Official Codex Discord Server

  1. 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.
    Dismiss Notice

Why are Gun based RPGs so much more rare then the sword rpg's

Discussion in 'General RPG Discussion' started by Lukrame, Mar 18, 2019.

  1. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,939
    Location:
    Free Village
    try quoting me in full:

    The usefulness of strength for guns drops off relatively quickly. Recoil generally tends to be overdone in games. You're a healthy, somewhat athletic human and a gun goes wild in your hands like a pissed-off stallion? No way Jose. "Amount of ammo" is more of a problem of space than strength - even if we're talking about "encumbrance". Encumbrance doesn't just mean you're struggling under some weight, it means you can't maneuver as properly as you could if you didn't have all that shit clinging to you. And how "heavy" a firearm do you propose here? What are actually the "heaviest", non-stationary weapons carried around by infantry in the field? Not a military nut here, but I doubt those numbers match up to what you would expect from a character with max strength on creation.

    "Well known and generally accepted" doesn't say shit about the quality of those conventions. Fallout was pretty spot on in making strength absolutely negligible for light weapons, for other firearms you needed no more than average strength, and just a tiny bit more for the heaviest firearms. IOW, unless you insist on walking up to things all the time and punching them in the face in this firearm-heavy setting, strength is an afterthought at best.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    ^ Top  
  2. JarlFrank I like Thief THIS much Patron

    JarlFrank
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    23,349
    Location:
    Secret Lab of the Warrior-Magus of Esoteric RPGism
    But +1 weapons are boring as shit and the worst way to do magic weapons in fantasy RPGs.

    Come to think of it, if the generic RPG designer who uses +1 swords as his go-to magic weapon were to design an urban fantasy game, he'd probably use +1 guns as his go-to magic gun, too.

    Boring and unimaginative.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2
    ^ Top  
  3. Neanderthal Arcane

    Neanderthal
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Messages:
    3,207
    Location:
    Granbretan
    I'd like to see Monarchies of God novels by Paul Kearney adapted to a CRPG, they handle firearms well there. Powerful, early guns that can fuck you up but are so slow to load that they're basically one shot in a tight melee, while the accuracy is less than ideal. Add keeping your powder dry and you've got a very situational weapon that has natural logical in game limits.
     
    ^ Top  
  4. lightbane Arcane

    lightbane
    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    6,495
    Location:
    Neverwhere
    Too bad this is the norm. Also, there's Resonance of Fate, a CRPG where everyone uses guns. Too bad it's Japanese so it will make some of you explode with impotent rage even though the game avoids many JRPG steoreotypes.
     
    ^ Top  
  5. spectre Arcane

    spectre
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,500
    I don't think that the weight comparison of individual weapons does any good here. Let's say we compare a relatively modern battle rifle like the G36 (a tad below 4 kgs), a light machine gun like M249 (10 kgs fully loaded), a typical anti-tank system like LAW or RPG (both weight around 2-3 kgs iird) with a longsword weighing (1,8 kgs), with most melee weapons weighing the same, except for some specialized stuff like the greatsword or pikes... which in the end weren't that heavy.
    D&D has really helped to develop lots of shitty misconceptions about armament weight in general, which I find ironic as the entire system was supposed to revolve around that.

    If you're interested in individual soldier's encumbrance, have a look see here:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history...s-from-the-Battle-of-Hastings-to-Helmand.html
    Interesting bit is that no matter the age, they would carry roughly the same amount of shit (40, maybe 50 kilograms).

    Bottom line is, if you have anything at all to do with combat you should be overall fit and able. Just swinging that halberd around would make you pretty buff from the training alone. Archers, for example, would boast quite impressive back muscles and would be quite strong in the upper torso region. The 8 STR 18 DEX archer is yet another silly myth we must thank D&D for. But hey, enough D&D shit. Let's get back on topic.


    In my opinion, most rpg systems are stuck in a rut - the designers want a set of classes, the typical shitshow: dps, tank, healer, etc. etc. And the target audience is trained to think in these terms (I keep hearing all these being tossed around even in games
    that do not use such roles at all). The problem with guns is they're dificult to fit in such a mold, where the fun is about swinging at each other and watching the HP bar go down. To be fair, this also has fuck all to do with how actual melee combat would look like, but hey.

