I understand what the thread was for, but historical inconsistencies are barely relevant in a tabletop RPG, as long as it doesn't break long established "facts" people generally don't care. (the witch and druid aren't accurate at all)
give the ninja his funny sounding weapon names, its still just a short sword and a bastard sword. fluff it however you want
GP- you've got the wrong thread. You're thinking of the Samurai misconceptions thread. I think you got your threads crossed. (And Ghostbusters tells us that's a bad idea) :)
Shadow_of_Death: Sorry for the thread derail, it definitely got a bit out of hand. I'm pretty sure DragonBelow started it as a joke, though.
I was cool until I was told that the very people who invented the term 'martial art' aren't allowed to call their own systems of fighting 'martial arts'. It's out of my system now.
As for the thread topic- I agree with you. Also with GP.
EDIT: Also GP, I've found that all threads seem to have a life of their own as soon as a specific type of weapon or fighting style gets mentioned. I'll be starting an entirely weapon based thread soon to let people do their b@@#@ing. (me included)
Wow, you're right, I got my threads crossed - it means the end of the world... sorry about that.
@Shadow of Death: in the basic case you are correct, except I am developing an RPG setting for Pathfinder, based on medieval Japan that while still fantasy (horror, ghosts, goblins and demons) is much more authentic in how I depict Samurai, Ninja, katana, etc. So in a typical RPG setting this need for accuracy is unnecessary, whereas for me and Kaidan, its extremely necessary. Its not Japan, its not historical, but Kaidan is closely aligned with medieval Japanese concepts, technologies, techniques and cultural aspects - its because OA and L5R are so wrong in there depictions, its an impetus of why I am designing Kaidan this way in the first place.
GP
Wow, you're right, I got my threads crossed - it means the end of the world... sorry about that.
@Shadow of Death: in the basic case you are correct, except I am developing an RPG setting for Pathfinder, based on medieval Japan that while still fantasy (horror, ghosts, goblins and demons) is much more authentic in how I depict Samurai, Ninja, katana, etc. So in a typical RPG setting this need for accuracy is unnecessary, whereas for me and Kaidan, its extremely necessary. Its not Japan, its not historical, but Kaidan is closely aligned with medieval Japanese concepts, technologies, techniques and cultural aspects - its because OA and L5R are so wrong in there depictions, its an impetus of why I am designing Kaidan this way in the first place.
GP
No problem... we had a good run, right?
Also, in my previous post, I meant to say- I agree with you on the ninja=samurai part, not the 'use Curve Blade stats' part. I think the Curve Blade is a bit too big.
I'm looking forward to Kaidan, btw- fantasy horror in Medieval Japan sounds like a whole lot of fun. :)
I removed an excessively antagonistic post.
Neither is my Kaidan. The point is both Oriental Adventures and Rokugan were fantasy 'oriental' settings, yet both seemed to emulate Japan more than China or other oriental cultures, just that they both emulated Japan poorly. My setting is definitely not Japan either, yet I try to be more authentic to Japan, rather than shooting for a general oriental analog, mine is more specifically following Japan.
Regarding Ninja-to, not that evidence of straight sword is completely lacking in use by Ninja Houses, there is very little evidence of that, whereas katana and wakizashi being the most common Japanese swords, its more likely that ninja wielded a katana vs. a ninja-to.
The premise of my Samurai Misconceptions thread is that Ninja Houses were Samurai Houses, serving the Shogunate as a part of the military, and not rogue assassin's guilds comprised of 'dishonorable' killers. Ninja were legimate members of the Samurai caste with a distinctly covert ops training versus the more traditional battlefield specialists as most samurai are depicted as. Ninja and Samurai were equals in status and honor.
So the katana seeming to powerful for ninja - doesn't even make sense. Ninja were samurai, thus they used samurai weapons as appropriate. Its true they also specialized in covert ops weapons and tools - chain weapons, etc. In truth, shuriken was a traditional samurai weapon used as a deterent short ranged throwing weapon and is not actually a ninja specific weapon. There is more evidence of battlefield use of shuriken than ninja spy/assassin's preferred weapon.
