Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mr Bob Sagittarian <habelmon@********.CS.ADELAIDE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:25:04 +0930
Why CLose Combat Really Sucks

Well, whilst roleplaying this very day, I tried out a new character (a
physical adept) with a Armed Combat specialization of Sabre :9(10) with
customized sword.

Now the thing that really annoys me about this is that my character did 7
Double deadly damage, yet a troll wearing an Armor Jacket and Houndstooth
packgae, shrugged it down to ZERO DAMAGE!!!! Now if this isn't bad enough, the
decker (the fragging DECKER for Chrissake!) popped a coupla rounds from an
Ares Predator II and killed the bastard, with a firearms skill of 5. Is this
fair?????? It's STUPID! that's what it is!

Now let's face it. In real life, which would you rather face; a wimp with a
pistol or a raving maniac with a nasty sword. Tough choice, huh. <the WIMP!!!
Pick the WIMP!!!!>

Any solutions out there? This really cheeses me off so much, that I'm
considering offing the decker. "Everytime the decker upstages me! EVERY
FRAGGING TIME!!!!!"

Life sucks when you're losing.

--

Bob Sagittarian Odds & Ends
habelmon@********.cs.adelaide.edu.au
stimpy@****.student.adelaide.edu.au
Message no. 2
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 12:08:42 BST
> Well, whilst roleplaying this very day, I tried out a new character (a
> physical adept) with a Armed Combat specialization of Sabre :9(10) with
> customized sword.
>
> Now the thing that really annoys me about this is that my character did 7
> Double deadly damage, yet a troll wearing an Armor Jacket and Houndstooth
> packgae, shrugged it down to ZERO DAMAGE!!!!

Watcha do? Hit him from the front? What did you expect, the ideal troll-
take-down weapon is two bursts of 10 from an AR or SMG..


In real life, I'd rather face an expert with a sword, becuase I know I
have a fair chance against s guy with a sword... I might be able to
run faster than him :-)


The decker upstages you? Change all the circuit breakers in his apartment
for ones that'll let through more amps, then wait for the enxt power-
board spike, and watch his little deck cook...

Where PA's really excell is going through customs and body-searches,
after all, they can't take your killing-hands off you now can they :-)



Oh, and before this degenerates, please note that our regular
List.Grumpy.Member is no longer with us, so he won;t be able to tell us
when to SHUT THE FRAG UP, if we get into a sammy vs PS argument (although
I have to admit that PA vs Decker is a new slant on it :-) )

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 3
From: Menard Steve <menars@***.UMONTREAL.CA>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 10:06:30 -0400
On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Mr Bob Sagittarian wrote:

> Why CLose Combat Really Sucks
>
> Well, whilst roleplaying this very day, I tried out a new character (a
> physical adept) with a Armed Combat specialization of Sabre :9(10) with
> customized sword.
>
> Now the thing that really annoys me about this is that my character did 7
> Double deadly damage, yet a troll wearing an Armor Jacket and Houndstooth
> packgae, shrugged it down to ZERO DAMAGE!!!! Now if this isn't bad enough, the
> decker (the fragging DECKER for Chrissake!) popped a coupla rounds from an
> Ares Predator II and killed the bastard, with a firearms skill of 5. Is this
> fair?????? It's STUPID! that's what it is!
>
> Now let's face it. In real life, which would you rather face; a wimp with a
> pistol or a raving maniac with a nasty sword. Tough choice, huh. <the WIMP!!!
> Pick the WIMP!!!!>
>
> Any solutions out there? This really cheeses me off so much, that I'm
> considering offing the decker. "Everytime the decker upstages me! EVERY
> FRAGGING TIME!!!!!"
>
> Life sucks when you're losing.

First stop is going to the lethality section. There you have a little
"menu" from which to pick the difficulty of firearm, magic and melee
combat. In my game we play at 1.5 times the power(that means, if you
punch with 4 strength, you do 6M base damage). Furthermore, so that
more-than-deadly damage does something, here how I compute damage :

1st : attacker makes melee combat test. Lets say he gets 5 successes,
ith a base damage of Serious.

2nd : Defender makes melee combat test. Lets say he gets only 1 success.

note : Ok, attacker gets more success, so HE does damage. Note that the
actual amount, according to the rules, should be deadly and leave it at
that. No with me, look at 3rd.

3rd : looser rolls his body resistance test and adds it to his melee
test. Compare this total to the winners melee test and adjust damage.
Lets say the defender gets 2 success. UNder the normal rules he gets from
deadly to serious no matter hoe far over deadly you were. With my way,
the attacker got 5, defender 3. That makes a net success total of 2 for
the attacker, which still kills the defender.

what do ya think?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- |\_/| Still The One and Only Wolfbane! ---
--- |o o| " Hey! Why ya lookin' at me so weird? Ain't ya 'ver seen a ---
--- \ / decker witha horn ?" --- Scy, Troll decker with a CC ---
--- 0 Steve Menard menars@***.UMontreal.Ca ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 4
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 14:26:36 -0400
On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Mr Bob Sagittarian wrote:

> Now let's face it. In real life, which would you rather face; a wimp with a
> pistol or a raving maniac with a nasty sword. Tough choice, huh. <the WIMP!!!
> Pick the WIMP!!!!>

Sorry, man, but I'd have to say that I'd rather face the guy with
the sword. At least the sword-wielding psycho can only hit me at melee
ranges. Not so with the gun. You are in danger until you are out past
30 feet (at which point if you're moving, you're fairly safe). And a
firearms skill of 5 is pretty damn good.

