The Clan Trainers are intended to take on some of the functions previously centralized to the ACC Staff, first and foremost being the training of new Initiates in the ACC. They are also intended to serve as a link between the ACC and the Clans. The requirements for and expectations of the Clan Trainer position will be outlined in this document.
Requirements:
• Proven skill and experience within the ACC. This will be provided via a link to at least one battle that the applicant has participated in, to be reviewed by the Combat Master and Deputy Combat Master. The reason for this is that since the Clan Trainers will be expected to provide guidance for new Initiates, their own expertise in the ACC must maintain a certain level in order to give proper instruction.
• Be qualified to participate in the ACC.
• Be willing and able to serve as a “first point of contact” within your Clan for any ACC-related questions that arise. This won’t be a replacement for people seeking information from the ACC Staff, but a more personal means for members to gain feedback on the ACC.
• Be approved by the Clan Summit, as the Clan Trainer will be as much a representative of their Clan to the ACC as vice versa.
Duties:
• Complete training battles within their respective Clan on behalf of the ACC. This duty does not extend to qualification battles; these will be handled by the ACC Operators.
• Act as a “coach” for all levels of experience within their respective Clan.
• Act as a communication link between the Clan and the ACC. This means giving Clan members reminders of both the ACC’s general existence and activities, and providing feedback to the ACC from the Clans.
• Promote ACC activities within the Clans, whether as part of ACC-run events such as a Championship, Clan-based competitions or ACC-centred Vendetta events.
All applications for the position of Clan Trainer should be sent to myself (chromaticerinyes [at] gmail [dot] com) and to the Deputy Combat Master (Tsainetomo, sai [dot] keibatsu [at] gmail [dot] com). (Forgive the funky portrayal of the e-mail addresses, as I'm just trying to avoid spambots.) Once all applications are reviewed, they will be forwarded on to your Clan Summits for final vetting.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Handedness Rules - Ambidexterity
Alright, here's an explanation of the reasons for Ambidexterity.
Under the previous system, the idea was that you had to have points in "Strong Hand" and "Off Hand". The system was designed so that we could get an accurate portrayal of how skilled people were with applying their knowledge of fighting to each weapon. The way it was explained, fightng skills described your knowledge of a fighting system, your physical attributes like Dexterity determined how well you could move, and Strong Hand/Off Hand were where they met.
The system worked the way it was intended to work - getting a feel for how skilled someone was, with the added justification of preventing "god-moding" so that it would at least take some investment of time and effort to be able to dual-wield effectively, rather than everyone and their mother doing it as easily as tying their shoes. The problem, in my mind, came in how much sense it made. Fighting skills are supposed to represent your ability to use a weapon, and are described as such in the ACC Handbook. Why do we have a separate skill just to be able to use your hands?
So, Ambidexterity was born. The development of the idea presented to the ACC Staff came primarily from discussions with Timeros and Muz. It's interesting to note that both of them are naturally ambidextrous, and so bring some experience to the question that I don't personally have. One point that they both raised is this: Being able to use a weapon in each hand simultaneously and in a coordinated fashion is a very different story than using a weapon in each hand or using a weapon that requires both hands to wield.
Timeros and I came up with the following analogy: Most people write with their dominant hand. Some people can write with their dominant hand, and not as well with their off hand. Some people can write equally well with either hand. But, how many people can write two completely different things with each hand, simultaneously?
Using two weapons at once is similar. Sure, you can do it, but to be effective at it you have to either have been trained in it or practiced a lot (which also happens as a result of training). Hence why Ambidexterity is written the way it is: You might be able to use a weapon equally well in either hand, but coordinating two at once is going to have an impact on both of them unless you know what you're doing.
By the same token, the reason this skill doesn't apply to stave weapons is because you don't have to move your hands independently of each other to use them. Sure, you might change your grip on a staff, but except in the strangest cases, your hands are going to be moving together as one unit rather than having to be coordinated but separate.
Using Ambidexterity as a measure for how well your off-hand works when it's used independently is more of a concession to ACC mechanics than to common sense. Since the ACC only has options for "right hand" and "left hand" as dominant hands, however unrealistic it might be, we assume that every single ACC combatant has a dominant hand. As such, we have to find a way to measure how well they can use their non-dominant hand, whether as a way of pulling an Inigo Montoya and showing up their opponent, or in the semi-inevitable case of losing your dominant hand during a battle.
Under the previous system, the idea was that you had to have points in "Strong Hand" and "Off Hand". The system was designed so that we could get an accurate portrayal of how skilled people were with applying their knowledge of fighting to each weapon. The way it was explained, fightng skills described your knowledge of a fighting system, your physical attributes like Dexterity determined how well you could move, and Strong Hand/Off Hand were where they met.
The system worked the way it was intended to work - getting a feel for how skilled someone was, with the added justification of preventing "god-moding" so that it would at least take some investment of time and effort to be able to dual-wield effectively, rather than everyone and their mother doing it as easily as tying their shoes. The problem, in my mind, came in how much sense it made. Fighting skills are supposed to represent your ability to use a weapon, and are described as such in the ACC Handbook. Why do we have a separate skill just to be able to use your hands?
So, Ambidexterity was born. The development of the idea presented to the ACC Staff came primarily from discussions with Timeros and Muz. It's interesting to note that both of them are naturally ambidextrous, and so bring some experience to the question that I don't personally have. One point that they both raised is this: Being able to use a weapon in each hand simultaneously and in a coordinated fashion is a very different story than using a weapon in each hand or using a weapon that requires both hands to wield.
Timeros and I came up with the following analogy: Most people write with their dominant hand. Some people can write with their dominant hand, and not as well with their off hand. Some people can write equally well with either hand. But, how many people can write two completely different things with each hand, simultaneously?
Using two weapons at once is similar. Sure, you can do it, but to be effective at it you have to either have been trained in it or practiced a lot (which also happens as a result of training). Hence why Ambidexterity is written the way it is: You might be able to use a weapon equally well in either hand, but coordinating two at once is going to have an impact on both of them unless you know what you're doing.
By the same token, the reason this skill doesn't apply to stave weapons is because you don't have to move your hands independently of each other to use them. Sure, you might change your grip on a staff, but except in the strangest cases, your hands are going to be moving together as one unit rather than having to be coordinated but separate.
Using Ambidexterity as a measure for how well your off-hand works when it's used independently is more of a concession to ACC mechanics than to common sense. Since the ACC only has options for "right hand" and "left hand" as dominant hands, however unrealistic it might be, we assume that every single ACC combatant has a dominant hand. As such, we have to find a way to measure how well they can use their non-dominant hand, whether as a way of pulling an Inigo Montoya and showing up their opponent, or in the semi-inevitable case of losing your dominant hand during a battle.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
CM's Blog
Hey all, this is going to serve as a reference for what I'm doing as Combat Master. I'll make occasional news posts in here, usually stuff like explanations of why certain ACC rules are written in the way they are. Hopefully it'll help to clear up some confusion that goes with venues like this, or at the very least, give people something concrete to argue against. :P
Watch here for updates!
Watch here for updates!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
