By that I mean incorporates the vast variety of sword types throughout history and accounts for their various advantages, disadvantages, and tactics without turning the game into a mind-numbing Phoenix-command numbercrunchapolooza?
Quote from: TristramEvans;641625By that I mean incorporates the vast variety of sword types throughout history and accounts for their various advantages, disadvantages, and tactics without turning the game into a mind-numbing Phoenix-command numbercrunchapolooza?
The Riddle of Steel?
Mind I don't actually know the game but its reputation certainly lies in that direction.
Palladium book of weapons, castles and armour has lots of swords with damages etc. Maybe not 'tactics' so much.
As someone who knows nothing about swords, what are some examples of distinguishing features that a sword might have? The only ones I can think of are sharpness and reach.
Quote from: Piestrio;641627The Riddle of Steel?
Mind I don't actually know the game but its reputation certainly lies in that direction.
I own that one, and while its touted as having the mostest realistic combat rules, it actually does very little in the way of distinguishing melee weapons from what I've found. And unfortunately the system's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness, in that realistic combat is usually very whiffy, arbitrary, and as much about luck as anything.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;641629As someone who knows nothing about swords, what are some examples of distinguishing features that a sword might have? The only ones I can think of are sharpness and reach.
Well, just as a few examples, Khopesh-type swords were sickle-shaped with only the outer blade sharpened, the "hook" used to disarm and trip opponents, whereas the gladius and spatha were designed as thrusting weapons primarily as opposed to Scimitars and sabres, which were designed for slashing and tended to be more effective used from horseback. the alternate devlopements in armour technologies in the west and east meant that the Katana was perfectly suited to combat between wicker-armoured Samurai but would have been all but useless against a Knight in plate armour, for which long, thing, piercing swords like the epoc were developed (later evolving into the modern fencing-type weapons). Whereas the broadswords such as the Scottish Claymore or German Zweihander were designed to use the momentum of a spinning attacker and could slice up to three heads off with a single blow, but parrying was out of the question.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;641629As someone who knows nothing about swords, what are some examples of distinguishing features that a sword might have? The only ones I can think of are sharpness and reach.
Obviously there are a lot of different sword designs. There is more to it than sharpness or reach. Some are designed for stabbing, or cutting. Some are for both. There are big heavy swords meant for max damage, or against horsemen. But are slow in use. Others are quick, meant for multiple quick attacks. Some are meant to parry, some are not. Lots of different options and tactics to go along with them.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641628Palladium book of weapons, castles and armour has lots of swords with damages etc. Maybe not 'tactics' so much.
Great for reference, but I don't find the Palladium system ..."optimal" for my gaming needs , as it were.
Quote from: TristramEvans;641631Well, just as a few examples, Khopesh-type swords were sickle-shaped with only the outer blade sharpened, the "hook" used to disarm and trip opponents, whereas the gladius and spatha were designed as thrusting weapons primarily as opposed to Scimitars and sabres, which were designed for slashing and tended to be more effective used from horseback. the alternate devlopements in armour technologies in the west and east meant that the Katana was perfectly suited to combat between wicker-armoured Samurai but would have been all but useless against a Knight in plate armour, for which long, thing, piercing swords like the epoc were developed (later evolving into the modern fencing-type weapons). Whereas the broadswords such as the Scottish Claymore or German Zweihander were designed to use the momentum of a spinning attacker and could slice up to three heads off with a single blow, but parrying was out of the question.
The more recent versions of RuneQuest come to mind - MRQ2, RQ6. At least, they're the only systems I'm familiar with that are close to what you're looking for. I don't think they'll cover all the bases, though.
For example: RQ6 has
Traits for melee weapons as well as
Special Effects. Traits include: "Flexible" for flails and ball & chain weapons - limiting the effect of parries; "Barbed" weapons, "Entrapping" weapons, etc. Special Affects include: Impaling, Stunning Location, Bashing, Bleeding. And the type of weapon determines which Special Effects it can perform.
EDIT: There are other weapon characteristics in RQ6 as well: reach, and size (for parrying purposes)
Hm, weapon traits is similar to what I've been thinking, something where a player can customize their blades depending on their style of attack.
Might try Harnmaster, although really the level of detail you're looking for is very hard to simulate, especially when you're talking about very disparate weapon types.
Quote from: TristramEvans;641631...the alternate devlopements in armour technologies in the west and east meant that the Katana was perfectly suited to combat between wicker-armoured Samurai but would have been all but useless against a Knight in plate armour ...
