Tournament rules brainstorming thread

[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.