Full Version: Fixing speed in melee?
| QUOTE (Arethusa) | ||
Actually, I'd say there is. This is one place my real life experience definitely does have some applicability, and in that experience, at very low levels of skill, the aggressor is really at an advantage. |
No, skill isn't part of that generalization. I was talking about TN.
The advantage you mention practically disappears if, say, it's raining a little. It's the same in high-skill scenarios. There's no really good reason for that to happen.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| Two little changes like that would go a long way to making it more believable all around. |
And would make my pack of weenies, I mean Watcher Spirits even more broken.
??? How on earth so? At absolute most it draws out the length of melee combat since the defender has to defend (instead of counterstrike) against incoming attacks..
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| ??? How on earth so? At absolute most it draws out the length of melee combat since the defender has to defend (instead of counterstrike) against incoming attacks.. |
Letting the watcher pack last longer so they can more readily kick the shit out of him
ACL, I don't understand why you don't understand that we just don't agree with your premise that it IS broken... if it never comes up in practice, (never has in my games 6+ years) and most of the people with some MA background seem to agree with the cannon interpretation, than why should we (those of us who don't think it is broken)change it.
If you don't like the way it works, and you want speed to be more effective in melee than skill, than go ahead and houserule it for your games. but don't expect everyone else to agree with your assesment of it. or to demand that we change cannon to fit what YOU think is a major problem but not everyone agrees is a major problem.
-Mike R.
If you don't like the way it works, and you want speed to be more effective in melee than skill, than go ahead and houserule it for your games. but don't expect everyone else to agree with your assesment of it. or to demand that we change cannon to fit what YOU think is a major problem but not everyone agrees is a major problem.
-Mike R.
I do understand. But a few of you are going about saying that 1) you don't understand why others see that it IS broken and 2) keep coming up with weird comments about how fixing it somehow unbalances the game.
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| No, Im saying I feel no need to fix the rules because outside this board, in over 10 years it has never, ever come up in my game. Not once ever have we said "Man that is just way too unrealistic to handle". And a chunk of our group have had martial arts training. |
I certainly don't have the practical experience you do, but it seems to me that it'd be an issue. Even if it's a rare one, I think it's worth fixing. Past that, I can't speak for your experience for obvious reasons.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Seriously. Read through this bit again and think. I won't rolleyes because there's enough of that going on in this thread already. |
I'm serious. If you acknowledge that the rule is broken and your only impetus to not fix it is lack of desire to spend time on something you feel will post little practical problem, I can't stop you, though I certainly can disagree. But there's no argument from there to say that the rule somehow should not be fixed— only that you don't want to do it.
| QUOTE (Zazen) |
| No, skill isn't part of that generalization. I was talking about TN. |
My mistake. Misread that.
And, Fahr, please read back two pages and read my rebuttle to people who think that real life experience has anything to do with this.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| If you acknowledge that the rule is broken and your only impetus to not fix it is lack of desire to spend time on something you feel will post little practical problem, I can't stop you, though I certainly can disagree. |
That's not what you said, though. You implied that I don't care about my game, based on the idea that I agree with you that this is somehow a "glaring problem" but don't do anything about it because I'm lazy.
I never agreed this is a glaring problem. I never even agreed that this is truly broken.
| QUOTE |
| But there's no argument from there to say that the rule somehow should not be fixed— only that you don't want to do it. |
You're right there. I'm not saying the rule should not be fixed. I didn't say I don't want to do it either, though. I said GMs and players in general might not want to do it, because the (should I say alleged) broken-ness of the rule is far less of an issue to them than changing it is.
Sic'ing a group of six force three watchers upon a mage that isn't perceptiing yet, virtually garuntees a surprise beatdown when they go to cast a spell. Each watcher has 3 actions to attack, 3 dice to attack with a TN 2 most likely, and deals 3L staged up normally, resisted by body and armor doesn't apply. By the time the mage gets an action to shut off the astral sense, they are either knocked out, or laboring under a severe stun. And the Watchers are still there waiting for the mage to cast another spell.
Least with the counter attack rules, the mage has a chance of doing some damage before they get knocked the hell out.
Note, most weenie packs don't go after the astrally assensing Adept with more dice then God.
EDIT: Wow that's a flurry, was in response to ACL
Least with the counter attack rules, the mage has a chance of doing some damage before they get knocked the hell out.
Note, most weenie packs don't go after the astrally assensing Adept with more dice then God.
EDIT: Wow that's a flurry, was in response to ACL
aretheusa, I did read you speed post. I don't agree with your assesment. there are things that react and move faster than humans today, so I am pretty sure I can imagine what it would be like for a MA to deal with it. Take any number of animals in the natural world. such as a deer, or Boar. these animals react faster and move faster than humans can. (taking fastest human vs. fastest deer/boar/whatever) but you can still defend against them if they attack you and you know what to do, and even hurt hem back.
so I disagree with your assesment that we have nothing to compare this speed against.
but really, my true bone is that like AE, I don't see this as a big enough problem to warrant slowing down combat by adding more rules to initiative.
the system as it is works well enough that I have never had any complaints from anyone. and adding more rules or another system, unless it is simpler than the current one, is not likely to win me over. it's like trying to fix a off-kilter picture by jacking up one side of the house so it's level. the effort and time doe not produce a result that is significantly better (more fun, easier to do, more realistic,more balanced) than the original rules.
