Tournament rules brainstorming thread

[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.

[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.

[econ21]

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.

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.

[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.

[ULC]

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. ).

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

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.

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*

[Zim]

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).

[Ibn-Khaldun]

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

[econ21]

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.

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!”

[AussieGiant]

My lord.

I hope someone challenges someone.

[TheFlax]

My lord.

I hope someone challenges someone.

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

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

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

(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. )

[Ibn-Khaldun]

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

[econ21]

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

[AussieGiant]

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.

[Cecil XIX]

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

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?

[TheFlax]

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

I second that idea.

[ULC]

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

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.

[econ21]

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.

[ULC]

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.

[Cecil XIX]

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.

[TheFlax]

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...

[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.