Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:14:34 -0500
I think I missed the original discussion on this, but what does everyone
think? Personally, I think it's a bit messed up. (Not completely messed
up, mind you.) If I study Aikido and Kung Fu, I don't fight using Aikido
OR Kung Fu, I fight using Aikido AND Kung Fu. I don't think the CC system
really represents that. So what do you think? Is it fairly accurate?

What about the system of buying maneuvers? I think the weapon maneuvers
are crap. I don't need know how to sweep with my leg in order to sweep
with a staff. Additionally, I think the system will result in such
ludicrous anomalies as a highly proficient practitioner of Kung Fu who
doesn't know how to kick. I would say that after less than a year and a
half, I knew the Kick Attack, Sweep, Vicious Blow, and Zoning maneuvers,
and possibly the Focus Strength, Herding, Throw maneuvers. There is no
way I have a 8 skill and especially not a 14! My skill at fighting is
around (maybe) 3 or 4. As for my skill in my martial art, I would so it's
no higher than 3.

So, what parts of the CC MA system do you think work and don't work? I
think it's a good start and a good general use system, but I want
something more.

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 2
From: One Ronin ronin@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:46:37 GMT
D.Ghost wrote:

>Subject: CC Martial Arts
>Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:14:34 -0500
>
>I think I missed the original discussion on this, but what does everyone
>think? Personally, I think it's a bit messed up. (Not completely messed
>up, mind you.) If I study Aikido and Kung Fu, I don't fight using Aikido
>OR Kung Fu, I fight using Aikido AND Kung Fu. I don't think the CC system
>really represents that. So what do you think? Is it fairly accurate?
>
>What about the system of buying maneuvers? I think the weapon maneuvers
>are crap. I don't need know how to sweep with my leg in order to sweep
>with a staff. Additionally, I think the system will result in such
>ludicrous anomalies as a highly proficient practitioner of Kung Fu who
>doesn't know how to kick. I would say that after less than a year and a
>half, I knew the Kick Attack, Sweep, Vicious Blow, and Zoning maneuvers,
>and possibly the Focus Strength, Herding, Throw maneuvers. There is no
>way I have a 8 skill and especially not a 14! My skill at fighting is
>around (maybe) 3 or 4. As for my skill in my martial art, I would so it's
>no higher than 3.
>
>So, what parts of the CC MA system do you think work and don't work? I
>think it's a good start and a good general use system, but I want
>something more.

I agree totally. Ove the past 10 years, I've studied Muay Thai, Wing
Chun (a form of Kung-fu), Kali, and Judo. My fighting style tends to be a
blend of all four, each one filling in the gaps of the others. As for the
way the rules are in CC.....they have a lot of potential, but do need some
reworking. I like the special maneuvers, but I don't think the method of
learning them presented in the book accurately reflects how much a student
would really know. To me, at least at the rate I learned, a student who
reached an advaced black belt type would probably only have a skill rating
of 4, maybe 5, depending on how many times he's had to use his skills. And
once you reach that level, you have a good foundation in that particular
martial art, and can begin to develop your skills further. And you should
have most of those special maneuvers at that point. The road block here is
game balance. It's a bit of a juggling act for GM's......especially if you
don't know much about martial arts and one of your players just happens to
be a black belt in Tae Kwon Leap(boot to the head.....inside joke). Anyway,
I'd like to hear input from other players and GM's that have some martial
arts experience.



"There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through the
suitable application of a boot to the head."

-Ronin
ICQ #: 11373195





________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 3
From: Necron necron@*********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:56:30 -0400
>Anyway, I'd like to hear input from other players and GM's that have some
martial
>arts experience.

Ok, here goes, I took tae kwon do for 7 years and I think the reason that
they force you to learn the maneuvers with weapons after you learn it for
the pure unarmed is because it reflects that that is the order it would be
learned in any real world studio, tae kwon doe practitioners must reach at
least a reasonable high skill level (green, in a white, yellow green blue
brown black system) to even begin training with weapons, and even then
bladed weapons are kept off for a long way (brown), so I don't think it's a
bad rule to force you to learn it normally first, but I do resent the idea
that you cant combine styles.
-Necron "People voting republican: Give them a boot to the head!"
Message no. 4
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:25:57 -0500
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:56:30 -0400 "Necron" <necron@*********.com>
writes:
<SNIP>
> Ok, here goes, I took tae kwon do for 7 years and I think the reason
> that
> they force you to learn the maneuvers with weapons after you learn
> it for
> the pure unarmed is because it reflects that that is the order it
> would be
> learned in any real world studio,
<SNIP>
> but I do resent
> the idea
> that you cant combine styles.

The problem is that the order of learning is a decision made by the
teacher, not a requirement. Additionally, if you remove that restriction
from the rules, then the martial arts system suddenly becomes more
flexible as it can now represent armed and unarmed martial arts ...

Also, what do you think of the total karma costs and training time to
learn martial arts?

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 5
From: Necron necron@*********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:48:06 -0400
>Also, what do you think of the total karma costs and training time to
>learn martial arts?

Sorry it took me so long to reply, ive been caught up in other things. The
karma costs are, IMO a little outrageous, if you think of skill level and 8+
is black, then really outrageous, and especially how much it costs to start
with a martial arts skill of 6, I mean come ON, we are talking about runners
aged between say 17 and 28 most of the time, im only 17 and I already know
tae kwon doe at black belt level. It shouldn't cost NEARLY as much to start
with high martial arts skills and as for the skills in game, it should cost
less if you can find a teacher, say like this: starting should be able to
be bought up to 6 with no prob, and you should get the maneuvers for FREE on
starting (because unless I misread the rules you have to pay for those too)
and once in the game the karma costs should be decreased based on the
teachers skill and the time you are willing to spend training (needless to
say I highly skilled teacher is going to cost the character A LOT) asnyway I
hope this helps and I wouldn't mind some feedback
-Necron "What did Indiana Jones teach us about a sword fight? Just shoot
the dude with the sword!"
Message no. 6
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:09:50 -0500
Necron wrote:

> Sorry it took me so long to reply, ive been caught up in other things. The
> karma costs are, IMO a little outrageous, if you think of skill level and 8+
> is black, then really outrageous, and especially how much it costs to start
> with a martial arts skill of 6, I mean come ON, we are talking about runners
> aged between say 17 and 28 most of the time, im only 17 and I already know
> tae kwon doe at black belt level. It shouldn't cost NEARLY as much to start
> with high martial arts skills and as for the skills in game, it should cost
> less if you can find a teacher, say like this: starting should be able to
> be bought up to 6 with no prob, and you should get the maneuvers for FREE on
> starting (because unless I misread the rules you have to pay for those too)
> and once in the game the karma costs should be decreased based on the
> teachers skill and the time you are willing to spend training (needless to
> say I highly skilled teacher is going to cost the character A LOT) asnyway I
> hope this helps and I wouldn't mind some feedback

Let me start by saying that I agree, in principle, with your real world
standards. There is, however, the bogeyman know as game balance to consider. If
characters are allowed to raise their martial arts skills for less karma then you
start to run into balance problems since the character will soon have far too many
dice to throw around. Pretty soon you have to start throwing nastier and nastier
opposition at them and the escalation becomes unrealistic.
I also take objection to your conjecture that a skill level of 8+ represents
black belt equivalency. Refer to the table on page 98-99 of SR3 and it says that
an active skill rating of 8+ is "World Class", "regarded as someone who
defines
the skill". Obviously, this does not refer to all black belts in all martial arts
around the world but refers only to a relatively small number of supreme
practitioners.
This all depends on what balance you want in your game, though. If you want
characters to be superhuman martial artists and fight superhuman antagonists all
the time, then maybe reducing the karma cost presents no problem to you. Then
again, maybe you should consider Hong Kong Action Theatre, Feng Shui, or a
superhero game. Again, I agree with you that the CC martial arts rules sacrifice
realism, but I believe they did so to preserve ease of play and game balance.

Cheers,

Ken Vinson
Message no. 7
From: Necron necron@*********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:07:11 -0400
Hmm, I see your point ken but I still feel there must be some way to fix the
system without making it totally "cinematic". Also, I suppose black is more
along the lines of seven and then each skill level represents a stripe (in
tae kwon doe once black is reach you receive a golden stripe on the belt for
each further level of mastery) so 8 would be world class, and once 9 and 10
are reached you are, as per real life, prolly kickin some ass. Also I would
like to try and make rules for weapon martial arts (esp. kenjutsu and
bojutsu, katana and bo staff respectively) any ideas on how to do this would
be appreciated, I personally was thinking of doing it like this:
Kenjutsu
*description of martial art history condensed into a few sentences here*
Advantages: +1 die to a melee test when using a katana
Disadvantages: -3 dice to subduing combat, All maneuvers excluding evasion
can only be learned for the edged weapons skill
Manuevers: Evasion, Multi-Strike, Focus Strength, Focus Will, Full Offense,
Herding, Disorient, Blind Fighting, Zoning
-Necron
Message no. 8
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 02:26:43 -0500
> Necron wrote:
> > Sorry it took me so long to reply, ive been caught up in other
> > things. The
> > karma costs are, IMO a little outrageous, if you think of skill
> > level and 8+
> > is black, then really outrageous, and especially how much it costs
> > to start
> > with a martial arts skill of 6
<SNIP>

On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:09:50 -0500 Kenneth Vinson
<kennethv@****.wisc.edu> writes:
> Let me start by saying that I agree, in principle, with your
> real world
> standards. There is, however, the bogeyman know as game balance to
> consider. If
> characters are allowed to raise their martial arts skills for less
> karma then you
> start to run into balance problems since the character will soon
> have far too many
> dice to throw around.
<SNIP>

Let's assume that a black belt is a 6. Let's also assume that A black
belt knows every maneuver available for the chosen martial art. Let's
also assume for the following example that the martial artist has a
Strength of 6

First, to acheive a skill of 6, it requires 1+3+4+6+7+9= 30 karma. To
learn all 9 maneuvers available costs 6*2 + 3*8 = 36 karma. The total
karma spent is 66 karma. Base time spent (per SR3Co, page 48): 66 * 7 462 days. This seems
to be a bit karmicly high and quite low on time
spent.

Balanced? Doesn't seem like it to me ...

Alfredo
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 9
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:35:21 -0400 (EDT)
Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.com> writes:
> > Necron wrote:
> > > Sorry it took me so long to reply, ive been caught up in other
> > > things. The
> > > karma costs are, IMO a little outrageous, if you think of skill
> > > level and 8+
> > > is black, then really outrageous, and especially how much it costs
> > > to start
> > > with a martial arts skill of 6
> <SNIP>
>
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:09:50 -0500 Kenneth Vinson
> <kennethv@****.wisc.edu> writes:
> > Let me start by saying that I agree, in principle, with your
> > real world
> > standards. There is, however, the bogeyman know as game balance to
> > consider. If
> > characters are allowed to raise their martial arts skills for less
> > karma then you
> > start to run into balance problems since the character will soon
> > have far too many
> > dice to throw around.
> <SNIP>
>
> Let's assume that a black belt is a 6. Let's also assume that A black
> belt knows every maneuver available for the chosen martial art. Let's
> also assume for the following example that the martial artist has a
> Strength of 6

I think you're overestimating the value of the black belt,
unless your style is drastically different than mine. It takes more
time to get an undergraduate degree (4 years) than a black belt in my
style, yet the degree only rates you a skill of 4, and more time per
week is probably spent on the degree than the black belt... I think
of the black belt being comparable to an undergrad degree.

> First, to acheive a skill of 6, it requires 1+3+4+6+7+9= 30 karma. To
> learn all 9 maneuvers available costs 6*2 + 3*8 = 36 karma. The total
> karma spent is 66 karma. Base time spent (per SR3Co, page 48): 66 * 7 > 462 days.
This seems to be a bit karmicly high and quite low on time
> spent.

For a skill of 6, that doesn't sound that bad, as the
character in question is somehow spending 56 quality hours a week
training their martial arts. I have serious doubts as to whether a
person can spend 56 hours a week on a very intense physical activity
and get the full benefit of it, but SR assumes that this is the case.
A more realistic measure of time would be to multiply the 462 day
figure by 56 and then divide by the number of hours per week you think
that this character can realistically train.

In my style, it was common to become a black belt after a bit
over 2 years (3 years if you don't train over the summers), officially
training 8 hours a week (4 times a week/2 hours per session, though I
guess we did overrun a lot). Some of us did a little bit on the side,
so call it 10 hours a week. I don't think I had more than about 15
hours/week in me anyway.
I'd have to train at this rate for over 7 years to get a skill
of 6 according to the SR rules. After 2 years and a bit, I'd have a
skill of 4 and 6 karma to spend on maneuvers. I'd call it pretty
accurate.

Mark
Message no. 10
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:58:48 -0500
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:35:21 -0400 (EDT) Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+@***.EDU>
writes:
<SNIP>
> I think you're overestimating the value of the black belt,
> unless your style is drastically different than mine.

When my teacher (2nd degree black belt) described how she "uses" the
martial arts style we were studying, it seemed on par with with a skill
of 6 or 7 (according to the skill level description in the BBB3). She
described as being things she does with really thinking about doing them
...

> It takes more
> time to get an undergraduate degree (4 years) than a black belt in
> my
> style, yet the degree only rates you a skill of 4, and more time per
> week is probably spent on the degree than the black belt... I think
> of the black belt being comparable to an undergrad degree.

I don't know ... I think the average time for my school is around 3
years; 2 if you are really dedicated, more if you can only attend classes
infrequently.

> > First, to acheive a skill of 6, it requires 1+3+4+6+7+9= 30 karma.
> To
> > learn all 9 maneuvers available costs 6*2 + 3*8 = 36 karma. The
> total
> > karma spent is 66 karma. Base time spent (per SR3Co, page 48): 66
> * 7 > > 462 days. This seems to be a bit karmicly high and quite low on
> time
> > spent.

> For a skill of 6, that doesn't sound that bad,

Do you realise that I was saying that it should take longer?

<SNIP>
> I'd have a
> skill of 4 and 6 karma to spend on maneuvers. I'd call it pretty
> accurate.

I wouldn't. As I said in another post, after a pretty short period of
time (training for about 3 hours a week, btw.), I'd rate myself as having
a skill of 3 or 4, (probably 3) but with half a dozen maneuvers ...

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 11
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.com> writes:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:35:21 -0400 (EDT) Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+@***.EDU>
> writes:
> <SNIP>
> > I think you're overestimating the value of the black belt,
> > unless your style is drastically different than mine.
>
> When my teacher (2nd degree black belt) described how she "uses" the
> martial arts style we were studying, it seemed on par with with a skill
> of 6 or 7 (according to the skill level description in the BBB3). She
> described as being things she does with really thinking about doing them
> ...

I will doublecheck the descriptions when I get home, but I
have to admit that the parts about making it become reflex never made
sense to me, as that happens in the span of a month or so when I study
something physical. Everything after that is a matter of tuning the
reflexes so that they work exactly right. I recommend using the
descriptions given for knowledge skills, if my memory works correctly.
The descriptions in BBB3 are off if you need to have a level of 6 in
order to make something reflexive, not the learning times.
The most useful reference point I found in bbb3 was being able
to compare professional skills to learning times, based on academic
degrees and work experience. I've been applying that to the learning
times of the skills, not the descriptions of how the user thinks, as
that started getting very arbitrary after level 1.

> > It takes more
> > time to get an undergraduate degree (4 years) than a black belt in
> > my
> > style, yet the degree only rates you a skill of 4, and more time per
> > week is probably spent on the degree than the black belt... I think
> > of the black belt being comparable to an undergrad degree.
>
> I don't know ... I think the average time for my school is around 3
> years; 2 if you are really dedicated, more if you can only attend classes
> infrequently.

So, is what you're saying that a black belt takes even less
time to learn than an undergraduate degree? That says to me even more
that the descriptions of the skills are off, and that a black belt is
in the skill 3 or 4 range, not the 4 range I think is the case.

When you pick up an undergrad degree, you're picking up a
bunch of other degrees on the side. When I got my degree in CS, I had
some background in Math, ECE, Psych, Japanese, and a bunch of other
things. I believe that the time commitment for both is comparable.

> > > First, to acheive a skill of 6, it requires 1+3+4+6+7+9= 30 karma.
> > To
> > > learn all 9 maneuvers available costs 6*2 + 3*8 = 36 karma. The
> > total
> > > karma spent is 66 karma. Base time spent (per SR3Co, page 48): 66
> > * 7 > > > 462 days. This seems to be a bit karmicly high and quite low
on
> > time
> > > spent.
>
> > For a skill of 6, that doesn't sound that bad,
>
> Do you realise that I was saying that it should take longer?

Do you realise that I was saying that it does take longer? 3234 hours
of training just isn't happening in 462 days.

I'd like to see someone train martial arts for 56 solid hours a week!
That's the only broken part of the training rules.

> <SNIP>
> > I'd have a
> > skill of 4 and 6 karma to spend on maneuvers. I'd call it pretty
> > accurate.
>
> I wouldn't. As I said in another post, after a pretty short period of
> time (training for about 3 hours a week, btw.), I'd rate myself as having
> a skill of 3 or 4, (probably 3) but with half a dozen maneuvers ...

I still see most black belts as having a skill of 4, and most
of the middle belts as having a skill of 2-3 once they're good enough
that the training helps rather than hurts. Individuals may be better
than this, but I'm talking about typical or baseline at this point.
*shrug* I agree that the learning of maneuvers is a broken.

Your figures of skill 3-4 and black belt = skill 6+ look
inflated. If all it took was for me to do things as second nature,
then I picked up volleyball in a single semester, all the way from
rating 0 to rating 6. I'm not a great player, but according to bbb3 I
am!

Mark
Message no. 12
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:33:33 -0500
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:31:58 -0400 (EDT) Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+@***.EDU>
writes:
<SNIP>
> I will doublecheck the descriptions when I get home, but I
> have to admit that the parts about making it become reflex never
> made
> sense to me, as that happens in the span of a month or so when I
> study
> something physical.

