Quote Originally Posted by econ21 View Post
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.