Marc
Message no. 5
From: Duke Diener <DukeDragon@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:12 -0400
Bob Sagittarian wrote:

>Now the thing that really annoys me about this is that my character did 7
>Double deadly damage, yet a troll wearing an Armor Jacket and Houndstooth
>packgae, shrugged it down to ZERO DAMAGE!!!!

Closing for HTH with a Troll is not what I would consider a wise move. Kinda
reminds me of Blazing Sadles when Clevon Little goes out to get Mongo. Gene
Wilder warns him not to shoot Mongo as it will only make him mad. Definately
best to take trolls out at long range.

Duke Diener (Rogue Dragon)
Message no. 6
From: Matthew Deatherage <mddeath@*****.CIRC.GWU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:43:53 -0400
Trolls are almost specially built for Armed/Unarmed Combat(+1
Reach). Closing to engage is definitely not a smart idea. Not only do
Trolls get an automatic point of dermal armor, they get a ton of Body
dice to roll against your strike. Any idiot from an infant to a decrepit
old man can fire a handgun and achieve basically the same result.
Answer, when facing a troll, throw away your katana and use APDS.
Message no. 7
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@****.INFORMATIK.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:50:31 +0200
> Now let's face it. In real life, which would you rather face; a wimp with a
> pistol or a raving maniac with a nasty sword. Tough choice, huh. <the WIMP!!!
> Pick the WIMP!!!!>
Try it out yourself... even a wimp will get you with a gun, esp. if you are
NOT wearing personal armour, but a knife/sword is not that intimidating.

I had both: Gun at head and knife at throat, and my choice is: RUN!

Sascha
--
+---___---------+-----------------------------------------+------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | The one does not |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de |learn from history|
| \___ __/ | or | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| Lindenalle(e) 24 / 26122 Oldenburg | through it again.|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| *Wearing hats is just a way of live* | |
+---------------+-----------------------------------------+------------------+
Message no. 8
From: SilverFire <SSHERMAN@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:26:10 -0500
On Wed, 21 Jun 1995, Matthew Deatherage wrote:

> Trolls are almost specially built for Armed/Unarmed Combat(+1
> Reach). Closing to engage is definitely not a smart idea. Not only do
> Trolls get an automatic point of dermal armor, they get a ton of Body
> dice to roll against your strike. Any idiot from an infant to a decrepit
> old man can fire a handgun and achieve basically the same result.
> Answer, when facing a troll, throw away your katana and use APDS.
>

Trolls may be built for close combat, but what if they had really
poor armed/unarmed combat. I have taken Trolls down in the past with a
monosword in the hands of a street sam who was not even half the size
of the Troll. I took him down by throwing in all of my combat pool
possible, luckily for me the Troll had poor armor and a body less than
eleven. That's something many people don't invest in is a high
armed/unarmed combat skill. With my two main characters they are equally
proficient with their guns or fists, or swords. There are times when you
can't use a gun. Oh, say spirits or elementalsm, or if the Phys Ad in
your group only believes in melee combat. I can't blame her that weapons
focus is nasty if you're a spirit or elemental, even if you're just a
mundane.
Well 'nough rambling for now.

SilverFire

**************************************************************************************
Love could be so damn resilient, or it could be as fragile as glass. And like
broken glass, it could cut you so you bled to death. Love could be so damn
resilient.
Where does reality end and illusion begin?

Mary Rosenbaum
_Chimera_
Message no. 9
From: Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.RIPCO.COM>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 14:44:26 -0500
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 1995, Matthew Deatherage wrote:
>
> > Trolls are almost specially built for Armed/Unarmed Combat(+1
> > Reach). Closing to engage is definitely not a smart idea. Not only do
> > Trolls get an automatic point of dermal armor, they get a ton of Body
> > dice to roll against your strike. Any idiot from an infant to a decrepit
> > old man can fire a handgun and achieve basically the same result.
> > Answer, when facing a troll, throw away your katana and use APDS.
> >
If You are faster than the troll, go for supperior position. Taunt the
bugger into attacking you, counter, and than strike back- trolls tend to have
small combat pools, so that should chew through it. Yes, don't close (unless
your weapon cancels the reach- i prefer a staff to a sword. Also, I
personally don't like alowing reach for defensive purposes.
>
snip from silverfire
> can't use a gun. Oh, say spirits or elementalsm, or if the Phys Ad in
> your group only believes in melee combat. I can't blame her that weapons
> focus is nasty if you're a spirit or elemental, even if you're just a
> mundane.
This is confusingly put- High combat skills or a weapon focus won't help a
mundane against spirits- you use willpower, and mundanes can't activate
focusses.
Message no. 10
From: Mr Bob Sagittarian <habelmon@********.CS.ADELAIDE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:52:02 +0930
> First stop is going to the lethality section. There you have a little
> "menu" from which to pick the difficulty of firearm, magic and melee
> combat. In my game we play at 1.5 times the power(that means, if you
> punch with 4 strength, you do 6M base damage). Furthermore, so that
> more-than-deadly damage does something, here how I compute damage :
>
> 1st : attacker makes melee combat test. Lets say he gets 5 successes,
> ith a base damage of Serious.
>
> 2nd : Defender makes melee combat test. Lets say he gets only 1 success.
>
> note : Ok, attacker gets more success, so HE does damage. Note that the
> actual amount, according to the rules, should be deadly and leave it at
> that. No with me, look at 3rd.
>
> 3rd : looser rolls his body resistance test and adds it to his melee
> test. Compare this total to the winners melee test and adjust damage.
> Lets say the defender gets 2 success. UNder the normal rules he gets from
> deadly to serious no matter hoe far over deadly you were. With my way,
> the attacker got 5, defender 3. That makes a net success total of 2 for
> the attacker, which still kills the defender.
>
> what do ya think?
>


