[Raymond Arnold]

In a previous post I said I was going to consolidate the "skills" themselves into a single Melee combat skill. So if you have a Melee skill of 30, you'd get that bonus whether using a dagger or polearm. There'd be no "OMG! I'm an awesome swordsman but I pick up a quarterstaff and I just flail around helplessly."

The "weapon specialization" feats would give you a slight bonus to damage with a specific weapon, and once you have those feats you'd be able to get specific tricks like feinting or disarming.

[Matt Howard]

Raymond,
Well, it sounds like you've gotten a solid start on a system, but I'll throw in my two cents anyway. I collect swords and have some, sadly not nearly as much as I'd like, training with them. So I have at least a little idea of how a sword, or dagger for that matter, handles. Also, I never really liked roleplaying games because of the combat systems, until I was introduced to the Riddle of Steel, which has already been mentioned. I LOVE that system. Basically a few ARMA guys got together and made the best dice and paper simulator of medieval combat they could. I think it really works great, accounts for different damage types, weapon lengths, strike types, armors, and combat skills, without being too cumbersome.
Basically the system is pool based, d10. A combination of attributes and combat proficiencies determine how many dice you have available in your combat pool, and every action in combat you allocate as many dice as you want to the roll, against different target numbers, which are based on numbers assigned per weapon for cut, thrust, and defense. If you want to do maneuvers, they cost combat pool dice, from 0 to 4, with a variety of effects (hook for instance knocks the opponent down, counter gives you extra dice on the next attack). Each proficiency has a list of offensive and defensive maneuvers that are available, some only at certain levels of proficiency, and all weapons fall into one or two proficiencies (arming sword can be sword and shield, or cut and thrust, depending on if you have a shield or not). Characters learn proficiencies and can use other proficiencies with penalties (so a character with training in cut an thrust can use sword and shield for (I believe) a -2 penalty, or 2 less combat dice, and a polearm for -4). Weapon length is dealt with by assigning every weapon hand (dagger), short (gladius), medium (arming sword), long (great sword), very long (polearm), or extremely long (pike). For each step of difference between the two weapons the fighter with the smaller weapon losses one die if trying to attack, if the smaller weapon succeeds in an attack (not necessarily dealing damage) then the longer weapon is at the same disadvantage, one die per step, as the fight is now close in. Damage is based on the difference between the attackers strength+damage rating of the weapon+Margin of success vs. defenders toughness+armor rating. The attacker only hits if they score more sucesses on their attack roll then the defender did on their defense roll, and every success on the defense roll subtracts one success from the attackers rolls. Every attack is called at a specific zone of the body, and each hit is to a specific area in that zone, determined by a d6 roll and reference to a damage chart. The chart also list levels of damage that result in increasingly large loss of combat dice, and sometimes specific, usually horrible, extra consequences (lost hand, brain damage, knockout, ect.). In practice its' really not as complicated as it seems, though it can lead to long individual fights if the oppenents have roughly equal skill. Also, the damage tables are pretty harsh, and even minor wounds can mean that the fight is over in a few rounds when between two evenly matched oppenents, although a character who is substantially more skilled can afford a few cuts, still, one good stab to the face or sword in the torso ends the fight in one blow.
Sorry for the long post, but I thought I'd try to cover the best way I've seen of roleplaying combat for your questions. The Riddle of Steel makes for varied combat that usually comes down to one blow that's a combination of skill and luck, or a lot of little, debiliating cuts. Its' brutal, but a lot of fun if you don't mind losing characters.

[Raymond Arnold]

I had looked a little at the Riddle of Steel rules. It definitely seems like a really cool game, but I'm not sure if it's one I want to copy. The rules seem pretty specific to what the game is about - extremely realistic combat. And if that's what you want, you'd be better off playing Riddle of Steel than a cheap knockoff. No matter how much effort I put into it I'm not going to duplicate the work they did, and it's not my intention. My goal is a more epic pulp fantasy feel - I just think that there's room to make epic fantasy more realistic than it's usually treated.

I've thought about including rules for attacking and dismembering certain body parts, but I can't think of a way to do that which wouldn't upset the rest of the game (and while I've been focusing on combat in this thread, it's only a small part of the game. Much of what I like about my game is the way it handles various schools of magic and psionics.)

