[VIEW FFRP FORUMS]
The RPG Consortium Free Form Roleplaying Forums Archives
Forums > RPGC Battlefield > Weapons training, closed rp, ooc open to all. (OOC/Recruitment)

Caelin
01/29/2006 3:38 AM

Hello to everyone interested.

This is where you may ask your questions during this weapons tutorial, where we will start with the good oldfashioned steel, namely the sword. This OOC thread will be there for the sole reason of answering your questions.

I have found a fellow instructor, who will announce himself in here shortly.
This tutorial is going to be highly realistic and will be so for two good reasons:

* To show that realism is actually more fun to all players, instead of god-like characters.
* To learn the finer points of handling your weapons in a realistic way.

I think it is rather obvious that we will see nobody carrying a ton of arms with him, nor will they suddenly throw fireballs out of nowhere to their opponent or be able to function normally once being hit.

A first thing to pay attention to in swordsplay, is the choice of your blade. Each blade has their advantages and limitations. I'll name a few below.

A single edged blade (like a scimitar or sabre for instance) has the disadvantage that you'd have to twist your wrist during movement, to cut in both directions. This blade is mainly used to carve or cut from the back of a horse.

A double edged blade (like the gladius or arming sword) generally has a wider blade, designed to carve or pierce through armor. This is the preferred weapon for close combat, as normally is the case on a large battlefield.

The two-hander swords (like the bastard sword and the claymore) were originally designed to fight horsemen with. The length of the weapon allows you to slash at the rider, without getting trampled on by the horse. ;)

Last example, the duelling blade (like the rapier and often used in combination with a poniard or main gauche) with it's long thin blade is designed to parry and totally unsuited to block a cutting blade. The category well describes it's use, for duels.

All these are things to remember when choosing your blade, but another would be the setting. For instance, in a medieval setting (armored suits, etc) you'd be a fool to pick a rapier, as this is not designed for the timeperiod, nor suited to pierce armor. In the hands of an expert however, even this weapon can be effective against an armored opponent. You would of course need to be agile and have a very good stamina.

Damien
01/29/2006 3:48 AM

Hey kids. Caelin employed me to help with the combat demonstrations. I'll just add a few things to Caelin's above comments.


*-- Two-hand swords are not necessarily over-large. Rather, the 'handedness' of the sword directly reflects its balance and particulars. Some single-hand swords can be longer than two-hand swords, even.

*-- Because of the above, and for many other reasons, it's generally a good idea, for the sake of verisimilitude and ease of writing, to get a handle on exactly what kind of weapon you want to use. Sites like Museum Replicas Limited and Albion Armorers offer pictures of excellent weaponry with all of their relevant statistics (like overall length and blade length), which will help you get a 'mental feel' for how a weapon handles or what it can and cannot do. A tiny bit of research can go a long way as well (for example, to learn that an early-period rapier would actually be longer than the vast majority of two-hand swords).

*-- Armour is -designed- to protect a person from being injured. If your opponent is wearing armour, your attacks (both tactically and descriptively) should take that into account. Simply cutting your opponent's arm, despite the fact that he's wearing mail on them, is bad form.

Pillage
01/30/2006 3:04 AM

Great, I've been meaning to work on my writing style. All the better if someone of greater knowledge than I can instruct me on the art of action RPing. Mind if I jump into the thread?

Caelin
01/30/2006 9:51 AM

In this one Pillage, not at all, but this one is for questions only, the RP thread itself however is closed for now, as Damien and I will use it to demonstrate the finer points of armed combat.

Once we're far enough and have gathered some more souls, I will open a separate thread for those that wish to practise what they have learned in here. Welcome to weapons academy 101. :)

Thanis
01/31/2006 8:11 PM

Count me in (If you will). I need so teachin'!

lonewolfe619
01/31/2006 10:08 PM

I'll definitely be watching this at least. It never hurts to pick up some pointers.