I don't think that's what they mean. Think about the Stealth skill. It
allows you to spot a tail ... if you are looking for one. What the skill
level descriptions mean is that around a skill of 6 or 7, you look for a
tail without thinking about it. I can't think of any good examples for
other skills, but I think that's what they mean.

<SNIP>
> So, is what you're saying that a black belt takes even less
> time to learn than an undergraduate degree? That says to me even
> more
> that the descriptions of the skills are off, and that a black belt
> is
> in the skill 3 or 4 range, not the 4 range I think is the case.

I disagree. My disagreement is based on my perception of combat skill.
There is now way a black belt is a mere 4. It is at LEAST a 6.

<SNIP>
> > Do you realise that I was saying that it should take longer?

> Do you realise that I was saying that it does take longer? 3234
> hours
> of training just isn't happening in 462 days.

Okay, it sounding like you meant to disagree with me and yet were saying
the same thing. :)

> I'd like to see someone train martial arts for 56 solid hours a
> week!
> That's the only broken part of the training rules.

According to the SR3Co, you can take a break equal to your Intelligence
plus the new skill rating (Which, IMO, does not make sense ... I'll
probably use (Intelligence + Mnemonic Enhancer level)*2)

<SNIP>
> I still see most black belts as having a skill of 4, and
> most
> of the middle belts as having a skill of 2-3 once they're good
> enough
> that the training helps rather than hurts. Individuals may be
> better
> than this, but I'm talking about typical or baseline at this point.
> *shrug* I agree that the learning of maneuvers is a broken.
>
> Your figures of skill 3-4 and black belt = skill 6+ look
> inflated. If all it took was for me to do things as second nature,
> then I picked up volleyball in a single semester, all the way from
> rating 0 to rating 6. I'm not a great player, but according to bbb3
> I
> am!

I don't think so. Do believe that your average brawler is around a skill
of 1-2? Even as a white belt, I'd imagine that I was alright, probably
around average. Now, I would say, regardless of the descriptions in the
book, that I was around a skill of 3 or 4. I would also say that any
black belt I've met could my head to me on a platter.

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 13
From: Dan Grabon djmoose@******.kornet.net
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:27:52 +0900
On 4/27/00 7:33 AM, Alfredo B Alves at dghost@****.com wrote:

>> So, is what you're saying that a black belt takes even less
>> time to learn than an undergraduate degree? That says to me even
>> more
>> that the descriptions of the skills are off, and that a black belt
>> is
>> in the skill 3 or 4 range, not the 4 range I think is the case.
> I disagree. My disagreement is based on my perception of combat skill.
> There is now way a black belt is a mere 4. It is at LEAST a 6.
A *first* degree black belt? I'd have to agree with Mark here. Stop and
think about this for a second.

- Depending on the school and the art, obtaining the first degree black belt
takes anywhere from 1-3 years. You mentioned 2-3, but I'd add that here in
Korea, you train every day and there are fewer intermediate belts. With
steady training, a little over 1 year will do it. Does it seem likely that
after one or two years of training you'd be *that* good?

- You don't stop training with your first black belt, you keep going-- for a
long time. Belt progression slows down a *lot.* A friend of mine who's a
dedicated tae kwon do practitioner took about as much time to get his second
degree black belt as it takes to go from white to first degree. But you're
still training hard, perhaps harder, during this time. If you can go from 0
to 6 in your first two years, good grief, where will you be after another
two? What sort of outrageous skill level would a third or fourth degree
have? A grandmaster?

- If we take a look at the descriptions for skill ratings in SR3-- and I
know people's opinions vary, but bear with me-- an active skill of 4 is
considered Skilled. The steps flow together and you focus on the 'how and
why.' More importantly, "You investigate better ways to execute your
actions, and with each experiment you gain more insight into the background
of your skill." As far as I've seen, with pre-black belts all of your
instruction comes from your teacher. Around the time you get your first
black belt, you're starting to teach yourself a little. But you've still
got someone there to teach you new forms, keep an eye on your technique,
etc. Also, where your pre-black belt forms work on the basics of the art,
the black belt forms start exploring new things you can do, ways to take
that earlier knowledge and start to apply it.

> I don't think so. Do believe that your average brawler is around a skill
> of 1-2? Even as a white belt, I'd imagine that I was alright, probably
> around average. Now, I would say, regardless of the descriptions in the
> book, that I was around a skill of 3 or 4. I would also say that any
> black belt I've met could my head to me on a platter.
I would say your average brawler IS around 2 and a white belt isn't much
higher. Joe Q. Public in Shadowrun has attributes and skills in the 2-3
range. Joe Q. Shadowrunner, on the other hand, is an action hero, someone
special. He's better. It's pretty easy to inflate ratings in SR to 'keep
up' with the runners and balance out the game, but it's important to
remember that the average person has pretty low skill ratings.

Something else here-- what do you mean by 'your average brawler' anyway? A
guy who gets into a random bar fight, or a street thug who fights regularly?
That thug will have a slightly higher skill rating (maybe 3) because he's
got his own teacher-- experience. A low-belt martial artist isn't going to
be much better unless he's been in a lot of real fights as well. Martial
arts are pretty abstract, at least early on. Just because you're decent at
sparring and have your forms down pat, that doesn't mean you won't get
beaten to a pulp by a ganger in a fistfight.

-moose

---
Dan "Moose" Grabon - djmoose@******.kornet.net

There comes a time in every man's life when he has to look the potato of
injustice right in the eye.
--Stanley Spadowski
Message no. 14
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:41:48 -0500
D. Ghost said:
:I wouldn't. As I said in another post, after a pretty short period of
:time (training for about 3 hours a week, btw.), I'd rate myself as having
:a skill of 3 or 4, (probably 3) but with half a dozen maneuvers ...

Most people who are martial arts practicionaers seem to be saying that
the system makes ti to hard to learn manuevers compared to thier skill
level. I don't think so- I think manuevers are really super effective,
intensive practiced sets of moves for a special effect. Normal skill use
can achieve similar effects genrally (if they get a good enough roll), so
its not like a martial artist that doesn't learn every manuever is some kind
of deficiant.
And before you disagree, find me somebody who has an equal level of
skill but no martial arts training- I'd be willing to bet they can pull of
similar "manuevers" to the ones you folks who take classes talk about
knowing half a dozen or more of. ;-)
Without martial arts training, you may not have a name for it or have
put as much study into it, but I bet you know how to crowd folks, knock them
down, evade blows, etc. Those are all part of NORMAL fighting, and as such,
could be simulated by the simple use of skill without manuevers.

Mongoose

_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 15
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:42:27 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Alfredo B Alves wrote:

> I disagree. My disagreement is based on my perception of combat skill.
> There is now way a black belt is a mere 4. It is at LEAST a 6.

Don't confuse belt rank with combat skill. The two are often
*very* different. There are a lot of schools out there that reward time
training with rank. I've seen ten-year-olds that had black belts, but I
don't expect them to be lethal in combat versus an adult (unless the adult
has no idea what he or she is in for and gets a nasty surprise).
Similarly, I know people who hold very low rank, yet would be exceedingly
dangerous in an actual combat situation because of their attitude and
seriousness.
Also, don't confuse sparring skill with combat skill. I've seen
championship caliber Tae Kwon Do practitioners get their asses handed to
them on the street. Just because you can score points on an opponent
doesn't mean you're going to be able to put him down and keep him down
before he kills you.
In other words, don't try to map rank to skill level. It's pretty
much a lost cause from the get-go, as styles are often so different, and
schools very within a given style.

Marc
Message no. 16
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 15:20:00 -0400 (EDT)
Last post from me on this, unless you think it's worth continuing over
e-mail.

Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.com> writes:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:31:58 -0400 (EDT) Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+@***.EDU>
> writes:
> > > Do you realise that I was saying that it should take longer?
>
> > Do you realise that I was saying that it does take longer? 3234
> > hours
> > of training just isn't happening in 462 days.
>
> Okay, it sounding like you meant to disagree with me and yet were saying
> the same thing. :)

I'm disagreeing on you (and the BBB3) on the number of days it
should take, but think that the number of hours it should take
according to BBB3 isn't too far off.

> > I'd like to see someone train martial arts for 56 solid hours a
> > week!
> > That's the only broken part of the training rules.
>
> According to the SR3Co, you can take a break equal to your Intelligence
> plus the new skill rating

My complaint is that Joe average is going to get 8 hours worth
of training in a single day without having to make multiple tests to
not pass out. I've never had to train all-out for more than 3 hours
at a stretch, and I'm barely able to move afterwards. How about you?

> > Your figures of skill 3-4 and black belt = skill 6+ look
> > inflated. [SNIP uh-huh!]
>
> I don't think so. Do believe that your average brawler is around a skill
> of 1-2?
> [SNIP nuh-uh!]

> Now, I would say...I was around a skill of 3 or 4. I would also say
> that any black belt I've met could my head to me on a platter.

I don't think that your average brawler *HAS* a skill in
melee, and defaults instead. Someone who gets into a couple of fights
every month _with people who also know what they're doing_, will
probably be too broken to fight, or the equal of a black belt in a
fight after a few years. (~4 in my mind, 6+ in yours) Someone who
gets into a drunken brawl occasionally (the average brawler, in my
mind) probably *never* learns how to fight, or the brawls will start
to end very quickly. I've rarely run into someone with what I would
call the Brawling skill, at level 1-2, except for some older folks.
It's something you've picked up early and have been working at for
years, or don't pick up at all. Where I grew up (nice folks,
middle-class suburbia), what most people use and think of as Brawling
is really best described as "defaulting from Football", with punches.
It's why a lot of people think of the Martial Arts as inherently
superior to Brawling. They've just never seen a "trained" brawler...

It took me maybe 3-6 months of training to reach the point
where I was better off relying on my training than relying mostly on
my natural quickness alone. It's probably up to you to decide whether
I was defaulting from Quickness or Brawling before, but I assure you
that I was not a great brawler before my training began... I'm still
best at the punch and kick ranges. (SR3 won't let you default from
quickness any more, and that bothers me except as a game balance
measure, but that's a separate discussion)

I guess I'm not flat-out denying that your instructor might
have a skill of 6+, or that any black belt you've met will beat you...
however, that would make your instructors 2+ points better than how I
view a typical new black belt. If your skill was around 2, your
opponent would only need to have a skill of 4. Have you been to any
tournaments yet? Perhaps your instuctors really are better than the
"baseline" black belt in sparring, and this would be a good place to
notice. It's quite possible that your instructors are a lot better
than a typical black belt in sparring and/or teaching, and this has
rubbed off on you. However, I still think it's a gross exaggeration
to say that almost everyone who's been training in your style for 2-3
years has a skill of 6+, since they're almost all black belts.

Also, I can introduce you to a black belt that wasn't all that
good at sparring. I started being able to beat her after one full
semester at it. She wasn't a horrible fighter, just a smidgen too
slow on an occasional block, a bit too slow to move inside my range to
capitalize, and holds aren't something we did much in free sparring.
Against a slightly slower opponent than me, she would do better.
(being much slower and outranged is a bad combo in a striker vs.
striker match) Anyway, being a point or two behind your typical black
belt makes much more sense if that means they've really got a 2-3
instead of a 4-5, because my skill definitely wasn't at her level
after one semester if it was 4-5.

Skill 2 is enough to beat anyone who isn't a trained fighter.
You get to roll 2+2 pool dice againt TN4, while they get to roll
Strength dice against TN8. Every now and then, you'll botch and screw
up a move, but you'll win most of the time.

Mark
Message no. 17
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Okay, still slogging through the book. :) Now I'm up
to martial arts and I've got a few more observations
and questions.

1. Kick Attack - someone suggested (rather vehemently
IIRC) that this manoeuvre be dropped. I don't think it
should. To my mind, it represents a serious, trained
kick - spinning kick, flying kick, back kick etc. It
doesn't represent kicking someone in the ribs or
stomping on them when they're lying on the ground, or
the ubiquitous knee to the groin. As I see it, it's
the kind of attack that most people wouldn't even try
without being trained and if they did try would
certainly miss, so it wouldn't have any effect on the
combat. In fact, I'd also suggest a modification. The
Kick Attack gives you a +1 reach bonus to your kicking
attack, but it also gives anyone who attacks you after
that a +1 bonus to their attack, until your next
action (or the end of the combat round, I think). I'd
suggest that if you successfully attack your target
with the Kick Attack, then s/he DOES NOT get a +1
bonus to any subsequent attacks on you.

2. Multi-Strike - this one says that when you use it,
you only get a +1 penalty when "striking multiple
opponents", but the power of "each of your attacks" is
reduced by 1. Thing is, I don't recall a "striking
multiple opponents" rule in the main book, nor could I
find it in CC. Can anyone tell me what I'm missing
here?

3. Vicious Blow - this one apparently allows you to
cause physical damage with a weapon designed only to
cause stun damage. HOWEVER, none of the manoeuvres can
be used with weapons unless the skill gives you the
option of learning the manoeuvre with a weapon skill
(which only some of them do and which not ALL the
skills with the Vicious Blow manoeuvre do) and even
then you have to learn the manoeuvre with the unarmed
skill first. So that gives you the situation of
knowing Vicious Blow with both your martial art and
weapon skill, but only being able to use it with the
weapon skill, or even knowing it with JUST your
martial art skill (because that particular MA doesn't
give you the advantage of learning manoeuvres with
weapon skills) and not being able to use it. So is
this an exception? If you have Vicious Blow, can you
always just pick up a weapon and use your martial art
skill to whack someone with it? Or what?

4. Muay Thai - I don't understand the disadvantage.
Admittedly, I've only seen kickboxing on TV, but in
the matches I've watched, they do a lot of up close
work, with low kicks to the legs, knees to the stomach
etc. and punches. Muay Thai also has the Close Combat
manoeuvre. So why on earth is it penalised in close
quarters in the same way as Capoeira?

5. Has anyone adapted other martial arts to the new
rules? If so, I'd be extremely interested in seeing
what you've gotten. If not, would any of your martial
arts gurus be interested in doing so?

I'd be ESPECIALLY interested in seeing rules for Jeet
Kune Do.

Well, that was a big 'un, wasn't it?

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'-booner)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Message no. 18
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:24:29 EDT
In a message dated 4/27/00 4:56:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
docwagon101@*****.com writes:

> 2. Multi-Strike - this one says that when you use it,
> you only get a +1 penalty when "striking multiple
> opponents", but the power of "each of your attacks" is
> reduced by 1. Thing is, I don't recall a "striking
> multiple opponents" rule in the main book, nor could I
> find it in CC. Can anyone tell me what I'm missing
> here?

SR3, p. 122. Normally it's a +2 per additional target using the attacker's
base skill (don't have to split it). So 3 targets would be +0, +2, +4.

> 4. Muay Thai - I don't understand the disadvantage.
> Admittedly, I've only seen kickboxing on TV, but in
> the matches I've watched, they do a lot of up close
> work, with low kicks to the legs, knees to the stomach
> etc. and punches. Muay Thai also has the Close Combat
> manoeuvre. So why on earth is it penalised in close
> quarters in the same way as Capoeira?

I know. This is another way in which the CC rules for martial arts don't
agree with anything.

> 5. Has anyone adapted other martial arts to the new
> rules? If so, I'd be extremely interested in seeing
> what you've gotten. If not, would any of your martial
> arts gurus be interested in doing so?

Try this page on the DRF:
http://shadowrun.html.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000037.html

> I'd be ESPECIALLY interested in seeing rules for Jeet
> Kune Do.

I didn't post it, but a friend that's been taking JKD for years looked at it
and said that it was ok.

Jeet-Kune-Do
The Jeet-Kune-Do (way of the intercepting hand) style was created by Bruce
Lee. Jeet-Kune-Do is not a synthesis of any other existing arts. It is simply
and essentially whatever it needs to be at any given point in time. That it
resembles another art is evidence of that art’s inherent usefulness in combat
“Jeet” means “to stop” or “to intercept”, “Kune”
means “fist” or “Fighting
method” and “Do” is “the way” or the “Philosophy”.

Advantages: Characters using this art do not suffer the –1 to Power when
using the Multi-Strike maneuver.

Disadvantages: Jeet-Kune-Do practitioners may only use the Focus Strength
maneuver for attacking.

Maneuvers: Close Combat, Evade, Focus Strength, Herding, Kip-up,
Multi-Strike, Whirling, Zoning
Message no. 19
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
> > 2. Multi-Strike - this one says that when you use
it, you only get a +1 penalty when "striking multiple
opponents", but the power of "each of your attacks" is
reduced by 1. Thing is, I don't recall a "striking
multiple opponents" rule in the main book, nor could I
find it in CC. Can anyone tell me what I'm missing
here?
>
> SR3, p. 122. Normally it's a +2 per additional
target using the attacker's base skill (don't have to
split it). So 3 targets would be +0, +2, +4.

I'll have to re-read that (probably skipped over it -
doh!), but does this mean that you can actually attack
multiple times using one complex action, as long as
you're in combat with multiple opponents and you're
only attacking each one once?

> Try this page on the DRF:
>
http://shadowrun.html.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000037.html

Thanks.

> I didn't post it, but a friend that's been taking
JKD for years looked at it and said that it was ok.
>
> Jeet-Kune-Do
> The Jeet-Kune-Do (way of the intercepting hand)
style was created by Bruce Lee. Jeet-Kune-Do is not a
synthesis of any other existing arts. It is simply and
essentially whatever it needs to be at any given point
in time. That it resembles another art is evidence of
that art’s inherent usefulness in combat “Jeet” means
“to stop” or “to intercept”, “Kune” means “fist” or
“Fighting method” and “Do” is “the way” or the
“Philosophy”.
>
> Advantages: Characters using this art do not suffer
the –1 to Power when using the Multi-Strike maneuver.
>
> Disadvantages: Jeet-Kune-Do practitioners may only
use the Focus Strength maneuver for attacking.

