is a prime example of an overloaded mechanic (i.e. HP is both life force and defensive ability).
That's true, but it ignores the role they play in the mechanics of the system.
See, it's absurd to think that as a fighter progress in martial arts that they improve only at attacking and not at defending.
The obvious solution is a straight-up Red Queen scenario where every level the Fighter gets +1 Attack and +1 Defense. For whatever reason, D&D didn't do that, and has forever confused people since.
What D&D does is increase your Hit Points as a proxy for your increasing defensive abilities.
To understand this, we have to recall that in Chainmail, one hit equals one kill. Heroes take four hits, and Super Heroes take 8. Notice that it's no harder to hit Heroes - simply harder to kill them (or so it seems).
But is a Hero really any harder to kill than a normal man? Of course not. Sever his spine and he'll die like the rest. What he has is exceptional defensive ability that allows him to turn aside three blows that would have killed a lesser man.
Remember that in 0e, every hit die is a d6, and every damage die is a d6. This means that one die of damage (on average) removes one Hit Die. So your Level 1 mook is dead in one hit, and your Level 4 Hero is dead in 4. Just like Chainmail (but a little more random).
So it's clear that increasing HP is a proxy for increasing Defense (or AC, as D&D calls it), and nothing else. Every Hit Die is really a mulligan representing your increased ability to defend yourself.
How to reconcile this with healing rates and whatnot? You can't. That's because this is a stupid way to do things that causes no end of confusion, and is a prime example of an overloaded mechanic (i.e. HP is both life force and defensive ability).
21 August 2013
Spells and Steel: Goal Updates
Comments by Jhandar reminded me to revisit my design document and look at how my thoughts have changed. This is largely for my reference, and to clarify my thoughts, but Jhandar has indicated that he (and presumably others of my readers) are interested in the process by which my design is growing and developing.
My original design document for Spells and Steel can be found here:
Goals of the Combat System:
Goals of the Leveling System:
Most of this has to do with my desire for a system that can get character creation done fast and get the game going very quickly. It's far easier to say, "You can pick between Fighter, Burglar, and Magician. Fighters are trained soldiers or men-at-arms. Burglars are sort of like a cross between Oliver Twist and a Ninja. Magicians use real magic to create illusions and warp reality."
I don't have to list feats. Character creation is, "Roll stats. Pick class. Buy equipment." It takes all of about 5 minutes, and most of that is buying equipment.
I'm also moving away from feats and customization because of my desire to eliminate min-maxing, power gaming, and agonizing over efficient feat selections.
Lastly, I've realized that feats do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do, and rest on a dangerous supposition. The short version is that feats limit what you can do by implicity proscribing that isn't in a feat or class power you can have - essentially, a feat system rests on a foundation of impotence. You can't do anything unless you have a feat for it. I want a permissive system where the default assumption is that you can do something unless there's some specific reason why you can't.
Goals of the Magic system:
I also quite like the spell list I've been developing. One of my main inspirations for making my own game system was Paolo Greco's Adventure Fantasy Game and its long list of interesting and novel spells. I've also tried to create spells that feel like they have some history, and some life before and outside the game.
The system I have can be fairly easily dropped into a B/X game - casters simply get as many casting dice as they have levels.
Goals Overall:
As the system is still in flux, it's hard to say if it's easy to learn, but ongoing playtests show things running pretty smoothly, and people are having fun.
In order to truly claim to be able to take players from mooks to moguls, a mass battle system and a domain holding system are required. Work has begun on those, but it is still in a very preliminary stage. I'm optimistic that I'll be able to create the elusive mass battle system that's as simple and fun as B/X combat.
Research into historical pricing is ongoing. I'm taking a rather different tack than Alexis did on that. Whereas he has created a truly remarkable system that models trade in a pretty complex and interesting way, I'm attempting to find historical references for commodities c. 1400, adjust prices I can find that are for near that era, and estimate prices based on costs of their materials and the price of labour at the time.
Make no mistake - I am truly in awe of the work Alexis has done on his trade system. If you haven't read his posts on Tao of D&D about his trade system, do so now (link for the lazy to the tag "trade" on his blog: http://tao-dnd.blogspot.ca/search/label/Trade). It's just that for my purpose, and for the purposes of anyone picking up a roleplaying book, I think getting a good foundation in the form of a basic price list will be more useful "out of the box", so to speak.
I like knowing that there's some historical grounding to my prices, and then, from that solid foundation, I can adjust prices accordingly for regions with dearths or surpluses of certain commodities.
My original design document for Spells and Steel can be found here:
http://spellsandsteel.blogspot.com/2012/08/spells-and-steel-my-goals.html
Text in italics below is quoted from the original design document.
Goals of the Combat System:
- Simple and Fast
- Verisimilitude:
- Weapon Functions
- Realities of Combat and Damage
- Stats and Attributes with Clear Meanings
- Battlemat Optional
- Bonus: Easy to Drop Into B/X D&D as a Replacement System
Keeping combat simple and fast is a constant struggle. It's always so tempting to introduce just one more die roll, or one more die type. This is probably the most important design goal, though, so it bears keeping it first in the list.
My existing combat system has - for me at least - the air of verisimilitude. It currently models weapon functions rather well (in my opinion), and the reality of damage is currently undergoing a rather serious overhaul in light of my recent reading in SPADA II.
Stats and attributes with clear meanings have been achieved. By this I mean - combat stat represents one part of the fight. Attack represents your ability to land a blow. Defense is your ability to avoid being hit. Armour is your ability to be hit but not hurt. Etc, etc.
Contrast this with D&D, where Armour Class is a blend of hard-to-hit and hard-to-hurt, and hit points are a blend of luck, stamina, skill, defensive ability... It makes it hard to make quick judgements based on attributes that are so muddled.
Combat does not require a battlemat, so that has been achieved. I don't think I've ever had less fun than running 3e battles on a battlemat. I avoid them like the plague. Diagrams? Even minis? Sure, sometimes. But the rigidity and bizarreness that comes with the 5' grid is anathema to me.
Since combat relies on Attack (analogous to improving to-hit tables), Defense (analogous to armour class), and Armour (simply reducing damage rolls), and since all of those depend on class, level, and equipment (all concepts in B/X) it can be pretty easily dropped in as a replacement system.
- Balanced Feats
- Meaningful Choices
- Customizable Characters
- Minimize Min-Maxing, Maximize Flavour
- Believable Power Curve
Most of this has to do with my desire for a system that can get character creation done fast and get the game going very quickly. It's far easier to say, "You can pick between Fighter, Burglar, and Magician. Fighters are trained soldiers or men-at-arms. Burglars are sort of like a cross between Oliver Twist and a Ninja. Magicians use real magic to create illusions and warp reality."
