Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shirogr@*****.com (Shiro BsquLadat)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:19:44 -0800 (PST)
So in 4ed unarmed combat is no longer a contest, with
the winner dealing damage? It certainly doesn't look
that way in the book.

"I have no use for people who have learned the limits of the possible"
-Terry Pratchet, The Last Hero




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 2
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 11:07:38 +0100
According to Shiro BsquLadat, on 26-11-05 22:19 the word on the street
was...

> So in 4ed unarmed combat is no longer a contest, with
> the winner dealing damage? It certainly doesn't look
> that way in the book.

The defender can try to ward off damage, but not attempt to
counterattack. This is definitely different from SR3, where the default
options was to counterattack, and trying to block damage the option you
had to consciously select.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Please do not read the lyrics whilst listening to the recordings.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: shirogr@*****.com (Shiro BsquLadat)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:15:06 -0800 (PST)
Does it work? Sounds pretty dull to me.I guess I'll
use the previous system in my games as a house rule?

"I have no use for people who have learned the limits of the possible"
-Terry Pratchet, The Last Hero




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 4
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:09:51 -0200
On 11/27/05, Shiro BsquLadat <shirogr@*****.com> wrote:
> Does it work? Sounds pretty dull to me.I guess I'll
> use the previous system in my games as a house rule?

I've been playing that way for a considerable amount of time now
(because Exalted works that way) and I don't think it's dull. It does
mean an uncybered kung-fu master won't be able to damage a wired
street sam 8 times in a turn anymore, which I think was the main
complaint people had under the old system.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 5
From: zealey@****.net.au (James Zealey)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:12:43 +1100
> From:
> Shiro BsquLadat <shirogr@*****.com>
>
> Does it work? Sounds pretty dull to me.I guess I'll
> use the previous system in my games as a house rule?
>
> "I have no use for people who have learned the limits of the possible"
> -Terry Pratchet, The Last Hero
>

Well, it probably makes it worth your while to actually make an unarmed
attack. Under 3ed, you're better off pumping your unarmed skill and
simply shooting the guy. Whenever he attacks you, you hit him (unarmed
skill) and then on your go, you shoot him as well.

Note that this applies even if you don't have an action - somehow
opponents who assault a kung-fu master will comically incapacitate
themselves, despite the fact that the guy is too slow to actually be
able to do anything.

It sounds like the 4e rules remove this stupidity.
Message no. 6
From: sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:10:17 -0500
On 11/27/05, James Zealey <zealey@****.net.au> wrote:
>
> Note that this applies even if you don't have an action - somehow
> opponents who assault a kung-fu master will comically incapacitate
> themselves, despite the fact that the guy is too slow to actually be
> able to do anything.

That's actually how a lot of martial arts forms *work.* Tai Chi, anyone?

But yeah, from a rules perspective I can see why they fixed things.

--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
http://www.escapepod.info
Message no. 7
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:15:27 -0800 (PST)
> Well, it probably makes it worth your while to actually make an
> unarmed attack. Under 3ed, you're better off pumping your >
unarmed skill and simply shooting the guy. Whenever he attacks > you,
you hit him (unarmed skill) and then on your go, you shoot > him as
well.
>
> Note that this applies even if you don't have an action - >
somehow opponents who assault a kung-fu master will comically >
incapacitate themselves, despite the fact that the guy is too > slow
to actually be able to do anything.
>
> It sounds like the 4e rules remove this stupidity.

Have any of you actually participated in any sort of hand-to-hand or
melee combat? Or an reasonable simulation thereof? I have. One of
the old tongue-in-cheek Rules of Engagement that used to float around
the net a lot was this: If the enemy is in range, so are you. This
is never more true than in melee/hand-to-hand combat. It does not
matter how jazzed up your reflexes are, if you get close enough to
hit me, I have a chance to hit you too. Now, fast beats slow. But,
skilled beats unskilled. And skill counts more than speed. So if a
blur of a human fighter with no training attacks an old man with 50
years of hard training, my nuyen is on the old man. Any decently
defensive art (aikido, jujitsu, etc) will actually be at an advantage
against a faster aggressor. More momentum means less work for the
defender. If you have 4 combat passes, and you learn on the first
one that the old man you just ambushed is a kung fu master, use your
other passes to get some distance and shoot him.

Melee combat favors the defender. Attacking creates openings in
one's own defenses. That holds true in real life, so why not in the
game? As an aside, I have always applied a +2 TN penalty to ranged
combat tests undertaken while engaged in melee/hand-to-hand combat.

I would agree with the statement that melee/hand-to-hand combat
needed some fixes in previous editions of SR. I don't agree with the
assertion that removing counter-attack from the rules is a good fix.
There are much better tweaks, such as giving a -1 TN bonus to the
attacker since they know the plan of attack and the defender is just
reacting. (Or a dice bonus if you play the RPG formerly known as
Shado... err, Prince.)

