parry a sword with bare hands???
e9020194
sword barehanded. the sword is coming quite fast at him. so what does he do
(no iron wristbands etc.)? does he clap the blade with his hands? does he hit
the blades side very hard, s.t. it misses him?
or does he try to evade, duck, back off? can anyone tell me, why karate skill
allows to parry (every) weapon bare-handed, with no penalties, at 2/3 skill???
ciao
nik
Dwight or Dawn McDowell
>does he clap the blade with his hands? does he hit
>the blades side very hard, s.t. it misses him?
> can anyone tell me, why karate skill
>allows to parry (every) weapon bare-handed, with no penalties, at 2/3 skill???
Actually, it is quite possabls to push the blade past yourself by
striking the flat of the blade with a heel of palm blow. I have even
deflected arrows in this manner. Catching the blade tho... that is a
joke... at least I have never seen it done in real life.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Dwight or Dawn McDowell | dm...@teleport.com |
| www.teleport.com/~dmcd | @>--,--'--- |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Patrick Juola
>i simply cant imagine how someone (kung-fu-flick, maybe..) parries a
>sword barehanded. the sword is coming quite fast at him. so what does he do
Talk to a local kung-fu or karate teacher for the full answer; the quick
answer is that you don't parry the blade, you parry the attack, typically
the hands and arms. If the sword is already coming at you quite fast,
you've probably already screwed up. However, you have a speed advantage,
and can, for example, grab the opponent's wrist as she's "chambering"
the slash and pull the attack off-line.
All this while getting out of the way, of course. That's why it's
a Physical/Hard skill instead of a Physical/Easy one. 8-)
Patrick
Dru Albright
: i simply cant imagine how someone (kung-fu-flick, maybe..) parries a
: (no iron wristbands etc.)? does he clap the blade with his hands? does he hit
: the blades side very hard, s.t. it misses him?
: or does he try to evade, duck, back off? can anyone tell me, why karate skill
: allows to parry (every) weapon bare-handed, with no penalties, at 2/3 skill???
Normally (i.e. NON-cinematically), the theory is too not parry the blade
so much as to parry the arm that delivers the attack. The flat side of
the blade can be struck to knock it away, but that takes some skill to
do. For the most part, that is what is occuring with virtually any
attack with any weapon...you're not actually engaging the weapon, but the
wielder....
The classic cinematic way (and this is a seperate skill) involves
exacting timing. Essentially, when an opponent slashes straight down at
you, you put out both hands, and clap them together, pressing on the
center of the blade with your palms while simultaneously dropping to
your knees to disperse the inertia. In theory, you stop the blade and
now have a grasp on your opponent's weapon. The next step is to turn the
blade sideways, forcing your opponent to follow it and fall to the
ground, or to relinquish the blade (seperate roll).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Visit WizarDru's Web Page!---http://www.netaxs.com/people/wizardru/--------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Home to the Rant-of-the-Week, Good Reads, and Virtual Berenshar Pages!-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--This Week's Rant: The Future! --------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Maloney
This is based upon experience with European martial arts instead of Asian ones:
Both rapier and sword manuals of the 16th century showed the use of the
empty hand as a parrying method. While it was preferable to wear a mailed
glove to prevent cuts when parrying, empty-hand parrying was still taught.
"It is better to take a little hurt upon the hand than a greater hurt to
the body."
The idea was to grab the blade and accept a cut to the hand while running
your opponent through the gizzard. If it was a cut hand or death, I'd
accept the cut hand.
Of course, I would prefer to execute a _punta tempo_ or _volte_, but the
GURPS rules aren't quite set up to handle this...
PS: If you want to know more about European martial arts, you would do
well to start with http://mac9.ucc.nau.edu/fencing.html on the Web. Even
though the file is called "fencing.html", it is concerned with Western
European martial arts as practiced in the 16th century. This site is
linked to nearly everything else that may have something to do with the
subject.
Bill Seurer
|> i simply cant imagine how someone (kung-fu-flick, maybe..) parries a
|> sword barehanded. the sword is coming quite fast at him. so what does he do
|> (no iron wristbands etc.)? does he clap the blade with his hands? does he hit
|> the blades side very hard, s.t. it misses him?
|> or does he try to evade, duck, back off? can anyone tell me, why karate skill
|> allows to parry (every) weapon bare-handed, with no penalties, at 2/3 skill???
The penalties are:
1) To use Karate you can'y have much armor on. That means your parry is
never going to be all that great (at normal skill levels). Even an 18
skill only gives a 12 parry. Combine that with...
2) When you fail the parry you get hit in the arm. Ouch! The first time
(and last time) someone tried a martial artist in a fantasy setting (yeah,
I know it doesn't fit) in the VERY FIRST BATTLE he rolled a 16 parrying
a sword chop. It took his arm clean off.
Now then, if you have really high skill levels, allow weird combinations
of stuff, or have ways of getting a high PD without armor it might be
a problem.
--
- Bill Seurer ID Tools and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com Home: BillS...@aol.com
David P. Summers
>The flat side of
> the blade can be struck to knock it away, but that takes some skill to
> do.
This is a bit of an understatement. Just being good at parrying with
a weapon takes "some skill". To be able to parry by hitting the side
of the blade as it is coming in at you is going to be much harder.
> For the most part, that is what is occuring with virtually any
> attack with any weapon...you're not actually engaging the weapon, but the
> wielder....
Presumably this can only be done when the blade length isn't too long.
Otherwise you are going to have to be able to, in the fraction of the
second between when the blade starts and it has moved to far to stop,
step in, avoiding the blade (which, assuming a competant swordsman,
started between you and your opponent) and connect with the arm
(assuming you opponent just doesn't adjust to you movement). A
non-trivial task (and I hope you are more significantly skilled
than the guy with the sword since what you have to do is a lot harder).
________________________
(Disclaimer: If NASA had any position on any of this do you
think they would have ME give it?)
David Summers - Sum...@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.Gov
Patrick Juola
>> For the most part, that is what is occuring with virtually any
>> attack with any weapon...you're not actually engaging the weapon, but the
>> wielder....
>
>Presumably this can only be done when the blade length isn't too long.
>Otherwise you are going to have to be able to, in the fraction of the
>second between when the blade starts and it has moved to far to stop,
>step in, avoiding the blade (which, assuming a competant swordsman,
>started between you and your opponent) and connect with the arm
>(assuming you opponent just doesn't adjust to you movement). A
>non-trivial task (and I hope you are more significantly skilled
>than the guy with the sword since what you have to do is a lot harder).
Well, if the blade length is too long to be able close *before* a
blow, then the technique is usually to close *after* the blow (avoiding
the blow in the meantime) during the recovery period.
And, yes, you need to be fairly skilled to be able to get away with
this. Gee, I don't suppose there's a *reason* that you only parry
at 2/3 your skill in Gurps.... But it's quite doable; talk to any
decent kung-fu school and they might be willing to demonstrate.
Patrick
Doug Mertaugh
A
>non-trivial task (and I hope you are more significantly skilled
>than the guy with the sword since what you have to do is a lot harder).
Exactly! A friend of mine took fencing in college and said
this hand-clap parry stuff is best reserved for the Herc and
Xena TV shows. In other words, don't try this in real life.
Put a martial arts master against a chump with a sword and
it might be different. But you have to be a far, far, far
better hand to hand combatant than your opponent is as a
swordsman or you are sc*e*ed.
Doug Mertaugh
>And, yes, you need to be fairly skilled to be able to get away with
>this. Gee, I don't suppose there's a *reason* that you only parry
>at 2/3 your skill in Gurps.... But it's quite doable; talk to any
>decent kung-fu school and they might be willing to demonstrate.
You have to be very skilled, not fairly skilled. In
addition, you have to be so much better than your
opponent that its not even funny. If you have no choice
but to do it, then do it. But you'd probably have a better chance
of dodging. However, I think the GURPS rules give a
sufficient minus to reflect the difficulty. You would
have to be a martial arts master to have even a fair
chance of doing it.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> You have to be very skilled, not fairly skilled. In
> addition, you have to be so much better than your
> opponent that its not even funny. If you have no choice
> but to do it, then do it. But you'd probably have a better chance
> of dodging.
Not in GURPS. Relative skill level bears no relevance to the case.
> However, I think the GURPS rules give a
> sufficient minus to reflect the difficulty. You would
> have to be a martial arts master to have even a fair
> chance of doing it.
Eh? What minus exactly are you talking about? Karate parries
weapons at NO penalty, regardless of skill level.
I think we have missed the point here. It is not whether you can
parry swords with karate or not. IMHO, the point is whether it
is *more* *difficult* or not.