I don't have to list feats. Character creation is, "Roll stats. Pick class. Buy equipment." It takes all of about 5 minutes, and most of that is buying equipment.
I'm also moving away from feats and customization because of my desire to eliminate min-maxing, power gaming, and agonizing over efficient feat selections.
Lastly, I've realized that feats do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do, and rest on a dangerous supposition. The short version is that feats limit what you can do by implicity proscribing that isn't in a feat or class power you can have - essentially, a feat system rests on a foundation of impotence. You can't do anything unless you have a feat for it. I want a permissive system where the default assumption is that you can do something unless there's some specific reason why you can't.
Goals of the Magic system:
- Simple or Non-existant Resource Management (no memorization, no mana)
- Make it Weird (no fireball or magic missile - more illusions, compulsions, trickery)
- Balanced with Combat-focused Characters
- Bonus: Easy to Drop Into B/X D&D as a Replacement System
I also quite like the spell list I've been developing. One of my main inspirations for making my own game system was Paolo Greco's Adventure Fantasy Game and its long list of interesting and novel spells. I've also tried to create spells that feel like they have some history, and some life before and outside the game.
The system I have can be fairly easily dropped into a B/X game - casters simply get as many casting dice as they have levels.
Goals Overall:
- Believability / Verisimilitude
- Harsh, Gritty Flavour
- Easy to Learn and Play
- Fun!
- Able to Take Players from Adventurers to Lords
- Historically Reasonable Pricing and Economy
As the system is still in flux, it's hard to say if it's easy to learn, but ongoing playtests show things running pretty smoothly, and people are having fun.
In order to truly claim to be able to take players from mooks to moguls, a mass battle system and a domain holding system are required. Work has begun on those, but it is still in a very preliminary stage. I'm optimistic that I'll be able to create the elusive mass battle system that's as simple and fun as B/X combat.
Research into historical pricing is ongoing. I'm taking a rather different tack than Alexis did on that. Whereas he has created a truly remarkable system that models trade in a pretty complex and interesting way, I'm attempting to find historical references for commodities c. 1400, adjust prices I can find that are for near that era, and estimate prices based on costs of their materials and the price of labour at the time.
Make no mistake - I am truly in awe of the work Alexis has done on his trade system. If you haven't read his posts on Tao of D&D about his trade system, do so now (link for the lazy to the tag "trade" on his blog: http://tao-dnd.blogspot.ca/search/label/Trade). It's just that for my purpose, and for the purposes of anyone picking up a roleplaying book, I think getting a good foundation in the form of a basic price list will be more useful "out of the box", so to speak.
I like knowing that there's some historical grounding to my prices, and then, from that solid foundation, I can adjust prices accordingly for regions with dearths or surpluses of certain commodities.
20 August 2013
Latest Burgs & Bailiffs now out, including my article "The Cost of Castles"
The latest issue of Burgs & Bailiffs just came out - a lot of great stuff in there, including an article by yours truly!
Based on my historical research, I generalized the cost of building a castle into a generic format usable in any RPG system.
You can find the latest Burgs & Bailiffs HERE.
I also wrote a handy-dandy spreadsheet calculator to figure the costs out for you - you can find that HERE.
Stay tuned for some follow-up posts on castles in the coming weeks, including some case studies.
Based on my historical research, I generalized the cost of building a castle into a generic format usable in any RPG system.
You can find the latest Burgs & Bailiffs HERE.
I also wrote a handy-dandy spreadsheet calculator to figure the costs out for you - you can find that HERE.
Stay tuned for some follow-up posts on castles in the coming weeks, including some case studies.
16 August 2013
On Realism - Realistic vs. Detailed
A recent comment by reader LS brought this to the forefront of my mind. The relevant bit is:
"I'm very strongly of the opinion that designing towards realism is generally a bad idea."
-LS
I disagree, but I think that might be because we disagree about what we mean by realism. In my experience, most attempts at "realism" are really attempts at detail. And detail is not really necessary for realism - in fact, it tends to create less realistic results, and tends to bog the game down.
LS - please don't think I'm taking you to task with this! I think this is a common thought in RPG design, and I think I'll show here that we're actually not far from the same page. If not, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I think that elegance and simplicity is more or less a given in game design (although the popularity of 3e through 5e kinda disprove that... sigh...). Given an elegant, simple, fast-playing system, why wouldn't you want it to be realistic?
3e is a perfect example of a detailed, unrealistic system. With its millions of rules for everything from basket weaving to whether you can take a single step in a combat situation (yes, if you haven't played 3e, combat is managed down to the individual step - the mind boggles), 3e is so far from being realistic it is, in my opinion, unplayable. Detailed? Absolutely, incredibly detailed. Realistic? Not so much.
In fact, despite being way more complicated than the 0e or BECMI combat system, and significantly slower, the 3e system is actually LESS realistic.
For example, in BECMI or 0e, there's no formal system for combat maneuvers.
Because of that, the DM is free to adjudicate combat maneuvers realistically, using their life experience and understanding of the intricacies of the current situation. 3e says, "Well, you don't have the Shield Bash feat, so - despite being a skilled warrior, who, realistically, would be totally capable of punching someone while holding a shield - you can't do that."
Neither realistic, nor fun, but the feat system does add a lot of meaningless details.
I like reductio ad absurdum, so let's analyze the notion of realism in games through that tool.
Let's imagine a game system that is totally unrealistic. Hitting people with swords makes flowers grow. Shouting makes your arms longer. Standing still makes the moon get closer to the Earth. Jumping increases monetary inflation in China, and causes a collapse in housing prices in Chartres.
In short, it's totally impossible, as a player, to predict what effect your actions will have on the world. You can't make any informed choices, and therefore the game is no fun. You're just flailing about.
Now let's look at the contrary scenario - the DM is some kind of hyper-computer that has an atom-perfect simulation of the game world. Everything action has perfectly realistic results (realistic as defined by the game world - there can still be magic and dragons and stuff). All outcomes are computed instantly and relayed back to the player.
In this scenario, all of the character's life experience will be useful. They can make informed choices without worrying about the "rules", because their actions will have the same effect they would have in the real world. They simply need to role-play - the ruleset, despite being totally realistic, just gets out of the way and lets them play.
And this is the crux of why I think realism in RPGs is worth pursuing. A perfectly realistic RPG requires no system mastery, as everything simply functions in-game as it would in the real world. The players need know nothing of the game mechanics in order to make informed choices about character actions.
Now, obviously, we're not hyper-computers with worlds inside us, but that doesn't mean we can't strive for the ideal of a fast-playing game system with realistic results.
Also, keep in mind that what's "realistic" changes with the assumptions of the world. If your world has fireballs, that's fine - that's not "unrealistic". But if everything else is the same, and you can't use a fireball to start a forest fire in a tinder dry stand of trees, that's unrealistic.
