Tournament rules brainstorming thread

DUELLING RULES

Player stats

All players have three duelling stats:

Attacks: This is determined by the valour (experience) of your bodyguard unit (breakpoints are those used in game to affect unit attack and defence stats):
0-1 valour: 1 attack
2-3 valour: 2 attacks
4-6 valour: 3 attacks
7+ valour: 4 attacks
It determines how many six sided dice you get to roll each round of the duel.

Fight Value This is equal to 50 plus or minus modifiers for traits, retinue and duelling success. It determines who wins a combat round if the die are tied. Fight values are capped at 0 and 100.

Hit points: all players have 8 hit points plus or minus hit point adjustments from their traits.
This determines how much damage you can take before being knocked out (you are knocked out when you reach 0 hit points). Hit points are capped at 1 and 16 (as in the game)

The GM will keep a public record of each player's duelling stats, updating it every Council session or if the player is involved in a duel. Updated stats for participants will be known before duels are accepted. Although the GM will do his best, it is the responsibility of each player to check their duelling stats prior to a duel. If they are erroneously set and not corrected before the duel, the duel will be resolved with the erroneous stats - not refought or negated afterwards.

Duel mechanics

One player challenges another to a duel. This is then resolved by Zim or someone he delegates as referee, at a time and pace of his chosing. Ideally, both challengers and referee are online simultaneously so it can be quickly resolved within an hour or so.

The challenging player either challenges a player to a regular duel (an "honour duel") or to a "duel to the death". Duels require mutual consent. Duels to the death have a special extra rule detailed later.

A duel consists of one or more rounds of combat and lasts until one player has zero hit points or concedes.

Each round of combat, a player strikes high, medium or low. He communicates this in secret to the referee. Strikes are simultaneous. This part of the duel is rock-paper-scissors. High beats medium, medium beats low, low beats high. A player whose strike beats his rival has the advantage in the combat round.

The referee then rolls a number of dice for each player equal to their attacks. Plus one is added to all a player's die rolls if the player has the advantage over their rival. However, modified die rolls can never exceed 6. (So rolling a 6 and having the advantage still just gives you a 6).

The player with the highest modified die roll wins the combat. If both players have the same highest modified die roll, then the one with the highest fight value wins. If both die rolls and fight values are tied, the umpire randomly decides the winner (50:50 chance).

The winner of a round does 2D4 (roll two four sided dice and total) hit points of damage to the loser.

Edit: Each round, when choosing high/medium/low, a player may also specify that they are "holding back". This means they get minus one to all die rolls (with a 1 remaining a 1) but only do 1D4 damage if they win the round.

Consequences of duels

The victor of a duel gains 1 fight value and the loser - if surviving - loses 1 fight value. These will be tallied by the umpire over the game and require no changing of traits.

In honour duels, there is a risk of accidental death. If the damage dealt exceeds a players hit points at the start of a round by three and the attacker rolls a double, the loser dies.

In duels to the death, when the loser yields or reaches zero hit points, the victor has a choice.

Killing the loser gains them +1 dread (change battle dread, or - if maxxed out - strategy dread)

Sparing the loser gains them +1 chivalry (change battle chivalry, or - if maxxed out - strategy chivalry).

Champions:

Duels start when one player (the challenger) challenges another (the defender). Initially, the challenger must issue a personal challenge - they cannot use a champion unless the defender does. A defender can nominate a champion to fight in his stead. If the defender nominates a champion, then the challenger is free to withdraw the challenge or nominate their own champion.

All fights involving a champion are honour duels - not ones to the death - although "accidental" death is still possible.

A champion may be an NPC or a player who owes allegiance to the player they are championing. Players who fight as champions fight in just the same way as other players.

NPC Champion stats:

NPC champions are drawn from bodyguard units. For those without vassals, the relevant unit is just their own bodyguard. Those with vassals may draw a champion from their vassals. Kings and Princes may choose any bodyguard unit in the kingdom to draw their champion from (exception - not the bodyguard of the player challenging them; King gets first pick if challenged by Prince).

There are two kinds of NPC champions - regular (anonymous) and retinue champions.

Regular champion stats are:

Valour: the valour of the bodyguard they are drawn from.

Fight value: 50

Hit points: 7

Retinue champions:

Unique:

Arnold von Winkelried
Bertrand du Guesclin
Chevalier de Bayard
Gerard de Ridefort
Roger de Moulins

These legendary NPCs have 12 hitpoints and fight values of 65

Other retinue champions have 8 hit points and 50 fight value unless stated otherwise.

Naïve Knight: 52 FV
Shieldbearer 10 hit points
Swordbearer 51 FV; 9 hit points
Veteran warrior: 53 FV
Bodyguard 52 FV
Notorious berserker: 53 FV
Dread knight: 54 FV
Chivalrous knight : 54 FV
Lancebearer 52 FV
Templar/hospitaller knight: 53 FV

Regular champions cannot be killed.
Retinue champions are removed from the relevant character if accidentally killed.
Champions do not gain or lose FV from duelling (this is a change from discussion to avoid book keeping)

Fight value modifiers

Traits that increase fight values:
Generals receive + fight value for each rank in the following traits (max ranks given):
-Brave 5 (brave 1; dauntless 2; courageous 3; inspirationally brave 4; has no fear 5)
-Beserker 3 (fierce in battle 1; crazy in battle 2; berserker 3)
-GoodCavalryGeneral 3 (good with cavalry 1; dangerous with cavalry 2; great cavalry commander 3)
-TourneyKnight 5 (tourney entrant 1; fair jouster 2; good jouster 3; knight of renown 4; tourney champion 5)
-HorseRacer 3 (good racer 1; great racer 2; famous racer 3)

Traits that reduce fight values:

Generals receive - fight value for each rank in the following traits (max ranks given):
-Drink 6 (social drinker +1; gets merry 0; steady drinker -1; drunken heathen -2; alcoholic -3; paralytic -4)
-Coward 4 (faltering courage -1; fears conflict -2; cowardly -3; slave to fear -4)
-BadCavalryGeneral 3 (poor with cavalry -1; inept with cavalry -2; shameful with cavalry -3)
-Insane 3 (dysfunctional -1; quite mad -2; utterly insane -3)
-Deranged 3 (skewed view -1; deranged -2; utterly mad -3)
-Haemophobic 3 (unmanly -1; disgusted by blood -2; fears blood -3)
-Cursed 4 (hexed -1; cursed -2; blighted -3; damned -4)
-StrickenSilly 3 (warts -1; flatulent -2; boil ridden -3)
-StrickenSerious 3 (wracking cough -1; evil illness -2; stricken down -3)
-TooOldToFight 1 (beyond battle -1)
-Senile 3 (somewhat senile -1; senile -2; totally senile -3)
- Hypochondriac 3 (feeling poorly -1; delusions of illness -2; hypochondriac - 3)

Retinue that raise fight value (by amount indicated):
Black Stallion +3
Trusty Steed +2
Seal of Solomon +2

Commentary on traits
I have tried to keep the list of relevant traits short and restricted to those that are linked to physical prowess on the KISS principle. Perhaps the only exception are those relevant to cavalry command/horses, as I think a good cavalry commander should be useful on a horse and I think the duels probably start with a joust (although it does not seem worth modelling that explicitly).

