You make some really good points parbreaker. I guess the one advantage any blunt attack has, is knocking a person out (a good kick to the neck can certainly do that). But if I am standing in front of someone who has no weapons, and I try to kick them I know 1) kicking them in the neck is going to be hard and put me in a risky position 2) if I do manage to land it, it has a pretty good chance of knocking them out. However, what if I have a baseball bat? If I have a baseball bat I know 1) I am very likely to get through the person's defenses and land solid blows. 2) If I do manage to hit the person in the head or neck, I have a really good chance of knocking that person out and doing permanent damage. Now what if I have a gun? at that range 1) I will most likely hit the person with my shot 2) If I hit the person in the torso or head, I have a really good chance of killing the person, especially if I am firing more than one round.

There is something else to consider here. we all know, most games don't replicate the experience of fighting and war in all the subtelty and detail required. But do you really want that? I have a lot of experience with unarmed fighting, but when I made Terror Network, I chose not to go with a super detailed and realistic unarmed combat system. Primarily because, every "realistic" unarmed system I have played, is just too cumbersome to use for my prefered style of play. I do think this is a very interesting topic, but at the same time, I would say to the OP, consider the downside of a super realistic unarmed system. And consider the wide spectrum of disagreement it will generate (as this thread shows). Even if you do your best to make unarmed mechanics that simulate real life brawling, there will still be people who disagree with your choices. There are just so many variables at work.

Do some google-fu for "Surviving a Knife Fight" or similar searches.  

Given the choice between fighting some MMA guy who was going to pound on me versus the same MMA guy with a big nasty knife... no question.

Quote from: Stuart;355319Do some google-fu for "Surviving a Knife Fight" or similar searches.  

Given the choice between fighting some MMA guy who was going to pound on me versus the same MMA guy with a big nasty knife... no question.

Or google image search of "knife wounds". Ouch. I would take a black eye any day over those.

haha, all true, I concede.

That actually was Quite Interesting.

Going back to the OP. I think most of the folk on here would generally agree that the following points can be deemed true

• 2 weapon style has both advantages and disadvantages
• you do indeed get more attacks and you get the flexibility to use the off weapon for defense or attack
• an off hand wepons is no where near as effective as a shield defensively
• reach is reduced by fighting with two weapons both by the nature of the weapon (they tend to be shorter) but also from the attack position and reach is a key element of combat that is often overlooked in RPGs
• Spike knows how to take a beating
• Not all RPGers sit at home eating pizza all day long and weight 300lbs

The conclusion I saw to another thread about dual-wielding once was that it lessened the practitioner's effectiveness against single skilled opponents (roughly on his skill level) but helped them when they were facing multiple lesser opponents.

I'd say it was a valid trade off in an RPG, but I'd wager most people's thought processes would look like "well, the minions are going to be easy to beat on anyway; the big boss is where the action is."  And then when they're using sword/shield and fighting the big boss and they take a big hit, Mr. I Wanted To Dual Wield would think "if only Drizzt were here..."

Quote from: Stuart;355319Given the choice between fighting some MMA guy who was going to pound on me versus the same MMA guy with a big nasty knife... no question.

"Rush a gun, run from a knife."*

!i!

(*I've seen conflicting attributions for this quote, from Al Capone to Jimmy Hoffa to Dashiell Hammett.  I couldn't tell you which is correct.)

Quote from: jibbajibba;355355That actually was Quite Interesting.

Going back to the OP. I think most of the folk on here would generally agree that the following points can be deemed true

• 2 weapon style has both advantages and disadvantages
• you do indeed get more attacks and you get the flexibility to use the off weapon for defense or attack
• an off hand wepons is no where near as effective as a shield defensively
• reach is reduced by fighting with two weapons both by the nature of the weapon (they tend to be shorter) but also from the attack position and reach is a key element of combat that is often overlooked in RPGs
• Spike knows how to take a beating
• Not all RPGers sit at home eating pizza all day long and weight 300lbs

I feel like an odd number of gamers are into combat sports or join the military. Must be some kind of love of glory... (:

Actually, about the whole system building thing, the way I did it in my RPG was to make weapons deal more damage than hand to hand, but hit points are so low that a single strike can knock out an enemy. Usually, one hit from a weapon or 1-2 from hands ends fights in it. It might be a little quick for some people, but I like it.

What about weapons used as swordbreakers or used for disarming? Dual wielding pistols or SMGs?

For melee, I would agree that sword and shield best for equals while dual-wield could potential deal out more damage against multiple lesser opponents.

Quote from: Cranewings;355389I feel like an odd number of gamers are into combat sports or join the military.

Which is why threads like these always threaten to degenerate into scissor-paper-rock flamewars about which karate beats which kung fu, made even more hilarious by the probability that the flamers are fatbeards and Sheldons, with diehard opinions gleaned from Jet Li films and UFC clips on DailyMotion.

Quote from: Hairfoot;355517Which is why threads like these always threaten to degenerate into scissor-paper-rock flamewars about which karate beats which kung fu, made even more hilarious by the probability that the flamers are fatbeards and Sheldons, with diehard opinions gleaned from Jet Li films and UFC clips on DailyMotion.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: Hairfoot;355517Which is why threads like these always threaten to degenerate into scissor-paper-rock flamewars about which karate beats which kung fu, made even more hilarious by the probability that the flamers are fatbeards and Sheldons, with diehard opinions gleaned from Jet Li films and UFC clips on DailyMotion.

I learned all my moves at the Dojo.