People Tend to be, Historically, Inaccurate
If you have ever used the term "historically accurate", when talking about weapons in D&D, Pathfinder, 7th Sea, Cypher System, etc. but have never practiced a martial art, learned stage combat, or researched weaponry, and instead are quoting some movie, or something you heard from some friend who knows equally little as you, I want you to go to the other room, and cast stinking cloud centered on yourself. This is your punishment.
I saw someone on a forum based in an extremely toxic community say, "historically speaking dual-wielded weapons weren't identical weapons in each hand." I chimed in that he was wrong. He quoted the rapier and dagger, and said that was generally it. Well, the hole in his argument was that he only accounted for a couple of centuries only in Europe. The Japanese sai, kama, and tonfa, the African eskrima, Chinese warfan, butterfly swords, the use of Krabi in the Thai style of Krabi Krabong. Half of this you can find on the Wikipedia article called "Dual Wield."
I saw someone on a forum based in an extremely toxic community say, "historically speaking dual-wielded weapons weren't identical weapons in each hand." I chimed in that he was wrong. He quoted the rapier and dagger, and said that was generally it. Well, the hole in his argument was that he only accounted for a couple of centuries only in Europe. The Japanese sai, kama, and tonfa, the African eskrima, Chinese warfan, butterfly swords, the use of Krabi in the Thai style of Krabi Krabong. Half of this you can find on the Wikipedia article called "Dual Wield."
Calling anything in tabletop RPGs "historically inaccurate" indicates that you have chosen to scrutinize aspects you don't like, and blatantly ignore the aspects of the game that are still historically inaccurate. How about the fact that just anybody can throw a dagger 30 feet and cause damage to an enemy in D&D 5e? Have you thrown a dagger before? Throwing knives, the balanced, thrown version require hours of practice and you're telling me that any old wizard can throw one and expect to hit reliably someone at least half of the time? You might be asking if I have tried throwing throwing knives before. The answer is, "YES! Every summer, for 10 years, because I grew up at Renaissance Festivals! That is a thing you get to practice!"I digress, interestingly it is easier to throw axes than knives. Given the shape of the axe (especially axes made for throwing) the head of the axe aids in the rotation, and occupies a a much wide space in the weapon than the point of a dagger.
Another example of a historically inaccuracy that everyone seems to neglect, is that if armor have strength requirements, why don't weapons? My friends and I have dabbled in a number of sword styles, and regardless of the weapon you are using, your arms will tire quickly depending on the pace you are fighting at. Heavier weapons are, you guessed it, heavy! Great swords are monstrous pieces of steel. I tend to think of the German zweihander when we are talking about "great swords". We're talking a sword that could be as long as 5' 9" (180 cm). These monstrous weapons weighed between 4.4 and 7.1 pounds (2-3.2 kg). You're telling me that your character is so strong that he is swinging this monstrous piece all day without suffering any strain or exhaustion? According to D&D, a dwarf can reasonably use this weapon without issue when he is effectively shorter than the weapon. That's not to say that people who are of shorter stature can't use a weapon such as a claymore or zweihander, but the technique would have to be very different if the weapon is larger than the wielder. Of course, this is overlooked, because a great sword does a 2d6 damage. If the damage is good, how can we complain?
On the other end of the spectrum, shorter weapons, such as knives, axes, and shortswords have really no draw back except for using a smaller dice. Everyone should know that is perfectly historically accurate. If you did not read that last line in a sarcastic tone, go back and try again. Shorter weapons are generally much harder to wield against someone who is using a weapon that has sufficient length. In roleplaying games, this disparity is frequently overlooked. Smaller weapons tend have smaller damage dice in games, it's generally hard to kill anything in a roleplaying game with just a knife. Now, compare that to how many deaths have occurred throughout human history because of knives. Do I need to bother saying that it is "historically inaccurate"?
I mentioned the rapier and dagger combo earlier, but has anyone else noticed that most roleplaying games have no idea what a rapier is? Cypher system has it categorized as a light weapon and only deals 2 points of damage. D&D 5e upgraded its damage dice from 3.5's 1d6 to 1d8, but no longer has an increased critical hit chance, and weighs a pound less than the scimitar, but it is not a light weapon. For those of you not sure what a rapier is, watch the BBC's Musketeers, or Princess Bride. The swords that 90% of your protagonists wield are rapiers. They aren't terribly weighty, they are just long. They are specialized to be a thrusting weapon, and were often accompanied in duels with a dagger, or cloak. So, of course, they shouldn't be easy to use with anything in your offhand! That would be historically accurate if they could just be wielded all willy-nilly with some form of accompanying weapon!