======Korishinzo
--ties go to the attacker... hey, it gives the house an edge in
blackjack... sounds like game balance to me



__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
Message no. 8
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:58:25 -0500
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:15:27AM -0800, Ice Heart wrote:
> Have any of you actually participated in any sort of hand-to-hand or
> melee combat? Or an reasonable simulation thereof? I have.

goodies. However, any Turn-based system is NOT a reasonable simulation
thereof.

Having a melee skill and being attacked does not make you FASTER than an
identical character that is not attacked. That would be silly.

--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
US200311110
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 9
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:15:42 -0700
On 11/28/05, Brett Sanger <swiftone@********.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:15:27AM -0800, Ice Heart wrote:
> > Have any of you actually participated in any sort of hand-to-hand or
> > melee combat? Or an reasonable simulation thereof? I have.
>
> goodies. However, any Turn-based system is NOT a reasonable simulation
> thereof.
>
> Having a melee skill and being attacked does not make you FASTER than an
> identical character that is not attacked. That would be silly.

Being one of the other members with martial arts experience, I can say
that SR3 is a fairly reasonable simulation. If you attack someone
that is well trained, or has a lot of experience, it can be like
shoving your hand into a blender. SR3 just misses some modifiers.
The defender should still have an opportunity to counter attack even
against a fully wired attacker. But, the attacker should have a bonus
for being fast, and gain modifiers for additional attacks after the
first (until the defender gets their action).

I can't remember if this is from the rules or not, but in my game I
gave the attacker with more actions a +x where x = the difference in
actions. And, the attacker got the Friends in Melee bonus for each
additional attack that they got in before the defender had their
action (so on the second attack they got the bonus for one friend, for
the third two friends, and so on until the defender was able to act
and reset the Friends in Melee bonus to 0).

--
-Graht
Message no. 10
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:46:11 -0500
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:15:42PM -0700, Graht wrote:
> On 11/28/05, Brett Sanger <swiftone@********.org> wrote:
> > Having a melee skill and being attacked does not make you FASTER than an
> > identical character that is not attacked. That would be silly.
>
> Being one of the other members with martial arts experience, I can say
> that SR3 is a fairly reasonable simulation. If you attack someone
> that is well trained, or has a lot of experience, it can be like
> shoving your hand into a blender.

Yeah, yeah, martials arts rock, go ninjas. HOWEVER, I made two core
points:

1) A turn-based initiative ISN'T a reasonable simulation of Real Life.
2) Someone should not get FASTER by virtue of getting attacked. (Sure,
in Real Life they might very well be in a better situation because they
were attacked. They do not, however, get to be faster.)

In our little SR world, you only have time to do a certain number of
actions, represented by the initiative system. If I attacked the
martial artist in melee, she doesn't have TIME to react until her
initiative. This represents a generalization...if she makes her action
to shoot a gun at someone else, she's ignoring me (or only paying enough
attention to try and prevent damage rather than trying to hurt me). If
she attacks me on HER turn, that represents the stupidity on my part of
getting within range and thrusting my hand into the "blender". Either
way, her physical SPEED hasn't increased because of my attack, though
her SITUATION may have improved.

Remember that the combat system is a SIMULATION, and we need to do more
than say "unskilled melee attackers are paste against a martial artist",
we need to make the generalization reasonable across the board.

> I can't remember if this is from the rules or not, but in my game I
> gave the attacker with more actions a +x where x = the difference in
> actions.

See, an action is a generalization of speed. The reward for being
"faster" is to get more actions. You shouldn't need a bonus. This is
why the old rules had a problem.

Under SR4, a fast unskilled attacker against a slower skilled defender
will do no damage, then get pounded. That sounds quite reasonable to
me. Unlike SR3, that defender will actually have to DO something to
pound the attacker.

In SR3, this was not an uncommon scenario:

Adept: I kill the flesh form in front of me.
Street Sam: I shoot two more with bursts.
GM: Okay, they squeal and die. The 20 remaining flesh forms get to go now,
they boil over the Adept and...(rolls dice...a lot)...all get torn asunder.
Street Sam: Uh...any chance I can pull a trigger during this? Even just
once?
GM: (still rolling dice) Nope, this is all happening in a fraction of a
second. Okay, they're all dead, a pile of limbs and chitin. Adept,
it's your action.

--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 11
From: zealey@****.net.au (The Zealeys)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:36:47 +1100
> Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>
>
> Have any of you actually participated in any sort of hand-to-hand or
... etc etc...
> hit me, I have a chance to hit you too. Now, fast beats slow. But,
> skilled beats unskilled. And skill counts more than speed.

Without reflexes, skill and speed are synonymous. You train so you don't
need to spend any time pondering your next move, yet you make the
correct one.

> More momentum means less work for the
> defender.

Except we're talking about speed in terms of reactions, not raw
velocity. Wired reflexes doesn't make you run quicker. It lets you react
quicker to changes in your environment. Wired reflexes don't give you
extra actions at the cost of accuracy - they give you extra actions with
the SAME accuracy.

