Katana and Broadsword skills
zuggtmoy
one of my players (with Katana skill 18) has decided to use a
broadsword - and thinks that Broadsword should get some sort of
default from his Katana skill, since Katana can default from
broadsword.
I'm just asking for opinions - do you think Broadsword should default
to Katana-2 (or Katana minus whatever) or something similar.
From what I've been able to find in Basic, CI and CII, and MA, it
seems the answer is "no"
What do you think?
Zuggtmoy
Visit Zuggtmoy's Lair - An AD&D and GURPS page...
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Labyrinth/8558/index.html
or ICQ me at #40923165
Bryan J. Maloney
> I just had a strange occurrence in my game...
>
> one of my players (with Katana skill 18) has decided to use a
> broadsword - and thinks that Broadsword should get some sort of
> default from his Katana skill, since Katana can default from
> broadsword.
>
> I'm just asking for opinions - do you think Broadsword should default
> to Katana-2 (or Katana minus whatever) or something similar.
> From what I've been able to find in Basic, CI and CII, and MA, it
> seems the answer is "no"
The Katana is a curved blade usable with one or two hands. From talking
to people who have handled both types of weapons, there is some skill
transfer. I would say that it should slightly better than as had from
Shortsword to Broadsword.
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
peste...@my-deja.com
Katana is Japanese
European fighting is you both draw swords, into position, and start the
fight. Fighting in Oriental style you are taught to be fast and to not give
your oppenent much time to prepare: drawing a Katana can lead right into the
first strike.
Katana defaults to Broadsword because Broadsword teaches you how to handle a
sword and you just add the Katana style. To switch from Katana to Broadsword
you have to unlearn the Katana style of fighting which a Broadsword is mostly
unsuited for.
So Katana to Broadsword should not default and should probable have a penalty.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gregory L. Hansen
zuggtmoy <zugg...@home.net> wrote:
>I just had a strange occurrence in my game...
>
>one of my players (with Katana skill 18) has decided to use a
>broadsword - and thinks that Broadsword should get some sort of
>default from his Katana skill, since Katana can default from
>broadsword.
>
>I'm just asking for opinions - do you think Broadsword should default
>to Katana-2 (or Katana minus whatever) or something similar.
>From what I've been able to find in Basic, CI and CII, and MA, it
>seems the answer is "no"
>
I think, as a general rule not limited to katanas and broadswords, if
Skill A defaults to Skill B - 2, then Skill B should by symmetry default
to Skill A - 2. If they're the same difficulty, e.g. both P/A.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
Bryan J. Maloney
> Broadsword is a European style
> Katana is Japanese
>
> European fighting is you both draw swords, into position, and start the
That is FORMAL DUELLING ONLY!!!!!!!!!
Street fights were not in the least bit like that.
Jargon
think that the rules only govern skill, not cultural niceties. Those would be
covered under Code of Honor. In that case, you would have "allow oppoenent to draw
weapon" as part of your Code of Honor disadvantage.
Douglas
peste...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Broadsword is a European style
> Katana is Japanese
>
> European fighting is you both draw swords, into position, and start the
Steve M
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
> In article <3jMgOY7LEeEm6J...@4ax.com>,
> zugg...@home.net wrote:
> > I just had a strange occurrence in my game...
> >
> > one of my players (with Katana skill 18) has decided
> to use a
> > broadsword - and thinks that Broadsword should get
> some sort of
> > default from his Katana skill, since Katana can
> default from
> > broadsword.
> >
> > I'm just asking for opinions - do you think
> Broadsword should default
> > to Katana-2 (or Katana minus whatever) or something
> similar.
> > From what I've been able to find in Basic, CI and
> CII, and MA, it
> > seems the answer is "no"
> hands. From talking
> to people who have handled both types of weapons,
> there is some skill
> transfer. I would say that it should slightly better
> than as had from
> Shortsword to Broadsword.
This becomes interesting though. There's no question in my
mind that a "western" trained swordsman can drop his
broadsword, pick up his dead opponents katana, and just use
the damn thing like it's a broadsword. However, the Katana
*skill* gives a 2/3 parry when using a katana 2-handed.
So, if your using defaults, Joe (Broadsword 20) drops his
sword, picks up the katana, uses default skill (-2, for
argument sake, giving him Katana 18) and goes from parry 10
to parry 12! With an unfamiliar weapon, no less! IMO, he
should just be using his same skill, with maybe a penalty
for unfamiliarity for a couple of turns. If he wants to
pick up Katana skill later, he'll have to learn it
separately. I'd have the Katana user pick up a sword, and
use it with an unfamiliarity penalty similarly, and not get
the 2/3 parry, unless it's a bastard, or 2-handed sword.
(And still give unfamiliarity penalties)
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Balgewolf
very different from European Broadsword Style.
The house Rule my group uses is this.
Katana defaults to Broadsword -2 , but loses any Benefits of the Katana
Skill, Parry is Skill/2
Broadsword defaults to Katana -2, but uses the Broadsword Parry/2 Skill due
to the different balances in the weapons.
--
John Simpson
aka Balgewolf
Remove NOSPAM to reply directly
Cobalt's metal, hard and shining;
Cobol's wordy and confining;
KOBOLDS topple when you strike them;
Don't feel bad, it's hard to like them.
-- The Roguelet's ABC
Steve M <stephenm...@hmresources.com.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:0592bc38...@usw-ex0109-068.remarq.com...
Rob Kelk
>
> Broadsword is a European style
> Katana is Japanese
>
> European fighting is you both draw swords, into position, and start the
> fight.
That's what GURPS calls the Broadsword Sport skill (or maybe Broadsword
Art), not the Broadsword skill. "Broadsword" is the skill used in
fighting for real (i.e. only one of you walks away from the fight).
<snip>
--
Rob Kelk http://members.tripod.com/~robkelk/ rob...@ottawa.com
"I'm _not_ a kid! Nyyyeaaah!" - Skuld (in "Oh My Goddess!" OAV #3)
"General rule of thumb- anytime the fundamentalists hate something, it
_must_ be worthwhile." - Arnold Kim, 28 Apr 2000
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>Nice, but this all falls apart when speaking of the Chinese broadsword style. I
>think that the rules only govern skill, not cultural niceties. Those would be
>covered under Code of Honor. In that case, you would have "allow oppoenent to
> draw
>weapon" as part of your Code of Honor disadvantage.
That would be part of an unusual Code of Honor, even in Europe. Duels were
rituals. Street fights were not.
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>the damn thing like it's a broadsword. However, the Katana
>*skill* gives a 2/3 parry when using a katana 2-handed.
Yeah, because the skill was written by somebody who probably considers Joe-Bob
Briggs to be a "historical source". If katana SKILL gets 2/3 parry when used
two handed then bastard sword SKILL does, too.
>use it with an unfamiliarity penalty similarly, and not get
>the 2/3 parry, unless it's a bastard, or 2-handed sword.
The 2/3 parry should be dropped altogether. It only belongs in
cartoon-inspired campaigns.
Gregory L. Hansen
>Broadsword is a European style
>Katana is Japanese
>
>European fighting is you both draw swords, into position, and start the
>your oppenent much time to prepare: drawing a Katana can lead right into the
>first strike.
>
>Katana defaults to Broadsword because Broadsword teaches you how to handle a
>sword and you just add the Katana style. To switch from Katana to Broadsword
>you have to unlearn the Katana style of fighting which a Broadsword is mostly
>unsuited for.
>
>So Katana to Broadsword should not default and should probable have a penalty.
I'd say there's a default. Just because Katana defauls from Broadsword
doesn't mean a European will use the katana the same way a samauri would.
And not using it the same way a samauri would doesn't mean the weapon is
useless to him. It's a long peice of metal with a sharp edge, that's
something the European would be fairly comfortable with.
Gregory L. Hansen
Oh, I forgot about that Parry thing. All right, then, say Katana doesn't
default from Broadsword, but the European would use the Katana at
Broadsword-2.
But would that mean a samauri can pick up a cutlass and use it at
Katana-2 and get a 2/3 Parry?
Nevermind.
Steve M
But then, should fencing only have 1/2 parry then? I'm no
expert, but I have noticed similarities between kendo and
modern fencing (yes, I realise they're quite different from
the "real thing" but for purposes of comparison...)
Also, I read somewhere that the Japanese would have been
less likely to develop the sword techniques that they did,
had they also developed heavy armor similar to European
armors. The "cut" rather than "chop" school of thought.
Perhaps leave the 2/3 parry, but reduce the damage. (Now
that should throw the cat amongst the pigeons).
Bryan J. Maloney
<BillS...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> X-no-archive: yes
>
> "Jubilation T. Cornpone" wrote:
> > The 2/3 parry should be dropped altogether. It only belongs in
> > cartoon-inspired campaigns.
>
> It's part of the "oriental martial arts are WAY superior" belief far too
> many people have. You should have seen the playtest stuff for the never
Yeah, that's why Japan conquered the USA in June, 1942, right?
Bryan J. Maloney
<NOSPAMb...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
> Katana Skill is not just using the Katana, but the entire style which is
> very different from European Broadsword Style.
In THAT case, make it a MARTIAL ARTS STYLE and not a pumped up skill with
extra powers! It's pure Joebobbism, plain and simple, based upon
ignorance of both Japanese AND Western swordsmanship.
