Strawberry-Cream

Hm...

the structure of a crafted mail of interwoven chain rings is highly resistant to any cutting damage .

You should try thrusting, for sure. But I'd recommend a good strong spear for that.

Nothing wrong with that .

Vigilance, or rather, slight paranoia should be part of a CP game. If they drop their guard, it's their fault.

I will dig up some of the reviews I read,

unfortunately, most were german and non-digital .

But one thing is sure: the glorification especially of japanese weapons because they appear to be soooo cool and stylish is everything but based on their quality.

And the armor... you could not possible wound someone wearing even only a chainmail with a Tachi or Katana - way too light. Concussion damage, that was the trick behind european weapons.

I think you haven't quite understood my point, pardon me.

I have nothing against "failure" if it moves on the plot. But manipulation is most often crappy and a role-playing killer.

Like...

Player: "I want to sail to Festum..."

GM: "Err... all the ships leak..."

Player: "Then I take my horse."

GM: "It just got killed by a rat..."

Player: "I will walk by foot."

GM: "Nono, they won't sell you any provisions and the city guard arrests you trying to leave the city because you have a resemblance to a criminal..."

Failure must not be death. I would not call it death, but rather, character incapacitation, meaning that it is impossible or unbearable to further play the character. That should never happen, instead when self-induced. Of course, dice results are dice results - if a player gets shot in the head, bad luck.

But if you set up a situation to kill the players, you are GMing against them.

You should on the other hand not manipulate beneficial to the players - it is the same crap! You should only steer and veer a bit, but nothing like: "Err... well... and the Trauma Team was standing just behind the next corner so you are all saved...". It would leave the same bad aftertaste like "You made your Bod-roll to survive the hit? Did I tell you the bullet was poisoned...?"

It's all about manipulation and "dictating" instead of leaving the decisions to the players. Players can die. Oh, and very swiftly - people happen to die for their own mistakes in our fantasy rpgs also, as "no death" would take the tension out of the game.

But if you set the scenario so they will all die, you're just a b*tch .

Normally the plot design should not really be one with a certain outcome or "goal" considering character incapacitation. Even with the best plan, a character can catch a bullet with his forehead, while even with the worst plan there is a possibility that they will get away.

All the effects for character development, suspense, action and drama are gone when you just plainly set the scenario aiming at character incapacitation.

Well,

in our games, we so far used Galileo .

Nevertheless,

the steel quality (especially that of poor Japan) was nothing with which you could build things "built to resist". The breaking of weapons was one major factor for a shield. Of course there where some high quality weapons, and not every blade had to shatter on the first parry, but heck, you could touch a blade with your sweaty hand and corrosion would show in a matter of hours.

What is even more unfortunate about "real" monowires,

is that the wire is only able to make a two-dimensional movement. So the moment a human would try picking it up, it would be destroyed, as even the slightest of force into any wrong direction will cause the mono-molecule chain to break.

There is the theoretical possibilitly to use it with very, very sensitive robots for some cutting, though. So far, nothing that cannot be done by other means. For instance a laser.

With this topic,

there is the thin line between manipulation, character realism and not letting the GM gm against the players.

Normally, I would not give any situation a 100% chance of any single outcome. If I set a hard task, that has a high possibility of failure, it's okay. But, the possibilitly of what happens exactly should not be predesigned. We had a situation like that in an rpg just some days ago, I wasn't the GM, but never mind.

We encountered that big bad knight in black-and-red armor on the realmstreet from Perricum to Gareth, and, well, we were a knight-wannabe and a quite childish half-elven girl. Nevertheless, we charged the guy (as the character traits of the young knight-wannabe would easily suggest).

Now, what the GM planned:

He set the equipment and skills of the knight so that it was a tough match. But he thought we were likely not to get beaten by the knight. But, if the guy had beaten us, the GM would have been prepared also, as the chances were about 35% failure for us (quite tough).

What he intended was, that after a tough fight, the evil knight would get away, since he was superior to any single one of us in combat.

