: Tadanori Oyama November 18, 2009, 01:09:28 PM
There are various replies regarding the reality of ballistics and the reason why humans switch to guns and stopped using swords and so on but one reply fairly early on cut much more directly to the point of game balance and I felt like sharing it:
"Balance is typically far less a concern in pen-and-paper RPGs than in video games or CCGs - there is, afterall, no winner or loser, and the GM and players aren't pitted against one another, but rather cooperating in the name of crafting an exciting and interesting story. Even where it is considered, it's a different kind of balance - a matter of ensuring that no one character hogs the stage, so to speak. This isn't necessarily a matter of hard numbers, and even characters of wildly varying abilities can be given an appropriate share of the spotlight by a moderately skilled GM.
That all in mind, it often matters less how 'balanced' a given element is, both in regards to players against NPCs and in regards to players compared to other players."
The whole thread can be found here: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=123&efcid=3&efidt=223551
It's on the Fantasy Flight forums and the game they are talking about is Rogue Trader.
: xHero November 18, 2009, 03:37:42 PM
: clockworkjoe November 18, 2009, 03:59:22 PM
: Tadanori Oyama November 18, 2009, 04:33:45 PM
: nbneil November 18, 2009, 10:16:02 PM
On the other hand, I don't think the damage dealt by swords has to be equal to that of automatic weapons. My guess is like someone said, one class is a warrior class and the other is not. They don't have to balance damage and hit points and a ton of other variables if different classes have different roles. Hell the barbarian in our D&D campaign did over 60 points of damage (not a crit) in our last session. The fighter in the party has like a 24 damage max on his best crit. Is D&D unbalanced by that standard?
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but it doesn't seem like the GM has to keep things artificially balanced in combat if each type of character can play to their strengths in different situations. For example, our cleric has one power that does damage in combat and not a lot of damage at that, but could sell ice to eskimos with his diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate checks.
Now I really want to check out this system to see what it's all about.
: Boyos November 18, 2009, 11:16:38 PM
For example, our cleric has one power that does damage in combat and not a lot of damage at that, but could sell ice to eskimos with his diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate checks.
THE POWER OF PALOR COMPILSE YOU!
Rolling 1d20: (12): Total = 12
INTIMIDATE!
: Maze November 23, 2009, 10:52:32 AM
I've got a game where guns are as powerful as in the real world, but not always useful. E.g.: 3 players fighting against one in a brawl, although he's stronger than all of them, they can't shoot and risk hurting their partners. Or generally because firing a gun makes a lot of sound and they don't have a lot of ammunition.
: Tadanori Oyama November 23, 2009, 04:09:27 PM
What I took from the quoted section is the balancing player spotlight is the goal for a pen and paper RPG and that rules should strive towards that instead of balancing against reality or numbers.
Addition- By the way Maze, nice to see you. It's been awhile, hasn't it? I haven't seen you post much lately.
: Maze November 23, 2009, 05:04:25 PM
True, balancing player spotlight can be an issue, but I think it's more a GM/DM issue than it is because of rules. I can see how everyone having different skills can help that, which is why we get the meta D&D party which by some miracle, usually consist of a well balanced party. But I also think the GM has the responsibility to, regardless of system or rules, try to engage each player with in-game material.
The Sword Vs. Gun argument in a modern/future setting is also good.
: ArtfulShrapnel November 28, 2009, 01:59:51 PM
In general, guns are not deadlier than swords. They are easier. That is the reason why people switched. It is perfectly reasonable for a sword to deal equal damage to any given gun, up until we hit explosives. I usually treat them as such in my games.
On Swords:
Even a moderately sized knife can easily inflict a lethal wound in a single stab. Anywhere in the torso is likely to be lethal or at least incapacitating, as is any sort of cut on the neck, or anything that hits an artery. Large swords can shatter bones, cut through several inches of flesh, and inflict massive internal trauma. They have the additional benefits of being quieter and more versatile in use. (you can cut ropes, food, other things, etc.) The unspoken caveat to all of these statements, however, is "... in the hands of a trained swordsman."
Swords are heavy and awkward to those who are not trained regularly to use them. You have to be fairly strong to use one properly (I know there are exceptions, I'm speaking in general here). Training becomes very important, and tactical advantages disappear quickly if the enemy knows how to handle his blade better.
On Guns
Guns are pretty much point and click. There is a limited level of technical training required to make sure one operates reliably, but once that hurdle is overcome the gun will shoot with the same force for everyone. Accuracy becomes an issue, but they have the advantage over swords in that they will "win" any exchange of blows outside of melee range. Doesn't matter how good you are with a sword, it's only a few feet long.
The damage they can inflict and its type varies wildly between models, but is more measurable and consistent since the force comes from the gun not the user.
So I treat them as equal in damage, with different narrative advantages.