Broken and balanced

[woodelf]

Then there's the second kind of balance, the intra-party kind, the balance of PC against PC. That kind of "balance" annoys the $#!! out of me, because frankly it has nothing to do with the game system. It's all about the kind of players you have. A player doesn't hog the spotlight because his character is more powerful, he hogs the spotlight because that's the kind of player he is. Building a powerful character is just one means of doing this, but it's the means the player uses to hog the spotlight, not the cause of it. With a lesser-powered character or in a different system with less mechanics, the same player would most likely use different means - e.g. excessively histrionic theatrics - to achieve the same end of hoging the attention. This kind of player has a need - perhaps compulsively, perhaps even pathologically - to be the center of attention, so the cause of this is psychological and has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game system. This kind of player, in the words of grade school report cards, "does not play well with others."

Agreed--overpowered characters aren't the problem, they're a symptom. If you make them impossible, the problem player will often become a different sort of problem.

Differing levels of power within a group does not automatically result in spotlight hogging, if the players are mature enough to handle it. The campaign I play in has characters of widely varying power levels, because it's a long-running campaign that has progressed to the second generation of PC's. Last year, one of my first-generation characters, a Wiz20/Clr10, went out on a mission with a number of the second-generation PC's that averaged about 5th level or so. My 1st-genner was personally interested in the 2nd-genners; some were her children, and some were such close friends of the family that she helped raise them and were the next thing to stepchildren to her. It was a close-knit family group. I did not hog the spotlight with the character; she let the kids take the lead to get the mission done and concentrated mainly on healing them and keeping them alive. At the climax of the mission, the DM provided my 1st-genner with an evil leader that was quite a challenge and let the 2nd-genners take on the minions. As it turned out, my 1st-genner was the only one that got seriously hurt. But all the characters had their roles to play and no one hogged the spotlight. That's what happens, despite any difference in relative power levels, when you have mature players who work well as a team. Now, the next adventure we're looking forward to will have this same 1st-genner as well as some others. Two of the others are about 40th-character level, while three others are at about 16th. I fully expect it to be a good adventure despite this disparity in levels.

In fact, i'll go one further: IME, the game system can actually help create this problem by trying to address it. When i've played in game systems like Over the Edge, where there is no pretense at balance whatsoever, no one has had a problem with unbalanced characters (and by "unbalanced" i mean the rough equivalent of Wonder Woman and the Wonder Twins in the same group). Take that same group, and have them play a balance-obsessed system like D&D3E, and suddenly the fact that clerics and bards, say, aren't perfectly balanced begins to get complaints. IMHO, when the system sets up an expectation of balance, players get their noses out of joint if the balance isn't perfect, while if the system just assumes that the players can play nice and have fun without worrying about balance, the players do so. IME, that's true of much of life, not just RPing--people live up to your expectations.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

For a more extreme example, there's no way a halfling is ever going to wield a greatsword even if the greatsword is statistically far and away the best weapon in the whole world, and if a player brought a greatsword-wielding halfling character to the gaming table he deserves to be laughed away with derision.

Wow. That's quite possibly the lamest thing I've ever read on a D&D message board. I'd read the rest of your post, but I'm afraid it'll just have more crap like that in it. You seriously don't behave like this for real, do you? *shakes head* Just wow.

 

[Drifter Bob]

If a weapon's statistics in a game are significantly better than other weapons, then chances are that the expert combatants in the world KNOW this. Warfare and survival have never been about what is 'cool', they're

If you are talking about equipment balance within combat systems, you do have the choice of looking at real life. Historically, truly inferior weapons and weapons which had been outmoded by new designs disappeared from the battlefield. That is why for example the javelins and slings of the classical era largely disappeared as effective crossbows, recurve bows and longbows became increasingly ubiquitous in the middle ages, which were in turn gradually supplanted by firearms during the Renaissance.

The weapons which were around in any given era had some characteristics which made them useful. If the combat system for the game you are playing can reasonably portray the basic characteristics of how different types of weapons work in combat, and if the research has been adequately done, then the actual balance is there. (unfortunately this is not the case with DnD / D20, which is more interested in it's own 'philosophy' than balance based on any external source)

So for example, a battle axe, i.e. a one handed axe purposely built for combat as opposed to farm work, has certain advantages and disadvantages when compared to a sword, as does a dagger, a sap, a spear, a mace or a quarterstaff. In D&D the only way you can differentiate one weapon from another is basically by the damage it does.