With the slightes possibility the GM planned that we in fact may beat and get the guy, but the GM did not really want that to happen.

Now, what happened...

We fought this guy, and with a combination of clever tactics and some good luck he was placed in a no-escape situation. The GM was a bit disappointed, but after all, if he now would have explained, after solving the fight: "err... he gets away anyway..." it would have been manipulation - the feeling that, no matter what you do, the result is programmed to be the same.

So, he had to twist his mind a bit, and adapt.

As far setting up to "fail"... I would say, PCs can only be "punished" when the player makes the mistakes. If there are disadvantageous situations in that the PCs maneuvered themselves into, and they do make a couple of mistakes, it's okay to just let them end up with some bullets in their guts.

But if you set something up to fail in the first place, anything like that would be pure abuse by the GM. It may be fun and okay if the result is, for instance, that they all awake somewhere strapped of weapons, money (even clothes) and have to get along... that adds thrill. But a real punishment should only be possible if it is caused by the players onto themselves. It's just plain inacceptable if the GM manipulates to PC death (or other means of making a PC impossible to play further).

As for the infos... I'd say, the GM should correct slightly if someones ooc and ic knowledge differs. Of course, you should not, for instance, pick a netrunner as role when you don't even know anything about computers today, but on the other hand, you should be able to play a corporate without having to be a CEO yourself.

A good knowledge of the backgrounds, information and related issues to the own is of course advantageous, but you should not allow characters to fail at basic knowledge that at least the characters should posess.

Well,

of course monocrystalline structures are in some kind of ways ridiculous. But a monokatana ist not as impossible as a monowire is... on the other hand, it's true, a monokatana will shatter every 2 1/2 parries, and that is reflected by the rules.

Not that a medieval blade or a katana could handle more than that... but after all, the steel of today (and especially so in 2020) is of a much higher quality and will allow for some parries.

From my point of view, a monokatana always has only been good to chop someone unarmed and unarmored with one blow to save you a second or third strike that you would have to land with a steelblade .

Since I am working at a hospital at a moment,

and we have some patients with anorexia nervosa,

I think I am able to say that there is nothing about praising this disease. When it comes down to it, it is nothing but an illness, a maladie, something seriously wrong.

Of course watching your weight a bit is a healthy thing that I do also, but you should see the agony of someone that is really suffering from anorexia. As one patient put it, when talking to me: she is "constantly fighting a dragon". Their self-awareness is just dangerously twisted... to be honest, I would risk so much to say as that someone saying "I am anorexic, and anorexia is great." does not have that disease (oh, another mental illness for sure, but not classic anorexia). Claiming so and lobbying for it is, from my point of view, in every kind of way disrespectful of those people suffering from the disorder.

Well,

we are a quite stable group, but there are fluctuations anyway. We don't play CP mainly, but the problems are the same.

We usually decide upon the creation of a party whether it should only act as one, or whether splitting is possible. We have rotating GMs as well as stable ones for certain parties. Most often, we get along and find some groups that can be played okay without too much of a fuss to leave one or two characters out.

If you only have one party it will be way more complicated, I assume.

Right,

but wrong.

The average european sword was of average to low quality, but it did not have to be sharp, as body armor, and good one, was much more common in europe than in Japan. Japanese Samurai-armor is a nice idea, but cannot stand up to the protection that could be granted by europes steel. But mind the fact that both warfares where different, europeans where expecting heavily armored resistance and would crush it with even heavier weapons and armor (as knights where the dominant battlefield presence), while in japan steel was way more harder to come by.

A sharp blade is not effective against armor, it's the weight and momentum that counts - mind you, flails and morning stars weren't invented for fun against heavy armors.

Tantos and Tachis were designed to slash at unarmored to medium armored targets, while european swords relied on being heavy to get at least some concussion damage through a knight's armor. For peasant whacking, bows were more than enough .

