Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Strength and dexterity in RPGs

Mangoose

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
24,715
Location
I'm a Banana
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity
"Flurry of attacks" lol
 

Prime Junta

Guest
Fuck, you guys really don't know the first thing about Chinese history. But by all means, carry on.

(Or, if you like, here's an easy-to-read primer: http://www.amazon.com/China-History-John-Keay/dp/0465025188 )

Enlighten us. Because nobody is going to read that, but there might be people interested, like me.

Sorry, but the topic is just too broad for a few forum posts. Sometimes reading a book (or two, or three) is the only way to go.

I will leave this here though: China has been centrally governed for about half of the time of its written history, and during those times, it has been and continues to be one hell of a difficult country to govern. Over the last 4000 years, it's gone through many upswings and downswings, periods of burgeoning innovation and rigid stagnation, order and chaos.

Your generalisations only make sense if you're looking at one relatively short period in its history: the downswing consisting of the decadence and eventual collapse of the Qing dynasty and the reconstruction which followed, which coincided with a period of Western (European, then American) global ascendance. This period has already ended. Your generalisations never were very accurate, and now they're completely obsolete.
 

Mangoose

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
24,715
Location
I'm a Banana
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity
Strength is important in boxing, too. Perhaps not to the extent that many guys go out of their way to weight train, but I have to think when they start leaning on one another and trying to force an opening that strength starts playing a bigger role than trying to evade a punch.
Very true. Happens in medieval longsword, too, if the manuals are true. Incidentally the pommel is used as a weapon at that point. Well, I guess you use everything you can when your adrenaline is fucking high during face-to-face grappling.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,823
Neither which properly reflect how such things are used in real combat which was the point of the comment.
Sure, doesnt mean you are not wrong. I find uninformed opinions really distasteful. Especially when they are against something. I can excuse a fanboy, they dont know any better. But if you are hating, it better be because you know what you are talking about.

But feel free to be contentious if it brings you any sort of emotional satisfaction.
You get the facts wrong then try to turn it on me? Go play the game before speaking about it and you wont get called on your bullshit.
 

Mustawd

Guest
Even in boxing and MMA, where you are fighting with your own hands/feet and not a sharp weapon, strength is not as important as people think. Most old school boxers don't even lift weights, as they believe it makes them slow, and instead just do calisthenics.

Not to mention that in boxing your footwork and how you're able to torque your body is usually a better indication of how hard your punch lands. Yes, overall mass does tend to help, which is why being on the top end of the weight class is preferred. However, there are some hard hitters out there that hit hard due to technique and less about how strong they are.

Which brings me to...

Check out actual historical 2 handed axes, they had relatively tiny axe-heads and could be wielded with great speed and little strength.

Not only that point but even with two handed swords, my understanding is that it's the interplay between the pivot points of the handle that allow you to swing it quickly and with force. In other words, as you push for a swing with the top hand, you're also pulling with the bottom hand. Thus creating more force in the swing based on where you apply the force on the sword. Proper technique is key.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
I'm doing an ARPG with a realtime fighting simulation that accounts for weapon weight and leverage. Instead of stats for each class of weapon I decided to have multiple strength stats. Nothing overly realistic, just a few simplified muscle groups. Arms, shoulders, and legs.

Arm strength lets you swing a sword faster, increasing hit chance and damage. Stronger arms let you handle a longer or heavier sword. Legs help too.. more so for spears, throwing, running, jumping, kicking. Shoulder strength is key for bow draw speed and steadiness, and helps with swords and shit.

Stamina/endurance (basically your heart muscle strength) also comes into play. So if you mash buttons and run around and swing wildly, or use a weapon that's too big, all your muscle groups lose strength until you catch your breath or get owned.
But what about other stats? Are they going to have similar level of detail and fragmentation? Because if not, your system will be heavily skewed towards physical combat with little room for anything else.
Also, proper melee technique relies on legs and hips no less than on arms.
You don't just stand there and keep wailing on your enemy using your arms - you keep stepping in with your cuts and thrusts, swiveling your hips around to put more weight in, stepping out of the way of opponent's attacks.