In reality, some weapons have better reach, others pierce armor better, others are better in close, and some are easier to defend with. That was why so many travelers carried staffs, for example. They are exceptionally good for active defense. In D&D there is no way to portray this. Your weapon plays no role whatsoever in your defense.

An axe causes a great deal of damage, and is especially efficient at cutting through hard substances like wood, or armor. On the other hand it's not very easy to parry with an axe and not as nimble on the attack as say, a single sword. Thus, axes of this type were usually used with shields.

As shields became less prevalent on the battlefield, axes were mounted on longer and longer hafts and used two handed, to give them a reach advantage and thereby help with both defense and attack. Hence halberds, poll-axes etc.

An axe is in other words a specialist weapon. A sword is more versatile. In a campaign where the enemy is likely to have heavy armor and / or shields, an axe may be a good choice. Against unarmored opponents, a spear or a sword might be better. Or even a staff!

Similarly, D&D stats to the contrary, a dagger is a very dangerous weapon. Not every knight carried a spear, an axe, or even a sword, but every knight always had a dagger. A typical medieval fighting dagger averaged a blade of 9 1/2". Many were considerably longer. At close quarters, this is as lethal as any sword or spear. More lethal than a gun. It's only disadvantage is in reach, which can be either a huge prblem or no problem at all depending on the situation... it's not rare at all for fights with longer weapons to devolve into hand to hand grappling, and that is where the dagger is handy.

. Choosing a battleaxe over a kukri as a primary weapon is just common sense.

Per above, that depends a hell of a lot on the environment, and the fighting style of the player. A very fast guy going after a single target, or someone fighting in very close quarters, would be better off with the kurkri. Try swinging an axe in your typical underground tunnel. In a big pitched battle facing opponents with shields or in armor, the axe makes more sense.

In this way, a slightly more realisitc system could allow for considerable nuance in different approaches to melee combat for different players. A wizard could choose a defensive weapon like a staff. A rogue, preferring to attack from ambush or from behind, could do quite well with a short sword or a dagger. Nothing wrong with a dagger! A fighter (ranger, barbarian, paladin etc.) could choose any number of specialist approaches.


DB

 

[J_D]

So in other words there was basically no real reason why you couldn't have done the entire thing all by yourself?

Yeah, a good reason. The character is a Wiz20/Clr10, which means she's a lousy ranger for tracking and even more useless as a rogue who checks traps and picks locks. Just because one character has a lot more levels than the other character in no way means that character can do everything better. There's a few
spells that might help a little in those matters, but that takes spell slots away from other things.

And in fact the only reason you didn't was because of a sense of "letting the other people have a go".

Well, besides the previous reason about not being a jack-of-all-trades, there's also the in-character reason of wanting her children to improve their skills through experience.

At a guess, you basically did nothing except talk and act as a heal engine for the entire adventure up till the final fight, right? Sounds like a lot of fun.

So for you fighting is the only fun in the game? I suppose all you're interested in playing is dungeon crawls to kill monsters and steal their stuff? To each his own, I suppose. I like that too, but I also like characters who have lives and interact with other characters and the setting.

And the bad guy avoided targeting your goons why? And you avoided targeting his goons why?

Because they were close enough to equality in power (actually, if I recall he was a bit more powerful than my Wiz/Clr) that they focused on each other as the main threat and left the others to handle each other. My Wiz/Clr certainly wasn't going to give the main enemy a free shot by targeting his minions who, by the way, were in close melee with her own children and she wasn't going to let them get caught in an area spell! The tactical situation was such that my Wiz/Clr concentrating on each other was the best thing.

I've seen this argument before, and it doesn't work without a serious impact on verisimilitude.