IOW, you can only use Focus Strength when initiating
an attack, right? So say you use Focus Strength.
Normally, in the next pass you could attack someone
and get the bonus, right? If someone attacks you
BEFORE your next action, though, you DON'T get the
Focus Strength bonus, right? But do you also LOSE the
benefit of the Focus Strength manoeuvre, or are you
still considered "psyched up" for the next time you
attack?

> Maneuvers: Close Combat, Evade, Focus Strength,
Herding, Kip-up, Multi-Strike, Whirling, Zoning

Um, did you notice that this is only 8 manoeuvres,
while all the martial arts in CC have 9? I'm not sure
if that was done purposefully, or it just happened,
but it tends to indicate to me that FASA designed the
martial arts skills so they'd all have 9 manoeuvres.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'-booner)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Message no. 20
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, [iso-8859-1] Rand Ratinac wrote:

> > SR3, p. 122. Normally it's a +2 per additional
> target using the attacker's base skill (don't have to
> split it). So 3 targets would be +0, +2, +4.
>
> I'll have to re-read that (probably skipped over it -
> doh!), but does this mean that you can actually attack
> multiple times using one complex action, as long as
> you're in combat with multiple opponents and you're
> only attacking each one once?

Basically, yes. Although it doesn't preclude you from attacking
the same person more than once. Keep in mind, however, that choosing to
counterattack does not require an action. So you can try to hit someone a
number of times, but they'll get a chance to strike back each time you do.
I don't know if it's official or whether it's just assumed, but I don't
add +2 to the target number of the counterattack for each subsequent hit.
This keeps things sane, as eventually the target will hit you regardless
of how many dice you roll. It can help out characters with good skills in
desperate situations, though.

Marc
Message no. 21
From: Nightmare ... tarot0@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:52:39 CDT
Doc said:

>Can anyone tell me what I'm missing here? (re - multi-strike)

BBB, under melee combat.

>Vicious Blow - this one apparently allows you to
>cause physical damage with a weapon designed only to
>cause stun damage.

The way I interpet it, "weapon" includes the practitioner's hands & feet.

>Has anyone adapted other martial arts to the new
>rules? If so, I'd be extremely interested in seeing
>what you've gotten....I'd be ESPECIALLY interested in seeing rules >for
>Jeet Kune Do.

Here's PART of the chain reaction that CC has caused in my game:

Ch'In-Na (Kappo)
Often referred to as the Art of Seizing, Ch'In-Na is one of the fine martial
arts that utilizes nerve, tendon, and joint locks and strikes to disable an
opponent. This ancient Mongolian art is a predecessor to Jujitsu.
Advantages: +2 dice when using Subduing Combat.
Disadvantages: Ch'In-Na lacks in straight forward offense, and practitioners
suffer a -1 die penalty when attacking in normal combat.
Maneuvers: Close Combat, Disorient, Herding, Kick Attack, Pressure Points,
Sweep, Throw, Viscous Blow, Zoning

Fencing (Iaido, Kendo, Zanji-Shinjinken Ryu)
The European art of fencing revolves around the use of slim blades (and thus
the Edged Weapons skill). Fencing blades tend to be lighter than normal
swords, and thus only inflict (Strength+1)M damage. Iaido and
Zanji-Shinjiken Ryu are Japanese forms of sword fighting, legacies from
Japan's samurai heritage. They are based around the use and mastery of the
katana.
Advantages: All fencing maneuvers are performed armed.
Disadvantages: Fencing does not teach unarmed combat techniques.
Maneuvers: Armor Defeating, Strike, Blind Fighting, Disorient, Evasion, Full
Offense, Herding, Vicious Blow, Zoning

Jeet Kun Do
This variation of Kung Fu is the style Bruce Lee developed and means "Way of
the parrying punch." Its true name is June Fan Jeet Kun Do. Its main attack
is to block the opponent's attack, creating an opening and then delivering a
conflict stopping blow from within.
Advantages: Jeet Kun Do practitioners receive +1 dice when
counterattacking.
Disadvantages: -1 die when using Full Defense.
Maneuvers: Close Combat, Flying Strike, Focus Strength, Focus Will, Full
Offense, Kick Attack, Kip Up, Multi-strike, Sweep, Throw, Viscous Blow

Krav Maga
Krav Maga is the official fighting system used by Israel's Mossad
intelligence agency. The lethal nature of the Krav Maga system simulates
real life situations. It teaches people how to save lives and to cope with
common street violence. To be effective in the streets, Krav Maga cannot
include rules and limitations. Therefore, there are no sport competitions
for Krav Maga because it is designed to remain a realistic fighting system.
Advantages: Krav Maga practitioners require only two successes to stage
damage when using the Viscous Blow maneuver, not the normal four.
Disadvantages: Krav Maga is meant to kill, not subdue. Krav Maga
practitioners suffer a -3 dice penalty when using Subduing Combat.
Maneuvers: Close Combat, Focus Will, Full Offense, Kick Attack,
Multi-strike, Pressure Points, Sweep, Viscous Blow, Zoning

Armor Defeating Strike
A character using an Armor Defeating strike hits the opponent in such a way
as to bypass any armor he may be wearing. When making an Armor Defeating
Strike, the character suffers a +2 penalty to his Attack test, but only half
the target's Impact armor rating is used to defend against the attack.

Flying Strike
The Flying Strike maneuver covers all forms of jumping or leaping attacks,
be they kicks or other strikes. When performing a Flying Strike, the
character makes an Athletics test against a target number of 4 (+1 per two
full meters distant from target), and adds the successes achieved to his
subsequent Attack test. Flying Strike takes up a Complex Action, like a
normal attack phase, but only one target may be attacked in this manner per
phase.

Flying Strike may be gained as a maneuver for the arts of Brawling, Karate,
Kung Fu, Muay Thai, Ninjutsu, Tae Kwon Do, and Tai Chi Ch'uan in addition to
those mentioned above.

----

We "were" using the Style rules from TSS #11 for martial arts, but I adapted
them to CC too. Gotta love a book that prompts five hours of work...
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 22
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:22:01 -0400 (EDT)
"Nightmare ..." <tarot0@*******.com> writes:
Looks pretty decent overall, just a few suggestions.

A couple of your homebrew styles seem to have more Maneuvers (11) than
the listed styles (usually 8-9)... might want to consider taking off
a couple from each to balance them a bit better.

> Fencing (Iaido, Kendo, Zanji-Shinjinken Ryu)
> Advantages: All fencing maneuvers are performed armed.
> Disadvantages: Fencing does not teach unarmed combat techniques.

You might want to consider adding the advantage that Fencing
may be used for Edged Weapons tests if appropriately armed, and that
all Unarmed Combat tests are at, say, +2TN if not appropriately armed.
I'd feel really odd using Fencing in an unarmed fight at no
penalty, even if I have no available Maneuvers.

> Flying Strike
> The Flying Strike maneuver covers all forms of jumping or leaping attacks,
> be they kicks or other strikes. When performing a Flying Strike, the
> character makes an Athletics test against a target number of 4 (+1 per two
> full meters distant from target), and adds the successes achieved to his
> subsequent Attack test. Flying Strike takes up a Complex Action, like a
> normal attack phase, but only one target may be attacked in this manner per
> phase.

Wait, so I get to roll Athletics+Unarmed Combat+Combat Pool on
a flying strike? Umm, ouch? Flying strikes aren't this obscene in
real life, unless you nail an immobile opponent. An average starting
physad around here would be rolling dice numbering in the mid to upper
teens, maybe even in the twenties for Unarmed Combat tests with your
rules addition, before combat pool, in almost any situation. An
athletic human is as good as a non-flying physad with this rule....
I liked the vanilla rules that let you use Charging in
combination with other Maneuvers to simulate a flying strike.

Mark
Message no. 23
From: Nightmare ... tarot0@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 18:45:36 CDT
Mark wrote:

>A couple of your homebrew styles seem to have more Maneuvers (11) >than the
>listed styles (usually 8-9)... might want to consider >taking off a couple
>from each to balance them a bit better.

There's a reason for that, actually. Some of the new manuevers increase the
number of manuevers available to CC styles, so it ~kind of~ balances out.
Besides, not all martial arts are created equal or with the "cookie cutter"
method, despite what CC may lead us to believe.

>You might want to consider adding the advantage that Fencing
>may be used for Edged Weapons tests...I'd feel really odd using >Fencing in
>an unarmed fight at no penalty, even if I have no >available Maneuvers.

Umm, that advantage/disadvantage was meant to imply that fencing-class
styles CANNOT be used unarmed. They're more like an advanced Edged Weapons
skill in that way.

>Flying strikes aren't this obscene in real life, unless you nail an
> >immobile opponent.

You got me there. This little piece of mechanical unrealism reflects more
of my love for Van Damme (sp?)/American Ninja/Mortal Kombat style
martial arts. In my opinion, a unreality is bearable for the sake of style.
;)

>An athletic human is as good as a non-flying physad with this >rule....

Precisely. FASA opened up a can of worms that gives mundane, non-cybered
characters a chance against cyber or adept combat monsters when they
printed the new martial arts rules, as crude as CC makes them. In my
opinion, CC martial arts balanced SR and brought back some sanity to the
game, saving the endangered "non-cybered mundane" species from the verge of
extinction. I don't know if they intended it that way, but these rules
bring back to the game the "reality" that a highly trained and skilled
non-cybered mundane can be equal to or better than someone with just a bit
of training and cybernetic or magical "cheats". Personally, I love that
bit. It takes the overconfidence level of those cyber/adept muscle-types
down a bit if they're not too dense to realize that they just might not be
quite so "invincible" anymore. As an added plus, it makes the game more
realistic and adds to the tension when the PCs' attitudes get adjusted by a
mundane kicking their butts in a bar-fight. Now if FASA could just do
something similar in the way of Initiative dice...

>I liked the vanilla rules that let you use Charging in
>combination with other Maneuvers to simulate a flying strike.

They were pretty good, but in that case only Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido
practitioners could do "flying" strikes, and that just isn't the case...


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 24
From: Hahns Shin Hahns_Shin@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:33:31 -0500
Hmm... I never thought that SR could take the fun out of combat until now.
:-( As you can tell, I'm not happy with the CC Martial Arts rules. A few
years back, I made up some rules that were very similar to the CC Martial
Arts rules, almost verbatim. Among my players, I have a Tae Kwon Do black
belt who is also learning Hapkido and Tai Chi, a person who is learning
Capoeira, a high belt Judo who learned a little Aikido, etc, etc (I'm not
sure about the details). In fact, all of us have had some sort of physical
combat training, and we've taught each other some neat techniques over the
years. I had a lot of helpful input for the system, but when we playtested
it, it royally sucked. We brushed it under the carpet as a good try, and
played normal SR for a while... then the Cannon Companion comes out, and we
all had deja vu. I suppose our group has higher standards from what we
expect from a Martial Arts system because of our group composition and
expertise (then again, we all like Kung Fu/John Woo action flics, none of
which are realistic). The CC Martial Arts system might work wonders in some
groups, but until something more realistic or playable comes along (Aikido
and Jujitsu are equal, gameplay-wise???), we'll stick w/ abstracting it into
good ol' Unarmed Combat.

In fact, the only Martial Arts system that our group has ever liked is
Palladium's Ninjas and Superspies. Not for the realism, mind you, but for
the "cheesy action flic" mentality (any system in which a natural 20 can
kill automatically has a certain element of cheese). It also has a HUGE
list of Martial Arts (some of which only exist in Kung Fu movies) that all
seem to have their own "style" to them. I hope SR doesn't go this route,
but it would be interesting to see how N&S converts to SR rules.

Hahns
Message no. 25
From: acjpenn@******.com acjpenn@******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 17:45:29 -0500
> In fact, the only Martial Arts system that our group has ever liked is
> Palladium's Ninjas and Superspies. Not for the realism, mind you, but for
> the "cheesy action flic" mentality (any system in which a natural 20 can
> kill automatically has a certain element of cheese). It also has a HUGE
> list of Martial Arts (some of which only exist in Kung Fu movies) that
all
> seem to have their own "style" to them.

N&S is good, but IMO GURPS Martial Arts does it better.

Both are excellent resources. I've got the same gripes as above. I have
decided after multiple tries that no game system can handle unarmed combat
as it should exist, there's simply too many small details that can't be
handled. For the record, I've been in one or more martial arts systems
since I was young. I've got almost a decade of experince under my belt and
hold ranks (upper belt, brown and black in the bland system) in five. My
love, the one I always return home to, is Bujinkan Taijutsu. Had a player
try to handle that in game.. yeesh.. wasn't pretty.

Guess I'm drifting OT here, so I'll shut up.

Tig Da Pig

A sig is a sig, of course, of course,
Unless it's vulgar or coarse.
Then it's flame and you'll be wacked with a carp
By Gridsec till it's dead.
Message no. 26
From: Necron necron@*********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 13:06:16 -0400
>In fact, the only Martial Arts system that our group has ever liked is
>Palladium's Ninjas and Superspies. Not for the realism, mind you, but for
>the "cheesy action flic" mentality (any system in which a natural 20 can
>kill automatically has a certain element of cheese). It also has a HUGE
>list of Martial Arts (some of which only exist in Kung Fu movies) that all
>seem to have their own "style" to them. I hope SR doesn't go this route,
>but it would be interesting to see how N&S converts to SR rules.

>Hahns
I totally agree! CC's martial marts rules suck! But a solution is what im
working on, my personal fav for martial arts resources is GURPS Martial Arts
since it separates the realistic side of the style and the cinematic side
(like that crazy hand of death technique) I advise picking it up since it is
definetly one of the best resources for martial arts ive ever seen. In
addition, ive been slowly, ploddingly converting the styles, if you (or
anyone else on the list) would like to see some of the work mail me and ill
get it to you ASAP.
- Necron "Never stop evolving"
Message no. 27
From: C J Tipton arkades@****.com
Subject: CC martial arts
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:03:41 -0500
Could you fellas be a bit more specific, please? What IS the major
problem you see with the CC martial arts rules
as each of you see it?

Oh, by the by, I have a rant.

So all you guys got black belts, red sashes, golden gloves, or pretty
pink tu-tus. So the hell what?
"I know kung fu." So? The Cowboy's got a little bit of this'n'that, too.
But I've never been in a fight involving
more than 5 adult people, and none of those people wanted to see me dead.
This is not the case for most
Street sammies. Multiple opponents on his side and their side, some armed
and some not, some wanting to waste
him any way they can, some wanting to just to get out alive, and some too
damn scared to know what they want.
That's why it's called hand to hand COMBAT.

So when you guys post, please stick to discussions of what your own art
should be able to do
(e.g."Whadda ya mean Aikidos got no damn kip-up?) and what would be good
for the game,
and don't bore the Cowboy or anybody else with your "Best
Chop-Sockey"ribbons. If you haven't killed anybody
with your bare hands, your opinion is just an opinion.

<Cowboy pets the rant, which squeaks happily>

(Heavy Metal)COWBOY
CJ
Arkades@****.com
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 28
From: Hahns Shin Hahns_Shin@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:07:59 -0500
Hmm, I'll have to pick up a copy of GURPS Martial Arts... I'm a big fan of
the GURPS sourcebooks, though I'm not a big fan of playing GURPS. GURPS
Illuminati and Warehouse 23 are both excellent if you're into conspiracy
theories in your game (just the index alone is worth looking at). Lots of
material to read up on... I'm also a fan of Ars Magica for Hermetic texts
(the most academic magic system of all RPGs, and has that old-world Medieval
feel to it). Still doesn't solve my Martial Arts problem, though the
current abstract Unarmed rules work perfectly fine for me and my gaming
group. I once had a lab technician with an Unarmed of 4 take down a Sammie
with a Cyber-Implant of 5 in subduing combat, while another technician
pounded on his head with a chair. It wasn't pretty.

Hahns
Message no. 29
From: acjpenn@******.com acjpenn@******.com
Subject: CC martial arts
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 18:01:41 -0500
> Could you fellas be a bit more specific, please? What IS the major
> problem you see with the CC martial arts rules
> as each of you see it?

First off, my post was simply to say I agree, most rules can't handle
martial arts, or unarmed combat. Second, I put forward that GURPS Martial
Arts handles the system well. Third, I have no major complaint with the
shadowrun rules. That's later. First:

> Oh, by the by, I have a rant.
>
> So all you guys got black belts, red sashes, golden gloves, or pretty
> pink tu-tus. So the hell what?

*shrug* I stated my experience to give my statement meaning. Doesn't mean
a lot to most people.

> "I know kung fu." So? The Cowboy's got a little bit of this'n'that, too.
> But I've never been in a fight involving
> more than 5 adult people, and none of those people wanted to see me dead.

Really? Then by my definitinon, you've never been in a fight. In a fight,
someone wants to see you dead, and they have no qualms about getting you
there.

> This is not the case for most
> Street sammies. Multiple opponents on his side and their side, some armed
> and some not, some wanting to waste
> him any way they can, some wanting to just to get out alive, and some too
> damn scared to know what they want.
> That's why it's called hand to hand COMBAT.

Granted.

> So when you guys post, please stick to discussions of what your own art
> should be able to do
> (e.g."Whadda ya mean Aikidos got no damn kip-up?) and what would be good
> for the game,
> and don't bore the Cowboy or anybody else with your "Best
> Chop-Sockey"ribbons. If you haven't killed anybody
> with your bare hands, your opinion is just an opinion.

This is totally offensive and and I heavliy disagree with your opinion.
*sigh* Now I'm ranting.
What should my art be able to do? I'll lay the basics. My "art" SHOULD
and DOES provide the ability to defend yourself in any situation. Sitting,
standing, kneeling, on your back, asleep, in water, ANYWHERE. My art
provides a new way for your body to move, maximizing your own potential.
This way of moving ties in with a way of attacking so that it becomes
impossible to defend against it. Attacks become reversals become hold
become whatever is required. My art also encompases training in over 12
weapons. Not your "pick up the stick and swing it" but comprehensive
training so that each is deadly in trained hands. My art provides a way of
living. A code in Bushido. A lifestyle in Fubu, the martial wind. A
ideal in the samurai, men unafraid of death. A knowledge of the true
meaning of an old cliche' that with great power comes great responsiblity.
A way of looking, living, learning, a way of BEING.

