Martial arts affecting your GMing style

[Storm Raven]

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.)

I don't think anyone would ever confuse Lieber, Moorcock, Vance, or Howard with literature. They were pulp writers, and good ones. Wolfe might be considered literature by some, but that doesn't make his books a mess. More to the point, these were the authors (except for Wolfe, who came later) along with L. Sprague de Camp, Lin Carter, Poul Anderson and a few others whose writings formed the explicit basis for what became D&D. As in, their writings were so influential that you can see things in the game that draw directly from them. If you haven't read them, you owe it to yourself to at least try a couple.

(And they have been fairly popular outside gamer circles: Moorcock, for example, has won Nebulas and Hugos, as did Lieber and Vance. Anderson won a shelf full of writing awards. Howard created Conan).

 

[Hairfoot]

My experience is similar to the OP's. As a child I enjoyed playing a fighter who could take down a dozen orcs in a combat, but after a few years of muay thai and an edifying mugging, I found I couldn't stomach the cheesiness any more. It's one of the reasons I'm leaning toward OD&D again, where combat is more deadly.

 

[smetzger]

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.

There may have been stories but there was no literature.
Tolkien and CS Lewis invented fiction and fantasy. They sat down in a pub and lamented over the fact that there were no fiction fantasy books. So, they decided to create there own genre.

I think from a game designers perspective it is important to read these authors. It gives you an understanding of the influence on D&D. I am not saying a player or even a DM needs to read these authors (although I am sure most of them would enjoy the books). But a designer should.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I have been involved in martial arts for years, and when I first started, it impacted my game. At the end of the day, its a game, and focusing too much on realism isn't what most players seem to want. And it isn't what I want either. I love fighting, but I don't feel that my D&D needs to reflect what I understand about it. There is another issue that comes up though. It can be insulting to parade your martial arts experience at the table. Not that there is anything wrong with being passionate about that sort of activity. But that passion can come accross as thinking you are special or better than others at the table. Also, anyone who is just starting out in martial arts, I can give the following advice from my own experience: don't speak as an authority on the subject until you have been at it for some time, and had a chance to learn a few different styles. I ran my mouth the first six months I started, and certainly looked the fool. Going to different gyms, learning different striking styles and a little grappling, has rounded out my view. That said, I would never pretend to know a darn thing about a medieval sword fight or a modern battle involving guns.

 

[Janx]

some time ago, I blogged about this:

Here's my "real combat" blog: http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/janx/1038-everything-you-dont-know-about-combat.html

Here's my using your real skills blog:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/janx/726-real-skills-helping-your-pc.html

I include them, as they give a sense of perspective on real combat (to which you would try to relate D&D rules and events to, rather than re-writing D&D rules.

The second article is just about how to bring your real world skills to an advantage at the table (and not bogging down the game with questions about wire).

My basic suggestion is to compare your real world knowledge to "how the game rules say it works". You can't re-write the rules (as a player), or shouldn't (as a GM that often is a slippery slope). So figure out what knowledge supports the rules, reinforcing them. De-emphasize the knowledge that says the rules are wrong, it won't help you. From there, the last batch of knowledge remaining is stuff that adds flavor, or might get you a bonus if you can justify doing it in character. That's where the gold is.

 

[Jack7]

Being a bit of a brawler in Ye Olde Punk Rocke days (TM) my friends and I always included realistic combat in our games, though not quite to the extent Jack describes of acting out fights, we still liked to use dice.

Wow, Jack, I must say thats impressive. None of my friends know that much about fencing or hand-to-hand combat other than boys mucking around. Could you explain your description system? I'd like to hear it.

Sorry guys, I almost missed this because of being busy. Didn't mean to ignore your questions.

I don't know if it is impressive or not, never thought of it that way, but I'm not talking about LARPING or having actual fights at the table. I'm just talking about "enacting fights." After you've been involved in enough fights you pretty well know what is possible and not possible, especially in-close combat. But everything you might want to enact you can do with a simple cheap plastic combat knife (used for training) and your forearm standing in as a shield.

Now if you wanna use more complicated props, etc. we've done that before too but after awhile it just gets bogged down and really doesn't add anything much worthwhile if you are familiar in your mind with the weapons used. Then again you have to account for armor, etc, but then again that's just a matter of familiarly versus familiarity with the weapons used, and how the player uses such weapons and defenses.

A lot of D&D fighting is slash, arc of wing, hack, etc. But that's not a real killing fight. We concentrate on killing fights. Meaning you go straight at vulnerable and vital spots with the intent of killing and killing quickly. (Within reason, you have to strike to kill without overexposing yourself to a kill as well.) Killing fights are very different than the typical D&D fight.

