Sci-fi wear swords?

[Markdoc]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

An interesting historical perspective....

 

I'm told that, within 50 years of their introduction to gunpowder, the Japanese were making BETTER guns than were being made in Europe at the time.

 

Within 100 years of their introduction to gunpowder, they had stopped making guns at all. I guess they just decided they liked swords better anyway.

 

Actually, the officers of the Shogunate realised that peasants and zamabushi with guns were quite capable of defeating armoured sword-wielding samurai (even when outnumbered). Guns were also the weapon of choice in sieges - and post Segikahara, most major battles involved seiges.

 

So they decided on a "swords and bows only" policy was best for keeping power in the hands of the people with most swords (ie: them). Hideoyoshi started it by banning *all* weapons in the hands of peasants while Ieyasu extended that to guns in other hands. It probably would not have worked in a society less gonzo over swords, or in one which was less repressive. but it's not like the Japanese all suddenly decided they didn't like guns anymore - the policy was enforced from the top - and rather brutally, too. They never did get rid of all guns - but they did keep them at a level where they were rarely used.

 

Still - it is an example of a society that has simply chosen to use swords over guns - if it happened once, it could happen again.

 

It's also an example of what happens when sword-users come up against gun-users. Even when it ended in hand to hand combat - whether it's English seamen versus Japanese pirates in the 16th century or samurai versus Royal marines in the 19th or Japanese on Japanese in either of those centuries, the swordusers got their butt handed to them in no uncertain fashion.

 

cheers, Mark

[Citizen Keen]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

I guess I mostly agree with Markdoc - there is no real reason. If there were, we'd probably be using melee weapons a lot more right now.

 

I guess I'm more interested in the mentality that justifies there use in a fictional sense. I guess I'm thinking really over-the-top justifications for melee weapons, like a giant space computer that monitors peoples brains and kills people and so forth, like the Homeworld series.

[The Mad GM]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

I was playing in a Traveller campaign where the laws stated that even though dueling was allowed, any innocent bystander killed during a duel was considered murder. And since most street violence was called 'a duel' by the survivor, it made more sense for gangs and whatnot to carry HTH weapons. Also, certain HTH weapons were legal to carry publicly, or even concealed, whereas ranged weapons were not.

 

None of this applies worth beans to the military (where Traveller characters almost always get their training), or to onboard ship, or on frontier planets. That was just the way the core planets did things, so if you wanted to be armed on a core world or station, you either got a sword or got a mega-level security clearance.

 

Oh, and for tight space, close-in fighting: wrestling. Every fight I've seen up close (which has fortunately not been many) has either ended very quickly or devolved into two or more people in a tangle on the floor. Most of them could have occurred in a closet with no loss in poise and grace. In zero-gee or random-gee, wrestling would still be a winner. It's just not as cool to imagine your character in a dog-pile straining for a wrist-lock compared to leaping and spinning and doing big action-movie knockback. Some day, some cinematographer will come up with a way to make wrestling more cinematic without being WWF cheesy, and suddenly wrestling will be cool again for a heroic setting.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

The best justification I've ever seen comes from space-opera or heavy on the uncharted territories type campaigns.

 

Gun-heavy characters have to keep up with ammo, and have to worry about acquiring it while they head off to the lo-tech worlds or the great unknown. Granted, they'll have superior attacks as long as they have ammo. But the sword and hammer guy has ammo as long as he has arms.

 

While none of my sci-fi characters or players use swords and such exclusively, they all carry at least a knife for just this reason. Also, the bulk of my players prefer lo-tech firearms (modern pistols and such) simply because it's easier to find gunpowder on lo-tech worlds than it is to find "Class 9 plasma cells" or "phase-alignment batteries" or "chakkan oil."

 

Though on the above comments about 'we don't use swords now' and 'the future should meet 1970 tech,' let's keep in mind that swords are, for reasons I'll never figure, more illegal to carry in public than are guns. You can get a permit to carry a gun. I've had swords confiscated because I was carrying them inside a store-- the store next to the one I bought it at!

 

Okay, not really relevant,

 

but also keep in mind that percentage wise, not a lot of people carry weaons at all today. And there aren't many advernturers, either. So the analogy, while reasonable, may not hold when the future gets here.

 

 

Besides, it's more fun!

[pinecone]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

I was playing in a Traveller campaign where the laws stated that even though dueling was allowed, any innocent bystander killed during a duel was considered murder. And since most street violence was called 'a duel' by the survivor, it made more sense for gangs and whatnot to carry HTH weapons. Also, certain HTH weapons were legal to carry publicly, or even concealed, whereas ranged weapons were not.