But, this is all the icing on the cake. What's the cake?

My art is about killing. I'm not bragging, I'm not trying to make myself
look like some big action star, this is true. My art kills. If someone
attacks me and I get the chance to attack back, what I know can kill, if
applied will kill.
Your statement shows total disregard to the most basic concepts of ANY art,
anywhere. With this knowledge you (and I mean anyone who makes a serious
study of the martial arts) are deadly. Control of the self and the
situation is given paramount importance in any good training. Control of
these techniques, control of your situation so these techniques never have
to be used. I'm glad you've never been in a fight with someone out to kill
you. It isn't cinematic, it isn't pretty, it's the ugliest thing you'll
ever see and you'll get sick after it happens. Your blanket "if you've
never killed, your opinion isn't worthwhile" could be considered absurd and
childish by some. And if anyone on the list HAS killed anyone in a
situation, do you honestly think they'll open up about it?

I'm not going to apologize for "boring" you. I could care less about you.
I made a statement about my experience to give my viewpoint some
credibility. I'm sorry you "got bored" by it and decided to swager on here
with your attitude that sickens me.

Now, I'll get specific. I've never found a system of Martial Arts rules
that can cover a hand to hand situation realisticly. I haven't had a
chance to go completley over the rules in C&C, so I can't speak for them.
I like the abstracted rules in shadworun because they leave the situation
open for interpretation, IMO. Adding detail stands a very good chance of
ruining that.

Why can't a rules set live up to my expectation? In a fight there are far
too many little things to cover. If you attempted to make a rule for each
movement (important to the whole) you'd be rolling forever. How do you
make a distinction between a newbie and someone who's been in the art for a
long time? Dice? Not going to work. You'll be dealing with ridiculous
die codes and rolls. What about improvisation? This is the one I have the
most trouble with. Most rules give you set actions to preform and seem
completley ingnorant that someone competant can change what they are doing
in mid-motion. It's called "chambering" and "transition" and most
higher
belts can do it with ease. What about multiple movements tied into one
relfex? Most of the learning of an art is carried out this way. In most
rules, you must roll for one and then the other, with in reality the motion
are connected into being one thing and one thing only..

These are just a few of the minor complaints I have with rules. Again, I
love the rules in SR. They provide an abstract that allows for so much
freedom. I'm just wary that added detail will destroy an otherwise fine
rule system.


Tig Da Pig
Message no. 30
From: C J Tipton arkades@****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:07:34 -0500
No excuses. I actually meant to affect a reaction with that.

And for the record, what I said was that their opinion was just an
opinion. And I included myself in that bracket earlier in the post. I've
been listening to BS'ing and bragging since before I started school. It's
just that mostly. Kinda' gets old.

Hell, they call them MARTIAL arts because most of them are rooted in a
MARTIAL application. They all have techniques
that are capable of killing or dismembering an opponent if properly
applied. But it isn't just about the body of techniques.
Has a great deal to do with the mindset required to actually finish an
opponent, not in a single move delivered by a master, but in a final blow
to a dazed but still standing opponent who you think would waste you if
the situation were reversed, and will certainly try if you give him the
chance to get up. Not everybody can make the decision to kill or be
killed.

I've lost fights. I've won fights. If a fight is about killing or wanting
to kill, I'd be dead Tig, not to mention being guilty of multiple
homicides. Fact is that in our world, fighting is more often than not
about two guys who had too many beers demonstrating physical dominance.
And my art is about Evasion,Control, AND Destruction. I don't wanna kill
anybody. I just want the guy to drop the bottle. He don't wanna kill me.
He just doesn't want to lose the fight his mouth got his butt into. True,
he might kill me with that bottle. But it isn't what either of us want.
which is why you wing a chair at him and hope the bouncers are their by
then. Cause they don't want anybody to kill anybody.

Shadowrun combats often do involve the desire of one or both parties to
kill, however.
I don't expect anybody to volunteer an "I killed them dead with my two
hands and a pipe wrench", either.
Not that living a life of martial dignity would allow it. But then again,
people where figuring out ways to kill one another
long before Chivalry, eastern or western either one.

BACK OT: Gotta agree with you about keeping it generic, though. Makes
story telling a fight a lot simpler and cuts down
on the munchkin factor immensely.

COWBOY(<tips his hat to TigdaPig>)
CJ
Arkades@****.com
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 31
From: acjpenn@******.com acjpenn@******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 20:47:03 -0500
{tip of the hat back}

Glad we agree on some things. The only major differnece I see is that I
refuse to allow myself into the situation with trying to prove dominance.
I'm not trying to say I'm better, just that we're different. : )

Good Gaming!

Tig Da Pig
Message no. 32
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 20:07:36 GMT
>From: C J Tipton <arkades@****.com>
>I don't expect anybody to volunteer an "I killed them dead with my two
>hands and a pipe wrench", either.

*Phil looks to Doc expectantly*

>BACK OT: Gotta agree with you about keeping it generic, though. Makes
>story telling a fight a lot simpler and cuts down
>on the munchkin factor immensely.

The only real fault I found with the old unarmed fights was that characters
could specialise in certain martial arts, you could start with Unarmed
(Akido) 5(7) and up it to 5(10) for a lot less karma than raising a skill
all the way up to 10.

I also think it would not have been that difficult to add 1 more page in CC
to split the styles up a bit and add some more; that's what I think the big
criticism most people had was.

Phil
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 33
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 18:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
> >I don't expect anybody to volunteer an "I killed
them dead with my two hands and a pipe wrench",
either.
>
> *Phil looks to Doc expectantly*

Hey, I thought I had a reputation as a (cyber)sexual
deviant, not a pipe wrench-murderer!

Anyway, I'm just a big wuss, so if I ever killed
anyone, I'd use Gun-Fu. ;)

*Doc' flips his nun-pack-u (Gun-Fu name for pistol)
about his body and accidentally pistol-whips himself
in the groin...*

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
Message no. 34
From: Hahns Shin Hahns_Shin@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:25:23 -0500
Hey, don't knock my Pink tu-tu Martial Art. :-) I trained in West Side Story
for that one. (I know, I know, West Side Story isn't a ballet, but the
combat in that musical looks like it's out of a Tchaikovsky ballet).
Seriously, I realize that combat is NOT just waving your arms around in
katas or a rehearsed choreography. It is improvisation, technique, fear,
control, and a whole lot of other things rolled into one. Under that
definition, Unarmed Combat is the amalgamation and integration of everything
a character has learned in fighting hand-to-hand.

The two main reasons I don't like CC Martial Arts rules: 1) It reduces
Martial Arts to technique and knowledge. Just because a person knows Aikido
doesn't mean he/she doesn't know how to throw a decent punch or kick. By
the same token, a person who can break bricks with his/her fists isn't able
to focus that kind of power on a moving, resisting opponent. When someone
fights, he doesn't reduce himself to a single "style".... he uses everything
he knows and hopes for the best. 2) The rules cannot do justice to the
combination of training, hardening, philosophy, and technique that goes into
a combined Martial Art. I don't think any rules can... it'd be too hard to
describe and too hard to resolve in a gameplay situation. In short, I'll
stick to abstracting it.

The times in which I have fought in hand-to-hand (or a close approximation
of it), I have disarmed, disabled, or immobilized my opponent. My body of
knowledge is not to kill, but to prevent harm to myself. Some Martial Arts
focus on turning the body into a weapon. Others focus on turning the body
into a flowing vessel, or an impenetrable shield. Philosophies differ on
what is a true Martial Art, but I believe that I have learned something of
hand-to-hand combat, both from my teachers and from the knee-to-groin school
of combat. I can't claim that I've learned a body of knowledge that even
resembles an accepted Martial Art (a wrist lock here, a hip throw there,
even a kip-up when I was bored after stretching one day), but very few
people can. Most people learn how to fight... the trick is learning how to
fight effectively, and Martial Arts is merely a means to that end.

Hahns
Message no. 35
From: Hahns Shin Hahns_Shin@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:34:02 -0500
Here's an idea submitted by one of my players (who is crestfallen that we
aren't using the Martial Arts rules... he's a new guy, and unaware of our
past debacle): Have a Martial Arts style be a specialization of Unarmed
Combat, but the rating points only count for the purposes of learning
techniques. So the base Unarmed skill would still be rolled in combat, but
a specialization in, say, Aikido allows you to gain the benefits/drawbacks
of the style and select rating/2 techniques. I know that this was the way
they had it in SR2 (loosely... never properly defined), but for some reason,
his suggestion sounded more intuitive and playable than the way it was
presented in the Cannon Companion. This way, Adepts can still get Unarmed
increased ability dice, etc. The consequence is that it would be much
easier to learn a new Martial Art (simply specialize off of the Unarmed base
skill), but if you are a master at Unarmed Combat, wouldn't that be the case
anyway? Don't know... I might playtest for a while and see what happens.

Hahns
Message no. 36
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 07:39:27 -0600
Hahns Shin wrote:

>The two main reasons I don't like CC Martial Arts rules: 1) It reduces
>Martial Arts to technique and knowledge. Just because a person knows Aikido
>doesn't mean he/she doesn't know how to throw a decent punch or kick. By
>the same token, a person who can break bricks with his/her fists isn't able
>to focus that kind of power on a moving, resisting opponent. When someone
>fights, he doesn't reduce himself to a single "style".... he uses everything
>he knows and hopes for the best. 2) The rules cannot do justice to the
>combination of training, hardening, philosophy, and technique that goes into
>a combined Martial Art. I don't think any rules can... it'd be too hard to
>describe and too hard to resolve in a gameplay situation. In short, I'll
>stick to abstracting it.

Also, the rules don't specify, IMHO, that a character's unarmed combat
skill reflects their ability to fight, not their martial arts
knowledge. IMO the number of techniques that a person knows should be a
function of Knowledge: Martial Arts skill.

I've taken Hapkido for a year and a half. Hapkido is a particularly brutal
martial art. I know how to maim people. But can I do it in a
fight? Honestly, probably not, unless I get lucky or my opponent isn't
much better at fighting than I am. If I were to ever end up facing off
against an experienced fighter, I'd probably get my ass
whupped. Why? Because Hapkido doesn't train me to fight. All of the
techniques I know have been taught in a controlled environment (if they
weren't, Hapkido students would spend a lot of time in the
hospital). Occasionally we spar, and then it quickly becomes apparent that
knowledge and fighting ability are not the same.

Martial arts knowledge and training does not necessarily equate with an
ability to fight. Few martial arts actually train their students to
fight. Tae Kwan Do and Karate are the only two that are coming to mind at
the moment that train their students to fight, and then it's in a
controlled situation with rules. A street fight is not a controlled
situation, and it has no rules.

IMO a character with unarmed combat skill is someone who as actual
experience fighting. I'm going to experiment with treating martial arts as
a knowledge skill that can be used as a complimentary skill to unarmed
combat. And maybe a martial artist can default from the complimentary
skill to martial arts (so every two successes would count as one success
and the TN would be increased). Anyone have any thoughts?

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Warm nights, good food, kindred spirits....great life!"
Message no. 37
From: JKeith Henry neojudas@******************.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:18:08 -0500
From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
Subject: Re: CC Martial Arts


> Hahns Shin wrote:
>
> >The two main reasons I don't like CC Martial Arts rules: 1) It reduces
> >Martial Arts to technique and knowledge. Just because a person knows
Aikido
> >doesn't mean he/she doesn't know how to throw a decent punch or kick. By
> >the same token, a person who can break bricks with his/her fists isn't
able
> >to focus that kind of power on a moving, resisting opponent. When
someone
> >fights, he doesn't reduce himself to a single "style".... he uses
everything
> >he knows and hopes for the best.

Actually, it may seem that it works this way, but just wait and try it the
way that David is suggesting and you'll discover more problems than they are
worth if you are not careful.

> >2) The rules cannot do justice to the
> >combination of training, hardening, philosophy, and technique that goes
into
> >a combined Martial Art. I don't think any rules can... it'd be too hard
to
> >describe and too hard to resolve in a gameplay situation. In short, I'll
> >stick to abstracting it.

Which is exactly what the rules in the CC do. If you go too far beyond them
as they stand now in CC, you are going to be straying into the area of "deep
abstraction" and that will likely take the concept farther than most people
are prepared to do. Try it though, you may find that it works well for
yourself (we all define reality by our own viewpoint after all), but it may
not work well as a "happy medium".

> Also, the rules don't specify, IMHO, that a character's unarmed combat
> skill reflects their ability to fight, not their martial arts
> knowledge. IMO the number of techniques that a person knows should be a
> function of Knowledge: Martial Arts skill.

Dave, we've been using this for a while now, and there are a couple of
hang-ups you are likely to encounter trying this.

> I've taken Hapkido for a year and a half. Hapkido is a particularly
brutal
> martial art. I know how to maim people. But can I do it in a
> fight? Honestly, probably not, unless I get lucky or my opponent isn't
> much better at fighting than I am. If I were to ever end up facing off
> against an experienced fighter, I'd probably get my ass
> whupped. Why? Because Hapkido doesn't train me to fight. All of the
> techniques I know have been taught in a controlled environment (if they
> weren't, Hapkido students would spend a lot of time in the
> hospital). Occasionally we spar, and then it quickly becomes apparent
that
> knowledge and fighting ability are not the same.

As it should, if for not other reason that sparring is a concept of
"laboratory practice".

> Martial arts knowledge and training does not necessarily equate with an
> ability to fight. Few martial arts actually train their students to
> fight. Tae Kwan Do and Karate are the only two that are coming to mind at
> the moment that train their students to fight, and then it's in a
> controlled situation with rules. A street fight is not a controlled
> situation, and it has no rules.

True of course, except for the "street fighter", who has an understanding of
it, even if it is not one that can be defined in mechanical terminology.

> IMO a character with unarmed combat skill is someone who as actual
> experience fighting. I'm going to experiment with treating martial arts
as
> a knowledge skill that can be used as a complimentary skill to unarmed
> combat. And maybe a martial artist can default from the complimentary
> skill to martial arts (so every two successes would count as one success
> and the TN would be increased). Anyone have any thoughts?

And of course this is a functional trick. As I mentioned previously, we've
been doing this now for quite a while. It was something that actually
occurred to us when we first read SR3 and looked at the idea of
"complimentary skills" as a whole.

The one really/truly significant drawback is this method can literally throw
away the entire Combat Pool mechanic. Remember, "skills" do not have a
limit on refresher rates like Pools do. That and most, if not all,
complimentary skills are going to be relatively cheap (karma wise) to
develop. For instance, as a test-field example I took the Tai Chi skills
for Padre', who also had "Tai Chi Maneuvers" (best terms to use quickly) as
the complimentary skill to go with it. Every Tai Chi martial art action
(aka; melee combat) also immediately came forth with the complimentary skill
as well. Hence, we almost doubling the effective skill even though the dice
for the complimentary used the two-to-one mechanic.

If you use your "Unarmed Combat" with "Martial Art Style"
complimentary
task, you are basically going to be performing the same trick.

Also, remember that if you perform the skill test in this manner you will
effectively be just adding on more and more dice as the Combat Pool is still
a function of the base skill's ability on the choice of the player/GM.

Other hang ups when using this system arise when considering how many
"special maneuvers" the character knows. If you use the complimentary skill
as the basis, you are in fact making them more available because the cost to
aquire them has most likely been dropped (background skill vs. active skill
cost).

I know as people we don't tend to believe or agree with each other anymore
when it comes to execution of an abstract game mechanic. But I do request
that you *really* look at your *reasons* you don't like the given mechanic
before you go about changing them. I've been noting that people who don't
like the CC MA mechanics the most tend to be the ones "who know martial
arts" themselves. Now I'm not saying I'm in complete agreement with them
(old discussion topic) either, but I am saying that I have enough
understanding of the overall situation to realize that if I don't like
something of a broad/abstract mechanic and I want to change it, I should
also remember the impact it will have on my players as well.

The example of Shin's is that "the new guy" didn't understand the topic, and
as such Shin's group had to explain an additional mechanic to the new guy so
he'd be up to speed. What Shin may not have realized is that perhaps the
new guy may have had his own opinions about martial arts in general, and
perhaps (prior to be engulfed by the group/pack mentality) he disagreed with
the group's decision.

House Rules are great for many things, it's part of why we discuss things
like we do on this list and in other places, but at the same time
occasionally we really should consider the overall picture and how are
changes will impact the game mechanics as a whole.

<ending unintentional soapbox blathering now>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NeoJudas ("K" to Friends)
"Children of the Kernel: Reborn"
(neojudas@******************.com)
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
Message no. 38
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:53:25 -0400
Around 09:39 AM 6/5/00, dbuehrer@******.carl.org was mumbling about:
>Also, the rules don't specify, IMHO, that a character's unarmed combat
>skill reflects their ability to fight, not their martial arts
>knowledge. IMO the number of techniques that a person knows should be a
>function of Knowledge: Martial Arts skill.
>
>I've taken Hapkido for a year and a half. Hapkido is a particularly
>brutal martial art. I know how to maim people. But can I do it in a
>fight? Honestly, probably not, unless I get lucky or my opponent isn't
>much better at fighting than I am. If I were to ever end up facing off
>against an experienced fighter, I'd probably get my ass
>whupped. Why? Because Hapkido doesn't train me to fight. All of the
>techniques I know have been taught in a controlled environment (if they
>weren't, Hapkido students would spend a lot of time in the
>hospital). Occasionally we spar, and then it quickly becomes apparent
>that knowledge and fighting ability are not the same.
>
>Martial arts knowledge and training does not necessarily equate with an
>ability to fight. Few martial arts actually train their students to
>fight. Tae Kwan Do and Karate are the only two that are coming to mind at
>the moment that train their students to fight, and then it's in a
>controlled situation with rules. A street fight is not a controlled
>situation, and it has no rules.
>
>IMO a character with unarmed combat skill is someone who as actual
>experience fighting. I'm going to experiment with treating martial arts
>as a knowledge skill that can be used as a complimentary skill to unarmed
>combat. And maybe a martial artist can default from the complimentary
>skill to martial arts (so every two successes would count as one success
>and the TN would be increased). Anyone have any thoughts?

