Dungeon Contractor: Building Blocks
This week will require a little homework on your part. Steal some money from whomever you steal money from in your life (boss, significant other, parents) and get yourself three things: masking tape, a stepladder and a measuring device. A yardstick works if you live in a land with yards, and this will be geared towards the non-metric for reasons to soon become obvious.
This week will require a little homework on your part. Steal some money from whomever you steal money from in your life (boss, significant other, parents) and get yourself three things: masking tape, a stepladder and a measuring device. A yardstick works if you live in a land with yards, and this will be geared towards the non-metric for reasons to soon become obvious. Find a wall, preferably in your domicile and in a space without excessive furnishings. Measure seven ten-foot long strips of tape. Lay a strip of tape where the floor adjoins the wall, running parallel to the wall. Place three strips on the floor, so that a square is formed, and place another three strips on the wall, so that another square is formed.
Welcome to the ten by ten room. Step in the square and be in awe. You have just climbed into the prime element of all dungeons. This is it, this is where it all comes from; this is the cube that defines, the atomic level of dungeon design. Graph paper is what we live and die by as Dungeon Contractors. It is not an essential, but it is pretty near. In a Mcluhan sense, the graph paper is conducive to the proper design of a dungeon. The framework encourages the vision of a structure and encourages us to see things comprehensively. What is at work is not some lines on a page, but some lines on top of perfectly ordered lines on a page. The grid helps even the most helpless artists of us make something usable. Besides, counting 3E as our flagship, the game has moved into nothing but an obsession of tactical structuralizing, making the concept of an amorphously designed dungeon or combat untenable to the mainstream.
Get a sense for the ten by ten. Look around. If you feel ultimately adventurous, complete the remaining sides of the square. I never thought about the ten by ten until two things happened. I moved into a house with a ten by ten room for my bedroom (it was cool and lofted, pigeons lived in my windows and I slept next to exposed roof beams) and I transcribed a map from an adventure. Mind you, these are two unrelated facts, but they wind up leading to the first hard principle: Design 2D, Check 3D.
I have always been a little taken aback by the ten by ten. I, and others have backed me on this experience, never quite know whether to think it too small or two large. This is the basic concept behind countless dungeons, but climb in one and it feels slight, somehow too small to be used. How did all those Orcs fit in? The graph drawings provide a sort of obscured view, looking down as gods of architecture. There isn't the feel for the dimensions at work.
Of course, this is not always the disadvantage it may get made out to be. Real world architecture can involve a lot of numbers and math, structural weights and figuring out what actually can go where, whereas dungeon design has nothing to do with that. Dungeon design is more free, and rightfully so. So use that freedom. I do not mean scoff at the laws of physics, but feel free to not concern yourself at all when working on the primary layout of the dungeon.
Looking down at a jumble of abstract ten by tens, it is easier to keep matters abstract. What use does this abstraction have? As dungeons tend to fall into certain categories, there are corresponding design qualities for those categories. Each class tends to take a different shape, for lack of a better term. Each sort of dungeon is looking to draw the characters in differently, and that must be respected in the overall design.
Bleeders tend to come across as lines. They are marathons, where the question is "how far?" How long can the players push? A common tendency in Bleeders is to not be concerned with the exit strategy, because exit is not the point, only penetration. So stretch them out, let them run across the page and sprawl out uncontrollably. Start at the entrance and let them trickle on down. They are not required to have any central concept behind them. It should be possible and even preferable that the characters miss out on rooms and sections of the dungeon. Sure, it may feel like wasted work, but it's almost a sign you are doing your job right. The point of a bleeder is things are held back from the players and the characters, and the design should appeal to that.
Storybook should be built concentrically. It is tempting to think they might come off more like lines, but this can lead to accusations of railroading. Storybooks are holding something back, but it is something designed to be revealed. It is okay if the players miss out on a piece or two, but they need to catch enough for the reveled secrets of the dungeon to make sense. The trick to this compromise is finding the climax, the point where all will be made clear, and then letting everything drift back from that point. Chances are this will involve a certain accumulation of evidence, and starting with the closing point makes determining the evidence easier. Build outward in layers, always making certain there are solid reasons for players pushing on into the darkness.
The symbol for the organic dungeon is the square, the defined perimeter. The goal is to think of the dungeon as one unit. Everything should make sense. Organic dungeons have to concern themselves most with what is going on inside, and the physical design has to reflect those concerns. Organic designs require the most headwork because they involve the most direct questions. Where would an Orc Commander sleep? It depends what sort of commander he or she is.
Why I opt for a box configuration when designing an organic is because the filling in can take place from any direction. Maybe you have appropriated a cool gatehouse design, or perhaps you can see what sort of room you want the elemental gate to be in. Fill that part in, and then start building off of that. After all, if the gate is here, the secret panel has to be here, which means the art gallery has to be here, and so on. You are doing a good job if you run into problems, by which I mean different facts dictate both the barracks and the dog run being in the same place. This is good because realistic layouts do require compromises and do have flaws. If you are finding them, you are both forcing your own creativity and are well into the mindset of the actual forces (not necessarily people) behind the creation.
Once you have used the power granted by two dimensions to craft something of beauty, it is important to do some fact checking. This is when having a good sense of space becomes important. Take the space, and imagine yourself within it. Do a final walkthrough with the developer, and find the flaws for the punchlist. You can't build something without screwing up somewhere. The number of dungeons commonly found in published adventures that lack this sense is phenomenal. At some point almost any design forgets about scale because the primary thought process is two dimensional. Even the play of the game can end up like this. But for a superb dungeon, three dimensional is required. So get into it.
In some ways, the tricky part is not finding the errors, but seeing what those errors mean. Sometimes the errors need correction: this latrine is way too big; this grand hall is way too small. Other times, the design flaws can lead to interesting results or rethinks. That guard tower actually has a blind spot, so there is another way for the players to get in. That stairwell is in something of an awkward corner, and, in fact, if the door opens the other way so it becomes almost hidden, thus becoming an interesting escape route. This sort of thing forces you to rethink all the nuances of your design, and may even force some nifty creativity.
