Hi Jake,

Thanks for posting up an informative and solid essay. Funny enough, I find that all the folks who train in combatative arts always come back to the same basic principles and truths, while those who do not, have tons of arguments and counter arguments :)

Anyhow, I think the two most important points addressed in that essay were "fighting is more than just physical" and "timing is more than speed", which are truths that I think anyone who trains for a period of time picks up. Good stuff.

Anyone else want to drop 2 cents in the hat?

Chris

I find the core truths of Clement's article to be pretty universal beyond simply RPG combat, that being that
1) Detail does not equal realism, nor is there really a necessarily high correlation between them.
2) There's a vast gulf between the perspective of the scholar and the perspective of the practitioner
3) Reality is simply too dynamic and chaotic to fit into neat little IGO UGO boxes.

There are numerous wargame designers who could benefit from learning these principles.

Bankuei wrote: Thanks for posting up an informative and solid essay. Funny enough, I find that all the folks who train in combatative arts always come back to the same basic principles and truths, while those who do not, have tons of arguments and counter arguments :)

Anyhow, I think the two most important points addressed in that essay were "fighting is more than just physical" and "timing is more than speed", which are truths that I think anyone who trains for a period of time picks up. Good stuff.

cruciel wrote: Heh, well they still often manage to argue over philosophical (this is "The Way") and tactical differences (this is "The Way" because it's infighting). Maximum power for minimum effort is the same for any athlete or martial artist. If you're a gymnast the power for your back hand spring comes from your center. The power in your snap kick comes from the same place.

Valamir wrote: I find the core truths of Clement's article to be pretty universal beyond simply RPG combat, that being that
1) Detail does not equal realism, nor is there really a necessarily high correlation between them.
2) There's a vast gulf between the perspective of the scholar and the perspective of the practitioner
3) Reality is simply too dynamic and chaotic to fit into neat little IGO UGO boxes.

There are numerous wargame designers who could benefit from learning these principles.

Eamon Voss wrote: Well, I hope I haven't offended!

Eamon Voss wrote: Ummm... not to be contrary, but the power for back handsprings comes from a combination of limb and torso strength, just like it does a snap kick. It doesn't come from your 'center'. Thats just orientalism at play.

Please say no to orientalism. I did. And I'm a better martial artist for it. Instead, I rely on good old fashioned laboratory proven physics and the careful study of bio-mechanics. Western science and scientific method does wonders when applied to asian fighting arts. Using a word like maai or center is simply a method of obfuscating something which can be easily explained through clear and simple English. Instead, you should say something like:

'Until you learn to thrust your hips into a snap kick, you aren't committing as much of your body's strength as you do when you simply move the leg.'

See? Nice and simple, and you don't have to rely on a word that can be misunderstood, mistranslated, or be the root of a 30 minute lecture.

So what is Maai? Well, you defined it yourself as distance/timing/positioning. Why not stick with those words instead of asking your readers to learn a word that can mean all three, which misses out on specificity? By using English to describe your thoughts, you transcend having learned a Japanese martial art, and your experience and opinion suddenly becomes more valuable to the rest of us. Partly because you are speaking the language that is considered the standard means of communication of this forum, and partly because we don't have to try and take into account that your knowledge might be colored by what your sensei told you (which sadly, from dealing with asian martial artists, is often colored... well... badly).

Eamon Voss wrote:
3. IGO UGO worked great for our great-grandpappies. So did a Model T ford. So why is it that IGO UGO is the standard method of combat for RPGs and wargamers and the Model T ford is a museaum piece? And we gamers think we are smarter than the average person? Yeah... right...

demiurgeastaroth wrote:

Well, just to be contrary, technically, TROS is an IGO UGO system, isn't it? :)

Japanese jargon is as valid as any other jargon. "Orientalism" is not necessarily obscurantism; but granted there are limits imposed by inter-cultural translation. The jargon can serve to communicate batches of concepts that may only themselves be loosely understood or difficult to articulate. Yes, you could you re-interpret most Japanse jargon into something that sounds more familiar to the Western ear? Of course, but a lot of elegance will be lost. There IS virtue in learning a developed form in its own idiom. In fact I find it illuminating that different traditions organise data into different "lumps"; there are things to be learned from this that go beytond either lump in its own right.

Eamon Voss wrote:

Partly because you are speaking the language that is considered the standard means of communication of this forum, and partly because we don't have to try and take into account that your knowledge might be colored by what your sensei told you

cruciel wrote: Though to be blunt, you seem a little...scarred...from some experience with eastern arts. Like you've been subject to close minded instructors and subjugated under traditional eastern philosophy against your will.

