Humans in rpgs

[rossatdi]

a few things bug me with the way humans are shown in rpgs:

-first,humans are shown as a balanced species,when in reality they are probably the most heavily specialised of all animals.

You know except for our ability to be *deep breath* hunters, farmers, poets, writers, torturers, solders, passivists, selfish, noble, in love, in hate, builders, destroyers, at one with our nature or totally in denial of it.

-Humans are oftenly shown as magic users,which kind of breaks any forms of resemblance with real humans.They should be called something else at least.

Its called fantasy for a reason. Plus humanity HAS had a fascination with magic as a legitimate force to be studied throughout history, the fact it might actually work in one setting doesn't seem out of place to me.

-Humans are too oftenly shown as english europeans rather than other ethnicities or at least other europeans than english europeans.This is not so bad until other ethnicities are shown as different species altogether(Redguards,anyone?).Or when the very first humans to born are shown as caucasians rather than africans.It is not racist,but it is inaccurate in relation to reality.They should at least be called something else.

If you think about it the majority of fantasy RPG in the D&D mould are set in a pseudo-medieval European setting, thanks partially to Tolkien, so of there would be a Western bias.

-Humans are oftenly shown as the good guys.Look at human history for three seconds.You will see on how many levels this is wrong(Humans should be shown as worthy,powerful villains who make other species tremble in fear if anything.With demons and other evil species being hunted down for sport.).

Again, fantasy. Plus, I would rather take the evils of my species than control from an apparently noble species that wanted to rule us.

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).Why the fixation on swords?Or England?Or goody-two-shoes?Villainous and powerful humans would be both more authentic and more interesting to play than goody-two-shoes.

Factually wrong in a variety of manners. Japanese swords were largely design to slash unarmed foe, there cutting edge (curved swords are of course primarily designed to slash, not thrust) would have been next to useless against thick European armour. No mater hard well crafted it is a steel sword will not cut steel armour. Which is why European swords were designed to deliver a concussive force when the struck armour, and why maces were often more effective against armour.

What is true is that the sword is not automatic weapon of battle. However, its association is that with rank and skill. Cavalry soldiers throughout history have used swords as the are a logical design to be used from horseback in the thick of meelee - even up until the last uses the sabre was the horseback weapon of choice.

Japanese swords, as used by the samurai, were not used with shields (at least unless I've missed a lot). They were used two handed and often supplemented on the battle by a glaive - a Naginata or later a Yuri, which was the samurai's main battle weapon (I'm generalising) along with a bow which is the Samurai's most ancient weapon (not making this up, look it up). What the sword represented was the distillation of the warrior code for use on a personal level.

Somewhat ironically you have unplayed the value of swords in western history at the same time as over representing it in Japanese.

As to the reason for the popularity of morally good, Anglo-franco, sword wielding knights - I give you King Arthur and Roland.

=+=

As to your general point about playing as an evil human in an RPG, many of them allow you to be a dick, but there is little storytelling value to my mind of just going around and wrecking up the place. The point of an RPG is to play the hero. Heroes are champions for good, even if they do it in a messy way.

NB. Please feel free to correct me on anything, if I'm wrong I'd be surprised but willing to see evidence.

 

[number4096]

I wonder which would be more versatile between two knives,two short swords,a long sword or a buckler and a short sword?

Since we are not talking of morality any more...

Personally I would go for a single longsword.

Knives have a hideously short range. I would use one only if the choice was between fighting barehanded and a single knife. Pretty much any weapon beats a knife.

Short swords are beginning to work, but a man with a longsword would kjill a man armed with two short swords before he got close enough to strike. Assuming equal levels of training naturally. Dual-wielding is just such a difficult thing to learn and people with strong one-handed bias (the antithesis of ambidexterity) can never learn it well.

A shield and a short sword is beginning to look more of an equal duel for the longsword: at equal amount of training longwords simply dominates the rest. But in this case, it would come down to styles and stances, as well as the size of the shield. This is an engagement that either could win. If we are talking of a buckler in the truest sense of the word:

then longsword will take the day as it is trivial to bypass a defense that measly, as the sword defending is a short sword (as dictated) unlike in the picture where both have an equal sword.