.... This youtube clip seems to have a different opinon on that:
the last test is against metal armor ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo
Quote from: Catelf;641661.... This youtube clip seems to have a different opinon on that:
the last test is against metal armor ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo
Cant view youtube clips till I get home from work, but my reference on that one is:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;641651Might try Harnmaster, although really the level of detail you're looking for is very hard to simulate, especially when you're talking about very disparate weapon types.
I'm familair with the Harn setting but know very little about the system. Are there any games you'd compare it to?
Quote from: Catelf;641661.... This youtube clip seems to have a different opinon on that:
the last test is against metal armor ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo
One should never get into a KATANA!-dicussion on the internet. Common knowledge.
But that video is utter crap!
GURPS 4e with Martial Arts and Low Tech does a pretty good job of representing different styles of swords.
Quote from: David Johansen;641681GURPS 4e with Martial Arts and Low Tech does a pretty good job of representing different styles of swords.
Yeah, much seconded.
Quote from: TristramEvans;641663I'm familair with the Harn setting but know very little about the system. Are there any games you'd compare it to?
The character generation and skill systems are very similar to Runequest/BRP. Combat is more elaborate, at least compared to anything prior to MRQ2. But on reflection, I don't think it'll really do much toward what you want.
TRoS has been mentioned; other games that are somewhat similar include Burning Wheel and Swashbuckler! (by Jim Dietz), where the common element is picking maneuvers in secret and then comparing them to generate modifiers to the usual attack/defense/damage rolls. BW has a wacky scripting system; Swashbuckler is fairly coarse-grained when it comes to weapon types--for swords, I don't think it has much more than rapier, broadsword, and maybe cutlass/scimitar and two-handed sword.
It seems what you want is something that can produce varied effects through several means: speed/initiative, chance of hitting, chance of penetrating or bypassing armor, and then the type (for swords: poke vs. cut) and heaviness of damage. Then if you have a maneuver system, you might limit the maneuvers available depending on your weapon. I can't think of anything that offers all of this. GURPS might come close, but something to bear in mind is that the skill and training of the user is always an equalizing factor, especially as combat becomes more abstracted. (EDIT: The old Avalon Hill wargame Magic Realm also has some of these elements represented.)
Maybe there's a system where certain weapon skills have different learning curves, or get bonuses from different characteristics. If so, then the effect you want may already be subtly baked in. E.g. maybe the rapier skill depends more on dexterity than the broadsword skill, which depends more on strength.
Another caveat is that the reasons for different types of sword may not be as tactical as weapons-geeks like to think. For example one might compare the rapier and the broadsword and think that "scientific" Age of Reason fencing ought to be superior to "unsophisticated" Medieval hacking. But one is for combat with little armor (post-gunpower and/or non-military situations) and the other is for combat with armor and shield. It's attractive to think of the Japanese samurai and European knight as divergent approaches to hand-to-hand combat, with advantages and disadvantages, but I think it's more accurate to see them as components of divergent tactical systems and social structures, with the samurai being at various times as much an archer as a shock combatant. Meanwhile, dueling, being a formalized activity, is shaped as much by social convention as by tactics. (E.g., when and where were armor and shield used in duels, when and where weren't they used?)
In GURPS (if the Martial Arts supplement is used) it really comes down to the character's training rather than the weapon itself (there's several rapier and Katana styles frex wich have different focus, and broadsword-centered Western Medieval styles that also differ a lot (sword & shield is rather different from sword & buckler frex)). The system is a bit fiddly but not worse in that regard than GURPS 4e in general (and less work than say the supers system; and of course, this Being GURPS, most of the fiddlyness is during character creation rather than actual play).
The book has enough Western fighting arts that there's no reason for say 16th century western martial artists to be less varied than say 19th century Chinese ones.
I'd agree that skill with a weapon is more important than the weapon itself. Individual skills beyond that should be added to give unique flavours to weapon styles, if needed. A particular trick might be applicable to many different types of swords, but this trick is only taught and learned by one group, and that group only uses one kind of weapon, so the maneuver becomes associated with that weapon. For example, give johnny trenchcoat a katana and he'll probably be able to hit somone with the business end. Give one to a Samurai and he can do lots of different tricks with it, plus is much better at applying the business end. It's all about the skill.
At most I'd have a light weight/quick/low basic damage to heavy weight/slow/high basic damage spectrum.
OD&D. 1-6 damage for all weapons. Players can come up with all of the detail they like but it has no mechanical weight.
