forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

"Dual weilding" is a really thorny issue hereabouts. Which is quite interesting to take apart and look at why.

So, TOR is a game which generally speaking hitches its wagon to Tolkien's roots in sagas, Beowulf, early medieval stylings. If you accept and enjoy that notion then dual-weilding will never be something that was overlooked or omitted from the game. It's just something that doesn't fit. For many people dual wielding is something that is really rooted in the movies, and rightly or wrongly, is half a step away from shield surfing.

However the other side of the discussion is vastly more populous - people who have enjoyed the LOTR movies and enjoy commonly found tropes within fantasy gaming. The amount of people I've spoken to who have assumed because we added rangers we added dual wielding is quite remarkable. Gygax runs very deep, and with good reason, you know? And for those people the lack of rules that cover things they see on screen and in their imagination all the time does indeed appear to be an oversight. They don't mean to criticise those deliberate design choices that make the game something the first group enjoy.

Add into the mix that this topic comes up every other month, so that some older hands have seen this play out half a dozen times? That makes it a tough one to moderate, because from their respective viewpoints both sides are actually being quite reasonable.


So. I would ask people to please be respectful of the fact that we will have a constant influx of new TOR players who we would like to welcome and provide the best place to find out about the game.

On the flip side I'll have a think about perhaps putting together another FAQ to allieviate the pressure repeating topics bring, and perhaps give a primer on why discussion of dual wielding earns some people shadow points.

Jon Hodgson wrote:"Dual weilding" is a really thorny issue hereabouts. Which is quite interesting to take apart and look at why.

So, TOR is a game which generally speaking hitches its wagon to Tolkien's roots in sagas, Beowulf, early medieval stylings. If you accept and enjoy that notion then dual-weilding will never be something that was overlooked or omitted from the game. It's just something that doesn't fit. For many people dual wielding is something that is really rooted in the movies, and rightly or wrongly, is half a step away from shield surfing.

However the other side of the discussion is vastly more populous - people who have enjoyed the LOTR movies and enjoy commonly found tropes within fantasy gaming. The amount of people I've spoken to who have assumed because we added rangers we added dual wielding is quite remarkable. Gygax runs very deep, and with good reason, you know? And for those people the lack of rules that cover things they see on screen and in their imagination all the time does indeed appear to be an oversight. They don't mean to criticise those deliberate design choices that make the game something the first group enjoy.

Add into the mix that this topic comes up every other month, so that some older hands have seen this play out half a dozen times? That makes it a tough one to moderate, because from their respective viewpoints both sides are actually being quite reasonable.


So. I would ask people to please be respectful of the fact that we will have a constant influx of new TOR players who we would like to welcome and provide the best place to find out about the game.

On the flip side I'll have a think about perhaps putting together another FAQ to allieviate the pressure repeating topics bring, and perhaps give a primer on why discussion of dual wielding earns some people shadow points.

Just to say, you know that you could have an easy and clean way out from all this by adding official rules in The Adventurer's Companion, right?

By the way, that was a remarkable post, to show us once again how great is TOR development team.

Jon Hodgson wrote:So, TOR is a game which generally speaking hitches its wagon to Tolkien's roots in sagas, Beowulf, early medieval stylings. If you accept and enjoy that notion then dual-weilding will never be something that was overlooked or omitted from the game. It's just something that doesn't fit. For many people dual wielding is something that is really rooted in the movies, and rightly or wrongly, is half a step away from shield surfing.

I'm not sure that I agree with the approach that dual-wielding of weapons comes purely from the movies. While none of the characters in the Lord of the Rings dual-wield weapons, there are examples throughout the Norse and Celtic sagas of heroes that carry two weapons. In a previous discussion, Arthadan supplied a number of examples from the Icelandic sagas. There are accounts of the Viking invasions and raids that mention warriors using weapons in both hands.

Dual wielding a secondary weapon is an active defence. It lacks the passive defence capability of a shield. Concentration must be split between the attack and defence. Feint with primary and attack with secondary or use secondary as the defence. It's short weapons; e.g. axe/sword, two axes, short sword/dagger. You either use the off-hand for defence, or you feint with the primary hand and attack with the off-hand. You stand facing your opponent. No dual long-swords, swords or long-hafted axes. The balance is wrong and the side-on fencing approach didn't come in to effect until a later period (sword/dagger style).

Axes are especially mentioned as being used in the off-hand, either paired with another axe or with a sword. An axe isn't just a chopping weapon. You can use the edges and haft to push away, or hook and pull with the point of the blade. Axes, contrary to popular belief, can be used to parry and even trap blades (especially with a bearded axe). A dual-wielded axe, in the off hand, can be used to pull shields out of line for a strike with the main weapon, or the main weapon used to parry the opponents blade while you attempt a blow from the off-hand weapon. In the right hands, an off-hand axe is a versatile and dangerous tool.

I recognise that it's not for everyone, and that some LMs may not want it in their games. However, it's not just a D&Dism or Hollywood fallacy. The fact is that dual-wielding does have a historical basis for the period on which the Lord of the Rings was based. That being the early medieval period (Dark Ages).

Well said Jon.


For those interested here's the links of all the dual wielding threads I could find. The next time it comes up, someone should just post all these perhaps instead of hashing out the same discussions once again.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3388 (This thread)
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2311
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1876
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1550
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=630
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=125

Michebugio wrote:Just to say, you know that you could have an easy and clean way out from all this by adding official rules in The Adventurer's Companion, right?

By the way, that was a remarkable post, to show us once again how great is TOR development team.

Considering Francesco's approach to the setting (i.e. if it's not in the books it doesn't count) I highly doubt that we will see this any time soon.

