[Note: This is the second draft. Comments welcome to Summers@alum.mit.edu...] WHY PEOPLE OBJECT TO HOW THE KATANA IS HANDLED... by David P. Summers [Copyright David Summers. Permission given to make and post copies provided the document is not changed and is copied in its entirety.] Many people find the stats for the Katana, and the corresponding Katana skill, to be a symptom of what one poster described as the "The Japanese Name Bonus". (ie. anything that has a Japanese name on it is seen as "cool" and given bonuses, see Kevin's comments at the end). One of the clearest ways of showing these objections is to compare the Katana with a sword of similar size that can also be used one or two handed, the thrusting Bastard Sword. When used one handed, the Katana does a point more damage and you don't have to ready the sword every time you swing. When you use it two handed, you still do one more point of damage and you also, when you are lightly encumbered or less, get a 2/3 parry. Additionally, a Bastard Sword requires you to learn two different skills to be used with one or two hands while the Katana one requires one. On top of all this, the katana costs $100 less. Why? One rational is that the extra damage is due to superior weapon making techniques. Even if this is true (it has been debated how superior Japanese techniques are with respect to European abilities), then were are presenting the benefits of a "fine" quality weapon. The base stats listed should be those for an "average" weapon (ie one point less). Then, in a setting where weapon manufacture was superior, the benefits can be applied to _all_ weapons buy making them all fine (since a society that will maker superior Katanas will also make superior Bastard Swords, Greatswords, Broadswords, etc.). However, even then we still have a problem.... If we correct for weapon quality, the katana does similar damage as a Bastard Sword. But the question still arises about the other advantages listed above. It has been claimed that the sword is better balanced and that is why it parries better and is easier to reready. The problem with this is that a weapon is more balanced by moving weight away from the blade (centering it closer to the hands). This means that a Katana should do less damage than a Bastard Sword. Also, it is hard to justify the huge 2/3 parry. The popularity of the Shortsword arose from the fact it was a good parrying weapon yet it gains no bonus at all (no matter what the encumbrance). It also is still only requires one skill for both one and two handed use. How should a katana be handled? One choice would be to just use the stats for a Bastard Sword. However, some feel it should be more balanced than a Bastard sword. An alternative is the katana uses the Broadsword skill one handed and the Bastard sword skill two handed (you could make up two new separate skills, but I don't really see any reason). The katana is said to be bit better balanced than a Bastard sword, so it does one point less damage two handed and does the same damage one handed but, unlike a Bastard Sword, it doesn't need to be readied. This is still a little generous (it beats the bastard sword in the role it was designed for since loosing the ready is more important than a +1 to damage) but not objectionably so. Some specific points that are raised to defend the current statistics and responses there to... [The fact that there are so many different justifications for the katana's stats is itself seen by some as a symptom of rationalization to make reality fit stats rather than the other way around.] -First of all, weapons in the real-world aren't game balanced. The complaint isn't that they aren't game balanced. It's that they have bonuses heaped on them that aren't realistic. - Damage doesn't depend on the weight of the blade. With the same force, a lighter blade will be accelerated faster and thus achieves the same energy. A heavier blade gives you more leverage. It is difficult for humans to push against moving objects and so they can apply more force to slower moving lever. With a heavier blade more force is applied over the same distance (resulting in more energy being put into the blade). Another way of thinking of it is that the heavier weight gives you "something to push against". If you look at systems that model weapon damage (like the melee weapon rules in Guns! Guns! Guns!) you see that they all include the weight of the blade as a positive determiner of damage. That is, after all, why they put those heavy balls on the end of maces and flails. Conversely, if this was right, then all swung weapons would do the same damage (from a Shortsword to a Greatsword) - The katana is a weapon that was designed to work in it's own environment (ie not heavily armored). That might be more persuasive if the weapon gave up utility in heavy weapons fighting for lightly armored situations. The problem is that with it's current stats, the katana is an equal or superior weapon for _all_ styles. If you are wearing heavy armor, it still does as much damage as a Bastard sword, but doesn't need to be readied when used one handed. And it does this without requiring one to learn a second skill. - A katana applies to settings where Bastard Swords, etc. don't exist, so it doesn't matter. The problem here is two fold. 1) The fact that the katana is out of whack with other weapons raises questions about how realistic it's stats are, even if those weapons aren't used, 2) A number of Fantasy setting do, in fact, mix cultures (like Oriental and Occidental) more than they mixed historically. -Well, the one-handed use acts more as a special effect... Someone who has spent points trying to make fighters be effective regardless of whether they are caught with their shield on their backs can tell you this is more than a special effect. As one poster said "Then wielding a bastard sword one-handed should be made a Not-Quite-So-Special Effect. Shield skill was taught with Broadsword in the