 skill grouping, another thread |
  |
 Jul 5 2006, 03:31 AM
Post
#101
|
|||
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957  |
Can anything that doesn't involve indisputable fact? Hell, sometimes indisputable fact isn't enough to sway someone. :) |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Jul 5 2006, 04:38 AM
Post
#102
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 3-May 04 Member No.: 6,298 |
My typical reaction to this problem is to look at it as not being a question of which is more realistic, but being a question of which provides better game balance and focus. Shadowrun is combat heavy and encourages the idea of characters that are specialized. A character which spends a significant fraction of their points on weapon skills is reasonable in Shadowrun, so it's reasonable to split up weapon skills in the way it does.
Not every game is like that, however. The White Wolf series of modern-day horror games (Vampire, Werewolf, etc..) make combat a smaller focus and don't encourage the character whose primary focus is on combat. So they group together many combat skills that are separate in SR3. They also distinguish different weapons less than is done in SR3. My take on the issue, as a matter of RPG design, is that skills should be divided so that each skill is of approximately equal value in the setting. In some games, like Shadowrun, that means it is reasonable to have a number of separate weapon skills. In other games, like Vampire: the Requiem, it isn't. As for giving bonuses to related skills, while I like the idea, I tend to push it by encouraging players to handle it themselves, by saying things like, "I'm surprised your character got to be an expert with WeaponX while having no experience with WeaponY." When you add in the fact that low-ranked skills are cheaper than high-ranked ones, that solves a lot of the problem for me. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 04:38 AM
Post
#103
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Untrue. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics_2...ide/default.stm http://boxing.about.com/od/amateurs/a/oly_rules.htm Olympic boxing places more emphasis on points than professional boxing does but knockout and technical knockout are valid methods of achieving olympic victory. The techically proficient amature boxer may be able to score many points but none of them matter if he is physically unable to continue due to injuries. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 5 2006, 04:45 AM
Post
#104
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
ah, i was going off the Wiki article. they spend so much time talking about points, i had to read both your links twice before i found the parts that talk about winning by KO. and even then, it wasn't very clear.
training in other styles isn't necessarily about picking up new techniques yourself, it's about understanding what techniques might get thrown at you. several fighters i know view their cross-training in other styles less as a way to pick up new tricks and more as a way to practice their favored style (or combination of styles) against other styles. that's one of the dangers about being single-style; most of your experience comes from fighting guys who fight the same way you do. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 5 2006, 08:49 PM
Post
#105
|
|||||||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
If your world has bows and blowguns as a common setting element, then it's impossible for someone to have a high Shooting and "never heard of" them before. If you're running a super-high-tech game where archery was abandoned millenia ago, then you've got a different story: all SW skills are geared towards their setting. One thing Savage Worlds does a lot of is: "Take what works and rename it"; this way, they don't have to have different skills for sci-fi and fantasy settings. It's part of what makes it work as a generic system.
Real world? Yes. As you can see, boxing is a bit more controversial on this point than others, so let's use another tournament art: Tae Kwon Do. Sport Tae kwon Do is touch-only, and sometimes it's even no-contact. You never land a forceful blow, you can't hit a lot of different areas, and you're scored on points. Essentially, it's a fancy game of tag. I can't begin to tell you the numbers of Tae Kwon Do students I've known who got masssacred by a street fighter or in a no-holds-barred sparring match. Heck, one of my ex-wife's friends is a former TKD *instructor* who got trashed by a mugger.
Sorry, but you're wrong. SR3 had the talismongering knowledge skill, which allowed you to actively gather ingredients; it also had the Chemistry knowledge skill, which allowed you to cook up drugs and explosives. Also, all performance and artistic skills under SR3 are covered under knowledge skills. Knowledge skills in SR3, 4, and SW can be better considered to be: "Non-combat fluff skills" than intellectual leanings.
1) Why do you give the munchkins more fodder? Personally, when I have munchkins, I try to educate and teach them, to get them to improve their playing. why do you encourage them to revel in rules-lawyering? Straightforward systems discourage rules-lawyers, simply because they have less rules to argue over. This makes things infinitely faster. 2) While I can recite the rules for multiple systems off the top of my head, in detailed "gamist" systems, you want to look for yourself. Gamist systems reward you for squeaking out every last possible modifier in your favor. You can always ask someone else, but if the rule is complex and you don't have it memorized, it'll take almost as long to have the local expert recite the rules as it would take you to read it.
You can't win a fight, but you can win a tournament without laying a finger on the other guy. Remember, the olympics are sports; the goal of a sport isn't to hurt the other guy, but to demonstrate athleticism. In reality, I've seen multiple arts that are effective street styles and are completely useless in the ring. For example, one style my friend studied relied heavily on close-quarter knees-and-elbow strikes, which are illegal in most karate tournaments. Grappling is likewise useless in a standup karate bout, and almost as useless in a judo tournament. Tournament wins have little to do with actual figthing ability.