Instead of making it that complex, how about just bringing back the Unarmed
Combat skill as an Active skill, and then the martial art as the Knowledge
Skill. The martial art skill is the one you use to keep track of the
different maneuvers you can learn, the unarmed combat is the skill you use
for combat tests. That means that you are going to have to learn more
skills than the CC, but you get more flexibility.

I'd rather stay away from complimentary skills affecting combat though.
There are already enough dice floating around with Combat and Karma pool.
How about as a bonus for the martial arts guys, you can use your knowledge
skill as a "Linked Attribute" instead of Strength for purposes of the Karma
costs and training time for raising the Unarmed Combat Skill. So the old
master with the strength of 2 can still raise his "Death Fu" to ridiculous
levels because his knowledge skill is so high, fitting in well with a
cinematic theme.

Some ramifications of this method are that it makes it ridiculously easy to
make martial arts that concentrate more intensely on the use of weapons. A
kenjutsu skill would allow you to learn maneuvers for use with the sword,
and would roll Edged Weapons during combat. For "sport" forms like judo,
the martial art Knowledge skill is linked "Sport Unarmed Combat" instead of
Unarmed Combat. With the sport version, all Power ratings are halved, and 4
successes are needed to stage up damage.

Off the cuff, how does this sound?

Sommers
Aerospace engineers build weapon systems. Civil engineers build targets.
Message no. 39
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:27:17 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 acjpenn@******.com wrote:

> My love, the one I always return home to, is Bujinkan Taijutsu. Had a
> player try to handle that in game.. yeesh.. wasn't pretty.

That's because it's not just a vanilla Unarmed Combat skill.
Training in the Bujinkan instills skills that run the entire gamut from
Armed Combat to Stealth (and Alertness) to Athletics to Thrown Weapons.
I've been training in the Bujinkan for over six years now, and it still
just boggles my mind how much there is to learn.
Martial Arts can be done right in SR, you just have to keep in
mind that SR's combat system is abstract. It's not blow-by-blow, and it
never will be. As such, so long as you're willing to just go with it and
think in terms of broad goals rather than specific moves, it can be pretty
cool. With a few minor tweaks (like reducing the melee called-shot
modifier to +2 instead of +4, something which has precedent in the halving
of visibility modifiers in melee), you can drastically expand your
possibilities.

Marc
Message no. 40
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 09:45:17 -0600
JKeith Henry wrote:

When are you going to change your email options to reflect your new alias? :)

>From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
>
> > Also, the rules don't specify, IMHO, that a character's unarmed combat
> > skill reflects their ability to fight, not their martial arts
> > knowledge. IMO the number of techniques that a person knows should be a
> > function of Knowledge: Martial Arts skill.
>
>Dave, we've been using this for a while now, and there are a couple of
>hang-ups you are likely to encounter trying this.

Thanks for the input.

> > IMO a character with unarmed combat skill is someone who as actual
> > experience fighting. I'm going to experiment with treating martial arts
>as
> > a knowledge skill that can be used as a complimentary skill to unarmed
> > combat. And maybe a martial artist can default from the complimentary
> > skill to martial arts (so every two successes would count as one success
> > and the TN would be increased). Anyone have any thoughts?
>
>And of course this is a functional trick. As I mentioned previously, we've
>been doing this now for quite a while. It was something that actually
>occurred to us when we first read SR3 and looked at the idea of
>"complimentary skills" as a whole.
>
>The one really/truly significant drawback is this method can literally throw
>away the entire Combat Pool mechanic. Remember, "skills" do not have a
>limit on refresher rates like Pools do. That and most, if not all,
>complimentary skills are going to be relatively cheap (karma wise) to
>develop.

I can't remember, is the karma multiplier to develop Knowledge skills
x1? IMO it should be x2. In any case, you are in effect paying a fair
ammount of karma for a complimentary skill because of the 2-1 rule.

>For instance, as a test-field example I took the Tai Chi skills
>for Padre', who also had "Tai Chi Maneuvers" (best terms to use quickly) as
>the complimentary skill to go with it. Every Tai Chi martial art action
>(aka; melee combat) also immediately came forth with the complimentary skill
>as well. Hence, we almost doubling the effective skill even though the dice
>for the complimentary used the two-to-one mechanic.

My house rule regarding complimentary skills is to replace the two-to-one
success mechanic by dividing the complimentary skill by two and rounding
down to determine the number of additional dice. Pretty much the same
outcome, just a different way of approaching it.

Also, I would limit the number of combat pool dice that can be added by the
unarmed combat skill, not the number of dice being rolled for the test. If
a character has Unarmed Combat 4, and Martial Arts 5, they would be rolling
6 dice and could add up to 4 dice from their combat pool.

Your physad could get obscene with Unarmed Combat 6, Martial Arts 6, +6
dice for unarmed combat, and 6 combat pool dice, for a total of 21 dice
(6+3+6+6) for an unarmed combat test. However, I don't have a problem with
a physad rolling that many dice for an unarmed combat test as I feel
Physads should be able to get to the top of the food chain when it comes to
unarmed combat :)

>Other hang ups when using this system arise when considering how many
>"special maneuvers" the character knows. If you use the complimentary skill
>as the basis, you are in fact making them more available because the cost to
>aquire them has most likely been dropped (background skill vs. active skill
>cost).

Ah, I wasn't specific. I meant to say that I would prefer to define
Martial Arts as a knowledge skill that can be used as a complimentary skill
for unarmed combat *instead* of using specific/general maneuvers and/or
techniques. I.e., I would like to use the complimentary dice as an
abstraction of the character's use of martial arts in unarmed combat.

>House Rules are great for many things, it's part of why we discuss things
>like we do on this list and in other places, but at the same time
>occasionally we really should consider the overall picture and how are
>changes will impact the game mechanics as a whole.
>
><ending unintentional soapbox blathering now>

<helps K down off his soapbox>

Thanks for the input and feedback :)

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"All things are at all times, in motion. Take the time to watch the dance."
-John Caeser Leafston
Message no. 41
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, C J Tipton wrote:

> I've lost fights. I've won fights. If a fight is about killing or wanting
> to kill, I'd be dead Tig, not to mention being guilty of multiple
> homicides.

If you think that a fight, any kind of fight is not deadly
serious, you're an idiot (no offense). The fact of the matter is that
whether you intend it or not, it is alarmingly easy to cause serious,
permanent harm to the human body in a fight. The problem with real combat
is that there are too many variables. You can't control everything, and
if you're lucky and skilled you'll at maybe be *aware* of most of it.

> Fact is that in our world, fighting is more often than not about two
> guys who had too many beers demonstrating physical dominance.
> And my art is about Evasion,Control, AND Destruction. I don't wanna kill
> anybody. I just want the guy to drop the bottle. He don't wanna kill me.
> He just doesn't want to lose the fight his mouth got his butt into. True,
> he might kill me with that bottle. But it isn't what either of us want.
> which is why you wing a chair at him and hope the bouncers are their by
> then. Cause they don't want anybody to kill anybody.

Yes, he might kill you with that bottle. You might kill him with
the chair. Or break a jaw. Or crush an eye. You might not even be
intending to hurt him, just slow him down until the cavalry arrives to
throw you both out. But combat is by its very nature unpredictable, and
if you get into fights regularly and haven't been seriously injured or
injured someone else yet, you're just lucky.
It's not about punking out the drunk guy before he pounds you
down. It's about knowing what's at stake and realizing that even
unintended actions can cause lasting damage. It's about being prepared to
do whatever it takes to end a situation definitively and in your favor.
If that means walking into a bar, seeing that there are rowdy drunks
present, and leaving before you have your first beer, then you've just
understood your first lesson about real combat.

Marc
Message no. 42
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:05:34 -0600
Sommers wrote:
>How about as a bonus for the martial arts guys, you can use your knowledge
>skill as a "Linked Attribute" instead of Strength for purposes of the
>Karma costs and training time for raising the Unarmed Combat Skill. So the
>old master with the strength of 2 can still raise his "Death Fu" to
>ridiculous levels because his knowledge skill is so high, fitting in well
>with a cinematic theme.

I must have missed the bit about Unarmed Combat being linked to Strength
for purposes of karma cost and training. Because if I had, I would have
raised bloody hell.

Martial arts techniques are not based on strength, they are based on technique.

Technique beats out strength every time. I'm 6'2". My sister is 5'2" and
weighs half as much as I do. I'm much stronger than she is. However, she
is also a 2nd Dan and her technique is good enough that she can do pretty
much anything she wants with me. I'm only a 6th Gup (1/3 the way to Black
Belt) and if my technique isn't right I can't gain control over the
lightest of my fellow students. And god forbid if they are in my weight
class (went to throw someone my size once and ended up throwing myself :)

In my Hapkido class we break boards during tests. If one does not use
proper technique, it doesn't matter how strong one is, that board will not
break. I've learned this from experience. However, if one uses proper
technique, even if one is a not so strong, that board doesn't stand a
chance. If my sister performs a kick with proper technique she can put
almost all of her mass behind that kick. There isn't a bone in the human
body that can withstand 100 pounds of force moving at speed.

Watch a professional boxer sometime, a good one. Watch their hips when
they throw a punch. Their hips rotate with the punch. Almost their entire
upper body and most of their lower body is behind that punch. If the boxer
weighs 230, there's almost 200 pounds behind that punch. Even when they
are throwing jabs, they are putting a lot of body into that jab.

If unarmed combat should be linked to any attribute, it should be linked to
quickness.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"What you are doing at the moment must be exactly what
you are doing at the moment--and nothing else."
Message no. 43
From: JKeith Henry neojudas@******************.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:34:50 -0500
From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
Subject: Re: CC Martial Arts


<SNIP(TM)!!> If unarmed combat should be linked to any attribute, it should
be linked to
> quickness.

Actually, my suggestion was to link ALL combat skills to Reaction
(non-modified for cyber or anything else) to reflect physical coordination
along with mental reactivity.

But....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NeoJudas ("K" to Friends)
"Children of the Kernel: Reborn"
(neojudas@******************.com)
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
Message no. 44
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:38:38 -0600
JKeith Henry wrote:
>From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
>Subject: Re: CC Martial Arts
>
>
><SNIP(TM)!!> If unarmed combat should be linked to any attribute, it should
>be linked to
> > quickness.
>
>Actually, my suggestion was to link ALL combat skills to Reaction
>(non-modified for cyber or anything else) to reflect physical coordination
>along with mental reactivity.
>
>But....

<ponders.. intelligence+quickness+willpower, reflects on personal experience..>

Sorry K, I forgot about Reaction (I tend to think of the primary stats and
forget about the secondary ones), but I agree that the link attribute for
unarmed combat should be Reaction.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Apparently I'm insane. But I'm one of the happy kinds!"
-Wally
Message no. 45
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 12:57:51 -0400
Around 12:05 PM 6/5/00, dbuehrer@******.carl.org was mumbling about:
>Sommers wrote:
>>How about as a bonus for the martial arts guys, you can use your
>>knowledge skill as a "Linked Attribute" instead of Strength for purposes

>>of the Karma costs and training time for raising the Unarmed Combat
>>Skill. So the old master with the strength of 2 can still raise his
>>"Death Fu" to ridiculous levels because his knowledge skill is so high,
>>fitting in well with a cinematic theme.
>
>I must have missed the bit about Unarmed Combat being linked to Strength
>for purposes of karma cost and training. Because if I had, I would have
>raised bloody hell.

AFAIK, all of the melee combat skills are based off of Strength, except for
Monowhips (or maybe all whips). This does makes sense to me from a logical
point of view. If two characters have exactly equal skills, the guy with a
strength of 6 should be able to do more damage than the guy with a strength
of 3.

>Martial arts techniques are not based on strength, they are based on
>technique.

<Snip Stuff>

Little bit of circular logic, but I know what you mean. ;) That's exactly
WHY I suggest the techniques come from the knowledge skill. If you also
default the Unarmed Combat from that knowledge skill, it very nicely starts
to reflect that with better training you can go beyond your (possible)
physical limitations.

>If unarmed combat should be linked to any attribute, it should be linked
>to quickness.

But aren't there several martial arts out there that should be based off of
Strength. The difference between a lightweight fighter and a Tyson 'smash
em til they fall down' bruiser? How about for new styles an additional
edge: default unarmed combat and determine power from Quickness instead of
strength.

Sommers
Aerospace engineers build weapon systems. Civil engineers build targets.
Message no. 46
From: JKeith Henry neojudas@******************.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:05:17 -0500
From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
Subject: Re: CC Martial Arts


> ><SNIP(TM)!!> If unarmed combat should be linked to any attribute, it
should
> >be linked to
> > > quickness.
> >
> >Actually, my suggestion was to link ALL combat skills to Reaction
> >(non-modified for cyber or anything else) to reflect physical
coordination
> >along with mental reactivity.
> <ponders.. intelligence+quickness+willpower, reflects on personal
experience..>
>
> Sorry K, I forgot about Reaction (I tend to think of the primary stats and
> forget about the secondary ones), but I agree that the link attribute for
> unarmed combat should be Reaction.

Uhm, just so I know we are thinking along the same grounds, where/when did
"Willpower" come into being part of the Reaction formula??? (confused look)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NeoJudas ("K" to Friends)
"Children of the Kernel: Reborn"
(neojudas@******************.com)
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
Message no. 47
From: JKeith Henry neojudas@******************.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:06:55 -0500
From: "Sommers" <sommers@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: CC Martial Arts


> AFAIK, all of the melee combat skills are based off of Strength, except
for
> Monowhips (or maybe all whips). This does makes sense to me from a logical
> point of view. If two characters have exactly equal skills, the guy with a
> strength of 6 should be able to do more damage than the guy with a
strength
> of 3.

Actually, if you consider it appropriately, the person with a higher
strength WILL probably do more damage than the person with the lower
strength, presuming the higher-strength individual can make a solid
connection/attack against their opponent.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NeoJudas ("K" to Friends)
"Children of the Kernel: Reborn"
(neojudas@******************.com)
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
Message no. 48
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:03:09 -0600
Sommers wrote:
>Around 12:05 PM 6/5/00, dbuehrer@******.carl.org was mumbling about:
>
>>If unarmed combat should be linked to any attribute, it should be linked
>>to quickness.

Thanks to K I now believe that they should be linked to Reaction.

>But aren't there several martial arts out there that should be based off
>of Strength. The difference between a lightweight fighter and a Tyson
>'smash em til they fall down' bruiser?

Not that I can think of. Even Mike Tyson uses good technique. He rotates
his hips and shoulder into his power punches. He uses technique. Even
Sumo wrestling uses technique. I've seen a match where the lighter
wrestler won because his technique was better.

>How about for new styles an additional edge: default unarmed combat and
>determine power from Quickness instead of strength.

IMHO damage code for an unarmed attack should be Reaction(M). Strength
should only be used if the attacker has a fair amount of time to apply his
strength. But in melee combat there just isn't enough time in an attack to
apply one's strength, most of the time. Look at what it takes for a strong
person to apply their strength. They have to set themselves, grab, then
lift/push/pull. Strength based attacks are slow. If someone opts to use
their strength for the power of an unarmed attack, they should take some
sort of penalty (maybe the defender gets -1 to their TN).

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Be kind; for everyone is having a hard battle."
-Plato
Message no. 49
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:04:57 -0600
JKeith Henry wrote:
>From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
>Subject: Re: CC Martial Arts
>
>
> > ><SNIP(TM)!!> If unarmed combat should be linked to any attribute, it
>should
> > >be linked to
> > > > quickness.
> > >
> > >Actually, my suggestion was to link ALL combat skills to Reaction
> > >(non-modified for cyber or anything else) to reflect physical
>coordination
> > >along with mental reactivity.
> > <ponders.. intelligence+quickness+willpower, reflects on personal
>experience..>
> >
> > Sorry K, I forgot about Reaction (I tend to think of the primary stats and
> > forget about the secondary ones), but I agree that the link attribute for
> > unarmed combat should be Reaction.
>
>Uhm, just so I know we are thinking along the same grounds, where/when did
>"Willpower" come into being part of the Reaction formula??? (confused look)

woops, that's the formula for the combat pool isn't it :) Sorry, one of my
players was asking about the combat pool this weekend and the formula stuck
in my head.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Chance favors the prepared mind."
-Louis Pasteur
Message no. 50
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:25:06 -0400
Around 01:06 PM 6/5/00, JKeith Henry was mumbling about:
>From: "Sommers" <sommers@*****.umich.edu>
>Subject: Re: CC Martial Arts
>
>
> > AFAIK, all of the melee combat skills are based off of Strength, except
>for
> > Monowhips (or maybe all whips). This does makes sense to me from a logical
> > point of view. If two characters have exactly equal skills, the guy with a
> > strength of 6 should be able to do more damage than the guy with a
>strength
> > of 3.
>
>Actually, if you consider it appropriately, the person with a higher
>strength WILL probably do more damage than the person with the lower
>strength, presuming the higher-strength individual can make a solid
>connection/attack against their opponent.

That's what I said, right? Even if there skills are off slightly the
stronger guy should do more, but with equal skill I know who I'm puttign my
money down on...

Sommers
Aerospace engineers build weapon systems. Civil engineers build targets.
Message no. 51
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:32:22 -0400
Around 01:03 PM 6/5/00, dbuehrer@******.carl.org was mumbling about:
>>But aren't there several martial arts out there that should be based off
>>of Strength. The difference between a lightweight fighter and a Tyson
>>'smash em til they fall down' bruiser?
>
>Not that I can think of. Even Mike Tyson uses good technique. He rotates
>his hips and shoulder into his power punches. He uses technique. Even
>Sumo wrestling uses technique. I've seen a match where the lighter
>wrestler won because his technique was better.