Verisimilitude, hmm? Do you think real-life adventurers always assembled teams of equally skilled people, with none more skilled in their specialties than the others were in theirs? Do you think it's believable for a spirit of egalitarianism to be an essential consideration to historical teams of explorers? I think that actaully braks verisimilitude rather than improves it. Do you agree with Brother MacLaren about how 'unbalanced' the battleaxe and longsword were in 2Ed and how good it is that this was fixed in 3Ed, despite the fact that a longsword is actually better than a battleaxe in combat? If you agree with him, and you think that exploration teams tried to get equally skilled people, then I think you really need help with the concept of verisimilitude.

No, what you've got is the lower level characters asking themselves "why are we even here?".
Because the lower level characters have useful skills that the higher level character doesn't. Higher level does not mean "better at everything."

Our group's problem with balance is that occasionally we'll have one group member look at his sheet and say one of two things:

a) "If I do this, the entire encounter's over. Any reason why I shouldn't?"

or

b) "I guess I may as well hang back and not take part - there's nothing I can do anyway"

Either of those is a problem. If there's intra party balance, neither of those situations occur.

Neither of those is a problem. Option (a) is something I'd expect anyone to do it they have the option without hurting others in their group. The faster an encounter ends, the fewer of the character's friends get hurt. Or do you prefer to stretch out fights as long as possible to get more rounds of combat? That would violate verisimilitude! Option (b) is also to be expected on occasion. When the rogue is working with the trap, do you expect a fighter to be helping him just to keep busy, or should he wait until the rogue is done? When you've got a group of different skills and niches, it should be obvious to anyone that there will be times when not everyone is going to have something to do at that moment. To insure everyone is busy at all times would violate verisimilitude.

The problems you speak of aren't problems when the people of differing power levels also have different niches they fill. I guess it might be a problem if you have a group all of one class, though, but who plays a group like that?

If a weapon's statistics in a game are significantly better than other weapons, then chances are that the expert combatants in the world KNOW this. Warfare and survival have never been about what is 'cool', they're about what works.

Sometimes, yes. Not all the time, though. Culture and tradition are also powerful influences on one's weapons of choice in the real world, and this should be reflected in the game. It's simply ridiculous -- it grossly violates verisimilitude and believability -- to reduce every adventurer regardless of culture or heritage to a totally pragmatic and analytical calculator of weapon efficiency.

To that end, playing an effective character is almost NEVER bad roleplaying unless he is making some sacrifices for his optimal choices. Sleeping in the street so he can buy an expensive sword is probably bad roleplaying unless your character is an ascetic. Choosing a battleaxe over a kukri as a primary weapon is just common sense.

Choosing a battleaxe over a kukri is not common sense if you're playing a Ghurka soldier. As a matter of pride and heritage, a Ghurka will not leave home without his kukri. A dwarf choosing a longsword over a battleaxe based on statistics and in disregard to centuries of culture and tradition is not common sense, unless you're specifically playing your dwarf as someone who consciously rejects tradition (which in most dwarven cultures pretty much means rejecting family and being an outcast).

J_D - for all your cries of "I'm a true roleplayer", you seem to be using non-role justifications for a lot of your characters choices and actions...

No, you're the one using non-role justifications -- game mechanical analysis of weapns and levels and power -- for your character's choices. I'm the one using in-game and in-character justifications -- a mother's care for her children, characters selecting weapons based on culture and tradition rather than statistical analysis -- for character decisions.

 

[J_D]

"Good roleplaying"? Good typecasting, maybe.

Maybe it is, and maybe it's stereotyping too. So what. Playing a character consistent with what his culture and background is supposed to be is still, in my opinion, good roleplaying.

I could just as well say my dwarf is from Al-Qadim and uses a scimitar.

You could, if you could come up with a good in-game reason why a dwarf is there and why he's taken up the Al-Qadim culture in place of his own and make that an interesting character concept. If you do that just because you'd rather wield a scimitar than a battleaxe because it gets better damage, then that's just poor roleplaying.

Although it was only 2 pts average damage, rolling d12s for damage is just, well, fun.

You really think rolling a piece of plastic of one shape to be more fun than rolling a piece of plastic of a different shape? You must be really desperate for fun to be stretching so! In terms of fun, rolling dice is rolling dice and the shape is irrelevant.

I honestly appreciate what 3E has done to make you not feel penalized for picking a "flavor" option.