Of course, a masterly crafted Tachi would be an excellent weapon (whereas the Tachi is superior to the Katana due to length and balance), but a masterly crafted damascen weapon would still outclass it - just for the fact that japanese iron didn't come near the quality of those that was accessible in europe.

But, "average" japanese weapons where masterpieces in design, using the weakness of the steel to allow for a flexible parry, if it was in a certain degree. I doubt an average european sword could do that - but it wasn't necessery, and good swords where able to take some blows.

Anyway, the idea of a shield is the deciding issue that even further cements the superiority of european medieval weaponry to that of feudal japan.

As for CP, probably a collapsible riot shield or the like would be a fine idea. Somebody any thoughts on that?

Actually,

you should prefer Tachi + Tanto over Katana and Wakizashi, especially when body armor is as ubiquitous as in CP (compared to feudal Japan).

Just luck those weapons are taken for the style while forged with contemporary skills, as the superiority of a japanese sword is nothing but myth . Sure, they look nice and elegant (a big pro ^^), but japanese steel was crappy and their techniques... well, no comparison to a blade forged in Damascus or later Toledo.

But luckily, there aren't these problems with steel qualities and forging techniques in the CP world where monoblades are possible .

A concealable knife may be a good choice, but you'd be already out"gunned" if your opponent had the time to pick up a stick or broom - of course there is still luck and the different adeptness in you weapon.

What would you think a monobladed weapon could do? Just imagine the momentum of a blow, used through a one-molecule broad blade.

Hm,

I wouldn't take it serious,

as serious developers would not have to advertise relying primarily on sex .

So,

as there is already enough here for the gun nuts, let's bring in something sexy : Melee Weapons .

What do you think is possible with them, for which weapon would you go?

I have a little bit of personal experience, first from therapeutic battles with maces made of cloth (it's so funny to whack each other ^^), but also, a bit more valuable, from some lessons in theatre fencing and additionally a very limited experience in sabre fencing. I do practice a bit as hobby though, and you all know the fun of fencing duels at conventions .

Well, as for toe-to-toe melee, I definetely can say that sword and shield reign supreme, there is nothing as versatile and effective the meantime. Especially the invention of a shield is, in my opinion, one of the most clever developments in warfare ever (although they were a necessity, as you can forget parrying with a weapon - it is a) really difficult (although still possible) and will it leave your weapon ruined within a matter of time). You have an nearly infinite surface to block and additionally can cast other weapons away, leaving an enemy helpless against a counter attack.

I know there are many people motivated by some cool action movies where people swirl staves around and use whatever comes into their hands, but basically, an evenly trained swordsmam would be the superior fighter.

Of course, spears / staves are fine also, but not really as one on one weapons - no matter how fance some people can fight with them, one of the most effective tactis is: aim at the hands , and still, a spear normally cannot stand a single blow of a sword. Also, spear-thrusts are quite easily blocked with a shield (it's way harder without one, a good solid thrust is nearly impossible to parry or block - try to dodge and hope we wasn't too near). Additionally, you can push the spear sideways then, move a step closer - you imagine the rest.

The range of spears is great though, and when used as thrusting weapons they will outclass any sword in a narrow place, as you have not to make any slash or swing.

But, I imagine you won'r run around so often in CP with spears and shields. Perhaps a chainsaw (or a tomahawk ^^).

Well, in CP melee damage seems to be a bit undervalued, if it should represent a solid hit. A sword between your ribs is potentially more deadly than a bullet should be - especially if the hydrostatic shock is found not to be the major effect of a bullet. One good swordstrike can incapacitate almost any unarmored enemy. Hard armor, on the other hand, will render a sword nearly useless, as you just cannot put enough momentum behind a sword to slash trhough something like metal gear - even a medieval knight was only vulnerable to concussion damage and his own momentum when for instance charging into a pike. Thrusts ware more effective here, of course.

