Why Do We Need All These Weapons?
How weapons should be handled in RPGs
As many of you may know, this week’s Rollin' Bones stream was dedicated to taking down the hype surrounding the MCDM RPG, a game that has raised almost $5 million on hype alone without even quickstart rules to examine. In preparation for this discussion, I watched all of the “Designing The Game” videos available on the MCDM YouTube channel. We watched a few of the videos on stream, but one that we didn’t get to cover really made me angry. In the video “Weapons & Armor and Kits,” alleged game designer Matt Colville let the following slip from between his chicken lips:
“We never liked the idea that your choice of weapon determined how much damage you did. For one thing, mundane weapons do not impart force all by themselves. It is your muscles doing the actual work.”
He then went on to bemoan the fact that certain weapons are basically useless and argue that whatever weapon you chose should be effective in combat. I have heard some truly braindead assessments of RPG mechanics in my time, but this is easily top five. Maybe even top three. In the first six minutes of his video, Big Money Matt demonstrates that he has no understanding of historical weapons and how they were deployed in the field of battle and that he doesn’t understand how to simulate differences. The fact of the matter is that while weapons do not impart force all by themselves, weapons are designed and optimized to cause different kinds of trauma and are intended for use by specific units or combat roles. This is what we’ll be talking about today. Today I will do my best to explain how weapons are designed for different purposes and how RPGs can deal with weapons in their appropriate context. The Matt Colville approach of “Any weapon is lethal in the right hands,” is misguided and should be put to rest.
The first point to discuss is what differentiates weapons from each other. The idea that a dagger in the hands of an assassin is just as lethal as a sword in the hands of a warrior is not a Coleville original. The RPG 13th Age approaches weapons with a similar mindset. The problem? It’s nonsense that ignores the fact that weapons are designed with specific use in mind. The size, blade profile, edge geometry, handle, etc of a well-designed weapon are the way they are to fill a specific roll. Let’s stay with the dagger for a minute. A dagger is, by definition, a fighting knife with two sharp edges and a very sharp, acutely angled tip. While some, such as the Highland dirk, can be on the long side they are smaller weapons designed for self-defense and easy concealment. Their blade is capable of cutting, but optimized for thrusting. This brief explanation should give you a good idea of what the context of this weapon was. For most warriors, it was a last line of defense in close quarters to hopefully slip through gaps in armor. It would be the primary weapon of those who, for stealth or social reasons, cannot carry a sword or an ax. Why was it a side arm rather than a main weapon though? It’s simple; a sword is a better optimized self-defense weapon. Swords have longer blades which increase the range at which one can engage his attacker. The size and weight of the blade also better optimizes it for cuts. Its crossguard covers more of the hand which protects the fighting hand better. The sword itself can be used to parry because of its size. To sneak into a house and assassinate a sleeping lord, a dagger is your best choice. To duel an opponent a sword is better.
This difference in weapon design also translates directly to what combat roles are assigned what weapons. In bronze age warfare, your average soldier was equipped with a shield, a spear and a shortsword. The spear was to engage at range by thrusting, the shield was for defense and the shortsword was for the event that an opponent got too close for practical spear fighting. The spears were eventually replaced by pikes in the medieval period as they offered more versatility as both a thrusting and slashing weapon, but the principle remained the same. Likewise, units of archers were used to engage enemies at range and were given bows with heavy draw weights to maximize range. Chariots and mounted archers were given lighter bows and lances. Each weapon has its place on the battlefield and to use a weapon outside of its appropriate context is a recipe for disaster. Police officers in North Hollywood discovered this when they tried to use small caliber handguns against two armored bank robbers in 1997. The fact of the matter is that not every weapons is appropriate for every situation.
The strength of the wielder plays a roll in the amount of trauma a weapon can cause, but not as much as the design of the weapon and the manner in which it is being used. A child could swing a sword downward at a log and get it stuck, but that same child could swing an ax, a tool better optimized for cutting than a sword, and split the log in two. The difference isn’t the strength of the child, but the design of the tool and the manner in which it is being used. RPGs already have long-established mechanics that allow strength and training to be factored into rolls to hit and rolls for damage. Adding strength to damage rolls is a common practice for this very reason. However, when you do away with separate damage rolls like MCDM RPG is suggesting we do, you lose one of the key points where strength does have an impact on damage.
To give Colville his due, he is correct that some weapons do feel useless or redundant as they exist now. While it makes sense that a whip would be useless fighting a heavily armored opponent, a whip should have some kind of application in combats. A whip is a non-lethal weapon that can disarm and ensnare opponents. Against opponents who use weapons or who can be ensnared and held, a whip is a useful weapon. Likewise, a polearm is extremely useful on the battlefield, but it becomes a lot more difficult to use in confined spaces where it cannot easily be swung. A sword can’t do much to armor, but a blunt weapon can crush them. What I’m getting at with all of these examples is that RPG mechanics should limit what certain weapons can do in certain situations and players should be encouraged to carry a variety of weapons to overcome this. Whether you’re a Thief with a rapier, a crossbow, a bandolier of daggers and a club or a Fighter traveling with a full armory in your wagon, players should look at the list of weapons and keep more than one or two with them when they possibly can. Sometimes they’ll only be able to carry one and they’ll have to make a choice. Sometimes they’ll have no choice due to the circumstances of being captured or surprised and they’ll have to think creatively. This makes combat a puzzle that players must figure out instead of just a series of back-and-forth strikes. This is part of what tactical combat means. It’s not just positioning, but what weapon you’re using. Sometimes you’ll make the wrong choice, but that’s life. That’s games too.
As we wrap up the article, I hope I’ve made it clear that the primary factors in how much damage a weapon does are the weapon’s design and the context in which it is being used. Strength and training certainly do play a role, but to assert that weapons should be equally useful in all situations in foolishness. RPGs are combat simulations so it only makes sense that we use real-world understandings of how weapons are designed, optimized and deployed to build our combat simulations. This is how we achieve better gaming and this is something that Colville and his acolytes will never understand. The “cool story” doesn’t come from the guy who brought a whip to a fight against an armored knight dispatched him as easily as a man with a mace. The truly cool story comes from the guy with the whip using it to create opening for his friend with the mace to do damage.