Telengard
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/damage-cap.76748/
:salute:

But what's sad, is that all these decades later, most RPGs still use the same retarded stat approach.
That's because they keep old stuff that's retarded and replace the rest with freshly invented retardation, rather than the other way around.
We still have HP pools, HP inflation on level ups, nonsensical effects of attributes, often AC conflated with dodge and so on.
As you pointed out, strength has almost nothing to do with melee combat.
It has, but sure as fuck not for "hurr I strong I swing moar DAMAGE!!!1".
Once you start binding each other blades, grappling, etc. you'll find yourself in a rather helpless position if the other guy is similarly skilled but stronger.
Check out actual historical 2 handed axes, they had relatively tiny axe-heads and could be wielded with great speed and little strength.
:salute:
Also check out bec-de-corbins and other lucerne hammers - both 2h hammers, both tiny hammerhead at the end of a long stick.
All the power in melee weapon fighting and boxing and MMA is generated not with your muscle strength but with coordinated body movements which use physics to generate power.
It even applies if you want to do something as basic and non-combative as chopping fucking wood.
And weapons are really light, otherwise they would be useless.
:salute:
What people don't understand about longbow versus plate armor is the concept of More Dakka!! With mass volleys while the first arrow might only dent with continuous fire an arrow will eventually find a weakness.
It's like Fallout minigun crits, really.
:M
Would Diablo be a better game if the name of the statistics were more pertinent to reality?
Actually in diablo dexterity gave you your chance to hit, and STR mostly allowed you to use bigger weapons.
But im used to people making these statements, retarded shits that havent played diablo but think they know the game.

Diablo is NOT diablo 2, diablo is diablo, and its p. damn good.
So the question has been answered and the answer is "yes". +M
Hard requirements are shit, though.

Wielding large weapons has more to do with footwork and learning how your maximize your power upon impact (obviously you need some body conditioning). In essence if you can properly use a Longsword you can properly use a Claymore from a strength perspective.
Even with realistically light weapons you will get tired faster with heavier ones if you're wimpier. Fighting living opponent is also different from chopping at a static object as you have to react and the more strength you have the less will mass of your weapon slow down your reaction time.

As for dexterity, even people with basic weapon training don't miss their attacks, they either get blocked or parried. Perception is quite important in fight since even if you are a faster, a block is still a block, thus finding the angle is half of connecting. We can say that dexterity could represent the other half but I am being generous since it is a nebulous term in the weapon handling context (hand eye coordination would be more exact).
Obviously. Missing melee attacks is a broken abstraction of attacks not hitting because the target actively prevents that.
And yeah it seems obvious to me that dexterity should mostly mean hand-eye coordination - that's why I would split it from agility in the first place.

1) Assume there are only three attributes
2) STR = damage, DEX = hit and dodge, and CON = HP
3) You can only pick 2 out of 3

Even with a very simple system like this, interesting character concepts can still emerge.