We don't need reams of skills, rules for movement in combat, attacks of opportunity, etc. etc. etc. for a system to be realistic. Those are mechanics, those are details.
What we need to focus on is results. Calibrating the system for speed and accuracy.
What we need is a system where a peasant with a sword will be slaughtered by a trained swordsman. Where falling 40 feet puts you in serious danger. Where getting stabbed in the kidney is a serious problem, whether you're level 1 or 20. Where the player can drive a team of horses because they grew up on a farm, not because they have "Animal Handling +4". Where the players can leverage their decades of life experience.
Realism is plausibility, it's verisimilitude, it's internal consistency.
Realism is good.
"I'm very strongly of the opinion that designing towards realism is generally a bad idea."
-LS
I disagree, but I think that might be because we disagree about what we mean by realism. In my experience, most attempts at "realism" are really attempts at detail. And detail is not really necessary for realism - in fact, it tends to create less realistic results, and tends to bog the game down.
LS - please don't think I'm taking you to task with this! I think this is a common thought in RPG design, and I think I'll show here that we're actually not far from the same page. If not, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I think that elegance and simplicity is more or less a given in game design (although the popularity of 3e through 5e kinda disprove that... sigh...). Given an elegant, simple, fast-playing system, why wouldn't you want it to be realistic?
3e is a perfect example of a detailed, unrealistic system. With its millions of rules for everything from basket weaving to whether you can take a single step in a combat situation (yes, if you haven't played 3e, combat is managed down to the individual step - the mind boggles), 3e is so far from being realistic it is, in my opinion, unplayable. Detailed? Absolutely, incredibly detailed. Realistic? Not so much.
In fact, despite being way more complicated than the 0e or BECMI combat system, and significantly slower, the 3e system is actually LESS realistic.
For example, in BECMI or 0e, there's no formal system for combat maneuvers.
Because of that, the DM is free to adjudicate combat maneuvers realistically, using their life experience and understanding of the intricacies of the current situation. 3e says, "Well, you don't have the Shield Bash feat, so - despite being a skilled warrior, who, realistically, would be totally capable of punching someone while holding a shield - you can't do that."
Neither realistic, nor fun, but the feat system does add a lot of meaningless details.
I like reductio ad absurdum, so let's analyze the notion of realism in games through that tool.
Let's imagine a game system that is totally unrealistic. Hitting people with swords makes flowers grow. Shouting makes your arms longer. Standing still makes the moon get closer to the Earth. Jumping increases monetary inflation in China, and causes a collapse in housing prices in Chartres.
In short, it's totally impossible, as a player, to predict what effect your actions will have on the world. You can't make any informed choices, and therefore the game is no fun. You're just flailing about.
Now let's look at the contrary scenario - the DM is some kind of hyper-computer that has an atom-perfect simulation of the game world. Everything action has perfectly realistic results (realistic as defined by the game world - there can still be magic and dragons and stuff). All outcomes are computed instantly and relayed back to the player.
In this scenario, all of the character's life experience will be useful. They can make informed choices without worrying about the "rules", because their actions will have the same effect they would have in the real world. They simply need to role-play - the ruleset, despite being totally realistic, just gets out of the way and lets them play.
And this is the crux of why I think realism in RPGs is worth pursuing. A perfectly realistic RPG requires no system mastery, as everything simply functions in-game as it would in the real world. The players need know nothing of the game mechanics in order to make informed choices about character actions.
Now, obviously, we're not hyper-computers with worlds inside us, but that doesn't mean we can't strive for the ideal of a fast-playing game system with realistic results.
Also, keep in mind that what's "realistic" changes with the assumptions of the world. If your world has fireballs, that's fine - that's not "unrealistic". But if everything else is the same, and you can't use a fireball to start a forest fire in a tinder dry stand of trees, that's unrealistic.
We don't need reams of skills, rules for movement in combat, attacks of opportunity, etc. etc. etc. for a system to be realistic. Those are mechanics, those are details.
What we need to focus on is results. Calibrating the system for speed and accuracy.
What we need is a system where a peasant with a sword will be slaughtered by a trained swordsman. Where falling 40 feet puts you in serious danger. Where getting stabbed in the kidney is a serious problem, whether you're level 1 or 20. Where the player can drive a team of horses because they grew up on a farm, not because they have "Animal Handling +4". Where the players can leverage their decades of life experience.
Realism is plausibility, it's verisimilitude, it's internal consistency.
Realism is good.
15 August 2013
The Irrelevance of Initiative
Since combat is an ongoing cycle with everyone acting, the idea that people are acting in order in combat rounds is kind of arbitrary. After a full cycle, the beginning and end of the cycle cannot be determined, and therefore being "higher" or "lower" in initiative order is meaningless.
An example. Consider this initiative order:
Bill
Wilma
Orc #1
Steve
Jane
Orc #2
Ogre #1
Phil
Now, look at how the initiative for a 5-round combat looks:
Bill
Wilma
Orc #1
Steve
Jane
Orc #2
Ogre #1
Phil
Bill
Wilma
Orc #1
Steve
Jane
Orc #2
Ogre #1
Phil
Bill
Wilma
Orc #1
Steve
Jane
Orc #2
Ogre #1
Phil
Bill
Wilma
Orc #1
Steve
Jane
Orc #2
Ogre #1
Phil
Bill
Wilma
Orc #1
Steve
Jane
Orc #2
Ogre #1
Phil
For the bulk of the combat, there's literally no way to know if Bill is going first, or Ogre #1, or Wilma, or Phil. Each person just goes after the previous one. If you allow actions to change your initiative order (i.e. "held" actions), then the whole concept becomes even more meaningless.
On top of that, going first is not necessarily an advantage, due to the artifacts of a turn-based system.
Consider Wilma and Bill, both Level 1 Fighters with 3HP and d6 damage weapons. Their movement is 30' (for the purposes of the example).
If they start 35' apart, the person who goes "first" is actually at a serious disadvantage - if they move up at all, the other will be able to then move up on their turn and strike them. If the blow connects, the odds are even that it will kill them, and the fight will be over.
This is why I prefer to do things this way:
I describe the beginning of the action of each opponent (i.e. Orc #1 is moving towards Bill, Orc #2 is moving towards Jane, and the Ogre is preparing to throw a rock).
Then the players say what they intend to do:
Bill: I'm going to draw my sword and fight Orc #1.
Wilma: I'm going to help Bill.
Steve: I'll cast Figface on the Ogre.
Jane: I'm going to flip the table to block Orc #2's advance, and look for my Horn of Fury in my pack.
Phil: I'll defend Jane while she looks for the Horn.
Then we just go around in whatever order is convenient (typically clockwise) and adjudicate the results, with the idea in mind that this is all happening simultaneously.
