Tournament rules brainstorming thread

[Cecil XIX]

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...

[Dafug3]

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.

[GeneralHankerchief]

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.

[Dafug3]

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.

[econ21]

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.







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.

[econ21]

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.

[AussieGiant]

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

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.

[econ21]

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.

[Marcus Agrippa]

Just thought I'd give you guys some real life experience.
I do german longsword fencing and the mechanics are more of less the same as single sword and most other weapons of the time.

A strike over the top generaly beats a low strike unless the duellist striking low is both very quick and moves offline. The top strike has greater reach.
Moving offline (15 degrea's or more) gives a duellist strenght as long as his opponent stays online (straight).
A medium block will be fast and so would save you from high strikes.
If you mirror your opponent both swords will clash and you will wind (y-nd). where both swords turn round each other trying to gain the upper hand. this is where some nice dice rolling determines who wins.

This is a very basic run down but I hope it helps when working out the duels.

[econ21]

A strike over the top generaly beats a low strike unless the duellist striking low is both very quick and moves offline. The top strike has greater reach.
Moving offline (15 degrea's or more) gives a duellist strenght as long as his opponent stays online (straight).
A medium block will be fast and so would save you from high strikes.
If you mirror your opponent both swords will clash and you will wind (y-nd). where both swords turn round each other trying to gain the upper hand. this is where some nice dice rolling determines who wins.

Interesting - to avoid confusion, I think we should leave the current rock-paper-scissors (RPS) system as it is for the tournament, i.e.:

High > Medium > Low > High

but we could think about some more realistic alternative labels for afterwards. If you want to propose alternative labels for rock-paper-scissors, I'd welcome them.

From what you've told us so far, it sounds as if we got it backwards:



Medium (block) > High > Low

(which we could make full RPS if we assume Low> Medium.)