Martial Arts

[Trevelyan]

1.  we mortals do not understand the competence of Strength, Warfare, Psyche and Endurance that is 5 to 25 times grander than our normal experience.
2.  we do not want to rob an Attribute of its implications by grounding it in mortality or ignoring the game design.
3.  we understand the game design is telling us 'who wins' an attribute conflict. The game design does not resolve the finer details of how (accuracy, intuition, speed, smarts, planning) as that detail is for the Players and GM to resolve. The systems tells us who wins, the gamers describe the result and try to tweak the consequence if possible (ah, I am defeated but I had an escape planned!)


Because of 1, we do not really understand how dramatic Fiona's intuition or Gerard's speed is.
Because of 2, we do not really want to subtract intuition from Warfare, even though the rules say that Psyche is intuition (and warnings of danger.)
Because of 3, being strong includes competency and mastery of winning martial arts.

I would marginally contest #1 above, ADRPG clearly overstates the ability of Amberites in comparison with Zelazny to the extent that I believe we can have a reasonable understanding of the competence of an Amberite in all areas save Psyche (where we have no base understanding on which to build).

I would more strongly contest your unstated assumption in #2, that unarmed accuracy is a component of Strength (see below).

#3 as stated in no way speaks to whether martial arts skill is necessarily a part of Strength. If we attribute accuracy to Warfare then #3 serves to reinforce that interpretation instead. Moreover, the system most certainly does rely on more than a single attribute to resolve conflicts, and player tactics play a role in determining which combination of Warfare, Endurance, Strength or even Psyche is used to achieve victory. For a simple conflict the value is key, but adjustments to relative ranks are made in respect of the tactics described and the potential interaction of other attributes.

Your argument hinges primarily on the comment in the attribute section attributing martial arts ability to strength, and proceeds from there in terms of abstract mechanics. The problem with reference to the book is that, for all that the attribute section ascribes knowledge of martial arts to Strength, the combat section attributes the ability to land blows, even if unarmed, to Warfare. Either interpretation remains valid per ADRPG.

[Croaker]

Fair point I was being simplistic . My point is you can't be weak and good at martial arts, or fragile and good at martial arts, you can only be strong, able to take and receive a lot of damage and good at martial arts. Most systems would separate these out.

Just as you can't be a swordmaster and be weak with guns, tactics and strategy, games, leadership... Am I forgeting something?

What seems the more ludicrous? The Strong Guy who can't help being good at hand to hand fighting, or the swordsman who can't help being a master general?

the combat section attributes the ability to land blows, even if unarmed, to Warfare.

Oh? Are you sure? o_O
Can you give me a page, please?
This would be a poor mistake from erick

[jibbajibba]

Just as you can't be a swordmaster and be weak with guns, tactics and strategy, games, leadership... Am I forgeting something?

What seems the more ludicrous? The Strong Guy who can't help being good at hand to hand fighting, or the swordsman who can't help being a master general?

Agreed equally stupid but not the subject of this post ....

Athos faced Napoleon across the dining table. The musketeer armed with his Toledo steel blade laughed at the short Corsican who's only weapon was a butter knife. It was a moment of frivolity he would live to regret, albeit not for very long.

[Arref]

I would marginally contest #1 above, ADRPG clearly overstates the ability of Amberites in comparison with Zelazny to the extent that I believe we can have a reasonable understanding of the competence of an Amberite in all areas save Psyche (where we have no base understanding on which to build).

That's a point which has been made here and elsewhere and I won't debate.  EW makes some emphasis for Attributes that I don't find supported by the canon, but that's the system at play and why I gave a range of 5 to 25.

I stand by the notion that I answered your 'why'.

I would more strongly contest your unstated assumption in #2, that unarmed accuracy is a component of Strength (see below).

#3 as stated in no way speaks to whether martial arts skill is necessarily a part of Strength. If we attribute accuracy to Warfare then #3 serves to reinforce that interpretation instead. Moreover, the system most certainly does rely on more than a single attribute to resolve conflicts, and player tactics play a role in determining which combination of Warfare, Endurance, Strength or even Psyche is used to achieve victory. For a simple conflict the value is key, but adjustments to relative ranks are made in respect of the tactics described and the potential interaction of other attributes.

