For the record, my question was sincere.  There's a bit of a disconnect with the ubiquity of the sword in medieval times and the supposed utility of it.  A lot of sources claim it was less than effective.

Quote from: Bren;988877Because...

• Status symbols are very important.
• Humans aren't especially logical or rational.
• Really heavy armor is historically rare or unavailable.
• And lots of people who may need killing to maintain one's status aren't wearing heavy armor.

1. Status symbols tend not to be used in war.  At least not successfully, which usually ends in a decline in their use.  And the Sword's decline didn't happen until several hundred years after it's creation, and was replaced by the firearm.

2. You're very right.

3. This, I need a clarification:  What do you mean by 'really heavy armour'?  Are we talking chain harness?

4. Yes, but that usually happens outside of a war situation, and frankly a dagger is better and easier to hide.  Most imagery and historical accounts show them being carried in actual combat.

Again, I wonder if the sword not as useful as an axe or a pole arm, why was it so ubiquitous.  Honest question.

It's why I use D6 base for all weapons in OD&D. Fighters carry different weapons for different situations. Sometimes, it makes sense to use a short sword or a spear.

As for the tight area and the long sword? Take a -2 to hit.

Quote from: Spinachcat;988942It's why I use D6 base for all weapons in OD&D. Fighters carry different weapons for different situations. Sometimes, it makes sense to use a short sword or a spear.

As for the tight area and the long sword? Take a -2 to hit.

Huhn?  I don't understand?  Are you saying all weapons do ONLY a SINGLE d6 or do you have a scaling system which deals multiple, depending on the weapon?  Otherwise, what's the point of carrying anything other than dagger.  Ever.  It all does the same damage and can pretty much be used anywhere.

Quote from: Spinachcat;988942It's why I use D6 base for all weapons in OD&D. Fighters carry different weapons for different situations. Sometimes, it makes sense to use a short sword or a spear.

And it works for OD&D:).

QuoteAs for the tight area and the long sword? Take a -2 to hit.

To the enemy's chances to hit, you mean? Works for me, I can easily hold them at bay with my blade, and I have swordgrappling tricks for those that get closer;)!

One of the charms of 0D&D was that every weapon did 1d6 damage. Yes, this meant that mechanically there was no reason to carry anything other than a dagger, but back in the day we didn't think that way.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988945Huhn?  I don't understand?  Are you saying all weapons do ONLY a SINGLE d6 or do you have a scaling system which deals multiple, depending on the weapon?  Otherwise, what's the point of carrying anything other than dagger.  Ever.  It all does the same damage and can pretty much be used anywhere.

Mainly reach. I have always, even when running D&D, had different weapons doing different damage but the main problem with a knife is reach. In a game where your life is at risk every time you are hit, it is possible that you will never get to use your knife.

Quote from: DavetheLost;989005One of the charms of 0D&D was that every weapon did 1d6 damage. Yes, this meant that mechanically there was no reason to carry anything other than a dagger, but back in the day we didn't think that way.

We thought that way. If you had a much shorter weapon and were squared-up on an opponent, the other guy always got the first attack on the first round. It wasn't in the rules but no one ever objected and every DM in our circle did that. Between low-level characters, where one hit could put you at a disadvantage or even kill you, that discouraged dagger only combatants. With the increase in HP, a higher-level character might not mind that so much but by then the character was used to using other weapons. Later on, when they went to varying damage by weapon, I think D&D short-changed knives.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988945Otherwise, what's the point of carrying anything other than dagger.  Ever.  It all does the same damage and can pretty much be used anywhere.

Well, apparently this was a problem (I think iron spikes were the item that became the item to use as weapons, as they were even cheaper than daggers), and variable damage was in part to combat this. However, there is reach, and there is also the Weapon vs. Armor chart. You are right, no one would ever use a more heavy/expensive weapon (especially a two-handed one) if you do not apply any other, non-damage rules.

Seems pretty clear to me that all of this depends on the level of abstraction you want to game at. At a high enough level of not wanting to play out details, you can just have some indicator of how good a character is at fighting (e.g. their fighter level) and say that means they do whatever fits their best judgment about what equipment to use in what way.

As one adds detail, at some point it should be clear that at least it is a very different approach to bring only a knife to a sword fight, even if it's possible it may work out in some situations. Armor is clearly one major factor in how well that's likely to work, though again, it depends on the other circumstances.

For other weapons and situations too - do you want a game about the details of a combat, or do you just want a way to get results quickly, or something in between?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;9889191. Status symbols tend not to be used in war.  At least not successfully, which usually ends in a decline in their use.

For continued use in war see points 2. and 3.

Quote3. This, I need a clarification:  What do you mean by 'really heavy armour'?

By really heavy armor I simply mean armor that makes a sword useless or nearly useless compared to some other weapon of similar size and weight. People used swords in combat because they would (with rare exceptions) do a decent job of damaging most adversaries in combat and a sword is a lot handier to carry as a back up weapon than a second 2-handed poleaxe.

And let's not ignore the obvious, while a knight would start out a battle using a lance or spear or maybe a big sword or axe that wasn't a weapon that was convenient to carry outside of an actual battlefield. And even on an actual battlefield carrying a second lance or greatsword would be awkward. Knights often had squires to carry around that extra lance or axe.

Quote4. Yes, but that usually happens outside of a war situation, and frankly a dagger is better and easier to hide.

If you have the right status, you don't need to hide your swordy status symbol. You get to walk around wearing your sword and using it's very presence to intimidate the hoi polloi.

Quote from: DavetheLost;989005One of the charms of 0D&D was that every weapon did 1d6 damage. Yes, this meant that mechanically there was no reason to carry anything other than a dagger, but back in the day we didn't think that way.

