The Forge Archives

Hi there! I'm new to this board, so I hope I've chosen the right sub-forum ;)...

I'm working on a universal role-playing system called Alter Ego which uses learning-by-doing skill development.

During a recent test session, my players and I have approached a problem concerning the categorization of weapon skills. As I'm striving for realism with my system, I'm looking for a categorization concept that best reflects actual combat experience. My original approach is to have weapon skills according to "weapon families", for example in a fantasy/medieval themed game world that would be:

Swords, maces, axes, staves, spears, bows, crossbows, shields etc.

One of my players has pointed out however that this weapon skills concept would be too specific. He has given an example of an experienced sword fighter who - in his opinion - would also be proficient with axes. So we've tried to find a different categorization concept and in the end, someone has come up with the idea of making weapon skills based on weapon usage, i.e. bashing, thrusting, stabbing etc.

Personally, I find this approach a little too general - however, I have to agree that weapon relations should be taken into account.

I would be interested in your ideas on weapon skills and weapon categorization. Which approach/concept would you prefer?

Ah, "realism".  Sounds simple, doesn't it?

Unfortunately the real world is woefully overcomplicated.  Not only is a person good with a sword not going to be good with an axe, in most cases they won't even be good with another type of sword.

But, actually, the moment you start saying that you want to pigeonhole peoples experience into broader skills (as "sword" is broader than "I remember my father grudgingly teaching me a few passes with willow wands... but he refused to talk about his days as a warrior, or the long scars that the villagers whispered were given him by a dragon") then I know that you're aiming for more than just realism.  You're aiming for a system that will be at once realistic and abstract.

Abstractions can, as I think you're coming to realize, be drawn in many ways over the same underlying set of facts.  Like the shifting borders of countries overlaid on the unchanging geography of a land, where the lines are drawn is crucial to how things feel.

So, IMHO, there is no objective "best way" to draw these lines.  There may be a single best way given your goal for the game.  If you'll tell me your goal for the game (i.e. "I want to support cinematic epic heroism, where moral issues resonate with action", or "I want to support squad combat at a tactical level, and explore the connections that bind such interdependent groups of people," or "I want to make it just like 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'") then I can give you more cogent advice.

Of course you're right - creating weapon skills or categories always means abstracting reality. But without abstracting, would we be able to design anything at all? ;)

Accordingly, when I use the terms "realism" or "realistic" with regard to RPG design, I think of game rules that feel real rather than being real/realistic. In my opinion, a realistic feel can be achieved by including aspects of common sense (and also scientific facts to some degree) into a game that most people can agree on. I hope this explains my word choice.

Part of what I've said above is already my answer to your question about my goal: I want to create a RPG system based on common sense to best support sceanrios, stories and character play (which also rest on common sense).

With regard to combat, this approach means creating rules that reflect what most people would expect from combat situations. In my opinion, this is a mixture of combat scenes shown in movies and described in texts and of people's real-life understanding of physical and biological laws (which is most often intuitive).

The word you're looking for is "Versimilitude" and it's a much more useful thing to have than realism.

I agree, "verisimilitude" is a better word for my design approach - unfortunately, many people simply won't understand it ;)...

Though I appreciate your efforts to correct my wording (no, really), I would like to get back to weapon skills.

Maybe I should rephrase my question:
For a RPG system that tries to find the perfect balance between "realism" (meaning verisimilitude or common sense) and playability, which concept would you use to categorize weapon skills?

What kind of decisions do you want your players to make?

I think that's the way to approach 'realism' issues.  Don't ask "Does the rules set reflect the physics and mechanics of combat?" because that's a painfully difficult question to answer.  Instead, ask "Are the players making reasonable decisions about combat?"  That is soemthing that we can reasonably evaluate.

That being said, in my experience (mudanshia in aikido, brown belt in kung fu) there is _a lot_ of overlap between different weapons and also weapons and unarmed combat.  Things like footwork, timing, distance, movement are universal.  Give me something with an edge and a swing is a swing be it sword, ax, or the edge of my hand.  Same movement with all three.

QuoteDon't ask "Does the rules set reflect the physics and mechanics of combat?" because that's a painfully difficult question to answer.  Instead, ask "Are the players making reasonable decisions about combat?"

Personally, I believe that people generally make their decisions based on their intuitive understanding of scientific laws - and in my opinion, this is the same way role-playing characters would make their decisions. As there is no such thing as scientific laws in a game world - existing only in the imagination of the players -, it's the function of rules to replace them. This is the general approach I have towards RPG rules (as opposed to rules of traditional games) - not only with regard to combat.

QuoteThat being said, in my experience (mudanshia in aikido, brown belt in kung fu) there is _a lot_ of overlap between different weapons and also weapons and unarmed combat.  Things like footwork, timing, distance, movement are universal.  Give me something with an edge and a swing is a swing be it sword, ax, or the edge of my hand.  Same movement with all three.

Very interesting. So, you would rather propose a categorization of weapons according to their respective usage than by weapon families/types?

Quote from: JSE

QuoteThat being said, in my experience (mudanshia in aikido, brown belt in kung fu) there is _a lot_ of overlap between different weapons and also weapons and unarmed combat.  Things like footwork, timing, distance, movement are universal.  Give me something with an edge and a swing is a swing be it sword, ax, or the edge of my hand.  Same movement with all three.

Very interesting. So, you would rather propose a categorization of weapons according to their respective usage than by weapon families/types?

One idea is to have skills apply to other areas.  For instance, if I have a weapons skill say sword, I can apply 2/3 of that to related areas say dagger and 1/3 of that to unrelated area say polearm.

About swords:  a roman gladius and a Norman broadsword and a rapier are three very different  critters.  I think a Norman sword is closer to an axe than to an Italian rapier, from the ways they are used.  (Weirdly, I think classical Spanish fencing is very close to Japanese katana work).

There are so many factors to weapons fighting that making it 'real' or 'believable' really should be considered in comparison to the rest of the system. Do you want a hyper detailed system where every training session you have had may have had effect (combat big feature) or one thats a little less intense?

I could see a system where you make a notecard for every training 'period'/fight and tell the techniques, weapons, etcetera you were trained/used in during it.

However, for it to be 'real', you would have to factor in many, many things, such as the state of the combatants(physically and mentally), the effect of the environs, and perhaps some luck as well.

Quote from: JSEHi there! I'm new to this board, so I hope I've chosen the right sub-forum ;)...

I'm working on a universal role-playing system called Alter Ego which uses learning-by-doing skill development.

Just an hint: there is already an Italian RPG with that name
http://www.narrazione.it/

I dont' think Garmaigol is going to lawsuit you, but maybe i's not a good idea to create a game with the same name

Quote

During a recent test session, my players and I have approached a problem concerning the categorization of weapon skills. As I'm striving for realism with my system,

when you say "striving for realism (BTW, I agree with Vaxalon, for the word versimilitude ) I suppose you can sacrifice simplyness for that.



So...

Quote
One of my players has pointed out however that this weapon skills concept would be too specific. He has given an example of an experienced sword fighter who - in his opinion - would also be proficient with axes. So we've tried to find a different categorization concept and in the end, someone has come up with the idea of making weapon skills based on weapon usage, i.e. bashing, thrusting, stabbing etc.

So I suggest a cascade skill (something like the one in CORPS, if you know)

the main skill can be on bashing, thrusting and so on
then a specialistic skill on foil, sword, mace...
usage should improve both skills .

A little variant (a bit more complicate) is using the same, but crossing them:

while using a sword bashing, you improve "sword" and "bashing".
But, using the same swold like a foil (I'm sorry, I don't know the English word for "affondo"), tou use (and improve) "sword" and "affondo", and so on.

You should have a look at the skill list design section in the fate RPG rules. I found it increadibly helpful for working out what to do for weapon skills for my current game.

You can get it for free from here:

http://www.faterpg.com

wow, i'm just reading the fate rules and thinking, geez this would be really helpful to that dude with that question at the forge, and came here to say pretty much exactly what mindwanders said!

You really should check it out JSE. The entire game. It won Free RPG of the year award at Indie RPG Awards and has aspects (excuse the pun) similar to the game you are designing.

all the best,
Akuma.

If you use specific weapons skills, something to keep in mind is that you've got to avoid the "Harnmaster Syndrome" -- where the merchant ends up just as competent a fighter as the knight does, in practical terms.  The merchant's single best weapon skill is as good as the knight's is, but the Knight has 7-8 weapons skills at that level while the merchant only has one or two. That's a real problem, IMO.

I think for medieval style weaponry going with the: cutting sword, slashing sword, thrusting sword (appropriate periods only), mass weapon (axe/mace), slashing polearm, thrusting polearm method is most effective.

Most combat skill is in having the nerve to actually engage in deadly combat, the will to actually kill, and training in situational awareness.

For the purposes you site above, I'd probably have 3 tiers.

1) Weapon Class (as listed above or similiar).  This is what you'd take as your typical fighting skill.

2) Specialization (by specific weapon type).  Slashing Sword (cavalry sabre), or Thrusting Polearm (pike).  This would be what some characters would take to represent the duellist highly trained with a favorite weapon, or the professional soldier highly drilled with a specific weapon.  It would be worth a couple extra "levels" on top of the Weapon Class skill.

3) The Combat Awareness Skill.  This is a single skill that represents appropriate experience and aptitude for melee engagements.  It would add to every melee skill, be a primary determinate of initiative, and be available only to those trained or bred for combat (from professional soldiers, to tribal warriors).  This addresses Lee's point above and differentiates the knight from the merchant.  For a well trained combatant half of the total "levels" of combat skill that the character has should come from this base skill.

Of course it's a long known truism that for maximal verisimiltude you should scrap analytic structures altogether and go with organic ones. Two possibilities:

1) Freely definable skills. Maximal verisimiltude, because the players know what is right in their opinion. Used in games like HeroQuest, becoming very popular in certain circles.

2) Predefined skill system that arises from the world at hand. Overlapping skills defined through the game world, not a priori. The best example is probably the Vampire Disciplines, which conseivably represent game world facts instead of an unified system of superpowers. Of course it's both, but still.

The latter is probably more along your alley, so I'll espouse some more:

Consider: which is more realistic, a "Using sword" skill or "Taught in Capo Ferro style"? The latter of course. Now, is the Capo Ferro skill a skill to use the sword in a duel? Of course it is. But is it a skill to use the dagger? It is that, too! It's also applicable to all the other weapons that belong to the Capo Ferro system. On the other hand, it hardly prepares one for war, or for using the axe in murderous intent, as both disciplines fall outside the school.

The key to this kind of system is scrapping any idea of analytic tidiness from your thoughts. It might be that Capo Ferro can be used in the same situation as "General brawling experience". So what? It might also be that there is situations where no skill applies. It's all realistic. If the people of the world in question do not actively train in, say, "Perception" (who would?), do not include it as a skill. Only put in stuff that the people themselves consider skills or discernible skill packets.

This way you get exciting skills. If somebody has the skill of berserking, it literally means that he has been taught in the art of berserkangar by holy warriors of Odin. Does it help in intimidation? Sure, I'd be afraid. Does it help in battle? Definitely. Does it help in using your sword to split a fly? Of course not, that's only sensible because roleplayers live in a dream world.

This is the path to ultimate verisimiltude. Forget the skill of "Bashing weapons", that's a complete fiction. A real knight is taught in "Knightly battle", which includes using lance, sword and mace from horseback as well as unhorsed, and has little to do with dueling. Nobody is simply going to learn "Bashing weapons", as there is no such thing. The weapons are different and are used in different manner and for different reasons, and a war mace has more in common with a sword than with a staff. In a "realistic" fantasy world you get people who know how to use the sword and the war mace, because they've been taught to use both. Model that, not some internal idea about how your modern-bred head thinks weapons work. Trust me, you don't know, and certainly cannot build an analytic system with tidily differentiated classes of skills without referencing the actual realities of the world you model. Do you think that those knights are stupid when they don't specialize in "Sword" or "Bashing weapons"? Do you know better?

So; what kind of culture your game tells about? Is there a warrior class? Is practice of weapon skills limited to such a class? Is there hunters? What kind of hunting weapons? Martial arts? What kind? What kind of units are in the armies? How they fight? Answer these questions and list the different approaches to fighting you meet in your world. That is your skill list. It might be simple: if I were to do a game about knights, they all would have the same basic fighting skill simply because in my world knightly combat is very uniform, or at least we know so little that any differences would have to be developed. On the other hand, if the game was about martial artists, I'd list the different traditions of martial arts as skills. A competent fighter can use all kinds of weapons, it's pure madness to imagine spear-specialized monks running around the countryside. Or rather, if they are specialized, then they are that because of their fighting style, not because the player put points only in the one weapon skill (which is usually a smart move, as games have less verisimiltude than morning cartoons).

Feel free to ignore the above suggestion if you suddenly realize that you don't want verisimiltude, but rather tidiness. Most do after realizing that they cannot have both.