Let Me Tell You About My Paladin
Arms & Armour in FRPG's
While writing my latest set of rules-light FRPG rules I have come to consider the use of arms and armour in the historical periods that relate to most fantasy games - notably the ancient, 'dark' ages and medieval periods.
My main contention is that throughout history real warriors went into combat carrying as little weight as possible. The balance between speed, endurance and protection was always a difficult one to manage.
We have grown up with visions of plate armoured knights on great horses, but in fact they were always in the minority. In the mud, blood and confusion of a medieval melee reach was often more important than plate. The knightly classes of Europe were all but destroyed by mercenaries and half-trained peasants wielding pikes, bills and other polearms in little or no armour, and by well-trained men with powerful bows or crossbows, again in little armour.
The most heavily armoured conflicts in Medieval European history were the battles of the Wars of the Roses in 15th century England. Here large numbers of plate armoured foot knights and men-at-arms slogged it out in long vicious melees. The butcher's bill was enormous as can be seen by the lists of nobles killed in each battle - and these were the guys in the best armour money could buy and with well-trained retinues to watch their backs. They were often slaughtered by peasants with polearms as the exhaustion of carrying 50-80lbs of armour set in.
Note: A common sidearm of medieval soldiers was the Misericord. This dagger had a strong, triangular cross-section whose sole purpose was to finish off plate armoured knights who had been tripped or who had collapsed from exhaustion. So much for plate armour.
I have seen fit young re-enactors in chainmail or plate armour collapse after only a few minutes of desperate melee. Having worn such armour myself when I was younger (and had good knees) brought home just how quickly this could happen. Even just standing around for an hour waiting for a battle to begin could seriously sap your reserves of strength. The most important people on a re-enactors' battlefield are the camp followers who go around giving the men water. Even on a cool day the layers of padding, chain and plate can cook you, never mind when you finally get to move and charge forwards.
The most efficient and successful regular army of these periods was the Imperial Roman Legion of the 1st - 3rd centuries. It was clearly understood by them that the most important piece of armour a soldier could carry was a shield. If you examine the legionary shield though it is not a solid steel barrier, but a large rectangle of laminated wood. Its purpose was to to prevent accurate strikes at the legionary by blocking vision and holding the foe back until the legionary could launch their own strike. The Roman Army even invented a weapon capable of denying an enemy their shield - the Pila, which speaks much of their respect for the shield as a primary method of defence.
Behind this wooden wall the legionary had a scale cuirass covering his shoulders, chest and abdomen, a large well-constructed helmet and essentially that's it. No arm protection (except in the Dacian war), and no leg protection. Having worn it I can tell you that this type of armour gives the legionary great freedom of movement whilst giving good protection to vital organs and the head. To a man trained daily in its use it is the best balance I have seen between speed, endurance and protection.
Note: Roman Army Surgeons were experts at handling battle wounds to arms and legs and perfected methods of wound closure, muscle reattachment and amputation that were not really been bettered until relatively recently. However, they were less successful with penetrating strikes to the abdomen or chest, or crushing blows to the head, and this may have informed the development of legionary armour.
In most rpg's the characters are mercenaries, professional warriors and their support staff (rogues, priests and mages). Thus they can be assumed to know about the balance between speed, endurance and protection. Looking at the mercenary companies of the Italian Wars (a medieval period which should be required reading for all frpg writers) we see that most of them preferred to have relatively light armour with reinforcement of key points on their bodies, notably the knees, elbows, hands, head, throat and possibly the abdomen, in fact anywhere where a successful strike would be immediately crippling and thus allow a coup de grace or capture.
This lack of heavy armour was not due to economic restrictions, they were the highest paid men in Italy, who had regular access to loot from battlefields and even whole cities. They used armour to protect what was necessary as they recognised that speed and endurance were the key factors that allowed them to use their skills and battle experience to best effect in a melee.
The only time they chose to don heavier armour was for sieges, especially for assaults on gates and through breaches in walls. The fighting in such situations would be mercifully short, for if you failed to overwhelm the defenders in a few furious minutes then you would most likely be dead yourself.
Despite all this we regularly see frpg fighters struggling across leagues of wilderness, and spending hours, if not days exploring underground labyrinthes, wearing the heaviest and most inflexible armour they can afford - because the rules reward such irrational choices.