 

None of this applies worth beans to the military (where Traveller characters almost always get their training), or to onboard ship, or on frontier planets. That was just the way the core planets did things, so if you wanted to be armed on a core world or station, you either got a sword or got a mega-level security clearance.

 

Oh, and for tight space, close-in fighting: wrestling. Every fight I've seen up close (which has fortunately not been many) has either ended very quickly or devolved into two or more people in a tangle on the floor. Most of them could have occurred in a closet with no loss in poise and grace. In zero-gee or random-gee, wrestling would still be a winner. It's just not as cool to imagine your character in a dog-pile straining for a wrist-lock compared to leaping and spinning and doing big action-movie knockback. Some day, some cinematographer will come up with a way to make wrestling more cinematic without being WWF cheesy, and suddenly wrestling will be cool again for a heroic setting.

I gotta agree ...thats why I mentioned Jiujitsu as a future fighting art...but I'd thought to throw capoera in there too just to keep things lively...you never know what the future will bring...I don't know about the "needs no ammo" justification, I supose it depends on the persons "style" ...but 1000 rounds is not real bulky, and I can't imagine needing to shoot 900 persons/things on one journey...I guess if you like to "spray and pray" then you'd need more ammo...

[mikesama]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

I gotta agree ...thats why I mentioned Jiujitsu as a future fighting art...but I'd thought to throw capoera in there too just to keep things lively...you never know what the future will bring...I don't know about the "needs no ammo" justification' date=' I supose it depends on the persons "style" ...but 1000 rounds is not real bulky, and I can't imagine needing to shoot 900 persons/things on one journey...I guess if you like to "spray and pray" then you'd need more ammo...[/quote']

 

1000 round of ammo not bulky? Unless you get 100 shots per clip you are looking at quite a few clips/boxes of ammo. Your looking at 20 drums of tommy gun ammo(50 per drum), 34 clips for a M-4 / M-16 (30 rounds per clip) or a whopping 100 clips of ammo for a civilian H&K USP(10 rounds per clip).

 

For a modern soldier you are looking at them carrying an assault rifle 4-8 spare clips of ammo, up to about 4 grenades and if they have a pistol for backup 2 extra clips for that.

[Markdoc]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

I guess I'm more interested in the mentality that justifies there use in a fictional sense. I guess I'm thinking really over-the-top justifications for melee weapons' date=' like a giant space computer that monitors peoples brains and kills people and so forth, like the [i']Homeworld[/i] series.

 

It's simply that it's cool and encourages martial arts which make for fun play. Think about it. If the Bride wanted to kill her enemies, it would have made a lot more sense to simply stick a bomb under their trailer or shoot them from a dozen blocks away when they came out of their nightclub.

 

But then we miss out on the massed swordfights, people getting their eye plucked out and stamped on, and such. I mean, really, how much fun is that?

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

Gun-heavy characters have to keep up with ammo' date=' and have to worry about acquiring it while they head off to the lo-tech worlds or the great unknown. Granted, they'll have superior attacks as long as they have ammo. But the sword and hammer guy has ammo as long as he has arms.[/quote']

 

Which will be right up until he has to get into a fight with anyone using a gun. Which is kind of the point. Sure a sword'll never run out of ammo - but the user will rapidly run out of life. And you only get to carry one use of that...

 

While none of my sci-fi characters or players use swords and such exclusively' date=' they all carry at least a knife for just this reason. Also, the bulk of my players prefer lo-tech firearms (modern pistols and such) simply because it's easier to find gunpowder on lo-tech worlds than it is to find "Class 9 plasma cells" or "phase-alignment batteries" or "chakkan oil."[/quote']

 

Uh oh - guess someone forgot to go to the store, before they packed the space ship. Seriously, in all the "explore the great unknown" space opera we played, we always ran out of people long before we ran out of ammo. Worst comes to worst, I assume a spacefaring civilisation would have sufficient technology to duplicate simple 16th century chemistry and metallurgy techniques and that's all you need to make a submachine gun.

 

Though on the above comments about 'we don't use swords now' and 'the future should meet 1970 tech,' let's keep in mind that swords are, for reasons I'll never figure, more illegal to carry in public than are guns. You can get a permit to carry a gun. I've had swords confiscated because I was carrying them inside a store-- the store next to the one I bought it at!