I don't find that it's any harder to do things that way than it is with an initiative system, it's a lot more satisfying, as the players get to make informed choices based on a hint of what the enemies are going to do, and it avoids all the weird artifacts of a turn-based system.
This system is similar to some strategy games on the market, such as TacOps 4 - there are "order phases" where the game is paused and players issue orders, and then "battle phases" where the game runs in real-time for, say, 1 minute of game time (during which time orders can't be changed or given).
28 June 2013
Weapon Types, or Why Exhaustive Weapons Charts Are Unnecessary
A comment by JDJarvis brought to mind that I've never talked about why I use the weapons I use on my charts and examples. There are two main reasons.
Firstly, I'm most interested in the 14th century and early 15th century. Call it 1325-1425. The weapons I list are the most common weapons of that era - the dagger, the arming sword, the longsword, the mace, the axe, the spear, and the poleaxe.
Secondly, I intended this list to be broadly applicable, despite its brevity. I believe the user of the system should be able to easily extrapolate new weapons, as with these few weapons, I've covered all the archetypes of melee weapons:
I would put the Roman shortsword into the "small" category (some might argue for it being in the "balanced one-handed" category, but that category implies more defensiveness than a shortsword provides), the warhammer clearly is unbalanced one-handed, and the cutlass clearly balanced one-handed.
Halberd? Unbalanced two-handed. Tomahawk? Unbalanced one-handed. Club? Unbalanced one-handed. Rapier? Balanced one-handed. Scimitar? Balanced one-handed. Falchion? Balanced one-handed.
When I see the weapons lists in many RPGs, lists that often take up whole pages, I shake my head. Do we really need to mechanically differentiate between a cutlass, a scimitar, a falchion, and an arming sword? Aren't they all pretty much bladed weapons, about 3' long, with a balance point about 4" from the grip? Isn't just one example sufficient? I feel the huge charts of weapons clutter up the book, and confuse new players.
Perhaps a compromise in a finished product would be to list the few weapons I have, briefly explain the rationale behind the categories, and provide a simple (but fairly exhaustive) list in an appendix of how all other medieval(ish) weapons fit into the system.
Firstly, I'm most interested in the 14th century and early 15th century. Call it 1325-1425. The weapons I list are the most common weapons of that era - the dagger, the arming sword, the longsword, the mace, the axe, the spear, and the poleaxe.
Secondly, I intended this list to be broadly applicable, despite its brevity. I believe the user of the system should be able to easily extrapolate new weapons, as with these few weapons, I've covered all the archetypes of melee weapons:
- small (dagger)
- less than 18" or so in size
- balanced one-handed (arming sword)
- balance point within 4" of hand
- nimble, defensive
- unbalanced one-handed (mace, axe)
- balance point around middle of weapon or further from grip
- good against armour
- less nimble, less defensive
- balanced two-handed (longsword, spear)
- balance point near the hands at one end OR
- balance point near middle of weapon
- strong offense and defense
- unbalanced two-handed (poleaxe)
- balance point closer to "head" of weapon
- good against armour
- strong offense and defense
I would put the Roman shortsword into the "small" category (some might argue for it being in the "balanced one-handed" category, but that category implies more defensiveness than a shortsword provides), the warhammer clearly is unbalanced one-handed, and the cutlass clearly balanced one-handed.
Halberd? Unbalanced two-handed. Tomahawk? Unbalanced one-handed. Club? Unbalanced one-handed. Rapier? Balanced one-handed. Scimitar? Balanced one-handed. Falchion? Balanced one-handed.
When I see the weapons lists in many RPGs, lists that often take up whole pages, I shake my head. Do we really need to mechanically differentiate between a cutlass, a scimitar, a falchion, and an arming sword? Aren't they all pretty much bladed weapons, about 3' long, with a balance point about 4" from the grip? Isn't just one example sufficient? I feel the huge charts of weapons clutter up the book, and confuse new players.
Perhaps a compromise in a finished product would be to list the few weapons I have, briefly explain the rationale behind the categories, and provide a simple (but fairly exhaustive) list in an appendix of how all other medieval(ish) weapons fit into the system.
24 June 2013
Confined Spaces
Edit: updated Longsword length to be 4', a better estimate than 3.5'.
Previously, I'd talked about reach in the abstract, without considering the space you're in. How do we deal with the restrictions imposed on fighting by a confined space? I've touched on this issue here before, in my post Dungeoneering Tools: The Spear, but I'd like to develop something a bit more general, as the subject of confined spaces obviously affects more than just the spear.
Confined Spaces
What constitutes a confined space is going to vary based on what kind of weapon you're used. A space that is "confined" for a spear could be spacious for a dagger. There are also some weapons that have options for how to fight with them - something like a longsword can be held with one or two hands on the hilt, or with one hand on the hilt and one hand on the blade (called "halfsword"). A spear can be gripped in thirds (the usual way for single combat) or with one or two hands down at the butt (for formation combat).
See below for a detailed and simplified chart of how much space different weapons need to be used effectively.
Effects of Confined Spaces
If you don't have enough space (in any dimension) for using your weapon properly, you don't get any Defense or Attack bonus for your weapon. Also, any rolls above 10 on your d20 attack roll count as a 10.
If the space is too small to wield the weapon at all (e.g. trying to use a 7' spear in a 6'x6' closet), obviously you can't use it at all.
Weapon Reach
The reach of a weapon is equal to: the length of the weapon past the hand + the length of the arm + the length of one step + a little bit for body positioning. Anything within the reach of the weapon is a potential target.
Footwork
In addition to the length of the weapon, there's also the footwork required for using it effectively. This is fairly consistent across weapons, and can probably be generalized to about one step per round in any direction.
Weapon Usage Style
There's also the matter of usage style. Spear, longsword, and poleaxe immediately occur as having a couple of options for how to use them.
Spears, poleaxes, and longswords can be held in thirds (i.e. each hand 1/3 from the respective end) or at the butt (i.e. both hands down near the end). Holding a spear by the butt gives it great reach, but limits its offensive and defensive power. Holding a spear in thirds gives its attacks and parries great power, and opens up the possibility of using the spear as a lever when grappling (e.g. a missed thrust to the head turns into an attempt to knock the person down by hooking the spear around behind their head and pulling them down).
Poleaxes and longswords can be swung when held at the butt, which for poleaxes obviously needs a great deal of room.
Space Requirements
Most weapons are going to need a radius of their reach around them, and probably space above them (approximately weapon length + shoulder height) above them.
Let's categorize weapons:
Detailed table:
And, an extremely simplified version, because that's a lot of fiddly numbers:
For this table, S / M / L:
Reach: 8' / 10' / 12'
Width: 8' / 12' / 16'
Height: 6' / 8' / 10'
Previously, I'd talked about reach in the abstract, without considering the space you're in. How do we deal with the restrictions imposed on fighting by a confined space? I've touched on this issue here before, in my post Dungeoneering Tools: The Spear, but I'd like to develop something a bit more general, as the subject of confined spaces obviously affects more than just the spear.
