Can anything that doesn't involve indisputable fact? Hell, sometimes indisputable fact isn't enough to sway someone.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

My reply was basically that I intend to be rude, insulting, and condescending but only to certain people who I feel also act that way and hence deserve to get a return volley every so often, and that while I try and differentiate my sarcasm and jokes with smileys I'm sure I fail at times.

At other boards (I used rpol.net and starfleetgames.com as examples) I have a much different persona (the kinder, gentler James) because that's the tone of those boards, and I'm a GM at rpol and don't want to seem like a tyrant. Dumpshock's "no holds barred" tone comes across in my posts, apparently even more than I intend it to.

Certainly, having a rule that supports realistic choices is the best solution, but given the complexities of skill crossover, I don't think a satisfying rule will ever come up. I think the best solution is to just keep doing what you've been doing and pick the skills that you know would be most appropriate. And if people abuse that lack of a rule and make more munchkiny or less realistic characters, I think you just have to shrug it off, 'cause they're not getting away with all that much anyway.
A solid rule would be better, but I just don't see that happening.

Engineering and Interests. Both are direct examples. Also, Journalism is the skill used to actually write things intelligably for publication.

In both cases, it's far better to not have the issue come up at all. You're saying: "The delay isn't so bad that we can't live with it", while I'm saying that it's still a significant delay, and it's still bad enough.

No one here has suggested that a boxer is invincible in a street fight, only that he's got advantages. No one here has suggested that a combat-trained fighter wouldn't demolish a boxer in a street fight. And most of all, no one other than you has suggested that sport fighting = general fighting ability.

Did you *read* what I posted?

The exact solution is going to depend on the system. Basically, broader groupings have certain advantages: they're better (but still not perfect) at demonstrating general proficiencies, easier to handle in bookkeeping and play, and run much faster. The advantages of a specific system include percieved realism (whish is debateable) and more fine control.

In my experience, the more fine control you offer, the more openings for munchkinism you have. The classic example from GURPS was someone trying to buy the "missing one hand" disadvantage one finger at a time, to get more points. Generalized systems tend to not lend themselves to this nearly as readily.

It's just as easy to look something up in a book as other things are happening; but that's what we're trying to avoid. Having to ask another person takes two people out of the game for a bit, instead of one. It's even worse when it's the GM who has to ask; if a player disagrees, the books start coming out.

Not correct:

So, Bob has a specialization in his standard-issue M16. George is kinda up in the air, but there's a definite implication that he's trained heavily enough to be specialized in bows. These differences can come out with the same base skill, plus a specialization in the appropriate weapon.

Generalized systems are more abuse-resistant, although nothing is purely abuse-proof. And while YMMV on many things, abuse-resistance is always a plus when objectively prioritizing game systems. Generalized systems also have less "bean-counting", to use your term, and tend to run much faster and smoother.

Detailed systems have a higher amount of percieved realism, although the amount of actual realistic modeling is debateable. They also offer a higher degree of fine control: you can do a lot more tweaking and fiddling.

Properly done, neither is better than the other, but both lend themselves to certain styles of play. A tactically focused game, where detail and precision is important, will favor the detailed systems. A freeform game, with emphasis on player interactions and roleplay, will favor the general system.

Both Savage Worlds and Shadowrun fall on the tactical side of the spectrum, although admittedly Shadowrun is much further up that side than SW.

Actually, I did, but it probably got lost due to the way I post. Basically, if someone's never even heard of blowguns and bows, yet they're a core part of the setting weapons, then they've got no right to have a high Shooting skill in the first place. If they're extremely rare or nonexistant, then there's no problem at all; the weapons just never come up, or can be clearly stated to not be appropriate to the setting.

Remember, the Drive skill in SW covers hovercars, chariots, and station wagons all at once; however, it expressly limits the scope to only the vehicles appropriate to the setting.

The quote was something like this: "No kidding I think my opinion is right; if I thought it was wrong, why would I have it?" Seriously, I know I'm an opinionated bastard who loves a good argument. However, I never go for the outright flames and/or trolls. Backhanded insults and condescenscion, I'll confess to, but that's generally after I've already been attacked.

Sorry, I misremembered the original question, so allow me to rephrase it in the hopes of finally getting an answer tot he question I've been trying to ask, but apparently failing at.