> If you have 4 combat passes, and you learn on the first
> one that the old man you just ambushed is a kung fu master, use your
> other passes to get some distance and shoot him.
>

Except you run no faster than he does... You've got wired reflexes, not
muscle toning. So you're back to what I said - shooting in melee,
because it's better than actually trying to hit the guy.He can't dodge
your shots, but he can beat you up. Seems strange...

> Melee combat favors the defender. Attacking creates openings in
> one's own defenses. That holds true in real life, so why not in the
> game?
>

I was of the understanding that in a significant portion of all-styles
martial arts tourneys, muay thai came out ahead. And that's pretty much
all about offense, isn't it?

>
> I would agree with the statement that melee/hand-to-hand combat
> needed some fixes in previous editions of SR. I don't agree with the
> assertion that removing counter-attack from the rules is a good fix.
> There are much better tweaks, such as giving a -1 TN bonus to the
> attacker since they know the plan of attack and the defender is just
> reacting. (Or a dice bonus if you play the RPG formerly known as
> Shado... err, Prince.)

Doesn't that do exactly what you don't want (ie - you said that defense
has the advantage - this gives it to the offense)?
Message no. 12
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:59:24 -0700
On 11/28/05, The Zealeys <zealey@****.net.au> wrote:
> > Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>
> >
> > Have any of you actually participated in any sort of hand-to-hand or
> ... etc etc...
> > hit me, I have a chance to hit you too. Now, fast beats slow. But,
> > skilled beats unskilled. And skill counts more than speed.
>
> Without reflexes, skill and speed are synonymous. You train so you don't
> need to spend any time pondering your next move, yet you make the
> correct one.
>
> > More momentum means less work for the
> > defender.
>
> Except we're talking about speed in terms of reactions, not raw
> velocity. Wired reflexes doesn't make you run quicker. It lets you react
> quicker to changes in your environment. Wired reflexes don't give you
> extra actions at the cost of accuracy - they give you extra actions with
> the SAME accuracy.

Well, they let you react quicker in that they increase Reaction,
thereby reducing your chance of surprise, but more importantly they
let you act quicker. Extra actions are actions, they aren't
reactions. This distinction is very important when it comes to
unarmed combat.

> > If you have 4 combat passes, and you learn on the first
> > one that the old man you just ambushed is a kung fu master, use your
> > other passes to get some distance and shoot him.
>
> Except you run no faster than he does... You've got wired reflexes, not
> muscle toning. So you're back to what I said - shooting in melee,
> because it's better than actually trying to hit the guy.He can't dodge
> your shots, but he can beat you up. Seems strange...

Martial arts trains actions and reactions.

Actions are choosing which technique to attack with. Training makes
that action smooth and precise.

Reactions are blocking and counter attacking a given attack. Karate
is a prime example. A strike to the face is met with an upward
block/counter strike.

Trained reactions are what makes martial arts so defensive. Almost no
thought is required. That's what I meant in one my posts when I said
that attacking a trained opponent is like putting your hand in a
blender. A trained opponent will almost certainly react to any attack
with a block/avoid/counter attack. The more skilled the opponent, the
more.. powerful the counter. Someone with 1-2 levels in martial arts
will counter with a simple strike. Someone with 5-6 levels will
counter with crippling attack, because that's what they've trained
themselves to do reflexively.

A wired character will be able to Act before an unwired character, but
a character trained to reflexively respond to a unarmed attack with a
counter attack will always reflexively respond to an unarmed attack
with a counter attack. Ergo, the hand in a blender reference.

There is no defense against a bullet. That's when it comes down to
dodge/karma pool, a mechanic that has nothing to do with skill and
everything to do with Player Character luck.

> > I would agree with the statement that melee/hand-to-hand combat
> > needed some fixes in previous editions of SR. I don't agree with the
> > assertion that removing counter-attack from the rules is a good fix.
> > There are much better tweaks, such as giving a -1 TN bonus to the
> > attacker since they know the plan of attack and the defender is just
> > reacting. (Or a dice bonus if you play the RPG formerly known as
> > Shado... err, Prince.)
>
> Doesn't that do exactly what you don't want (ie - you said that defense
> has the advantage - this gives it to the offense)?

It recognizes that having wired (or similar) reflexes is an advantage
above and beyond having extra actions in a round. All things being
equal defense has the advantage. A contest between someone who has
3-4 actions and someone who has 1 action, and everything else being
equal, should not be an equal contest.

--
-Graht
Message no. 13
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:08:26 +0100
According to Graht, on 28-11-05 22:59 the word on the street was...

> Martial arts trains actions and reactions.
>
> Actions are choosing which technique to attack with. Training makes
> that action smooth and precise.
>
> Reactions are blocking and counter attacking a given attack. Karate
> is a prime example. A strike to the face is met with an upward
> block/counter strike.

IMHO (not having _any_ martial arts training whatsoever) that can be
said to be represented by being able to block on the other person's
action, and then (counter-)attacking on your own action. Since a combat
turn is three seconds long and everyone noramlly only gets one action in
it, this model works quite well, if you ask me -- all you need to do is
view the block and the attack as a single movement that happens to take
place over two actions (the attacker's and the defender's).