-Mike R.
so I disagree with your assesment that we have nothing to compare this speed against.
but really, my true bone is that like AE, I don't see this as a big enough problem to warrant slowing down combat by adding more rules to initiative.
the system as it is works well enough that I have never had any complaints from anyone. and adding more rules or another system, unless it is simpler than the current one, is not likely to win me over. it's like trying to fix a off-kilter picture by jacking up one side of the house so it's level. the effort and time doe not produce a result that is significantly better (more fun, easier to do, more realistic,more balanced) than the original rules.
-Mike R.
| QUOTE (tjn) |
| Sic'ing a group of six force three watchers upon a mage that isn't perceptiing yet, virtually garuntees a surprise beatdown when they go to cast a spell.... And the Watchers are still there waiting for the mage to cast another spell. |
You know that you don't need to turn on astral perception to cast a spell, right? It's still a good tactic since mages will often use perception during battle for other reasons, but they don't need to for spellcasting.
I must say this thread is rather ironic for me, since I'm currently doing some major tweaking to my Medieval Fantasy Shadowrun melee rules. Needless to say, those are a fair bit more complex than the canon rules, and its basic functioning principle solves this particular problem quite neatly indeed.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| That's not what you said, though. You implied that I don't care about my game, based on the idea that I agree with you that this is somehow a "glaring problem" but don't do anything about it because I'm lazy. I never agreed this is a glaring problem. I never even agreed that this is truly broken. |
In that case, I guess it doesn't really apply to you. I was referring more to BitBasher, who, in this case, seems to agree that the rule is broken, but doesn't feel it will ever practically turn up. Sorry for the confusion.
Really, all I'm saying is that if you agree that it's broken, there's not much room from there to say that it shouldn't be fixed if it would require no real work from you. If you disagree that there's a problem, that's a different set of arguments entirely.
| QUOTE (Fahr) |
| aretheusa, I did read you speed post. I don't agree with your assesment. there are things that react and move faster than humans today, so I am pretty sure I can imagine what it would be like for a MA to deal with it. Take any number of animals in the natural world. such as a deer, or Boar. these animals react faster and move faster than humans can. (taking fastest human vs. fastest deer/boar/whatever) but you can still defend against them if they attack you and you know what to do, and even hurt hem back. |
That's a pretty thin comparison. Deer and humans are so vastly different on a mental level as to make this completely fallacious.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I must say this thread is rather ironic for me, since I'm currently doing some major tweaking to my Medieval Fantasy Shadowrun melee rules. Needless to say, those are a fair bit more complex than the canon rules, and its basic functioning principle solves this particular problem quite neatly indeed. |
Hey, you know, you could elaborate.
I will make no attempt to edit this into a readable form. If you want it, PM me with your email address and I'll send it to you as an Excel 2002 file. This is just to show why I can't really elaborate here... The most important bit is the very beginning.
[ Spoiler ]
Own Offense
Do a lot of Faerun runs, A.E.?
0 thus far. Maybe in 6 months...
| QUOTE (Zazen) |
| You know that you don't need to turn on astral perception to cast a spell, right? It's still a good tactic since mages will often use perception during battle for other reasons, but they don't need to for spellcasting. |
I coulda swore the act of casting a spell or summoning a spirit made the caster astrally active (even if not using astral perception) for a moment. Still is rather nasty for an unsuspecting mage.
Though rereading the section it makes it seem like a spell has an aura that could be attacked as the mage is building it.
Still is rather... cheesy.
The reason why I don't use skill 1 examples is because I don't find them to be common. But okay, if you want to go with them...
Let's say that two characters are fighting, both with skill 1. One of them rolls his one dice, and it comes up a 1-- an "oops". Would you agree that he likely tripped and fell on his face?
Now, we have three people with skill 1, fighting another guy with skill 1. One of the three rolls a 1, and fumbles. Would you agree that he probably tripped and fell in front of his buddies?
Now, we have a crowdful of people with skill 1, fighting our poor beleagured newbie. One of the crowd rolls a 1. Would you agree that he probably tripped and fell in front of his buddies, and got trampled in the process?
When we have 16 people attacking a guy, and they all have skill 1, there's an equal chance on both sides that they'll fumble. What's more the superfast crowd of attacking buddies (S.C.A.B.) has a lot more combat pool. So, yes, our target has a chance to hurt a lot of SCABs. But, he's just as likely to hurt himself-- and what's more, if he does hurt a lot of them, he probably just tripped one of them, who was in turn trampled by his buddies.
Oh, and Lime-- the problem with the watcher attack pack strategy is that it's damn near instant death for any astral combatant. Whirling and unlimited counterattacks is the only way of beating the tactic. What you've missed in the tactic is the really honking huge spirit who's using the watchers as a distraction, and the mage sitting back reading a spell.
