Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
 

The Italian School writeup in MA feels like a bit of a potpouri, combining elements of many different styles across 200 years and a very diverse country. So I woud not worry too much. The design goal for MA was to be inclusive, because players are way more likely to complain that their favourite style was given too few cool techniques than too many (and its usually fun to say "sure, your karate teacher liked that technique even if its rare today in our world").

Suppliments like Fairbairn Close Combat System or the issue of Pyramid with the designer's notes for GURPS Renaissance Florence have the writeups which stick closer to what a particular teacher or group of teachers taught in a specific place and time.

Or, say, one point of cutting damage to the Arm.

Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
 

They affect what maneuvers I should choose for good roleplaying tho, I like when stylists have different tactics and philosophies.

Yes but that's a different thing. What I meant was that if I take a hit I can't affect the damage, only hope the dice are on my side. Besides, people in renaissance Italy or a fantasy facsimile would think I was a huge coward if I wore armor in civilian life.

That's very true. And thanks I'll check them out!

Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
 

Which one?

Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
 

Having trained in the Classic French style back in the 1980's and 90's, Riposte as written is on the mark.

The problem might not be with how GURPS describes a particular manuever so much as semantics where one use of a word doesn't not match another's use of the same word.

In this case, I think that's what happening here.

But now, we have an instance in which the rules as written seem to have a hole in them.

Let me draw your attention to the rules regarding "Dual weapon attacks" and "Dual weapon defense". GURPS originally only had rules for dual weapon attacks. It took GURPS MARTIAL ARTS (page 83) to give us rules for Dual weapon defenses.

Where's the hole? What happens if/when some with two weapons, attempts to utilize what amounts to a dual weapon combination that is both a defense AND attack at the same time?

Could for example, a Riposte be written as a "combination" in which you must successfully parry before you can follow up with the attack? Could a combination be written such that the first sequence is done at a penalty to skill, so that the secondary follow up gain a benefit from the primary action?

Much of what I've seen thus far about using a secondary weapon to parry to allow the primary weapon to attack suggests to me that it is essentially a dual weapon action.

If I were to house rule this at all (and seeing this discussion, I may very well do just this):

Any dual weapon combination can be used as a Dual ACTION. If both are used defensively, then it is a dual weapon defense. If both are used offensively, it is a dual weapon attack. If both are used, one as an attack, the other as a defense - then that should be equally valid.

For the unskilled - the dual weapon technique is penalized by a -4. An additional off-hand skill penalty is imposed, but for weapons that are designed to be used off hand in the first place, I'd skip that requisite entirely.

how would I simulate a fencer who has a parrying dagger in one hand, a rapier in the second hand, up against a foe with but one rapier to hand?

Attacker has the combination: Parry/Counterattack. He has his main gauche skill for the first segment of the combination, and he has his rapier skill as the second segment.

So, the action might start off with:

First Fighter with one blade... attacks.
Second fighter armed with blade and defensive dagger uses his Parry/Counterattack - succeeds with both. Original attacker now defends with a parry at -2 penalty.

Second Fighter now attacks with dual weapon attack as two separate weapons in a low line attack (aimed for the vitals and leg).

First fighter parrying for the second and third time before the start of his next turn, is at penalties to his defense rolls for second and third parries, plus the -1 for dual weapon attack.

That's how I'd visualize some of the action possible based on the discussion thus far.

But it requires filling in the gap of "what happens if in a dual weapon situation, one weapon is offensive at the same time as the other is offensive?"

Just my thoughts... ;)

Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
 

Yes, where are these notes? I must have missed them entirely.

Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
 

Offhand, the fictional style was Il Lavoro Veloce and the issue was #3-10 Crime and Grime, but you can search the archives as well as I can.

Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
 

Nah, all kinds of sources from 14th, 15th, and 16th century Christendom describe men wearing hidden or partial armour (usually collars, headpieces, body armour, armoured sleeves). In Trecento Florence there was a fad for wearing a collar of mail around town, and one of the Scottish kings tried to forbid men at court from wearing concealed armour. I think that one of the Medici survived an assassination attempt at church because the knifeman tried to pat him down for hidden armour and he realized that something was wrong.

There was a fad in the 16th and 17th century for duelling in your shirt, but not everyone participates in a fad. So in the USA today there are people who love their black 'tactical gear' and people who like oiled hardwood and leather and carbon steels ... the second group is not as trendy, but they still exist.

Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
 

I don't think that is how it works. While my books are in the old country, I think the sequence is:

Agent Attacks with his Rapier and Hits. Patent Parries with his Rapier using the Counterattack technique, and succeeds.

Now Patient gets his turn. If he chooses to attack agent, Agent will be at -2 to Parry due to the Counterattack. Patient does not get an extra attack, or to attack out of order ... GURPS simplifies combat into discrete turns because the alternative is not practical for mere humans.

Again, my books are in the old country, so anyone who wants to play this out should check Martial Arts.

Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
 

Taking a thrust impaling hit to a limb for ×1 in order to deliver a hit to vitals for ×3 probably qualifies.

Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
 

Yes, of course I can. But when you said:

"issue of Pyramid with the designer's notes for GURPS Renaissance Florence have the writeups which stick closer to what a particular teacher or group of teachers taught in a specific place and time."

I took that to mean that I had missed the designer's notes on GURPS Renaissance Florence which included notes on period fencing, not a fictional fighting style.