If it isn't obvious. the take-away here is that there is a lot overlooked in these tabletop games. The more is overlooked the more inaccurate something is going to seem in a game. The reason being is that a games mechanics are abstracted representations of a real or quasi-real concept. (Can I get an "Ooo" for the use of fancy language?)
On the other end of the spectrum, shorter weapons, such as knives, axes, and shortswords have really no draw back except for using a smaller dice. Everyone should know that is perfectly historically accurate. If you did not read that last line in a sarcastic tone, go back and try again. Shorter weapons are generally much harder to wield against someone who is using a weapon that has sufficient length. In roleplaying games, this disparity is frequently overlooked. Smaller weapons tend have smaller damage dice in games, it's generally hard to kill anything in a roleplaying game with just a knife. Now, compare that to how many deaths have occurred throughout human history because of knives. Do I need to bother saying that it is "historically inaccurate"?
I mentioned the rapier and dagger combo earlier, but has anyone else noticed that most roleplaying games have no idea what a rapier is? Cypher system has it categorized as a light weapon and only deals 2 points of damage. D&D 5e upgraded its damage dice from 3.5's 1d6 to 1d8, but no longer has an increased critical hit chance, and weighs a pound less than the scimitar, but it is not a light weapon. For those of you not sure what a rapier is, watch the BBC's Musketeers, or Princess Bride. The swords that 90% of your protagonists wield are rapiers. They aren't terribly weighty, they are just long. They are specialized to be a thrusting weapon, and were often accompanied in duels with a dagger, or cloak. So, of course, they shouldn't be easy to use with anything in your offhand! That would be historically accurate if they could just be wielded all willy-nilly with some form of accompanying weapon!
If it isn't obvious. the take-away here is that there is a lot overlooked in these tabletop games. The more is overlooked the more inaccurate something is going to seem in a game. The reason being is that a games mechanics are abstracted representations of a real or quasi-real concept. (Can I get an "Ooo" for the use of fancy language?)
That's Not a Knife! This is a Knife!
No...that's actually a d4, you're holding. It hurts if you step on a d4, but that's not a knife. It just represents a knife. How do we know it's not club? Because we can add our dex bonus, or attack creatures at a range of 30 imaginary feet and it counts as a light weapon,.Well, it could be a light hammer... wait, no, you can only add strength to your damage if its a light hammer. Despite these nuances, you still have a d4 in your hand. The nuances are the representations that differentiate one weapon from another. Without them, the obvious choice would be to take the best option, as far as the dice are concerned, and leave it at that. Just as the abstraction of the weapons makes the game easier to manage, regulating potential damage is also necessary. If everyone does the same amount of damage all the time, it is pretty much a question of who hits most, than offers no variety and isn't very fun. If weapons are different, the system is more interesting, but you can't make weapons clearly better than another. Just like in real life, weapons are situational. In a cramped hallway, wielding a longsword is not as easy as wielding a shortsword in the same environment. RPGs do not include rules that reflect this. It is expected, or at least hoped, that the GM will take this into consideration. However, we rarely see this, in part to poor game mastering decisions, but to explicitly include this in all the rules would be very weighty. Looking back at how 3.5 and Pathfinder handled weapons seems like a lot compared to 5e or more narrative focused games like Cypher System or 7th Sea. The major concern in games like D&D and Pathfinder is that the system must remain (mostly) unabused. It is definitely easier to stab with a knife than to swing a great sword, but if the rules reflected it, knives get to attack more. Then you have to consider reach to balance that out, then eventually your comfortable blanket of abstraction is lost. To include these details will not only strain your abstraction but your system entirely.
Using a Weapon
In my games, whatever the system, despite my knowledge of weaponry, I accept these games for what they are, fantasies based on reality. So what if someone wants to use a rapier and dagger but they haven't got the dual wielder feat? Might you assume for this one combination that the character is trained to do so? If someone is a master knife thrower, so be it! These characters are supposed to be heroic characters. These are characters who are some of the best of their own worlds. Unless it is something absolutely game breaking (Looking at you 3.5 Monkey Grip feat), what is the harm in it? If some aspect of a weapons description harms or helps a character in a situation (such as wielding a knife in a grapple versus a spear) consider that!
I know in Chronicle & Tale weapons will have properties that represent the real world components, but there will always be room for the fantastic as well. I suppose you'll have to wait for the first playtest packet.
I know in Chronicle & Tale weapons will have properties that represent the real world components, but there will always be room for the fantastic as well. I suppose you'll have to wait for the first playtest packet.
No comments:
Post a Comment