Armour and weapons and rules abstraction
TrentOster
Administrator, Developer Posts: 433
Hey all, as part of my blacksmithing hobby I've been pondering various armours (british spelling, my preferred spelling) vs weapons and how the arms race between the weaponsmiths and armourers of the day played out. Specifically I've been thinking about the cut resistance of plate armour vs the vulnerability of plate to blunt weapons such as maces, hammers and pick type weapon which are designed to penetrate plate. I also wonder about the resistance of leather (and other "lesser" armours) against blunt weapons like maces, hammers and even the pick type weapons. While various rules system try to abstract this concept a bit I'm really interested. I'd like to hear your thoughts
-Trent
-Trent
5
Comments
I was remined of all of this the day I took a tour of the army museum in Paris. Some of those armors clearly made the wearer immune to arrows and sword blows. Since then I can't help but add these kinds of rules to all my games, even my indie rpg game.
For me both the top and bottom line is this: Game systems are better whenever they allow the players to make interesting choices with meaningful tradeoffs.
I don't think that's a particularly innovative or controversial statement, I imagine most designers understand that very intuitively. All the same it's a ball that gets dropped so often I wonder if fear of overcomplexity drives too much of the process. So much gear and equipment in games are simply "stat sticks". World of Warcraft is a prime example of this. There's a best-in-slot for every piece of equipment and no reason to swap it out once you've acquired it. Armor (armour) in classic D&D is another good example. The simple fact is there is no reason to choose any one armor over the other except for it's AC value. More protection == better and that's that.
In a better system there are reasons a character might choose the "worse" armor. Pathfinder has a good example of this: You get a bonus to your AC from your dexterity score, but that bonus can be limited by your armor. The idea being abstracted is that heavier armor limits your ability to dodge attacks. Do I want more dodge or more armor? A good, fun choice that I get to make as a player (with added character flavor as a bonus!). Newer editions of D&D implement similar ideas in their own way.
But even those examples fall a little short imo. At the end of the day it still comes down to "which combination gives me the highest AC" and then that's what you choose. As a high-dex rogue I won't ever choose to wear plate because it impacts my dodge ability too much. The choice was really made when I rolled my character to begin with, not in moment-to-moment gameplay.
I believe that a lot of games "front load" these choices during character creation. Simple rules that are transparently mechanical, such as "wizards cannot wear armor" substitute for meaningful choice. It appears to be a choice - If I want to cast magic missile I can't wear chainmail - but really it's just an arbitrary design decision to give a drawback to something that otherwise has none.
I do believe some up-front choices are important. I'm not advocating for a player to switch from wizard to rogue to paladin every other day by simply swapping out equipment. Making "permanent" choices and playing the game within those parameters is also an important part of game design, but it can be (and often is) overdone.
In my imagination a good game system would give me various reasons over the course of the campaign to make different choices. Countering specific armor types on your opponent like you've described is a great one. It rewards the player understanding the system and choosing to switch to a plain mace instead of their longsword +2. It rewards choosing a variety of martial feats to better prepare for different combat encounters. And it adds good flavor.
You also mentioned targeting armor specifically to deteriorate it or break it. Such a great idea! Monster Hunter does this and it makes the combat encounters so much more fun. My friends and I work together to accomplish specific breaks (sever the tail, smash off a horn, etc...) not only for the loot drops but because it changes the the encounter and the monster's abilities as well.
Another thing that could come into play is simply the nature of the enemy. The appropriate defense against a fire-breathing dragon may not provide any protection from a swarm of poisonous hornets. I won't have the same effectiveness with that mace against a gelatinous cube as I did against an armored bandit. Some games already do this with magic (fishy creatures are immune to water spells but susceptible to fire, etc...) but it's rarely implemented with martial abilities.
So many ways to make this fun. Environment, skills, training, *available crafting materials in the world*, the sky is the limit.
Of course the fear of complexity is grounded in reality. I get that. A system that's too complex or has too many moving parts will turn players off and risks simply being inscrutable (not to mention costly to develop). I don't think game design is coming anywhere near that though. The most complex RPG I've ever played, Pathfinder, is also one of the best selling. I routinely return to Kingmaker and try out different things because they went to such great lengths to include so much of the complexity of the table-top rules. It requires some work on my part, reading tool-tips and rulebooks and forums posts, but I think the outcome is really worth the effort.
I think games are currently playing it much too safe and would almost all benefit from adding more choices and complexity, especially in regards to equipment and gear.
Armour class is a simplified method to encompass the abovementioned in one value which is okay, but a bit archaic.
History wide it might be chicken egg, but I think first the weapons became more variant coming from scythes and pitchforks. That bred necessity for different armour kinds because nobility was expected to join in battle and survive. So they got the iron kind of armour while the footmen were packing anything really. Then that led to newer weapons, etc, etc.
Regarding the arms race, it really had to do more with what materials were available at the time (bone, wood, bronze, iron, steel) and peasantry tasks. Axes, hammers, scythes and picks are all workman tools that were used as weapons in a pinch. Spears were more common for infantry because of how easy they were to use in large groups and polearms were invented to combat horseback. Maces were used more to breakthrough doors and swords were a nobleman's weapon.
In an RPG game setting, one needs to realize that warfare has nothing to do with the mechanics. There is never a huge army vs a huge army and it usually a party of 6 vs no more than 12.
Mechanic wise for me, I would like to see heavier armor be given a mobility penalty. It is much more difficult to move and attack and keep ones stamina up in full plate armour (regardless of a person's strength) vs lighter armour. Damaging one's armour should also be a thing. Iron chainmail can only take so many blows before a link breaks opening up holes for piercing weapons.
But it all depends on the game. First are far most a game needs to be fun. Hampering the game play with confusing mechanics isn't beneficial.
still sounds tedious and then one has to ask, what's the downside of just using a warhammer or pick in other situations?
In real life, a warhammer would probably take more body blows to kill a person than a sword but a less armoured individual is still going to have broken ribs when struck by a Warhammer.
A a pick has a chance of getting stuck in anything it digs itself into making it less reliable but I don't see how that a mechanic like that wouldn't be overly annoying in a game.
At some point you could basically guarantee hits slowly chipping away at life even if a weapon would be less suitable.
With a careful balancing act you could bring each approach (dodge, deflect, resist) close together or further apart however you want to. It allows for quite some system tweaking in whatever high or low magic setting you have.
The only drawback is that it might become wieldly if you also want to target specific parts of your foe to get the wanted effect.
This also depends on the ‘magic level’ of the setting. Magical armour (and weapons) don’t break or wear down and hence would not need to be repaired and why adventurers can find these items in places that have been forgotten for centuries.
Magic isn’t realistic either ?
Once again, it comes down to ‘fun’ level as well. One of the complaints about Breath of the Wild was the breakable weapons. You don’t want to annoy the players just because it is realistic.
You have that. It's called story mode! ?
In seriousness, te debate between realism and practicality is all about the type of game the developer wants to create. If the main concept is story rather than mechanics, the abstraction is indeed good enough.
Or dents in your armour that permanently hamper your mobility or affect the protection it offers?
Sounds very complicated to implement in a game, and too much realism can get tedious, too.
Why not always use a warhammer or mace, if it's better against full plate than a sword, and still deadly against leather or unarmoured enemies? Definitely speed and agility. To swing a hammer or mace, or to stab with, let's say, a rapier or short sword, is a huge difference, if you've ever lifted a real mace. Charging on a horse wielding a hammer is one thing, using it in close combat on foot is slow and might kill you.