[Edited by lonewolfe619 on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:09 PM]

Caelin
02/02/2006 1:29 PM

Welcome aboard folks. :)

Damien, how about replying to the first post in the RP to start this thing off? I think we'll pick up more people along the way.

Damien
02/02/2006 1:32 PM

I'll be doing that today, yeah. I didn't enough notice that you'd filled out the RP part of the thread until last night, though - in my defense.

Tamachi
02/02/2006 9:20 PM

I'll be watchign this as well. I'm always at a bit of a loss when it comes to player versus player battles, so hopefully this will help...

Lunitari0
02/04/2006 1:39 PM

I'll be watching this thread too, at least. Though I usually take Mages. or people with some type of magic, it'll be good to learn better battling skills all around.

Caelin
02/04/2006 3:30 PM

Great to have you all aboard. :)

Should there be any questions in regards to our movements and descriptions in the RP thread, please ask and we'll try and answer those.

Lunar_Rising
02/05/2006 2:15 AM

I would like to watch as well, and possibly participate. Maybe take part in a fight with one of my 3 characters. ^^ If that is ok mind you >_<;

[Edited by Lunar_Rising on Sunday, February 5, 2006 2:18 AM]

Caelin
02/05/2006 12:38 PM

IC practising threads will be opened soon, welcome aboard Rising moon. :)

Damien
02/05/2006 1:07 PM

Something to note while it's on my mind:


Don't be ashamed of short posts. Especially a little into a fight it can become hard to describe more than a couple of actions and maybe a spoken insult or two. Don't try to over-describe, otherwise your post looks like a lot of jargon. At the same time, one-sentence attacks are generally unacceptable. Put some thought into it, and if it still comes off as only a paragraph - don't worry about it.


Also, there are at least two accepted ways to handle turn-based combat, and though Caelin and I didn't - you should try to discuss this with your opponent before fighting. The first style is to only describe a single action and allow your opponent to respond.

Example:
Combatant 1 -- I swing my sword at your arm
Combatant 2 -- I lean away from the blow and swing my own sword at your leg


This is the type Caelin and I are engaging in right now (though that could change if he wants).

The other type is where you describe a full set of actions and your opponent is free to 'interrupt' your actions at any point.

Example:

Combatant 1 -- I swing my sword at your arm, and lash out with my foot at your knee as you slip away from the blow, landing a blow and bringing you to your knees, I swing my blade at your neck.

Combatant 2 -- I raise my leg, catching your kick behind my calf and use the leverage to thrust you backward, swinging my sword at your chest.


Note how Combatant 2 actually responded to an earlier action, thus nullifying later actions. This type of combat allows for more description and usually allows a fight to go quicker, as you're able to get down an entire series of movements in one post.


(Of course, those examples were extremely simplistic, but were only meant to demonstrate the point, not to give a lesson on the craft of detailed writing.)

Caelin
03/14/2006 12:07 AM

As Damien is currently in the middle of moving we will resume when he is settled in. Please have patience and bear with us.

Unbeliever
03/14/2006 1:16 AM

I've been keeping an eye on this and would like to throw my name in when you open the practice thread. I think the difficulty in describing player vs. player battles is part of the reason my FFRP characters tend to be less-skilled fighters than most. Gives me an easy out.

And very well done thus far.

Caelin
03/14/2006 10:07 AM

Thanks unbeliever and we'd love to have you with us as soon as the practice runs start.

Sway_Greenwitch
04/05/2006 2:05 PM

I've been watching from the sidelines for some time now. I'd also like to participate in this thread, If I may?

Caelin
04/06/2006 11:21 AM

Anyone is welcome to participate in the ooc and in the practice-threads, once we have opened the latter. :)

Sway_Greenwitch
04/06/2006 11:28 AM


Example:

Combatant 1 -- I swing my sword at your arm, and lash out with my foot at your knee as you slip away from the blow, landing a blow and bringing you to your knees, I swing my blade at your neck.


I actually have a question or two about this form.

I didn't think we could assume that we know what the other Combatant's reaction would be to our attack on them during a fight/battle/spar.