Confined Spaces
What constitutes a confined space is going to vary based on what kind of weapon you're used. A space that is "confined" for a spear could be spacious for a dagger. There are also some weapons that have options for how to fight with them - something like a longsword can be held with one or two hands on the hilt, or with one hand on the hilt and one hand on the blade (called "halfsword"). A spear can be gripped in thirds (the usual way for single combat) or with one or two hands down at the butt (for formation combat).
See below for a detailed and simplified chart of how much space different weapons need to be used effectively.
Effects of Confined Spaces
If you don't have enough space (in any dimension) for using your weapon properly, you don't get any Defense or Attack bonus for your weapon. Also, any rolls above 10 on your d20 attack roll count as a 10.
If the space is too small to wield the weapon at all (e.g. trying to use a 7' spear in a 6'x6' closet), obviously you can't use it at all.
Weapon Reach
The reach of a weapon is equal to: the length of the weapon past the hand + the length of the arm + the length of one step + a little bit for body positioning. Anything within the reach of the weapon is a potential target.
Footwork
In addition to the length of the weapon, there's also the footwork required for using it effectively. This is fairly consistent across weapons, and can probably be generalized to about one step per round in any direction.
Weapon Usage Style
There's also the matter of usage style. Spear, longsword, and poleaxe immediately occur as having a couple of options for how to use them.
Spears, poleaxes, and longswords can be held in thirds (i.e. each hand 1/3 from the respective end) or at the butt (i.e. both hands down near the end). Holding a spear by the butt gives it great reach, but limits its offensive and defensive power. Holding a spear in thirds gives its attacks and parries great power, and opens up the possibility of using the spear as a lever when grappling (e.g. a missed thrust to the head turns into an attempt to knock the person down by hooking the spear around behind their head and pulling them down).
Poleaxes and longswords can be swung when held at the butt, which for poleaxes obviously needs a great deal of room.
Space Requirements
Most weapons are going to need a radius of their reach around them, and probably space above them (approximately weapon length + shoulder height) above them.
Let's categorize weapons:
Detailed table:
Weapon
|
Length (effective)
|
Max Reach
(length + arm + step + lean)
|
Min width
(length x 2 + step x 2 OR step x 2 for thrusting-only weapons)
|
Min Height (6' wielder)
(length+shoulder height)
|
Dagger
|
1
|
8
|
8
|
6
|
Axe/Mace
|
2
|
9
|
10
|
7
|
Arming Sword
|
3
|
10
|
12
|
8
|
Long Sword
|
4
|
11
|
14
|
9
|
Long Sword (halfsword)
|
4 (1)
|
8
|
8
|
7
|
Spear (thirds)
|
7 (3)
|
10
|
12-16
|
8-11
|
Spear (butt)
|
7 (5)
|
12
|
6
|
6
|
Poleaxe
|
6 (2-4)
|
9-11
|
14
|
9
|
And, an extremely simplified version, because that's a lot of fiddly numbers:
Weapon
|
Length (effective)
|
Max Reach
|
Min width
|
Min Height
|
Dagger
|
1
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
Axe/Mace
|
2
|
S
|
S
|
M
|
Arming Sword
|
3
|
M
|
M
|
M
|
Long Sword
|
4
|
M
|
M
|
M
|
Long Sword (halfsword)
|
4 (1)
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
Spear (thirds)
|
7 (3)
|
M
|
L
|
L
|
Spear (butt)
|
7 (5)
|
L
|
S
|
S
|
Poleaxe
|
6 (2-4)
|
M
|
L
|
L
|
For this table, S / M / L:
Reach: 8' / 10' / 12'
Width: 8' / 12' / 16'
Height: 6' / 8' / 10'
19 June 2013
Reach and the Nine and Thirty Kingdoms
Continued from the last two posts, and in response to this post.
Two people in a sword fight spend most of the fight about 10' apart - the distance of one step plus an outstretched arm with a sword in it. They only move in to make a blow.
Standing any closer than that is suicide, as you won't have time to parry an incoming blow (and will be forced to try to dodge, likely throwing yourself off balance and getting killed by the continuation of the attack). I talked yesterday about how important *not dodging* is.
"But on the other hand, are we assuming that combatants are too stupid to try to get inside an opponent's reach? Too stupid to knock the spear aside with their shield? It balances out."
It would seem so, but it doesn't, and here's why.
For the person with the longer reach, it's easy to maintain a longer distance. Any time the opponent gets close, you circle away from them (i.e. step sideways and back). At no point is the long-reach person threatened in this series of actions - they are still too far away to be hit.
Additionally, at any point, the person with the reach advantage can simply step forward and attempt a blow in relative safety- they can strike while they are still out of reach of their opponent's weapon.
However, for the person with the shorter reach, in order to attempt a blow, they have to achieve a tactical advantage which will let them simultaneously catch the other person off balance enough that they can't circle away, control the longer weapon as they close (so they don't die), *and only then* can they attempt a blow. Much, much more difficult.
It's certainly not impossible, but hopefully that illustrates why it doesn't "balance out".
This is also a good argument for buffing spears back up to their full length, by the way.
Fighting Distances
Two people in a sword fight spend most of the fight about 10' apart - the distance of one step plus an outstretched arm with a sword in it. They only move in to make a blow.
Standing any closer than that is suicide, as you won't have time to parry an incoming blow (and will be forced to try to dodge, likely throwing yourself off balance and getting killed by the continuation of the attack). I talked yesterday about how important *not dodging* is.
Managing Distance
"But on the other hand, are we assuming that combatants are too stupid to try to get inside an opponent's reach? Too stupid to knock the spear aside with their shield? It balances out."
It would seem so, but it doesn't, and here's why.
For the person with the longer reach, it's easy to maintain a longer distance. Any time the opponent gets close, you circle away from them (i.e. step sideways and back). At no point is the long-reach person threatened in this series of actions - they are still too far away to be hit.
Additionally, at any point, the person with the reach advantage can simply step forward and attempt a blow in relative safety- they can strike while they are still out of reach of their opponent's weapon.
However, for the person with the shorter reach, in order to attempt a blow, they have to achieve a tactical advantage which will let them simultaneously catch the other person off balance enough that they can't circle away, control the longer weapon as they close (so they don't die), *and only then* can they attempt a blow. Much, much more difficult.
It's certainly not impossible, but hopefully that illustrates why it doesn't "balance out".
This is also a good argument for buffing spears back up to their full length, by the way.
18 June 2013
Shields, Axes, and the Nine and Thirty Kingdoms
Continued from yesterday's post, and in response to this post.