Arethrusa: I don't think the rule is broken in the slightest. In order for it to happen, the attacker has to roll worse than the defender, multiple times. If he rolled worse, he did worse. It's not as bad as TN modifiers (the old reach rule was way overpowered, for one) and it's useless against multiple opponents. (Yes, the defender can have whirling-- but they can use maneuvers too.) It's not like it automatically confers some huge edge on the player; it means that he's got a chance, nothing more.
If you think speed deserves more of an advantage, that's cool. That's your opinion, and YMMV. I don't share that opinion, and I think the rules are fine as is. (Well, mostly; I still like the idea of people hurting each other instead of there being a definite winner and loser. But I'm OK with the normal system.)
Let's say that two characters are fighting, both with skill 1. One of them rolls his one dice, and it comes up a 1-- an "oops". Would you agree that he likely tripped and fell on his face?
Now, we have three people with skill 1, fighting another guy with skill 1. One of the three rolls a 1, and fumbles. Would you agree that he probably tripped and fell in front of his buddies?
Now, we have a crowdful of people with skill 1, fighting our poor beleagured newbie. One of the crowd rolls a 1. Would you agree that he probably tripped and fell in front of his buddies, and got trampled in the process?
When we have 16 people attacking a guy, and they all have skill 1, there's an equal chance on both sides that they'll fumble. What's more the superfast crowd of attacking buddies (S.C.A.B.) has a lot more combat pool. So, yes, our target has a chance to hurt a lot of SCABs. But, he's just as likely to hurt himself-- and what's more, if he does hurt a lot of them, he probably just tripped one of them, who was in turn trampled by his buddies.
Oh, and Lime-- the problem with the watcher attack pack strategy is that it's damn near instant death for any astral combatant. Whirling and unlimited counterattacks is the only way of beating the tactic. What you've missed in the tactic is the really honking huge spirit who's using the watchers as a distraction, and the mage sitting back reading a spell.
Arethrusa: I don't think the rule is broken in the slightest. In order for it to happen, the attacker has to roll worse than the defender, multiple times. If he rolled worse, he did worse. It's not as bad as TN modifiers (the old reach rule was way overpowered, for one) and it's useless against multiple opponents. (Yes, the defender can have whirling-- but they can use maneuvers too.) It's not like it automatically confers some huge edge on the player; it means that he's got a chance, nothing more.
If you think speed deserves more of an advantage, that's cool. That's your opinion, and YMMV. I don't share that opinion, and I think the rules are fine as is. (Well, mostly; I still like the idea of people hurting each other instead of there being a definite winner and loser. But I'm OK with the normal system.)
I don't think there's any problems with the melee combat rules as they stand.
And remember, Unarmed Combat is a skill that is derived from the Strength attribute, not Quickness or reaction. Every skill in SR comes from, or defaults to a single attribute.
By changing the rules to include reaction/initiative bonuses to Unarmed Combat, you're diluting the point that it's your Strength attribute that sets the damage, not reaction/initiative.
What's next, should we add quickness/reaction/initiative bonuses to swords 'cause you can swing em really fast compared to the mage with 6 essence?
I think this whole argument is simply a bunch of twinkies who want more bonuses than Reaction/Initiative enhancing cyberware actually gives in game mechanics.
If you want to add this "realism" to speed and Unarmed Combat, they we have to change the rules for Ranged combat. Why, cause a super-fast sammy ought to be able to pull a trigger more than twice a combat pass... to the point where they can empty a 15 round magazine in a semi-auto in a single complex action. After all, that's just twitching a finger 3/4 of an inch to pull a trigger, which is nothing compared to making 4-5 unarmed combat attacks in an initiative turn.
And remember, Unarmed Combat is a skill that is derived from the Strength attribute, not Quickness or reaction. Every skill in SR comes from, or defaults to a single attribute.
By changing the rules to include reaction/initiative bonuses to Unarmed Combat, you're diluting the point that it's your Strength attribute that sets the damage, not reaction/initiative.
What's next, should we add quickness/reaction/initiative bonuses to swords 'cause you can swing em really fast compared to the mage with 6 essence?
I think this whole argument is simply a bunch of twinkies who want more bonuses than Reaction/Initiative enhancing cyberware actually gives in game mechanics.
If you want to add this "realism" to speed and Unarmed Combat, they we have to change the rules for Ranged combat. Why, cause a super-fast sammy ought to be able to pull a trigger more than twice a combat pass... to the point where they can empty a 15 round magazine in a semi-auto in a single complex action. After all, that's just twitching a finger 3/4 of an inch to pull a trigger, which is nothing compared to making 4-5 unarmed combat attacks in an initiative turn.
You didn't really read many of the posts, did you ShadowGhost?
Have you ever seen a simple block that can shatter an elbow or knee? I have. That's one, simple block that does major damage to the human body. No side-stepping, no jumping, no fancy maneuvers, no whirling, no twisting, no dodging.
Just One. Single. Block. And the attacker has broken bones without ever landing a blow.
