Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal - part II

We've spoken about the movies that helped flavor the Professor's Tekumel, so with that in mind, has anyone here seen Baahubali? Tekumel goes Bollywood. I've only seen part 1, but it was a lot of fun. It's currently on Netflix.

Blaise

Originally Posted by estar

By keeping the hand near the center of your body it takes less time to get the blade to where you need it. I tell people starting out to keep your wrist within your shoulders, below your neck, and above your waist.

Yeah, I've noticed something like this in the last years.

There are other techniques that I am vaguely aware of given the surge of interest in European martial arts in the past two decades so don't take this as the final word. However it is a solid foundation on which to learn with fight with swords.

I'm not, don't worry! In fact, I am practicing one of those techniques.

If I reading correctly you are the guy in the brown right? The thing is that you don't have to over commit to make an effective attack to his head region. A thrust or twist your wrist and arm to swing the sword TIP up and around to come down on his hand region.

It does, but I can guarantee you that after the initial motion, he'd be binding you, probably in a structure where you have advantage. Yes, if he's slow, a cut down on his hand works...but that's a big if.

My exact response would be situational. Based on what I see, I would pivot around his right, twist my wrist and arm, to swing my sword tip at his legs, if he develops an attack on my upper body I would twist my arm and wrist the other way to a blocking position. Either I am fast enough to hit the leg and block. Or I see I won't connect before his attack would hit, abort, and block.

About 90% of the time I try that, I've got to cancel and block, as you say. At some point, I kinda stopped doing that, except with gladius or sica, where it works better due to the closer distance.
But you're giving me an idea of a feint to try in the next spar, so a big thank you!

The fact that I am pivoting everything in front of me means that even if I am physically slower the physics will allow me to get in position much faster than he can swing.

Yeah, that's why there wasn't a hit until the end. I did, at least, keep my sword in front of me.
(The part of the story that I'm generally omitting? Both of us had ~2 hours of sleep last night, we had to work on replacing two lamellar manicas...manicii?).

Also highly dependent on your situational awareness which only develops through practice.

Truer words have never been written!

In fencing is all about the wrist, but because you are using a sword you have to add your arm to get the strength needed. But as long as you keep your wrist within the box I outlined above it would take a huge disparity in speed for somebody to be faster then twisting the sword tip in to the position you need it.

Totally true. (Took me quite some time to get the idea, but then I've never claimed being very talented).

Remember because the length of the sword blade a small motion at the pivot translates into large distance at the tip. The goal is to get that tip to where you need it in space so a blow is deflected or a target is hit by the blade between it and your pommel.

The guy I'm playing with keeps reminding me that same thing.
It's also why he allows his hands to go out of the center.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

The reason I said you're using rapier techniques is that the left hand in front of the chest is part of rapier manuals but doesn't appear much earler,

That's a habit from the Walpurgis Fechtbuch, Glorious General!

and you were doing a lot of thrusts. Dark Ages swords weren't meant for thrusting... look at Oakeshott's X - XII or so. The tips are often nearly rounded.

I'd argue that there are lots of thrusts in the above fechtbuch. The rounded tips just mean that Dark Ages swords didn't expect to meet armour...but a rounded tip will go through a man.

I'm more familiar with XI - XIII century combat, and by all information available they used very different stances and poses. The vast majority of cuts were in the vertical plane, for instance.

Any sources you care to share? I'm trying to find some on that period.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

From AsenRG:
The (combat) encounters should be such that the DM should know how many the party can take on, right? Therefore, there is a system to create encounters that are appropriate to the party's average level, and scaling the encounters when they level up - i.e. encounter level.

Wow. Color me astonished. Completely different from the games I used to play in. What we got was what we got, and we had to deal with it on the spot.

I know, Uncle! The first time I heard the concept, it was 2001 or 2002, I said "I'd call it retarded, but I don't want to offend actual retards".
(I was young and opinionated, what can I say?)

Sorry to hear that, Uncle!

I was very sorry, too; cast a pall over what had been a quite lovely weekend. I suspect that this will mark my 'swan song' as a gamer, and I'll be more and more of a resource then anything else. Surprised that I'm being quoted on various forums re Braunsteins, but if that what people want it's what people want.

Well, don't be too quick to write it off as a "swan song", Uncle! You still haven't replied to my question, below...

Sure, Uncle. If I give you Blade and Crown, will you play with me?
(That's a serious question, too).

Let me think about it; I have a copy. The author is somebody I know, and they were kind enough to autograph it for me.

I'm also reading it, and liking it...
(And there is also that B�thorm game. I hear you know the author as well...though I think I like Blade and Crown better).

Originally Posted by Greentongue

The implication being that every encounter should be one that the party can defeat if they "play correctly".
There is no need for the players to evaluate the situation and flee if the odds are against them.
"Heroes don't flee and we are the Heroes."
If the players lose a conflict it is often considered the GM's fault for not setting the challenge correctly.