Steve M
<ru...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> In article <8fpg2q$iv8$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
> wrote:
> > I think, as a general rule not limited to katanas
> and broadswords, if
> > Skill A defaults to Skill B - 2, then Skill B should
> by symmetry
> default
> > to Skill A - 2. If they're the same difficulty,
> e.g. both P/A.
> invested in this.
> I'll paint you a picture:
> Conner B'Dass is from the Highlands of Scotland and is
> a master of the
> Broadsword (Skill level 26) and he meets up with Hiro
> Samsung, master
> of the Katana (Also skill level 26). They both have a
> DX of 14. They
> begin to fight to settle and old argument that they
> have.
> In the midst of a very long fight, they fall and find
> themselves having
> exchanged weapons. Now, according to GURPS rules:
> Conner has an
> effective skill of 24 (Since Katana defaults to
> Broadsword-2) and has a
> parry of 16 with this new weapon. Poor Hiro, also
> picking up a weapon
> that is new to him finds himself with an effective
> skill of 9
> (Broadsword skill defaults to DX-5) and a parry of 4.
> Something seems wrong with this picture....
> It seems to indicate 2 things, IMO:
> 1. The Katana is a superior weapon to the Broadsword.
> 2. The Katana skill itself is far insuperior to the
> Broadsword skill.
> Is this realistic?
No, it's not. However it's important to note the
difference between the katana skill and the katana weapon.
Both fighters should continue their battle using whatever
skill they were using before. So Connor picks up the
katana, and uses it as with broadsword (it's essentially a
bastard sword). Meanwhile the Hiro of our story (sorry,
couldn't resist) picks up the broadsword, and uses his
katana skill. Now a katana is 2/3 parry when used 2-
handed, but this broadsword has a *much* shorter hilt than
his katana, so using katana skill in it's 1-handed fashion,
he also has 1/2 parry. I'd give them both unfamiliarity
with the weapons they're using (and -2 seems like a good
call) and let them go for it. So maybe the two *skills*
don't need to default at all, as they're really as
different as fencing and broadsword, or axe and
broadsword. However, a particular weapon can be wielded
using different skills.
Note in the Basic set, you can wield a quarterstaff with
the staff skill, or you can grip one end, and smack people
around with the 2-handed sword skill. It's the same
weapon, but one skill gives 2/3 parry, and the other gives
1/2 parry (and more damage IIRC).
Rubix
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> I think, as a general rule not limited to katanas and broadswords, if
> Skill A defaults to Skill B - 2, then Skill B should by symmetry
default
> to Skill A - 2. If they're the same difficulty, e.g. both P/A.
Let me put my 2 cents in since I do have something invested in this.
I'll paint you a picture:
Conner B'Dass is from the Highlands of Scotland and is a master of the
Broadsword (Skill level 26) and he meets up with Hiro Samsung, master
of the Katana (Also skill level 26). They both have a DX of 14. They
begin to fight to settle and old argument that they have.
In the midst of a very long fight, they fall and find themselves having
exchanged weapons. Now, according to GURPS rules: Conner has an
effective skill of 24 (Since Katana defaults to Broadsword-2) and has a
parry of 16 with this new weapon. Poor Hiro, also picking up a weapon
that is new to him finds himself with an effective skill of 9
(Broadsword skill defaults to DX-5) and a parry of 4.
Something seems wrong with this picture....
It seems to indicate 2 things, IMO:
1. The Katana is a superior weapon to the Broadsword.
2. The Katana skill itself is far insuperior to the Broadsword skill.
Is this realistic?
~~~~~~~~~ Ken / Rubix / watsonk ~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Methoria Campaign
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/5315/methoria.htm
The FOGies (Friends of GURPS) List
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/5315/FOGies.htm
the_...@my-deja.com
Steve M <stephenm...@hmresources.com.au.invalid> wrote:
> So maybe the two *skills*
> don't need to default at all, as they're really as
> different as fencing and broadsword, or axe and
> broadsword. However, a particular weapon can be wielded
> using different skills.
I was thinking the same thing, but there is more than one way to judge
this. If I were the GM, I'd have to say:
Using the katana, at an assumed -2 to Broadsword, would just allow the
broadsword master to use his knowledge of Broadsword Skill 26 with the
"funny" broadsword. Thus, 1/2 Parry with effective Broadsword Skill 24
(Parry 12). The same would apply to using the Katana Skill with a
broadsword, -2 to skill for using a "funny" katana, but I don't think
I'd still allow the 2/3 skill with a broadsword even though the Katana
Skill is being used due to it only being able to be used with a single
grip. Thus, 1/2 Parry with effective Katana Skill 24 (Parry 12).
-t!MmY
Balgewolf
--
John Simpson
aka Balgewolf
Remove NOSPAM to reply directly
Cobalt's metal, hard and shining;
Cobol's wordy and confining;
KOBOLDS topple when you strike them;
Don't feel bad, it's hard to like them.
-- The Roguelet's ABC
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-16050...@potato.cit.cornell.edu...
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>But then, should fencing only have 1/2 parry then? I'm no
Read the sidebars in GURPS Swashbucklers 3rd edition. There is your answer.
The ONLY reason I made it an "optional" rule is that SJ is irrationally and
superstitiously wedded to the "2/3 parry for Fencing" rule.
>Also, I read somewhere that the Japanese would have been
>less likely to develop the sword techniques that they did,
>had they also developed heavy armor similar to European
>armors. The "cut" rather than "chop" school of thought.
>Perhaps leave the 2/3 parry, but reduce the damage. (Now
What SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES that DO NOT APPEAR OR HAVE ANALOGUES among European
swordsmanship justify a 2/3 parry for the katana?
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>Yeah its called Kenjutsu. Martial Arts 2nd ED. Read it.
>
So what, moron? I'm quite familiar with it. Likewise, I'm familiar with
enough reality regarding swordsmanship to know that using a 2/3 parry for the
katana but not for European swords is a sign of UTTER IGNORANCE regarding
both.
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>2. The Katana skill itself is far insuperior to the Broadsword skill.
Both are, of course, quite false.
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>katana skill. Now a katana is 2/3 parry when used 2-
>handed, but this broadsword has a *much* shorter hilt than
Yeah, if Loonie Toons is your standard of reality.
>Note in the Basic set, you can wield a quarterstaff with
>the staff skill, or you can grip one end, and smack people
>around with the 2-handed sword skill. It's the same
>weapon, but one skill gives 2/3 parry, and the other gives
>1/2 parry (and more damage IIRC).
There's a difference that actually matters in that case. I've handled staves
and I've handled swords. The staff skill MIGHT merit extra parry, katana does
not.
Xiphias Gladius
whips). But for some weapons, you can buy the *Maneuver* Higher Parry up
to 2/3.
A Katana would be a sword (often, but not always, a Fine or Very Fine
sword, which is where the extra damage would come from), which would be
used with the Broadsword skill, or the Two-Handed Sword skill. There
would be *no* seperate Katana skill.
Some Two-Handed Sword styles, European and Asian, would include the Higher
Parry Maneuver.
There would be a -2 unfamiliarity penalty to switch back and forth, which
could be eliminated with, say, 8 hours of training. You'd still be using
the style you were trained in, of course.
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>But would that mean a samauri can pick up a cutlass and use it at
>Katana-2 and get a 2/3 Parry?
2/3 parry for Katana skill is just fine if you also think that Bugs Bunny and
Daffy Duck are real people.
Gregory L. Hansen
Steve M <stephenm...@hmresources.com.au.invalid> wrote:
>No, it's not. However it's important to note the
>difference between the katana skill and the katana weapon.
>Both fighters should continue their battle using whatever
>skill they were using before. So Connor picks up the
>katana, and uses it as with broadsword (it's essentially a
>bastard sword). Meanwhile the Hiro of our story (sorry,
>couldn't resist) picks up the broadsword, and uses his
>katana skill. Now a katana is 2/3 parry when used 2-
>handed, but this broadsword has a *much* shorter hilt than
>his katana, so using katana skill in it's 1-handed fashion,
>he also has 1/2 parry. I'd give them both unfamiliarity
>with the weapons they're using (and -2 seems like a good
>call) and let them go for it. So maybe the two *skills*
>don't need to default at all, as they're really as
>different as fencing and broadsword, or axe and
>broadsword. However, a particular weapon can be wielded
>using different skills.
I like that. I also like the idea of giving a 2/3 parry to all swords
that are used with both hands, because it really does give you better
control. Or with a weapon in each hand. It also gives an explanation of
the katana's better parry without resorting to "mystical Asian martial
arts superior to the brawling of unwashed Europeans, now lets all drink
tea and meditate in front of the cherry blossoms so we'll become better
fighters".
Gregory L. Hansen
Jubilation T. Cornpone <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <000b8d9b...@usw-ex0109-068.remarq.com>, Steve M
><stephenm...@hmresources.com.au.invalid> wrote:
>>But then, should fencing only have 1/2 parry then? I'm no
>
>Read the sidebars in GURPS Swashbucklers 3rd edition. There is your answer.
>The ONLY reason I made it an "optional" rule is that SJ is irrationally and
>superstitiously wedded to the "2/3 parry for Fencing" rule.
>
>>Also, I read somewhere that the Japanese would have been
>>less likely to develop the sword techniques that they did,
>>had they also developed heavy armor similar to European
>>armors. The "cut" rather than "chop" school of thought.
>>Perhaps leave the 2/3 parry, but reduce the damage. (Now
>
>What SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES that DO NOT APPEAR OR HAVE ANALOGUES among European
>
Tea Ceremony
MA Lloyd
>What SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES that DO NOT APPEAR OR HAVE ANALOGUES among European
>swordsmanship justify a 2/3 parry for the katana?
There probably aren't any - I'm sure there are minor differences, but
not that'll justify that much difference. The best justification I've
ever seen if you like the difference is to consider the Katana skill,
like Fencing, to be TL4. You'd then cover the fancier European
broadsword styles with a new skill available at TL4 called something like
Broadsword Fencing, which would also share the encumbrance limitations.
You justify it's rarity/absence at lower TLs because of it's general
uselessness to heavily armored troops carrying realisitic levels of gear.
Light encumbrance is 4 x ST - Chain is 45 lb by itself, add a helm and
weapon and you need ST 13 or better to qualify. Of course what looks
like the minimal full Japanese suit (steel helm and cuirass, remainder
leather) is totals 39 by itself, so samauri with average ST probably
can't use the 2/3 parry a lot of the time too.
--
-- MA Lloyd (mall...@io.com)
Demetria
>
> I've started rulling that *all* weapons have 1/2 Parry (or lower, e.g.
> whips). But for some weapons, you can buy the *Maneuver* Higher Parry up
> to 2/3.
>
> A Katana would be a sword (often, but not always, a Fine or Very Fine
> sword, which is where the extra damage would come from), which would be
> used with the Broadsword skill, or the Two-Handed Sword skill. There
> would be *no* seperate Katana skill.
>
> Some Two-Handed Sword styles, European and Asian, would include the Higher
> Parry Maneuver.
>
> There would be a -2 unfamiliarity penalty to switch back and forth, which
> could be eliminated with, say, 8 hours of training. You'd still be using
> the style you were trained in, of course.
>
> - Ian
that's pretty close to some of my house rules, which i copied down here. i
have a few concerns: should the maneuver used to increase parries (Higher
Parry as ian suggests) be P/A or P/H? and is 100 hrs too long to train away
the unfamiliarity penalties for what was Main-Gauche skill? tell me what
you guys think.
6. Combat/Weapon Skills and Parrying
6a. Specific changes to Combat/Weapon skills:
* Battlesuit/TL is (P/A) not (M/A)
* Broadsword (P/A) also defaults to Bastard Sword -2
* Spear Thrower does not add 5 to ST, it changes thrust damage to swing
damage
* Two-Handed Sword (P/A) also defaults to Bastard Sword -3
* Bastard Sword (P/A) is the skill of using one- or two-handed switchable
grip swords. Defaults to DX-5, Broadsword-2, Katana-1, or Two-Handed
Sword-2
* Katana (P/A) also defaults to Bastard Sword-1
6b. Specific changes to the parrying rules:
* Fencing (P/A) and Katana (P/A) parry at 1/2 skill, not 2/3, but can be
improved as a P/H maneuver up to 2/3 skill
* Main Gauche (P/A) is replaced with Knife (P/E), but can have its parry
improved to 2/3 skill as a P/H maneuver. The -1 to parry with a knife and
the off-hand defensive use are simply familiarization penalties and can be
trained away at 100 hours each.
* Short Staff is (P/A) not (P/H) and parries at 1/2 skill, not 2/3, but
can be improved as a P/H maneuver up to 2/3 skill
* Boxing, Judo, and Karate retain their 2/3 skill parry
demi
--
Sorry I missed church, I've been busy practicing witchcraft and
becoming a lesbian.
Bryan J. Maloney
> bj...@cornell.edu (Jubilation T. Cornpone) writes:
>
> >What SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES that DO NOT APPEAR OR HAVE ANALOGUES among European
> >swordsmanship justify a 2/3 parry for the katana?
>
> There probably aren't any - I'm sure there are minor differences, but
> not that'll justify that much difference. The best justification I've
> ever seen if you like the difference is to consider the Katana skill,
> like Fencing, to be TL4. You'd then cover the fancier European
> broadsword styles with a new skill available at TL4 called something like
> Broadsword Fencing, which would also share the encumbrance limitations.
An historical argument could be made that TL4 witnessed a change in the
way the weapon that GURPS would call a "broadsword" was used. The problem
is that any campaign that would use the 2/3 parry katana skill probably
wouldn't extend the same privilige to a mere European skill.
Bryan J. Maloney
<ect...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> that's pretty close to some of my house rules, which i copied down here. i
> have a few concerns: should the maneuver used to increase parries (Higher
> Parry as ian suggests) be P/A or P/H? and is 100 hrs too long to train away
Maneuvers aren't "P" anything.
Swashbucklers 3rd edition makes it a Hard maneuver with any weapon that is
not Ultralight, if I recall aright.
Demetria
>
> In article <3922B77F...@mediaone.net>, Demetria
> <ect...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > that's pretty close to some of my house rules, which i copied down here. i
> > have a few concerns: should the maneuver used to increase parries (Higher
> > Parry as ian suggests) be P/A or P/H? and is 100 hrs too long to train away
>
> Maneuvers aren't "P" anything.
oops, my mistake.
> Swashbucklers 3rd edition makes it a Hard maneuver with any weapon that is
> not Ultralight, if I recall aright.
so what qualifies as "ultralight"? would knives?
Bryan J. Maloney
<ect...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
> >
> > In article <3922B77F...@mediaone.net>, Demetria
> > <ect...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > that's pretty close to some of my house rules, which i copied down
here. i
> > > have a few concerns: should the maneuver used to increase parries (Higher
> > > Parry as ian suggests) be P/A or P/H? and is 100 hrs too long to
train away
> >
> > Maneuvers aren't "P" anything.
>
> oops, my mistake.
>
> > Swashbucklers 3rd edition makes it a Hard maneuver with any weapon that is
> > not Ultralight, if I recall aright.
>
> so what qualifies as "ultralight"? would knives?
Smallswords, epées, the empty hand, smaller knives (not bowie-sized). It
has to do as much with mass DISTRIBUTION as with absolute mass.
Steve M
I don't have Swashbucklers (but it's on my list as next
buy!) but this makes sense. It would also make sense to me
to have some weapons being a kind of "2 handed ultralight"
(it being a mass distribution thing) so a quarterstaff
would qualify, and certain 2-handed swords might qualify.
If you look at a katana, for example, it's got a low
hilt/blade length ratio (compared to a claymore for
example) and maybe qualifies on those grounds, when used 2-
handed. When used 1-handed, bad luck, it's a broadsword
(which is what the rules are now anyway, IIRC).
Ace
<zugg...@home.net> wrote:
> I just had a strange occurrence in my game...
> one of my players (with Katana skill 18) has decided to use a
> broadswit defaults to 2h sword at -2.
ord - and thinks that Broadsword should get some sort of
> default from his Katana skill, since Katana can default from
> broadsword.
> I'm just asking for opinions - do you think Broadsword should
> default
> to Katana-2 (or Katana minus whatever) or something similar.
> From what I've been able to find in Basic, CI and CII, and MA, it
> seems the answer is "no"
> What do you think?
I got rid of Katana entirely as written.
Instead I use the rules for 2handed sword skill( but a seperate
familiarity whichdefaults to 2handed sword at-2) but with the special
mauevers from Japan 2e and extra parry mauever from swashbucklers 3e.
For 1 hand use "Broadsword" skill also a seperate familiarity.
thats much more realistic IMHO the only weapons that deserve 2/3 parry
are staff and maybe smallsword or short staff.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Steve M
Ace <wdolNO...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote:
> IMHO the only weapons that
> deserve 2/3 parry
> are staff and maybe smallsword or short staff.
Short staff is also interesting. If I'm trained in short-
staff, can I use that skill with a shortsword, and get the
2/3 parry? For a particularly cinematic character, I've
allowed just that (the guy is just short of demi-god, with
all stats min 20 or so). It doesn't seem to me to work,
though. (Methinks me had best go get Swashbuckler, and
check out this parry maneuvre thingy).
Perhaps any weapon can be used as "ultralight" if they're
strong enough. After all, what's to stop Superman using a
Claymore as an epee?
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>I don't have Swashbucklers (but it's on my list as next
>buy!) but this makes sense. It would also make sense to me
>to have some weapons being a kind of "2 handed ultralight"
>(it being a mass distribution thing) so a quarterstaff
Too much detail to make it into the draft, but that's the general idea.
Staves would be "Ultralight" if used two-handed and gripped near the center,
"Light" if used with the 2-handed sword skill.
>would qualify, and certain 2-handed swords might qualify.
What GURPS calls a "Bastard" sword would qualify as "Light", but probably not
"Ultralight". What GURPS calls a full-fledged "Two-Handed Sword" probably
wouldn't.
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>Short staff is also interesting. If I'm trained in short-
>staff, can I use that skill with a shortsword, and get the
Is a short staff the length of a policeman's baton?