Under your beliefs that the defender shouldn't be allowed to do damage to an attacker, or that it should somehow be limited, or much harder to harm an attacker, is unrealistic in the face of this reality.
When you see martial arts demonstrations where one, ordinary human defends themselves against 8 attackers, it makes your point moot.
I've studied karate, and participated in lessons where you are in the middle of a circle, defending yourself from several attackers at once, all of whom art at your belt level, for 10 minutes straight. It's exhausting, brutal hard work - you're up against people who are faster, and slower than yourself, stronger and weaker....but guess what. It's not impossible. Sometimes you lose, and sometimes you hold your own against 4-8 people at once for 30-45 seconds: 10-15 combat entire combat turns in Shadowrun.
To follow it to a logical conclusion, if the defender cannot make that simple, potentially knee shattering, single block, (i.e hurt the attacker), then the attacker should be allowed completely unopposed attacks on a defender who is out of actions. Why? Because a simple block (not a counterattack, a block!) can do nasty damage. And if you can't block, you're getting hurt.
Just One. Single. Block. And the attacker has broken bones without ever landing a blow.
Under your beliefs that the defender shouldn't be allowed to do damage to an attacker, or that it should somehow be limited, or much harder to harm an attacker, is unrealistic in the face of this reality.
When you see martial arts demonstrations where one, ordinary human defends themselves against 8 attackers, it makes your point moot.
I've studied karate, and participated in lessons where you are in the middle of a circle, defending yourself from several attackers at once, all of whom art at your belt level, for 10 minutes straight. It's exhausting, brutal hard work - you're up against people who are faster, and slower than yourself, stronger and weaker....but guess what. It's not impossible. Sometimes you lose, and sometimes you hold your own against 4-8 people at once for 30-45 seconds: 10-15 combat entire combat turns in Shadowrun.
To follow it to a logical conclusion, if the defender cannot make that simple, potentially knee shattering, single block, (i.e hurt the attacker), then the attacker should be allowed completely unopposed attacks on a defender who is out of actions. Why? Because a simple block (not a counterattack, a block!) can do nasty damage. And if you can't block, you're getting hurt.
So in other words, because you've seen some lame videos and demonstrations where a "master" gets a bunch of his students to attack him just right, the power of Kung Fu should be unstoppable. While, in nearly the same breath, you chastise people who prefer to see more realistic results in combat as being "a bunch of twinkies who want more bonuses than Reaction/Initiative enhancing cyberware actually gives in game mechanics."
Yeaaaaaaah. Since we're throwing names around, you sound more like a twink than anyone else in the thread. Behold the undeniable power of Kung Fu! Awwwhhhhmmmm... I guess that's why every army in the world focuses extensively on Kung Fu training, because one man can take down all opponents with ease just by throwing up a single block. Especially since it takes so much longer to kill four people using an assault rifle in fully automatic mode than it would be to take them down with a single counterstrike. Awesome!
I dunno. When I've seen demonstrations or watch a good movie where a fight takes place, they usually last a little longer than a half nanosecond.
However, if I ever find myself under attack by a 2x4 resting on some cinder blocks, I'll be sure to call on your assistance.
Yeaaaaaaah. Since we're throwing names around, you sound more like a twink than anyone else in the thread. Behold the undeniable power of Kung Fu! Awwwhhhhmmmm... I guess that's why every army in the world focuses extensively on Kung Fu training, because one man can take down all opponents with ease just by throwing up a single block. Especially since it takes so much longer to kill four people using an assault rifle in fully automatic mode than it would be to take them down with a single counterstrike. Awesome!
I dunno. When I've seen demonstrations or watch a good movie where a fight takes place, they usually last a little longer than a half nanosecond.
However, if I ever find myself under attack by a 2x4 resting on some cinder blocks, I'll be sure to call on your assistance.
I have serious reservations about martial arts skills being Strength-linked, anyway. I've never seen any evidence that natural strength makes it easier to get better in combat... in fact, my experience indicates that it makes it harder, in some ways. I've seen quite a few big strong guys who never learned proper form because simply powering the blow in there with their arm was minimally effective, and who hit a plateau fairly quickly, while the smaller guys who had to learn proper form to land a killing blow in the first place shot past them in ability. And all the "naturals" I've seen, the ones who went from beginner to knight or master in less time than I've been fighting, have been not exceptionally strong, but exceptionally fast. (And, yes, Cain, I can tell the difference between technique and raw natural speed.)
And, ShadowGhost, you might notice that the rules as they stand do let fast guys pull the trigger more frequently than slow ones.
And, ShadowGhost, you might notice that the rules as they stand do let fast guys pull the trigger more frequently than slow ones.
Yeah, I've always linked most combat skills to (natural) Reaction myself. It just makes more sense to me even if it makes improving them easier for combat-oriented characters.
| QUOTE |
| So in other words, because you've seen some lame videos and demonstrations where a "master" gets a bunch of his students to attack him just right, the power of Kung Fu should be unstoppable. |
I stopped jumping in about things like this, but in what I took, AKKI Kenpo Karate, Generally speaking you should be trying to hurt someone with every freaking block you make. There is no opportunity that should be passed up to hurt someone if you can. If I can block a punch hell yes I'm going to try to bruise their forearm or bicep. That's the entire point of it. There's no such thing as blocking or evading that doens't cause the attacker some pain. That's the entire idea. I don't spend any more motion hurting you then I do just stepping out of the way really. There's nothing uber about it, a lot of styles are designed from the ground up to do just that. See Aikido for examples also.