A proper shield however:

Would be a far more interesting match. In the end it would boil down to this question: Can the man with the shield and the short sword protect himself from the first two strikes the longsword is going to land while getting close enough to strike back pass the guard of the longsword or bash him with the shield?

In this case, training, relative level of skill and style used (moreso with the longsword as shield combat is simpler) play an extremely heavy role.

Yeah,sorry about the morality thing,glad you are not bitter about it.

As for the rest of your post,i was wondering which would have the highest chances of winning between someone with a longsword and a shield,Honda Tadakatsu,Musashi Miyamoto,Tomoe Gozen and a roman legionnary if they were all on foot,in a flat plain without any rocks or bushes,fought in one on one battles without ranged weapons(like bows and arrows)and if the longsword and shield guy as well as the roman legionnary had the same amount of training as the three others?

If you want informations on the three others,here they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Tadakatsu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musashi_Miyamoto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoe_Gozen

 

[Zacharine]

As for the rest of your post,i was wondering which would have the highest chances of winning between someone with a longsword and a shield,Honda Tadakatsu,Musashi Miyamoto,Tomoe Gozen and a roman legionnary if they were all on foot,in a flat plain without any rocks or bushes,fought in one on one battles without ranged weapons(like bows and arrows)and if the longsword and shield guy as well as the roman legionnary had the same amount of training as the three others?

If you want informations on the three others,here they are:

Impossible to answer. Far too many variables. However, I suspect that at the equal level of training, the ones with the shields would fare the best. This is because Japanese styles were not created to fight agaist opponents using heavy wood or metal shields. In addition, the Japanese sword would have been unable to cut trough such heavy shields, meaning a single blocked strike would give the shielded opponent a chance to counter with a thrust, something the gladius and the longsword excel at more than the curved swords.

This is of course discounting the fact that the Roman legionary might have killed few outright with a thrown pilum (which they usually carried one to three of, naturally depending of the timeperiod).

But as I said, this question is impossible to answer to any degree of certainty. I simply state that the unfamiliarity of the Japanese styles with a sturdy shield would have placed all three historical figures at a disadvantage against the shielded counterparts.

 

[snow]

-snip for cleanliness-

If you're saying the fight would be between a person with shield that size vs a longsword.. I think the person with the longsword might win considering the shield might hinder the opponents' ability to maneuver. This of course depends on how well the person is trained in its use.

Maybe with something slightly smaller. (Not as small as a buckler because like you said before, it would be a joke) The fighter would be able to maintain his ability to maneuver, while also being capable of effectively defending himself.

It still would be a worthy match, but I think in the long run, the fighter wielding the longsword would be the victor due to the fact that the other would more likely fall victim to exhaustion. Then again this is assuming that a shield that size would be relatively heavy or even if it really isn't, it's weight would still affect him in the long run considering the fact that if you hold an object for an extended period of time, the heavier it's going to feel. Not to mention that the shield would limit his approach in the fight, where the person with the longsword would have a bit more freedom.

Correct me if I'm wrong with this, but my number would have to be on the person with the long sword for these reasons.

 

[number4096]

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).Why the fixation on swords?Or England?Or goody-two-shoes?Villainous and powerful humans would be both more authentic and more interesting to play than goody-two-shoes.

Factually wrong in a variety of manners. Japanese swords were largely design to slash unarmed foe, there cutting edge (curved swords are of course primarily designed to slash, not thrust) would have been next to useless against thick European armour. No mater hard well crafted it is a steel sword will not cut steel armour. Which is why European swords were designed to deliver a concussive force when the struck armour, and why maces were often more effective against armour.

What is true is that the sword is not automatic weapon of battle. However, its association is that with rank and skill. Cavalry soldiers throughout history have used swords as the are a logical design to be used from horseback in the thick of meelee - even up until the last uses the sabre was the horseback weapon of choice.

Japanese swords, as used by the samurai, were not used with shields (at least unless I've missed a lot). They were used two handed and often supplemented on the battle by a glaive - a Naginata or later a Yuri, which was the samurai's main battle weapon (I'm generalising) along with a bow which is the Samurai's most ancient weapon (not making this up, look it up). What the sword represented was the distillation of the warrior code for use on a personal level.

Somewhat ironically you have unplayed the value of swords in western history at the same time as over representing it in Japanese.

As to the reason for the popularity of morally good, Anglo-franco, sword wielding knights - I give you King Arthur and Roland.