This way, you can also see a wired attacker vs. a non-wired defender as
the attacker throwing punches so fast that the defender only has time to
block, rather than perform a block-counterattack, because the next punch
comes in quickly enough that he doesn't have time to do
block-counterattack-block-etc.

But then again, I have never done any martial arts at all :)

> There is no defense against a bullet. That's when it comes down to
> dodge/karma pool, a mechanic that has nothing to do with skill and
> everything to do with Player Character luck.

What, you mean to say a character can't learn to listen to the muscles
in the shooter's trigger finger?! ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Please do not read the lyrics whilst listening to the recordings.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 14
From: pasquires@*****.com (Paul Squires)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:50:53 +0000
On 11/29/05, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Graht, on 28-11-05 22:59 the word on the street was...
>
> > Martial arts trains actions and reactions.
<Some stuff snipped>

I actually thought the best way it worked in SR was when dice pools
refreshed on the action, rather than at the end of the combat turn -
this way someone with high WR would actually have an advantage in HTH
combat, but skill would still win out...

As it is, since ties to go to the attacker and someone with more
actions has more choice about what to do (attack or retreat, draw a
weapon etc...) then there's still clearly an advantage to be exploited
by a /clever/ fighter...

Not that I play SR anymore :(

--
Paul Squires
pasquires@*****.com | OpenPGP Key ID: 0x423003E0
MSN: pa_squires@*******.com | ICQ: 318471677
Message no. 15
From: grimjack@******.com (Martin Little)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:51:23 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Gurth wrote:

> > There is no defense against a bullet. That's when it comes down to
> > dodge/karma pool, a mechanic that has nothing to do with skill and
> > everything to do with Player Character luck.
>
> What, you mean to say a character can't learn to listen to the muscles
> in the shooter's trigger finger?! ;)
>

Only if one is Korean. :)


I don't really like the idea of treating unarmed combat as different than
armed combat. The idea that you magicly get reaction speed because you
have training is somewhat silly, trying to apply real world semantics of
unarmed combat(where people are more or less the same speed) to a world
where people have been artificially sped up to quite diffent reaction
times just doesn't work. If you have a couple of of actions before the
martial artist his training won't even have time to kick in, IMHO, you're
moving before his reflexes can even kick in.
Message no. 16
From: ldillon@*******.com (lance dillon)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:03:56 -0600
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 10:51 -0500, Martin Little wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Gurth wrote:
>
> > > There is no defense against a bullet. That's when it comes down to
> > > dodge/karma pool, a mechanic that has nothing to do with skill and
> > > everything to do with Player Character luck.
> >
> > What, you mean to say a character can't learn to listen to the muscles
> > in the shooter's trigger finger?! ;)
> >
>
> Only if one is Korean. :)
>


As a Destroyer fan, I was thinking the same thing...
Message no. 17
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:44:00 -0800 (PST)
> goodies. However, any Turn-based system is NOT a reasonable
> simulation thereof.

It can be, with a modicum of attention to what the abstract mechanics
are trying to represent. The game rules are what the GM and players
make of them. With more than half my gaming group also students in
some martial art or another, there is a vested interest in
believable, mildly accurate representation of melee combat.

> Having a melee skill and being attacked does not make you FASTER
> than an identical character that is not attacked. That would > be
silly.

Actually, it isn't silly AT ALL. (I did not, btw, say it made you
fast-ER. I said that the faster combatant, upon closing with the
slower, opened themself to counter attack.) However, the fact
remains that when a savvy fighter faces a faster fighter, they play
defense, letting the faster fighter do all the work of closing
distance and creating the opening. Then, they do what most martial
artists train for. They block and counter. Most martial artists (I
ma including everything from fencing to boxing to karate here) train
far more as counter fighters. Fencing teaches one to parry and
disengage BEFORE it teaches one to thrust. Boxing teaches you a
guard BEFORE it teaches you to hit. The tone is set.

Any number of rules-tweaks can be added to make melee combat more
like real life. One could sit down and derive SR combat rules as
mechanics-intensive as Gurth's favorite example, Phoenix Command.
My opinion is that SR3 had a decent framework to build a plausible
combat sim on.

======Korishinzo
--*shrug* works for me, I guess ymmv




__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
Message no. 18
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:18:04 -0800 (PST)
> I was of the understanding that in a significant portion of
> all-styles martial arts tourneys, muay thai came out ahead. And >
that's pretty much all about offense, isn't it?

Depends. Put a muay tai and a jujitsu practicioner of the same, or
nearly the same, skill level in a ring, and the jujitsu practicioneer
wins. Gracie brothers, UFC, how many years?

> Doesn't that do exactly what you don't want (ie - you said that
> defense has the advantage - this gives it to the offense)?

Not necessarily. Yes, it gives the attacker an advantage, if the
defender is countering. But, the defender is more exposed than if
they play strict defense. I used a Full Defense rule under SR2 (and
carried it into SR3) that differs from the published rule somewhat.
When opting to block only, without counterattacking, the defender
also gains a -1 TN bonus, which puts them on the same footing as the
attacker again.