Weeeellll, the way that our group does it is if you have done dead
ly raised one, then essentially, the first two successes the defender
makes on a Body roll reduces it to normal Deadly code. This generally works
OK.

Your system could work OK, but until I tried it out, I wouldn't know
for sure. Yeah, the lethality section helps, but I'm playing this game, NOT
GMing it. Sucks, don't it?
--

Bob Sagittarian Odds & Ends
habelmon@********.cs.adelaide.edu.au
stimpy@****.student.adelaide.edu.au
Message no. 11
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 11:41:55 GMT
Mr Bob Sagittarian writes

>
> Weeeellll, the way that our group does it is if you have done dead
> ly raised one, then essentially, the first two successes the defender
> makes on a Body roll reduces it to normal Deadly code. This generally works
> OK.
Standard 2nded. eg 6D + 3 successes, the 1 on defense cancalles an
attackers success, then say 4 body, the first 2 cancel the remaining
2 attacking and then the 2 NET successes stage the remainder to 'S'

>
> Your system could work OK, but until I tried it out, I wouldn't know
> for sure. Yeah, the lethality section helps, but I'm playing this game, NOT
> GMing it. Sucks, don't it?
> --
Trolls or folks with Katanas are quite deadly enough at damage =
strength, you can do 24S or so with the standard rules!, though i
admit your average ganger with knife is a real joke, this really
needs a rework based on a base number, every 2 above that is +1 and
every 2 below is -1 to average it out a bit more, the problem being
choosing the base power.

>
> Bob Sagittarian Odds & Ends
Mark
Message no. 12
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 19:19:42 GMT
> Now let's face it. In real life, which would you rather face; a wimp with a
> pistol or a raving maniac with a nasty sword. Tough choice, huh. <the WIMP!!!
> Pick the WIMP!!!!>

It's a sad fact that guns are much better at killing people than melee
weapons. It's also a sad fact that the maniac with the sword is a threat
when he's within arm's reach, but the wimp with the pistol can kill you
at twenty yards: and you can't block or parry bullets.

One point of note: blade fights in SR actually often go the way they do
for real, with reasonably matched opponents: lots of block-block-parry
(see Under Siege for a good example) but you're both getting cut about the
hands and arms, and the one who bleeds fastest slows down and gets hurt
more and more. (Knife fighting lessons from psycho Army sergeant-major,
veracity uncertain). Compare that to the knock-out blow from a bullet.

Realistically, melee combat is less lethal than firearms: it's also a lot
more stylish, so I do encourage it in my games.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 13
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 15:11:21 -0400
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Mr Bob Sagittarian wrote:

> > 3rd : looser rolls his body resistance test and adds it to his melee
> > test. Compare this total to the winners melee test and adjust damage.
> > Lets say the defender gets 2 success. UNder the normal rules he gets from
> > deadly to serious no matter hoe far over deadly you were. With my way,
> > the attacker got 5, defender 3. That makes a net success total of 2 for
> > the attacker, which still kills the defender.
> >
> > what do ya think?

> Your system could work OK, but until I tried it out, I wouldn't know
> for sure. Yeah, the lethality section helps, but I'm playing this game, NOT
> GMing it. Sucks, don't it?

This is the way we've been doing it for pretty much the entire
time. It works well and reflects the fact that if the attacker had *way*
more successes, the defender is screwed. I also allow damage to stage
above deadly (similar to the FoF rule, but slightly different), and that
makes things extremely lethal, even melee weapons.

Marc
Message no. 14
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 15:20:29 -0400
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Mark Steedman wrote:

> Trolls or folks with Katanas are quite deadly enough at damage =
> strength, you can do 24S or so with the standard rules!, though i
> admit your average ganger with knife is a real joke...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Maybe, but a ganger with a ball-peen hammer is another story
entirely. ;)

Marc
Message no. 15
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 12:18:25 +0930
Paul Jonathan Adam wrote:
>
> > Now let's face it. In real life, which would you rather face; a wimp with a
> > pistol or a raving maniac with a nasty sword. Tough choice, huh. <the WIMP!!!
> > Pick the WIMP!!!!>
>
> It's a sad fact that guns are much better at killing people than melee
> weapons. It's also a sad fact that the maniac with the sword is a threat
> when he's within arm's reach, but the wimp with the pistol can kill you
> at twenty yards: and you can't block or parry bullets.