STR + DEX = Duelist type. This guy is deadly and hard to reach, but if you manage to land a solid strike then he's going down. Good in one-on-one combat.
STR + CON = Barbarian type. He's powerful and can take a beating, but not very skilled. Good at AoE and also beating on large monsters/beasts.
DEX + CON = Paladin type. High defense and able to survive more than a few blows, but he lacks true stopping power. Good at protecting teammates and more versatile than the other two.
  • STR == damage is broken abstraction as discussed above, STR should reduce penalties from heavy equipment and improve ability to stand your ground/force the other guy to back off.
  • HPs are broken abstraction and tanking shit with your bare chest should get you killed. If you want to represent staying power, use stamina.
  • Beating on large monstrous beasts requires agility more than anything because you won't match their strength anyway and they will probably smash you flat in one hit regardless of how "tanky" you are. Barbarian type might be good against those, but that's because a manly guy in loincloth doesn't compromise his maneuvrability with any extra weight and big weapon will give him reach advantage necessary to hit big bad monster without getting mauled and to hit monster's vitals that are deeper in then with human. Classical barbarian is therefore STR + DEX.
  • STR+CON guy is the type you put in plate, and have him engage in regular battles. Guy can stand his ground and keep swinging for a long time. If you want to stop anything that can be physically stopped by a regular size humanoid from getting somewhere, for example near your squishy elderly guy in a bathrobe, this is your guy.
  • Additionally I propose ability to put 2 points in single stat
  • 2xCON guy would be your African style hunter/tracker type that can chase prey for days in the end.
  • 2xSTR would be your archer type.
  • 2xDEX would be a duelist, the guy without much staying power either in terms of keeping his ground or just staying in combat for the long type, but outmaneuvring and striking other humanoid down would be his forte.
  • DEX+CON - I don't know really, guy could probably be good at fighting supernatural threats that just can't go down easily (not huge monsters but shit like liches, vampires, etc.) so a witcher type, would also work excellently as designated distraction.
  • Combination-wise your DEX seems to have more in common with overall agility than hand-eye coordination that is vital for any physical combatant.
  • For AoE you'll want a wizard, barbarian will quickly succumb to swarm as he won't be able to avoid all the attacks especially from ranged weapons even if he may manage to chop off more heads than he will make swings, his only hope will be that the enemy flees seing the first few mooks getting just cleaved to bits. STR+CON dude in armor will probably fare better if approprietly armed but if he gets swarmed he will get pulled to the ground and finished off.
When it comes to abstract combat attributes what do you guys think about this?
Strength - As in overall muscle bulk and fitness.
Perception - As in combat awareness, prediction and accuracy.
Agility - As in overall maneuverability,adaptability,flexibility.
Willpower - As in your determination, wits, concentration, spiritual power.

What I find interesting is by combining you get secondary attributes:
Dexterity/Dodge = Agility + Perception
Toughness/Constitution = Strength + Willpower
Stamina/Endurance = Strength + Agility
Bows/Throwing = Strength + Perception

It also have multiple different attacks equal in value.
Strength can have powerful blows,
Perception can have deadly critical attacks(as in target vitals or chinks in the armor),
Agility for a flurry of attacks,
While willpower focuses on defense.
It even creates a RPS system where Strength<Perception<Agility<Willpower<Strength.
Perception + Willpower = ?
Some magical aptitude?
Agility + Willpower = ?
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,823
So the question has been answered and the answer is "yes". +M
Hard requirements are shit, though.
Few games wouldnt be better if they cut the gamey shit. More specifically on this genre.
 
Self-Ejected

Ludo Lense

Self-Ejected
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
936
Neither which properly reflect how such things are used in real combat which was the point of the comment.
Sure, doesnt mean you are not wrong. I find uninformed opinions really distasteful. Especially when they are against something. I can excuse a fanboy, they dont know any better. But if you are hating, it better be because you know what you are talking about.

But feel free to be contentious if it brings you any sort of emotional satisfaction.
You get the facts wrong then try to turn it on me? Go play the game before speaking about it and you wont get called on your bullshit.


In most games strength, dexterity, intelligence etc. can be translated to "the meele dmg stat, the range dmg stat, the magic dmg stat etc.".

Would Diablo be a better game if the name of the statistics were more pertinent to reality? I really don't think so.

NOTE: I am not saying a more realistic combat system would immediately be more enjoyable. Slaughtering things by the thousands in Dynasty Warrios or Diablo certainly has its appeal. I am just saying that using more realistic metaphors for completely abstract combat systems like those is probably unnecessary.

Neither which properly reflect how such things are used in real combat which was the point of the comment.