Isn't it bad form to fill in the reaction of the other character to our own attack?
Isn't that controlling the other character ?

I hope these questions aren't too silly...

Caelin
04/10/2006 10:11 AM

This is an example of a post as could be used amongst people that play eachother frequently, or have discussed this through IM or such.

In true free form, you are generally not allowed to state hits, of any kind, unless with approval of the opponent.

So you are correct, sway. :)

Sway_Greenwitch
04/18/2006 8:11 AM


This is an example of a post as could be used amongst people that play eachother frequently, or have discussed this through IM or such.

In true free form, you are generally not allowed to state hits, of any kind, unless with approval of the opponent.

So you are correct, sway. :)


Thank you for clearing that up for me Caelin. :)

mrtactical
04/30/2006 7:47 PM

This thread is very well done! I can't wait for the actual participating venues to open.

Caelin
05/30/2006 9:46 AM

Sorry for the late reply, mrtactical and thanks for the kind words. :)

Let me see whether I can pry my collegue to start posting again. :)

Marcus_Nelson
08/08/2006 11:48 AM

I like to, if I may, expand a little on what was mentioned earlier. While the sword is a formidable weapon in any expert's hands, IRL it was a rather rare weapon, seen only in the hands of nobles and elite units, as well as often being thought of as a weapon of last resort. The blade has a few common weaknessess across the board, the largest one being reach. Even a massive two-handed blade has a woefully short reach in comparison to the more common weapons of the medival and reissance era.

I shall now embark on the virtues of the Spear family.

All Spears: All spears are LETHAL when set against a charge of horsemen, or even troops. In large numbers, they can form a 'wall of points' that is almost impossible to move against. (Roman Phalanx anyone?)

Half-Spears: These were the most typical militia/conscript weapon, pretty much the equivalent of a sharpened stick. Against a unarmored or lightly armored opponent it could offer an excellent reach of about a meter and a half with a good lunge, as well as being able to blugeon someone with the blunt end if needed. A fragile weapon, it was mostly used because it was cheap as all hell.

Full Spears: This is the sort of thing you see on city guards and full time soldiers. Twice as long as the half spear, these versions bear a metal tip, often needle sharp. With a massive reach of nearly two meters it was very difficult for an opponent to get close enough to harm the spearman. The point was usually sharp enough to punch through armor with a good hit, though suffered under the problem of occasionally getting stuck in an opponent. (Thats when they draw a sword). Unlike a half-spear, the full spear is was too long to effectivly use the blunt end to blugeon an opponent, its simply to unweildy for that.

Bladed Spear: About the size of a full spear, the bladed one lives up to its name with a curved blade instead of a tip at its head. For all intents and purposes, it functions much like a full spear, but is far more effective agaist lightly armored foes than its contemporary, as it does not require a direct hit to rend flesh. Unfortunatly, it is nearly impossible for this breed to penetrate plate armor of any type, least not without considerable momentum behind it.

Pike: The pike is HUGE, and only ever used in large groups or military formations, its simply too big to weild without resting it on someone elses shoulders. The pike ranged from being four meters to as many as six. A formation of pikes was the bane of the ancient world, and if they were equipt with arrow sheilds, nearly invulnerable. The biggest weakness of the formation was its inability to move rapidly, if at all, when set up.

Argons: Argons are scary for a simply reason. About the size of a half-spear, but balanced for throwing, the argon is coated with iron about halfway down its shaft and bears a serated bladed needle point. Designed for use by shock troops, the Argon can punch through armor like paper and flesh like hot pitch through butter when thrown properly and its nigh-unto impossible to remove without doing more damage. The iron shaft prevents it from even being cut to a more managable size. The biggest downside to an arogn is its incredible weight. A soldier would have to be immesly strong to weild it properly.

Javalin: Basically a long and sharp wooden stick balanced for throwing, it could butcher lightly armored foes from a distance, but wasn't much use against armor.

