Why are Gun based RPGs so much more rare then the sword rpg's

[JarlFrank]

The discussion was in part about what would enable you to penetrate armor with a melee weapon.

The appropriate melee weapon developed for that purpose.

In Lalaland where every fight is a regulated duel maybe.

In the real world where the result of different metal items hitting each other is determined by the laws of physics.

 

[Sacred82]

The discussion was in part about what would enable you to penetrate armor with a melee weapon.

The appropriate melee weapon developed for that purpose.

In Lalaland where every fight is a regulated duel maybe.

In the real world where the result of different metal items hitting each other is determined by the laws of physics.

The laws of lalaphysics that absolutely prohibit a sharpened blade brought down with whatever amount of force to break through interlocking small rings of metal, let alone pass on any energy to the human being inside that armor.

Aight, retard levels are over 9000 again. Waiting for Sykar to answer my question.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Some people here talking about technical reasons behind lack of gun based RPG or at least RPG with guns, some people blame psychology, some people blame politics. But in the end we all see that this is result of envy to success of other games. An example (not for rpg, but still):
Doom was hit -> thousands Doom clones
Half-Life was success -> thousands Hal-life clones

And so on, and so on. Lately there can be seen tendency that with declining of quality "origina" successful titles clones declining in quality even faster .Lets took for example Destiny, a shit game but successful shit game and it's clone Anthem - even more shit game and will be much less successful. That is because many of gaming companies follow the same pattern of primitive thinking: "why make your own pie if you can take part from already existing pie?".

In result they act like hyenas - follow the "lion" in hopes to get left overs, instead of "hunting their own prey" (making original game sometimes). Sometimes it causing absurd situation when there wasn't some "prey" to begin with and lion was just hallucinating with hyenas, because they want to believe in myth about market for their idea.

I suppose it's look like this in conversation about making an RPG:
Someone with brain: "Sir, I think market is over-bloated with fantasy RPG. We should to make something original, like RPG with guns"
Idiot who don't like playing games and hate people who playing them (probably in management): "There was several studios which was making gun based RPG, now they closed"
Someone with brain: "But they were closed because different reasons, not guns. Besides if we will making a game based on tabletop setting there will be guns too"
Idiot: "Shut up, I don't want to hear about how publishing system is a failure. Also guns are bad and piracy to blame. Go and make game which copy old game, but all interesting systems should be downgraded."

Only few brave can afford to make a gun based RPG. Others will be damned for eternity into swimming in depth of "just like BG" sea or ocean "translating D&D experience into videogames ".

 

[JarlFrank]

The laws of lalaphysics that absolutely prohibit a sharpened blade brought down with whatever amount of force to break through interlocking small rings of metal, let alone pass on any energy to the human being inside that armor.

Did I ever claim that? No. Only that you can't cut through chainmail with a blade designed for cutting.

Chainmail was great protection against cuts, and it did its job well in that regard. People wearing chainmail didn't suffer from cutting wounds to their protected areas. They still suffered from broken bones when hit hard enough with a blade. We have evidence for this, we can see broken and healed bones on the bodies of early medieval warriors. If you're wearing a long-sleeved chainmail shirt and a sword hits your arm really hard, the chainmail will prevent it from cutting into your flesh, but if the force it hits you with is great enough it will still break your arm bone.

No, chainmail doesn't completely absorb the force of impact from an attack. But it prevents a sharp blade from penetrating.

It's kinda like how ballistic vests work today. They'll stop a bullet, but you'll still feel the impact and might suffer a massive bruise, or even a broken rib. But the bullet won't penetrate the armor and therefore also not penetrate into your body, greatly reducing the amount of physical harm you receive.

That's the whole point of armor.

 

[Sacred82]

The laws of lalaphysics that absolutely prohibit a sharpened blade brought down with whatever amount of force to break through interlocking small rings of metal, let alone pass on any energy to the human being inside that armor.

Did I ever claim that? No. Only that you can't cut through chainmail with a blade designed for cutting.

The discussion at large was about how to do damage in close combat to someone wearing armor. The claim that you have to penetrate the armor wasn't mine.

Chainmail was great protection against cuts, and it did its job well in that regard. People wearing chainmail didn't suffer from cutting wounds to their protected areas.

Evidence? Or at least logical argumentation? "Chainmail was designed to protect against cuts so you needed a weapon that was designed to defeat that design" isn't an argument for anything except on paper (very thin paper).