Well... a Monokatana, if it really is that sharp, and weighs about the same as an ordinary sword (or perhaps lighter), would be a weapon so deadly it wouldn't be funny. 4D6 do not seem to reflect that properly to me. After all, there is one serious disadvantage with melee weapons: You have to get close first .

Quote (Thumper @ April 20 2003,01:59)

Hey Sparky exactly how many EXP do you get for killing a gang member?

I was asking myself the same what a level should be,

but I came up with the conclusion that he could possibly mean the SA of the character. At least, that was sensible enough for me, so I did not want to risk this reasonable solution by asking ^^.

After all,

it were the four lesser evils that overthrew the three prime evils ^^.

Okay okay, it all was part of a huge conspiracy-plot, but nevertheless .

Somehow Jet Li always manages to look cute,

no matter what he does .

From the shape of an Bat'leth,

you couldn't hold it properly forward and a parry would just push it's side towards you,

and I guess you would end up injuring yourself most of the time when trying to attack . Not to imagine if someone wants to aim at your holding hands - the tactic you should use with a sword against someone wielding a staff-like weapon .

No, a sword is in nearly any aspect the superior melee weapon. Especially when compared to some weird unrealistic fantasy gadget, as the bat'leth is. They are stylish - not more, not less. Of course better to have a bat'leth than to have no weapon at all .

But you want something for a real melee overkill? Use sword and shield. It's so unfunny how helpless you are, if you for instance use only a sword, against someone equipped with sword and shield. The advantages of a shield, combined with the superior design of the only true weapon (since not derived from hunting or work tools) are tremendous in toe-to-toe melee.

But what if the Russians would use the Schliefenplan to conquer France? It worked two times, I guess it will do the trick once again .

I'd say, the face?

Well,

only want to add a little thing...

comparing Chechnya to Iraq isn't really even-handed,

after all, the Iraqis have a dictator and most people are rather glad to be liberated. We all know the story in Chechnya, so I think you cannot compare these causes and the circumstances.

I doubt it is only the so highly-praised american effectiveness in combat. The fact that most people in Iraq do not want to die for a dictator fighting against liberators compared to that the Chechens would want to fight for their independence and freedom against an aggressor is a better argument for the varying success.

Having a "leader" definetely helps,

but I'd say for the reason that a leader forces a party to act as a party.

There is nothing more speed-killing when the PCs decide to split up and follow their own individual ideas and interests - perhaps it would be faster in game if they follow for instance two seperate clues, but it adds to a feeling of slowness irl.

So you should really get into their heads that they shouldn't split up . Except you have planned for that and have some good concept prepared. Heck, we even have a luck card called "spawn" which allows, if used, for an absent party-mate to pop up at the action ^^. It's great .

Also, predesigning parties helps, so that not everyone comes to the session with a character he thought up on his own, but the character creation is a group-event where the people discuss and try to design a party that will probably stick together and get along (of course some conflicts for the sake of rp are very welcome, but you should avoid parties that are doomed to desintegrate). This is a basic prerequisite for "speed", as the party won't delay the plot, and also, if there is a slower part in the plot, the party still may rp with each other and follow some mutual goals -> so a party motivation would be good also.

As I was thinking late last night,

I tried to figure an all-important and tricky question concerning this campaign.

Though I tried to take an approach from every viewpoint possible, and followed strict scientific rules on how to solve such a problem, I still did not manage, despite my excessive struggle, to come up with a solution.

The question that remains to me is...

when do we start?

Well,

bloodbearing organ or vessels...

I really doubt you could inflict a blood loss so fast with a hit into an organ that someone will immediately drop dead .

Just look at the "damage" that these jelly-blocks take, that resemble mass and density of a human and are used for test firing weapons.

Anyone got pictures of that? There was an intersting review on that, comparing manstopping ammo to overpenetrating ones, where it was stated that a shot right through someone with a full metal jacket ammo will leave them capable of returning fire most often. Due to these researches the german police switched to stopping ammo rather (with the additional fact that you do not happen to hit people standing behind the target so often with manstopping ammo).