Humans in rpgs

Recommended Videos

number4096

New member
Jan 26, 2010
249
0
0
Wow,you took it more seriously than i tought,sorry.

Also,if you want a realistic fighting game,here is one:

Bushido Blade.

You can watch it on Youtube,or maybe get it on an emulator.

You don't have a life bar,your character dies if the attack he/she received would logically kill him/her.To give you an idea.
 

number4096

New member
Jan 26, 2010
249
0
0
There are too many things i mentioned in this whole thread that you skipped over without analyzing so i will give you the benefit of the doubt on human badassery(Namely,you assume too much about past history,so what you are saying actually happened could be as right as what romances said happened because you were not there so you can only assume.In the same way i can decide that Zhao Yun was a girl disguised as a guy because you were not there to tell.This is but one factor.).

Not everyone who got their names recorded was a general.Look at Musashi Miyamoto.
 

Grand_Arcana

New member
Aug 5, 2009
489
0
0
number4096 said:
There are too many things i mentioned in this whole thread that you skipped over without analyzing so i will give you the benefit of the doubt on human badassery(Namely,you assume too much about past history,so what you are saying actually happened could be as right as what romances said happened because you were not there so you can only assume.In the same way i can decide that Zhao Yun was a girl disguised as a guy because you were not there to tell.This is but one factor.).

Not everyone who got their names recorded was a general.Look at Musashi Miyamoto.
Your first paragraph would render all evidence illegitimate. For example, I'm a pink elephant. Stop grasping at straws.

Musashi wrote a swordsmanship manual that survived to be recorded. So did Johannes Liechtenauer. There were many manuscripts that probably didn't survive. He simply had something to be remembered by. It had nothing with him being "badass".

We have not ignored anything that you've typed. We have carefully debunked every claim you've made with evidence.

"Swords were impractical." Debunked

"Pole-arms were unbeatable." Debunked

"A single man can fight an army head-on." Debunked

"If we weren't super strong, we'd go extinct." Debunked

"Katana were superior in every way." Debunked

"Cavemen fought toe-to-toe with lions, tigers, and bears." Debunked

Shall I go on?
 

number4096

New member
Jan 26, 2010
249
0
0
I may keep saying that humans are badass and invincible,but it seems there is someone out there who is of a differing opinion than me regarding humans's"supposed"badassery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6klaUw997Qo

Good points,too.
 

number4096

New member
Jan 26, 2010
249
0
0
There is more factors than that and not all those you mentioned were debunked.Since recorded history is vague and what we know on melee weapons is based on it.Get in a real fight with those weapons were your life is in danger and we will have something to base ourselves on.

As for the debunked factors,the first,second and fifth factors were debunked.The rest is debatable and will probably never get anywhere.
 

Zacharine

New member
Apr 17, 2009
2,854
0
0
number4096 said:
There are too many things i mentioned in this whole thread that you skipped over without analyzing so i will give you the benefit of the doubt on human badassery(Namely,you assume too much about past history,so what you are saying actually happened could be as right as what romances said happened because you were not there so you can only assume.In the same way i can decide that Zhao Yun was a girl disguised as a guy because you were not there to tell.This is but one factor.).

Not everyone who got their names recorded was a general.Look at Musashi Miyamoto.
And there are far too many things you refuse to think about based on my posts. You seem to have this ridiculous notion of human badassery being real that you assume it is the answer to everything.

Again, you bring Miyamoto up. Read my previous posts about him and try to find the magic word: duel.

Straight from wikipedia. Read, learn and think. Do not assume. At every point, ask yourself: How do we know this? What evidence could there be for this? Are these the actions of an undefeatable sword-master capable of killing armies? Or just a man who was dedicated to the sword, good with it and fought with cunning against singular opponents?

"Munisai's tomb says he died in 1580,conflicts with the accepted birth date of 1584 for Musashi. Further muddying the waters, according to the genealogy of the extant Miyamoto family, Musashi was born in 1582. Kenji Tokitsu has suggested that the accepted birth date of 1584 for Musashi is wrong, as it is primarily based on a literal reading of the introduction to the Go Rin No Sho where Musashi states that the years of his life "add up to 60" when it should be taken in a more literary and imprecise sense.