Also... Raving maniacs don't fight well. Fighting is something that
requires a cool head. If you're all worked up, emotionally, you'll leave
yourself open to counterattacks, etc. All things considered, I'll go with
the maniac.

"Never scare a little man. He'll kill you." The wimp is likely to shoot out
of fear if you do anything. And he might just hit you.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 16
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 11:53:48 BST
Marc Renouf :-
> On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Mark Steedman wrote:
>
> > Trolls or folks with Katanas are quite deadly enough at damage =
> > strength, you can do 24S or so with the standard rules!, though i
> > admit your average ganger with knife is a real joke...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Maybe, but a ganger with a ball-peen hammer is another story
> entirely. ;)
>
> Marc
>

Heh, any ganger should be a laugh to a real runner, but they're not too
everyone else..remember, a starting runner should be able to take on
most regular people, even in groups and win.. including gangers, cops
corp-sec, army, etc...

It's when the cyebr-monster takuza hit-squad come after you with
ball-peen hanners, that you should get worried.

You know what they do with those hammers? ;-)

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 17
From: SilverFire <SSHERMAN@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:19:52 -0500
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Paul Jonathan Adam wrote:

>
> It's a sad fact that guns are much better at killing people than melee
> weapons. It's also a sad fact that the maniac with the sword is a threat
> when he's within arm's reach, but the wimp with the pistol can kill you
> at twenty yards: and you can't block or parry bullets.

In real life I'm not sure who'd I pick, actually I might pick the
guy wtih the gun if he doesn't know what to do with it. The swordsman if
he is competent might be more dangerous and faster than me. Of course
either one is dangerous and I never want to be in that kind of situation.
> One point of note: blade fights in SR actually often go the way they
> do for real, with reasonably matched opponents: lots of block-block-parry
> (see Under Siege for a good example) but you're both getting cut about the
> hands and arms, and the one who bleeds fastest slows down and gets hurt
> more and more. (Knife fighting lessons from psycho Army sergeant-major,
> veracity uncertain). Compare that to the knock-out blow from a bullet.
>
> Realistically, melee combat is less lethal than firearms: it's also a lot
> more stylish, so I do encourage it in my games.

I wouldn't say that melee combat is less lethal. My street sam armed
with her monosword is more dangerous than with her Predator II. Again
like I said many people don't go for a high armed combat, if they go for
it at all. They sometimes have unarmed combat, but not very high. Most
people go for high firearms thinking that they can deal with the people
who use edged weapons before the edge-bearer gets to them. Evidently they
never encountered anyone with Wired-2 and Muscle Aug 3.

The PhysAd I mentioned in one of my previous posts is one of our
more effective ways of dealing with things like elementals and spirits.
What also helps is the fact that she's a vampire, which none of the
current characters know she is. Our characters are still baffled by the
fact that she walked away uninjured from a raid of four goons in heavy
security armor while my character and another were taken down before we
had a chance to do anything. We later learned that the goons were flesh
form insect spirits *sigh*, I hate insects. I know 'danes only inflict
willpower L damaged 'gainst elementals and spirits, but if you score enough
successes it makes them sit up and take notice of you. Depending on how
powerful it is, that's when you might be in deep drek.

Ciao

SilverFire

******************************************************************************
Love could be so damn resilient, or it could be as fragile as glass. And like
broken glass, it could cut you so you bled to death. Love could be so damn
resilient.
Where does reality end and illusion begin?

Mary Rosenbaum
_Chimera_
Message no. 18
From: Forgotten Horror <phinar@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 23:25:44 EDT
>Heh, any ganger should be a laugh to a real runner, but they're not too
>everyone else..remember, a starting runner should be able to take on
>most regular people, even in groups and win.. including gangers, cops
>corp-sec, army, etc...

>It's when the cyebr-monster takuza hit-squad come after you with
>ball-peen hanners, that you should get worried.

>You know what they do with those hammers? ;-)

Dunno, a GM of mine decided that the way to humble us runners was to
make gangers equal to the ganger archetype, and scale up the gang boss
accordingly. Didn't make for a particularly clean firefight, although
we had a good laugh or two once the wounds were dressed...


<G>
(phinar@******.net)
Message no. 19
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 10:02:57 BST
> like I said many people don't go for a high armed combat, if they go for
> it at all. They sometimes have unarmed combat, but not very high. Most
> people go for high firearms thinking that they can deal with the people
> who use edged weapons before the edge-bearer gets to them.

This seems really strange to me, maybe it;s just my GMing style, but 90%
of all the SR characters I see have as much armed and unarmed crammed into
them as possible. After all 50%of the time you're in tidy restaurants where
the only weapon you;re going to have is you and a steak knife....