Royce is not a single-stylist. I'd wager that he's got the equivalent of 10+ black belts in various styles as well; he's just got a specialization in grappling. I also know for a fact that Royce does a lot of unofficial cross-training; I briefly attended a brazillian jiu-jutsu school, and they were constantly quizzing me on how I would use a different art to handle various situations. If what someone else did worked, they'd look and see if it could be incorporated into what they were doing. Also, as mfb pointed out, a good deal of cross-training involves learning the weaknesses of other styles. By studying grappling, I learned how to deal with grapplers, even though I'm an almost pure striking stylist. Kicking arts are damn near useless in a real situation, but they teach you plenty of useful things: balance, efficient leg motions, strength training, and no on. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Jul 5 2006, 09:03 PM
Post
#106
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
My original example involved someone from a current technology setting finding himself in the amazon and needing to grab a blowgun. I assume his setting book is the base SW, but he himself has no prior experience with blowguns and bows. By the base rules he can pick that blowgun up and have instant mastery. Applying GM Fiat or player RP limitations is necessary to maintain realism.
1) Are you saying that the world's greatest boxer would be useless on the streets in the real world? My questions was an either/or proposition. A yes/no answer is indecipherable. 2) I don't want to use a different example, because you're moving from one example to another that makes your point easier to make. We're not talking about trying to use "glorified games of tag" for street combat.
LOL. Go to Bullshido.net if you're looking for a discussion about the combat abilties of martial arts instructors. ;)
Point taken. Luckily SR4 fixed that problem, as there are no active uses for knowledge skills.
Who said I encourage them? There you go jumping to conclusions again.
Your personal preferences do not make an argument, they make a basis for opinion. I prefer to rely on experts instead of wasting time looking the rule up myself. If I'm really curious I'll look it up at some point, but save my group the trouble by listening to the expert for the actual gameplay.
LOL! you cannot win an Olympic boxing tournament without laying a finger on someone.
Way to argue the post I said wasn't an arguement. :) And oh yeah, your betters beat you to it. ;) |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Jul 5 2006, 09:08 PM
Post
#107
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Yes you can. It's simple. Your opponent(s) cheat. By taking steroids, for example. You win. The point is, sports have rules. Combat does not have rules. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 5 2006, 09:11 PM
Post
#108
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Ok, point taken. If every opponent you face in the tournament gets cought cheating you win without touching someone. That's a bit farfetched though, and completely ignores skill. Someone with no fighting skills at all could win in that situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 09:18 PM
Post
#109
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
That is exactly the point, James. A sport has rules that may have nothing whatsoever to do with fighting ability, yet still determine (wholly or partially) the victor.
That's the only part of this that I'm getting into. I'm saying that no amount of sport or tournament fighting is equivalent to actual combat. Once you add a rule, it's not the same thing. Although, it certainly helps. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather fight Joe Average who was in a brawl last night than a championship boxer who'd never fought outside a ring. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 09:21 PM
Post
#110
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I'm not saying the're equivilent either. But an accomplished boxer is going to have more ability in a fight then an average, trainingless Joe, if nothing else because he's trained himself to take a shot and not cry about it. Examples like "everyone fails the drug test" are possible, but far from plausible.
