Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Hahns Shin Hahns_Shin@*******.com
Subject: Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 04:30:55 -0500
Umm, I thought that extra successes in a Melee combat test is supposed
simulate this "Technique causes more damage" phenomena. For example, a guy
with Unarmed 3 can only stage up 3 successes without Combat/Karma Pool,
which stages up to S Stun... he can't even knockout a guy with a glass jaw
(Body 2)! However, someone with Unarmed 6 (supposedly black belt level)
will most likely knockout a guy with no or minimal training... can probably
break a few bricks and boards, too. The reason I'm being so obvious here is
to emphasize what has been the rule all along: That regardless of your
Strength, someone with Unarmed training is probably going to wipe the floor
against someone without/minimal Unarmed training. That's how it is in
Shadowrun, and that's how it is in real life. Oh, and training in this case
does not necessarily mean Martial Arts... it could be living on the streets
or learning from the knee-to-groin/bite-and-kick school of combat. Of
course, if the target was a hardass (Body 6), it might take a while for the
guy to succumb to the beatdown...

I don't know. I've been happy with abstracting it, mostly because there are
no realistic options that suit me at this time. That, and gun beats knife
every time in SR's rock/paper/scissors. Unless it's a throwing knife... umm,
err... I'll have to work on that metaphor.

Hahns
Message no. 2
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts)
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 06:59:56 -0600
Hahns Shin wrote:
>Umm, I thought that extra successes in a Melee combat test is supposed
>simulate this "Technique causes more damage" phenomena.

And it does it quite well. The problem that's come to light is that the
Power of the attack is based on the attacker's strength, which just isn't
the case in RL.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday ... and all is well."
Message no. 3
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:23:51 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:

> >Umm, I thought that extra successes in a Melee combat test is supposed
> >simulate this "Technique causes more damage" phenomena.
>
> And it does it quite well. The problem that's come to light is that the
> Power of the attack is based on the attacker's strength, which just isn't
> the case in RL.

Actually, it is. All other things being equal (i.e. a strong
person and a weak person both hit the same vital location with equal
skill), the stronger person is going to do more damage. This is pretty
much the case with SR as well.
Again, don't confuse skill with strength, skill with quickness, or
skill with reaction. Skill is skill. It dictates how many successes you
have, and that's all. How many successes you have is a direct map to how
well you have placed your blow, put your body behind it, and followed
through.
Also keep in mind that SR melee combat is abstract. In an
abstract system that takes multiple blows, parries, counters, etc into
account, there will be instances where Strength will be important, just as
there are instances where Body will be very important.
If you place your blow with equal efficacy and have a higher
Strength, your attack *should* do more damage. Further, having a lower
Strength but a higher skill allows you to net more successes, which
generally translates to more damage. It may be slightly easier to resist
because of a lower target number, but that makes sense. If your skill is
high enough, even the weakest opponent will be deadly. Even with a low
skill, very strong opponents can be dangerous if they connect.
How is this not like real life?

Marc
Message no. 4
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts)
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:24:51 -0600
Marc Renouf wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:
>
> > >Umm, I thought that extra successes in a Melee combat test is supposed
> > >simulate this "Technique causes more damage" phenomena.
> >
> > And it does it quite well. The problem that's come to light is that the
> > Power of the attack is based on the attacker's strength, which just isn't
> > the case in RL.
>
> Actually, it is. All other things being equal (i.e. a strong
>person and a weak person both hit the same vital location with equal
>skill), the stronger person is going to do more damage. This is pretty
>much the case with SR as well.

Sorry, I'm not being specific. Please let me try again.

The primary determinants of damage in unarmed combat are skill and weight.

Yes, a stronger person will hit harder than a weaker person. But the
difference due to strength isn't that much.

A skilled fighter will put their body into it (adding more mass to the
blow) and will hit a lot harder than an unskilled fighter (in general).

A heavier person will hit a lot harder than a lighter person.

> Again, don't confuse skill with strength, skill with quickness, or
>skill with reaction. Skill is skill. It dictates how many successes you
>have, and that's all. How many successes you have is a direct map to how
>well you have placed your blow, put your body behind it, and followed
>through.

Agreed.

> Also keep in mind that SR melee combat is abstract. In an
>abstract system that takes multiple blows, parries, counters, etc into
>account, there will be instances where Strength will be important, just as
>there are instances where Body will be very important.

But Body is more important when it comes to strikes (punchs/kicks). Skill
and quickness are important when it comes to locks and throws. I can't
think of a form of attack in which strength is the primary determinant of
the outcome. No wait, yes I can, a bear hug. There, that's one.

Every form of attack I've been taught relies using my mass, using their
mass, using gravity, using pain, using technique, or using speed. With the
exception of the bear hug, I have yet to be taught, nor have I witnessed, a
form of attack that relies on strength.

> If you place your blow with equal efficacy and have a higher
>Strength, your attack *should* do more damage.