Whew...long post...There are more variants (mounted combat ones) but I am not quite as familiar with those as I'd like to be

Damien
08/08/2006 3:55 PM

Sorry for not posting, Caelin. I was on haitus for a long time, lost interest, and just haven't had time or mental focus to get back into it.



While the sword is a formidable weapon in any expert's hands, IRL it was a rather rare weapon


No, it wasn't. This is a myth. The sword was actually rather common throughout the entire medieval period. It was only "rare" in the earliest portions, which bordered on the Great Migrations era.



as well as often being thought of as a weapon of last resort.


[i]Wrongly[/i] thought of.





Even a massive two-handed blade has a woefully short reach in comparison to the more common weapons of the medival and reissance era.


Not really. A good majority of 'common' weapons are not excessively long, especially during the High Medieval and Early Medieval periods. The simple spear being the notable exception. Other 'common' weapons like the bardiche were often shorter than is often assumed.

Not to mention that two-hand swords can be used quite well with both hands on the hilt, putting the majority of the sword -forward- of you. On the other end of the spectrum, polearms require a grip more towards the center of the weapon, which drastically reduces their -actual- reach. Keeping in mind that polearms cannot be effectively used by gripping them too low on the haft.





All Spears: All spears are LETHAL when set against a charge of horsemen, or even troops. In large numbers, they can form a 'wall of points' that is almost impossible to move against. (Roman Phalanx anyone?)


Wrong on all counts except the first. But I'll point out that spears are weapons. Of course they're lethal. And I'll also point out that it REQUIRES a dedicated, well-drilled infantry to do properly. Without that dedication and intense training, a mob of men with spears is just a mob of men with spears and they will be ridden down by cavalry.

Furthermore, I'll point out that the Romans did not have a strong tradition of a spear phalanx. That was the Greeks. And the Greeks never faced seriously effective cavalry - their tactics were arranged against other infantry formations. And the Romans were cut to pieces by 'Barbarian' cavalry, which prompted the development of Roman cavalry to keep 'Barbarian' cavalry at bay while the infantry did its job.

So. . . yeah.





Half-Spears


You play too much D&D. There's no such thing as a 'half-spear.'



These were the most typical militia/conscript weapon, pretty much the equivalent of a sharpened stick. Against a unarmored or lightly armored opponent it could offer an excellent reach of about a meter and a half with a good lunge, as well as being able to blugeon someone with the blunt end if needed. A fragile weapon, it was mostly used because it was cheap as all hell.


More wrongness.

First of all, your typical spear during -any- period, in most areas, was far more than a sharpened stick. They also had vastly different sizes, which you fail to note. Also, you don't lunge out with a spear like you may see in Chinese action flicks. You keep it in, short - hard thrusts. Otherwise you over-extend and end up losing it, or losing control of it.

Also, I would suggest not making generalities about the 'typical' weapon of militias and conscripts, as that changed from century to century and place to place. Italian militia were often armed with crossbows. And toward the later Medieval period, such as the era of the Hundred Years War, we find plenty of written evidence (mostly decrees on the arming of troops) requiring militia and levy soldiers to have swords or large knives.

As well, spears are not fragile. They're actually quite sturdy. To call them fragile we must also call swords, polearms in general, and shields 'fragile.'





Full Spears


Also no such thing.





This is the sort of thing you see on city guards and full time soldiers.


I don't often see city guards and full time soldiers with spears, these days. You're not even making sense here from a medieval standpoint. You're drawing some absurd distinction between 'half-spears' and 'full spears' which does not actually exist.

If you're referring to 'longspears' - pikes - with your silly little "full spear" thing, then you're wrong. Those were a very specific weapon with a very specific use. And no 'city guard' or full-time soldier that was not a pikeman would be stupid enough to carry one.




Twice as long as the half spear, these versions bear a metal tip, often needle sharp.


All spears have metal tips. All spears are sharp. Never 'needle' sharp - as that would be pretty fuckin' useless and weak. And this 'twice as long as a half-spear' thing means nothing because there's no such thing as a half-spear, nor a full spear.



