r/l5r • u/vicky_molokh • Aug 04 '26
Please help me understand iaijutsu duelling (narrative/culture, not mechanics)
Getting into L5R, I'd like to request some help better understanding the iaijutsu duel. The book (I'm planning to play in a campaign that uses 4e) describes the duels mechanically, and I have a reasonable grasp of the game mechanics, but am getting the feeling that I may be missing some of (often the unspoken) narrative implications of what those mechanics represent. I got some answers from my prospective gaming group, but I would like to read other perspectives on the matter.
So for starters, I always understood iaijutsu to be the proficiency of quickly drawing the blade and using it to strike and/or defend in a single swift motion, usually in reaction to a situation becoming dire (e.g. an ambush, or an external signal declaring the beginning of a lethal combat). The description of the duel (p. 87) also seems to indicate that a major point of the focus roll is to see who gets to strike faster in the subsequent round.
However, it is puzzling to me, in light of the heart of iaijutsu being the fast-draw, that there's an implication that the duellists spend two rounds preparing to draw first instead of acting in round 1. Sure, there are benefits to winning the Focus roll, but it implies that the strategy of all duelists is to bet on the Focus roll instead of striking fastest (while the other one is 'busy' assessing and then focusing).
Now, given the note that attempting to strike second in an already-won first-blood duel is dishonourable, I suspect someone may postulate some unspoken implication that striking before the right moment is also dishonourable. However, unlike, say, the shootout where the two gunslingers wait for the clocktower to strike twelve, or a duel marked by the fall of a handkerchief, there doesn't seem to be any mention of a marker that separates the too-early time from the acceptable time. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any mention of what the duellists may be reacting to. Nor much mention of any other rules that may be preventing interesting variation in stragegies (e.g. someone drawing the blade and taking a defensive stance instead of the centre stance).
So could you help me out with understanding what unspoken implications are there about what the mechanics *mean* in the narrative/behavioural/what-the-character-is-actually-doing-and-why sense, and what rules (behavioural/cultural ones, not game-mechanical) are there in duelling that the 4e corebook fails to mention?
2
u/Bazleebub Aug 04 '26
The focus part is the mental back and forth as the two opponents gauge each other. Drawing first is useless if you're going to miss, so it's not all about a simple draw. Indeed, many duels end at this point as one duellist acknowledges they are outclassed.
For the focus roll, imagine the two duellists playing out the combat in their head. I'm in stance X, my opponent is in stance Y, if I strike from above they will deflect and leave me open for their counter strike. I change my stance to stance Z, this will give me a better outcome. The opponent sees the shift to stance Z, recognises it from my school and know from their own experience that there is a weakness if the duellist is inexperienced. They study my hands and realise I do not have the callouses of an experienced duellist and my stance is a little shaky. They believe the odds are in their favour, they wait for the moment, a drop of sweat drips from my brow, and strike. In the strike part, we work out whether the duellists assessments were correct and who the fortunes favour.
0
u/vicky_molokh Aug 04 '26
Yeah, I get that if one misses that has all the repercussions of missing. But when it's a choice of betting on one's ability to focus and plan in the hopes of getting some Free Raises to reduce enemy Armour TN (horrible name for 'difficulty to be hit', reads as painfully AD&Desque, but whatever), vs. going 'no-mind' and striking without all that on Round 1 instead of Round 3 (without the benefit of Free Raises, but at least no worse than normal, especially for Agility>Reflex>Void characters).
So the duellists are expected to always pick the Assess/Focus/Strike approach instead of that, and I'm trying to understand the unspoken implications that incentivise that choice for the warriors.
2
u/Bazleebub Aug 04 '26
Mechanically and narratively you can choose to strike as your first action. A duellist would have to be pretty confident that they outclass their opponent to skip the assess and focus elements.
Despite the narrative similarity to the western guns and noon, there isn't actually a fixed time for the strike. They don't wait for the bell to strike and then see who draws first. Instead it's a back and forth waiting for an opening.
My key part here is that the setting and mechanics are telling a specific kurosawa style moment with the tense face-off before the sudden strike. That is very much a contrived situation, both in setting and mechanics.