 

[JarlFrank]

Evidence? Or at least logical argumentation? "Chainmail was designed to protect against cuts so you needed a weapon that was designed to defeat that design" isn't an argument for anything except on paper (very thin paper).

Like, fucking actual experiments of chainmail forged based on extant historical pieces being tested against blades also forged based on extant historical pieces. There are plenty of videos you can check online.

I mean, all you need to show me is a video of someone cleaving chainmail in two with a sword strike. But you haven't brought forth anything of that sort; you haven't even tried to back your arguments with any kind of physics or logic based arguments, or archaeological findings. All you say is "well those archaeological findings may be coincidence" etc etc rather than offering any counter-examples.

"You can cut through armor with a sword because if you hit hard enough things are destroyed lol"
Yeah but no. No matter how strong you are, a thin sharp blade is never going to cut through armor, even chainmail, from a swing performed by human arms.

 

[Cael]

Evidence? Or at least logical argumentation? "Chainmail was designed to protect against cuts so you needed a weapon that was designed to defeat that design" isn't an argument for anything except on paper (very thin paper).

Like, fucking actual experiments of chainmail forged based on extant historical pieces being tested against blades also forged based on extant historical pieces. There are plenty of videos you can check online.

I mean, all you need to show me is a video of someone cleaving chainmail in two with a sword strike. But you haven't brought forth anything of that sort; you haven't even tried to back your arguments with any kind of physics or logic based arguments, or archaeological findings. All you say is "well those archaeological findings may be coincidence" etc etc rather than offering any counter-examples.

"You can cut through armor with a sword because if you hit hard enough things are destroyed lol"
Yeah but no. No matter how strong you are, a thin sharp blade is never going to cut through armor, even chainmail, from a swing performed by human arms.

Any electrician can tell you that trying to cut through a copper cable of even modest size (say 10mil) is pretty difficult with a knife. You'd want to use a wire cutter or the like. But, of course, these guys know better...

 

[Sykar]

tfw you make a thread about guns and the medieval weaponry nerds take over with a spear x sword debate

Well it kind of getting annoying when you read from a guy who thinks the most important part about using a sword are your muscles when in fact it is your coordination and skill. Also his inability to accept that modern weapons need just as much strength though due to other reasons.

> coordination and skill are what you need for the sword
> strength is for using guns


Contrarian Kodex at its worst

The discussion was in part about what would enable you to penetrate armor with a melee weapon. When you say 'coordination', what do you mean in this context? What do you mean by 'skill' in this context?

As for the reasons why strength is just as important with modern weapons as it is for punching through armor with a melee weapon, plz elaborate on those 'other reasons'.

I see you really earned that tag considering I never claimed you need just strength to wield a gun, just that the requirement are pretty similar to wielding a sword and in fact most melee weapons.
Why is strength important for guns? Well, dumbfuck, the average assault rifle is heavier than many melee weapon, depending which specifically you compare them to though, as I have shown earlier. Furthermore if you had ever shot a gun while standing or kneeling with no support you would know that it is difficult to do so for any even slightly extended period of time since your arms will tire quickly, not just from the weight but also from the recoil. Then of course you are required to carry around sufficient ammunition, and no, a single clip won't get you far. In fact infantry rarely gets a kill on anything but semi or full auto fire requiring copious amount of ammunition. Estimates from the Vietnam war showed that the average infantry man expended roughly 10.000 bullets for a kill. Sounds ridiculous? Yeah try to hit something camouflaged on the move in a fucking jungle during night, not to mention stuff like suppression fire. So all in all yeah, modern rifles and especially they heavier ones like assault rifles, machine guns and certain sniper rifles like anti material rifles need just as much strength, maybe even more depending on the situation, whether you have to carry them around for extended periods of time especially in a readied stance.