>strong enough. After all, what's to stop Superman using a
>Claymore as an epee?
Good taste.
Jargon
Japanese fighter in a fight. My reasoning was that the European armor let the
European fighter make more mistakes without getting killed. Of course, I start
hearing about what master Katana swordsman could do and how I was wrong.
You always hear about the master swordsmen.
Folks forget that in the west, we did have martial arts. They just died out a
whole lot more here. But he had them and still have them. They are brutal and
effective.
Douglas
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
> In article <I%aU4.34060$PL4.6...@ozemail.com.au>, "Balgewolf"
> <NOSPAMb...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>
> > Katana Skill is not just using the Katana, but the entire style which is
> > very different from European Broadsword Style.
>
> In THAT case, make it a MARTIAL ARTS STYLE and not a pumped up skill with
> extra powers! It's pure Joebobbism, plain and simple, based upon
> ignorance of both Japanese AND Western swordsmanship.
>
Steve M
Jargon <mindles...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
> I argued about this once. I put an average European
> fighter ahead of an average
> Japanese fighter in a fight. My reasoning was that the
> European armor let the
> European fighter make more mistakes without getting
> killed.
Sound reasoning, IMO. And apart from that, why would an
average japanese swordsman be better than an average euro
swordsman?
> Of course, I start
> hearing about what master Katana swordsman could do
> and how I was wrong.
Why wrong? Master swordsman still has trouble against
plate armor, and against master European swordsman.
> You always hear about the master swordsmen.
Exactly! And unfortunately, the western swordsmen kind
of "died out" before the japanese ones did, so names like
Musashi are spoken about more than any western swordsman.
(Like Burton? IIRC). I don't think I've heard any great
tales of western swordsmanship, except the above dude.
> Folks forget that in the west, we did have martial
> arts. They just died out a
> whole lot more here. But he had them and still have
> them. They are brutal and
> effective.
So, I don't understand why you felt that your first thought
was wrong, ie. two average swordsman together are two
average swordsmen, regardless of where they're from.
BTW, has anyone here tried fencing vs. kendo? What did
they find? My money'd be on the fencer.
Dr Nuncheon
Steve M <stephenm...@hmresources.com.au.invalid> wrote:
>
>BTW, has anyone here tried fencing vs. kendo? What did
>they find? My money'd be on the fencer.
From somewhere in the depths of my memory, I think I've heard about
historical fights of this sort happening. They usually wound up with both
parties severely injured or dead - the fencer impales the samurai, who
takes the opportunity to slice the offending European in half, only to
expire later.
Then again, a fair number of samurai vs. samurai duesl ended up that way
too, from what I understand...
J
--
"Boy, you lose one measly continent and people | Jeff Johnston
just won't let you forget about it." - Kenneth Hite |
"Suppressed Transmissions", _Pyramid_ 5/12/00 | jeffj @ io.com
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>Exactly! And unfortunately, the western swordsmen kind
>of "died out" before the japanese ones did, so names like
>Musashi are spoken about more than any western swordsman.
>(Like Burton? IIRC). I don't think I've heard any great
>tales of western swordsmanship, except the above dude.
There were great swordsmen in the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe, but they
were reknowned as duellists, not as soldiers. Soldiery and swordsmanship had
reached a parting of the ways by the 17th century. It was generalship and
field command that brought public acclaim. Duelling was a phenomenon
restricted to a smaller circle of people.
We also have to consider social forces of the 19th and 20th centuries in the
West that led to the anonymity of great swordsmen. La Maupin, perhaps one of
the greatest swords"men" to have ever lived in Europe, was forgotten soon
after her end. Indeed, her time at the Paris Opera was better known than her
skill with the blade. Unlike Japan, where the sword was revered and held
forth as a valuable symbol by the ruling classes up to the 20th century, in
the West the sword generally fell into irrelevance, which meant that the
greatest of our masters would likewise be so treated.
>BTW, has anyone here tried fencing vs. kendo? What did
>they find? My money'd be on the fencer.
It has been tried many times. The general result is that the fencers win,
from the accounts I've seen. This disparity seems to mostly be due to
overconfidence on the part of the kendoka.
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>In article <00954660...@usw-ex0109-068.remarq.com>,
>Steve M <stephenm...@hmresources.com.au.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>BTW, has anyone here tried fencing vs. kendo? What did
>>they find? My money'd be on the fencer.
>
>historical fights of this sort happening. They usually wound up with both
>parties severely injured or dead - the fencer impales the samurai, who
>takes the opportunity to slice the offending European in half, only to
>expire later.
Firstoff, fencing is not fighting. Fencing is the art form that can be used
to train for the fighting. I cannot fathom why on earth SJG named a
combat skill "Fencing". However, there are combat techniques that are part of
European swordsmanship (even 19th-century formal European swordsmanship) that
are not permitted on the formal fencing piste. There has never been, as far
as I know, any recorded actual fight between a European and a Japanese
swordsman. There have been fencing matches between kendoka and fencers, but
these were with sporting weapons. The only "master level" match I know of
took place in the 1930s, in the Panama Canal territory. The Japanese military
attache arranged for a then-famous Kendoka to come and "prove the superiority
of Japanese swordsmanship" against an American epee champion. The Kendoka
never touched the epeeist.
As for the "impale and slice" story--that tale also is told about Europeans
facing each other. I consider it to be a cautionary tale: Do not presume
that your enemy will die at a convenient rate, even after you have killed him.
That it has verifiably happened in Europe gives it a bit of weight.
Gregory L. Hansen
Jargon <mindles...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>I argued about this once. I put an average European fighter ahead of an average
>Japanese fighter in a fight. My reasoning was that the European armor let the
>hearing about what master Katana swordsman could do and how I was wrong.
>
And it's always the Japanese master swordsman against the European common
foot soldier. Nobody postulates the master Italian fencer against the
Japanese peasant with a sword.
>Folks forget that in the west, we did have martial arts. They just died
out a
>whole lot more here. But he had them and still have them. They are
brutal and
>effective.
In the west, we still do. The French, the Russians, the Africans, etc.
Everyone has them. But not everyone is so good at formalizing them,
writing them down, giving them a name, and getting people to pay to learn
them.
Gregory L. Hansen
Steve M <stephenm...@hmresources.com.au.invalid> wrote:
>Jargon <mindles...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>> I argued about this once. I put an average European
>> fighter ahead of an average
>> Japanese fighter in a fight. My reasoning was that the
>> European armor let the
>> European fighter make more mistakes without getting
>> killed.
>
>average japanese swordsman be better than an average euro
>swordsman?
Tea Ceremony and Haiku.
>> Of course, I start
>> hearing about what master Katana swordsman could do
>> and how I was wrong.
>
>Why wrong? Master swordsman still has trouble against
>plate armor, and against master European swordsman.
>
>> You always hear about the master swordsmen.
>
>Exactly! And unfortunately, the western swordsmen kind
>of "died out" before the japanese ones did, so names like
>Musashi are spoken about more than any western swordsman.
>(Like Burton? IIRC). I don't think I've heard any great
>tales of western swordsmanship, except the above dude.
Odo the Warrior Bishop! He weilded a mace in battle because clerics are
not allowed to shed blood. Talk about a loophole! You can figure that's
not quite what was meant, but that's what was said. The guy has to be the
inspiration for AD&D clerics not being allowed to use edged weapons.
Xiphias Gladius
> As for the "impale and slice" story--that tale also is told about Europeans
> facing each other. I consider it to be a cautionary tale: Do not presume
> that your enemy will die at a convenient rate, even after you have
> killed him.
For one fictional example, in one of the Sharpe's Rifles series of books,
Richard Sharp defeats a vastly superior fencer by taking a blown in the
leg, impailing his leg, which traps the sword, and then hacking his enemy
to death with his heavy cavalry saber.
Gregory L. Hansen
Bill Seurer <BillS...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>X-no-archive: yes
>
>Steve M wrote:
>> ... And apart from that, why would an
>> average japanese swordsman be better than an average euro
>> swordsman?
>
>the other day I saw this kewl movie where this ninja dude took out a
>couple score cops (who had GUNS!) using his mystical ninja arts. Given
>that, how can you even postulate that some stupid western guy could
>stand a chance. Heck, in this one Bruce Lee movie I saw even the
>oriental "street scum" were masters of the martial arts.
From the movie "They Call Me Bruce?",
"Take a good look at my face. I'm an oriental. Waah!" And the thug goes
running.
Bryan J. Maloney
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> Odo the Warrior Bishop! He weilded a mace in battle because clerics are
> not allowed to shed blood. Talk about a loophole! You can figure that's
Actually, Odo mostly wielded a lance, since he was also noble. He took
out the mace for close-in work.
Bryan J. Maloney
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> In the west, we still do. The French, the Russians, the Africans, etc.
> Everyone has them. But not everyone is so good at formalizing them,
> writing them down, giving them a name, and getting people to pay to learn
> them.
La Savate (which is different from Boxe Francaise, actually)
Zipota (A basque art)
Hugg Wrestling (Cornwall)
Catch Wrestling (USA)
Hooking (USA style of grappling/wrestling)
I'm only naming styles that existed in the previous century and still have
teachers in the modern day.
