Quote from: Domina on Today at 06:02:44 PMIs there some reason this had to be a video rather than a few paragraphs of text?

The video makes him money and a few paragraphs of text don't.

Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on Today at 07:19:22 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on Today at 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Except that Frodo didn't do battle with Sauron for The Ring. Tolkien literally inverted the trope of the 'hero fighting the evil overlord'. Aragorn's rise to the position of King of the Reunited Realms of Númenor in Exile was incidental, in the grand scheme of things, to the fall of Sauron. The destruction of The Ring was absolutely divine providence instead. Frodo failed at the end, as he was always going to fail because that was the point. It was the pity that both Bilbo and Frodo had shown Gollum that enabled that last bit to happen, chiefly the curse Frodo laid upon him on the slopes of Orodruin.

I never said Tolkien used the Hero's Journey structure invented by Campbell. I said George Lucas and J.K. Rowling copied Tolkien.


Also, Tolkien didn't invert the trope because it wasn't even invented yet. The idea of evil overlords comes from Tokien! (Yes, Christianity has Satan, but Satan whispers in the hearts of all mortals, he's not ruling the earth from a haunted castle that a group of teenage boys try to raid in an mmo expansion.)

Quote from: SHARK on April 22, 2024, 03:55:16 PMAs I recall, the saying is "Politics is downstream from Culture."

I believe Andrew Breitbart said that.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on Today at 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Except that Frodo didn't do battle with Sauron for The Ring. Tolkien literally inverted the trope of the 'hero fighting the evil overlord'. Aragorn's rise to the position of King of the Reunited Realms of Númenor in Exile was incidental, in the grand scheme of things, to the fall of Sauron. The destruction of The Ring was absolutely divine providence instead. Frodo failed at the end, as he was always going to fail because that was the point. It was the pity that both Bilbo and Frodo had shown Gollum that enabled that last bit to happen, chiefly the curse Frodo laid upon him on the slopes of Orodruin.

GURPS melee combat is usually fairly realistic once you get into the scrum. What it doesn't have is, outside the combat itself, if you are tracking time, the minute or two people might use to size each other up first. Apart from two skilled fighters, who know each other, occasionally getting into a parry fest, realistic battles tend to go pretty quick. The other realism aspect it doesn't fully address is that it doesn't really touch on how hot and fatigued you can get in one or two minutes of heavy combat. GURPS kind of softballs this by only addressing fatigue after the battle, and only based on encumbrance, and only assessing penalties for pretty severe fatigue depletion.

So, what's the deal? I played MERP and Rolemaster 2e back in the day. Recently, I dipped into Rolemaster Unified, and I liked some things about it, while hating the art and having some criticisms of a few subsystems here and there. So, quite a while ago, I thumbed through a copy of HARP and... well, it didn't grab me. But I see there's a second edition now.

So, the new HARP. What's good, what's bad. How does it compare to HARP 1e? Specifically, what's different, and how much of a difference does it make?

Quote from: Eric Diaz on Today at 09:10:50 AMNo 10-second fight has 20 blows. Maybe you can find a 10-second period in a 5-minute fight with such a frantic pace, or a fight that ended in 10 seconds with a single punch, but I never seem such a frantic pace of attacking in fencing, UFC, larping, or medieval fighting simulations. If you have, send me the YouTube link

10-second combats only make sense if weapons are present and armor absent, but then they'll probably be finished before 20 blows.

Other than that, a duel (not to mention a skirmish) of say, people in swords and armor, will definitely last more than 10-seconds - in fact one might take a few seconds just to find an opening before approaching.

Same for people with no weapons and no armor. - even boxing matches do not have two punches per second, and punching is faster than swinging an axe!

GURPS kinda recognized this by publishing the "lull" supplement I mentioned but unfortunately can't find.

Without armor, I agree that taking a couple of sword blows would lead to death.

You do occasionally see that kind of volume in MMA, though it is quite rare. And I agree with you that it isn't really relevant as a comparison to historical melee combat. Punches can be chained more quickly than effective sword strokes, but more importantly, one generally does not "stand and bang" when edged weapons are in play.

I could see a situation where it would occur: Say two heavily armored knights, that particularly hate each other, meet on a late medieval battlefield. Both are armed with poleaxes, and because of the surrounding mass of friendly and hostile infantry, they don't want to risk closing to grapple. In that circumstance, they might decide to just see who's tougher and has better armor, but no one would go to battle expecting to stand still and duke it out with their opponent.

Ironically, the way D&D combat plays out, it gives the impression that "stand and bang" is exactly what you do. Thinking about it, D&D combat would replicate a boxing match much better than it does a sword-fight.

EDIT: I reread your comment and saw that you mentioned bursts of high activity in the context of longer fights, which is of course what's being shown above. I'd argue though that the slower feeling-out process you get in professional fighting is a product of the round structure. When the same fighters decide to throw down outside of the ring (as they occasionally do), they usually go right at each other at full blast from the get-go.

I'm sure this is only a coincidence...

Quote from: Brad on Today at 12:43:31 PM

Quote from: tenbones on April 01, 2024, 12:55:32 PMLet me throw some out there:

Deathstroke vs. Captain America
man I could do this all day...

Cap never loses. Source: I am a major Cap fanboy.

I confirm the source is valid and irrefutable.

lmao