It's a good idea if it can be done and keep verisimilitude, but there are limits. If one weapon is really clearly and demonstrably better than another, then it's just wrong to make them equal in order to engineer a false and artifical "balance" to avoid what you think is a penalty. It violates verisimilitude, and verisimilitude should always trump balance in game design.

Besides that, to be honest I did not feel penalized or punished at all when I played an axe-wielding dwarf in 2Ed. It didn't bother me at all that other weapons got greater damage. I made a choice, and I had fun with it. I think the idea that it is a penalty or punishment to be just plain bizarre.

 

[J_D]

... Superman can lift, Batman can pick locks. So long as Superman is as good at lifting the things he's called on to lift as Batman is to pick the locks he's called on to pick. This requires good reason, both in-game and out, for Superman not to just kick in every locked door,

That it isn't Superman's job isn't enough? That it's almost always better to gain entry quietly through picking a lock rather than making a big noise that will attract more trouble strains your believability? It's too much to ask for Superman and Batman to work together as a team rather than Superman trying to do everything including things that Batman is more suited for?

... though, and in larger groups stands a very real risk of everyone sitting around bored waiting for their turn to be Just The Right Guy to come up. (And say what you will. Being bored is not fun for anybody.)

Well, if one player is going to be "just the right man" for an hour or more I could see people getting bored. I've never heard of this happening, though, short of one person rudely trying to hog the spotlight while the DM and other players are unwilling for whatever reason to stop such poor behavior. I've certainly never seen it in any group I've been in. What I've seen more of is one or more players staying quiet and not participating of their own volition not because of boredom, but they just were quiet and low-key people in general, but that's a completely different thing. As long as they're having fun, that's fine.

So you need a good GM to cycle the challenges well, and a good group to make sure one player doesn't lord over the others or use his area of specialization out of turn.

Well, yes, that should go without saying. That's what all groups should aspire to being, and when they don't attempt that then it's plainly and simply a bad group. That's what Woodelf and I have been saying. It's not the system that causes the problems, it's the players! Trying to fix this by rigging the system with an artificial balance isn't really going to help much at all in the face of players like that. If you think that a game designer can fix a system to avoid problems that have roots with poor players, you're pursuing a false hope.

(Go to any more freeform system's boards, ask about their generic combat-type character, and hear all sorts of moaning about how the "munchkin" makes stealth and social types useless by fighting/threatening at every opportunity.) And while there are good GM's with good groups, there are far more self-centered "I'm a good role-player!" circle-jerks out there, I've learned it's better not to tempt fate.

You've put your finger on the problem right there. It's the players, not an unbalanced system, that's the problem! Despite what they claim, players who are self-centered enough to hog the spotlight and outshine the other players are not good roleplayers. You honestly think that those kinds of players are in the vast majority? That's just sad.

Gandalf and Conan are both Protagonists, most people who play D&D do so to be grandiose heroes, and it's disingenous to claim otherwise. We go see Spiderman to see Spiderman, not pedestrian #3 who gets a minute of screen time.

Conan and Spiderman are singular heroes in those movies. Having a single hero works fine in a movie. It doesn't work at all in a role-playing game unless there's only one player and the DM. Role-playing games with more than one player simply have to be ensembles, team efforts, if they're going to work and be enjoyable. The overall reason of fun is the same for both, but once you get to the details of the process of having fun a movie and an RPG are just different and you can't reasonably compare them.

Players feel very much the same way about their characters, no matter how much you and J_D may piously claim otherwise. The players you invoke are a tiny minority of the gaming public, and the majority of games should be developed for the majority of players. Simple, no?

Let me get this straight. You're telling me that the vast majority of games are ones where all the players are in competition with each other to see who can be the hero, who can get the most "screen time" and hog the most spotlight, rather than the players working together as a team to resolve the challenges and each having their moment but none trying to steal moments from someone else? Perhaps I've been lucky to avoid that in my 25 years of gaming, and may that luck continue to protect me from ever finding such a pathetic group of players in the future!

