> ...let's help people create combat systems that we want to play...

This is quoted from http://swordforum.com/sfu/swordsmanship/parrying.html from a while back:

...a "parry-through" in which when your opponent tries to cut you, you cut towards him - the flat of your sword glances off the side of his, thereby deflecting his oncoming attack, resulting in your cutting into your opponent's body. In other words, this is both an attack and a deflection in a single stroke.

Jason wrote:
Andrew,

I'm not familiar with your S system - but ignorance of the facts never stopped me before... ;-)

It depends on the resoultion mechanic - but from the description in the quote it sounds like the parrying character is using the other slobs stroke against him - so maybe instead of making an additional attack the parrying character gets to apply his opponets attack roll against his opponet.

Or if you're using a successes system perhaps the parrying character can add the attacking characters successes to his roll to make the attack.

Just some random thoughts from the peanut gallery.

Cheers,

Jason

Christoffer Lerno wrote:
I know exactly what move you're thinking about. Theoretically you could treat it as a variation on "parry-riposte". A few facts which might be useful: This is a lot about controlling the line of attack, you need some mastery to perform this move, it requires solid knowledge unlike say a block or something like that. It's the step up after doing riposte moves.

You can grade it like this:

parry-return strike
parry-riposte
cut-into-the-attack (the move described above)

If we look at it like beats. If for the first we have:
beat 1: opponent attacks, defender parries
beat 2: recovery
beat 3: defender counterattacks

The second becomes:
beat 1: opponent attacks, defender parries and prepares to attack
beat 2: defender counterattacks

The third is:
beat 1: opponent attacks, defender parries and counterattacks

The difficulty for the initial attacker to avoid the counterattack is increasingly higher. On the other hand the safety margin for the defender goes down too.

So anyway, create a single move (an upgraded parry-riposte if you will) with a penalty for success on the parry or something.

On the other hand, while I'm aware of these moves, I quickly gave up on implementing them in Ygg, mainly because it still doesn't provide any extra realism for the game unless we're talking about relatively unskilled opponents. For skilled fighters more and more of the fight is on a purely psychological level with subtle physical expressions in slight changes in posture. (I guess you just have to trust me on that one). But I don't think you're ready to throw out the whole S combat system are you ;) So I won't argue that point.

For another common maneuver you might want to include (although it might be tricky to do it well)

"Counter-striking": As soon as the opponent starts to move, you immediately hit even faster with a counterstrike. The beginner version is just about trying to be faster, the advanced version is actually setting up the opponent and lure him into striking exactly where one wants to strike and the use the counter-strike. The "luring" is usually extremely subtle. It can also be done through pressuring the opponent with an intent to attack.

Fang Langford wrote:
Make the riposte (a fencing "parry-through?") something 'less' than an action. You can't riposte unless you parry right? Make the riposte a 'rider' on a successful parry (under certain conditions). In Scattershot, we handle things like this as 'flurries of actions.' Provided you are trained appropriately, you can compose several Immediate Actions into a single Involved Action (called a flurry of actions) under certain conditions. This lets us do things like 'quickdraw' as a martial art allowing a draw and fire (and fire and fire) all as a single action. This also explains all those really fast interchanges between fencers.

I guess my suggestion is to look at the riposte and consider flurries of actions, that's all.

Fang Langford

M. J. Young wrote:
I would use a sort of relative success model between the attacker and the responder. Each is rolled as an attack. If the attacker's attack roll is better than the responder's, the initial attack succeeds. If the responder rolls better, he blocks the initial attack and lands his own. You would have to decide which way a tie went, but the choices would be both or neither--that is, either both attacks succeed, or the parry succeeds but the followthrough blow does not.

This gives the maneuver significant efficacy in the hands of a character whose ability is much better, but does not permit it to dominate combat between relative equals. It also allows a novice to use it against an expert, but not to succeed very often.

Hope that helps. Obviously implementation depends greatly on the details of your system.

Marco wrote:
[Oh, and Martin: I've got IT--an elegant proof--your problem is solved! All you have to do is [*CENSORED*] ]

Andrew Martin wrote:

Jake Norwood wrote: ...let's help people create combat systems that we want to play...

Andrew Martin wrote: This is quoted from The Sword Forum from a while back:

If parrying is to be done with a katana (Japanese sword) the method of parrying recommended is to parry with the flat of your blade. A "parry-riposte" can be used, or a "parry-through" in which when your opponent tries to cut you, you cut towards him - the flat of your sword glances off the side of his, thereby deflecting his oncoming attack, resulting in your cutting into your opponent's body. In other words, this is both an attack and a deflection in a single stroke.

I've been wondering how to do this in my S dueling combat system (available on my site). Best I've come up with so far is two actions, the first is a parry, and the second is the attack. Yet, this doesn't seem to fit (and it seems to have the potential of being a "winning" move, if not carefully explained). Opinions? Advice?

Le Joueur wrote: Make the riposte (a fencing "parry-through?") something 'less' than an action. You can't riposte unless you parry right? Make the riposte a 'rider' on a successful parry (under certain conditions). In Scattershot, we handle things like this as 'flurries of actions.' Provided you are trained appropriately, you can compose several Immediate Actions into a single Involved Action (called a flurry of actions) under certain conditions. This lets us do things like 'quickdraw' as a martial art allowing a draw and fire (and fire and fire) all as a single action. This also explains all those really fast interchanges between fencers.

I guess my suggestion is to look at the riposte and consider flurries of actions, that's all.

