Judo is a striking skill

[InexplicableVic]

To the OP: I suspect that you genuinely believe that Judo should be a striking skill, or, that you are having difficulty reconciling a few concepts within the rules, notwithstanding Eric and Curmudgeon pretty much being dead-on correct in their explanations. So I'll try to help in a more detailed way (had to cut this down as I went over 10,000 characters by about 300, but it still works).

Let's first start with the concept that when lawyers (like me) and judges interpret statutes or regulations, they generally follow what is known as "Canons of Statutory Construction" (Construction here being another word for Interpretation). I will not recite them all at length, but there are a number that would apply here, such as: (1) in pari materia, Latin for “upon the same matter or subject” (when a statute [or rule] is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes [or rules] on the same subject matter; and (2) expressio unius est exclusio alterius, Latin for “the express mention of one thing excludes all others” (items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute [rule] or a contract term, although sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary, typically when preceded by a word such as “includes” or “such as”).

I think what is missing from your original post, which is of critical importance, is the very first line of the Judo skill: “This skill represents any advanced training at unarmed throws and grapples – not just the eponymous Japanese martial art.” B203. Compare that to Boxing (This is the skill of trained punching. Roll against Boxing to hit with a punch. Boxing does not improve kicking ability – use Brawling (p. 182) or Karate (p. 203) for that,” B181), Brawling (This is the skill of ‘unscientific’ unarmed combat. Roll against Brawling to hit with a punch, or Brawling-2 to hit with a kick. Brawling can also replace DX when you attack with teeth, claws, horns, or other “natural weapons,” B181), and Karate (“This skill represents any advanced training at unarmed striking, not just the Okinawan martial art of karate,” B203). Frankly, your answer is right there: Boxing specifically states that it is used for punching (but not kicking, which requires Brawling or Karate--note that it does not say Judo, Wrestling, or Sumo Wrestling), Brawling specifically allows you to hit with a punch or kick, or other “natural weapons,” and Karate is described as “advanced training at unarmed striking.” Judo mentions nothing about striking.

Instead, what Judo indicates is what you can do with it: (1) unarmed throws and grapples, which is in the first sentence; (2) parry two different attacks per turn, one with each hand; (3) throw your attacker after a Judo parry; (4) substitute that skill for your DX for any DX roll made in close combat, excepting two specific situations. The skill notes that when you grapple someone with Judo, you can throw them on your next turn if the foe fails to break free.

Now, that’s not quite everything. Reading it in context, one must also examine what Boxing, Brawling, and Karate do for striking: Boxing, Brawling,, and Karate improve your damage with strikes (punches only for Boxing; punches and kicks for Brawling and Karate) as you gain greater skill; notably, Judo does not.

So, let’s apply a few rules of statutory construction here:

First, if we apply the in pari materia canon of statutory construction, we realize that reading those four skills in conjunction means that there are three skills defined as assisting with striking, because they explicitly state that they pertain to punching or kicking, and give damage bonuses if one is more skilled. Judo is not one of them. That, if not dispositive, is at least suggestive that the correct way to interpret the Judo skill is to say that it does not assist with striking such as punching or kicking.

Second, if we look at the first sentence of the Judo skill, which states that “advanced training at unarmed throws and grapples,” using the expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon, we realize that the list (which does not use terms like “such as,” or “including”) is exclusionary, and only contains two items: grappling and throwing. That is yet another reason why Judo is not a striking skill.

There are other reasons that might apply as well, but those (briefly) are the two that are probably the most appropriate. As Eric mentioned, many DF and DFRPG templates require picking one unarmed striking skill (Boxing or Brawling) and one unarmed grappling skill (Sumo Wrestling or Wrestling). For Martial Artists, they always have Judo and Karate--never just one.

As an aside, I’d like to briefly mention the whole absurdity of the conventions “RAW” and “RAI,” because to lawyers, those distinctions really make no sense. Rules are always interpreted. Sometimes the plain meaning is the easiest and clearest interpretation, and that’s fine. But the concept of “rules as written,” which suggests reading them literally, without trying to interpret the meaning, is, to lawyers, nonsensical. As many judges have written in many opinions, “the surest way to misread a statute [rule] is to read it literally,” which ties into the statutory construction of “avoiding absurdity” (the law should not be interpreted in a fashion that leads to absurd results).

Anyhow, with regard to the sentence about how one can substitute Judo rolls for DX rolls for actions you are taking in close combat, it seems to me that Curmudgeon’s interpretation is exactly correct.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I think you're reading too much into it. DX as a substitute for Brawling, Karate and/or Boxing is default use of a punch, kick or bite as well as indicating default use of the two weapons you've named. Knowing Judo does not prevent you from making those default attacks, but neither does the ability to make those default non-Judo attacks make Judo into a striking skill.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

What Judo does allow is that in Close Combat, if your Judo skill is greater than your DX, then, in that limited circumstance, you benefit by being more likely to connect with a punch, kick or bite or with a sap or stun gun. It may err on the side of generosity, it could have read you may substitute Judo -1 or Judo-2 for DX.

It reflects an argument that having to operate in close vicinity to your opponent in order to throw him, which is a principal use of Judo, you should be able to spot and make more effective use of any opportunities to kick, punch or bite at close quarters than your DX would otherwise suggest. Which still doesn't make Judo a striking skill, it just gives you a better default use of strikes under those limited circumstances.

In particular, the very last part is perhaps the most important: “Which still doesn't make Judo a striking skill, it just gives you a better default use of strikes under those limited circumstances.” In other words, knowing Judo (a grapplying skill) gives you an advantage when you’re in close combat as compared to someone who has no training any striking skills. But it’s no substitute for Boxing, Brawling, or Karate. That's why I think Eric, Curmudgeon and I believe this to be splitting hairs.

Maybe that is more helpful, maybe it isn’t. If not, I’m not sure what to tell you. To me--someone who has spent every working day for the last 21+ years interpreting statutes, rules, and regulations, and who can’t afford to be wrong when advising clients--this is pretty clear. And if this were a rule that I had to interpret for a client, with no written opinions from judges specifically addressing it, I'm advising them that Judo is not a striking skill in GURPS.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Spartan506

...

I'm a lawyer too, and I don't subscribe to your analysis, which appears to me to err by turning to contextual and esoteric interpretation without giving due regard to the plain meaning of the words found in the skill description, quoted in the OP while getting hung up on the non-specialist usage in the OP refering to Judo as a "striking skill".

And I would note that there is no particular reason why GURPS rules should be interpreted according legal canons.

[InexplicableVic]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I'm a lawyer too, and I don't subscribe to your analysis, which appears to me to err by turning to contextual and esoteric interpretation without giving due regard to the plain meaning of the words found in the skill description, quoted in the OP while getting hung up on the non-specialist usage in the OP refering to Judo as a "striking skill".

And I would note that there is no particular reason why GURPS rules should be interpreted according legal canons.

I find this response peculiar, because:



1. The plain meaning of the terms "grapples" and "throws" do not include strikes such as punches or kicks. There's no "esoteric interpretation" there.


2. I fail to see a distinction in interpreting statutes, rules, contracts, or GURPS rules. In the end, it's all about logical interpretation of what someone has written.



3. Since Kromm's answer in the uFAQ seems to agree...I'm not clear on what the issue is here. How is Kromm's answer different from Curmudgeon's (or mine)? Or, more importantly, how does your answer differ from Curmudgeon's (or mine)? Seems to me that we all agree that in close combat, Judo can substitute for DX. That still doesn't make it a "striking skill," which was the OP's premise.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Spartan506

I find this response peculiar, because:
... 3. Since Kromm's answer in the uFAQ seems to agree...I'm not clear on what the issue is here. How is Kromm's answer different from Curmudgeon's (or mine)? Or, more importantly, how does your answer differ from Curmudgeon's (or mine)? Seems to me that we all agree that in close combat, Judo can substitute for DX. That still doesn't make it a "striking skill," which was the OP's premise.

While I disagree with your points 1 and 2, it appears I misunderstood your position as described in 3. (In fact I am surprised by it, given what you say in your point 1.)

I thought you were concluding that Judo cannot substitute for DX for strikes in close combat. Still, I don't think the OP's main point is about the nomenclature of whether Judo is a "striking skill" (a phrase which nothing turns on, btw). I think he was remarking on being surprised to find Judo can be used for strikes and he expressed that surprise in an off-the-cuff phrase.

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by Plane

Sorry, I should have been more specific about which part of your quote I was asking about:


I mean do you recall where you saw Kromm saying to exclude DX-punches (I already know it's a thing in GURPS)

I remember SOMEONE proposing just ignore DX defaults and let Brawling default to DX, but I can't remember who it was.


Here in 2013 he is supporting the rule you're talking about, for example.

In the list of Kromm Templates, he suggests getting both Striking and Grappling skill. It's linked earlier in the thread.

In this post, he does NOT mention DX for striking, just Brawling/Boxing/Karate. That's why when I wrote what I wrote, I quoted the post that said so.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by MrFix

In this post, he does NOT mention DX for striking, just Brawling/Boxing/Karate. That's why when I wrote what I wrote, I quoted the post that said so.