======Korishinzo
--making melee combat as detailed as ranged...






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 19
From: ldillon@*******.com (lance dillon)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:22:39 -0600
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 08:18 -0800, Ice Heart wrote:

> Depends. Put a muay tai and a jujitsu practicioner of the same, or
> nearly the same, skill level in a ring, and the jujitsu practicioneer
> wins. Gracie brothers, UFC, how many years?

Doesn't count. Bogus, rigged contest. Eyes, throat, knees, groin, and
things like that were off limits. If I were attacked for real, I
wouldn't play nice. I'd make sure I came out ahead. If the
"fighters" (as opposed to "grapplers") were allowed to do what they
were
good at, also, the fights would probably have turned out different. As
it is, the contest is biased towards the grappling arts. I saw the
first one (back in 93 or so), saw how bad it was, and never watched it
again...
Message no. 20
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:16:38 +0100
According to Ice Heart, on 29-11-05 16:44 the word on the street was...

> Any number of rules-tweaks can be added to make melee combat more
> like real life. One could sit down and derive SR combat rules as
> mechanics-intensive as Gurth's favorite example, Phoenix Command.

Which, unfortunately, does a better job of simulating firearms combat
than it does melee combat.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Please do not read the lyrics whilst listening to the recordings.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 21
From: adamj@*********.com (Adam Jury)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:17:23 -0700
On 29-Nov-05, at 9:22 AM, lance dillon wrote:

> Doesn't count. Bogus, rigged contest. Eyes, throat, knees, groin, and
> things like that were off limits. If I were attacked for real, I
> wouldn't play nice. I'd make sure I came out ahead. If the
> "fighters" (as opposed to "grapplers") were allowed to do what
they
> were
> good at, also, the fights would probably have turned out different. As
> it is, the contest is biased towards the grappling arts. I saw the
> first one (back in 93 or so), saw how bad it was, and never watched it
> again...

UFC rules have evolved a lot since the early days, and other
organizations such as PRIDE have slightly different rules. It's
certainly not the same sport it was in the early to mid 90s, although I
suspect you still wouldn't like it; plucking out people's eyeballs is
still forbidden.

Adam
Message no. 22
From: ldillon@*******.com (lsd)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:31:02 -0600
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 11:17 -0700, Adam Jury wrote:

>
> UFC rules have evolved a lot since the early days, and other
> organizations such as PRIDE have slightly different rules. It's
> certainly not the same sport it was in the early to mid 90s, although I
> suspect you still wouldn't like it; plucking out people's eyeballs is
> still forbidden.


You're right, it is, I was just using it to illustrate the point that
the UFC is biased toward the grappling arts. The fights wouldn't be
nearly so one-sided in a "real" no-holds-barred contest.


Being a Kung Fu practioner, rather than Judo or other grappling style
practioner, I am just kind of turned off by it...

But, different people, different tastes...
Message no. 23
From: sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:32:01 -0500
On 11/29/05, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
> Then, they do what most martial
> artists train for. They block and counter. Most martial artists (I
> ma including everything from fencing to boxing to karate here) train
> far more as counter fighters. Fencing teaches one to parry and
> disengage BEFORE it teaches one to thrust. Boxing teaches you a
> guard BEFORE it teaches you to hit. The tone is set.

Those particular examples may not be ideal for your argument -- they
actually reinforce the SR4 approach, because neither parrying nor
guarding does damage to your attacker. What you're saying is simply
that martial arts make it easier to defend than to attack, and that's
exactly what SR4 does: given equal skill and attributes, the defender
has either a slight or significant edge over the attacker. (Depending
on whether full defense is chosen.) What they *don't* get is the
chance to damage the enemy outside of their own action, but a boxer
doesn't get that either.

I think in some ways this makes more sense. In an evenly matched SR4
duel, it'd be more common than not to have actions without anybody
hurting the other. This happens in actual fights. In SR3 you'd only
get rounds without injury if the dice came to actual ties, and the
number of dice and the intricacies of combat pool usage would make
that fairly uncommon.


> Korishinzo
> --*shrug* works for me, I guess ymmv

BTW, whatever happened to your Shadowrun podcast? I'd love to hear a
second episode of that...


--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
http://www.escapepod.info
Message no. 24
From: zealey@****.net.au (James Zealey)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:00:57 +1100
> From:
> Graht <graht1@*****.com>
>
> A trained opponent will almost certainly react to any attack
> with a block/avoid/counter attack.
>

Unless, of course, they're already committed to some other action...

> A wired character will be able to Act before an unwired character, but
> a character trained to reflexively respond to a unarmed attack with a
> counter attack will always reflexively respond to an unarmed attack
> with a counter attack.

Even if they're still halfway through the LAST counter attack? None of
this is instantaneous. A counter attack isn't magically quicker than an
attack.