Modifiers to hit points

Traits that affect hit points - ranks in trait and max hp given
-Hypochndriac 3 - 6 hp (feeling poorly -2 hp; delusions of illness -4 hp; hypochondriac - 6 hp)
-HaleAndHearty 3 +6 hp (healthy +2 hp; in good health +4 hp; bastion of health +6 hp)
-Battlescarred 4 +8 hps (marks of war + 2hp; scarred +4 hp; terribly scarred +6 hp; brutally scarred + 8 hp)
-Last 2 ranks of Berserker (crazy in battle +2 hp; berserker + 4hp)

Retinue that affect hit points:
Alchemist +2 hp
Paracelsus +4 hp
Fine armour +4 hp
Ornamental armour -2 hp
Iron Crown of Lombardy +1 hp

NOT retinue characters who would give their HP effects by fighting alongside the character- e.g. shieldbearer,. swordbearer, Arnold von Winkelried etc (it’s a duel, not a threesome)

Example duel, modified taken from YLCs earlier one. Full credit to YLC for both the example and much of the proposed mechanics. :bow:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In the following fight, we have two knights: Cecil and Flax. They are fighting over the hand of a woman. Cecil challenges Flax, but only to a regular duel - he wishes to see honour satisfied, not duel to the death.

Knight Cecil has 8 HP, as dictated by his avatar, and 6 valor (3 silver chevrons), which would give him 3 dice per phase. His fight value is 53, due to 3 ranks in the brave trait.

Knight Flax has 10 HP, as dictated by his avatar, Fine Armor, and Hypochondria, with 3 valor, giving him 2 dice per phase. His fight value is 52, thanks to his trusty steed.

Knight Cecil chooses his strike stance type - Mid.

Knight Flax chooses his stance type - Low

Knight Cecil rolls 4, 1, and 5, and each die gets +1 due to his superior stance, giving him rolls of 5, 2, and 6

Knight Flax rolls a 4 and 3 - not enough to beat either of Knight Cecil scores.

Knight Flax loses the combat. Knight Cecil rolls for 2D4 damage and gets a double 4 and a 2. So Flax loses 6 HP.

Flax is wounded with only 4 hit points remaining. Knight Cecil pauses and asks Flax to yield. He will not.

A second round of combat begins. Knight Flax rolls a 6 and 3, this time with Mid as his stance.

Knight Cecil defends with 4, 6 and 1 with his stance set to High, but although he has the advantage, he has already rolled a 6 and this cannot be raised further.

Since both knights are tied with a highest role of 6, the winner of the round is decided by fight values. Knight Cecil has the highest fight value and wins the round.

He rolls a double 4 for damage. Disaster! This is a double roll and exceeds Flax’s remaining hit points by more than three. The winning blow has struck too deep and Flax falls to the ground mortally wounded.

Knight Cecil cries “I did not mean for this to happen!”

Original post:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This thread is for the development and discussion of rules for "duels" between players in KotF.

Thinking about it a bit more, a couple of issues struck me - the desirability of speed and verifiability in resolving duels. On speed, we don't want to hold up the game, so minimising the number of rounds and interactions between players and the umpire would be desirable. On verifiability, with a random element, it would be good to have some way to make sure the die rolls could not be rigged. I recall forwarding an internet site to TC that I think did this, but have lost the link. I will try to find it. Ideally, I would like a system that anyone could umpire - again speeding things up.

I am not sure how you feel about my dueling scheme, but I have started to shift away from directly using ingame traits, to specific ones for the duel system, which would allow it to simulate much more.

However, I am a bit lost as to how to even up both the good traits and bad ones, and how neutrals would end up working. As an example, these are the positive traits I have so far -

Stoic: If you successfully defend from all your opponents attacks, you gain +1 to your dice during your next defend phase.
Disciplined: +1 to your Lowest Die
Strong Offensively: +1 to your Highest Die when attacking
Strong Defensively: +1 to your Highest Die when defending
Strong Constitution: +4 to your HP
Strong Opener: +1 to all your rolls for the first round of the duel
Brave: +2 to your HP, +1 to your Lowest Die when attacking
Iron Willed: +2 to your HP, +1 to your Lowest Die when defending
Observant: You are able to, once per round, change your stance to that of your opponents. You may, once per duel, change your stance so that it is superior to your opponents.
Opportunist: If you successful defend from all your opponents attacks, you gain +1 to your dice during your next attack phase.
Cruel: If you successfully deal 2 damage to your opponent, your opponent loses a die during his next defend phase.
Taunter: You may give up 1 of your dice during your attack phase, to increase your dice by 1 during your defend phase.
Gambit: You may give up 1 of your dice during your defend phase, to increase your dice by 1 during your attack phase.
Methodical: +1 to all your rolls when defending, -1 to all your roles when attacking
Berserker: +1 to all your rolls when attacking, -1 to all your roles when defending
Tactically Flexible: You may reroll any number of your dice once each round.
Underhanded: Once per round, if one of your rolls beats your opponents roll by twice as much, deal one damage to them.
Chivalrous: Once per round, you may reduce all bonuses to zero.
Overpowering: You win all rolls that result in a tie. If both you and your opponent both have this ability, then it is negated.
Initiative: You may select whether or not to attack first.

Tis what I have so far, and each ability will be tied to a series of corresponding traits.

Each combatant has a base of 2 HP and a single die, with every 3 valor adding 1 HP and 1 die, to a basic maximum of 5 HP and 4 dice. Combat is resolved by rolling dice and choosing High, Mid, or Low stances (Rock, Paper, or Scissors), and takes place in alternating Attack and Defend phases. One full attack phase and one full Defend phase constitute 1 round. The person who attacks first is randomly selected. Dice are rolled and combat is calculated based upon the combatants highest dice, up to 2 dice per combatant (similar to Risk). Defender wins in case of a tie, and the Defender loses 1 HP for each loss, with a maximum of 2 HP lost each round. Play then alternates so the Attacker is now the Defender, and play continues until one or the other no longer has HP and is "downed" and at the mercy of the victor. - no avatar will immediately die as a result of having 0 HP.

Thoughts? The game uses Random.Org for the die rolls for clarification.

Example round below using an older rules set -

in the following fight, we have two knights

Knight Cecil has 2 HP, as dictated by his avatar, and 6 valor (3 silver chevrons), which would give him 3 dice per phase.

Knight Flax has 4 HP, as dictated by his avatar, Fine Armor, and Hypochondria, with 4 valor (1 silver chevron), giving him 2 dice per phase.