1. Most games doesn't equal Diablo I
2. Most people say directly Diablo when talking about the franchise or the franchise (and you know this)
3. Every single game in the Diablo franchise uses stats in a way that isn't pertinent to melee combat (which again, was part of my point) hence I didn't feel the need to differentiate. I could have said other franchise but hack&slash are very stat heavy and thus felt more relevant.
4. You either have having reading comprehension issues or are being willfully obtuse to rage about a detail that you know I know and which isn't relevant to my point.
5. Maybe my paraphrasing was a bit weird but reading the entire comment reveals my point exactly.
 

Jrpgfan

Erudite
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
2,007
In the hoary old days, the pnp rpgs didn't have attributes affecting combat like this, and for good reason. Strength was there for your ability to carry stuff (more loot!) and to break stuff open (to find more loot!), and that's all. Bows all did the same damage, because it's the arrowhead that matters most for the damage, not the size and pull of the bow. Size and pull mattered for range and countering wind, and thus were all about the range increments (plus penetration at close ranges in rpgs that factored that in). Melee wasn't that much different, as application of any additional strength than is necessary to cut a hole in someone's vitals is just wasted effort. And in the old days, those kinds of things mattered, back when rpgs were closer to war games.

But all of this is moot anyways. Having Strength affect melee damage as it does is just one of those things that "makes sense" to people. So much so that they endlessly whine and cry about it if it isn't there. More than a BSN dweller who hears there won't be romances, if you can imagine.

The draw does affect penetration at a same distance though, which is not absurd to say would equal to damage in a game(the greater the penetration, the higher the chance to kill or wound the opponent).

You are right to conclude about the arrowhead though, although different arrowheads are more suitable for different kinds of armor(coat, mail, plate etc...).

Here's an interesting experiment I found: http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf

And an interesting video(which besides informative shows how much horseshit most of these documentaries made by "respected" channels spread):

 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
Even in boxing and MMA, where you are fighting with your own hands/feet and not a sharp weapon, strength is not as important as people think. Most old school boxers don't even lift weights, as they believe it makes them slow, and instead just do calisthenics. Mike Tyson, in his prime, did not lift weights

Just because they didn't lift weights, doesn't mean they still weren't freakishly strong (Cus D'amato for example built Tyson's punching power by making him use heavier than norm punching bags since early teens).

Small guys beating up on people thrice their size and weight (who've had similar training) with super technique is the domain of anime and Holywood (and well maybe early days UFC when no one knew how to defend against BJJ). In reality, weight classes exists for a reason, a run of the mill heavyweighter would crush Mayweather (one of the best in history) in the ring, let alone outside it. The difference in height, reach and mass would be just too big to compensate with speed, footwork and technique. I mean, Ali certainly wasn't known for his plant feet punching power but put him in lower weight class division and he would have knocked them around silly.

Now granted, things could be very different with medieval weaponry involved but I imagine there's a good chance that two heavily armored combatants would eventually start grappling/wrestling each other.

Not that I think it's that important, there are a number of character archetypes in CPRG that have no basis in reality but are still fun to play for many people like a dual-wielding nimble fighter that evades blows and dances around his opponent or some such.
 

Mustawd

Guest
Even in boxing and MMA, where you are fighting with your own hands/feet and not a sharp weapon, strength is not as important as people think. Most old school boxers don't even lift weights, as they believe it makes them slow, and instead just do calisthenics. Mike Tyson, in his prime, did not lift weights

Just because they didn't lift weights, doesn't mean they still weren't freakishly strong (Cus D'amato for example built Tyson's punching power by making him use heavier than norm punching bags since early teens).

Small guys beating up on people thrice their size and weight (who've had similar training) with super technique is the domain of anime and Holywood (and well maybe early days UFC when no one knew how to defend against BJJ). In reality, weight classes exists for a reason, a run of the mill heavyweighter would crush Mayweather (one of the best in history) in the ring, let alone outside it. The difference in height, reach and mass would be just too big to compensate with speed, footwork and technique. I mean, Ali certainly wasn't known for his plant feet punching power but put him in lower weight class division and he would have knocked them around silly.