Like others have said before - every time you make an offensive move,
you open yourself up to a counter-offense, precisely because an
offensive move takes time and commitment. If you're not fast enough to
punch twice in a second, then you're not fast enough to block-and-punch
twice in a second. It's that simple. Thats why you drill for speed in
your offense as well as your defense.

Finally - waiting for your opponent to close is represented by holding
your action and then making a melee attack. Not by shooting him twice at
range and then kicking his ass in melee too.

And if you need any more convincing:
Joe Slow practises against his training dummy. He gets to make a single
attack each round, and gets only one chance to cause damage.

Now Fast Eddie bumps into him in the street, and takes offense at his
face. Fast Eddie wasn't expecting him to fight back, so he fails his
surprise test, and Joe Slow can pound on him uncontested.

Joe Slow still only gets that one swing at him. One chance to cause damage.

Next round Fast Eddie recovers, and has his proper go. He makes some
small effort to fend Joe Slow off. Oh look! Now that he's having to
dodge and block melee attacks, Joe Slow can suddenly punch 3 times faster!

Let me reiterate that - Joe Slow can punch FASTER when he's having to
defend himself as well as attack.

Now, assuming Joe Slow can combine his offense and defense into a single
fluid motion, I'm all for Joe Slow being able to attack just as fast
whether he has to defend or not, but faster?

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. It's somehow assuming that martial
artists train for speed, but only when combining offense and defense,
and if they're ever presented with a target that doesn't fight back,
they're just lost for words. It basically says that the best thing to do
against a kung-fu master is just stand there and take your lumps,
because he'll be so thrown off by the fact that you're not trying to hit
him that he simply doesn't attack...

> There is no defense against a bullet. That's when it comes down to
> dodge/karma pool, a mechanic that has nothing to do with skill and
> everything to do with Player Character luck.
>

The defense against a bullet is simply not being where the gun is aimed.
Dodge is not a luck mechanic - it's to do with where your perceptive
focus is at any given time. That's why it's a pool that you shift around
between offense and defense... Well, up till 4th edition, where it
became a skill...
Message no. 25
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:22:58 -0700
On 11/29/05, James Zealey <zealey@****.net.au> wrote:
> > From:
> > Graht <graht1@*****.com>
> >
> > A trained opponent will almost certainly react to any attack
> > with a block/avoid/counter attack.
> >
>
> Unless, of course, they're already committed to some other action...
>
> > A wired character will be able to Act before an unwired character, but
> > a character trained to reflexively respond to a unarmed attack with a
> > counter attack will always reflexively respond to an unarmed attack
> > with a counter attack.
>
> Even if they're still halfway through the LAST counter attack? None of
> this is instantaneous. A counter attack isn't magically quicker than an
> attack.

Which is why I recommended applying modifiers in the favor of the
faster combatant. If you're going to debate someone, debate their
entire post ;p

I was responding to the suggestion that the slower combatant shouldn't
get to counter attack. In my experience the slower opponent should be
able to counter attack, albeit with a negative modifier (or give the
attacker a positive modifier).
Additionally, as I stated in my original post, subsequent attacks by
one opponent that go off before the guy can act should get additional
modifiers.

In my experience it isn't a black and white issue. There are, and
should be, shades of grey in the SR3 melee combat system.

--
-Graht
Message no. 26
From: wilson.reis@*****.com (Wilson Reis)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:35:55 -0200
On 11/29/05, Graht <graht1@*****.com> wrote:

> Which is why I (snip) favor the faster combatant.
>If you're going to debate someone, debate their
> entire post ;p
>
> I was responding to the suggestion that the slower combatant shouldn't
(snip) be able to counter attack, albeit with a (snip) positive modifier).
> Additionally, as I stated in my original post, subsequent (snip) that go off before
the guy can (snip)
>
> In my experience it isn't a black and (snip) shades of grey in the SR3 melee combat
system.
>
> --
> -Graht
>

Sorry Graht, but that doesn´t make any sense at all. :P

Will
Message no. 27
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:45:12 -0800 (PST)
> Unless, of course, they're already committed to some other
> action...

I do not have wired reflexes.

...

...

Now, with that shocking revelation out of the way:

I can kick an average of 3 times per second for up to a minute of
sustained kicking... with a steady drop off of roughly 2 pounds per
square inch per minute (the last few kicks are about useless).

Given a start trigger (a high pitched beep) I can go from rest to
impact with a kick, delivering an average of 180 pounds per square
inch, in roughly .4 seconds given a start trigger every 5 seconds.
Power and speed drop off slowly after a couple dozen kicks, and quite
sharply after about 40 kicks.

My hands deliver, in the same tests, response times of about half
that (yes, I can punch 6+ times a second... for a while) and about a
third of the impact power (I topped out in the speed/impact test with
about 60 pounds per square inch impact).

Let's get a couple of things very straight:

1: A Complex Action in Shadowrun does NOT represent a single
extension and retraction of an arm.

Period.

Each melee exchange, however many there are in a 3 second period, is
a combination of movements. Out of that combination, one or two
meaningful motions take place. A definitive damage-probably stike,
and a response (of variable efficacy) to said strike.

