Martial arts affecting your GMing style

[ExploderWizard]

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

No, include rapier fighters. SCA rapier combat uses actual epee blades but the contact rules do not permit a full speed thrust despite the padded tips and armor. It is about sport after all, and safety is a priority.

 

[Galloglaich]

No, include rapier fighters. SCA rapier combat uses actual epee blades but the contact rules do not permit a full speed thrust despite the padded tips and armor. It is about sport after all, and safety is a priority.

yes but some of the SCA rapier people are using real rapiers and more importantly, studying Marrozzo, Vadi etc. In fact some of the people who got the HEMA ball rolling came out of SCA rapier, one of them is in my fencing group.

G.

 

[ExploderWizard]

yes but some of the SCA rapier people are using real rapiers and more importantly, studying Marrozzo, Vadi etc. In fact some of the people who got the HEMA ball rolling came out of SCA rapier, one of them is in my fencing group.

G.

Sure they may use real weapons and the groups that splinter off may practice something closer to fencing than the SCA, but unless the engagement rules havechanged in the past decade or so, offical rapier combat within the SCA is still closer to sport-even schlager.

 

[Galloglaich]

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

It doesn't. You are writing with correct grammar now. You also have the luxury of moving in and out of slang for fun, for emphasis etc., but can express yourself clearly if you need to. If all you knew was Jerry Springer speak, nobody would read anything you wrote on this forum.

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.

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".

Let me put it this way. Lets imagine you were put in charge of designing a new RPG based on some kind of Guerilla war, say a Halo spinoff, at a pretty simple level of abstraction but it had to be fun. You had 4 people to choose from that you could hire to write the game, 1) a 14 year old boy who had never been out of his suburb but played lots of Halo, 2) a 35 year old soldier with four tours in Iraq who had never played an RPG or a computer game, 3) a 25 year old soldier who had done one tour in Iraq and had some game design experience and played Halo, or 4) a 40 year old man who has never lived anywhere but his mothers basement or left the suburb where he grew up, but has played RPGs and Computer games 20 hours a week since he was 14.

Personally I'd hire #3, I think he would design a better game than all the others combined that I think #1 and #2 would enjoy playing equally, though #4 may or may not like. A lot of people would prefer the game made by #4 of course, YMMV.

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.

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).

Half-assed research gives you half-assed results. If you fully understand something, you will make a better system, not necessary with realistic elements that are visible on the surface, but built upon them as a firmanent. Trying to over-reach by sporadically looking at a few things superfiicially won't help that much, because as you say you will put things in piecemeal and out of context.

Here is another analogy. The guys who did the writing for Buggs Bunny knew a lot about the ways of the real world, that didn't make their cartoon a news show or a documentary, far from it! But it informed how it was created, it's what gave it legs. It's what made the humor bite.

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.

Well amigo, though they may not impress you those writers are the people who invented the conventions, clichés and tropes that DnD and the entire Fantasy genre are based on, and while you may not have heard of them, they are vastly more influential than all the Star Trek fanfic writers, anime writers, slash fiction authors, and throw-away fantasy series which line the shelves of most bookstores today (and are gone tomorrow). These guys stuff is always in print, and probably always will be, because they created the genre. What gave them the ability to do that was their deep knowledge of History and Mythology.

The deep familiarity is what allowed Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Robert E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft, and yes, even Tolkein, to intelligently break these tropes and play with them resulting in stories that were still consistent and plausible enough for people to buy into. Those who unintelligently play with these real sources create a muddle and are quickly forgotten.... whereas authors who have made up their own truly original Fantasy tropes, cliches etc. right out of thin air without basing them on History or Mythology are few and far between, if they exist at all.

G.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

It doesn't. You are writing with correct grammar now. You also have the luxury of moving in and out of slang for fun, for emphasis etc., but can express yourself clearly if you need to. If all you knew was Jerry Springer speak, nobody would read anything you wrote on this forum.

But if knowing proper grammar meant that you could never go back to writing slang, even if you wanted to, because now you loath it can you really say that you're better off? I wouldn't.

Half-assed research gives you half-assed results. If you fully understand something, you will make a better system, not necessary with realistic elements. Trying to over-reach by sporadically looking at a few things superificially won't help that much, because as you say you will put things in out of context.

And doing a whole lot of research to the point at which you can no longer stand the information and decide to dump the project is worse.

Well amigo, those writers are the people who invented the conventions, clichés and tropes that DnD and the entire Fantasy genre are based on, and while you may not have heard of them, they are vastly more influential than all the Star Trek fanfic writers, slash fiction authors, and throw-away fantasy novels which line the shelves of most bookstores today (and are gone tomorrow). These guys stuff is always in print, and probably always will be, because they created the genre. What gave them the ability to do that was their deep knowledge of History and Mythology.

Stories existed long before those writers came on the scene. Tropes and conventions existed before they did. I don't have to be impressed with them over some imagined gratitude. If they had not existed my interest would still be relevant.

Amount of work does not impress me. You can exhaustively research a subject, but if you don't know how to present it so that your audience cares then only those who create their own interest will. Can you honestly say that you'd care about those writers if they'd done the same amount of research but written crappy books?

EDIT Due to EDIT:

The deep familiarity is what allowed Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Robert E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft, and yes, even Tolkein, to intelligently break these tropes and play with them resulting in stories that were still consistent and plausible enough for people to buy into. Those who unintelligently play with these real sources create a muddle and are quickly forgotten.... whereas authors who have made up their own truly original Fantasy tropes, cliches etc. right out of thin air without basing them on History or Mythology are few and far between, if they exist at all.

Like I said I haven't read any of these authors. But you sound like those people I hear tout the supposed virtues of "literature". Yet when I read the books they hold up I don't get whatever feeling makes them like those books so much. All I read is a mess that I think is trying to convey a message but failing because there is too much information presented and not enough direction. (I'm sorry if I'm reading something into your comments that you're not trying to say, but this is the only comparason I have.)

 

[ArghMark]

Actually I do rapier in the SCA. We study the manuals and try to reproduce the techniques (and find new ones). the no full force thing is a little strange, as I haven't heard that before. We aren't allowed to slam someone with full strength, but it doesn't mean it isn't at full speed. I attack as fast as I can. I thought that stabbing people didn't take a lot of force to penetrate.

I guess the nature of the problem is our safety rules. I'm not certain they 'remove' our status as real fencers though. I've fought fencers from other groups (we meet up occasionally) and we haven't been slackers in the fight department.

I can't really comment on heavy fighting, but I know most guys (and girls) who fight study I.33 or some of the multitude of longsword books. Unfortunately the weapons simply aren't similar enough the actual thing to really simulate historical fighting too well.

I've never LARPed, but hitting something with a weapon is still that, light as it is. Certainly you can't deny that SCA and LARP people haven't had some form of combat experience.

 

[Galloglaich]

Actually I do rapier in the SCA. We study the manuals and try to reproduce the techniques (and find new ones). the no full force thing is a little strange, as I haven't heard that before. We aren't allowed to slam someone with full strength, but it doesn't mean it isn't at full speed. I attack as fast as I can. I thought that stabbing people didn't take a lot of force to penetrate.

I guess the nature of the problem is our safety rules. I'm not certain they 'remove' our status as real fencers though. I've fought fencers from other groups (we meet up occasionally) and we haven't been slackers in the fight department.

Like I said I have met some people who were in SCA rapier group who are definitely legit Historically grounded fencers who you wouldn't want to tangle with in a real fight. I don't know much about the internal structure of the SCA other than that.

I can't really comment on heavy fighting, but I know most guys (and girls) who fight study I.33 or some of the multitude of longsword books. Unfortunately the weapons simply aren't similar enough the actual thing to really simulate historical fighting too well.

I've never LARPed, but hitting something with a weapon is still that, light as it is. Certainly you can't deny that SCA and LARP people haven't had some form of combat experience.

It's good to hear that they are starting to look at I.33 or some other HEMA books, and I don't want to get into a debate about HEMA vs. the SCA or anything, but I really don't think the Heavy Weapons fighters have combat experience per se, it's a game with rules, a rough game but so is football. I've met some tough SCA guys, and there is no doubt you learn timing and how not to telegraph and some other important things like that, but the safety rules (and kit) are so restrictive you really can't do almost anything like real fighting. You can only adapt stuff from I.33 so much to that system (not very much)

LARP is really just boffer-tag.

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

But if knowing proper grammar meant that you could never go back to writing slang, even if you wanted to, because now you loath it can you really say that you're better off? I wouldn't.
And doing a whole lot of research to the point at which you can no longer stand the information and decide to dump the project is worse.

It hasn't worked that way for me, quite the opposite. Understanding more about things has increased my appreciation for the good movies, books, games etc., and helped me find more of the kind I liked.

Stories existed long before those writers came on the scene.

Yes, and those stories are called Mythology

I don't have to be impressed with them over some imagined gratitude. If they had not existed my interest would still be relevant. Amount of work does not impress me. (snip) Can you honestly say that you'd care about those writers if they'd done the same amount of research but written crappy books?

Do you seriously think that is what I was suggesting?

Nobody wants to impress you, I'm certainly not trying to. I'm trying to get a point across, probably badly. I wouldn't ever suggest you are supposed to "like" an author because they did a lot of work... that would be really daft. I'm suggesting the reason their books were good (and successfully popularized the Fantasy genre...leading to games like DnD) is partly because of their command of History and Mythology (and literature). There are plenty of good writers who can't write good fiction, a lot of them do sit coms for TV

Like I said I haven't read any of these authors. But you sound like those people I hear tout the supposed virtues of "literature". Yet when I read the books they hold up I don't get whatever feeling makes them like those books so much. All I read is a mess that I think is trying to convey a message but failing because there is too much information presented and not enough direction. (I'm sorry if I'm reading something into your comments that you're not trying to say, but this is the only comparason I have.)

Since you are guessing a little about who I am, I hope you will forgive me for guessing that you are pretty young? I also think we are talking past each other, but let me be clear if I can: if a book (or a game) doesn't stand on it's merit, you should not like it just because it's "supposed to be" good. Either it's good or it isn't mate. And not all Literature is as good as people make it out to be, no arguments there.

Bottom line, I think different strokes for different folks, I suspect you and I have very different tastes, no harm in that, and I apparently did a bad job of trying to get my point across, so I'll leave you to your opinions.

G.

 

[outsider]

While my knowledge of combat has grown over the years(though not to the point of most people posting in this thread), it hasn't affected my gaming very much. A game like D&D isn't really trying to accurately represent medieval swordplay and such. What it's trying to accurately represent is fantasy fiction. For me, combat knowledge mostly serves as inspiration. I'll take something I know about real combat, amp it up to the point of fantastical, and then use it in some way.

Basically, if I wanted to experience something like a real fight I'd go learn some muay thai or jujitsu. D&D is for when I want to be Conan, Aragorn, or King Leonidas(as depicted in The 300).

 

[Tinker Gnome]

I do not have any experience with any real life martial arts. I find I do not need any for the games I do get to run. It is just not important to me or my players.