Now granted, things could be very different with medieval weaponry involved but I imagine there's a good chance that two heavily armored combatants would eventually start grappling/wrestling each other.

Not that I think it's that important, there are a number of character archetypes in CPRG that have no basis in reality but are still fun to play for many people like a dual-wielding nimble fighter that evades blows and dances around his opponent or some such.


These are pretty good points. An over abundance of strength CAN make up for having poor technique. In which case, you'd need an equal over abundance in agility/weapon skill to counter it.

Made me think of that fight im GoT with The Mountain and the quick/flashy persian looking guy.
 

Doktor Best

Arcane
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
2,849
Well Oberyn had the longer range with his spear, range makes up for many things in a melee combat.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,823
1. Most games doesn't equal Diablo I
No game equals diablo 1, except diablo 1.

2. Most people say directly Diablo when talking about the franchise or the franchise (and you know this)
Most people havent played diablo 1. also what DraQ said.

3. Every single game in the Diablo franchise uses stats in a way that isn't pertinent to melee combat (which again, was part of my point) hence I didn't feel the need to differentiate.
You could have generalized even further and went with the entire genre, maybe naming the 3 exceptions there are to this day.

4. You either have having reading comprehension issues or are being willfully obtuse to rage about a detail that you know I know and which isn't relevant to my point.
Im being willfully obtuse because im tired of stupid uninformed generalizations. Especially from people i expect know better.

5. Maybe my paraphrasing was a bit weird but reading the entire comment reveals my point exactly.
Irrelevant, your point was obvious before you ever made it, the least you could do is be precise.
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
7,938
Japanese had longer swords and other deadlier weapons like the Naginata. They were banned in modern Japan, that's probably why the Katana become so iconic. This is what little I know from doing background research for my games.

Naginata was something of an oddity that arose without a real need, wasn't widely used and the quickly dropped because it was simply too large and unwieldy to use in Japanese combat - if a long reach weapon was needed a spear worked and was far cheaper, if a sword was needed a shorter one like a katana did the job with far less iron used.

European two handers fully came into their own in the last stage of Medieval combat when full plate made a shield useless and large close combat weapons were needed to mingle in the pikewall to keep leakers from getting through and to potentially hack their way through the enemies pike-shafts.

true that,but really it wasnt possible for a longbow arrow to pierce plate armour at standard battlefield distances.
What people don't understand about longbow versus plate armor is the concept of More Dakka!! With mass volleys while the first arrow might only dent with continuous fire an arrow will eventually find a weakness.
Armor is not invulnerable, to be effective in battle you have to have a trade-of between the amount of protection you have and actually going up to an enemy and fighting.
You can make yourself a turtle that is invulnerable but there is no point if you can't kill your enemy. In fact its more easy to grapple you and incapacitate where you will be at their mercy just like a real turtle.

It's far more nuanced than that. If it was the case then we wouldn't have accounts from the Crusades of Crusaders fighting Muslims looking like pincushions covered in arrows and still able to fight on because the arrows used weren't specialized to defeat heavy armour. Europeans eventually did develop such arrows, which is the real reason why the longbow was so deadly, it was the nature of the bodkin arrow that allowed it to penetrate effectively.

Your last comment is also a bad analogy for two reasons.

One, because armour wasn't as heavy or as cumbersome as we commonly imagine it to be today. The tiring effects of armour mainly came from being enveloped in metal for hours doing strenuous physical activity that would make someone naked pour with sweat, let alone doing it under the light of the sun.

Two, because much Medieval personal combat was essentially grappling and getting in close and dirty with someone else to get past their weapons reach and used yours to vulnerabilities in the armour to shove a blade into or at least bash to cripple your opponent.

To think that personal combat back then was only people keeping a distance swinging their weapons at each other is as silly as when people under valued grappling/wrestling martial arts compared to striking ones until the early UFCs showed how easily they could bypass the strikers attacks and pull them helplessly to the ground.
 