So design 2D, check 3D. Hell, double check 4D. Assess the passage of time. For this you will need to populate the place, and walk through as landlord. Significantly, what this means is different for different sorts of dungeons, and I almost hesitate to include it as a general rule because it is primarily in the auspice of the organic. After all, the set routines of life in the organic are necessary to know, because so much of the interaction will be based around the players interacting with those routines. Bleeders put more emphasis on the nifities. How the vampire gets in and out is not of your concern. On the other hand, it may turn out the secret door is in such an obvious place it will surely be found out frequently over the passage of time. Perhaps things are to the point that it is barely a secret anymore, with the panel chipped and dented from frequent openings.
In storylines, the passage of time has a dual significance. First is the pacing of the story being revealed. You have to think out the various pieces of evidence and their evidencing, make certain the revelation of whatever is being revealed progresses in such a fashion as to maintain player and character interest. You may have to shrink the dungeon to keep the pacing high, or expand it to increase the mystery. The second I would call the Prospero Effect. Time has a way of changing stories. An epic of revenge can become one of redemption. Saving the princess does not mean the same thing twenty years after her capture. What happens to the demi-lich who has had a thousand years to think about things? You may find playing with the time in the story can change the whole tone of the dungeon, and it is good to consider said changes. There might be one that you would like to make.
Next time on Dungeon Contractor: what questions to ask an excavating crew before you hire them.
- Login to post comments
Something that always needs to be considered when creating a dungeon - these places have a purpose. Unless you have an insane construction crew and/or architect, dungeons, castles, hidden tombs, etc. all have a purpose and a reason for being there.
See earlier segments of DC.
Nothing like finding the 10 foot square, 50 feet deep pit-trap in main entrance corridor of the castle.
This article is quite old for me to comment on it today, but I was always bothered by the stereotypical 10x10 room.
It's really not very large at all... Much smaller than a typical master bedroom... About the size of a kid's room (assuming you are living in an area other than New York or London where housing is so expensive that the master bedroom *is* only 10x10). Every try to swing a sword in your bedroom? Ever fit 4 to 6 people all trying to wield weapons in a space like that? Now toss in monsters, and furniture, and...
It just doesn't work. It's way too small. Most indoor spaces are, for that matter, when it comes to melee weapons unless they are fencing weapons or others that don't require much swing.
The thing about a dungeon crawl is that it really often doesn't have the space to do the types of activities our players are traditionally used to doing in RPGs. D&D3e has helped a tiny bit in that combat scale for miniatures uses a 5' scale grid, which will at least show that 4 creatures/characters in a 10x10 room is filled to the brim, but I'm not sure it goes far enough. For melee purposes, 2 combatants in a room is about as many as you could fit without accidentally involving the others with every swing.
Ever see a bar fight? Not the Hollywood kind, but two college mooks pushing each other around until the bouncers jump in and eject them? That almost always unintentionally involves nearby bystanders being pushed, getting drinks spilled on them, and often even getting knocked down. Now imagine a group of orcs and your PCs going at it... Talk about mayhem.
Anyway... my point to GMs is that you really need to consider the size of the space in which a melee occurs, and just exactly how a large bunch of armored men and women can engage the enemy without accidentally running through their buddies. Time to buy short swords, ladies and gents.
"Time to buy short swords, ladies and gents."
Or even better, spears. Save the shortswords for really close work (i.e. when you've been 'charged down' or your spear has broken).
Have your party advance down the corridor in two or even three ranks, bristling with longspears that can all reach the front.
Ah, but not much good against wererats and their ilk. Who ever finds magic longspears, eh? Other than a token one thrown in by the GM to satisfy the solitary weirdo in the group who insists on using a spear just to be different?
Damn those silly sword-obsessed mages who churned out all those bloody +1 longswords!
10 feet isn't very much room. I found this out while working at Foley's in my younger years. The smaller aisles in the store were 10 feet across.
In 10 feet, 2 people can walk side by side or pass each other in relative comfort. However, if 2 people walk side by side and pass a single person walking the opposite way, then the single person needs to squeeze up against the outer edge of the walkway or the other two need to get really close to each other.
It is in fact impossible for someone to hide or sneak past a person in a space that small unless that person is asleep. It is also impossible to have more than 2 people fight side to side and still be able to dodge blows. For those of you into D&D, this would negate a lot of AC bonuses and maybe even hit points, depending on why you think a 10th level fighter can withstand more damage than a 1st level fighter.
To give you an even better perspective, think of this: An average sized man or woman can stand with their feet spread shoulder-width apart in the center of a 10 foot walled circle, and by leaning to one side, touch the wall of the circle with their hand without moving their feet.
A broadsword has a 3 foot blade, a short sword has a 1 to 2 foot blade. An average person's arm is 2 to 2 1/2 feet long. An average sized person, weilding a broadsword, has 5+ feet of reach. With a short sword they have 3 - 4 feet of reach.
If a room is only 10x10 feet, that means the the average person can reach the entire room (excepting the corners) from the center of the room, without moving their feet, with a broadsword. Even with a short sword, they would only have to take a single step in any direction to reach anything in the room.
When I design places; dungeons, mansions, caverns, castles, or whatever, I use a minimum of 20' for everything but closets and other really small rooms (privy) and the smaller passages. To do otherwise is simply unrealistic.
BTW Spears are fine in a 10 foot space as long as they are man-sized (6 feet or less). Swords can be used with descretion, but they will hit the walls. Crossbows are deadly in an eclosed space like this and shortbows are worse. 3 people can stand side by side and rain death on enemies using shortbows. Swinging weapons like staves, maces, axes, hammers, scyths, and the like are relatively useless unless they are small (Short Staff, one-hand hammers). Nunchuks are nice, especially paired. Caltrops are invalueable, especially poisoned (remember to wear gloves). Fencing weapons tend to rule in small confined areas. And of course, flaming weapons...
"I have something that I want you to see."
"Is it bigger than a baby's arm?"
BTW Spears are fine in a 10 foot space as long as they are man-sized (6 feet or less)
Well, in a 10' by 10' room, I'd drop my spear pretty quick regardless of its length (in fact my opening move would be to throw it if it were a 6' one - possibly jamming the point into my opponent's shield to hamper its effectiveness) and pull out my sword / axe / mace. You need to keep your distance from your opponent in order to make your spear point effective. A 10' x 10' room doesn't give you room to do that at all. The spearman would end up being pushed into using his spear like a (rather skinny) quarterstaff. And there's a reason that medieval knights prefered swords and maces over quarterstaves....
I was really talking about a 10' wide corridor - where a block of 8' long spears in three ranks would be pretty effective (if RPG combat systems were at all realistic). It's like a big deadly porcupine. The front rankers may want to use 6' spears and shields in combination (an 8' spear one-handed is pretty unweildy). The two ranks behind deploy 8' spears.
Spears longer than 8' in a typical dungeon setting would present all kinds of manouverability problems....hence I don't suggest usage of a full-on pike block!
When I design places; dungeons, mansions, caverns, castles, or whatever, I use a minimum of 20' for everything but closets and other really small rooms (privy) and the smaller passages. To do otherwise is simply unrealistic.
Castles often had many small passages - typically about 5' wide in my experience. This makes them more defensible. Huge rooms built underground tend to have all kinds of associated structural challenges - Most ceilings should be arched and larger areas supported by pillars. If we want to get realistic that is! It's rare that one sees a dungeon cave-in occuring but they ought to happen a lot more often!
Crossbows are deadly in an eclosed space like this and shortbows are worse
I don't think a shortbow would be worse than a pre-loaded crossbow (esp. Heavy Xbow / Arbalest). In a 10' square arena you'll only get one shot off, max, before you're in melee!
Shortbows are really light hunting weapons, good against unarmoured targets and small enough to carry through dense undergrowth / foliage without snagging on branches too much. Also good for horseback use.
The saracens used shortbows and were dismayed in their early encounters with the crusaders to find that they couldn't penetrate their armour!
Short Staff
'Short Staff'? Do you mean a stick? ;-)
Nunchuks are nice, especially paired
I happen to think that nunchuks are greatly over-rated as weapons. They're rice flails, basically - improvised street fighter weapons, there's nothing samurai about them. Yes, against an unarmed or lightly armed opponent they're pretty good as they can whip in and deliver a nice solid thunk to the temple or groin or kneecap. They're better than a cudgel in this respect because they're faster and harder to defend against.
But a fully armoured knight would just laugh at someone with nunchuks. Unless they were +5 vorpal nunchucks of paladin slaying, of course....
Remember - a morning star is a nunchuck on steroids....!
I was really talking about a 10' wide corridor - where a block of 8' long spears in three ranks would be pretty effective (if RPG combat systems were at all realistic).
Both GURPS and D&D 3.0+ can support/simulate such a tactic. Just sayin'.
Otherwise, I have nothing to contribute to this very interesting conversation. Carry on, chaps...
Both GURPS and D&D 3.0+ can support/simulate such a tactic. Just sayin'.
Mmmmm. I daresay. I personally haven't really gotten to grips with 3e+ yet other than a cursory skim of the rules.
Actually, our group is having a break from our regular campaign to try a little GURPS at the moment. As it's a WWII setting (kind of) we are unlikely to try and form any pike blocks, however! Particularly my character who's almost entirely non-combatant...
"A broadsword has a 3 foot blade, a short sword has a 1 to 2 foot blade. An average person's arm is 2 to 2 1/2 feet long. An average sized person, weilding a broadsword, has 5+ feet of reach. With a short sword they have 3 - 4 feet of reach."
Reach isn't just a function of arm length, and just because you can touch something doesn't mean you can HIT it. The striking point of a cutting sword is half a foot down from the tip and a cut works by prescribing an arc. Again, it is the middle part of the arc the makes the cut. Thrusts are different, but they still need penetration and an experience fighter will not usually extend fully on an attack (wanting to retain balance and mobility).
I both agree and disagree with LG and Calamar on the spear issue. Spears are effective in a corridor because they are hard to flank, but they are hampered by the inability to attack from different angles. Once engaged by another weapon a spear in a corridor is at an extreme disadvantage because the weilder cannot adjust the angle of retraction. The attacker can press the spear weilder backwards the moment they are beside (not in front of) the tip.
My perspective is that each weapon has an effective range. Few weapons are effective in close (those that are have nearly no defensive value). Long range weapons are especially effective when the weilder can adjust distance and angles to create opening and "bridge the gap" again.
It all sounds really complicated until you understand that there a weapon only gives you a few mechanical advantages:
Reach (and effective range)
Speed
Ability to defend (intercept strikes and close angles of attack)
Ability to attack (quickly change the angle of penetration)
Cutting ability
Crushing force
These mechanical advantages will vary with the method in which the weapon is used. As all weapons generate their power from the gravity well of the weilder, you will find that the effective distance of each weapon is a surprisingly small zone dependent on the reach of the individual (I agree with Calamar mostly) and the architecture of the weapon. A weapon is made deadly as the skilled combatant adjusts distance and angles to place their opponent squarely in the "sweet spot" of their swing. Interestingly, The size of home plate in baseball is about the size of your sweet swing for almost any weapon. Cutting weapons tend to have a sweet "sphere" or oblong "eliptoid" where a thrusting weapon projects a dangerous "cone."
Nunchucks are a crappy weapon in a corridor because they have a relatively small sweet spot and attack on very predictable angles. The weilder makes them dangerous by remaining mobile. A short axe or roman gladius paired with a sheild are good choices. Spears are fabulous if you can keep them disengaged from other weapons. The truth is, in close combat a sturdy defence is most important.
In order for a RPG to capture this it would need to have a radical re-design of movement and action. **Insert plug for Epic Fantasy Roleplaying here ** It would also need to distil these complexities into playable components. Once these are in place you will find that your heroes will re-think strategies that involve charging a spear line, getting into a dagger fight in a crowded bar, or ignoring the advantage of terrain and mobility.
Spears are effective in a corridor because they are hard to flank, but they are hampered by the inability to attack from different angles. Once engaged by another weapon a spear in a corridor is at an extreme disadvantage because the weilder cannot adjust the angle of retraction. The attacker can press the spear weilder backwards the moment they are beside (not in front of) the tip.
Bear in mind that my spears-in-a-corridor scenario was for three ranks. This means the points are staggered...yes you can engage a spear with a weapon and step inside it's reach but then you encounter the next rank of spears....
Spear weilders need to be prepared to either back up to keep their points effective, or have short weapons ready to draw when their line is compromised if they are obliged to make a stand.