1) 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 is a pretty good with pretty much any type of firearm.

2) George the example PC: Bob's good buddy. 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 is a pretty good with pretty much any type of firearm. He's also had some experience bow hunting, and is a pretty good shot with a bow, albeit not noticably better than he is with a firearm. Overall both Bob and George are at the same skill level with the weapons they are familiar with.

To return to the original Bob/George questions:

Bob gets caught in the department store and grabs a bow. 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, 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?

I'm incredibly curious about this, and it's partly my inability to ask the question in a way that you'll answer what I mean to ask that has contributed to the length and vinegar of this thread.

I just noticed this:

In the situation above Bows are far from being a core part of the setting's weapons, but neither are they nonexistent. It isn't common to meet someone with bow skills (at least not outside of Renfair circles). There are certainly a lot more people that own guns then own bows, but they aren't archaic or alien technology. Are they so different that George would have an entirely different Shooting Skill to cover them? Or perhaps SW already has a core (i.e. not setting specific) rule in place for picking up weapons from outside the typical weapons from your technology level?

Savage Worlds does presume that the skill covers all "typical" items covered under that skill. So, if you're from the year 3500, your shooting skill will cover all kinds of hand blasters easily, and probably will cover slugthrowers. However, if you get handed a Colt 45 dragoon, you're going to have serious issues since it's not "typical". (IIRC, a Colt Dragoon is a black powder revolver.)

Savage Worlds being a generic system, the GM has to decide what weapons are classified as "typical" and what aren't, based on the setting he's trying to create. Using the previous example, black powder weapons are hardly archaic or alien, but they might not be classified as "typical" in some settings. Even in the late 1800s, when cartridge weapons were becoming more commonplace, the black powder guns saw a lot of use. So, a GM might say that a modern-day gun user can't use his Shooting skill to full effect with a black powder gun, if he's focused on a setting where it might not be so commonplace. On the other hand, a GM might also say that the Colt Dragoons are common enough that someone in an early-mid 1900s game-- a late cowboy era, or a pulp-action game-- has more than enough familiarilty with it.

Generally speaking, it'll never come up in a game. If you don't want George or Bob to pick up a bow and start doing the William Tell thing in a sporting goods store, just put a case of hunting rifles up next to the bows. Even if they technically have similar proficiencies, the natural tendency of a good player will be to stick with his character's preferred fighting style.

I searched the last four pages for "black" and turned up nothing about black powder weapons. Which previous example are you referring to?

One sentence before the quote.
edit: That's not supposed to be snarky or snide. I'm just trying to keep things moving.

Not even that; when you have good players, you won't really have to worry about them twisting their weapon abilities all out of proportion. Like I said: you've got your two guys, with a high Shooting skill, in a department store. They're looking for weapons, and you as a GM put what you reasonably think would be there. If you don't want them to use bows with their shooting skill, then just put a set of hunting rifles right next to the case of bows. I promise you, unless you've got problem players, they'll automatically go for whichever weapon best fits their character. If they've got a William Tell type, they'll take the bows; if they're gun-bunnies, they'll ignore the bows and go for the guns.

Or, let's take a medieval fantasy game. Your players are unarmed, and turned loose in a gladitorial arena full of weapons that they can grab. The greatclub-swinging barbarian is going to ignore all the knives and daggers and sharp objects, and go for the biggest blunt object he can lay hands on. The germanic knight is going to pass on the short swords and daggeers, and instead pick up the greatsword or bastard sword. The swashbuckler will ignore the bastard sword, and pick up the first rapier he can find. And so on. Players will automatically pick up weapons that fit their character concepts, and ignore the ones that don't mesh.

Even in SR3, you just don't see players loading up on certain things. If they've got Edged weapons, the sam with a katana is going to try and stick with a katana. If you offer him a choice between a laser cresent axe and a katana, he's going to pick the katana every time.

I just ran a Wushu game, where there are no weapon proficiencies at all. The kung-fu guys didn't once pick up a SMG from a fallen mook, and the gun-bunnies didn't go for the sharp blades. And that's in a totally wide-open system, with no skill groupings worth mentioning. In a more regimented system, it's even less of a problem.