    Another thing is that guns don't tend to mix well with typical fantasy tropes. Arcanum and Shadowrun sadly aren't the norm, and are considered to be the oddball settings. If I remember correctly, Fallout's original tagline was that it didn't have elves, magic and all that crap.
    I think there's a deeply ingrained belief that these things are exclusive.

    So, if you want an RPG with guns, you would actually need to design a system from the ground-up that explores the full potential and actually makes it all fun. And there are many things that are foreign to how a typical RPG plays - hard cover, soft cover, penetration, suppressive fire, etc. These are more in the domain of strategy games. Not to mention, most fights in RPGs tend to be intimate and close quarter oriented - if you want your prepped gunfighting system to shine, you need to allow for a good 300m of combat area so that some kind of fucking tactics can actually be applied - positioning, ambushes, making good use of that scoped rifle. And how does that work in a typical RPG setting where sometimes you want to keep storytelling while in combat? No dramatic pauses as the opponents circle each other, or when their weapons get stuck together. Yeah, properly implemented guns would take a good deal of romanticism out of combat.

    A designer worth his salt would approach all the above as a challenge to be overcome. And I believe it is not impossilble to do so. Problem is, who's going to do it? And if it's done, who's going to appreciate it?
    Let's get back to Fallout for a second. Remember that time when you played a Fast Shot character? I totally couldn't, because it turns combat into a total load of crap. Just a bunch of guys standing on the opposite sides unloading their guns at each other.
    If it wasn't for the combat banter, crit descriptions and aimed shots, that combat system is pretty dull, and that's coming from a game that is pretty gun-centric.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 1
    • Goldfist Goldfist x 1
    ^ Top  
  6. Murk Arcane

    Murk
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    11,845
    What about "guns" by another name -- AKA, crossbows, bows, magical staves? In Divinity Original Sin, staves are basically rifles (their special attack mimics holding up a long rifle and shooting it) and there are of course ranged weapons with ranged skills. I realize this isn't a "gun" in the same sense as, say, Arcanum or Fallout, but functionally what's the difference?

    Are you asking for a thematic thing or a mechanic thing? Because anything you can do with guns, you can probably do with fantasy shenanigans around other ranged weapons -- yet few games do that either, short of elemental arrows.

    Not that I'm against either/or, tbh, just bringing up a parallel that always stuck out to me.
     
    ^ Top  
  7. laclongquan Arcane

    laclongquan
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,866,991
    Location:
    Searching for my kidnapped sister
    As I have just completed 2 runs of Icewind Dale 2, let me recap the experience of using bow like gun build in such game.

    Sniper build is longbow master Dexterity max, Fighter4Rogue. As such, this build shoot arrows like a machinegun. With 5 shots per round, a 20-arrows quiver empties in 4 rounds.

    There are plenty of arrow variety. In fact, the limitation of sniper build is that they dont have enough space to store all kind of arrows. From the generic +5 arrows to the stun/spark/acid/fire/frost/entangle/dispel etc...

    The generic magic arrows can mislead you, as the +5 arrows can break through magical protection that stop the status arrows cold~ plus the additional +5 damage is very nice.

    The range is the visual range of around 600 pixel. The range can be block by wall.

    Weakness? Arrows = money, and shooting arrows like machinegun meaning throwing gold piece at targets. at 20k per quiver, we can run through that easily in 4 rounds.
    No spare space to store the freaking numerous quivers.

    As such, you can see a good bow experience in fantasy setting is not the same as a good gun experience in SF setting. At least in the form of material. We havent discuss the perks/feats yet.
     
    ^ Top  
  8. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,939
    Location:
    Free Village
    The point of strength in fantasy melee was never the weight of the weapons. It was the idea that you can land a blow with those weapons with higher impact. Not a strictly simulationist approach, but most Systems shoehorned in an Explanation of Strength like "not just physical strength or amount of muscle mass but the ability to apply both to appropriate situations". Still kinda bullshitty because the "strength" a martial artist "applies" to their punches and kicks is neither strictly speaking depending on their muscle mass nor on their ability to lift heavy shit.

    It does make more sense when we're talking about weapons though, especially large, unwieldy and heavier weapons like the Greatsword or Halberd. Basically I think we can say the point of hitting someone hard with a melee weapon is you want to infuse the part of the weapon that does the hitting with lots of kinetic energy. Thing is, the halberd and greatsword are long weapons, meaning the point of Impact will be a long distance from the source of that kinetic energy. This means the weapon is not just relatively heavy, but rather that it's unwieldy. The weapon has to feel to you basically like a light weapon to be able to swing it with all the force - infuse it with all the kinetic energy - that it needs to hit hard enough on impact to justify its use over using a lighter weapon. A gun I just have to carry around, point it in the right direction and keep it steady, unlike hitting someone with them.

    where did you get that number, it doesn't say so in the article? 16th and 17th century definitely don't add up to 40kg, WWI kit in all probability doesn't either. It DOES look heavily encumbring due to personal space, as I mentioned (WWI Brits were carrying fucking boot polish… srsly?). Note how the 16th and 17th century gear don't even feature backpacks, and the 16th century gear doesn't even feature any bag except the tiny one worn around the neck O.o

    Not really, you're having the wrong idea of physical conditioning here. Muh Internet says a halberd weighed around 2kg; let's go wild and say it actually weighed more like 8 kg. That's a laughable 16lb barbell (weight of the barbell included) you're "swinging around" there. If you do that regularly until failure, granted, it's going to do wonders for your endurance in the parts of your upper body engaged in the swinging... and not much else. Muscle gains don't work like that, strength gains in the powerlifting sense don't work like that, hell even the martial arts training to hit shit harder doesn't work like that. If you were kind of unfit before, you may experience some muscle and strength gains, but those would be severely limited. I would expect mostly your core to get stronger from swinging a relatively (for you) heavy weight in front of your body. And that's speaking of a halberd that's way heavier than what I've read about so far.

    IOW, you have to be a strong (and possibly tall) dude in the first place to land a blow with high impact with a heavier melee weapon; it doesn't work the other way around.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    ^ Top  
  9. Sykar Arcane

    Sykar
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,554
    Location:
    Turn right after Alpha Centauri
    And yet when you look at depictions of sword fighters and the like from the middle ages for example, hardly anyone looks like Conan the Barbarian, far from it in fact. Furthermore swords are terrible at penetrating armor, period, regardless how strong you are, even a gambeson is good at protecting from sword slashes. As pointed out drawing and holding a war bow string is probably more taxing than swinging around a light piece of metal. People bring up battle axes but those were not used very commonly and neither were maces because as mentioned they were unwieldy and tired you out fast by comparison. Knights still prefered to use swords over other weapons despite swords being nigh useless against plate armor if used traditionally, that is why half swording was invented. Spears, swords and bows were the most commonly used weapons prior to the arrival of firearms, which by this day has all but replaced any melee weapon. Most soldiers these days would get some basic hand to hand techniques and maybe some knife fighting.
    Ultimately there just are a lot of misconceptions around. You do not need a lot of strength to wield a sword properly, not even a two-handed one. Many infantry weapons today are in fact of similar weight or weight more than old melee weapons. Also very few people were tall and strong back then, especially when compared to modern day humans.
     
    ^ Top  
  10. Bigg Boss Prophet

    Bigg Boss
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,131
    People joke about that gun but essentially they are channeling magic power through the blade. It is why there are so many occult references.
     
    • incline incline x 1
    ^ Top  
  11. laclongquan Arcane

    laclongquan
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,866,991
    Location:
    Searching for my kidnapped sister
    Dawg~ They shoot fireball and ice at each other right there in the intro FM.

    And ten minutes later they got GF and can draw magic~
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 1
    ^ Top  
  12. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,939
    Location:
    Free Village
    I've already said it's not the swinging of weapons that makes you muscular. You have to be strong to use a heavier (and that also means longer) weapon to greater effect; doing it is not going to transform you into some hulk. In fact the same in all probability goes for bow strings. If I perform any movement that I can repeat 20-30 times before failure (let alone more often than that), I can expect no to very little noticeable muscle gains from that, let alone strength gains in the powerlifting sense. It's basically endurance training.

