Bzzzzzzzt, sorry. Thanks for playing but that is the wrong era, wrong type of computer system, and wrong assumptions. You set your example in 2070. Where a decker creates programs offline and can then use these programs on any system they connect to. Think about how that could happen. Then think about the implications regarding OS calls and how they are exposed. Then think some more. Then think a bit more. No, a wee bit more than that.

Got it now?

Shall we stroll back through the thread to see where i gave you the benefit of the doubt asking for clarification, and your response was a snotty insult followed up by errant, erroneous material put forth arrogantly. In the wrong and wrong, so don't try to pull that "all you do is fling mud" crap on me.

Skill 1 + Attribute 6 beats Skill 1 +Attribute 3? Yes. This would be what I would call mediocrity being trumped right here.

Skill 6 + Attribute 6 beats Skill 6 + Attribute 3? No arguments there. That would be the difference in natural talent coming in to play.

Skill 4 + Attribute 5 matches Skill 5 + Attribute 4? Once again, no arguments. The skill levels are close so the natural talent makes the difference.

Skill 1 + Attribute 6 is better than Skill 2 + Attribute 4? Mostly true. The higher (but still low rated) skill should give some more tricks and tactics but it's probably not enough of a gap to completely eliminate the benefits of raw talent.

Skill 1 + Attribute 6 matches Skill 4 + Attribute 3? This is my problem, right here.

To go back to my personal example, even my limited training tells me that my opponent's size and strength can be two of the best weapons I have. Even if they're bigger than me unless they properly trained that's just more damage to them when I throw them. Even if they are stronger than me unless they understand how locks and holds work I can immobilise them and would only need one hand to keep them pinned. Even if they're faster than me if they haven't been properly trained to kick then I can strike them without ever coming in range of their quick fists.

I don't buy it. You have time for your knowledge skill to kick in and guide the application but not enough to actually use your own brain?

I have seen men who were trained black belts get there butts handed to them in a bar fight by big drunk men. Sometimes, all the training in the world doesn't make up for sheer physical aptitude.

I find it likely that they were not from a school that emphasized actual combat capability, then.

~J

A dirty dancing school? Where advancement is through completing an extended fixed set of moves. Or you always fight against someone that is thinking and doing all the same things as you. Hard physical work, but not nessasarily something to keep your head from getting bashed in by a brawler.

Just because a drunk doesn't know a martial arts doesn't mean they can't fight. In SR4 terms the black belt may be a 3 str, 5 skill guy, and the drunk may be a 5 str, 3 skill. The 3 skill being just from being the type of guy who fights a lot when he's drunk. And situations like this make plenty of sense game mechanic wise. Sure the 1/6 skill/att situations don't seem perfectly right, but its a bit of an extreme example, and no game system really works for every situation.

Furthermore on a more real level, being drunk may have lots to do with a victory. He may not be feeling lots of what the black belt is throwing until its way to late for the black belt. And by the time the black belt realises how little the drunk is feeling he's unconscious.

well if you view strength just as the ability to bench press stuff well yeah its bearing isn't much. But if you view strength as a form of muscle control as well, the ability to use your body in certain ways shown by the linked skills well then it does have a lot of bearing. There really comes a point in a game where they have to say, yeah we got enough attributes. Lumping more than the ability to bench press a truck under strength happens because of this.

I imagine being drunk can also have a lot to do with defeat as well.

Being drunk can mean an inflated level of self confidence, leading you to take on someone who can hand you your hoop on a silver platter. Being drunk can mean falling over even when the other person hasn't put a hand on you. Being drunk can mean having to decide which of the three guys standing in front of you is the one you need to hit. Plus, no matter how little pain you feel, when the other person bends your arm 90 degrees in the wrong direction you aren't going to be punching them with it anymore, or when that person squeezes shut your carotid arteries being drunk isn't going to help you stay concious or avoid brain damage/death.

A black belt worth the name isn't just relying on making the other guy go "ouch!" in order to win the fight.

yes being drunk could mean that but since this drunk apparently won the fight maybe he wasn't seing in triplicate and instead got an edge out of it.

