Differentiating Military Swordsmanship

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by chris1982

Honestly I can really see no reason why this is not just low(er) weapon skill...

Because a simplified style would still teach attacking and parrying. It would have reduced flexibility, not general competence.

[Witchking]

Interesting note:

After he returned from competing in the 1912 Stockholm Olympics Lt (later General) George Patton was assigned to Ft Riley KS as the US ARMY's youngest (ever) master of the sword and was an instructor in swordsmanship at the Calvary School.

So it was considered important for longer than you might think.

addendum:

Thinking on it the Shapre's Rifles series of books deals somewhat with questions of use of the sword in the BPW military. The titular character using his size, strength and heavier sword to beat/chop his way through more elegant and perhaps more skilled opponents. Bernard Cornwell was the author IIRC

[chris1982]

Originally Posted by aesir23

Because a simplified style would still teach attacking and parrying. It would have reduced flexibility, not general competence.

This would imply that there is a "correct" or "complete" style of using the sword available.

But this is not really the case as everyone might be using the sword quite differently - say a samurai or a european knight, conquistador or a fantasy elf or whatever.

The only thing I can see is giving a quirk if for some reason you can't learn or use specific manuevers.

This "military swordmanship" training for me would be learning the basic ways to use the sword which translates to 1 point in the relevant sword skill and the heavy usage of telegraphic attack.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by aesir23

Because a simplified style would still teach attacking and parrying. It would have reduced flexibility, not general competence.

Yes. A shorter course of instruction will (all other things being equal) provide for fewer cp spent. A _simpler_ course of intruction could actually provide for _more_ pts spent on core Skills with fewer sepnt on Techniques.

The same number of pts spent on core Skills with fewer Techniquers available to that particular style is a 0-pt feature. You don't pay anything in Style purchase for the piossible number of Techniques.

On the general subject of Styles and complexity look at the text for Jeet Kune Do. Lee beleived the path to effectiveness lay in simplification and stripping your personal Style down to a lean core of maximum utility.

If I was presented with a swordsmansjip Style that taught Counterattack, Feint and Targeted Attack(s) as Techniques I'd ask what more did you want?

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If I was presented with a swordsmansjip Style that taught Counterattack, Feint and Targeted Attack(s) as Techniques I'd ask what more did you want?

Me too, but if it taught none of those things, i would say, "why not?"

Anybody with a skill is able to attempt any technique for that skill at default.

Some styles let you improve Techniques.

If you cannot improve a Technique above default, that is a 0 point feature of your style.

If you cannot attempt a technique or a group of techniques, that should, IMHO, be a quirk. I wouldn't give a quirk for each technique you couldn't try, but one quirk for a group of off-limit techniques seems fair.

As a house rule, a GM could say that quirks that come with your style don't count against the games Disadvantage of Quirk limits: This would effectively be the same as subtracting 1 from the cost of the skill in question.

mlangsdorf's earlier suggestion, that anyone with points in the skill is treated as having Style Familiarity with a simplified style sounds like a quirk as well. I would treat this as a 0 point meta-trait: Style Familiarity (X), Quirk (Anyone with at least 1 point in the core skills is treated as having Style Familiarity (X) for the purpose of resisting Feints and Deceptive Attacks)

[Cheomesh]

When I take a beak from working on my setting's wiki, I will see about monkeying around with it to emulate the two systems presented in a 19th century manual I have. I think I like the whole "everyone else has style familiarity" bit. From what I gather, the style would focus on high points in the core skill and a single technique (for saber) - targeted attack, swing/head (taken to the max).

M.

[sir_pudding]

Isn't there a lens in Martial Arts that converts conventional styles into a military combative?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Isn't there a lens in Martial Arts that converts conventional styles into a military combative?

The Military lens is meant for modern military styles. It assumes the existence of bayoneted rifles and pistols as back up weapons.

All the same, there is advice worth checking out on the page opposite it, in the Styles for Soldiers chapter.