    As far as swords not penetrating armor "no matter how strong you are", I kind of doubt that. And we can't accept some out of shape middle-aged re-enactment dudes hitting each other in mock combat as evidence here.

    Let's get factual: I'm hitting you with a solid metal object. I try to hit you as hard as I can, to achieve maximum force on impact. Because we're talking weapons, either the hitting side of the head of that weapon is relatively large, passing lots of energy onto the object hit; as in a blunt weapon. Or it's been honed to the maximum sharpness we could achieve; in that case, the blade sinks deeper than it would if swung with less force. An axe doesn't sink deep enough into a piece of wood to get lodged just by being sharp; you have to swing that shit hard to do that. We can expect some severely diminishing returns here; even a very strong man can't bury an axe head all the way in a piece of wood in one swing. However, as far as penetrating the surface of whatever you're hitting with the sharpest point (the very outer rim of the blade) goes, yes, the force of the swing definitely does make a difference here. Swords aren't fundamentally different in this regard from axes or spear type weapons.
     
    ^ Top  
  13. Sheep Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sheep
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2014
    Messages:
    3,614
    Location:
    Hungry
    I thought about it long time ago and I think it boils down to several things.

    1. Different type of gameplay. While JA designers said that at first they approached it like - guns = bows, swords = knives, grenades = fireballs - it's a flawed approach and source of why imo. JA2 is overrated - what works in medieval fantasy game doesn't always work in other settings as far as approach goes. Obviously the AI in JA would work had melee been as strong as it is medieval themed games, but here it just plain doesn't fucking work(because as much as bows are OP in let's say BG, guns are much, much stronger than that in JA). Remember that game design is iterative and thus RPG devs have more iteration on medieval/fantasy games. Hence why in different settings studios often pick different gameplay style(Troika's first two games vs VTMB). So there's bunch of ideas and solutions we know that work in "sword" settings with no equivalent in "gun" ones.
    2. Thematic association and overlap. Not as true as it used to be, but there definitely was a mindset at some point that swords=numbers going bigger game. Of the longer running Vogelware, Geneforge is the worst selling one, for instance(worst selling IE game is Borement but that's imo just because the game sucks, but look at even fallout vs baldur's gate, BG outsold Fallout by YUUUUGE MARGIN). So in a way - audience that wants an RPG also tends to want medieval, "sword" setting.
    3. Power curve - with guns it's just going to be flatter no matter what, unless you go full bethesda. Like in the example above - having high level wizard casting stronger fireball isn't very creative but it makes sense, but why would high level grenadier throw stronger grenades? This will inevitably end in sort of randomness which I'll make the 4th point of.
    4. Excessive randomness. By excessive I mean the stuff normies rage about in older fallouts or nu-xcom. One wrong roll and your high level EppiccccXXXCONqueRORxxxx got fucked by a crit in the eyes. Or a headshot. This works for xcom and to a degree Jagged alliance because the characters there are fairly easy to replace as long as you don't die whole the time, but in more ordinary RPG it's going to be extremely annoying and probably just result in reload. In "sword" settings the problem is lower as all the damage, health etc. is basically artificial and can be enginerded to the point where you're not feeling like you're fighting sponges but you're not dying from lone crit, but at the same time you don't suffer the cognitive dissonance that's a big deal in for instance Borderlands series, where all guns seem super weak.
     
    ^ Top  
  14. Cael Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Cael
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2017
    Messages:
    7,991
    Well, we have Arcanum, where your tech level 7 gun does 20-50 damage while a tech level 3 axe does 1-12 +30-50 fire +20 strength.
     
    ^ Top  
  15. Kliwer Novice

    Kliwer
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    22
    I think there are numerous reasons, most of them already spoken in this topic. I will try to summaries:

    · Tradition. RPGs are based on Tolkien’s and Howard’s books, on mythology and medieval history.

