OT: Western v. Eastern martial arts

[Omnirizon]

If there's still interest in this, I've started to map a skills system, impacted significantly by comments here and my own research.

since the act of learning is central to my system ( I think that's a more accurate and fulfilling skill model ), I have three types of learning: self taught, tutored/coached, schooled. Basically, what is available from each type is largely dependent on where you are and who you are. Self taught has the lowest returns, but the most flexibility. Tutors in a specific skill may be hard to find, and can only train an individual to a certain level. Schools have the largest returns in "skills" for investment of "skill points", but should require a large chunk (a large investment) of skill points to get anything. There are also a very limited number of schools and what they teach is just what they teach, and they may teach things that from a player's point of view aren't necessary; thus there is limited flexibility, but some min-maxing control. Further, only noble or artisian characters would be able to go to a school.

The prevalence of schools and tutors and what kind of schools and tutors there are will be the main difference between east and west. This can work out to be very significant though... in my world (and I think this reflects history pretty well) the west is feudal and in a constant state of internal warfare and show. in the east there are periods of civil strife followed by periods of internal peace, but always a constant external "barbarian" threat. Further the east is more centralized and not nearly as feudal. This of course is reproducing some Western stereotypes regarding the east, but damnit it works! I'm working out exactly how this will impact skill-set lineups and availability, but it should be pretty diverse.

Lastly, "skills" and experience are two different things. Most systems are a sort of 2d outlay having skills and stats, where experience is just sort of a magnitude of those things, or a flat bonus to them. I envision my system as a 3d system with stats, skills, and experience all being three different things that must be taken in account in relation to each other. So a character can spend a lot of "karma" on skills, but never temper their usage through experience (I can imagine an army grunt who knows everything there is to know about everything in the army, and all the training possible; but has no battlefield experience). Of course, the Shadowrun style of fluid character building blocks is inspiring this system to a degree. How my so-called 3d character building system can be implemented without becoming a de facto 2d one is yet to be seen. However I think by doing things through interaction (or multiplicatively, mathematically speaking) may be key; this will require some fine tuning.

[Omnirizon]

part 1: West v. East martial arts

there are actually multiple types of weapons and martial arts; there are 'martial arts' like karate or whatever, and then there's martial arts of war. The arts of weapons of war are not significantly different in use between east and west, although the military tactics and strategy in which they are involved may be. weapons of war are the heavy military weapons such as halberds, long spears, and large swords. the colloquial "martial arts" are generally the martial usage of civilian implements, civilian versions of heavier military weaponry, unconventional and concealable weaponry, or ritualized usage of 'gentleman' and 'officer' weaponry. The reason these peculiar types of martial arts exist in the far east and not the west is perhaps due to
1) greater control of weaponry by the state,
2) combined with the celebration of the farmers and peasantry in the Eastern temples that led to the study of peasant weaponry and fighting techniques with
3) early reliance on conscription of peasant-soldiers trained in
4) nationalistic warfare methods.

this is contrasted with West where warfare was less between conscripted armies and more between nobles. focus of warfare was on capturing fortresses, seiges, 'shock' usage of knights and cavalry; rather than open fighting between armies. there was less usage of seasonally conscripted peasantry and more usage of small standing groups of elite warriors. further, any ritualization of warfare existed between these actual warrior-knights, who would use warrior techniques; contrasted with ritualized duels between generals of the eastern armies who were not trained warriors, but actually trained ritualized duelers. Further, in the West, ownership of weaponry was perhpas not controlled, or peasants had no interest in developing makeshift weaponry, or there was no one (such as temple monks) who would commit time to studying, developing, and preserving peasant weaponless or makeshift fighting styles (as opposed to committing time to studying some wanky religion).

so I think that's a pretty good summation, if somewhat essentialized, of eastern and western 'nations' in military and martial stuff. it provides a good ground for providing some instrumental environmental differences that a player can experience.

The new thread 'Making a game system part 3: the setting' will be out shortly.

[lch]

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

Further, in the West, ownership of weaponry was perhpas not controlled, or peasants had no interest in developing makeshift weaponry, or there was no one (such as temple monks) who would commit time to studying, developing, and preserving peasant weaponless or makeshift fighting styles (as opposed to committing time to studying some wanky religion).

I think that in the west it was more or less forbidden for peasantry to possess weapons that were more sophisticated than a club, too, or quite probably a real sword was just too expensive to possess. Those who could would be noblemen who'd be in a position to support being a knight or similar. Armoured knights were pretty much impossible to beat with most conventional weapons before the advent of gunpowder.

[KissBlade]

I think the problem with this debate is two fold. One is obvious bias/nationalism. But I think more importantly, if you're talking about actual combat effectiveness, you can't gauge it. After all, if one man is suited towards a certain style that another build isn't, would you say that style is superior? Consequently simply measuring up well if "so and so" fought with "so and so", you need to also figure in body weight, height, speed, etc. of those individuals as well. When you look at all martial arts as a combat formula, the idea of there being a superior style IMO is pointless. Even comparing two styles like karate and wing chun for example, would be futile in saying which is "stronger". Imagine now doing it for two different regions of styles! Keep in mind, even Jeet Kune Do had a vast amount of critics who basically claimed the main strength of Bruce Lee's style was that well ... it was Bruce Lee. The man could've taken pro wrestling and made it dangerous.