I'm not sure at what point the concept of skill and mastery is divorced from Attribute discussion or how it adds value to the game to think it is.

The genre and rules are clear that Players can define any skill that suits the background on the PC as designed. Skill is trivial compared to Attribute power. To make the case that accuracy is only Warfare rubs against the implications of high rank in Psyche or Strength having mastery. Elsewhere on this board I mention in a detailed response what the rules actually say about tactical Player direction on the outcome of attribute conflict. The shifts for tactics are minor and must be layered before they alter against attribute rank advantages. This supports the notion that SKILL is inherent to high rank.

It is rather pointless to assign martial arts to Strength and then say that skill in Warfare determines if you can use your Strength to hit something. I doubt this is EW's intention and wait for the clarity of your citation.

Your argument hinges primarily on the comment in the attribute section attributing martial arts ability to strength, and proceeds from there in terms of abstract mechanics. The problem with reference to the book is that, for all that the attribute section ascribes knowledge of martial arts to Strength, the combat section attributes the ability to land blows, even if unarmed, to Warfare. Either interpretation remains valid per ADRPG.

I recall some wording describing Warfare and accuracy but would like to see your citation.

I would say my point hinges primarily on the notion of competence in points allocated to be awesome at something.  I never want to tell a Player that their points spent on Psyche depend on Warfare or their points spent on Endurance depend on Warfare or their points spent on Strength depend on Warfare.

Endurance is specifically called out in the rules as the tie-breaker and has a special function in support of the other Attributes. Otherwise, the conflict areas are clearly defined and introducing Warfare as a control on Strength is unjustified.

[Croaker]

Athos faced Napoleon across the dining table. The musketeer armed with his Toledo steel blade laughed at the short Corsican who's only weapon was a butter knife. It was a moment of frivolity he would live to regret, albeit not for very long.

looooooooool
Good one

[Trevelyan]

Oh? Are you sure? o_O
Can you give me a page, please?
This would be a poor mistake from erick

I don't have the book to hand, but IIRC it's in the example combat showing how to handle a conflict between two PCs.

That example pits a Warfare expert (2nd rank, with 45 points spent) with Amber Strength against a high Strength, low Warfare character (the exact ranks escape me). Eric specifically comments that the higher warfare allows the first character to land punches and kicks on the second character without getting hit in return. In that fight, it is only when the Warfare character runs out of room to manoeuvre that the Strength character has the chance to grab her and start using that Strength.

I'm not sure at what point the concept of skill and mastery is divorced from Attribute discussion or how it adds value to the game to think it is.

I think that in general I agree with your underlying point as regards the rules. My objection is that ADRPG is not consistent in it's treatment of unarmed combat, attributing it to Strength alone or a mix of Strength and Warfare in different passages. Of the two, the mixed approach makes more sense, to me at least.

I actually think that the attribute system blurs the distinction between skill and aptitude. Martial arts are not something that most people would assume it is possible to know intuitively, yet ADRPG in one instance assigns martial arts skill to the attribute that determines physical strength. Likewise, the system assumes that a high Warfare denotes extreme martial skill. Personally I tend to allow character to use only those skills which their backgrounds suggest that should have regardless of underlying attributes, but that's neither here nor there.

The genre and rules are clear that Players can define any skill that suits the background on the PC as designed. Skill is trivial compared to Attribute power.

Skill is only trivial in some cases. While it is quite common to assume that  a high warfare rank allows you to defeat Athos in a duel the first time you pick up a sword, there are many skills without so obvious a link that necessarily become harder to learn. What attribute governs medical training, for example? Why make swordsmanship or martial arts training something that comes from an attribute ranking alone, and yet require specific training for other skills? Of course that's not directly relevent to the question at hand.

To make the case that accuracy is only Warfare rubs against the implications of high rank in Psyche or Strength having mastery.

Really? I don't think I agree.