    · Fictional, magical world is easier to handle. Game Master do not need a lot of specialistic knowledge – everything could be explained as “magic!”, “fantasy world!”.

    · Fantasy worlds – without any limitations – gives more tools to GM. For example – bestiary. In historical setting you are limited to “realistic” enemies (soldiers, thugs…) In a fantasy world you could use everything from any fairytale, legend, mythology… From dragons and goblins to Slavonic ghosts and intelligent mushrooms. Theoretically you could also use your imagination in the SF setting, but this setting is narrower – how many types of aliens could you invent without breaking the atmosphere of the game?

    · For some reasons – most people prefer fantasy settings. I do not know why. There are much more fantasy books then sf books (I think?). Maybe it's a matter of fashion? I think sf was much more popular in 70’s.-80’s. then now.

    · The sword&sorcery tactics is more interesting in RPG gameplay style (especially in team-fights). In your group you can have: a barbarian with axe, a ninja elf with katanas, a necromancer with spells etc. And in SF? Three gun-shooters?

    · FPS games are a better medium to reflect gun-fighting. You could also ask: “why there are not so many FPS games with swords and axes?”

    · Also watch this descriptions: “His battle dance frightened all enemies. He slit orcs throat with his runic ax. Blood is everywhere; it drips steadily to a nearby lava lake ...” and “He shot that guy from 30 meters…”.

    · In fantasy-medieval settings there is a reasonable choice between melee (swords!) and range (bows, magic) fighting. In gun-based settings – there is no options, guns rules! You could break this, like in Star Wars setting, but… in this way you are just creating a fantasy world in space… SW is a fantasy world, not sf…
     
    ^ Top  
  16. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,939
    Location:
    Free Village
    Because muh future seemed like the stuff of fantasy back then to a lot of people (who didn't understand the actual state of human knowledge and the correlation between knowledge and technological advancements).

    There's no real dichotomy between guns and swords aka technology and magic. Tbqh… you could just say that in your setting, firearms don't work mechanically. They contain nothing but bullets and magix. Ofc by the same "logic" you could generally say your world doesn't need any launchers… just missiles. Any magick person can just throw an arrow and then magically accelerate and/ or guide it via magix. Whenever you introduce magic the question is only how far you want to go down the rabbit hole vs. what players will find acceptable.
     
    ^ Top  
  17. spectre Arcane

    spectre
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,500
    It is a well-known fantasy trope that puny characters are unable to lift two handed swords. Or sometimes even just swords. Oh, and if you slip and fall down in plate armor, you're dead, just like a tortoise. It can be surprising to some when they find out that a two handed longsword typically weights 1,8 kilograms, whereas the mighty greatsword is only about two times that much.
    I think you're getting the right idea here, strength isn't fundamental when dealing damage when melee weapons (or at least not as fundamental as typical RPG systems would leave you to believe), it's more about choosing a proper tool for the job and the proper technique.
    Sure, it's great to be big, tall and brawny, and such qualities were often lauded in sagas, songs and tales, but not everyone doing the fighting can be so.

    And since you're referring to powerlifters, I have an anecdote somewhere. I remember reading about powerlifting champions wanting to get into MMA. They would discover that their raw strength is more of a hindrance than an advantage, to the point that they would
    try and lose some of that muscle mass in order to gain the speed an flexibility required to perform certain techniques effectively.

    A good hit from a two handed weapon will fuck the other guy up because of leverage and momentum. And the best thing about greatswords and polearms in general wasn't the weight or damage potential, but the reach advantage. Something that almost never happens in RPGs, but is quite fundamental in melee combat. The halberd is actually a fricking swiss army knife of available techiques, letting you use it as a quarterstaff, spear, axe and a hook all in one.
    Point is, these weapons wouldn't be unwieldy, because unwieldy weapons do not perform their function. You may want to look up these two videos to get an idea what it was like to fight with these things, it's not really bashing at stuff:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mziWUgzt9I4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbNL_At0IVw

    So yeah, guns seem deceptively easier to work with.

    In any case, what I am saying is there is a limit to where raw strength can take you. Medieval warfare kinda agrees with this notion, because no matter how buff you are, you're not going to stand against a guy on horseback, in full gallop,
    transferring all that kinetic energy at the point of the lance.