Knight Cecil has the trait "Scout", giving him the opening move - he chooses attack, and his stance type - High, Mid, and Low - Mid.

Knight Flax chooses his stance type - High, Mid, Low - Low

Knight Cecil rolls 4, 1, and 5, and each die gets +1 due to his superior stance, giving him rolls of 5, 2, and 6

Knight Flax rolls a 4 and 3 - not enough to beat either of Knight Cecil scores. Knight Flax is soundly beaten this phase, losing 2 HP.

Knight Flax then goes on attack, rolling 4 and 3 yet again, this time with Mid as his stance.

Knight Cecil defends with 4, 6 and 1 with his stance set to High, giving him advantage, with 5, 7, and 2.

Knight Flax is unable to damage Cecil, who is fighting superbly and easily countering everything being thrown at him.

Knight Cecil then launches into his own string of attacks - 5, 4, and 5 - with his stance set to Mid.

Knight Flax flounders under the withering series of blows - rolling 1 and 1 - and even screws up his stance, having it set at Low, giving Cecil +1 to his attack (6, 5 and 6). Knight Flax loses 2 HP, is on his knees, and is at the mercy of Knight Cecil's masterful handling of combat.

Duels would certainly create something that was missing in KotR.

"The ability to physically affect another player".

That's a powerful concept that had to be skirted around by Arnold and Jan in KotR because there was no system in place.

However...even when PK and I were pre-discussion the scenarios and writing it up, I can tell you that neither of us was prepared to lose the character due to the others actions.

Therefore, a sub-set of rules is easier to deal with, as many people will not want to accept the consequences of duelling. In this way people can read up on them in an "on demand" way if they are really considering the option. If not then they can be ignored.

Overall it's a good concept, but it could get highly contentious.

This is why my system requires consent for the death of one party - otherwise, you simply lose or win.

However, a flaw of that is a lack of consequence - the vanquished loses nothing, and the victor gains nothing - except what has been agreed to, and of course, shame and bragging rights respectively.

Well it fits in nicely to the time period.

Trial by arms to settle an issue in the Diet, or anything for that matter.

It is exactly what was done...if it's not to the death then we have a very usable leverage point in the game. It would probably be used quite a lot in that case.

A whole bunch of us potentially playing hot headed French Knights...options are starting to come to mind already. :beam:

The easiest thing to do without be to use a role playing game I played called Middle Earth based on Tolkien’s' books. It had a very good combat system in it that created a number of different results of attacks and defence. The only thing we need to do is record for each character those statistics that are used to fight with. People could specialise in Sword, Mace, Two Handed Sword etc etc. That the simplest way.

Has anyone played the game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Well it fits in nicely to the time period.

Trial by arms to settle an issue in the Diet, or anything for that matter.

It is exactly what was done...if it's not to the death then we have a very usable leverage point in the game. It would probably be used quite a lot in that case.

A whole bunch of us potentially playing hot headed French Knights...options are starting to come to mind already. :beam:

---

Now, I just wish TC would help with the systems traits, and trait acquisition :laugh4: :sweatdrop:

Ok I've wikied.

It's called MERP.

Extract from combat system.

"The rules system of the game is a streamlined version of I.C.E.'s generic fantasy RPG, Rolemaster.

Characters possess Attributes and Skills rated between 0 and 100. Skills can be modified to a rating above or below these limits (i.e. under 0 or over 100). An attack roll consists of a percentile roll, to which the attacker's skill rating and appropriate attribute rating are added and the defender's dodge rating is subtracted. The result is compared to the defender's armor type and looked up on a table to determine success or failure. A separate critical table is used if the initial chart result called for it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Ok I've wikied.

It's called MERP.

Extract from combat system.

"The rules system of the game is a streamlined version of I.C.E.'s generic fantasy RPG, Rolemaster.

Characters possess Attributes and Skills rated between 0 and 100. Skills can be modified to a rating above or below these limits (i.e. under 0 or over 100). An attack roll consists of a percentile roll, to which the attacker's skill rating and appropriate attribute rating are added and the defender's dodge rating is subtracted. The result is compared to the defender's armor type and looked up on a table to determine success or failure. A separate critical table is used if the initial chart result called for it."

---

The problem with this ruleset is how do we determine the corresponding attributes, ie attack skill, dodge skill, armour type and so on, how do we tie it to M2TW traits and ancillaries ?

I think YLC and Cecil are on the right path. All that is needed is for one or two players to fully understand how the duels are to be played out. We (as in the player-base) do not have to know the exact components leading to our duel value.

Do you truly think that any duellist would analyse his chances of success to the last iota and do the same about his adversary ?

I personally do not think so. It was a "spur of the moment"-thing and you either drew your sword (or mounted your horse) or withdrew in shame.

Hence I think the exact mechanics of the dueling system should be devised out of sight in concordance with Zim and with us players kept out of the loop.

I would hate to be the target of a declaration of duel simply because the other party knew that he had overwhelmeing odds in his favour, even before throwing the gauntlet.

Thoughts ?

Another alternative is to use the dueling system that Sigurd developed for his Midgard mafia games. Andres and Reenk Roink have both used derivatives of this system (I think) for their own mafia games with dueling. It might be worth looking into what they did, since that method seems to work well in the gameroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Another alternative is to use the dueling system that Sigurd developed for his Midgard mafia games. Andres and Reenk Roink have both used derivatives of this system (I think) for their own mafia games with dueling. It might be worth looking into what they did, since that method seems to work well in the gameroom.

---

Mine is based off of that, with the addition of many parts from M2TW, such as experience and traits. The system handles the same otherwise.

:bow:

BTW, not to be a bother, but do you have any suggestions as to how to balance the positive traits of my system, and how traits should be acquired? As it stand right now, how each character gets the duel traits is a bit arbitary.

I rather liked the system devised by Cecil from the traits and ancillaries and I can imagine creating some kind of Excel spreadsheet (I would even volunteer to do it) listing the different bonuses/maluses and checking the boxes for the avatars that got tangled in a duel, thus giving us quickly the valour of each avatar.

A simple system would then be to roll a single D20 and add the value of each contender. The highest score winning the round.

The fight could be fought in as many rounds as the avatars have HPs, the first to fall to 0 will be considered to ask for mercy.

Simple rules could be added for criticals much like in the way AD&D deals with them, either giving instant success or instant failure and provinding bonuses/maluses for the next round(s).

I think the mechnics need to be kept behind the scenes to prevent overcalculation, and having a reasonably random risk will aid that as well. I think players may evolve a system of compensation for lost duels and 'first blood' duels that avoids death. I applaud the idea.

Not much time to think or write at the moment, but I definitely want a working and used system like this in the game. In fact it might be a good idea for us to hold a tournament every so often with a prize and a smaller risk of death just to spark some conflict.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

In fact it might be a good idea for us to hold a tournament every so often with a prize and a smaller risk of death just to spark some conflict.