And I don't think you'll find a single martial arts expert claiming
that parrying naked blades is just as easy as parrying bare hand
attacks, regardless of skill level.
Thus, GURPS fails the reality test.
--
Maxxon (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi)
A pig who doesn't fly is just an ordinary pig
- Porco Rosso
Steven Anderson
In a previous article, Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) says:
>In article <4fghcs$j...@news.indy.net> Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> writes:
>
>> You have to be very skilled, not fairly skilled. In
>> addition, you have to be so much better than your
>> opponent that its not even funny. If you have no choice
>> but to do it, then do it. But you'd probably have a better chance
>> of dodging.
>
>Not in GURPS. Relative skill level bears no relevance to the case.
>
>> However, I think the GURPS rules give a
>> sufficient minus to reflect the difficulty. You would
>> have to be a martial arts master to have even a fair
>> chance of doing it.
>
>Eh? What minus exactly are you talking about? Karate parries
>weapons at NO penalty, regardless of skill level.
--- Actually, the parry you are talking about now (the one in the book) has
the person doing it TAKE damage on the arm or leg doing the parry. The
"sword clap maneuver" that WAS being discussed (albeit erroneously called
a parry) and that you are trying to apply the parry rule to doesn't qualify
for those rules.
--- When and if it is written up, expect to see rules that reflect the
inherent risks of the maneuver.
--
Buddha went to a fig tree and became enlightened. Christ went to a fig
tree and cursed it. Is it purely coincidence that man who realized the
fundamentals of gravity, motion and calculus was named Newton?
Robert Kelk
>In article <4fghcs$j...@news.indy.net> Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> writes:
>
>> You have to be very skilled, not fairly skilled. In
>> addition, you have to be so much better than your
>> opponent that its not even funny. If you have no choice
>> but to do it, then do it. But you'd probably have a better chance
>> of dodging.
>
>Not in GURPS. Relative skill level bears no relevance to the case.
>
>> However, I think the GURPS rules give a
>> sufficient minus to reflect the difficulty. You would
>> have to be a martial arts master to have even a fair
>> chance of doing it.
>
>Eh? What minus exactly are you talking about? Karate parries
>weapons at NO penalty, regardless of skill level.
Pardon me for jumping in, but I don't understand the relevance of this
comment.
Yes, a Karate parry works against weapons at no penalty, just as a
Broadsword parry does, or a Shield parry does. In fact, a Karate
parry might be a better choice than the others, since Karate parry is
2/3 of the base Karate skill, rather than the usual 1/2 of the base
combat skill.
Karate parry is _always_ 2/3 of skill level, no matter what the Karate
skill level is, unless you've learned the Enhanced Parry maneuver from
GURPS Martial Arts. (Of course, if you've got either edition of G:MA,
you've already got fully-playtested rules for parrying swords with
your bare hands. Look in the "Cinematic Maneuvers" section - page
references vary depending on the edition.)
HOWEVER, the rules for parrying weapons with your bare hands are quite
clear on just how bad an idea this is. It doesn't matter if your
weapon takes damage from the weapon it's parrying unless it breaks -
it _does_ matter if your hand takes damage from the weapon it's
parrying. Check GURPS Martial Arts (either edition) for details.
>I think we have missed the point here. It is not whether you can
>parry swords with karate or not. IMHO, the point is whether it
>is *more* *difficult* or not.
>
>And I don't think you'll find a single martial arts expert claiming
>that parrying naked blades is just as easy as parrying bare hand
>attacks, regardless of skill level.
I doubt you'll find a reputable martial arts master who'll claim
parrying naked blades is a good idea, so whether it's "just as easy"
is a moot point.
>Thus, GURPS fails the reality test.
So how would you fix it, if it's broken?
>
>--
>Maxxon (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi)
>A pig who doesn't fly is just an ordinary pig
> - Porco Rosso
--
Robert Kelk Rober...@ssc-asc.x400.gc.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions in this posting do not necessarily reflect the official
position of the Government of Canada or its departments.
Jesse Gridley
> > sufficient minus to reflect the difficulty. You would
> > have to be a martial arts master to have even a fair
> > chance of doing it.
>
> Eh? What minus exactly are you talking about? Karate parries
> weapons at NO penalty, regardless of skill level.
As a house rule we have decided to make parrying a weapon with an
unarmed combat skill the equivalent of parrying with a weapon skill
(parry = skill/2)
example = bob the martial artist has karate 16 and intends to parry an
attack from a nearby swordsman. Bob's parry versus the attack is an 8
(maybe a 9 if he has combat reflexes)[16*0.5 = 8]. Two rounds later Bob
has disarmed the swordsman and now only has to parry his clumsy unarmed
attacks. Bob's parry versus bare handed attcks is 10 (11 with combat
reflexes) [16*0.6666 = 10.3333].
Perhaps this is more realistic, perhaps not...hope it helps.
Jesse
alw...@gil.com.au
karate and judo parries need fixing to work versus swords and stuff.
Sujested rules. (I'll be using these, but they are house rules, so don't
come telling me that you can't find them in GURPS.)
For defending against attacks from people within your normal attack
range, which for humans is one hex, you may parry the hand or arm that is
attacking. This should be done with the normal results of parries versus
weapons. For attacks outside of this range, the amount the parry
succeeds by should be the damage reduction for an attack to the hand you
are parrying with. Eg, Idiot A parries a sword blow from Idiot B. A
makes his parry by four (4). B's damage is 2d+3 cutting, and rolls a 3
and a 6, making twelve (12) damage. After taking off the four this drops
to only eight (8). If Idiot A had made his parry by twelve (don't scoff,
I've got at least one PC that can do this) he/she would not have taken
any damage. If using Brawl or Boxing skills, defenses are still at minus
three versus swung weapon attacks.
Needless to say I don't use the hand clap parry as written in my campaign.
Optional, If you can be bothered, vary where the damage goes to. Most
defenses versus swords should use the hand, but most people use the
forearm to block crushing weapons, and so on. The defender should
choose, as although he/she took damage, he/she did successfully parry.
Buy.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>Couple of points: Basic Set p.101 says there is a -3 to parry when going
>barehanded vs weapons, so that 12 you list is a 9.
EXCEPT with karate or judo skill.
And in Basic GURPS, parrying weapons DO NOT take damage normally! This
GURPS, not RuneQuest!
>Actually, when the parry fails, the Attacker is given the CHOICE to hit
>the parrying limb or the orginal target, see page 101 again.
Yeah, and he was going to hit anyway so who cares. In fact, martial
artists using piecewise armor rules will probably take advantage of this
and armor their arms more heavily.
Now, ATTACKING a weaponed opponent with martial arts is stupid,
since the opponent's parries are effectively transformed into
aggressive parries (i.e. if he parries your hand with a sword, he gets
to roll at -4 to hit your limb, and it's debatable whether you get a
defense against this or not.) Page Bsomething...
But I was talking about the defense aspect of things.
Goat Boy
enough to learn how to use open handed parrys against weapons (Except
knives); however, I have seen people parry attacks from people with
shinai (bamboo practice swords). This was in Aikdo and so the parry was a
judo parry alowing the defender to throw the attacker afterwards. The
attackers were trying to hit there opponent not worrying about hurting
the defender.
Often the parries were more like a combination of dodge and parry with
the defender moving to close range in the process which would be necasary
to dirrect the parry at the attackers arms rather than the sword.
Just my $.02
steve
Dr Kromm
> In article <4g368h$r...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> QHZ...@prodigy.com (Steve Anderson) writes:
> >Couple of points: Basic Set p.101 says there is a -3 to parry when going
> >barehanded vs weapons, so that 12 you list is a 9.
> EXCEPT with karate or judo skill.
For the record, who said anything about Judo or Karate Parries
involving actual contact with the weapon? These active defenses are
really more like Dodges, but are classified as Parries in order to
limit the number that can be made in a turn. In real-life, most unarmed
defenses against weapons involve a well-timed sidestep or duck, a step
*past* the weapon to close the gap, and then contact with the opponent's
weapon arm (*not* weapon) to guide the rest of the blow safely past. I
agree with everyone who said that knocking swords aside or trapping
blades with the bare hands is stupid -- it *is* stupid. Fortunately,
this is not what a bare-handed martial arts "Parry" represents in GURPS.
Why do you think that the Hand-Clap Parry is a separate, cinematic
maneuver from the regular Parry?
-Kromm
--
Sean M. Punch o E-mail: o 4122 rue Rivard
(a.k.a. Dr Kromm) | At SJG: kr...@io.com | Montreal, Quebec
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=o Local POP: kr...@cam.org o Canada H2L 4H9
GURPS Line Editor | WWW: | Home: (514) 288-9600
and Net Guru o http://www.io.com/~kromm o Work: (514) 288-9615
Sakura
>Mikko Kurki-Suonio (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi) wrote:
>> In article <4g368h$r...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> QHZ...@prodigy.com (Steve Anderson) writes:
>> >Couple of points: Basic Set p.101 says there is a -3 to parry when going
>> >barehanded vs weapons, so that 12 you list is a 9.
>
>> EXCEPT with karate or judo skill.
>
> For the record, who said anything about Judo or Karate Parries
>involving actual contact with the weapon? These active defenses are
>really more like Dodges, but are classified as Parries in order to
>limit the number that can be made in a turn. In real-life, most unarmed
>defenses against weapons involve a well-timed sidestep or duck, a step
>*past* the weapon to close the gap, and then contact with the opponent's
>weapon arm (*not* weapon) to guide the rest of the blow safely past. I
>agree with everyone who said that knocking swords aside or trapping
>blades with the bare hands is stupid -- it *is* stupid. Fortunately,
>this is not what a bare-handed martial arts "Parry" represents in GURPS.
>Why do you think that the Hand-Clap Parry is a separate, cinematic
>maneuver from the regular Parry?
Speaking as someone with a bit of training in fencing - French-style
fencing (via the SCA), not the collegiate sport-style - it's considered
legal to parry or turn aside your opponents blade with your hand, but not
to trap it. SCA rules, however, assume that the fencer is wearing a
chainmail gauntlet or similar protection, and is -not- whacking away at a
sword with his/her bare hand.
--
Jeff Johnston Freedom of Speech Support the Blue
http://www.io.com/~jeffj R.I.P. Ribbon Anti-Censorship
je...@io.com 1781 - 1996 Campaign!
Bryan J. Maloney
> Speaking as someone with a bit of training in fencing - French-style
> fencing (via the SCA), not the collegiate sport-style - it's considered
> legal to parry or turn aside your opponents blade with your hand, but not
> to trap it. SCA rules, however, assume that the fencer is wearing a
> chainmail gauntlet or similar protection, and is -not- whacking away at a
> sword with his/her bare hand.
However, this is a sport rule, and SCA rules do NOT universally make this
assumption. In the East Kingdom, you are assumed to have a leather glove
with no mail. The no-trap/no-pull rule is NOT to simulate the effect of a
real blade but is for safety. If I had a mailed glove on, I could trap
and pull on a rapier blade with little fear of being cut (I have tested
edges vs. mail--you have to hack to do damage through it, just drawing a
blade along, no matter how sharp, will not cut through mail, unless you're
talking "monoblades" or "light sabres" or such.)
Bryan J. Maloney
(Steve Anderson) wrote:
> As to HOW it's done, swatting the sword away by the flat side works.
> With
> thrusting weapons like a rapier the defender could even pinch the weapon
> and hold it out of the way while attacking.
>
> The idea that the defender can ONLY touch the parts of the weapon that
> cause damage and that therefore he must take damage is ridiculous.
Tell ya what, I'll borrow a sharp one from my Maestro and we'll see how
well you could "pinch" my rapier while attacking and not take a cut...
Bryan J. Maloney
> I've trained in a few different martial-arts. I never stayed in one long
> enough to learn how to use open handed parrys against weapons (Except
> knives); however, I have seen people parry attacks from people with
I studied "street" styles, myself. My soke said this over and over: If
he's got a knife, you'll get cut. But it's better to be cut a little on
the arm than a lot in the face, neck or chest.
Bryan J. Maloney
> For the record, who said anything about Judo or Karate Parries
> involving actual contact with the weapon? These active defenses are
> really more like Dodges, but are classified as Parries in order to
> limit the number that can be made in a turn. In real-life, most unarmed
Maybe that needed to be explicitly stated in the rules. Chalk up another
one for "the next revision".
Marinaro
bare hands. It is even possible to do it without
getting cut. The house rules that I use are as follows:
Parry is successful by 4 or more, no damage
Parry is successful by up to 3, half damage to the arm
or hand
Parry is successful by just barely, normal damage to the
arm or hand
These rules seem to work pretty well, it gives a skilled
martial artist a chance to parry, although they are
likely to take some damage. They can reduce the amount
and change its location.
Gino
Sakura
Sure. Let me go get a parrying gauntlet...they were made for just such an
occasion, with protection for the palm so you could control an enemies
blade with your hand.
Ah, but that's not _quite_ bare-handed, is it?
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> For the record, who said anything about Judo or Karate Parries
>involving actual contact with the weapon? These active defenses are
>really more like Dodges, but are classified as Parries in order to
>limit the number that can be made in a turn. In real-life, most unarmed
>defenses against weapons involve a well-timed sidestep or duck, a step
>*past* the weapon to close the gap, and then contact with the opponent's
>weapon arm (*not* weapon) to guide the rest of the blow safely past. I
>agree with everyone who said that knocking swords aside or trapping
>blades with the bare hands is stupid -- it *is* stupid. Fortunately,
>this is not what a bare-handed martial arts "Parry" represents in GURPS.
Who gives a sh*t what the parry is supposed to represent? If you're so stuck
on the word "parry", replace it with "avoid" or "defend against" and the
problem remains exactly the same.
In GAME TERMS, the bottom line is that weapon users have ZERO advantage
over a bare hand martial artist. Zip, nada, none, null, nothing. Can we agree
on this? Or can you show what is the exact advantage a weapon user has?
A -1 to parry I've missed somewhere?
While MA 1st ed. goes to great lengths to explain how much better weapons
really are, the *actual* *RULES* do not support this in any way.
If you must bring Real-Life(tm) in to it, consider this:
ALL defense techniques usable vs. weapons are ALSO usable against
bare hand attacks, but NOT vice versa. Thus, a martial artist facing a
bare hand attacker has a far wider range of defense options at his
disposal, yet GURPS does not reflect this in any way.
I would think that having a wider range of useful options would be
reflected in an increased chance of success, but I guess not. There
must be this mythical "GURPS parry" technique that surpasses all
others and is equally usable against all attack forms.
>Why do you think that the Hand-Clap Parry is a separate, cinematic
>maneuver from the regular Parry?
Again, who cares? Your normal parry allows you to defend against weapons
with complete impunity. The real usefulness of Hand-Clap seems restricted
to showing off your TBM advantage.
Besides I don't have MA 2nd ed. and I won't get it.
Dr Kromm
Organization: Illuminati Online
Distribution: world
Mikko Kurki-Suonio (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi) wrote:
> Who gives a sh*t what the parry is supposed to represent?
As a game designer and someone interested in the martial arts, *I*
do, for one. If all you can do is bitch about it and post crass replies,
instead of proposing a solution or backing your claims with evidence,
then why should I even bother reading past your literate and intelligent
opening line?
> If you're so stuck on the word "parry", replace it with "avoid" or
> "defend against" and the problem remains exactly the same.
All that I said was that the game term is "Parry" but that one has
to keep in mind that not everything called a Parry in GURPS represents
interposing weapon A to stop weapon B -- that is all that I claimed.
> In GAME TERMS, the bottom line is that weapon users have ZERO advantage
> over a bare hand martial artist. Zip, nada, none, null, nothing. Can we
> agree on this? Or can you show what is the exact advantage a weapon user
> has?
We disagree on this. Let's see:
-a bare-handed fighter can lose an arm or hand on a failed Parry (p. B101)
-a bare-handed fighter can lose a hand or foot if an armed fighter parries
his attack (p. B99)
-a bare-handed fighter can injure a hand or foot by attacking a target with
DR 3 or better (p. B51)
-a bare-handed fighter can rarely benefit from swing damage, and never gets
a cutting or impaling damage bonus
... and I could go on.
Just because his initial Parry score is higher does not mean that
there are no qualitative balancing factors. Why is it that you are unwilling
to look past the numbers?
> While MA 1st ed. goes to great lengths to explain how much better weapons
> really are, the *actual* *RULES* do not support this in any way.
You are simply wrong. A broadsword does more (and more critical)
damage when it hits, and can chop the hand off of a bare-handed fighter
both on the defensive (Parry vs. bare hand) and on the offensive (bare-
handed Parry vs. blade). It will rarely -- if ever -- be damaged or
broken in a fight with a bare-handed fighter. Effectively, in a Judo vs.
sword match, the judoka is forced to stay on the defensive and hope to
get lucky. He also cannot wear much armor, while the guy with the sword
can wear ST x 20 pounds of it, if he wants. And the guy with the sword
can carry a shield if he likes.
> Again, who cares? Your normal parry allows you to defend against weapons
> with complete impunity. The real usefulness of Hand-Clap seems restricted
> to showing off your TBM advantage.
