Quote:
Originally Posted by Endoperez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnirizon
Quote:
|
So my original question: how should the learning of of something like Kenjutsu vs the italian Dardi school be represented in a game system?
|
How the LEARNING should be represented? That's a very good question. I guess it hasn't been asked often enough, because this is how it is represented in most games:
"Okay, you hold the sword like this, with your hand on the grip, between handguard and the pommel. That's good, now, the main thing is, you stick it to your enemies. Let me show you..."
*Ding! You have mastered Iaido!*
|
|
Yes. The learning is exactly what I'm interested in and the point of my original question and why so many comments here MISS the point. The glibness of your comment has actually highlighted this. It's easy enough to model in a game the getting so many points of "skill" in using a sword and saying "oh that's training from one school or style or another." It could be training from a German school, a Japanese Sensei, or your pirate captain; it doesn't really matter. The game system can't really account for these nuances and most of them are superflous anyway, and I think this is actually the logical conclusion of most comments in this thread. I've no argument there.
The issue is that the learning doesn't happen in a vacuum and from the individual, not the historical point of view, there are significant differences in learning to fight with a Yari by practicing Sojutsu and learning to fight with a spear by practicing in some military school for Oliver Cromwell. The personal experience and affects between what are only two possible ways of learning to fight with a spear is significantly different. Because in my game the character is hopefully going off to adventure to their personal fulfillment, rather than die in an English Revolution, the experience and _affects_ of learning to fight with a spear in a military school for Oliver Cromwell should be different than practicing Sojutsu with some Master. Simply "learning to fight with a spear" isn't sufficient nor accurate; no one learns anything in a vacuum apart from the accumulation of other experiences. My question is coming from the angle that there is more involved in learning to use a spear than just how to fight with that weapon. "To fight with that weapon" cannot exist in the mind apart from other structures of the mind. What was placed in the mind in Cromwell's military schools versus what was placed in the mind by some sensei teaching sojutsu?
What should those differences be? I don't want martial arts to be simply the ability to swing a sword. For one reason they are a significant portion of "being Human" in my game, and for another they are so much more than that in history and real life too. We can never model the phenomenon of a Martial Art without doing a martial art, so creatively modeling their effects in a game is well within reason. There's no reason that some 'magical' effect modeling in game for martial arts is any different from any other way we might model the phenomenon of practicing and performing a martial art. I'm just asking for some ideas on what these effects may be; and how might I, for example, model the difference in
personal affect from learning to fight with a spear in an English military school under Cromwwell to learning to fight with a Yari through practicing Sojutsu from some personal Master during a peaceful period in Japan. Or if you wish to not make any necessary split between West and East, how is there a difference between the Cromwell military school and learning to use a spear for the purpose of simply using a spear from, say, a French teacher in time of peace?