Do most other players not pick unarmed and armed up as quickly as posible?

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 20
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 14:13:10 GMT
> > like I said many people don't go for a high armed combat, if they go for
> > it at all. They sometimes have unarmed combat, but not very high. Most
> > people go for high firearms thinking that they can deal with the people
> > who use edged weapons before the edge-bearer gets to them.
>
> This seems really strange to me, maybe it;s just my GMing style, but 90%
> of all the SR characters I see have as much armed and unarmed crammed into
> them as possible. After all 50%of the time you're in tidy restaurants where
> the only weapon you;re going to have is you and a steak knife....

Some sort of gun-free combat skill is essential. Unarmed needs to be very
high - we let people concentrate into various martial arts just to get more
dice, to offset the reach disadvantage - but armed runs the risk of not
having anything handy to hit with (although anything, technically, will
do - a chair, a rock, a vase (once))

Some PCs have skimped on melee skills, but the player generally only does
that once. Get your gun taken away and you're screwed, because they don't
even have the means to beat someone up to steal a firearm.

And realistically most people know more about scrapping hand-to-hand than
they do about shooting each other.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 21
From: SilverFire <SSHERMAN@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 14:39:00 -0500
On Sun, 25 Jun 1995, P Ward wrote:

> This seems really strange to me, maybe it;s just my GMing style, but 90%
> of all the SR characters I see have as much armed and unarmed crammed into
> them as possible. After all 50%of the time you're in tidy restaurants where
> the only weapon you;re going to have is you and a steak knife....
>
> Do most other players not pick unarmed and armed up as quickly as posible?
>
> Phil (Renegade)
>

I wasn't just talking about the players, we all have either armed or
unarmed and some do have armed and unarmed. I'm not sure how many of the
others can use unarmed and armed as equally well as their firearms skill.
The reason why my characters usually do is because by practising with
blade or fist is a good way of getting back into condition after being in
the hospital for month or more 8*).
I was also talking about the NPC's that are thrown against us at
times. Like security guards, whenever we're up against Knight Errant I'll
generally go for sword or spurs or even bare fists since they're unarmed
isn't as good as mine or my armed combat.
Well I've rambled long enough. Ciao.

SilverFire

****************************************************************************
Love could be so damn resilient, or it could be as fragile as glass. And like
broken glass, it could cut you so you bled to death. Love could be so damn
resilient.
Where does reality end and illusion begin?

Mary Rosenbaum
_Chimera_
Message no. 22
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:47:59 +0200
> This seems really strange to me, maybe it;s just my GMing style, but 90%
> of all the SR characters I see have as much armed and unarmed crammed into
> them as possible. After all 50%of the time you're in tidy restaurants where
> the only weapon you;re going to have is you and a steak knife....
>
> Do most other players not pick unarmed and armed up as quickly as posible?

Nope, Armed Combat is a skill you take after taking Street Etiquette and
Negotiation in my group. Unarmed Combat has an even lower priority. Lets
face it, melee combat can be *extremely* effective especially if you have
some reach modifiers going for ya, the problem is that its far too limiting.
Sure a monowhup might get heads rolling, but you'll have to get out of cover
and charge the opponent first. Whereas a good'ol Savalete will be pretty much
just as effective (14S - TN 2) and you wont even have to get up.

--
GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++$S++L++$>++++ L++>+++ E--- N+ h*(+)
W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) f+ r- n!(-) y?

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 23
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:40:30 BST
> Some sort of gun-free combat skill is essential. Unarmed needs to be very
> high - we let people concentrate into various martial arts just to get more
> dice, to offset the reach disadvantage - but armed runs the risk of not
> having anything handy to hit with (although anything, technically, will
> do - a chair, a rock, a vase (once))

There is of course, that (thai?/philipino?) martial art where they teach
club and knife, the two most easily found weapons as well as some very
vicious unarmed techniques, I forget the name... I have seen people hitting
each other with their guns very often, most AR's get borken iun my games that
way, someone swings it from the butt as a baseball bat, and ends up bending
it over the other guy (hey, there are a lot of 10+ strengths floating around,
a rifle may be tough, but tough enough to survive a troll trying to beat a
car to death with it?). The number of times Boar has run out of ammo, forgotten
how to reload and then hit someone witha very expensive gun....we try not
to buy him more than one clip per waepon now :-)


>Some PCs have skimped on melee skills, but the player generally only does
>that once. Get your gun taken away and you're screwed, because they don't
>even have the means to beat someone up to steal a firearm.
It happens very commonly, after all most tidy meets won't let you in with
a firearm. The same thing goes for fetishes too, i got beat up, and left
naked outside a bar, they took all my combat fetishes, and I couldn't even
cook the door to go back and get them :-(


I think the best piece of improvised weaonry I've ever seen ahs to be
the business end of a badger that tried to attack the characters, it
was closely followed by an imporvised air bladder made from the bladder
of one of their other kills! That adventujre got pretty messdy, none
of them even hesitate to take their underwaer off, fill it with sand
and piss on it it to get it wet, and make decent saps...

Sometimes I wonder about my players...especially after the bladder...

