Realism; Strength is not important for swordsmanship(?)

[Gerrard of Titan Server]

I have no first hand experience in historical weapon-based martial arts, but I have some second-hand appreciation and fascination for those who do, such as HEMA.

Some of the "experts" and actual experts in the community have said in several occasions that strength is not terribly important. Skill is much more important. Matt Easton of Scholagladiatoria has even stated that during his time of teaching historical European martial arts to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people, he hasn't yet seen someone that is too physically weak to effectively wield a longsword (aka a hand-and-a-half sword) with two hands. (He says that a little bit more strength is required for effective wielding of a sword in one hand, but still not that much.)

See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3OIjpLSaYQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip-_vEPotYo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cNO6uRqUcE

Is this true?

In terms of GURPS, a very strong person has a ST of 13, for a base Swing damage of 2d-1, which comes out to 2d+1 cut for two-handing a "bastard sword". A weak person has a ST of 7, for a base Swing damage of 1d-2, which comes out to 1d cut for two-handing a "bastard sword". Right? That's over twice the damage, which doesn't gel with my understanding of the above sources.

This is further informed by this one page that I found. It doesn't look terribly professional, but it's the only source that I've found. It claims to be measured impact force of a sword swing and mace swing with proper form and technique, vs "bad technique" aka hitting as hard as you can.

http://weaponsofchoice.com/extras/we...ort-and-force/

The numbers are quite interesting. According to this author, a mace swing with proper form has 10x less impact force than a full-out, "bad" technique swing, and a sword swing with proper form has 100x less impact force than a full-out, "bad" technique swing! Again, are these numbers accurate? It's incredibly difficult to find numbers on this. I lack all firsthand expertise in this, and it's hard for me to even sanity check these claims, and that's a big reason why I'm here.

If those force impact numbers are to be trusted, then it leads me to the conclusion that swords deal damage because they're sharp and because they hit vulnerable areas with proper edge alignment, etc., and generally not because of of the person's strength - except to the extent that is necessary to get the sword moving at speed.

I would guess that a relatively weak real world person can swing a sword about as fast as a very strong person, and thus the above numbers pass my initial, uneducated, "sniff" test.

If all of this is correct, this would mean that the entire framework and system in place for modeling damage with swords based on strength and swing damage is entirely broken.

Alternatively, maybe I'm coming from the wrong perspective. In a real fight, the first person to get get a cut generally wins, so maybe a very strong person would do substantially more damage with a sword cut with good form because of their strength, but it doesn't matter because the actual flesh wounds from a sword cut from a weaker than average person does more than enough to incapacitate a person most of the time.

I guess I'm just looking for comments, pointers, and general education. I'd like to understand reality before I decide if I want to ignore reality for being cinematic, and exactly what the difference would be.

Thanks for your time!

[Flyndaran]

Sticking a sharp pointy piece of metal into someone will kill any human, whether tiny or Lou Ferigno huge. It doesn't take "that" much force to push a sharpened blade through naked flesh.
But wielding any object fast takes strength. And if anything is in the way of that flesh, it will take more force to poke through it.
I'm sure swords experts will chime in soon enough, but this is what fellow layman I've gathered from reading their posts and other sources.

[DanHoward]

GURPS uses DX as the primary stat for wielding swords, not ST. ST is simply for dealing damage and we have said for at least a decade that the damage of all muscle-powered weapons in GURPS is too high. The main problem with comparing HEMA with GURPS is that HEMA practitioners don't have to deal with things like fantasy creatures and magical armour. It is for these abnormal situations that swords and high ST become useful.

[Flyndaran]

Gamers want, and even expect, the ability to one-shot hack off limbs ala Monty Python's Black Knight, regardless of plausibility.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Gamers want, and even expect, the ability to one-shot hack off limbs ala Monty Python's Black Knight, regardless of plausibility.

That's what cinematic rules are for. The basic mechanics should model verisimilitude as much as possible.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

That's what cinematic rules are for. The basic mechanics should model verisimilitude as much as possible.

I want that too, but TPTB have regularly said Gurps is for "heroic average" not "simulationist" gaming. Thankfully we have Pyramid to hold so many optional but more realistic rules for those of us that really want them.