Then again another thing I found silly about typical D&D fights is letting the dice dethrone what area of the body you hit, if the subject is ever even discussed. For instance a sword or knife thrust, or even a swing (because of the proscribed arc of travel) can only move through a certain area of space at any given point in time. Just like a bullet can only travel in a straight line (unless deflected or hampered), and if you know this and can interpret the other person's firing trajectory in time then it is relatively easy to avoid being shot by bullets. RPGs are another matter. So if a guy thrusts at a man's heart and if the other guy doesn't move in time then the attacker won't hit his foot just because he rolled a minimum 11 to hit. He'll still hit the area of the heart, just won' penetrate very far. A guy thrusts with his spear at a man's head and makes a minimum roll to hit won't end up putting his tip in the other guy's belly-button. Trajectories just don't work that way and it is simply stupid physics, not to mention ridiculous combat technique to say that chance will determine where you aim and what technique you employ in attack. In every fight I've ever been in I've never said to myself, "well, I'll just throw this out there and we'll see where chance happens to land a score." It's just plain silly and nothing at all even vaguely like a real fight for your life. You know where you're aiming and why. And physics and skill will determine what actual effect such an attack has, not chance. Chance has nothing really to do with it at all. (Now I'm not at all against dice being used to determine unanticipated "friction," being used to describe factors that the attacker didn't account for, which happens all of the time. But the idea that dice should determine attack vectors and arcs of movement, and intentional aim [imagine for instance anyone who fights for a living, that is to say as an occupation, saying, "well, I never aim, I just let chance determine where my strikes land and how my defenses operate" - how long would such a "professional combatant live, and how long would he deserve to live fighting that way?] and strike locations is at the very face of it, absurd. If I were in a gun-fight no dice throw would determine my aim, I would. If I were in a knife fight it wouldn't be chance that led me to believe that I saw an opportunity to stick my opponent through the eye, it would be experience, coupled with other factors. I wouldn't always be able to assure a strike, but I would always assure as a professional combatant where I was actually aiming. Dice have no place at all in determining where a blow falls, though I'm not against it as a mechanical method of determining chance as to whether the strike is actually effective or not.

And in-game, at any point, a player may say to me, "well, I want to fight this fight using the dice." And I let them, but then they have to live with the results. If they use the dice then they must live by that method. However the dice never detriment what the attacker intends or how the defender defends, the dice merely sometimes help determine "chance" and "friction."

Now with experience we also use techniques. Because technique is an actual expression of experience. As far as game combat techniques go I've reviewed Gallo's Codex Martialis, and I like it, and we have adopted and adapted many of those techniques. I recommend it too. Cause it's much more intentional than typical D&D. Because professional combatants would naturally have a real technique or set of techniques. Professional, seasoned combatants would not go into a fight simply flaying their arms and weapons around like an inexperienced 7 year old saying to themselves, "well, if I just make a whirlwind of motion I'm eventually gonna hit something." Yes, you might kid, then again by the time your flail has hit the other guy's big toe you will have been gutted by a fella who knows a little something about real killing. Which means he ain't gonna be aiming for your foot, and your "whirlwind of chance" ain't gonna impress him much at all. (I am not speaking of you personally guys, I am using you in the general sense, of the typical D&D flail around til you hit something type of fight.) He intends to kill you, and he knows what that means, how he has to go about it, and where he needs to aim in the most effective and efficient display of lethal force. He isn't interested in a ten minute fight, because he is experienced at real and lethal combat. He's far more interested in walking away from the fight with you dead and him relatively unscathed, meaning he is far more interested in the ten second, or less, kill. And chance and accident has very, very, very little to do with that kind of "killing efficiency."

So we never use dice to determine aim and intention and technique.

Instead we employ techniques like this: The Tactical Repertoire

By the way, we demonstrate what we intend in a fight, and we describe what everyone is already familiar with or well acquainted with. But we also use that same system to role play and to demonstrate skills. We never use math as a substitute for actual ability. Because math is not ability, it is simply an abstract expression of "real things." That is we don't roll for how skills work, we either describe what we are doing or demonstrate it. (Within reason of course, sometimes things are attempted which are not within normal behavior patterns. At times like that we use either modified dice encounters, or use some other method. But if a guy is gonna pick a pocket or track a bear or make fire or climb a surface then the player shows how he is gonna do it, or describes it. So as in fighting, we use our real world skills in-game. And if a player wants to use or learn a new skill then he learns how it really operates, in the real world, and then he can employ it in-game.)

If somebody else asked me a question then sorry, that's all I've had time to catch up on so far.

In such a world, if we took it as realistic, what sorts of fighting techniques would develop? How would you hunt displacer beast or wyvern?

How would martial arts differ if you actually could learn to telekinetically throw people, or shoot fire from your hands. I mean, Okinawans developed karate as a weaponless fighting style because they weren't allowed to have weapons. Ditto capoeira in the Caribbean and Brazil. How do tyrants keep the peasants from being a threat when a peasant can pray to nature and summon an insect plague to kill the tyrant's warriors?

I'm really intrigued by how magic would have influenced society, and not enough attention gets paid to the fields of finance and personal combat. People prefer flashy fantasy, not speculative fiction.

I like where you are going with your ideas. And I think that is such a world, although much would be different, it would also be hard to imagine such a world operating by "chance." Techniques would develop over time to account for numerous things, that's the way progress happens. And I'm with you, not much attention is paid to finance. Though much attention should be.