Actually, the parts of RoS that most intrigue me are the non-combat elements. Having magic directly "age" you is a very cool idea, as is the way your spiritual traits effect you.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Mikko Kuusirati]

Hi, another gamer here.

Have you been to RPGnet yet? Biggest (and arguably the best) RPG site on the web. The regulars on the forums are a great bunch of people, and we love discussing this kind of stuff.

One question: what exactly is the game supposed to be like? A fantasy heartbreaker ("like D&D but better")? Sword and Sorcery á la Robert E. Howard, C. L. Moore or Fritz Leiber? Less conventional fantasy like Michael Moorcock, Jack Vance or Robert Holdstock? Lighthearted cinematic swashbucklery in the vein of The Three Musketeers and Pirates of the Caribbean? Grittier historical fiction like Capitan Alatriste or The 13th Warrior? A realistic pseudo-medieval simulation?

The desired mood and feel of the game are at least as important as any considerations of realism; after all, we're talking about a fictional world that may or may not work like our's.

[James R.Fox]

Sam H the definition given in Swords IS the definition established by Mr Oakshott, which is generally acceptd as the swandard one.

[Justin Smith]

As a game designer and combat-sport hobbiest (more the former than the latter,) I hope I can offer some help. As a reference and shameless plug, my current project is "Freshmen" and revolves around High School, Existentialism, and post-nuclear survival; yes, it's somewhat weird.
I concur with Mikko's recomendation of RPG.net, they will be able to give you a great deal of help. The Forge (www.indie-rpgs.com) is another helpful site for game design advice, and to a lesser degree www.story-games.com. I would also like to reccomend Burning Wheel (www.burningwheel.org) as a system that does a good-- though somewhat cumbersome-- job with combat. One more thing: if you're at the point of putting numbers together, find a copy of The Power 19 (IIRC by Troy Costic, http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-...pt-1.html)
First, I would like to second Mikko's advice to narrow down and identify your "source fiction." What fiction would you like to emulate? The expectation of the RPG experience for almost all players is based around fiction. As a common definition of RPGs involves their ability to create shared fiction, this may not be an undesirable situation.
The downside to this is that you will always have the guy that wants to play an unarmored and rapier-wielding Errol Flynn against Maximillian-clad Heavies, Archers that want to be Legolas-- plugging half a dozen baddies with a longbow from two feet away. In the real world, much of what many players will expect to be valid options are bad choices at best, and more commonly suicidal. However, to have Errol Flynn's life be rightfully Nasty, Brutish and Short will "kill the buzz" for at least a noticable minority of players.
If you would like to stick with reality, choose a period, and make sure that the styles and tactics of that period are effective, and to a lesser extent that styles of alternate periods are less effective. Also, make it explicit what types of strategies work.
You may also want to include what normal RPG concessions to reality are adopted or ignored in your setting. One key example is the Armor=Shiny Clothes. "Of course I walk to the grocer's tent in full mail. Who wouldn't?" "Why wouldn't I sleep in plate armor? It's not THAT uncomfortable." Being clear about the in-world expectation of behavior can give all involved a handle on some of the expectations built into the game.

[James R.Fox]

Two things-First, Sam the definition of an arming sword I gave IS the standard definition of an arming sword as establised by Mr Oakshott and accepted as sucth It is defined this way because as, is also pointed out in Records it can be of several differen types,type XII,typeXIV, type,XV ,and so on, so it's defined by use, a short sword 22" to 26"" suitable for cutting or stabbing,carried as a back-up, or when a full- lengh weapon was inappropriate or useless.(The costelle was developed for the same reason.. it is shorter than a armingsword, 14"-16" but wide at the hilt and strongly pointed, and was often carried as a suppliment by footmen, so much they were often called costelliers, espically on the continent.) It hink you have arming sword confused with the full hength type XVIII
Second, the point about starting with a strong story mapped out is Essential to making a game work internally. Great fichion authors,like Robert E. Howard did this, espically for his Conan stories.He mapped the Hyborean kingdoms in detail, and wrote the basic histoy Ursula K. LeGuin the famous science fiction author not only developed the societies and wrote histories, she often made the languages as well, espically for her EarthSea Trilogy and her stories of the Hainish empire,espically Rocannon's World, The Word for World is Forest,and The left Hand of Darkness.
Amy good fiction, espically sifi or fantasy HAS to have a strongly mapped background to communicate, as your readers and players dDon't have it.

