Martial arts affecting your GMing style

[Wombat]

I have done my time in the SCA and have several friends who are martial artists of various sorts, both empty hand and beweaponed. I have heard a lot of discussions ranging around what makes for an accurate system and how knowledge of such systems will improve games. It can. It can also really, really bog things down, especially for people who have no knowledge or interest.

Case in point: a game of Cyberpunk I played back in the early 90s.

Two of the guys playing (there were four of us + GM) in the game had a lot (LOT!) of knowledge about modern firearms. So they would take time of talking about minutiae of guns and how to improve the combat rules accordingly. What make, model, bore, how many grains, lighting, scopes, wind conditions, etc. The third guy in our group was getting fidgety over this and I was getting annoyed.

At the time I worked for an aerospace engineering company in the publications department; my character in the game, however, was the electronics tech. One day, after our two gun folks spent time going rather excessively into firearms permutations, I turned to the GM. "Now, I have an electronics tech repair kit. What's in it? How much wire to I have? In what lengths? What is the make-up of the wire? Pure copper? Alloys?" Etc., etc.

Then I hauled out a 6" thick wire catalog from under the table and dropped it with a thud.

"Your guns are made of parts. I see you and raise."

Silence.

"Now can we get back to the game?"

Now for guns we could substitute martial arts of other kinds, sociology, mythology, Civil War trivia, or any other matter. Small amounts of such knowledge can really improve a given game; too much emphasis on it, especially around people with little knowledge of or interest in the topic can drag things down.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I think Wombat said most of my argument better than I could ever say it.

I'd only add one thing: Some people will also consider the story more important than any amount of real-world similarity, no matter how small. To them the hundreds of wounds a character can take and give are symbolic of strength, not a measure of actual combat.

 

[Galloglaich]

Galloglaich: I exaggerated when I mentioned the beer bottle thing, but it was more of an example rather than anything I've GMd. My games tend to be heading more in those directions though. Maybe it's less to do with my study of martial arts and more of my grim, depressing nature.

I also have to agree with Warhammer. Nice but not quite. Riddle of Steel is nice, and I'm glad to have it and its supplements, but to really get the players into a campaign I had to merge it with Ars Magica and play in Medieval Europe.

Yes the Magic system of TROS was definitely the weakest part of it, unless your group was into that kind of Forge-type gameplay, and the world wasn't sufficiently developed though it was a decent start... it's too bad Driftwood never did anything with it, it was such a fun system. Nobody can figure out what happened to those guys... they just kind of dissapeared. I wrote some stuff for TROS right before they bought the franchise from Jake.

I tend to take out major rules for infection and limb loss though, unless there are replacements available somehow. All well and good for NPCs to have missing limbs - a character with one leg quickly becomes not so enjoyable to play (unless you're a pirate, I guess)

Yeah I agree, I skipped all that kind of stuff with the Codex. I think hit locations, complex damage models etc. are kind of a game designers trap where a lot of energy tends to get wasted and many games get seriously bogged down. Lets face it, a severed limb is often going to mean the end of your life anyway, I am more interested in the fight itself than in the gruesome details of defeat. If you want it to be grim, just limit the amount of hit points or wound points or whatever you use.

As for infections... you gotta be kidding.

I agree that too much grimness isn't good for the game. Does adding martial stuff in add grimness, or is that just me?

I think it seems that way when you are first starting to seriously look at realistic combat from a game design point of view, but if you go a step or to further, you will find yourself in a new place where combat, while always dangerous, is not always so grim for experienced and well equipped fighters.

After all, as I pointed out with a multitude of concrete examples in the History / Mythology Thread, there are hundreds of thousands of people in history who engaged in combat over and over for years, and even lived to an old age. Look at guys like Hernan Cortez, Henry Morgan, Bjorn Ironsides, or Xenophon. Correct equipment (esp. armor!), training, and situational awareness can make a very dangerous situation survivable. Same for combat as it is for say, hang gliding or dealing with sharks or mountain climbing etc. etc.

The trick from a game design or DM'ing point of view, is to strike the right balance between making a fight always have a feeling of danger, but also giving the players some tools to improve their odds, fight entertaining cinematic battles and give them a way to literally rise above the fray. It makes combat a lot more gripping and fun.

Rangerwicket: I think thats a very interesting idea. Perhaps instead of animal forms of kung fu, you could have manticore style and such?
Martial arts aren't any better than each other (eh, In my humble opinion, thanks) but they do get more specialised as time goes on. Guys who specialise in killing monsters but wouldn't be so effective against someone who trains against humans? Maybe something to think about.