 

Okay, not really relevant,

 

It is kind of relevant - it shows how cultural norms affect things. The "bladed weapons more illegal than guns" is strictly an american thing. Here it's the reverse. Apart from cops/military you never see firearms in the street, while it's not at all unusual to see swords or axes - some people still wear swords as part of their dress uniforms. We were coming back from the movies about 6 weeks ago and got onto the metro - there were a half dozen vikings in mail, with helmets, axes and swords. The metro steward had no problems with the armour or weapons, but told them they couldn't wear their helmets in the train

 

Which simply makes the point again. There's no *practical* reason to favour melee weapons - so make up magitech, legal or cultural ones that suit your game.

 

cheers, Mark

[The Mad GM]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

1000 round of ammo not bulky? Unless you get 100 shots per clip you are looking at quite a few clips/boxes of ammo. Your looking at 20 drums of tommy gun ammo(50 per drum), 34 clips for a M-4 / M-16 (30 rounds per clip) or a whopping 100 clips of ammo for a civilian H&K USP(10 rounds per clip).

 

For a modern soldier you are looking at them carrying an assault rifle 4-8 spare clips of ammo, up to about 4 grenades and if they have a pistol for backup 2 extra clips for that.

 

I was assuming all those rounds stayed on the ship, you only carry a spare clip or two per gun, and that's packing heavy.

 

But back to justifications - I had one Space Hero style character (1987 ish) who was a lumberjack, and carried a telescoping vibra-chainsaw. It was legal because it wasn't a weapon. Yeah, that explanation didn't always work with the dock authorities either. Another was an engineer with a powered wrench (similar in size to a large plumber's wrench, but with 'powered torque assist' whatever the heck that meant), and a Champions character who used a crowbar (picture the Shoveller, from Mystery Men, but with a series of crowbars). The powered wrench guy only got played once, and the jokes about marital aides versus martial arts got a little thick. I later played a janitor from Miscatonic university in a pulp-horror game who, when armed, used a variety of simple hand tools.

 

Maybe I'm getting off topic here.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

The "bladed weapons more illegal than guns" is strictly an american thing. Here it's the reverse. Apart from cops/military you never see firearms in the street' date=' while it's not at all unusual to see swords or axes - some people still wear swords as part of their dress uniforms. [/quote']

 

Now that _is_ interesting.......

 

wonder what causes such a divergence......

[pinecone]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

1000 round of ammo not bulky? Unless you get 100 shots per clip you are looking at quite a few clips/boxes of ammo. Your looking at 20 drums of tommy gun ammo(50 per drum), 34 clips for a M-4 / M-16 (30 rounds per clip) or a whopping 100 clips of ammo for a civilian H&K USP(10 rounds per clip).

 

For a modern soldier you are looking at them carrying an assault rifle 4-8 spare clips of ammo, up to about 4 grenades and if they have a pistol for backup 2 extra clips for that.

I was replying to the "Off to explore the galaxy"...10 100 rounds boxes tossed in my closet doesn't mean boo as far as space and weight on such a journey..... As a soldier I was issued 240 rounds for my m-16 if I was going to do assault work (and 4 grenades) many of us took plenty more... Only 4 mags but a bandoleer of ammo holds around 120 rounds if I recall right. Almost All that ammo would be expended on supression (ie not aimed at anyone in paticular) I personally would only want to shoot when I saw a target...so my personal view is 240 rounds means 240 dead enemy soldiers...Far more than I could imagine needing to shoot. But I'm a very good shot. And sometimes supression is nessisary, not so much to get the bad guys, but to preserve the lives of your own, and that is ammo well expended in my book. But player characters tend to only shoot when they have a valid target ...so even 10 shots is likely to be plenty, unless firearms are for some reason not very dangerous.....

[The Mad GM]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

...so even 10 shots is likely to be plenty' date=' unless firearms are for some reason not very dangerous.....[/quote']

 

In a gaming setting, it takes a few rounds to kill someone. This meshes with the action movie style hero who gets 'winged' enough times to die from simple blood loss, yet he fights on. And since there needs to be a parity in combat to make it interesting, foes also take more than one shot.

 

I like the 'mook' rule from Feng Shui - if the person doesn't have a name, any one successful attack will put them down.

[BlackSword]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

In a gaming setting, it takes a few rounds to kill someone. This meshes with the action movie style hero who gets 'winged' enough times to die from simple blood loss, yet he fights on. And since there needs to be a parity in combat to make it interesting, foes also take more than one shot.