With a massive reach of nearly two meters it was very difficult for an opponent to get close enough to harm the spearman.


You're talking about a pike. And it's only difficult if the pikeman is standing in a pack of pikeman. By himself, the guy is screwed because his weapon is entirely unwieldy.




The point was usually sharp enough to punch through armor with a good hit


Wrong. Spears of any type were not functional at thrusting through armour. Their points were not of the appropriate cross-section and were more likely to scrape away or deform. Sharpness has nothing to do with it. A razor blade is sharp - and it won't cut armour. The weapon isn't sturdy enough, is not designed for it, and does not have the proper distribution of weight to do it.

A pollax can damage armour. A spear cannot. Even a pike.




hough suffered under the problem of occasionally getting stuck in an opponent. (Thats when they draw a sword).


No, they didn't. Pikemen generally drew a sword, if they had one, only when the enemy closed on them. This goes back to their weapon being unwieldy. You can't -wield- it as a weapon. It's intended to simply be held. If someone gets in close, your only option is to drop it and fight with a secondary weapon. Hence the reason targetiers were so successful, and the reason that pike formations were virtually always protected in their ranks by halberdiers.




Bladed Spear


Also no such thing. Though maybe you could get away with 'hewing spear.'



About the size of a full spear


No. 'Hewing' spears are an older design in the 7-9 foot range. That would be the size of about your 'half-spear' not the size of a pike.




the bladed one lives up to its name with a curved blade instead of a tip at its head.


First of all, no. The 'hewing' spear was leaf-shaped. The weapon YOU are referring to is a form of halberd known as a glaive. Or in Japan as a naginata.





For all intents and purposes, it functions much like a full spear


Not in the least. A glaive is not even a kind of spear. It's a kind of axe.




as it does not require a direct hit to rend flesh.


All weapons require a direct hit to rend flesh. How else will it do it? The power of its awesomeness?



Unfortunatly, it is nearly impossible for this breed to penetrate plate armor of any type, least not without considerable momentum behind it.


It doesn't penetrate plate at all. Doesn't matter how much momentum is behind it. It would break or deform before even coming close to damaging plate.



Pike: The pike is HUGE, and only ever used in large groups or military formations, its simply too big to weild without resting it on someone elses shoulders.


No such weapon exists. Period.



arrow sheilds


Also no such thing.




Argons: Argons are scary for a simply reason. About the size of a half-spear, but balanced for throwing


Most spears are balanced for throwing. There's also no such thing as an 'Argon.'




the argon is coated with iron about halfway down its shaft and bears a serated bladed needle point.


Nothing is 'coated' with iron. Either the entire head is iron, or it has langets. And the weapon you're referring to (although the use of 'needle point' is, again, stupidly absurd) is Celtic or Gallic in origin - a form of javelin. And. . .




can punch through armor like paper and flesh like hot pitch through butter when thrown properly


No, it can't. No thrown weapon in the ancient or medieval world can make such a boast.




The biggest downside to an arogn is its incredible weight. A soldier would have to be immesly strong to weild it properly.


Not really. Even if half of the thing's length were iron, it would not be 'incredibly heavy.' Basic physics.




Javalin: Basically a long and sharp wooden stick balanced for throwing, it could butcher lightly armored foes from a distance, but wasn't much use against armor.


Like spears, javelins had metal points in most of the world, especially in the late Ancient period, up through the Migrations and Medieval period. Only in technologically backwards places, or very ancient places, was the javelin lacking in a metal point.
Javelins were essentially slightly shorter (and not by much) spears.



Whew...long post...There are more variants (mounted combat ones) but I am not quite as familiar with those as I'd like to be


By the looks of it, you're only familiar with anything from what you've read in Stone's Glossary of Arms, and various D&D books. Try again.

darknightrei
08/10/2006 10:36 AM

:This has been Damien's lesson in both weaponry and completely mauling psudointellectual people...thank you: :) (makes me proud when someone actually knows what the hell their talking about.)