Psyche has mastery whenever minds are in contact or direct application of will is an issue. Strength has mastery whenever pure physical might is a concern and also determines physical resilience. Warfare covers combat, reflexes and tactics, initially a more diverse portfolio, but one which can be abstracted to physical/spacial awareness and positioning (either of the self or of others, treating an army as a body of men and combat as the interplay between two bodies - perhaps a bit of a stretch). It could be argued that to suggest a master of Warfare looses all sense of coordination and reflexes when unarmed is to allow Strength to impinge on the value of Warfare.

It is rather pointless to assign martial arts to Strength and then say that skill in Warfare determines if you can use your Strength to hit something. I doubt this is EW's intention and wait for the clarity of your citation.

For reasons given above I believe it is rather strange to assign detailed knowledge of obscure combat styles to someone on the basis that they can lift a heavier load than someone else.

I hope my response to Croaker suffices for a citation, I'll check the book tonight if not.

Laying aside the system for a moment, do you agree with the principle that if you have two people, one significantly stronger and the other sufficiantly quicker and more agile, the quicker guy is likely to be able to land blows on the stronger guy than vice cersa, all things being equal?

[Arref]

My objection is that ADRPG is not consistent in it's treatment of unarmed combat, attributing it to Strength alone or a mix of Strength and Warfare in different passages. Of the two, the mixed approach makes more sense, to me at least.

That makes sense. I'm unhappy that the rules text muddies the distinction.

Laying aside the system for a moment, do you agree with the principle that if you have two people, one significantly stronger and the other sufficiantly quicker and more agile, the quicker guy is likely to be able to land blows on the stronger guy than vice cersa, all things being equal?

Being unclear as to whether you are asking about 'real life' or two royals inside the rpg environ... I'll answer both ways.

From what I know, the quicker guy should be able to hit the stronger guy more often and to less effect.

From the way I read the rules, the quicker guy can demonstrate any amount of hitting the stronger guy and lose.
 
From the canon, Corwin can hit Gerard any number of times and still lose.
Having the high Warfare makes you look good in a Strength contest, but you still lose.

[Trevelyan]

Being unclear as to whether you are asking about 'real life' or two royals inside the rpg environ... I'll answer both ways.

I was going for real life, but as a prelude to turning the answer back towards the game so you've saved me a post...

From what I know, the quicker guy should be able to hit the stronger guy more often and to less effect.

I entirely agree. It's this approach that I think the rules in ADRPG are trying to get at (per the mixed applicability of Warfare and Strength).

From the way I read the rules, the quicker guy can demonstrate any amount of hitting the stronger guy and lose.

I think I see where you're coming from now. Are you basically saying that the ability of a higher Warfare to land more blows on a lower Warfare is irrelevent if Strength is the ultimate determiner of unarmed combat, and that the narrative development of the fight might take a flurry of weaker blows into account but they will ultimately fail to overcome the higher Strength?
 

From the canon, Corwin can hit Gerard any number of times and still lose.

But from the canon, Corwin only lost because Gerard had preselected an enclosed arena where Corwin was unable to fully utilise his Warfare advantage. He ran out of space to avoid Gerard and it was only then that Gerard was able to turn the fight his way. Corwin even remarks on this exact feature of the landscape before the fight.

[Arref]

From the way I read the rules, the quicker guy can demonstrate any amount of hitting the stronger guy and lose.

I think I see where you're coming from now. Are you basically saying that the ability of a higher Warfare to land more blows on a lower Warfare is irrelevent if Strength is the ultimate determiner of unarmed combat, and that the narrative development of the fight might take a flurry of weaker blows into account but they will ultimately fail to overcome the higher Strength?

In a nutshell.

The better part of Warfare is either not getting into the contest (you see it coming) or escaping the contest. Once in the conflict with a higher Strength, you've lost and it is all about the moderation of coming out second.

But from the canon, Corwin only lost because Gerard had preselected an enclosed arena where Corwin was unable to fully utilise his Warfare advantage. He ran out of space to avoid Gerard and it was only then that Gerard was able to turn the fight his way. Corwin even remarks on this exact feature of the landscape before the fight.

But the way I play the game (and GM), Gerard picking the location/environ is skill associated with Strength. It's inherent to Gerard's high attribute. It is not "only then" as you suggest but precedes and causes the victory. Corwin has no chance because of the planned action of the Strength master.

"Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth!"

Now the fun part of rp to determine is just as with any other attribute conflict: how do I keep my attribute advantaged?

[pspahn]

Hi guys, coming at this from a real world perspective rather than an RPG one, wrestling and judo are NOT strength-based arts.  You can win the world's strongest man competition 10 times in a row, but without proper training, a skilled wrestler or judoka will still toss you on your ass.  The argument becomes even more problematic if you factor in martial arts like Brazilian Jiu-jutsu.  This is a martial art originally derived from the Japanese.  The Brazilians, particularly the Gracie-Barra school, specifically trained so that a smaller, lighter guy could beat a bigger guy in streetfighting--not just on a mat where there are rules.  But if you look at the early UFC matches, you have Royce Gracie at 170 pounds DOMINATING huge guys that outweighed him by twice as much or more.  He did it with pure skill at grappling, moving his body to get joint locks and chokes, all the while avoiding getting pounded by his bigger and stronger opponents--and they were grappling the whole time, so clearly strength was not an issue.  His brother Rixon (pronounced Hixon) was even better than him and is a pit-fighting legend who went 200-0 in bare-knuckle fights, all using Gracie jiu-jutsu.  Look up Rixon on Youtube and you'll see some amazing fights against larger opponents.  

Now, here's the thing, although wrestling, judo, and jiu-jutsu are not strength-based, all else being equal (as in, two people who have the same level of skill), strength DOES become a deciding factor.  There's an old saying:  "A good big man will beat a good little man" and that's pretty much true in any combat sport.  A bigger stronger opponent with the same level of skill will be able to wear down the smaller weaker opponent more often than not.  

But I see a lot of people saying wrestling is all about strength so I just wanted to add my 2.  

That was from a real world perspective.  From a game perspective, I can't say.  Ideally it would make sense to use Warfare or Strength, depending on the player's vision of the art, but as others have pointed out, this may devalue one or the other (particularly strength).  

Pete

[jibbajibba]

Expanding on the real world element you have Chiyonofuji Mitsugu aka the wolf who is argueably the greatest ever Sumo champion dispite being 1/2 the size of the other guys.

[Croaker]

Hum...
If you go that way, one could argue that wrestling and grappling is warfare... And everyone would laugh at gerard.

What is so difficult to believe in the idea that someone may have honed his body for HtH combat (be it karate, judo, wrestling...), which encompass the skill, the resilience and the potency usefull for such battles? Because this is exactly what strength it.
I'd also add that strength and bodily mass do not nescessarily go by pair, and that, for the "jet li" type, the "potency" aspect of the Strength attribute may very well be explained through full exploitation of one's movements and the ennemy's weakness.

[RPGPundit]

I think wrestling and grappling is Strength no doubt.  But there might be other kinds of hand-to-hand that might be based on warfare rather than strength; stuff that focuses on critical hits on vital areas, nerve pinches, etc.

RPGPundit

[Nihilistic Mind]

I think wrestling and grappling is Strength no doubt.  But there might be other kinds of hand-to-hand that might be based on warfare rather than strength; stuff that focuses on critical hits on vital areas, nerve pinches, etc.

RPGPundit

I'm not sure why Strength couldn't encompass those specifics as well if the GM decides that it is so, and I think GMs need to make that really clear to players at the beginning of the game: which stats do what in unarmed combat.
Besides, when detecting vital areas and nervous sytem, etc, why not use Psyche?
Warfare might determine 'when' the best time to hit those vital spots are...

At this point, if a GM has an open mind about unarmed combat rules, the player could determine which stat to use based on their descriptions.

[gabriel_ss4u]

Expanding on the real world element you have Chiyonofuji Mitsugu aka the wolf who is argueably the greatest ever Sumo champion dispite being 1/2 the size of the other guys.

Not to mention O-Sensei: Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido, sumo champ at 90 lbs. or so.