Sounds more like a Martial Arts Maneuver that lets you make more Counterstrikes to me. Not a default ability for anyone in a fight.
Yeah, since I guess not all arts work that way that may be a viable explanation. Since it's primarily all I've had except judo it's not so easy for me to think in lines other than what I have personally experienced.
Dude, you haven't been in many fights, have you? Most often, both people end up getting hurt.
But, let's try a practical example. Most people like to block kicks with their shins. Bone isn't that strong, so here's what I want you to do-- go up to a table leg and kick it with your shins, as hard as you can. This will simulate what happens when you kick a guy and are blocked by his shin. (Actually, it'll be weaker, since the table leg won't have any momentum.)
What? You don't want to do that? Why? Because it'll hurt?
Exactly.
But, let's try a practical example. Most people like to block kicks with their shins. Bone isn't that strong, so here's what I want you to do-- go up to a table leg and kick it with your shins, as hard as you can. This will simulate what happens when you kick a guy and are blocked by his shin. (Actually, it'll be weaker, since the table leg won't have any momentum.)
What? You don't want to do that? Why? Because it'll hurt?
Exactly.
| QUOTE |
| I dunno. When I've seen demonstrations or watch a good movie where a fight takes place, they usually last a little longer than a half nanosecond. |
Oh, no wonder. You're basing this all on movie physics. In reality, a fight is usually over inside of three seconds from the moment the first blow is thrown. Demos and movies are slowed down for your entertainment.
Like I said, if you prefer a cinematic approach, that's fine and dandy. Just don't go around thinking it's realistic, ok?
| QUOTE |
| Yeah, I've always linked most combat skills to (natural) Reaction myself. |
Linking things to reaction is, unfortunately, broken. Combat characters tend to focus so heavily on quickness and reaction that this really tilts the balance in their favor. There's just too many combat skills that are linked to quickness; adding more makes quickness and reaction even more overpowered. I tried to find something better, but strength was all I could come up with. It's game balance, pure and simple.
Besides which, it's not about how fast you react, but how accurately.
To add an attempt at something based off the recent moment of mutual agreement between Lime and BitBasher:
Counterattacks normally take a simple action. A maneuver can be bought that lets you make counterattacks as free actions.
if that is too much like the normal rules, change "simple" to "complex" and "free" to "simple"
Then is the task of determining which arts involve the offensive defense as part of their training.
Counterattacks normally take a simple action. A maneuver can be bought that lets you make counterattacks as free actions.
if that is too much like the normal rules, change "simple" to "complex" and "free" to "simple"
Then is the task of determining which arts involve the offensive defense as part of their training.
ACL- ShadowGhost and BitBasher have a point, blocks can cause damage. I agree with you though, at some point a defender shouldn't be able to keep up with all the attacks (only able to use full defense).
| QUOTE |
| What's next, should we add quickness/reaction/initiative bonuses to swords 'cause you can swing em really fast compared to the mage with 6 essence? |
Yes, but it has less to do with the speed of the individual sword swing, and more to do with a defender not able to keep up with the whole attack.
| QUOTE |
| I think this whole argument is simply a bunch of twinkies who want more bonuses than Reaction/Initiative enhancing cyberware actually gives in game mechanics. |
Physical adepts and magicians can get initiative and reaction bonuses with magic.
| QUOTE |
| Then is the task of determining which arts involve the offensive defense as part of their training. |
Although I can't back this up, I'm guessing all martial arts/fighting system teaches "offensive defense."
| QUOTE (Entropy Kid @ May 6 2004, 01:00 AM) | ||
Although I can't back this up, I'm guessing all martial arts/fighting system teaches "offensive defense." |
As strange as this seems, the vast majority of martial arts schools that I have seen and sat in on teach absolutely jack and squat about offense. Damn near everything it seems is how to react to a self defense scenario. It sounds wierd, but as far as I have seen that's probably, not exaggerating, 95% of it. My kenpo instructor taught a lot of pure offense, ending a fight before the guy knows what the hell happened, but I have found in the mean time that that is pretty damn rare.
You got a point, Bit. Modern martial arts are almost exclusively focused on self-defense. Damn near everything I've been taught has been a counter, a reaction to an attack. It's put me in this weird place-- I actually can't do anything until I'm attacked.
So, to answer Herald-- I can't think of a single martial art with defensive techniques that *aren't* designed to incapacitate an attacker. I can't think of any that teach you to just block, instead of block-and-punch at the very minimum. EK may have it right-- I don't think there is a single martial art that only teaches defenses that don't hurt the attacker.