You are simply wrong. You cannot engage an armed fighter at no
risk at all in GURPS. In another vein, what is wrong with flashy stuff
that is designed to show off your training? Does style mean nothing to
you in a cinematic game?
> Besides I don't have MA 2nd ed. and I won't get it.
Fair enough. It sounds like you don't get it anyhow.
Goat Boy
Mikko Kurki-Suonio (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi) wrote:
> In article <4ga2ip$j...@nntp-1.io.com> kr...@io.com (Dr Kromm) writes:
> Who gives a sh*t what the parry is supposed to represent? If you're so stuck
> on the word "parry", replace it with "avoid" or "defend against" and the
> problem remains exactly the same.
>
> In GAME TERMS, the bottom line is that weapon users have ZERO advantage
> over a bare hand martial artist. Zip, nada, none, null, nothing. Can we
agree
> on this? Or can you show what is the exact advantage a weapon user has?
> A -1 to parry I've missed somewhere?
Well, I for one can't agree on this. How 'bout more reach, all parry's
against an unarmed attack are aggressive parries without the extra -4,
extra damage, posibilities of cutting or impaling damage. And don't
forget if your opponent fails to parry your great sword you can opt to
chop off his arm.
> If you must bring Real-Life(tm) in to it, consider this:
>
> ALL defense techniques usable vs. weapons are ALSO usable against
> bare hand attacks, but NOT vice versa.
Not quite. If I'm holding a long sword I can't very well use my sword
hand to grab my opponent. I could, however, move into close range and do
an open handed parry with your off hand using Brawling if you wanted to
leaving you a parry with your sword. The rules do allow for you to do
other things, you just have to think about it.
steve
Robert Kelk
<snip>
>In GAME TERMS, the bottom line is that weapon users have ZERO advantage
>over a bare hand martial artist. Zip, nada, none, null, nothing. Can we agree
>on this? Or can you show what is the exact advantage a weapon user has?
>A -1 to parry I've missed somewhere?
>
>really are, the *actual* *RULES* do not support this in any way.
Weapon users have a great advantage over unarmed combatants. Unarmed
combat (as described on pages B111 ff.) can only be performed in Close
Combat, if I'm reading the rulebook correctly. Attacks with weapons can
be carried out slightly farther away from your opponent - most weapons
have a reach of 1 or more.
If you want to try to Feint, All-Out Attack, or Wait during combat,
better use a weapon. (ref. pg. B113)
This has nothing to do with parrying, but it's still an advantage.
Bryan J. Maloney
> In article <bjm10-19029...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >Tell ya what, I'll borrow a sharp one from my Maestro and we'll see how
> >well you could "pinch" my rapier while attacking and not take a cut...
>
> Sure. Let me go get a parrying gauntlet...they were made for just such an
> occasion, with protection for the palm so you could control an enemies
> blade with your hand.
>
> Ah, but that's not _quite_ bare-handed, is it?
That's right--it's armored. And even if George Silver denounced such
things as "supersticieries", it was still very popular.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> All that I said was that the game term is "Parry" but that one has
>to keep in mind that not everything called a Parry in GURPS represents
>interposing weapon A to stop weapon B -- that is all that I claimed.
All that I'm trying to say is that in Real Life it is not "just as difficult"
to avoid a weapon attack as compared to a bare hand attack. Avoiding
a weapon attack in real life has several extra complications imposed
by the fact that it is a piece of cold, unyielding steel coming at you
instead of a simple fist.
GURPS fails to model this in any way.
> We disagree on this. Let's see:
>-a bare-handed fighter can lose an arm or hand on a failed Parry (p. B101)
Or he can lose his head or whatever. On a failed parry you're going
to take damage anyway, so giving your opponent an extra choice
of hit loc isn't going to make much difference. Besides, you have
two arms... equally usable with karate.
>-a bare-handed fighter can lose a hand or foot if an armed fighter parries
>his attack (p. B99)
We were talking about DEFENSE. Is this too hard to understand?
>-a bare-handed fighter can injure a hand or foot by attacking a target with
>DR 3 or better (p. B51)
We were talking about DEFENSE. Is this too hard to understand?
>-a bare-handed fighter can rarely benefit from swing damage, and never gets
>a cutting or impaling damage bonus
We were talking about DEFENSE. Is this too hard to understand?
>... and I could go on.
Please do, if you have something new to offer.
> Just because his initial Parry score is higher does not mean that
>there are no qualitative balancing factors. Why is it that you are unwilling
>to look past the numbers?
I am unwilling to look past the rules, because the rules are what ultimately
make the game. Unless a balancing factor is worded out in the rules,
it's only so much pseudo-justification.
> You are simply wrong. A broadsword does more (and more critical)
>damage when it hits, and can chop the hand off of a bare-handed fighter
>both on the defensive (Parry vs. bare hand) and on the offensive (bare-
>handed Parry vs. blade). It will rarely -- if ever -- be damaged or
>broken in a fight with a bare-handed fighter. Effectively, in a Judo vs.
>sword match, the judoka is forced to stay on the defensive and hope to
>get lucky. He also cannot wear much armor, while the guy with the sword
>can wear ST x 20 pounds of it, if he wants. And the guy with the sword
>can carry a shield if he likes.
As it seems to have been forgotten by pretty much everyone else,
I shall reinstate my point.
Martial Arts is better than weapon skills for characters simply looking
for a way to defend themselves. Characters who would not be wearing
much armor anyway. In many genres you will not be wearing armor
anyway. And realistically, most characters besides professional
soldiers won't be wearing much armor in any other genre either.
Characters who would avoid attacking full-bred fighters at all costs. But
characters who'd still like to have an effective defense when faced by a
proficient opponent.
Martial Arts in GURPS is *not* better for characters who wish to be on
the offense. And neither did I ever claim that it was.
To make this prefectly clear to everyone involved, I shall use an example.
The sample character from Basic set, Dai Blackthorn.
Now, Dai is a thief and the main purpose for his weapon skills is self-defense.
To keep his thieving skills (stealth, climbing etc.) usable, he won't be
wearing much armor anyway.
His pitiful ST 8 assures he doesn't have the "oomph" to punch through
serious armor anyway. Even against hard leather the best he can hope
to inflict is minor injuries.
Dai has 4 points (I'm doing this out of memory, so please correct if I'm wrong)
in short sword, the only serious weapon he has strength to wield. Given
his DX of 15 (?), this gives him a skill level of 16 and a parry of 8.
If Dai had invested the exact same points in Karate, he'd have skill 15 and a
parry of 10. Not only 2 points better, but also the very serious difference
between a roughly 25% defense and a 50% defense.
Now, let's assume Dai earns 4 points and spends them in Karate. He has
now *equal* training in both Shortsword and Karate.
Now, let's assume a caper goes wrong and Dai is cornered in a blind
alley by a homicidal city guard, decked out in scale armor, medium
shield and broadsword.
If he can stay alive long enough for the watch sergeant to arrive, he may
get out of this. The sergeant is intellignent enough to save criminals
for public hangings... He has a choice of defending himself either with his
shortsword or his newly acquired karate skills.
What would be the realistic choice? What would you choose if you had
no knowledge of the underlying rules? Match steel with steel, I'd say.
Unfortunately, Dai knows GURPS and quickly calculates: His low ST
assures he won't be able to seriously wound the guard except
through blind luck. Besides, his dodge is pretty good even though
cornered he no longer has room to retreat, so all-out defense
is likely to be the best strategy.
So, all-out defense it is, with dodge followed by parry. But which weapon?
Steel or bare hand? Dai thinks it over:
Karate gives him a significantly better parry, but if he fails that the butch
guard might lop of his arm. But then he remembers! In such a case
he would be taking HT/2 damage (or more, due to no blowthrough on torso!)
anyway, which would stun him anyway and if he somehow manages
to live through the stun, he still has his other arm to parry with. With sword
the guard has to connect with his sword arm only once and the game
is over.
So, ruleswise overrides streetwise and Dai drops his sword and prepares
to meet the onslought barehanded.
****
Can you show me one, just one, any one, real-life martial arts instructor who
would in the above situation recommend the course of action Dai chose?
All you readers out there with any kind of martial arts background or knowledge
ask yourself this question: Would YOU drop the sword in that situation?
Would YOU drop the sword, Kromm?
If you ask a martial arts instructor what are the main advantages
a weapon user has over an equally skilled bare handed opponent,
the most likely answer is REACH and the difficulty of defending against
naked steel.
Through the ages man has used weapons to keep the distance from his foe,
be it man or animal. In fact, we Finns sometimes call all weapons
"kättä pidempi" -- "longer than the arm".
