Tournament rules brainstorming thread

[econ21]

You should be able to choose between blunt and combat weapons. Perhaps the one who is challenged can choose it?

X challenges Z. Knight Z accepts the challenge and chooses blunt weapons.

I thought about that, but I want to keep at least some element of danger in the mini-game. I think a fight with blunt weapons would be fine for a tournament, but not for the kind of settling of honour I am modelling. The whole point is to show you are willing to risk your life for your honour. I know it is out of the period, but the "grudge" duels we read about with sword or pistol used lethal weapons.

If players use the new holding back mechanic, they can avoid accidental death. If you opponent has 5 hit points or less left, hold back and he cannot die.

[ULC]

I thought about that, but I want to keep at least some element of danger in the mini-game. I think a fight with blunt weapons would be fine for a tournament, but not for the kind of settling of honour I am modelling. The whole point is to show you are willing to risk your life for your honour. I know it is out of the period, but the "grudge" duels we read about with sword or pistol used lethal weapons.

If players use the new holding back mechanic, they can avoid accidental death. If you opponent has 5 hit points or less left, hold back and he cannot die.

[Andres]

So far, it looks like an interesting feature, but what exactly do you gain if you win? Land? Certain traits? Influence points? I'm a bit worried that we're spending a little bit too much time on such a minor feature.

I think players could put something at stake if they want. I guess other noblemen could gamble on the outcome as well (you could put retinue or provinces at stake).

I like this dueling thingy. Just like in mafia games, it adds an irresistable fun factor

[Zim]

My thinking was that players could bet whatever they want (even if just their honor). I would be happy to effect any agreements made. We could even make welching out possible if a written contract isn't signed, although if I were a player I'd consider the ocnsequences of that.

[Ramses II CP]

I think we should have a King's tournament right off the bat with something like a horse as the trophy, just to test the system and start things off on the right foot. It would also encourage the development of natural enmities if one opponent felt humiliated or unjustly defeated.

[_Tristan_]

That's a great idea... With the King taking part like Henry V Tudor...

Who will dare defeat the king ?

[Ramses II CP]

Hah, yes, who indeed, and yet who dares insult the King by not trying his hardest as well? Plus it gives us a decent excuse for assembling all these nobles in Paris.

Man, I am ready for this thing to start now!

[AussieGiant]

That is a very good way to start the game.

Really very good.

[TheFlax]

Very well, I'll get something like that ready for when everyone has a character.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Econ I was wondering If I could shamelessly ripe off your dueling system and try and port it over to EB....

[TinCow]

I think we should have a King's tournament right off the bat with something like a horse as the trophy, just to test the system and start things off on the right foot. It would also encourage the development of natural enmities if one opponent felt humiliated or unjustly defeated.

This is a good idea.

[Zim]

Perhaps run it at the same time as the first Council Session?

[ULC]

I just want Econ to implement two things -

Have more positive fight score modifiers

Enable dynamic dice - allowing you to conserve dice during one phase to use them in another phase.

And I will be happy with the system.

[Cecil XIX]

Hah, yes, who indeed, and yet who dares insult the King by not trying his hardest as well? Plus it gives us a decent excuse for assembling all these nobles in Paris.

Man, I am ready for this thing to start now!

I love this idea. Perhaps the winner gets the hand of the princess?

[ULC]

I love this idea. Perhaps the winner gets the hand of the princess?

I will pick the most terrible RBG I can if it means winning the fair Bertrade's hand.

You will all fall before my sword.

[ULC]

Also, it is not clarified, but I would like it that each successful die by the attack does 1d4, to a total of 2d4.

Having one die win, and the other fail, makes it hard to resolve fairly, and doesn't seem to be addressed by the current system.

So, each successfully landed blow deals 1d4, and if holding back, does 1d2 instead.

[Ramses II CP]

I love this idea. Perhaps the winner gets the hand of the princess?

I think the Princess, since she is being played, might want to stay 'in play' a little longer. Plus a fine horse (Movement bonus retinue, right?) and a King's challenge ought to be enough for knights and nobles to answer the call at the start here.

[Ignoramus]

Or perhaps the winner would get to lead one of the houses?

[_Tristan_]

If that is really too much to gain for a simple tournament...

And what if the King won ? No, a simple gift of a fine horse or fine weapon would be more suitable and is much more related to what would have happened at the times.

[Ignoramus]

If that is really too much to gain for a simple tournament...

And what if the King won ? No, a simple gift of a fine horse or fine weapon would be more suitable and is much more related to what would have happened at the times.

I'm fine with that.

[ULC]

Econ, are you going to consider my suggestions, or do I have to put up my system?

[econ21]

Econ, are you going to consider my suggestions, or do I have to put up my system?

Hi YLC, I have considered your suggestions - detailed responses follow. In general, I am open to suggestion if a compelling case can be made that I have overlooked a relevant trait or retinue, but otherwise I am pretty happy with the system as it is.

You are welcome to put up your system and let Zim pick.

Also, it is not clarified, but I would like it that each successful die by the attack does 1d4, to a total of 2d4.

Having one die win, and the other fail, makes it hard to resolve fairly, and doesn't seem to be addressed by the current system.

So, each successfully landed blow deals 1d4, and if holding back, does 1d2 instead.

In my system (partly stolen from the Gamesworkshop LotR game), the die rolls and the damage are separate. Although the number of die rolls you make are called attacks, each die roll is not really a separate attack that can hit or miss, and so does it's own damage. It's an abstract way of resolving who "wins" the round - makes any hit at all, if you like. The hit is then resolved separately.

I don't think there is anything unfair about not tying damage to specific die rolls. It's just a different system.