Quote from: Killfuck Soulshitter;641702OD&D. 1-6 damage for all weapons. Players can come up with all of the detail they like but it has no mechanical weight.
Masterful trolling but ultimately unsatisfying.
Or the answer to end all rpg's?
Really, with a proper weapon verses armor table that integrates an ease of use table and D&D's abstract hit points, 1d6 for all hits and hit dice makes more sense than the varriable die type.
I should give mention to Rolemaster at this point, if you add on the armory it does a pretty decent job of differentiating weapons. However there are some cases where one sword is simply better than another. For example a broadsword is basically a +10 scimitar even though, historically, the scimitar was generally a better quality weapon. The variation on critical hits in the tables also gives a different feel to different weapons. Skill certainly becomes the key issue with any weapon since a dagger does fewer hits than a great sword but it's the E puncture critical a dagger can do that's most likely to kill you.
I also like the original Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying Game's system where each weapon gets different modifiers at different rates in addition to the variable weapon damage common to D&D variants. Another thing Palladium manages is keeping the bonuses down to +5 or +6 by level fifteen, thus keeping the die range managable. Palladium was "broadening the sweet spot" long before fourth edition D&D. It's Hand to Hand combat skills by class also manage something similar to the class abilities from 4e though they're more of a pole than a tree.
I love me some "sword porn" as a topic of geeky conversation. But from a mechanical standpoint, I'm really fine with the classic D&D set-up:
Sword, more like a big knife actually - 1d6 damage
Sword, Hollywood standard issue - 1d8 damage
Sword, not overcompensating for anything, honest - 1d10 damage, two-handed
Quote from: David Johansen;641725I also like the original Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying Game's system where each weapon gets different modifiers at different rates in addition to the variable weapon damage common to D&D variants. Another thing Palladium manages is keeping the bonuses down to +5 or +6 by level fifteen, thus keeping the die range managable. Palladium was "broadening the sweet spot" long before fourth edition D&D. It's Hand to Hand combat skills by class also manage something similar to the class abilities from 4e though they're more of a pole than a tree.
PFRPG 1e is a jewel of a game. I should pick it up in PDF some day.
Even the current Palladium system has great hand-to-hand combat rules. It just catches a lot of flak because it's poorly edited and laid out.
Quote from: The Butcher;641728PFRPG 1e is a jewel of a game. I should pick it up in PDF some day.
Even the current Palladium system has great hand-to-hand combat rules. It just catches a lot of flak because it's poorly edited and laid out.
Last time I played me some Palladium ( TMNT ) we got 1.5 combats (& fuck all else really) in.
Umpteen (possible) attacks + dodges + parries+ endless stacked mods is painful IMO.
And this is a game I played for years in my teens.
The addition of Physical Skills in Heroes Unlimited and carried forward into all future products really screwed up the Palladium system. Not only did they turn character creation into a long, drawn-out process of copying out abilities granted in paragraphs but they seriously unbalanced the strike / parry / dodge modifier structure. There's a couple reasons you needed a 16+ to get a stat bonus. First so giants and trolls rarely had a bonus and you could largely ignore NPC stats but also because a large accumulation of modifiers broke the system. Bumping it up to 18+ in the later games didn't even come close to correcting for the stats possible by stacking Acrobatics, Gymnastics, Boxing, and Wrestling. Though in more recent variations they did get rid of the random stat increases for them and went to a fixed method.
Quote from: The Ent;641684Yeah, much seconded.
I concur as well. Is only issue is that you to assemble a cheat sheet. None of it is complex but the details and options are different so hence the cheat sheet. typically you get all the weapon details and more importantly the combat maneuvers onto a single page at most.
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. It takes into account weapon speed, minimum distance needed to wield the weapon, and the effectiveness of the weapon versus different armor types.
Quote from: TristramEvans;641663I'm familair with the Harn setting but know very little about the system. Are there any games you'd compare it to?
It is a percentile based system and character wise it similar to Runequest with some more stats.
Combat wise there is nothing quite like it.
First off it has no hit points.
y
Hits are resolved by comparing levels of success. Criticals are any rolls ending in a 0 or 5, roll equal or lower than your chance of success it is a hit otherwise a miss The combinations yield four possible levels of success which is looked up a easy to use chart.
If the result is damage then you roll the indicated dice plus your weapons impact rating which differs if you are attacking with a point, edge, or blunt. The impact is reduced by the armor you wear on a rolled hit location.
