Your Red Monkey Fist is no match for my Flaming Tiger Kick!

[greyorm]

So, ever since I recieved my copy of Sex & Sorcery I've been trying to think of a way to make the martial arts system therein more than just color, to make the choice of whether or not you use a Grab or a Throw count, to make the return to Stance an actual choice -- as it stands, there is none, unless you're defending.

As it stands, the rule that "If a character uses a move that does not flow from his previous one, the character's defense dice are reduced to one" is meaningless, since there are no situations wherein the character would choose or be forced to use a different move than one it is linked to.

It is a rule that may as well not have even been included because it never comes up, except by player choice, and then why would anyone ever choose to do so? (there is no in-game, mechanical reason for it to happen or be desired)

This is because "No move is intrinsically more effective than any other."

What I am hoping to provide is a balanced system based on those rules, which add an element of traditional kung-fu cinema to the system, and actually allow a group to make use of the rule about the consequences for the use of non-flowing moves by making a non-flowing move useful.

I've considered a number of options.
The first was a Swashbuckler-style matrice of moves, with the Defender's following roll modified by a certain number of dice based on which move his Attacker utilized (Attacker and Defender refer to initiative's winner and loser).

The second item I considered was having each martial arts style contain a Flaw -- a move (or better, a combination of moves) which would leave them at a serious disadvantage if the attacker chose .

The third item I considered was the matrice idea, as above, but with modifications to the initiative roll based on what moves the opponents chose (rather than to the Defender's roll).

The first contains elements of strategy in choice as well as some luck...picking the best move to beat your opponent with is only functional if you manage to win initiative and are declared the attacker. It is possible that a winning move for an Attacker could be a losing move for a Defender. But developing the matrice fairly and with a modicum of realism is proving a bit difficult.

The second invites a player to (possibly) break out of his flow of moves in order to deliver a vicious and telling strike to his enemy, and it also relies on tactics and luck as above, with a great deal riding on a player managing to win initiative (or survive a blow with now pathetic defense). However, I'm worried it might be too static in play.

The last is fairly straightforward and uncomplicated, but there is no random element of luck in it -- players can easily memorize what gives them a bonus and just wait until the other person has declared what move is being used (ie: "A Long Strike? Well, of course I use Divert, then.")

Upon thinking about it, that is not so much a concern, since one could not always choose the "best" option unless one wished to break out of their flow of moves.

Also, one could rectify this possible "cheat" by making players put cards or markers face down on the table instead of calling out what move they were using in any order.

So, that's where I'm at right now. Anyone have any comments, questions, insights, or so forth?

[Rich Forest]

Hi Raven,

I think there are a couple things you're overlooking about the martial arts rules for Sorcerer.  The linking rule has a very specific and concrete in-game effect.  What's more, you've actually named it yourself:

there are no situations wherein the character would choose or be forced to use a different move than one it is linked to.

It seems to me that that is the reason for the linking rules.  They enforce consistent choices among practitioners of a particular style.  It has a very clear "structural" function of organizing how martial arts combats play out.  This is of course for color, on one hand, but I don't agree that it's mechanically useless or undesirable as anything more than color.  

Now here, I'll admit, it will depend on how you choose to interpret Ron's note in the text that "effectiveness is strictly a function of the existing combat system, specifically bonus dice for moment-to-moment tactics as judged by the GM and group in general."  I'd interpret it pretty strictly—if I can predict what you're going to do next, for example, and say I'll "get inside his long thrust kick (Long Strike) and blast him with a head butt (Power Inside)" before you declare you're actually doing a Long Strike, I should get some good bonus dice out of it.  And now you're stuck, aren't you?  Because if you do go ahead with the Long Strike that we both know is next in line in your combo (see, I've been paying attention to how you fight), I'm going to have the bonus dice.  But what if you break out of the link then and do something that isn't supposed to follow?  I won't get my bonus dice, and you're not out much.  Sure, you need to do a stance next round to get back your dice, but so what?  It's a pretty safe move, so it is possible to go outside your set of links if you want to.  

This is, I suppose, going to depend on the group establishing how these bonus dice are being handed out, perhaps quite concretely.  If prediction is going to be key to getting bonus dice, you might need to have players write down what they expect the opponent to do and what they're doing to respond.  Then you just assign bonus dice to the player who's made the best choice/prediction.  Or to no one, if they're both off.  

Even this may not even be necessary—in the "free for all" of move declaration in Sorcerer, the player who predicts first controls the choices available to the opponent, to some extent.  By predicting, I'm saying, "I get bonus dice if you do this!"  Now you can't get bonus dice unless you continue with your next link and I was wrong. I'll get them if you continue with the predicted link, and if you break out then I've just limited your options not only this round, but next round as well—you're going to need to refocus, and that's just a defensive action.  I'm setting the pace, I'm the aggressor.  

Now, this all depends on how you interpret the moment-to-moment tactics dice, but I think it adds some elements of strategy without adding any additional rules.  I may be overlooking something here, of course, since I've only actually played Sorcerer a few times and all without the martial arts rules.  But it's a possible place to start.

I'd also add that I think worrying about cheating is probably unnecessary.  My group played Street Fighter: the Storytelling Game, a game where "your chosen maneuver" and "my chosen maneuver" interact in very meaningful, often critical ways, and one where combat cards are assumed to be used to avoid cheating.  We discarded them, and just trusted that no one would cheat.  What's the point of winning a martial arts fight if you did it by changing your move at the last minute?  I think if you trust the people in your play group, they'll live up to it.  I've seen it happen over and over that someone said, "Damn.  I shouldn't have picked 'Throw' this round, but I did."  And this is in Street Fighter, where winning and losing tournament matches is very, very important—central even—to character advancement.  I would not expect any worse of people in Sorcerer, where this whole winning and losing/strategic martial arts thing is secondary to everyone's agenda.

Rich

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Raven, I think you might be underestimating the importance of immediate terrain and moment-to-moment goals in Sorcerer combat. A player might really, really want have his character throw someone into or over something in particular, although his last move doesn't permit it to flow, or perhaps Throw isn't linked into his other moves at all. The rules as they stand permit this to occur, and strongly encourage the character to return to Stance.

This kind of moment is so common in complex Sorcerer confrontations that I think your claim that "there are no situations wherein the character would choose or be forced to use a different move than one it is linked to" is mistaken. I think that such situations arise constantly and that in combination with the limits that Rich outlines, produce exactly the effects I'm after.

Remember, everyone knows all the moves, even if they aren't included in the style's link chart.

I suggest that an effectiveness-vs.-move matrix for each move is a very, very bad idea for Sorcerer using this martial arts system. I considered it carefully when building the rules for Sex & Sorcery and rejected it.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

*click*

Thank you both for your replies, it makes a great deal more sense now given what you've both said. I haven't used them in a game yet precisely because I was worried about the tactical elements -- I was too focused on the moves themselves and nothing outside them (the use of scenery for tactical choices, and tactics by themselves -- too much D&D and "it isn't in the rules" or "the rules limit the action").

Then you just assign bonus dice to the player who's made the best choice/prediction.  Or to no one, if they're both off.

I think that's basically what I was attempting to accomplish with my efforts, just codifying it more concretely.