Since you are too dense to understand, because I already elaborated upon that earlier, swords are piss poor at penetrating armor. So poor that even a gambeson will provide sufficient cut protection and you would have to hit the exact same spot multiple times against a defending opponent, which is why when wielding a sword, and in fact most weapons, you need finesse, skill and good dexterity at least as much if not more so and strength above the level of a fit guy is of little to no value because you will not penetrate armor in a single blow with it, period. You'd be much more likely to chip or break your sword before that happens.
A bog standard one handed sword is actually a fairly light weapon usually weighting between around a kilo or less. Common misconception among the D&D fantards is that longswords are a one handed weapon. They were in fact not. But even those longswords usually weighted less than 1.5 kilos, so even those were way below the average weight of an average assault rifle like the G3 or G36. They were by and large also well balanced and therefore easy to maneuver. Other weapons like axes and maces are a bit heavier, but the main reason they require more strength is because they are not as well balanced and require more strength to maneuver. Due to this they were also more tiring and consequently less frequently used. Back to swords, the most common way to get a solid strike in was to go for unprotected areas. As I have pointed out earlier, while you were too busy felating to your D&D fantasies about bulging muscles penetrating "armor" instead of reading and comprehending what I wrote, swords where so pitiful at penetrating armor that people learned a special way to fight with swords called "half swording". Does a dumbfuck like you even understand what that means? It means they effectively shortened the range of the sword to get more penetrating power, turning it into a an improvised spear, or , alternatively, into a basic club hammering the opponent with the hilt.

Here a short video why half swording was used, apart from penetrating armor:


Notice how he said "Swords don't cut armor". This is a general sentiment among most people studying medieval warfare both in practical terms and just academic terms. So again, strength is not nearly of as much value as you want to assign it to. Oh and as you might have noticed, those two who are elaborating about half swording are far from muscular juggernauts and they practice HEMA.

As pointed out earlier, swords were not even the most used weapon, neither were axes or maces. Spears and similar weapons were at all times one of the most common weapons. Why? Range and it made it easy to keep opponents at bay and also good against cavalry. Even now we can still turn an assault rifle into a spear by attaching a bayonet and this was still relatively commonly used in the major wars of the previous century though I am unsure how common it is the past decade or two. Furthermore something pointy is more effective to penetrate armor including gambeson, leather and chainmail in comparison to slashing weapons like swords.

The laws of lalaphysics that absolutely prohibit a sharpened blade brought down with whatever amount of force to break through interlocking small rings of metal, let alone pass on any energy to the human being inside that armor.

Did I ever claim that? No. Only that you can't cut through chainmail with a blade designed for cutting.

The discussion at large was about how to do damage in close combat to someone wearing armor. The claim that you have to penetrate the armor wasn't mine.

Chainmail was great protection against cuts, and it did its job well in that regard. People wearing chainmail didn't suffer from cutting wounds to their protected areas.

Evidence? Or at least logical argumentation? "Chainmail was designed to protect against cuts so you needed a weapon that was designed to defeat that design" isn't an argument for anything except on paper (very thin paper).

No the discussion was about whether you need a lot of strength to wield a melee weapon effectively and how beneficial more strength is. That and comparing the amount of strength needed to wield guns effectively by comparison. The matter of fact is that swords are poor weapons for impact damage in comparison to other weapons like maces and axes. No one claimed you deal no damage when hitting an armored opponent with a sword but it pales in comparison to what you can accomplish if you hit an unprotected spot with a cutting weapon. In fact trying to deal damage through armor is more likely to chip your sword, or break it in rare cases, then it would deal significantly more damage. And yes armor was great against cutting, especially swords. More strength was not of much value since the most dangerous aspect of the sword, slashing open a major artery or multiple blood vessels in a long gash, are effectively neutralized. Plate armor was basically impenetrable which is why half swording was used, as I have mentioned multiple times already, though with you it seems to fall upon deaf ears.
Cutting also does not require much strength. Anyone who has accidentally cut himself while shaving can attest to that.

 

[what am i doing]

I think it's mainly because a lot of people play the fantasy video game looking for a very specific experience, they want that generic fantasy setting that's basically Forgotten Realms (ie, a vague mishmash of Howard, Vance, Leiber, Moorcock, etc) with some Tolkien and Warcraft injected into it. Or if not that specific generic fantasy setting, they want something like it. This is a timeless escapism sort of setting, where the largely unchanging nature of it is a huge part of the appeal. In this kind of setting, what advancement there is will most likely be archeological: the best stuff is really old. Borders can change, empires can rise and fall, peoples can migrate, and even existing technologies can be refined and improved, but at its core the fans of such a setting do not want meaningful technological advancement. Improving magic is usually accepted provided it doesn't start to stray into magitek territory.

The problem with guns in particular is that they mark a sort of psychological threshold whereby, once they are introduced to the setting, the setting is perceived as having taken an immediate start on the march towards the modern era, in particular ditching medieval-fantasy aesthetic for some sort of vaguely 1700s aesthetic (instead of just integrating guns into the setting without altering the setting's aesthetics), and reducing or getting rid of armour (not necessarily all melee combat). This is not helped along by the fact that introduction of guns to a setting often does in fact involve these sorts of changes (Fable comes to mind) and tends not to portray firearms very accurately - they're given as being much more accurate than early firearms really were, and armour isn't given enough credit for durability.