D&D, the flagship frpg, has even had to introduce rules to stop characters trying to wear their armour 24/7 (and then let them have a feat which undermines these rules - go figure). Yes, I know it's fantasy, but the best fantasy has some strong roots in reality.
For example, let us look at the most famous fantasy books ever - The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Not least because the majority of the story relates to a small party of characters struggling on a quest across a realistic landscape and even through a 'dungeon' - Moria. Classic frpg.
Now Prof. Tolkien had a sharp mind and an excellent understanding of history. Thus Aragorn, Legolas and Boromir wear no armour for all of the first book and most of the second. It is only at Helms Deep, a siege, that they don chainmail. For Aragorn and Boromir their most precious defences are their swordsmanship and their shields. Both of these allow them to use their formidable combat skills to greatest effect. Legolas prefers the skirmisher role but isn't afraid to get up close and personal when the situation requires it, but again uses his elven speed and agility as his only armour. Only Gimli has any armour worth mentioning and it is noted in several places how this hampers him when the need for speed arises.
The exception, or course, is Frodo's Mithril Vest (now the favourite armour of many D&D players - which is because it has been made so cheap as to be almost compulsory). However, this is an artifact worth a king's ransom, and weighs no more than a shirt.
By the time we get into the latter part of the stories the number of major battles is increasing and so does the level of armour being worn by the characters. But even here none of them are donning cumbersome plate armour, unless they are part of a mounted unit. An analysis of the text shows that, despite the films' reimagining, the only ordinary warriors in full plate are the Fountain Guard of Minas Tirith, and possibly the knights of Dol Amroth. The regular soldiers of Gondor wear chainmail and breastplates. The warriors out in the field have nothing more than leather & shield.
If we go 'down market' a bit to the work of R.E.Howard, then we see Conan, possibly the most able and dangerous warrior of any fantasy book, seldom wears more than a chain shirt. He is very keen on a shield and sword combination, but shuns the restrictions of heavy armour. Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser series are the nearest to true rpg adventurers in fiction. You never see these guys armoured. They rely on skill, speed and experience. And so it goes with all the authors who actually did some research rather than just making it up.
Another aspect of armour to consider is that it is system of active defence not static. The best plate in the world is highly unlikely to stop a bodkin point arrow from a longbow, or a heavy crossbow bolt if you just stand there and take it in the chest. Medieval armour is designed to deflect blows not stop them dead. This is same principle that led the better tank designers of WW2 to develop sloping armour, rather than just adding even more thickness.
Which again brings us to the conclusion that the ability to move well is more important than just adding more layers of protection.
One last thing about armour - travelling. I am not a good rider, but I know a lot of people who are. Spending a day in the saddle, trekking across open country, is very tiring. A few of these friends are re-enactors, and the thought of doing this in all but the lightest armours has them laughing like hyenas. Armour, even cavalry armour, is not really designed for travelling. The weight, heat and discomfort of heavy armour would quickly become unbearable for man and horse. All the most successful cavalry forces in history were fairly lightly equipped as a result. A horse is not a Humvee.
So how should this inform us rules writers?
In most rulesets there is an assumption that heavier armour makes you harder to damage either through making you harder to hit or by absorbing the force of the incoming blow. This abstraction is just plain wrong and leads to long, boring slugfests.
It is further reinforced in many systems by the adoption of the D&D hit point mechanic. This is all fine and dandy at low levels, but quickly it becomes obvious that as the characters get more hit points, so do the opposition and you end up in an arms race that does little to enhance the game itself. You just end up grinding down the opposition until you or they keel over.
It also prevents whole areas of roleplaying by making the players unwilling, ever, to surrender. Why should they when they have invulnerable armour, and/or huge amounts of hit points? Hit points are another ridiculous abstraction which only compounds the armour problem.
Shouldn't a rational system reflect a situation where two opponents fight through making a number of attacks and parries before one finds an opening and incapacitates their enemy? A fight between unequal opponents will generally result in the lesser being gutted unless he is very lucky. The greater the skill gap the quicker the fight. Lesser opponents can survive by overwhelming the hero with numbers, threatening him with weapons he cannot easily defend against, such as a dozen loaded crossbows, or simply by running away.
Having fought 'duels' as a re-enactor I can tell you two things that back this up. The first is that taking on two opponents at once doesn't halve your chances of survival, it reduces it to less than 10%. You have to kill one of them immediately or you will normally lose. Yet in many rules outnumbering your opponent only gives you a small combat modifier.