He also doesn't mention that you can run without Running skill, Hike without Hiking skill, or sneak without Stealth. The whole point of the Everyman Skills was to suggest that characters be improved from the baseline. He didn't leave DX off the list because you can't strike with DX, he left it off the list because you the way to improve your barehanded striking ability is by taking one of the three Striking skills he listed - Boxing, Brawling, or Karate. Just like the way to improve your running ability is with the Running Skill and your hiking speed is with the Hiking skill.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Spartan506

I think what is missing from your original post, which is of critical importance, is the very first line of the Judo skill: “This skill represents any advanced training at unarmed throws and grapples – not just the eponymous Japanese martial art.”
..
Frankly, your answer is right there: Boxing specifically states that it is used for punching (but not kicking, which requires Brawling or Karate--note that it does not say Judo, Wrestling, or Sumo Wrestling), Brawling specifically allows you to hit with a punch or kick, or other “natural weapons,” and Karate is described as “advanced training at unarmed striking.” Judo mentions nothing about striking.

Instead, what Judo indicates is what you can do with it:
(1) unarmed throws and grapples, which is in the first sentence;
(2) parry two different attacks per turn, one with each hand;
(3) throw your attacker after a Judo parry;
(4) substitute that skill for your DX for any DX roll made in close combat, excepting two specific situations.

MrFix has a legit point that the 4th could refer to punching. The 4th is a very broadly-worded thing.

The 4th does not for example isolate the example of "DX rolls to keep your footing" even though Kromm later verified it includes that. So it doesn't actually need to call out striking to include it: the wording itself shows that it needs to be excluded via inclusion on the "except to" list.

Originally Posted by Spartan506

we realize that reading those four skills in conjunction means that there are three skills defined as assisting with striking, because they explicitly state that they pertain to punching or kicking, and give damage bonuses if one is more skilled. Judo is not one of them. That, if not dispositive, is at least suggestive that the correct way to interpret the Judo skill is to say that it does not assist with striking such as punching or kicking.

Why are you only reading 4 skills? There are 6.

I think you're oversimplifying the combat skills. Sumo for example, can be used to strike with a Shove or Slam, and both it and Judo can also do the "Sweeping Kick" (B232).

MA68 also gifted the "Drop Kick" to both Wrestilng and Sumo Wrestling.

Originally Posted by Spartan506

if we look at the first sentence of the Judo skill, which states that “advanced training at unarmed throws and grapples,” using the expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon, we realize that the list (which does not use terms like “such as,” or “including”) is exclusionary, and only contains two items: grappling and throwing. That is yet another reason why Judo is not a striking skill.

Fancy latin, but if you're arguing that something needs to be a grapple or a throw to fall under Judo's purvey just because those things are singled out in the first sentence, that's clearly a wrong assumption. There's consensus that Judo does plenty of other stuff:
1) parrying
2) sweeping kick
3) maintain balance
4) evading (B368, affirmed MA71)
5) breakfall (MA68)
6) trip (MA81)

Originally Posted by Spartan506

I’d like to briefly mention the whole absurdity of the conventions “RAW” and “RAI,” because to lawyers, those distinctions really make no sense. Rules are [/FONT][/COLOR]always[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial] interpreted. Sometimes the plain meaning is the easiest and clearest interpretation, and that’s fine. But the concept of “rules as written,” which suggests reading them literally, without trying to interpret the meaning, is, to lawyers, nonsensical.

I've always understood the I in RAI to stand for "intended", not "interpreted".

Meaning that there is no absurdity in making the distinction: I often write something intending one meaning and come back and look at it later and realize it came out either ambiguous (could mean at least 2 things) or even in a way that can't logically be interpreted to mean what I had in mind.

Originally Posted by Spartan506

if this were a rule that I had to interpret for a client, with no written opinions from judges specifically addressing it, I'm advising them that Judo is not a striking skill in GURPS.

Grappling/Striking is a false dichotomy.

I've given examples of the 2 other "mostly grappling" skills (wrestling and sumo) also having strikes in their repertoire, plus Judo (sweeping kick IS a strike, it's just a non-damaging one, like a shove)

If you're responding just to the title then I agree: even if we allow "roll vs DX to punch in close combat" that would not characterize judo as mostly-striking (like brawl/karate/box) it's still mostly-grappling like wrestling/sumo.

I think however that's probably fixating too much on the title: I think all MrFix intended with his choice of title is to say "you can roll vs Judo to make a strike" (thus "Conclusion: Judo can make strikes with hands, legs, fist loads and strikers as they're used by DX.")

This is sort of like me saying "if I take the Clinch perk it turns Boxing/Brawling/Karate into a grappling skill!". Doing so DOES allow me to roll against the skill I take the perk for to make a grapple (head/neck/torso only!) so I might intend that, but I would not intend "grappling skill" to mean "a skill primarily useful for and characterized by grappling" since BBK would still be a mostly-striking skill.

Originally Posted by Spartan506

The plain meaning of the terms "grapples" and "throws" do not include strikes such as punches or kicks. There's no "esoteric interpretation" there.