So, to answer Herald-- I can't think of a single martial art with defensive techniques that *aren't* designed to incapacitate an attacker. I can't think of any that teach you to just block, instead of block-and-punch at the very minimum. EK may have it right-- I don't think there is a single martial art that only teaches defenses that don't hurt the attacker.
Now, if every martial art teaches it as the basics, why should it be a maneuver? Maneuvers are to provide more variety between the arts and signify somewhat advanced options. If it is the first thing you learn in every style, it should just be assumed, and we are back to the normal rules about counterattacks (or the simple action level for those who still can't stand blocks as free actions).
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| I don't think there is a single martial art that only teaches defenses that don't hurt the attacker. |
As far as I know, there isn't. And that would be kinda pointless, if there was. Honestly, when you learn a martial art of any type, the object in modern times is to provide a way to defend yourself. That's why most people only see the defensive side. Also, I have found that truly offensive techniques tend to be saved for students with more time in class under their belt. Besides, at low levels of skill, you shouldn't be initiating attacks at all.
Most instructors teach from the view that more often than not, the student will be on the defense instead of the offense and so the beginning lessons are geared towards that view. Later, the possibility of knowing when and how to attack are addressed, because there's quite a bit more knowledge required than just how to hurt someone. When and why are very important.
The best defensive moves open you up to the option of offense. A good defense should damage the attacker and place you in a postion to A. Attack back and B. Be more difficult to attack yourself. If you can disable someone's ability to hurt you when they try to hurt you, you will win the fight, simply by attrition.
And just to chime in, I've never found any set of rules that really reflects the reality of physical combat. I like Shadowrun because it is abstract, and I'd rather have an abstract set of rules to play around with than have to keep up with complex formulae for every single movement.
ACL, I think you ignored the point made earlier that part of learning to spar in a martial art is learning to fight multiple opponents. not of vastly different skill and not for show, but as part of regular training. I've watched black belt tests where they gang up on the testee 4 on one, and don't hold back. they can defend against that (though not always) and they do get counterstrikes at each opponent or good blocks that can hurt.
The idea that I can only defend against one person or a small number based on my speed is flawed. if you spar yourself you would know this. I am not a fast person IRL, but I can hold my own sparring 3 people with equal skill to my own i obviously don't always win, but I can make the fight last and hurt them some before I go down.
but I also realize I am wasting my typing as you have decided that the world works your way and no one will ever convince you otherwise. so I'm dropping it.
-Mike R
The idea that I can only defend against one person or a small number based on my speed is flawed. if you spar yourself you would know this. I am not a fast person IRL, but I can hold my own sparring 3 people with equal skill to my own i obviously don't always win, but I can make the fight last and hurt them some before I go down.
but I also realize I am wasting my typing as you have decided that the world works your way and no one will ever convince you otherwise. so I'm dropping it.
-Mike R
| QUOTE |
| The idea that I can only defend against one person or a small number based on my speed is flawed. if you spar yourself you would know this. I am not a fast person IRL, but I can hold my own sparring 3 people with equal skill to my own i obviously don't always win, but I can make the fight last and hurt them some before I go down. |
Please explain to me how my house rule counters anything you just said here.
If you guys were all right, then boxing in the real world would be devestating. Every single punch they take would result in their opponent suffering a broken arm or otherwise being crippled. Especially with all those blocks they throw up. But wow, imagine that, it doesn't occur very often.
I don't know why you guys are getting your panties in a twist. It's not like combat becomes horribly unbalanced or that you can't defend yourself OR throw in some counterstrikes during the course of a fight. You can even have some martial arts that focus more on that than others, developing a maneuver that grants more counterattacks than normal. But by no means should it be the default. That's beyond idiotic for every reason mentioned multiple times throughout this thread. ESPECIALLY when facing opponents who are SIGNIFICANTLY more reflexive than you.
| QUOTE |
| but I also realize I am wasting my typing as you have decided that the world works your way and no one will ever convince you otherwise. so I'm dropping it. |
Funny. You guys seem to be just as pigheaded, if not more, on the subject.
| QUOTE |
| If you guys were all right, then boxing in the real world would be devestating. Every single punch they take would result in their opponent suffering a broken arm or otherwise being crippled. Especially with all those blocks they throw up. But wow, imagine that, it doesn't occur very often. |
Boxing has rules to minize damage and to make the fight last longer. The gloves absorb a significant amount of the impact, and It's completely illegal to block with a damaging elbow, ect. Furthermore they dont even use a vast majority of the offensives options available to a martial artist, as 99% of it is illegal in boxing. If two pro boxers were to go at it bare knucles, with no rules at all It would be a much shorter and farm more brutal fight. If they just did it without gloves and could toss elbows it would be a far shorter and bloodier fight. Without all the artificial constraints, boxing would be devastating. Especially if it wasn't a sport and causing permanent damage was a viable option.
I don't have my panties in a bunch, at all. You should do whatever works for you in a game, as will we. That doesn't change my right or ability to defend an opinion that I believe in
I'm not trying to change your mind, as I believe the argument itself is as important to you to some degree as which side it you are on. 