    I... need a moment here, where do we start.

    From the very beginning - I know a bunch of HEMA guys, the ones actually sparring and competing are far from being out of shape. If that's sufficient for you to dismiss the entire notion, we don't really have a lot to talk about here,
    but these are the closest thing we have to people actually using the stuff fot its intended purpose. So if you're not willing to listen to them, not sure where you want to learn from.

    If you're trying to cut through armor with a sword edge, you're doing it wrong, it's as simple as that. That's evidenced by historical sources, such as preserved fighting manuals which detailed techniques for armored combat.
    Sure, if we're talking about a fantasy setting, it might be possible to cut open plate armor with a two handed sword... ruining it in the process, which is not something you if you unless you have an unlimited sword budget.
    You can attempt to defeat armor by using certain techniques such as the mordhau, where you strike with the cross guard, turning it into a pick, or by half-swording, where you use two hands for a more powerful and accurate piercing action like with a spear.
    Most of the sword damage done by its edge is not just on contact, in order to cut through stuff, you need to draw on the cut, and that's not happening versus any kind of proper armor.

    Now, if you want to stab through armor, that's also not optimal unless you hit the weak spot or a joint. If you hit the plate dead on, the blow most likely glance off, because it was shaped to do so.
    For actually penetrating the plate, you want stuff like a hammer or a pick - the kinetic energy needs to be transferred to a small area to do its work, and you want more energy than a stab would deliver.

    As a guy who's been chopping lots of firewood in his formative years - you can hit it as hard as you want with as sharp as a blade as you can hone, won't do jack shit if going against the grain. Sure you can mock me for not being buff enough, or not having a magical enchanted ax that goes right through it. Though why would you need any of this for splitting fucking firewood? Point is, when applying tools, proper technique always comes before brute force. It's obviously best if you have both.

    It's actually a pretty nice thought if the boring old fireball would be something closer to a mortar or a cruise missle. The druid spots targets while in animal form, the mage brings down fire and brimstone. Would be cool if someone transplanted modern warfare tactics into fantasy worlds. Wonder if it's been done in a satisfactory fashion in an actual game or system or work of fiction? Though I don't think it would ever go down well with the target audience.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
    • Brofist Brofist x 4
    • Thanks! Thanks! x 2
    ^ Top  
  18. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,939
    Location:
    Free Village
    Granted, I was thinking of that as well. But it's a gamist approach to balancing what IS balanced in reality: a little Hobbit/ short Person with low strength just can't wield a greatsword effectively. It's not just about lifting the thing off the ground after all, which you seem to be implying all the time.

    Yes, my point is that Strength in games covers several areas, the "powerlift super heavy shit off the ground once" area, the "lift heavy shit several times/ again and again throughout the day using your muscle mass" area, and the "hit shit hard" area.

    I said "tall guy infusing weapon with lots of kinetic energy for impact", you're saying "leverage and momentum". Same thing in this case. Leverage is achieved by the blade coming down from a point above point of impact; being tall is an advantage here. A short but muscular guy swinging a halberd isn't comparable to a tall and strong guy. And to achieve high momentum, you need the strength to handle the thing easily.

    A relatively weak person may be able to lift a sledge hammer, but that doesn't mean they're as good at breaking rocks with it as a strong person would be. The weaker person may actually be served better with a smaller hammer, while an extraordinarily strong person may achieve extreme force on impact with a hammer that was tailored to their phsical specifications.

    nop, that's some armchair bullshit. It's like saying a rifle with a bayonet is totes an awesome spear.

    Spear type weapons have a certain legitimation to be built for reach; and it's not just an advantage by any means. It can turn into a huge disadvantage right quick. Someone getting past the point of your spear is a very big no-no. And if penetrating armor with a sword is kind of hard, penetrating the armor of a fighter who is mobile (not pinned to the ground or against a wall) with a spear type weapon from the ground is all but impossible. Basically you'd want to find a less protected spot, maybe the hands or try to literally hit him in the face, because for the rest you're shit out of luck, especially if there's a shield in the way. So no, the Swiss Army knife thing is a myth. What the halberd was was a friggin huge poleaxe to be wielded by skilled and friggin huge soldiers, a true specialist weapon. The hook thing seems kind of neat until you realize that "switching" from basically one weapon to a totally different one just wouldn't cut it in a combat situation. There's a reason not a lot of that Transformers shit ever made it onto real weapons.