[Raymond Arnold]

In theory, like my designers I'd like to claim the system is "universal" and can apply to any setting. But in practice, the setting I've been developing to go along with it is a steampunk blend of psionics, magic and technology. And when push comes to shove, Awesomeness wins out over realism. Some examples of the characters my players are playing:

Ouragon - A half dwarf, half elf druid who is slowly turning into a treant, who carries around a giant venus flytrap in a pot on his back. Various plant spells supplement the unarmed attacks of himself and his pet plant.

Charraj - A gnomish "frankenstein" character with no offensive capability at all, but who stitches together the pieces of monsters he finds to assemble ideal servants.

Laughing Skull - An undead priest of life and death.

Balbar the Unquenchable - A dwarven drunken master.

Cali - An elf archaeologist (think Indiana Jones, but with magic)

Kryphton - A dwarf/troll crossbreed (father was a dwarven serial rapist) who has mastered several different aspects of Rage magic, using his supernatural anger to fuel an unarmed fighting style, fire magic, and telekineses. More recently he's been imbued with earth elemental blood, and now can trigger mild volcanic activity as well.

Each of the characters is viable, but in different situations. Kryphton often overshadows people in raw power, but Balbar (the closest thing to the unarmed Errol Flynn) shines really well in crowds. As a DM I try to create situations where each character will get to do something cool, but in a flat out melee certain combinations are just less useful.

I'm not sure at this point whether I eventually intend to publish or not. For now I'm focused on something my friends and I can enjoy, and my "put together an actual rulebook" goal is less so that I can publish said book and more so that I can point to it and say "I finished that."

We're starting to get a bit off the original topic, which is okay I suppose, but I figure if I'm on a real-life-fighting forum I should stick to things relevant to real life fighting. Is any of the above fighting styles "realistic?" Not in a strict sense, but I at least want it to be believable in a "if Rage magic really existed, a Rage-fighter would function the way Kryphton does," sort of way.

[James R.Fox]

Sounds cool. Like I said, the structure has to be internal to the game/book/etory, not to the RW. you have to have a consistent structure to communicate, rhat's all.

[Raymond Arnold]

I'm pretty much satisfied with the basic system now - at least until I get to test it out and see what really works.

What I still need are some appropriate names for various techniques. In particular, right now I'm looking for a word for a style that allows a shorter ranged weapon to hit a longer reaching opponent. (i.e. a number of you have said it's possible for a dagger-fighter to hit a swordsman without getting destroyed, it's just a lot harder). Alternately, I figure there should an ability that does the opposite - allows the wielder of a longer weapon to get more advantage out of their reach with extra free attacks.

Are there are specific names (preferably English for consistency, although anything cool sounding would work) for those kinds of techniques.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Raymond Arnold]

I understand what you mean with keeping things abstract - I read an article recently that argued D&D's armor system was realistic enough because when you come down to it, armor that just makes you harder to hit (instead of applying any kind of actual "damage reduction" still accomplishes the goal of reducing the total damage, just in a different way. Realistic in a moment by moment basis? No, but overall yes.

That being said, I've come up with a system since my last post that I'm very happy with. Not sure exactly how realistic it is, but I'm sure its moreso than D&D and I think more fun as well. One thing that I find important in any game is to give players resources to manage. In D&D, spellcasters have their spells per day but fighters basically get to swing each turn, sometimes using specific tricks but it's never very hard to figure out what trick to use.

The system I've been testing recently is based around Opportunities (something D&D had but didn't focus on as much). Each turn a normal person has one Opportunity in addition to their normal action points, and as their skill improves they can get more. Opportunities are free actions that you can use for a number of things, depending on the situation. You can use it to attack someone who does something particularly clumsy, you can use it to block an incoming attack with your weapon instead of trying to dodge it completely. Later on (when you have two or three a turn) you can combine them, blocking an incoming attack and then getting a free attack back - but by using up your second Opportunity to attack back, you might be leaving yourself more vulnerable to a second attack from another assailant.