Paul Jackson
> > For one fictional example, in one of the Sharpe's Rifles series of books,
> > Richard Sharp defeats a vastly superior fencer by taking a blown in the
> > leg, impailing his leg, which traps the sword, and then hacking his enemy
> > to death with his heavy cavalry saber.
> Joebob fencer takes a toothpick and lightly dances up to famous Kensai
> Musashi. He deftly dodges all of Musashi's attacks and impales the
> Japanese swordmaster with the toothpick with such accuracy and alacrity
> that Musashi immediately expires.
>
> Equally as true as the incident you relate.
Serious question :
Why is this tactic so totally unrealistic? To slightly expand
from the above, Sharpe had deliberately set this up,
he deliberately twisted his leg so as to trap the impaling
sword in his leg for the less than a second that he
needed to get his blow in. He'd also got the better fencer
both overly confident in his victory and pissed at him.
It was clearly presented as an incredibly dangerous option
with only a small chance of working. Why do you think that it
has no chance at all of working?
In Gurps terms, Sharpe obviously has High Pain Threshold,
made his will roll, and made some kind of "parry" role to
get his leg in place.
Bryan J. Maloney
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> > > For one fictional example, in one of the Sharpe's Rifles series of books,
> > > Richard Sharp defeats a vastly superior fencer by taking a blown in the
> > > leg, impailing his leg, which traps the sword, and then hacking his enemy
> > > to death with his heavy cavalry saber.
>
> > Joebob fencer takes a toothpick and lightly dances up to famous Kensai
> > Musashi. He deftly dodges all of Musashi's attacks and impales the
> > Japanese swordmaster with the toothpick with such accuracy and alacrity
> > that Musashi immediately expires.
> >
> > Equally as true as the incident you relate.
>
> Serious question :
>
> Why is this tactic so totally unrealistic? To slightly expand
> from the above, Sharpe had deliberately set this up,
> he deliberately twisted his leg so as to trap the impaling
> sword in his leg for the less than a second that he
It's just plain STUPID. I can think of several other ways to deal with
somebody who insists upon the point if I have a good cutting blade. One
is very simple: GRAB HIS SWORD! If he's using an epee, I'll take a cut
to the hand, but he'll take a cut to the head. GRAB HIS HAND!! Both were
done successfully in real duels. Intentionally allowing oneself to be run
through has never been done successfully in real duels so far as I know.
If the opponent truly were so very much better than Sharpe, he'd have
never been able to pull that stupid trick. Likewise, not competent
swordsmen in a real fight would bother thrusting at the leg except as a
feint. There are no vital organs therein, and the chance of severing the
femoral artery is so slight that only an unskilled buffoon would try it.
Likewise, if Sharpe can draw an attack to the leg, he can draw an attack
to the leg, PARRY it, STEP IN CLOSE, and give the guy a knee to the family
jewels. While he's distracted, he can finish him off.
> needed to get his blow in. He'd also got the better fencer
> both overly confident in his victory and pissed at him.
If the better fencer were so overconfident and pissed, then Sharpe could
have used some old-fashioned military rough-and-tumble on the guy without
being impaled.
> It was clearly presented as an incredibly dangerous option
> with only a small chance of working. Why do you think that it
> has no chance at all of working?
Trying to catch a bullet with my hands instead of keeping my head down has
a small chance of working. I'm not going to try it.
> In Gurps terms, Sharpe obviously has High Pain Threshold,
> made his will roll, and made some kind of "parry" role to
> get his leg in place.
In GURPS terms, Sharpe has an IQ of 5, Overconfidence, Impulsiveness and
Compulsive Stupidity.
Bryan J. Maloney
<wdolNO...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote:
> Zipota? Hook wrestling?Thought I had heard of almost all the martial
> arts? Where can i find out about those.
I think it's OneList that hosts a "Western Martial Arts" email list.
There are practitioners of Zipota thereon. Matt Furey is someone who is
studying (and possibly teaching) "Hooking" as it's called. Just do a web
search on his name and on "Zipota".
> Also I didn't know the native Cornish wrestling techniques had a name.
Indeed, there are even 17th-century works on the subject.
Bryan J. Maloney
<stephenm...@hmresources.com.au.invalid> wrote:
> your traditional broadsword, and later rapiers etc. You'd
> have to agree that they're quite different styles, and
> ought to be treated differently. I understand the
But NEITHER resembles modern fencing nor 19th-century styles to an
appreciable degree. Indeed, late broadsword and early rapier resemble
each other more than EITHER resembles what would be called "fencing" in
this day and age!
> difference between modern fencing and 19th century
> swordsmanship, but I'm comfortable enough with the
> similarities to bunch 'em under the same banner. Remember
Rapier shares more features with "broadsword" than it does with modern fencing.
Bryan J. Maloney
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> I don't really consider boxing to be a martial art since it has rules,
> like no elbows, no feet, no hitting below the belt, etc. It's a sport.
Then Kendo and Judo are not martial arts. Would you agree?
> when she threw a full punch at a heavy bag! Boxers train by hitting air,
> but also by hitting hard, and full-contact sparring.
It's astonishing what getting a good whack in the short ribs can do to
one's outlook on life...
Bryan J. Maloney
<mindles...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
> Given that the writer of the series is quite this historian, this is
likely one
> of those historical tidbits which is actually true and he put it into
his book.
I'd like to see a citation for something this daft.
Gregory L. Hansen
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <8g8su6$gru$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>> I don't really consider boxing to be a martial art since it has rules,
>> like no elbows, no feet, no hitting below the belt, etc. It's a sport.
>
>Then Kendo and Judo are not martial arts. Would you agree?
I don't know much about kendo, but judo is certainly not a martial art!
Judo was designed specifically with safety in mind, and they've tried to
distance it from combat. That doesn't mean judo skills can't be useful in
a fight, but judo is a sport. It's considered sloppy and poor technique
to injure one's opponent.
>> when she threw a full punch at a heavy bag! Boxers train by hitting air,
>> but also by hitting hard, and full-contact sparring.
>
>It's astonishing what getting a good whack in the short ribs can do to
>one's outlook on life...
Without doubt.
Gregory L. Hansen
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <8g8su6$gru$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>> I don't really consider boxing to be a martial art since it has rules,
>> like no elbows, no feet, no hitting below the belt, etc. It's a sport.
>
>Then Kendo and Judo are not martial arts. Would you agree?
Actually, as I understand it, -jitsu is the martial art and -do is the
sport. Jujitsu and kenjitsu are combat, judo and kendo are sport.
And, um... ninjitsu is combat, and nindo is sport?
Demetria
>
> In article <bjm10-22050...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >In article <8g8su6$gru$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> >glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >
> >> I don't really consider boxing to be a martial art since it has rules,
> >> like no elbows, no feet, no hitting below the belt, etc. It's a sport.
> >
> >Then Kendo and Judo are not martial arts. Would you agree?
>
> Actually, as I understand it, -jitsu is the martial art and -do is the
> sport. Jujitsu and kenjitsu are combat, judo and kendo are sport.
>
> And, um... ninjitsu is combat, and nindo is sport?
so what does that make nintenjitsu? :)
demi
--
Sorry I missed church, I've been busy practicing witchcraft and
becoming a lesbian.
0range
Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:8gbp6j$s1i$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <bjm10-22050...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >In article <8g8su6$gru$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> >glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >
> >> I don't really consider boxing to be a martial art since it has rules,
> >> like no elbows, no feet, no hitting below the belt, etc. It's a sport.
> >
> >Then Kendo and Judo are not martial arts. Would you agree?
>
> Actually, as I understand it, -jitsu is the martial art and -do is the
> sport. Jujitsu and kenjitsu are combat, judo and kendo are sport.
>
> And, um... ninjitsu is combat, and nindo is sport?
>
> "In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
> hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
Yes, Japanese soldiers were taught jujutsu, as a martial art. It was
"designed" to beat the crap out of the other guy. And what Gregory said was
true, the ORIGINAL form of Judo and Kendo (jujutsu and kenjutsu) are martial
arts, if you consider a technique without any rules of fight a martial art.
But then again, did boxing have rules when it was created ?
0range
--
"Carrot soup is good food"
Bryan J. Maloney
> But then again, did boxing have rules when it was created ?
Boxing as such has always had rules of some sort or another and was
distinguished from the more general combat training that a soldier or
warrior might need. This goes as far back as Greece.
Bryan J. Maloney
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> In article <bjm10-22050...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >In article <8g8su6$gru$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> >glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >
> >> I don't really consider boxing to be a martial art since it has rules,
> >> like no elbows, no feet, no hitting below the belt, etc. It's a sport.
> >
> >Then Kendo and Judo are not martial arts. Would you agree?
>
> Actually, as I understand it, -jitsu is the martial art and -do is the
> sport. Jujitsu and kenjitsu are combat, judo and kendo are sport.
>
> And, um... ninjitsu is combat, and nindo is sport?
It's stranger than that. For example, the full name of a school sometimes
known as "Hawai'ian Jujutsu" is "Danzan-Ryu Judo Jujutsu", and it's very
much combat oriented. The use of "Judo" means that it has a spiritual
element to incorporate as well as a "Jujutsu"--a "flexibility art" that is
the physical foundation. Likewise Kano Judo (the foundation of sport
Judo) is actually "Kano Judo Jujutsu". The division into "-do" vs.