Of course all this falls under the continued misconceptions of samurai and ninja (the point of my Samurai Misconceptions thread.)
GP
I am sure there is a place to open a thread for this but the samurai playtest isn't it.
Well we could start a thread or two titled "Examples of [insert forum name here]'s incorrect historical statements, cherry-picking of facts and selective quoting", but then some rotter would probably come along and derail us onto some unrelated point such as whether certain weapons should be solely for the use of certain classes ;-)
Well when I started this thread the goal was to straighten out some misconceptions regarding Ninja being of the samurai caste, and what weapons and accoutrements pertained to ninja and samurai, by pointing out inaccuracies using a link to a samurai site to verify what was true and what was not.
There's a gross amount of inaccuracies in other Samurai/Ninja threads on what is true. So I created this thread. When the thread went down the katana vs. the falcata, I tried to bring it back into focus, but failed. The thread has a life of its own.
I can verify that the samurai were indeed trained in martial arts, or at least trained to deal with a loss of weapon in combat, something akin to jujutsu. But anyone trying to compare modern 20th century martial arts to anything of an earlier time period - there is no comparison. Martial arts today, while still martial is more physical and philosophic training, not the art of killing as it had originally been.
When Japan moved to the 20th century, they converted all their existing martial arts training from 'jutsu' to 'do'. Martial arts with 'do' as a suffix means training for philosophy, not killing. So any martial art like 'kendo', 'aikido', 'judo' is a watered down remnant of a once true martial art intended to disable and kill your foe, something formerly called suffixed with 'jutsu', like kenjutsu, aikijutsu, and jujutsu. Japan wanted to maintain its heritage in these martial arts, but turn them away from the art of killing, as an effort to modernize and pacify what came...
War, fighting, killing all started in some rudimentary form of pushing, shoving, kicking, biting, punching whatever. Someone got smart and used a stick or a rock and from there weapons developed up and defensive measures followed (weapon and armor).
Weapons and armor will always be better than kicking and biting, but that will never make kicking and biting go away.All soldiers are taught some kind of fisticuffs or whatever. But like I've been saying, comparing 'basic training' combat techniques, that soldiers spend maybe three weeks of their career training on, do not train with daily, and likely never revisit or study after first learning it, as a fall back on "what to do if I become weaponless", is not the same as knowledge in an unarmed martial art.
Likewise, Training from one daimyos samurai and their lineage of teachers would vary so greatly from anothers, it would be so different, it could be as different as wrestling and boxing.
Going to take a class at a tae kwon do school, deciding your lazy and not going back, doesn't make you a "martial artist" because you trained in a class one day and learned to make a noise when you swung your fist.
Along the same lines as a 'first responder course' in the medical world doesn't make you a 'paramedic'.
claiming anyone who ever swung a fist, wrestled someone, or went to army/marine basic training is a martial artist is the same as calling anyone who has proficiency in katana, a samurai.
Feel free to throw around random insults about whether I have been following the thread :) The point I am making, as have others, is that your comments about what is a martial art and what isn't are wrong or inaccurate or sometimes both. Which is pretty much a consistent theme in many of your postings on various threads.
Firstly my comment about following the thread wasn't aimed at you, it was answering shadow of death.
Saying the CIA is/was not the counterpart of the GRU and the KGB is/was not the counterpart of the FBI is silly considering all agencies mentioned recognize that this is in fact the truth, arguing variations of how one government organizes their internal structures is the same as Saying: British paratroopers are not the same as their american counterparts, because american paratrooper are Army and British Paratrooper are actually attached to their Air Force.
They are in all respects (in both examples) Extremely comparable.