In real life a bare hand attacker against a good sword has to cross a yard-long
striking zone of lethal steel before he has *any* chance of connecting.
In GURPS, no such luck. Both broadsword and bare hand have a reach of
one hex. In fact, the hand also has a reach of C, so it is better, reachwise.
==> Thus, in my opinion, GURPS completely fails to model the two most important
advantages from the use of weapons vs. bare handed opponents.
>> Besides I don't have MA 2nd ed. and I won't get it.
> Fair enough. It sounds like you don't get it anyhow.
The reason I'm not buying the book is that I've simply had my fill
of every rules-heavy GURPS book getting a corrected Xth edition.
So, I've decided to stick with historical worldbooks, which I think
are the strongest point of GURPS.
And the reason I bitch instead of offering home-cooked solutions
is that in my view, one must first realize the problem *exists*
before one can hope to fix it.
Goat Boy
> In article <4gcpi9$2...@nntp-1.io.com> kr...@io.com (Dr Kromm) writes:
>
> > All that I said was that the game term is "Parry" but that one has
> >to keep in mind that not everything called a Parry in GURPS represents
> >interposing weapon A to stop weapon B -- that is all that I claimed.
>
> All that I'm trying to say is that in Real Life it is not "just as
difficult"
> to avoid a weapon attack as compared to a bare hand attack. Avoiding
> a weapon attack in real life has several extra complications imposed
> by the fact that it is a piece of cold, unyielding steel coming at you
> instead of a simple fist.
So what your talking about might be talking about the "Anguish" that
might be inflicted by the weapon. If you are you should check out the
game Hol.
> >-a bare-handed fighter can lose an arm or hand on a failed Parry (p. B101)
>
> Or he can lose his head or whatever. On a failed parry you're going
> to take damage anyway, so giving your opponent an extra choice
> of hit loc isn't going to make much difference. Besides, you have
> two arms... equally usable with karate.
You know I never thought about that. If I use my arm to parry with and it
gets loped off, who the hell cares. I have another and nothing to worry
about.
> >-a bare-handed fighter can lose a hand or foot if an armed fighter parries
> >his attack (p. B99)
>
> We were talking about DEFENSE. Is this too hard to understand?
Did I forget or did you once say Weapon Users get NO advantage for
parrying against bare handed fighters??? This seems linke an advantage
for wapon users to me.
In fact all of Kromm's comments that I snipped gave advantages for weapon
users over barehanded attackers altough they were for attack, and the one
you snipped was for defense.
> I am unwilling to look past the rules, because the rules are what
ultimately
> make the game.
If that's all you believe than I think you miss the point of ROLE playing
completely.
steve
Sakura
said re: Bare hands vs. Weapons. Here's the direct quote:
In article <Mikko.Kurki-Suo...@stat.fi>, Mikko Kurki-Suonio
<Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi> wrote:
>In GAME TERMS, the bottom line is that weapon users have ZERO advantage
>over a bare hand martial artist. Zip, nada, none, null, nothing. Can we agree
>on this? Or can you show what is the exact advantage a weapon user has?
>A -1 to parry I've missed somewhere?
Right. I think Kromm answered this one pretty well.
Another advantage that the weapons user has is psychological. "If I get
hit with that thing, I'll be _dead_!" - the martial artist vs. the
swordsman will probably still be in trouble, unless he's very good,
because the swordsman only needs one or two hits to do fatal damage,
while the martial artist needs quite a few more. If the swordsman is
wearing armor it's even worse for the MA...unless he does the intelligent
thing, which is to retreat and get out of there.
One other thing you might want to consider is the availability of weapon
skills vs. (say) Karate. If I were running a standard (say)
European-based fantasy game, and someone came to me with a character with
Karate, I'd want to know why...
Bryan J. Maloney
(Steve Anderson) wrote:
> bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>
> >> thrusting weapons like a rapier the defender could even pinch the
> weapon
> >> and hold it out of the way while attacking.
> >>
>
> >Tell ya what, I'll borrow a sharp one from my Maestro and we'll see how
> >well you could "pinch" my rapier while attacking and not take a cut...
>
> --- Won't be the first time I've done it... for that matter, I've had my
> blade caught by other fast fingers too. It's risky but doable. Not even
> that risky if I engage your blade with mine first. (amazing how much
But what about my dagger? I don't like single-blade.
(Of course, I'm also left-handed and prefer to keep my sword in my right
hand, mostly because a left-hand swept hilt is hard to find...)
Dr Kromm
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.gurps
References: <4f5lj7$i...@news.tuwien.ac.at> <4f7tf0$o...@locutus.rchland.ibm.com> <4fote6$d...@opera.iinet.net.au> <4g368h$r...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <Mikko.Kurki-Suo...@stat.fi> <4ga2ip$j...@nntp-1.io.com> <Mikko.Kurki-Suonio.360.000A52C9@st
References: <4f5lj7$i...@news.tuwien.ac.at> <4f7tf0$o...@locutus.rchland.ibm.com> <4fote6$d...@opera.iinet.net.au> <4g368h$r...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <Mikko.Kurki-Suo...@stat.fi> <4ga2ip$j...@nntp-1.io.com> <Mikko.Kurki-Suonio.360.000A52C9@st
Organization: Statistics Finland <Mikko.Kurki-Suo...@stat.fi>
Organization: Illuminati Online
Distribution:
Lines: 102
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
Mikko Kurki-Suonio (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi) wrote:
> All that I'm trying to say is that in Real Life it is not "just as
> difficult" to avoid a weapon attack as compared to a bare hand attack.
> Avoiding a weapon attack in real life has several extra complications
> imposed by the fact that it is a piece of cold, unyielding steel coming
> at you instead of a simple fist.
Stop comparing apples to oranges!
Here is my final word on the subject. Certain fighting styles are
simply more effective on the defenseive than others are. Compare Judo or
Karate to Fencing or Katana if you want to compare things. If you insist
upon comparing to, say, Axe/Mace or Broadsword, then please remember that
such techniques assume the use of armor and a shield, and that GURPS does
limit both Karate and Judo to Light encumbrance and open hands, which
effectively means little or no armor and no shield. The same is true for
Fencing, yes, but a fencer can also use a 2-hex weapon with a PD 1 basket
hilt in one hand (e.g., a rapier) and a PD 1-2 cloak or buckler in the
other hand, so he still has an advantage.
I have never seen this mythical "Karate is better than Knife" effect
that you keep talking about because for the same points as Karate-X, a
character can have Knife-X+2, win a Feint by 2 on average, and reduce
the foe's Karate Parry by enough to almost guarantee a hit on the hand.
If your armed fighters are naked and do not carry shields, and
always lead with an attack and not a Feint or other more intelligent move,
then I can see why you have a problem with the Judo and Karate rules. It
is assumed that armed fighters will have armor and a shield, and that such
fighters will use tactics such as attacking and stepping away, Feints and
so on to keep the unarmed fighter at a disadvantage. This is the premise
that Steve had in mind when he declared these skills "balanced." Do not
blame the outcome of bad tactics on the rules.
If, despite better armor and weapons, your armed fighter simply runs
up to a Judo master and attacks at close range, then he is fighting the
Judo master's kind of fight: run in, swing and get tossed. If he steps
back and forces the Judo master to close the gap, while taking a Wait,
then he will always get an attack in on the unarmed guy. This is how the
use of weapons maintains the gap in GURPS -- any other use is simply
brutish and incorrect.
> We were talking about DEFENSE. Is this too hard to understand?
For you, clearly. I will write this just one more time: Combat skills
in GURPS are "balanced" *overall* and not *bit-by-bit*. It makes no sense
at all to compare JUST Parries, JUST attacks or JUST anything . . . the
*only* comparison that matters is the outcome of a fight between two
fighters with the skills in question, taking into account a series of
strikes, parries and feints, as well as a lot of incidental maneuvering.
The fact is, if character A has Karate at DX+2 for 16 points, while his
enemy, character B, spends 16 points to get Broadsword at DX+2 and Shield
at DX+3, A will not generally win a fight with B if B is properly armed.
> I am unwilling to look past the rules, because the rules are what ultimately
> make the game. Unless a balancing factor is worded out in the rules,
> it's only so much pseudo-justification.
No -- wrong. Balancing factors are not generally "worded out" anywhere.
A good game designer tries to hide balance in the structure of the game,
mostly because obvious attempts to balance mechanics are artificial and make
for bad reading. GURPS is set up so that when you play a long combat between
equally-skilled armed and unarmed fighters, an armed fighter will usually
win. There is no rule that states this -- you just have to trust me that we
have set things up this way. How? Through special rules that limit unarmed
fighting (e.g., the various rules for getting hurt if you Parry/are Parried,
or for punching high DR), the damage inflicted by unarmed fighters, the
encumbrance limits imposed on unarmed fighting styles, etc.
