Quote from: Willie the Duck;989193...
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. ...

It's a wide spectrum of goals between "mainly just want a fast outcome" and "want satisfying gameplay about the tactical situation".

The Fantasy Trip Advanced Melee does a pretty good job of the latter, covering most of your points and others, and is only 32 pages.

Man To Man is the GURPS low-tech combat system (only, not much changed through the editions excepted it's shuffled into the full RPG, which does make it harder to learn). It does an even more thorough job (though you'd need GURPS Basic Set for weather, mounted combat rules, and other things), and is 95 pages.

Quote from: Skarg;989248It's a wide spectrum of goals between "mainly just want a fast outcome" and "want satisfying gameplay about the tactical situation".

The Fantasy Trip Advanced Melee does a pretty good job of the latter, covering most of your points and others, and is only 32 pages.

Man To Man is the GURPS low-tech combat system (only, not much changed through the editions excepted it's shuffled into the full RPG, which does make it harder to learn). It does an even more thorough job (though you'd need GURPS Basic Set for weather, mounted combat rules, and other things), and is 95 pages.

The combat rules in Glory Road Roleplay run from page 26 through page 41. But then there are thirty-four pages of lists of weapons and armor for reference on the website. It is an extremely crunchy combat system but no ne has to look anything up during play and fights don't take up huge amounts of time.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;989193Although 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?

Whenever a situation comes up you have to make a ruling, and there's no guarantee that the situation will ever come up again, but you have a ruling (that you hopefully can remember, or you've added to a written list) for if it does.  Random, but consistent.  Hopefully.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989101So, 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.

Welp, firstly, it's not for those who want a really detailed combat simulation second by second.  Its primary virtue is fast combat to reduce the percentage of time spent in combat.

Also it works for me because MOST of the time, "roll d6 for reaction time and strike in that order" works ** well enough **.  Think of it like Microsoft software -- "Microsoft Software, it's not just good, it's JUST GOOD ENOUGH."

And a one minute combat round hides a number of sins.  You're not rolling for a single stroke, it's "At the end of a minute, have you done anything useful to the other bugger?"

And I don't worry about writing down my rulings.  If my common sense and knowledge of medieval warfare means that I decide that when the Orcs with shortswords charge the pikemen the pikemen get to strike first -- then the next time the situation arises, my common sense and knowledge of medieval warfare will lead me to the same conclusion.  Similar inputs should give similar outputs, and with a system this broad "similar inputs" covers a lot of territory.  I don't have to write it down or remember it, I should reach the same conclusion again.

And if I don't remember the ruling from last time and one of my players does, I'll use that.  I trust my players.

And if none of us remember the ruling from last time, it absolutely does not matter in the slightest.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989324Whenever a situation comes up you have to make a ruling, and there's no guarantee that the situation will ever come up again, but you have a ruling (that you hopefully can remember, or you've added to a written list) for if it does.  Random, but consistent.  Hopefully.

Seriously... why?  If nobody at the table remembers the last time, then it totally doesn't matter.  I decide on rulings in seconds, not hours.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989335Seriously... why?  If nobody at the table remembers the last time, then it totally doesn't matter.  I decide on rulings in seconds, not hours.

It's not that it matters. It's that he minds.


Cartesian humor. Get it?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989334Welp, firstly, it's not for those who want a really detailed combat simulation second by second.  Its primary virtue is fast combat to reduce the percentage of time spent in combat.

Also it works for me because MOST of the time, "roll d6 for reaction time and strike in that order" works ** well enough **.  Think of it like Microsoft software -- "Microsoft Software, it's not just good, it's JUST GOOD ENOUGH."

And a one minute combat round hides a number of sins.  You're not rolling for a single stroke, it's "At the end of a minute, have you done anything useful to the other bugger?"

And I don't worry about writing down my rulings.  If my common sense and knowledge of medieval warfare means that I decide that when the Orcs with shortswords charge the pikemen the pikemen get to strike first -- then the next time the situation arises, my common sense and knowledge of medieval warfare will lead me to the same conclusion.  Similar inputs should give similar outputs, and with a system this broad "similar inputs" covers a lot of territory.  I don't have to write it down or remember it, I should reach the same conclusion again.

And if I don't remember the ruling from last time and one of my players does, I'll use that.  I trust my players.

And if none of us remember the ruling from last time, it absolutely does not matter in the slightest.

So you DO have the 150 pages (which I'm assuming hyperbolic, because no RP game system -that I know of that's still in print- has that many rules for just combat) of rules, just not written down?  I'm sorry, but that's what I reading.  You have your rules, you just don't want anyone else's.  You've made your decisions and are happy with them.  Which is totally fair.

Thank you, I think I understand where you're coming from now.  At least a little better.

Mmmm, where does the line go between "I have my rules" and "I know my universe?"  To me at least it's more the latter.  Mileage, vary, et al.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988787Which brings up an interesting question:  A lot of the time, it appears that the humble sword is rather useless compared to the various armour technologies of the time.  And given how awkward it can be to carry the things on a battlefield, which limits it's use as solely as a 'status symbol', why is it so prevalent then?

One-handed swords aren't awkward to carry, they are sidearms, go in a scabbard, very easy to carry. They were popular for the same reason pistols, the modern sidearm, are popular. Like pistols, they were rarely the primary weapon and rarely ubiquitous.

