Matt Easton from Scholagladiatoria discusses the topic of Weapon "Speed" and Initiative vs Reach in games such as RPGs, and many of the misconceptions surrounding these topics in gaming and game rules. This is something I always bring up whenever the topic of "Initiative" comes up, particularly if someone praises the idea of "Weapon Speed" characteristic, as found in AD&D 2nd ed, so I thought I'd post his recent video on this...

[video=youtube;ZtvmcUDw3sQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtvmcUDw3sQ[/youtube]

He doesn't talk much about gaming. I think these kinds of videos are mostly the person taking the opportunity to talk about medevial weapons, which they already do on their other videos.

So. What can we take away from the video?
Should we model reach, weapon speed, changing grips, distance to opponent, etc? I already dropped the idea of weapon speed, not because of any 'realism', but because it was an extra step in the initiative roll that we didn't want to keep track of.
Is a rogue wielding a short sword completely fucked against an orc with a spear? That doesn't sound very fun for the rogue.

I do like putting at least one other variable on a weapon besides damage, because otherwise you wind up with a "best weapon" that everyone uses. Weapon speed used to be that variable, but like I said, it's an extra thing to keep track of, and I'm not sure the gain is worth the cost.

Games are games and real combat is real combat the two don't really mix at all.

And in game terms, it's what is most enjoyable for the players. Getting into real 'close quarter combat' just opens up a huge can of worms.

I know that in my system, I originally had a "reach" stat for every weapon, which was a bonus to your attack roll in the first round of a melee. (Melee is opposed attack rolls, so it also boosted your defense.) I still think that it could work in a video game, but in tabletop it ended up being way more trouble than it was worth.

I kept a tiny piece of it by giving polearms the "Reach" special rule which gives foes a major penalty in the first round of a melee, but polearms are otherwise sub-par. (There are tricks to get that bonus again by disengaging after winning the melee round - but you need the space to fall back and it doesn't work great against multiple foes.) I found that it added a bit of depth without being overly complex. And since it was a special rule on only a few weapons, it stands out more as opposed to being a very minor modifier most of the time.

One of my playtesters did use a polearm and then quickly draws a sword, but he needed to invest major resources to pull it off so it wasn't something that I needed to fix. Plus, it doesn't keep him from being shot by a gun.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1141706Games are games and real combat is real combat the two don't really mix at all.

And in game terms, it's what is most enjoyable for the players. Getting into real 'close quarter combat' just opens up a huge can of worms.

Yeah - I don't think that games should attempt realism, as that way leads to overly complex unplayable messes.

But they should go for verisimilitude. Something can "feel" right even when you know that it's pretty simplistic etc.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1141705He doesn't talk much about gaming. I think these kinds of videos are mostly the person taking the opportunity to talk about medevial weapons, which they already do on their other videos.

Yeah, but this specific topic is a non-issue outside of gaming. NO ONE outside of gaming would think that a dagger would allow you to strike against someone using a two-handed sword first, cuz "weapon speed". This is strictly a gaming assumption, not a real life or common sense assumption. So there's no reason to make a video about this topic outside of gaming.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1141705So. What can we take away from the video?
Should we model reach, weapon speed, changing grips, distance to opponent, etc? I already dropped the idea of weapon speed, not because of any 'realism', but because it was an extra step in the initiative roll that we didn't want to keep track of.
Is a rogue wielding a short sword completely fucked against an orc with a spear? That doesn't sound very fun for the rogue.

I do like putting at least one other variable on a weapon besides damage, because otherwise you wind up with a "best weapon" that everyone uses. Weapon speed used to be that variable, but like I said, it's an extra thing to keep track of, and I'm not sure the gain is worth the cost.

This would be a separate matter of implementation and group preference. Some people prefer certain mechanics, or avoid others for whatever reason. But in order to understand what sort of variables might help make different weapons more distinct it helps to know what sort of qualities real weapons actually have, and what sort of function they serve in a real confrontation.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1141706Games are games and real combat is real combat the two don't really mix at all.