=+=

As to your general point about playing as an evil human in an RPG, many of them allow you to be a dick, but there is little storytelling value to my mind of just going around and wrecking up the place. The point of an RPG is to play the hero. Heroes are champions for good, even if they do it in a messy way.

NB. Please feel free to correct me on anything, if I'm wrong I'd be surprised but willing to see evidence.[/quote]

Glad you are open for correction,so i will start:

-Katanas thrust phenominally well,Science du combat covered that one.
-European swords were also obsolete against armor,polearms were not.
-For the katana's usefulness,i was mostly refering to Musashi Miyamoto.
-It is yari not yuri
-I will avoid talking about morality.

Very instructive otherwise,keep it up.

 

[Zacharine]

-snip for cleanliness-

If you're saying the fight would be between a person with shield that size vs a longsword.. I think the person with the longsword might win considering the shield might hinder the opponents' ability to maneuver. This of course depends on how well the person is trained in its use.

Maybe with something slightly smaller. (Not as small as a buckler because like you said before, it would be a joke) The fighter would be able to maintain his ability to maneuver, while also being capable of effectively defend himself.

It still would be a worthy match, but I think in the long run, the fighter wielding the longsword would be the victor due to the fact that the other would more likely fall victim to exhaustion. Then again this is assuming that a shield that size would be relatively heavy or even if it really isn't, it's weight would still affect him in the long run considering the fact that if you hold an object for an extended period of time, the heavier it's going to feel. Not to mention that the shield would limit his approach in the fight, where the person with the longsword would have a bit more freedom.

Correct me if I'm wrong with this, but my number would have to be on the person with the long sword for these reasons.

I agree with what you say, in the long run the shield would likely cause greater fatique. However, I doubt the combat would go on for longer than a few minutes: either one would make a mistake the other capitulates upon, causing a wound or outright killing. It is a match that could go either way, a well executed shield-block followed by a shield bash that unbalances and stunnes the longsword wielder might create an opening right at the beginning, or a masterful combo of a upper feint-lower strike-upper or mid strike/halfstrike/pommel strike from the longsword might lead to a hasty block to the feint, an akward block to the first strike followed by the killing strike or a pommel strike trough the shield/guard. Either way, there are many ways and methods for either combatant to win. But yes, should the engagement go on for long, the man with the shield would likely face an increasing disadvantage. I simply do not believe the combat would go on for that long without at least wounds that would play a greater role than fatigue to trained, physically fit combatants.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Really?

I've noticed most humans are the asshole race in RPGs and the most unbalanced of all.

This this this this.
Seems like everyone is out to paint a picture of humanity as saints or demons...when we even have our own classification inside ethics and related stuff ("Being human"...). Also, I think humans are an okay choice for a balanced race...seeing an elven barbarian might cause me to piss myself with laughter.

 

[Alex_P]

I wonder which would be more versatile between two knives,two short swords,a long sword or a buckler and a short sword?

With good armor, the longsword is the optimal choice. With crap armor, you're probably better off with sword-and-buckler unless you have considerable skill.

Historically, paired-sword styles have involved lighter weapons like butterfly swords or bolos. You don't see many weapons like this in Europe because European two-weapon fighting generally relies on a larger sword paired with a short-range weapon. For a long time during the medieval period, this was arming sword and buckler (the buckler is a weapon, not just a piece of armor you wear on your hand). During the Renaissance, rapier-and-dagger became a popular style for streetfighting. At the same time, almost nobody was using two weapons on the battlefield.

I agree that a short sword would be more versatile than a polearm but a longsword would take too much space to carry,draw or swing to be as versatile as a short sword.

You can draw a longsword straight out. It's a bit too long to draw and cut nicely in one move, but it would be pretty easy to strike with the pommel as you're drawing it.

If you want to fight up close or just need more finesse, you can half-sword.

The length of the blade and the fact that it's not really all that sharp makes it easier to use for grappling.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

Do note that RPG terminology is just flat-out crap when it comes to swords:

RPG "longswords" are more like arming sword (the typical knightly weapon of the Middle Ages).
Historical longswords are closer to RPG "bastard swords" -- predominantly used two-handed.

It's sorta just convention nowadays. Nobody really bothers to do the research when the fans expect it to be wrong anyway and everyone's more comfortable just cribbing from D&D.

