Teaching Offense and Defense

[Synthesis]

I think they should be teachable just like any other skill.

[House Rising Sun]

I was talking about this with someone just a few days ago. I can't even count the times my characters have RPed fighting lessons to newbie pcs that start from the ground up with the basics of combat: stuff like where to put your feet, how to decide when to get closer or further away, how to take advantage of situational advantages like reach or your opponent's different style from yours. Then at the end of a good, long, satisfying scene, there's nothing to show because the pc might not have the right weapon skill, or hasn't branched parry.

If this doesn't get implemented I would recommend logging any such lessons, making sure they're long enough to justify the unorthodox boost, and submitting a request to have your offense and/or defense increased. It's not as good as noticing a slight immediate improvement, but it's better than nothing.

If it does, I think the increase should be minimal. For most people, who don't understand the way this whole thing works like Synthesis does, offense and defense go up a whole lot slower than anything else, and I believe there's a reason for that. It's just so universally helpful that every little boost makes a difference in a fight, and the teachings have to be so broad and conceptual that I can imagine learning through teaching taking a very long time.

[SMuz]

There should be an "I don't care" option in the poll

I think it makes sense. Sometimes you have a good fighter who's only good with say piercing weapons, but doesn't know what to teach to a swordsman. Yeah, there's always things like how to step, how to grip the weapon, anticipating attacks, looseness. Similarly, I think the stats should be trainable too.

On the other hand, I've always considered offense and defense to be more of a reflex thing. It's sort of like walking or running or bowel control, you do it long enough and it becomes natural.

[Krath]

No. NATURAL Offense and Natural Defense, should never
be trainable. If you want a raise log your sessions and
send in a request.

[X-D]

I say no.

They are not skills, they are aptitude and body training and shit....A mixture of all the little things that improve over a long time of doing something. And by little things I mean, greater joint flexibility, better balance etc. Not skills. Skills are teachable.

[Pale Horse]

I say no.

They are not skills, they are aptitude and body training and shit....A mixture of all the little things that improve over a long time of doing something. And by little things I mean, greater joint flexibility, better balance etc. Not skills. Skills are teachable.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying Offense and Defense are, in some way, "Combat Experience?"  Knowing how a fight flows, how to stand, position yourself, blah, blah.

I can dig that.

[Eloran]

I'd rather not have this for a myriad of reasons that I can't really illustrate for fear of this thread Iran'ing away.

[FantasyWriter]

I'd rather not have this for a myriad of reasons that I can't really illustrate for fear of this thread Iran'ing away.

Same here.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I feel that the correct answer is no, as well.

Offense and defense are experience - it's not a skill in the narrow sense of the word. Therefore, no teaching it. That's hard knocks.

[Ammut]

You can teach offense and defense skills -- blah weapons and shield use, parry, kick, etc.

I think those are enough, but it would be cool to see how things would work out the other way too.

[Synthesis]

The power of teaching offense and defense would be mitigated by the way the 'teach' command works, and by the difficulty of raising offense and defense in general.  Since the skills improve so slowly, few people would be able to pull off a successful teach in the first place, making those who could do so much more valuable to their clan.

I brought the idea up because the 'teach' command is typically underutilized.  From my own experience, this seems to be because those who are good at fighting don't share the same skillset as those who aren't.

That is:  warriors don't need to teach other warriors, because they'll be good enough in a few days' playing time, anyway.  The experienced warrior Sergeants of clans need to teach the assassins/burglars/etc. in the clan, but the only widely-used skills they have that overlap are piercing weapons and dual wield.  If you didn't specialize in piercing weapons (and not many warriors beyond d-elves do), then the only thing you can teach (that they'll actually use) is dual wield.

As far as combat mentorship goes, this turns experienced warriors into little more than glorified sparring dummies, because after a few sparring sessions and a 'teach', they typically can't teach anything else, other than a secondary weapon skill that their recruits probably aren't going to use anyway.  Meanwhile, these recruits who are no longer teachable are still pretty pathetic in a fight.

Furthermore, some guilds (merchants, magickers) don't even -have- weapon skills, making them completely unteachable.  The only way for them to improve in a fight is to spar religiously and slowly grind up base offense and defense.  Personally, I think having an experienced warrior (or other combat specialist) would make this process go much more quickly, and this would be reflected by the ability to 'teach' these skills.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I see where you are coming from.

Hrm.

[Halcyon]

If the point is realism, I think they certainly should be teachable.  Balance skills, footwork, range perception and control, timing perception and control, position as an offensive and defensive tool, and several other skills can be studied independently of weapon specific skills, like manipulation of weapon balance point, specific lines and arcs of attack more fitting to a weapon, matching weapon to specific armor, adjustment to different weight, length and weapon speed, etc.

If the point is avoiding some game mechanic problem, thats a different story.