Last edited:

Mustawd

Guest
Two, because much Medieval personal combat was essentially grappling and getting in close and dirty with someone else to get past their weapons reach and used yours to vulnerabilities in the armour to shove a blade into or at least bash to cripple your opponent.

To think that personal combat back then was only people keeping a distance swinging their weapons at each other is as silly as when people under valued grappling/wrestling martial arts compared to striking ones until the early UFCs showed how easily they could bypass the strikers attacks and pull them helplessly to the ground.

This is actually a fair point as a lot of medieval, as well as ancient, battlefield combat was not as continuous as Hollywood makes it out to be. Momentum played a big role, and rallying men after a failed attack was its own skill. There are lot of warfare that never really gets touched on in movies because it makes it hard to summarize in a 5 minute shot. For example, skirmishers (slingshot throwers, javelin throwers, really light infantry with javelins or crossbows) on the battlefield are hardly ever seen in the movies that I've seen. Even in a movie like Troy, where Javelins make an appearance, you don't actually see any of them in battle. But I digress.

Anyways, however accurate your observations are Beastro, I still think the 1 on 1 dueling comparison is more applicable to a cRPG than what an actual battlefield would look like. After all, the combat is usually more discrete 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 than the scrum that was a medieval battle.
 

adrix89

Arbiter
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
700
Location
Why are there so many of my country here?
One, because armour wasn't as heavy or as cumbersome as we commonly imagine it to be today. The tiring effects of armour mainly came from being enveloped in metal for hours doing strenuous physical activity that would make someone naked pour with sweat, let alone doing it under the light of the sun.
And the fact that you were in a campaign and had to march all over the place.
Two, because much Medieval personal combat was essentially grappling and getting in close and dirty with someone else to get past their weapons reach and used yours to vulnerabilities in the armour to shove a blade into or at least bash to cripple your opponent.
That's what I said already.
They had tournament armour that was many times more strong then battlefield armor, there is a reason they couldn't just use that.
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
7,938
I will leave this here though: China has been centrally governed for about half of the time of its written history, and during those times, it has been and continues to be one hell of a difficult country to govern. Over the last 4000 years, it's gone through many upswings and downswings, periods of burgeoning innovation and rigid stagnation, order and chaos.

That still doesn't change the fact that over thousands of years China hasn't budged beyond a roughly defined border, only viewing those people's and nations within those borders as worthy of conquest (to call China even today anything but an Empire is to gloss over the immense size and number of different people's within it's borders in much the same case as Russia - China is what Eurocrats must wish had happened to Europe centuries ago).

We're talking about the only region of the world with the numbers and sufficient technology throughout history that could have managed to conquer all of the Old World if they wanted to several times over, and effectively did take over a great deal of it once coopted by the Mongols who put all of their resources to use for that very purpose. The fact that they never have before or since than comes from a large facet of Chinese culture and society that views the outside world as not worth going to, it has to come to China, that's the completely opposite of Europeans and the pressures and mindset that launched them into dominating much of the globe.

You can say things are different, but some little hints reveal that same mindset is still strong, like their unique approach to mining and other resource gathering in places like Africa which pretty much leaves nothing behind infrastructure wise because they have no intention of staying, or how the PLA has repeatedly forced equipment and projects upon the PLAN for the explicit intention of hobbling it's ability at sea projection and to keep it a coast defence force - it's a big reason why the DF-21 exists, a ballistic missile supposedly intended to attack US carriers that has no ability to alter the course of the weapons package because it's a fricking ballistic missile and more a propaganda tool than a real threat.
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
7,938
And the fact that you were in a campaign and had to march all over the place.

And do you think they did so always wearing their equipment like modern day soldiers? It was nicely packed away in the luggage train to make it as little a bother marching as possibly while keeping it out of the elements until pulled out to be worn when a battle was expected, which most of the time took awhile to get going as each side found terrain facing one another and then readied themselves for battle.

