Tournament rules brainstorming thread

[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.

[Cecil XIX]

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.

[ULC]

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.

[econ21]

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 ). 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?

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.

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".

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.

[ULC]

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.