The second is that a single blow to a critical point will put you down or reduce your effectiveness to a point where you are dead meat anyway. Being hit hard in the head or on a joint will drop you, even when using a blunt re-enactor's weapon. The pain is excruciating. It is then a simple matter of finishing you off while you are barely able to breathe never mind defend yourself.
Another aspect we rarely see on the rpg tabletop is the dynamic nature of close combat. If you are losing an exchange of blades the normal thing to do is to give ground until you can turn the tables on your foe. This reduces the force of a foes blows and keeps putting you out of reach. In the act of following up you hope to be able to draw your foe into over-extending himself. For his part he is trying to drive you back to make to stumble. Even in cinematic combats we see the opponents fighting back and forth as each struggles to get the upper hand. The fight normally ends with a single successful strike.
What have we learnt from all this waffle?
1. The use of armour should be a trade-off between protection and freedom of movement.
2. Heavy armours are good for short, extremely dangerous combats, but rapidly become less useful the longer or more open the combat becomes.
3. Travelling any distance in heavy armour, even on horseback, is exhausting.
3. Reach is often more useful than plate, and that skill is more important than either.
4. Most of a duel is about finding an opening (not grinding the opponent down hit point by hit point) and then exploiting it.
5. Combat should be dynamic. A combatant that is losing will generally give ground until he can overcome his opponent and drive them back in their turn.
6. Multiple opponents reduce your chances dramatically.
My main contention is that throughout history real warriors went into combat carrying as little weight as possible. The balance between speed, endurance and protection was always a difficult one to manage.
We have grown up with visions of plate armoured knights on great horses, but in fact they were always in the minority. In the mud, blood and confusion of a medieval melee reach was often more important than plate. The knightly classes of Europe were all but destroyed by mercenaries and half-trained peasants wielding pikes, bills and other polearms in little or no armour, and by well-trained men with powerful bows or crossbows, again in little armour.
The most heavily armoured conflicts in Medieval European history were the battles of the Wars of the Roses in 15th century England. Here large numbers of plate armoured foot knights and men-at-arms slogged it out in long vicious melees. The butcher's bill was enormous as can be seen by the lists of nobles killed in each battle - and these were the guys in the best armour money could buy and with well-trained retinues to watch their backs. They were often slaughtered by peasants with polearms as the exhaustion of carrying 50-80lbs of armour set in.
Note: A common sidearm of medieval soldiers was the Misericord. This dagger had a strong, triangular cross-section whose sole purpose was to finish off plate armoured knights who had been tripped or who had collapsed from exhaustion. So much for plate armour.
I have seen fit young re-enactors in chainmail or plate armour collapse after only a few minutes of desperate melee. Having worn such armour myself when I was younger (and had good knees) brought home just how quickly this could happen. Even just standing around for an hour waiting for a battle to begin could seriously sap your reserves of strength. The most important people on a re-enactors' battlefield are the camp followers who go around giving the men water. Even on a cool day the layers of padding, chain and plate can cook you, never mind when you finally get to move and charge forwards.
The most efficient and successful regular army of these periods was the Imperial Roman Legion of the 1st - 3rd centuries. It was clearly understood by them that the most important piece of armour a soldier could carry was a shield. If you examine the legionary shield though it is not a solid steel barrier, but a large rectangle of laminated wood. Its purpose was to to prevent accurate strikes at the legionary by blocking vision and holding the foe back until the legionary could launch their own strike. The Roman Army even invented a weapon capable of denying an enemy their shield - the Pila, which speaks much of their respect for the shield as a primary method of defence.
Behind this wooden wall the legionary had a scale cuirass covering his shoulders, chest and abdomen, a large well-constructed helmet and essentially that's it. No arm protection (except in the Dacian war), and no leg protection. Having worn it I can tell you that this type of armour gives the legionary great freedom of movement whilst giving good protection to vital organs and the head. To a man trained daily in its use it is the best balance I have seen between speed, endurance and protection.
Note: Roman Army Surgeons were experts at handling battle wounds to arms and legs and perfected methods of wound closure, muscle reattachment and amputation that were not really been bettered until relatively recently. However, they were less successful with penetrating strikes to the abdomen or chest, or crushing blows to the head, and this may have informed the development of legionary armour.