"-jutsu" is a non-Japanese practice and has struck some of them (and some
American instructors) to be akin to trying to ride half a bicycle.
0range
0range
--
"Carrot soup is good food"
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-22050...@potato.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <8gc0fg$rfe$1...@weber.a2000.nl>, "0range" <v...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> > But then again, did boxing have rules when it was created ?
>
> Boxing as such has always had rules of some sort or another and was
> distinguished from the more general combat training that a soldier or
> warrior might need. This goes as far back as Greece.
>
prei...@my-deja.com
> >> I don't really consider boxing to be a martial art since it has
> >> rules, like no elbows, no feet, no hitting below the belt, etc.
> >> It's a sport.
It's just a sport that's very, very useful for fighting.
I've gone through a couple of books on streetfighting recently ("Cheap
Shots, Ambushes, and Other Lessons" by Marc "Animal" MacYoung, "A
Bouncer's Guide to Barroom Brawling" by Peyton Quinn - BTW, both have
some good advice on _avoiding_ fights, generally considered the very
best way of winning them), and they seem to disagree with you. Boxing
has rules, but gives you some _very_ useful tools for real fighting,
_just like any other martial art_.
All martial arts have rules, even if they're just "don't practice this
move on each other; you'll risk injury." It may be a killer move, but
if you can't practice it, you probably won't be able to use it
effectively in a real fight. Even full-contact karate sparring is
looked at pretty derisively by MacYoung (a very seasoned streetfighter
with extensive martial arts training); it's point-based rather than
result-based, grappling isn't allowed so balance and footwork are
sloppy, targets are limited, etc.
Boxing involves hitting and being hit _hard_, trains for results, gives
lots of experience with the moves, and concentrates on punches,
generally the most important moves in a real fight. AFAICT, boxing is
easily as good of preparation for fighting as most martial arts. When
you go to fight, you're not going to use your spinning heel kick to the
guy's head; you're going to punch him (or you're going to try the spinny
thing and get your knackers pounded into your throat, like MacYoung did
_once_...).
Even if you don't consider boxing (or tournament karate, or tournament
tae kwon do, or tournament jujutsu, or...) to be a martial art, it's
still probably about as useful for teaching you how to _fight_, which is
what GURPS is mostly concerned about. You can glean a little more info
on this from the reviews of "Championship Streetfighting: Boxing As a
Martial Art" by Ned Beaumont on amazon.com (or the book itself); he's
apparently pretty down on Eastern martial arts, but also apparently
presents a good argument for the utility of boxing, especially "the
techniques of the old time fighters, when boxing was a bloodsport" (as
one satisfied reader puts it).
> Actually, as I understand it, -jitsu is the martial art and -do is the
> sport. Jujitsu and kenjitsu are combat, judo and kendo are sport.
That's vaguely the idea, but it doesn't really break down that nicely -
"karate" is generally referred to as "karate-do", regardless of how
sport-based or fight-based it is, for example, and then, of course,
there's Jeet Kune Do, which is usually pretty combat-based.
One could, arguably, say that any sport-style martial system isn't a
"martial art", but there isn't, IMHO, really a clear dividing line.
Is karate a martial art? How about karate taught in a club where a few
people go to a tournament once a year? Where most of the people go?
Several tournaments? Many tournaments? Tournaments are important to
the club? A focus of the club? _The_ focus of the club?
IMHO, it's a martial art if it's both martial and a collected system.
This would make Jeet Kune Do, Boxing, Akido, and (arguably) Fencing all
martial arts, while "self-defense training with some skilled friends"
_wouldn't_ be, even though it would quite possibly be better for
learning how to fight.
And this has _what_ to do with GURPS?
Well, this: it's pretty clear that you can take Karate (Art) and Karate
(Sport) as a beginning character, but what I've read suggests taking
mostly or only Karate (combat) is also reasonable, _with an appropriate
character background_. This will probably include martial arts training
at one or more places that teach it for serious use, as well as
extensive (and painful) practical experience - either full-contact "do
it like you mean it" result-based practice with others or actual
fighting experience (or, probably, both).
-P
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gregory L. Hansen
>
>> >> I don't really consider boxing to be a martial art since it has
>> >> rules, like no elbows, no feet, no hitting below the belt, etc.
>> >> It's a sport.
>
>It's just a sport that's very, very useful for fighting.
>
>I've gone through a couple of books on streetfighting recently ("Cheap
>Shots, Ambushes, and Other Lessons" by Marc "Animal" MacYoung, "A
>Bouncer's Guide to Barroom Brawling" by Peyton Quinn - BTW, both have
>some good advice on _avoiding_ fights, generally considered the very
>best way of winning them), and they seem to disagree with you. Boxing
>has rules, but gives you some _very_ useful tools for real fighting,
>_just like any other martial art_.
Boxers have the best punches on the planet. They're very good at it.
It's also the only thing they're allowed to do, and their targets are
restricted. Boxing is not just the punching, but also the rules, the
rounds, and the points. Boxers train for matches, not for fights. Sure,
it can be extremely useful for self-defense. But kicking, grappling, and
other self-defense notions are entirely foreign to them. They not only
choose not to grapple, they're not allowed to grapple!
>All martial arts have rules, even if they're just "don't practice this
>move on each other; you'll risk injury." It may be a killer move, but
Those are training rules enforced by a particular instructor.
>Boxing involves hitting and being hit _hard_, trains for results, gives
>lots of experience with the moves, and concentrates on punches,
>generally the most important moves in a real fight. AFAICT, boxing is
>easily as good of preparation for fighting as most martial arts. When
>you go to fight, you're not going to use your spinning heel kick to the
>guy's head; you're going to punch him (or you're going to try the spinny
>thing and get your knackers pounded into your throat, like MacYoung did
>_once_...).
Boxers have excellent training methods. For self-defense, their training
should also focus on defenses against kicks, defenses against grapplers,
defenses against chokes, against sticks, etc. Boxers don't train those.
Their opponent isn't allowed to bring a pool cue into the ring.
>> Actually, as I understand it, -jitsu is the martial art and -do is the
>> sport. Jujitsu and kenjitsu are combat, judo and kendo are sport.
>
>That's vaguely the idea, but it doesn't really break down that nicely -
>"karate" is generally referred to as "karate-do", regardless of how
>sport-based or fight-based it is, for example, and then, of course,
>there's Jeet Kune Do, which is usually pretty combat-based.
Shotokan karate is a sterilized fighting system for a culture that no
longer needed warriors. Self-improvement and fitness is emphasized over
self defense. Shotokan karate has not evolved in step with other martial
arts of the world, and in terms of fighting technology is underequipped.
You can defend yourself against many people with shotokan karate, but
people that tend to fight in life-or-death situations tend to learn silat,
jeet kune do, or other styles that have continuously evolved for fighting
with little thought to fitness and self improvement.
I'm picking on shotokan karate because it's the only style I know anything
about.
>And this has _what_ to do with GURPS?
>
>
>Well, this: it's pretty clear that you can take Karate (Art) and Karate
>(Sport) as a beginning character, but what I've read suggests taking
>mostly or only Karate (combat) is also reasonable, _with an appropriate
>character background_. This will probably include martial arts training
>at one or more places that teach it for serious use, as well as
>extensive (and painful) practical experience - either full-contact "do
>it like you mean it" result-based practice with others or actual
>fighting experience (or, probably, both).
An appropriate character background? Do a little research, find the right
school. My brother goes to a school in Minneapolis that's very good.
I've been there a few times and I've been impressed with the training
methods and the instructors' wisdom. One instructor was a street fighter,
the head instructor teaches unarmed combat to the FBI and Mounties. Half
the people in the class are bouncers, policemen, guards, etc. Bounce at
Sharky's and you'll know if you're getting good instruction. They don't
do tournaments, they don't do belts, they don't do bare feet and white
pajamas. There's probably a comparable school near you.
--
If I had a nickel for everytime someone said "If I had a nickel for every
time someone said..."...
Bryan J. Maloney
> Boxing involves hitting and being hit _hard_, trains for results, gives
> lots of experience with the moves, and concentrates on punches,
Exactly--it's stripped down to the barest. It's very good for learning
theory and finding out what it's like to get hit. Boxing does have some
weaknesses, specifically in defending anything "below the belt" and in
countering combat wrestling, but that's why older schools of boxing also
often taught some form of wrestling (and the backsword...)
Gregory L. Hansen
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <8gd2dr$puh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, prei...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Boxing involves hitting and being hit _hard_, trains for results, gives
>> lots of experience with the moves, and concentrates on punches,
>
>Exactly--it's stripped down to the barest. It's very good for learning
>theory and finding out what it's like to get hit. Boxing does have some
>weaknesses, specifically in defending anything "below the belt" and in
>countering combat wrestling, but that's why older schools of boxing also
>often taught some form of wrestling (and the backsword...)
The backsword?
prei...@my-deja.com
> Boxers have the best punches on the planet. They're very good at it.
> It's also the only thing they're allowed to do, and their targets are
> restricted. Boxing is not just the punching, but also the rules, the
> rounds, and the points. Boxers train for matches, not for fights.