Any damage that gets through is the amount of injury which reduces your skills and any characteristic saves.
The bad stuff are the result of a single blow and based on the amount of injury done by that blow. They are handled by rolling a number d6s under a characteristic. Your injury level adds to these rolls making it mor likely to fail. Possible bad things include stumble, fumbles, amputation, and finally instant death.
Everything is front loaded and make this one of the fasted detailed combat system I ever run.
Quote from: TristramEvans;641630I own that one, and while its touted as having the mostest realistic combat rules, it actually does very little in the way of distinguishing melee weapons from what I've found.
Quite the contrary, the Riddle of Steel is, IMHO, the RPG that does most in the way of distinguishing melee weapons, whereas in most RPGs, choosing a weapon or anoher is a question of which one causes more damage. You get:
-Reach, which strongly penalizes attackers with shorter weapons.
-Bonuses and penalties against different types of armor.
-Every weapon has a different target number for defence and attack. And every type of attack has its own target number.
-There are different damage charts for every type of damage and location. For example, an arrow doesn't do a lot of damage to an arm or a leg, but can do a lot of damage to the head.
QuoteAnd unfortunately the system's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness, in that realistic combat is usually very whiffy, arbitrary, and as much about luck as anything.
What do you mean? Luck plays a role, true, but like in any other RPG.
Quote from: TristramEvans;641625By that I mean incorporates the vast variety of sword types throughout history and accounts for their various advantages, disadvantages, and tactics without turning the game into a mind-numbing Phoenix-command numbercrunchapolooza?
RQ6/Legend may be what you are looking for. It's really the innovations Pete Nash added to the base RuneQuest system for Mongoose RQII that makes it stand out even more now. If you download the RQ6 Games Master's pack from TDM:
http://www.thedesignmechanism.com/downloads.php
and look at the last two pages you should get an idea of how it works. Legend is just $1 from Drivethru and the combat system is more or less the same between Legend and RQ6.
Specific weapons will give you more options in combat - so only certain weapons allow the option to stun, or entangle, or impale and so on.
Quote from: TristramEvans;641631Whereas the broadswords such as the Scottish Claymore or German Zweihander were designed to use the momentum of a spinning attacker and could slice up to three heads off with a single blow, but parrying was out of the question.
I have a few years experience with German longsword and Scottish claymore, and I assure you that parrying is far from out of the question. These swords are surprisingly fast, due to their balance and use of two hands, and parrying is an essential part of the style. The downside is that they can't match an axe or mace for sheer impact (as the weight is not at the end). In D&D terms, they get a bonus to hit, and to AC, but not to damage.
Quote from: spaceLem;642107I have a few years experience with German longsword and Scottish claymore, and I assure you that parrying is far from out of the question. These swords are surprisingly fast, due to their balance and use of two hands, and parrying is an essential part of the style. The downside is that they can't match an axe or mace for sheer impact (as the weight is not at the end). In D&D terms, they get a bonus to hit, and to AC, but not to damage.
Funny enough, D&D 4e kind of emulates this, as much as 4e emulates anything.
Bear with me.
Heavy blade proficiency grants +3 to hit.
Axe proficiency only grants +2, but axes generally do more damage.
Heavy blade expertise grants +2 AC v. attacks of opportunity.
Axe expertise allows you to reroll damage results of 1, so average damage goes even higher, IIRC.
Of course, maces got shafted as I recall.
Quote from: Bilharzia;641785RQ6/Legend may be what you are looking for. It's really the innovations Pete Nash added to the base RuneQuest system for Mongoose RQII that makes it stand out even more now. If you download the RQ6 Games Master's pack from TDM:
http://www.thedesignmechanism.com/downloads.php
and look at the last two pages you should get an idea of how it works. Legend is just $1 from Drivethru and the combat system is more or less the same between Legend and RQ6.
Specific weapons will give you more options in combat - so only certain weapons allow the option to stun, or entangle, or impale and so on.
I've played in a RQ6 game, but dont actually own the rules myself yet, but I hadnt heard of Legend yet, I'll give that a looksee.
Quote from: estar;641753It is a percentile based system and character wise it similar to Runequest with some more stats.
Combat wise there is nothing quite like it.
First off it has no hit points.
y
Hits are resolved by comparing levels of success. Criticals are any rolls ending in a 0 or 5, roll equal or lower than your chance of success it is a hit otherwise a miss The combinations yield four possible levels of success which is looked up a easy to use chart.
If the result is damage then you roll the indicated dice plus your weapons impact rating which differs if you are attacking with a point, edge, or blunt. The impact is reduced by the armor you wear on a rolled hit location.
Any damage that gets through is the amount of injury which reduces your skills and any characteristic saves.
The bad stuff are the result of a single blow and based on the amount of injury done by that blow. They are handled by rolling a number d6s under a characteristic. Your injury level adds to these rolls making it mor likely to fail. Possible bad things include stumble, fumbles, amputation, and finally instant death.
Everything is front loaded and make this one of the fasted detailed combat system I ever run.
Is there an edition of Harnmaster you recommend starting with? I'm seeing references to HM 3, classic, and gold online.
Quote from: spaceLem;642107I have a few years experience with German longsword and Scottish claymore, and I assure you that parrying is far from out of the question. These swords are surprisingly fast, due to their balance and use of two hands, and parrying is an essential part of the style. The downside is that they can't match an axe or mace for sheer impact (as the weight is not at the end). In D&D terms, they get a bonus to hit, and to AC, but not to damage.
I am no avowed expert myself, was just trying to point out how the different designs are suited for different combat moves, but fair enough. Although from what I have read, I'm under the impression the standard tactic for a Claymore (the "great sword variety as opposed to the later one-handed basket-hit variety), was to enter the battle doing spins and use the momentum to whip the sword about like a propeller blade.
Quote from: TristramEvans;642133I am no avowed expert myself, was just trying to point out how the different designs are suited for different combat moves, but fair enough. Although from what I have read, I'm under the impression the standard tactic for a Claymore (the "great sword variety as opposed to the later one-handed basket-hit variety), was to enter the battle doing spins and use the momentum to whip the sword about like a propeller blade.
To the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, there isn't much textual evidence of just how the highland greatsword was used. Continental sources, e.g. the "Goliath manuscript" (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/Goliath.htm) (Link directs to ARMA's facsimile. Be advised of edge-flat debate.), look quite similar to Liechtenauer's plays with the longsword, albeit at a longer distance.
Now the zwerchau does vaguely resemble a helicopter, but that was just one meisterhau ("master strike") out of five.
Quote from: TristramEvans;642132Is there an edition of Harnmaster you recommend starting with? I'm seeing references to HM 3, classic, and gold online.
Okay, HM editions fall into two categories when it comes to combat:
HM 1e/Gold
HM 2e/3e. When you write "classic", you may be thinking of HMC, which is "Harnmaster Core", i.e., 2e.
The 2e/3e system is simplified and I'm not sure it was playtested very well.
The 1e system has its own problems in terms of balance, but it's where I'd look first, then tweak from there, possibly trying to meld it with some version of RQ or BRP.
I haven't seen Gold but my understanding is that it's Robin Crossby's end-all-be-all, based on 1e.
The basic issue with 2e/3e vs. 1e (IIRC):
In 1e, when you get a hit, you roll a die and add it to the weapon modifier to determine the impact points. The armor then absorbs (and note that the weapon modifier, and the armor absorption, both depend on whether the weapon is used as a blunt, edge, or point weapon). Then you look at the leftover impact points, the area struck, and (again) the type of impact to see the result, which can be anything from a light wound which just imposes impairment (a penalty on subsequent skill rolls), to special effects such as a trip, a crippled limb, decapitation, etc. Most of the latter have a sort of "saving throw" based on a characteristic.
In 2e/3e, the process is short-circuited and the impact points translate directly into impairment. Based on one play, it seemed like a sloppy attempt to simplify without really understanding the impact (NPI) of the change. I could quite easily be wrong, but the fact that Crossby went on to make HMG says something.
You can find a more extensive rundown at http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/harn/rules_versions.html but John doesn't directly address the concern I've laid out.
All that said, while I think that HM probably does a good job of representing differences between weapon types such as maces vs. swords. vs. spears, I don't think it will give you a great deal of variety for swords. Some swords are edge weapons, some are thrusting weapons, some are both; some are bigger, some are smaller. But the nuance of technique, and details such as the way that the long sword and estoc would be employed not to
penetrate armor but to
bypass it--I don't think these things are captured.
Quote from: TristramEvans;642131I've played in a RQ6 game, but dont actually own the rules myself yet, but I hadnt heard of Legend yet, I'll give that a looksee.
Legend is just the prototype of RQ6--a genericized version of Mongoose Runequest 2. It's easily worth $1 if you don't have RQ6, but don't expect to find anything new.