In most rpg's the characters are mercenaries, professional warriors and their support staff (rogues, priests and mages). Thus they can be assumed to know about the balance between speed, endurance and protection. Looking at the mercenary companies of the Italian Wars (a medieval period which should be required reading for all frpg writers) we see that most of them preferred to have relatively light armour with reinforcement of key points on their bodies, notably the knees, elbows, hands, head, throat and possibly the abdomen, in fact anywhere where a successful strike would be immediately crippling and thus allow a coup de grace or capture.
This lack of heavy armour was not due to economic restrictions, they were the highest paid men in Italy, who had regular access to loot from battlefields and even whole cities. They used armour to protect what was necessary as they recognised that speed and endurance were the key factors that allowed them to use their skills and battle experience to best effect in a melee.
The only time they chose to don heavier armour was for sieges, especially for assaults on gates and through breaches in walls. The fighting in such situations would be mercifully short, for if you failed to overwhelm the defenders in a few furious minutes then you would most likely be dead yourself.
Despite all this we regularly see frpg fighters struggling across leagues of wilderness, and spending hours, if not days exploring underground labyrinthes, wearing the heaviest and most inflexible armour they can afford - because the rules reward such irrational choices.
D&D, the flagship frpg, has even had to introduce rules to stop characters trying to wear their armour 24/7 (and then let them have a feat which undermines these rules - go figure). Yes, I know it's fantasy, but the best fantasy has some strong roots in reality.
For example, let us look at the most famous fantasy books ever - The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Not least because the majority of the story relates to a small party of characters struggling on a quest across a realistic landscape and even through a 'dungeon' - Moria. Classic frpg.
Now Prof. Tolkien had a sharp mind and an excellent understanding of history. Thus Aragorn, Legolas and Boromir wear no armour for all of the first book and most of the second. It is only at Helms Deep, a siege, that they don chainmail. For Aragorn and Boromir their most precious defences are their swordsmanship and their shields. Both of these allow them to use their formidable combat skills to greatest effect. Legolas prefers the skirmisher role but isn't afraid to get up close and personal when the situation requires it, but again uses his elven speed and agility as his only armour. Only Gimli has any armour worth mentioning and it is noted in several places how this hampers him when the need for speed arises.
The exception, or course, is Frodo's Mithril Vest (now the favourite armour of many D&D players - which is because it has been made so cheap as to be almost compulsory). However, this is an artifact worth a king's ransom, and weighs no more than a shirt.
By the time we get into the latter part of the stories the number of major battles is increasing and so does the level of armour being worn by the characters. But even here none of them are donning cumbersome plate armour, unless they are part of a mounted unit. An analysis of the text shows that, despite the films' reimagining, the only ordinary warriors in full plate are the Fountain Guard of Minas Tirith, and possibly the knights of Dol Amroth. The regular soldiers of Gondor wear chainmail and breastplates. The warriors out in the field have nothing more than leather & shield.
If we go 'down market' a bit to the work of R.E.Howard, then we see Conan, possibly the most able and dangerous warrior of any fantasy book, seldom wears more than a chain shirt. He is very keen on a shield and sword combination, but shuns the restrictions of heavy armour. Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser series are the nearest to true rpg adventurers in fiction. You never see these guys armoured. They rely on skill, speed and experience. And so it goes with all the authors who actually did some research rather than just making it up.
Another aspect of armour to consider is that it is system of active defence not static. The best plate in the world is highly unlikely to stop a bodkin point arrow from a longbow, or a heavy crossbow bolt if you just stand there and take it in the chest. Medieval armour is designed to deflect blows not stop them dead. This is same principle that led the better tank designers of WW2 to develop sloping armour, rather than just adding even more thickness.
Which again brings us to the conclusion that the ability to move well is more important than just adding more layers of protection.
One last thing about armour - travelling. I am not a good rider, but I know a lot of people who are. Spending a day in the saddle, trekking across open country, is very tiring. A few of these friends are re-enactors, and the thought of doing this in all but the lightest armours has them laughing like hyenas. Armour, even cavalry armour, is not really designed for travelling. The weight, heat and discomfort of heavy armour would quickly become unbearable for man and horse. All the most successful cavalry forces in history were fairly lightly equipped as a result. A horse is not a Humvee.
So how should this inform us rules writers?
In most rulesets there is an assumption that heavier armour makes you harder to damage either through making you harder to hit or by absorbing the force of the incoming blow. This abstraction is just plain wrong and leads to long, boring slugfests.