Knowing that it drove me nuts watching Sandor Clegane faff bout Westeros with Arya seemingly never taking off his armour much less oiling and maintaining it. The man would have quickly been encased in rust if he did that, especially in the very damp, British-like climate he did it in. It's another huge reason why leather and padding were never obsolete - it doesn't matter how good plate is if it's simply not practical to always wear, so it was wise to have something that could keep a blade from your skin that could be worn on a daily basis in case you fought yourself in a brawl.

It's for that reason that bullshit fantasy crap like spiked armour was never used. Whatever utility in combat it may have had didn't outweigh the absolutely pain in the ass, if not outright danger, it would be packed away hiding waiting to impale someone on.

Anyways, however accurate your observations are Beastro, I still think the 1 on 1 dueling comparison is more applicable to a cRPG than what an actual battlefield would look like. After all, the combat is usually more discrete 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 than the scrum that was a medieval battle.

It remains the same in 1 on 1 duels, which is why the comparison to MMA is apt. Combat back then wasn't a set match peace beyond jousting, going against someone meant using everything available to you to win and it's why fencing is now so divorced from it's combat roots that full contact sports like football and hockey has more actual combat in them than it does. All those silly little rules that keep the duel at range and encourage striking and wins with mere touches would never fly in a real fight just as fancy striking martial arts don't work without tackdown defence training when the opponent can just tackle you to the ground, sit on you and turn your face into hamburger, which is what became the dominate technique in MMA once the original era of different styles competing against each other died out and was replaced with the first generation of mixed martial artists.

In a Medieval duel there'd be no ref off to the side ready to stop the fight if duelist did that and then tell the two to stand up, stand apart and resume fighting at weapons reach. If the fight went the the ground then fists, pommels and guards were used to desperately injury an opponent until they yielded and it's why the European sword is so misunderstood and better looked in many of it's forms as a multi-tool where every end could be used as a weapon in the same way the different sides of a polearms head were used for different functions.

The reason why HEMA and older weapon martial arts keep fighting to clinical strikes and at range is the same reason why many unarmed martial arts stick to striking and keeping fights standing up, fighting on the ground is dangerous and one can easily fuck up an opponent breaking bones and causing unnecessary wounds. It's also nasty and inelegant, which is the main reason why MMA has such an odious reputation with people like politicians and the fact that even in duels it was common and not surprising for people to die fighting in them in the Middle Ages, which was half the appeal in much the same way car crashes are in modern racing sports. It was arguably more dangerous to be a dedicated tournament fighter than an actual soldier because you fought far more frequently, but the upside was the pay and fame was thus more regular than campaigning for months on end supporting yourself hoping to fight a battle and capture enemies to ransom and the equipment of the fallen collect and resell.

It's for that reason that William Marshall gained so much of his fame, winning (and living long enough to win) 500 matches which he effectively made a career of because, despite being one of the best fighters of his time, he had bad luck in combat capturing opponents and making money from it, something so pronounced that he was regularly and openly mocked for it by other English knights as a young man fighting in France.
 
Last edited:

Mustawd

Guest
It remains the same in 1 on 1 duels, which is why the comparison to MMA is apt. Combat back then wasn't a set match peace beyond jousting, going against someone meant using everything available to you to win and it's why fencing is now so divorced from it's warfare grounded roots. All those silly little rules that keep the duel at range and encourage striking and wins with mere touches would never fly in a real fight just as fancy striking martial arts don't work when the opponent while just tackle you to the ground, sit on you and turn your face into hamburger, which is what become the dominate technique in MMA once the original era of different styles competing against each other died out and was replaced with the first generation of mixed martial artists.

In a Medieval duel there'd be no ref off to the side ready to stop the fight if duelist did that and then tell the two to stand up, stand apart and resume fighting at weapons reach. If the fight went the the ground then firsts, pommels and guards were used to desperately injury an opponent until they yielded and it's why the European sword is so misunderstood and better looked in many of it's forms as a multi-tool where every end could be used as a weapon in the same way the different sides of a polearms head were used for different functions.