 

I like the 'mook' rule from Feng Shui - if the person doesn't have a name, any one successful attack will put them down.

At GenCon I played a mercenary with a gauss rifle in Traveller (T20). I tended to use multi-round bursts, but pretty much decimated one enemy a round.

 

Pinecone, I think one reason a lot of gamers don't use suppressive fire is because the rules in some games don't support it well. I personally like it and find that supress can be great, especially for non-combat characters to help turn the tide in combat, but it seems some games either have no rules, or make the rules so pitiful that its wasting ammo and you might as well go for the golden BB.

[Markdoc]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

Now that _is_ interesting.......

 

wonder what causes such a divergence......

 

American firearms fetishism, basically. The US is the only developed country in the world where a discussion about ordinary citizens having access to handguns could be even envisaged.

 

Here you rarely see guns on the street (except on cops, etc who are often armed to the teeth, by US standards), because it's illegal to carry them without a really good reason and you need a licence to get them in the first place. You also need a licence to buy ammo, IIRC. There's no arguments about "second amendment rights" to prevent the powers that be from saying "no firearms". Part-time soldiers do keep their weapons at home, but there are very strict legal penalties and social restrictions which mean they stay there unless they are being used on official ranges . Anybody who takes their Diemaco out for a spot of private practice will - quite literally - face jail time on their next weapon inspection.

 

Bladed weapons, however, are kind of quasi-legal (which is pretty much the same as in the US). If you walk into the local 7-11 (or equivalent) in the US or Denmark, with a sword slung over one shoulder, you could well get into trouble for it. On the other hand in both countries, if you're stopped by a cop who wants to know why and you can show that you're going to weapons practice, or something similar, then you'll basically be OK.

 

Europeans are pretty keen on history and most European cities of any size have re-enactment groups. Copenhagen, which is only a million or so, has at least four which do steel weapons training - Fægtklubben (Fight club!) who specialise in Late Renaissance/Age of kings style fencing (think the three musketeers), a branch of the European Historical Combat Society who focus mostly on feudal/medieval combat (and some of these guys are good - I'm seen them going at it on horseback a couple of times) and at least two viking-era groups (who seem to feature a lot of guys with scars and dental repair work....)

 

cheers, Mark

[pinecone]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

At GenCon I played a mercenary with a gauss rifle in Traveller (T20). I tended to use multi-round bursts, but pretty much decimated one enemy a round.

 

Pinecone, I think one reason a lot of gamers don't use suppressive fire is because the rules in some games don't support it well. I personally like it and find that supress can be great, especially for non-combat characters to help turn the tide in combat, but it seems some games either have no rules, or make the rules so pitiful that its wasting ammo and you might as well go for the golden BB.

I also think its just "gamer think" putting down supressing fire just dosen't qualify for the whole peacock dance thing....but shooting a bad guy lets you talk big and strut. And every player wants to be the end zone dance guy instead of the dude that sprung the big block. I've sat through player spend minites on end agonizing about taking a shot, because the Idea of missing is something they want to avoid at all costs.....in a real fire fight hesitatiion is a form of suicide but in game its "thinking tactically"

[pinecone]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

In a gaming setting, it takes a few rounds to kill someone. This meshes with the action movie style hero who gets 'winged' enough times to die from simple blood loss, yet he fights on. And since there needs to be a parity in combat to make it interesting, foes also take more than one shot.

 

I like the 'mook' rule from Feng Shui - if the person doesn't have a name, any one successful attack will put them down.

How lethal combat is is also a function of the players and gm's choices...even Hero which is infamous for "unkillable" people I find firearms to be plenty lethal IF you use the optional rules, heck I've even seen Supers get killed....so the level of lethality is ,in part, a choice made......

[ross_winn]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

1/ swords are simple weapons.

2/ swords need no ammunition.

3/ swords are a military tradition.

4/ less danger to bystanders.

5/ silent.

[The Mad GM]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

I thought of another reason for swords, but it's kind of out there, which is what the original post asked for. (in rereading this, it seems very derivative of Battle Angel Alita):

 

Certain forms of cyber tech call for establishing a specifc state of mind, like a trance state, for total 'meshing' between computer and human. Some jobs, like navigation and piloting offer the opportunity to do this in an immobile meditative state.

 

But others, like combat soldier, require you to move your body while maintaining a certain inner calm - and one of the methods used to do this is the internal martial arts styles, like tai-chi (which includes a sword form). Calligraphy and flower arranging would have the same internal effect, but for some reason, warriors tend to choose swords, even if carrying them is largely ceremonial/rank designation. As such, few carry them into serious combat, except as a badge of attaining one-ness with their tech. Outside of active fighting, warriors would carry them as a statement of skill.

