Unarmed Combat

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Kirk

I hope TFT doesn't become oriented toward superhero entertainment. What I appreciate about TFT is that, in a simple gamey way, it mirrors reality. The worst thing is a cinematic style game, surely there are other games that I have no interest in that do that.

Fortunately, the GM can simply eliminate the more cinematic components.

However, I'd prefer to have the cinematic components in the game. I think that a designer with decades of game design experience will generally do a far better job of crafting such systems than individual GMs will.

And I think it's MUCH easier to eliminate systems from a game than to create new ones. And I certainly don't mind it if the designer flatly states "This is a cinematic rule. Feel free to delete it if it doesn't fit your campaign. But if you do delete it, here are the issues..."

As far as realistic games go, Runequest would be my choice if I were into that. But I get plenty of realism in my day job, so I like things a bit cinematic. And I *really* got tired of running amputee PCs.

I think one of TFT's core strengths is that it is a very straightforward system that can easily be adapted to any level of realism. Typically, the games that do cinematic well don't do realistic well and vice versa.

[JLV]

I completely agree with Ty on this one. MUCH easier to subtract rules that I don't like than it is to make up entire new systems on the fly.

Plus, I play games for escapism, and "cinematic" games can be really good for that (though I will also admit I don't always want that either -- I'm still a wargamer at heart).

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Hopefully a world based on a set of rules that somewhat mimic a current natural world where applicable.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Kirk

IME, being an excellent unarmed fighter is harder than being a good blade handler. Both require dedication and talent, but dancing with a uncooperative partner is generally tougher than blade work. Many martial artists, of course, do both.

Yes. Martial artist only means "unarmed and unarmored" in certain kung fu genres... and the UC talents.

Originally Posted by Kirk

Thinking that UC ability should be able to best armed opponents on a regular basis is misguided. The Boxer Rebellion tells some of what happens with that type of reasoning.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Kirk

What UC talents should generally do *is to give the practicioner a better chance of beating another unarmed opponent*, perhaps even one naturally stronger, faster, or heavier. It should not be considered as a viable way to normally defeat armed opponents. I think that perspective could be attributed to Hollywood entertainment machines, not practical reality. For foes of any type, I generally consider various firearms to be one of the best options I have to defend myself as a first option, only using MA as a desperate plan C, in general. Plan B would be a stick or knife or sword.

Yes, reminds me of a former Judo champion who liked to joke that his martial art of choice was Gun Fu.

Originally Posted by Kirk

I hope TFT doesn't become oriented toward superhero entertainment. What I appreciate about TFT is that, in a simple gamey way, it mirrors reality. The worst thing is a cinematic style game, surely there are other games that I have no interest in that do that.

I tend to agree, or at least adopt the nice thing GURPS does where it mentions when something is a cinematic option.

One play style I do enjoy however is extremely powerful people dealing with mostly-normal people in tough situations, to see how the skill contrast plays out and to see how far you can get with skill and so on. But what makes that interesting to me is when the game system tries to represent things well, so I have to turn up the character settings a lot to get there. If the game system just makes cinematic things easy for everyone to get and balances them to be better than they should be, it undermines that exercise. By all means, let's see someone amazing try to break into a castle and rescue someone and get out alive without using any equipment... but I want that to require a character with fantastic abilities doing things that make sense that they work, not just to for the rules and GM to make things easy that should be really hard.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Fortunately, the GM can simply eliminate the more cinematic components.

Yes... unless the cinematic components aren't removable pieces, but are built into the game balance.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

However, I'd prefer to have the cinematic components in the game. I think that a designer with decades of game design experience will generally do a far better job of crafting such systems than individual GMs will.

Yes.

[Steve Jackson]

I have absolutely not dropped this thread - I am grating the enamel off my teeth trying to learn from various comments AND to build some advanced weapon talents of comparable strength, all without leaving the cookie jar open and on the floor.

[Shroomofinsanity]

So the main issue with advanced weapon talents that are balanced with the unarmed combat talents is that under the new system unarmed just can not compete in damage especially against armored opponents, so it needs those extra tactical control options to offer a valid playstyle. So I figure that maybe the UC talents focus on those elements, the throws, knockdowns, and ease of getting into HTH.

