mixed martial arts art?

sinestus · Unread post by **sinestus** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:32 pm

most modern martial arts are just this... mixes of earlier styles...

totally common...

back when i ran N&SS i'd allow players to declair their character to be using a combination style...

where they'd average the boni of their other styles, and then select the base catagories of each... (thus using the grappling techniques of style A, the hand techniques of B, and the Kicks of C, or whatever...)
and only non-Bodyhardening Martial arts of one style was included until they reached level 8 (wher they could use from two)

but i dropped in a core rule where they had to actively switch between styles... thus all base (gut, first initiative) actions had to be from the mix style... they had to sacrifice a melee action (and kept the lower number of actions from their styles) to switch styles.. and could only switch once per melee...

tho.. .in those "as close to real..." fights... questions:
1. firearms?
2. what about the non-compedative styles... you ever hear of someone in those using Tai Chi or the like?

sinestus · Unread post by **sinestus** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:14 pm

so back to the matter at hand...

giving the styles their own listing would imply there's a standardization for 'em...

what you might consider is doing something like the rifter write up of Jeet Kun Do... or the Demon Hunter's OCC martial art,
where the character gets to pick up skills from other arts as the progress in experience, based on what they've encountered and studied...

but then again, the HtH Martial Arts in HU and 2nd ed. Palladium does something similar...

Mantisking · Unread post by **Mantisking** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:55 pm

As much as I hate to reccomend this, BCL did a write-up for MMA in Rifter #7. Unfortunately he got confused and called it Brazilian Jui-Jitsu. :rolleyes:

sinestus · Unread post by **sinestus** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:19 am

well, there you go...

done and done,
someone already gave it a write up...

tsh77769 · Unread post by **tsh77769** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:22 am

You know all that ultimate fighting type stuff and all the sports or competition martial arts all fail to adress the fact taht according to FBI statistics more than 68% of the time their will be multiple attackers.

TSH77769

Colonel Wolfe · Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:56 pm

I found the Strange fact 100% of Fights in Wretsling Class end up on the ground.**

** i made it up

sinestus · Unread post by **sinestus** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:32 am

uh, guys...

unless people have learned to fly again,
isn't damn near every fight on the ground (short of parachooting ninja battling it out in the sky...)

sinestus · Unread post by **sinestus** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:31 pm

ok guys.. .

let's not let this get derailed...

we don't need a reprint of the Tao of Jeek Kun Do printed here...
nor any of Freud's work...

if the only reason you're learning martial arts is to break penis... i mean bones... then you're in it for the wrong reasons...

as the military joke goes
nothing that will survive combat will pass inspection
the reverse is also true.

so befoe we're de-railed any further,
how about we move on...
think some one could write up a "modular" martial art construction system...

Mantisking · Unread post by **Mantisking** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:02 am

Originally posted by heretic888.]
Daito ryu Aikijutsu, Kukishin ryu Jujutsu, and Pa Kua Chuan, actually.

Actually that's Pa Kua Chang. Pa Kua Ch'uan is a different, external style.

Hibik · Unread post by **Hibik** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:51 pm

Gyah, confusing Wade Giles-ish romanization... is Pa Kua Chuan a style? It's one I've never heard of (unless I know the pinyin name or something)

Anyway, 2 cents.

I am reminded of something my teacher has told me about a billion and one times. First time I heard it came out something like this.
"You hear that crap about people who go into a fight against five people and beat the crap out of all of them without taking a scratch, right? Bull @#%ing $#@! Anytime you go into a fight, you are a dumb@$$ if you think you'll get away unscathed. Chances overwhelmingly, you are probably going to take some knocks. It's an issue of whether you're walking to the hospital or going to the morgue."

I'll trust the wisdom of a 31 year old man whose been learning martial arts since his early teens and scrappy as hell until he was around 20.

I actually have to agree with a lot of evilgeeks points. A lot of schools do try and drive some sort of pseudo mystic mindset into a person, teaching techniques that may be too overcomplicated in a real life application, a mindset that makes you feel untouchable, or unusable due to psychological factors (fear). A lot of southern Kung Fu styles (being that's my area of specialty, I shall use it as an example) developed and favored quicker, simpler hand techniques for several reasons, namely, ease of training, and practicality. Not to say that most other styles use impractical techniques, but you have to be able to know what's appropriate for the right time. For some reason, a lot of people with martial arts experience LOVE to use the unnecessary fancy moves. Simple is the shortest.

Also, I should note, although it's probably an obvious point to the lot of you, that Bruce Lee, Ueshiba, Musashi, Yip Man, Pan Qing Fu, Zhang Ziping, and any other noted martial artists, living or dead, probably did NOT go into any fight expecting to come out unscathed.

