Applying Martial Arts Theory to RPGs

[Palaskar]

I've been studying Tai Chi for about 6 years now, and it occured to me that there are some interesting parallels between martial arts theory and RPG theory. The two seem to come in distinct levels of mechanics.

The first level is technique-based, which is governed by application. For martial arts, this means that everything is broken down into discrete techniques. For RPGs, this means that everything has a different mechanic (think AD&D classic.)

The next level is tool-based. A tool is basically a technique that is applicable at multiple ranges (nose-to-nose, kicking range, and so on.) Tool-based martial arts, I believe, are governed by principles (the stop-hit and so on.) The RPG analogy would be the universal mechanic. MSH Classic pops in my mind.

The level after that is style-based. Styles are based, at their core, on simple movements. The RPG analogy would be a universal mechanic that applies to things other than action or conflict resolution -- frex, one that also handles chargen.

The next level is based on system. A system is basically a way of accomplishing desired goals through a methodology (specific methods.) The RPG analogy -might- be a biasable universal mechanic -- one with varying levels of detail, handling time, scale, etc.

Finally, we come to the Do, or Way level. This is based on pure awareness. The RPG analogy would be a transparent system. I believe I've come pretty close to this with my latest version of Signature (check out the ressurection of the  thread "When Can We Stop Making Games." Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out how to post .html code while I'm posting.)

So my questions are: What is the highest level of mechanic sophistication achieved thus far in an RPG, with regards to this theory? And how was it done? And how can we reach the higher levels, particularly the level of "Do?"

[Jasper]

This seems to be a spurious link to me.  Techniques, tools, styles, system... these are words that could (validly) be applied to many different things, any of the Arts in particular, for instance.  Either this makes every human action into an art -- a perhaps defensible position -- or makes them all just ordinary human activities...either way I don't see anything special linking RPGs to martial arts.

I also think it is impossible to have a transparent system...this is a myth that can never happen, just as it is impossible to have painting without the limitations of paint and brush.  Of course, points of contact can be minimized...but equating this some higher level of sophistication is also, I think, a red herring: it's just one method of crafting a good RPG.  There's similarly no real way to choose the singel highest example of mechanical "sophistication."

[Andrew Martin]

I also think it is impossible to have a transparent system...this is a myth that can never happen, just as it is impossible to have painting without the limitations of paint and brush.

In our discussion on Transparency some time ago, we concluded that this term is simply a less fitting description for Coherent is. In other words, a Transparent game system is supposed to get out of the way of the players; a Coherent system not only does that but actively aids the players in achieving a desirable play goal.

See:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1799
and:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1909

[Andrew Martin]

And how can we reach the higher levels, particularly the level of "Do?"

I'd suggest having a read of the whole model by Ron at:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8655

[Palaskar]

Martial Arts Theory

Techniques vs. Tools

The problem with 'techniques' in the contexte provided above, is that those who use them look to them for a specific result (in order to establish their next technique) as opposed to the reaction from their attacker as the consenquence of their chosen action. The problem lies within the lack of ability to see the 'fight' outside 'the box', outside of the technical applications, since the individual using it cannot choose if the technique worked or not (especially the way it was designed to function). Your opponent will always dictate what your next 'move' is going to be based on their reactions... behaviour, state of mind, state of being, will dictate.

The mere term "technique" conjures up the image of memorized sequential tactics as a response to a given attack....

The Point of the matter is, is that techniques are incidental. Techniques relate to fixation. Tools in contrast offer diversity and diverse ability. Techniques are easily dismissed in certain situations. Tools aren't. A tool will be used when it is called upon allowing for creative spontaneity moment to moment, a technique will not due to the faction in which it was created. For instance, a hammer is a tool. Primarily designed for hammering in nails but the diversity of this tool is widespread and its functions exceed 'the nail'. A technique will fixate an individual on its use and they hinder creativity.
(http://www.senshido.com)

Styles vs. System vs. Methodology

"Current discussions and written treatises on martial arts training often treat the terms "Style" and "System" as interchangeable, yet they are not at all synonymous. A style is a form that is distinctive and identifiable as an artistic expression with characteristics particular to the artist. In contrast, a system is a combination of intricately related elements organized into a complex whole that produces results far greater than the mathematical sum of its individual parts. "

