Falchions: is there a point in using them?

[jabarto]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

If this bothers you, always take the mechanically superior option and leave the inferior/fluff weapons to those who prioritize their characterizations over their mechanical efficiency.

It's possible to be mechanically efficient and still have characterization. Like I said above, you could always just take a sword and say it's a falchion. Attaching a mechanical cost to a non-mechanical benefit is just shooting yourself in the foot for no real reason.

By the way, I'm not sure which weapons you're referring to as "stupid to use", but as long as they're cheaper, lighter, available earlier, etc., than there's at least some reason to have them. My entire point is that falchions add a lot of drawbacks for not a lot of gain.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by jabarto

It's possible to be mechanically efficient and still have characterization.

It is possible, yes. But not always. Its' a matter of priorities. Neither priority is objectively better than the other, its' just a thing that people do.

Like I said above, you could always just take a sword and say it's a falchion.

You can, sure. And we've a number of published examples of GURPS doing just that.

Attaching a mechanical cost to a non-mechanical benefit is just shooting yourself in the foot for no real reason.

Maybe. Again, differing priorities. Sometimes the mechanical distinctiveness, even if it results in an inferior result, is important. Sometimes its' not.

My entire point is that falchions add a lot of drawbacks for not a lot of gain.

I agree. Mechanically speaking, you are correct. And?

[Ed the Coastie]

Originally Posted by jabarto

Like I said above, you could always just take a sword and say it's a falchion.

Yup...just like AD&D (1st Edition) where both sabres and cutlasses were considered identical to scimitars. *winces*

It all boils down to what you as the GM find comfortable. If you want to say "falchions are simply broadswords with a different name," then fine. Likewise, you can simply decree that "all sports cars / 9mm pistols / main battle tanks / single-engine propeller aircraft have the same stats" and that would be perfectly acceptable. Most similar items are close enough in function that you can readily do this.

However, GURPS allows the option of differentiating. That differentiation is the default and is, in my opinion, part of the beauty of the system. And because it does so, we are not required to reinvent the wheel every time a GM wants to differentiate between a falchion and just another broadsword.

*shrugs* Of course, that is just my opinion on it.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

Because "arbitrary non-game-mechanical reasons" do mean something; just not something in game mechanic terms.

...

If this bothers you, always take the mechanically superior option and leave the inferior/fluff weapons to those who prioritize their characterizations over their mechanical efficiency.

Thing is, the characters probably know the pros and cons of the weapons - at least if they are professionals. It's not like Dan Howard taps into a higher consciousness to come up with weapon statistics. But there are factors like budget and availability that play into this.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Thing is, the characters probably know the pros and cons of the weapons - at least if they are professionals. It's not like Dan Howard taps into a higher consciousness to come up with weapon statistics. But there are factors like budget and availability that play into this.

Personal preference often trumps mechanical benefit, even for many professionals. And even professionals often are saddled with poorly thought through prejudices.