In reality an Olympic level boxer is highly capable in the ass kicking department, he'll just fall shorter when trying to fight someone with multiple schools of training and an otherwise equal fighting level. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 09:25 PM
Post
#111
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
I agree completely.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 09:29 PM
Post
#112
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
One down, 583,000,000 more to go. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 11:36 PM
Post
#113
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
and you don't think sticking with boxing doesn't make your point easier to make? on the whole, though, sticking with boxing works for me, because it does make my base point--that a guy who trains with his fists is going to be a capable knife-fighter--easier to make. i don't even know, or care anymore, what this whole thing with exhibition sports is about. the basic point is, and remains, that a grouped skill system is just as realistic as a discrete skill system. they're just realistic in different ways. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 5 2006, 11:43 PM
Post
#114
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,028 Joined: 9-November 02 From: The Republic of Vermont Member No.: 3,581 |
Consider a modern-day setting. The real world, or a near approximation thereof. Bows are not in common use, but they are still used (bowhunters, target archers, recreationists), readily available (you can buy everything you need in the sporting section of your neighborhood department store), and effective (a broadhead will still kill you just as dead as it would have a thousand years ago). While it's unlikely that anyone would literally have never heard of bows, it's not in the least implausible that even people who are very good with rifles or pistols would never have actually handled a bow, or shot one at all, much less to the point that they're anywhere near as competent with it as they are with a rifle or pistol. Furthermore, the skills basically don't cross over at all... someone who's good with a rifle probably won't be completely incompetent with a crossbow, once he figures out how to work it, but may be literally unable to hit the broad side of a barn with a longbow. (I've seen it.) So, we have Bob the Example PC, military veteran. He's had broad-based training in a lot of different types of firearms, and real-world combat experience to back it up. He's best with his standard-issue rifle, but he's fired all sorts of other things, both in the line of duty and for fun, and is pretty good with pretty much any type of firearm. He's never used a bow, though... no interest, no opportunity, and the Army certainly never trained him with one. One day when he's out at the mall, not expecting trouble, and not carrying a weapon, he gets jumped by the Bad Guys, and ends up being chased through a department store. So he runs to the sporting goods section, looking for a shotgun or something... it's not his M16, but it'll do. Unfortunately, all the guns have trigger locks on them, and all the ammo's locked away in a safe. But... there's a whole rack of bows just lying there - hunting bows, target bows, recurves, compounds - and enough arrows - target arrows, hunting broadheads - to re-enact Agincourt. Can Bob pick up one of those bows and a fistful of arrows and start picking off Bad Guys just like he did with the 50 on the Hummer back in Baghdad? Now consider George, one of Bob's squad mates. Like Bob, he was in the Army, and trained in all the same stuff, and saw action in the Gulf. But George is also an avid bow-hunter, has been taking deer with them since he was about 12, and spends every Thursday night outside of deer season killing targets with his own personal compound bow. Now, if George gets cornered in the sporting goods section of that department store, can he grab one of those bows and start picking off Bad Guys? If you say yes to both, how do you justify Bob having fairly high skills with a weapon that he's never used in his life, and that handles nothing at all like the ones that he has used? If you say yes to George, but no to Bob, how do you justify George getting more than Bob for the same investment of points in Shootin' Skill? If you say no to both, because the bow isn't an appropriate weapon for their genre, what kind of crack are you smoking? In SR3, this is easy to reconcile... Bob and George have the same basic set of the various firearms skills, from their Army training and experience, but George has a Projectile Weapons skill too, and spent some points that Bob didn't to get it, so Bob has some more points to use elsewhere.
I don't see that this is particularly useful. It adds very little complexity to have a Firearms skill, a Bow skill, and a Blowgun skill, that all work basically the same but with different sets of weapons, instead of just having one Shooting skill that covers everything. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 6 2006, 12:37 AM
Post
#115
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
My point is that there is a correlation between contact tournament sports and combat abilties on the street. His point was that tournament tae kwon do is a noncontact sport and people get beat up on the streets using it. He's tossed up a false example and asserted his point through it.
We know, and we've (or at least I've) even agreed with you. :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 6 2006, 12:42 AM
Post
#116
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Um.. tournament Taekwondo isn't always non-contact. There are two branches of Taekwondo in North America, WTF and ITF.. admittedly I can't remember which is which, but one of them does do full contact tournaments, and a knockout or technical knockout is a win there. I'm pretty sure that's restricted to black belt competition only, but it's a full contact, multi-round match, at age 14+ at least.
Just correcting a minor factual problem. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 12:52 AM
Post
#117
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Aye, there are also some TKD skools that focus of practical self-defense rather than the sport. I when I was younger I was a member of a dojo that practiced full-contact sparring and focused on actual self-defense. We entered a few point-tournaments when I was there. We tended to fail miserably.
One thing to remember about TKD is that, according to South Korean law, it is a blanket term for all Korean martial arts, not just Korea's national sport. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 01:29 AM
Post
#118
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
yes, but the only reason boxing is a part of this discussion at all is that you said a boxer shouldn't be good with bladed weapons in a fight. the whole argument about exhibition fighting (eg, boxing) versus street fighting is just a spin-off of that original argument. you and Cain have somehow managed to switch sides in this crazy dance, with Cain arguing that exhibition fighting shouldn't carry over to street fighting (ie, similar skills should be discrete, as in SR) and you arguing that they should (ie, similar skills should be grouped, as in SW). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 6 2006, 03:04 AM
Post
#119
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
If you expect a yes/no answer in martial arts, you're asking entirely the wrong question. Now, a boxer is going to have certain advantages over nontrained people: he's stronger, higher level of fitness, better suited at absorbing punishment and landing blows. When he starts learning a combative art, as opposed to a combative sport, he's going to develop many times faster than Joe Blow. However, if he's literally got no training in combat arts, he's not going to be a death machine on the street. He might even be worse, since his preconceptions could cause him to make mistakes-- he might not take a shot, because it's illegal; he might freeze when he's hit to the groin, because he's forgotten that there's no ref and expects one to intervene. You're trying for a straw man; your example has been of someone with an extremely high boxing skill, but absolutely no ability in a real fight. That being the case, it should come as no surprise to you that your boxer will be useless in a real fight.
