Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 4719174" data-attributes="member: 12731">If you make reach any good in a rpg players will only want to use reach weapons. So it's much more a question of &quot;what do we want in our game?&quot; and &quot;does reach add to the fun or does it just become messy?&quot; than &quot;how do we make our game reflect reality?&quot;.Besides, if reach really was that good, why didn't we see people only using reach weapons in history?(And if the answer is &quot;mostly because people are lazy and can't be bothered to carry around unwieldy sticks&quot; or &quot;because people are optimists and don't think they'll get into a fight until its too late to go fetch your reach weapon&quot; then we'll simply have to accept our fantasy game can't be like reality.Simply because adventurers never tire and they endure any hardships if that gives them even the slightest attack bonus. And their mindset is that trouble will come, it's only a matter of when.So making reach weapons better and trying to balance that with encumbrance, cost, social penalties or general unwieldiness simply doesn't work. You really then have to make these weapons less good.Myself, I'm more and more inclined to give all weapons equal stats. This allows players to select their weaponry purely based on looks. It doesn't penalize a thief for wanting slim knives or a barbarian for wanting an oversized and completely ridiculous two-handed maul or a charismatic history professor from wanting a stupid whip. It allows the game to handle any kind of archetype, any kind of role model from movies or novels.And it really is the only way to ever get rid of the endless &quot;which weapon is truly the best&quot; discussions. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 4719174, member: 12731"] If you make reach any good in a rpg players will only want to use reach weapons. So it's much more a question of "what do we want in our game?" and "does reach add to the fun or does it just become messy?" than "how do we make our game reflect reality?". Besides, if reach really was that good, why didn't we see people only using reach weapons in history? (And if the answer is "mostly because people are lazy and can't be bothered to carry around unwieldy sticks" or "because people are optimists and don't think they'll get into a fight until its too late to go fetch your reach weapon" then we'll simply have to accept our fantasy game can't be like reality. Simply because adventurers never tire and they endure any hardships if that gives them even the slightest attack bonus. And their mindset is that trouble will come, it's only a matter of when. So making reach weapons better and trying to balance that with encumbrance, cost, social penalties or general unwieldiness simply doesn't work. You really then have to make these weapons [I]less good[/I]. [I]Myself, I'm more and more inclined to give all weapons equal stats.[/I] This allows players to select their weaponry purely based on looks. It doesn't penalize a thief for wanting slim knives or a barbarian for wanting an oversized and completely ridiculous two-handed maul or a charismatic history professor from wanting a stupid whip. It allows the game to handle any kind of archetype, any kind of role model from movies or novels. And it really is the only way to ever get rid of the endless "which weapon is truly the best" discussions. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification