This is RPG-ology #93: Comparisons, for August 2025.
Our thanks to Regis Pannier and the team at the Places to Go, People to Be French edition for locating a copy of this and a number of other lost Game Ideas Unlimited articles. This was originally Game Ideas Unlimited: Comparisons, and is reposted here with minor editing [bracketed].
Half a block from the number four exit of Interstate 295, in Carneys Point New Jersey–a stone’s throw from the Delaware Memorial Bridge if you’re Sandy Ko[u]fax–there’s a little pizza shop called The Roman Pantry. Bruce Willis [says said] they make the best cheesesteak sandwiches in the world, and while I undoubtedly lack the breadth of his experience I will say that they are excellent. Meat and cheese stretch down a long thin loaf of toasted soft crust French bread, toppings cooked into the mix–a very tasty sandwich that’s often a big enough meal for two.
Meanwhile, on the opposite edge of the county in Alloway, Remster’s [is was] known to most of the residents as the only place to get a great roast beef hoagie. The rolls here [are were] shorter and considerably thicker; but if there[’s was] less than a pound of sliced roast beef packed into this sandwich, I’d be surprised. It, too, [is was] a great sandwich, and not the easiest thing for one person to finish.
What constitutes a good sandwich is not entirely a matter of opinion; clearly, some sandwiches are better and some are worse. Yet our opinion of what makes a sandwich good will influence what we choose. I’d like to consider what makes things good. But I’m not going to look at what makes a good game–not, at least, this week. Rather, I want to get inside our character’s heads and look at what appeals to them.
The Oriental Adventures™ supplement for Dungeons & Dragons™ introduced to that game several types of arrows. The standard arrows were still found; these did d6 points of damage against any target. But four new types were included: armor piercers, leaf heads, humming bulbs, and frog crotch. These had nuances that made them different, and that invited the player to consider what he should have in his quiver.
Perhaps the most interesting of the new arrows was the leaf head. It was explained that this more expensive arrow had a considerably larger head, and so was able to do d8 damage against ordinary targets. But it would be wasted money to fire these against large targets, as here they were limited to d6 as ordinary arrows.
To make it more interesting, I knew a referee who felt that the d8 was an unwarranted advantage which required a greater counterbalance than mere money (his was a very wealthy game). He imposed a -2 penalty on all shots with leaf head arrows. This made the choice of arrow even more interesting. From a purely mathematical standpoint, when your chance to hit is nearly guaranteed, the 10% penalty is unimportant relative to the possibility of extra damage; but when the target is almost impossible to hit, the extra 10% chance of hitting with an ordinary arrow makes the idea of shooting a leaf head foolish.
The other arrow that should have been interesting was the armor piercer. Unfortunately, it was not. It was said of this arrow that its smaller pointed head made it more likely to penetrate armor; but no modifiers were provided to assure that. Instead, the arrow was said to do d4+1 damage to ordinary targets and just d4 to large ones. Mathematically, the arrow was equal to a regular arrow on most targets, and inferior on the larger ones. Unless one was willing to sacrifice the possibility of doing six points for the guarantee of doing at least two, there was no reason to use these.
Yet the concept was worthwhile, and I felt it could be implemented easily enough. Following the lead of my friend, I gave armor piercers +1 to hit, reflecting their ability to penetrate coverings, hides, shells, and other protections. Now it always made sense to use armor piercers against ordinary opponents unless you didn’t want to sacrifice the chance to do six points on a single hit. But against large opponents, you had the same mathematical considerations in choosing the armor piercer as was just discussed of the leafhead. If you were nearly guaranteed to hit, that 5% bonus wasn’t going to make enough difference to compensate for the loss in damage. But if you stood little or no chance to strike the target, 5% was more than enough to pay for the lost damage in increased hits.
Some are uncomfortable with efforts to compare weapons and tactics mathematically. They quite rightly observe that their man in the field is not going to pull out his to hit charts and calculate his average damage per round with one weapon versus another. He never really knows how hard the opponent will be to hit, or what chance he has of hitting him, or exactly how much damage his weapon can do. Those are game abstractions, not available to characters. I agree completely. I find the idea of a character knowing that he has a “+1 Sword” silly. Yet the character does know his situation in ways the player cannot. The character is firing those arrows. He sees when they glance off the opponent’s armor and when they penetrate. He knows how great an injury his blow does by the look of the opponent. These are things that cannot be adequately conveyed to the player. They are replaced, by and large, with numbers–a pale shadow of the real thing, but in some ways the best available information.
Another example of this came up recently, in regard to the selection of swords, again in AD&D™. There is a great demand in most gaming groups for long swords. The broad sword gets overlooked by comparison. The long sword does d8 against ordinary targets, and a powerful d12 against large opponents. By contrast, the broad sword does 2d4 against ordinary targets and only d6+1 against large ones. To the untrained eye, they appear equal on most targets, with the long sword excelling on the large ones. But they are not equal. The broad sword will never do only one point of damage on any hit; and it will consistently outperform the long sword against small and man-sized opponents over the long haul because of that. It will not do the maximum damage as often, but will be a much more reliable weapon, doing five points on fully a quarter of all hits, five or better five out of eight times. The long sword only does five or better four in eight times, and is as likely to do one point as any other value.
Against large opponents the long sword certainly has most of the advantages. It averages more damage per hit, and does a far greater maximum damage. The broad sword is underperforming here, not doing as well as it was on the smaller opponents. But it still retains one of its advantages: it will never do only one point of damage.
Certainly one can argue that the majority of magic swords prove to be long swords; but then, the majority of people wanting a magic sword want a long sword. To be the only person in the party specialized in broad sword will virtually guarantee, in most parties, that should such a sword be found it will be yours.
It is easy to glance at sandwiches–or weapons–and jump to conclusions about them. But these conclusions usually miss something. The intelligent character will have thought about the choices on which his life depends; even the stupid character will have given some thought to the question. Examining weapons and other equipment with consideration to the rules of the game is quite appropriate to understanding the world the character perceives. For him, it would be the number of times he has seen a broad sword break through a suit of armor at a tournament. For you, it would be the math.
[Next week, something different.]
[In editing this article for republication, I was poignantly reminded of the previously published article Living in the Past. Remsters is no longer there, and reports of Bruce Willis’ health suggest he remembers very little anymore.]
Previous article: Props.
Next article: Name-Monics.