Combat and Opposed Rolls

[Harvey Walters]

My real issue is with the extent of the shift in the BRP rules. I don't like the doubling rule. It completely breaks my suspension of disbelief. If you want to tie skill to damage in BRP, I can completely see using the martial arts skill, but instead of extra damage, have a roll on the martial arts skill set the (minimum damage) or perhaps add a point or two.

How about having martial arts skill raise the damage bonus one step if the

attack roll is also a success of the martial arts skill? I.e. 0 becomes 1D4,

1D4 becomes 1D6, etc.

Michael Hoxie

[RMS]

How about having martial arts skill raise the damage bonus one step if the

attack roll is also a success of the martial arts skill? I.e. 0 becomes 1D4,

1D4 becomes 1D6, etc.

Michael Hoxie

I could see that, but then you'll end up with all martial artists being big burly guys since that move from 1d6 up to a 2d6 damage bonus is pretty big. (I don't have my book in front of me. BRP does still have the old RQ strength bonus progression doesn't it.)

I'd probably be happier just giving a +1 (success), +2 (special), or +3 (critcal) bonus. In BRP, a +1 damage bonus is huge (in fact, I'd still argue it's "unrealistic", but I could live happily with it), and a +2 or +3 is pretty substantial.

OR, roll twice and take the best one, or similar.

I'm really just throwing ideas out there, but I could come up with a million of them that'd be reasonable in my eyes, but would still make the special skill worth investing in.

[RosenMcStern]

My experience is that a Karate blackbelt with lots of training, and lots of tournament experience is going to get his ass handed to him by someone with just a little street experience, or by your typical football player who's never swung a punch at anyone in his life before, but I digress...

This was exactly my point, as I stated "there is no guarantee that the Blackbelt will beat the thug in a real fight". So you agree that combat training and Martial Arts (Karate) are not the same skill.

The current version of Martial Arts in the rules only works well with Karate and the like. It could be adapted to Kendo/Kenjutsu and Western fencing, but with some adaptations would be useful (Like in Al's examples). I think it works very poorly with pre-renaissance western sword fighting, which is explicitly left out by the rules. The rules also specify that there should be restrictions on which attacks qualify for the Martial arts bonus. For instance, Humakti should get no Martial Arts skill: their mystic techniques for increasing damage are already represented by their magic.

[Nightshade]

I don't buy it, at least in the way it's represented in the rules and the argument that (using your example) those boxers could magically hit harder after gaining more skill. It makes perfect sense that they

I don't think there's anything magical about it; there's ways to get the most out of a strike and ways that don't, and developing that's part of the training. It isn't a huge difference, but is it enough for a point or two of difference on BRP scale? Yes, I think it is, and if you don't believe that, that's your business, but I don't doubt it for a moment.

My real issue is with the extent of the shift in the BRP rules. I don't like the doubling rule. It completely breaks my suspension of disbelief. If you want to tie skill to damage in BRP, I can completely see using the martial arts skill, but instead of extra damage, have a roll on the martial arts skill set the (minimum damage) or perhaps add a point or two. For example, someone is rolling a fist attack and has a related martial arts skill:

With the effect only doubling the base damage, it _is_ only about two points with a punch. Its a bit more with a kick, but given the difference in what I saw I could do before and after training there (and I wasn't notably stronger after that) I don't even find that out of reason.

* I would also note that boxing is a sport that's almost completely about landing blows for points (accept for a very specific segment of the pro sport), but then so are most martial arts out there. I'm not sure how relevant either

No. Most martial arts are _taught_ that way, but the fundamental techniques of many, if not most, are still basically practical; there's a reason relatively few concentrate on high kicks for example (because like the full extension lunge in fencing, they're only effective if you've managed to get your opponent way off balance, and if you've made a mistake of estimation or he's bluffed you, it will get you in a bad place). Any serious dojo (and those are the ones teaching what the game actually calls martial arts as compared to the general sense) either teaches both--and distinguishes competition techniques from the practical--or just teaches the practical because its teaching them for self-defense purposes. Far as that goes, not all competition is completely harmless here; watch an actual kickboxing match from parts of Thailand sometime, and you'll see guys who are, bluntly, knocking the crap out of each other. They avoid the quick cripplers, but what they're doing would still win fights fine.

Edited December 12, 2008 by Nightshade

[Nightshade]

How about having martial arts skill raise the damage bonus one step if the

attack roll is also a success of the martial arts skill? I.e. 0 becomes 1D4,

1D4 becomes 1D6, etc.

Michael Hoxie

That'd probably be a better way to go; that way it works across the board. Its probably even easier just to kick up one of the base damage dice a die size or two.

[RMS]

I don't think there's anything magical about it; there's ways to get the most out of a strike and ways that don't, and developing that's part of the training.

Well, if there's nothing magical about it, I have a hard time understanding how someone with significant boxing experience (from your example) can't already be able to strike sufficiently hard with good boxing training. Surely, delivering a strike is part of boxing training.

It isn't a huge difference, but is it enough for a point or two of difference on BRP scale? Yes, I think it is, and if you don't believe that, that's your business, but I don't doubt it for a moment.

I don't believe it increases the potential for damage (without a corresponding increase in strength). That'd violate basic physics, and as you already know that's not something I'd be willing to grant! I'd completely grant that it increases typical or average damage, and probably quite substantially.

As you've already noted, BRP doesn't tie damage to success other than through the Special/Critical hits so this is probably an implementation issue. To me it's a kludge to tack on the Martial Arts skill that's different from all other skills (a bit like Defense was back in the day), and I'd just say that any special training should be rolled up into the skill as presented on the character sheet. However, I understand the basic concern with tying damage to success level, and have done that in my latest homebrew game. I just don't see how it can successfully be done in BRP, and am not a fan of the special skill, partially because of how much potential damage is increased and how that corresponds to other weapons in the game.

No. Most martial arts are _taught_ that way, but the fundamental techniques of many, if not most, are still basically practical; there's a reason relatively few concentrate on high kicks for example (because like the full extension lunge in fencing, they're only effective if you've managed to get your opponent way off balance, and if you've made a mistake of estimation or he's bluffed you, it will get you in a bad place).

I have a funny (from a macabre POV) story sometime about an attempted high kick in a real situation. It ties into the football player statement above and happened when I was in college.

[RMS]

That'd probably be a better way to go; that way it works across the board. Its probably even easier just to kick up one of the base damage dice a die size or two.

After some thought, you could address my concern with 1d6 -> 2d6 above by just moving from 1d6 -> 1d8.

That'd be ugly enough since I've always had crushing attacks do maximum strength bonus on a Special (or Critical) and most of the time a Martial Art success is happening, the basic skill is also increasing.

[RMS]

So you agree that combat training and Martial Arts (Karate) are not the same skill.

In real life, they are not typically the same skill. In BRP, I'd argue that they should be all rolled together into one skill since that's the way the rest of the system works. There are a lot of skills in real life that are separate, that don't end up that way in the rules. I'm a pretty good marksman in real life, and if you wrote me up (tied to the other thread!) I'd get a decent rifle skill. However, I don't have any under-fire combat experience. In the rules, I'd be as good as an active soldier who's base marksmanship was equal to my own if you consider rifle skill to only include the ability to hit a target at range X. However, I'd consider rifle skill in BRP to include the ability to work under fire, so I should actually have a lower skill than that soldier.

Similarly, to me, the fist skill isn't just about taking some punches in a boxing ring, or even in a "casual" fist fight, but is about trying to take someone out in a life and death situation "in battle", or similar. Someone with martial arts training should simply have a much higher appropriate weapon skill than someone lacking that skill. To me, that's the type of training we were all dumping our gold for in the early days of RQ. If one person has a fist skill of 75% all earned through experience, they're an experienced street brawler and are dangerous. If someone else trained their fist skill up to 75% without earning anything in through experience, they'd be someone with a lot of martial arts training and would be equally dangerous to the street brawler in a life and death situation. Where they got their experience is important to the character background. Mechanically, they're equal in skill because in a dangerous situation they're equally competent.

The current version of Martial Arts in the rules only works well with Karate and the like. It could be adapted to Kendo/Kenjutsu and Western fencing, but with some adaptations would be useful (Like in Al's examples). I think it works very poorly with pre-renaissance western sword fighting, which is explicitly left out by the rules. The rules also specify that there should be restrictions on which attacks qualify for the Martial arts bonus. For instance, Humakti should get no Martial Arts skill: their mystic techniques for increasing damage are already represented by their magic.

Here's the problem. I don't see why your distinguishing between pre-renaissance western sword fighting and something like western fencing. They're both technically martial arts, by the strict definition of the term, and both involve substantial training and techniques to optimize the use of available weapons on the battlefield. This is a separate issue, but I get tired of the myth about there being a mythical distinction between Eastern and Western levels of training and technique. There are differences in the details, but in the level of discipline and technique there isn't. If you're going to grant Martial Arts training as a specialized training in any weapon, it should be available in all weapons (at least in theory).

Btw, the idea above of increasing only damage bonus actually ties in pretty nicely here. You could still have it with broadsword, for example, but it doesn't take it completely out of whack. That move to a little more damage bonus is pretty small relative to the damage the sword already does, but makes a pretty substantial difference for unarmed or lightly armed fighting.

Btw, I would really argue on the Humakti part. They're supposed to be the most highly skilled, highly trained swordsmen in the world, above and beyond any special abilities they gain through magic. If anyone is going to get special bonuses to improve damage, they strike me as being very specifically the ones who should be getting it. (Once again, the above idea on damage ties in nicely and doesn't overbalance them so badly...it's growing on me! :cool: )

Edited December 12, 2008 by RMS

[RosenMcStern]

If you're going to grant Martial Arts training as a specialized training in any weapon, it should be available in all weapons (at least in theory).

No, it should be available in all weapons for which a master has devised some special techniques. This is true for unarmed combat (where there are several styles), for fencing with light swords and sabers, and for fencing with japanese swords. It is probably true for gladiator schools in ancient Rome, assuming gladiators were better at killing than legionnaires (and again, the bonus applies only to shortwords and tridents, the weapon they used in the arena, while legionnaires mostly used the pilum). It might have been true for medieval schools of fighters, but we have no written record of it, so we cannot know for sure. I am rather skeptical about anyone devising special techniques for pikes or halberds.

Btw, I would really argue on the Humakti part. They're supposed to be the most highly skilled, highly trained swordsmen in the world, above and beyond any special abilities they gain through magic.

Except for the fact that they simply do not have the need for a special technique for increasing damage: they have Truesword. So why should they bother? Again, the pont is that you assume that everything non-magical should go into one (at most two) skills, while the MA skill, admittedly unlike all other skills in BRP, represents your ability to achieve ONE kind of special result. And this is clearly stated by the rules, which say that every different technique is a separate skill, not just "Mastery in that weapon".

[Nightshade]

Well, if there's nothing magical about it, I have a hard time understanding how someone with significant boxing experience (from your example) can't already be able to strike sufficiently hard with good boxing training. Surely, delivering a strike is part of boxing training.

To be honest, not as much. Boxing has evolved much farther away from being a combat technique than many martial arts; there are far more constraints about where you can hit and so on. As an example, there are martial techniques that are effectively illegal in bouts other than full contact (and some illegal even in those) which you don't find in boxing training. I wouldn't be surprised if you found some ancient but long supported boxing styles (such as pankration) that did, in fact emphasize power strikes more, but that's long been lost out of modern boxing, the same way any equivelent is long gone from modern fencing.

But over and above that, there's the simple issue that there's extra training overhead on maxing strike output; with the more practical forms of martial arts, that's still worthwhile in many cases, because ending a fight quickly can be crucial; with a boxer, its nice to do so (because you spend less time being pummelled yourself) but its not likely to ever be life or death. Training systems tend to be Darwinian; they keep techniques that are actually important for what they're trying to do, and ones that aren't as relevant wither away because they take time to teach. In the case of a boxer, after the basics of striking effectively have been taught, how useful is spending time to teach how to hit harder when it comes at the price of extra time learning to get through blocks and deal with timing? But with a practical martial art, given the limits of the effectiveness of the human hand and foot as weapons, its well worth it if you aren't going to use it just in matches.

I don't believe it increases the potential for damage (without a corresponding increase in strength). That'd violate basic physics, and as you already know that's not something I'd be willing to grant! I'd completely grant that it increases typical or average damage, and probably quite substantially.

I think it quite does, because you're making a false assumption on at least two grounds (as to my view).

1. Damage is all about energy. Its not. Its about applying energy effectively to the target. If it wasn't, the sword would never have been invented. As such, if the typical person isn't applying his energy as effectively, he's not going to do as much damage, average or maximum.

2. The default use of human natural weapons is efficient. Again, its not; we repurpose hands and feet (and to some extent other body parts) for this function, but they're intrinsically inefficient weapons. But one of the advantages humans have (and modern sports science shows this doesn't stop here) is that we can figure out how to get the most out of what's available. As such, the intinstinctive ways aren't the best ways to kick or punch. Far from it.

As you've already noted, BRP doesn't tie damage to success other than through the Special/Critical hits so this is probably an implementation issue. To me it's a kludge to tack on the Martial Arts skill that's different from all other skills (a bit like Defense was back in the day), and I'd just say that any special training should be rolled up into the skill as presented on the character sheet. However, I understand the basic concern with tying damage to success level, and have done that in my latest homebrew game. I just don't see how it can successfully be done in BRP, and am not a fan of the special skill, partially because of how much potential damage is increased and how that corresponds to other weapons in the game.

Well, I'm quite willing to address different approaches as you say in my later post, but I don't think there's anything intrinsic about increasing damage slightly that's either unrealistic or a game breaker. Even the current version is pretty much okay to my eyes when applied to punches. It just gets problematic if you apply it to larger natural weapons, or port the idea over to weapons (which realistically, you should do if you're going to include it).

I have a funny (from a macabre POV) story sometime about an attempted high kick in a real situation. It ties into the football player statement above and happened when I was in college.

Well, as I said, high kicks are usually showy flourish (a lot of full out kicks are, because they seriously overextend you; high kicks are just the far end of the process), though once in a while they can be a good way to finish off someone already on their last legs and unlikely to respond quickly, if (and its a big if) you're actually good enough to launch and recover it fairly quickly without a significant chance of landing on your ass doing it.

[Nightshade]

After some thought, you could address my concern with 1d6 -> 2d6 above by just moving from 1d6 -> 1d8.

That'd be ugly enough since I've always had crushing attacks do maximum strength bonus on a Special (or Critical) and most of the time a Martial Art success is happening, the basic skill is also increasing.

I think that's entirely conruent with reality, though, to be dead honest. The only problem you might run into is I don't recall if BRP makes the distinction between full lethal damage and "soft" damage; while a solid, well landed trained kick can be brutal, its not quite as lethal as 1d8 might suggest; but that's a problem if you don't make the distinction between full and light weapons in general; there's just a qualitative difference that can't be properly represented by playing with damage points by itself.

[Pete Nash]

In RQ, I simply don't care for Martial Arts as an independent skill. Doubling damage is obviously (when applied to weapons) regarded as broken by most of us.

However beyond this as I stated earlier, I consider any weapon or unarmed combat skill to be in itself a martial art. This is not just a semantic quibble, since my interpretation of the RQ/BRP model is that the skill should represent the entirety of that area of knowledge. Thus breaking a weapon skill down into two parts; part 1 - How to wield the weapon, and part 2 - Secret advanced techniques, just strikes me as wrong. After all, we don't use the same mechanic for any other type of skill. Do we?

No, it should be available in all weapons for which a master has devised some special techniques. This is true for unarmed combat (where there are several styles), for fencing with light swords and sabers, and for fencing with japanese swords. It is probably true for gladiator schools in ancient Rome, assuming gladiators were better at killing than legionnaires (and again, the bonus applies only to shortwords and tridents, the weapon they used in the arena, while legionnaires mostly used the pilum). It might have been true for medieval schools of fighters, but we have no written record of it, so we cannot know for sure. I am rather skeptical about anyone devising special techniques for pikes or halberds.

Although this idea is a good one for finding an alternate rationalization for the MA skill, it does pose problems - both mechanically in the game rules (to come up with lists of nifty advanced techniques) and from what happens in real life.

From my perspective, most martial arts across all weapon forms contain methods to engage, disengage, disarm, pin, off-balance, break weapons, use alternate body parts or weapon areas (not normally used to deliver blows) to deliver them, grappling, Limb breaking, vital body locations and even psychology to name the most common. These are not special techniques, but fundamental parts of any fighting form, and are taught and practiced as such... The more difficult being left to later in training for those better coordinated, experienced and mentally prepared to absorb and utilise such knowledge. If nothing else, you need to be able to recognise these techniques in your opponents to be able to successfully defend against them, because they are used all the time.

