Topic: Sword Fighting in real life and HARP

[Bruce]

I just finished watching some youtube videos on sword fighting and read many of the comments. It seems that every video I watched that had long swords in them the longs swords were wielded two handed and one handed with equal skill. In fact a long sword is regarded as a two handed weapon. I learned quite a few things and some thoughts were enforced. Here is what I have gathered from this and other sources:
1. Weapon reach counts for a lot in melee combat and many times is the deciding factor in who wins
2. A rapier is the better choice for any one on one un-armored combat
3. Having a hilt guard makes a huge difference in being able to protect yourself (adds to DB?).
4. Two handed weapons are much more effective against armored opponents as the lighter weapons (like the rapier) generally don't have the weight or force of impact to do any real damage to armored opponents (including most leather armor).
5. Katana's are not as great as a weapon in combat as I thought.
6. Though some combatants are faster than others they all seem to try and time their attacks and parries to be at about the same time.
7. HARP hits on the time per attack very well with its 2 second rounds.
8. Light weapons like rapiers will not really do as great as a critical as some of the heavier weapons no matter how well you hit.
Now most of this is accounted for in the action point system I developed though I need to re-assess some of the init modifiers and OB/DB bonuses that some weapons give. I also really need to adjust the katana in my stats as I think I made it a little to powerful...lol. Number 6 above is more of a tactical decision on the players choice and I believe can be used very effectively in the system I developed.
Here is a single video that I think hits on most of the points I have made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qJBGlChcXU

Any thoughts?

Bruce

[Warl]

the biggest issue here is the definition of a long sword.

There has been a misrepresentation in RPGs since the beginning by people who did not study historical weaponry.

What is commonly referred to as a Long sword is actually a Hand and a half sword. The term Long sword wasn't even a real word in a historical sense, but was applied by historians of modern era to any two edge straight sword with a length greater than a certain amount (don't have the actual numbers in front of me.)

[darb]

Ah, the scholagladiatoria discussions are the best!  But lots of things you are pointing out are just design decisions in HARP to make it play a bit faster.  Most of the items (effects of armor on weapons, weapon damage) are better covered by Arms Law.  Weapon speed is somewhat in the initiative system, but maybe should figure more prominently, lighter weapons having an advantage would make them not quite so crap in combat with low damage cap.
The reach thing is also interesting.  I think GURPS has the best overall system to deal with it, but it does get a bit fiddly.  The thing is, most fantasy gaming combat is sort of 1 on 1 or small group skirmish, and long weapons can quickly go from advantage to disadvantage. 

[jdale]

You have to be careful over-generalizing. For example, reach is a big advantage, because you get the first chance to hit your foe. But if the person with the shorter weapon gets inside your reach, especially if they have a shield, suddenly your weapon is getting in your way and you are dead. It's about who can control the distance. The longer weapon controls the distance by keeping their foe at bay; the shorter weapon controls the distance by being aggressive in getting inside. If you're stuck in a press, you may be better off dropping your long weapon and pulling a dagger.

A rapier is a great weapon against a lightly armored foe. But a dagger or shortsword will be quicker on the draw. If the fight starts at close quarters, the length of the rapier can be a disadvantage (especially the time it takes to draw it).

I find a good crossguard extremely useful, but that's partly based on fighting style. If it was a huge advantage, I think a big crossguard would be more universal in weapon designs.

Katanas and other eastern weapons have a certain mystique that, in many games, results in exaggerated power. A lot of the advantage of the katana was the metallurgy. Comparing a very fine katana to an average broadsword is not really fair. In any case, weapons are designed for a particular environment. The katana was well suited for the type of battle it was used in, against the armor it encountered. Only in RPGs do we go collecting different armors and weapons from across millennia and pretending they co-existed....