What, you mean the GM wouldn't just give you a -2 to attack rolls against someone with a bastard sword?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;989019Well, apparently this was a problem (I think iron spikes were the item that became the item to use as weapons, as they were even cheaper than daggers), and variable damage was in part to combat this. However, there is reach, and there is also the Weapon vs. Armor chart. You are right, no one would ever use a more heavy/expensive weapon (especially a two-handed one) if you do not apply any other, non-damage rules.

Funny enough, iron spikes are almost rondelle daggers:D.
And I'm a big fan of making weapons different through stuff that's not directly affecting their damage abilities.

All weapons do d6.

Best change I've made to my use of rules in 40 years.  Especially hilarious considering I urged Gary to use different damage for weapons in the first place.

Not fucking worth it.  I'd rather adjudicate edge cases as needed rather than have 150 pages of fucking combat rules.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989083All weapons do d6.

Best change I've made to my use of rules in 40 years.  Especially hilarious considering I urged Gary to use different damage for weapons in the first place.

Not fucking worth it.  I'd rather adjudicate edge cases as needed rather than have 150 pages of fucking combat rules.

So, and I'm honestly trying to understand here, how is this different than to having to codify/write down the '150 pages' of 'rules'?  Lemme give some examples.

So street fight, open street and wide alley.  Reach wouldn't matter much, unless you decided that the thugs lose out on initiative or get an attack penalty because the PC's have swords.  You just made a ruling, that's a rule to add to your notes 'mental' or written.

In a Dungeon, players have Pole arms but the bad guys have shortswords and after a couple of loss charges, the goblins switch to using corners and blockades.  Whatever you do here, you've just made MORE rulings to remember.

Then there's two handed weapons, like great whopping Danish axes, or Germanic Zweihanders to the slight shorter (about 5ft) Scottish Claymore, if they do the same damage, what makes them superiour to weapons like the English Arming Sword and Shield?  Or at least worth using?  Do they do more damage?  Or will give more reach, but require more open space to swing?  Yet again, you have to make MORE rulings.  What's the advantage of keeping those rulings in your head, compared to writing them down to remember?

I can go on, but my point is (and I wanna stress that I'm legitimately trying to understand, I WANT TO.  Cuz I like this sorta stuff) what about d6 damage and random (but consistent and constant) adjudication makes it so good?

I honestly don't see it.

(of course, I am not Gronan, so I am speaking for myself.)

The D6 is only related to the rulings over rules in that it contributes to the 150 pages of combat rules. D6 damage is a trivial issue in the grand scheme of things.

Quote from: Christopher Bradyhow is this different than to having to codify/write down the '150 pages' of 'rules'?
...
and random (but consistent and constant) adjudication makes it so good?

First and foremost, yes, rules that you keep in your head are the same as rules put down on pages. No difference. However-- (and avoiding any tangential BS about whether RPGs are games or storytelling devices or reality emulators or whatnot)-- on some level you are trying to emulate a real(-ish)-world(-ish) scenario and map it to game rules, and the real world is complex.

To cover each and every possible variable of even simple scenarios, you would need pages on pages of rules for elevations; weather, footing, and lighting conditions; weapon vs. armor; weapon vs. weapon; how does a shield interact; mounted combat subsection; for that add relative speed, and so forth. This list becomes either 1) exhaustive, so much so that oftentimes the end result is determined more on the DM deciding (possibly with PC advocacy) which modifiers to apply to a situation more than the intensity of the modifier, or 2) not exhaustive, but instead does not cover the situations you will run into, in which case you are back to DM arbitration.

After that, even once you do arrive at a total modifier for the situation, have you achieved any goal? Is the situation 'more realistic' (or more genre-emulative, in a case where realism isn't the goal)? Have you rewarded the player's good decisions? Oftentimes not.

At times when you've doubled or more the time it takes to run a combat, to no real benefit, you often wonder wouldn't it have been better for the DM to have just looked over the scenario and said 'this setup clearly favors A over B, A gets a +2 to hit.'

That violates the idea that these DM rulings have to be "consistent and constant," and I'm not clear that that is a goal. Because, again, house rules in your head that are consistent and constant are the same as rules in books. It is the fact that they are not consistent and constant that are both their strength and their (occasional) weakness.

And I think that that is the main point (GM giving themselves the freedom to make judgment calls, rather than rely on pages of rules which likely will not better emulate the situation anyways), and not whether things are written down (which I think is a bunny trail at best).

Although I'm not sure we're using those terms in the same way, since I don't quite understand "and random (but consistent and constant) adjudication" in this context. Can you elaborate?

I think the inherent tension between rules and rulings is the disparity in knowledge, experience, insight, and common sense of the possible GMs.  Common sense is probably the most important quality, not least because it is the first decider on when to go with your knowledge, experience, and insight, and when to recognize that those may be deficient for the current ruling opportunity.  

In real life, take something like cooking.  Some people follow recipes, and that's all they ever do.  Some barely even do that, or even panic at the thought of it.  Others, after some practice begin to understand what they are doing at a deeper level, adjusting the recipes for local conditions.  Others through education and experience learn the underlying principles, and thus don't really need the recipes anymore.  And of course, people vary depending upon the particular dishes and their comfort level.

If the GM is going to run a combat scene with some level of detail, then the GM needs a "recipe" to follow that will satisfy the participants that it is close enough to what they imagine it would be, or the GM needs enough informed qualities to rule according to that same vision.  But detailed rules are often better as a teaching tool than the final method at a particular table.  If my teen daughter wants to run a game, she needs enough rules or guidelines to understand why weapon length could matter.  Once she understand why and when it matters, she won't need the rules much anymore.

Edit:  And 150 pages of detailed rules are not a good teaching tool. So there has to be some discernment by the writer to focus on the most important distinctions.