Random hit location probabilities

[Phex]

I do not quite understand the probabilities of the random hit location table on page B552 from a simulation perspective. What puzzles me is the asymmetry of the left and right hand side.

left arm     11.6%
left leg     16.6%

right arm     9.7%
right leg    11.5%

torso+groin  36.6%   (for comparison)

Shouldnt the right arm, which is the weapon or near arm, not be more probable to hit in a fighting scenario? Similarily, why is the left leg, which should be the far leg, easier to hit than the right leg? I think I would personally prefer an equal distribution between the left and the right hand side in most cases. But when there is an asymmetry it should at least represent a typical fighting scenario with fighters facing each other with the weapon arm in front (like in these old rules). Or did I miss something here?

I have already searched for this topic without success, but most likely this has been asked before.

[sir_pudding]

In many European fighting styles a typical guard stance is shield side forward.

[RyanW]

I would replace it with "leading" and "rear" rather than "left" and "right." And for balanced stances, just roll 1d, 1-3 left, 4-6 right.

And <blank>-and-shield fighters, spear fighters, and most boxers normally stand with dominant hand to the rear.

[Grouchy Chris]

The left side of the target is nearer to the right hand of the attacker, which is probably the one holding the weapon. I think I recall, though I can't come up with a reference right now, that archaeologists have found that remains from battle graves tend to have wounds on the left side of the body.

[Phex]

Originally Posted by Grouchy Chris

The left side of the target is nearer to the right hand of the attacker, which is probably the one holding the weapon. I think I recall, though I can't come up with a reference right now, that archaeologists have found that remains from battle graves tend to have wounds on the left side of the body.

That sounds very reasonable! However, hits to hands and feet have the same probability to hit the left and right side. And what about an attacker who attacks from behind, switching the role of the left and right side? Moreover, for ranged attacks this argument makes no sense at all. Therefore I wonder: is there any deeper concept behind the asymmetry of the hit location table or is it an artifact of older editions? Am I the only one who is confused with these rules?

Recollecting all those arguments I think I would rather prefer a symmetric random hit location table for generic situations. It could easily be achieved by rolling an additional 1d to determine the side for all arm or leg hits as RyanW already mentioned. For melee situations, the left side could be more probable with 1-4 instead of 1-3 or something. Then all limbs would fall under the same rules.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Phex

Therefore I wonder: is there any deeper concept behind the asymmetry of the hit location table or is it an artifact of older editions?

It's very likely to be the result of the limited number and size of the probabilities you can generate from 3d6. That's an excellent dice mechanic for dealing with probabilities of a single event, but less well-suited to selecting from a range of arbitrary possibilities.