Because of the uncertainty centering on Munisai (when he died, whether he was truly Musashi's father, etc.), Musashi's mother is known with even less confidence.

When Musashi was seven years old, the boy was raised by his uncle, Dorinbo (or Dorin), in Shoreian temple, three kilometers (~1.8 mi.) from Hirafuku. Both Dorin and Musashi's uncle by marriage ? Tasumi ? educated him in Buddhism and basic skills such as writing and reading. This education is possibly the basis for Yoshikawa Eiji's fictional education of Musashi by the historical Zen monk Takuan. He was apparently trained by Munisai in the sword, and in the family art of the jitte. This training did not last for a very long time, as in 1589, Munisai was ordered by Shinmen Sokan to kill Munisai's student, Honiden Gekinosuke. The Honiden family was displeased, and so Munisai was forced to move.

Musashi contracted eczema in his infancy, and this adversely affected his appearance.[citation needed] Another story claims that he never took a bath because he did not want to be surprised unarmed. While the former claim may or may not have some basis in reality, the latter seems improbable.[9] An unwashed member of the warrior caste would not have been received as a guest by such famous houses as Honda, Ogasawara and Hosokawa. These and many other details are likely embellishments that were added to his legend, or misinterpretations of literature describing him.

There are no exact details of Musashi's life, since Musashi's only writings are those related to strategy and technique.

His first duel:

Musashi was 13. He merely charged at Kihei with a six-foot quarterstaff, shouting a challenge to Kihei. Kihei attacked with a wakizashi, but Musashi threw Kihei on the floor, and while Kihei tried to get up, Musashi struck Arima between the eyes and then beat him to death. Arima was said to have been arrogant, overly eager to fight, and not a terribly talented swordsman. The duel is odd for a number of reasons, not least of which is why Musashi was permitted to duel Arima, whether the apology was a ruse, and why Arima was there in the first place.

Famed Battle of Sekigahara. Some doubt has been cast on this final battle, as the Hyoho senshi denki has Musashi saying he is "no lord's vassal" and refusing to fight with his father (in Lord Ukita's battalion) in the battle. Omitting the Battle of Sekigahara from the list of Musashi's battles would seem to contradict the Go Rin No Sho's statement that Musashi fought in six battles, however. After the battle, Musashi disappears from the records for a while. The next mention of him has him arriving in Kyoto at the age of 20 (or 21), where he famously began a series of duels (that is, 1v1) against the Yoshioka School.

Musashi challenged Yoshioka Seijūrō, master of the Yoshioka School, to a duel. Seijūrō accepted. Musashi arrived late, greatly irritating Seijūrō. They faced off, and Musashi struck a single blow, per their agreement. This blow struck Seijūrō on the left shoulder, knocking him out, and crippling his left arm. He apparently passed on the headship of the school to his equally accomplished brother, Yoshioka Denshichirō, who promptly challenged Musashi for revenge. Denshichirō wielded a staff reinforced with steel rings (or possibly with a ball-and-chain attached), while Musashi arrived late a second time. Musashi disarmed Denshichirō and defeated him.

Musashi broke his previous habit of arriving late, and came to the temple hours early. Hidden, Musashi assaulted the force, killing Matashichiro, and escaping while being attacked by dozens of his victim's supporters.

From 1605 to 1612, he travelled extensively all over Japan in Musha Shugyo, a warrior pilgrimage during which he honed his skills with duels.

Musashi is said to have fought over 60 (not that many, considering the years he supposedly duelled. This is less than a single fight in a month) duels and was never defeated, although this is a conservative estimate most likely not accounting for deaths by his hand in major battles.

Musashi (about age 30) fought his most famous duel, with Sasaki Kojirō, who wielded a nodachi. Musashi's late arrival is controversial. Sasaki's outraged supporters thought it was dishonorable and disrespectful while Musashi's supporters thought it was a fair way to unnerve his opponent. Another theory is that Musashi timed the hour of his arrival to match the turning of the tide: The tide carried him to the island. After his victory, Musashi immediately jumped back in his boat and his flight from Sasaki's vengeful allies was helped by the turning of the tide. Another theory states he waited for the sun to get in the right position. After he dodged a blow Sasaki was blinded by the sun.