Middle Ages, for completeness -- but that hardly makes them one skill! - Like fencing, it is a technical advance over melee weapons. This is based on the myth that medieval fighting was little more than unskilled clubbing of your opponent. Fencing wasn't a technical advance. Many of the techniques were known before the Renaissance. It was just a specialization that sacrificed damage on the assumption that you and your opponent wouldn't be wearing armor. Fencers don't parry better because their training is "special". They parry well because they use a style designed specifically for very quick, light weapons make other trade-offs of damage (you can't punch through armor with a fencing weapon and that's why fencing became popular in settings where opponents weren't expected to be wearing armor.) - Make the katana skill P/H. It reflects the extra training to use the weapon either with one or two hands, and preserves the annoying concept of "game balance". The problem is that game balance is not the objection (and even if it was this wouldn't quite do it, P/H is really on worth a -1 to skill while a 2/3 parry is worth a +2 to +3 to parry at decent levels). This approach just tacks on new stats, without any real justification, to game balance other stats that had little justification. Skill difficulty is not supppose to be something thrown in for game balance, it is suppose to represent a real difference in how hard a skill is to learn. After all why doesn't every weapon have a P/H version of it's skill that gives a 2/3 parry? There really is no explanation of how the weapon can be used in a more difficult way to enhance parries (it is true that a skilled swordsman parries better, but that is what high skill levels are for). Also, a katana, at 5 Lbs, is a lot heavier than a fencing weapon that sacrifices more, in terms of damage and breakability, for it's 2/3 balance and a staff is held with the center of balance between ones hands (rather than off to one side). -It's the result of great physical condition and dedication on the part of the Samurai. If the benefit is because of a lot of training, then, the character should just put a lot of points into it. Not get a special bonus. -It involves special mental discipline or meditative techniques. The begins to get into Oriental mysticisms which so many people see as "cool" (and so get exaggerated). This is fine for a cinematic games (though in that case you can give any weapon any stat you want). Such things were not, contrary to popular belief, unknown in the West. Moreover, cinema aside, there is no evidence that such things can give you a definitive performance edge (martial arts exhibits not withstanding, when you compare apples to apples, the fact is that you can't find an superior level of ability between orientals and westerners). But even if the above is disregarded, the fact is that the katana is still being given special treatment. It is true that avoiding unnecessary distraction is good (this was recognized in the West), but if you wanted to include this, then you would have to handle all forms of distraction, rather than picking out certain weapon and giving it a fixed bonus. What is more, these techniques are not inherent to the katana and there is not reason why they should be applied to only that weapon (and, the fact that it only applies to certain aspects of weapon use makes it doubly odd). There is no reason why they couldn't be applied to sword and shield, etc. and should be, in fact, a separate skill that can be applied to all physical endeavors (though I would also argue, as I do above, that it should that it would still be cinematic. - Various comments from practitioners about how great a katana is... Sure it's a great weapon. That why they used it. So is a broadsword. That's why so many used it. Everyone wants to think that the style they spend so much time on is the best. You can find practitioners of Western styles who have, for the same reasons, the opposite view and every one has their own stories. One is when a person experienced in sword and shield was taking lessons from an oriental katana instructor. He took a garbage can lid and proceeded to block ever shot. The instructor was then heard to comment on how tricky medieval European warriors were. -Katana is a defensive technique... If so, what does it give up on offense? [The following is an excerpt from one of the katana threads by Kevin Chase (used with permission). Consistent with what Kevin says is the fact in almost every game that Išve seen that hasnšt banned Oriental stats, everyone who isnšt a mage either uses a katana or is some sort of Oriental Martial artists.] From: "Kevin J. Chase" Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:54:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Katanas and other swords. [In response to a post by Sakura...] You've stumbled on something I've long believed wrong with most RPG designers: there is this mystique about the Orient that comes out in the game mechanics. AD&D's Oriental Adventures was perhaps the worst offender, but I think just about any RPG that produces an Oriental worldbook falls into the same trap. The katana is almost always a perfect example. Weapons like the katana, Oriental fighting styles, and even armor and (occasionally) magic tend to be heaped with bonuses, because they're somehow ``special''. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that this wouldn't make it `special' enough. Because they look spiff in movies, and are just generally `cooler' than anything produced in the Occident, all Oriental weapons have to get their own skills, abilities, and bonuses... to the point that even players who aren't members of the Oriental Fan Club no longer see any reason to use Occidental rules at all. By giving one or two weapons `coolness bonuses' for no readily apparent reason, the game must then justify why similar weapons aren't cool enough to get it as well. That feeling of realism goes away.