Woodclaw wrote:

Michebugio wrote:Just to say, you know that you could have an easy and clean way out from all this by adding official rules in The Adventurer's Companion, right?

By the way, that was a remarkable post, to show us once again how great is TOR development team.

Considering Francesco's approach to the setting (i.e. if it's not in the books it doesn't count) I highly doubt that we will see this any time soon.

Now is the time when someone quotes the passages where Aragorn holds two torches on Weathertop to scare the Nazgûl and the one where Sam holds Sting and his own Barrow-blade to protect himself from Shelob.

Jon Hodgson wrote: On the flip side I'll have a think about perhaps putting together another FAQ to allieviate the pressure repeating topics bring, and perhaps give a primer on why discussion of dual wielding earns some people shadow points.

Proposed themes for this hypothetical FAQ:
-Dual Wielding
-Armor Damage Reduction and/or Travel tests penalty
-Magicians as PCs
-Hope is not automatically recovered at the end of the Adventuring Phase
-No, elves do not have a Shield-surfing Virtue OR Athletics as Favoured skill should cover it.

Great post, Jon.

Even though I'm in the former group, I think there's room for a dual-wielding rule. It just has to be something that is not more "powerful" than single-weapon options. So if it's free then it has to be just flavor, effectively, and if it costs a mastery then it has to be in line with other masteries.

Although...it could be a virtue restricted to a new playable culture, and powerful enough to be a "must have" virtue like shield fighting or hound of mirkwood. I know that wouldn't satisfy everyone hungering to dual-wield on their Hobbit ninja assassin, but it might be a nice way to work it into the game.

Although I like Rich's general approach of varying by stance (at least partly to create more incentives to change stances) I've been thinking more about the dagger idea. If daggers had an encumbrance of 1 then the rule could be "if you use your dagger in the offhand for defense, add your dagger skill to parry." The default value would thus be equal to a buckler, but you could in increase your parry by spending XP.

Hmmm...

How about a reactive ability, similar to Knockback? "If you wield a weapon in your off hand, any time you are hit for damage you may elect to forego your next attack and roll your Dagger skill vs. a TN* of 12 plus the attribute level of your adversary. On a success you have parried the blow."

So you give up a shield, you give up an attack to use it, and to make it effective you have to invest in your Dagger skill.

*Alternately, the TN could be the adversary's dice roll...meaning not possible vs an EoS...which I really like mechanically/mathematically, but it doesn't have a precedent in the rules.

EDIT: ....or add attribute level twice if the weapon is favoured.

Valarian wrote:

Jon Hodgson wrote:So, TOR is a game which generally speaking hitches its wagon to Tolkien's roots in sagas, Beowulf, early medieval stylings. If you accept and enjoy that notion then dual-weilding will never be something that was overlooked or omitted from the game. It's just something that doesn't fit. For many people dual wielding is something that is really rooted in the movies, and rightly or wrongly, is half a step away from shield surfing.

I'm not sure that I agree with the approach that dual-wielding of weapons comes purely from the movies. While none of the characters in the Lord of the Rings dual-wield weapons, there are examples throughout the Norse and Celtic sagas of heroes that carry two weapons. In a previous discussion, Arthadan supplied a number of examples from the Icelandic sagas. There are accounts of the Viking invasions and raids that mention warriors using weapons in both hands.

Dual wielding a secondary weapon is an active defence. It lacks the passive defence capability of a shield. Concentration must be split between the attack and defence. Feint with primary and attack with secondary or use secondary as the defence. It's short weapons; e.g. axe/sword, two axes, short sword/dagger. You either use the off-hand for defence, or you feint with the primary hand and attack with the off-hand. You stand facing your opponent. No dual long-swords, swords or long-hafted axes. The balance is wrong and the side-on fencing approach didn't come in to effect until a later period (sword/dagger style).

Axes are especially mentioned as being used in the off-hand, either paired with another axe or with a sword. An axe isn't just a chopping weapon. You can use the edges and haft to push away, or hook and pull with the point of the blade. Axes, contrary to popular belief, can be used to parry and even trap blades (especially with a bearded axe). A dual-wielded axe, in the off hand, can be used to pull shields out of line for a strike with the main weapon, or the main weapon used to parry the opponents blade while you attempt a blow from the off-hand weapon. In the right hands, an off-hand axe is a versatile and dangerous tool.

I recognise that it's not for everyone, and that some LMs may not want it in their games. However, it's not just a D&Dism or Hollywood fallacy. The fact is that dual-wielding does have a historical basis for the period on which the Lord of the Rings was based. That being the early medieval period (Dark Ages).

You miss my the point, and I apologise for not making it more clearly.

The two cases I laid out could be made of any number of arguments on either side. But that's not the point - the point is both sides are actually entirely reasonable from their own perspective, but appear unreasonable from the "other side". Which makes moderation, both in terms of the direct moderation of the staff, and self-moderation of posters themselves tricky. But we all have to share a forum. Which we will do, and in good grace.

Jon Hodgson wrote:half a step away from shield surfing.

This is my problem with it. It's a film device used to make a character look tough, like gangstahs holding their guns sideways.

But more than that, it's often used to give players additional rolls. The abstract combat system doesn't track individual swings, so it shouldn't track individual swings on each hand. At most, using two weapons should adjust your attack statistics, as some have suggested.

Besides, the term dual-wielding is just plain uncouth. Tolkien would not have approved.

The amount of people I've spoken to who have assumed because we added rangers we added dual wielding is quite remarkable. Gygax runs very deep, and with good reason, you know?

Actually, rangers using two weapons comes from the Drizzt Do'Urden books and AD&D 2nd Edition, none of which Gygax had any part of. He was ousted from the company long before those.