Earlier this year, I discussed the importance of gear in tabletop role-playing games. This week, I wanted to focus on what many players think is the coolest and most important part of any gear list, Weaponry:
As befits their wargaming ancestry, many RPGs make combat is a key or even central element of gameplay (e.g., hack and slash). So, unsurprisingly, weapons are also a fundamental part of many RPGs, since they literally the tools of war.
This is a subject that many players of tabletop role-playing have spent many hours thinking about and can be a key part of the imaginary fun of role-playing. For example, as I mentioned before, there is a different role-playing feel when one is a sword guy versus an axe guy.
Weapons are also important because they can be a fundamental part of a character's power in some RPGs. Indeed, the effect of weapons are a baked in assumption for one of the Core Four classes, the Fighting-Man (aka the Fighter), since this is the primary way that Fighting-Men affect games. For example, in Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), the magic weapons tables are skewed towards swords, which can only be used by Fighting-Men. This was a deliberate design decision to help balance the power of the Fighting-Man vis-à-vis the Cleric and the Magic-User.
Consequently, some RPGs have lengthy lists of weapons. The AD&D Player's Handbook (1978) had an eye-popping, for the time, FIFTY weapons! Sometimes even entire books mainly devoted to weapons (e.g., "Compendium of Weapons Armour and Castles" (1989)).
In terms of the level of mechanical depth, there are a number of approaches for weapon statistics, from OD&D very simply treating all normal weapons as mechanically equal (all weapons do 1d6 points of damage), to a great deal of crunch, such as AD&D's differing damage by size (versus large damage) and weapon versus armor modifications or GURPS' different types of damage (e.g., burning, crushing, cutting, impaling, etc.).
From a design point of view, the biggest thing to avoid is creating a best weapon (i.e., a weapon that is always mechanically superior to other choices) or making certain weapons redundant. For example, AD&D had a huge number of pole arms that were probably overkill for pretty much anyone, except for Messr Gygax.
Furthermore, ideally, the mechanics of weaponry should provide some Tactical Depth, but not at the expense of too much complexity. There shouldn't be so many weapon statistics that they become difficult to track. For example, I personally didn't use any of AD&D's extra crunch (differing damage by size (versus large damage) or weapon versus armor modifications) because they required too much looking up (which slows down gameplay).
Myself, I'm a big fan of the approach of Baldur's Gate (1998), which had a streamlined list of weapons with streamlined statistics, so gameplay was quick. However, BG also created tactical depth through its use of weapon groups and weapon proficiencies. Thus, I adopted this approach for my rules set, Sorcery & Steel, since I think it provides the best balance of speedy gameplay with meaningful choices for weaponry.
This is a subject that many players of tabletop role-playing have spent many hours thinking about and can be a key part of the imaginary fun of role-playing. For example, as I mentioned before, there is a different role-playing feel when one is a sword guy versus an axe guy.
Weapons are also important because they can be a fundamental part of a character's power in some RPGs. Indeed, the effect of weapons are a baked in assumption for one of the Core Four classes, the Fighting-Man (aka the Fighter), since this is the primary way that Fighting-Men affect games. For example, in Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), the magic weapons tables are skewed towards swords, which can only be used by Fighting-Men. This was a deliberate design decision to help balance the power of the Fighting-Man vis-à-vis the Cleric and the Magic-User.
Consequently, some RPGs have lengthy lists of weapons. The AD&D Player's Handbook (1978) had an eye-popping, for the time, FIFTY weapons! Sometimes even entire books mainly devoted to weapons (e.g., "Compendium of Weapons Armour and Castles" (1989)).
In terms of the level of mechanical depth, there are a number of approaches for weapon statistics, from OD&D very simply treating all normal weapons as mechanically equal (all weapons do 1d6 points of damage), to a great deal of crunch, such as AD&D's differing damage by size (versus large damage) and weapon versus armor modifications or GURPS' different types of damage (e.g., burning, crushing, cutting, impaling, etc.).
From a design point of view, the biggest thing to avoid is creating a best weapon (i.e., a weapon that is always mechanically superior to other choices) or making certain weapons redundant. For example, AD&D had a huge number of pole arms that were probably overkill for pretty much anyone, except for Messr Gygax.
Myself, I'm a big fan of the approach of Baldur's Gate (1998), which had a streamlined list of weapons with streamlined statistics, so gameplay was quick. However, BG also created tactical depth through its use of weapon groups and weapon proficiencies. Thus, I adopted this approach for my rules set, Sorcery & Steel, since I think it provides the best balance of speedy gameplay with meaningful choices for weaponry.
No comments:
Post a Comment