And in game terms, it's what is most enjoyable for the players. Getting into real 'close quarter combat' just opens up a huge can of worms.

Perhaps (sometimes), but that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't look at real combat to discern how weapons should work or determine whether or not a game rule actually makes sense.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1141709I know that in my system, I originally had a "reach" stat for every weapon, which was a bonus to your attack roll in the first round of a melee. (Melee is opposed attack rolls, so it also boosted your defense.) I still think that it could work in a video game, but in tabletop it ended up being way more trouble than it was worth.

I kept a tiny piece of it by giving polearms the "Reach" special rule which gives foes a major penalty in the first round of a melee, but polearms are otherwise sub-par. (There are tricks to get that bonus again by disengaging after winning the melee round - but you need the space to fall back and it doesn't work great against multiple foes.) I found that it added a bit of depth without being overly complex. And since it was a special rule on only a few weapons, it stands out more as opposed to being a very minor modifier most of the time.

One of my playtesters did use a polearm and then quickly draws a sword, but he needed to invest major resources to pull it off so it wasn't something that I needed to fix. Plus, it doesn't keep him from being shot by a gun.



Yeah - I don't think that games should attempt realism, as that way leads to overly complex unplayable messes.

But they should go for verisimilitude. Something can "feel" right even when you know that it's pretty simplistic etc.

I've considered using a "Reach" stat for weapons, but in terms of using numbers I think it becomes too much to track. I prefer to simplify it into categories: Short, Medium and Long.

Short Weapons: Advantage in Tight Quarters (heavy obstructions within 5' or so) and against Flanked opponents; Disadvantage against longer weapons in Open Quarters (light/no obstructions within 5' to 10' or so).
Medium Weapons: No modifiers.
Long Weapons: Advantage in Open Quarters (light/no obstructions within 5' to 10' or so); Attack of Opportunity against opponents with shorter weapons; Disadvantage in Tight Quarters (heavy obstructions within 5' or so).

It's still extra stuff to track, but its more categorical and focuses on common benefits and limitations that encourage you to shift weapons depending on the situation, which is closer to how real weapons are used and the reason why different weapons exist rather than everyone just using a one-size-fits-all weapon. Different types of weapons fit different purposes in combat.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1141706Games are games and real combat is real combat the two don't really mix at all.

And in game terms, it's what is most enjoyable for the players. Getting into real 'close quarter combat' just opens up a huge can of worms.

 I agree.  I think abstracting most things is a whole lot better, and a successful attack sort of covers all the closing distance/finding an opening/beating the guard, etc.   I do think there are some realism ideas that can be used here and there.   Actual fighting has ALOT of small things going on almost at one time, and many of these things are, in a sense abstracted for a well trained fighter.  You do not always "plan" an attack in an actual fight or even a hard sparring situation if you are well trained, it tends to "happen" because you have spent so much time and training in the situation, your brain is on autonomic auto pilot.  IME if you are not in auto pilot against someone who is, it will be over fast for you anyway.

AD&D 1e gets it exactly right. Without weapon space, swords are overpowered and overused. Gygax added weapon speed at the insistence of wargamers and it adds just the right amount of tactics, neither too much nor too little. Obviously, non-wargamers do not appreciate it.

As he stated, AD&D is not a simulation, which is why rounds are one minute and not 6 seconds. These gaming elements are not meant to create a blow-by-blow simulation.

Weapon speed is only considered when initiative is tied (and it gives the wielder of a small weapon the possibility to make multiple attacks against someone with a larger weapon, say a dagger vs a pole-arm for instance) or when someone with a weapon is attacking someone engaged in activity other than melee, such as spell-casting.

Reach is only considered on the first round of melee, and it determines initiative for that round only. For example, against a charge, spears that are set to receive the charge strike first and do double damage. Surprise attacks obviously negate reach as a consideration.

Taken together, these rules make the long sword a poor choice for the thief who does not desire to duel one-on-one with anyone. The short sword and the dagger are much more useful, as they should be.