I guess it would need a lot of rules/feats/extras to allow this in. I know most rule systems have martial arts as bulky 'extras' to the games.

Other than flying, quite a few of the effects of Monsters and Magic were mimicked by real world events in ancient times. Think of Greek Fire "flame throwers", hand grenades, war elephants, war dogs, armored heavy cavalry, lasso's, lion or tiger or bear hunting (oh my), cannons, mines, smoke bombs, seige engines, hallucenoegenic drugs (read about what the Mongols did at the Battle of Leigneicz), contact poisons, brainwashed suicide assasins (ala Hashishim)... in fact most of the fantastical effects you find in mythology had their real world counterparts pre-16th Century, and people figured out ways to deal with them. Take a look at how they worked and what countermeasures were invented to cope with them and you will find a lot to work with.

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

Now for guns we could substitute martial arts of other kinds, sociology, mythology, Civil War trivia, or any other matter. Small amounts of such knowledge can really improve a given game; too much emphasis on it, especially around people with little knowledge of or interest in the topic can drag things down.

I think the scenario you described is pretty typical of how not to use any real world knowledge. Haphazardly applying details based on inadequate patchy data, and then conflating complexity for realism are all classic mistakes a lot of gamers make. This is essentially how many early "realistic" games were put together, reinforcing the stereotype that it inevitably works this way.

But a comprehensive understanding of how guns work has informed the design of many quite good RPG and Computer game systems now, including fairly simple, abstract ones. Similarly, an excellent understanding of both the Lovecraft mythos and the historical reality of 1920s New England helped create Call of Cthulhu, one of the most popular and successful RPGs ever designed. Good underlying research into anything real, whether it's sociology, mythology, a particular literary genre, or martial arts, can really enhance game design, without necessarily making it complicated at all (in fact by making it more logical with the help of historical or well developed literary sources you can often make it simpler).

And specifically with regard to Medieval Martial arts, I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend anybody, but SCA combat has almost nothing to do with actual historical combat, SCA is basically live action role playing "combat sport". It's only historical in the broadest sense, like a Renaissance Faire. Very few people in the SCA want to do Martial Arts or make any pretense to learning from real Medieval fencing manuals*. Thats not what it is about. Unfortunately SCA combat has indeed informed some early RPG combat systems like Rolemaster etc. which is part of why I think they were overcomplex and not successful.

I think Wombat said most of my argument better than I could ever say it.

I'd only add one thing: Some people will also consider the story more important than any amount of real-world similarity, no matter how small. To them the hundreds of wounds a character can take and give are symbolic of strength, not a measure of actual combat.

And I would counter by suggesting that an underlying understanding of "real world similarity" in your game design can enhance your ability to create a better story ... and that you can have a heroic character and an entertaining, cinematic fight without taking hundreds of wounds Just like the real badasses of history, try reading about them some day.


G.

*except for some of the rapier people, but that is not what most people think of re: SCA

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

And I would counter by suggesting that an underlying understanding of "real world similarity" in your game design will enhance your ability to create a better story ... and you can have a heroic character and an entertaining, cinematic fight without taking hundreds of wounds.

"How?" to the first part. To the second part I say "Yeah, but the point is that sometimes that's what you use." Wounds were just an example, the point is that the character disobeys the real-world models people have been mentioning.

 

[Galloglaich]

"How?" to the first part.

In a general game design sense, I like to use the example of Call of Cthulhu as I did above. To me the combination of a very well researched historic background with the very well researched literary genre allowed them to create a game at their chosen level of abstraction (pretty simple) which had a solid underlying structure which led to a gripping sense of immersion that enhanced the story telling. More specifically the (relatively) realistic background made the fantastic elements stand out and heightened the drama. Even though again, it was a simple game.

With regard to RPG combat systems, needless to say I am biased . But I could cite something like Burning Wheel, or even Warhammer FRPG, which while not exactly realistic, is more grounded in what a real fight is like than DnD... resulting in fights that are more dramatic and better stories

To the second part I say "Yeah, but the point is that sometimes that's what you use." Wounds were just an example, the point is that the character disobeys the real-world models people have been mentioning.

And I say what I learned in 5th grade English class when we were first reading Mark Twain; if you know the grammar you can play around with it as much as you like and it still works out. If you don't, you sound illiterate.

G.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

My martial arts experience definitely informs my writing for D&D. When I did the monk class for Forgotten Heroes I watched a bunch of MMA and martial arts movies with a notebook, jotting down moves that I wanted the monk to be able to perform. More recently when I've designed martial powers or new weapons, it's important for me to be able to visualize how it'd be possible for me to do what I'm describing.