[Kromm]

It would probably be fair to allow the optional specialty "Basic" on any Average or Hard Melee Weapon skill. In effect, for the same points, you'd get +1 to skill for the sole purpose of striking the torso or a random hit location, and for attempting a basic parry. However, you would apply -2 (the net effect being -1 for the same points) when doing anything else: hitting other hit locations; trying a penalized option such as Deceptive Attack, Rapid Strike, Riposte, or Stop Hit; making or resisting a disarm or a feint; calculating techniques; and so on.

Example: Derek the Duelist has DX 12 and Broadsword (A) DX+5 [20]-17. His Parry score is is 11. He can strike the torso at 17, an arm at 15, the head at 12, etc. He can try a Deceptive Attack giving -2 to enemy defenses at 13. He can attempt a Rapid Strike at 11. He makes and resists feints at skill 17. His default Armed Grapple technique is 15.

Victor the Veteran has DX 12 and Broadsword (Basic) (E) DX+6 [20]-18. His Parry score is is 12, and he can strike the torso at 18. However, he must use the unspecialized Broadsword skill for everything else. Per the rules for optional specialties, that's Broadsword (Basic)-2, or 16. Thus, he can hit an arm at 14, the head at 11, etc. He can try a Deceptive Attack giving -2 to enemy defenses at 12. He can attempt a Rapid Strike at 10. He makes and resists feints at skill 16. His default Armed Grapple technique is 14.

Relative to Derek, Victor has +1 to hit the torso and +1 to parry, but -1 to do practically everything else. If that seems too generous, hedge it with further restrictions. Perhaps in a given army, the thrust is emphasized, so swung attacks are also at a penalty. Maybe only the standard-issue weapon is trained, and the penalty applies to other weapons used with the same skill, effectively acting like the -2 for lack of familiarity.

[Dangerious P. Cats]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The Military lens is meant for modern military styles. It assumes the existence of bayoneted rifles and pistols as back up weapons.

All the same, there is advice worth checking out on the page opposite it, in the Styles for Soldiers chapter.

That's not entirely unreasonsable given that the only real examples of a strictly military sword system come from after 1800 or so. I guess the question that no one's really stummbled upon here is what differenciates a military sword system from a civilian system for using the same weapon. I would suggest that the difference is that a military system is one designed for the specific purposes of the military while a general sword system is one where techniques from all or any purpose can be employed, or one that focusses on the general use of the weapon. There are early military manuals for backsword though the systems do not differ signficantly to those from civilian masters of defence. When you do start to see systems of fence that are put together for military purpose they tend to be simpler, designed for people who can't spend large amounts of time practicing, focussing on a small core of attacks and defences, with maybe one additional technique to give the practitioner the edge. To issustrate the difrence in GURPS terms I suggest the following, with backswording as a system for the backsword (or broadsword, singlestick, cavalry sabre, cutlas, etc) that was practiced by prize fighters and soldiers alike, often interchangebly, and the the naval cutlas system as a simplafied version for sailors who don't have the time or attention span to learn proper fencing but is suitable for any military personell (other than officers) who needs to earn to use a sword but doesn't have access to a good master of arms.

Backswording

Skills: Broadsword*, Wrestling
Techniques: Fient (broadsowrd), counter attack (broadsword), armed grapple (broadsword), Close combat (broadsword),
Perks: Weapon bond

Notes: *I'm of the mind that backswords should be allowed fencing parries but that's not always the status quo with GURPS, depending on how you feel about it you can change broadsword for sabre skill with weapon adaptation.

Naval Cutlass

Skills: Broadsword or shortsword (depending on weapon used)
Techniques: counter attack (broadsword), Close combat (broadsword),
Perks: Naval training, drunkan fighting

And finally here's a style developed for the zombie wars by the pan European army. The system was developled for using a modernised Da Dao, which had proven to be the most effective anti-zombie sword availble. Although the system teaches the user to fence (there have been cases of it's use against Amerikan federation and Sibearian empire soldiers) it's main purpose is chopping down zombies if troops are cut off and out of ammo (which happens all too often).

Skills: Two handed sword, fast draw
Techniques: counter attack (broadsword), Close combat (Two handed sword),
Perks: grip mastery (dadao),