Also Gallo, I take it that you are saying that while in Germany, everyone was fooled by the obviously German fellow, who couldnt have been a soviet solider, despite his pictures, his old uniforms, or any other superfluous proof he had that he was former spetznaz, he just learned Sambo in some gymnasium somewhere to show off to other people, or maybe according to your version of reality, the just made it up as he went along and it looking incredibly convincing?
Also according to your version of reality, anything wiki says in a paragraph, is law, and governments just disband and reorganize in a matter of a few months, so the armies, soldiers, Officers all go poof and then come back instantly reorganized.
You see the problem with your wiki reality is that there were a lot of people who were THERE, including me, who remember it.
The British remember the Revolutionary war different than the Americans, are they 'wrong'?
Germany Army reunification did not happen at the drop of a hat. Units did of just disband and go away. Nor did All of German reunite so quickly and neatly as a few wiki paragraphs like to make it. It simply records a few official dates of signed this and recorded that.
45 years of occupation of a country that was split in two doesn't just go away and everything is good in the matter of a signature or two.
Do you think North and South Korea, or Vietnam would just unify tomorrow if a few people signed some papers?
I really dont remember (and probably wasnt privy to) the specific details of east/west german army reorganization into a single military.
I do know there were two of them (east and west) I know I talked to soldiers from both armies as indicated by the difference in their uniforms.
I know the one guy who claimed to be a former spetznaz spoke better russian than german according to our interpreter.
I grow weary of arm chair historians that want to argue "facts" with google and wiki and no actual knowledge or basis from which to argue on their own.
I've said this before, online media is no different than TV media, they will put forth 'their version' of the truth, because it fits some grander political purpose of goal.
Most of what is on TV reported on the nightly news is a skewed version of the truth, even a larger percent of what is on the internet is totally inaccurate.
If I talk about things, I have no experience with I say things like "I think" or "I heard" or "I read somewhere", and some times it's followed with a question mark at the end of it, because I'm not absolutely sure.
But most of the time, when I say something, It's because I was there, or have experienced something. Like running into some guy in the east german army that knew sambo. Just like the guy who was from Australia that called every one "scally wags" who taught me to play 'stopper' in soccer camp when I was in the 8th grade (actually during my 8th grade summer, going into freshman year)
Or are you going to tell me the soccer camp instructor wasn't really from Australia, he had a fake accent, and Australians don't use the term 'scally wags'?
The distinction with a katana (bastard sword), or wakisashi (short sword) should be in reference to how it is crafted or used. The later specifically applies to the ninja-to.
The distinction with a katana (bastard sword), or wakisashi (short sword) should be in reference to how it is crafted or used. The later specifically applies to the ninja-to.
ummm, huh?
Probably my fault if I missed the point of the thread, but if everyone agrees that a katana is equivalent to a bastard sword, and a wakisashi/ninja-to is equivalent to a shortsword. Then what makes a samurai or ninja special is how they use the weapon, plus how it is crafted. So if average joe fighter picks one up, it may be at best a mastercraft weapon, but if it is a samurai or ninja uses their weapon of choice it will allow them to do extra stuff.
That way you don't get into the argument of they can only be used by those classes, but still add some flavor/abilities.
Probably my fault if I missed the point of the thread, but if everyone agrees that a katana is equivalent to a bastard sword, and a wakisashi/ninja-to is equivalent to a shortsword. Then what makes a samurai or ninja special is how they use the weapon, plus how it is crafted. So if average joe fighter picks one up, it may be at best a mastercraft weapon, but if it is a samurai or ninja uses their weapon of choice it will allow them to do extra stuff.
That way you don't get into the argument of they can only be used by those classes, but still add some flavor/abilities.
Ok, so you are arguing for the generic-ness of weapons, coupled with class abilities that make them special; like the Samurai's weapon expertise etc.