Most advanced (*special*) training in those MAs which I have followed, have been nothing more than a) higher philosophical perspectives (something not to be sneered at by any means, but usually not directly applicable to fighting); or more complicated ways of doing the exact same techniques listed above, but in a roundabout way (to confuse experienced opponents from recognising and countering them).

Of course there are a few unique tactics which can only be applied in the right circumstances, like reflecting blinding light from a polished shield, or massed units using tight formations with huge shields to hinder enemies from swinging weapons. However, these don't strike me as being so difficult as to need a separate skill.

Unfortunately in RQ/BRP we are hindered by the lack of being able to use the above techniques in a seamless way with the current rules. Specials and criticals generally just increase or decrease damage. Whereas I think in these cases you should be able to substitute a technique relevant to the situation instead - as I do in the Opposed Combat rules I wrote for use with MRQ.

Although I think there should be a way of allowing more skillful combatants a way to consistently improve their damage (and spice up combat with techniques), I don't think a separate MA skill is the best way of doing it.

I think we're all suffering from a kludge rule made in the days when MA movies were in vogue and the general opinion was that monks and Ninjas were mystically and inherently superior to the plain old pugalist. In my opinion I don't see any need to increase unarmed combat damage beyond a d3!

[Merak Gren]

Pete. Some very good points.

I agree that martial arts is a matter of techniques both open and secret.

The aimed blow rule always struck me as odd, as it is made as a difficult roll and carried out at the end of turn, as 'you have to wait for an opening'.

For me martial arts techniques, is about delivering precise blows to the desired hit locations after being trained and many hours of practice. These can also be unarmourd parts of the body, such as hips, neck, face, hamstrings etc

The effectiveness of the blow is as a by product of its desired target.

I liked the RQ Land of Ninja Ki skills which improved the critical hit range and allowed a master swordsman to be deadly with one stroke.

The current MA skill doesn't do it for me either, but if anyone asks, I'll use it as a way of delivering aimed blows without the penalties.

[Nightshade]

The RQ4/AIG draft had some approaches for special techniques; they worked like martial arts (in that they were essentially an overlay skill that applied to other weapon or unarmed attacks) and essentially traded off benefits; they'd allow you to get certain special benefits out of the attack or parry skill at the price of reducing quality of result; typically you couldn't crit, and only specialed on what would normally be the crit result.

The big problem was that the overhead on learning them (and this was even more true in RQ:4/AIG which had different levels of skill difficulty to learn, and these were Hard skills) made them typically more trouble than they were worth, since you didn't typically want to use any one of them all the time.

[RMS]

Like so many discussions on the net, I think most of our disagreement came down to semantics, and a bit of interpretation of what exactly rules are supposed to be representing.

I think that's entirely conruent with reality, though, to be dead honest.

We're in agreement there. I don't disagree that lots of specific training incredibly increases the average ability to do damage: the ability to do maximum or near maximum all the time. I only disagree that it can increase damage without a requisite increase in strength. (One could even argue that the increase is there in BRP terms without being enough to move the STR stat up, and so should be represented as a small move due to skill.)

I prefer no martial arts skills because I lean towards a slightly lighter version of BRP when it comes to total skills. However, if using it, I would be very likely to simply let it maximize rolled damage whenever successful. (I'd have to look and see how that affects crits and specials then.)

The only problem you might run into is I don't recall if BRP makes the distinction between full lethal damage and "soft" damage; while a solid, well landed trained kick can be brutal, its not quite as lethal as 1d8 might suggest; but that's a problem if you don't make the distinction between full and light weapons in general; there's just a qualitative difference that can't be properly represented by playing with damage points by itself.

This has always been a problem in various forms of BRP. We had to flee town so many times in the early days because the big barbarian would kill someone with his fists in a barroom brawl. We houseruled later to make one point, per die rolled, actual damage and the rest just soft damage. That also completely eliminates the problem of unarmed martial artists outclassing a sword in a fight to the death.

All of this boils down to the fact that BRP has never tied skill level directly to damage, other than through crits and specials. I do like that move myself, but never figured out an elegant way to houserule it into BRP to make me happy, so never bothered.

