Re: Studying an opponent and Omega Strikes

In article <1173462789.835676.92300@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
psychohist <psychohist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Most of the examples I've seen in games using my rules system are
>similar:  someone who is much more skilled does not use his full
>skill, because he doesn't need to and often because he's interested in
>the ability of the lesser skilled opponent.

But this is quite different from the Hong Kong movie convention
that against a much *stronger* opponent, it's best to use lesser
attacks and save the big one for later in the fight.  I can't think
of a real-world analogy for that, at least in melee combat, except
for cases in which you hope to stop the fight before someone gets
hurt and therefore don't want to trot out the big attack.  And
generally you aren't in that position against a more-powerful foe.

There's a beautiful aikido taigi (set-piece series of attacks and
throws) where the attacker has a wooden knife and the defender is
bare-handed.  The defender starts out with some rather gentle and
basic knife disarms, handing the knife politely back each time,
and escalates to breakfall throws.  The last time I saw it done,
the two participants were indulging in a little roleplaying:  attacker
looked crazed and aggressive, and defender had an attitude (in her
body language) of "You *still* haven't realized this was a bad idea?
Okaaay...." as she slammed him harder and harder.

A much superior aikidoka might well use lesser defenses early on
in a fight, to give the other person more time to reconsider before
getting hurt.  But against a dangerous opponent we're encouraged
to do something as conclusive as we can, as soon as we can.  

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]