The name for the technique is called kiri-o-toshi. It's a signature move of the itto-ryu school.

Fang is right, this is a specialized move in the sense that you wouldn't do the same as easy with, say an axe.

I think what you're (re-) discovering here Andrew, is the limit on fixed-move combat systems like S and pretty much most of the games out there.

Either you accept it as that or you drastically change S's combat.

A final note: If you include more weapon-specific moves like this one, you should be aware that there is a tendency that sword techniques get way more exposure as they are more popular to train and more accesible. More people know about special sword techniques than say halberd techniques.

I'll mostly chime in and more-or-less nod my head with Fang and Pale Fire, etc.

In the German School, cuts of that fashion are called "meisterhau." There's a specific name for the *exact* technique you're describing, and it starts with a "V," and it was the "jewel of the art" of swordsmanship, but I can't recall off-hand. It's a very difficult manevuer at full speed (especially when you're trying to practice safely), but is a wonderful technique.

I don't know much about S-System (other than what's on this thread), but I say if you want it, it's your game, put it in. Or, better yet, put it in and see if it really fits. If not, pitch it, but at least you tried.

A few notes on the technique itself:
-It certainly is not a "parry-riposte," although I suppose that you could handle it like one mechanically as one to the satisfaction of most laymen.
-it is a single movement, and would best be handled by a single roll. Contested rolls are ideal for this sort of a thing. I know how *I* would handle it in game mechanics, but that's going to be in The Flower of Battle for TROS, so I'm holding back a little. Hope that's okay.
-it only works against certain kinds of strikes--generally overhead strikes straight down or at an angle (there are variations for other strikes, but I'm a skeptic). Unless your game differentiates such strikes, it's probably not worth working it in.
-theoretically it works with many polearms and other sorts of weapons, but not as well or as naturally. Staves may be the exception, as the usually are.

If you're trying to build a duelling system with a sword focus (a goal I understand and find admirable, but only because I'm a nut for that sort of thing), then play with it and include it at least temporarily. If not, then probably don't. And again, if you *are* trying to do that, look into actual martial training and the study of techniques and manuals with your organization of choice.

Jake

Good call describing the move Jake.

Just wanted to point out another abyss of problems... What about two weapon combat? In effect you can easily do parry and attack at the same time. And you can actually do the fun thing of attacking with both weapons at the same time at different heights and such.

Of course unarmed combat is the same in that regard.

Pale Fire wrote: The name for the technique is called kiri-o-toshi. It's a signature move of the itto-ryu school.

Jake Norwood wrote: In the German School, cuts of that fashion are called "meisterhau." There's a specific name for the *exact* technique you're describing, and it starts with a "V," and it was the "jewel of the art" of swordsmanship, but I can't recall off-hand.

Thanks for the advice, everyone!

As for two (or three or four) weapon combat, that's all ready covered in my S rules.

Currently, I'm mulling over "merged moves" where two or more moves are merged together into one move. That would cover the parry-through as it's a parry and strike combined, as well as other master-level moves (which the players could invent). I'm thinking that each move (after the first) combined into a move, is a -1 penalty (as per my multi-action rules) and only a single die is rolled and compared (after the penalty is applied) against the opponent's die/dice roll/s.

I'm also thinking of reversing the dice progression from: D4, D6, D8, D10, D12 & D20, to: D100 (unskilled), D20, D12, D10, D8, D6 & D4, and making rolling "1" the best result. This change will give high variability to low skill, high consistency to high skill, allow for asynchronous dice rolling, and allows for degree of success, which is what an earlier commentor thought it needed and which some players seem to miss. It will also allow for a FitM mechanic which I've grown to like recently.

Andrew Martin wrote: As for two (or three or four) weapon combat, that's all ready covered in my S rules.

Pale Fire wrote:

Andrew Martin wrote: As for two (or three or four) weapon combat, that's all ready covered in my S rules.

For example, the opponent might strike at your head. You take this opportunity to strike at his side while blocking the strike with your sword. Done right, the opponent might have no chance at all to parry (especially if wielding a two handed weapon).

Andrew Martin wrote: Your example works perfectly well in S. Just roll low for initiaitive, so letting your opponent strike first, then respond with a parry with one weapon and strike with the second weapon. Easy! :)

Pale Fire wrote:

Andrew Martin wrote: Your example works perfectly well in S. Just roll low for initiaitive, so letting your opponent strike first, then respond with a parry with one weapon and strike with the second weapon. Easy! :)

I was under the impression that the opponent would be allowed to parry or dodge the "strike of the second weapon". Is that correct? If so, then you're actually not allowing for the situation I describe.

Andrew Martin wrote: It depends upon whether or not the opponent has run out of actions. For example, if the two handed sword swinger hasn't got the Dodge skill, then he's out of luck. Certainly, while using the Two-Handed sword to strike, it can't be used to parry with, unless the wielder is using multi-actions.

Pale Fire wrote:

Andrew Martin wrote: It depends upon whether or not the opponent has run out of actions. For example, if the two handed sword swinger hasn't got the Dodge skill, then he's out of luck. Certainly, while using the Two-Handed sword to strike, it can't be used to parry with, unless the wielder is using multi-actions.

It's kind of boring to push the point, but unless it doesn't matter if the opponent has a dodge skill or not, you're not simulating it right.

Another common way of attacking is locking up the opponent's weapon as you close in to attack. If the opponent fails to slip away from the lock, difficulty to parry goes up about 1000%.

And so on.

Care to guess why I ended up ditching single-action based combat mechanics?