Irrelevant, it doesn't include Feinting or Resisting Feinting or Parrying or Sweeping Kick or Evade or Maintain Balance either, get Judo can do all those things. There's no reason to limit what these skills do merely by the star-features mentioned in a 1st sentence.

Originally Posted by Spartan506

Since Kromm's answer in the uFAQ seems to agree...I'm not clear on what the issue is here. How is Kromm's answer different from Curmudgeon's (or mine)?

Kromm's FAQ answer rejected the idea of being able to "punch at Judo in close combat".
You and Curmudgeon seem to be agreeing with the idea?

Originally Posted by Spartan506

how does your answer differ from Curmudgeon's (or mine)?
Seems to me that we all agree that in close combat, Judo can substitute for DX.
That still doesn't make it a "striking skill," which was the OP's premise.

I think you guys are getting wires crossed about what the central premise is. Probably due to OP's choice of title.

I don't think OP means to say the Judo should (even allowing "punch at judo" and so on) be characterized as "more striking than grappling".

I think his title choice is just representing "you can use judo to make strikes".

I propose we already know the answer to this: yes it can, because a Sweeping Kick is a (non-damaging, like a Shove) strike, therefore even if you reject the idea of "roll Judo to punch", there is already an estabilshed Basic Set strike (Sweeping Kick) which Judo (and Sumo) can make.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

getting hung up on the non-specialist usage in the OP refering to Judo as a "striking skill".

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I don't think the OP's main point is about the nomenclature of whether Judo is a "striking skill" (a phrase which nothing turns on, btw).
I think he was remarking on being surprised to find Judo can be used for strikes and he expressed that surprise in an off-the-cuff phrase.

THIS

Originally Posted by MrFix

In the list of Kromm Templates, he suggests getting both Striking and Grappling skill. It's linked earlier in the thread.

In this post, he does NOT mention DX for striking, just Brawling/Boxing/Karate. That's why when I wrote what I wrote, I quoted the post that said so.

I guess I'm not following the argument here, not mentioning DX for striking doesn't mean you're ruling it out.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Plane

MrFix has a legit point that the 4th could refer to punching. The 4th is a very broadly-worded thing.

The 4th does not for example isolate the example of "DX rolls to keep your footing" even though Kromm later verified it includes that. So it doesn't actually need to call out striking to include it: the wording itself shows that it needs to be excluded via inclusion on the "except to" list.

So there's no confusion, I should note I agree with you, I'm just calling this bit out to make a point.

By the rules in Basic Set, one is absolutely justified in deciding that "DX rolls in close combat" includes punching and kicking in CC. There isn't anything explicitly preventing it, and there isn't enough discussion of Judo's use in unarmed combat to rule it out simply based on it never being mentioned explicitly as an option. However, GURPS Martial Arts is full of discussion of combat, with an emphasis on unarmed combat and with no small amount of discussion of how the Judo skill works. The complete and utter lack of mention of using Judo to punch or kick (or bite, headbutt, etc) strongly implies it's not meant to be usable for such. Indeed, one would think there would be a mention of Judo (Sport) not teaching the strikes Judo does (seeing as strikes beyond sweeps - which I don't count as "strikes" in GURPS terms - are disallowed in competition). The nail in the coffin, of course, is Kromm explicitly stating the DX substitution doesn't apply to strikes.

That said, if anyone feels the Judo skill should include strikes, it's certainly acceptable for them to have it do so in their games. Any argument for this option, however, doesn't have a leg to stand on if it's relying on the rules, as Kromm has clarified those. You'll need to come up with another reason, such as historical jujutsu and similar training incorporating strikes (as I stated in an earlier post, the normal GURPS approach to this is including a striking skill in the style). Despite jokes to the contrary, Kromm's rulings aren't divinely-inspired and perfect, and thus not necessarily the best options for a given group of players.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Varyon

... The nail in the coffin, of course, is Kromm explicitly stating the DX substitution doesn't apply to strikes.

But he didn't say that. He said:

... when strikes ... get involved ... Judo cannot replace DX unless a specific rule says so. In particular, if a rule explicitly lists the allowed skills – like "DX or Sumo Wrestling," "DX, Brawling, or Sumo Wrestling," or "DX, Brawling, Sumo Wrestling, or Wrestling" – Judo works only if it's called out on the list.

A specific rule does say so, which the OP quoted. And the 'particular' cases don't change the general case.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

A specific rule does say so, which the OP quoted. And the 'particular' cases don't change the general case.

Kromm was responding to a question about the very rule we are discussing here. Here is the specific uFAQ entry - note Vicky's question (which, to be fair, hasn't been stated in the thread) was

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Judo is listed as a skill that can replace DX in DX rolls in close combat. I've used to read that quite literally and without reservation - i.e. any action in close combat that calls for a DX roll to succeed one way or another (except equipment-drawing/dropping). Now I have doubts.

This leaves things rather unambiguous, although I can see how without that context it may have been less clear.