"A complete system is one that at all times adheres to a consistent philosophy yielding practical combat applications, practical training methodologies, and a complete science with principles, concepts, strategies, and tactics that do not allow the outcome of an engagement to be determined by luck. Every aspect of a complete system must be consistent with every other part. A system's philosophy is what drives that consistency. Most martial arts studied today lack an overriding philosophy that guarantees consistency throughout training and application. They are best classified as styles rather than as systems."(adapted from http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=322)

In order to avoid confusion, let me define and note the differences between martial arts 'systems' and 'styles'. Styles are specific types of expressions which have been passed on from teacher to student, generation to generation and transmitted identically to each individual regardless of their differences as human beings. There is neither evolution nor practicality in styles since their foundations are theoretical. To mimic without thought is the way. A system is usually comprised of several styles to form a more complete art which in turn evolves and progresses with the obvious need to adapt. Some systems however never progress and eventually become styles. Some factions of Jeet Kune Do are a good example of a methodology turned into a system turned into a style.

Senshido if necessarily labeled, is closer to being a system but is really neither a system, nor a style. It is a process, a methodology that is transcendental, interchangeable and adaptable to all systems and styles. Although it does contain many modified physical attributes that have been inspired by other systems; it is comprised of several original, unique and innovative methods.
(http://www.senshido.com)

Art (Jitsu) vs. Way (Do)

An Art, IMHO, is a form of expression. Thus you have painting, dance, music, etc. Martial "Arts" are no different; they are expressions of the individual martial artist's creativity. Thus Art and Sytle are analogous.

A Way is a form of self-realization, self-actualization, of reaching the Spirit. A Way implies a way of life and a worldview. Thus you have things as diverse as swordsmanship, archery, and tea ceremony being turned into Ways (kendo, kyudo, and chado, respectively.)

-----

For RPGs, a Technique is a specific example of application of a mechanic. This is well discussed in Ron's new system, so I'll move on.

For RPGs, a Tool is a mechanic that can be -creatively- and -spontaneously- applied to many situations. One calls to mind "universal mechanics," but really, a Tool is more than this. Implictly, a Tool allows Player input to change or vary the output of the mechanic, often through Color or Narrative Control, but possibly in other ways. It is also implied that Tool is spontaneous, that is, it has a low handling time and is Transparent, or better yet, Coherent.

Applied to RPGs, an RPG becomes Art or Style when it is used to express the views or feelings of one or more of the players and/or GM. I have yet to see an RPG that explictly does this. I'm not even sure about how to begin designing one.

An RPG becomes a System when it uses a self-consist philosophy of design and application, i.e., Coherent. This has been discussed to death on The Forge, so I'll leave it at that.

An RPG becomes a Methodology when it is viewed as a process that can be applied to any Style or System. To me, this implies a process of design (top-down or bottom-up, frex) and a process of play (design before play vs. design in play.) The most obvious candidate here is Universalis.

An RPG becomes a Way when it is assimilated into the individual to such a degree that it becomes a worldview, a way of conduct, a way of approaching the Spirit, i.e., a way that develops selflessness through one method or another. A Way is a Methodology whose goal is the Spirit. Like RPG as Art, I have yet to see an RPG do this, excepting Jody Butt's "Fantasy Simulations." I'd be interested if anyone could come up with other Ways. Presumably, one would have a Premise akin to "What is the meaning of life?" (and no, don't say "42") or "Why am I here? What am I supposed to do with my life?"

Thus an RPG that incorporates all of the above would have Coherent mechanics with low handling time that can be varied by Player input, is Coherent in and of itself, has a self-consistent philosophy and process of design and application, expresses the views and/or feelings of its participantes, and has for a Premise something like, "Why am I here? What am I supposed to do with my life?"

[Jason Lee]

Applied to RPGs, an RPG becomes Art or Style when it is used to express the views or feelings of one or more of the players and/or GM. I have yet to see an RPG that explictly does this. I'm not even sure about how to begin designing one.

Any roleplaying with moral questions will do this.  I'll explain in reply to this comment:

An RPG becomes a Way when it is assimilated into the individual to such a degree that it becomes a worldview, a way of conduct, a way of approaching the Spirit, i.e., a way that develops selflessness through one method or another. A Way is a Methodology whose goal is the Spirit. Like RPG as Art, I have yet to see an RPG do this, excepting Jody Butt's "Fantasy Simulations." I'd be interested if anyone could come up with other Ways. Presumably, one would have a Premise akin to "What is the meaning of life?" (and no, don't say "42") or "Why am I here? What am I supposed to do with my life?"

Premise doesn't have to be 'why am I here?' to enable self-realization.  How a player approaches any moral questions during play will say something about him, even if it is no more than how he believes another would behave in the situation.  Moral questions can be a vehicle for better understanding the human condition - which seems pretty 'way' like to me.

*****

Quick question about the martial arts theory presented before I can say anything more:  

Is it assumed that all of these levels (techniques -> way) are expressed in all arts, and that different arts simply place importance on different levels?  

Or are they self contained categories (X art is a system, and Y art is a methodology)?

If the first, I think a correlation can be drawn between the social contract -> ephemera model, though it would be imperfect.  If the second, I'd have to get out my examples and argue against the validity of the martial arts theory.

[Palaskar]

Cruciel wrote:

Premise doesn't have to be 'why am I here?' to enable self-realization. How a player approaches any moral questions during play will say something about him, even if it is no more than how he believes another would behave in the situation. Moral questions can be a vehicle for better understanding the human condition - which seems pretty 'way' like to me.

Oh, thanks. I didn't think of that. I'm not sure what you mean by "better understanding the human condition" as self-realization, though. Could you give an example, please?

Cruciel wrote:

Quick question about the martial arts theory presented before I can say anything more:

Is it assumed that all of these levels (techniques -> way) are expressed in all arts, and that different arts simply place importance on different levels?

Or are they self contained categories (X art is a system, and Y art is a methodology)?

If the first, I think a correlation can be drawn between the social contract -> ephemera model, though it would be imperfect. If the second, I'd have to get out my examples and argue against the validity of the martial arts theory.

Neither and both, really. Most arts will have specific techniques, but not all. Russian Martial Art, frex, encourages its practictioners to make up techniques "on the fly." (But it still has techniques, just not specific ones. More on that in a moment.) And there's the distinction in the Japanese martial arts between Way (Do) and Art (Jitsu.) Jiu-JITSU, frex, is meant for fighting; JuDO is meant (originally, anyway) for self-realization.

I set up the categories in rough order of comprensiveness. You can have a Tool that, when applied, manifests as a specific Technique; however, you cannot have a Technique that manifests as a Tool.

I'm not certain why you want to argue against (or for that matter, for) the martial arts model. I mean, it's just meant to provoke thought, to be a useful mechanism for possible insight. Whether it is valid or not depends on how you apply it, IMHO. If you find that it's useful, well that's good enough for me. If you don't, that's fine too.

[Jason Lee]

Oh, thanks. I didn't think of that. I'm not sure what you mean by "better understanding the human condition" as self-realization, though. Could you give an example, please?

Sure.  If I play a woman, and focus on what it means to be a woman, I may better understand what it means to be a man via contrast.  Or if I play the very poor or very rich, and focus on what that means, I may better understand the value of money on one's life.  If you are looking for something more spiritual, I can't help you there except to say look at more spiritual themes (like you're earlier 'why am I here?').  I'm not particularly spiritual, so I may be having different needs for self-realization.

I'm not certain why you want to argue against (or for that matter, for) the martial arts model. I mean, it's just meant to provoke thought, to be a useful mechanism for possible insight. Whether it is valid or not depends on how you apply it, IMHO. If you find that it's useful, well that's good enough for me. If you don't, that's fine too.

The reason I'd want to argue against it (which doesn't look like it'll be necessary) is because I can't really work with a theory that seems busted to me.  Bad foundation equals crooked attic.

Neither and both, really. Most arts will have specific techniques, but not all. Russian Martial Art, frex, encourages its practictioners to make up techniques "on the fly." (But it still has techniques, just not specific ones. More on that in a moment.) And there's the distinction in the Japanese martial arts between Way (Do) and Art (Jitsu.) Jiu-JITSU, frex, is meant for fighting; JuDO is meant (originally, anyway) for self-realization.