"Also, you'd certainly be better off focusing on dodging an ax than trying to block it with a shield that's going to be hacked to bits."
This seems to be based on a misconception of what a shield is used for. Yes, in a shield wall, you use a shield for blocking.
But in a one-on-one fight, the shield is used to defend you in the same way a weapon is used - by controlling and guiding the opponent's weapon, not by simply "blocking" it. If you're holding your shield out and taking the full brunt of an axe blow with it, you're doing it wrong.
"focusing on dodging"
Dodging is a very small part of combat, and is really more of a last-ditch defense or a way of sweetening a parry than something to be relied on. You always want to be seeking to control the other person's weapon, and you can't do that by dodging. You need to be making contact - either with your weapon or your shield, or by grabbing their hand/arm.
There's a rule of fighting - "Never be uncrossed in distance." That means don't *ever* let your opponent so close they could hit you with just a hand motion, unless you have control of their weapon.
Hollywood depictions of combat are terrible for this - the two fighters stand sword toe-to-toe and slug it out, constantly crossing and uncrossing their swords while they're close enough to punch each other. Well, in real life, both of them would end up dead doing that - being uncrossed in distance tends to lead to double kills.
Furthermore, "dodging" implies (to me, anyway) contorting your body in some way to get out of the way, something you should ideally not be doing, as it breaks your structure and makes you vulnerable. It's far better to use your weapon for defense than to rely on dodging.
But this is getting into the territory I'm going to cover tomorrow, which is Reach, and why more of it is better.
"That's a minor in-game justification, but since the goal is something minimalist that's in between the traditional Weapon vs. AC system and "all weapons are the same", it seems reasonable."
I respect the goal, but I think that any mechanic that encourages players to have their characters behave irrationally is broken.
You would most certainly be better off facing someone with an axe with a sword and shield than with just a sword. I think that really should be obvious.
I can see, if you want to give axes something special, maybe you could have them just negate the shield bonus (i.e. +1 vs. shield). There's no real-world justification for that, but it fits with the system you're building, and doesn't encourage bizarre character behaviour (i.e. "The orc has an axe? I quickly drop my shield and charge!).
A better approach might be something like, "unbalanced weapons count for twice their length", where unbalanced means any weapon with most of the weight at the end - mostly the mace and axe.
This would serve to model unbalanced weapons main function - dealing with armour.
Shields - Not For Blocking
"Also, you'd certainly be better off focusing on dodging an ax than trying to block it with a shield that's going to be hacked to bits."
This seems to be based on a misconception of what a shield is used for. Yes, in a shield wall, you use a shield for blocking.
But in a one-on-one fight, the shield is used to defend you in the same way a weapon is used - by controlling and guiding the opponent's weapon, not by simply "blocking" it. If you're holding your shield out and taking the full brunt of an axe blow with it, you're doing it wrong.
Dodging - A Good Way To Get Yourself Killed
"focusing on dodging"
Dodging is a very small part of combat, and is really more of a last-ditch defense or a way of sweetening a parry than something to be relied on. You always want to be seeking to control the other person's weapon, and you can't do that by dodging. You need to be making contact - either with your weapon or your shield, or by grabbing their hand/arm.
There's a rule of fighting - "Never be uncrossed in distance." That means don't *ever* let your opponent so close they could hit you with just a hand motion, unless you have control of their weapon.
Hollywood depictions of combat are terrible for this - the two fighters stand sword toe-to-toe and slug it out, constantly crossing and uncrossing their swords while they're close enough to punch each other. Well, in real life, both of them would end up dead doing that - being uncrossed in distance tends to lead to double kills.
Furthermore, "dodging" implies (to me, anyway) contorting your body in some way to get out of the way, something you should ideally not be doing, as it breaks your structure and makes you vulnerable. It's far better to use your weapon for defense than to rely on dodging.
But this is getting into the territory I'm going to cover tomorrow, which is Reach, and why more of it is better.
Mechanical Problems
"That's a minor in-game justification, but since the goal is something minimalist that's in between the traditional Weapon vs. AC system and "all weapons are the same", it seems reasonable."
I respect the goal, but I think that any mechanic that encourages players to have their characters behave irrationally is broken.
You would most certainly be better off facing someone with an axe with a sword and shield than with just a sword. I think that really should be obvious.
I can see, if you want to give axes something special, maybe you could have them just negate the shield bonus (i.e. +1 vs. shield). There's no real-world justification for that, but it fits with the system you're building, and doesn't encourage bizarre character behaviour (i.e. "The orc has an axe? I quickly drop my shield and charge!).
A better approach might be something like, "unbalanced weapons count for twice their length", where unbalanced means any weapon with most of the weight at the end - mostly the mace and axe.
This would serve to model unbalanced weapons main function - dealing with armour.
17 June 2013
Spears, Weapon Mechanics, and the Nine and Thirty Kingdoms
In response to this post.
Talysman very kindly wrote a lengthy and detailed reply to my comments on his search for a middle-ground between a cumbersome weapon vs. armour table and no weapon differentiation. I was going to comment on his response, but I got a little carried away, so I'm putting it here. Quotations are from Talysman, unless otherwise noted.
Now, there's a few problems I see with Talysman's approach, some logical, some verisimilitous, and some mechanical.
There's a couple of reasons why the spear was the most popular weapon right up through the early gunpowder era - one is that it's cheap, and the other is that it is really, really good. Like, really good. There's a reason the spear is known as "The King of Weapons", and it's not because it wears a crown.
Now, for dungeoneering, the spear is essentially useless unless you're forming a mini shield wall. So there's good reason why everyone doesn't just use spears all the time. I talked about that here before.
But in one-on-one combat in an open space, the spear is peerless.
"Tom Hudson said almost the exact opposite on a previous post about this. "poleaxe = good against plate, but spear = not so much"."
With respect to Tom Hudson, he's wrong. I would point to the Italian Master Fiore dei Liberi's opinion on the subject, from the end of his section on the spear in his 1400-ish combat manual:
Fiore also specifically depicted plate armour in the illustrations for the spear section in the Getty MS, which he only does for the halfsword (i.e. using a sword like a spear to defeat armour, with one hand on the blade), the poleaxe (essentially a spear with a hammer on it), and the spear (noticing a spear-theme here?):
Spears and Plate Mail, c. 1400
So, no offense to Tom Hudson, but I'll defer to a man who literally lived by the sword and was one of the great masters of the art of combat.
"And my gut instinct is: a spear is a knife on a stick. Stabbing/slashing weapons don't have increased force if attached to a longer shaft; they just have a longer reach. It's the hacking/bashing weapons that have increased force."
The problem with gut instincts is that they're so often wrong.