---

Great idea! :idea2: The King could tournaments where even the lowliest RGB could win the hand of the princess!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Great idea! :idea2: The King could tournaments where even the lowliest RGB could win the hand of the princess!

---

Considering I am the designer though, I will feel left out - I'll have the best idea of whom not to pick on, and understand my overall percentage for defeating someone.

In fact, such would be the fate of anyone who designs it, although my system seems to have significant support so far.

~:mecry:

Sorry YLC, you and Zim must make great sacrifices to create a great game for everybody. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Sorry YLC, you and Zim must make great sacrifices to create a great game for everybody. :shame:

---

I think I could still sneak into organized tournaments however, considering I would have no option but to face my opponent, or lose the princess - and oh boy, is her fair hand mine :beam:

I week or so ago, I had suggested a tournament while Zim and I were discussing events and had even begun making preliminary rules. Seeing as I most probably won't be participating in such an event, I could probably run it fairly so everyone is free to enjoy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

I week or so ago, I had suggested a tournament while Zim and I were discussing events and had even begun making preliminary rules. Seeing as I most probably won't be participating in such an event, I could probably run it fairly so everyone is free to enjoy it.

---

Whats the matter, chicken :clown:?

I would like to see "Duels" and "Tournaments" separated.

In a Duel two knights will fight for their honor. Before the duel they will agree whether it would be just a lance fight(jousting) or whether they go further. I don't like to see my avatar get killed because of a duel though. There could be some penalties for the loser like your avatar will have to remain in one settlement for few turns(recovering from the wounds) or similar. The biggest penalty would be the shame of losing a duel. In the same time the winner should have some bonuses(they can recruit some units from a losers settlement or he can take losers ancillary).

In a Tournament there should be a valuable price like a province or the hand of a princess(like suggested) for the winner. Tournaments should be fought with blunt weapons, like they did back in those days, and thus no harm will happen to your avatar.

Not to offend, but it seems I have to keep reiterating it - NO ONE WILL DIE AS THE RESULT OF A DUEL UNLESS IT'S CONSENSUAL.

The spectre of death is something you should place upon yourself, if you and your opponent are willing to CONSENSUALLY agree to it.

Must have missed that part..

So we would RP that our characters are using blunt weapons unless they both agree?

If so I like that idea, but I would like to see some more randomness added into the equation. I know the dice roles can be totally inpartial and benefit everyone, but I feel something is missing. The current system is really easy to calculate the winner and loser, with only a 8/10 chance of it been wrong.

Here's my proposed system for duels - I am basing it on YLCs proposal, but trying to bring back the tie to ingame traits via the concept of a "fight value" (stolen from Games Workshop's Lord of the Rings strategy battles game). Personally, I would really like to keep that link to ingame traits - I don't know about everyone else, but I really take these to heart and would like to see them play more of a role in the game. Part of the reason why Arnold chasing Jan in KotR was such a spectacle - aside from the great role-playing - was his intimidating traits.

Also, I want to keep a - small - chance of death. If it is just a drinking game or chariot race, I don't think it would matter so much. These duels are to decide matters of honour and the whole point is to show you are willing to risk your life to protect your honour.

So here is my suggestion for the rules:

Players have three duelling stats:

1. Attacks: How many six-sided dice (D6) they get to roll each combat round. This depends purely on valour (experience) with breakpoints determined by how they affect unit stats in game, specifically:
0-1 valour: 1 dice
2-3 valour: 2 dice
4-6 valour: 3 dice
7+ valour: 4 dice

Each round, the players roll their dice and play rock-paper-scissors (RPS), the winner of RPS getting +1 to all rolls but with a 6 being the highest roll you can have, even after modifiers. If there is a tie, then the player with the higher fight value wins.

2. Fight value: all players have a fight value of 50, which is then modified by +1 for each rank of a good duelling traits and by -1 for a bad duelling trait. As in Cecil and YLCs earlier work, I will make a list of each qualifying trait. I can also maintain a public list of fight values during the course of the game.

3. Hit points: all players have 8 hit points plus or minus hit point adjustments from their traits.

The winner of a round does 2D4 hit points of damage. When you have zero hits points or less you lose. Combat rounds continue until one player is at zero or one player yields.

Consequences

There will be two kinds of duel: honour duels and duels to the death. Both require mutual consent.

In both cases, the victor gains 1 fight value and the loser - if surviving - loses 1 fight value. These will be tallied by the umpire over the game and require no changing of traits.

In honour duels, a double in the damage roll for a round results in death to the loser if it takes them below -3 hits points (so a wounded fighter may want to yield after the first round).

In duels to the death, when the loser yields or reaches zero or negative hit points, the victor has a choice.

Killing the loser gains them +1 dread (change battle dread, or - if maxxed out - strategy dread)

Sparing the loser gains them +1 chivalry (change battle chivalry, or - if maxxed out - strategy chivalry).

If there is some interest in fleshing this out, I can draw up a list of modifiers for qualifying traits and retinues, and address the issue of champions.

Any thoughts? comments?

I would be happy to umpire all duels bar my own - I hope I can be trusted to honestly use random.org for the rolls - but I think the system is simple enough that someone else could easily umpire any duels in my place if required.

Are we not going to implement Champions?

Not that I would particularly like to see it, just others have mentioned in.

Yeah, just seen the point on Champions. Duh!

I don't particularly like the idea, it will overcomplicate the system in my opinion.

Here’s some draft rules for champions. I am using the old King/Duke ranks from KotR - I will revise if we have more ranks in KotF.

Champions:

Duels start when one player (the challenger) challenges another (the defender). Initially, the challenger must issue a personal challenge - they cannot use a champion unless the defender does. A defender can nominate a champion to fight in his stead. If the defender nominates a champion, then the challenger is free to withdraw the challenge or nominate their own champion.

All fights involving a champion are honour duels - not ones to the death - although "accidental" death is still possible.

A champion may be an NPC or a player who owes allegiance to the player they are championing. Players who fight as champions fight in just the same way as other players.

NPC Champion stats:

NPC champions are drawn from bodyguard units. For players who are not Kings, Princes or Dukes, the relevant unit is just their own bodyguard. For Kings and Princes, they may choose any bodyguard unit in the kingdom to draw their champion from (exception - not the bodyguard of the player challenging them). For Dukes, they may choose any bodyguard unit in their Duchy.

Valour: champions have the valour of the relevant player’s bodyguard.

Fight value: Champions have a fight value of 50 modified if a few select retinue are present (dread knights etc. - details to follow)

Hit points: Champions have seven hit points.