Really, I could go on but this paints a pretty clear picture: he fought in duels only, or in wars. He irritated his opponent, fought against overeager poorly trained louts, struck from hiding and/or had to escape the enemy mobs that were about to do to him what he had just done to his duelling opponent.

Hardly a superhuman: Disregarding war, 1v1 fights only. Extensive use of psychological warfare and environment against his enemies. Escaping immediately from any enemy group after him. Not above of dirty fighting. Surrounded by the trappings of the culture and limited by them. His words on using a sword with two hands illustrate this flaw:

"If you hold a sword with both hands, it is difficult to wield it freely to left and right, so my method is to carry the sword in one hand"

This is true, if one's sword is a katana or a like curved single-edged blade. There is little fluidity. However, using a western sword and an armored glove, the fluidity comes from gripping the blade when needed, resulting in fluidity of such a great degree that almost endless combinatory moves are theoretically possible without once stopping the movement of the blade. Miyamoto... He was a good theorist, but like everyone he was trapped by his culture. Many of his teachings regarding the sword and the strategy have been supplantent, others remain up to date, others only apply to limited situations or weapons.
 

Alex_P

All I really do is threadcrap
Mar 27, 2008
2,712
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
I think that's why it's called FICTION...
That is all.
Well, I, for example, don't hate fantasy-RPG combat tropes because they're unrealistic. I hate them because they're dumber and less imaginative than the real thing.

Ditto I usually hate fantasy "races" because they're hollow dress-up characters that don't add anything to the fiction and create more excuses to make regular humans into a hollow stereotype, too. Very little fantasy fiction actually does something worthwhile with them.

-- Alex
 

Archetypal_Maniac

New member
Nov 19, 2009
194
0
0
number4096 said:
Zhao yun once managed to fend off at least a hundred soldiers using only his spear.Polearms are more powerful than you think.
I think this historical event is a tad bit over exagerrated, I very much doubt any man could hold off another 100 men with a spear. Maybe you have seen too many movies? XD
 

number4096

New member
Jan 26, 2010
249
0
0
SakSak,i was starting to lose interest in this thread until you came in and analyzed Musashi Miyamoto's story in details and showed me what i got wrong.Thank you,i am liking this thread again.More stuff like that is what this thread needs.

As for what you said,it mostly tells me that history is too vague and poorly documented to be taken seriously and that Musashi Miyamoto would think twice before fighting many people at the same time and preferably avoid it(What i heard was that he used a Bokken in duels and a katana/wakizashi combo against lots of people.I would like it if you analyzed that fact.).

Still,if,in order to disprove my points,you could link articles that prove what you are saying,please do so.Not long ago i had lost interest in this thread until your latest post came in and got me interested again.
 

Zacharine

New member
Apr 17, 2009
2,854
0
0
number4096 said:
SakSak,i was starting to lose interest in this thread until you came in and analyzed Musashi Miyamoto's story in details and showed me what i got wrong.Thank you,i am liking this thread again.More stuff like that is what this thread needs.

As for what you said,it mostly tells me that history is too vague and poorly documented to be taken seriously and that Musashi Miyamoto would think twice before fighting many people at the same time and preferably avoid it(What i heard was that he used a Bokken in duels and a katana/wakizashi combo against lots of people.I would like it if you analyzed that fact.).

Still,if,in order to disprove my points,you could link articles that prove what you are saying,please do so.Not long ago i had lost interest in this thread until your latest post came in and got me interested again.
So far I have been responding to your claims and grounding as many of my claims as I can with evidence (even if poorly sited, Wikipedia isn't exactly a great source)

Please show me articles and evidence that Miyamoto used the katana/wakizashi combo against lots of people. The Bokken I can understand, because it is also reported that he rarely fought those duels to the death, the opponent also using non-lethal weaponry (heh, what a misnomer) or avoided going for killing strikes.

