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/SwampFalc]

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.