Re: Martial arts.

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 01:51:03 +0800

>Any system of martial arts based around Generic Close Combat and
>a handful of augments is, I feel, doomed to tediousity. (Which isn't
>to say the background colour can't be made suitably exciting, just
>that the system will end up doing nothing to _help_.)
>
>
>David Cake:
>> A martial arts style in HW should be thought of as more like
>> a Combat Affinity (with accompanying feat like bits and pieces) than
>> just a 1HP combat style.
>
>i.e., a lot like a Broad Ability, really. ;-)

        Flexible magical abilities capable of a wide variety of different uses are a reasonable case for, well, the current mechanics , which closely resemble Broad Abilities.

>Personally, I dislike this, as it seems to proceed from the basis
>that if martial arts aren't a form of theism, then they bleedin'
>well ought to be.

        Err, wot? Sounds like you are confusing a rough suggestion of mechanics with a magic system that happens to use them.

        And you have a fair idea of my actual martial arts mechanics ideas, so you know they are not close to theism in detail.

> > Its very common for martial artists to add a new weapon
>> technique in a few weeks of practice. Thats pretty much what I think
>> the new weapon style is modelling. And its good that it can do so.
>> And much better than game systems where your black belt martial
>> artist always starts weapon techniques at base levels (RQ3, for
>> example).
>
>This is getting back into the debate I said I'd stay out of (and am
>already failing to), but a more pressing question is, how transferable
>is your "black belt" in Centipede Style martial arts to charging on
>a Pentan warhorse with a couched spear? Or to Fonritan-style wrestling?
>Or fighting in close order in a Daxdarian phalanx?
>
>Unless you can make the case that all of the above are best described
>as 1HP "styles" within a single, "narrow" ability, then I'm not
>buying it. I'm not arguing that there be _no_ transference at all,
>even in such extreme cases -- after all, we have the perfect mechanic
>for that: improvisation modifiers. (In this case, flat rate seems
>to me to work just fine.) Essentially total transference, at a frankly
>trivial cost, however, I find problematic.

        Fair enough - add an extra improve penalty, and even an extra HP cost for adding a particularly way out ability.

        Essentially, its an unsolvable problem, though - if we want to accurately simulate these issues in a streamlined narrative game.

	I don't.
	The alleged lack of realism in extreme cases of transference 

of skills is a problem that is a) far better than the opposing problem (and attendant lack of realism) introduced by most attempts to solve it
  b) far less likely to arise in most games than the far more common situations that the rules do model well (ie trained warriors picking up another culturally appropriate weapon combination) and c) the sort of problem that HW that HWs is generally designed to ignore, being a problem of simulation rather than genre.

	Cheers
		David