> Sure, it can be extremely useful for self-defense. But kicking,
> grappling, and other self-defense notions are entirely foreign to
> them. They not only choose not to grapple, they're not allowed to
> grapple!
All true; however, good punches is apparently all it often (even
usually) takes.
Kicking is, apparently, a fairly minor facet of most fights, given the
great risk to your balance and mobility it represents (although it's
presented as _by no means_ useless), and (again, apparently) grappling
often occurs _after_ the telling blows have been struck, at least in
confrontations involving lesser skills.
OTOH, yes; these are extremely important things that should be taken
into account by any integrated self-defense system. I'm not saying that
boxing is some uber-art, simply that it deserves to be called a martial
art just as much as do many types of karate or tae kwon do IMHO.
> > All martial arts have rules, even if they're just "don't practice
> > this move on each other; you'll risk injury." It may be a killer
> > move, but
>
> Those are training rules enforced by a particular instructor.
And all sparring has rules of that sort.
The way I see things is this: there's martial theory ("when this
happens, do this") and martial practice ("now do it for real"), both of
which are essential for fighting prowess. Boxing gives restricted
martial theory and extensive martial practice, while most martial arts
give extensive martial theory and restricted martial practice.
Without the opportunity to practice the greater wealth of techniques and
approaches, martial arts are limited in essentially the mirror of the
way boxing is; much theory little practice vs. little theory much
practice. Neither one is ideal, but compromises are largely unavoidable
when training unless you're willing to risk injuring each other.
FWIW, this is why I suggest a character with most or all martial points
in the combat versions of the skills should have both appropriate
martial arts instruction (solid theoretical base) and nontrivial
experience in real and near-real fight situations (solid practical
grounding); this gives a rounded and balanced theory/practice split,
like most other skills expect. It's just harder to get such a complete
approach with combat skills...
> Boxers have excellent training methods. For self-defense, their
> training should also focus on defenses against kicks, defenses against
> grapplers, defenses against chokes, against sticks, etc. Boxers don't
> train those.
Sure they do; in order, the defenses are "hit 'im", "hit 'im", "hit
'im", and (waaaaaait for it!) "hit 'im"... ;)
Good point, though - it's not a complete self-defense system by itself.
A great many martial arts have similar blind spots, though, with the
most common being the striking/grappling split - IME, not a lot of
martial arts effectively cover both, although some certainly do,
including...
> people that tend to fight in life-or-death situations tend to learn
> silat, jeet kune do, or other styles that have continuously evolved
> for fighting with little thought to fitness and self improvement.
And, just as importantly, that haven't overly restricted their focus to
particular aspects of close combat (like grappling, striking, or
kicking).
One could, I guess, term only combat-oriented system as "martial arts"
and call the rest something else. This has the odd effect of excluding
most of what is generally known as "the martial arts" from "the martial
arts", suggesting it's not the best choice of terminology.
IMHO, it might be better to call 'em all martial arts, and refer to
combat-focussed martial arts systems as "combat systems" or the like.
That would make most karate, boxing, tae kwon do, etc. "martial arts",
but not "combat systems".
> school. My brother goes to a school in Minneapolis that's very good.
> I've been there a few times and I've been impressed with the training
> methods and the instructors' wisdom.
How do they practice what they've learned? Not only would I consider
this important in deciding the art/combat split, but I wouldn't mind
knowing some effective practice methods myself...
Gregory L. Hansen
>
>> Boxers have the best punches on the planet. They're very good at it.
>> It's also the only thing they're allowed to do, and their targets are
>> restricted. Boxing is not just the punching, but also the rules, the
>> rounds, and the points. Boxers train for matches, not for fights.
>> Sure, it can be extremely useful for self-defense. But kicking,
>> grappling, and other self-defense notions are entirely foreign to
>> them. They not only choose not to grapple, they're not allowed to
>> grapple!
>
>All true; however, good punches is apparently all it often (even
>usually) takes.
>
>Kicking is, apparently, a fairly minor facet of most fights, given the
>great risk to your balance and mobility it represents (although it's
>presented as _by no means_ useless), and (again, apparently) grappling
>often occurs _after_ the telling blows have been struck, at least in
>confrontations involving lesser skills.
Fighters often tend to run into each other and go to the ground, so I
think it's important to know how to deal with that. At the very least, be
practiced at sidestepping while punching, to avoid the grappler.
>OTOH, yes; these are extremely important things that should be taken
>into account by any integrated self-defense system. I'm not saying that
>boxing is some uber-art, simply that it deserves to be called a martial
>art just as much as do many types of karate or tae kwon do IMHO.
Yes, on second thought, I suppose I'll agree with that. Boxing is at
least as much a martial art as many other arts that are called martial.
>Without the opportunity to practice the greater wealth of techniques and
>approaches, martial arts are limited in essentially the mirror of the
>way boxing is; much theory little practice vs. little theory much
>practice. Neither one is ideal, but compromises are largely unavoidable
>when training unless you're willing to risk injuring each other.
The more aggressive schools will eventually put their students into safety
gear and do limited or full contact sparring. My brother got some limited
contact sparring and said it's amazing how much his footwork suffers and
his reactions blur when he's being bipped in the face. I guess it's just
something you have to get used to.
>Good point, though - it's not a complete self-defense system by itself.
>A great many martial arts have similar blind spots, though, with the
>most common being the striking/grappling split - IME, not a lot of
I always think of aikido in that context. It's great in theory, "use his
strength against him", "size doesn't matter", "stop him without harming
him", "if you punch me I'll do this...", etc. And aikido has a lot of
great stuff in it that can only help. But what a lot of students of the
art forget is the founder studied all the martial arts he could find, he
got into as many fights as he could, and he dropped the punching and
grappling in favor of locks and takedowns when he was good enough to get
away with it. Maybe the aikido student will do "this" if he was punched.
The other thing that could happen is he gets hit. Do not let an aikido
guy grab your wrist! Do lead with jabs.
>> school. My brother goes to a school in Minneapolis that's very good.
>> I've been there a few times and I've been impressed with the training
>> methods and the instructors' wisdom.
>
>How do they practice what they've learned? Not only would I consider
>this important in deciding the art/combat split, but I wouldn't mind
>knowing some effective practice methods myself...
Their number one concern is safety. They don't even teach techniques that
can't be practiced safely. For instance, a certain spectacular neck break
that an instructor showed, didn't let them practice, and told them not to
tell the head instructor about it. When practicing a parry with hit to
the bicep they use extended fingers rather than a fist, etc. It would be
better to train the way you'd fight, but then nobody would want to train
with you. And it's your partner's turn next.
Students work with partners. They like to start with stick drills, then
go on to other things like takedowns or knife drills. The instructor
would show them something, have them practice, and circulate around for a
few minutes before showing something else. They try to keep things moving
fast in the introductory classes, to maintain interest. Toward the end
they practice cardio-bulimia with the thai pads. Skill work first, then
endurance work. They seem to emphasize a lot of stuff useful to bouncers,
but much of the class and half the instructors are or were bouncers.
Oddly enough, they didn't seem to spend any time with just kicking drills
or punching drills; kicking the air many times to perfect technique.
They'd just demonstrate something a few times, and you'd practice with
your partner. I'm not sure what the theory was there. But I already knew
how to kick and punch, so I thought it was nice to go straight to things
you can do with kicks and punches.
The instructor observed that no fight will ever happen the way you train.
They don't have the students practice a combination, or a sequence of lock
flows, because they expect it to be useful in that form. They hope the
students will find themselves in a situation where they think "Hey, I
recognize this!" and be able to do something with it. It seems to work,
because recently one student got into a bar fight and didn't really
remember disarming his opponent, but found a pool cue under his arm.
This particular school has "phases". Phase 1 is the body of techniques;
the punching and kicking and grappling and locks and so on. You could
actually become quite a good fighter with just phase 1 material.
You need to test to go on to a higher phase, so that you won't slow down
the class. Phase 2 is trapping and sensitivity work. Higher phases,
up to phase 6, involves spending more time perfecting and functionalizing
individual techniques, limited and full contact sparring, and working
harder to the point of getting bigger muscles. Some students have changed
their diets so they can keep up. The instructor has been pleased to see
students quit smoking so they can keep up. I've never been to those.
They also have classes on specific arts like savat and silat, but I
haven't been to those, either.
There are legends of the "old school", which was in a different building
at the time. They did a lot of full contact stick sparring, went through
a few hockey helmets per week. Then the instructor decided that if you
spend that much time stickfighting in real life, you probably need to
change your lifestyle.
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>In article <bjm10-23050...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>In article <8gd2dr$puh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, prei...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>> Boxing involves hitting and being hit _hard_, trains for results, gives
>>> lots of experience with the moves, and concentrates on punches,
>>
>>Exactly--it's stripped down to the barest. It's very good for learning
>>theory and finding out what it's like to get hit. Boxing does have some
>>weaknesses, specifically in defending anything "below the belt" and in
>>countering combat wrestling, but that's why older schools of boxing also
>>often taught some form of wrestling (and the backsword...)
>
>The backsword?