I just want Econ to implement two things -

Have more positive fight score modifiers

I am open to specific suggestions - I went through the traits and retinue on this link:

http://70.40.209.33/totalwar/retinue...ance&c=general

but am worried it misses any (people have been talking about weapons as retinue, but maybe that was a Stainless Steel thing).

I am leery about bringing in traits that just affect command, chivalry or dread, however, as they are too many and not specifically linked to physical prowess . A veteran general will already will get (a) lots of attacks due to valour; (b) lots of HP due to the scarred trait, likely; (c) a good smattering of other eligible traits, like brave.

I don't want to make the infantry general trait eligible, as I think that is to do with command rather than prowess. The cavalr general one I am letting in, because I can't see a good cavalry general not being a good rider and I envisage most duels starting with a joust.

Enable dynamic dice - allowing you to conserve dice during one phase to use them in another phase.

I think this is just introducing some complexity to little gain. The damage is pretty high - 2d4 per turn and you only have 8 HPs - so I imagine most people will want to roll all their dice.

[ULC]

Hi YLC, I have considered your suggestions - detailed responses follow. In general, I am open to suggestion if a compelling case can be made that I have overlooked a relevant trait or retinue, but otherwise I am pretty happy with the system as it is.

You are welcome to put up your system and let Zim pick.

Hmmm...

In my system (partly stolen from the Gamesworkshop LotR game), the die rolls and the damage are separate. Although the number of die rolls you make are called attacks, each die roll is not really a separate attack that can hit or miss, and so does it's own damage. It's an abstract way of resolving who "wins" the round - makes any hit at all, if you like. The hit is then resolved separately.

I don't think there is anything unfair about not tying damage to specific die rolls. It's just a different system.

I understand that, what I am saying is that you have say, 3 dice for an attack, to see if any number of attacks hit, in your example - they are not separate and you might as well bring it down to one die. What if the attacker roles 2, 2, and 5? And the defender rolls 3 and 4? Both win one and lose one, and I don't think it would be fair to have the defender suffer because of that, since that is the most likely outcome - each side loses one, and wins one.

Thus, each successful attack, since each die rolled would count as an attack, up to two of course, deals 1d4 damage, and if holding back, deals 1d2 damage instead.

I am open to specific suggestions - I went through the traits and retinue on this link:

http://70.40.209.33/totalwar/retinue...ance&c=general

but am worried it misses any (people have been talking about weapons as retinue, but maybe that was a Stainless Steel thing).

I am leery about bringing in traits that just affect command, chivalry or dread, however, as they are too many and not specifically linked to physical prowess . A veteran general will already will get (a) lots of attacks due to valour; (b) lots of HP due to the scarred trait, likely; (c) a good smattering of other eligible traits, like brave.

I don't want to make the infantry general trait eligible, as I think that is to do with command rather than prowess. The cavalr general one I am letting in, because I can't see a good cavalry general not being a good rider and I envisage most duels starting with a joust.

Some things, like Stoic, Disciplined, Energetic, Tactical Skill, VictorVirtue, DecevierVirtue, Natural MilitarySkill, Good Risky/Defender/Attacker and even GoodInfantryGeneral could all be in, because each is the nature of a person, and that would also have an impact on a duel, even if it is slight.

For example - Stoic would make a person hard to read, making it more difficult to predict his attack pattern. Disciplined would be someone who doesn't go off and take the first strike he can - preferring to wait until the right strike comes along. RiskyAttacker/Defender can be in because the general experienced in it, has experience actually doing it - fewer men means he must become more involved directly in the battle. GoodInfantryGeneral for balance mostly, and that if someone knows how infantry works, usually it indicates they know how to be a good infantryman themselves, if not having been one previously before promotion.

I think this is just introducing some complexity to little gain. The damage is pretty high - 2d4 per turn and you only have 8 HPs - so I imagine most people will want to roll all their dice.

Taking into account my changes, this allows for more flexibility with tremendous gain. If, say, you want to land all your hits to deal 2d4, and you have 3 dice, then you can remove one from your defense phase, and use it in your next phase, significantly increasing the chance you will land a hit. I of course would do this at almost every turn if I have the valor to do so - if I can guarantee that I can deal 2d4 per turn, where as my opponent is not sure if he will deal 1d4 to begin with, then I have created an advantage for myself.

The reverse is true - take away some from attack, and add it to defense, and simply wait your opponent out, whittling him down little by little.

It allows for greater depth, allows people to make greater tactical decisions, and force them to start "thinking like my opponent." It creates a psychological guessing game.

[econ21]

YLC, we probably should agree to disagree. You are welcome to propose your own system.

[ULC]

YLC, we probably should agree to disagree. You are welcome to propose your own system.

My system is your system, minus the fight score (defender always wins) and the above implementations.

I do have some traits that increase defense, reduce offense, etc. I'll put them up with the changed rules for everyone's benefit - however, I need to go get some food, and put on my party hat, since today is my birthday, and then post everything up at around 5:00 EST

[econ21]

... today is my birthday ...

Happy birthday!

[econ21]

Edited first post to highlight current proposed rules (unchanged from those on page 2 of thread).

EDIT: I have given the names for the different ranks of relevant traits. Only change - social drinker is now a +1 to fight value rather than a -1. The game says its a positive trait, so it seems wrong for me to say it is negative - Dutch courage and all that.

I will also post everyone's stats when character selection is finished. I may tweak the retinue stats if they look too weak by comparison with newbies.

[ULC]

Err...not to be to much of a pain, but wouldn't the marks of war also confer a positive fight value?

[econ21]

Err...not to be to much of a pain, but wouldn't the marks of war also confer a positive fight value?

In game, it gives you authority and hitpoints, so in duelling, I think the +2 hit points is fine.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I apologize but I have to do this: Bump!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm just too lazy to look for it when it's not on the first page.