 Martial Arts |
  |
 Oct 10 2006, 09:05 PM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957  |
Nah, that's not bemoaning. That's telling you you're wrong. Bemoaning looks a lot different. Besides, I was saying your position is anal, not pedantic. :) |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Oct 10 2006, 09:15 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
Well then you were wrong because I was being pedantic. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 10 2006, 09:23 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...and no mention about good old fashioned Boxing.
The basic moves would be: Punch Jab Cross Uppercut Block Clinch (Grapple) ...as to martial arts as a specialisation: I have no issue if, as mentioned in several other responses above, the +2 pool modifier only comes into play with the specific moves for a given discipline (*Fool*, you listening?). One idea would be to use the Martial Art descriptions (& not the actual rule expansions) from the Cannon Companion as a general guide as to which moves are part of each style. I agree, we really don't need another comprehensive [read: complex] ruleset for Martial arts. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2006, 09:28 PM
Post
#29
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
The two are not mutually exclusive. They're also not collectively exhaustive, that is there's an entire host of other things you could have been being. :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 10 2006, 09:54 PM
Post
#30
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
You are assuming my position is that we should penalize anyone who misses this problem and deny them their bonus dice to parry. Or at least that was what you were caiming was anal before. Where in fact my I took no position I only identified a flaw. The position I took is that adding further complexity to the unarmed combat system is uncalled for, the example that I used and you claimed made me an anal GM was to point out that further complexity is uncalled for. If you claim that my position is anal, and my position calls for simplification, than I question your understanding of anal. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 10 2006, 10:02 PM
Post
#31
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,174 Joined: 13-May 04 From: UCAS Member No.: 6,327 |
Oh yeah, watch out for the hair grab maneuver. :nyah: Argh, I glitched on my kung fu history knowledge skill. Lohan is a shaolin style. Ugh, anyway, it's an old, established style. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 10 2006, 10:30 PM
Post
#32
|
|||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
So, um, I think this qualifies a vote for "both"? Lohan-style. :silly: :notworthy: |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Oct 10 2006, 11:54 PM
Post
#33
|
|||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
You told someone not to take the specialization because they would not be able to use it, and yet want to claim that you were not taking the stance the the specialization is unusable? Interesting.
There was no, "for example" or similar phrase in any of the posts prior to you telling someone that the specialization was unusable. It was not until you were called on it that your story changed to "I'm just giving examples I don't actually agree with." You've taken two positions, at least one of which was anal. Erm... wait. That's not quite how I meant it. ;)
If you knew how many videos I'd seen you would never question my understanding of anal. :eek: Ok, I shouldn't have gone there, but I'm a baaaad boy. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Oct 11 2006, 12:23 AM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
You took that quote to the extreme of assuming that I would lord over someone that mistake and deny them the ability. If you were to get anything out of that it shouldbe to take Blocking as a spec instead of Parry since that is what you woul dbe doing with it. You seem to think that if I say a character sheet with parry I'd force someone to be stuck with a useless spec. I also would recomend noone ever take Cyberimplant Surgery as a specialization of Heavy Weapons. Does that make me anal as well? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 11 2006, 12:26 AM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
But I really wanted to riddle someone with nanite-laden bullets from my trusty heavy machine gun. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 11 2006, 12:51 AM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
I was thinking more along the lines of a military grade laser for eye implants.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 11 2006, 12:56 AM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...KK, having studied Muy Thai perfected the flying kick in the balls maneuver. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 11 2006, 02:02 AM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
If "reading what was written" is the same as "taking things to the extreme" then guilty as charged. :) Telling someone not to take cyberimplant surgery for heavy weapons is (as you almost certainly know) not the same. One is a valid thing in the book that you gave a pedantic and anal argument against without making it clear that you weren't as anal about it as you appeared. The second doesn't exist, has no argument against it, and is phrased in a way that shows it isn't serious. If someone says "X is in the rules, but don't pick it because it doesn't work for reasons Y and Z" it's usually pretty safe to assume that person is of the opinion that X doesn't work because of Y and Z. If that's not your intent then you may want to think about a better way to phrase your statements. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 11 2006, 02:50 AM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 23-June 06 Member No.: 8,768 |
How hard would it be to just change the specializations of Unarmed Combat to Attack, Block and Subdue? That is, specialize by function instead of flavor. Is there another use for Unarmed I'm missing? I would include cyber-implant in those three- those functions are what you are using it for anyway.
For flavor you can define whatever style you want by that- "I'm an Aikido master, and my style focuses on defense" or "I use Muy Thai, a hard style, that focuses on striking". Yes, all the martial arts teach all three, but for flavor you can define which is the emphasis, without having to go into elaborate rule creations. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 11 2006, 03:59 AM
Post
#40
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,174 Joined: 13-May 04 From: UCAS Member No.: 6,327 |
You want to know something really crazy? The Xingyi boxing style that I learn, one of the forms is known as chicken, one of the opening part for the form is a double strike for the groin, an initial underhand right swing with a grab and tear followed by a left hand strike downward. One of the benefits is that if they're wearing a cup the grab and tear is to open it up for the left hand strike. :D Ah well, I fight to win, even if it involves crotch shots. ;-) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 11 2006, 04:07 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 870 Joined: 2-October 06 From: Athens Ga Member No.: 9,517 |
I think that it would be better to have a few skills that cover the basic catagories of actions of MA would be better then a bunch of manuevers.