2: Wired Reflexes are not a "speed" increase, in the strictest sense
of the word. Someone already pointed out: they don't make you run
faster. They do NOTHING to effect the user's motor muscles. They
give the user the effective benefit of controlled, directed
Tourette's Syndrone. You get fast "twitch" responses, and the
ability to make those "twitches" fit into a learned pattern instead
of being random. Your actual gross motor functions are still THE
SAME!

Case in point (warning, 3rd edition complient... no idea of 4th):

Jimmy has an Initiative of 24 and a Movement of 5.

Janey has an Initiative of 9 and a Movement of 6.

On Pass 1, Jimmy moves 1/3 of 5 meters. Janey moves 1/3 of 6 meters.
One Pass 2, the same. On Pass 3, the same again.
NOTE: Janey's gross motor muscle movements are spread across Jimmy's
Initiative total.

Same SPEED.

Different number of ACTIONS.

Jimmy is TWITCHIER, not FASTER.

Jimmy can do any number of things while Janey watches and can only
plan. Unless Jimmy is dumb enough to get close and try to hit her.
Because while his trigger finger moves faster, their BODIES move
about the same speed (Janey is actually a litte faster - Quickness 6
vs Quickness 5). Jimmy zips in all Brownean motion and nervous
reaction, and Janey back away blocking and countering in relative
leisure (one or two extra block/counter combos spread over upwards of
a full second or more... cake and ice cream kiddies).

Wired reflexes are about affecting the speed at which an electric
signal gets from the motor response cortex down nerves. Fast twitch
responses are increased. A muscle can tense faster. But it can't
MOVE over even centimeters of distance any faster than someone with
normal reflexes. All you gain is the abilit to overide hesitance --
the higher brain second-guessing the body's response. Nothing more.
The more trained martial artist will wait you out and eat you alive.

3: Finally. In conclusion Ladies and Jelly-spoons...

Your poor, put-upon twitchy dude gets the SAME benefit. If some kung
fu master tries to hit him, he gets to counter attack and STILL have
all his extra passes.

So are we complaining that cyberware can't make up for skill?

Because skillwires are just a page away.

And where Wired Reflexes are meant to give you extra actions,
Skillwires can make those actions worthwhile. Or better yet..

...how about a Cerebral Booster? A little bioware for the kiddies,
yes? After all, WTF are you doing trying to spar a fragging kung fu
master Jimmy Boy?!?!?!? SHOOT HIM!!!!! You do not bring a knife to
a gun fight, and you do not trade punches with Bruce Fragging Lee.
Hello! Clues! Get you Clues! Just .2¥ Get you Clues while they're
hot!

======Korishinzo
--yep, it is late and I need to sleep... I mean it though... bring
your wired reflexes... I'll mess you up with nothing but my skilz and
a couple of Lo-Carb Monsters (the combat drug of choice) ;>





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 28
From: zebulingod@*****.com (Zebulin M)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:55:28 -0800
On 11/29/05, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
>
> > Unless, of course, they're already committed to some other
> > action...
>
> I do not have wired reflexes.
>
> ...
>
> ...
>
> Now, with that shocking revelation out of the way:


<snip>


Kori,

You are my hero! No, seriously.

That comment about bringing a knife to a gun fight, well, that was
priceless. Not many of my players even carry knives, preferring pistols in
close combat situations (and wouldn't attempt to get into melee if their
lives depended on it).

Zebulin
(Maybe I should lay off the caffeine...)
Message no. 29
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:02:24 -0700
On 11/30/05, Zebulin M <zebulingod@*****.com> wrote:
>
> That comment about bringing a knife to a gun fight, well, that was
> priceless. Not many of my players even carry knives, preferring pistols in
> close combat situations (and wouldn't attempt to get into melee if their
> lives depended on it).

Fwiw I've had several MA instructors say that if you have a weapon,
use it. If there's a board with nails sticking out of it, pick it up
and beat the crap out of the guy attacking you. If you have a gun,
shoot him/her. Use every tool available to you.

--
-Graht
Message no. 30
From: shirogr@*****.com (Shiro BsquLadat)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:44:29 -0800 (PST)
The book says that "Rather than a Single blow, each
attack is a series of moves and COUNTER-MOVES executed
by those involved. Melee combat is not a "I punch you
and then I wait for your turn to punch me.",rather it
represents several seconds of feints,jabs,etc by BOTH
combatants at the SAME time."

Although I have no martial training to speak of, all
the exibitions that I have seen, point to what the
previous people posted. There are the videos were one
man gets attacked by many and tosses them around.Old
men winning over younger and faster because they knew
what they were doing.Reaction will not help you if you
react the wrong way to an attack.It just transfers the
order faster to the muscles.If the order is the wrong
one....too bad, you just made your situation worse!!
Personally I had no problem with the SR3 melee system
and neither did my players, whether they were winning
or losing.What I hate is the I punch you now, you
punch me next, DnD style. That is what makes no sense.
And if the player wants to shoot in melee, then more
power to him.Take the modifier and roll.With all
attack rolls oppossed, I doubt if he gets anything
(providing the other one is of the same level).
Also think about the adepts before disallow contested
melee rolls:if unarmed combat is so much weaker than
before, why should you get an adept, whose main fun
and strength is the kung-fu master style?And all the
great scenes like the one with the flesh forms
discribed in an earlier post?!