[RogueGunslinger]

I voted yes. I've seen many RP'd out training sessions that could benefit from this. You can teach someone to be a better fighter.

[X-D]

And you already can....slashing/blunt/dual/piercing/kick/bash/disarm/archery etc etc etc etc etc.

But what you cannot teach is flexibility, balance, knowing when exactly to move one way or the other from what the other person is going to do, body learning, programmed reflex etc etc etc. This is what base off/def is.

[Synthesis]

And you already can....slashing/blunt/dual/piercing/kick/bash/disarm/archery etc etc etc etc etc.

But what you cannot teach is flexibility, balance, knowing when exactly to move one way or the other from what the other person is going to do, body learning, programmed reflex etc etc etc. This is what base off/def is.

If you can't teach all that, wow...every martial arts studio in the world is completely bogus.

[RogueGunslinger]

Exactly. All of those things can be taught. Through repetition and training, showing stances, foot placement, what to do if someone does"This" to you.

[Is Friday]

I think it presents more coded problems than is "unreasonable".

Also: Experience in applying martial arts/fighting is much different than knowing the skills. Thus! Off/def. You can go through a million drills and not be able to apply it as well as someone that's actually "done" it when their life depended on it.

[Dalmeth]

I voted yes, but I also want the added caveat of a rather low upper limit to how much these skills can be taught.  In these skills, yes, the basics can be taught.  However, if you really want to excel, you should need to work at it like everyone else.

[X-D]

If you can't teach all that, wow...every martial arts studio in the world is completely bogus

For the most part, they are, but that would be different thread.

You can teach somebody how to learn such things but the fact is, they will only learn through practice and lots of it.

I can teach/tell/instruct/demonstrate a backflip to a gymnest 1000 times, but until they work on it on their own they will never learn it. I can tell you how to ride a bike and even show you, but you Will still fail without practice.

On the other hand, I can instruct the proper way to hold a shield, the best ways to block, how to hold a sword, many different moves with said item and with such training you will be able to enter a fight with something to work with even if you are not a pro.

[Halcyon]

I think it presents more coded problems than is "unreasonable".

Also: Experience in applying martial arts/fighting is much different than knowing the skills. Thus! Off/def. You can go through a million drills and not be able to apply it as well as someone that's actually "done" it when their life depended on it.

Respectfully, if this is the case, get rid of the ineffective teacher.  Drilling a thing a million times is what people do to commit a skill to muscle memory, to be able to perform it flawlessly without thinking, on some trigger.  Drilling like this almost has to be done from teaching, to be truly effective.

I think you could avoid game bending problems by having a cap to the teachable skill being (teachers skill - some large number).  In a perfect world, there would also be a teaching skill that would determine "some large number".  A cap implemented in this way would make legendarily skilled fighters, regardless of stats, a valued resource.  I think old, crippled, or otherwise past their prime warriors should be able to take this kind of role.  It'd certainly give another layer to martial organizations and stories.

[Is Friday]

Because the code does not account for the emotional/psychological/chemical effects of fighting off/def works as a shitty replacement. You can't argue to me that someone with 20 years dojo experience yet never been in a real fight before that he did not anticipate would not suffer performance reduction just based on that.

[Qzzrbl]

If the point is realism, I think they certainly should be teachable.  Balance skills, footwork, range perception and control, timing perception and control, position as an offensive and defensive tool, and several other skills can be studied independently of weapon specific skills, like manipulation of weapon balance point, specific lines and arcs of attack more fitting to a weapon, matching weapon to specific armor, adjustment to different weight, length and weapon speed, etc.

If the point is avoiding some game mechanic problem, thats a different story.

Right, and how do you teach someone like balance skills, footwork, range perception, etc., etc., etc?

You sit there with charts and explain it to them?

No.

You throw them in the ring and bloody them up until they get the gist of it, i.e. sparring.

Making offense and defense teachable skills would make sparring obsolete, because you could have one -really- good warrior teaching an ass-ton of students without actually fighting against them.

And I don't believe that matching weapons to armor should be a skill.....

I vote no.

[Gimfalisette]

Making offense and defense teachable skills would make sparring obsolete

Yeah, I'd really, really, REALLY miss the endless sparring. Without sparring, what else would there be to do in a military clan? Having off/def be teachable would make the game more interesting and mutually involving, and possibly open up new avenues of RP and new roles, therefore I vote no.

[Qzzrbl]

Making offense and defense teachable skills would make sparring obsolete

Yeah, I'd really, really, REALLY miss the endless sparring. Without sparring, what else would there be to do in a military clan? Having off/def be teachable would make the game more interesting and mutually involving, and possibly open up new avenues of RP and new roles, therefore I vote no.

-shrug-

I don't know about you, but the interaction I get with my clan-mates, the constant joking around and talking and  getting to know the other characters a little better.... I kinda find it enjoyable.

It's only as fun as you make it.