[Nightshade]

We're in agreement there. I don't disagree that lots of specific training incredibly increases the average ability to do damage: the ability to do maximum or near maximum all the time. I only disagree that it can increase damage without a requisite increase in strength. (One could even argue that the increase is there in BRP terms without being enough to move the STR stat up, and so should be represented as a small move due to skill.)

Honestly, I don't think what I'm talking about has to do with Strength increases at all; its all about just using what you already have most efficiently.

This has always been a problem in various forms of BRP. We had to flee town so many times in the early days because the big barbarian would kill someone with his fists in a barroom brawl. We houseruled later to make one point, per die rolled, actual damage and the rest just soft damage. That also completely eliminates the problem of unarmed martial artists outclassing a sword in a fight to the death.

Well, RQ3 actually made the distinction; human unarmed and things like light batons did a different quality of damage than serious weapons. But I don't recall if that's carried over even as an optional rule in BRP.

All of this boils down to the fact that BRP has never tied skill level directly to damage, other than through crits and specials. I do like that move myself, but never figured out an elegant way to houserule it into BRP to make me happy, so never bothered.

Well, I think that in any modern game you really do need to do something with unarmed damage; it comes up too often and using it as normal damage enormously overstates its lethality and long term consequences. And that's even if you aren't trying for the cinematic conceit where its even less lethal.

[RMS]

Honestly, I don't think what I'm talking about has to do with Strength increases at all; its all about just using what you already have most efficiently.

I understand what you're saying, but there's always that chance you'll land the perfect blow by chance without skill. The skills just make that perfect blow more and more likely IMO. However, I can see the argument that it's so unlikely without the skill as to ignore the possibility in game terms...I suppose.

Well, RQ3 actually made the distinction; human unarmed and things like light batons did a different quality of damage than serious weapons. But I don't recall if that's carried over even as an optional rule in BRP.

Are you sure? I don't recall this and this post even got me to (finally) open the box of RPG books from this summer's move and flip through my RQ3 copy, and I didn't find it. I'd love to read it because this was a major issue for us, though it may well have been in the RQII days, rather than post RQ3 days.

[Nightshade]

I understand what you're saying, but there's always that chance you'll land the perfect blow by chance without skill. The skills just make that perfect blow more and more likely IMO. However, I can see the argument that it's so unlikely without the skill as to ignore the possibility in game terms...I suppose.

I think that chance without proper training is, however, less than 1%; in other words its below the resolution of the system, and a such should not occur mechanically any more than a number of other possible, but very low probability events.

Are you sure? I don't recall this and this post even got me to (finally) open the box of RPG books from this summer's move and flip through my RQ3 copy, and I didn't find it. I'd love to read it because this was a major issue for us, though it may well have been in the RQII days, rather than post RQ3 days.

Lemme see if I can find it...Hmmm. Either I've confused the official rules with a houserule, or I'm crossing it up with another game system we used at the time, as I don't seem to find it, either in the book itself or the errata.

[RMS]

Lemme see if I can find it...Hmmm. Either I've confused the official rules with a houserule, or I'm crossing it up with another game system we used at the time, as I don't seem to find it, either in the book itself or the errata.

Could it be in the RQIV draft? Did you have access to a copy of those? There's something in there about healing from nonlethal damage being quicker. It's not in the combat section, but in the Natural World section.

[Nightshade]

Could it be in the RQIV draft? Did you have access to a copy of those? There's something in there about healing from nonlethal damage being quicker. It's not in the combat section, but in the Natural World section.

Looking at that entry in the RQ:AIG .pdf I have, that's probably it; since the last two or three times I've been in RQ games they were hybridizations of RQ3 and RQ:AIG, that's probably where it came from and I just projected it backwards on RQ3.

[Tywyll]

No, it should be available in all weapons for which a master has devised some special techniques. This is true for unarmed combat (where there are several styles), for fencing with light swords and sabers, and for fencing with japanese swords. It is probably true for gladiator schools in ancient Rome, assuming gladiators were better at killing than legionnaires (and again, the bonus applies only to shortwords and tridents, the weapon they used in the arena, while legionnaires mostly used the pilum). It might have been true for medieval schools of fighters, but we have no written record of it, so we cannot know for sure. I am rather skeptical about anyone devising special techniques for pikes or halberds.