Quote from: Dan Vincze;642140To the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, there isn't much textual evidence of just how the highland greatsword was used. Continental sources, e.g. the "Goliath manuscript" (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/Goliath.htm) (Link directs to ARMA's facsimile. Be advised of edge-flat debate.), look quite similar to Liechtenauer's plays with the longsword, albeit at a longer distance.
Now the zwerchau does vaguely resemble a helicopter, but that was just one meisterhau ("master strike") out of five.
Ah yes, zwerchau, the spinning helicopter of death! I can perform maybe 2-3 of them in a second, in response to the other guy doing something similar. Your hands remain in front of your face the whole time. Our fencing school did Liechtenauer, the style is very much defensive, and about keeping your sword in between you and the other guy. Sometimes you'll enter into krieg, where the swords are crossed, and you have to quickly decide what to do. None of this pushing and grunting that seems prevalent in films!
Quote from: TristramEvans;642133I am no avowed expert myself, was just trying to point out how the different designs are suited for different combat moves, but fair enough. Although from what I have read, I'm under the impression the standard tactic for a Claymore (the "great sword variety as opposed to the later one-handed basket-hit variety), was to enter the battle doing spins and use the momentum to whip the sword about like a propeller blade.
I'll admit that the claymore is longer and slower than the longsword, but I think the techniques are mostly similar (I generally favoured the lighter swords as I got tired less quickly, but a heavier sword was good for the start of the session). Spinning your sword round you may be useful against people with no weapons or to break up schiltrons, but it's ridiculously easy to block, and a sure way to end up dead if you're up against anyone who knows what they're doing.
Quote from: The Butcher;641728I love me some "sword porn" as a topic of geeky conversation. But from a mechanical standpoint, I'm really fine with the classic D&D set-up:
Sword, more like a big knife actually - 1d6 damage
Sword, Hollywood standard issue - 1d8 damage
Sword, not overcompensating for anything, honest - 1d10 damage, two-handed
Completely agree. It's interesting to read about various types of weapons, how and why they developed the way they did, and under what circumstances they were successful or not.
Sitting at the table, though, and I don't honestly give two shits about an extra 30fps of muzzle velocity or whether a particular blade design can cut through eight bamboo sheafs or nine bamboo sheafs.
Quote from: TristramEvans;642132Is there an edition of Harnmaster you recommend starting with? I'm seeing references to HM 3, classic, and gold online.
Yes Harnmaster 3e Light for $10 it has the full core rules. Note all editions of Harnmaster sell Majic, Religion, and Bestairy separate although 3e comes with a short chapter with raw stat to get you going. The Treasure section is excellent and usable with other RPGs.
http://www.columbiagames.com/cgi-bin/query/harn/cfg/single.cfg?product_id=4001L
Not exactly, Rob. HM 1e (OOP) has everything all in one book, although there are separate books with more detailed rules on ships (Pilot's Almanac) and magic (Shek-Pvar + "tomes" on each "college" of magic).
EDIT: for more on the differences between 1e and 3e, see Rob's own account (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2011/06/911-call-from-attic-repost.html). It could be that the real problem I had with 3e was the same thing Rob mentions--they changed the way "saving throws" to avoid injury effects are handled, which makes people too vulnerable.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;642260N
EDIT: for more on the differences between 1e and 3e, see Rob's own account (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2011/06/911-call-from-attic-repost.html). It could be that the real problem I had with 3e was the same thing Rob mentions--they changed the way "saving throws" to avoid injury effects are handled, which makes people too vulnerable.
Which fortunately is very easily fixed.
Quote from: TristramEvans;641630I own that one, and while its touted as having the mostest realistic combat rules, it actually does very little in the way of distinguishing melee weapons from what I've found. And unfortunately the system's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness, in that realistic combat is usually very whiffy, arbitrary, and as much about luck as anything.
Pretty much this.
Riddle of Steel always struck me as a game written by someone who knew an impressive amount about swords but wasn't so hot on designing games that are actually fun or interesting in play.
Decided to splurge and went ahead and picked up RQ6...I'd been meaning to anyways, so making my way through that. checking out Harnmaster, but after reading a few extensive reviews, combat seems like it would be really slow. Do I have this right?
attacker and defender roll
find out a level of success for each roll
compare levels of success to a chart
if a hit, damage and hit location are bothed randomly rolled
hit location is compared to location and is reduced by any armour on that location
then consult another chart to detrmine the injury for that location.
