Unarmed Combat

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Ty, everyone.
I totally agree about using examples. I bought a game that had rules on the left hand page, and example after example on the right hand page. It was very easy to learn that game. (If memory serves, it was called, "To the Stars".)

I don't care what the rule is, I just want the rule to be clear.

Warm regards, Rick.

We found that putting copious examples in A Fistful of TOWs made the game FAR easier for players to understand. We also have a very short list of rules clarifications, despite having over a thousand players in our Yahoo group and despite the fact that modern miniature wargamers are legendarily quarrelsome [grin].

We also put the examples immediately after the rules they clarify.

The examples serve two purposes. First, to help readers understand the rule. Second, to provide the harried GM with quick guidance during play.

Page-long “Combat Example” sections are sub-optimal for the first purpose. Burying them in long narratives is worse than useless for the second purpose.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by zot

TFT IQ 14 is nowhere near a real world IQ of 140. Real-world IQ 140 is genius level; 97.5% of IQ scores are 130 or less. You don't have to be a genius to learn to be a doctor, to master martial arts, or to learn any of the TFT IQ 14 talents.

TFT just isn't that good at simulating life. IQ in TFT is an amalgamation of intelligence and education.

There are different labels associated with IQ scores, but generally accepted in education and science are:

Gifted - 130 to 140
Superior - 140 to 160
Genius - 160 plus

More important are the percentages...

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

140 only equates to about 1 in 200. IQ 150 1 in 2000. IQ 160 1 in 20,000.

Most doctors, using the broad basics of general IQ, lawyers, etc. are usually at least around 140, one can take various exams or career testing examples to show this.

I don't think those that test much lower than that will be able to become successful engineers, doctors, accountants, physicists, etc. on the whole, or necessarily even gain admittance or graduate from an advanced professional institution of consequence.

Air pilots, interestingly, at least in the US Air Force of the late 1900s, were usually between 125 and 135, below or above that would be a disqualifier to enter training.

Most *high* level martial artists I know are in the 140 plus range, which is only 1 in 200 on the IQ chart, not all that rare. Less rare than the number of high level martial artists in the general population!

My conclusion is that TFT higher level MA skills need to be at IQ 14 or so to mirror current human norms.

[Kirk]

Re: General Martial Arts skills

I see a lot of talk of MA skills and putting detail in TFT on this forum that somewhat miss the mark, most probably unintentionally and well meant. This perspective comes from my professional training, fighting, and teaching experience of over forty years in applied MA covering several systems, from ancient to modern, used for self-defense, sport competition, and police and military applications.

I think, unless we want a MA simulation game, the advantages need to be general game advantages, such at knocking figures down, better unarmed damage or perhaps knife work, increased ability to avoid getting hit, standing up more quickly, pinning, debilitating aimed shots, better tactical awareness or sensitivity, etc. etc.

Getting more detailed than that requires better knowledge of the true nature of MA from the designers/creators/suggestors than I think is possibly currently available, if some allusion to reality is intended. If not, then perhaps UC VI can include flying. ;)

Unarmed MA can traditionally be broken down into four main categories: striking, joint locking, pressure points, and throwing/grappling. The ranges that these can occur varies and is not necessarily a determinant. A joint lock, for instance, can be applied standing or on the ground, same for pressure points, same for striking. Throwing *is* more difficult to execute if the person is already prone, though, and then can be considered grappling. Striking is considered delivering blows with any part of the body at any range.

A knife or sword is worth a lot of martial training. My Combat Shuai Chiao instructor's instructor, and for some short periods of time mine, who was well known and a highly successful fighter in Asia and beyond in his time, only ever claimed to be able to win a fight against any two men or any *one* man with a *knife*.

Kicks, for example, really should just be considered striking and increase hitting damage, not TKD or San Da or boxing or Wing Chun or Long Fist, judo/ju jitsu/shuai chiao/sambo/wrestling/sumo should not be a specific talent or skill but rather throwing/grappling, to perhaps allow knock downs, pinning, etc. all integrated into a UC level in the game as appropriate.

Otherwise, these really would be too specific a division for TFT, IMO, and won't serve the general flow and simplicity of the game, and would require first-hand knowledge of various systems to accurately portray realistic fighting advantages.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Kirk

...
Kicks, for example, really should just be considered striking and increase hitting damage, not TKD or San Da or boxing or Wing Chun or Long Fist, judo/ju jitsu/shuai chiao/sambo/wrestling/sumo should not be a specific talent or skill but rather throwing/grappling, to perhaps allow knock downs, pinning, etc. all integrated into a UC level in the game as appropriate.

Otherwise, these really would be too specific a division for TFT, IMO, and won't serve the general flow and simplicity of the game, and would require first-hand knowledge of various systems to accurately portray realistic fighting advantages.

I agree that a significant amount of abstraction is appropriate. Otherwise, the same logic that finely distinguishes between specific techniques would be applicable to (say) specific sword techniques. Life is too short, in my opinion.

That said, I prefer that the "kick" be called "kick", simply because it is evocative and is a term that everyone understands. It's the same reason I prefer "broadsword" over "1 handed sword". I would have no reason with noting that the "kick" rule (i.e., an extra die of damage, but -3 DX) can also represent a powerful, focused punch.

Also, there's the issue of what we're trying to simulate - the real world or the cinematic world? In the real world, assuming comparable training and physical prowess, an armored swordsman will defeat a martial artist every time. After all, if the same amount of training and physical prowess woudl make the martial artist superior, knights would've looked like Kwai Chang Caine.

In movies, it depends. I see ICI-III as mostly reasonable assessments of real martial arts ability. You can hit harder and can throw a foe. (I think that the UCIII throw is overpowered, though.) UC IV might be accurate but its looking more cinematic. UC V is definitely cinematic-type stuff.