If you think that Woodelf and I are claiming to not want to play heroes, you've badly misinterpreted what we've been saying. Of course we want to play heroic characters, characters that contribute to the resolution of the adventure. What we're trying to say is that you don't need such fine-grained mechanical balance or artificially engineered equality of power between characters to do that! Choosing a weapon that does d8 damage instead of d12 does not prevent that character from being a hero! Having a group of one epic character and several low-to-middle level characters does not prevent the lower level characters from being heroes and having their moment! To claim otherwise is just plainly and simply incorrect. It's all in how the players role-play and work together as a team. Maybe as you claim none but a "tiny minority" are capable of working together like this, but if so then it's a very sad commentary on the average gamer.

And as as far as "majority of games should be developed for the majority of players" coupled with your low opinion of the majority of roleplayers, you think that games design should be targeted to account for the lowest common denominator? There are few things in life I loathe and detest more than pandering to the lowest common denominator or putting consideration for the lowest common denominator above that for the average or above-average people.

 

[J_D]

Woodelf, I think you and I are mostly in agreement, but...

In fact, i'll go one further: IME, the game system can actually help create this problem by trying to address it. When i've played in game systems like Over the Edge, where there is no pretense at balance whatsoever, no one has had a problem with unbalanced characters (and by "unbalanced" i mean the rough equivalent of Wonder Woman and the Wonder Twins in the same group). Take that same group, and have them play a balance-obsessed system like D&D3E, and suddenly the fact that clerics and bards, say, aren't perfectly balanced begins to get complaints. IMHO, when the system sets up an expectation of balance, players get their noses out of joint if the balance isn't perfect, while if the system just assumes that the players can play nice and have fun without worrying about balance, the players do so. IME, that's true of much of life, not just RPing--people live up to your expectations.

This might be true for some people, but I don't think it's generally true. People complained about balance before 3rd Edition was ever created, and the game designers responded to that and turned "balance" into the incessant and abused-to-the-point-of-madness mantra it has become today. I think that at least in part some people are bring their own philosophies of life to the gaming table (to be honest, I suppose we all do to some extent) and expecting to validate them through game play. Some people are highly committed to egalitarianism and artifically levelled playing fields as a philosophy of life and get offended if their game doesn't give it to them or validate their worldview. Maybe they can't handle dealing with problem players themselves, perhaps for fear of offending someone who's a friend outside of the game, and want the game system to be a magic bullet to take care of it for them. I want to stop there, though, because pursuing that line of thought will lead to a subject forbidden on these boards.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

You really think rolling a piece of plastic of one shape to be more fun than rolling a piece of plastic of a different shape? You must be really desperate for fun to be stretching so! In terms of fun, rolling dice is rolling dice and the shape is irrelevant.

Yes, I think the way-underused dodecahedron is a neat little thing, much the same way I don't like the way a d4 "rolls". IT'S A VANISHINGLY SMALL ASPECT OF MY GAME ENJOYMENT. But, at the same time, it was one of those quirky little things. I also enjoy the right music during the game, typed-up character sheets, character names that don't sound like high-scoring Scrabble words, and the word "Dodecahedron." Lots of little things that I happen to like - I somehow manage to derive some enjoyment from little and irrelevant things in the game - so feel free to insult me on these too if it makes you feel better. It wasn't a central point of my thesis, and furthermore the actual two points of average difference is not the issue. It could be one point difference or five points difference and I'd have the same concern.

What *is* the issue is the simple fact that one weapon is clearly and unambiguously better and would be known as such to experienced warriors. The longsword in 2E had the potential to inflict significantly more severe wounds to large monsters (such as giants, a common foe of dwarves). Now, there is a reason technologically sophisticated cultures didn't use clubs - clubs weren't as effective as spears or swords. Similarly, if the axe and warhammer were unquestionably less effective than swords, the reasonably intelligent dwarven race would either have abandoned them long ago or made a conscious choice to keep using these less effective weapons for cultural reasons. You posit the latter - dwarves knew these weapons were always equal or less effective to a longsword (and heavier IIRC) but chose to keep using them. In fact, you specifically state that swords were more effective than axes. Give me a few examples of cultures which deliberately chose to use clearly less-effective options, and give me a few of the reasons why they chose those options.