> Karate gives him a significantly better parry, but if he fails that the butch
> guard might lop of his arm. But then he remembers! In such a case
> he would be taking HT/2 damage (or more, due to no blowthrough on torso!)
> anyway, which would stun him anyway and if he somehow manages
> to live through the stun, he still has his other arm to parry with.
Well if you think like this, then there is no reasoning with you. Any
player who sacrificed a limb like this would be made to pay the price in my
games . . .
> Can you show me one, just one, any one, real-life martial arts instructor who
> would in the above situation recommend the course of action Dai chose?
Mike Gelprin, Combat Sambo instructor. His philosophy is that if you
haven't got the right weapon for the job, take the other guy's weapon away
from him. This guy has seen real combat and his engaged a pistol-bearing man
with his bare hands.
> All you readers out there with any kind of martial arts background or knowledge
> ask yourself this question: Would YOU drop the sword in that situation?
> Would YOU drop the sword, Kromm?
If I were a weakling and was better at unarmed combat than swordplay,
and was armed with an inferior parrying weapon that is meant to be used with a
shield and armor -- neither of which I had? I just might. If I had a rapier,
and perhaps a cloak -- a combination much better suited to unarmored fighting
in close quarters -- I would keep the blade. Medieval battlefield weapons are
not intended for use in urban brawls between unarmored fighters, Hollywood's
testaments to the defensive properties of such weapons to the contrary.
Sakura
>>-a bare-handed fighter can lose an arm or hand on a failed Parry (p. B101)
>
>Or he can lose his head or whatever. On a failed parry you're going
>to take damage anyway, so giving your opponent an extra choice
>of hit loc isn't going to make much difference. Besides, you have
>two arms... equally usable with karate.
Yup. Well, you might not have two arms after the fight, if you go about
it the way you seem to want to...
>>-a bare-handed fighter can lose a hand or foot if an armed fighter parries
>>his attack (p. B99)
>
>We were talking about DEFENSE. Is this too hard to understand?
>We were talking about DEFENSE. Is this too hard to understand?
>We were talking about DEFENSE. Is this too hard to understand?
Actually, you originally said (which I've just reponded to as well) that
'An armed fighter has no advantages over an unarmed fighter.' Obviously
untrue, and you seem to have realized this, which is why you're dropping
back on repetetive statements in a condescending tone.
>I am unwilling to look past the rules, because the rules are what ultimately
>make the game. Unless a balancing factor is worded out in the rules,
>it's only so much pseudo-justification.
Everything Kromm stated was in the rules. Worded out. If you look past,
the rules, there's even _more_ factors...like the fact that anyone using
a broadsword is likely to be wearing several points worth of armor - if
they're not, they're more historically likely to be using a Fencing
weapon which have - guess what! - 2/3 skill parry...giving them the clear
advantage!
>> You are simply wrong. A broadsword does more (and more critical)
>>damage when it hits, and can chop the hand off of a bare-handed fighter
>>both on the defensive (Parry vs. bare hand) and on the offensive (bare-
>>handed Parry vs. blade). It will rarely -- if ever -- be damaged or
>>broken in a fight with a bare-handed fighter. Effectively, in a Judo vs.
>>sword match, the judoka is forced to stay on the defensive and hope to
>>get lucky. He also cannot wear much armor, while the guy with the sword
>>can wear ST x 20 pounds of it, if he wants. And the guy with the sword
>>can carry a shield if he likes.
Well put, Kromm. :)
>As it seems to have been forgotten by pretty much everyone else,
Including you...
>Martial Arts is better than weapon skills for characters simply looking
>for a way to defend themselves. Characters who would not be wearing
>much armor anyway. In many genres you will not be wearing armor
>anyway. And realistically, most characters besides professional
>soldiers won't be wearing much armor in any other genre either.
>Characters who would avoid attacking full-bred fighters at all costs. But
>characters who'd still like to have an effective defense when faced by a
>proficient opponent.
Well, lets take a look at this from a realistic standpoint. European
swords were designed for hitting people, not for blocking blows. There's
a _reason_ that the knights used shields, and it wasn't just to show off
their coats of arms. Furthermore, the _training_ that the people got (wow.
Broadsword skill...) was intended to be more focused on getting the blade
into your opponent than it is in blocking your opponents weapon. Anyone
trying to fight using a broadsword but no armor or shield is going to be
at a disadvantage.
Now, lets look at a weapons skill that teaches parrying (because people
weren't using shields with the weapon) How about Fencing? Katana?
Quarterstaff? Since the training people get in those includes more of an
emphasis on blocking the oppoent's attacks, they have a higher parry for
equal skill. Karate is the same way.
But this is all dancing around the point: why is it as easy to parry a
sword as it is to parry a fist? To tell the truth, the techniques used
for one _could_ be used for the other, _if_ the defender didn't have to
worry about getting bits of his body sliced off. If your characters are
making poor tactical decisions, then that's not something that the rules
are at fault for.
>Martial Arts in GURPS is *not* better for characters who wish to be on
>the offense. And neither did I ever claim that it was.
But you did, Mikko, you did...again, see your earlier post that I
responded to...
>Karate gives him a significantly better parry, but if he fails that the butch
>guard might lop of his arm. But then he remembers! In such a case
>he would be taking HT/2 damage (or more, due to no blowthrough on torso!)
>anyway, which would stun him anyway and if he somehow manages
>to live through the stun, he still has his other arm to parry with. With sword
>the guard has to connect with his sword arm only once and the game
>is over.
Ahh. Roll-playing rather than role-playing. Are you sure you wouldn't
rather be playing Harpoon or Advanced Squad Leader?
Here are my questions:
a) Where did Dai learn Karate? If he were in the standard generic
Fantasy game(tm) he'd probably need an unusual background.
b) Have you taken into consideration the fact that he might not want to
have his arm possibly permanently crippled? How about infections? Do you
think that they're going to heal him at the jail?
c) Hey, we're using Martial Arts anyway, why doesn't Dai learn the
Main-Gauche skill? Used as a regular knife skill (which he has), plus he
gets 2/3 of his skill as a parry...and its cheaper then Karate...
>And the reason I bitch instead of offering home-cooked solutions
>is that in my view, one must first realize the problem *exists*
>before one can hope to fix it.
So, _you_ realize that the problem exists....why haven't _you_ solved it?
Why are you sitting around insisting that people who _don't_ think that
there's a problem with the rules change them?
I think Kromm, myself, and everyone else on this thread would have a lot
more respect for your opinions if you said, "Hey, here's this problem. I
was thinking about fixing it by giving a minus to parry, what do people
think?" instead of "These rules suck. They fail the reality test.
Someone fix them, because I don't want to bother."
Steve Anderson
>> thrusting weapons like a rapier the defender could even pinch the
weapon
>> and hold it out of the way while attacking.
>>
>Tell ya what, I'll borrow a sharp one from my Maestro and we'll see how
>well you could "pinch" my rapier while attacking and not take a cut...
--- Won't be the first time I've done it... for that matter, I've had my
blade caught by other fast fingers too. It's risky but doable. Not even
that risky if I engage your blade with mine first. (amazing how much
easier it is when the other guy's weapon isn't able to move...) If you
want to study the technique a bit before hand, rent a copy of Captain
Blood. Flynn & Rathbone do a decent job depicting the trick.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
again, I shall try to leave this discussion be. No one is forced
to believe what I say. No one should be forced to believe
the other side either. Weigh the evidence, review the facts
and make up your own mind. If I got you thinking about this,
I am glad.
I am truly sorry if I have offended someone. I know my writing
style can be caustic at times but I do like to think there substance
behind my allegedly illiterate words.
In article <4gfdj8$s...@xanadu.io.com> je...@io.com (Sakura) writes:
>Yup. Well, you might not have two arms after the fight, if you go about
>it the way you seem to want to...
You might not have your head, chest, legs or whatever else
after the fight.
What is it that makes getting hit in the arm
so much worse than any other hit location? Especially since
karate is equally usable with either arm.
If you take enough damage to lose both arms, you're losing
the fight anyway.
>Actually, you originally said (which I've just reponded to as well) that
>'An armed fighter has no advantages over an unarmed fighter.' Obviously
>untrue, and you seem to have realized this, which is why you're dropping
>back on repetetive statements in a condescending tone.
Could you please give the common courtesy of considering the
entire thread I've written before taking a quote out of context
to crucify me?