It's a good system econ, I wouldn't mind going with that. Two questions:

1. If the King and the Prince challenge each, shouldn't the king get first pick throughout the kingdom?
2. How about using members of your retinue as champions? They'd be above average, but then there's that chance that you could lose them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

1. If the King and the Prince challenge each, shouldn't the king get first pick throughout the kingdom?

---

Crikey, I had not thought of that. If the King and the Prince challenge each other, shouldn't there be civil war? :laugh4: OK, I agree - King gets first pick, Prince must choose different bodyguard unit.

Quote:

---

2. How about using members of your retinue as champions? They'd be above average, but then there's that chance that you could lose them.

---

Yes, that's what I meant about champions having a fight value that might be altered by a few retinue. I agree about them having the same small risk of death as players and so losing the retinue.

Will clarify those points when I come to revise the proposal.

Also to clarify, champions are anonymous cannot accumulate or lose fight value points by winning, but I think identified retinue should be subject to that. (I like the image of a dread knight carving a swathe through the more uppity young nobles.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Also to clarify, champions are anonymous cannot accumulate or lose fight value points by winning, but I think identified retinue should be subject to that. (I like the image of a dread knight carving a swathe through the more uppity young nobles.)

---

For some reason I have an easy time imagining that...

If the retinue member could accumulate fight value then perhaps they should be given some kind of disadvantage, such as an increase for the amount of death after every fight, or else you could use a dread knight with the fine armour and do untold damage.

Okay, I've been trying to keep up with this discussion, but it seems as if I've failed.

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.

By my way of understanding it's a way to settle misunderstandings, such as the topic of land ownership, ego's and personal vendetta's. I'm assuming this wouldn't need a halt in the gameplay, and can just be role-played as a certain year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

So far, it looks like an interesting feature, but what exactly do you gain if you win?

---

You get to kill Jan von Hamburg. Do I need to say more?

Sorry, Privateerkev.



:creep:



Less facetiously: I envisage it as a way of blowing off steam. There comes a point when verbal sparring becomes so overheated, a coming to blows seems warranted. This system is designed to provide a way of reaching some kind of closure in that situation without dragging the game into a silly civil war. The duelling to the death is for situations that have become so overblown - as I felt the Arnold/Jan business was - little did I realise the two players were just bluffing and were not prepared to do anything to risk their avatars.

OK, this is the final piece of my proposed rules for duels - the modifiers to the fight values for traits and retinue.

Traits

Traits that increase fight values:

Generals receive + fight value for each rank in the following traits (max ranks given):
-Brave 5
-Beserker 3
-GoodCavalryGeneral 3
-TourneyKnight 5
-HorseRacer 3
Max bonus: +19

Traits that reduce fight values:

Generals receive - fight value for each rank in the following traits (max ranks given):
-Drink 6
-Coward 4
-BadCavalryGeneral 3
-Insane 3
-Deranged 3
-Haemophobic 3
-Cursed 4
-StrickenSilly 3
-StrickenSerious 3
-TooOldToFight 1
-Senile 3
Max bonus: -36

Memo item: Traits that affect hit points
-Hypochndriac 3 - 6 hp
-HaleAndHearty 3 +6 hp
-Battlescarred 4 +8 hps

Retinue that affect hit points:
Alchemist +2 hp
Paracelsus +4 hp
Fine armour +4 hp
Ornamental armour -2 hp
Iron Crown of Lombardy +1 hp

NOT retinue characters who would give their HP effects by fighting alongside the character- e.g. shieldbearer,. swordbearer, Arnold von Winkelried etc (it’s a duel, not a threesome)

HP are capped between 1 and 16 (as in the game)


Retinue that may be NPC champions:

Unique: These legendary NPCs have 12 hitpoints and fight values of 65

Arnold von Winkelried
Bertrand du Guesclin
Chevalier de Bayard
Gerard de Ridefort
Roger de Moulins

Generic NPCs have 8 hit points and 50 fight value unless stated otherwise.

Naïve Knight: 52 FV
Shieldbearer 10 hit points
Swordbearer 51 FV; 9 hit points
Veteran warrior: 53 FV
Bodyguard 52 FV
Notorious berserker: 53 FV
Dread knight: 54 FV
Chivalrous knight : 54 FV
Lancebearer 52 FV
Templar/hospitaller knight: 53 FV

Retinue that raise fight value (by amount indicated):
Black Stallion +3
Trusty Steed +2
Seal of Solomon +2

Commentary
I have tried to keep the list of relevant traits short and restricted to those that are linked to physical prowess on the KISS principle. Perhaps the only exception are those relevant to cavalry command/horses, as I think a good cavalry commander should be useful on a horse and I think the duels probably start with a joust (although it does not seem worth modelling that explicitly).

I am open to debate on the specifics. Since fight values can run from 0 to 100, we don't need to agonise too much about the odd plus or minue one.

Hmm...I can attest to the desire to completely decapitate a particular player that was names a few posts ago by econ. :balloon2:

I like the idea, but I believe it does indeed need to be designed behind closed doors, and not revealed. Which is what I think I'm seeing here.

If it makes it into the game then Zim can chose which system he likes and then NOT tell anyone.

Both tournaments and duels would be very topical and could provide a useful story making device.

I understand the arguments about keeping the mechanics secret from players, but I don't find them overwhelming.

One counter-argument is that by disclosing all the information, the players can all make informed "plays" (in this case, decide whether to duel). Keeping the mechanics murky can mean success is determined more by how accurately you intuit the rules, which just feels all wrong and may lead to resentment.

As for Dafug3's point about the system being too predictable, so that players can work out they have an edge and throw their weight around, I see nothing wrong with that up to a point. Some nobles would have a deserved reputation for prowess - these people probably trained quite openly and potentially competed in friendly tournaments etc. If some people try to use their muscle to chalk up victories over weaker players, that will be quite a characterful way of role playing a bully or thug. Because duels are consensual, players are free to ignore a player trying to throw their weight around and continue to lacerate them verbally.

But I think the system has a fair degree of randomness in it, so even if you know you have an edge, you may be cautious to exploit it in case you roll low or lose the RPS (or both). Conversely, if you know you are weak, you can keep out of trouble by declining duels in which you will be outmatched. If people do get into it, I suspect what we will see are close to "leagues" whereby people will duel players of similar valour - where the odds are fairly even. They won't want to risk taking on someone that outclasses them and conversely people they outclass will not want to risk duelling them. In some ways, the stronger player may have more to lose - as more is expected of them.

I think it would be best to compromise by disclosing which traits are good and which are bad, but not ataching a number to how good or bad they are. That way people can look at a character sheet and get a sense of where things stand, but they can't perform calculations to pin things down further.

I find your rule set interesting Econ, but IMO I see a few flaws with it -

The duel could be over with one bad roll, which inherently increases the randomness.

It includes more values that have to be kept track of.

It does not take into account the usefulness of other traits that come into combat, such as speed, reflexes, awareness, or allow in game flexibility upon actions.

I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but my system prolongs the duel, decreasing randomness, has few values to keep track of (HP and Dice, which I may end up calling Prowess), and in smaller easier to manage numbers.