Eastern arts aren't opposed to scientific thought, nor vice versa. I've seen my fair share of dojos that have "The Way". Aikido, my central art, is particulary ripe with dojos adhering to 'the way it way taught and how you should think' above all else. In my opinion, that kind of thinking is dangerous and naive in a martial art. Oh, an it pisses me off. People are making crap everywhere. In both Aikido and science. All the little plastic trinkets don't come from China.

Eamon Voss wrote: From center is just telling you what not to forget about. When a gymastics instructor says 'use your hips' he doesn't mean 'leave your arms limp and fall on your head', he means don't forget they are frickin' important. I used the word center instead of hara, partially from habit, and partially because it is english and gets the point across. I shy from using the word hips because of the tendency for people to believe it means twisting.

A word on maai. It is japanese derived martial art jargon - pure and simple. The vast majority of words used in the japanese arts sound like nonsense to japanese people too. I could walk up to a judo practicer in Japan, the US, or Bolivia and say 'O Soto Gari' and they'd know what I'm talking about...random japanese guy on the street would look at me like I was speaking Swahli (though, phonetically familiar Swahli). The word maai means what I say, one word one meaning. Don't read too much into it - it isn't bending before the will of the evil yellow skins, it's the right tool for the job. The eastern arts taught in the states are mostly taught by americans - using western mindsets and preconceptions. The Jujitsu style I studied for a while (Dan Zan) required increasing levels of competency in human anatomy along with technique. Primary mover/Antagonist comes from sport science, not Toaism. "Relax" is just easier the concept with than trying to figure out which muscles are movers and which are antagonists, and then try to control them individually.

Though, you are probably right for purposes of this forum martial arts jargon is best left out.

contracycle wrote: Japanese jargon is as valid as any other jargon. "Orientalism" is not necessarily obscurantism; but granted there are limits imposed by inter-cultural translation. The jargon can serve to communicate batches of concepts that may only themselves be loosely understood or difficult to articulate. Yes, you could you re-interpret most Japanse jargon into something that sounds more familiar to the Western ear? Of course, but a lot of elegance will be lost. There IS virtue in learning a developed form in its own idiom. In fact I find it illuminating that different traditions organise data into different "lumps"; there are things to be learned from this that go beytond either lump in its own right.

1) English uses a huge number of foreign words, I see no reason that Japanese should be excluded.

2) we have to take into account the colouring introduced by a sensei in any martial arts study, not only the oriental ones.

Shouldn't the Jargon stuff be taken to another thread, if discussed at all. John didn't use any in his article.

Eamon Voss wrote: Scarred, definately. When you had to listen for 30 minutes to an old Japanese guy lecture on the difference between shouting and yelling in pideon English when he's been teaching in the USA for 40 years, you get scarred quick. Worse, all he taught was bad kihon. It made me glad I'm not a Japanese martial artist! Then again, I've had to deal with Filipino quack healers! LOL!

Eamon Voss wrote: Wow! The second open-minded aikido person I've met in 15 years of martial arts! What a day! Heh heh. The stories I could tell you about my experiences with aikidoka...

Let's get off the east-west thing and back on topic. C'mon, guys...

Jake

yeah, and to begin with you can help me find this article... I checked the site and went yto the what is page and the menu on the left is all messed up and I cant seem to get it to load right and I cant find anything anywhere else. anyone care to send me a link or let me know exactly how I am being retarded and why I cant find it?

Are you talking about this article, Ashren?

Having sport fenced for a while, then taken a heavy class (not ARMA but using the Tallhoffer book for sword technique), and now a year plus into a rapier/smallsword class (having covered various styles including an early Spanish style, Agrippa, Capo Ferro, Fabris, Angelo, and now Donald McBane) I found myself chuckling at the article, not because it was wrong but because it was very right.

Timing on an attack has very little to do with speed. If all you get it down to is who can attack faster than there is very little skill involved and almost makes it a matter of who has more natural speed to get their arm moving forward. Distance, or the fact that you can hit your opponent is the key to all fighting that I've ever seen. The kicker of course is that normally, if you can hit your opponent, they can hit you. It's who realizes it first that wins.

Anyway, my point was that TROS does an excellent job of capturing the dynamic feel of combat without bogging it down in a strict, mechanics heavy system. I don't think anybody is going to use TROS as a source material for a critical paper on medieval swordsmanship, but that's not it's function. As Clement's so aptly points out, the idea is for it to make a logical sense and maintain playability. Well done Jake.