I don't have my panties in a bunch, at all. You should do whatever works for you in a game, as will we. That doesn't change my right or ability to defend an opinion that I believe in
I'm not trying to change your mind, as I believe the argument itself is as important to you to some degree as which side it you are on.
You mean like kickboxing competitions? Or bar fights? Or knife fights? Or duels? Or staff-fighting? Or any other real hand-to-hand combat in real situations as opposed to perfect situations where you tell your students to attack you just right so you can show how great and powerful you are? 
How about the fact that despite self-delusion, the vast majority of martial arts taught to people like you guys are purely demonstrational and pathetically effective in any sort of real situation?
How about the fact that despite self-delusion, the vast majority of martial arts taught to people like you guys are purely demonstrational and pathetically effective in any sort of real situation?
| QUOTE |
| You mean like kickboxing competitions? Or bar fights? Or hand-to-hand combat in real situations as opposed to perfect situations where you tell your students to attack you just right so you can show how great and powerful you are? |
Too bad this isn't Slashdot and I can't mod users condescending or flamebait.
Bar fights ARE shorter and more brutal than boxing matches. So are hand to hand matches where there are no rules, those sure as heck dont last the 20-30 minutes a boxing match can, and they end up with the loser having a lor more damage that some simple bruising a lot of the time. Kickboxing competitions still have specific rules of things you can and cannot do designed to protect the fighters and prolong the outcome, so that was a fairly bad example.
If a martial arts school only ran drills (rather than what you describe, being in set positions) instead of actually sparring then it's about 95% useless IMHO... although to be fair a significant number of schools do just that, and in doing that make it so what they teach is of dubious use int he real world. I'd go as far as to say that that is by far the rule rather than the exception. If anyone is taking a martial art and ever intend to use it, ever, and your school does not do actually full on open sparring, with some light pads and say 2 or three minute rounds with no stopping, then I suggest you cancel your classes and find a different school. If all you do is run drills and do point sparring (Stopping after each hit or point and going back to center) then it's going to be of very dubious usefulness.
Having people stand in specific spots and attacking is only good for two reasons. Either to demonstrate something initially, so you know what to expct in general, and to force repitition so that the action becomes relfex instead of requiring conscious thought. But that without practical experience is still pretty useless.
Bar fights ARE shorter and more brutal than boxing matches. So are hand to hand matches where there are no rules, those sure as heck dont last the 20-30 minutes a boxing match can, and they end up with the loser having a lor more damage that some simple bruising a lot of the time. Kickboxing competitions still have specific rules of things you can and cannot do designed to protect the fighters and prolong the outcome, so that was a fairly bad example.
If a martial arts school only ran drills (rather than what you describe, being in set positions) instead of actually sparring then it's about 95% useless IMHO... although to be fair a significant number of schools do just that, and in doing that make it so what they teach is of dubious use int he real world. I'd go as far as to say that that is by far the rule rather than the exception. If anyone is taking a martial art and ever intend to use it, ever, and your school does not do actually full on open sparring, with some light pads and say 2 or three minute rounds with no stopping, then I suggest you cancel your classes and find a different school. If all you do is run drills and do point sparring (Stopping after each hit or point and going back to center) then it's going to be of very dubious usefulness.
Having people stand in specific spots and attacking is only good for two reasons. Either to demonstrate something initially, so you know what to expct in general, and to force repitition so that the action becomes relfex instead of requiring conscious thought. But that without practical experience is still pretty useless.
| QUOTE |
| How about the fact that despite self-delusion, the vast majority of martial arts taught to people like you guys are purely demonstrational and pathetically effective in any sort of real situation? |
I completely and totally agree with that, a huge, huge portion of martial arts are freaking useless in the real world. No argument there.
| QUOTE |
| Bar fights ARE shorter and more brutal than boxing matches. So are hand to hand matches where there are no rules, those sure as heck dont last the 20-30 minutes a boxing match can, and they end up with the loser having a lor more damage that some simple bruising a lot of the time. Kickboxing competitions still have specific rules of things you can and cannot do designed to protect the fighters and prolong the outcome, so that was a fairly bad example. |
You missed my point. Sure, they don't last 30 minutes, but they don't last half a second, either. Nor does every blow you land cause you to suffer a blow in return, nor does throwing your arms up to block some blows cause your opponent to break his arms with each and every blow. The same goes with kickboxing and every other real fighting scenario, rules or not. And even moreso in armed combat, of where these rules are EXACTLY the same.
You guys can't seem to get it out of your heads that it applies EVERYWHERE. It's not the sole domain of some imaginary grandmaster of Kung Fu standing there doing all this idiotic stuff. It's the drunk guy at a bar, the corporate wage slave wandering down the street, and that puppy whose tail you just stepped on. They all have the masterful power of Kung Fu in them, apparently... and all of them have the exact same ability to lose NO effectiveness WHATSOEVER even if under attack by a dozen opponents simultaneously. They're whirling about, throwing attacks left and right, at blinding speeds beyond mortal comprehension, with no penalty whatsoever beyond what they would if they were just throwing a single punch at someone on their action.