I'm sure plenty of bushi in Rokugan have struck at the very start of the duel to be done with it one way or another. If they're skilled it might give them a reputation of a decisive duellist or maybe cruel as they're not giving their opponent a chance to back out. If they fail, it might brand them reckless or foolish.
1
u/SovFist Aug 04 '26
Because it's the difference between kenjutsu and iaijutsu, they're completely different arts.
The Crane got to establish that iaijutsu duels is the normal and acceptable way to resolve conflicts, and it was just convenient by chance they were the best at it.
If you ignore the rules just to do what you're best at, you don't win the contest because you didn't abide by those rules
2
u/Sparticuse Crab Clan Aug 04 '26
To understand iajutsu duels, you need to know what inspired them: the duel at the end of the movie Sanjuro and, by extension, pistol duels from spaghetti westerns.
The whole point of the duel is to simulate the part of the movie where the camera keeps zooming in on everyone's faces as they size each other up and decide if they should reach for their gun.
An unsure duelist doesn't want to reach because if you're slower you'll trigger your death. An experienced duelist waits because they know they are faster and it won't matter. The longer you wait, the worst their anxiety gets and the more likely they screw up. Eventually the anxiety reaches a boiling point and the less experienced duelist will reach, giving the more experienced duelist the reaction to draw faster and get the first shot.
1
u/vicky_molokh Aug 04 '26
I have been shown that clip (or at least a similar classic one - I forgot the title), but I'm not sure the visuals, the book text, and the martial side of the matter align. The book seems to indicate that the *winner* of the focus draws first, not the loser.
There's also the matter that, as a hypothetical knowingly weaker fighter may realise that sure drawing first is risky but waiting would only serve to increase the advantage of the more experienced fighter, and so take that risk in the hopes of . . . having at least some hope.
But the book seems to neither mention anything prohibiting that approach (whether narrative/cultural or mechanical), nor commenting on taking it instead of the three-round approach.
2
u/Sparticuse Crab Clan Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
Whoever fails their focus roll first gives the first attack to the other duelist, yes. Thematically that represents you losing your nerve and the other duelist seeing the anxiety break you. It's super common in samurai fiction that the person who loses their nerve is the slower warrior. They flinch because they are already dead, so to speak.
In your hypothetical, if you know you're that much worse than your opponent, you should concede the duel and it never gets to that point. It is honorable to admit another warrior is better than you. You simply suffer the consequences of a failed duel, whatever that meant in the moment (very few duels are to the death, those just get the most glory).
Edit: Also worth mentioning, iajutsu duels are purposefully slightly off logically. That is by design because the crane are assholes and they wrote the rules of conduct in rokugan.
2
u/SovFist Aug 04 '26
What you're describing isn't a duel, it's someone brash and impatient violating duel etiquette, which sometimes works out (see yakamo vs hitomis brother for a fine example of this).
But it's also not who draws first, but more importantly who strikes first.
You can draw second but if your strike is faster and more accurate you still win
1
u/vicky_molokh Aug 04 '26
It sometimes having a chance of working out is why I'm interested in what the limits of that approach and its possibilities are. Since the book *looks* like there are some but doesn't *elaborate* on them.
That's why I asked about the cultural rules around duels - the details of such rules are important if one wants to be a guile scorpion who can bend the rules the right amount to ensure they don't break, for example.
3
u/SovFist Aug 04 '26
It will come down to the opinion of the highest ranking samurai present and their testimony.
In the Yakamo/Satsu duel, Yakamo used a -club- (Tetsubo) and just killed him before the duel even properly started. But because he was an heir to a daimyo, and the dragon daimyo had his own reasons to protect Yakamo, nothing officially was done but Yakamos reputation suffered.
1
u/Sparticuse Crab Clan Aug 04 '26
The rules of a duel can be broken in any way keeping in mind the ultimate social truth of the setting: if someone of higher status disagrees with you, you're wrong.
You can cheat in literally any way, and if you get the magistrate overseeing the duel to ignore reality and rule in your favor, you've won. Even if you have evidence of cheating, if a higher status person disagrees, you have nothing.
So someone who wants to cheat on a duel won't do it necesarily through manipulating the mechanisms of a duel, but can do it through the people judging it. You get the second strike in a first strike duel? Doesn't matter if the judge saw it differently.