It is further reinforced in many systems by the adoption of the D&D hit point mechanic. This is all fine and dandy at low levels, but quickly it becomes obvious that as the characters get more hit points, so do the opposition and you end up in an arms race that does little to enhance the game itself. You just end up grinding down the opposition until you or they keel over.
It also prevents whole areas of roleplaying by making the players unwilling, ever, to surrender. Why should they when they have invulnerable armour, and/or huge amounts of hit points? Hit points are another ridiculous abstraction which only compounds the armour problem.
Shouldn't a rational system reflect a situation where two opponents fight through making a number of attacks and parries before one finds an opening and incapacitates their enemy? A fight between unequal opponents will generally result in the lesser being gutted unless he is very lucky. The greater the skill gap the quicker the fight. Lesser opponents can survive by overwhelming the hero with numbers, threatening him with weapons he cannot easily defend against, such as a dozen loaded crossbows, or simply by running away.
Having fought 'duels' as a re-enactor I can tell you two things that back this up. The first is that taking on two opponents at once doesn't halve your chances of survival, it reduces it to less than 10%. You have to kill one of them immediately or you will normally lose. Yet in many rules outnumbering your opponent only gives you a small combat modifier.
The second is that a single blow to a critical point will put you down or reduce your effectiveness to a point where you are dead meat anyway. Being hit hard in the head or on a joint will drop you, even when using a blunt re-enactor's weapon. The pain is excruciating. It is then a simple matter of finishing you off while you are barely able to breathe never mind defend yourself.
Another aspect we rarely see on the rpg tabletop is the dynamic nature of close combat. If you are losing an exchange of blades the normal thing to do is to give ground until you can turn the tables on your foe. This reduces the force of a foes blows and keeps putting you out of reach. In the act of following up you hope to be able to draw your foe into over-extending himself. For his part he is trying to drive you back to make to stumble. Even in cinematic combats we see the opponents fighting back and forth as each struggles to get the upper hand. The fight normally ends with a single successful strike.
What have we learnt from all this waffle?
1. The use of armour should be a trade-off between protection and freedom of movement.
2. Heavy armours are good for short, extremely dangerous combats, but rapidly become less useful the longer or more open the combat becomes.
3. Travelling any distance in heavy armour, even on horseback, is exhausting.
3. Reach is often more useful than plate, and that skill is more important than either.
4. Most of a duel is about finding an opening (not grinding the opponent down hit point by hit point) and then exploiting it.
5. Combat should be dynamic. A combatant that is losing will generally give ground until he can overcome his opponent and drive them back in their turn.
6. Multiple opponents reduce your chances dramatically.
Comment
-
Comment by Lon Sarver on June 27, 2008 at 12:19pm -
My first reaction is that RPGs are not simulations of reality. They're simulations of fictional genres, and should reflect the tropes of those genres, not "what would happen in the real world in this case."
That said... I love your analysis of arms and armor. There are some very good points in it. I would reccomend checking out John Wick's Houses of the Blooded when you get a chance. The game has two combat systems: Dueling, which handles formalized one-on-one combats; and Mass Murder, which handles anything that doesn't break down into dueling pairs, from "three thugs set upon you in an alley" to military engagements. They aren't a complete agreement with your thoughts, but they are there in spirit.
Your Virtue combat system does a good job with the relative usefulness of weapons and armor, but I don't see an implementation for the tactical skill you said was of paramount importance. Perhaps that's just abstracted for the sake of light rule, or maybe that's yet to come?
-
Comment by Sir Golgotha, KEoPS on June 26, 2008 at 7:46am -
I always thought it was the increasing size & complexity of weapons that killed shield use. The increased use of polearms & missiles meant that fewer troops even could carry a shield. It's not very cost-effective to spend money on a piece of defensive equipment that would never be used. Heavy units were just too uncommon & expensive for them to cause the same degree of impact. Then again, the people in charge of such things tended to be heavy unit types themselves, thus greatly inflating their perceived usefulness.
Combat in Virtue seems simultaneously both very dangerous and very survivable, if I am reading this correctly. This is a rare trick. What seems to me would really affect who wins a fight is who gets to attack first ('initiative' in most game systems). This would also greatly impact player choice for armour use. Depending on how armour impacted initiative, this would then affect whether most players choose the heaviest armour affordable, or nearly all forgo it as being more of a hindrance than a help. I'm assuming that you are looking for something of a sweet spot in the middle, and for there not to be only one best option.