A very effective tactic I have seen with spears is to hold a short weapon like a scramseax or shortsword ready in the back hand as well as gripping the spear (this is easily possible if the spear shaft is not too thick). As the spear weilder's attacker charges him/her down he/she simply loosens their grip and drops the spear, thrusting at the oncoming attacker with that short weapon that they've held ready and hopefully catching them by surprise (and using their own momentum against them). It takes a bit of practise not to drop BOTH weapons by mistake but it's a useful trick to learn. It's one of those things that will easily take out a green opponent without expending too much effort, so you can save your energy for someone more dangerous....
My main point I suppose is that the spear tends to be an under-rated weapon in the world of fantasy role-play (in my experience). In practise spears are an excellent first line of attack / defense for a group of warriors. I love swords as much as anyone healthily can, they're fantastic when a linefight disintegrates into a close melee or for one-on-one duels...but give me a spear in hand for first contact!
Yes, agreed. It is about co-ordination, opportunity, and understanding what the advantage of a particular weapon is. Once you have that you can match weapons into tactics. Someone alluded to the pilum earlier as a good tactic for forcing the discard of the shield which is another very effective strategy.
Did anyone see the spear fight in the movie Troy? That should get some converts to the pointy sticks. I thought it was a good sequence. Achilles did a bit too much jumping for an experienced fighter (you can't change direction in the air and gravity can be your foe as much as your friend), but all in all I really enjoyed those sequences.
"Bear in mind that my spears-in-a-corridor scenario was for three ranks. This means the points are staggered...yes you can engage a spear with a weapon and step inside it's reach but then you encounter the next rank of spears..."
I agree. The advantage of the staggered approach is that it is designed to overlap the effective range of the weapons. It is a tactical expression of the deadly "cone" that a spear projects. The tactic does not begin to fail until it is engaged with a weapon -- or a dead body. All the spears in the corridor are parallel - this means that the attacker is only being threatened by one direction. Without the ability to adjust angles, retreat to keep the line intact, or add to the line from the back -- a spear line in a corridor is a less effective version that the one on a battlefield.
On a battlefield winning against a co-ordinated line is a mixed blessing. On the one hand you need to do it to open up the line, on the other hand once the line caves in a little bit the next person to step forward is stepping into a semi-circle of spears. This gives the battlefield line an opportunity to repair itself.
This is one of the things that makes a spear line so deadly against a charge. If combat in RPG's was at all realistic they would force players into either adopting a diffent strategy against a shield line, or accept some casualties in order to breach it.
We seem to all be on the same page, pretty much. I heartily agree with the sentiments of LG, but I'll take the sword over the spear so I don't have to be on the front line. It may be little comfort to me that I brought down five opponents - gotta go
Wow! This went from a discussion about dungeon size and scaling to mass combat. While I'm all for mass combat and front line tactics, I was really just talking about the 10x10 scaling issue that the article was originally about ;-)
I think that nunchuks and short staves (or Escrima Sticks if you prefer) are probably the best weapons to use for close combat in a small space. A similar comparison would be that Jeet Kune Do is better for close quarter fighting than Capoera. I'm not saying anything bad about the other weapons, just the suitability of these weapons in enclosed spaces.
Nunchuks (and I am referring to the weapon, not Asian culture) are fast, do a lot of damage, are hard to block, and lend themselves to feint maneuvers, if your combat system supports that. They can be used singly or in pairs.
Escrima Sticks are usually used in pairs and are bludgeoning weapons. Even if they don't penetrate armour, they can knock an opponent around.
Shortswords, either paired or with a shield, are quick and manuverable. They provid a cutting surface and can impale an opponent.
The short spears out of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series would be awesome.
Boar spears combined with Short Swords and a loaded crossbow would probably be the best combination of weapons.
The advantage of Short Bows over Crossbows is simple; refire rate. A competent bowman can fire 4 or more arrows in the time that it takes to reload one crossbow, and that includes time for aiming. I don't believe that distance will be much of a factor in a dungeon or castle and at close range a shortbow WILL penetrate armour. Especially since there won't be very many things running around in full plate armour.
How many fully armoured knights do you think that you'd find in a 10x10 room or a 10 foot wide hallway? Not very many. They'd be relatively useless. Try reading George R. R. Martin's Song of Fire and Ice series. Somewhere, I believe it was the 2nd book, a mercenary with little to no armour has a duel with a knight in full plate. I believe that it will be an eye opening experience for some of you.
A fully armoured knight cannot move fast enough to defend against quick attacks. The knight relies on his armour to take the damage. However, he will still be knocked back by the force of the blow. A couple of well placed hits, preferably to the head, a quick trip, and he's out of the fight. You can either run him through, beat him to death, or leave him like a turtle stranded on his back.
The most likely armour that you find in dungeons are leather and its varients, chain, and scale. Armour that is flexible, allows freedom of movement, doesn't weigh the fighter down, and still provides good protection.
What's better, from the player's standpoint, is that in most cases, foes in a dungeon will not have full suites of armour. Their armour will be a piecemeal affair. Maybe a leather jerkin with padded cloth sleeves, a breastplate with scale sleeves and leather cap, plate codpiece with a scale torso and leather sleeves (gotta protect the priorities ;-). You get the drift.
If your game system supports things like called shots or hit location, this will play a large part in combat. Take out your opponent's leg and they can't fight. Feint at their head and hit them in the knee. Body slam them and knock them down.
Another thing to keep in mind is that we are talking about roleplaying groups. The 3 ranks of spears is a great tactic, but not one likely to be used by pc's. In fact, that's probably something that a roleplaying group might have to OVERCOME in a dungeon. That'd suck.
Unless the PCs are in the military they probably have individualized weaponry. The cleric has a mace, the fighter has a sword and so on. I think that'd it be fun to lure some unsuspecting players into the standard sized (10x10) dungeon setting and incorporate all the limitations of fighting, sneaking, locating and disarming traps, and the like in an enclosed space during the game session. Imagine their surprise when the mage lets loose with an exploding fireball or the barbarian finds that he can't use his 2-handed double-bit war ax. The players will be a little dismayed (I like to think) when the theif or the halfling become the most effective "fighters" in the dungeon.
That's another thing. I've been speaking this whole time as if these were humans in the dungeon. Small races like halfling and dwarves wouldn't suffer the same limitations on weapons. And large races like minotaurs and ogres might not even fit. If they did, then they'd be useless in combat.
"If you can't beat them, join them. And then stab them in the back when they're not looking."