I don't think it has as much effect on the way I DM or play, though. I've been playing D&D and reading fantasy literature for longer than I've been a martial arts student, so that has a bigger impact on my sense of what's fun and dramatic at the table.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

And I say what I learned in 5th grade English class when we were first reading Mark Twain; if you know the grammar you can play around with it as much as you like and it still works out. If you don't, you sound illiterate.

And I'm guessing Twain never found himself realizing once you know how to read it's hard to understand illiteracy. I'm not sure I always need to know something if I'm not going to use it, but I do know that knowing something means that I have a greater chance than before of not being able to stop using it.

And how do you know how much you need to know? Is there a lower limit? An upper limit? Limits of width/breadth/depth? Where are these limits if they exist? These are the questions that always pop up when I read people talking about how learning something can enhance and experience.

 

[Galloglaich]

And I'm guessing Twain never found himself realizing once you know how to read it's hard to understand illiteracy. I'm not sure I always need to know something if I'm not going to use it, but I do know that knowing something means that I have a greater chance than before of not being able to stop using it.

Does knowing grammar prevent you from using slang?

And how do you know how much you need to know? Is there a lower limit? An upper limit? Limits of width/breadth/depth? Where are these limits if they exist? These are the questions that always pop up when I read people talking about how learning something can enhance and experience.

The answer is, there are no fixed limits or boundaries, it's open-ended. Like life I'm sorry you can't actually define it. A modern combat game like Twilight 2000 will be played a different way by active duty military guys in the 82nd Airborne (and yes, they do play) than by 16 year old kids who have never actually held a gun in their hand.

The research Gary Gygax did for AD&D was actually fairly good for 1974, in a couple of areas he really dug pretty deep. Unfortunately for him the information available then on the Medieval world was very limited, so his results were patchy and inconsistent. It's hard to imagine what he could have created with his initial creative impulse if he'd had the internet.

But I really don't think players need to know anything to enjoy RPGs. I think game designers definitely benefit from doing some serious research, campaign sourcebook and adventure writers and DM's creating new worlds will also benefit.

Is it a requirement? Well that depends on your audience. As long as your game design is a little ahead of their expectations they may be happy with your game. It's kind of like running from a wolf, you only have to be faster than the other guy next to you...

But to me the game material that was based on good research, just like the fantasy or sci fi genre books that were, are the ones which stand out. Robert E Howard, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Tolkein, Fritz Leiber, Gene Wolf, these authors really knew History and Mythology. And it shows in their work.

G.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Does knowing grammar prevent you from using slang?

It may, if learning proper grammar makes you decide you can't stand the slang any more.

I'm just working from personal experience: There are some fictional elements I hate putting up with now because I know more about how the world actually works.

The answer is, there are no fixed limits or boundaries, it's open-ended.

Then can you be certain that someone who knows nothing about a topic can actually do a poorer job than someone who does know? If there are no boundaries then you're including "completely ignorant".

The research Gary Gygax did for AD&D was actually fairly good for 1974, in a couple of areas he really dug pretty deep. Unfortunately for him the information available then on the Medieval world was very limited, so his results were patchy and inconsistent. It's hard to imagine what he could have created with his initial creative impulse if he'd had the internet.

And would it have been as interesting? Maybe to you, you seem to like reality elements in your game. Whereas I like story elements in my game, and sometimes that means you have to be unrealistic.

But I really don't think players need to know anything to enjoy RPGs. I think game designers definitely benefit from doing some serious research, campaign sourcebook and adventure writers and DM's creating new worlds will also benefit.

I tried this. I still do a little while I'm working. But I increasingly find that it only bogs me down with too many details that I can't pick from, that I don't know which ones I have to have in order to get it all "right". I do better making things up from what I pick up not researching, I don't feel like I have to wonder so much (and even then if I know too much about something I get stuck again).

But to me the game material that was based on good research, just like the fantasy or sci fi genre books that were, are the ones which stand out. Robert E Howard, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Tolkein, Fritz Leiber, Gene Wolf, these authors really knew History and Mythology. And it shows in their work.

Never read any of them. (I've never even heard of them outside the gamer community (except for Tolkein).) Knowledge of history and myth isn't what impresses me.

What impresses me is conventions, clichés, tropes and breaking them and how. And to do that you don't have to use real information. You can, if you want to break a non-real cliché, but if you're using real information to prop up a trope than it's no different to me than using non-real information.