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 24
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat Really Sucks
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:18:45 -0400
>> Trolls or folks with Katanas are quite deadly enough at damage =
>> strength, you can do 24S or so with the standard rules!, though i
>> admit your average ganger with knife is a real joke...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Maybe, but a ganger with a ball-peen hammer is another story
>entirely. ;)

>Marc


You're cruel, Marc. Just plain cruel. :P


>Heh, any ganger should be a laugh to a real runner, but they're not too
>everyone else..remember, a starting runner should be able to take on
>most regular people, even in groups and win.. including gangers, cops
>corp-sec, army, etc...

I would agree with you, but our friendly GM Marc seems to have a different
view of your standard npc...


I might as well share this (truly sad) story with you all, if for no other
reason just to show you how deadly Marc's campaign is....


My bodyguard character (the one we labored over for eons here on the mailer)
was protecting his client in this abandoned single story house. To make a
long story short (and believe me, it *is* a long story), a noise is heard
outside the front door. I go to investigate, and 2 gangers with ball-peen
hammers break in the door. I have my Guardian drawn and decide shooting them
while they charge me is probably a good idea. Nice thought. Well, gee, even
with my nice average starting skill of 8 in my pistol (specialized) (which I
am told is a respectable skill when compared to your average joe schmo with a
firearms skill) I miss my moving target. I get whacked upside the head by one
of the hammers, knocked to the ground, drop the gun and have to try to stand
up. While standing up (and popping my spurs) I get thwacked again (by the
second ganger)....I (a professionally trained bodyguard) got my ass whooped by
two teen-aged go gangers armed with ball-peen hammers. It was like no
contest...thwack thwack...9 boxes of stun. You would think that teen-aged
gangers were a little easier to deal with (especially when you have a
Guardian...), but not in this game, chummer. ;)

Sucks to me be ;)


Justin :)

_______________________________________________________________
(jpinnow@*****.edu)

Geek Code (version 2.1):

G!>ED d----(d+/d++$) H s-: !g p? au
a23 w+(+++) v?(*)>!v C+(++) U- P? !L
!3 E? N+ K- W+ M+ V+ po---
Y++(+) t+@ 5 !j R+(++) G' tv-- b++>+++
!D B--- e+ u+ h- f? r+(*) N----
Y++

It all starts from within you.
Message no. 25
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 13:38:08 -0400
On Mon, 26 Jun 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:

> Sure a monowhup might get heads rolling, but you'll have to get out of cover
> and charge the opponent first. Whereas a good'ol Savalete will be pretty much
> just as effective (14S - TN 2) and you wont even have to get up.

Yeah, target number 2 in the most ideal situations, maybe, but
those are rarely the situations that firefights take place in. Keep in
mind that you add half of your cover to your target number to hit someone
else (as per "cover" in FoF), so your cover argument is shot. Also keep in
mind that visibility modifiers are halved at melee ranges, thus
generally lowering the overall target number in most cases. Melee
combat also generally doesn't involve too much movement, as both
opponents are pretty much committed to cutting each other to ribbons.
All in all, melee combat can be devastating and surprisingly easy to
apply.

Marc
Message no. 26
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat Really Sucks
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 13:48:39 -0400
On Mon, 26 Jun 1995, Justin Pinnow wrote:

> > Maybe, but a ganger with a ball-peen hammer is another story
> >entirely. ;)

> You're cruel, Marc. Just plain cruel. :P
>
> I might as well share this (truly sad) story with you all, if for no other
> reason just to show you how deadly Marc's campaign is....
>
>
> My bodyguard character (the one we labored over for eons here on the mailer)
> was protecting his client in this abandoned single story house. To make a
> long story short (and believe me, it *is* a long story), a noise is heard
> outside the front door. I go to investigate, and 2 gangers with ball-peen
> hammers break in the door. I have my Guardian drawn and decide shooting them
> while they charge me is probably a good idea. Nice thought. Well, gee, even
> with my nice average starting skill of 8 in my pistol (specialized) (which I
> am told is a respectable skill when compared to your average joe schmo with a
> firearms skill) I miss my moving target. I get whacked upside the head by one
> of the hammers, knocked to the ground, drop the gun and have to try to stand
> up. While standing up (and popping my spurs) I get thwacked again (by the
> second ganger)....I (a professionally trained bodyguard) got my ass whooped by
> two teen-aged go gangers armed with ball-peen hammers. It was like no
> contest...thwack thwack...9 boxes of stun. You would think that teen-aged
> gangers were a little easier to deal with (especially when you have a
> Guardian...), but not in this game, chummer. ;)
>
> Sucks to me be ;)

In all truth, that's pretty much the way it happened. The
"Gangers" were a slightly modified version of the "ganger" archtypein
the
main book, with the exception that they had a very poor firearms skill
and a slightly higher melee skill to make up for it (they're from a part
of town where firearms are fairly scarce). On top of that, the first
roll went amazingly in their favor. *POW!* a hit with a ball-peen
hammer, your typical cheap, found-on-the-street ganger weapon.
The part that Justin fails to mention is that is was dark and he
was already slightly wounded (Light, I think). Added to that is the fact
that I'm serious about target mods. I've played in way too many games
where everything was target number 2 and it's just wrong. But never fear,
his friend Bo'Ok bailed him out in a big, big way, and Mr. Bennet lived
to fight another day (until he was hospitalized by suppression fire, that
is...) ;)

Marc
Message no. 27
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat Really Sucks
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 14:34:54 -0400
> The part that Justin fails to mention is that is was dark and he
>was already slightly wounded (Light, I think). Added to that is the fact
>that I'm serious about target mods. I've played in way too many games
>where everything was target number 2 and it's just wrong.