Yea I can agree with that. I find weapon bloat irritating (sickle and kama is a good example)
Saying the CIA is/was not the counterpart of the GRU and the KGB is/was not the counterpart of the FBI is silly considering all agencies mentioned recognize that this is in fact the truth, arguing variations of how one government organizes their internal structures is the same as Saying: British paratroopers are not the same as their american counterparts, because american paratrooper are Army and British Paratrooper are actually attached to their Air Force.
They are in all respects (in both examples) Extremely comparable.
Again, you are making a rebuttal to a point I didn't make. You either criticise the specific and ignore the general, or vice versa. You continually selectively choose what you comment on to try and make your point.
Your point about paratroopers is again off on a tangent. If someone had made a point claiming that some civilian organisation that jumped out of planes to enter combat were the same as military paratroopers who jump out of planes, then you might have a point. But focus on the civilian intelligence agency versus military, internal role versus external and you might get on the right track.
Also Gallo, I take it that you are saying that while in Germany, everyone was fooled by the obviously German fellow, who couldnt have been a soviet solider, despite his pictures, his old uniforms, or any other superfluous proof he had that he was former spetznaz, he just learned Sambo in some gymnasium somewhere to show off to other people, or maybe according to your version of reality, the just made it up as he went along and it looking incredibly convincing?
My point is not about whether this mystery chap knew Sambo or not - again another irrelevant sidetrack by you. My point was about a supposed Soviet Spetznaz rocking up to the remnants of the NVA as it was in the process of disbanding/preparing to merge with the Bundeswehr.
Also according to your version of reality, anything wiki says in a paragraph, is law, and governments just disband and reorganize in a matter of a few months, so the armies, soldiers, Officers all go poof and then come back instantly reorganized.
Who says I am quoting from a wiki.? I lived in Germany prior to the Wall coming down while my father was a Defence Attache posted to Germany, I am a qualified German linguist, have worked as a German interpreter and translator, read widely on German history, have a brother who has a PhD in Germany history and has taught Modern German History at university.... So do you really think I need to resort to random wiki articles to be able to argue a point about modern German history?
I made no point about the process of the merging of the NVA and Bundeswehr.
You see the problem with your wiki reality is that there were a lot of people who were THERE, including me, who remember it.
The British remember the Revolutionary war different than the Americans, are they 'wrong'?
Germany Army reunification did not happen at the drop of a hat. Units did of just disband and go away. Nor did All of German reunite so quickly and neatly as a few wiki paragraphs like to make it. It simply records a few official dates of signed this and recorded that.
45 years of occupation of a country that was split in two doesn't just go away and everything is good in the matter of a signature or two.
The thing is that when the leaders signed those bothersome pieces of paper, Germany did become united, irrespective of whether some people weren't happy with the process or timing. Trying to compare the Revolutionary War with the German Reunification is yet another red herring on your part.
Do you think North and South Korea, or Vietnam would just unify tomorrow if a few people signed some papers?
I really dont remember (and probably wasnt privy to) the specific details of east/west german army reorganization into a single military.
I do know there were two of them (east and west) I know I talked to soldiers from both armies as indicated by the difference in their uniforms.
I know the one guy who claimed to be a former spetznaz spoke better russian than german according to our interpreter.
The Koreas, if they were to ever reunify, would, I suspect, go through a process not dissimilar to Germany. But there are so many variables at play that weren't in the German example that it is pie in the sky stuff to try and work out the ifs, hows and whens of that potential process.
Last time I checked Vietnam was united - notwithstanding the fact that many in the former South Vietnam weren't, and probably still aren't, happy about it.
I grow weary of arm chair historians that want to argue "facts" with google and wiki and no actual knowledge or basis from which to argue on their own.
Pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?
I've said this before, online media is no different than TV media, they will put forth 'their version' of the truth, because it fits some grander political purpose of goal.
Most of what is on TV reported on the nightly news is a skewed version of the truth, even a larger percent of what is on the internet is totally inaccurate.
If I talk about things, I have no experience with I say things like "I think" or "I heard" or "I read somewhere", and some times it's followed with a question mark at the end of it, because I'm not absolutely sure.