Mine has a set of internal traits that correspond to the in game traits, but in a way that reduces clutter, and increases the chance you may end up with a duel trait. In this way, each character is unique, but not quite left behind at every turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

The duel could be over with one bad roll, which inherently increases the randomness.

---

I am not sure how random my system would be - I think it is very like yours (not surprising as I copied yours :bow:). In some respects, it may be less random because of capping rolls at 6 and using the fight value for ties. However, I agree that the duel could be over with one round, which may be a little fast (and more random, as there is less dice averaging).

I guess I was thinking of speed of execution here. With an umpire, for each round you would probably have to give players 24 hours to submit their RPS move. So we are looking at potentially holding the game up for days. Yes, it should be possible to do other stuff - fight battles, move avatars - simultaneously, but there are limits. How many turns of combat would people like? I could easily lower the 2D6 damage to get more turns. We need to tear down an average of 8 hit points, so with 2D6 damage, that would typically take only a round or two. 1D6 may be too little for our battle scarred veterans though, although may be their combats should be epic. Maybe 2D4 damage? That way, a one round knock out is very unlikely but a two round resolution typical. Anyone else have a view?

Quote:

---

It includes more values that have to be kept track of.

---

That would be my problem - I would maintain a table of fight values, updating it every full session or duel.

Quote:

---

It does not take into account the usefulness of other traits that come into combat, such as speed, reflexes, awareness, or allow in game flexibility upon actions.

---

True, but I have tried to take account of the usefulness of all the in game traits. I am leery of inventing new traits just for duelling. I am not sure what you mean about "in game flexibility upon actions".

Quote:

---

I'm not trying to toot my own horn... ,

---

What I suggest is that we keep discussing the mechanics for a while. If we can't agree a synthesis set of rules, you and I and plus anyone else who wants to (e.g. proponents of a less transparent system) can propose their own separate fully articulated system. We put them forward to Zim to see if he would be willing to live with each of them, then those that meet his approval can go to a vote among signed up players as to which we adopt - with "no duels" as an option. My feeling is that it would probably be best for the person proposing a rules sytem also to be responsible for implementing it.

Well, for starters, my system is more Risk like, so battle is slower and a character takes, at most, 2 points of damage each round. Maybe I could increase that, considering the maximum HP is currently 13, however, rare that would be.

What I mean by ingame actions, is my "Taunter" trait - you take away some of your advantage during offense, to increase your ability during defense. I have several - Taunter, Gambit, Underhanded, Chivalrous, Observant, Initiative, and Tactically Flexible.

My traits also cover a broader spectrum - working as an administrator, or working with spies and assassins may net you Observant or Opportunist, both of which are mental skills, rather then just raw physical characteristics. Thus, my traits correspond to ingame traits even if they are not the ingame traits themselves.

As for number of rounds - keeping it to a medium is best. No fewer then 2 rounds, but no more then say 8. Duels could also be taken care of quickly if both participants are online, since their isn't a huge need to make it a 24hour thing at all.

I'm open to a fusion of ideas, of course - a system in which several people have come to an agreement on makes everyone happy and makes for a better system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

As for number of rounds - keeping it to a medium is best. No fewer then 2 rounds, but no more then say 8.

---

OK, I'll change the damage to 2D4.

Quote:

---

Duels could also be taken care of quickly if both participants are online, since their isn't a huge need to make it a 24hour thing at all.

---

Good point - we could even ask for the participants to both be available for a one hour period with the referee. Should be possible to resolve the whole thing there and then - and given the limited RPS mechanics, a quick resolution would make it more fun.

I'd better call it a night -sleep well all.

I definately would prefer not to hold the game up for any but the most eventful of duels (maybe if a Prince and King were fighting to the death over who rules...maybe. :clown:).

Beyond that as long as the combatants agree I suppose any ruleset would work. My instinct would actually be to make it simpler than the rules proposed thus far but I understand why people would like the immersion of having many modifiers, etc.

I do like Econ's system for champions.

One important thing to remember is that if KOTF were a video game, Dueling would be one of the minigames. I'd hate to see hours and hours of thought and planning go into something that may or may not be used often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I definately would prefer not to hold the game up for any but the most eventful of duels (maybe if a Prince and King were fighting to the death over who rules...maybe. :clown:).

---

Exactly - duels need not take longer then 4 hours at maximum to finish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Beyond that as long as the combatants agree I suppose any ruleset would work. My instinct would actually be to make it simpler than the rules proposed thus far but I understand why people would like the immersion of having many modifiers, etc.

---

The immersion isn't for the traits, so much as it is trying to translate across say, an obvious fight between Nobles, with one who is a frontline fighter and the other is a bumbling, clumsy accountant.

The more you reduce the systems variables, the less likely your going to get reasonable results - the same happens if you make it to complex. A middle ground is what must be found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I do like Econ's system for champions.

One important thing to remember is that if KOTF were a video game, Dueling would be one of the minigames. I'd hate to see hours and hours of thought and planning go into something that may or may not be used often.

---

Of course, but it could also become a major tool for "diplomacy". It has many fun and exciting applications as well beyond the scope of this game....*wanders off into the game room*

Alright, I think after some proliferation of new issues and threads we're narrowing down on a final few issues before starting the game. I'd like to get this onyou guys get any final edits to your proposals ready within, say two days? Then I'll pick one.

Whatever system we use, I think the referee should be me, TheFlax, or someone designated by one of us (and not the player of a character in the duel).

I'm willing to be a referee in those duels. I promise I'll be neutral...:clown:

OK, consolidating three posts, here are the rules I propose for duels.

DUELLING RULES

Player stats

All players have three duelling stats:

Attacks: This is determined by the valour (experience) of your bodyguard unit (breakpoints are those used in game to affect unit attack and defence stats):
0-1 valour: 1 attack
2-3 valour: 2 attacks
4-6 valour: 3 attacks
7+ valour: 4 attacks
It determines how many six sided dice you get to roll each round of the duel.

Fight Value This is equal to 50 plus or minus modifiers for traits, retinue and duelling success. It determines who wins a combat round if the die are tied. Fight values are capped at 0 and 100.

Hit points: all players have 8 hit points plus or minus hit point adjustments from their traits.
This determines how much damage you can take before being knocked out (you are knocked out when you reach 0 hit points). Hit points are capped at 1 and 16 (as in the game)

The GM will keep a public record of each player's duelling stats, updating it every Council session or if the player is involved in a duel. Updated stats for participants will be known before duels are accepted. Although the GM will do his best, it is the responsibility of each player to check their duelling stats prior to a duel. If they are erroneously set and not corrected before the duel, the duel will be resolved with the erroneous stats - not refought or negated afterwards.