A spear delivers a great deal more force than a dagger, as you can put both arms on it and thus get much more of your body weight behind the blow as well as double the arm strength. I've worked with swords and spears doing pell drills (i.e. hitting a wooden target), and I can definitively say that a spear packs many times more wallop than a single-handed thrust.
All of this force is concentrated into the point of the weapon, and that point can do some serious damage.
Talysman very kindly wrote a lengthy and detailed reply to my comments on his search for a middle-ground between a cumbersome weapon vs. armour table and no weapon differentiation. I was going to comment on his response, but I got a little carried away, so I'm putting it here. Quotations are from Talysman, unless otherwise noted.
The Goal
As he so often does, Talysman perfectly encapsulates one of the central problems of designing a combat system (and I quote):That's sort of the holy grail, and a particular bugaboo of mine, so I'm always delighted to see other people chipping away at this problem. Now, the spear became sort of a central issue to the discussion, and I think it merits discussing the spear a little more in depth.
- Weapons seem different,
- Each is good at different times,
- There are hardly any rules specifically implementing 1 and 2, and
- They're easy to remember.
The Problems
Now, there's a few problems I see with Talysman's approach, some logical, some verisimilitous, and some mechanical.
- Pole Weapons Nerfed
- Shields Can Hurt Your Defense
- Longer Reach Not Always Advantageous
King of Weapons
There's a couple of reasons why the spear was the most popular weapon right up through the early gunpowder era - one is that it's cheap, and the other is that it is really, really good. Like, really good. There's a reason the spear is known as "The King of Weapons", and it's not because it wears a crown.
Now, for dungeoneering, the spear is essentially useless unless you're forming a mini shield wall. So there's good reason why everyone doesn't just use spears all the time. I talked about that here before.
But in one-on-one combat in an open space, the spear is peerless.
Spears - This One Is Supreme
"Tom Hudson said almost the exact opposite on a previous post about this. "poleaxe = good against plate, but spear = not so much"."
With respect to Tom Hudson, he's wrong. I would point to the Italian Master Fiore dei Liberi's opinion on the subject, from the end of his section on the spear in his 1400-ish combat manual:
And here ends the art of the spear, / With harness and without, this one is supreme.What he's saying is that the spear is awesome, whether or not your opponent is wearing plate.
Fiore also specifically depicted plate armour in the illustrations for the spear section in the Getty MS, which he only does for the halfsword (i.e. using a sword like a spear to defeat armour, with one hand on the blade), the poleaxe (essentially a spear with a hammer on it), and the spear (noticing a spear-theme here?):
Spears and Plate Mail, c. 1400
So, no offense to Tom Hudson, but I'll defer to a man who literally lived by the sword and was one of the great masters of the art of combat.
Spears - Massive Force, Tiny Point
"And my gut instinct is: a spear is a knife on a stick. Stabbing/slashing weapons don't have increased force if attached to a longer shaft; they just have a longer reach. It's the hacking/bashing weapons that have increased force."
The problem with gut instincts is that they're so often wrong.
A spear delivers a great deal more force than a dagger, as you can put both arms on it and thus get much more of your body weight behind the blow as well as double the arm strength. I've worked with swords and spears doing pell drills (i.e. hitting a wooden target), and I can definitively say that a spear packs many times more wallop than a single-handed thrust.
All of this force is concentrated into the point of the weapon, and that point can do some serious damage.
13 May 2013
Critical Hits Revisited
I really like the crit system I have for Spells and Steel - getting a crit means you've gotten an advantage in close combat that will let you do something nifty, like disarm, throw, or hold the enemy.
But I'm moving away from the idea of Fortitude checks at the moment, and away from armour as damage reduction.
With that in mind, I think I'm leaning towards exploding damage dice in addition to the existing system.
A roll of 6 on your damage die means you get to roll another damage die - keep rolling as long as you get 6's!
Your first roll goes to the foe's Armour HP, and the second and subsequent rolls go to the foe's normal HP.
But I'm moving away from the idea of Fortitude checks at the moment, and away from armour as damage reduction.
With that in mind, I think I'm leaning towards exploding damage dice in addition to the existing system.
A roll of 6 on your damage die means you get to roll another damage die - keep rolling as long as you get 6's!
Your first roll goes to the foe's Armour HP, and the second and subsequent rolls go to the foe's normal HP.
10 May 2013
Idea: Armour HP
Instead of reducing damage or making you harder to hit, what if armour had its own HP?
Any non-critical hits would first be taken from the armour's HP. Crits do two dice of damage - one to armour, one to the character's HP. I've been thinking recently about having two kinds of crits - one for 20's on d20, and one for 6's on damage dice, so this would be for rolling max damage. More on this in a later post...
Just like a character, the armour would be able to be "healed" - but in the case of armour, it would require time and tools.
This would give an advantage to the lighter armours - as the armour gets heavier, so does the repair kit! At the high end, you're not going to be making much in the way of repairs to your plate without a set of hammers and an anvil - hardly typical adventuring gear!
Thinking out loud here, but let's toss some numbers together:
Armour as HP
Repairs
Without proper tools, you can't repair the armour.
If you have the proper tools for a lighter armour (i.e. have Cloth tools but Chain armour), you can repair the armour to the level shown in the last column.
If you have the optional tools, knock 25% off the time.
All of these times are for field repairs - expedient, but probably not pretty.
Unbalanced Weapons
Unbalanced weapons would always do 1 point to the character's HP, even on non-critical hits.
Credit
I thought of this after re-reading this post on Untimately:
http://untimately.blogspot.com/2012/06/evasion-armor.html
Any non-critical hits would first be taken from the armour's HP. Crits do two dice of damage - one to armour, one to the character's HP. I've been thinking recently about having two kinds of crits - one for 20's on d20, and one for 6's on damage dice, so this would be for rolling max damage. More on this in a later post...
Just like a character, the armour would be able to be "healed" - but in the case of armour, it would require time and tools.
This would give an advantage to the lighter armours - as the armour gets heavier, so does the repair kit! At the high end, you're not going to be making much in the way of repairs to your plate without a set of hammers and an anvil - hardly typical adventuring gear!
Thinking out loud here, but let's toss some numbers together:
Armour as HP
Armour
|
Armour HP
|
Repair time (max HP without proper tools)
|
Tools Required
|
Max HP with lighter tools
|
Cloth
|
12
|
3 hours
|
Scissor, needles, thimble, strong thread
|
3
|
Leather
|
12
|
3 hours
|
Sharp knife, scissors, heavy needles, awl, thimble, strong thread
|
3
|
Chain
|
18
|
24 hours
|
As Cloth, plus:
Wire, wooden core, wire cutters, pliers (Optional - mechanical wire winder, specialised pliers and snips, premade rings and rivets) |
14
|
Plate and Chain
|
36
|
48 hours
|
All of the above, plus:
Several hammers, heavy snips, steel plate, files, anvil (Optional: spare plates, straps, buckles, etc., planishing stakes, dishing stump) |
27
|
Repairs
Without proper tools, you can't repair the armour.
