Region and Armor?

[JollyGreenGiant]

(because, if you hadn't noticed, weapons that require two hands are bigger and do more damage).

The discussion of two-handed weapons here seems to ignore the small subset of weapons that can be used either one- or two-handed.  Scimitars, bastard swords, and a few others fall squarely into this category, and fighting two-handed with them is a completely different style of fighting than using them one-handed.  I'd consider this to be very similar to using a single one-handed weapon, such as a rapier.

The styles I was considering when reading other posts were kendo and fencing.  Although they use completely different weapons, and kendo is a two-handed style while fencing is a one-handed style, they exhibit a lot of similarity in form - minimal motion to turn aside a strike from an opponent, followed by a riposte.  I also see these styles as being more northern.

I thought for a while trying to figure out some real-world analogues for the northern and southern styles so that they would make more sense to people, and I finally came up with some.

Northern - Romans.  The Roman army was well-armored and made use of heavy, protective shields.  They were extremely effective at fighting defensively, and overcame opponents methodically rather than relying on fast, heavy offense.  They didn't make much use of polearms, instead relying on the combination of short sword and javelin.

Southern - Celts or Huns.  As much as I'd like to use the Huns as an example, they made more use of cavalry, so the example isn't all that good.  The Celts are probably a much closer fit, or really, any culture that made use of woad.  They tended to wear much lighter armor, and were known for fighting offensively, the idea being to simply overwhelm an opponent by battering them into submission quickly.

To push the analogy even farther, look at Roman culture.  The Romans had a society that fostered very sophisticated art, music, architecture, and philosophy, which sounds a lot like Tuluk to me.  The Celts were not nearly as advanced, culturally speaking, and were regarded as barbarians by the Romans.

[Krath]

I have a char that currently switches between Etwo and Dual wielding and you CAN notice the difference in the two. There is no need for a skill of Etwo because the code, as far as I can see, supports it realisticlly.

I think that the anonymous author who started this thread put it most succinctly: "The reasons make sense, but it doesn't seem to fit the game." As far as I was last aware of the status of the game world, I would agree with this observation--as far as PCs and hard-coded NPCs are concerned. To discuss this further, however, there have been two main criticisms in this thread that I would like to address: (1) the fighting styles document does not match what PCs are using, and (2) the fighting styles document does not match what NPCs are using.

Criticism 1 (PCs): some people have voiced the opinion that the fighting styles document should follow what most PCs are using. There are two points I would like to raise to address this criticism.

First, the fighting styles document covers general usage across the entire game world population: PCs, NPCs, and virtual NPCs. In my opinion, therefore, it would be nonsensical to base such a document solely or primarily on what PCs are using. I can well remember one point in time when most PCs used clubs or hammers as weapons; to me, it would be ludicrous to write a fighting styles document claiming that almost every combatant on Zalanthas used clubs or hammers. One might as well write a clothing document stating that most people in the Known World wear armor all the time, because that is what most PCs do.

Second, as some people have mentioned, what most PCs use is simply what their players OOCly believe to be most effective code-wise. In a game focused on IC realism, I think it hardly appropriate to write an IC background document based on the current status of the code; it should be the code that is gradually modified to fit the IC background that the staff envision for the game setting. Obviously, this is not to say that anyone should completely ignore the code and its effects, or to undervalue the hard work of the coders. I am simply giving my opinion that the code should, gradually, be made to match the IC background--and not the other way around.

The fighting styles document tries to capture what most of the world is doing. It is a guide, not a rulebook. It is, of course, up to individual players to decide how their PCs will arm themselves, and I hope that no player will criticize another player OOCly for not following the fighting style document's suggestions.

Criticism 2 (NPCs): some people have noted that many (hard-coded) NPCs do not follow the trends mentioned in the fighting styles document. There are two points I would like to raise to address this criticism.

First, one should bear in mind that a fair proportion of hard-coded NPCs are in the game for a specific IC function, such as guarding a gate, that call for arms and armor that may well differ from the regional norm. (A guard standing in the shade next to a gate, who does not have to run across the sand in the midday heat, can well afford to be assigned heavy armor by his/her employer, regardless of region. Of course, whether the employer would do so depends on his/her IC agenda and other IC considerations.)

Second, although some people might not be aware of it, the fighting styles document was written relatively recently in the history of this game. As such, there were literally thousands of hard-coded NPCs already in the game at that time. To go through the game, checking and updating several thousand NPCs, is a considerable task. I expect that no staff member has gotten around to doing this yet (certainly, I did not, so this is obviously not attempting to lay blame anywhere). The simple fact is that there is a lot of work involved in maintaining and updating this game, and there is a lot that is going to go untended for some time (possibly several real-time years). In my opinion, this is not a sign of laziness or poor organization; it is simply a sign of the vast amount of work to be done and the relatively limited number of people capable and authorized to do the work.

To conclude:

I have two suggestions for players who would like to see the trends in the fighting styles document reflected more in the game world. First, regarding PCs, it is ultimately up to the players themselves as to whether they will follow the suggestions in the document or not. Hopefully, such decisions will be mainly ICly motivated, in a sensible way (e.g., it would probably be advisable for trainee combatants to adopt a more defensive selection in arms and armor, as a general rule). Second, regarding NPCs, I imagine that the staff would welcome feedback through e-mail or the typo command about which NPCs might reasonably be altered or updated. Of course, sending in a request for a change is not a guarantee to the player that the staff will agree with or will implement the change. (In the same way, writing a world background document is no guarantee to the staff that players will necessarily agree with or follow it.)

If there are players who sincerely feel that the fighting styles document is simply 'wrong' (I am thinking mainly of players I have spoken with in the past), I expect that an invitation to write and submit a correct or improved fighting styles document is open. Obviously, as a retired staff member, this is simply my opinion and does not necessarily reflect official policy in this game.

As the author of the fighting styles document, I am very pleased to see that many players have taken the trouble to read it and to try to apply it to improve the game's IC realism and their own OOC enjoyment of the game. I think it is also good that players have not blindly accepted the document as is, but have taken it as a guide, and as a work that is subject to debate. I hope that it has been of more benefit to the playerbase as a whole than it has been of harm. Thank you for reading.

Krrx