Anyways, this goes back to the "Naginata" statement, could you possibly post some feudal Japanese weaponry. Swords (Katana, No-Dachi, etc.), Weapons that weren't meant to be weapons(Kamas, Nunchaku, etc.), and polearm type weapons (Naginata, Nagamaki, etc.). I'd appreciate it.

Damien
08/10/2006 12:08 PM


Anyways, this goes back to the "Naginata" statement, could you possibly post some feudal Japanese weaponry. Swords (Katana, No-Dachi, etc.), Weapons that weren't meant to be weapons(Kamas, Nunchaku, etc.), and polearm type weapons (Naginata, Nagamaki, etc.). I'd appreciate it.


'Post' them, meaning what? Talk about them - or did you want to see them being used in the RP demonstration (which I'm not actually going to be participating in right now - just not in the 'mental place' to do so)?

darknightrei
08/11/2006 2:07 PM


'Post' them, meaning what?


Talk about them. Srry, should have specified.

Damien
08/11/2006 3:38 PM

Hm. Well. . . there's nothing specifically interesting about Japanese weapons. For the most part, they look very akin to their European counterparts, and simply have different names.

For instance, their spears would be called 'yari.' And there's a hundred variations on that depending on shape and size; kama yari, magari yari, kagi yari, fukuro yari. . . etc. These terms all amount to 'X type of spear.' The magari yari, for instance, resembles a European ranseur very closely.

The naginata was just a Japanese glaive. That would be a type of halberd. In Europe it resembled a kitchen knife mounted on a pole. In Japan it was curved and varied in size - but the blade resembled that of the katana or wakizashi -- similar blade profiles, if different sizes.

The nagamaki was a hybrid of sword and polearm. It's most notable 'television' appearance was in the Lord of the Rings films. The hugantic swords carried by the Elves at Helm's Deep and in the Prologue were a stylized form of nagamaki. Again, they varied in exact dimensions, but are generally categorized by a handle that is near to equal in length with the blade, and a blade that's curved in the typical fashion (like with a katana).

Then there's the bo - which is just a Japanese version of the European staff or quarterstaff.

The nunchaku is similar (vaguely) to a form of European flail, and both are derived from the same tool (a graining flail). Two bars connected by a short chain. This weapon was actually more popular in China than it was in Japan, despite the commonality in modern minds of 'ninja' with nunchaku.

Bisen-to was a variation on the Chinese Dao/Guan-Dao. It resembles a naginata, but with a heavier, wider blade and, generally, a slightly shorter haft.

The sai was a disarming and bludgeoning tool. Despite what people are led to believe by Elektra and the Ninja Turtles cartoon, sai were never sharp. The sai was comprised of three hexagonal or round (in cross-section) iron bars. The center one was longest, while the outer two were shorter and often heavily curved. The outer prongs were used for disarming, while the center prong was used for clubbing and hard thrusts (while the point wasn't sharp, a thrust from a blunt piece of metal still hurts like hell). The end of the handle was also often used for jabs.

The jitte is almost exactly like the sai; the only noteworthy difference being that it only has one outer prong, rather than two.

Uh. . then there's the tonfa, which is the Feudal Japanese ancestor of the modern policeman's nightstick. They look the same and are used in the same way.

The tetsubo is a club, often shod with iron or brass/bronze.

Yumi is a 'catch-all' word for bows. The most obviously-Japanese one is an asymmetrical bow, the upper arm being significantly longer than the lower arm.

Hmm. . . that's all that immediately comes to mind. There's certainly more, but I'm working from memory here.

It's worth noting that many Japanese 'weapons' aren't weapons in any true sense. Popular culture often ascribes to the belief that all things Eastern are super-weapons. They're not. And many Eastern weapons aren't functional in anything but martial arts -sports-. I.E. you don't bring them to a real fight, you bring them to a Bruce Lee movie. Many 'chain' weapons fall into this category.

darknightrei
08/12/2006 6:30 AM

Well done, and thank you...