This also solved my shield problem - blocking with a shield uses the exact same rules as blocking with a weapon, and you can do it without a cost to your normal attacks or actions. But it does use up an Opportunity, so you can't be doing some other fancy trick at the same time.

Weapon range also takes advantage of the system. If a close-range fighter attacks a guy with a longer range weapon, the opponent get an attack of opportunity. When fighting in cramped corridors (narrow enough that the long weapon doesn't have full room to swing) the situation is reversed, and the short range weapon can get extra attacks. (I'm not sure that's the most realistic way to handle the effect of a pole-arm in a 5' hallway, but the other penalties I could think to assign were too mathematically vague and confusing).

Since my last post I've settled on the simple names "Reduce Range" and "Extend Range" for the "adjusting your weapon length" feats. However, I'd still say more interesting names are useful (if not in this particular situation than in general, anyway). I dislike games that are overly generic - I prefer the mechanics themselves to spark a little imagination.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Raymond Arnold]

Although I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "abstraction," my suspicion is that we just have some different tastes in roleplaying. It's not so much that I like things "realistic," as I like rules to help support the flavor. An issue I have with D&D (out of curiosity, what system do you play?) is that both spellcasting and fighting have a bland mechanic that doesn't feel like it means anything.

The elements of my system I'm most proud of are how each style of play has good flavor both in the storyline and the actual mechanics. For example, berserkers, rather then getting some arbitrary number of "Rages" per day, gain Rage points as they deal damage that allows all their attacks to grow in power as their Rage, does, until they cross their Rage Threshold, at which point they start blindly lashing against everyone around them and their bodies start buckling under the stress. I'm pretty sure the way I handle it is not "Realistic" (in terms of what they can actually do while angry) but it's really fun and really cool.

And oddly, for all my talk of realistic combat, in the first "test" adventure I used for the new system, the player was an Ogre who specialized in picking up people and wielding them as weapons. A lot of things he did opened himself up to extra attacks but the things he was doing were just plain awesome.

I came up with the "reverse advantage for reach in cramped corners" rule at the end of that adventure, when the Ogre had a goblin cornered. The Ogre (a large character) was wielding the corpse of a medium character against the small goblin. It was the goblin's turn to attack. Under the normal rules, the character with reach would get a free attack Opportunity as they were attacked, but it was clear from the position of the figures on the board that the Ogre couldn't possibly swing his corpse in any meaningful way. He could block with it (just holding it out in front of you is pretty easy) but any other manuvering wouldn't make sense.

At the time, I was still going with a "long weapons = free attacks no matter what" so I gave the Ogre a free attack. It was after wards that I realized that A) that didn't make sense and B) it made more sense for there to be some kind of penalty.

Figuring out exactly when things are "too cramped" is never going to be fixed up in a scientific chart - I think it's going to have to depend on DMs looking at the board and using their judgement. As for your "pole-arms in a hallway" example, it occurs to me that in that case, there's actually nothing obstructing the pole-arm, because pole arms are easy weapons to "poke" with instead of swing.

So now, some questions (humor me, even if you think the game should be different)

1. What sort of things would likely go on if you tried to wield a longsword in the same way you'd wield a pole-arm in a place too narrow for the sword to swing. (I guess it'd be more like wielding it as a rapier. Can longswords easily do that?)

2. What sort of things would likely happen if (hypothetically) you were and some else were both up close against a wall - so close you didn't even have room to extend your pole-arm normally - and your opponent tried to stab you with a dagger?

What I've heard over and over in other threads is that longer weapons are hard to get past with smaller weapons, because you open yourself up to attack - but in cramped quarters the shorter weapons have the advantage. But no one's explained exactly why. (I may cross post these questions in the "Advantage of Range" thread).

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Morgan Jones]

I'm also designing my own roleplaying game and I've done A LOT of research on the subject.

You mentioned earlier about how you didn't know how much the weapons actually weighed. I'm not sure if you've figured that out or not but if you haven't here's some free research.

Surprisingly, DnD actually got most of it's weapon weights spot on (at least in 3.5 I've never given 4.0 a proper look). Even if it got almost everything else wrong.