Duel mechanics

One player challenges another to a duel. This is then resolved by Zim or someone he delegates as referee, at a time and pace of his chosing. Ideally, both challengers and referee are online simultaneously so it can be quickly resolved within an hour or so.

The challenging player either challenges a player to a regular duel (an "honour duel") or to a "duel to the death". Duels require mutual consent. Duels to the death have a special extra rule detailed later.

A duel consists of one or more rounds of combat and lasts until one player has zero hit points or concedes.

Each round of combat, a player strikes high, medium or low. He communicates this in secret to the referee. Strikes are simultaneous. This part of the duel is rock-paper-scissors. High beats medium, medium beats low, low beats high. A player whose strike beats his rival has the advantage in the combat round.

The referee then rolls a number of dice for each player equal to their attacks. Plus one is added to all a player's die rolls if the player has the advantage over their rival. However, modified die rolls can never exceed 6. (So rolling a 6 and having the advantage still just gives you a 6).

The player with the highest modified die roll wins the combat. If both players have the same highest modified die roll, then the one with the highest fight value wins. If both die rolls and fight values are tied, the umpire randomly decides the winner (50:50 chance).

The winner of a round does 2D4 (roll two four sided dice and total) hit points of damage to the loser.

Edit: Each round, when choosing high/medium/low, a player may also specify that they are "holding back". This means they get minus one to all die rolls (with a 1 remaining a 1) but only do 1D4 damage if they win the round.

Consequences of duels

The victor of a duel gains 1 fight value and the loser - if surviving - loses 1 fight value. These will be tallied by the umpire over the game and require no changing of traits.

In honour duels, there is a risk of accidental death. If the damage dealt exceeds a players hit points at the start of a round by three and the attacker rolls a double, the loser dies.

In duels to the death, when the loser yields or reaches zero hit points, the victor has a choice.

Killing the loser gains them +1 dread (change battle dread, or - if maxxed out - strategy dread)

Sparing the loser gains them +1 chivalry (change battle chivalry, or - if maxxed out - strategy chivalry).

Champions:

Duels start when one player (the challenger) challenges another (the defender). Initially, the challenger must issue a personal challenge - they cannot use a champion unless the defender does. A defender can nominate a champion to fight in his stead. If the defender nominates a champion, then the challenger is free to withdraw the challenge or nominate their own champion.

All fights involving a champion are honour duels - not ones to the death - although "accidental" death is still possible.

A champion may be an NPC or a player who owes allegiance to the player they are championing. Players who fight as champions fight in just the same way as other players.

NPC Champion stats:

NPC champions are drawn from bodyguard units. For those without vassals, the relevant unit is just their own bodyguard. Those with vassals may draw a champion from their vassals. Kings and Princes may choose any bodyguard unit in the kingdom to draw their champion from (exception - not the bodyguard of the player challenging them; King gets first pick if challenged by Prince).

There are two kinds of NPC champions - regular (anonymous) and retinue champions.

Regular champion stats are:

Valour: the valour of the bodyguard they are drawn from.

Fight value: 50

Hit points: 7

Retinue champions:

Unique:

Arnold von Winkelried
Bertrand du Guesclin
Chevalier de Bayard
Gerard de Ridefort
Roger de Moulins

These legendary NPCs have 12 hitpoints and fight values of 65

Other retinue champions have 8 hit points and 50 fight value unless stated otherwise.

Naïve Knight: 52 FV
Shieldbearer 10 hit points
Swordbearer 51 FV; 9 hit points
Veteran warrior: 53 FV
Bodyguard 52 FV
Notorious berserker: 53 FV
Dread knight: 54 FV
Chivalrous knight : 54 FV
Lancebearer 52 FV
Templar/hospitaller knight: 53 FV

Regular champions cannot be killed.
Retinue champions are removed from the relevant character if accidentally killed.
Champions do not gain or lose FV from duelling (this is a change from discussion to avoid book keeping)

Fight value modifiers

Traits that increase fight values:

Generals receive + fight value for each rank in the following traits (max ranks given):
-Brave 5
-Beserker 3
-GoodCavalryGeneral 3
-TourneyKnight 5
-HorseRacer 3

Traits that reduce fight values:

Generals receive - fight value for each rank in the following traits (max ranks given):
-Drink 6
-Coward 4
-BadCavalryGeneral 3
-Insane 3
-Deranged 3
-Haemophobic 3
-Cursed 4
-StrickenSilly 3
-StrickenSerious 3
-TooOldToFight 1
-Senile 3

Retinue that raise fight value (by amount indicated):
Black Stallion +3
Trusty Steed +2
Seal of Solomon +2

Commentary on traits
I have tried to keep the list of relevant traits short and restricted to those that are linked to physical prowess on the KISS principle. Perhaps the only exception are those relevant to cavalry command/horses, as I think a good cavalry commander should be useful on a horse and I think the duels probably start with a joust (although it does not seem worth modelling that explicitly).

Modifiers to hit points

Traits that affect hit points - ranks in trait and max hp given
-Hypochndriac 3 - 6 hp
-HaleAndHearty 3 +6 hp
-Battlescarred 4 +8 hps

Retinue that affect hit points:
Alchemist +2 hp
Paracelsus +4 hp
Fine armour +4 hp
Ornamental armour -2 hp
Iron Crown of Lombardy +1 hp

NOT retinue characters who would give their HP effects by fighting alongside the character- e.g. shieldbearer,. swordbearer, Arnold von Winkelried etc (it’s a duel, not a threesome)

Example duel, modified taken from YLCs earlier one. Full credit to YLC for both the example and much of the proposed mechanics. :bow:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In the following fight, we have two knights: Cecil and Flax. They are fighting over the hand of a woman. Cecil challenges Flax, but only to a regular duel - he wishes to see honour satisfied, not duel to the death.

Knight Cecil has 8 HP, as dictated by his avatar, and 6 valor (3 silver chevrons), which would give him 3 dice per phase. His fight value is 53, due to 3 ranks in the brave trait.

Knight Flax has 10 HP, as dictated by his avatar, Fine Armor, and Hypochondria, with 3 valor, giving him 2 dice per phase. His fight value is 52, thanks to his trusty steed.

Knight Cecil chooses his strike stance type - Mid.

Knight Flax chooses his stance type - Low

Knight Cecil rolls 4, 1, and 5, and each die gets +1 due to his superior stance, giving him rolls of 5, 2, and 6

Knight Flax rolls a 4 and 3 - not enough to beat either of Knight Cecil scores.

Knight Flax loses the combat. Knight Cecil rolls for 2D4 damage and gets a double 4 and a 2. So Flax loses 6 HP.

Flax is wounded with only 4 hit points remaining. Knight Cecil pauses and asks Flax to yield. He will not.

A second round of combat begins. Knight Flax rolls a 6 and 3, this time with Mid as his stance.

Knight Cecil defends with 4, 6 and 1 with his stance set to High, but although he has the advantage, he has already rolled a 6 and this cannot be raised further.