Here's a couple settings that handled technological progression pretty well:
- Dishonored. Naturally, it had guns from the start, and wasn't really fantasy. But it also had melee combat the whole way through so far, and went with a solution that guns would simply not involve past being one-handed single-shot shotguns (player's gun aside). Why don't they evolve past that? Maybe the political climate (the Isles are basically unified), with a lack of wars, isn't providing an impetus for battlefield advancements so they're mainly a tool of law enforcement or something, I'm not really sure. It is a mystery. But this works as an approach to having guns in your game without having to throw up your hands and say "melee combat's over boys, grab a rifle and get behind cover". The fact that it's a setting with technological progression, and not a stagnant fantasy setting, helps to underscore how you can get away with guns existing but not outshining everything else.
- Endless Legend. Just as my example above is a shitty example because it's not Generic Fantasy, this here's a shitty example because it's such a temporary setting, the world is literally doomed and your main goal is to get off-planet. But, Endless Legend did a great job in maintaining aesthetic despite technological advancement. Even when you're putting together a gigantic clockwork computer or handing out tractors to your farmers, the setting never loses that fantasy feeling that it has at the start. The aesthetic and the feeling of it never change. So, it's a case in how you can have technological progression without destroying your cosy fantasy escapism atmosphere (and that's the main reason to play Endless Legend, so, well done).

That's my theory on it, anyways - that guns tend to signify a loss of a setting's timelessness and its transition away from something Generic Fantasy into something inspired by later periods of real world history, causing a loss of the "magic" of the setting as it gets influenced more towards real life. It's not that they actually mandate that (though it does happen at times), it's just how they're perceived. I could be full of shit, though, because I'm basing this more on my feelings and suspicions than on any in-depth study.

 

[Sacred82]

tfw you make a thread about guns and the medieval weaponry nerds take over with a spear x sword debate

Well it kind of getting annoying when you read from a guy who thinks the most important part about using a sword are your muscles when in fact it is your coordination and skill. Also his inability to accept that modern weapons need just as much strength though due to other reasons.

> coordination and skill are what you need for the sword
> strength is for using guns


Contrarian Kodex at its worst

The discussion was in part about what would enable you to penetrate armor with a melee weapon. When you say 'coordination', what do you mean in this context? What do you mean by 'skill' in this context?

As for the reasons why strength is just as important with modern weapons as it is for punching through armor with a melee weapon, plz elaborate on those 'other reasons'.

I see you really earned that tag considering I never claimed you need just strength to wield a gun, just that the requirement are pretty similar to wielding a sword and in fact most melee weapons.

"a gun" might just be a revolver while "most melee weapons" easily includes two-handed varieties. You retards need to sort out your arguments before you start shitposting because I AM taking what you're saying at face value from now on, the only way to deal with shitheads who keep moving the goal posts..

Why is strength important for guns? Well, dumbfuck, the average assault rifle is heavier than many melee weapon, depending which specifically you compare them to though, as I have shown earlier.

You're not swinging a rifle at someone, fuckwit. You're not trying to give it enough force to penetrate armor on impact (that means the rifle, not the bullets you dolts). We already cleared up long ago that melee weapons could have been picked up by just about anyone, but picking them up and even carrying them around wasn't enough by far. Thanks for playing (or trying).

Furthermore if you had ever shot a gun while standing or kneeling with no support you would know that it is difficult to do so for any even slightly extended period of time since your arms will tire quickly, not just from the weight but also from the recoil. Then of course you are required to carry around sufficient ammunition, and no, a single clip won't get you far. In fact infantry rarely gets a kill on anything but semi or full auto fire requiring copious amount of ammunition. Estimates from the Vietnam war showed that the average infantry man expended roughly 10.000 bullets for a kill.

Tell me more armchair bullshit about your experience of firing guns for extended periods of time. In the meantime, let me explain that your ability to maintain body tension (to reduce recoil) and to keep your arms extended while weighted or to just keep holding up a weight (also known as endurance) are not the same kind of "strength" that you need to swing an object hard for strong impact. I could cut you some slack by saying that it's the RPG systems that are to blame for that confusion (since we are still talking games here) but I have to assume you just don't even know what you don't know about reality.