Yes, Tyson does apply good technique, but its based off of his strength. He
pounds people harder than just about anyone else. Technique is what you're
rolling to get in the good hit, but strength is what you're using when you
connect. So it stands to reason that strength is what you would base your
technique on.

>>How about for new styles an additional edge: default unarmed combat and
>>determine power from Quickness instead of strength.
>
>IMHO damage code for an unarmed attack should be Reaction(M). Strength
>should only be used if the attacker has a fair amount of time to apply his
>strength. But in melee combat there just isn't enough time in an attack
>to apply one's strength, most of the time. Look at what it takes for a
>strong person to apply their strength. They have to set themselves, grab,
>then lift/push/pull. Strength based attacks are slow. If someone opts to
>use their strength for the power of an unarmed attack, they should take
>some sort of penalty (maybe the defender gets -1 to their TN).

Doesn't that put way too much emphasis on Reaction though? You roll it for
how many actions you get, you use it to see how easy it is for you to raise
your skill, and it determines how much damage you do? It that case, you're
going to have elves that are absolutely with Reaction 7, strength 3
toppling trolls with Reaction 3 and Strength 12!

Yes the elf should be able to get in some good hits, but that doesn't make
much sense. The troll might have a harder time trying to hit the elf as he
dances away (high combat pool) but once he gets a good shot in it should be
all over (high strength).

Sommers
Aerospace engineers build weapon systems. Civil engineers build targets.
Message no. 52
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:55:13 -0600
Sommers wrote:
>Around 01:03 PM 6/5/00, dbuehrer@******.carl.org was mumbling about:
>>>But aren't there several martial arts out there that should be based off
>>>of Strength. The difference between a lightweight fighter and a Tyson
>>>'smash em til they fall down' bruiser?
>>
>>Not that I can think of. Even Mike Tyson uses good technique. He
>>rotates his hips and shoulder into his power punches. He uses
>>technique. Even Sumo wrestling uses technique. I've seen a match where
>>the lighter wrestler won because his technique was better.
>
>Yes, Tyson does apply good technique, but its based off of his strength.
>He pounds people harder than just about anyone else. Technique is what
>you're rolling to get in the good hit, but strength is what you're using
>when you connect. So it stands to reason that strength is what you would
>base your technique on.

But without that good technique, the strength isn't worth much. His damage
is based on his technique, and measured by his technique. His strength
compliments his technique. Again, I'll use my sister as an example. She
can take me apart nine ways from Sunday. Yes, if she were stronger and had
more mass, she could do it faster, but strength and mass aren't an
issue. Maybe with boxing strength is more complimentary, but the primary
measure of how much damage a punch does is from the technique used to
deliver it.

>>>How about for new styles an additional edge: default unarmed combat and
>>>determine power from Quickness instead of strength.
>>
>>IMHO damage code for an unarmed attack should be Reaction(M). Strength
>>should only be used if the attacker has a fair amount of time to apply
>>his strength. But in melee combat there just isn't enough time in an
>>attack to apply one's strength, most of the time. Look at what it takes
>>for a strong person to apply their strength. They have to set
>>themselves, grab, then lift/push/pull. Strength based attacks are
>>slow. If someone opts to use their strength for the power of an unarmed
>>attack, they should take some sort of penalty (maybe the defender gets -1
>>to their TN).
>
>Doesn't that put way too much emphasis on Reaction though? You roll it for
>how many actions you get, you use it to see how easy it is for you to
>raise your skill, and it determines how much damage you do? It that case,
>you're going to have elves that are absolutely with Reaction 7, strength 3
>toppling trolls with Reaction 3 and Strength 12!

Yes. I don't have a problem with that. Maybe the formula for determine
the power of unarmed combat should be (Reaction + Strength/2)/2 (round
down), or something similar. The aforementioned elf would have a power of
8, the troll a 9. The elf is much more accurate and can perform
better. The troll has an edge, but even his overwhelming strength is a
minor factor, which it should be.

>Yes the elf should be able to get in some good hits, but that doesn't make
>much sense. The troll might have a harder time trying to hit the elf as he
>dances away (high combat pool) but once he gets a good shot in it should
>be all over (high strength).

Where and how you hit determines how hard you hit. Your strength has
little to do with it.

This is hard to convey to someone who hasn't had martial arts
experience. Before I took Hapkido I had a hard time understanding it
myself. After I failed to break a board with a front kick it became
painfully clear :) And I'm not try to be condescending.

I front snap kicked a half inch thick piece of dry pine. I'm 6'2", 200
pounds. You'd think the board wouldn't stand a chance. That damn board
didn't budge :) It didn't budge because I only kicked it with my foot. I
didn't kick it with my body like I was supposed to. After instruction from
the black belt in charge, I tried it again. The second time I put my hip
into it (kind of like thrusting your pelvis while kicking forward). It was
like kicking through styrofoam, the board broke that easily.

Through out my experience with Hapkido I've seen many "big" students fail
to break boards when they didn't use good technique. I've seen many small
students go through boards like hot knives through butter, because they
used good technique.

Granted, Mike Tyson's strength gives him an edge, but it's not the source
of his power. His strength is icing on the cake.

And that's the way it should be in any roleplaying system, IMHO.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Footprints on the sands of time are not made by sitting down."
Message no. 53
From: Ahrain Ahrain_Drigar@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:14:39 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: CC Martial Arts


> Around 01:06 PM 6/5/00, JKeith Henry was mumbling about:
> >From: "Sommers" <sommers@*****.umich.edu>
> >Subject: Re: CC Martial Arts
> >
> >
> > > AFAIK, all of the melee combat skills are based off of Strength,
except
> >for
> > > Monowhips (or maybe all whips). This does makes sense to me from a
logical
> > > point of view. If two characters have exactly equal skills, the guy
with a
> > > strength of 6 should be able to do more damage than the guy with a
> >strength
> > > of 3.
> >
> >Actually, if you consider it appropriately, the person with a higher
> >strength WILL probably do more damage than the person with the lower
> >strength, presuming the higher-strength individual can make a solid
> >connection/attack against their opponent.
>
> That's what I said, right? Even if there skills are off slightly the
> stronger guy should do more, but with equal skill I know who I'm puttign
my
> money down on...
>
> Sommers
> Aerospace engineers build weapon systems. Civil engineers build targets.

I think what he is trying to say is, yes they have the same skill and in
that fight the stronger would PROBABLY win. But a skill is based off an
attribute in SR for the purposes of INCREASING that skill and used as a
default. Just because fighter A is stronger DOES NOT mean it is easier for
him to learn his MA. Especially if the MA teaches reliance on speed and
maneuverability.

The MA I have studied is Shorin-ryu Karate, relies on speed and
maneuverability. I am 6' tall and 275 lbs. and of moderate strength. I
probably should have considered another MA but in the area I live in beggars
can't be choosers. It took me a little longer to learn a few things BECAUSE
of my size and reliance on strength.

I personally think it should be linked either to (like K....ah...NeoJudas
suggested) reaction or Quickness OR Strength depending on the character
concept. A troll is unlikely to learn Wu-shu while a halfling is unlikely
to learn Kyokushinkai Karate. Not impossible but unlikely.

just my opinion
Ahrain
Message no. 54
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 18:26:29 GMT
>From: "Hahns Shin" <Hahns_Shin@*******.com>
>The two main reasons I don't like CC Martial Arts rules: 1) It reduces
>Martial Arts to technique and knowledge.  Just because a person knows
Aikido
>doesn't mean he/she doesn't know how to throw a decent punch or kick.
By
>the same token, a person who can break bricks with his/her fists isn't
able
>to focus that kind of power on a moving, resisting opponent.  When
someone
>fights, he doesn't reduce himself to a single "style".... he uses
everything
>he knows and hopes for the best.

THis one I can help you out with (I think); I allow players to attempt any
maneouvre they do not know at +2TN.

>2) The rules cannot do justice to the
>combination of training, hardening, philosophy, and technique that goes
into
>a combined Martial Art.  I don't think any rules can... it'd be too hard
to
>describe and too hard to resolve in a gameplay situation. In short, I'll
stick to abstracting it.
<Snip>

That is about roleplaying; the rules don't help (not with the line
"Caromelleg is so similar to the Brazilian martial art of Capoera that
there is very little difference in game terms" and then proceding to block
them together 3 at a time with the description of only one). But I figure
that a player who plays a martial artist will research the art and roleplay
it to the best of their ability.

Phil (my signiture has stopped working) :(>



________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 55
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 19:07:37 GMT
> >I don't expect anybody to volunteer an "I killed
them dead with my two hands and a pipe wrench",
either.
>
>*Phil looks to Doc expectantly*

Hey, I thought I had a reputation as a (cyber)sexual
deviant, not a pipe wrench-murderer!

Anyway, I'm just a big wuss, so if I ever killed
anyone, I'd use Gun-Fu. ;)

*Doc' flips his nun-pack-u (Gun-Fu name for pistol)
about his body and accidentally pistol-whips himself
in the groin...*

Sorry, now I remember; I was me who kills people with humerous cyberwepons
(well, I try to use my monobeard to that effect); you water plants across
the street. And the toe? Do you control it or does it do its own thing?
:)>


Phil

It is a fact of life in Earthdawn that characters will fall, usually from
high places.
ED main book, Adventuring in Earthdawn

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 56
From: Mike & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@***.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:40:57 -0400
Graht said:
> Martial arts knowledge and training does not necessarily equate with an
> ability to fight. Few martial arts actually train their students to
> fight. Tae Kwan Do and Karate are the only two that are coming
> to mind at
> the moment that train their students to fight, and then it's in a
> controlled situation with rules. A street fight is not a controlled
> situation, and it has no rules.

Mmmmmm... Isshinryu sparring

:)

Smilin' Jack
Franklin Isshinryu School of Karate
http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/RallyRd/mlfrankl/fiskhome.htm
Message no. 57
From: SolQuest75@***.com SolQuest75@***.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 18:35:21 EDT
That's a good definition of martial arts. I think martial arts give a person
a sense of discipline and adaptability. With those two in your belt, your
chances of coming out of a fight less hurt are improved.
Message no. 58
From: acjpenn@******.com acjpenn@******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 19:40:25 -0500
*snip*
>
> But without that good technique, the strength isn't worth much. His
damage
> is based on his technique, and measured by his technique. His strength
> compliments his technique. Again, I'll use my sister as an example. She

> can take me apart nine ways from Sunday. Yes, if she were stronger and
had
> more mass, she could do it faster, but strength and mass aren't an
> issue. Maybe with boxing strength is more complimentary, but the primary

> measure of how much damage a punch does is from the technique used to
> deliver it.

Strength isn't important in boxing, technique is. In every form of
fighting, the ability to strike is far more important than how hard you
strike. Boxing teaches a set of "targets" to aim for, and even a
lightweight boxer can put someone down. You can be the strongest person in
the world, waving your fists about, but without knowing techinique it does
you no good, you'll never hit anything. The damage you inflict is based on
strength, as it works in a game-setting. But your ability to hit someone
needs to be based off your reflexes and quickness, not how strong you are.
Someone with little strength who hits a critical spot does damage
(represented by numerous sucesses and staging) differently than someone who
just pounds on you (represented by tough resistance number) You might take
three of four hits from the bruiser before you go out, while the little
guy, with one well-placed punch, knocks you for a loop. Strength, without
being applied, is useless. Technique is how it's applied.

*snip snip*
>
> >Doesn't that put way too much emphasis on Reaction though? You roll it
for
> >how many actions you get, you use it to see how easy it is for you to
> >raise your skill, and it determines how much damage you do? It that
case,
> >you're going to have elves that are absolutely with Reaction 7, strength
3
> >toppling trolls with Reaction 3 and Strength 12!
>
> Yes. I don't have a problem with that. Maybe the formula for determine
> the power of unarmed combat should be (Reaction + Strength/2)/2 (round
> down), or something similar. The aforementioned elf would have a power
of
> 8, the troll a 9. The elf is much more accurate and can perform
> better. The troll has an edge, but even his overwhelming strength is a
> minor factor, which it should be.

I really like this.. just might have to play test it.


> >Yes the elf should be able to get in some good hits, but that doesn't
make
> >much sense. The troll might have a harder time trying to hit the elf as
he
> >dances away (high combat pool) but once he gets a good shot in it should

> >be all over (high strength).
>
> Where and how you hit determines how hard you hit. Your strength has
> little to do with it.
>
Very true.



Tig Da Pig
Message no. 59
From: Mike & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@***.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:38:02 -0400
Tig said:
> Strength isn't important in boxing, technique is.

So what you're saying is that Oscar de la Hoya can take Lennox Lewis (kinda
a thin human versus an ork). While I admire Oscar's spirit I think that only
a miracle would let him win that fight. In fact strength and size play very
strongly in boxing, which is why they break it up in ranks (welter weight,
heavy weight, etc.). In fact 20 pounds difference can really make a
difference. This is why Gatti is under scrutiny as he has entered his last
2-3 fights 20 pounds heavier than his weigh in (especially after he retired
a guy). Now if someone is really good, like Roy Jones Jr., they can fight up
a rank. He whipped a low end heavyweight not to long ago. So I have to
differ with your comment.

I also rank in at the same size as Ahrain does. I'm 6'0" and 265lbs. I train
in Isshinryu and have sparred with several black and brown belt ranked
people. I once sparred with a brown 1 stripe (my rank) who was about 85 lbs
lighter than I was). His technique was as good as mine. We both did a lunge
punch and he wound up bouncing across the floor (no harm, but I did lift him
off the ground with the hit).

Technique can compensate for size and strength, but as someone said earlier
if the level of skill is the same then bet on the big guy. And don't even
get me started on reach advantage (trolls).

;)

Smilin' Jack

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but
that's the way to bet", unknown.

Franklin Isshinryu School of Karate
http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/RallyRd/mlfrankl/fiskhome.htm
Message no. 60
From: C J Tipton arkades@****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:17:00 -0500
I am forced to agree with BOTH Tig and Jack.

Strength, as an attribute, is not a big(no pun intended) factor in
boxing. Size, both in reach and associated Body attribute
tend to play a huge(pun intended) factor , however.

The divisions in boxing exist for the same reason as the gloves: to
protect the fighters. Realisticly, there is a good
chance that Oscar might knock out Lewis in a boxing ring. But Lewis
might also knock De La Hoya through a
boxing ring. Size is good because a lot of the techniques used are based
on physics. Physics has
an assortment of neat formulas which boil down to the idea that two hands
going the same speed hitting the same
target area will differ in damage based on the mass behind the hand.
Getting all your mass behind the hand represents
good technique. Accelerating your punch into your target represents good
technique. Hitting as hard as Foreman
or Lewis is representative of good technique and alot of mass. The mass
thing even holds true in delaHoyas weight class. Oscar takes a relitively
low stance 'cause hes looking to maximize the potential of his mass for
the hip twist.

The same holds true when grappling, however, with the principle
difference being that the initial mass numbers are generated by ones
(hopefully lower) center of gravity. That generates torque, not damage.
Damage then becomes a factor of how heavy the nage was, how much torque
uke generated, and what the landing surface was made of.
For joint locks, it's all about the torque(I'm here to tell ya...).

In other words, the troll MAY punch out the elf, but then the dwarf lays
an ankle lock on the troll and makes him scream for mamma.
Anybody got a good idea of how to get those numbers together for game
purposes?

COWBOY(says it with kata-garuma)
CJ
Arkades@****.com
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 61
From: acjpenn@******.com acjpenn@******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:13:43 -0500
Smilin Jack sez:
>In fact strength and size play very
> strongly in boxing, which is why they break it up in ranks (welter
weight,
> heavy weight, etc.). In fact 20 pounds difference can really make a
> difference.
Me sez:

First off, you're talking about people with very, very, very good
technique.

Second, they don't just break up it for strength reasons. Boxing is meant
to be entertainment. They break it up on the basis of speed, as well. De
la Hoya is much faster than Lewis. You want to pay premium money to see
Hoya dance around Lewis, smacking him, while Lewis throws out jab after
jab? Sure, Lewis hits Hoya once, it's really gonna hurt (earlier post
about the way rules work) but Hoya has a better chance of hitting Lewis
(who has very high body, and shrugs off those blows, generaly). {for that
fiasco, smaller guy running around bigger guy, watch some of the earlier
Ultimate fight things..} No, you want to see guys slugging it out. Making
them the same general weight allows that environment, that atmosphere.

Generaly, the more weight = better body, better strength, the ability to
dish out damage and take it better than the little guy. You've still gotta
him 'em though..


> I also rank in at the same size as Ahrain does. I'm 6'0" and 265lbs. I
train
> in Isshinryu and have sparred with several black and brown belt ranked
> people. I once sparred with a brown 1 stripe (my rank) who was about 85
lbs
> lighter than I was). His technique was as good as mine. We both did a
lunge
> punch and he wound up bouncing across the floor (no harm, but I did lift
him
> off the ground with the hit).
>

Technique got him there, your strength pushed him away. It's what I'm
saying.. technique lets you hit, strength plays into the damage. Since he
hit you, did you feel it? If so, he got success on his "damage roll". If
not, he made the roll, and went bust on the damage. You obviously didn't.
;)
*imagining brown belt bouncing and bounding off the floor*

> Technique can compensate for size and strength, but as someone said
earlier
> if the level of skill is the same then bet on the big guy. And don't even
> get me started on reach advantage (trolls).

Gonna stick with my statement here. Strength is useless if it can't be
applied. Techinique is the application of strength.

> ;)
>
> Smilin' Jack
>
> "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but
> that's the way to bet", unknown.

Tig Da Pig

Optimistic Apathy: It'll all turn out in the end, but if it doesn't, who
cares?
Message no. 62
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:12:21 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Mike & Linda Frankl wrote:

> So what you're saying is that Oscar de la Hoya can take Lennox Lewis (kinda
> a thin human versus an ork).