>
In England, in the late 17th and through most of the 18th century, considered
boxing and backsword as natural companions. Mind you, backsword technique was
more likely to be actually used with a gentleman's walking stick or in the
sport of singlesticking. In the 19th century, backswording had fallen out of
fashion, but the use of the fist and the stick was still studied by English
gentlemen (or at least the cronies of Burton, Castle, and Hutton). What is
interesting is that English arts of up to the 19th century did have techniques
to use against a kicker or a grabber.
Gregory L. Hansen
Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <8gf683$9gs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <prei...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> school. My brother goes to a school in Minneapolis that's very good.
>>> I've been there a few times and I've been impressed with the training
>>> methods and the instructors' wisdom.
>>
>>How do they practice what they've learned? Not only would I consider
>>this important in deciding the art/combat split, but I wouldn't mind
>>knowing some effective practice methods myself...
>
>Their number one concern is safety. They don't even teach techniques that
>can't be practiced safely. For instance, a certain spectacular neck break
>that an instructor showed, didn't let them practice, and told them not to
>tell the head instructor about it. When practicing a parry with hit to
But you can find people that will teach you that. I know just a bit
through my brother, he knows that bit through some of his instructors that
have rubbed elbows with these people. There's one guy in particular, his
name sounds like it could be spelled Leo Gahi. Founder of a knife
fighting system that always practices to wind up with a dead opponent. He
has a particular technique where if someone stabs with a knife, he can put
the knife in the guy's butt and drop him to the ground without touching
it. "No fingerprints, he stabbed himself!" Brother's instructor was
convinced he had used it, too.
People disappear around this guy, he's been in several death matches (yes,
he won), and he's wanted for questioning in several countries. Last I
heard he teaches a brutal combat school in Europe -- unarmed, knives,
handguns, combinations. The students routinely receive injuries in
practice and are expected to just take it. He trains professional
fighters.
This is as close as I can think of to Trained by a Master.
Master Chai may also qualify. He gives a lot of seminars and seems to be
everything an almost superhumanly skilled martial artist should be. He
might be easier to get ahold of. My brother went to one of Chai's
seminars and was impressed to no end. Chai bounced his knees off the
floor in demonstrating a technique. My brother said when a master puts
something on you, there's no doubt that a master put something on you.
The technique just goes, it goes hard, and there's nothing you can do
about it.
0range
>
> I always think of aikido in that context. It's great in theory, "use his
> strength against him", "size doesn't matter", "stop him without harming
> him", "if you punch me I'll do this...", etc. And aikido has a lot of
> great stuff in it that can only help. But what a lot of students of the
> art forget is the founder studied all the martial arts he could find, he
> got into as many fights as he could, and he dropped the punching and
> grappling in favor of locks and takedowns when he was good enough to get
> away with it. Maybe the aikido student will do "this" if he was punched.
> The other thing that could happen is he gets hit. Do not let an aikido
> guy grab your wrist! Do lead with jabs.
Hehe, so true... Ive trained Aikido for 3 years and now I'm training
Kung-Fu, and there is so much difference. Aikido is so gentle and subtile,
while kung fu is totally ruthless, and therby so much more deadly. Attack IS
most of the time the best defence (unless you are a 150+ point mastah, then
it doesnt really matter anymore :), forget waiting. If you see that he is
going to hit you, hit him first and end the fight there, don't try to parry
=> grab wrist => screw his joints over, one decent hit in his Solar Plexus
and the guy is down, and he is not getting up...
but then again, aikido is the way of peace ...
Steve M
<v...@chello.nl> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > I always think of aikido in that context. It's
> great in theory, "use his
> > strength against him", "size doesn't matter", "stop
> him without harming
> > him", "if you punch me I'll do this...", etc. And
> aikido has a lot of
> > great stuff in it that can only help. But what a
> lot of students of the
> > art forget is the founder studied all the martial
> arts he could find, he
> > got into as many fights as he could, and he dropped
> the punching and
> > grappling in favor of locks and takedowns when he
> was good enough to get
> > away with it. Maybe the aikido student will do
> "this" if he was punched.
> > The other thing that could happen is he gets hit.
> Do not let an aikido
> > guy grab your wrist! Do lead with jabs.
> now I'm training
> Kung-Fu, and there is so much difference. Aikido is so
> gentle and subtile,
> while kung fu is totally ruthless, and therby so much
> more deadly. Attack IS
> most of the time the best defence (unless you are a
> 150+ point mastah, then
> it doesnt really matter anymore :), forget waiting. If
> you see that he is
> going to hit you, hit him first and end the fight
> there, don't try to parry
> => grab wrist => screw his joints over, one decent hit
> in his Solar Plexus
> and the guy is down, and he is not getting up...
It's pretty much agreed that the most potent fighter will
be someone who's studied more than one style, and
particularly someone who's studied both "hard" and "soft"
styles.
> but then again, aikido is the way of peace ...
A friend of mine (ex Australian SAS) preferred "soft"
styles (like aikido) "because you can hurt people more" (he
had issues, I think, and an interesting sense of humor)
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Ace
The seperation of sport/art and fighting styles is excellent and in
Gurps the deadliest unarmed hand to hand fighter (at normal point
levels) is the brawler.
IMHO This is as it should be.
You can do more damage with Karate but it requires a lot more training.
Again also very realistic
If you play Real world(TM) campaigns I might suggest a rules hack
To take any any non sport/art combat requires an appropriate background
(military or certain schools like thunder ranch) and a 5 point UB
Combat training. target practice is Guns(Sport).
For 10points and a background you can take Comabt experience which
allows combat reflexes and unlimited levels in any culturaly approriate
combat skills.
This only only appropriate in non action games of course but it is
realistic. Most of us (and as gamers we tend to know odd people) might
know one or two people with real combat.
Note for folks in countrys with conscription. If I was playing in that
enviroment I would waive the UB for skill up to DX.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jiri Jevicky
> Actually Gurps does the unarmed martial arts very well.
> The seperation of sport/art and fighting styles is excellent and in
> Gurps the deadliest unarmed hand to hand fighter (at normal point
> levels) is the brawler.
> IMHO This is as it should be.
> You can do more damage with Karate but it requires a lot more training.
Hi.
Have you ever read the Boxing skill? You cannot kick, but otherwise it's as
deadly
as Karate ad it's just Physical Average skill. I don't like personally, but i
have to deal
with it. As GM :-(.
But besides this one, your comments were good, thanx.
Jerry
Paul T.
However, it's likely that the opponent's sword ended up in his leg by
mistake
(no one would put their leg in the way of a sword thrust, and likewise, no
one
in their right would try to stab someone in the leg--at least in a one on
one
sword fight)--a mistake committed by one or either of the fighters.
This fellow then proceeded to take advantage of the situation by slicing the
other guy to pieces.
By they time he told the story to his pals, of course, the whole thing had
become "planned from the start".
A swordsman who can trick his opponent to stab him in the leg and get
his sword stuck there can just as easily trick him into _missing_ or
whatever
and have him done with in a more traditional fashion.
As a tactic, this has no merit whatsoever.
However, if you ever find yourself in a situation where there is a sword
sticking through your leg and there is enough adrenaline pumping through
your system to ignore the pain, go ahead, trap the sword and slice and
dice away.
P.
Paul T.
1)The Katana, in itself, is not superior to any other sword.
2) There shouldn't be any difference between the Katana skill
and any other swordskill.
A stereotypical "Joe Samurai" could be represented as follows:
His Katana is of fine or better quality, possibly in some sort of
way that gives some sort of "well-balanced" advantage instead
of a damage bonus--which should grant a similar advantage
to light fencing weapons--but no one can agree on what that
should be.
He has a high skill with the weapon and knows a lot of interesting
maneuvers from intensive training.
P.
Andrew W. Priestley
Joe Samurai probably had average skill with the sword which could
be of average grade or better. If Joe samurai comes from a clan
that is in contentious territory or who otherwise has lots of
political connections that require his presence in battle, he may
have developed refined sword skills, but most will not have lots
of maneuvers and the like. Those are things you learn from a
master, most samurai did not learn from masters, but from more
experienced soldiers within their clan. They had other things to
learn and practice as well. Things like administration of their
lands, politics, diplomacy, archery (the bow was the original
weapon of the samurai). Etc.
Much the same is true of the European Knight. He couldn't afford
to spend all his time practicing the sword or whatever other
chosen weapon in order to hone himself into a true master of his
weapon. He had estates to administer, peasant squabbles to
mediate, trade to negotiate for both his household and his
holdings. He also had construction projects that he might be
overseeing and he had to patrol his lands to ensure that bandits,
squatters or rival landholders were not encroaching on it. He
needed to learn some law and some diplomacy, and some farming and
merchant skills, administration, maybe some history, along with
dozens of other bits of knowledge that he required to do his duty
effectively and to advance in the favor of his leige lord.
Pretty much the same as the samurai. And as an aside, his weapons
and his armor would also be the best he could afford.
So I think what we can agree about is that Joe Samurai was
trained and armed pretty much the same as Joe Knight was: with
the finest weapons and equipment he could afford and trained
according to the needs of his situation or his personal
preference.
In other words, the differences between them are minimal.
Iceman
Paul T.
"Andrew W. Priestley" <and...@ziplink.net> wrote in message
news:395B8AC4...@ziplink.net...
From a historical/realistic perspective, I agree.
However, my Joe Samurai was more a cinematic stereotype
than a historical one.
P.