Vikings used axes (along with other weapons), which you assert are less effective than swords. Why? Maybe because axes are relatively easy to make, or because even battle-axes can be used in a pinch as wood axes.
The samurai did not adopt and improve the firearm in the 17th and 18th centuries. Why? Denial of power to the peasantry, combined with a limited amount of massed warfare in that time period.
Some Roman units used the sling rather than the bow. Why? Cheaper to make the weapon and ammunition.
Various European armies used the crossbow rather than the more rapid longbow. Why? Easier to train soldiers to use it.
The Pope's Swiss Guard use halberds. Why? Aha! We have finally found a force that uses a less-effective weapon for reasons of tradition and culture!
Still trying to find a justification for dwarves using hammers and axes if they are truly less effective... axes just for the reason of annoying tree-loving elves? Better, I think, to make the axes equally effective.

You could, if you could come up with a good in-game reason why a dwarf is there and why he's taken up the Al-Qadim culture in place of his own and

I was postulating that, for said dwarf, the Al-Qadim culture *was* his own. Or maybe he's from a nation where dwarves use flails, or a land where dwarves are known for using spiked gauntlets. The point is, I deny that "all dwarven cultures use axes and hammers" is a valid assumption. Playing your standard axe-wielding dwarf is fun, but you don't have to assume that there is only one dwarven culture in the world. (Although, yes, my discussion above refers to a specific axe-and-hammer-wielding dwarven culture.)

I do agree that "doing less damage" should not normally feel like a punishment or penalty if there really is a valid in-character reason for accepting such a disadvantage. That said, there are times when the difference is so huge that it really will feel that way - the entire party could die because you fail to drop the BBEG when you have your chance. Axe-vs-sword is relatively minor, but a much larger issue in 2E was the two-weapon style versus any other style. If you weren't using two weapons, you weren't keeping up with the rest of the party and you could quite well be the reason why the party loses a battle. So 2-weapon style became The Best Option and no intelligent PC did without it. Boring.

I'm NOT saying that all weapons or tactics should be equal. I haven't argued for making the club or short sword do more damage. But, my opinion is that the longsword should not be automatically superior to the axe, the flail, or the warhammer - all of these weapons continued to be used throughout the Middle Ages and so were presumably NOT visibly inferior to the sword. Granted, some had strengths against mail, plate, or shields, but I think 3E has done a very good job of balancing these options while keeping things simple. Better than 2E did. Likewise, as I said, 3.5E "balanced" Shocking Grasp against Magic Missile in a way that had not been done before. It also balanced various problem spells such that there are fewer "must have" or "useless" spells at any level, thus opening up a wider variety of spell selection in actual gameplay.

What I want from balance is the ability to use a variety of options without having to answer "Why is my PC, risking life and limb every day, settling for this less-effective option?" every time. Versimilitude is important, and given that, PCs aren't going to use weapons or armor that are clearly less effective without a very good reason. Culture often isn't enough. If a knight were risking his life every week in battle, and he learned of an Eastern sword that cut through ten armored bodies in a single swing (the fanboy's idea of the katana), he'd learn to use it, culture be damned.

 

[reanjr]

ok... lemme rephrase.
the game is as balanced as the dm and players allow it. player's have to be reasonable with their character generation and tweak it to suit the dm's game. That takes patience, understanding and a lot of good humor. I should know. heh. i'm still new at 3.5/3.0 rules and still get majorly confused at times. It is said by the game-makers themselves, the game can be played without the core books or dice or anything. (I personally don't know about that)



But in the end, we all have 2 work together to have a good time.

My group plays without the books. We do use dice though.

In the past, I've played games without books or dice. They're great fun, especially for one-shots.

 

[J_D]

What I originally said:

You really think rolling a piece of plastic of one shape to be more fun than rolling a piece of plastic of a different shape? You must be really desperate for fun to be stretching so! In terms of fun, rolling dice is rolling dice and the shape is irrelevant.

Then

... I somehow manage to derive some enjoyment from little and irrelevant things in the game - so feel free to insult me on these too if it makes you feel better.

I didn't insult you. There is nothing in what I said that could be construed as an insult if taken as written. A suggestion that you may be "desperate for fun" is not an insult, at least not where I come from. If you're reading something into it (that I didn't type) that makes it insulting to you then that's your issue, not mine. And this last sentence is not an insult either.