I agree, but let me tell you...Marc is more strict on target mods than any
other GM I have known....but I feel this is usually justified/realistic.
(Although I must say that when the rules say a target number of 10 is almost
impossible, and you are used to having that as an *average* target
number....whoa!)

Yeah, I had a light wound...okay, that's a +1 mod that they didn't have. But
the vision mods should have affected them just as harshly as they did me (if
not moreso). I have low light and thermographic vision....they probably
didn't. (after all, if they are that poor, it stands to reason cyberwear is
unlikely). If that's the case, I should have definately had the advantage
when it comes to modifiers. Also, being a PC as compared to a pretty standard
archetype-based NPC, I should have had a power advantage as well. Yeah, there
were 2 of them, but it still seems they were either a bit too skilled for
standard go gangers (especially teenagers) or they got real lucky. I
understand the modifiers that were applied. It just seems statistically
highly improbable that given the situation, that 2 teen-aged go-gangers with
hammers should be able to take out a PC with a gun and a good unarmed combat
skill to boot! :)

>But never fear, his friend Bo'Ok bailed him out in a big, big way, and Mr.
>Bennet lived to fight another day (until he was hospitalized by suppression
>fire, that is...) ;)

Yet another story where I get my booty whooped in a big way. When you are
using an armored car door as cover vs. suppression fire....there's not a whole
lot you can do without stepping out of cover *into* the suppression fire. Not
to mention the numbers were far from in my favor (3 to 1 odds....2 of us, 6 of
them). *sigh* I haven't had a lot of luck with this character yet.
Although, I shouldn't complain---after all, Jonathan did warn me that Marc is
cruel and sadistic ;)



Justin :)

_______________________________________________________________
(jpinnow@*****.edu)

Geek Code (version 2.1):

G!>ED d----(d+/d++$) H s-: !g p? au
a23 w+(+++) v?(*)>!v C+(++) U- P? !L
!3 E? N+ K- W+ M+ V+ po---
Y++(+) t+@ 5 !j R+(++) G' tv-- b++>+++
!D B--- e+ u+ h- f? r+(*) N----
Y++

It all starts from within you.
Message no. 28
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 20:18:40 GMT
> > Do most other players not pick unarmed and armed up as quickly as posible?
>
> Nope, Armed Combat is a skill you take after taking Street Etiquette and
> Negotiation in my group. Unarmed Combat has an even lower priority. Lets
> face it, melee combat can be *extremely* effective especially if you have
> some reach modifiers going for ya, the problem is that its far too limiting.
> Sure a monowhup might get heads rolling, but you'll have to get out of cover
> and charge the opponent first. Whereas a good'ol Savalete will be pretty much
> just as effective (14S - TN 2) and you wont even have to get up.

Now get that Savalette through a strip search... Or use it to break out of
the jail cell you woke up in. Guns are fine if you have them. If you
drop it, jam it or run out of ammo... never mind if someone takes it away
from you.

One nasty piece of sabotage happened when a NPC replaced some of our ammo
with dummy rounds coated in micro-encapsulated Superglue. Instant seizure.
Lynch had a lot of Armed and Unarmed and used his defunct rifle to beat
the nearest bad guy unconscious, then grabbed that AK-97 and went to work on
the rest of the bad guys. Two others had minimal melee skills and were glad
when Lynch shot enemies near them, making weapons available.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 29
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat Really Sucks
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 12:11:22 -0400
On Mon, 26 Jun 1995, Justin Pinnow wrote:

> I agree, but let me tell you...Marc is more strict on target mods than any
> other GM I have known....but I feel this is usually justified/realistic.

I'm glad you think so. Realism (at least in that respect) is one
of the things I strive to maintain.

> (Although I must say that when the rules say a target number of 10 is almost
> impossible, and you are used to having that as an *average* target
> number....whoa!)

Yes, but most things the PC's try are almost impossible in real
life. Take a look at half of the fire combat that goes on. Running
targets, darkness, cover, suppression fire, stray rounds, etc. It's a
wonder you guys manage to hit anything at all.

> Yeah, I had a light wound...okay, that's a +1 mod that they didn't have. But
> the vision mods should have affected them just as harshly as they did me (if
> not moreso). I have low light and thermographic vision....they probably
> didn't. (after all, if they are that poor, it stands to reason cyberwear is
> unlikely).

On the contrary. Their race gives them *natural* lowlight
vision, which is better than cyber. You must remember that there are
those out there who have stuff better than you and don't have to go
through iunvasive surgery to get it (but losing a high priority to race
blows...)