I think you'd be hard pressed to put any credence behind the
assertion that Lennox Lewis has an appreciably lower skill than Lennox
Lewis. Both are excellent technical boxers. Yes, they have different
styles, but that has more to do with differences in mass, strength, and
speed than it does to "skill level." Don't confuse "quicker" with
"better."
Were De la Hoya and Lewis to fight, even with equal skill, Lewis
would have the edge because his damage is harder to resist (i.e. he has a
higher Strength). This is the diffference you are seeing.

Marc
Message no. 63
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 07:10:54 -0600
Mike & Linda Frankl wrote:
>Tig said:
> > Strength isn't important in boxing, technique is.
>
>In fact strength and size play very
>strongly in boxing, which is why they break it up in ranks (welter weight,
>heavy weight, etc.).

Strength isn't the factor, weight is.

Someone who is heavier is (using good technique) putting more mass into an
attack, and does more damage. It's simple physics. Also, someone who is
heavier can take a punch better (and this is reflected in Shadowrun's rules
in that Body is used to resist damage).

>I also rank in at the same size as Ahrain does. I'm 6'0" and 265lbs. I train
>in Isshinryu and have sparred with several black and brown belt ranked
>people. I once sparred with a brown 1 stripe (my rank) who was about 85 lbs
>lighter than I was). His technique was as good as mine. We both did a lunge
>punch and he wound up bouncing across the floor (no harm, but I did lift him
>off the ground with the hit).

Because you had more mass than he did. He applied less force on you, than
you applied to him. You weighed more and were able to resist the impact
better than he could. You had +85 lbs of force and resistance on him.

>Technique can compensate for size and strength, but as someone said earlier
>if the level of skill is the same then bet on the big guy. And don't even
>get me started on reach advantage (trolls).

Yes, the big guy, the one with the higher body, has an advantage. And
reach is another issue altogether, and IMO the reach rules work just fine
in Shadowrun. I have no dispute with the reach rules.

My argument is that Strength should not be used to determine the power of
an unarmed combat attack.

I've since revised my opinion on which attribute should be used to
determine the power of an attack. I now feel that Body should be used to
determine the power of an unarmed attack.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Warm nights, good food, kindred spirits....great life!"
Message no. 64
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 07:16:46 -0600
dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:

>I've since revised my opinion on which attribute should be used to
>determine the power of an attack. I now feel that Body should be used to
>determine the power of an unarmed attack.

Clarification: Body should be used as the Power of an unarmed combat
*strike* (punch/kick).

If you use locks and throws, then Quickness should be used to determine the
Power of the lock/throw, IMHO.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"All things are at all times, in motion. Take the time to watch the dance."
-John Caeser Leafston
Message no. 65
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:05:25 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:

> Clarification: Body should be used as the Power of an unarmed combat
> *strike* (punch/kick).
>
> If you use locks and throws, then Quickness should be used to determine the
> Power of the lock/throw, IMHO.

No, and no. :)
All kidding aside, though, I see where you're coming from but I
tend to disagree. Yes, phsical momentum (and by extension weight, and
thus Body) are important for the purposes of figuring damage, but I have a
hard time buying that Body is a straight representation of weight. It
seems to reflect so much more (body weight isn't really all that useful in
resisting disease or determining how long you can hold your breath). I
know people who are tough as iron and can take a serious amount of hurt
but are wiry little lightweights.
As such, it seems kind of silly to just make the flat statement
that Body should be the sole determining factor in determining the power
level of an unarmed attack.
As for locks and pins, I *strongly* disagree with Quickness,
especially in the case of joint locks. In virtually all of the locks we
do (and we do a *lot* of joint locks), you're either using momentum
(dynamic locks) or leverage (static locks). While a tortuous argument
could be made that Quickness influences momentum, leverage is pretty much
all about Strength. Most of the time it's about applying as many muscles
as you can to a situation where the opponent can resist with only a few,
or with just the structural integrity of the joint itself.
Next you'll be telling me that this implies that proper knowledge
of the principles of leverage is what's most important, so the power
of joint-lock attacks should be based off Intelligence. Further, an
excellent argument could be made that combat is a test of wills that's
over before the first punch is thrown, so all attacks should be made using
your Willpower rather than skill.
See what I'm getting at? You could come up with any justification
you wanted for any attribute you wanted to base things off. So many
attributes play a factor in melee combat, either directly (through power
level or damage resistance in the case of Strength and Body respectively),
or indirectly (through the Combat Pool in the case of Intelligence,
Willpower, and Quickness). That leaves only Charisma of the base
attributes that isn't used in combat (and it's usually used right *before*
combat in the real world). With a system that is *supposed* to be
somewhat abstract, I think that SR models things fairly well, all things
considered. Real combat is immensely complicated, and doesn't lend itself
well to direct modelling. So while SR melee combat is abstract, it's
not broken. Why "fix" it? :)

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 66
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:37:15 -0600
Marc Renouf wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:
>
> > Clarification: Body should be used as the Power of an unarmed combat
> > *strike* (punch/kick).
> >
> > If you use locks and throws, then Quickness should be used to determine
> the
> > Power of the lock/throw, IMHO.
>
> No, and no. :)
> All kidding aside, though, I see where you're coming from but I
>tend to disagree. Yes, phsical momentum (and by extension weight, and
>thus Body) are important for the purposes of figuring damage, but I have a
>hard time buying that Body is a straight representation of weight. It
>seems to reflect so much more (body weight isn't really all that useful in
>resisting disease or determining how long you can hold your breath). I
>know people who are tough as iron and can take a serious amount of hurt
>but are wiry little lightweights.

Which attribute is a reflection of weight then? Certainly not Strength. I
feel that of all the attributes that Body is the most appropriate one to
use for reflecting a character's mass.

> As such, it seems kind of silly to just make the flat statement
>that Body should be the sole determining factor in determining the power
>level of an unarmed attack.

What would you suggest? :)

> As for locks and pins, I *strongly* disagree with Quickness,
>especially in the case of joint locks. In virtually all of the locks we
>do (and we do a *lot* of joint locks), you're either using momentum
>(dynamic locks) or leverage (static locks).

Ditto. However, Quickness reflects a character's manual dexterity and
agility. While skill is the primary determinant of locks, a
dexterous/agile person tends to have an easier time.

> Next you'll be telling me that this implies that proper knowledge
>of the principles of leverage is what's most important, so the power
>of joint-lock attacks should be based off Intelligence.

No. That's already taken care of by the character's skill level, which
implies a knowledge of the leverage required to make the lock effective.

> Further, an
>excellent argument could be made that combat is a test of wills that's
>over before the first punch is thrown, so all attacks should be made using
>your Willpower rather than skill.
> See what I'm getting at?

Yes, you're making pointless arguments rather than addressing the issue
that I've placed on the table :)

> You could come up with any justification
>you wanted for any attribute you wanted to base things off.

I'm arguing that in RL mass is far more important than strength. I've
stated my reasoning in other posts.

I'm also arguing that this should be reflected in Shadowrun by replacing
Strength with Body as the attribute to be used to determine the power of
unarmed combat strikes. This argument is based on my perception that Body
correlates with character mass.

If Body does not correlate with a character's mass, than another attribute
should be created to reflect a character's mass, and that attribute should
be used as the power in an unarmed strike. Or, Strength should correlate
with a character's mass.

>That leaves only Charisma of the base
>attributes that isn't used in combat (and it's usually used right *before*
>combat in the real world).

Sure it is. You can continue to intimidate an opponent during combat.

> With a system that is *supposed* to be
>somewhat abstract, I think that SR models things fairly well, all things
>considered. Real combat is immensely complicated, and doesn't lend itself
>well to direct modelling. So while SR melee combat is abstract, it's
>not broken. Why "fix" it? :)

Because it is broken, IMHO. It uses strength to determine damage when RL
uses mass.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Wisdom has two parts: having a lot to say, and not saying it."
Message no. 67
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:25:25 -0400
From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:37 PM

<SNIP>

> > As such, it seems kind of silly to just make the flat statement
> >that Body should be the sole determining factor in determining the power
> >level of an unarmed attack.
>
> What would you suggest? :)
>

(Str + Body) / 2 ;)

<SNIP>

> Because it is broken, IMHO. It uses strength to determine damage when RL
> uses mass.

IRL, to have a high weight, you almost *have* to have a high strength to
carry that weight around. In SR, you can have a body of 6 with a str of 2,
which would be unrealistic IRL. ;) (Unless Str is purely muscle mass, of
course, which is another argument, altogether. =P)

I personally would say that you should at least have half of your body
rating in Str. ie: body of 6, str of 3. body of 4, str of 2. ;) Round down,
since us high weight people (meaning, me.) tend to be lazy and only really
want to be strong enough to move around without collapsing. =P (That was a
joke, people. =P)

>
> To Life,
> -Graht

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 68
From: LDYTinne@***.com LDYTinne@***.com
Subject: CC martial arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:31:38 EDT
In a message dated 6/3/00 4:26:43 PM Central Daylight Time, arkades@****.com
writes:

<< <Cowboy pets the rant, which squeaks happily> >>
VERY FUNNY!!!!

I Love You,
Holly
Message no. 69
From: LDYTinne@***.com LDYTinne@***.com
Subject: CC martial arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:02:17 EDT
In a message dated 6/3/00 5:57:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
acjpenn@******.com writes:

<< This way of moving ties in with a way of attacking so that it becomes
impossible to defend against it. Attacks become reversals become hold
become whatever is required. >>

Impossible to defend against: No martial art is perfect, and thus can each
pure form can be defended against. If that was so there would be only one
and all others would be performed as dance cultural as historical
presentations in theaters.

>>>A code in Bushido. A lifestyle in Fubu, the martial wind. A
ideal in the samurai, men unafraid of death. A knowledge of the true
meaning of an old cliche' that with great power comes great responsibility.
A way of looking, living, learning, a way of BEING.<<<

Spiritual codes are good for role-playing, but realistically us mere mortals.
I <Waving> being one of them; have a hard enough time living, walking,
thinking, breathing my faith, which is a way of life, thought, and being (the
Druidic Path) And I have been the leader of a congregation before, and am
not any more. To say that realistically adding this element to RP is going
to be an extra-ordinary feat for most RP'rs. Besides realistically most Sams
and other PC's with martial artists are 'Sunday go to worship' faithful to
their "spiritual Paths" at best!

>>>Your statement shows total disregard to the most basic concepts of ANY art,
anywhere. With this knowledge you (and I mean anyone who makes a serious
study of the martial arts) are deadly.

No, the statement shows open disdain for those who would claim knowledge
and dane to represent it as wisdom when; he regards the martial arts as
something very sacred to him, which can be seen in him throwing the gauntlet
at your cheek after crossing it tersely across your cheek. Knowledge of a
thing does not give one the ability to use a thing or better yet to apply
such a thing as would harm, much less kill a man.

>>>Control of the self and the
situation is given paramount importance in any good training. Control of
these techniques, control of your situation<<<

Not all situations can be controlled, but adapted to, and this is even harder
for a smaller person who is weaker (a woman, in general)

>>> I'm glad you've never been in a fight with someone out to kill
you.
It isn't cinematic, it isn't pretty, it's the ugliest thing you'll
ever see and you'll get sick after it happens. <<<

Unless you are a war vet who has been in H to H combat I respectfully doubt
you.

>>>Your blanket "if you've never killed, your opinion isn't worthwhile"
could
be considered absurd and
childish by some. <<<

I repeat the above. It was a glove thrown down in challenge. Do not be so
sensitive.

>>>And if anyone on the list HAS killed anyone in a situation, do you
honestly think they'll open up about it? <<<

No, thus overly loud & rude rebuttal are thus only, possibly?, safe over the
Internet.

>>>In a fight there are far too many little things to cover. If you
attempted to make a rule for each movement (important to the whole) you'd be
rolling forever.<<<

True. But, the SR rules are extremely limited in their options for Martial
Arts and Maneuvers. Could you suggest other categories with maneuver groups
and possibly other maneuvers?


<Pets Cowboy's pet Rant>

You must Trance the Fires of (Hel) to Discover the Moment of Enlightenment.
Tinne
Message no. 70
From: LDYTinne@***.com LDYTinne@***.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:17:34 EDT
In a message dated 6/5/00 3:28:36 AM Central Daylight Time,
Hahns_Shin@*******.com writes:

<< By
the same token, a person who can break bricks with his/her fists isn't able
to focus that kind of power on a moving, resisting opponent. <<<

Really???

>>>When someone fights, he doesn't reduce himself to a single
"style"....
<<<he uses everything<<<

If she is martially trained to fight that way, that is the way she fights.
Mastery allows some adaptation. Multiple arts allows combination and
variation. Prior fighting knowledge would allow the same, but most people
off the street have not been in a fight.

>>>Most people learn how to fight... the trick is learning how to fight
effectively, and Martial Arts is merely a means to that end.<<<

True. Good Comment.

To (Hel) and Back
Tinne
Message no. 71
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:26:52 -0600
kawaii wrote:
>From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:37 PM
>
><SNIP>
>
> > > As such, it seems kind of silly to just make the flat statement
> > >that Body should be the sole determining factor in determining the power
> > >level of an unarmed attack.
> >
> > What would you suggest? :)
> >
>
>(Str + Body) / 2 ;)

;p

> > Because it is broken, IMHO. It uses strength to determine damage when RL
> > uses mass.
>
>IRL, to have a high weight, you almost *have* to have a high strength to
>carry that weight around. In SR, you can have a body of 6 with a str of 2,
>which would be unrealistic IRL. ;) (Unless Str is purely muscle mass, of
>course, which is another argument, altogether. =P)
>
>I personally would say that you should at least have half of your body
>rating in Str. ie: body of 6, str of 3. body of 4, str of 2. ;) Round down,
>since us high weight people (meaning, me.) tend to be lazy and only really
>want to be strong enough to move around without collapsing. =P (That was a
>joke, people. =P)

Or, if you're body is higher than your strength you suffer from
encumbrance... nawww. ;)

I like the (Strength + Body)/2 idea :)

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Anything I have ever done that ultimately was worthwhile....
initially scared me to death."
-Betty Bender
Message no. 72
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:

> Which attribute is a reflection of weight then?

None of them. Which attribute should reflect eye color? It's a
pan-cultural phenomenon that people with green eyes are considered "more
attractive" than those without, all other things being equal (and I've
seen the test photos - *all* other facial features are equal). Does this
mean that people with a Charisma of 6 have green eyes?
Certainly not, and to suggest such a thing is silly. Just like
suggesting that weight is tied exclusively to the Body attribute is
ridiculous. Like I said, weight has absolutely no bearing on how well you
resist disease or how long you can hold your breath, or how likely a
mortal wound is to kill you in the next 3 to 18 seconds.
Weight, like hair-color, eye-color, general demeanor, and overall
attitude is something that I let players just pick. Most of them look at
their Physical attributes and say, "well, I have a high Quickness and
Strength, but a low Body, so I'm built for hard, fast work with little
endurance. As such, I probably have something like a bulk-muscle
physique. I'm a ripped little fireplug of a guy." But going off your
one-attribute model, they'd be a skinny person, as low Body would imply
low weight.
But if someone wants to be different? Go for it. "I'm
not fat, I'm 'big-boned'," as the saying goes.

> > As such, it seems kind of silly to just make the flat statement
> >that Body should be the sole determining factor in determining the power
> >level of an unarmed attack.
>
> What would you suggest? :)

How 'bout Strength. ;)

> > Further, an
> >excellent argument could be made that combat is a test of wills that's
> >over before the first punch is thrown, so all attacks should be made using
> >your Willpower rather than skill.
> > See what I'm getting at?
>
> Yes, you're making pointless arguments rather than addressing the issue
> that I've placed on the table :)

No, I've already addressed it, and am giving anecdotal evidence to
show why I disagree with your assertion.

Marc
Message no. 73
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:51:09 -0600
Marc Renouf wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:
>
> > > Further, an
> > >excellent argument could be made that combat is a test of wills that's
> > >over before the first punch is thrown, so all attacks should be made using
> > >your Willpower rather than skill.
> > > See what I'm getting at?
> >
> > Yes, you're making pointless arguments rather than addressing the issue
> > that I've placed on the table :)
>
> No, I've already addressed it, and am giving anecdotal evidence to
>show why I disagree with your assertion.

And look what happened, I completely missed your point that no matter how
things work in RL, using the Strength attribute as the Power works fine,
and why should we change it.

I'll grant that I got caught up in debating for the sake of debating, but
your anecdotal evidence didn't help matters ;p

:)

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Be kind; for everyone is having a hard battle."
-Plato
Message no. 74
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:28:44 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:

> I'll grant that I got caught up in debating for the sake of debating, but
> your anecdotal evidence didn't help matters ;p

<chuckle> Yeah, but my wife tells me I take anecdotes too far too,
so I certainly wasn't helping the matter. ;)

Marc
Message no. 75
From: acjpenn@******.com acjpenn@******.com
Subject: CC martial arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:31:03 -0500
> << This way of moving ties in with a way of attacking so that it becomes
> impossible to defend against it. Attacks become reversals become hold
> become whatever is required. >>
>
> Impossible to defend against: No martial art is perfect, and thus can
each
> pure form can be defended against.

No art is perfect, but an art strives to be perfect.

If that was so there would be only one
> and all others would be performed as dance cultural as historical
> presentations in theaters.
>
Not true. The body of knowledge we call the martial arts developed in
several different areas from Japan to Africa. If there is a "perfect" art,
it wouldn't have been known world over.

> >>>A code in Bushido. A lifestyle in Fubu, the martial wind. A
> ideal in the samurai, men unafraid of death. A knowledge of the true
> meaning of an old cliche' that with great power comes great
responsibility.
> A way of looking, living, learning, a way of BEING.<<<
>
> Spiritual codes are good for role-playing, but realistically us mere
mortals.
> I <Waving> being one of them; have a hard enough time living, walking,
> thinking, breathing my faith, which is a way of life, thought, and being
(the
> Druidic Path)

I was speaking of real life. I follow the path I stated.