-- Alex

 

[number4096]

Sorry about my last post,i am new at quoting.

 

[Axolotl]

Do note that RPG terminology is just flat-out crap when it comes to swords:

RPG "longswords" are more like arming sword (the typical knightly weapon of the Middle Ages).
Historical longswords are closer to RPG "bastard swords" -- predominantly used two-handed.

It's sorta just convention nowadays. Nobody really bothers to do the research when the fans expect it to be wrong anyway and everyone's more comfortable just cribbing from D&D.

-- Alex

They're just useing terminology that people are familiar with, switching may well provide a more accurate terminology but it wouldn't be worh the confusion caused.

Although I never got why DnD was so wrong with swords considering how ludicrous the polearms got.

 

[Alex_P]

Although I never got why DnD was so wrong with swords considering how ludicrous the polearms got.

For me, AD&D is basically defined by two tables: the giant list of mixed-up polearms and the courtesan chart.

-- Alex

 

[snow]

-snip for cleanliness-

If you're saying the fight would be between a person with shield that size vs a longsword.. I think the person with the longsword might win considering the shield might hinder the opponents' ability to maneuver. This of course depends on how well the person is trained in its use.

Maybe with something slightly smaller. (Not as small as a buckler because like you said before, it would be a joke) The fighter would be able to maintain his ability to maneuver, while also being capable of effectively defend himself.

It still would be a worthy match, but I think in the long run, the fighter wielding the longsword would be the victor due to the fact that the other would more likely fall victim to exhaustion. Then again this is assuming that a shield that size would be relatively heavy or even if it really isn't, it's weight would still affect him in the long run considering the fact that if you hold an object for an extended period of time, the heavier it's going to feel. Not to mention that the shield would limit his approach in the fight, where the person with the longsword would have a bit more freedom.

Correct me if I'm wrong with this, but my number would have to be on the person with the long sword for these reasons.

I agree with what you say, in the long run the shield would likely cause greater fatique. However, I doubt the combat would go on for longer than a few minutes: either one would make a mistake the other capitulates upon, causing a wound or outright killing. It is a match that could go either way, a well executed shield-block followed by a shield bash that unbalances and stunnes the longsword wielder might create an opening right at the beginning, or a masterful combo of a upper feint-lower strike-upper or mid strike/halfstrike/pommel strike from the longsword might lead to a hasty block to the feint, an akward block to the first strike followed by the killing strike or a pommel strike trough the shield/guard. Either way, there are many ways and methods for either combatant to win. But yes, should the engagement go on for long, the man with the shield would likely face an increasing disadvantage. I simply do not believe the combat would go on for that long without at least wounds that would play a greater role than fatigue to trained, physically fit combatants.

I guess the only way to settle this is to do what they did in Rocky where they had a computer depict the winner through a 3d imaginary fight! Or get 2 people drunk enough to agree to possibly getting their limbs chopped off

Yeah you do prove a good point, in most cases the fight might not last as long as I first imagined, because the slightest slip up could prove fatal to either fighter.

To keep this a little more related with the original thread.. Just imagine how awesome it would be if they were able to fully utilize these sorts of things in rpgs though... I know some have come a little closer than others, but if a developer was able to utilize such realism in a sword fight like that, I would be the first in line to buy that!

For example... As a person who prefers knives and short swords over other weaponry (I'm pretty nimble and I feel that duel wielding would best suit me, even despite the difficulty that was explained previously on the matter) I myself felt a little dumber for being forced to believe that in Assassins Creed 2, I was able to defend myself from most enemies with just a knife..

Sure it's just a fantasy game, but yeesh, that was a leap off the realism cliff. I know they didn't want to throw knives in there just for them to be useless, but I don't think they should be capable against all types of combatants! Especially in those times where you screw up and have 5-6+ guards circling you like a pack of wolves...

 

[Axolotl]

For me, AD&D is basically defined by two tables: the giant list of mixed-up polearms and the courtesan chart.

-- Alex

There are few things more fun than sending your players running for a dictionary by telling them they meet "lovenly trull" with a Voulge-guisarme.

 

[Zacharine]

Sure it's just a fantasy game, but yeesh, that was a leap off the realism cliff.