A dagger can weigh up to 1lb
A shortsword weighs around 2lbs
A rapier usually weighed 1kg or 2.2lbs.
A longsword usually weighed about 4lbs. Although they could weigh more, especially if your definition of longsword covers larger two-handed swords as well.
The heaviest swords weighed about 8lbs. Those would be your two-handed monstrosities.
In fact, almost all weapons in the medieval ages weighed anywhere from 2-8lbs (or 1-4kg approx.). A lot of people forget that these weapons were intended to be used for extended periods of time in warfare, they needed to be light enough to use with ease.

As for how to make a shortsword useful. I have an energy system in my game, shortswords use less energy than longswords and deal about the same damage, but there's a reach system in place (I do it by the meter because my game uses the metric system, but longswords are mentioned as having a longer reach than a shortsword, which gives them attacks of opportunity and attack bonuses against shortsword wielders). Shortswords are also slightly easier to quick draw and easier to conceal, as well as weighing less. Overall a longswords going to outfight a shortsword on the battlefield, but for someone who can easily corner or sneak up on opponents the shortsword is lighter, more energy efficient and just as damaging.

Moving towards weapon categories (your most recent topic).

It seems silly to think of using a rapier "like a polearm" or really any weapon like another. Because if a weapon is designed to be able to function like another weapon, isn't it still functioning like itself. For example: if a longsword is designed to be able to make effective thrusting attacks and you begin stabbing with it, you are still fighting with it "like a longsword" because they were indeed intended to be used that way. For both simplicity and realistic reasons I would suggest simply keeping all weapons under their own category, and don't worry about trying to label which category of weapons any given weapon is fighting with. Here's an example of how I constructed my weapon skill list.

Axes (axes... duh)
Blades (daggers and swords)
Bludgeons (maces and clubs)
Bows (any type of bow)
Crossbows (any type of crossbow)
Flails (guess)
Improvised (farm tools, broken bottle, chair, or anything that's not meant to be a weapon)
Polearms (spears, halberds, glaives etc.)
Thrown (slings, acts as the attack bonus for any other weapon when being thrown)
Unarmed (martial attacks)

You obviously don't have to copy this list. But you see what I mean, just simply place each weapon into a category that makes sense for it and leave it there. If you wish for people to be able to increase all weapon skills simultaneously. Perhaps have like a MELEE skill and a RANGED skill and then make all of the other weapons simply specializations (i.e. the player gets a bonus when fighting with that specific category of weapons).

As for environmental advantages, such as that corridor you mentioned. It is my belief that you should leave that stuff up to the GM. You don't want your gamemaster to go crawling through the rulebook anytime a unique combat circumstance comes up. Just have him decide for himself how it plays out, it will usually be much faster and more interesting for the players. Heavy amounts of rules usually restrict more than they add. Here are some examples of judgement calls an experienced GM can make entirely on his own.

The player is in a swamp, his movement speeds are heavily reduced and he takes a significan't dodge penalty (although only a slight parry penalty).

The player has a dagger against a polearm in a corridor. Player attempts to close the distance, polearm wielder gains attack bonus because the player has little room to dodge. Player closes distance anyway, the polearm is entirely useless at this range. Time for the enemy to switch to plan B before he is spammed by the dagger. And so on....

As for hit points. You'd be surprised how much damage people can take. I personally know somebody who was stabbed several times with a knife (by a young man on meth) and survived the experience (she went to emergency care but still... no life long injuries). Even guns of the modern age can take several shots to kill someone. Not that you should try to make all the character's able to survive extraordinary amounts of damage, but remember that a sword slash is rarely an insta-kill. You can have a system where people can usually survive a few slashes, even without armor. If you want to make the system extra deadly you can of course do so, that's kind of what I did so no judgement. It's really up to you.

Having some sort of stamina system sounds great, but I don't think you should, or need to make it an extra health bar. As I mentioned before, people can usually survive at least a few straight on hits from a weapon (although they might die later from bloodloss if not given medical attention). Instead just have people use up stamina when they attack, defend, make opportunities, run or whatever. A warning though, people often may forget about this sort of thing as it's usually irrelevant except for long combat sessions. This does present the realism of people wearing down though, and you may give them penalties for running low on stamina, allowing the person with ligher weapons or more stamina to begin shining at the end of combat.

That's kind of my 2 cents. Hope it helps.