Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Krensky" data-source="post: 4516713" data-attributes="member: 30936">Since Tai chi chuan literally translates as "supreme ultimate fist" (or a variation on the theme) and it was developed as a means of self defense in the early nineteenth century. It's (very) somewhat analogous to Akido. Modern instruction and modern forms tend to emphasize the spirituality and exercise aspects far more then the practical, but the style is still capable of being an effective defense. It's is a different defense then more typical hard or hard-soft martial arts, based on the premise that the best defense is to passively accept and redirect violent acts around the practitioner, rather then to block or intercept them. It's also worth remembering that tai chi chuan in combat or a martial floor display is much faster then the meditation and exercise routines. I think there's an analogy there that relates this back to the debate at hand, but I can't quite phrase it. Something along the lines of: Tai chi chun:Shaolinquan (the broadest and best known hard Chinese style)::narrative/storytelling:simulation/gamist. Or something.As for myself, I'm in the camp of challenging both the stats and the player. Part of this is preferred playstyle, and part is one of my groups. One player is a salesman by trade, and a good one. He's probably the smoothest, most charming person I know. He alternates between playing smooth tricksters (himself, really) and oafish brutes. When he's playing a brute and tries to be suave and charming, he gets a bonus based on whatever his role-played and acted line of bs is, but he rolls the character's social skill. He rolls when he's playing a charmer, too.On the other side of the table, I have a player who is extremely shy, a little socially awkward, and quiet. She likes playing charming, socially adept, Machiavellian tricksters and rogues. If asked to get up and do amateur theater, she'd refuse. Drama would probably occur, but having a player break down in tears and leave is not the sort of drama anyone wants. She gives a abstract of her character's goals, I give it a penalty or bonus based on it's impact on the target and she rolls.If I just had them role-play/act, I'd have Gronk the 'Special' Barbarian (Low INT, WIS, and CHA) pulling off cons that make the Sting look amateurish, and I'd loose another player entirely. On the other hand, if I just rolled (which I admit I do some times for simple things like haggling with the bartender or whatnot) then we'd miss some of the better lines of BS from the salesman and the cunning logic and manipulations from the shy player.</blockquote>

Verification