> If that's the case, I should have definately had the advantage
> when it comes to modifiers. Also, being a PC as compared to a pretty standard
> archetype-based NPC, I should have had a power advantage as well. Yeah, there
> were 2 of them, but it still seems they were either a bit too skilled for
> standard go gangers (especially teenagers) or they got real lucky. I
> understand the modifiers that were applied. It just seems statistically
> highly improbable that given the situation, that 2 teen-aged go-gangers with
> hammers should be able to take out a PC with a gun and a good unarmed combat
> skill to boot! :)

You don't know the half of it. They had a skill of 5 and a
threat rating of 2 on their own turf (which you were in...). Amazingly,
I rolled an incredible number of successes. Added to that is the fact
that you tried to shoot them while they were in melee range and that you
didn't counterattack the first shot thrown at you, results in my lack of
surprise at your getting pasted. In all honesty, though, statistically,
you were probably more than a match for them (idividually, that is). I
just got lucky, and you...didn't.

> >But never fear, his friend Bo'Ok bailed him out in a big, big way, and Mr.
> >Bennet lived to fight another day (until he was hospitalized by suppression
> >fire, that is...) ;)

> Yet another story where I get my booty whooped in a big way. When you are
> using an armored car door as cover vs. suppression fire....there's not a whole
> lot you can do without stepping out of cover *into* the suppression fire. Not
> to mention the numbers were far from in my favor (3 to 1 odds....2 of us, 6 of
> them). *sigh* I haven't had a lot of luck with this character yet.

Actually, you've done surprisingly well. You work well with the
other characters you have encountered and you have a wide base of really
useful skills. So you're not a combat dynamo, big deal. It would only
tempt you to get into more combat anyway.
To tell you the truth, you dropped into the middle of one of the
most difficult runs I've ever put my players through. And you're still
alive, you're not in jail, you haven't totally rolled your friends, and
you haven't been committed to an asylum. All in all, I think you're
doin' pretty well, comparatively.

> Although, I shouldn't complain---after all, Jonathan did warn me that Marc is
> cruel and sadistic ;)

If only he had known the true extent of it...

Marc
Message no. 30
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat Really Sucks
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 14:56:26 -0400
> Actually, you've done surprisingly well. You work well with the
>other characters you have encountered and you have a wide base of really
>useful skills. So you're not a combat dynamo, big deal. It would only
>tempt you to get into more combat anyway.
> To tell you the truth, you dropped into the middle of one of the
>most difficult runs I've ever put my players through. And you're still
>alive, you're not in jail, you haven't totally rolled your friends, and
>you haven't been committed to an asylum. All in all, I think you're
>doin' pretty well, comparatively.

Aw, shucks *blush*

Now you got me feelin' all warm and fuzzy inside... :)




Justin :)

_______________________________________________________________
(jpinnow@*****.edu)

Geek Code (version 2.1):

G!>ED d----(d+/d++$) H s-: !g p? au
a23 w+(+++) v?(*)>!v C+(++) U- P? !L
!3 E? N+ K- W+ M+ V+ po---
Y++(+) t+@ 5 !j R+(++) G' tv-- b++>+++
!D B--- e+ u+ h- f? r+(*) N----
Y++

It all starts from within you.
Message no. 31
From: Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat Really Sucks
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 12:06:44 -0700
>
>Aw, shucks *blush*
>Now you got me feelin' all warm and fuzzy inside... :)
>
>Justin :)

It's a ploy it's just a trick...
DON'T LET YOUR GUARD DOWN!!!!

argggaGGhHHH...

Thanks
Gary C.
Message no. 32
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat Really Sucks
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 11:00:11 -0400
On Tue, 27 Jun 1995, Gary Carroll wrote:

> >
> >Aw, shucks *blush*
> >Now you got me feelin' all warm and fuzzy inside... :)
> >
> >Justin :)
>
> It's a ploy it's just a trick...
> DON'T LET YOUR GUARD DOWN!!!!
>
> argggaGGhHHH...

Curses! Foiled again...

Marc
Message no. 33
From: Joanna Goodhartz <JGOODHAR@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why Close Combat really sucks
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 22:47:31 -0500
> The PhysAd I mentioned in one of my previous posts is one of our
>more effective ways of dealing with things like elementals and spirits.
>What also helps is the fact that she's a vampire, which none of the
>current characters know she is. Our characters are still baffled by the
>fact that she walked away uninjured from a raid of four goons in heavy
>security armor while my character and another were taken down before we
>had a chance to do anything. We later learned that the goons were flesh
>form insect spirits *sigh*, I hate insects.......
>
>SilverFire

>>>>>
The only thing being a vampire got her is that she stayed up after the initial
rounds got everyone else. After that, I took down those four purely on phys
ad abilities - armed combat 4, weapon focus 4. I find the most effective
means against multiple targets is to wait until they attack, block and
counter-attack. Of course, the goons didn't have any armed combat (or very
little), so that helped.

Tanista Allura nee Gwendolyn nee Veren

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Why Close Combat really sucks, 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!