But most of the time, when I say something, It's because I was there, or have experienced something.
Again you are making the erroneous assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is relying on the internet for their information and that they are incapable of independently making their own analysis of information from a wide range of sources - real life experience and knowledge, the internet, various primary sources, scholarly works, university education etc etc.
Just like the guy who was from Australia that called every one "scally wags" who taught me to play 'stopper' in soccer camp when I was in the 8th grade (actually during my 8th grade summer, going into freshman year) Or are you going to tell me the soccer camp instructor wasn't really from Australia, he had a fake accent, and Australians don't use the term 'scally wags'?
I wouldn't doubt for a minute that the guy was from Australia. But being Australian myself I can assure you that "scallywag" is not a term in common usage, any more than it is common for your average American to go around addressing people as "pilgrim" with a John Wayne-like drawl. But again your particular example is irrelevant as it is not addressing my specific rebuttal.
Over to you......
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol i found this thread looking for a post about ninja builds, as im considering a arcane trickster build based off ninja rather than rogue (who needs evasion anyway)
So i read this whole dang monster thread, and laughed alot at the jokes, (Vuron, you are a genius) and learned alot i did not know about the various periods in japanese history.
I work in a sword store. I handle real European and Oriental swords from various makers and manufacturers all day. I could go on for days about historical facts, but I don't wanna be "that guy". But I bet I have handled more models of swords than most anyone on this thread, and I don't mean junk wall-hangers, or what we in the biz call SLO's (sword-like-objects). I study, handle, sell, sharpen, repair, customize, clean, polish, maintain, and cut with real swords. I do everything but outright forge, though i have a friend who does.
But here is what I think is relevant; my 2 cents, or however much you all deem it worth:
1. the Hollywood ninja-to are, as far as we can tell, a myth. Ninja used whatever they could get their hands on. The deceptive, long handled, short bladed sword seems logical, though, and since they mostly made their tools for themselves, there is no reason they wouldn't have taken an old found/ cheaply made blade and mounted it this way. It is super easy to handle a japanese sword- a little wood, something to wrap it in to give good grip (since the darn things got no pommels), and you pin it all together with a snapped off bamboo chopstick. Voila.
2. as others have stated, japan has crap steel. people who walk into my store talking about katanas being lightsabers, we have them hold out their hands, and we stick a piece of tamahagne in it. Its flaky, ugly, black junk. Japanese had to learn all the bells and whistled and hoodoo of forging swords that way, as one poster said, to make a sword that held an edge yet didnt shatter like dropped porcelain. Europeans didnt make swords this way because they didnt have to- europe has good steel.
3. katanas are not curved to make them cut better. they curve naturally in the forging process, after the clay is added and the final hardening of the edge is done (the step that adds the cool wavy lines on the edge, called the hamon). the front and back edges of the sword cool differently, so the blade curves. Beginning and end of story, though master smiths could control the curvature like... well, like masters. Not that the curve did not have advantages; it facilitated sweeping draw cuts from horseback, much like cavalry sabres. It also sucked against armor. royally.
4. European swords were not crude lumps of pig iron, as one learned fellow mentioned. European swordsmanship was just as well developed, codified, and taught as anything that ever came out of Japan, China, or anywhere else in the world. Google MS I.33. It is the oldest European Fechtbuch (fight book, literally) in existence, detailing sword and buckler dueling in the 12th century. And the swords were amazingly well crafted pieces of technology, from the meticulously crafted pattern-welded viking swords to the elizabethan/ italian and spanish rapiers.
The main difference between eastern and western swordsmanship is that there is a much more available living tradition of eastern martial arts, since they did not abandon the sword in Japan in favor of the gun as soon as firearm technology advanced far enough that it was advantageous to do so, which is what they did in europe.