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by KissBlade

I think the problem with this debate is two fold. One is obvious bias/nationalism. But I think more importantly, if you're talking about actual combat effectiveness, you can't gauge it. After all, if one man is suited towards a certain style that another build isn't, would you say that style is superior? Consequently simply measuring up well if "so and so" fought with "so and so", you need to also figure in body weight, height, speed, etc. of those individuals as well. When you look at all martial arts as a combat formula, the idea of there being a superior style IMO is pointless. Even comparing two styles like karate and wing chun for example, would be futile in saying which is "stronger". Imagine now doing it for two different regions of styles! Keep in mind, even Jeet Kune Do had a vast amount of critics who basically claimed the main strength of Bruce Lee's style was that well ... it was Bruce Lee. The man could've taken pro wrestling and made it dangerous.

my intent is not to do this kind of gauging, i'm actually looking for WHY there are these certain kinds of martial arts in the East, and these certain kinds in the West. I'm actually putting the effectiveness on the personal level, like I think you are suggesting with your Bruce Lee point.

you'll notice my post is about why there is this difference. I'm not concerned with if this difference is modern artifice due to nationalism; I don't care one way or the other. I really just want a historically plausible and engaging narrative to weave into a game environment. Of course, the more historically plausible it is, the better; and I don't think difference is simply nationalistic artifice. I believe there really are/were socio-cultural reasons for why there is a rich history of 'martial arts' from the East but not from the West.

[Endoperez]

If you take history as written knowledge, doesn't the West have more texts describing martial arts maneuvers than the East?

Since we're talking about a game, you could make it so that in the west, teachers would have schools where they teach nobles and rich people, or train professional soldiers, while in the east some teachers would be monks in a monastery, others would be craftsmen of their village, etc.

EDIT: also, in case I haven't posted it yet...
some interpretations of Hans Czynners treatise on harness fencing from 1538
EDIT 2:
Wrestling blindfolded
This would be an awesome scene in a game (even without the blindfold). You finally get accepted as a student to a really expensive school, and all around you people are practising with swords, wrestling, trying out different stuff. Awesome!
Edit 3:
Actually, I just keep finding better and better stuff:
"throws" and counter-"throws":
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iCS_tF...eature=related
pollaxe techniques and training:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC25...eature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PVBTRF...eature=related

[Lavaere]

I don't know how your doing this but each skill should have its own experiance chart. Start learn sword, gain enough experience and your sword would go up a level.

Self training this is going to take a long long time. But if you have a tutor it will be easier and your able to train up to what ever his level is. You want to be better then him, start some self training.

Now for schools of fighting. You would have prerequisites for learning them. First of all you need to join that school, or find a teacher to tutor you. Another prerequisite would be other skill levels.
Say you want to learn Franz Swordmanship(or what ever you want to call it) which is a dual fighting style of sword with dagger you might need level of Sword 3, Dagger 2 and Ettiquette 1. Before you can even start Franz Swordmanship. And because its a specialise fighting style it would have bonuses when using it.
And depending on the School it might teach you the prerequisite schools as well. Or perhaps you will need to go somewhere else to learn something.
Franz School teachs up to Sword 6, Franz Sword 3, Dagger 2. Meaning you would need to learn Ettiquette somewhere else before you can start on the Franz Sword skill.

You could even have other things restricting you like needing to sponsered by someone from that school. Or needing to beat someone or win a tournament before they will let you advance furthur in that school.

[Wrana]

To Omnirizon:
An idea of system looks just great! To me it looks more like Harn than Shadowrun, though... An idea Lavaere puts out (about schools) was put to use in AEG systems: 7thSea & Legend og the Five Rings and works very well within them.
To Ich:
"I think that in the west it was more or less forbidden for peasantry to possess weapons that were more sophisticated than a club, too, or quite probably a real sword was just too expensive to possess."
That's wrong. Good-quality swords were expensive, of course, but in Germany, for example, many categories of peasants were allowed to possess and carry swords (and there appeared at one time a kind of sword called dusak (sp?) with curved blade often made of wood (!) with edge of iron. it wasn't particularly sharp in any case, of course, but some Rennaisance fencing schools still practiced with it ). At border regions such as Balkans weapons were carried as a matter of course. Main weapons of peasants were various kinds of spears or polearms, of course - something quite deadly and which no Japanese ruler would allow his peasants to have (in China, situation was somewhat different - but then, so it was in different West countries).
By the way, I think some of the difference can be attributed to the fact that book learning was wider spread in the East, so actual treatises on fighting technics appeared earlier and in larger numbers - so more of them survived to later days (even so, most schools we know now are known only from relatively late period - we know that there were some kinds of martial arts at 13th century, for example, but not which technics they actually used - different modern schools have different accounts of them). And a spreading of fighting schools in the West was then checked by an advent of an idea of industrialized warfare in 17th-18th centuries: kung-fu may beat a pistol, but not fire by platoons of line infantry or Vobanic fortress warfare...

[Tifone]

The most carried the knife, though... There are several different kinds and shapes of medieval knives, distinguished by areas as many of you guys surely know

[Wrana]

Yeah, and some of these knives weren't readily distinguishable from swords.