    If a tall, strong and skilled wielder of the halberd - and it really didn't belong in the hands of anyone else - wanted to forcefully dismount someone, the axe head would still have been the way to go. Better yet, kill the mount with it while the other guy is still in the saddle.


    :lol:

    ok, we have to sort out some definitions here, or this is sailing into retardo land very soon. So you're proposing there are no "unwieldy" weapons because unwieldy basically means the thing is broken as a weapon?
     
    ^ Top  
  19. anvi Arbiter Village Idiot

    anvi
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,755
    Location:
    Norrath
    I think people who want guns are probably going to be more interested in FPS. People who want a RPG is a niche, and people who want guns is a niche. People who want guns in an RPG is an even smaller niche.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    ^ Top  
  20. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,939
    Location:
    Free Village
    "Fighting manuals" are exactly the stuff a medieval weeaboo would have been going over. Thanks for kind of reaffirming my point.

    Instructional booklets that show how people (who exactly? some noblemen?) should be facing off with two-handed swords or instructions that read like "You need to study the katana. You need to take the katana to bed. You need to make love to the katana" in all probability fly right past the reality of combat and warfare of their time. Have you ever seen or read about historical "Fighting manuals" that mention any sort of dirty fighting beyond the occasional feint, for instance? Those Manuals offer prettified descriptions of - usually sword - fighting techniques that are as heavily choreographed as a Highschool Musical. What actually worked in killing People - even if it took some trial and error - likely can't be gleaned from them.

    Fact of the matter is, I'm hitting a human being clothed in maybe just one, but not more than two or three relatively thin protective layers with a solid metal object with a very sharp blade. Is the force of impact going to make a difference here? In all probability, hell yeah. And even if not... you probably don't want to take such a blow if it comes down with a lot of force. Because guess what, not just "blunt weapons" are impact weapons. Even if we're talking about some kind of best case scenario (is it really?) for the defender and he's wearing plate with some padding underneath (or yeah even a layer of chain, though the more solid layers you add on top of a human the less maneuverable they get), there's either going to be a hell of an ouchie, or it's at least going to throw you off balance. Something you never really see/ hear about from HEMA guys :lol: which really just goes to show how 'serious' you can take their little demonstrations.

    Anyway, we've gone even more off topic I guess. The question isn't wether you definitely had to be a stronk d00d to do any damage with swords, but it's wether physical strength - and what kind of strength exactly - can be used to gain a bit of an extra advantage in melee combat.
     
    • hopw roewur ne hopw roewur ne x 1
    ^ Top  
  21. Maggot Erudite Patron

    Maggot
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    854
    Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire
    Good old .45 STOPPIN POWA feels way less snappy than say, a .40 glock
     
    ^ Top  
  22. spectre Arcane

    spectre
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,500
    Not sure what kind of HEMA guys you hang out with, I keep hearing from the longsword guys that the blows can hurt like a motherfucker. And they are sparring with blunt feders and in full armor. Who woulda thunk it, this shit is actually dangerous.
    Also, not sure why you are downplaying the effectiveness of armor. If it wasn't effective, people wouldn't use it and pay good money to have it made. Once it stopped being effective, it was quickly discontinued or would be improved until it did.

    To cite an actual, archaeologically backed example, we have data from the graves at battle of Visby in 1361. The publication is Bengt Thordeman's “Armour from the Battle of Wisby.” It is one of the few gravesites that actually provides sufficient data on fatal injuries and weapons that dealt them. Most of the casualties were from wounds to the head or legs, with almost no evidence of wounds to the torso. This leads to a conclusion that the coat of plates armor used at the time was plenty effective vs. the weapons at that time - only immediate fatalities would result from blows to unprotected areas.