Personally, I think the MA skill, as applied to Weapons, is broken. I think the MA skill is insufficient for modeling more than a handful of real world MA. I also disagree that weapon skill encompasses 'martial arts' by which I mean the special, specific training in use. The reason I argue this is based on BRP's experience system... anyone can pick up a sword and, over time and with luck, gain 100% in it (a great deal of luck and decent stats could see this happen in only around 20 conflicts, unlikely yes, but possible). This shouldn't mean the same thing as someone who has trained extensively in combat methodology, as it obviously isn't in the real world. I think the illusion that these two characters would be the same comes strictly from the way the mechanics work and the 'reward' system that exists within it.

I disagree that there shouldn't be MA for all kinds of weapons. And in fact, we do have many surviving examples of medieval school styles, including styles for fighting with pole-arms. For example:

"'Flower of Battle' is an Italian treatise, which was started on Februrary 10, 1409 and completed in six months in late 1409 (1410 using the modern calendar). It is primarily composed of illustrations accompanied with short rhyming captions in a Venetian dialect of Italian. Some details of Fiore dei Liberi can be found in its prologues, one in Italian and the second in Latin. The prologue also explains the structure and conventions found in the treatise. Fighting styles covering wrestling, dagger, sword, spear, longsword, armoured combat, pollaxe, and mounted combat are included in the treatise with considerable discussion of disarming techniques in particular, in the dagger and sword sections."

And from wiki:

"Normally, several modes of combat were taught alongside one another, typically unarmed grappling (Kampfringen or abrazare), dagger (Degen or daga, often of the rondel variety), long knife (Messer) or Dussack, half- or quarterstaff, pole arms, longsword (langes Schwert, spada longa, spadone), and combat in plate armour (Harnischfechten or armazare), both on foot and on horseback. Some Fechtbücher have sections on dueling shields (Stechschild), special weapons used only in judicial duels. The long sword had a position of honour among these disciplines, and sometimes Historical European Swordsmanship (HES) is used to refer to swordsmanship techniques specifically.

An early Burgundian French treatise is Le jeu de la hache ("The Play of the Axe") of ca. 1400.

The earliest master to write in the Italian was Fiore dei Liberi, commissioned by the Marquis di Ferrara. In approximately 1410, he documented comprehensive fighting techniques in a treatise entitled Flos Duellatorum covering grappling, dagger, arming sword, longsword, pole-weapons, armoured combat and mounted combat. The Italian school is continued by Filippo Vadi (1482-1487) and Pietro Monte (1492, Latin with Italian and Spanish terms)"

I'd love to see BRP get a proper treatment on MA. I don't know what that treatment would be, or else I'd suggest a Monograph to Chaosium. I think that if BRP is going to be truly a universal system, it will eventually need a comprehensive MA treatment.

I do think that for weapons, the MA skill could simply add +d3, just like it does for Brawl. I realize it does this because it 'doubles' Brawl damage, but I don't see the need for that with weapons... it would be simple, special, and not so unbalanced (I'd think).

Haven't tried it, don't know how well it'd work, but it's something.

[Guest fluimamub]

[url=http://www.inet-shops.com/shoes.htm] Edited March 17, 2009 by Trifletraxor

[kaddawang]

That's some funky Martial Arts-styles. Black belt Women Shoes-Do

[kaddawang]

If we disregard the shoes for a moment, the MA-skill doesn't work very well. If you want some lethal Kung-Fu in the game, why not allow characters with special background and training access to some of the superpowers - specifically the defence and unarmed combat-power? The bonuses from the unarmed combat power could easily be carried over to different weapon masteries.

[Tywyll]

If we disregard the shoes for a moment, the MA-skill doesn't work very well. If you want some lethal Kung-Fu in the game, why not allow characters with special background and training access to some of the superpowers - specifically the defence and unarmed combat-power? The bonuses from the unarmed combat power could easily be carried over to different weapon masteries.

Personally? Because as a power its so frigging expensive (as in, I can't figure out why Unarmed Combat costs as much as it does).

And defense... is that supposed to be 1% per level or 5%?

The big issue I have with using either of those as written is that the super system is its own beast, and unless you are using it exclusively (which I'm not) it doesn't play well with others. I can't really figure out a way to tie it to normal skill percentages or other elements of play... because spending 20 POW to increase it a level just isn't an option in the game I run.