Do RPGs worry too much or not enough about drawing weapons & what is in your hands?

[TwinBahamut]

I don't think it is something that should really be problematic or take significant amounts of time. Contrary to some others, I prefer systems where you don't really have to worry about where your greatsword goes or how many actions are required when you want to turn around and toss a handaxe at an enemy.

I mean, I have never once complained about certain videogame systems where each character carries four or so weapons and can switch between them freely with absolutely no action loss (Fire Emblem and SaGa games, for example). Switching weapons on that list has an action cost, but if you are carrying it into battle, then it is always available no matter what.

 

[Umbran]

Sometimes they worry too much, sometimes not enough. It depends n the needs of the game.

Say you're playing a game with lots of Western six-gun shootouts (say, Deadlands). Then, you dared well need to be detailed about such stuff, as the genre has a lot to say about who gets gun from the holster first.

In other games, it matters less, or even not at all.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I completely ignore drawing or readying weapons at the beginning of combat.

This is the real issue. IMO, most RPGs have perfectly adequate rules on the matter, but many players simply ignore them.

I also disagree that the system needs to specify what happens to the characters of players who say they are walking around with their weapons drawn all the time. When I'm DMing, I have no problem at all adjudicating such nonsense; the easiest is to simply inform the player that while his weapon is in hand, it isn't being carried in a ready-to-use manner, and whatever action it normally is to draw the weapon still has to be used to properly prepare the weapon. If the player insists that he's walking around "ready" all the time, rapidly accruing fatigue penalties will soon convince him that this is a counterproductive tactic. And so on.

 

[Cadfan]

This is the real issue. IMO, most RPGs have perfectly adequate rules on the matter, but many players simply ignore them.

I also disagree that the system needs to specify what happens to the characters of players who say they are walking around with their weapons drawn all the time. When I'm DMing, I have no problem at all adjudicating such nonsense; the easiest is to simply inform the player that while his weapon is in hand, it isn't being carried in a ready-to-use manner, and whatever action it normally is to draw the weapon still has to be used to properly prepare the weapon. If the player insists that he's walking around "ready" all the time, rapidly accruing fatigue penalties will soon convince him that this is a counterproductive tactic. And so on.

Well, technically, if you're playing D&D and using this system then you're ignoring the rules too. You're just ignoring them in favor of adding a new, slightly more internally consistent (though perhaps illogical... carrying a dagger fatigues you? and it takes time to be readied?) set of rules.

 

[jmucchiello]

Well, technically, if you're playing D&D and using this system then you're ignoring the rules too. You're just ignoring them in favor of adding a new, slightly more internally consistent (though perhaps illogical... carrying a dagger fatigues you? and it takes time to be readied?) set of rules.

He means holding a dagger while actively watching everything around you, prepared fully for any and all sudden movements that can mean the difference between life and death at any moment fatigues you. Active combat readiness takes effort both mental and physical. There's a big difference in terms of degree of effort between walking about normally, standing guard (i.e. being alert) and actively regarding every moment as an in combat situation.


As for the topic, I didn't read the other thread but how is this different from "some groups track every copper piece, piece of chalk, whether you've eaten 3 or 3.1 days worth of rations versus groups that just hand wave normal equipment"?

In gaming groups there is a level of detail with which they are comfortable and rules for readiness of weapons are not really different from rules for tracking encumbrance or traditions for handling the ordering of dinner at an inn. Each has a spectrum of levels of detail and different groups fall into different levels of detail on each of these topics. Heck, my group rarely talks about light sources. I've had characters with "6 torches" written on the character sheet through a dozen levels. It's just not important to us.

 

[Morrus]

Not really. Like with encumbrance rules, 50' ropes, rations, and torches - I don't feel they are fun, and don't add to the enjoyment of the game. Unless the situaton is pretty blatant, I handwave it.

 

[vagabundo]

I'm pretty lax, but I love 4e's minor action, I make players burn that up for all sorts of small things. It helps me sleep at night.

 

[Janx]

In a lot of wilderness and dungeon encounters, there's usually some time between first sighting and actual combat (when we roll init). I assume during that time of "hey, I think those orcs are coming this way" the PCs had plenty of time to draw their weapons.

Whereas, in a surprise situation (maybe not literally surprise), where the group is suddenly attacked. I would assume their weapons are not already out, and thus would require drawing them on their first action (assuming they wanted to fight back).

Additionally, I would enforce the changing item rule during combat if they want to switch weapons, drink a potion, etc.

Since QuickDraw exists as a feat, I feel obligated to making sure there are game situations where the feat is useful.

In the same way that my 2e campaign, we allowed wizards and clerics to cast spontaneously (like a Sorcerer), when 3e came out we were obligated to support the Sorcerer, so we dropped the house rule. It helped that wizards got more spell slots in 3e.

 

[jdrakeh]

A more "bullet time" type of combat (such as advanced GURPS combat) really stresses the importance of a single second and every single second matters.

You know, I hadn't ever thought about it before, but "bullet time" is a great way to describe GURPS combat.

 

[gamerprinter]

Iaijutsu and quick draw

It only came up in combat from time to time, so unless the situation warranted it, we just let it happen, without consideration for loss of time. However, that I am building a Japanese feudal setting, where for those samurai skilled in iaijutsu combined with quick draw feat - if you don't consider it for all players, then it becomes a drawback to having the iaijutsu skill.

In order to effectively use Iaijutsu and quick draw, it matters to everyone if they are armed or must draw a weapon - makes me wonder how useful that oriental skill is in having to include the "draw your weapon" mechanic suddenly enforced.

GP