But not much more. Mass + velocity = energy. And more muscle doesn't
increase the velocity enough to really be significant.

Here's where I think the confusion occurs.

Everyone imagine a weak guy hitting a punching bag. Now imagine a strong
guy hitting a punching bag. Is the weak guy you imagined small and
light? Is the strong guy you imagined big and muscular? More muscle
equals more weight/mass. The strong guy isn't hitting harder because he's
stronger, he's hitting harder because he has more mass behind his punches.

And although the muscle mass is significantly contributing to the damage,
the energy generated by the muscles isn't significantly contributing to the
damage when compared to a weaker person. It's the extra mass that's
generating more damage.

The boxing world knows this. That's why they have weight classes, not
strength classes. Boxers are not divided into classes by how much weight
they can lift, but by how much they weigh. The heavy boxers hit harder
because they have more mass behind their punches.

The power of an unarmed strike shouldn't based on Strength, it should be
based on Body.

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. 5
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:55:41 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:

> Every form of attack I've been taught relies using my mass, using their
> mass, using gravity, using pain, using technique, or using speed. With the
> exception of the bear hug, I have yet to be taught, nor have I witnessed, a
> form of attack that relies on strength.

Actually, most of the techniques I've been taught, from throws to
punches to grapples, rely on strength - the strength of the legs. Getting
your legs into the proper position and using your glutes and quads (the
largest muscles in your body) is probably the most important part of
developing power. But you call that "technique." Semantics.

> But not much more. Mass + velocity = energy. And more muscle doesn't
> increase the velocity enough to really be significant.

Actually, energy is mass*(velocity^2). Velocity is *much* more
important for overall energy than mass, as any student of ballistics will
tell you. Furthermore, muscular strength is pretty much *the* determining
factor in "speed" (i.e.stronger contraction yields more leverage yields
more acceleration of arm/leg/whatever). Even Shadowrun models this, as
Muscle Replacement makes you run faster. Look at a sprinter's quads as
opposed to a distance runner's quads sometime and you'll see what I mean.

> Everyone imagine a weak guy hitting a punching bag. Now imagine a strong
> guy hitting a punching bag. Is the weak guy you imagined small and
> light? Is the strong guy you imagined big and muscular? More muscle
> equals more weight/mass. The strong guy isn't hitting harder because he's
> stronger, he's hitting harder because he has more mass behind his punches.

The hardest I've ever been hit was by a reedy little guy whom I
outweigh by close to 50 pounds. I'm packing a little extra weight, but
not a lot. Bruce Lee was far from massive, and yet he could hit quite
hard by all recollections. And he was quite strong.
Here's the problem. There are different kinds of muscle. Almost
unilaterally, when Americans (who've been raised on a steady diet of Sly
and Ahnold film) think of "strong" they think of "big." But there are
a
number of studies that show that bulky muscle is not too terribly much
stronger than wiry, low fat-content muscle mass. I'm more worried about
the guy who's small but cut than the guy who can't put on his own shirt
because his lats get in the way.
There are differences in the way the muscle is developed. Bulk
muscle is formed by maxing out, by consistently pushing a muscle to its
failing point. Wiry muscle is formed through repeated use (like *highly*
repeated use) of a load that is less than the muscle's maximum load
capacity.
The perfect example of this is my brother-in-law. He's a
carpet-layer. He grips things all day long, rolling carpet under on the
edges, stretching it, etc. He's not what you'd call strong-looking. He
might weigh 140 lbs soaking wet, and stands 6 feet tall. He a weed. But
he has a grip that is unbelievable. He doesn't have forearms like Popeye,
he's just incredibly strong. You wouldn't know it to look at him (or you
might, if you weren't looking for Ahnold).

> And although the muscle mass is significantly contributing to the damage,
> the energy generated by the muscles isn't significantly contributing to the
> damage when compared to a weaker person. It's the extra mass that's
> generating more damage.

I disagree, for the above reasons.

> The boxing world knows this. That's why they have weight classes, not
> strength classes. Boxers are not divided into classes by how much weight
> they can lift, but by how much they weigh. The heavy boxers hit harder
> because they have more mass behind their punches.

I'm not saying that mass isn't important, I'm just saying that I
don't think it's important enough to screw with what already amounts to an
abstraction of combat.
Make sense?

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. 6
From: NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com
Subject: Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:22:40 -0500
From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
Subject: Re: Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts)


> Sorry, I'm not being specific. Please let me try again.

Okay, but don't say you weren't warned... ;-)

> The primary determinants of damage in unarmed combat are skill and weight.

Skill and application of weight.

> Yes, a stronger person will hit harder than a weaker person. But the
> difference due to strength isn't that much.

Actually, it is considerable. The ability to apply one's strength is where
a LOT of it matters.

> A skilled fighter will put their body into it (adding more mass to the
> blow) and will hit a lot harder than an unskilled fighter (in general).