I totally agree. Then again, being done in for by the first strike or two would not have been fun. I doubt a Thief-like approach to assasinations would have worked as well, considering the AC II was made primarily for consoles.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating. Assasins Creed II is not about assasination or stealth, it is about hiding in plain sight between sessions of swashbuckling. A sad thing really. I would have expected something along the lines of 'You have been spotted by the guards before taking out the target! Escape with your life to try again later. All future rewards for completing this mission have been halved as a punishment for your incompetence in the fine art of stealth.' message the first time the player gets spotted on an assasination mission.

 

[number4096]

I have seen a video from Grand_Arcana about polearms which showed many moves aimed at the feet.I think a shield user outside of a roman legionnary would have difficutly against that.

Because of this,i believe the longsword and shield user would be eventually beaten but the roman legionnary would still have a chance.

 

[snow]

Sure it's just a fantasy game, but yeesh, that was a leap off the realism cliff.

I totally agree. Then again, being done in for by the first strike or two would not have been fun. I doubt a Thief-like approach to assasinations would have worked as well, considering the AC II was made primarily for consoles.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating. Assasins Creed II is not about assasination or stealth, it is about hiding in plain sight between sessions of swashbuckling. A sad thing really. I would have expected something along the lines of 'You have been spotted by the guards before taking out the target! Escape with your life to try again later. All future rewards for completing this mission have been halved as a punishment for your incompetence in the fine art of stealth.' message the first time the player gets spotted on an assasination mission.

Yeah I was a little disappointed that there wasn't really any penalty for breaking stealth or being spotted other than having to fight your way out of it or simply breaking sight and trying again later, hoping you don't mess up the second time around... There are some missions in AC2 where if you are spotted once, or openly act suspicious, you have to start it over, but that was a pain more than anything..

In most cases I just fought my way through it as long as it wasn't a situation where they forced me to repeat the mission. It was still a good game despite this though, I played through both back to back and didn't find myself in the least bit bored. Perhaps in the third installment they will be a little more strict on the issue.. I hope so atleast!

 

[Zacharine]

I have seen a video from Grand_Arcana about polearms which showed many moves aimed at the feet.I think a shield user outside of a roman legionnary would have difficutly against that.

Because of this,i believe the longsword and shield user would be eventually beaten but the roman legionnary would still have a chance.

You really have no idea of how armed combat happens, do you? A pole-arm attack to the legs is ridicuously easy to block and counter: Jump over it and retreat or counterattack, block it with your weapon and rush to close combat with shield bash or armored shoulder acting as a battering ram, use your leg greaves to redirect or absorb the attack and counterattack to the defensless torso of the enemy, kneel slightly so that your shield hits the ground and absobrs the attack while you counterattack, dodge by backing off or sidestepping and attack while he recovers, simply step in close enough that the attack would hit your hip and thus can be blocked by your shield or weapon or safely absorbed and engage close combat.

Going for the legs with a pole-arm against an alert, armored opponent armed with bladed weapon(s) is a Bad Idea.

And if the attack is thrust made with a spear, widen your stance as you take a diagonal step forward, avoid the tip and let is pass between your legs, then twist your hips sideways and hit it with the bottom of your shield full strenght, thus breaking the spear. Or simply drive your sword to his innards as his attack has left him almost defenseless.

EDIT: a succesfull pole-arm attack against the legs requires several things:
1. The target legs are not armored.
2. Target has a weapon of significantly shorter reach (staff vs knife for example), of equal reach (staff v staff) or of greater reach (staff v long spear).
3. Target does not have a shield of significant size.
4. Target is known to be slow enough to be incapable of closing the distance before your guard is back up OR you have room to back off fast enough should the target close distance.

 

[number4096]

I imagined something(keeping in line with people who talked about a realistic fantasy game regarding weapons.).

What if the rogue class played like a Tenchu character with the stealth kill mechanism(Complete with the different kill animations depending on the opponent and how the opponent is approached)?

Or the warrior played like a Soul Calibur character(complete with low and high attacks,guarding and parrying,and throws.)?

And the wizard would play like a Dissidia character(Look it up on youtube to see what i am talking about.).

I would imagine the rogue stealth killing a medusa from behind,or a warrior using low attack cut the sinews off a minotaur's ankles,causing it to fall,or a mage that would not remain in place during fights and could move around easily while shooting magic.

What about it?