I set up the categories in rough order of comprensiveness. You can have a Tool that, when applied, manifests as a specific Technique; however, you cannot have a Technique that manifests as a Tool.

Ok.  The way I see it is techniques teach tools, which teach a methodology, which teaches a way. For example, Judo's got itself ass-loads of techniques.  You may learn the same sweep from four different angles and a similar sweep from another four angles.  The sweeps are consistent in approach, so what you really end up learning is all of those specific sweeps, plus all the angles and types of sweeps inbetween.  Then you've got yourself a tool: sweep.  Then the medly of consistent tools becomes the methodology: enter in, off balance, push-pull, small circles, and whatever else makes up the core approach in Judo.

Then the sticky one, which Judo is a terrible example of in my opinion.  The methodology has a feel and an approach to problems, which can be applied outside of the dojo.  This becomes a way.  Now, allegedly the ultimate goal of Judo is perfection of character, which about a minute in any Judo dojo would probably get you told (I'm exaggerating).  Rubbish on that - only if you think 'disable your opponent as quickly as possible' is perfection of character.  Which I believe is the lesson Judo teaches, that's what the techniques feel like to me anyway.  Of course, I know very little of Judo - so grain of salt and all that.

I've left out style and system, because those simply seem to be the composition of the elements at all levels.  I've also left out Art, because the distinction between Art and Way is lost on me; every art as a meaning.  (Besides, all of those -jitsu arts incorporate spiritual aspects that's just the way the japanese are.)

*****

Anway, so if the above jives with you - on to the topic.

So, you take Ron's whole model for RPG's: [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda -> [Techniques [ Ephemera]]]].

And, you take what I see here in the Martial Arts theory: [Way [Methodology [Tools [Techniques]]]].

They are similar in that they are both layering systems... isn't really too much more to say.  It doesn't map across directly, but it is analogous.

Making games that are consistent across all the layers of the model, seems to be the standard goal around these parts.  So, no easy answer on how to do that.

[Palaskar]

Cruciel wrote:

Ok. The way I see it is techniques teach tools, which teach a methodology, which teaches a way.

Um, no. At least not IMHO.  You've got it backwards. Frex, judo as it is currently taught (and you're absolutely right about that being a terrible example) teaches only techniques.

So, to me at least, it's way--> methodology-->tools-->techniques.

I included Judo because Jigoro Kano, its creator, originally intended it to be a method of self-realization, as opposed to Jiu-Jitsu, which he derived it from, which was supposed to be for fighting. I believe Mr. Kano would spin in his grave if he saw modern sport Judo.

Cruciel wrote:

...the distinction between Art and Way is lost on me; every art as a meaning. (Besides, all of those -jitsu arts incorporate spiritual aspects that's just the way the japanese are.)

Ok, let me try again. An Art is something you do at a particular time and place. For example, I "play" Tai Chi. A Way is a way of life, that is -never- turned off, but (ideally) applied to all aspects of one's life, usually through cultivating awareness. I'd say always, but thre's probably some obscure exception floating out there somewhere.

Cruciel wrote:

I've left out style and system, because those simply seem to be the composition of the elements at all levels.

Ok, (again) let me try again. A style is particular to an individual. At first, this is its creator, but as it is handed down from master to student, it usually does not adapt to the new person, but remains fixed as its creator practiced it. This is a big problem "modern" martial artists have with "traditional" ones.

A system is a self-consistent (i.e., Coherent) way of doing things. If you just learn a bunch of styles and lump them together, you do not have a system.

Cruciel wrote:

So, you take Ron's whole model for RPG's: [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda -> [Techniques [ Ephemera]]]].

And, you take what I see here in the Martial Arts theory: [Way [Methodology [Tools [Techniques]]]].

They are similar in that they are both layering systems... isn't really too much more to say. It doesn't map across directly, but it is analogous.

Making games that are consistent across all the layers of the model, seems to be the standard goal around these parts. So, no easy answer on how to do that.

Well, how about we start with Way and work our way "down" to Techniques.