Which is more or less a type of "ramming" rule actually, and you might be
able to argue adding a portion of Body to the damage code in Shadowrun with
this idea in mind.

> A heavier person will hit a lot harder than a lighter person.

Oh now don't go there. I've seen some VERY heavy people who couldn't hit
anything harder than my kid brother could at age 4 (don't get me wrong, a
kick to the 'nads is still a kick to the 'nads). But only a skilled
heavier person will know how to bring their weight into the application of
the fight.

> > Again, don't confuse skill with strength, skill with quickness, or
> >skill with reaction. Skill is skill. It dictates how many successes you
> >have, and that's all. How many successes you have is a direct map to how
> >well you have placed your blow, put your body behind it, and followed
> >through.
>
> Agreed.

Agreed.

> > Also keep in mind that SR melee combat is abstract. In an
> >abstract system that takes multiple blows, parries, counters, etc into
> >account, there will be instances where Strength will be important, just
as
> >there are instances where Body will be very important.
>
> But Body is more important when it comes to strikes (punchs/kicks). Skill
> and quickness are important when it comes to locks and throws. I can't
> think of a form of attack in which strength is the primary determinant of
> the outcome. No wait, yes I can, a bear hug. There, that's one.

No wait, that's not even right. A "Bear Hug" (also found in similar
relations in Sumo or "Overwhelming" styles of combat). Strength is still
what determines the crushing force behind this kind of action. Body of the
opponent determines how well they resist the crushing force. Apply their
strength (as the victim) against the other strength is often (in the
untrained individuals case more than anything) the only way they will likely
get free of such an attack. Bear Hugs and similar actions are best to get
free if the attacked/target can get a grip with their feet ... which in most
cases does mean keeping their feet on the ground (unless you get some
asshole like me who on the rare occasions does meet someone who can pick me
often finds themselves made the new center of base gravity.... not nice even
for those skilled in knowing what they are doing when they find their own
sense of balance being applied as their own enemy now).

> Every form of attack I've been taught relies using my mass, using their
> mass, using gravity, using pain, using technique, or using speed. With
the
> exception of the bear hug, I have yet to be taught, nor have I witnessed,
a
> form of attack that relies on strength.

I have, at all times. All forms of training teach/instruct/direct one on
how best to apply the resources you have however into a fight, be it
offensive or defensive.

> > If you place your blow with equal efficacy and have a higher
> >Strength, your attack *should* do more damage.
>
> But not much more. Mass + velocity = energy. And more muscle doesn't
> increase the velocity enough to really be significant.

No offense Dave (or is this Marc?) but I love it when anyone brings into
play mathematic formulae into a discussion on applied artists and individual
applications of such.

> Here's where I think the confusion occurs.
>
> Everyone imagine a weak guy hitting a punching bag. Now imagine a strong
> guy hitting a punching bag. Is the weak guy you imagined small and
> light? Is the strong guy you imagined big and muscular? More muscle
> equals more weight/mass. The strong guy isn't hitting harder because he's
> stronger, he's hitting harder because he has more mass behind his punches.
>
> And although the muscle mass is significantly contributing to the damage,
> the energy generated by the muscles isn't significantly contributing to
the
> damage when compared to a weaker person. It's the extra mass that's
> generating more damage.
>
> The boxing world knows this. That's why they have weight classes, not
> strength classes. Boxers are not divided into classes by how much weight
> they can lift, but by how much they weigh. The heavy boxers hit harder
> because they have more mass behind their punches.
>
> The power of an unarmed strike shouldn't based on Strength, it should be
> based on Body.

More later, the grill is ready prior to the game tonight.... Steaks at a
Game... (evil grin)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NeoJudas ("K" to Friends)
"Children of the Kernel: Reborn"
(neojudas@******************.com)
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
Message no. 7
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts)
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 08:00:10 -0600
NeoJudas wrote:
>From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
>Subject: Re: Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts)
>
>
> > Sorry, I'm not being specific. Please let me try again.
>
>Okay, but don't say you weren't warned... ;-)
>
> > The primary determinants of damage in unarmed combat are skill and weight.
>
>Skill and application of weight.

You know, I figured that out this morning right after I woke up <sigh> :)

I want to apologize to everyone involved in this debate, and everyone who
has been subjected to my posts. I've been way off base. I've been
debating for the sake of debating and stopped listening to other
people. I've allowed emotions from another debate (on a message board) to
affect my feelings in this debate.

The human body can be used as a weapon. Skill is required. Mass is
required. The attributes to apply mass are required. Strength is indeed a
factor in unarmed combat.

Having played Shadowrun for many years, I have never seen the unarmed
combat system break down due to the fact that the Strength attribute is the
determinant factor of the power of an attack.

The main rules are fine the way that are and do not need to be changed. I
don't have the CC, and as such do not have an educated opinion about the
martial arts rules in that sourcebook.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Warm nights, good food, kindred spirits....great life!"

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Technique and Damage (was Re: 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!