Since both knights are tied with a highest role of 6, the winner of the round is decided by fight values. Knight Cecil has the highest fight value and wins the round.

He rolls a double 4 for damage. Disaster! This is a double roll and exceeds Flax’s remaining hit points by more than three. The winning blow has struck too deep and Flax falls to the ground mortally wounded.

Knight Cecil cries “I did not mean for this to happen!”

My lord.

I hope someone challenges someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

My lord.

I hope someone challenges someone.

---

YLC has challenged me, watch him get beaten by a woman now. :clown:

wow this is amazing! I may pick a fight just to see how these rules work out! :laugh4:

(this is so Great in fact I was wondering if we could use something similar for a Sweboz PBM we are trying to put together over at BtSH. :bow:)

So, is there anyone who would like to try those tournament rules in an actual fight?

To illustrate the system, I have put an example in spoilers - a slightly modified variant of the one provided earlier by YLC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

To illustrate the system, I have put an example in spoilers - a slightly modified variant of the one provided earlier by YLC.

---

ohhh, nicey nicey, econ!!

Me likey systemy, me wany see crazy french knightys killing each other on diety floor.

As long as I keep winning in these examples, I'll support whatever's chosen. :laugh4:

The end made me think of something, though. Shouldn't it be possible for combatants to "hold back" in order to avoid killing their enemies? Perhaps a penalty to their attack and damage rolls?

Yes, Cecil might get tired of killing me some day. :clown:

I second that idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

As long as I keep winning in these examples, I'll support whatever's chosen. :laugh4:

The end made me think of something, though. Shouldn't it be possible for combatants to "hold back" in order to avoid killing their enemies? Perhaps a penalty to their attack and damage rolls?

---

You mean "Taunter"? I have abilities like that which are gained from having specific traits.

I'll have one of my examples from my finished one up soon, let me know what you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

The end made me think of something, though. Shouldn't it be possible for combatants to "hold back" in order to avoid killing their enemies? Perhaps a penalty to their attack and damage rolls?

---

How about this: when you strike, you can choose to hold back. Holding back means your blow does only D4 damage (and thus no doubles, so cannot kill), but puts you at more risk of losing the round and hence you receive a minus one to all your die rolls.

That should greatly reduce the risk of accidental death, which would only occur if one player miscalculates or gets carried away with bloodlust, and does not hold back when striking a weakened opponent.

Note that what I was hoping to do with these rules was model real grudge fights rather than tournaments held for fun. In the latter, it might be appropriate to have no risk of accidental death.Towards the end of the Middle Ages, people even started using blunt or weakened weapons that were very unlikely to be accidentally kill an opponent with a shield or plate armour.

However, what I was trying to model was a more hot blooded combat - where two big angry men swing at each other with lethal weapons. You are challenged - pick your weapons, meet me at dawn, it will be last man standing. Saying "ok, but can we fight with blunt weapons/feather dusters/whatever?" would not fit with the vibe I am going for.

It's anachronistic, but an analogy would with the later duels - with rapier or pistol - where most opponents are trying to satisfy their honour rather than kill each other, but could well end up dead if unlucky.

Because I know most players won't want to put their characters at serious risk of death, I have softened it by putting intentional death into a separate "duel to the death" category that requires mutual consent. In real life, you would not know whether that big angry man standing over you really is just interested in his honour or actually does want your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

How about this: when you strike, you can choose to hold back. Holding back means your blow does only D4 damage (and thus no doubles, so cannot kill), but puts you at more risk of losing the round and hence you receive a minus one to all your die rolls.

That should greatly reduce the risk of accidental death, which would only occur if one player miscalculates or gets carried away with bloodlust, and does not hold back when striking a weakened opponent.

Note that what I was hoping to do with these rules was model real grudge fights rather than tournaments held for fun. In the latter, it might be appropriate to have no risk of accidental death.Towards the end of the Middle Ages, people even started using blunt or weakened weapons that were very unlikely to be accidentally kill an opponent with a shield or plate armour.

However, what I was trying to model was a more hot blooded combat - where two big angry men swing at each other with lethal weapons. You are challenged - pick your weapons, meet me at dawn, it will be last man standing. Saying "ok, but can we fight with blunt weapons/feather dusters/whatever?" would not fit with the vibe I am going for.

It's anachronistic, but an analogy would with the later duels - with rapier or pistol - where most opponents are trying to satisfy their honour rather than kill each other, but could well end up dead if unlucky.

Because I know most players won't want to put their characters at serious risk of death, I have softened it by putting intentional death into a separate "duel to the death" category that requires mutual consent. In real life, you would not know whether that big angry man standing over you really is just interested in his honour or actually does want your head.

---

Add in more traits that positively effect fight value - such as some of the chivalry, dread, and tactic traits, along with infantry army bonuses (for those fighting on foot).

As to holding back - just allow a flexible die set. Say, when choosing your stance, you may select any number of dice, and instead of rolling them this round, you may roll them the next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

How about this: when you strike, you can choose to hold back. Holding back means your blow does only D4 damage (and thus no doubles, so cannot kill), but puts you at more risk of losing the round and hence you receive a minus one to all your die rolls.

That should greatly reduce the risk of accidental death, which would only occur if one player miscalculates or gets carried away with bloodlust, and does not hold back when striking a weakened opponent.

Note that what I was hoping to do with these rules was model real grudge fights rather than tournaments held for fun. In the latter, it might be appropriate to have no risk of accidental death.Towards the end of the Middle Ages, people even started using blunt or weakened weapons that were very unlikely to be accidentally kill an opponent with a shield or plate armour.

However, what I was trying to model was a more hot blooded combat - where two big angry men swing at each other with lethal weapons. You are challenged - pick your weapons, meet me at dawn, it will be last man standing. Saying "ok, but can we fight with blunt weapons/feather dusters/whatever?" would not fit with the vibe I am going for.

It's anachronistic, but an analogy would with the later duels - with rapier or pistol - where most opponents are trying to satisfy their honour rather than kill each other, but could well end up dead if unlucky.

Because I know most players won't want to put their characters at serious risk of death, I have softened it by putting intentional death into a separate "duel to the death" category that requires mutual consent. In real life, you would not know whether that big angry man standing over you really is just interested in his honour or actually does want your head.

---

That's true, and I certainly support that mindset. I do think holding back would be a good way to roleplay chivalry types, though.

The way I saw it is maybe only one of the sides is angry enough to kill, the other side though just wants to settle this. As Cecil mentioned, a chivalry type character in this case would probably try to leave his opponent alive. Then again... :clown:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

---

~:mecry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

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 :2thumbsup:

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. :clown:

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.

:egypt:

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

Who will dare defeat the king ? :devil:

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!

:egypt:

That is a very good way to start the game.

Really very good.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

:egypt:

---

This is a good idea.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

:egypt:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

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.

:egypt:

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

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.