So we start with a moral/spiritual Premise (Way.) Next we come up with a general mechanic that can be broadly applied to answering the Premise (Methodology.) Next we apply the mechanic to the various parts of the RPG -- action resolution, chargen, setting generation, and story control/evolution (Tools.) This finally manifests itself as Techniques.

How's that?

[Jason Lee]

Thanks for sticking with me - I'm still grappling with the martial arts theory.

Ok. The way I see it is techniques teach tools, which teach a methodology, which teaches a way.

Um, no. At least not IMHO.  You've got it backwards. Frex, judo as it is currently taught (and you're absolutely right about that being a terrible example) teaches only techniques.

So, to me at least, it's way--> methodology-->tools-->techniques.

This distinction may be irrelevant, because we put them in the same order.  When I sorted them I was thinking of how a student would learn an art - you start by learning techniques, then as you grow in the art the scope of what you've learned expands.  You might be looking at it design down, how does an art work.  If I'm looking up the stairs and you're looking down them, we should still be seeing each other.  How's that?

I included Judo because Jigoro Kano, its creator, originally intended it to be a method of self-realization, as opposed to Jiu-Jitsu, which he derived it from, which was supposed to be for fighting. I believe Mr. Kano would spin in his grave if he saw modern sport Judo.

Heh, maybe.  However, the goal was to save Jujitsu from extinction by making it a sport.  Judo is very much alive and well - mission accomplished.

Ok, let me try again. An Art is something you do at a particular time and place. For example, I "play" Tai Chi. A Way is a way of life, that is -never- turned off, but (ideally) applied to all aspects of one's life, usually through cultivating awareness. I'd say always, but thre's probably some obscure exception floating out there somewhere.

Hmmm... guess I'm more of a shades of grey kinda guy.  The art always impacts your life, the question is just how much?  This may not matter either if we're in agreement they are in the same layer.

Ok, (again) let me try again. A style is particular to an individual. At first, this is its creator, but as it is handed down from master to student, it usually does not adapt to the new person, but remains fixed as its creator practiced it. This is a big problem "modern" martial artists have with "traditional" ones.

A system is a self-consistent (i.e., Coherent) way of doing things. If you just learn a bunch of styles and lump them together, you do not have a system.

What I was thinking here is that a Style or System is composed of [Way [Methodology [Tools [Techniques], just like an RPG is composed of [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda -> [Techniques [ Ephemera]]]].  Style/System are analogous to Game/Genre (guarh, analogies are so imperfect!).  Earlier, you put Methodology in the same group with Style/System, but is seems to me every art has a Methodology.

Now, lets see if any of the above matters, because I think we're seeing eye to eye below.

*****

Well, how about we start with Way and work our way "down" to Techniques.

So we start with a moral/spiritual Premise (Way.) Next we come up with a general mechanic that can be broadly applied to answering the Premise (Methodology.) Next we apply the mechanic to the various parts of the RPG -- action resolution, chargen, setting generation, and story control/evolution (Tools.) This finally manifests itself as Techniques.

How's that?

I think that's that.  What kind of game are you designing?  What kind of play do you want it to foster?  How do you accomplish this?  Seems like the right way to go about things.  I am very much reminded of this: Structured Game Design (Warning: Long Post) approach to game design.

Not that many an interesting game hasn't been designed bottom-first (I want to roll 3d8, what kinda game can I make out of that?).  However, I think it'd be harder to come up with something coherent that way.

[Palaskar]

Cruciel wrote:

This distinction may be irrelevant, because we put them in the same order. When I sorted them I was thinking of how a student would learn an art - you start by learning techniques, then as you grow in the art the scope of what you've learned expands. You might be looking at it design down, how does an art work. If I'm looking up the stairs and you're looking down them, we should still be seeing each other. How's that?

Sounds fine to me.

Cruciel wrote:

Now, lets see if any of the above matters, because I think we're seeing eye to eye below....I think that's that. What kind of game are you designing? What kind of play do you want it to foster? How do you accomplish this? Seems like the right way to go about things.

Yep, I definitely agree. Very cool link there...I'll have to try it soon.

Well folks, it seems this thread is done.

Thanks for the memories.