"Nunchuks (and I am referring to the weapon, not Asian culture) are fast, do a lot of damage, are hard to block, and lend themselves to feint maneuvers, if your combat system supports that. They can be used singly or in pairs."
They look good on film, sure. I'll take a stick.
Why do you say that they do a lot of damage? Force on a nunchuck is being applied against the centre (rope or chain) to create speed. This speed whips in a circular motion, but has little mass behind it. A stick used correctly can get the whip of the hip and wrist, but has mass behind it. A heavy flail has a longer chain and more weight at the end. With any of these weapons you could crush someone's skull but I would order them heavy flail, stick, nunchakku as far as damage.
F=ma P=ft
Do you any force/impact studies on these weapons to rely on. I have used the crude guide of what it sounds/feels like when it hits a heavy bag or other target, but would be glad to defer to any better science than that.
A flail, especially a heavy one like a morning star, does do a LOT more damage. But, unless you're built like an ox, you have to wind up to swing it. It takes a lot of effort to swing even a 5 pound morning star. A competent opponent will have ample time to react. Flails are hard to parry so I'd dodge it. A missed blow will pull you off balance and leave you open to an attack.
A stick wouldn't have mass behind it unless you thrust with it. Using your wrist to whip it is the same as using the chain on the nunchucks. You get more momentum with the rope though. Besides, how many people use Escrima Sticks? Paired short swords are much more likely.
I have a friend named Alex who is very into martial arts and weapons training. He has shown me the power of nunchucks, tonfa, crossbows, and some others. Using practise nunchuks, he broke the arm of another friend of mine named James who was using a broadsword. 1st he disarmed the braodsword, then he broke James' arm. He didn't mean to, but it does show the power behind the blow.
"Before you attempt to beat the odds, be sure that you can survive the odds beating you."
Hi Calamar!
Just a few words. As you might (or might not) have guessed, most of my comments derive from the viewpoint of being an experienced military re-enactor rather than reading books. I have a little experience in the eastern martial arts as well though hardly more than a taste although I have known (and fought against) people experienced in both fields. Yes I am a practised archer as well - not brilliant but good enough to know a little about the subject.
There is a tendency these days to think of the medieval knight as a ponderous, lumbering brute easily outfoxed by wily, dexterous, lightly armoured robin hood types. How many times have you seen Norman knights on film being knocked out by having their heads banged together by an outlaw? Ha ha, very funny. Speaking as someone who has retained his consciousness (just!) after having taken a fully-swung blow to the head from a 6' hafted Daneaxe whilst wearing a Norman conical helm, coif and arming cap I can assure you that the stereotype is way out of line with reality.
Medieval knights in plate armour were capable of performing handstands and there are even accounts of people managing to swim short distances in plate. A well-made suit of plate armour would weigh as little as 45 pounds. Modern infantrymen go into battle carrying heavier equipment (if pressed to do so).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour
I can assure you that an armoured knight is far from useless in a 10' by 10' space. The main threat to the armoured knight in facing more lightly armed opponents is the lack of visibility afforded by their helmet but in a situation where the knight is outnumbered they would throw their visor back for greater visibility (a worthwhile sacrifice, they just need to keep their guard up a bit more to block those face-shots). Medieval knights wore armour for good reasons!
The shortbow's better ROF is, as I said, of no consequence in a 10' square room where the archer will most likely be in melee after the first shot (and unless they've already nocked or are superhumanly fast they'll be lucky to get that one off!). Yes, at point-blank a shortbow arrow could get through chainmail - if it's only backed by lightweight padding - but a Xbow would do it better! And a Xbow can be (carefully!) carried around loaded - for short lengths of time (Longer periods would permanently distort the crossbar and reduce its poundage).
Another thing to keep in mind is that we are talking about roleplaying groups. The 3 ranks of spears is a great tactic, but not one likely to be used by pc's.
This is my point, actually. I was lamenting the extent to which the humble spear is under-represented in typical fantasy RPGs.
Using practise nunchuks, he broke the arm of another friend of mine named James who was using a broadsword. 1st he disarmed the braodsword, then he broke James' arm. He didn't mean to, but it does show the power behind the blow.
James should have been wearing vambraces. Then he wouldn't have gotten his arm broken.
Disarmed? I'd like to see that. Was James an experienced swordsman?
Are you sure that Alex wasn't using a Kasuri-gama rather than a Nunchuk?
It takes a lot of effort to swing even a 5 pound morning star.
Bear in mind that Medieval weapons weren't rubbish otherwise they simply wouldn't have been used. A 5-pound morning star (or flail) would be a pretty heavy one actually - and not terribly practical (I take it you're referring to the head poundage?). The flail is a great weapon for attack, but obviously not so good for defence (that's what a shield is for). But you don't need to swing it round your head for five minutes before landing it. In a 10' square room your swing space is a bit restricted but equally so for longswords and such like. Flails actually had quite short chains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_%28weapon%29
I was simply pointing out that as a weapon a flail is superior to a Nunchuk for most purposes, apart from looking flash.
fully armoured knight cannot move fast enough to defend against quick attacks. The knight relies on his armour to take the damage. However, he will still be knocked back by the force of the blow. A couple of well placed hits, preferably to the head, a quick trip, and he's out of the fight. You can either run him through, beat him to death, or leave him like a turtle stranded on his back.
The most likely armour that you find in dungeons are leather and its varients, chain, and scale.
In general, I don't really buy the argument that a fast, maneuverable opponent can take down a strong, heavily armored foe one-on-one. Sure, it's possible. I just don't think it's likely.
In warfare, armor persisted and was increasingly refined until the development of gunpowder (and in some cases, even beyond that). The reason was simple: heavily armored warriors had a much greater survival rate than unarmored ones. There were some tactics (particularly the Mongol hit-and-fade, horse archer approach) that effectively exploited the limitations of heavily armored units, but otherwise a heavy cavalry charge remained the pre-eminent battlefield tactic until widespread use of pikes came into play -- roughly about the same time as gunpowder.
I have a lot of problems with fantasy "full plate." To the best of my knowledge, it saw a very short period of use. Some suits of armor were so heavy they required the wearer to be put on horseback by crane. But these head-to-toe suits of plate armor didn't appear until the 15th Century, when gunpowder was already starting to see use in Europe. What a lot of people think of as "full plate" armor dates from the 16th Century.
But the suggestion that a heavily armored knight can be knocked down and stranded on his back like a turtle is probably a misconception in most cases. Some "reconstructions" have demonstrated that men wearing full plate can leap up from the ground, turn cartwheels, and perform other acrobatic and athletic feats.
Finally, a duel (single combat) is a bit different from a battle. When fighting a single opponent, one's tactics and choice of armor might vary considerably from the same choices in battle; and the increasing refinement of dueling etiquette ensured that the fast-moving, unarmored opponent held few, if any, surprises in store for a trained fighter in heavy armor.
In summary, I think the idea that heavy armor is more of a liability than an asset is not very credible. Armor persisted for 3,000 years for a reason. If lightly armored, fast-moving troops had swept the globe, armor might've fallen out of use; but they didn't. Countless battles demonstrated the superiority of heavily armored troops over lightly armored combatants. That exceptions -- such as Alexander Nevsky's frozen-lake battle against the mail-clad Teutonic Knights -- demonstrated potential weaknesses of heavy armor, they by no means drove it out of use for the simple reason that these cases were exceptions. And even Mongol warlords, who employed horse archers to great effect, availed themselves of heavy armor whenever they could.
You beat me to the punch. Nice post!
James was an experienced swordsman, but not above average by any means. None of us had on armour, we were using practice weapons. Vambrances would have prevented the injury but that's a moot point.
How do you get that a full suite of plate mail only weighs 45 pounds? I would assume closer to 60 lbs with the quality of steel being what it was at the time. Even at 45 lbs it's pretty hard to maneuver. I know that the weight is evenly distributed, but fatigue will set in and quickly.
Armour, especially heavier armour such as plate was so popular and lasted so long simply because it protected it's wearer from damage. For those who could afford it (nobles and such), this protected them from random hits on the battlefield and required less skill from the user.
I doubt that you find many accounts of plate being used on foot soldiers. It was used almost exclusively by the heavy calvary. Even they wouldn't wear it unless they knew that they would be going into combat. The armour is heavy and extremely uncomfortable.
For a pretty good and funny example, watch Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. While, not the most historically accurate of movies, it does show some of the limits of plate mail.
Another thing to consider is that most of my comments have been aimed at corridors rather than rooms. As I have said before, a 10x10 room is too small to do much of anything outside of individual combat. A knight in a room that size would be too disadvantaged to do much. Their opponent almost starts inside the swing of whatever weapon that a knight would use. A quick thrust of dagger or shortsword into the armpit or up and under the breastplate and the knight is done.
Likewise a shortbow would, as you stated, be relatively useless in a 10x10 room, but would as I stated, shine in a corridor of the same width.
To get the most out of a flail you should swing, preferably overhead, with your arm fully extended. They were made to be used in combat from the back of a horse. If the first blow didn't hit or cripple their opponent, the knight typically dropped the flail in favor of a faster weapon. Knights of the time when they were most popular were arsenals, carrying and using 5 or more weapons in a single battle. Please remember that in a battle like that, you rarely have more time to do more than trade a blow or two with an opponent before the swirl of battle seperates you and you find yourself facind someone else.
Lurkinggherkin, you have more experience in mass combat with these kind of weapons; do you fight from horseback? How long are individual encounters in a mass combat situation?
The reason that I prefer the nunchuks or a more typical flail is because of the weapon's versatility. I have seen and used nunchucks used as a thrusting crushing weapon, to feint, and to get mutiple hits. When you hit with nunchucks you can whip your wrist around in a semicircular motion and get another hit off.
One last thing to be said about heavy armour. Even if the person doesn't get hurt, they still take knock-back damage and will suffer the effects. American troops in Afghanistan are walking away from explosions and vehicle wrecks that should have killed them. Unfortunately they are suffering concussions, memory loss, broken bones, and organ damage from being bounced around so much.
I once got hit with a heavily padded baseball bat type weapon while wearing a football helmet. The force of the blow was more than enough to disorient me and did knock me a little dizzy. I was able to continue fighting for a while, but multiple blows to the head did take me out in the end. I couldn't see the attack coming until the last moment and couldn't parry or dodge the attack. Even though we were using these bulky padded weapons, I couldn't regain my balance or the initiative. I lost that fight. However, I rested up and fought the same person later that day. This time I left off the helmet and I was able to dodge and parry his attacks. I beat him handily and it was solely because I could see.
A knight may have armour protecting him, but a good solid blow will still take him out. A few blows to the head, especially ones that he either didn't see or could defend against, will end the fight.
"Madness doesn't always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"
"Using practise nunchuks, he broke the arm of another friend of mine named James who was using a broadsword."
Sure, I conceeded that point. I have seen people get their arms broken by kicks, throws, and falls -- we aren't going to suggest that a kick is more dangerous than a hammer, flail, or sword.
I like the nunchakku. They are fun. They can whip around really quick, but you have to work to keep the angular momentum. They don't have a large sweet spot, and are lousy on defence. I've got a fair degree of experience with them as a weapon and don't like how they would fare in close quarters combat against an armed and armoured opponent. They also tend to bounce around a lot after a strike or if impeded by another weapon. When the chain/rope is no longer under load there is no way to transfer energy to the striking point. A stick or short sword is far more versatile although I have seen my fair share of coconut busting with both.
Perhaps we can chalk it up to personal preference, eh Calamar? Call a truce on the subject of the nunchucks?
Watch how a French Savate fighter can use "La Canne" to deceive and strike from many angles, observe the elegance of European fencing, and look at the ruthless effeciency of a stick fighter. You will see how the tactics blend with the weapon, footwork, philosophy, and posture.
LG has experience with the armour/re-enactment from the European perspective, whereas I my experience is more (but not entirely) limited to the Asian martial arts. I think we are on the same page about the effectiveness of an armoured warrior.
Sumo wrestling may have also started out of a relatively unknown martial art known as yaroi-jutsu (armour art) that was used to unbalance an opponent so that the small dagger (aikuchi) could be used on a joint or opening in the armour. They were quite adept at maneuvering and it doesn't seem sensible that their European counterparts would be entirely imobile either.
"A few blows to the head, especially ones that he either didn't see or could defend against, will end the fight."