The reason why HEMA and older weapon martial arts keep fighting to clinical strikes and at range is the same reason why many unarmed martial arts stick to striking and keeping fights standing up, fighting on the ground is dangerous and one can easily fuck up an opponent breaking bones and causing unnecessary wounds. It's also nasty and inelegant, which is the main reason why MMA has such an odious reputation with people like politicians and the fact that even in duels it was common and not surprising for people to die fighting in them in the Middle Ages, which was half the appeal in much the same way car crashes are in modern racing sports. It was arguably more dangerous to be a dedicated tournament fighter than an actual soldier because you fought far more frequently, but the upside was the pay and fame was thus more regular than campaigning for months on end supporting yourself hoping to fight a battle and capture enemies to random and the equipment of the fallen collect and resell.

It's for that reason that William Marshall gained so much of his fame, winning (and living long enough to win) 500 matches which he effectively made a career of because, despite being one of the best fighters of his time, he had bad luck in combat capturing opponents and making money from it, something so pronounced that he was regularly and openly mocked for it by other English knights as a young man fighting in France.


Again, very good points. However, let's not forget we are talking about a cRPG that's supposed to be fun. I don't know about you, but ground fighting in a cRPG not only does not seem fun, but also pretty dumb when you consider that if you go down on the ground, the other enemies will just attack you while you're occupied. So what..is that like an automatic hit from two or three surrounding enemies because you're busy trying to arm bar the other guy?

Ok, so where does that leave us?

Realistic battlefield combat? Nope
Realistic 1 on 1 duels? Nope

How about semi-realistic jousting/sparring/idealized combat? Well, yes since that's basically what many if not all cRPGs are simulating. And in that case, you always assume there is room to swing your sword. You always assume the guy or surrounding guys can't tackle you. Some games might take into account back stabbing or flanking, but not all do.

Which, again, goes back to strength having a more minimized role when compared to what it is in real life. Unless you are arguing that you should just abstract it all away without having to worry about ground/grappling rules and just give strength out-sized importance as a stat.
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
These are pretty good points. An over abundance of strength CAN make up for having poor technique. In which case, you'd need an equal over abundance in agility/weapon skill to counter it.

Sure, though if we're talking about application in fantasy RPGs who knows how many additional factors you'd have to consider since anything goes. What if you have a blade made from some magic metal that cuts through any armor like butter? Strength would be useless in that case (consider how stupid for example is that STR governs lightsaber damage in KOTOR).

Not to mention that you can extrapolate this whole discussion about weight class in RL fighting sports to creatures 20 times your size and mass you regularly face in fantasy RPGs like dragons and giants. I mean If any RL laws applied how much of a dumbfuck you'd have to be to engage a reptilian creature the size of a house in melee? Unless you're suicidal, you'd use siege weaponry and the like.

Made me think of that fight im GoT with The Mountain and the quick/flashy persian looking guy.

Love that fight, both in the books and how they translated it to the show (they did leave out a few details but it was still well choreographed and the guy playing Oberyn did a great job in previous episodes to make you care for the character). However, in addition to being more agile and skillful, Oberyn has been preparing for that duel for years (while The Mountain doesn't really give a fuck whom he faces) and had an ideal weapon and gameplan for it.
 

gaussgunner

Arcane
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
6,151
Location
ХУДШИЕ США
When it comes to abstract combat attributes what do you guys think about this?
Strength - As in overall muscle bulk and fitness.
Perception - As in combat awareness, prediction and accuracy.
Agility - As in overall maneuverability,adaptability,flexibility.
Willpower - As in your determination, wits, concentration, spiritual power.

I like it.
Strength is basically size, augmented by muscle building.
Agility is basically quickness, but not conflated with dexterity.
Willpower+Perception are crossover stats for magic/tech users.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom