Quote from: S'mon;1060021An axe seems like a weapon that really does need a lot of space. A greatsword can be used as a stabbing polearm, and even half-sworded, so ought to be useable in fairly confined spaces I'd think. If you can use a spear you can probably use a greatsword.

If you can use an ax with one hand, then you don't need a lot of space. You're right about the great sword though.

I have no problem with GMs saying "You can't swing a two-handed sword in a big arc with your allies standing next to you". The problem is when they say "two-handed swords can only be used by swinging them in a big arc."

Games usually underestimate the versatility of weapons. For example, "A knife is for slashing. A quarterstaff is for bludgeoning. A spear is for piercing." But a spear is a knife on the end of a quarterstaff. You can slash with the tip of a spear or swing the blunt end or strike with the shaft. Unless a knife is extremely curved, you can still stab with it. You can thrust with a quarterstaff just like a spear (it probably won't poke a hole in the target, but it will still hurt and at a greater range than swinging the end like).

I'd like to see something like "spear, 1d6, +1 to hit when piercing" instead of "spear, 1d6 piercing damage". It can do slashing or bludgeoning too, but piercing is what it's good at. Some swords are better at slashing and others are better at piercing, but they can do both (except for some hyperspecialized blades like machetes and fencing foils) and pommel strikes are a thing.

A long sword is best at slicing, but it can do thrusting and bashing. Medieval fighting manuals describe how to hold a sword by the blade and bash with the pommel and quillons. They called it the "murder stroke", not the "last ditch, half-assed attempt to do minimal damage by improvising". It wasn't optimized for that like a mace, but it was still effective.

Quote from: Xuc Xac;1060041If you can use an ax with one hand, then you don't need a lot of space. You're right about the great sword though.

I have no problem with GMs saying "You can't swing a two-handed sword in a big arc with your allies standing next to you". The problem is when they say "two-handed swords can only be used by swinging them in a big arc."

Games usually underestimate the versatility of weapons. For example, "A knife is for slashing. A quarterstaff is for bludgeoning. A spear is for piercing." But a spear is a knife on the end of a quarterstaff. You can slash with the tip of a spear or swing the blunt end or strike with the shaft. Unless a knife is extremely curved, you can still stab with it. You can thrust with a quarterstaff just like a spear (it probably won't poke a hole in the target, but it will still hurt and at a greater range than swinging the end like).

I'd like to see something like "spear, 1d6, +1 to hit when piercing" instead of "spear, 1d6 piercing damage". It can do slashing or bludgeoning too, but piercing is what it's good at. Some swords are better at slashing and others are better at piercing, but they can do both (except for some hyperspecialized blades like machetes and fencing foils) and pommel strikes are a thing.

A long sword is best at slicing, but it can do thrusting and bashing. Medieval fighting manuals describe how to hold a sword by the blade and bash with the pommel and quillons. They called it the "murder stroke", not the "last ditch, half-assed attempt to do minimal damage by improvising". It wasn't optimized for that like a mace, but it was still effective.

Greetings!

Excellent observations, Xuc Xac!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Xuc Xac;1060041If you can use an ax with one hand, then you don't need a lot of space.

For 1 handed axe I guess about the same as a mace or warhammer - enough to get some strength behind the swing. More than for a stabby weapon; also more than for a draw-cut sword stroke I'd think. Maybe Rob or another re-enactor or HEMA dude can confirm from actual use.

Looking at Matt Easton/Scholagladiatoria videos, his two handed dane axe seemed to need a lot of space to wield effectively, though of course even in confined space it's still a stick with a lump of sharp metal on the end and better than nothing.

Conversely, the greatsword is a very versatile weapon - those big two handed swings seem to have been one of the rarer uses, except in treatises where German bodyguards use zweihanders to deter packs of roaming unarmoured bandits. I get the impression that on the 16th century battlefield it was probably most commonly used in an overhead thrust, much like a short pike.

Quote from: SHARK;1059967I imagine "gamists" or whatever they are called like to assume a sword is just a fucking sword, move on. lol. But there's a huge difference between any number of swords, their inherent strengths and weaknesses, and how they actually perform in combat.

Thats sort of the opposite of what gamist means.  Gamists dont want simplicity, they want mechanical complexity that produces results that are mechanical first, and narrative second... Narrativists want colorful fluff but mechanical simplicity. Gamists want each different thing to have its own unique mechanics that relate to each other in a constant neverending peacemeal oneupmanship of each other in some form of tactical technical mechanical exchange.  Gamists prefer complicated mechanical systems because finding mechanics to exploit to their advantage is the bulk of the fun they derive from the game.  Simply rolling an extra d20 for advantage is far too simplistic for the gamist.  They want specific mechanical effects to produce satisfying specific mechanical results. Tactical wargaming is gamist... With an emphasis on tactical.  The more gears (mechanical rules) in the machine they can turn the better.  They are also the ones who most ardently speak of 'game balance'.  Every choice they make must produce its own specific discrete mechanical benefit.

A simulationist (interested in versimilitude) would suggest that a trident does 3 times as much damage as a spear because it stabs you in 3 different places, and if its got barbed tines, it should do double damage because it rips at its victim just as badly when you pull it back out as it did going in in the first place.  A gamist would choose that weapon over any weapon that didnt somehow produce even more damage whether it fit his characters narrative or not.  They'd build characters so that picking the trident made thematic sense so nobody would question their character build narratively...  A narrativist is the one who says eh.  pierce, bludgeon, slash... Who cares. You took a wound. We can talk colorfully about what that wound is like and thats what differentiates it from other wounds, but mechanically the wounds all produce mechanically a unified unit of 'wounding'.  Better that I take bludgeoning damage than slashing because if I get slashed maybe I'm then bleeding on the floor.  Bleeding internally is bad, but having to fight while slippin around on blood would be worse!  If a gamist found out that slashing weapons provided a bonus to making their opponent slip and fall in their own blood, the gamist would then choose slashing weapons for said mechanical advantage.

For simulationists the mechanics shape the rules, for gamists the rules shape the choices, and for narrativists the narrative shapes the results of the choice.

Quote from: VincentTakeda;1060106Thats sort of the opposite of what gamist means.  Gamists dont want simplicity, they want mechanical complexity that produces results that are mechanical first, and narrative second... Narrativists want colorful fluff but mechanical simplicity. Gamists want each different thing to have its own unique mechanics that relate to each other in a constant neverending peacemeal oneupmanship of each other in some form of tactical technical mechanical exchange.  Gamists prefer complicated mechanical systems because finding mechanics to exploit to their advantage is the bulk of the fun they derive from the game.  Simply rolling an extra d20 for advantage is far too simplistic for the gamist.  They want specific mechanical effects to produce satisfying specific mechanical results. Tactical wargaming is gamist... With an emphasis on tactical.  The more gears (mechanical rules) in the machine they can turn the better.  They are also the ones who most ardently speak of 'game balance'.  Every choice they make must produce its own specific discrete mechanical benefit.

A simulationist (interested in versimilitude) would suggest that a trident does 3 times as much damage as a spear because it stabs you in 3 different places, and if its got barbed tines, it should do double damage because it rips at its victim just as badly when you pull it back out as it did going in in the first place.  A gamist would choose that weapon over any weapon that didnt somehow produce even more damage whether it fit his characters narrative or not.  They'd build characters so that picking the trident made thematic sense so nobody would question their character build narratively...  A narrativist is the one who says eh.  pierce, bludgeon, slash... Who cares. You took a wound. We can talk colorfully about what that wound is like and thats what differentiates it from other wounds, but mechanically the wounds all produce mechanically a unified unit of 'wounding'.  Better that I take bludgeoning damage than slashing because if I get slashed maybe I'm then bleeding on the floor.  Bleeding internally is bad, but having to fight while slippin around on blood would be worse!  If a gamist found out that slashing weapons provided a bonus to making their opponent slip and fall in their own blood, the gamist would then choose slashing weapons for said mechanical advantage.

For simulationists the mechanics shape the rules, for gamists the rules shape the choices, and for narrativists the narrative shapes the results of the choice.

Greetings!

Thank you, VincentTakeda, for correcting my application of those gaming terms. I'm glad that you still understood what I was getting at, though. It's interesting reading about the strange philosophical details of the different terms though. I admit, my knowledge of them has only ever been rough, because I tended to *tune them out* over the years. (Going way back to the days of "The Forge", "The Swine" and all of the pages and pages and pages of endlessly debating "GMS Theory"--it kind of made my eyes glaze over in boredom.)

Again, though, I truly appreciate your concise and understandable explanation concerning such terms. From your explanation, I suppose I tend to favour the simplicity of the Narrativist, but have strong leanings also towards Simulationism. I like the game flow of playing, seeing the world and stories unfold in a fast, efficient and fun manner--but the Historian in me gets bothered by historical details being too casually ignored or mangled!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

No trouble at all.  For me its always been easist to remember as gamists are interested in the mechanics, and the more mechanics the better.  If a story happens so be it, but mechanics and the pitting of the mechanics against the challenges are the most important part.  'The Game' above all else. The players participate in the game by manipulation of the mechanics.

Narrativists on the opposite end want the mechanics to get out of the way so I can take you on a journey!   Here's the plan.  Join the plan!  Mechanics only to the point that they dont slow us down or get in the way...  Dont let too many messy mechanics derail the train.  We've got to get to point b by any means necessary.   Modules and adventure paths are like this.  Anybody can ride the train but the train is bound for point b.  You can hop off the train for a while but getting to point b is what the game is all about.  "The narrative" above all.  The players participate in the game by contributing to the narrative, and frequently do so 'narratively'.  (narrativism is unique in that it often allows the players to control things in the world other than their own characters).  Its also the easiest to run because everyone playing has already bought the ticket.  Everyone agrees that the plan is to get to point b.  A unified table runs with speed and efficiency.  Much like the marines.

The baliwick of the simulationist is the sandbox...  I don't want the mechanics or the narrative to stomp on the freedom of choice.  While Gamists plan to bash mechanic against mechanic for its own sake, and narrativists want to tell a tale and bring the characters along for the ride, the simulationist wants the focus to be on the characters themselves... I don't want the story to drag me along kicking and screaming if I choose not to go there... My choices are what matters the most and the more distinct choices I have the better.  Mechanics AND story are secondary to player agency... I make my OWN plan. I'll know where I'm going as I go...  Let me choose to what destination i'm going, which problems I'm interested in solving, and if a deeper meaning happens to grow from that, so be it..  Exploitation of mechanics or the creation of colorful narrative is secondary... "Character agency" above all.  The players participate in the game by exploring and wandering and finding inspiration and direction and meaning as they go. Often the toughest game to run. Hard on the players because they have to create their own inspiration and not having a gravitational point b to head towards can sometimes result in herding cats.  Hard on the gm because the gm is called upon to react improvisationally to these cats and the much more frequent surprise direction or lack thereof.  Tougher to plan for.  This style of planning is often called schroedingers choice or xanatos speed chess.

If I were to plot the systems graphically I'd say simulationists start with a point called 'my character' and blossom out in any direction the characters choose, narrativism is like a black hole that ends with a point called 'the storys satisfying conclusion' and all roads are pulled in towards that point, and gamism just runs around and vibrates in little tight circles, getting slightly bigger and faster as time goes on.

Simulationism a garden sprinkler where the water starts at a point and sprays everywhere, narrativism a sink where its all flowing down a single drain, and gamism a snowglobe.  Nothins going anywhere but its fun to shake it up.

Granted thats not a 100% accurate interpretation of GNS theory, but

• The guy who wrote gns theory was a huge part of the burgioning narrativist/storyteller movement,
• was an ardent fan of narrativism,
• ended up scrapping the whole gns theory in the end anyway.

So now its all just grognard shop talk.  Still super useful for making sure you find the right kinda tables who share your particular gaming goals.  Ideally all games would have all three.  Meaty intricate but speedy mechanics, a cool storyline, and plenty of player agency, but failing that... Gotta choose whats most important to you personally and its good to have a clear picture what that is.  'Know thyself'.

Quote from: Malleustein;1060020I have enforced this for years and had players rage at it.  Usually rules-laywer types.

But it makes sense to me that you can't easily tunnel fight with a great axe and that a fighter whirling a two-handed sword around cannot do so with his allies stood around him.

The players who know me better always take a dagger as a back-up weapon that can be used in confined spaces, easily concealed, drawn quickly in most circumstances, coup de grace, thrown accurately, etc.

Mine loved it after they started getting five attacks in close tunnel fighting for every one attack the gnolls were getting off. Made henchmen with cheap spears valuable since you could pack them so tight.

Quote from: SHARK;1060111Greetings!

Thank you, VincentTakeda, for correcting my application of those gaming terms.

Well, his definition of the terms wasn't actually any more accurate than yours.

I've seen Gamist to mean 'Gamey' the way you were using it. Normally Gamist is used* to mean someone who priorities use of player skill and challenge to the player (not to the character), which is orthogonal to how crunchy a rules system is.

*As in the GDS and GNS models of player agendas.

Quote from: Daztur;1060115Mine loved it after they started getting five attacks in close tunnel fighting for every one attack the gnolls were getting off. Made henchmen with cheap spears valuable since you could pack them so tight.

My players are happy overall with the rulings for room to swing and stab, making frequent using spears or halberds.  

My weapon damage rules are very simple, so they have little issue dropping larger blades for daggers.  Indeed, it promoted boldness in our magic-users, who will happily step in to shiv some goblins alongside the fighting-men.

Quote from: VincentTakeda;1059954in palladiums dead reign, curved blades dont get stuck in the zombies where a straight edge does.  So that's fun.

I had no idea about that. It's surprising to see a specific weapon rule like that in one of Palladium's games.