    Thanks for coming out to confirm you don't really have any clue about the subject. Read up on Meyer, Lichtenauer or Fiore de liberi if you feel like picking up a thing or two. I believe it is best to drop the topic until you're actually equipped to discuss it.



    Like I said, it's better to be tall and strong than short and puny, and this tends to apply to all kinds of martial arts. If you are stronger, faster, have more endurance when compared to the other guy, that's the advantage you need to capitalize on.
    You need to have the training to know how to do it, so having "better stats" is not everything.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 2
    ^ Top  
  23. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,939
    Location:
    Free Village
    not impenetrable =/= not effective. Relativity counts bro.

    Armor meant exactly that not every untrained and/ or unfit fighter could injure or kill you with some lucky blows. But the idea that for most of the Middle Ages people in plate armor didn't have to worry about swords really goes against physical reality. The whole "Feat: Armor Training: you've learned how to move your body so blows just glance off your armor. +2 AC" thing is another gamist myth, but one that you seem to support. No sane person would have actually tried to catch blows with their armor unless desperate for an opening in the enemy's defence.

    Protip: don't believe everything you read.

    Legs? Casualties? Unless you actually severed the femoral artery and then waited for the guy to bleed out, you're not going to cause many casualties here. And this doesn't even work against riders (which is really the only way I can see Medieval soldiers hitting people in the leg regularly) because the femoral arteries are not on the outside of your thighs.

    Another protip: people can easily take fatal abdominal wounds that leave no evidence on the bones. Especially if you take some liberties(!) with what you consider marks of weapons and what you may ascribe to animals feasting on bodies before burial or simply the very conditions of having been in the ground for half a dozen centuries. Another thing, anything that cuts into your thigh and leads to blood loss heavy enough to kill you can also do the same thing to your arms.

    Lichtenauer: 14th or 15th century (unknown). You really are hellbent on supporting your argument only with examples from the Late Middle Ages bro. That doesn't work because it's generally accepted that armor at that time had grown to enormous (almost comical) proportions (attributed to ranged weapons), and this is generally not the kind of setting we have in games. Even then… that only means that a tall, stronk dude with a weapon designed for maximum impact is going to be way more dangerous up close than anything else. How did this discussion derail into "muh swords, dey dun need no strengf"?

    Btw, for the lulz:

    Liechtenauer's teachings are preserved in a long poem of rhyming couplets called the Zettel ("Recital"), covering fencing with the "long" or extended sword (i.e. with both hands at one end of the sword), the "short" or withdrawn sword (i.e. with one hand at either end), and on horseback. These "obscure and cryptic words" were designed to prevent the uninitiated from learning the techniques they represented;

    Yeah that's exactly the kind of source we should rely on to form an idea of old melee combat :lol:

    The discussion is About equipment, especially wether certain equipment allows certain people to capitalize on their strengths but maybe shouldn't be used by people without those advantages.
     
    • retadred retadred x 1
    ^ Top  
  24. The Brazilian Slaughter Arcane

    The Brazilian Slaughter
    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,870,916
    Location:
    Belém do Pará
    Talking about guns... why this always seems to be a discussion between Medieval Greatswords vs Assault Rifles?

    There is actually a period in history where guns & melee (and crossbows) were pretty balanced and used at once - the period between 1400-1700.

    - Firearms were slow, big, hefty one-shot weapons.
    - Heavy armor could be heavy enough to stop bullets.
    - Firearms had short range and shit precision
    - Combat was a mix of shooting, melee combat, cavalry and artillery
    - Even more primitive weapons like bows, atlatls and obsidian swords could still cut it against the more advanced ones, especially in situations where they were locally superior.
    - In the later period, you get early rifles (better for long-ranged shooting, but slow) and bayonets, which fuse the gun with the melee weapon.
    - Crossbows were as good/almost as good as guns for a good while.
    - Bows had longer range and could arc their shots.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 3
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    ^ Top  
  25. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,939
    Location:
    Free Village
    IOW why can't all games be Pillars of Eternity
     
    ^ Top  

(buying stuff via the above buttons helps us pay the hosting bills, thanks!)