It’s been a few years since Geek Native asked do RPG designers need to rethink archery mechanics?. At time Danish archer Lars Andersen was in focus.
He’s back again with this video. It should make us wonder whether we know anything about archery at all.
The video admits that measuring the stopping power of Lars’ style versus the “traditional modern” style is a challenge but also points out that his technique has enough strength to penetrate chainmail. Could it be that our idea of archery is all wrong? Modern styles aren’t based on what “up-close” war archers would use?
Even if our understanding of archery is all wrong and a comparison of ancient illustrations which assumes the artist understood archery is right then that doesn’t mean RPG designers need to change their rules. RPGs are, after all, a game. Game balance is important. Besides, Lars’ techniques are likely beyond that of a “level one” hero and by the time the game ramps up the character’s experience and abilities then the mechanics may come into alignment with the war archery discussed here.
What do you think? Is Lars Andersen right to suggest that his style is a better reflection of the talents of archers from history? Have we lost a full understanding of what archery was like? Or are their flaws in this analysis?
If we look at D&D as an example, in reality a swordsman can swing a sword several times in 6 seconds, but D&D abstracts the combat round to six seconds. That doesn’t necessarily mean that only 1 swing occurred in that time, but more like there was an exchange of maneuvers, feints and blows that may or may not have led to damage within that 6 second period You can apply this same abstraction to bowmen. Yes, clearly a talent bowman can shoot multiple times in a span of mere seconds, but the combat round represents an abstraction where the… Read more »
I agree in part. Most RPGs abstract melee combat, but most also track individual units of ammunition, and often apply reload actions of varying durations. Which tends to make ranged combat far more specific. Tracking individual actions to expend and reload an individual units of ammunition. Most of this is for game balance as the capacity to injure your opponent without them be able to retaliate is significant when compared to melee combat. While it’s possible to keep such rules and still apply abstraction to bow use. Such as 1 unit of ammunition counting as one rounds/actions worth. And any… Read more »
RagingOwlbear I think you’re right. I certainly don’t come from the gamer camp that wants RPGs to be a realistic simulation of the real world.
My debate is whether the magnitude of difference we see between Lars’ style and a typical RPG is so great that even at an abstract level the books are wrong. Or whether it matters.
Koeran Perhaps the focus should be on the “style” rather than the weapon. Even if bows are lumped together should games seeking to offer more diversity or historical accuracy (and there’s no reason why should they do either) offer up a long-range-power-target style and a Lars inspired short-range-speed style?
Two skills or specialisms on the character sheet rather than one?
Michael Hearne
Caroline Howard Timothy Franklin
AndrewGirdwood It’s certainly an option. I think it’d come down to a few factors, such as, the setting, the players/GM and game balance. If the group feels dividing the skill into two would be more fun, and/or would be more appropriate for game balance, then they should certainly do it. Personally, I’m not sure that’s it’s necessary to get that specific with it. I’m happy to assume that an archer that’s capable of Lars style shooting would have the capacity, at a minimum, to also do long range ballistic arc style firing (which I presume is what most archery rules are… Read more »
AndrewGirdwood RagingOwlbear I’m not sure if typical RPG rules are “wrong”, but I do think it matters. Not so much from a simulationist perspective but from a narrative one. Describing a master archer character pulling of stuff like Lars in game would be way cooler than describing, say, the archery exploits of Legolas in the recent Hobbit films (Which some may consider to be the epitome of master archer coolness), for example. It’s perhaps even more important for over the top/unrealistic games. Without knowing about the capabilities Lars demonstrates, then his level of skill may be considered to be over the… Read more »
Gillian_Philip GeekNative Wow!!
rabbityru Iknowright??! GeekNative
Koeran I really think ‘game balance’ shouldn’t be used as a limit on things like this. Seriously, mechanical balance never works, unless it is done to an extent that it hinders creativity. I’d love to see something like this. The ‘abstraction’ thing also doesn’t work – when they allow a warrior to get 3-6 attacks per round in a game (as in ‘actual attempts to hit’), and give the bow one to three in the same time period, they’re weighing in favour of the melee fighter.
jackmdann Can we come over to your place to try it?
clwedd Sure, as long as I get to be the one shooting the arrows <Grin>.
jackmdann Yes, that was the flaw in my suggestion.
kitfoxtrot I think it’s a little hard to say weather or not game balance or abstraction is relevant when we’re not talking about a specific rule set. Though as you say, there are certainly going to be times when they aren’t. Regarding game balance I’m never one to dismiss it. While I agree that too much focus on game balance stifles creativity. Case in point, D&D 4th Ed. It’s my experience that the opposite is also true. To little game balance results in various “over powered” or more effective options invalidating many weaker options. Obviously it comes back to play style,… Read more »
Koeran – I think trying to focus on game balance is a lesson in futility. The more mechanics are presented to the players (sourcebooks and what have you), the more it becomes a chore to try to “balance” the game, mechanically. However, I don’t even think it is necessary. It isn’t the role of the rulebook to try to enforce some sort of ‘balance’. Instead, I feel it is the purpose of mechanics to provide a ruleset for supporting the game setting itself. For example, take Exalted. There is no hope in hell of ever balancing that game – nor… Read more »
I’m just starting to get into archery. It seems like it is a lot of fun. Plus, I really think it is much quieter than a gun. I think that it would make hunting a little easier. I’m surprised that a lot of archery has changed since Greek times. Which version of archery is more accurate, the Greek way or the modern way? http://www.trophybookarchery.com/en/clothing.html