"I have no use for people who have learned the limits of the possible"
-Terry Pratchet, The Last Hero



__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message no. 31
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 22:58:59 -0500
I've seen many complaints about how the SR4 melee system is
underpowered.

I've seen no complaints that the SR4 FIREARMS system is unreasonably
slow or weak, despite amply evidence that it is.

I humbly suggest that people convinced that martial arts are the shiznit
make their houserules, and move on, because the thread has been beaten
like an unskilled horse with wired 4 using in SR3 melee.

If some theoretical person is tallying votes, I _like_ the SR4 changes,
and while I'm no martial artist, nor am I a gun nut, a gearhead, or a
hacker/cracker, I am glad that we no longer have the SR3 melee scenario
I mentioned earlier.

--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 32
From: zealey@****.net.au (James Zealey)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:47:27 +1100
> Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>
>
> I can kick an average of 3 times per second for up to a minute of
> sustained kicking... with a steady drop off of roughly 2 pounds per
> square inch per minute (the last few kicks are about useless).
>
> My hands deliver, in the same tests, response times of about half
> that (yes, I can punch 6+ times a second... for a while) and about a
> third of the impact power (I topped out in the speed/impact test with
> about 60 pounds per square inch impact).
>

And according to SR 3, you doing that for 3 seconds is what qualifies as
a single attack, giving you your unarmed combat roll, possibly causing
damage of (Strength)M stun. If your opponent stands there with his eyes
closed and his fingers in his ears, you still get a single attack roll,
and a single damage roll.

But if your opponent is wired, and tries to punch you (eyes closed,
fingers in his ears or not...), you get up to 3 chances to do the same
level of damage.

> ...how about a Cerebral Booster? A little bioware for the kiddies,
> yes? After all, WTF are you doing trying to spar a fragging kung fu
> master Jimmy Boy?!?!?!? SHOOT HIM!!!!! You do not bring a knife to
> a gun fight, and you do not trade punches with Bruce Fragging Lee.

No, you stand next to him with your eyes closed and your fingers in your
ears... because it's safer than trying a swing at him...

> Hello! Clueless! Get you Clueless! Just .2¥ Get you Clueless while he's
> hot!
Message no. 33
From: shirogr@*****.com (Shiro BsquLadat)
Subject: Unarmed combat in the 4ed
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 07:39:45 -0800 (PST)
--- James Zealey <zealey@****.net.au> wrote:

> > Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>
> >
> > I can kick an average of 3 times per second for up
> to a minute of
> > sustained kicking... with a steady drop off of
> roughly 2 pounds per
> > square inch per minute (the last few kicks are
> about useless).
> >
> > My hands deliver, in the same tests, response
> times of about half
> > that (yes, I can punch 6+ times a second... for a
> while) and about a
> > third of the impact power (I topped out in the
> speed/impact test with
> > about 60 pounds per square inch impact).
> >
>
> And according to SR 3, you doing that for 3 seconds
> is what qualifies as
> a single attack, giving you your unarmed combat
> roll, possibly causing
> damage of (Strength)M stun. If your opponent stands
> there with his eyes
> closed and his fingers in his ears, you still get a
> single attack roll,
> and a single damage roll.
>
> But if your opponent is wired, and tries to punch
> you (eyes closed,
> fingers in his ears or not...), you get up to 3
> chances to do the same
> level of damage.

As opposed to standing next to him and taking turns
bitch-slapping each other? The SR3 melee system is an
infinitly better and more logical GAME simulation of
HtH combat that SR4.Remember, the action REPRESENTS a
SERIES of maneuvers, even in SR4 (see my previous
post). The "I stand there with my fingers in my ears"
comment, is totally rhetoric and lacks point.If you do
that, then the GM should better give the attacker a
dice=hits and no defending roll, because that is what
you are doing!!!

> > ...how about a Cerebral Booster? A little bioware
> for the kiddies,
> > yes? After all, WTF are you doing trying to spar
> a fragging kung fu
> > master Jimmy Boy?!?!?!? SHOOT HIM!!!!! You do
> not bring a knife to
> > a gun fight, and you do not trade punches with
> Bruce Fragging Lee.
>
> No, you stand next to him with your eyes closed and
> your fingers in your
> ears... because it's safer than trying a swing at
> him...

No, you get away and shoot him as in reality. Firearms
VS samurai in late Japan anyone? Watch The Last
Samurai for a pretty accurate depiction of what
happens.For the fingers in ears tactic, see my
previous comment.

"I have no use for people who have learned the limits of the possible"
-Terry Pratchet, The Last Hero



__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Unarmed combat in the 4ed, 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!