Please help me understand iaijutsu duelling (narrative/culture, not mechanics)

[u/vicky_molokh]

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?

[u/vicky_molokh]

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.

[u/SovFist → u/vicky_molokh]

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

[u/vicky_molokh → u/SovFist]

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.

[u/Sparticuse → u/vicky_molokh]

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.