I'm *on* Bullshido.net. Heck, where do you think this woman posted her story about being mugged? Have you ever taken a single self-defense or martial art lesson in your life?
Incorrect. Look up Professional Knowledge skills. They represent all sorts of active abilities. Also, Interest skills cover hobbies, so an Interest in model ship building would correspond to an active ability.
Which 1) takes just as long, and 2) can lead to just as much trouble if you think he remembers wrong, or if he makes a mistake.
Kind-of, but that's not represented by having a high combat skill. That's represented by having a high toughness, strength, and more cool under pressure. However, once the rules are lifted, many people start to freeze under the pressures of real combat. Even people who practice full-contact sparring have this happen to them. The reality is that a well-trained boxer will have advantages in a fight, but he's hardly going to be guaranteed to be "highly capable".
In this case, it's not the Shooting skill that matters. It's the various Edges that support the weapon styles. So, both characters are going to have a good shooting skill, but they're going to have different edges. Bob ends up being much better with his m16, since that's what he spent a lot of edges on; George is going to have a lot of archery edges, which make a huge difference. George is going to outshoot Bob with a bow, every time; and Bob won't be able to compete with the people at Aginicourt, because he lacks those edges. Similarily, George (probably) lacks the rifle edges, so he's not going to be as good as Bob.
There actually isn't; full-contact, full-force tournaments are fairly rare. And even then, the fact that you get to prepare before hand, aren't facing multiple opponents, and have the other guy come at you square after you've had a chance to study his style, all combine to remove tournament fighting from real combat. The classic example: if you need to warm up for 20 minutes before you become effective with your martial art, then you're ineffective. What does exist is a correlation between full-contact sparring and street effectiveness; sparring is the best substitute possible for real combat experience. Even then, that's not a guarantee. Sport training can actually impede your street skills, especially with such a focus on illegal striking zones, checked-force contact, and many others.
Actually, the boxer will have edges that will carry over. I consider tournament arts to be roughly equal to dancing when it comes to combat effectiveness: they'll help you learn a lot faster, but they're not useful in and of themselves. I don't see the skills as being similar at all: any combat skill is going to be centered on keeping your head in a real fight, while artistic skills will be about looking good for the judges. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Jul 6 2006, 04:00 AM
Post
#120
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Ummm... Hello? Are you reading what you type? I didn't expect a yes or no answer. In fact, I asked a non yes or no question. You gave me a yes answer.
Yep. I took some karate as a kid at my uncle's dojo. I got my green belt before I decided I'd rather be gaming. I took self defense in both high school and college for the easy A's. I feel more than capable of defending myself against a typical attacker, and have won more fights then I've lost. I'm by no means an expert, and have never claimed to be.
"Indirectly helpful with legwork, contacts, and polite society." There are no rules for using knowledge skills in SR4 to actually do things.
1) It takes a heck of a lot less time for someone to give an answer then it does to look it up if they know the answer off the top of their head. IF you expect a lengthy explanation or want to debate it, you'll have the same problems whether you';re looking it up or getting it answered. 2) It certainly could. But the time saved by letting people you trust answer questions is worth the risk. My group is a pretty rules savvy bunch, and I have no problems whatsoever putting rules questions in their laps. We know what we know, and if we don't know it, then we look it up.
Others have disagreed with you. I tend to trust them more, as they've never shown a penchant for puting words in others' mouths, making things up, or answering non-yes/no questions with a yes. :)
The example stipulated that they had the same experience level with firearms. Maybe you can respond to the question without adding in your own conditions? It's entirely possible that they both have d8 shooting, but Bob's friend has a couple of bow edges. C'mon now, you've been given similar questions several times and have yet to answer one without adding your own conditions. In other words, you've added your GM Fiat to make the rules work in the situation.
Again, I'll go ahead and side with the people that haven't shown themselves to be dishonest in the past. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:18 AM
Post
#121
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
could you two please figure out what it is that you're arguing about, and then argue it? and James, you've lied to my virtual face in the past, so get off your high horse about honesty.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 01:20 PM
Post
#122
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
There's a difference in feigning innocence (which is blatantly obvious) and making stuff up to back a faulty point. Besides, I don't think Cain would like being told he's like me. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 04:06 PM
Post
#123
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
You know James, even when I agree with you (which I freely admit happens from time to time) you argue in such an obnoxious way that it makes me feel dirty for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 04:19 PM
Post
#124
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
What exactly do you find obnoxious about it?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 04:39 PM
Post
#125
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Hear ye! Hear ye! All view and bear witness to the danwing of a new age. A kinder, gentler James.
I'm gonna try to be less obnoxious. :) Perhaps a more Socratic method of debate wpuld be more appreciated? |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st April 2025 - 06:29 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.