If you have the proper tools for a lighter armour (i.e. have Cloth tools but Chain armour), you can repair the armour to the level shown in the last column.
If you have the optional tools, knock 25% off the time.
All of these times are for field repairs - expedient, but probably not pretty.
Unbalanced Weapons
Unbalanced weapons would always do 1 point to the character's HP, even on non-critical hits.
Credit
I thought of this after re-reading this post on Untimately:
http://untimately.blogspot.com/2012/06/evasion-armor.html
8 May 2013
The 0-Level Man-at-arms
For some reason, D&D has gotten it into its head that men-at-arms would be 0-level. This trope dates back pretty far, and is taken as canon by many.
Let's examine this for a minute, though.
The historical term "man-at-arms" was used to denote a professional cavalryman in full armour. Knights would be an example of a man-at-arms, but many men-at-arms were not knights. In D&D, however, the term tends to be used to refer to any professional soldier, regardless of equipment.
In either case, though, the term refers to a professional.
The idea that a professional solder has the same odds of hitting in combat as an untrained peasant is, frankly, laughable. This professional, in fact, has lower odds of hitting in combat than your fresh-faced 1st-Level Fighter with 0 XP.
In an older edition like BECMI (my old stand-by), a professional soldier with training and experience should probably be around level 3 - greater odds of hitting, and much more survivable than an untrained peasant.
On average, a peasant (AC 9, 1-6 HP, Attack +0) will take around 5 rounds to kill a Level 3 fighter (AC 9, 3-18 HP, Attack +3). The Level 3 fighter will only take around 1 or 2 rounds to kill the peasant. The difference swells, obviously, if you give the man-at-arms armour.
Conclusions? City watchmen, mook guards, anyone with no real training - 0-level or Fighter 1.
Serious men-at-arms, with training and experience? Probably Fighter 3-5.
Let's examine this for a minute, though.
The historical term "man-at-arms" was used to denote a professional cavalryman in full armour. Knights would be an example of a man-at-arms, but many men-at-arms were not knights. In D&D, however, the term tends to be used to refer to any professional soldier, regardless of equipment.
In either case, though, the term refers to a professional.
The idea that a professional solder has the same odds of hitting in combat as an untrained peasant is, frankly, laughable. This professional, in fact, has lower odds of hitting in combat than your fresh-faced 1st-Level Fighter with 0 XP.
In an older edition like BECMI (my old stand-by), a professional soldier with training and experience should probably be around level 3 - greater odds of hitting, and much more survivable than an untrained peasant.
On average, a peasant (AC 9, 1-6 HP, Attack +0) will take around 5 rounds to kill a Level 3 fighter (AC 9, 3-18 HP, Attack +3). The Level 3 fighter will only take around 1 or 2 rounds to kill the peasant. The difference swells, obviously, if you give the man-at-arms armour.
Conclusions? City watchmen, mook guards, anyone with no real training - 0-level or Fighter 1.
Serious men-at-arms, with training and experience? Probably Fighter 3-5.
29 January 2013
Dungeoneering Tools: The Spear
Upcoming Series
I'm going to start a series covering my take on common weapons and tools used in dungeoneering. First up: the spear.
Misconceptions
It's a common misconception that the spear is a perfect dungeoneering weapon, and I think this misconception comes from the idea that all you do with a spear is poke people with the pointy end. While that's certainly a key point of the art of spearfighting, it's far from the whole picture.
I should point out here that I'm not talking about soldiers in a phalanx (which most RPG's don't deal with), but rather about single/small group melees.
I recently bought two 8' hardwood shafts to use for spear drills. My first reaction on bringing them into my house? "Crap, these are big!" Historical spears ranged from about 6' to maybe 9', so my spears are on the long side, but my conclusions hold more or less for 6' spears.
There is almost no way I could effectively fight with a spear indoors. Navigating through hallways is a pain. Doorways are a bigger pain. Corners are a pain. Turning the spear around is impossible without whacking into walls and bumping off furniture.
Much of spear-fighting consists of off-line guards - holding the spear vertically, or pointing it straight backwards. These off-line guards allow a strong parry with a turn of the hips, knocking aside your opponents weapon and leaving them open to a thrust to the face.
If your spear is parried, you can take the energy of the parry, and swing the back end of the spear around. This counter-parries, and allows you to strike with the butt.
These turning motions are *critical* to spear combat.
Conclusions
Trying to do them in an enclosed space with other warriors around you would be difficult at best, and impossible at worst. My experience fumbling around with an 8' pole in my house has convinced me of that.
Trying to fight without them would be lead to a marked reduction in spear effectiveness - something on the order of halving your combat effectiveness, I would say.
Mechanical Applications
For D&D - halve your AC, and miss on any to-hit roll of 10 or less when spearfighting in an enclosed space.
For S&S - no Attack or Defense bonus from your spear, miss on any to-hit roll of 10 or less.
I'm going to start a series covering my take on common weapons and tools used in dungeoneering. First up: the spear.
Misconceptions
It's a common misconception that the spear is a perfect dungeoneering weapon, and I think this misconception comes from the idea that all you do with a spear is poke people with the pointy end. While that's certainly a key point of the art of spearfighting, it's far from the whole picture.
I should point out here that I'm not talking about soldiers in a phalanx (which most RPG's don't deal with), but rather about single/small group melees.
I recently bought two 8' hardwood shafts to use for spear drills. My first reaction on bringing them into my house? "Crap, these are big!" Historical spears ranged from about 6' to maybe 9', so my spears are on the long side, but my conclusions hold more or less for 6' spears.
There is almost no way I could effectively fight with a spear indoors. Navigating through hallways is a pain. Doorways are a bigger pain. Corners are a pain. Turning the spear around is impossible without whacking into walls and bumping off furniture.
Much of spear-fighting consists of off-line guards - holding the spear vertically, or pointing it straight backwards. These off-line guards allow a strong parry with a turn of the hips, knocking aside your opponents weapon and leaving them open to a thrust to the face.
If your spear is parried, you can take the energy of the parry, and swing the back end of the spear around. This counter-parries, and allows you to strike with the butt.
These turning motions are *critical* to spear combat.
Conclusions
Trying to do them in an enclosed space with other warriors around you would be difficult at best, and impossible at worst. My experience fumbling around with an 8' pole in my house has convinced me of that.
Trying to fight without them would be lead to a marked reduction in spear effectiveness - something on the order of halving your combat effectiveness, I would say.
Mechanical Applications
For D&D - halve your AC, and miss on any to-hit roll of 10 or less when spearfighting in an enclosed space.
For S&S - no Attack or Defense bonus from your spear, miss on any to-hit roll of 10 or less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)