If the opponent is avoiding going for killing strikes, the advantage is in fact with the bokken which is not similarly restricted...

However, Please show me articles and evidence that Miyamoto used the katana/wakizashi combo against lots of people.

In fact, please show me evidence that Miyamoto fought against multiple people simultaneously at all

From this point I will no longer accept any claim from you that is not backed up by evidence. I and others have used enough of our time to show you your misconceptions and debunk your thoughtless claims. Claims that you should not have made, as a quick analysis of evidence was enough to debunk them. I for one will no longer brook those kinds of thoughtless claims.

And this is one of them: "He used a katana/wakizashi combo against lots of people"

See if there is any evidence that he actually did that. And if you can't find the evidence to back that up, retract the claim.

Or I will be free to claim equally truthfully, on the basis of equally nonexistent evidence, that it was the green men from Mars who assasinated Kennedy.

EDIT: "Claims require evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Only nonexistant claims can be made with nonexistant evidence." To abandon this principle is to accept fairies and unicorns as real, Cthulhu as a genuine Old God and the universe as having been poofed into existance last Thursday.
 

number4096

New member
Jan 26, 2010
249
0
0
Someone told that some of the prisoners thrown in roman arenas managed to kill the lions sended after them with their barehands.It was recorded by the romans and said prisoners were killed with ranged weapons instead.I would like this fact analyzed.
 

quack35

New member
Sep 1, 2008
2,197
0
0
number4096 said:
Someone told that some of the prisoners thrown in roman arenas managed to kill the lions sended after them with their barehands.It was recorded by the romans and said prisoners were killed with ranged weapons instead.I would like this fact analyzed.
What does all that have to do with humans in RPGs?
 

Zacharine

New member
Apr 17, 2009
2,854
0
0
number4096 said:
Someone told that some of the prisoners thrown in roman arenas managed to kill the lions sended after them with their barehands.It was recorded by the romans and said prisoners were killed with ranged weapons instead.I would like this fact analyzed.
Impossible to say. Were the lions hungry that day? Was the sun shining? Were the inmates truly unarmed or did they have some kind of loose chains hanging from their arms? Were the inmates hungry? Were they wounded from torture or previous battles? Were the lions agitated? Were the lions chained up and thus restricted in movement?

Was the arena empty of obstacles, or were there similar wooden walls that we see in current-day bull-fight arenas?

Were the inmates trained soldiers who had been taken captive? Were they of Roman, German or Eqyptian decent? Or from some other ethnicity?

Everything effects everything.

EDIT: so, a bottom line: If the lion is weak and hungry, if the prisoner is trained and healthy and in peak physical condition, possibly a single inmate from a few dozen thousand other inmates facing equal odds might have done that. Remember, Romans had a lot of prisoners who died in the gladiatorial ring. The reason they recorded these unarmed victories was because they were nigh unheard of in the middle of decades of bloody circus activities.
 

number4096

New member
Jan 26, 2010
249
0
0
SakSak,i was mostly using what you were saying to know which things i had heard were true and which were wrong.But i will take what you are saying into consideration and maybe look for more articles that would talk about such subjects.
 

Zacharine

New member
Apr 17, 2009
2,854
0
0
number4096 said:
SakSak,i was mostly using what you were saying to know which things i had heard were true and which were wrong.
No you were not. You were making a claim and saying 'Prove me wrong, or I am automatically right'. Certainly you can tell the difference between that and asking 'is there any reality to this, or is it hogswash?'

The former is called 'gullibility'. The latter is called 'critical thinking'. The difference is in that the former you assume a claim right by default. In latter, you assume a claim wrong by default and only by evidence chance that stance.
 

number4096

New member
Jan 26, 2010
249
0
0
http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/man-killed-a-wild-lion-with-bare-hands-in-a-30-minute-fight/3129213476

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/12/man_attacked_by_a_rabid_bobcat.php

http://www.burmatoday.net/burmatoday2003/2004/03/040301_manandtiger_kaladan.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deEWoUL7mfI

I will stop arguing because it starts fights,argue withe these links instead.
 

number4096

New member
Jan 26, 2010
249
0
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLJxMvVoPeU

Imagine the karate guy fighting many people at the same time.In a quick succession of hits he could fend off a crowd singlehandedly.Badass.
 