One of the only systems I've seen where weapon speed actually worked was Arcanis (when they tried to build their own system) where the entire initiative and action system was built around it.

For initiative you rolled a number of d10s (ranging from one for someone slow to four for someone quick) and used the lowest number. Initiative count then started at 1 and you went when your number came up. Each action had a speed which determined when you went next (ex. if you went on a 3 and used a speed 4 action you'd next go on a 7).

Each weapon had a speed (ranging from 3 for a dagger to 7 for a pole axe) as one of its attributes so you could have many light damage attacks or fewer high damage attacks (armor was damage resistance in the system so a dagger was unlikely to do significant damage to someone in a plate harness while a pole axe could much more easily punch through it's DR... this tended to result in daggers being preferred against light armor while pole axes and similar were better against heavy armor).

Quote from: oggsmash;1141714You do not always "plan" an attack in an actual fight or even a hard sparring situation if you are well trained, it tends to "happen" because you have spent so much time and training in the situation, your brain is on autonomic auto pilot.  IME if you are not in auto pilot against someone who is, it will be over fast for you anyway.

Great point. And it would support the idea that the whole combat should be a single skill roll. AKA: to guarantee there's no planning involved.

OD&D had it right ... longest weapon attacks first, end of story. Since then people have been adding extra complexity just to make combat less realistic.

I've always agreed with him about weapon speed.

A game doesn't need to model realism. but it should never model the opposite of realism

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1141709But they should go for verisimilitude. Something can "feel" right even when you know that it's pretty simplistic etc.

Definitely... As long as it evokes the feeling of exciting combat, job done. Simple is always better.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1141713Perhaps (sometimes), but that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't look at real combat to discern how weapons should work or determine whether or not a game rule actually makes sense.

Absolutely... But it goes way off kilter when people look at stuff but have no idea what is really going on. You end up with some bizarrely overly complicated 'systems'. Ironically, D&Ds simplicity makes is closer to the real thing in a way.

Quote from: oggsmash;1141714You do not always "plan" an attack in an actual fight or even a hard sparring situation if you are well trained, it tends to "happen" because you have spent so much time and training in the situation, your brain is on autonomic auto pilot.  IME if you are not in auto pilot against someone who is, it will be over fast for you anyway.

Exactly, that's what one is aiming for in training, 'unconscious mastery'. Where one's brain is going on motor memory. And bearing in mind aspects like 'hicks law' too. So over complicated martial arts go tits up under stress.

Abstracting it as you said, is the best way, as well as keeping it short and sweet. Works for gaming purposes...

Quote from: The Exploited.;1141732Definitely... As long as it evokes the feeling of exciting combat, job done. Simple is always better.

Indeed. I try to follow the KISS rule unless I have a good reason not to. (And not the KISS rule about wearing makeup and having pyrotechnics.)

Reach is really, really important in combat, and not accounting for it in an RPG is IMO very unrealistic, but I've actually tried to design combat systems using it and it's quite difficult.  If you have sword-guy and knife-guy, they both want to control the distance between them.  Sword guy want to be at a distance where he can reach his enemy with his sword, but knife-guy can't reach him.  Knife guy of course want to be in close where he can use his knife and sword-guy does not have as much space to swing his sword.  The obvious route is to track range between the two in some fashion with various tactics for changing it.  Where it gets hard is when you have more than two people in the fight.   You need to track range between all of the enemies and the number of things to keep track of blows up very quickly.

In the game I'm working on now, I have an approach I'm partially satisfied with.  A spear guy can strike at a range of two spaces and can in many cases prevent an enemy from closing.  Since a sword guy can only hit one space away, he really wants to close.  There are several abilities and tactics built around this issue, and it seem to work pretty well.  It still doesn't account for the reach advantage of a man with a sword vs a man with a knife though.

Depends on how much granularity you want in your combat system.

Of course, lecturing on realism in a game where there are fire-breathing dragons seems a trifle silly.