Are swords worth it?

[Phil Masters]

Which mainly says that LCs are a rather heavily simplified abstraction. I ended up dropping them from Discworld because all the exceptions and special cases in the Disc’s fairly realistic but often rather informal medieval-through-Enlightenment society just made them meaningless.

[sir_pudding]

At any rate, "You can't take your halberd to the fancy dress party" is probably a reasonable statement in many settings.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The rules handle versatility, swords can do cutting, impaling or crushing (even at Reach C), and they are eligible for more quality modifiers than almost any other weapon. Certainly rules exist to reflect both poor performance against armor and the kinds of close combat techniques that can overcome these, but like a lot of such options in GURPS it rewards system mastery. The social aspects are setting issues and for whatever reason low-tech gear isn't typically listed with LCs; if they were most swords probably ought to have higher LCs than say polearms. The ergonomic issues are largely ignored by GURPS as usual, except for the rules in Underground Adventures for weapon clearance, and the express support for Fast-Draw (Sword) compared to the implied support for more exotic Fast-Draw skills.

Also, for what it's worth, a friend who does a lot of trekking in various styles of historical kit finds that large swords are a pain in the butt and the scabbards get eaten up hiking through rough terrain for a week. A long rapier is also a pain in the butt in a crowd, and has to be left with your cloak when you visit a tavern (Guy Fawkes lost both that way). So the weapon which is convenient for a city adventure may not be the best choice for a wilderness adventure.

I don't know any low-tech society which restricted ownership of swords more or less than other weapons. It was more common for there to be laws enforcing ownership of weapons so the king or the mayor does not have to provide them when he conscripts a new army. I have heard stories about Tokugawa Japan, but that is really late and really unusual.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Which mainly says that LCs are a rather heavily simplified abstraction. I ended up dropping them from Discworld because all the exceptions and special cases in the Disc’s fairly realistic but often rather informal medieval-through-Enlightenment society just made them meaningless.

I agree, my understanding is that they were written for Traveller and similar settings where the authors just have a paragraph to sketch out a whole society. If you have a whole book to describe a setting, a few pages on the local mores which matter to adventurers and how the adventurers can get into dramatic situations by violating them is probably a better approach.

[smurf]

A scramasax would be a cheaper option.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Also, for what it's worth, a friend who does a lot of trekking in various styles of historical kit finds that large swords are a pain in the butt and the scabbards get eaten up hiking through rough terrain for a week. A long rapier is also a pain in the butt in a crowd, and has to be left with your cloak when you visit a tavern (Guy Fawkes lost both that way). So the weapon which is convenient for a city adventure may not be the best choice for a wilderness adventure.

Having done all of these things too, I can say that an infantry hanger rarely gets in the way when worn well, other baldric carry swords are still usually less awkward than two-handed weapons.

I don't know any low-tech society which restricted ownership of swords more or less than other weapons. It was more common for there to be laws enforcing ownership of weapons so the king or the mayor does not have to provide them when he conscripts a new army. I have heard stories about Tokugawa Japan, but that is really late and really unusual.

Well sword and knife lengths were often specified by law. More importantly though fashion and public opinion did regulate these things and the letter of the law was much less important for enforcement in many societies than we might be used to today. A constable is less likely to care about a prosperous-looking person carrying a typical class-appropriate civilian weapon than some scruffy drifter carrying something that normally belongs in a milita armory.

[AlexanderHowl]

The same applies to any weapon really, which was why axes, hammers, knives, staves, etc were popular weapons for self-defense, as they had legitimate reasons for existing beyond harming people.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The same applies to any weapon really, which was why axes, hammers, knives, staves, etc were popular weapons for self-defense, as they had legitimate reasons for existing beyond harming people.

War axes and military hammers have no practical uses beyond combat and generally aren't popular civilian weapons like anywhere.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Well sword and knife lengths were often specified by law. More importantly though fashion and public opinion did regulate these things and the letter of the law was much less important for enforcement in many societies than we might be used to today. A constable is less likely to care about a prosperous-looking person carrying a typical class-appropriate civilian weapon than some scruffy drifter carrying something that normally belongs in a milita armory.

And Laws requiring owning of weapons [for militia use] and public carrying restrictions [especially in town] are hardly mutually exclusive.

The as difference between being seen as being a member of community prepared for community emergency, and be see as a ne'er-do-well looking for trouble.