One blow can end a fight. I really like what you said about knockback or stagger damage. Being momentarily stunned is a frequent occurence in combat. So too is the loss of balance. Both of these events allow your opponent to press an advantage and both require a moment to recover from. Few combat systems can model this with any kind of logic or ease. This is unfortunate, because from a story point of view this is a very interesting part of a fight. It provides a dramatic build up to the next point of action -- either a reversal, narrow escape, or defeat.
The "blow from nowhere" is a reality of close quartered multiple opponent scenarios. As a storytelling element it can be very jarring -- not that this is necessarily a bad thing.
This is also why I favour combat systems where the value of the attack is declared. It puts the critical dice in the hands of the player and creates tension. When a strong attack is declared the player reacts with all the dodging and blocking at their disposal knowing that a good defensive roll is essential.
Why, thank you.
The fight with vs without the football helmet? Firstly, that's also a matter of practise. Reacting and manouvering in armour is an acquired skill. Secondly have you considered that your opponent may have been a bit shy of hitting you in the head when you weren't wearing a helmet? Especially when he had already seen how punishing it was to strike you in the head when you wore a football helmet?
Ordinary foot soldiers didn't wear so much plate because it was expensive, not because it hampered them. Combatant nobility would indeed charge in on horseback but they were able to fight effectively on foot as well - it would be suicide to charge into a ruck wearing something that would make you helpless if your horse were killed, lamed or simply unseated you.
I'll grant you that if you include the weight of a close helm and an arming doublet with chainmail reinforcement and various other accessories you might be approaching 60lbs all-in for your suit of plate armour. Note however that samurai armour was of comparable weight, or heavier:
http://writeonline.sac.sa.edu.au/Archives/Nov_02/samurai2.htm
As I don't wish to labour the point any further, I shall resist the temptation to write any more on this. I just wanted to dispel a few modern myths that tend to unfairly denigrate the european armoured knight whilst over-romanticising the effectiveness of improvised peasant weapons like nunchuks. Though I grant you I certainly wouldn't laugh at a profficient wielder of this weapon if I ran into such a person whilst in 'squishy mode' (i.e. unarmoured).
I recommend that you try wearing a well-fitted suit of plate armour and practise in it daily for a few weeks. It may change your viewpoint a little. You might come to realise that 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure' is about the worst example you could possibly pick to support your argument!
One blow can end a fight. I really like what you said about knockback or stagger damage. Being momentarily stunned is a frequent occurence in combat. So too is the loss of balance. Both of these events allow your opponent to press an advantage and both require a moment to recover from. Few combat systems can model this with any kind of logic or ease.
Very true!
The "blow from nowhere" is a reality of close quartered multiple opponent scenarios. As a storytelling element it can be very jarring -- not that this is necessarily a bad thing.
This puts me in mind of the very brief (and shockingly concluded) fight between Dariole and Tanaka Saburo in Mary Gentle's '1610: A Sundial in a Grave' which I finally finished ploughing through last weekend....
Of course, in D&D they would both be uber-high-level characters with a big block of hit points so the combat would take ages...
Hmmmm....I seem to have accidentally wandered onto the '142 hit points' thread somehow!
Hey - in the Hollywood RPG System (TM), all high-level characters would only be killable by employing the strategy of discarding your weapons and engaging them in a fist fight!
(Or a cat fight with lots of clawing and pulling of hair in the case of female characters....)
First, I'd like to note that this is why I love Gamegrene...sometimes these discussions are just facinating.
Second, 45 lbs. (as mentioned by way of armor weight) isn't that much to carry around for a physically fit, adult male; Especially if it's spread evenly. It does tire you more, and is particularly problematic over long periods of time. In my experience in the army (a modern army, note) the fighting is in bursts and spurts, with some rest in-between, allowing reduction of fatigue. (consider that lying behind cover, getting shot at, can be counted as "rest" for this matter).
Third, I'd like to point to D&D's Unearthed Arcana alternate rules, one of which suggests giving a static number for a monster's attack and letting the PCs roll Defense (or Defence, if you're British), as Gilgamesh suggested.
I agree with the whole "let's drop the nunchuk" thing. I did state that I think the short sword would be the best weapon. My original point was that in enclosed spaces, such as a 10 foot wide hallway, broadsword and heavy (duty) armour would be problemic.
Someone mentioned 5' wide passages in castles. Some broadswords are that long, if you include the handle and everything. The Gladius or short sword would be much more deadly in tight quarters like that. Knives would be nice but most game systems say that knives do less damage than a punch... I like the idea of short spear ala Robert Jordan, but they are uncommon and may be custom orders...
American Football players (not soccer) wear armour and padding that covers them extremely well. It is extremely lightweight and made of plastic. They can move in it easily and have done flips, dances, and other gymnastic types of moves while wearing them. However, it is uncomfortable, hot, and irritating.
Ignoring the issues of weight, fatigue, and maneuverability, armour is uncomfortable, itchy, hot, bulky, and not easy to transport (other than wearing it of course).
I was also in the Army, and the Navy Reserve. Evenly distributing 45-60 lbs over your body doesn't seem like much, especially at first. Walking 3+ miles in it however will wear out a physically fit, adult male. The military requires that their troops are extremely fit. The avaerage character in a roleplaying game rarely get's to "work out". Outside of fighting, most characters that I've seen spend little or no time practising their skills, i.e. combat, unless they are needed. Most characters ride horses everywhere. One could make the argument that unless the character has a high strength and constitution (or health) wearing armour over long periods of time, unless riding a horse, will cause fatigue and result in combat penalties.
On a side note, it be interesting to see the players reaction if the GM were to drop their strength or health a point and start adding weight when their characters don't get enough excercise. Kinda like an athlete that has gone to seed...
It's like the above example of walking around with a loaded crossbow all the time. Eventually the crossbow will warp and break. Knights transported their heavy armour in hampers and on wagons until they reached the battlefield. They wore lighter armour like leather, scale, or chain in the meantime.
Maneuverability in heavy armour may not be hampered, however, in a dungeon setting where passages narrow and widen, ceilings drop and raise, where you could walking comfortably or crawling, or squeezing your character between a rock outcropping and a wall, plate is too cumbersome. Characters would be having to remove the breast plate to get through tight spaces which would provide perfect ambush points. It's an easy way to kill a character, but that's not what we are here to do.
