From: guest@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA (Muhep Guest account)
Subject: Re: GURPS Martial Arts (was Re: GURPS Armor)
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:28:55 GMT

John H Kim writes

> Have you ever operated in armor? I have only once, but really it is 
> not significantly different than without. You tire out a little faster, 
> but that's about it. (This is chainmail - obviously full plate is going  
> to be more cumbersome, but that is a different story.)

Actually, the original discussion *was* about plate armour....and I have  
worn armour. Let's not play "battling anecdotes": it is a silly game, and  
no one gets hurt...
 
> 	At any rate, if what you say is true, then GURPS is sadly lacking 
> in representing this disadvantage due to armor. The Move penalty of  
> medium armor (like chainmail) does not put you at any real disadvantage  
> against an unarmored foe. 

I would have to disagree here! For one, if you use the piecewise 
armour rules in GURPS, and construct full suits of metallic armour with a  
realistic set of pieces, you're going to be either Medium or Heavy  
encumbered, be that armour chain, scale or plate! Since the average  
martial-artist in any campaign I've seen will be at No Encumbrance, the  
martial-artist will have the higher MV, and hence will strike first! This  
is exactly what I am talking about, here. He moves in and attacks before  
you even get your turn. The armour gives him the initiative.

> 	I fail to see this. Karate and Judo skills will average 1 less
> than P/A weapon skills for the same number of points. At DX12, for > 
> example, 4 points in Broadsword skill will give you a base 6 to parry 
> another sword, while 4 points in Judo will give you a base 8 to parry. 
> Given the same amount of training, it is easier to parry a sword with > 
> your hands than with another broadsword. That is wrong.Furthermore, as I 
> said, it is just as easy to parry a sword with Judo than it is to parry 
> a punch. That is silly.

     You don't seem too informed about the rules. First, only Brawling,  
Boxing and Karate give you the Hand Parry maneuver. Not Judo. That was  
changed in Martial-Arts, and is the rule as of now. Most unarmed skills  
get a -3 parry against weapons, *except* for Karate. This doesn't make it  
"easy"! If you attempt a Karate parry and fail, the attacker has the  
option of chopping your hand off! This isn't an issue if you are parrying  
a punch. Since most martial-artists will be at light or No Encumbrance,  
this means light armour and little PD. The parry will by no means be a  
sure thing *unless* you have a huge skill, Enhanced Parry and Combat  
Reflexes. IMHO, any character with all these abilities is exceptional in  
the extreme, and maybe represents someone who *could* defeat armed  
fighters in real-life. If you see characters like this a lot in your GURPS  
games, then maybe it is because your group plays excessively competant  
characters. Change that before you try to change the system.
  
> 	One does not need maneuvers or multiple skills to be a tough 
> unarmed opponent in GURPS. A decent level in Judo, some leather armor, 
> and Combat Reflexes, and you have a viable opponent. 

Hmm. Not in our game. Character's like that tend to get chopped up. We use  
all of the optional rules, and enforce them rigidly, as well as  
incorporating all the Martial-Arts material. 
 
> 	The unarmed fighter will just keep his distance, so you are unable 
> to feint at him. Then he closes with a Slam, parrying your blow as he 
> does so. Even if he fails to knock you down, he is now in your hex, and 
> can step and grapple on his next turn.

This has little to do with being an unarmed fighter. *Anyone* in GURPS  
with a good ST and DX can launch a devastatingly effective Slam maneuver.  
This is a problem with Slams, not the unarmed combat system. The old Stop  
Thrust rule (now defunct) was one fix.
 
> 	Alternatively, he can All-Out Attack to close the distance, and 
> take a +4 on his chance to lock your weapon arm, and then can very 
> likely break it before you can get out.

Huh? No. Grapples and Arm Locks are Close-Combat only maneuvers. An  
All-out Attack is *not allowed* in Close-Combat. How could the maneuver  
above be carried out at all? Have you read the rules lately?

     Also, an Arm Lock doesn't begin inflicting damage until the turn  
*after* it is applied. You have a full turn to get out. If you design  
armed combatants who have no unarmed (Brawling, Wrestling) or close-in  
(Knife, Blackjack) skills, then you design poorly-rounded and inefficient  
warriors. This is, again, not the system's fault. I find it is common with  
those who subscribe to "SCA combat reality" to ignore the fact that a true  
warrior needs to be effective at *all* ranges. Since the SCA does not  
allow punches, kicks, grappling, gouging, disarming, shield-smashes,  
etc... in its duels, those who use their experience in such duels to gauge  
reality end up sadly misinformed.
 

> 	Certainly neither of these is a sure thing. It is perfectly 
> possible for the weaponed fighter to win. But the odds are far too  
> close, IMO. 

Well, I*M*O, the odds *are* close. I *do* know a fair number of *real*  
martial artists. Some have even seen real action....if they play their  
hand close to their chest until an opening presents itself, they have a  
good chance.


-Dr Kromm, on a weird node.

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc