u/TTUPhoenix

I've seen RPG weapons lists run the gamut in terms of detail. Some, like FATE, might not even provide stats for weapons, assuming it's just part of a character's combat roll, while others, like Shadowrun, have stats for different iterations of the same model of pistol over decades. In my head, I tend to bin systems into three categories (assuming they provide stats for weapons and combat at all):

• 1: Broad functional categories, usually based on rough damage instead of weapon design. Examples - Remnants, which simply has light (one-handed dual-use items like hammers or knives), medium (one-handed weapons like swords and maces), and heavy (two-handed swords, spears, axes) weapons, and mech weapons are distinguished solely by their damage number. Spirit of the Century doesn't track weapons, but it does divide guns into rifles (with a range of 3) and everything else (with a range of 2). Weapons will have very few stats, typically some kind of damage number and possibly range, but no special traits or abilities (or such traits will be left to negotiation between player and GM).
• 2: Design/form specific categories, without distinguishing between examples within that category. Example - Cyberpunk RED, which has medium, heavy, and very heavy pistols, but uses generic assault rifles, shotguns, and submachine guns. Melee weapons are sorted into light, medium, and heavy. Weapons will usually have different damage and range (if non-melee) stats. This is the level where traits such as being two-handed or capable of autofire are usually distinguished, and you may see more specific differentiation such as rate of fire. This is also the level at which I usually see guns or other ranged weapons start tracking ammunition.
• 3: Statlines represent specific, in-universe models or designs of weapons. As highlighted above, Shadowrun has multiple iterations of the Ares Predator pistol, and other weapons are referred to by in-universe brand name and often have lore attached to them. Weapons will have a number of detailed stats, including damage, armor penetration, reach or range, rate of fire/attack speed, ammunition count/reload speed, and probably specific traits or an in-depth modification system.

Now, obviously, not every system fits into these categories and some are in between them. I'd consider Dungeons and Dragons a 2.5 - it breaks Martial swords down into shortsword, longsword, greatsword, rapier, scimitar, and sometimes falchion, but doesn't differentiate between different types of longsword. I would call the FFG 40k RPGs a 2.5 as well, with both generic 'bolt pistols' and specific models of bolt pistol present. I'm not personally familiar with a system I would consider a 1.5, but I think it would probably be something that categorizes systems by a limited number of traits without referencing specific designs - something like Medium Precise Melee for a rapier or Heavy Slow Ranged for a big crossbow.

As always, it seems, the tradeoff when you move the detail slider seems to be differentiation vs preservation of player/creator effort. More specific weapons allow for characters with otherwise superficially similar weapons to play out differently (my hunting rifle and your shotgun are very different weapons), but it requires tracking more stats for players. Category 3 results in big, meaty gear lists - which some players like and which cause other players to zone out - and it offers a new way to deliver setting-specific lore and flavor, but it also makes balance more difficult. The more guns you make the more likely some of them are just objectively better than others, or you're spending design effort and space on vendor trash, and players are either forced to trawl through reams of gear for the best items or just accept whatever seems best at first glance.

Conversely, simpler weapons make gameplay smoother - Remannt's weapons all have damage measured in MoS + X, so if you're using a medium weapon, you know your damage is your margin of success +2 every time. However, two characters with medium weapons - whether those are battleaxes, maces, or rapiers - are going to fight functionally identically, except if one of them has a ranged weapon. If your game features tactical combat, I also think it limits the challenges you can pose to your players. If your game doesn't have different ranges for shotguns and sniper rifles it gets harder to make a close quarters tunnel fight feel different from open field.

What level of detail do you use - and what level do you think is best for different types of games or genres? Does your fantasy game need to track swords by Oakeshott typology? Should your cyberpunk game track revolvers and automatics separately, or is 'pistol' fine?

As a footnote, I think a very similar category system could be applied to armor, but I rarely see armor go past 2.5. Maybe people just find it less interesting to get into detail on armor or other defensive gear?

In older, crunchier games, it seemed (at least to me) that it was reasonably common for skill-based systems to have quite a few skills related to various weapons, usually breaking weapons into different categories which PCs would then have different skill ratings in.

• Shadowrun 4th edition may be the undisputed champion of this, as it subdivides melee weapons into Blades, Clubs, Exotic Melee Weapons, and Unarmed Combat, and ranged weapons into Archery, Automatics, Exotic Ranged Weapons, Heavy Weapons, Longarms, Pistols, and Throwing Weapons.
• Hollow Earth Expedition had Brawl and Melee (weapons) for melee and Archery, Firearms, and Gunnery for ranged. It also split Brawl into two skills (Brawl and Martial Arts) in a supplement.
• Cthulhutech had Armed Fighting and Fighting for melee and and Marksman, Support Weapons, and Thrown Weapons for ranged.
• A Time of War (one of the BattleTech RPGs) has Martial Arts and Melee Weapons for melee and Archery, Artillery, Gunnery, Small Arms, Support Weapons, and Thrown Weapons for ranged, some of which have mandatory subskills (such as choosing the vehicle type for Gunnery).

However, it seems like this has fallen out of favor; most of the recent skill-based systems I've seen generally just have one skill to cover all melee combat and one for all ranged combat. If they subdivide any further, it's usually to split melee into unarmed and armed, and ranged into small arms and 'big guns' (everything from machine guns to vehicular weaponry). My current draft has multiple different weapon skills, but I'm re-evaluating whether that's actually beneficial or is just a holdover from an earlier, crunchier version of the game.

I feel like there are some pretty obvious pros and cons to dividing skills up this way. It aids in character differentiation; especially if you have a system with feats/talents that are specific to certain weapons, it can allow a duellist to feel very different from a bare knuckle brawler, a sniper to stand apart from a gunslinger. It gives combat characters something to invest in besides "the one skill I use," supports a more detailed weapon list, and makes combat characters less fungible (the gunslinger can't pick up a heavy machine gun and be exactly as capable).

The big downside is paperwork - it's more things for players to have to track and improve, and is less intuitive than "raise your Firearms skill to be good at shooting". It slows character improvement (if they want more than one skill), and can create feels-bad moments where a skilled character is forced to use an unfamiliar weapon and their master sniper is arbitrarily bad with a shotgun. I think it also might discourage experimentation or trying to branch out, since leveling a new weapon means you'll still be worse than your main weapon (unless there's clear reasons to use a different weapon).

Do you use multiple weapon skills in your game? Do you think they improve or detract from games in general? When, or in what types of games, would you use them?