What you quoted was a conclusion to a longer discussion on,
surprise, *defending* with karate. If this hasn't been clear
enough in the past, I do hope it now is.
>Everything Kromm stated was in the rules. Worded out.
Yes, but it had nothing to do with defense.
>If you look past,
>the rules, there's even _more_ factors...like the fact that anyone using
>a broadsword is likely to be wearing several points worth of armor - if
>they're not, they're more historically likely to be using a Fencing
>weapon which have - guess what! - 2/3 skill parry...giving them the clear
>advantage!
Being allowed or likely to do something does not bear any relevance
to the case where one is not taking advantage of such allowances.
>Well, lets take a look at this from a realistic standpoint. European
>swords were designed for hitting people, not for blocking blows. There's
>a _reason_ that the knights used shields, and it wasn't just to show off
>their coats of arms.
Stopping arrows is the main function of the shield. They didn't
last too many full-strength sword blows, which gave rise to the
use of bastard swords for one.
>Furthermore, the _training_ that the people got (wow.
>Broadsword skill...) was intended to be more focused on getting the blade
>into your opponent than it is in blocking your opponents weapon. Anyone
>trying to fight using a broadsword but no armor or shield is going to be
>at a disadvantage.
Cite a source, please. And please specify against whom the disadvantage
is. Another fully equipped swordsman? Sure, ofcourse. Against a
karateka dressed in pajamas? I don't think so.
>But this is all dancing around the point: why is it as easy to parry a
>sword as it is to parry a fist? To tell the truth, the techniques used
>for one _could_ be used for the other, _if_ the defender didn't have to
>worry about getting bits of his body sliced off.
So, through all this flak, we actually come to an agreement?
>If your characters are making poor tactical decisions, then that's not
>something that the rules are at fault for.
I truly do not follow you here. Are you saying the character should
consider tactical factors that are not present in the rules?
>Ahh. Roll-playing rather than role-playing. Are you sure you wouldn't
>rather be playing Harpoon or Advanced Squad Leader?
No. And, personally I don't play this way. After all, I said *I'd* choose
to match steel with steel.
But I do know a lot of players who do play this way. And I can't blame
them, given how the rules support choices going against common
sense.
Assume a player has absolutely no knowledge of hand to hand
combat. Or worse, his knowledge comes solely from bad
kung-fu flicks and other myths. How are you going to justify
to this player that using weapons to defend yourself might
actually be a good idea?
Assume there was a rule in GURPS that said: "Aspirin
cures all diseases known to man." and you had a full
group of players and GM who knew absolutely nothing
about medicine. How are they to know aspirin really
isn't the answer to all ailments?
>a) Where did Dai learn Karate? If he were in the standard generic
>Fantasy game(tm) he'd probably need an unusual background.
Bears no relevance to the issue at hand. Replace "Dai" with "Xiang
the chinese thief" if you wish.
>b) Have you taken into consideration the fact that he might not want to
>have his arm possibly permanently crippled? How about infections? Do you
>think that they're going to heal him at the jail?
Have you taking into consideration that he might not want to get
wounded at all? He wants to *survive*, not make a pretty corpse
with all limbs intact.
I *will* give a mathematical analysis if you insist. But the bottom
line anyone should be able to see is that using karate delays
getting wounded.
Who says the guard isn't aiming for his poor head all the time?
Who says the guard isn't thrusting (impaling damage) all the time,
thus making the arm actually *better* place to take damage?
(Impaling gets no multipliers in limbs, in case you didn't
remember)
>c) Hey, we're using Martial Arts anyway, why doesn't Dai learn the
>Main-Gauche skill? Used as a regular knife skill (which he has), plus he
>gets 2/3 of his skill as a parry...and its cheaper then Karate...
First of all, Karate has been in Basic set since the first edition.
Main-Gauche has not. Second, it bears no relevance to the
example at hand. While I have mentioned Martial Arts (the book),
this particular example used only Basic set.
Specifically, I asked the audience whether they'd choose shortsword
over bare hand or not. Not whether they'd want to get a main-gauche
or Colt .45 for the weapon instead.
The fact that there are *some* weapons somewhat equal to karate
in defense does not diminish the fact that the *vast majority*
of weapons are not so useful. In some cases (halberds, pikes)
this is both justified and supported in the rules. In some cases
(swords etc.) it is not.
>I think Kromm, myself, and everyone else on this thread would have a lot
>more respect for your opinions if you said, "Hey, here's this problem. I
>was thinking about fixing it by giving a minus to parry, what do people
>think?" instead of "These rules suck. They fail the reality test.
>Someone fix them, because I don't want to bother."
Sorry if I've misunderstood the situation, but I believe there is
someone on this planet who gets *paid* to correct and develop
GURPS rules, and it's not me.
alw...@gil.com.au
Robert Kelk (Rober...@ssc-asc.x400.gc.ca) wrote:
: Weapon users have a great advantage over unarmed combatants. Unarmed
: combat (as described on pages B111 ff.) can only be performed in Close
: Combat, if I'm reading the rulebook correctly. Attacks with weapons can
: be carried out slightly farther away from your opponent - most weapons
: have a reach of 1 or more.
Um, sorry. Unarmed combat has reach. Punches are a C,1 weapon and kicks
are either a 1 or a C,1 weapon. (the second value for karate instead of
brawl.) Some attacks are close combat only, bites headbutts, grapples
etc., but definately not all. In fact there are some with a very good
reach. Try jump kick, or drop kick etc.
: If you want to try to Feint, All-Out Attack, or Wait during combat,
: better use a weapon. (ref. pg. B113)
Why? Feint and Wait are the two maneuvers I'd say are particularly sane
for an unarmed fighter versus an armed one. I agree with the All-out
attack, but some times it would be worth it.
Eg. Wait for enemy. When within range faint a strike, THEN and only
then attack. Possibly with something like a step Shuto. Minimise the
opposition's defenses. Especially when those defenses are going to hurt you.
: This has nothing to do with parrying, but it's still an advantage.
: --
: Robert Kelk Rober...@ssc-asc.x400.gc.ca
A superior defense is all you need to be a superior offense.
Al, knife.
David Summers
> involving actual contact with the weapon? These active defenses are
> really more like Dodges, but are classified as Parries in order to
> limit the number that can be made in a turn.
I'm afraid I don't follow this one. If you don't contact the
opponent, but dodge out of the way, why don't you just roll a dodge?
--
________________________
(Disclaimer: If NASA had any postion on any of this do you
think they would have ME give it?)
David Summers - Sum...@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.gov
SEAN BLANCHARD
my abnormally big mouth.
I've been following this thread for awhile, and finally decided to dig
out Ye Olde Basic Rulebook and look at the rule in question. (p. 101)
I was quite shocked to find that Reality (tm) had taken a vacation when
this particuliar rule was written. Now the 2/3 parry vs. an unarmed
combat attack bothers me not one bit; however, the rules for parrying
weapons using unarmed combat skills seem to need a bit of work.
The current rules allow an unarmed combatant to avoid all damage from
any kind of weapon by "parrying" it.
To me "parry" means interposing an object between me and an oncoming
weapon such that that weapon is stopped or deflected. Now attempting
to stop a weapon with ones barehands is generally suicidal (I would
give the "catching the blade" move a negative modifier to success, so
that only real experts could hope to do it.) Blowing a parry like this
means the weapon impacted on its' intended target or impacted on the part
of your body you attempted the parry with. It seems that taking damage on
an extremity is advantagous to the defender because of the Blow Through
rule. However, in Reality(tm) some weapons will "blow through" your arm/leg
into your torso/head/whatever. This may be due to driving the parrying limb
into the defenders body or actual dismemberment. Thus some percentage
of blow through should be applied to the original target of the attack.
The more common type of parry is blow deflection. Against a thrusting weapon
this is not much more difficult than against a punch. However if the weapon
in question is edged the defender will likely take some damage. I would
suggest doing cut type damage to the limb minus the amount with which the
defender made his parry minus appropriate DR. (I haven't played with these
numbers yet, but they sound like a good starting point). Thus, a Real Good
martial artist could block the weapon on the blunt section (including the
wielder's arm). This also allows for things like the mailed glove used
in Renaissance fencing. A failed parry would result in normal damage vs. the
original target of the attack. (Note that I'm assuming that while deflecting
the blow the defender is also doing a limited dodge to avoid the new "path"
of the weapon. This is just part of any deflecting parry.)
Blow deflection is much harder against a swung weapon. One could use the
same idea used for deflecting thrusting weapons, with the realization that
swung weapons do more damage on average. Any damage left after subtracting
the parry's success could then be applied to either the limb or the body.