And I have been the leader of a congregation before, and am
> not any more. To say that realistically adding this element to RP is
going
> to be an extra-ordinary feat for most RP'rs. Besides realistically most
Sams
> and other PC's with martial artists are 'Sunday go to worship' faithful
to
> their "spiritual Paths" at best!

Where do you get this? I'm sorry, I heavily disagree with you. Being a
physad should require a deep spiritual commitment to your art, and those
are the pc's with the most martial arts knowledge. A street sam can have
that attitude, but he doesn't have the powers of the adept, does he?

> >>>Your statement shows total disregard to the most basic concepts of ANY
art,
> anywhere. With this knowledge you (and I mean anyone who makes a serious
> study of the martial arts) are deadly.
>
> No, the statement shows open disdain for those who would claim
knowledge
> and dane to represent it as wisdom when; he regards the martial arts as
> something very sacred to him, which can be seen in him throwing the
gauntlet
> at your cheek after crossing it tersely across your cheek. Knowledge of
a
> thing does not give one the ability to use a thing or better yet to apply

> such a thing as would harm, much less kill a man.
>

I'm sorry, I've completely missed your point here. Would you please
clarify? Did I not come across as saying that my life is structured around
my practice? I think the Cowboy and I are on the same footing as far as
respecting what we do, and how we do it.

> >>>Control of the self and the
> situation is given paramount importance in any good training. Control of
> these techniques, control of your situation<<<
>
> Not all situations can be controlled, but adapted to, and this is even
harder
> for a smaller person who is weaker (a woman, in general)

Wrong. All situations can be controlled. And it's no harder for women or
smaller people. Control of a situation happens outside of the conflict,
whether it's parking in the open, rather than underground, or not going
into a bar full of rowdy people.

> >>> I'm glad you've never been in a fight with someone out to kill
> you.
> It isn't cinematic, it isn't pretty, it's the ugliest thing you'll
> ever see and you'll get sick after it happens. <<<
>
> Unless you are a war vet who has been in H to H combat I respectfully
doubt
> you.

Doubt me all you wish. I've been in conflict and been sick afterwards, it
could have just been me, but all those I've spoken with have the same
reaction.

> >>>Your blanket "if you've never killed, your opinion isn't
worthwhile"
could
> be considered absurd and
> childish by some. <<<
>
> I repeat the above. It was a glove thrown down in challenge. Do not be
so
> sensitive.

I was responding to a post I found offensive and off-balance, as is my
right. If you didn't find it offensive, no biggy. *shrug* I retain the
right to become offended when I see things written about what I do in a way
I don't agree with. I stated my points, he stated his, and we've come to
an understanding. Why are you standing up for this, when it's over and
done?
Message no. 76
From: C J Tipton arkades@****.com
Subject: CCMartial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:56:25 -0500
Sorry, Tig.
Hel didn't check her mail all weekend and was attempting to respond one
post at a time.
She also really is a pagan, of the druidic path, and use to lead a
congregation.
And she can be a little cold sometimes(Norse humor there).

And, BTW, why in the Hel do you think that the powers of physical adepts
require work and discipline?
Couldn't they forseeably "just do it" due to their magical gifts, kind of
like the difference between the typically studious
hermetic or meditative wu-jen and a your average shaman, who seems to
more put up with his spirit guides whims in exchange for their phenomenal
cosmic powers? Agreeably, advancement of those powers requires Karma, but
is
that necessarily work...or could it possibly merely represent a new
understanding you've come to with your inner self,
possibly by watching Oprah Jesse Springer?

:-}

COWBOY(contemplates the cosmos)
CJ
Arkades@****.com


________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 77
From: LDYTinne@***.com LDYTinne@***.com
Subject: CCMartial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:40:05 EDT
In a message dated 6/6/00 5:21:12 PM Central Daylight Time, arkades@****.com
writes:

<< that necessarily work...or could it possibly merely represent a new
understanding you've come to with your inner self,
possibly by watching Oprah Jesse Springer?

:-}

COWBOY(contemplates the cosmos) >>

Damn! Man. I'm duckin' now all I really need now is to armor my umbreella to
prevent the frozen flying BS from hitting me in the head! 8*)

PULL. Blam! BLAM,BLAM,BLAM!!!
hehe <Smilin' MAO>

It'll be a Cold Day in (Hel) before...

Brightest Blessings,
Tinne
Message no. 78
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Hey, I thought I had a reputation as a (cyber)sexual
deviant, not a pipe wrench-murderer!
>
> Anyway, I'm just a big wuss, so if I ever killed
anyone, I'd use Gun-Fu. ;)
>
> *Doc' flips his nun-pack-u (Gun-Fu name for pistol)
about his body and accidentally pistol-whips himself
in the groin...*
>
> Sorry, now I remember; I was me who kills people
with humerous cyberwepons (well, I try to use my
monobeard to that effect); you water plants across the
street.

That's right.

> And the toe? Do you control it or does it do its
own thing? :)>
> Phil

Hey, buster, NOBODY controls The Toe.

Better get that through your head if you want to
live...

*Doc' kisses The Toe's toe ring as a sign of respect...*

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
Message no. 79
From: Mike & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@***.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:40:24 -0400
Tig said:
> Gonna stick with my statement here. Strength is useless if it can't be
> applied. Techinique is the application of strength.

I was primarily responding to the statement that strength had no effect in
boxing. I concur whole-heartedly with you that technique is the most
important factor, but to discount strength didn't make sense to me. Your
statement above actually sounds like my comments. Technique being the
application of strength, good, but if you've got more to apply and know how
to apply it, you have an advantage over someone of equal technique and
lesser strength (random variable excluded). Strength is no different than
other physical variables. Reach is another one (trolls again). My Sensei has
very long arms for his size and can really sneak a punch in on you when you
think he is out of reach. In this same situation if the techniques are equal
then the increased reach will give you an advantage (which SR supports in
it's melee rules).

;)

Smilin' Jack

Franklin Isshinryu School of Karate
http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/RallyRd/mlfrankl/fiskhome.htm
Message no. 80
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
<BigSNIP(TM)>
> My argument is that Strength should not be used to
determine the power of an unarmed combat attack.
>
> I've since revised my opinion on which attribute
should be used to determine the power of an attack. I
now feel that Body should be used to determine the
power of an unarmed attack.
> -Graht

But then you have to differentiate between trained and
untrained characters, Graht. I'm a fairly big guy -
6'4", 180ish lbs. I've got good reach and I've got
decent (probably 4) body. Fitness level sucks, though.
:) However, if I hit someone, I don't have the
training to be able to put my weight behind the
strike, so unless I get a huge wind-up, I'd be doing a
strength-based hit (which, being 2 or 3 would mean I
wouldn't hit as hard - and I DON'T).

Personally, I'd say leave strength as the base for
damage, simply for game-balance and to keep things
simple. I like the idea of basing martial arts off
reaction, or the knowledge skill. If the "arts" are
based off the knowledge skill, though, brawling would
be based off reaction, while boxing would be based off
Boxing Theory.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
Message no. 81
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:26:38 -0500
From: Marc Renouf
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 11:05 AM

> Yes, phsical momentum (and by extension weight, and thus Body) are
> important for the purposes of figuring damage, but I have a hard
> time buying that Body is a straight representation of weight.

I don't think it is, either. The weight system I made up looks at both
Strength and Body as factors in contributing to body weight.

--
Patrick E. Goodman
remo@***.net
"I'm going to tell you something cool." -- Gene Wolfe
Message no. 82
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:36:51 -0500
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 11:37 AM

> >...but I have a
> >hard time buying that Body is a straight representation of weight.
>
> Which attribute is a reflection of weight then? Certainly not
> Strength.

As Marc has probably already said elsewhere, both Strength and Body. I
think it's a combination of both Strength (sheer muscle mass) and Body
(fitness and muscle tone).

--
Patrick E. Goodman
remo@***.net
"I'm going to tell you something cool." -- Gene Wolfe
Message no. 83
From: acjpenn@******.com acjpenn@******.com
Subject: CCMartial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:35:33 -0500
> Sorry, Tig.
> Hel didn't check her mail all weekend and was attempting to respond one
> post at a time.
> She also really is a pagan, of the druidic path, and use to lead a
> congregation.
> And she can be a little cold sometimes(Norse humor there).

Over and done, no need to speak any further. Hel and I don't see eye to
eye, probably never will, but that's ok.
You call it cold, I call it insulting.

> And, BTW, why in the Hel do you think that the powers of physical adepts
> require work and discipline?
> Couldn't they forseeably "just do it" due to their magical gifts, kind of
> like the difference between the typically studious
> hermetic or meditative wu-jen and a your average shaman, who seems to
> more put up with his spirit guides whims in exchange for their phenomenal
> cosmic powers? Agreeably, advancement of those powers requires Karma, but
> is
> that necessarily work...or could it possibly merely represent a new
> understanding you've come to with your inner self,
> possibly by watching Oprah Jesse Springer?
>
> :-}

I actually have no real basis for this, it's just the way I see things.
Shamans have a deep comitment with their totem animals, they don't just get
their powers from nowhere; and the totem is always watching. Anything
magical should not be easy IMO; especialy magic that is focused through the
body, like physads. Admidetly, there's adepts out there with little to no
spirituality, just raw power, but that's never the way I've chosen to see
or run adepts with martial powers. I dunno, maybe it's a bais of mine.
*shrugs*


> COWBOY(contemplates the cosmos)
> CJ
> Arkades@****.com

Tig Da Pig
Contemplates email lists
Message no. 84
From: acjpenn@******.com acjpenn@******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:41:31 -0500
----------
> Tig said:
> > Gonna stick with my statement here. Strength is useless if it can't be
> > applied. Techinique is the application of strength.
>
> I was primarily responding to the statement that strength had no effect
in
> boxing. I concur whole-heartedly with you that technique is the most
> important factor, but to discount strength didn't make sense to me.
*snip*

My Sensei has
> very long arms for his size and can really sneak a punch in on you when
you
> think he is out of reach. In this same situation if the techniques are
equal
> then the increased reach will give you an advantage (which SR supports in
> it's melee rules).

I've got a sensei with a Rib-Seeking Foot. ; )

Thanks for the comments. I thought we were saying the same thing.

> ;)
>
> Smilin' Jack
>
> Franklin Isshinryu School of Karate
> http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/RallyRd/mlfrankl/fiskhome.htm

Tig Da Pig
Message no. 85
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 20:14:27 GMT
>From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
> > Anyway, I'm just a big wuss, so if I ever killed
>anyone, I'd use Gun-Fu. ;)
> >
> > *Doc' flips his nun-pack-u (Gun-Fu name for pistol)
>about his body and accidentally pistol-whips himself
>in the groin...*

Phil practices an ancient honorable art of shooting people in the back and
bargging about it in sleezy bars afterwards; the bragging part alone took
years of study.

> > And the toe? Do you control it or does it do its
>own thing? :)>
> > Phil
>
>Hey, buster, NOBODY controls The Toe.
>
>Better get that through your head if you want to
>live...
>
>*Doc' kisses The Toe's toe ring as a sign of respect...*

*Phil sidles off looking worried*

Phil

It is a fact of life in Earthdawn that characters will fall, usually from
high places.
ED main book, Adventuring in Earthdawn

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 86
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Anyway, I'm just a big wuss, so if I ever killed
anyone, I'd use Gun-Fu. ;)
> > >
> > > *Doc' flips his nun-pack-u (Gun-Fu name for
pistol) about his body and accidentally pistol-whips
himself in the groin...*
>
> Phil practices an ancient honorable art of shooting
people in the back and bargging about it in sleezy
bars afterwards; the bragging part alone took years of
study.

Ahhh, grasshopper...you have much yet to learn...

Until one can shoot oneself in one's foot and pretend
nothing happened, one is not a true master of
Gun-Fu...

> > > And the toe? Do you control it or does it do
its own thing? :)>
> >
> >Hey, buster, NOBODY controls The Toe.
> >
> >Better get that through your head if you want to
>live...
> >
> >*Doc' kisses The Toe's toe ring as a sign of
respect...*
>
> *Phil sidles off looking worried*

*The Toe pulls out a tommy gun and turns Phil into
Swiss cheese...*

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
Message no. 87
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 19:00:18 GMT
>From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
>Reply-To: shadowrn@*********.com
>To: shadowrn@*********.com
>Subject: Re:CC Martial Arts
>Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > > Anyway, I'm just a big wuss, so if I ever killed
>anyone, I'd use Gun-Fu. ;)
> > > >
> > > > *Doc' flips his nun-pack-u (Gun-Fu name for
>pistol) about his body and accidentally pistol-whips
>himself in the groin...*
> >
> > Phil practices an ancient honorable art of shooting
>people in the back and bargging about it in sleezy
>bars afterwards; the bragging part alone took years of
>study.
>
>Ahhh, grasshopper...you have much yet to learn...
>
>Until one can shoot oneself in one's foot and pretend
>nothing happened, one is not a true master of
>Gun-Fu...

I have a lot to learn master, but one day I shall master the art.

> > > > And the toe? Do you control it or does it do
>its own thing? :)>
> > >
> > >Hey, buster, NOBODY controls The Toe.
> > >
> > >Better get that through your head if you want to
> >live...
> > >
> > >*Doc' kisses The Toe's toe ring as a sign of
>respect...*
> >
> > *Phil sidles off looking worried*
>
>*The Toe pulls out a tommy gun and turns Phil into
>Swiss cheese...*

Wasn't expecting that one; I thought you were the wussy.

Phil

It is a fact of life in Earthdawn that characters will fall, usually from
high places.
ED main book, Adventuring in Earthdawn

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 88
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 06:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
> >Ahhh, grasshopper...you have much yet to learn...
> >
> >Until one can shoot oneself in one's foot and
pretend nothing happened, one is not a true master of
Gun-Fu...
>
> I have a lot to learn master, but one day I shall
master the art.

*Doc' bows and straightens. When Phil bows in return,
Doc' pistol whips him across the back of the neck with
his nun-pack-u.*

First lesson, grasshopper. Never show your back to an
armed man...

> >*The Toe pulls out a tommy gun and turns Phil into
>Swiss cheese...*
>
> Wasn't expecting that one; I thought you were the
wussy.
> Phil

I am...but The Toe is a real hardman...errr...digit! I
meant digit!

*Doc' grovels before The "The Butcher" Toe, pleading
for his life...*

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
Message no. 89
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 08:00:58 GMT
>From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
> > >Ahhh, grasshopper...you have much yet to learn...
> > >
> > >Until one can shoot oneself in one's foot and
>pretend nothing happened, one is not a true master of
>Gun-Fu...
> >
> > I have a lot to learn master, but one day I shall
>master the art.
>
>*Doc' bows and straightens. When Phil bows in return,
>Doc' pistol whips him across the back of the neck with
>his nun-pack-u.*
>
>First lesson, grasshopper. Never show your back to an
>armed man...

Sorry master (copletely out of sink with lip movements)
*having worked in films like this from an early age, Phil was badly dubbed
as a child*

> > >*The Toe pulls out a tommy gun and turns Phil into
> >Swiss cheese...*
> >
> > Wasn't expecting that one; I thought you were the
>wussy.
> > Phil
>
>I am...but The Toe is a real hardman...errr...digit! I
>meant digit!
>
>*Doc' grovels before The "The Butcher" Toe, pleading
>for his life...*

Something not right here.

*Phil gets him a detective to investigate who it was who pulled that Tommy
Gun*

Phil

...Unfortunatly one of them spotted our hidden microphone and followed the
extension cable back to the police station.
Milton Jones

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 90
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 07:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
> >*Doc' bows and straightens. When Phil bows in
return, Doc' pistol whips him across the back of the
neck with his nun-pack-u.*
> >
> >First lesson, grasshopper. Never show your back to
an armed man...
>
> Sorry master (copletely out of sink with lip
movements) *having worked in films like this from an
early age, Phil was badly dubbed as a child*

*Doc' bows respectfully...*

At least you have mastered the art of Gun-Fu speech,
grasshopper. That will serve you well in your death
scene...

*Doc' takes careful aim...*

> >I am...but The Toe is a real
hardman...errr...digit! I meant digit!
> >
> >*Doc' grovels before The "The Butcher" Toe,
pleading for his life...*
>
> Something not right here.
>
> *Phil gets him a detective to investigate who it was
who pulled that Tommy Gun*

Would you believe Don Toe has a fully-articulated
cyborg power suit that he wears when messing people up?

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
Message no. 91
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:05:20 GMT
>From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
> > Sorry master (copletely out of sink with lip
>movements) *having worked in films like this from an
>early age, Phil was badly dubbed as a child*
>
>*Doc' bows respectfully...*
>
>At least you have mastered the art of Gun-Fu speech,
>grasshopper. That will serve you well in your death
>scene...
>
>*Doc' takes careful aim...*

*Phil counts his combat pool and gulps*

> > Something not right here.
> >
> > *Phil gets him a detective to investigate who it was
>who pulled that Tommy Gun*
>
>Would you believe Don Toe has a fully-articulated
>cyborg power suit that he wears when messing people up?

No, but I do have evidence linking him to the slaughter of the heads of all
the major finger familys in New York.

Phil

...Unfortunatly one of them spotted our hidden microphone and followed the
extension cable back to the police station.
Milton Jones

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 92
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: CC Martial Arts
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
> >Would you believe Don Toe has a fully-articulated
> >cyborg power suit that he wears when messing people
> up?
>
> No, but I do have evidence linking him to the
> slaughter of the heads of all
> the major finger familys in New York.

Oh, lordy.

Phil, one of us has to learn to let these things go
and (on the instructions of Don Toe), I'm officially
terminating this thread.

With extreme prejudice.

*Doc' tommy-guns the thread to death, while The Toe
cackles maniacally...*

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about CC Martial Arts, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!