-
Comment by matholwch on June 25, 2008 at 4:10pm
-
Indeed the system must be coordinated in its approach which is why I have been searching so long for a single rules mechanic. I must admit with Virtue I am as close as I have ever been.
Once the system is fairly complete I'll post it on my Yahoo Group - The Blue Pentangle, and drop a link into here.
Heavier weapons were generally developed when heavier armours came into being, a sort of medieval arms race. The Poleaxe and the Halberd, the Bill and the Guisarme were all reactions to Plate Armour. They had points to give reach and poke into exposed holes (such as under the arms), blades for hacking at joints, and some had hammer heads to concuss and bruise through the plate.
They did not really appear earlier because of the effectiveness of the shield against them. It was only when the quality of plate became good enough that it made the use of a shield moot, that they came on the scene in appreciable numbers.
-
Comment by Sir Golgotha, KEoPS on June 25, 2008 at 11:09am
-
Re-reading my above comment, I don't think I made myself very clear. Or at least, I missed a sentence or two. I had meant to add that it must be the system as a whole that works for all of these points, rather than separate rules tacked-on.
I like the bit about giving ground to reduce damage. That makes it a player defensive decision rather than the result of the attacker's dice alone. The +2 bonus for two-handed (and thus longer) weapons certainly heavily favours bigger weapons over heavier armour.
-
-
Not necessarily.
I have a hand and half sword with a 42" blade that weighs in at around 6lbs and that I can swing with impressive speed. The secret is all in the technique.
-
-
Hi Gol,
These are from a light rules engine I am working on at the moment called Virtue:
When fighting or shooting a foe both roll D6's and add the appropriate Virtue or Talent modifier. The GM adds or deducts other modifiers depending upon the situation. The character that scores highest wins. Two-handed weapons add +2 to this roll. Various spells, effects and magical weapons can further add to this.
If the attacker wins he can damage his foe. If the defender wins the attacker does no damage. The defender has parried or dodged the attack.
In combat it matters by how much an attacker scores above his foe for this determines the damage done.
Armour absorbs damage from a successful hit:
Light Armour 1 point
Medium Armour 2 points
Heavy Armour 3 points
Shield 1 point Note that a shield adds to the absorption level of any armour worn.
A combatant can futher reduce the damage done whilst fighting (not shooting) by 1 point if they give ground by one square. This move must be directly away from the attacker, if anything blocks this move then it cannot be carried out.
Any remaining damage is dealt with as follows.
If the remaining damage is in the range of 1-2 points the combatant is winded. He moves at half speed and suffers a -1 penalty to all rolls during the next round.
If the remaining damage is 3 or more points the combatant is wounded. This is more serious as the combatant moves at half speed and suffers a -2 penalty from all rolls until his wound is successfully attended to or healed.
Upon each subsequent round, if the wounded combatant does anything more than sit still he must take a Grit roll. This requires him to score six or more on 1D6 + Tough modifier. If he succeeds he can take one action. If he fails he falls unconscious. He will then bleed to death or die of shock in 1 (+ Tough modifier) minutes. Killing an unconscious foe takes a single action with a suitable weapon.
If a wounded combatant receives a second wound he falls unconscious immediately. This is referred to as a 'mortal wound'.
-
Comment by Sir Golgotha, KEoPS on June 24, 2008 at 2:00pm
- These are all valid points, but unfortunately I rarely see a game system that handles all of this without being cludgy. Class modifiers (for AC or its analogous mechanic) that replace the defensive value of armour only intensify the grinding effect of high-level or high-powered combat, at least in the systems I have seen. Rules to limit long-term wearing of armour are almost always (again, on all of the games having such with which I am familiar) are fatigue-based penalties that feel stapled-on & add so much to game management that they are rarely, if ever, used. Very few games have workable rules for reach & gaining or losing ground. Reach is very difficult to handle without a gridded battle mat & miniatures, and the only game system I can think of that had both reach & movement back-n-forth rules (and whose name escapes me at the moment) only had such in a mano a mano fencing duel. The rest of that game's combat used a very abstract Chainmail-like system that was a completely different system, incompatibly so.
-
Comment by Xose Lucero on June 24, 2008 at 12:57am - Very interesting stuff. Points 4 and 5 are real eye openers from a mechanics design perspective. I'm going to have fun experimenting with them. Thanks for posting!
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Berin Kinsman on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of The Dire Cafe to add comments!
Join this Ning Network