I mean, just typing that is giving me unpleasant Rolemaster flashbacks.
so, does it just seem extra crunchy? How fast does it work in play?
Quote from: Catelf;641661.... This youtube clip seems to have a different opinon on that:
the last test is against metal armor ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo
Fuck it, I watched that whole god damn video, and since I can't get those wasted minutes back, I will now inflict my suffering and loss upon the lot of you.
As propaganda, I hold that it is brilliant. As science it is bullshit.
I'm not going to touch on the relative quality of the swords, as frankly irrelevant, merely upon the tests. I will also not comment on the CGI use of water quenching on the katana that starts it all off other than to cough discretely into my hand
.
Test one is cutting a red cabbage. Both swords do the same. Hey, look how balanced we are!.
Test two is cutting a coconut. The slow motion shows the katana smashing the coconut more than cutting it, no slow motion on the broadsword, but it appears about the same (then again, they did reuse the cabbage, if they resued the coconut (possible), then the entire second test is invalid due to structural integrity loss in the cocunut shell!), so we'll call it teh same.
Third test, and teh first clear winner for the katana is cutting an ice block (roughly six inches square, maybe twelve long?). Katana 'clearly' cuts through the ice block while the broadsword bounces. AHA!
Wait. First there is only one cut of the ice block by the katana, and in slow motion it is absolutely clear that the ice block fractures ahead of the blade. It isn't clear, given the editing, but it seems that only one attempt was made with the broadsword as well, which bounced, though it does appear looped in such a way to suggest it was repeated several times. Now, it is possible that some feature of the blade of the Katana makes it more likely to create a fracture in ice, but it seems equally possible that the block was flawed in some way already, more brittle. The easy solution is to simply bring out a lot more ice blocks and repeat the tests. The harder solution is the same, only with lots of quality control on said ice blocks to control for variables. I'd be satisfied with the easy.
So, this could be a win by fluke rather than propaganda or superiority. Luckily there are two more tests.
The next test is training dummy torso covered with what appears to be a leather vest. This is were things take a turn towards malice. The Broadsword is up first in a strong strike across the abdomen, which drives the leather a good inch, inch and a half into the foam of hte torso, but fails to cut the leather. I note that there are several surface cuts parallel to the demonstrated cut which indicates that this sort of blow was repeated at some point, though with which sword I can't say. The Katana is used to cut downward across the shoulder, cleaving the leather and sheering off part of the torso. Clearly a superior cut.
Only, you'll note, these aren't comparable blows. Could the broadsword have acheived similar cutting power had it been used in a similar cleaving fashion? Would the katana have cut through the leather had it been used to cut across the flat of the stomach? Were those surface cuts failed cuts by the katana or the broadsword????
While the test clearly indicates superior katana cutting, it is utterly invalidated by the fact that we aren't comparing remotely similar cuts here.
Between this and the ice block test I kept my eyes close on the final test.
The final test was a polished steel breastplate of some sort (It looked vaguely segmented, but I beleive that was merely a ribbing sort of design). The broadsword again went first, again with a strike across the stomach, then a stab that punched a tiny hole in the steel.
The cut appeared to be useless. I say appeared, because the armor is quarter turned away from the camera and the cut was to the arc of the stomach turned away from the camera.
The Katana is swung at the stomach and clearly dents the metal, then stabs, and appears to penetrate a half inch deeper.
So again, a winner.
But, remember how I said we couldnt' actually see how the broadsword perfromed because of where it struck? yes, the Katana was on the side facing the camera. Now, it would have been easy to just turn the armor between blows, free essentially, so that's point one. Point two is that hte katana blow was closer to the center line ridge, much closer. Imagine swinging a sword at a flat wall and again against the corner of that same wall. Which blow will be more effective?
Now, I could suppose one test might accidentally favor one sword over another if done poorly, as these were, but three out of three favoring the same sword? I also note the change of demonstration order as well, which I believe was designed to reinforce the 'superior' contender. So instead of seeing how deep the broadsword goes and thinking how deadly that would have been we're reminded instead over the cleaving of the katana, as it is fresher in our minds (I believe the us legal system has the defense follow the prosecution for that exact reason... so that the advantage goes to the defense).
To further my case that this is deliberate, allow me to note that our testers are some old white guy who clearly studied japanese swordsmanship and... R.Lee Ermy, who is our celebrity guest rather than an expert swordsman. I definitely recall Ermey (sp?) handling the broadsword, and I'm too lazy to go back and verify who held the katana, though I believe Ermey did at least some of the katana cuts.
