Trailblazer - List of Changes

[GlassJaw]

For me, the thing about weapon weights is not about encumbrance. It is about knowledge and trust in the game designer. If they do not bother to learn about the weapons in their game, what else did they not bother to learn about? If they don't realize that a twenty pound greatsword is frankly too heavy and has never existed, does that mean they glossed over other things too?

Understood, but we didn't touch encumbrance or weapon weights for two reasons:

1. In the numerous discussions on the problems of 3.5, it wasn't really identified as a primary concern.

2. Trailblazer is not a simulationist ruleset. TB doesn't care whether or not the greatsword ever existed, only that it can lay down some serious hurt.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

But weapon weights are as abstract a measure of "weight" as hit points are an abstract measure of health.

Not an area I want simulationist precision. They could call it "bulk points" and it would mean the same, an arbitrary number meant to approximate heft, mass, and awkwardness.

 

[sjmiller]

Understood, but we didn't touch encumbrance or weapon weights for two reasons:

1. In the numerous discussions on the problems of 3.5, it wasn't really identified as a primary concern.

2. Trailblazer is not a simulationist ruleset. TB doesn't care whether or not the greatsword ever existed, only that it can lay down some serious hurt.

That's perfectly understandable and reasonable. If a majority of people did not find it a problem I can understand why you chose not to deal with it.

But weapon weights are as abstract a measure of "weight" as hit points are an abstract measure of health.

Hit points are described as an abstract measurement, whereas weapon weights are described as the actual weight of the weapon. So the designers did not think of them as the same or they would have described the weights as an abstract as well.

Not an area I want simulationist precision. They could call it "bulk points" and it would mean the same, an arbitrary number meant to approximate heft, mass, and awkwardness.

But, sadly, they are not described as an approximation of heft, mass, and awkwardness. If they had been, and been given a name like "bulk points" or something similar, that would be different. Their numbers are arbitrary, but I think it is out of cluelessness more then anything.

I am not what you would call a "simulationist" by any stretch of the imagination. Ask anyone who has played with me, they will tell you. I have, however, written quite a few papers on the subject of the changes in melee weapons over the centuries. So, as you can imagine, this is one of my pet peeves about RPGs in general.

 

[pogre]

Helpful list - thank you.

Is it possible to get a status update on the monster book?

 

[GlassJaw]

Is it possible to get a status update on the monster book?

It is possible...




I'm close to passing off about 80% of the book to Wulf to start layout (I'm putting the final tweaks on a couple of sections). I just moved so the past couple of weeks have been nuts for me but I'm getting back on track now.

After that, I'll be working on some monster advancement stuff, creating the patronage monsters, and some custom stuff. The last step will of course be final editing.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Hit points are described as an abstract measurement, whereas weapon weights are described as the actual weight of the weapon.

I don't have it in front of me, it might have been in a FAQ for that matter or at a GenCon question answer session. But the designers have in the past stated precisely that they gave the numbers they did to simulate cumbersomeness as well as actual weight.