Well, I gotta scoot. Lots to do today and my wife is headed up north on a mission's trip and I gotta help her secure all the details, and then take the kids out. Lator gators.

Here's my "real combat" blog: http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/j...ut-combat.html

Here's my using your real skills blog:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/j...g-your-pc.html

I include them, as they give a sense of perspective on real combat (to which you would try to relate D&D rules and events to, rather than re-writing D&D rules.

The second article is just about how to bring your real world skills to an advantage at the table (and not bogging down the game with questions about wire).

My basic suggestion is to compare your real world knowledge to "how the game rules say it works". You can't re-write the rules (as a player), or shouldn't (as a GM that often is a slippery slope). So figure out what knowledge supports the rules, reinforcing them. De-emphasize the knowledge that says the rules are wrong, it won't help you. From there, the last batch of knowledge remaining is stuff that adds flavor, or might get you a bonus if you can justify doing it in character. That's where the gold is.

I'll go back and read what you posted with some interest Janx. We also use Real World Skills and have for a long time so it will be interesting to see your take on it.

 

[jasin]

So if a guy thrusts at a man's heart and if the other guy doesn't move in time then the attacker won't hit his foot just because he rolled a minimum 11 to hit. He'll still hit the area of the heart, just won' penetrate very far. A guy thrusts with his spear at a man's head and makes a minimum roll to hit won't end up putting his tip in the other guy's belly-button. Trajectories just don't work that way and it is simply stupid physics, not to mention ridiculous combat technique to say that chance will determine where you aim and what technique you employ in attack.

Indeed. But what makes you think that this is how D&D works?

 

[jasin]

By the way, we demonstrate what we intend in a fight, and we describe what everyone is already familiar with or well acquainted with. But we also use that same system to role play and to demonstrate skills. We never use math as a substitute for actual ability. Because math is not ability, it is simply an abstract expression of "real things." That is we don't roll for how skills work, we either describe what we are doing or demonstrate it. (Within reason of course, sometimes things are attempted which are not within normal behavior patterns. At times like that we use either modified dice encounters, or use some other method. But if a guy is gonna pick a pocket or track a bear or make fire or climb a surface then the player shows how he is gonna do it, or describes it. So as in fighting, we use our real world skills in-game. And if a player wants to use or learn a new skill then he learns how it really operates, in the real world, and then he can employ it in-game.)

So you can never play someone with capabilities different from your own? That's a pretty weird role playing game.

 

[Galloglaich]

My basic suggestion is to compare your real world knowledge to "how the game rules say it works". You can't re-write the rules (as a player), or shouldn't (as a GM that often is a slippery slope). So figure out what knowledge supports the rules, reinforcing them. De-emphasize the knowledge that says the rules are wrong, it won't help you. From there, the last batch of knowledge remaining is stuff that adds flavor, or might get you a bonus if you can justify doing it in character. That's where the gold is.

It isn't bad advice but I don't think we should just give in to substandard combat rules because I don't think we have to.

I'd advocate using a system that gives you the 'grammar' you can use to play out combat in a cinematic way that lets your real martial arts knowledge actually work if you want to use it, but doesn't require that.

Yes GM's tinkering with rules can be a slippery slope because this usually means adding half thought through elements onto a broken system piecemeal. But if on the other hand you take a serious look at real fighting and do good research, you can make a good fast paced system that has the elements of a real fight. I think I have proved that it can be done with the Codex, though that is just one way to do it. There could be a variety of different approaches for handling combat, with different levels of detail, different emphasis on more cinematic fighting or more based on one particular Martial Art or another, Modern or Ancient, Eastern or Western or South Asian etc. etc.

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

Then again another thing I found silly about typical D&D fights is letting the dice dethrone what area of the body you hit...

I agree Hit Locations can be a problem in tabletop RPGs (thats why I completely avoided that in the Codex), and get what you are saying about aiming at the face and hitting the foot, but having done a lot of sparring with a myriad of weapons I disagree with you that there is no random element in fighting when you are facing an uncooperative opponent.

In our weekly fencing practice we often aim at one part of the body (say the head) and hit a completely different area like the arm, the shoulder, the back etc. even the legs especially in a zornhau (overhand cut). Sometimes you thought you missed and you got a hit in an area you completely differnt from where you expected. Fights are chaotic and often much more random than Martial Arts training can lead you to believe especially if you don't spar a lot.

But you do have a point in that some attacks, some weapons etc. are more precise than others and you are generally far more likely to hit close to where you were aiming than in the opposite side of the body. You can emulate this in RPG rules (having different hit location tables depending on where you were aiming, for example) but you are on a slippery slope toward greater and greater complexity that I personally feel is better handled in a computer game.

That said I have done systems which were at that level of detail in the past, and other games like TROS did this pretty successfully, so it can be done.

Personally I like a faster paced game, I like the random element to be there, but I also like the players to have some control over it, like how the Martial Pool works in the codex.

I think I do understand what you are describing and with a good group I think it could work well and be fun, I just don't think you are going to ever have a wide range of people playing RPGs that way.

G.