I guess that's enough of my ramblings. I hope there are some usefull ideas
buried in the above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean (blan...@nmsnp1.nmsu.edu)
"For we do not think that we know a thing until we are
acquainted with its' primary conditions or first principles, and
have carried our analysis as far as its' simplest elements."
-Aristotle, "Physics" c.350BC
"I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free."
--Michaelangelo
Jake Beal
>> involving actual contact with the weapon? These active defenses are
>> really more like Dodges, but are classified as Parries in order to
>> limit the number that can be made in a turn.
>I'm afraid I don't follow this one. If you don't contact the
>opponent, but dodge out of the way, why don't you just roll a dodge?
As we play it, it's really simple:
A martial artist parries not the actual weapon, but the arm wielding it.
This generally involves close contact and works much better with knives
and other small weapons than with a two-handed sword. There is a little
bit of dodging around involved, but that is not the thrust of the
activity.
A similar situation is dodging a bullet: one doesn't dodge the actual
bullet, one dodges the gunner's aim and motion.
Thanks,
-Jake
Bryan J. Maloney
Summers) wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't follow this one. If you don't contact the
> opponent, but dodge out of the way, why don't you just roll a dodge?
Because a parry is not a parry and a dodge is not a dodge, just ask Kromm.
Sometimes a parry is a dodge and sometimes it isn't.
Chris Doherty
>at.fi>
>Organization: Illuminati Online
>Distribution: world
>
>Mikko Kurki-Suonio (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi) wrote:
>> Who gives a sh*t what the parry is supposed to represent?
>
>do, for one. If all you can do is bitch about it and post crass replies,
>instead of proposing a solution or backing your claims with evidence,
>then why should I even bother reading past your literate and intelligent
>opening line?
Oh, don't worry too much about it. Mikko does this all the time. He
bitches like this about Mekton and Car Wars, too. Probably other systems
on newsgroups I don't read as well. :)
-Chris
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When in doubt, bet on a dark horse.
Scratch Brujah
started to play GURPS Vampire. What do I see? A discussion
on fighting arts (A great love of mine) and my new game.
Blocking weapons with bare hands:Real life.
Consider 2 types of blow from a broadsword, thrust&swing
The thrust is perhaps the easiest to block, push the flat
of the blade, making the point travel past you. This assumes
that the thrust is made with the plane of the blades flat at
90 degrees to the ground. If not, then just step aside. Any
martial artist will tell you DO NOT step back. The sword will
follow you. Fast. Yes, I know, this is a DODGE in gurps, but
I feel the assumption on the blades orientation is normal and
reasonable.
My opinion on the swing will be interesting to you I'm
sure. As the swing is delivered, step or skip TOWARDS the
attacker. Yep. 'Sright. The end of the blade is where the
most force will be delivered (Apologies to physicists, I'm
talking MA principles, Okay?) If the 'bottom' end of the
blade strikes you, or indeed the guard or the attackers
hand(s) then you will come to no harm. Still a dodge? Well
assume the defender catches the opponents wrists as he steps.
Parry.
It states somewhere in GURPS that the skill judo is not
actually, or nessecarily the japanese art of jiu jitso.
Just a comparable knowledge or skill. A long serving soldier
or brawler could develope his own principles based on
experience, and the character need not have been to Japan.
The same will of course apply to karate - until my git GM
says otherwise. (Hur hur hur GURPS Martial Arts Hur Hur Hur.
GM) Yep, he's here.
I don't know if this clarifies anything, or sets me up for
real flaming, but the rules at the mo' seem reasonable to me.
As for rapiers, well have you ever fenced? The only reason you
can block one with your own is because you have a long blocking
tool. With your hands? I bloody couldn't.
I may talk about punching plate armor later.
Have FUN above all....Love Scratch.
Bryan J. Maloney
<sis...@pbs5.milton.port.ac.uk> wrote:
> As for rapiers, well have you ever fenced? The only reason you
> can block one with your own is because you have a long blocking
> tool. With your hands? I bloody couldn't.
I can block a rapier with my hand--I've done so. However, I would not do
it without a glove if I could at all help it.
When you say "rapier" do you really mean "rapier" or the modern floppy
wires used in the sport of "fencing"?
Scratch Brujah
>The current rules allow an unarmed combatant to avoid all damage from
>any kind of weapon by "parrying" it.
By parrying a blow delivered by that weapon.
>To me "parry" means interposing an object between me and an oncoming
>weapon such that that weapon is stopped or deflected.
If you also have a sword (or whatever) yes, you would.
>Now attempting
>to stop a weapon with ones barehands is generally suicidal
No. I don't agree.
>Blowing a parry like this
>means the weapon impacted on its' intended target or impacted on the part
>of your body you attempted the parry with.
Yes, if you miss the parry it is fair to say it hits. Even to say it hit's the
target area, as a failed parry with a weapon would give a hit.
>The more common type of parry is blow deflection. Against a thrusting weapon
>this is not much more difficult than against a punch. However if the weapon
>in question is edged the defender will likely take some damage.
Edged weapons have the flat of the blade to push against. That is blunt.
>Blow deflection is much harder against a swung weapon.
I posted "Parry a sword with bare hands??? A martial artist says"
some tiem ago, and I'll repeat real advice given to me by, if you'll
excuse me using a phrase I LOATH, Total fuggin' ninja's. Against a
swung blow, step towards the attacker. The nearer you are the less
force is being made at that point. So against a 'bat' you would come
to no harm. You can catch the attackers wrist(s), which qualifies
the move as a parry and not a dodge. Against a sword? Well, as you
are very close to the wielder, the swords length is effectively a
knife. Any sort of armor will deflect a knife 'swing'. And if you get
close enough that the guard or the attackers hand hit's, well that ain't
gonna hurt.
That's how it works in the real world, and that's what GURPS is
trying to model.
Damn, tooooooo long. Sorry. Scratch.
Bryan J. Maloney
> As far as GURPS is concerned, the best, most skill-intensive
> defense taught by a fighting style is always called a Parry, *unless*
> (as is the case for a shield) it is clearly a Block. A Parry in GURPS
Then you have a bad choice of terms. You should be more specific in your
terms. "Parry" implies specifically putting something between you and an
attack to deflect it. Look it up.
Philip Masters
> A Dodge is just a reflexive "flinch" defense. Anyone can do it
> without training and you tend to flinch from every attack. A Parry,
> OTOH, is a trained defense.
But surely a trained expert's Dodge (as seen in Aikido or whatever) is a
lot *more* than a simple flinch?
And on the other hand - I'm a completely untrained fighter, but I'm
pretty sure that if I saw somebody starting to take a swing at me, I'd
often tend to throw up an arm in an attempt to baffle or deflect the
blow. This sounds like an "unarmed parry" to me.
--
Phil Masters
http://www.taynet.co.uk/~gdx/users/masters/index.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Quotation confesses inferiority."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Letters and Social Aims", 1875.
Bryan J. Maloney
> In article: <4h4lbv$c...@anarchy.io.com> kr...@io.com (Dr Kromm) writes:
> > A Dodge is just a reflexive "flinch" defense. Anyone can do it
> > without training and you tend to flinch from every attack. A Parry,
> > OTOH, is a trained defense.
>
> But surely a trained expert's Dodge (as seen in Aikido or whatever) is a
> lot *more* than a simple flinch?
However, according to Kromm, a trained expert's Dodge is not a Dodge.
Remember, in GURPS, a dodge is not a dodge and a parry is not a parry.
Sometimes a parry is a dodge and sometimes a dodge is a parry. Sometimes
it isn't...
Dr Manfred Dieter Kromm
I beg to differ. My dictionary simply says that to parry is, "To ward
off or deflect an attack." This would certainly apply as much to the
concept of stepping past an attack and guiding it past oneself as it would
to actually blocking it with a weapon. In the same context, it says that to
block is, "To obstruct an attack." Curiously, in many unarmed martial arts,
the term "parry" is used only when the defender moves with and redirects
the attack, while the term "block" is used when a blow is stopped by
interposing a piece of the body. Believe it or not, fencing is not the only
fighting style out there, and its terms are *not* universal.
-Kromm
Mac McKeon
>
> : >Be nice if every thing worked nicely and people like Mikko didn't keep
> : >coming up with niggly questions.
>
> : Do you mean it would be nice if the system was flawless or that it
> : would nice if no one pointed out those flaws?
>
> : Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
> : --
> : Maxxon (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi)
> EEEEKKK!!!!
> I definately mean I'd like it to be flawless. Keep picking on it, it's
> the only way to make it better.
> Al, Knife.
--
----------
/McK
----------
"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make
it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so
complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies." - C.A.R. Hoare, 1980 Turing lecture