Ok, so I know you're gonna get a bunch of whiny e-mails about your bit on swords, arrows, and other chicanery. This is one of them.

The idea that a bullet does less damage than a sword is patently false. Yes, a fast moving blunt object moving at the same speed as a fast moving sharp object will typically do less damage. But that's assuming a lot of things, like equivalent sizes (a boulder moving at the same speed as a sword is generally going to do much more). Then, there's the realization that a bullet isn't just going 'fast'. It's going REALLY fast. Like, some bullets will go large portions of mach.

In fact, if you look at weapons from the civil war, you'll find that if you got hit in the arm with a bullet, the bullet took the arm off. That's blunt force.

Of course, this is all totally overlooking the idea that a sword has a range of, maybe, MAYBE, 12 feet. If you're really strong, and totally know how to handle yourself. A gun, on the other hand is going to be able to destroy things from at least a couple hundred feet.

And finally, powerbooks don't kill people, people kill people.

Per your opening statement...and I quote:
"For the record though, a sword can do a good deal more actual damage than a gun can." - Is Crap.
A ordinary gun, like a taurus raging bull, chambered for a 454 casull shell, which you can get in any average gun shop (faster, i might add, than you can get a sword) will literally blow you in half if shot square in the small of the back. A sword, on the other hand, if swung at the small of the back even by the more than average strength man, will only make it about half way through before getting stuck.
I think you should study your weapons before opening your yap and inserting your foot.

For the past week, a debate has been raging about something rather silly: Guns vs. Swords. I am hear to put an end to this debate, once and for all, but not with vague opinions supported with little more than the most basic and general of assumptions, but with facts. Cold, hard, facts.

Ask any gunsmith, soldier, general, or any general weapons expert and they will tell you this: the firearm is the superior of all weapons in the world, including bows and arrows, crossbows, and any types of melee weapons. Look at the evolution of conventional and unconventional warfare: the development of the gun has played the most crucial aspect of ever developing aspect of battle tactics. Bullets can achieve a speed of anywhere from .5 miles to 6 miles PER SECOND. In contrast, crossbows and longbows can only achieve a mere fraction of those speeds, about 100 to 600 feet per second. Swords go even slower, espically the larger or bulker they are; only about 4 - 12 feet arcs per second. Granted, if the human arm spand was longer, then so would the speed, but considering the fact that melee weapons lack any considerable range beyond the weilder's reach (maximum 6 ft., if you hit them with the tip), this a moot point. Guns and swords might do about the same damage, if you're talking about a pistol. Modern day rifles, such as the AK - 47 and the M4 are designed to inflict severe damage considerably more damaging than a sword. Swordplay is also considerably physically strenuous, allowing for only about an hour or two worth of combat before the user is whipped; guns do not have this problem, for obvious reasons (range). And despite all of this, the mere fact is that guns have distance. A lot of distance. Skilled snipers can take out targets from over 900 yards away: that's about 10,800 feet. Compared with the maximum distance of crossbows and longbows, about 200 - 400 feet, guns have a range about 27 times longer, at each one's respective bests. So it doesn't matter if you have a sword or crossbow or gun, and that they all do about the same damage, maybe; guns have distance, and you know? That's all that counts; doesn't matter how good of a swordsman you are or how skilled you are at the bow; guns will spit out more rounds of deathly goodness before you will even see whose shooting you. When you get into the realm of armor peircing bullets, uranium depleted rounds, explosive tipped bullets, rail gun technology, then whatever sembalance of equality among archaic weapons and firearms is gone; once bullets exceed the speed of sound, it doesn't matter where you're hit: you're dead, or your body is shattered forever.

So what does this mean about RPG's? Nothing. Guns and swords, in RPGs, will always do the same damage, no matter what. If games were based entirely on real life, then any schmuck stupid enough to go with a sword or longbow versus somebody with a gun, even a flintlock, is at an immediate disadvantage. To bring this into games would lessen the enjoyability of using melee weapons by having guns be the dominant weapons all the time. RPGs have something that we've all apparently forgot: "Suspension of disbelief," a handly little tool that allows us to play games with obvious logical fallacies and still enjoy them. So while in real life, the gun is the superior weapon 99.9% of the time, in our games, swords and guns can be enjoyed equally, no matter what the circumstances in real life may be.

I agree with the fact that swords are highly overused as primary weapons in RPGs, especially since it isn't all that accurate. Most RPGs have some sort of heavy armor like plate, which a slashing sword is pretty much totally useless against. A good, sharp thrusting sword might work okay if you are just one tough mother, but frankly, you usually see the hero swinging the sword. (Though some of the swords heroes in RPGs use are big enough that getting hit with a swing from one is probably pretty similar to getting hit with a heavy mace, and maces do work rather well against plate--more accurately, they break the wearer's bones, which is good enough).

I'd like to see more of the exotic historical weapons, or just new creative ones with absolutely no historical basis. Many of the best weapons against heavy armor weren't really intended to be weapons at all, at least, not at first. Let's see some heroes swinging around a flail, or wielding the versatile billhook, or the just freaking nasty looking gundetog (I think I spelled that right). You also have the probably hundreds of different types of polearms you could choose from.

Of course, I'd probably settle for an axe-wielding hero too. Vicious weapons, them axes. You have to have respect for a weapon that can deliver blows solid enough to break many shields (and sometimes the arm holding it).

Anyway, since I should ask a question, is there any particular weapon you'd like to see more in RPGs?

DumpShock

Hey,
I totally agree that an arrow can do more damage than a gun with strength. A bullet will get lodged in a sand bag, while the arrow will fly though it. The longbows of the past required pulling 100-150 lbs of weight back with three fingers. Not to mention that if you pull back just slightly differently the arrow will fly totally off target. Having said all that, why do RPGs always make the weak healer-girls archers? I seriously doubt Rosa had anything close to that kind of strength.

~Ladyhawk who can pull an average 28 lb on a recurve and that's considered good by today's standards

Google,
I would personally have to say that Shadowrun is the most kick ass table top roleplaying game to date. I'm not even sure what it is that I like most abou the game. Is it the skill-based character system (e.g. not set, pre-defined classes)? Is it the excitement I get when I use a Deadly Powerball that completely knocks me unconscious? Is it the witty dialogue I like to partake in right before I smoke a Mr. Johnson who's just double crossed me? All of the above, I should think. This leads me to my question: what's the best part of the game for you? I mean, what's your favorite aspect of it?

Walo
"Oh, no, I took serious dump-shock damage! Hee hee - dump!"

• Swords

• Earthbound