I agree with your instructor's position. As my cousin - an experience bar fighter - once told me "the problem with fighting a guy with a knife is that you're gonna get cut." He showed me the scars that proved that proposition. (He later became a pastor and missionary, but that's a different tale.)

[JLV]

What Kirk said. KISS should definitely apply here. Too much detail will just "GURPS-ify" (is there such a word?) TFT.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Kirk

My conclusion is that TFT higher level MA skills need to be at IQ 14 or so to mirror current human norms.

I disagree, for 2 reasons.

The most important is game balance. See my other posts for detail, but forcing a martial artist to sink 6 points into IQ will make him DRAMATICALLY inferior to an IQ 8 warrior and probably barely competitive with an IQ 10 thief.

The least important reason is that, based on my personal experience, I don't think that unarmed combat requires any more dedication or intelligence than (say) sword fighting.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Kirk

140 only equates to about 1 in 200. ...

Most doctors, using the broad basics of general IQ, lawyers, etc. are usually at least around 140..."

There are a million or so doctors of medicine in the US and 1.34 million lawyers.

There are approx. 224 million folks age 25+ in the US (the minimum age typically to be a lawyer or doctor, considering the educational requirements). If IQ 140 is in the 99.6th percentile, that would mean that there are about 858,000 people with IQ 140+ and age 25+.

So clearly, there are far more doctors and lawyers than there are IQ 140 people aged 25+.

As someone who scores improbably high on standardized tests, all I can say is that high IQ is grossly overrated in my experience.

I have a large number of self-made, highly successful business owner clients. The majority of them are brighter than average but THEY would agree that they are not in an elite IQ range, particularly outside their field.

A great many real-world skills - the ability to lead and motivate, the ability to accurately assess the capabilities and potential of others, the ability to take instruction, the ability to make good decisions (i.e., wisdom) - seem largely de-coupled from high IQ levels. Indeed, I've said many times "that's so stupid that only a "genius" could believe it." And I wasn't being ironic. A negative consequence of a high IQ is a correspondingly high ability to rationalize any decision or belief. Or to reject inconvenient facts or arguments because of one's assumed intellectual superiority.

There's also the little problem of what, precisely, an "IQ test" is measuring (and how accurately it measures that thing). Not to mention the debate as to how much IQ can be improved. Certainly, one's performance on IQ tests can be improved with practice (I know that from personal experience), but is IQ an immutable characteristic? I dunno, but I hope it is.

In any case, I don't think that Steve has ever stated what TFT IQ equates to in the real world. If you make the dubious assumption that the 3d6 bell curve is the same as the IQ attribute bell curve, then a TFT IQ of 10 is average. A TFT IQ of 14 would be equivalent to an IQ score of 120. A TFT IQ of 18 would be an IQ of ~140.

And of course, there's no particular reason to assume that the probability curves of the same. One thing is certain - I've met a lot of martial artists and I would strongly disagree that they are typically smarter than 90% of the folks I know. So I obviously reject the idea that they tend to be smarter than 99.5% of folks I know.

Oh and I do have a serious nit to pick. The IQ rating scale is wholly arbitrary and distorts the importance of differences at the extremes. People intuitively thing that an IQ of 150 is a LOT higher than an IQ of 130 because 150 is 20 more than 130. But if we expressed it as the percentile rating times 100, the scores would be 97.7 vs 99.9. Not much difference at all. And I'd argue it's a far more accurate real world measure.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Also, there's the issue of what we're trying to simulate - the real world or the cinematic world? In the real world, assuming comparable training and physical prowess, an armored swordsman will defeat a martial artist every time. After all, if the same amount of training and physical prowess woudl make the martial artist superior, knights would've looked like Kwai Chang Caine.

Hopefully a world based on a set of rules that somewhat mimic a current natural world where applicable. Magic, of course, needs to have its own internal logic as well, but can't easily be modeled after our current world.

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. I certainly, if the weapons were available, would train any followers in those first, much more deadly and requiring only years, not decades, to fundamentally master in a practical way.

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.

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.

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.

[Steve Jackson]

While IQ 10, being average, clearly means a real-world IQ score of 100, I am not sure we should assume that IQ 14 = IQ 140. But IQ is already very, very game-ified in TFT and I want to focus first on playability and second on reality checks.

That said, thanks for the stats about IQ in the professions. I was unaware.

I have met only two people who I recall as actively practicing HIGH level martial artists. One of them was built on a LOT of points, with Charisma thrown in, and I can't judge how smart he was because he was obviously masking. But smart! The other was a SCA acquaintance, a good old boy who was dedicated to aikido, and I'd judge him at only bright average. But my, that man was hard to hit.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

... The most important is game balance. See my other posts for detail, but forcing a martial artist to sink 6 points into IQ will make him DRAMATICALLY inferior to an IQ 8 warrior and probably barely competitive with an IQ 10 thief. ...

Hi all, Ty.
I agree with Ty, more in new TFT than old.

I've not contributed much to the debate of min IQ of martial artists. I was not troubled by fairly high IQ levels in the old TFT because...

-- Really high level martial artists (MArt) may well have been smarter than average. (I don't know but could easily believe it.)
-- When you could buy as many attributes as you wanted, picking up an extra IQ or two was not a big deal.

But in the new TFT, you get 8 attributes and that is it. You are done. Character advancement has smashed into a wall, as far as attributes goes. For play balance, requiring someone to get an extra couple of points of IQ is now a big freaking deal.

So I would expect the minimum IQ requirements to drop in new TFT. I think low level MArt talents could come down a lot. You do not need to know a lot to learn a bit of technique for hitting harder, kids start learning MArt's in dojos all over.

Warm regards, Rick.