Their skill, training, or ability has NO bearing on this whatsoever. None. Not a single bit. Zip. Nadda.
Umm... how about the "friends in melee" and "attacking multiple targets" modifiers? Those are pretty damn substantial changes to combat effectiveness, if you ask me.
Again: Point missed.
They apply just as much in that single throw you make on your action. Well, except for the "attacking multiple targets" which only applies then, and only if you do attack multiple targets on your action. Doesn't apply at all on a counterattack, whether its just one or a thousand.
They apply just as much in that single throw you make on your action. Well, except for the "attacking multiple targets" which only applies then, and only if you do attack multiple targets on your action. Doesn't apply at all on a counterattack, whether its just one or a thousand.
How about this then: Every "counterattack" you make counts towards building up that attacking multiple targets TN mod, which resets itself after your action. Full Defense does not incur these penalties. That manages to make having multiple combat phases rather thoroughly advantageous, without using up actions or introducing new rules -- just a very minor (and reasonable) modification to an existing rule.
It definitely has potential. I'd have to play with it a bit to see if I really liked it, though. But on the surface it really sounds promising.
| QUOTE (Jason Farlander @ May 6 2004, 11:59 AM) |
| How about this then: Every "counterattack" you make counts towards building up that attacking multiple targets TN mod, which resets itself after your action. Full Defense does not incur these penalties. That manages to make having multiple combat phases rather thoroughly advantageous, without using up actions or introducing new rules -- just a very minor (and reasonable) modification to an existing rule. |
I kinda like that. I like that it means a defender becomes less and less able of actually defending himself if he keeps trying to counter instead of just defend.
| QUOTE |
| You missed my point. Sure, they don't last 30 minutes, but they don't last half a second, either. Nor does every blow you land cause you to suffer a blow in return, nor does throwing your arms up to block some blows cause your opponent to break his arms with each and every blow. The same goes with kickboxing and every other real fighting scenario, rules or not. |
Er lime, I didn't miss your point, I have already established that I don't care about your point. It doesn't impact anything in my games. In fact, the last reply or two I made was directed at real life and had nothing to do with SR whatsoever. In my game Drunk gyus at the bar, and corporate wage slaves don't get into random fights with each other that require rolling, It's the GM's job simply to tell the PC's what they see. If either of those combatants fight a player, bam, its going to be over fast anyway. None of those examples ever, ever actually have happened in my game world in such a way that it remotely suspended disbelief.
It is not feasable to have rules account for everything or be entirely reasitic. Real life is too complex for that. All you can do it to use the rules to approximate the way you think it should work. That's all. The descriptions, the actions and reactions are all up to the GM and his flavor descriptions of what happens. A competent GM will keep all of this in well within suspension of disbelief.
It is not feasable to have rules account for everything or be entirely reasitic. Real life is too complex for that. All you can do it to use the rules to approximate the way you think it should work. That's all. The descriptions, the actions and reactions are all up to the GM and his flavor descriptions of what happens. A competent GM will keep all of this in well within suspension of disbelief.
| QUOTE |
| Er lime, I didn't miss your point, I have already established that I don't care about your point. |
Ah, good, then you won't mind if I ignore anything you have to say from this point on, even if something you're saying is obviously in direct relation to something I said.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) | ||
Ah, good, then you won't mind if I ignore anything you have to say from this point on, even if something you're saying is obviously in direct relation to something I said. |
Man lime, you chould have had a good thing going... I probably would have paid you to not respond to my posts
Kidding
The issue is that your point and my point don't meet in the middle at all. The thing you have a problem with sinply never, ever happens in actually gameplay in my experience. Thus, I don't care if it happens since it is irrelevant in my game anyway.
| QUOTE |
| You missed my point. Sure, they don't last 30 minutes, but they don't last half a second, either. Nor does every blow you land cause you to suffer a blow in return, nor does throwing your arms up to block some blows cause your opponent to break his arms with each and every blow. The same goes with kickboxing and every other real fighting scenario, rules or not. And even moreso in armed combat, of where these rules are EXACTLY the same. |
Yes. And what happens in most fights? Both people involved end up limping away. Not hurting yourself is a question of skill, and not speed.
| QUOTE |
| How about the fact that despite self-delusion, the vast majority of martial arts taught to people like you guys are purely demonstrational and pathetically effective in any sort of real situation? |
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Truth to tell, most martial arts share the same basics; the efficacy is in how you use 'em. If I hand you a Desert Eagle .50, and you can't aim it to save your life, does that mean the gun is totally ineffective?
What you're not getting is that, with only skill 1, said person is only slightly more likely to hit his opponent as score an oops. Given that he has to *beat* his opponent, it becomes even less likely that he'll hit, and equally likely that he'll trip all over himself. Unlimited defenses isn't a big problem, especially against unskilled opponents-- even with a low skill.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| How about the fact that despite self-delusion, the vast majority of martial arts taught to people like you guys are purely demonstrational and pathetically effective in any sort of real situation? |
Off topic.
It took me more than 10 years to find a style that didn't fall into this trap.
You are, unfortunately, too correct in your statement.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.