True.

Great for emulating heroic movies and literature I suppose.

I'd disagree strongly that it's good for emulating heroic movies.
Conan was defeated more than once in Hour of the Dragon. What's heroic enough for Conan, should be good enough for a modern gamer, too!

With the original rules having a lot of "Save or Die" situations it is not surprising that modern players avoid it.

I'd argue that the lack of ways of getting defeated but not killed, like Conan above, is the bigger obstacle.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Agreed! We always kept that as an option, on the theory that we could always come back with bigger rocks in hand...

So do my players, and me when playing.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

In his last few years of his life Gary described running OD&D Greyhawk at modern gaming cons. He said time after time players charged in, failed to watch the side passages, and got flanked, enveloped, and wiped out. Sometimes they'd die fast enough to wipe out three or four parties in a single session. He said he couldn't believe how most groups never changed their approach, including ignoring the same side passages where the enemy emerged from time after time.

That's why I do after-action debriefs at the end of the session. The players in my China 1674 campaign only entered the backyard with training dummies (and with kung-fu fighters masquerading as dummies) once, due to it!

Originally Posted by Greentongue

Well for one thing there would not be a series of books if the heroes didn't survive.

These days people advertise "Campaigns" which imply that the players will live through multiple encounters.
Creating a character can take the same amount of time as a complete game session.

Back in my starting days we just had "a Game". If we got lucky, all the characters would live through it and eventually level up.
If not, time to roll another character and try again before the night was over.

I think that's unfair to modern campaigns. I also advertise campaigns. The campaign is "you're members of group X, and stuff happens". Groups can survive the loss of a PC.

Originally Posted by Zirunel

Hey everyone, just coming back to this conversation after a lengthy absence and trying to catch up. Looks like the most vibrant and active Tekumel discussion is still to be found right here.

Welcome (back), Zirunel!

Originally Posted by Horu hiFa'asu

Honorable Uncles and cousins, I think you may to some extent be missing the forest for the trees. Rules aren't made for people who already know how to play - they are designed for people who don't. When you've got decades of experience, you don't need rules - you usually have a fairly good idea who to approximate something and how to bending and existing rule to fit a situation. When you are novice it's tough to figure out what 'reasonable' even is - the 'rules' give you a basis for figuring that all out.

How can a novice GM design an encounter designed to be 'tough' or 'easy' if they lack the experience to know what a 'balanced' encounter would even look like?

Why should a GM have a specific difficulty of the encounter in mind?

Adding 'training wheels' for newbies isn't a bad thing - nothing forces you to keep using them once you've got your balance.

It's not, but way too many players today seem to be thinking that a bicycle is supposed to have training wheels, and thus rely on them for balance.

The problem usually goes back to pedantic rules lawyers who never seem to get that the rules are there to help - not to get in the way...

Well, that's another issue. But it has more to do with crunch, for me.
A lot of modern games are selling me a Player's Handbook that has 320 pages (which is what the D&D 5e PHB is like - according to Amazon, it's Series: Dungeons & Dragons; Hardcover: 320 pages; Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 5th edition, 2014).
If I have to read 320 pages of rules to join your game, which is the norm in many 5e groups as Chirine had found, then rest assured: I'd ask you to stick to them! Otherwise, why did I have to absorb all of this?
If you're asking me to read a book that has less than 50 pages of rules, and some setting*, or something like that, then I don't care how much you stick to them. But way too many publishers want me to buy their book. And rules are often the best way to do that.

*Like Exalted: Burn Legend, which is the best entry for Exalted that I know. I can also surmise the rules in less than a page - despite other variants of Exalted being notoriously dense on rules.

Originally Posted by bconsidine

We've spoken about the movies that helped flavor the Professor's Tekumel, so with that in mind, has anyone here seen Baahubali? Tekumel goes Bollywood. I've only seen part 1, but it was a lot of fun. It's currently on Netflix.

Blaise

Well, I try to keep more to Samurai of Ayothaya but the principle is the same!

Originally Posted by Greentongue

Even in RuneQuest where taking, or being taken for, ransom is part of the game, I've noticed players would rather die than be captured by an opponent.
Kinda ties the hands of the GM.

I had that happen once.
"The enemy presses the sword's point to your character's neck."
"I refuse."
"He presses the sword, it goes the other side and your character dies. Go create another."
After the initial shock, I never had to repeat the process.

Seems like Tekumel is a prefect place for ransoming what with the clan support available.

Indeed it is!

How would you work players into accepting it as an option?
Bets? You lose and you have to spend the night in their clanhouse closet?

I would not work the players. If they think a dead PC is better than a captured one, I'm willing to provide the better option!
The characters, however, will be told in no uncertain terms that death is for fools, and to bring the smart ones for ransom.