Running around with weight clinging to you is also more of a question of endurance than strength. Have you ever wondered why physical conditioning in modern armies revolves around endurance way more than strength, Mr. Armchair Windbag? Unless you load a soldier so up with ammo that they literally struggle to put one foot in front of the other right from the start, strength is not the issue here.

I just want to believe that 10000 rounds per kill bullshit Because it would make absolutely clear what a hot mess of a "war" that had turned into at some point. Really just drugged up rabble firing into the goddamn underbrush.

 

[Delterius]

stap quotin me pls this place smells of nerd

 

[Sacred82]

Evidence? Or at least logical argumentation? "Chainmail was designed to protect against cuts so you needed a weapon that was designed to defeat that design" isn't an argument for anything except on paper (very thin paper).

Like, fucking actual experiments of chainmail forged based on extant historical pieces being tested against blades also forged based on extant historical pieces. There are plenty of videos you can check online.

Critical thinking seems rare on the Kodex nowadays. It's anything but easy - that means, anything but accurate - to forge melee weapons based on pieces that have survived. You can do that, it's interesting, actual proof it's not. Especially not for different times and different places and against different Armors.

I mean, all you need to show me is a video of someone cleaving chainmail in two with a sword strike.

wow, apparently we have to start with logical thinking 101 here.

What are you talking about? A suit of chainmail lying on the ground? Not a valid target for a real bladed weapon. A suit of chain held up by a dummy? Not an exact reconstruction of the human body. Do you know what an exact reconstruction of the human body is? The human body.

Wow, this is shit is… incredible. I mean, very stupid people may simply accept something for being true because they've seen a video that seems to show how such a thing happened. But people believing something must be impossible because they saw a guy supposedly trying to do it and he failed so it cannot work, that's just... retardation out of this world.

But you haven't brought forth anything of that sort; you haven't even tried to back your arguments with any kind of physics or logic based arguments, or archaeological findings. All you say is "well those archaeological findings may be coincidence" etc etc rather than offering any counter-examples.
"You can cut through armor with a sword because if you hit hard enough things are destroyed lol"
Yeah but no. No matter how strong you are, a thin sharp blade is never going to cut through armor, even chainmail, from a swing performed by human arms.

You shitheads have presented neither evidence nor logic, but your idea of both seems to be very murky, so let's try something else.

I'll give you an example that you may understand, JarlFranky. We have to start very small here, I see.

What you're proposing is some rock-paper-scissors bullshit. But this is reality we're talking about.

So you're attacking with scissors but someone puts their paper armor against that. Sure win for you, right? Well, depends on how thick the paper is, for example.
Maybe you should just smash a rock against his paper armor. Or maybe against his head because the paper is thinner there. Then again, humans have long practice in protecting
their heads, it's not an easy target. Hmm, decisions decisions. Maybe while you're holding your deadly rock in your hands weighing your options the other guy charges you,
and because he's close now you can't swing the rock. His paper now really beats your rock.

Had you had some scissors, you could have tried something else. You could have tried to ram it through the paper instead of using it as scissors are usually used. Because scissors
are relatively versatile compared to a rock.

Hope that helps.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Oh my God, this just keeps on going.

 

[JarlFrank]

"a gun" might just be a revolver while "most melee weapons" easily includes two-handed varieties.

"a melee weapon" might just be a dagger while "most guns" easily includes assault rifles and machine guns.

See, it works both ways.

 

[JarlFrank]

Everyone else: presents logical arguments, actual videos of people doing HEMA, speculation based on simple facts, etc etc.

Sacred82: LOL I BELIEVE YOU CAN CUT ARMOR WITH SWORDS IF YOU SWING HARD ENOUGH YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN ME WRONG YET BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A MEDIEVAL KNIGHT WHO SWINGS SWORDS AT ARMORS

 

[Sacred82]

"a gun" might just be a revolver while "most melee weapons" easily includes two-handed varieties.

"a melee weapon" might just be a dagger while "most guns" easily includes assault rifles and machine guns.

See, it works both ways.

yeah, except that's not what the statement in question said:

I see you really earned that tag considering I never claimed you need just strength to wield a gun, just that the requirement are pretty similar to wielding a sword and in fact most melee weapons.

so one problem fuckwits like you have is they cannot into context. "Yeah so my statement didn't make such sense, but if I just turn the words of your statement around it doesn't make much sense either! Gotcha!"

I'm out of this until something non-retarded is posted in this thread again.

 

[JarlFrank]

Yeah once you get out of it, there will be no more retarded posts in this thread.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Did medieval duels keep going after 200 rounds ?