Gurps is the only system that I know of outside of TimeLords that incoporates knockback and stun damage into regular hits in combat. In Gurps a blow to the head, even one that didn't do any noticable damage, can stun or knock out a person. A hit that does a certain amount of damage (before modifications) will knock an opponent back and make them roll not to be knocked down as well. Limbs, vitals, head, and more can be targeted and hit. I don't know what D&D 3.5 allows.
Just for the record, I use Savate as the Noble's Sport in my fantasy world. It is a pretty effective martial art and fits well in my world.
"Live long and Prosper."
Sorry, I accidently entered this twice. Computer glitch...
The longest continuous period I have worn armour for was 18 hours. (That was a fair few years back when I was a lot fitter - I'd probably collapse now!). That wasn't an 18 hour forced march, I'll hasten to add. Wearing armour isn't all that bad if you're 'into it'. In fact it's a lot of fun! (Some people have quite a fetish for it actually!).
You make a fair point about reduced manouverability of someone in armour if they are actually caving rather than just wandering around nice level corridors. It's also hard work getting through brush and undergrowth in armour (particularly with a shield on your back).
The 'working out' thing is an issue I am well aware of. Whenever I have played a musclebound type of character I make a point of having them spend a lot of their time doing physical stuff such as working out, wrestling, tree-felling and so on. All too often, though, players simply take their character's attributes as given.
Wearing armour and fighting is quite a workout in itself, though...
I do get annoyed by players who insist that their character wears their armour 'all the time' (even when sleeping). They try to make out it's a 'roleplaying choice' that adds colour (and odour!) to their character. Yeah, right. I have, personally, slept in armour a couple of times - mainly under the influence of alchohol I seem to recall - but I wouldn't want to do it all the time! It's not pleasant, really, you don't wake up feeling very rested and you'd have all kinds of problems if you did it on a regular basis (a number of parasitic infestations that flourish in warm, damp environments spring to mind).
I have a character who's a bit of a 'clanky' - his preferred combat apparel being plate armour. But he doesn't wear it all the time - he only puts it on when there's a known likelihood of an engagement, or when he wants to look good!. He wears leathers when he goes hunting, and when he's on a camp watch shift he'll normally only wear his arming doublet unless the territory is known to be crawling with really dangerous critters.
R.A Salvatore has a character that's always in armor - 'Thibbledorf Pwent'. He's got the smell and scratching to match.
Calamar, considering I've only ever played D&D of varying flavours (and some freeform stuff), I'm finding myself concerned about playing a high lethality (combat-wise) game system. Are there simply less monsters and adversaries in your games, or simply less combat and more "talky" bits?
I know your comment was addressed to Calamar, but:
Just try a different system, zip. Sometimes characters get killed a lot more easily. In my opinion, this happens largely because...
players weaned on D&D are entirely too glib about going into combat.
Combat is where people get killed. Hell, you're a soldier; I shouldn't have to tell you that. But if a player expects every combat to be "winnable," I think that player has entirely the wrong attitude.
Perhaps this isn't a problem in your D&D games, but...when was the last time the group ran for their lives? Many D&D players have this sense of invulnerability that really bugs me. And for some, it's not merely invulnerability, but entitlement: I've heard one group complain of their DM, "he puts us in fights we can't win" as though they're SUPPOSED to always win. I think they're spoiled!
I play a lot of Call of Cthulhu. This is a game with a potentially huge mortality rate, yet my group never loses more than a character or two at a time. The reason? They're cautious. That is as it should be.
I repeat: just let go your preconceptions and try a different way of playing. You might find that whatever you try isn't for you. But you might love it. In the mid-'80s, I discovered GURPS. I left D&D and was never even tempted to look back until 3d ed, which has been a pleasant run but ultimately suffers from the same problems I had with AD&D all along. It's just not my preferred way to play.
A more realistic combat system gets rid of the "stupid" aspects of fantasy games IMHO. I love the fact that anyone can kill anyone if they get a lucky hit.
Miamoto Musashi, Japan's greatest swordsman, once defeated two armed and armoured Samurai with a fencepost. Musashi was 16 at the time. In D&D this would be very improbable as the two samurai weren't the sorriest in the world and were older than Musashi be several years. If they were 6th level and he was 3rd then they should have had him for dinner.
Musashi killed his 1st Samurai at the age of 13. Again, the Samurai that he killed was several years older then him and not sorry.
In Gurps, Musashi (whose stats are in the Martial Art book) has spent a LOT of time and effort on his sword skill. He started at a early age and studied swordfighting to the exclusion of everything else. He was also blessed with nice, but not outstanding, stats.
The players will learn to fight smart in battle and to not do things like leaping off of cliffs without having the means to land safely. Gurps also stresses the use of non-combat skills in every session.
I once had a player who made a Muy Thai Kickboxer in a fantasy world who could fight, fish, and sail a boat. That's it. He got real bored real fast and started spending all of his experience points on skills that helped him participate more in the game.
I was running a very combat heavy adventure or two (the first adventure had the characters tracking down and capturing or killing some escaped gladiators in a large city and the second one had them guarding a cross continental caravan from Mongol-like orcs), but he didn't feel very included because combat was all that his character was good for. Since then every character that he has made has skills that let him do a lot of things, even though his characters are still combat heavy.
Gurps allows and rewards players for ROLEplaying their characters. Experience points are given for how well the character is played.
My characters tend to have an average of 20 skills. This is reflected in their backgrounds and allows them to be usefull to the group and extremely flexible. My characters aren't the best at any one thing, but they are the most usefull.
That should be enough, please let me know if you need anything else.
BTW I have put Wyverns, Dragons, Armies of Demons, Elves, Magic, Psionics, Religion, Gangs, Armies of Orcs, Lizard Men, and puzzles based off of the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. Put in whatever you want, ultimately it's up to the players to find a way to survive.
A more realistic combat system gets rid of the "stupid" aspects of fantasy games IMHO. I love the fact that anyone can kill anyone if they get a lucky hit.
Hear, hear! Can I GET an 'Amen'?
In general, your post is spot-on as to why I love GURPS. But this bit is particularly apt:
Gurps allows and rewards players for ROLEplaying their characters. Experience points are given for how well the character is played.
YES.
ok ,ok , I get it :)
Since this is going to be my first serious GMing job (i only did a couple of one-off adventures before), it's a bit daunting and i want to start off on the right foot.
In any case, as they say: " even a 1000 mile journey begins with one small step" (and then going back home because you forgot the keys...)