Damage for weapons - distinctly different or the same?

Gronan of Simmerya · October 18, 2015, 05:49:32 PM

Quote from: Willie the Duck;860617That is kind of where we have moved our game over the years, at least for D&D and related games.

Out of curiosity, did Gary ever say what the reasoning was behind the weapon damages? Was it an attempt to replicate real world effects (like the weapon vs. Armor charts supposedly were), or some form of balancing measure? This probably is answered in many interviews, but I thought I'd ask since you are here.

Nope, he did it and said "here it is" and we said "cool." It's obviously his attempt to give weapons some sort of real world correspondence as he saw fit, based more or less on CHAINMAIL, but we never really questioned it.

Snowman0147 · October 18, 2015, 05:52:52 PM

I like how Dark Heresy had handle weapons. Just with 1d5 to 2d10 with qualities. So hybrid all the way.

arminius · October 18, 2015, 07:52:39 PM

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860663Nope, he did it and said "here it is" and we said "cool." It's obviously his attempt to give weapons some sort of real world correspondence as he saw fit, based more or less on CHAINMAIL, but we never really questioned it.

When did he develop the weapon v. armor modifiers found in Greyhawk? Do you know what prompted that? When did he use them (i.e. consistently or occasionally; beginning from the time of invention to whenever you last played with him, or over some other period)?

Gronan of Simmerya · October 18, 2015, 08:37:55 PM

I suppose he developed them about the same time.

He never used them and I don't know anybody who did; we saw it as way too much fiddle-fucking around. I kind of liked the weapon damage chart because it drove fighters to use swords which was a nice piece of genre emulation.

But now I think simplest is best.

arminius · October 18, 2015, 10:00:43 PM

I found them very easy to use with the Dungeon Tac Cards published by Judges Guild. When 1e came out, though, there wasn't a corresponding set of cards available, and things got extra confused by the proliferation of armor types that overlapped in terms of armor class. (I.e. some armor without shield had the same AC as another armor without shield.)

These days if I wanted to use it with 0e or one on of the Basic lines, I'd pre-calculate the number to hit each AC with each weapon and have the player copy the line of numbers onto their character sheet.

Willie the Duck · October 19, 2015, 08:07:43 AM

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860663Nope, he did it and said "here it is" and we said "cool." It's obviously his attempt to give weapons some sort of real world correspondence as he saw fit, based more or less on CHAINMAIL, but we never really questioned it.

Hmm. Okay, thanks! I wish I had been more active on forums when he was still around and answering questions. I'd have loved to have asked about the s-m/l split, etc.

RPGPundit · October 26, 2015, 01:04:34 AM

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;860016From what I recall, this is similar to how RPG Pundit handled it in his Dark Albion book. I am unsure if he introduced additional tags, but I do seem to recall there being a general 1d4/1d6/1d8 ruleset for weapons.

I didn't implicitly mark them as "indicators", but spears do have reach, for example.

RPGPundit · October 26, 2015, 01:15:21 AM

Quote from: estar;860169Yes but what people forget that the use of a broadsword is not just about bladework. It differs as to time period and specific weapons but it combines think like body slams, using arm locks, etc.

For example this is just one of the position illustrated in a German Sword fighting manual.

Relevant to this: how people really fought with swords.

Ravenswing · October 26, 2015, 02:31:26 AM

Yeah, I rather figured Gygax's numbers were far more along the lines of "a polearm does more damage than a sword does more damage than a dagger" than any sense of the real life damaging power of those weapons.

Then again, c'mon, folks: since when was OD&D intended to be a hallmark of realism?

For my part, I didn't answer the poll question because there wasn't a result with which I could identify. I do use GURPS, and therefore I use a system where weapons have different damage types and different damages, adjusted by strength. But I don't mind more abstract systems, and a Little Weapon: 2/3rd X / Medium Weapon: X / Big Weapon: 1.5X / Honking Giant Effing Weapon: 2.5x system doesn't bug me.

Phillip · October 28, 2015, 06:06:56 AM

Gary's Rule: If it's Swiss, it rules.

Bren · October 28, 2015, 10:18:17 AM

Quote from: Phillip;862117Gary's Rule: If it's Swiss, it rules.

I never realized Gygax was Swiss. Now everything makes sense.

Eric Diaz · October 29, 2015, 10:40:01 PM

FWIW, here are my 2c: 1d6 damage for all weapons, 1d6-2 small weapons, 1d6+2 for big weapons, BUT this +2/-2 is applied to things like backstabbing, defeating heavy armor and big opponents, so a big weapon is good versus "big" and a small weapon is good when wrestling, backstabbing, etc.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/10/single-digit-weapons.html

Majus · November 01, 2015, 10:16:40 AM

Quote from: JoeNuttall;859987I have each weapon giving bonuses to hit, to parry, and to kill. Each weapon has a different set of bonuses, thus giving them a different feel. Off hand weapons (and shields) all give a total bonus of 3, one-handed weapons give a total bonus of 6, two-handed give a total bonus of 9. So everyone gets a bonus of 9, but you can choose your weapons for mechanical effect, or for flavour without it impeding your effectiveness.

I really like the elegance and fairness of this.

Quote from: Doughdee222;860303Indeed. About a month ago a friend showed me a game I hadn't even heard of (I forget, something like Buccaneers of the Seven Winds.) The game had no stats, just skills and character descriptive aspects. Taking damage meant reducing your skills or aspects... A guy could only take a few blows before he was near useless. It was interesting for a one-shot, I don't know how it would work out for a long term campaign. I do kinda like the idea that the more beat up a guy is the less he can do and the less he cares about things on a social level.

This is really interesting, too. Thanks for sharing!

In response to the OP, I'm in favour of the same or very similar damage for most weapons, plus qualities for differentiation (if you and your group want that.) I understand that different systems are appropriate for different genres, but essentially I'm almost always looking for systems that provide fast, fair resolution and then get out of the way.

RPGPundit · November 06, 2015, 08:45:59 PM

I don't see much of a point in having minute differences in weapon damage. Having things like certain special maneuvers that some weapons can do, or weapon speeds or reach or stuff like that is at least more interesting (though it can sometimes create the problem of everyone wanting to play with one weapon that for design-flaw reasons has a bigger advantage than any other).

Majus · November 07, 2015, 03:55:40 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit;863335I don't see much of a point in having minute differences in weapon damage. Having things like certain special maneuvers that some weapons can do, or weapon speeds or reach or stuff like that is at least more interesting (though it can sometimes create the problem of everyone wanting to play with one weapon that for design-flaw reasons has a bigger advantage than any other).

I agree with this. It's just a case of different strokes for different folks.

At least half of the group I'm currently playing in confess to getting a lot of their pleasure from poring over weapon lists, feat lists, etc. In contrast, the group I run are much more to my taste (though I've had to put on hold for a while due to work), as they prefer lighter, looser systems.

The challenge is that no system is all things to all men.