I was thinking about something like this: Linear Strikes - Strikes designed to do just damage, gets into physical damage Circular Strikes - Better to counter with but less damage Soft Grappling - Little damage but extra stun. Throws and joint locks. Hard Grappling - Designed to damage limbs so they don't work. Joint breaking. Then have the actual MAs reflected as a series of Knowledge skills that would cover techniques, etiquette, and history. Then make Unarmed Combat the Skill Group (or Martial Arts). BTW it works better to make unarmed and melee attacks simple actions, though I could see ground grappling being an extended complex action. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 11 2006, 04:15 AM
Post
#42
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
I stand by the fact that while Parry is listed as a spec, but does not work because it should be Block is true. The point is you ignored the fact that I indicated it was a pedantic argument and chose instead make an ad hominem attack and claim that what I said is invalid and I am an anal GM who would lord it over my players to such an awful degree as to say, "you can't use your bonus parry unarmed dice to block... haha! i win!! u loose!! n00b!" And if you believe that you are reading into my statement a anal behavior that you imply would occur in a game, with real repricusions to a players character, and that I would laugh and call them n00b. Your assumption is false. In this respect I illustrating a parallel between the MA spec and the parrying spec. Writing martial arts as a specialization is as poorly thought out as writing parry. If you wrote it and my statement bothers you I'm sorry, I don't mean to hurt your feelings. However the fact remains that there is a contradiction within the 349 page book. Wow, not very amazing is it? I pointed out a flaw in the rules, in a public forum which may be perceived as existing for the discussion of rules. You made the claim that I was a bad game master because of it. You came to that conclusion because it was the simplest conclusion you could come to, in fact a parsimonius conclusion.
Parsimony, where have I heard that before? Oh yes:
Now it is my turn for the ad hominem argment. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Oct 11 2006, 04:22 AM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
I think this makes it cost far too much unless there is something clever going on here. With all SR skills costing the same, I'd never go for this. My characters don't tend to spend much time where they don't have at least a pistol or ceramic knife. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 11 2006, 04:23 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
And for the record I advocate any given real world MA style to be pure flavor. If the intent of the specializations is that MA = Offensive, Parry = Defensive, Subdual and Cyber-implant are as they are written then that is how it should be. Martial Arts is far too open to interpretation if they ment offensive then it should be offensive. Parry is counterdefined, if they mean defensive then it should be defensive.
I do not advocate a complex martial arts style chapter in arsenal. For the same reason I do not advocate adding weights to every item in the world. Having brought it up I apologize, that is an argument that will never die. However if in fact Arsenal will be including the Rigger information we sorely need then any chapter on martial arts is wasting valuable space. If it comes down to having special style rules or an index I'll take an index. I would hate to see a repeat of Runner Havens where an index was excluded because there was not room. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 11 2006, 06:48 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
The editing of SR4 is good. "Parry" should read "block" because both are extremely similar and intent is pretty obvious.
That many MAs teach all aspects of Unarmed Combat tells us one thing: the specialisation should have been called something like "attack". You´d then either have a balanced MA as Unarmed Combat skill without specialisations, or choose a strong point. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 11 2006, 07:05 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 23-August 06 Member No.: 9,205 |
My own martial rules, borrowed from my friend's excellent rules he used in his Star Trek game:
'unarmed combat' is a unique skill in that it can have multiple specialties. These specialties apply all the time... but when used against an opponent with the same specialties, they cancel. Most gangers, for instance, will have 'Unarmed Combat (streetfighting).' When fighting each other, the streetfighting cancel out -- no-one gets extra dice. In comes the kung fu master. He knows 'Unarmed Combat (kung fu)', but not streetfighting -- both he and the gangers get +2. Kung fu master then retires, and teaches a ganger how to fight in his style. That ganger now has both specialisations: now, he gets a +2 against other gangers (because of his kung fu), but they get none against him (because he possesses their specialisation as well). Kung Fu Ganger will also retain his +2 bonus when he goes into chinatown and fights other kung fu practicioners... but if he uses the +2, it means he's using streetfighting moves. The other kung fu guys might find this newcomer offensive and barbaric, with all his uncouth 'street' moves and refuse to fight him... but the ganger can always choose to forego the +2 and fight using only kung fu -- until his life's in danger, when he breaks out the squirrel grip to clinch the fight (so to speak). |
|
|
|
|
Oct 11 2006, 07:29 AM
Post
#47
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
I agree. I think "attack" is a better name for the specialization, because some martial arts might fit more in the blocking (aikido) or subdual combat (Greco-Roman wrestling) specializations. Besides, unarmed combat essentially is martial arts, so it's a redundant name for a specialization. It's like having "pointy" as a specialization for the Edged Weapons skill. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 11 2006, 09:53 AM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
:rotfl: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 11 2006, 10:07 AM
Post
#49
|
|||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Wrong: There is no 'Block' referred by the rules, only 'block'. But there is a 'Full Parry'. If you want to be pedantic, do it right.
Obviously, Occams Razor eludes you. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 11 2006, 01:50 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
SO Rotbart you would say that PArry is a valid specialization because works when you are in Full Parry? If that is the case then it is not a very useful specialization because it still fails to be helpful to block, and only in those rare cases when you use a full parry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 9th June 2025 - 03:24 AM |
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.