Edit: A medieval one-handed sword (arming sword) has a sharp point on the end of a metal bar. It is a good piercing weapon against mail and gambeson, at least as good as a spear in penetration (ie it has some chance to penetrate with sufficient force - armour was generally very effective). The disadvantage is shorter reach, but shields can help offset that. Swords & Spears don't penetrate plate armour, there were specialised weapons like the poll axe for fighting plate armoured opponents.

Quote from: S'mon;989427One-handed swords aren't awkward to carry, they are sidearms, go in a scabbard, very easy to carry. They were popular for the same reason pistols, the modern sidearm, are popular. Like pistols, they were rarely the primary weapon and rarely ubiquitous.

Edit: A medieval one-handed sword (arming sword) has a sharp point on the end of a metal bar. It is a good piercing weapon against mail and gambeson, at least as good as a spear in penetration (ie it has some chance to penetrate with sufficient force - armour was generally very effective). The disadvantage is shorter reach, but shields can help offset that. Swords & Spears don't penetrate plate armour, there were specialised weapons like the poll axe for fighting plate armoured opponents.

By the time plate (as in plated chain was in vogue, about 1350-ish) harness came around two handed weapons, like the long sword and battle axe had displaced the shield and one handed weapon as the major tools of war.  But if plate was really that effective (and I have no proof that it wasn't) what was the point of a two handed version of the arming sword?  If you want to kill a man out of his armour a good three foot length of one handed steel was all that was needed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989446But if plate was really that effective (and I have no proof that it wasn't) what was the point of a two handed version of the arming sword?  

A real 6' two-handed sword functions like a polearm, not like an arming sword, so is more comparable to a 7' halberd. Neither will cut through plate armour, just as a pike won't punch through plate armour, but they seem to have been mostly been used in conjunction with pike formations because they could be used in more close quarters than pikes - in the press of pike pikes could become completely unuseable.

Zweihanders and halberds are useful flexible weapons. That said, it was rare for zweihanders to be a standard battlefield weapon where the bulk of a force would use them. Late medieval battlefield melee weapons tended to be pikes for massed infantry, while men in full plate armour more commonly used specialised armour-piercing percussive weapons like poll axes for piercing plate.

Quote from: S'mon;989453A real 6' two-handed sword functions like a polearm, not like an arming sword, so is more comparable to a 7' halberd. Neither will cut through plate armour, just as a pike won't punch through plate armour, but they seem to have been mostly been used in conjunction with pike formations because they could be used in more close quarters than pikes - in the press of pike pikes could become completely unuseable.

Zweihanders and halberds are useful flexible weapons. That said, it was rare for zweihanders to be a standard battlefield weapon where the bulk of a force would use them. Late medieval battlefield melee weapons tended to be pikes for massed infantry, while men in full plate armour more commonly used specialised armour-piercing percussive weapons like poll axes for piercing plate.

Uh, the 'long sword' (which I freely grant is a loose term) tended to describe a blade between 40-60 inches in length and could be worn at the hip, and often was.  The hilt was often designed for two handed use.  But like I said, they were not the heavy German  (supposed) horse cutter swords.

Again, I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm wondering why the sword stayed so long as a mainstay of the elite soldier if it's really not as effective as it seems to have been portrayed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989464Uh, the 'long sword' (which I freely grant is a loose term) tended to describe a blade between 40-60 inches in length and could be worn at the hip, and often was. The hilt was often designed for two handed use. But like I said, they were not the heavy German (supposed) horse cutter swords.

There was literally no reason for you to put the "Uh, the at the beginning of this. If the two of you are talking apples to oranges, just say, "what I'm talking about is the 40-60 inch..." and you will get better responses.

QuoteAgain, I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm wondering why the sword stayed so long as a mainstay of the elite soldier if it's really not as effective as it seems to have been portrayed.

Portrayed by whom and effective against whom, and when? From 1350 or so+, swords (sub-zweihander, which are definitely a specialty-use item) were low-effective against the most advanced armor of the day. Just like now an assault rifle (or machine gun, even grenades) are not the weapons to use against a tank. That does not make it useless on the field of battle. It just means that you used the sword (a very efficient-to carry sidearm) on the targets it was effective against, and mission-specific weapons against any full armored knights that walked into your path. One of the things that D&D doesn't really do well is emulate a real field of battle in that IRL, you would have dedicated knight-breaker troops, just as you would have the skirmishers, pikemen, cavalry, archers, squires carrying extra lances, guys trucking about ladders such that others can scale walls (if charging a fortification), and all sorts of dedicated, mission-specific labor.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989464Uh, the 'long sword' (which I freely grant is a loose term) tended to describe a blade between 40-60 inches in length and could be worn at the hip, and often was.

Wearing a sword with a five-foot long blade at the hip sounds impractical. People's legs just aren't that long.

Quote from: Bren;989579Wearing a sword with a five-foot long blade at the hip sounds impractical. People's legs just aren't that long.

Sorry, you're right, I meant the the 40 to 48 inch blade, although a Long Sword classification DID go to 5 feet in length, it was typically used to denote two handed sidearms.  And that's type of sword I'm talking about, the two handed sidearm, why was it used in a battlefield situation?