It's worth noting that many Japanese 'weapons' aren't weapons in any true sense. Popular culture often ascribes to the belief that all things Eastern are super-weapons. They're not. And many Eastern weapons aren't functional in anything but martial arts -sports-. I.E. you don't bring them to a real fight, you bring them to a Bruce Lee movie. Many 'chain' weapons fall into this category.

Very much agreed and noone seems to realize that alot of weapons were simply "ritualistic", so to speak. Useless, but looked amazing when going through the motions. You definitely would never see a kunai chain or Kusari-Kama (Spelling?) on the battlefront. So, how'd you learn all this? Studies or alot of Googling? lol

Damien
08/12/2006 3:16 PM

Kusari-gama. Yet another 'weapon' only used because common people weren't allowed to have anything else. Of course, the kusari-gama was eventually banned outright as well. It's certainly deadly, but fairly useless in real combat.



So, how'd you learn all this? Studies or alot of Googling? lol


I've been studying weaponry, armour, and military history of the Ancient and Medieval World for over a decade now.

Desner_Val
09/06/2006 1:47 PM

I would love to participate in the actuall training thread. I believe i can bring a few good points into it. I have a decent amount of exp with armed combat in rp. Thus far i believe that this thread has done an exceptional job explaining. I did enjoy reading the post by damien i think it was, totally blowing someone elses ideas of the "Half pike, full pike" nonesense away. But i do have one Negative thing to say about the post. I did not quite read all of the post in which he was reffering to but the Arrow Shield is such a thing. The romans developed a shield specifically for deflecting arrows, It was slightly lighter and more angled. But it was not actually in use for very long. It was more of a idea brought into play for a few years. When i saw that i knew it was wrong, so i had to do a slight amount of research to prove my theory before posting it lol.


"Desner"

OneManArmy
09/14/2006 2:13 PM

Hi. I'm pretty new to the whole RP thing but I have some RP experience.

I have a question to you guy who seems to be pretty skilled in the arts of RP combat. Unless you have the approval of you're opponent, can you hurt him? When I have played most of the combat has been like.

I swing my sword and my opponent blocks it. Then he swings and I evade it. Attack and block, attack and block, attack and block, and so on. I think it works OK but it gets pretty boring after a while.

teutonicknight
09/14/2006 2:43 PM

It mostly depends on your and the other's writing abilities. It generally is common courtesy to not declare "I hit you". Courtesy states that you allow your opponent to state if they get hit or not. A good writer will "allow" themselves to be hit by a well-reasoned attack.

It mostly boils down to ego, I suppose. Do you feel so superiour that you feel no one should ever be able to hit you? Or do you feel so superiour that no one should be able to block one of your moves?

Good writing is a give-and-take process. You can't win 'em all, as they say. (even though UB does seem to be able to lose 'em all ;) )

OneManArmy
09/14/2006 2:46 PM

OK thanks.

I'm new here, joined today, UB=Unbeliever?

teutonicknight
09/14/2006 4:08 PM


I'm new here, joined today, UB=Unbeliever?

Yes, that's correct.

Or, you could just call him something synonymous with "dead guy". IE: corpse.

OneManArmy
09/15/2006 4:43 AM


[Posted By teutonicknight on 09.14.2006 4:08 PM]


I'm new here, joined today, UB=Unbeliever?

Yes, that's correct.

Or, you could just call him something synonymous with "dead guy". IE: corpse.


lol
Maybe later. I think it's bad style to just pop up and start to call people there nick names.

darknightrei
09/15/2006 2:07 PM

For a good look at PVP combat, check out "FACE ME!!!" in this section of the forum

teutonicknight
09/15/2006 2:11 PM

Or you could also look at "Duel with Unbeliever", if you care to dredge out long-ago topics.

Incidentally, I'm in both . . .

renegadeirishman
09/17/2006 5:11 PM

wasn't the roman Pilum similar to the weapon the "argon" that marcus was describing.

The RPG Consortium - http://www.rpgconsortium.com