[Bruce]

Very good points above.
@darb: I know that the init bonus for different weapons represent the weapon speed in combat and that is already taken in account in my system. I understand they are design points and HARP works well for what it is. I also agree that Arms Law offers the better effects in combat. In this project I am trying to create a better combat system for HARP without sacrificing to much of the speed compared to Arms Law.
@jdale: I know reach can be a big advantage at least until someone with a shorter weapon gets inside that reach. I had some ideas on how to handle that but I'm not sure if I wrote it down. The issue is of course the rapier more than any other weapon. Essentially the rapier is a quicker weapon in combat so it gets a higher init bonus.
In my system, which uses Action points (AP), the higher the AP number the slower it is in combat.  The init mod is the AP mod number and if you have to draw a weapon then you take the base AP number (which is currently 60) then add the AP mod. Which makes any weapon that is quick in combat also quicker on the draw, which doesn't really work that well for a rapier.
But does it really make that much of a difference?

In my current system weapons shorter than the rapier do have better AP adjustments, so they are slightly quicker on the draw and quicker in combat. Currently the AP mod for the rapier is a -5 whereas the dagger is a -15 and a two handed sword is a +20 (remember the higher the number the slower the weapon is, i.e. it takes longer to attack with). Though these numbers may change based on play testing and various inputs, like from these forums.

[Warl]

@bruce

I have a similar System of Modifiers for my game, except that I use a Second by Second combat system rather than a round system.

This allows quicker, faster weapons to attack more often, but at the same time I apply modifiers for reach and use "Closing" Rules for getting inside reach or keeping an opponent at reach. This puts those faster weapons at a disadvantage at initial engagement, slowing their attack and giving a penalty to Ob when attempting to attack an opponent with a longer reach weapon. Yet at the same time, if they get inside reach, gives them a Bonus to Ob and a penalty to the opponents Ob and Speed of attack against longer reach weapons.

[Bruce]

That sounds somewhat like CEATS from RM Companion V which is the inspiration for my AP system. I used that system to great effect in a long running RM game back in the mid 90's. Once my players got used to the numbers and all it was the best part of the game.
In my system the modifiers for reach are an OB mod instead of an initiative (AP) mod. Though if it makes more sense I could also have a "temp" AP mod until one gets inside the reach of the longer weapon. The reach rules in my system are still tentative and have not been used at all. In the past when I used this system to run a game that lasted about 6 months (other duties and transfers) I would wing it when it came to reach being a factor and I believe all I used were OB mods, it's been so long I don't remember.

Bruce

[Warl]

It is a modified version of Ceats, which actually is found in companion VI not V.

And my modifier for "Initiative" isn't so much based on reach as it is based on the assumed speed of a weapon. Heavier and larger weapons will have a penalty, where Lighter and/or smaller weapons will have a bonus.

For instance, even though the Rapier and Foil may be nearly as Long as a Typical "Long Sword" they get a bonus to initiative due to their lightness.
It doesn't get as big a bonus as a Dagger, but then it does have reach on a Dagger.
So typically, both the Dagger and the Rapier will attack more often than a Long Sword  and quite a bit more often than a Two handed Sword. But on first contact with the enemy, They will typically have a penalty to Ob against a Two-handed Sword or Polearm until they can "Close" the distance and get inside the other weapons reach. 

[Bruce]

Sounds good and makes sense, though a little complex.
I don't think that would work very well with the system I am developing because I am trying to keep it as simple as possible. It is already adds enough complexity to the standard HARP system.

The gears are turning as I type on how to simplify that for my system.

Bruce

[Warl]

Not really complex, Detailed yes, complex? no more so than anything in rolemaster. Once the modifiers are recorded, it's pretty much just totaling the die rolls as usual. Each player jsut tracks how long their actions are taking. They have their weapons stats listed and totaled. So like most things in rolemaster... once the characters sheets are filled in, there isn't much to do but apply your skill to rolls in game.

[Bruce]

Yeah, not complicated compared to RM stuff, but a little so when compared to HARP...

Which is why I developed this Action Point system for HARP instead of trying to use CEATS. Everyone I have run a demo with or even played with had never played any ICE game before (except for Tulgurth, but he joined an online game I was running through Maptools). I originally had the intention of trying to get people to play Rolemaster but that is honestly a hard game to teach to complete newcomers (and a pain to keep developing characters for everyone) so I ended up sticking with HARP. Which ,IMHO, does have quite a few good points to it except for the combat system. Hence why I am doing what I am doing. HARP is a very modular system even if it wasn't designed that way. So one can easily develop a new system for various parts more easily than just about any other system out there.

