Inventing Combat Techniques

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

So say I want to invent a new combative technique.

Personally, I feel that the full invention rules are a bit much when you're dealing with "mundane" techniques and skills. That's why my suggestion was limited to secret, cinematic techniques and totally new styles. My general rule of thumb is that you should reserve more complicated, involved mechanics for more narratively-important actions, anyway. This is both because more mechanically-involved stuff tends to make people feel the action is more important, and because, at least in my experience, players will tend to shy away from the more complex stuff and only engage with it when they have to.

So, in most games, even ones where martial arts and learning new techniques are main focuses of the game, I'd expect people to steer away from the invention rules. In your example, if I was playing in the game, I'd probably just try to find someone who already knew the technique who could teach me, rather than spending a bunch of time rolling to "invent" it from scratch.

Also, it seems to me that most non-secret techniques are something you don't really have to "invent" - they're inherent uses of the skill, and should be obviously possible or not. Note that you can always try a technique, even a cinematic one, you just have to accept the penalty.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

So say I want to invent a new combative technique. I want to keep it simple. I don't have a lot of experience with grappling and what little experience I have indicates that it's techniques are likely more complex than strikes.

For giggles, I'd contest this. While grappling is quite technical and positional in nature, I'd argue that a lot of the longsword moves you may have learned in HEMA practice are equally so. The dagger techniques of a Fiori, the blend of strikes and grapples in dueling polearm usage shown in Talhoffer, and a whole host of intricate bind-and-wind stuff in 1.33, or the scientific (or pseudo-scientific) fencing techniques of the Masters of Defense . . . all of this stuff is "how to kill folks without getting killed," which means it's going to be intricate and technical about ways to get the maximum results for the least effort, AND basic enough to work when you're hopped up on excitement and your arms are leaden from sustained effort.

Reality aside, from a game mechanics perspective, you're going to want to keep the complexity of grapples and strikes roughly equivalent if you can, or else (as happens in most RPGs) a whole swath of combat is going to be ignored due to friction with the game mechanics rather than fun outcomes.

[AlexanderHowl]

Yes, I have had such issues other RPGs that I have played in. Grappling usually requires grabbing, so it almost always takes one more action than striking. Now, you can just accept that, but unless you give grappling an advantage that compensates for the inconvenience, people are going to ignore grappling. If you overcompensate, people will avoid striking in favor of grappling.

[oneofmanynameless]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

For giggles, I'd contest this. While grappling is quite technical and positional in nature, I'd argue that a lot of the longsword moves you may have learned in HEMA practice are equally so.

I concede that point for sure. I was thinking about the basic punches, kicks, and unarmed parries I learned in Wado Ryu and comparing them to the locks I later encountered from my friends that practiced Jujitsu. But even there I was being biased because a "simple" karate punch includes a lot more than arm movement, it includes wrist positioning, fist form, precision in elbow and shoulder and hip and leg movements... all of which have to incorporate the need to defend afterwords or at the same time.

It's probably more accurate to say that inventing a new type of punch is simpler for me then inventing a new type of unarmed grapple... because I have had the karate skill at one point in my life and I have never had the judo skill.

[tanksoldier]

I'd use creating new techniques, however...

...there are very, very few martial arts styles with truly unique techniques especially unique enough to stand out as different at GURP'S level of granularity.

Style differences are more about which techniques are used, and the philosophy behind why and how they are used, that about how to perform them.

A wrist lock is a wrist lock. An inside block is an inside block. Even when there are observable differences in how they are performed in the real world, there's no difference in GURPS... and the observable differences are usually pretty minor anyway.

I've been trained in 3 different styles of police self defense... they ALL use exactly the same moves. What they are called may differ... and why and when you use them may differ... and they may leave out one or two than another uses... but functionally they are all 3 exactly the same at GURPS's level of detail.

I've also trained in 3 martial arts: Krav Maga, Uechi-Ryu and Tae Kwon Do.

Uechi-Ryu avoids high kicks, as does Krav but Tae Kwon Do uses high kicks... but the front kick in all 3 styles is virtually identical. Tae Kwon Do is mostly a sport style, Uechi-Ryu is largely an art style with traditional stances and some spear strikes... strikes with the finger tips and toe tips... that aren't often used in actual fights. Krav ignores art and sport, and adds grappling and weapons.

In GURPS terms all 3 are Karate. Tae Kwon Do is Karate, Karate Sport and Jumping... Uech-Ryu is probably Karate, Karate Art maybe with Exotic Hand strikes. I'd argue that Krav is probably more Brawling and Wrestling than Karate and Judo as GURPS Martial Arts has it... but a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick, and an arm lock is an arm lock same as all the others.

[oneofmanynameless]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

Personally, I feel that the full invention rules are a bit much when you're dealing with "mundane" techniques and skills. That's why my suggestion was limited to secret, cinematic techniques and totally new styles. My general rule of thumb is that you should reserve more complicated, involved mechanics for more narratively-important actions, anyway.

Alright. I've been convinced on the mundane techniques and skills front. Limiting invention rules to secret, cinematic techniques makes sense. Especially if by "cinematic techniques" you mean TBM skills, which are essentially equivalent to spells or imbuements, rather than just techniques like duel-weapon attack that are common in fiction and not in real life.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

Especially if by "cinematic techniques" you mean TBM skills,

Yes, I was including those, though I also intended to include actual techniques, just the ones you need a prerequisite like the Unique Technique perk to take (Power-Ups: Perks, p. 21) - essentially, techniques that break the rules that others normally are restricted by.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

So I was thinking about martial artists and people inventing new martial arts styles ...

If you're going to invent a whole new style, the inventions rules might well be more applicable, especially if it's based on some new metaphor.

This idea was stimulated walking past a building site yesterday, and thinking of Tower Crane Kung Fu. Inventing something like that is probably done with an appropriate Philosophy skill. If your players get too keen on this, challenge them to create The Way of the Limpet.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

I concede that point for sure. I was thinking about the basic punches, kicks, and unarmed parries I learned in Wado Ryu and comparing them to the locks I later encountered from my friends that practiced Jujitsu. But even there I was being biased because a "simple" karate punch includes a lot more than arm movement, it includes wrist positioning, fist form, precision in elbow and shoulder and hip and leg movements... all of which have to incorporate the need to defend afterwords or at the same time.

It's probably more accurate to say that inventing a new type of punch is simpler for me then inventing a new type of unarmed grapple... because I have had the karate skill at one point in my life and I have never had the judo skill.

I think the fact that the resolution of a strike (punch, kick or other strike) is much more self-contained than of a grappling action is the reason why grapples are more complex in RPGs. You strike, opponent defends, damage and armour interact, and remaining injury gets applied to HP (or equivalent) based on the subsystem that isn't specific to strikes. The resolution of a shot (particularly once the fact that there is a successful hit is established), of a falling stalactite, or of an explosion, uses the same or a very similar subsystem in the end. By comparison, a grapple either establishes a special condition that is very distinct from the mainstream combat interactions (adding permissions, prohibitions, and modifiers that last until broken), or even goes further than that and requires adding a totally separate pool of points, and then there's the selection of follow-up moves that are usually highly conditional; none of this is a case of 'just plug it into the standard injury system'.