From: canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Big vs. Small Weapons
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:33:59 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <1584anINNinv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> jdale@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Dale) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul29.150829.24838@burrhus.harvard.edu> canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson) writes:
>>In article <Bs40p5.tA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maxson@cerl.uiuc.edu (K R Maxson) writes:
>>>Actually, trying to figure out how combat really works by watching SCA events
>>>is not a very good plan.
>>
>>	Well, it can teach you a lot, if you keep the limitations of the
>>SCA well in mind.  The most ridiculous thing in SCA combat is the speed and
>>abandon with which people fight.  Most combats result in a kill after a
>>very short time - a minute or so at best.  Do you think people would fight
>>so carelessly if they knew their lives and well-beings depended on it.  A
>>real fight would be rather more cautious and time-consuming.
>
>I'm not so sure about that.  Sure, people wouldn't make the kind of reckless
>charge I've seen done to great effect in some SCA battles.  But when it comes
>down to one-on-one combat, being constantly on the move and on the offensive
>is advantageous.  You don't want to be cautious and waiting for them to move,
>because then they have the initiative and the advantage.  Rushing in and 
>attacking hard is the best way to keep your opponent off balance, which is to
>say the best way to survive.  I've noticed this in SCA-like light fighting and
>fencing (both of which I've done), and you also see it in SCA heavy fighting
>(limited by encumbrance, to some extent).  

	Hmmm.  Agreed that an aggressive tactic is good in man to man, but
SCA fight are a little _too_ agressive I think.  I've found that a constant
agressive edge is very important, but lots of SCA fighters don't think
about their defense as much because they *know* "it's just a game".  By
thinking about my defense, blocks and shieldwork, I can ward off lots of
the wild strikes that get thrown, and choose the point where there is an
opening.
	Of course, this system in the SCA often gets you killed too,
because you are essientially face with an opponent who doesn't care (very
much) if you "kill" him, and it's almost a cliche about how dangerous such
folk are.
	I'd be interested to see what happened if SCA fighters used real
weapons.  I imagine a lot of people would get killed/maimed real fast, and
then casualties would fall off as the fighters began thinking
about _survival_ as well as offense.

>Game mechanics make no mention of anything like this.  In a game, no one ever
>pauses, and parries don't limit your ability to attack -- they do in real
>life.  On the other hand, either I have a shield skill of 25 or shields are
>underrated in every game I've seen.  I have a hunch it's the latter....

	Well, Rolemaster, parries take points from your Offensive Bonus and
add it to your Defensive Bonus.  Thus your parries _do_ limit your ability
to attack in RM.
	But you are absolutely correct in pointing out that shields are
vastly underrated in manyu game systems - especially AD&D.  I will never
forget starting SCA heavy list and suddenly having it driven home (very
forcefully :)  that your shield is your _friend_!  Rolemaster also tends to
have fairly reasonable shield statistics, usually adding around 25% to your
ability to defend.  Perhaps that's not quite right, but it works well in
the game.

Cheers,
Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson	            	"Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
canders@isr.harvard.edu			at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
anderso2@husc.harvard.edu			- Skarphedhinn Njalsson 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc