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