I get the argument for and against cinematic play. But as I see it, in this fantasy game, if you want a viable unarmed fighter you have to dip into cinema a little. If you want it very non-cinematic, then just rip those talents out of the list for your game. *shrug*

[zot]

I don't understand why weapons and fighting need to be ultra realistic when magic is also present. That seems like it restricts all the cinematic stuff just for wizards -- doesn't seem fair to the non-wizards, to me.

I have no problem with cinematic fighting as long as it makes sense and the players, when they need to extrapolate, can reach conclusions that are reasonably close to each other.

[Steve Jackson]

Valid point, zot. It is a fantasy world.

Once in a while, not often, I do get the letter that explains to me that real magic doesn't work the way it does in one of my games. Invariably it is a nice letter, just trying to help.

[JLV]

LOL! I don't know how many times since 1975 that I've heard or had that discussion! "Realism" as an issue in a fantasy game somehow just never has quite the impact for me that it does in, say, a game about the Normandy Invasion...

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by zot

I don't understand why weapons and fighting need to be ultra realistic when magic is also present.

This seems to me like a separate (and interesting) idea from the rest of what you wrote.

I'd say it's a matter of degree. TFT is by no means ultra-realistic.

Also, lack of realism from magic existing, is a different topic from how (un)realistic the system is about non-magical things. I love realistic and logical games, but I also often enjoy magic and wildly-talented people in my games. Not only is there no fundamental contradiction there, but I much more enjoy a game about magic and wildly-talented people, when those things exist in a game that takes the normal and mundane parts of the world seriously enough that the contrast lets the game actually be about a situation where there is magic and exceptional people.

When a game has magic and exceptional people, but the mechanics make the magic and exceptional skills actually quite routine, or where the mundane mechanics aren't much like what mundane subjects are like, then the magic and special talents don't get something normal to contrast to, and to me that quickly gets surreal and uninteresting and undermines my interest in playing a game about magic or special talents.

Originally Posted by zot

That seems like it restricts all the cinematic stuff just for wizards -- doesn't seem fair to the non-wizards, to me.

I have no problem with cinematic fighting as long as it makes sense and the players, when they need to extrapolate, can reach conclusions that are reasonably close to each other.

So to me, what would make sense is if there are cinematic super-skills for non-wizards, they should leave room for normal non-cinematic skills below them.

That is, I'd be happy to see various cinematic hero talents, if they take a lot to achieve, and it's clear when they're supposed to represent something a bit over the top. What I would not like, is deciding every non-wizard should start getting unrealistic abilities from the start, and detaching what realism the game has to try to balance PC types against each other. If an unarmed person can defeat an armed person, I want that to be because the unarmed person is remarkably more skilled than the armed person and/or uses the situation and tactics that make sense, not because someone wants unarmed PC designs to be balanced to be "viable" at the same skill level.

I also hope if there are more cinematic martial arts abilities added, that they'd also be added for armed characters.

It seems to me too that armed fighters have several abilities that could be added that I would think were more realistic than continuing not to have them, such as:

* ability to wear armor without large penalties to their ability to hit things
* ability to defend themselves while still attacking
* ability of their skill to avoid attacks entirely (especially with shields) not just reduce the damage they take slightly
* ability to increase their chances to deny being tackled in HTH
* ability to not be immobilized by engagement (at the cost of suffering an attack)

[zot]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I also hope if there are more cinematic martial arts abilities added, that they'd also be added for armed characters.

It seems to me too that armed fighters have several abilities that could be added that I would think were more realistic than continuing not to have them, such as:

* ability to wear armor without large penalties to their ability to hit things
* ability to defend themselves while still attacking
* ability of their skill to avoid attacks entirely (especially with shields) not just reduce the damage they take slightly
* ability to increase their chances to deny being tackled in HTH
* ability to not be immobilized by engagement (at the cost of suffering an attack)

I totally agree. I'd sure love to see a TFT combat splat book!