[Warl]

I teach rolemaster to newcomers all the time and don't find it difficult at all if they come to the game with the right attitude. The biggest hurdle is Character creation. Once they are past that they get into it quite well.

As for CEATS. A player of Mine developed a Macro for Maptools that Calculates a players Action time for them and for me. All they have to do is enter the action base time and their Init. Value and it spits out how many counts it will take to complete the action. Most players use it to per-calculate all their Times before hand then don't have to worry about it unless/until they level and something changes.

Add in the Combat minion and a lot of my work with RM has been reduced considerably during game.

[Bruce]

Oh a macro for Maptools that works with CEATS? Is there any way I can get that?
Though I would look for a way to limit peoples actions until the counter reached their action time, so it would indicate their turn.


I've been through many years of getting people to play Rolemaster but in the long run HARP is easier to create characters and easier to explain character creation. But even character creation in HARP has turned people off.

Right attitude, ha. I'm surprised you have so many people willing to even try RM. I'm in a new area (Well I just moved out here about 2 yrs ago) and in the first game store I encountered anything other than Pathfinder was pushed aside as inferior and to be honest not many real role players there...
I started a group but it was small and it fell apart easily as the store owner didn't really support the game (it wasn't pathfinder). I got involved with a group and they tried HARP but couldn't get into the character generation. I am finally at another store and ran a demo that turned into a much larger group than I expected. But I seriously doubt most of them will even try to make a character in HARP. Out of the 9 players I now have I expect about 4 or 5 of them to last but we'll see. I have some really good role players in this group but there are a few who are there just for the ride. So we will see how this all turns out. I am going to spring my AP system on them in a few weeks as soon as they learn the base HARP rules well enough. So far I have 3 players I know will want to get all the books (one is from that first group in the other store and he has all the books) another has already purchased the HARP character gen program and the third basically tried creating his own character with direction from the first.

In the area I am in gaming is on the rise but it is hard for someone like me who is relatively new to the area to gain a group where there are so many other games that are more "popular" than HARP.

[Warl]

Over the years I have never found it difficult to find players. Perhaps I have been lucky, I don't know. I do know that friends that enjoy my games often bring in other friends. When I have sought players from game stores, it may take time, but it is often easier to bring new players into established games than it is to start completely from scratch as you are, I understand that.

I currently run Online games only. Often, there, I find it is easier to find people looking for the same game as I run. Though even this can depend on Time of day and week.
I hope your current game works out for you with good players. I wish this for every Gm as our hobby needs such, especially for our favorite system.

As for the Ceats Initiative macro, copy this into a macro and it should work for you. If it doesn't we can hook up some time on my own server and you can copy the macro and save it into your own maptools folder.

the part at the beginning is there for reference should you wish to create separate macros for specific actions with differing base times. Or if a player wishes to create his own macro for his Initiative but entering only the base time fore each action.
Otherwise the macro at the end is all you need to calculate any base time with any initiative in maptools.

<!--
    Add a leading bracket and change the value to define a fixed basetime
    BaseTime=10]

    You can do the same to set the Initiative for a macro.
    Initiative=20]
-->
Time for Initiative:  [BaseTime * (100 / (100 + Initiative))]

[Bruce]

Thanks, though I think there is more to it than what you posted.

I am not currently using Maptools now and am eagerly awaiting the public release of Mote, which promises to be much more functional than Maptools. I will probably adjust any code for Maptools to work in Mote, as I plan to do with all my current HARP Maptools macros. I developed a macro that works with my combat system (automatically applies damage and shows the crit type, but you have to enter in the crit stuff manually as I haven't tried to add that yet) then the user or GM has to enter in stun rounds and bleeders. Each round the macro automatically adjusts rounds left from stun and the damage from bleeders until healed. It will also let you know when you are not stunned anymore. This macro works in conjunction with the targeting macro where the players get to choose their targets based on the ranges of their weapons. It all works really great though I want to add a macro to limit movement based on the players turn and pace selected. Every so often I had at least one player that just wanted to move their character around....lol. I also have a macro enabled that resists the token being moved through a sight barrier.