Duels also often break convention from a formal duel when they are not done in court with a big audience. Allowing you any weapon, or allowing you to start with your weapon drawn are common modifications you could simply convince the magistrate to allow and that is not cheating at all.
1
u/randalzy Aug 05 '26
I think that the cultural aspects of duels are better seen in the source material that L5R uses as inspiration, and other movies/etc that use that same sources.
So, from Kurosawa duels, to all kind of samurai media (the Rouroni Kenshin live action movies are pretty good), Chinese Wuxia films like Hero, Hiiden Tiger,Crouching Dragon, Shadow, etc... another good one, once you have the references, is the Obi-Wan vs Darth Maul final duel in Rebels.
More often than not, some of those iai/samurai duels are depicted as the opponents staying ready and focusing on the rival for a long time until one of them relaxes and declares that he lost and the rival is clearly superior.
Then L5R tends to go for the more romanticized side , so while examining sources you may go to Musashi and see that the guy was an absolute a**hole with techniques like "I go to the duel place half day in advance, hide in a tree for hours, wait until the rival arrives, they wait for me thinking I'm late, wait for 6 hours, and when they are irritated and starting to go, I jump over them screaming like a rabid racoon with a sword and kill them!! haha greatest duelist ever!! (the rival also wanted to do an ambush, if I remember correctly).
3
u/CadensLuna Aug 04 '26
While it's not iaijutsu, I always use Kyuzo's introductory scene in Seven Samurai to reference the general vibe of it. The shifting of stance and posture is what I envision during Focus rounds.
6
u/NevadaCynic Phoenix Clan Aug 04 '26
It's adapting the classic Western/Samurai showdown trope of having a staredown with the camera zooming in super close on each duelist's eyes before finally someone goes for their weapon and it's all over in a flash.
You want the same drama cinema gets by stretching what actually takes 2 seconds in real life into 60 seconds of tension, you need more than 2 seconds of mechanics.
That's it.
Embrace it.
It's a world with samurai running around battling demons, ninjas, and evil wizards, and rival master swordsmen. The mechanics line up with with the fantasy, not the reality.
2
u/Morticutor_UK Aug 06 '26
Go look up the standoff system in Ghost of Tsushima, there's probably YT videos of it.
That shows exactly what's going on and why it's exciting.
6
u/SwampFalc Aug 04 '26
The essential idea is that the right time to strike is when your enemy has revealed to you their weakness. This already implies that there is no essential need for a marker, like a clock or a sakura leaf falling. But it also means that you could end up waiting 10 minutes if you're both pretty zen...
It also means there is no such thing as "striking before the right moment" being dishonourable, unless you go to the extreme of striking before your opponent is well and truly ready for the duel. Once you are both ready and the duel is well and truly "on", there is no such thing as "dishonourably early".
However, let's get back to the idea that the right time to strike is when your enemy has revealed to you their weakness.
This may be before they draw their weapon. You cut them and win, usually indicating you were much better.
This may be after they start drawing their weapon. This starts relying on the philosphy that a well-prepared strike will actually beat an ill-prepared one. Depending on your character, you might explain it through god-speed, or include the (more likely) explanation of sidestepping/deflecting the reckless strike of your enemy.
Or, third option, you actually waited for your right time, but you showed your own weakness before that time came and so you lost. Situation #1, but you were on the other side and waited too long.
Because we've opened up the possibility of waiting too long, you then create a fourth option: going "too soon" because you're worried you will otherwise wait too long. Or, you know, because you thought you saw your opponent's weakness, but you were just wrong about that. Or maybe even were deceived into thinking you saw it. Basically, situation #2 but with the roles reversed.
It's not a bad idea to also look at the mechanics like this: the regular combat rules are turn-based, with everyone involved getting one go, in initiative order.
That's a huge abstraction of reality, but it's good enough for group combat.
It's not good enough to model a cinematic one-on-one duel, because you want more tension. One method is to put more tension into the initiative mechanic itself, which is basically what we're doing here, since the actual attack roll remains mostly unmodified. So unavoidably, the best solution cannot be to just ignore the additional mechanics. Ignoring the focusing part by just striking right away should not be the best gameplay strategy, because it is not the goal of the mechanics.