RPGs and Martial Arts

[mneme]

Here's the thing:

A lot of new games just aren't comfortable to play. They are what's referred to as "high contact" -- where you're bouncing off the system all the time.

Now, people will truthfully point out that there's always a system; you just aren't always aware of it, and that what you're bouncing off may be ingrained habits. And that's true enough.

But...that's not all of it.

When you learn a martial arts system (let's say, fencing, since that's what I know well), you're bouncing off it all the time as you learn. You're constantly having to remind yourself to only use the attacks and defenses that are part of the system, to not hit off-target areas, etc. Just like learning a RPG that really uses a different system than the one you're used to.

But to use a martial arts system -well-, you have to get beyond all that. You have to get to the point where you're not seeing the system any more at all -- where it's there, informing your actions and part of it, but where you're not thinking "I can't hit his arm; it's off target" or "I can't attack now because he has priority" -- you're not thinking on that level at all; instead, you're just acting, but because your training has taught you to work within the system, your actions follow the system's rules and are informed by the system's principle.

This is where a lot of indy games fall down for me -- I'm not convinced that it's possible to play them in a manner where you're "just acting" -- being within the system without being concious of it. And I don't think I can have a satisfying game without this, in the end.

The thing is, if you only play games that follow systems you know, you can have a good time, but you're limiting yourself to things you already know; to patterns you've already internalized. You can get really good at those patterns, but if they aren't all that great patterns to begin with, or even if they aren't, you're not reaching your full potential.

But if you're constantly learning, exploring, and confronting -- never simply being -- never fencing, rather than practicing, you never really know anything well either; instead, you're constantly going over the surface of things rather than learning them in any depth.

So I want RPG systems like that. Ones that push you into knew patterns -- their own patterns -- sure, but also ones that with a smallish amount of effort, you can learn to the point where you're not constantly bouncing off the cage of the system, encountering the boundaries or following roads, and instead, just -playing-.

Capes doesn't do it. WGP doesn't do it either. PTA might do it, though it has issues, not sure about others.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[mylescorcoran]

I haven't actually played it, but I suspect that Trollbabe might work. The mechanics are very simple, basically roll over or under a single number depending on the type of action, and the choice to force the issue with re-rolls on failures remains in the player's hands. Players define/narrate failures too.

I can see that working for internalized mechanics pretty easily, apart perhaps from the narration, depending on what one is used to. The escalation of re-rolls puts the pacing and the severity of the outcome of failures squarely on the player, but it's easy to see that escalation reflecting an internal commitment to succeed.

[jl8e]

Yes, but it isn't finished yet. :) Try nagging me some after this weekend. I think the first draft is about one spasm of writing away from being done.

(Well, maybe. No idea whether it will "push you into new patterns". I'm not interested in that. But it's possible.)

I have a very different reaction to systems in general than you, I think. (I admit I've got a lot less experience with indie games.) As far as I'm concerned, system matters a bit. It can be annoying, it can create a certain feel to the game, but I don't find it interferes with the central act of roleplaying unless it really bites. (I'm also unconvinced it can help it, which probably makes me even more of a heretic on the Forge.)

If you were more of a serious bridge player, it's be interesting to see how our opinions on the effects of bidding systems reflected this.

[mneme]

Ok. Maybe this reply will spur further response?

I'm interested in "pushing into new patterns" as it's more or less the only purpose I see for the style of game in question; if new patterns aren't desired, then there's no reason not to work with what you already know and do well.

I'm also interested in old patterns, since I'm not convinced that they won't always work better than the new ones, as we've got a lot more practice with them.

[unrequitedthai.livejournal.com]

What would such a reflexive system do to your thinking?

I feel like if it's subtle enough to vanish into reflex, it's going to be insidious enough to insinuate itself into any other game you play - effectively you would only be playing variants of the reflexive game.

[mneme]

As my fencing master used to tell us (over and over again), it's not reflex -- it's trained response.

By the same token, the way to avoid having such a system insinuate itself into any other game you played would be to learn more than one, just like learning more than one martial art, language, etc. In effect, most of us already know one set of responses, trained by years of roleplaying. Learning other sets should in principle make it easier to distinguish between the two (note that the theory that having learned one set of trained responses, you cannot help but use it in every circumstance is wrong. I have trained with sabre, foil, and about three styles of rapier. But I'd no more use a sabre technique when fencing foil, or for that matter attempt a sabre cut when holding a rapier, than I'd start trying to swim down a city street).

Regarding "what would it do"...what does any system do? It's more what it needs to avoid doing -- that one must be able to allow the system to slip below the surface in the same way that the predominant systems for roleplaying -- the call and response where the GM sets a scene, the players initiate dialogue or actions, the actions result in a resolution, and things continue until the next fade or the session ends -- do so, becoming the medium for roleplaying and conflict rather than a source of conflict in and of itself.

In theory, there's a lot of flexibility here; I don't see any reason (barring further analysis) that Capes, PTA, or Dogs could not be learned in this fashion, though I, personally, have further constraints, in that I want such games to serve as a vehicle for immersive play (causing a game like Capes, where a fair amount of the play even when the system is trained to the point that it becomes a medium is likely to involve strategizing the mechanics to be unsuitable).

[selki.livejournal.com]

But I'd no more use a sabre technique when fencing foil, or for that matter attempt a sabre cut when holding a rapier, than I'd start trying to swim down a city street).

But in all three cases, you have physical reminders for context clues -- the different weights of the blades, the lack of water. If it's a more mental/abstract activity, such as an RPG, there may be some contextual reminders such as other players' activity, but I think it would be easier to slip into unintended reactions and hidden assumptions.

Not arguing, just interested in the cognitive learning aspect.

[mneme]

Indeed -- the apparent similarity between activities can make confusion -- especially when learning -- -more- likely. My point was more that one -can-, in fact, distinguish.

As an experienced fencer in multiple forums, I'm also quite capable of distinguishing between, say, Salle and SCA rules, which involve entirely different (but not without some similarities) sets of rules and valid techniques. This doesn't mean I'd recommend trying to learn both at once -- but it also doesn't mean that learning one makes it impossible to learn the other without bringing too much in.