Zacharine

New member
Apr 17, 2009
2,854
0
0
number4096 said:
http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/man-killed-a-wild-lion-with-bare-hands-in-a-30-minute-fight/3129213476
Why do you assume so much? Exactly why is this newsworthy material? Because in normal circumstances the man would have died. Because for ever thousand man that face this situation, almost everyone ends up dead, one or two might escape and the one case where he managed to kill the lion.

We are given no information if the lion was wounded or not. We do not now if the lion was weaak from hunger or not. We do not know how the man fought back or if he just spent the majority of it running away or hiding in a tree.

We do not know how the man killed the lion, only that it was supposedly barehanded. Sometimes this means no artificial weapons but does not count rocks and other such 'natural' 'non-weapon' objects.

Also note, we are not told what injuries the man suffered as a consequence. He might have died from those wounds even without the help of the hyenas.

We simly do not know. DO NOT ASSUME!

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/12/man_attacked_by_a_rabid_bobcat.php
We are not told the age, size and physical condition of the bobcat prior to the attack, besides the rabies of course. We are not told the extent of injuries received during the fight. We do not know if the bobcat attacked from behind or from up front. We do not know what clothing the man was wearing.

Do not assume.

http://www.burmatoday.net/burmatoday2003/2004/03/040301_manandtiger_kaladan.htm
Identify the critical facts:

"While the tiger was looking to his approach, the man saw the dead bodies of his elder son and grandson lying on the ground with blood. So, it pushed him courage and swore to attack the tiger for taking vengeance on his son's killer, he further said.

In one stage, the tiger ran fast towards the man and attacked him, while the man also attacked the tiger's face with his sword. Fortunately, the tiger was seriously wounded in it face and retreated a few yards back. At this time, the man was not seriously wounded, said a relative to our source.

A few minutes later, the tiger again came and attacked the man and he also attacked the tiger with his sword. This time, the tiger successfully holding his neck and the arteries had been cut off and the tiger was also fell down on the ground with injuries and instantly dead,

The man did not fall immediately senseless and called his son, who was going into hiding for fear of tiger... The son appeared in front of him and explained his son about the incident in detail. He informed his son that the condition of him was not good, so, quickly went to the village and informed the relatives about the matter,

But, the heroic fighter was dead at the side of his son and grandson before villagers' arrival,"

So tell me, where in here is the superman? I see a desperate grandfather, with a sword, in an act of suicidal retaliation taking on the tiger and managing to kill it before dying of his own wounds with a few minutes, exchanging last words with the remaing son and sending him off to not witness his last breath and to inform others.

Do not assume. Read the articles you link, before linking them. This article is in fact evidence for my position, not yours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deEWoUL7mfI
Notice how the men do not come at him more than one at a time. Notice how they are all unarmed. Notice how the man is constantly backing off and only manages to give passing strikes and tripping his enemies up or pulling them off-balance (edited a bit for clarity). Notice how he himself takes some hits.

Notice how the footage only lasts for 2 minutes and still contains repetitions. Notice how none of his opponents seem to know how to properly respond even to the simplest straight punch.

This concurs everything I have said in previous posts about fighting multiple opponents.
 

Zacharine

New member
Apr 17, 2009
2,854
0
0
number4096 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLJxMvVoPeU

Imagine the karate guy fighting many people at the same time.In a quick succession of hits he could fend off a crowd singlehandedly.Badass.
Now I know my words have fallen to deaf ears all the way down from my first post about fighting.

This was an untrained lout, with no physical advantage, on a one on one unarmed fight against a highly trained, physically fit opponent.

This video clip concurs everything I have said before.

And that was not badass, that was stupid. Rule Zero of fighting: DON'T!

EDIT: remember, the building he was in front of, was filled with cops he was supposedly giving demonstrations to. Yet he went out and sought out a fight. He could have simply notified two or three of the cops that 'hey, looks like there is going to be a fight outside - shouldn't you be going out and doing something about it?'

That's not just stupid, that's idiotic.