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. :P
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. :P
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.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1141734Indeed. 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.)
Heh... The KISS rule is where it's at. For gaming and real unarmed combat.
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1141938Of course, lecturing on realism in a game where there are fire-breathing dragons seems a trifle silly.
That is a sentiment I've always really disagreed with. IMO a game should be as realistic as possible, except where specifically required to support the fantasy elements of the game. The more realistic a game is, the easier it is to make decisions, because your real world intuition will give you the right result without needing to analyze the rules. Also, I find it easier to "get in to" games that are as realistic as possible.
Quote from: Mishihari;1141993That is a sentiment I've always really disagreed with. IMO a game should be as realistic as possible, except where specifically required to support the fantasy elements of the game. The more realistic a game is, the easier it is to make decisions, because your real world intuition will give you the right result without needing to analyze the rules. Also, I find it easier to "get in to" games that are as realistic as possible.
Agreed, with the implicit caveat that "as possible" includes the fact that not only are some degrees of realism too much for handling time and complexity, but more important, some translations of realism into the game model automatically exclude other parts of realistic processes and outcomes. The classic example is of course that a certain amount of realism of combat in a game involves limited time to make hard decisions. If the game becomes so complex that handling each step means that a subconscious part of your brain no longer feels time pressure or has to make meaningful decisions, then the game has sacrificed one important part of realism in heavy pursuit of another.
That's why all I really want is "good enough" fidelity to the model--which in some cases is even lacking in verisimilitude. As in, for example, early D&D where armor making you harder to hit and not much in the way of maneuvers is "good enough" for some people because "there is a good chance that very shortly the orc is going to kill you" invokes a different aspect. People draw the line in different places, but once the line is good enough for everyone at the table, it is time to concentrate on those other aspects.
Quote from: Mishihari;1141993IMO a game should be as realistic as possible, except where specifically required to support the fantasy elements of the game. The more realistic a game is, the easier it is to make decisions, because your real world intuition will give you the right result without needing to analyze the rules.
Say that to Phoenix Command. :D
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1141721OD&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.
if the difference is great enough, shorter weapon may never get to attack. However, once you have multiple opponents, you can't hold them all away with your spear. This is pretty easy to make rulings on in practice. It isn't brain science or rocket surgery.
As to the rogue with the dagger, don't get squared up one on one against someone with a spear. Avoiding that situation is part of the fun of playing the character.
Quote from: Mishihari;1141993That is a sentiment I've always really disagreed with. IMO a game should be as realistic as possible, except where specifically required to support the fantasy elements of the game. The more realistic a game is, the easier it is to make decisions, because your real world intuition will give you the right result without needing to analyze the rules. Also, I find it easier to "get in to" games that are as realistic as possible.
^This. 100%. Just because fantasy games can have magic, elves, dwarves, and fire-breathing dragons, doesn't mean common sense and a semblance of 'realism' should be void from the game. Immersion is precisely the reason why those things NEED to be in the game. It makes the game feel more plausible and less 'gamey'.
Given the 1974 OD&D's lack of a clear combat system and references to chainmail, I ended up coming up with my own system and initiative which was based on reach. Ranged before spells before long weapons before short weapons before daggers/unarmed combat. Once you get up close with someone with a long weapon then you go before them. Same reach? Simultaneous resolution. A couple player characters got skewered charging spear wielding beast men, but once they closed, they killed them pretty quickly. Lightly armoured warriors with javelins come into their own when they can skirmish like ancient light infantry. We played for a few years with this simple approach and we never really had any "this isn't realistic" moments.
Which brings me to my tangent:
Realism in simulation (related to humans making decisions, not physical systems) is not connected with complexity. Over the last decade or so I've had the opportunity to work with some professional simulation designers (for training simulations where humans have to learn about decisions they have to make, not physical systems) and they simply do not have this strange delusion common among gamers that realism is in any way connected with complexity. The key to realism in a simulated decision making experience is variable isolation and reduction, not multiplication and conflation. Define what you are simulating, isolate what is important for that and mercilessly cut anything that is not central to the experience of what you are simulating.
I also totally agree that having the mundane things make sense in a fantasy setting is important. I'd say it's more important than in a strictly historical or period setting. If you combine fantastic elements and unbelievable mundane happenings in fantasy you get surrealism. You exit fantasy or sci-fi as a genre and start doing something else. On the other hand if your historical setting has all the period details right and you mess around with some unlikely mundane happenings, people are far less likely to notice as their suspension of disbelief won't be taxed on multiple fronts.