 

Just beware the quiet warrior that carries a brush.

[The Mad GM]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

1/ swords are simple weapons.

2/ swords need no ammunition.

3/ swords are a military tradition.

4/ less danger to bystanders.

5/ silent.

 

1 - Swords can require years of training to achieve real skill, guns take a few weeks.

2 - Swords require a great deal of physical strength and endurance for any extended combat.

3 - Marines have a dress sabre, but are not (I think, could be wrong) trained in it's use.

4 - But not safer to the ally standing next to you (critcal miss tables, anyone?).

5 - Swords may be less noisy than a gun, but a gun can be fired from a loooong way away, making retreat much easier. And a sword that hits armor isn't silent, either, nor the dying scream of someone who isn't instantly killed.

 

This thread needs to look beyond practical justifications. Heck, guns even make better phallic symbols than swords.

[pinecone]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

I thought of another reason for swords, but it's kind of out there, which is what the original post asked for. (in rereading this, it seems very derivative of Battle Angel Alita):

 

Certain forms of cyber tech call for establishing a specifc state of mind, like a trance state, for total 'meshing' between computer and human. Some jobs, like navigation and piloting offer the opportunity to do this in an immobile meditative state.

 

But others, like combat soldier, require you to move your body while maintaining a certain inner calm - and one of the methods used to do this is the internal martial arts styles, like tai-chi (which includes a sword form). Calligraphy and flower arranging would have the same internal effect, but for some reason, warriors tend to choose swords, even if carrying them is largely ceremonial/rank designation. As such, few carry them into serious combat, except as a badge of attaining one-ness with their tech. Outside of active fighting, warriors would carry them as a statement of skill.

 

Just beware the quiet warrior that carries a brush.

Did you see Hero? Broken sword, one of the top tier sword dudes was a caligraghy master..

[The Mad GM]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

I really liked that movie. I think many of that directors films just aren't grokked by the critics, who panned it. Of course, it was billed as straight action, not drama. Same with House of Flying Daggers.

 

Actually, the calligraphy/swordsmanship thing goes way back to Miyamato Musashi, I believe.

[Curufea]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

1 - Swords can require years of training to achieve real skill, guns take a few weeks.

2 - Swords require a great deal of physical strength and endurance for any extended combat.

3 - Marines have a dress sabre, but are not (I think, could be wrong) trained in it's use.

4 - But not safer to the ally standing next to you (critcal miss tables, anyone?).

5 - Swords may be less noisy than a gun, but a gun can be fired from a loooong way away, making retreat much easier. And a sword that hits armor isn't silent, either, nor the dying scream of someone who isn't instantly killed.

 

This thread needs to look beyond practical justifications. Heck, guns even make better phallic symbols than swords.

 

1) only when facing someone who is good with a sword is skill in a sword actually necessary. Knives and blades are still very good at killing people and easier to come by than a gun - especially in the kitchen

2) as do all combat (possibly it's the running, but most likely it is the adrenaline and need to seek cover constantly). However most of the energy from medieval combats is from carrying armour and a shield, not wielding the sword.

4) critical misses happen in roleplaying games, not real life (or at least never at the odds they occur in rpgs)

5) there are no long distances onboard a ship. Guns do not kill instantly either. Unless you're a very good shot.

 

I'd also add - guns are easier to detect than swords, they require some form of explosive, even if not made of metal. Swords need not be metal.

 

Plus there's the KISS principle. Less moving parts in a sword = less chance of breakdown at critical times (or dud bullets, or misfires, or gun jams, or wet ammunition, or breach breaks, or ricochets)

[Zeropoint]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

Yet, despite all these arguments, which apply today as well as in the future, nobody carries a sword as a weapon anymore.

[Mister E]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

Yet' date=' despite all these arguments, which apply today as well as in the future, nobody carries a sword as a weapon anymore.[/quote']

 

That is because none of us live on my Sword and Planet genre campaign world, where everyone has a level of psychic sensitivity, and true warriors are measured by their successes in contra battles.

 

See my prior post.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Sci-fi wear swords?

 

Yet' date=' despite all these arguments, [i']which apply today as well as in the future[/i], nobody carries a sword as a weapon anymore.

 

That depends on where you live. Weren't the majority of the killings in the genocide in Rwanda carried out by machette?