[Gerrard of Titan Server]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The main problem with comparing HEMA with GURPS is that HEMA practitioners don't have to deal with things like fantasy creatures and magical armour. It is for these abnormal situations that swords and high ST become useful.

I can definitely agree in part to this. I immediately think of many anime characters who use comically oversized swords, such as Guts from Berserk, and they use their supernaturally high strength in order to cleave a man in half who is in full plate. That's what supernaturally high strength can do.

I'm just rambling now, but let me get this out there.

However, when two equally skilled supernatural swordsmen fight each other, they don't cleave each other in half. Maybe because they're not swinging as hard as they might against a mook? I don't know the GURPS term for it, but in D&D 3.5 terms, maybe Guts is power attacking against the mook, aka swinging harder, sacrificing accuracy, in order for additional power and damage on the swing.

(But mostly Guts just cleaves through mooks and not through named villains, because that's what the plot calls for, aka plot armor.)

[Gerrard of Titan Server]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

But wielding any object fast takes strength.

Is that even true in a real and meaningful sense? For a heavy object, I can more easily buy that, but swords only weigh 2 to 4 lb. Historical one-handed maces weighed 2.5 lb or less. Etc. Real historical lowtech melee weapons are exceptionally light compared to modern expectations.

Consider an out-of-shape person, and take an Olympic athlete strength trainer of some sort, and compare how fast that they can swing a bat. Would the difference really be that large?

According to some random sources found via google, children in little league can swing a bat up to 60 mph (tip speed?), and adults who play baseball professionally only swing a bat up to 80 mph (tip speed?). That's not a big variation. The kinetic energy difference would be larger because kinetic energy is the square of speed, but IIRC GURPS damage is generally treated as the sqrt of kinetic energy, so we're back to about 60 vs 80. (And there's the whole problem of using kinetic energy or momentum as a baseline for determining damage.)

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

And if anything is in the way of that flesh, it will take more force to poke through it.

Here, my naive understanding has some sympathy, especially for lighter armors, like clothes, or leather, or something, but even then I don't really know, because I am grossly ignorant on the matter.

What really complicates the issue for me is part of the above link, where it claims that proper form with a sword delivers like 100x less impact force than simply swinging it as hard as you can. My question also gets into the whole problem of chopping vs slashing aka draw cuts, and it might even be the same question.

This also gets to my understanding of the realism but not RAW of Balanced vs Unbalanced weapons. From my understanding, one can swing a sword very hard like one might swing a battleaxe, and then the sword would be out of position and unable to be used in parrying, but most sword strikes are not full out like that, which allows the sword to be quickly repositioned, which is why swords can be used for "simultaneous" attack and parry, but battleaxes cannot.

[Bilanthri]

Originally Posted by Gerrard of Titan Server

Consider an out-of-shape person, and take an Olympic athlete strength trainer of some sort, and compare how fast that they can swing a bat. Would the difference really be that large?

...

The kinetic energy difference would be larger because kinetic energy is the square of speed, but IIRC GURPS damage is generally treated as the sqrt of kinetic energy, so we're back to about 60 vs 80.

While the kinetic energy imparted in a swung weapon is an important factor when calculating shearing forces and whatnot, it seems that a better comparison comes from looking at Newton's Second Law:

F=ma

Since trying to land a crushing blow is less important than landing a well-placed blow, a stronger wielder may not swing their weapon that much faster than a weaker person. However, they would have an advantage in being able to bring their weapon up to speed quicker, as well as being able to continue to accelerate into the blow.

Why, may you ask, would one continue accelerating into their strike? For the same reason that empty-hand techniques teach practitioners to strike "through" their target. You don't want to level off or slow down before the impact...that's called pulling your punch. It can mean the difference between a bloodied, angry opponent and one who's been floored.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Bilanthri

Why, may you ask, would one continue accelerating into their strike? For the same reason that empty-hand techniques teach practitioners to strike "through" their target.

That reason being a psychological trick -- it's not that accelerating actually meaningfully affects damage, it's that not decelerating does, and human instinct causes you to decelerate shortly before reaching the point you're aiming at.