5. I really feel for the devs. trying to walk the line between accuracy and pleasing the fantasy crowd, especially since leaning toward a historically accurate comparison highlights the glaring inaccuracies that are already existent in D&D's weapons and armor. I agree- keep it as bastard sword and short sword. true, the katana weighs much closer to a d&d longsword, but that just points the falacy of a longsword- a true european longsword is in fact a 2 handed weapon that can be used in one hand when performing certain maneuvers. It is synonymous with a bastard sword, for all intents and purposes, as it was just a but lighter and faster than a greatsword/warsword, but longer than the one handed viking sword or the crusades era/knightly arming sword, which is what we have based our completely inaccurately named longsword on (what can I say- gygax screwed up).
6. NOT getting sucked into the martial arts debate (though I stayed up until 2 reading it lol), but I will give a little history: as someone mentioned, it was coined by Europeans to define THEIR OWN fighting traditions, and when they saw they oriental fighting methods, they agreed, them eastern people had their own martial arts. Heh, who'd a thunk? Google Bartitsu, if you aint sure, as well as Achille Marrozo, Rudolpho cappoferro, Johannes Lichtenauer, and Fiore De Liberi. Okay okay, google Destreza as well; I suppose I have to mention the Spanish system too, since ive gone this far. or just go watch Reclaiming the Blade, which will give you a pretty good outline of all this.
so my conclusion: should katana and wakizashi be samurai weapons, but not ninja? absolutely not, since ninja-to swords are figments of Hollywood's creativity (but heck, I own one :). I'll go one step further: if you say that, then to remain accurate, youd also have to make early pistols and rifles available to samurai, cavaliers, and even ninja (who, again, made their own).
I hope I havent beeN too pedantic, and have managed to stay off any soap boxrs.
Cheers!
Excellent Stuff
Nothing pedantic about that at all. This argument keeps slipping into a "No U!!!!" affair between the fanbois and the history buffs, both for and against the 'superiority' of the Eastern Martial Arts and equipment over the rest of the world, and your post is a nice breath of fresh air to a rapidly stagnating argument.
|
|
Excellent StuffNothing pedantic about that at all. This argument keeps slipping into a "No U!!!!" affair between the fanbois and the history buffs, both for and against the 'superiority' of the Eastern Martial Arts and equipment over the rest of the world, and your post is a nice breath of fresh air to a rapidly stagnating argument.
Thank you kindly! Also, thought it mention 3 post script points:
1. I for one dont just get my information from the internet, I have been a student of Martial Arts, both Eastern and Western, for the last 18 years. That having been said, there is some good info out there. You really want to throw a fly into most D&D players good time ointment: look up Longsword on wikipedia (Who has it completely correct, by the way), and search for images of a buckler. Yep, its got a handle smack dab in the middle, and doesn't strap anywhere on your body other than your belt, when you carry it. You certainly cant hold anything in the hand of the arm it is strapped to, because it aint strapped anywhere (that having been said, my arcane trickster will certainly cast spells with the hand his mithril buckler is strapped to ;). Oh, and you punch and strike with a buckler just as much as you parry and block with it. At least, thats what I do with mine.
2. Take everything you see on the Hitler Channel with a grain of salt, and completely disregard 85% of everything you see on Deadliest Warrior. At my sword store, we have to debunk more ridiculous inaccuracies about weapons than I care to think about every time a new episode of that show comes out. Oh, but watch the Ming warrior vs musketeer episode, specifically the final fight. My buddy Jose is the Musketeer with the handlebar mustache who gets shot in the neck by the Ming gun. He's such a clown.
3. final note on Katanas- A friend who was watching a katana demo in Tokyo a few years ago mentioned how they demonstrated just how awful the sword was against armor. 1. it does not cut steel like a lightsabre, and 2. They double hand thrust one into a weak spot in some o-yoroi, and it got completely stuck. It is too thick and inflexible to make withdrawing from a successful thrust to armor feasible on the battlefield. European swords were a bit thinner, and MUCH more flexible, which makes withdrawing them from armor in a hurry do-able.