Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

[Falenthal]

Buff, I don't know if this discussion is about the Sling of about the type of arguments Glorelendil is using.

I think his position and what he is defending is pretty clear. His weapon calculator makes it VERY clear, in case anyone has a difficulty following his arguments:

-Weapons in TOR are designed so that they all are balanced (NOT EQUAL).
-Realism inspires, but never goes over the balance factor, when designing a weapon.

This way, any weapon is good enough at something so as not to be at a disadvantage with any other weapon (you might do more damage, but will become Weary earlier. Or you will do less Pierces, but they'll be harder to resist). This system allows a player to choose a weapon blindfolded and his character will never be suboptimal (if the weapon is one he is skilled at, of course).

And all that was confirmed by Amado Angulo, one of the designers of (at least) the weapon system in TOR.

What else is there to discuss??

[Glorelendil]

Okay. That just struck me as such an absurdly extreme example as to be effectively worthless for discussion. Though I do seem to remember someone mentioning--here or in another thread--using a system where all weapons do the same damage (which to me seems too abstract to be at all interesting).

Maybe it was me mentioning Dungeon World, where your damage die is based on your class. So if you play a fighter (d10) you can use a pair of salad forks and you'll still do d10.

Sure it's not as "interesting" as a game with weapon tables in that there's not an important decision point. Unless you think the interesting part in an RPG is in the roleplaying and you've always wanted to play a character that uses...well, salad forks

I'd rather avoid being the target of either one if it's all the same to you.

"Would you rather a lion chase you, or a bear?"

"All things being equal, I think I'd rather that he chase the bear."

[Glorelendil]

Interesting discussion (?). I agree with you, Glorelendil, in that realism is not an important factor in an rpg. But I find some of tour arguments lacking this time (witty though). You claim that weapons "should be chosen because they are cool, woithout fear that they are gimping their character mechanically". I agree with that. But that would suggest equal stats for the weapons - like the trusty "hand weapon" i WFRP - where the choice between axe and sword was a cosmetic one, based on coolness and character concept. So based on this the sling and bow should have equal stats in TOR - the choice between them should be based on coolness.

As I mentioned above, Dungeon World. It's a different way of thinking about game mechanics, but it works great.

As soon as you introduce different stats it becomes a choice of mechanics. Choose the lighter weapon, the weapon with higher injury etc. I Think that TOR is almost perfect here, every weapon has its pros and cons. Based on this I would prefer the sling being a ranged weapon in the same span as the dagger - lower damage, lower Enc (and lower cost if this was a game that considered that factor), adding to variety but maybe sacrificing realism.

This is why I think "Dagger" skill should really represent an "Other" category. It does less damage not because of realism, but as a "weapon budget" cost for the fact that it covers a variety of weapons (including improvised weapons like rocks and torches and broken bottles) and that you get the first point free. Maybe Sling could fall under this category...?

Your last argument, that you would rather be shot at by a slinger than a Bowman, is strange, because now you use the argument of realism and the estimated damage of the shot - just the argument you dismissed a few pages back.

Yes, 100% true, and I contemplated just dropping that part of the argument for that reason. But, you know, late night + Internet = unable to not have the last word."

[Terisonen]

Ok, but Sling doesn't really smell Middle Earth ( more Greek Mythos...)

[Glorelendil]

Ok, but Sling doesn't really smell Middle Earth ( more Greek Mythos...)

I agree that I can’t quite see Slinger units in the armies of Gondor, or Elven Slingers. But Hobbits, or lone shepherds in the Anduin Vales? I can picture that.

[Otaku-sempai]

Sure it's not as "interesting" as a game with weapon tables in that there's not an important decision point. Unless you think the interesting part in an RPG is in the roleplaying and you've always wanted to play a character that uses...well, salad forks

Okay, but it's not as though there is an 'either/or' here. We can have variety in weapon stats and abilities and good role-playing. The Dungeon World system sounds like it can very easily go ridiculously over the top. This works well with wacky, tongue-in-cheek humor (as when I feel more like playing Teenagers From Outer Space), but would otherwise quickly take me out of the game.

[Otaku-sempai]

Ok, but Sling doesn't really smell Middle Earth ( more Greek Mythos...)

Yes, but we only say that because Tolkien never identified slings with the cultures of north-western Middle-earth. The sling is an ancient weapon found all over the world, not just in ancient Greece and in the hands of the biblical David. I can easily imagine a Hobbit shepherd or a hunter in Enedwaith or Harondor using one. And who's to say that some Easterling folks might not field entire units of slingers? Tolkien likewise never wrote of throwing sticks, but some peoples of Middle-earth (perhaps the Wild Men of Enedwaith, some Southron tribes, etc.) would have doubtless employed them as well, at least for hunting.

[Glorelendil]

Sure it's not as "interesting" as a game with weapon tables in that there's not an important decision point. Unless you think the interesting part in an RPG is in the roleplaying and you've always wanted to play a character that uses...well, salad forks

Okay, but it's not as though there is an 'either/or' here. We can have variety in weapon stats and abilities and good role-playing. The Dungeon World system sounds like it can very easily go ridiculously over the top. This works well with wacky, tongue-in-cheek humor (as when I feel more like playing Teenagers From Outer Space), but would otherwise quickly take me out of the game.

TOR can easily go ridiculously over the top if players choose silly character names, right? (My favorite being "Deuce" Baggins.) Or the abstract way gear is handled: what's to stop somebody from saying they're packing some pornography? Nothing. That's why we play with people who share our aesthetic sensibilities; so we don't have to worry about that stuff.

But if everybody at your table is ok with salad forks as weapons, then it's kind of a bummer for the player if salad forks have actual, official stats, because there's no way they would be a good choice mechanically.

And extreme examples aside, it actually works really well to let somebody choose between any normal weapon, including dual-wielding, and just say "Great. The pros and cons all balance out, and you end up doing the same amount of damage."

And, yes, of course you can have weapon stats and good roleplaying. But you might also feel constrained in your roleplaying by the mechanics.

[feld]

Glorelendil,

First, your weapon calculator is very convenient. Thank you.
Second, I have to ask, where is 'Deuce' Baggins from?

v/r
feld

[Glorelendil]

Glorelendil,

First, your weapon calculator is very convenient. Thank you.
Second, I have to ask, where is 'Deuce' Baggins from?

v/r
feld

It's a really lowbrow attempt at a funny character name. Say it as one word, quickly.