Guest · Unread post by **Guest** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:27 am

Yeah, alot of good points have been made.

but the one thing I noticed early on was trying to stick to a form got me hit too much...

there is no single form that is perfect, because there is no real life situation in which you will encounter the exact moves that you trained to counter and take advantage of.

all the stances and flashy shadow boxing in the world won't save your ass when you **** off a guy 100 lbs heavier than you and he throws you bodily into a wall 6 feet away.

now, a katana on the other hand. :demon:

Hibik · Unread post by **Hibik** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:16 am

I think the point made is it's generally encouraged to achieve a real proficiency in one art over learning bits and pieces from several.

Mantisking · Unread post by **Mantisking** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:13 pm

Originally posted by Hibik.
Gyah, confusing Wade Giles-ish romanization... is Pa Kua Chuan a style? It's one I've never heard of (unless I know the pinyin name or something).

Pa Kua Chang is romanized as Baguazhang in Pinyin. Pa Kua Ch'uan would be Baguaquan.

Hibik · Unread post by **Hibik** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:47 am

Figured that. Like I said, not familar with it.

sinestus · Unread post by **sinestus** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 7:09 pm

i would just like to say that no matter how practical a style is...

it is absolutely useless unless you can confront an enemy and state something along the lines of

"Your White Blossem Fist may be strong, but it will never defeat my Red Lightning Kick of the South..."

what's the point of studying martial arts if you can't have cool "dashing across the roof tops" fight sequences and invincible secret techniques...

Hibik · Unread post by **Hibik** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:02 am

...I have to agree too, but... *smacks forehead*

Sentinel · Unread post by **Sentinel** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 1:38 pm

So, perhaps a relevent question would be,
Should NSS combat reflect the reality of fighting using martials arts, or should it reflect the more cinematic style of fighting? Can a game embrace Crouching tiger/Hidden Dragon, as well as Gracie Jujitsu? Muay Thai and Jeet Kune Do side by side with Legend of Drunken Master and Shaolin Challenges Ninja?
I personally prefer the cinematic approach. I hold two black belts, and years of training in non-belt systems, and I understand that in combat, there are few constants, and you can only expect the unexpected. In my games however, and in any other form of entertainment (let's not forget that's what gaming is) I like the wild martial arts action better suited to the Legendary Shaolin temple, as oppsed to the real one.
I have not had a lot of need for (or success with) evenly balancing 4-colour combatants against realistic ones...sorry, but Royce Gracie can't beat Iron Fist in 10 out of 10 battles...not until Gracie learns something from legend.

Sentinel · Unread post by **Sentinel** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:10 pm

Amen. In my game, I am not necessarily interested in perfectly representing real life. I want the stuff of epic legend.
Real life martial artists don't go looking for trouble. I need adventurers who do. Real people don't dodge bullets, or risk life and limb in hair raising death-defying NONSENSE scenarios. I don't need realism.
Plausability, now that's another matter. I can always use that. Just enough science to make the fiction interesting, eh?

sinestus · Unread post by **sinestus** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:21 pm

evilgeek wrote:As far as the game goes, I'm far more happy with the game's cinematic representation.

Though, I get a little irked when people start using faux rhetoric to mislead others.

http://www.jkd-kbh.dk/sbg2.wmv

I wish I had posted this little gem before, but I think it fully illustrates my point.

accurate... to a point...

they ignore the purpose of practicing what they lable as a "dead pattern" in most martial arts..., and that's to build up reflex responses...
the idea in most practices are to build up your reflexes and mindset so you can run the pattern at combat speed and sill have the positioning...
the problem is, many schools don't run the patterns at combat speed because of health risks...

using their chess example,
running 100 matches against the same oppoenent will only get you to the oppoent's level, give or take... you can only learn what they'll do...
for that kind of "live" training to really mean anything, you need to practice against many opponents multiple times...

the theory behind patterned training is like reading books on chess strategies,
they martial art takes the most common, and most useful of the responses, and ingranes them into the student's reflexes

the problem that arises is that it's too easy for a school to believe that their default responses are best,
to forget that combat is fluid
a balance between trained responses, and those developed by the student themselves is what they should strive for...

if you look closely, you'll see thats what your "live" styles use, even if they don't announce it...
students will study the moves of their instructors in an effort to mimic them, and thus the default responses are built...

but whatever...

i'll take Jet Li's cool kung fu over flop like a fish wrestling any day...

sinestus · Unread post by **sinestus** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:27 pm

nope
not worried about the discussion anymore...

was just concerned that they kinda ignored the idea behind static drills...

at this point... it's not like anyone will convert from one method to the other...

so it's kinda a pointless argument...

i just felt the chess analogy needed a response, 'cause it didn't really adress any issue...
the wrong example for the argument...
but maybe that's just me...