Similarly, if the axe and warhammer were unquestionably less effective than swords, the reasonably intelligent dwarven race would either have abandoned them long ago or made a conscious choice to keep using these less effective weapons for cultural reasons. You posit the latter - dwarves knew these weapons were always equal or less effective to a longsword (and heavier IIRC) but chose to keep using them. In fact, you specifically state that swords were more effective than axes. Give me a few examples of cultures which deliberately chose to use clearly less-effective options, and give me a few of the reasons why they chose those options.

Well, you've done some of the work for me below.

Vikings used axes (along with other weapons), which you assert are less effective than swords. Why? Maybe because axes are relatively easy to make, or because even battle-axes can be used in a pinch as wood axes.

Or maybe it was a cultural thing, because they certainly had the ability to make swords, and that they can also be used to chop trees seems to me a pathetic reason for sticking with an inferior weapon.

The samurai did not adopt and improve the firearm in the 17th and 18th centuries. Why? Denial of power to the peasantry, combined with a limited amount of massed warfare in that time period.

Denial of power to the peasantry is unquestionably a cultural decision. The fact that the samurai remained with their swords in preference to firearms was very strongly cultural. They were used some around shortly before and after beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate, but they made a conscious decision to reject firearms just like they did to eject all foreigners and foreign ideas and keep Japan in isolation until the 1850's. This decision was far more cultural than anything else, far more than the tactical or economical considerations.

The Pope's Swiss Guard use halberds. Why? Aha! We have finally found a force that uses a less-effective weapon for reasons of tradition and culture!

There's that. Then there are other examples, although these weren't very long-lived. There was a time when the Pope forbade the use of the crossbow except against non-Christians, because it was so deadly to the knights in armor. Again, when firearms became common, the Church banned rifled barrels because of the sound the spinning rounds made were believed to be evil spirits from Satan or something. Both of these were cultural prohibitions.

Still trying to find a justification for dwarves using hammers and axes if they are truly less effective... axes just for the reason of annoying tree-loving elves?

You're actually asking for justification for a cultural choice? You do realize that cultural choices aren't strictly logical or rational, don't you? You do realize that tradition is doing things for no other reason than that your father and grandfather did the same things, don't you? Maybe in the far past the tradition began for some practical or logical reason. Sometimes that reason still exists, but at least as often the reason is long obsolete and it's just cultural inertia that maintains the tradition despite any reason or logic. If reason or logic contraindicates the tradition, and it does so dramatically enough, then change will happen but traditions have an undeniable inertia to them. In real life, I myself tend to disdain tradition and prefer a more purely rational decision making process, but in an RPG game I recognize that in-game cultures will often be driven far more by tradition, and if I'm going to play a character from that culture I'll follow the traditions. Now, maybe dwarves don't have to have that axe-based fighting culture, and if you come up with a home-brew world in which they don't that's great, but in most published game worlds or fantasy literature the fact is that they do, and following that is simply good role-playing. In my opinion, violating such a cultural tradition in a extraordinary way requires an extraordinary in-game justification.

Better, I think, to make the axes equally effective.

If you can make a case that real axes are equally effective to real swords, then sure. My own preference is that the game mechanics for mundane things like this should echo the real life characteristics as closely as possible within the limits of a system simple enough to play. We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether verisimilitude or balance is more important.

I do agree that "doing less damage" should not normally feel like a punishment or penalty if there really is a valid in-character reason for accepting such a disadvantage.

In my opinion, a culture that is described in game books is a sufficiently valid in-character reason.

But, my opinion is that the longsword should not be automatically superior to the axe, the flail, or the warhammer - all of these weapons continued to be used throughout the Middle Ages and so were presumably NOT visibly inferior to the sword.

In my opinion, that all of these weapons continued to be used is by itself not sufficient justification to conclude that they were equally effective weapons. You need a physics or mechanical ananlysis of the weapons to conclude this.

Versimilitude is important, and given that, PCs aren't going to use weapons or armor that are clearly less effective without a very good reason. Culture often isn't enough.

True, culture isn't an all-powerful force that blocks all improvement. If improvements are dramatic enough, then over time changes will happen. That said, I don't think you credit culture enough. I think it has more power than you are willing to admit.