However, we have a non-expert and a potentially biased expert, with clearly inequal tests being performed and some weak evidence of deliberate malfeasance.
In short the video proves my grandmother shot hitler. Go Grandma!
Good analysis Spike, the relative sharpness of the blades is also a key factor. A well sharpened soup spoon will go through flesh like butter, a semi sharpened sword is a bludgeon. These are not things a video will readily reveal.
The styles of the fighters also comes into play.
Unless i'm mistaken, the shoulder to opposing groin blow was typical for the katana-armed Samurai.
Quote from: One Horse Town;642720The styles of the fighters also comes into play.
Unless i'm mistaken, the shoulder to opposing groin blow was typical for the katana-armed Samurai.
AFAIK that sort of diagonal cut is/was common in just about every fencing tradition (excluding the exclusively thrusting styles). As the "Döbringer" manuscript (http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Codex_D%C3%B6bringer_(MS_3227a)) states, "When you are angry and raging, then no strike is as ready as this upper strike struck from the shoulder at the opponent."
(Translation by David Lindholm. Link directs to the Liechtenauer wiki.)
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;642260Not exactly, Rob. HM 1e (OOP) has everything all in one book, although there are separate books with more detailed rules on ships (Pilot's Almanac) and magic (Shek-Pvar + "tomes" on each "college" of magic).
True, but there is no (legal) pdf, and it's long out of print, so getting a copy is an ebay exercise. It's not a terribly expensive item (sub $20), but there would probably be a little delay in getting a copy.
Personally, I go back and forth. I like some of the detail, but some of it makes me wonder if it's worth it. In the end, I'll probably fuse some version of HM with BRP and be happy.
Quote from: The Traveller;642718Good analysis Spike, the relative sharpness of the blades is also a key factor. A well sharpened soup spoon will go through flesh like butter, a semi sharpened sword is a bludgeon. These are not things a video will readily reveal.
True enough. I touched very briefly on it at the beginning, but I tried to restrict my observations to stuff that was directly observable (and without sound. My computer has issues with sound these days... it could be the headphones...).
That said, the broadsword cut the cabbage almost exactly the same as the Katana. One thing that was observable, during the slowmotions, was that the broadsword was much less rigid. I know a bit about metallurgy and swordsmithing but not enough to comment about just how wobbly that damn thing was in the slowmotions, but I will say that it had a lot of resilience in addition to its spring. I DO know that all that spring and wobble would definitely affect the stabbing power and I presume the cutting power, as it would absorb some of the kinetic energy of the blow. THis was most obvious during the 'stabbing the plate armor' test, where the broadsword flexed some five times more than the katana did during the slow motion.
Quote from: TheHistorian;642754Personally, I go back and forth. I like some of the detail, but some of it makes me wonder if it's worth it. In the end, I'll probably fuse some version of HM with BRP and be happy.
For games of that general type and degree of detail, it's not worth it to me. At one time I thought HM was the way to go but nowadays, in the broader BRP/RQ/d100 family, Elric/Magic World is about where my sweet spot lies. (No explicit "weapon aspects", no hit locations, but variable armor and a table for vivid "major wounds".)
Still, it's what the OP wanted, so that's why I suggested it, with reservations.
About the complication, I don't really think that combat is likely to be too terribly slow compared to MRQ2/Legend or RQ6.. Rob can say more. What is far more impacted by the detail is character creation/maintenance--i.e., buying armor in multiple pieces and layers, and adding up all the absorption values for each hit location. If you're trying to balance your armor protection vs. other variables such as encumbrance and cost, it gets even worse. My understanding is that HM Gold has some standard "panoplies", which could help, but it's still more than I'd like to deal with as a GM or impose on players.
Now, HM does have a module called "Battle Lust" which uses a streamlined version of the standard combat rules as the basis of a miniatures skirmish system. This could be a good way to go--a hybrid of the BL combat rules with the standard character rules--but I think I like Elric/MW better.
Quote from: Dan Vincze;642739AFAIK that sort of diagonal cut is/was common in just about every fencing tradition (excluding the exclusively thrusting styles). As the "Döbringer" manuscript (http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Codex_D%C3%B6bringer_(MS_3227a)) states, "When you are angry and raging, then no strike is as ready as this upper strike struck from the shoulder at the opponent."
(Translation by David Lindholm. Link directs to the Liechtenauer wiki.)
Cool. Thanks.