Furthermore I think you've elevated your black belts to super ninjas ala snake eyes from GiJoe, and everyone else into the random cobra agent of not even dreadnaut caliber.(I hope you get the reference I forget my age isn't always the norm) Just because a black belt can bend your arm backwards or press your carotid arteries, doesn't mean they'll be successful at doing so vs a reasonably competent foe. And being a drunk brawler doesn't disqualify you from being a reasonably competent foe.

True, my point was that being drunk is less of an advantage than it might seem. I think your bar brawler's win was more because he could fight than because he was drunk. An attribute 5 skill 4 guy with some booze in him takes on an attribute 4 skill 5 guy from a dojo perhaps?

Did the black belt completely underestimate his opponent, either because the guy was drunk or because he was full of himself and his dojo training? All it takes is one good hit and the fight can be all but decided. Plus if this black belt did all his training in a dojo he may not take into account the 'environmental' factors involved in fighting in a bar. Of course all this is subtleties that don't really translate into the SR rules system.

You are right though, strangling or dislocating the limbs of a competent fighter is far from easy, but it can be done, and if your opponent's senses and reaction time are dulled from alcohol then it gets somewhat easier. I didn't mean to suggest that a black belt (worth the name) will break your limbs the moment you step up, but those I have seen are significantly better at the techniques than I am. I am not close to black belt level but in my training I am already expected to be able to apply these locks and dislocations in a combat situation.

And for the record I must admit I didn't completely get the GI Joe reference. Know of it but never seen it.

You have to be really careful here. It's very difficult to take out someone who is bigger and stronger than you, as well as being aggressive and motivated, with one kick. You have only one kick before they're inside your kicking range, and if you haven't stopped them, you're going to be off balance. Plus, there usually isn't much room in a bar.

If your opponent is trying to hurt you, rather than spar with you, kicking isn't always the smartest thing to do. It can be useful, but you can't assume that you're going to be safely away from your opponent's fists just because your leg is longer than their arm.

This sounds more likely to me. People who brawl a lot are often actually better in a bar brawl than someone who has trained in martial arts, because they tend to use simple stuff that works--say, grapple their opponent, and smash them into stuff really hard while ignoring poorly placed strikes and kicks--rather than use overly flashy kicks and fancy locks that require them to have complete control over one of their opponents' hands (not too likely when it's swinging at their face). On the other hand, there are a lot of methods that end up being fast, simple, and reliable enough to use effectively in a fight that nonetheless require training to get right. Martial arts programs that teach those tend to produce superior fighters. Even having twice the weight and three times the strength of such people is not enough to ensure victory.

Maybe this is an argument that skill should get quite a bit higher than attributes, at least in some cases.

Unfortunately, a lot of that training also reinforces the idea that your opponent is in the same weight class as you, has similar skills to you, is only going to hit in allowed spots, etc.. After one solid kick that makes Mr. Massive Tattoo Guy wince but not stop, people with that kind of training are often in bad shape.

Competition is not the same thing as fighting. People who are good at competitions are very impressive at what they do, as are people who can break three different sets of boards in a single jump. It doesn't necessarily make them good in a brawl.

It's also because they don't allow eye gouges, and as far as I'm aware, don't allow people to break each others' joints. Most brawls follow the same rules--so, yeah, Ultimate Fighting is not that far off from a brawl. Brawling isn't all there is to fighting either.

Being bigger is certainly an advantage, and among the very best, the big very best have enough of an advatage over the smaller very best that segregating by weight makes sense. But until the stronger's little finger is more powerful than the weaker's entire arm, the stronger's knee is tougher sideways than the weaker's is vertically, and limbs break upon the stronger's face, throat, and groin, it's not safe for them to attack the weaker and get too close. If the stronger stays away, well, he's away. Can't really hurt people from back there, can he?

In any competition, contest, or other activity that you would allow people to do to each other, you have to restrict them to tougher areas of the body, places that will heal, won't cause permanent nerve damage, blindness, disfiguration, and so on. Typically, that means you have to hit muscles. That's cool, because muscles cover most of our bodies, and if you're not really trying to hit anything super-sensitive, and they're trying to make sure you don't hit anything super-sensitive, it'll probably work out okay. Unfortunately, muscles (and fat) protect the body, so this method of striking just reinforces the advantage of the big and strong.

If both opponents are trying to hit everywhere they're not supposed to hit, the big and strong lose some of their advantage.

When was the last time a women's self-defense class recommended a side-kick to a man's torso as an effective tactic?