Tournament rules brainstorming thread

[ULC]

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.

[AussieGiant]

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.

[ULC]

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.

[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.

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?

[ULC]

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.

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

[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."

[_Tristan_]

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 ?

[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.

[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. ).

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.