The Gaming Den

This is split off from the main thread so as to allow for discussing the currently discussed aspect (weapons and weapon reach and such) and this without interfering with each other. It is probably necessary to get at least a rough idea of what setting we're using to determine this... But what is the...

"Don't kick him the balls or throw sand in his eyes. It'll just piss him off. You should stab him instead because that is more civilized." Who thinks like that? People who are actually concerned with being civilized/honorable/decent/fair? As for social penalties/bonuses: Quoth Robin Hood:...

The reality where I can point to the following examples of "nonflashy fighters" that would be worth representing PCs: The Knights of the Round Table Druss Solomon Kane Robin Hood (depends on the telling, mind) and at least a fair number of his Merry Men The Chevalier de Bayard* The heroes ...

E: Why can't I fight bravely and dirty? Why do I need to be afraid to kick you in the balls; can't I just know that its a good idea? Because warriors who are noted for their bravery and martial skill -don't- resort to dirty tricks, as a rule, even when counting people who aren't formally or informa...

So what weapon list (specifically) are we using? If polearms are relatively rare, we can merge the skill (if not the property) with "Spears" - assuming we have seperate skills for seperate weapons. If spearwork as distinct from polearm fighting is important to make different, it should sta...

Elennsar: A fair fight is one in which you have a chance of losing. Hence, in a fair fight, if you fought dirty, you'd win. However, general game design is that the 'dirty' is built into the system, so a fair fight where someone 'fights dirty' is even chances instead of tilted. But it's hard to con...

Not other than by a definition that basically says "Hey guys you act like jerks, but more subtly, we can get rid of Elennsar.", which I'm reasonably sure was not the intent. Discussing that, however, is off topic. So maybe you should stop supporting "let's do all we can to pester Elen...

The closest to doubt benefit I can give you's pointing you've been multiply requested to take it elsewhere (showing plenty of "they aren't interested"*). I figure not doing so'll count as trolling. As none of those people have any control over this thread (OP powers go to PR, concept powe...

I'm not interested in changing anyone's design philosophies.

I am interested in seeing a game about swordsmen actually be about the swordplay, not the dirt clods laying on the ground.

PR: Stop ignoring why someone would be annoyed at the way things are going and less than polite about it. If you've some issue with the fact politeness is treated with disdain on the Den, then you've been curiously silent about it in regards to most of the rudeness recently. If you just object to th...

Elensar, slow down, some of us understand the point you're making here. I think there is definitely room for a game that makes mechanical differences between weapons and stances so you can have fun with things like throwing axes (which don't really work in current D&D) or stave-like weapons, et...

Perhaps if you are truly intent on debating the merits of highly specialized and hyper realist melee combat, could you spin it off to another thread? Or you could actually consider it instead of refusing to see that there's any reason anyone would want it other than being someone who can't stand to...

I want to represent social reasons and pyschological reasons as part of the what-the-hell-is-important. If "Easiest way to kill someone' is the "best way to kill someone" and we leave it there, we get poisoned daggers at night. Not Indiana Jones - even the scene with him shooting the ...

I don't want assassination to be a) viable and b) appropriate. It -is- easy to kill someone in their sleep. There's a lot of good reasons not to, which characters who care about such things actually care about. Some of them are advantageous or can be advantageous, some are not. If its taken for gran...

You start by not misinterpeting my position, either on assassins or weapon details. Assassins are good at killing things. They're also -frowned on-, despised, regarded as cowardly, and not considered necessary. If making a distinction between a 4'+ sword and a 12" knife are unimportant (because...

Or you can make throwing dirt less awesome as a tactic, so that a reasonably good fighter isn't overly worried about it - it may give you a sliver of an advantage, or it may not.

I think the guy who throws dirt in the other's face before backpedaling a ways and pelting his opponent with cobblestones a few times should win. Since we aren't talking about "flashy" fighters, things like swords so awesome they compensate for stupid tactical decisions don't seem to fit....

That's totally fine. You also want people to be able to "cheat" by disarming their opponent, throwing them into the clockworks, blinding them, grabbing a weapon that gives them an advantage, distracting them, and so on. None of that requires hurling rocks or toppling pillars. If you don't...

The direction the game is going = shitty implausible garbage.

Why? Is there something wrong with two characters thrusting, parrying, feinting, and otherwise actually using their weapons as people actually fight? Oh noes, a game where people using swords focus on the swordplay . Having some adventures where the environment is important makes sense. Conan heavin...

Actual swordplay = bad.

one-handed piercing sword beats armor two-handed piercing sword beats armor axes beat armor and do higher damage, but are clumsier Hammers beat armor axe-bladed polearms beat armor Remind me why anyone uses armor and again? More warrior actions: Cover someone so that anyone trying to attack them ha...

If we've only got a few different weapon types to balance the easier it will be to balance them and have them feel different. I mean do we ever want to really care whether a character is using a broadsword or a longsword? No. Do we want to care if someone is using a scimitar or a longsword? Maybe. ...

The problem with that is that it rules out why people use quarterstaffs over greatswords or vice-versa, which means that unless weapon choice is pure fluff (your stats are exactly identical - not equal, identical), there's no point having both - call it "two handed weapon" and be done with...

1) The katana wankers will wail anyway. 2) That should be the case. People don't use weapons like clubs because they're effective, they use them because they're available. Same with most "monk special weapons". So any sacrifice in realism had better not come at the cost of having to come u...