One other thing about the reach based initiative. Don't leave "describe what you do" mode. The referee describes the situation, the players describe what they do, you use the system to resolve it and describe the new resulting situation. There's no need for a unique "combat mode" for the game. You can be running in smaller time increments like some arbitrary "round" vs "turn" length, but if you stick with the core activity of player RPGs (players describe what their characters do in response to the situation described by the referee) then it'll work fine.
Quote from: Mishihari;1141993That is a sentiment I've always really disagreed with. IMO a game should be as realistic as possible, except where specifically required to support the fantasy elements of the game. The more realistic a game is, the easier it is to make decisions, because your real world intuition will give you the right result without needing to analyze the rules. Also, I find it easier to "get in to" games that are as realistic as possible.
That's great, but for me, the big one million dollar question is always gonna be 'Is it fun?'. And if it fails that, what's the point?
Adding levels of granularity to combat might be necessary, but every time someone says it's a good idea I flash back to the time I played the Imagine system.
Quote from: Chivalric;1142055One other thing about the reach based initiative. Don't leave "describe what you do" mode. The referee describes the situation, the players describe what they do, you use the system to resolve it and describe the new resulting situation. There's no need for a unique "combat mode" for the game. You can be running in smaller time increments like some arbitrary "round" vs "turn" length, but if you stick with the core activity of player RPGs (players describe what their characters do in response to the situation described by the referee) then it'll work fine.
I think there's a big problem for experienced GMs that we've been trained by decades of combat systems not to do that - to take our brain to a different mode whenever combat starts. I used to have no problem running 1e D6 Star Wars combat, which basically runs that way, but when it came to 'playtesting' for new D6 Mini Six campaign we swiftly had to abandon that and go to a turn-based combat based off iterative Agility rolls, same as if we were playing 3e-5e D&D.
I do still seem to be ok running 1e/OSRIC combat play-by-post in that mode though, so maybe there's some hope for me! :)
When I said "as realistic as possible," yes, the "as possible" part is critically important. When you try for realism, there's often a tradeof in complexity, time in game, and computational effort. While realism increases my fun, those other factors decrease it. When I design, I'm trying to find the sweet spot that maximizes fun.
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1142056That's great, but for me, the big one million dollar question is always gonna be 'Is it fun?'. And if it fails that, what's the point?
Adding levels of granularity to combat might be necessary, but every time someone says it's a good idea I flash back to the time I played the Imagine system.
Yeah, I'm with you here.
Also, does that degree of realism fit the premise of the game? Realism for realism is dumb IMO, and will lead to the kind of 80s design that's unnecessarily granular and slow, like say, Shadowrun or Gurps. These days I don't have the time nor inclination to spend
an afternoon on a single combat sequence anymore, just for realism sake.
Quote from: Itachi;1142082...Also, does that degree of realism fit the premise of the game? Realism for realism is dumb IMO, and will lead to the kind of 80s design that's unnecessarily granular and slow, like say, Shadowrun or Gurps. These days I don't have the time nor inclination to spend an afternoon on a single combat sequence anymore, just for realism sake.
Different strokes, different folks. For some players, it can never be too granular and they revel in it. A day spent resolving a combat encounter is music to their ears. I admit when I have partaken it can be a lot of fun delving into the minutiae for its own sake from time to time.
Probably still some older holdovers from the wargamer transition years out there: the type who set up scenarios on giant tables in their basements. Not to discount the younger players though, some people just have that insane love of detail in their mechanics.
It's interesting how the RPG scene has changed from a time when 'realism' and 'granular' were not dirty words and every publisher (and player) seemed obsessed about it. Everyone seems too 'busy' these days and rules light seems the big thing. It's like everyone's schedule suddenly became super busy. As I'm approaching grumpy old man status soon, I'll go traditional and put the blame on 'social media'.
A more 'realistic' reason is it's less effort to go rules light and smack some story setting on another clone than make a heavy mechanics game that actually work well as a whole. I do have respect for the crazy, intricate RPG rule-sets of old: Probably written by Engineers.
One of my other favourite hobbies is flight simulators and hoo boy, the amount of effort they will go to make the game experience as realistic as possible knows no bounds. The quest for the 'realism' grail is like another world for those people, approaching an obsession almost: Same sort of people who would probably find
Riddle of Steel not realistic and granular enough. I have some level of respect for people who take the time and effort to learn something complex, as the learning can be its own reward.
Complex, intricate RPG rules is one person's boredom while another person's idea of enhancing the experience. Wonder what RPG these types would like? Something with a 400 page operations manual for character creation no doubt. Heh
Exhibit A:
[video=youtube;-v4pYhK00Pk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v4pYhK00Pk[/youtube]
Just wow...
In our game, if you approach someone with reach, they get a free attack against you (ie, if you attack someone with a spear while you have a sword). Generally polearms have reach, but a sword and a dagger are the same from that perspective. While grappling, you have major penalties for using a large weapon (like a bastard sword) that make small weapons advantageous. Regardless of weapon speed, you get 'your number of attacks' each round - it doesn't really matter if that's 20 stabs with a knife versus one swing of a sword - it's more important to us that turns are relatively quick to resolve and damage is in line with what makes a good experience.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1142109While grappling, you have major penalties for using a large weapon (like a bastard sword) that make small weapons advantageous.
When I've seen re-enactors grappling in plate armour with longswords, it's the pommel that they use as a bashing weapon - it seems quite effective for that.
A longsword or bastard sword can be grabbed by the blade and "half-sworded" this makes it more effective as a lever for grappling and allows the point to more easily be shoved through gaps in armour.
[video=youtube;2bdMfaymGlk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bdMfaymGlk[/youtube]
Quote from: Chivalric;1142055Realism in simulation is not connected with complexity. Over the last decade or so I've had the opportunity to work with some professional simulation designers and they simply do not have this strange delusion common among gamers that realism is in any way connected with complexity. The key to realism in a simulated experience is variable isolation and reduction, not multiplication and conflation. Define what you are simulating, isolate what is important for that and mercilessly cut anything that is not central to the experience of what you are simulating.
Just out of curiosity, what type of simulation are you talking about here? I'm a controls engineer, among other things, so I have done a lot of simulation of physical systems, and that does not really describe my approach.
Quote from: Mishihari;1142219Just out of curiosity, what type of simulation are you talking about here? I'm a controls engineer, among other things, so I have done a lot of simulation of physical systems, and that does not really describe my approach.
Primarily training ones. Any time where people need to make a decision. Some first responder stuff, some law enforcement. Some workflow and logistics stuff. I edited my post above to be more clear as I was being way too general. What I said only applies to simulations about decision making (well, like an RPG I guess). The professional simulators had people on their teams that did indeed try to account for everything when they were simulating a physical system rather than decision making. Like a production line work flow. My only involvement in those sort of projects was in training the humans running the line how to navigate the automation, safety, developing a maintenance schedule and what key things they needed to pay attention to in order to keep it all working.
I've never really bought into the notion that the rules for an RPG are the physics engine of the world (not that anyone here is necessarily advocating for that approach). I think that the rules being a tool for participants to resolve player decisions is far more practical. Now if you're making a video game RPG with a simulated environment, then I think the physics engine approach is very appropriate.
Quote from: S'mon;1142157When I've seen re-enactors grappling in plate armour with longswords, it's the pommel that they use as a bashing weapon - it seems quite effective for that.
That's why we allow people to use large weapons in a grapple. We don't reduce the weapon damage or anything; but if you're half as likely to hit you're effectively doing half as much damage, so it largely works out. More importantly, it provides some mechanical incentives to want to use a small weapon at times.
With two handed weapons, you use Strength for attack/Damage, getting 1.5x Strength bonus (like 3.5)
For one-handed weapons, you can choose whether to use Strength or Dexterity for attack, but always apply Strength to damage.
For light-weapons, you use Dexterity for attack, but can apply Dexterity as a bonus to damage (in addition to strength) in any situation where a rogue would ordinarily get sneak attack. This gives them some extra utility in courtly intrigue/assassination attempts.
Quote from: S'mon;1142157When I've seen re-enactors grappling in plate armour with longswords, it's the pommel that they use as a bashing weapon - it seems quite effective for that.
It depends on how one defines "grapple".
When using one minute rounds, many activities occur which may include grabbing, which is not grappling as originally defined, it is merely a level of armed combat minutia not covered in the rules.
Grappling is an
unarmed "attack form [which] is aimed at holding the opponent and rendering him or her helpless" (DMG 1e, p. 72); The Strategic Review #2, p. 3, [OD&D] Combat Example, uses the phrase "pinned helplessly". Obviously if someone is in a choke-hold and has their arm bent behind their back, using a weapon is not an option, and putting someone into such a hold requires both hands free. When attempting to grapple an armed defender, the defender can make a free attack roll in order to fend off the attack. If the attack is fended off, then the defender can attack with his weapon "for real".