Rewrite: Duels

[Ymbert Montgomery]

(Including Fencing Schools etc.)

Considering Henri's application to the King's Musketeers, it's probably lucky these are up next...

I think these are likely to take a serious rewrite to make them easier to follow.

Any suggestions/ideas are welcome.

But it's also worth considering what design approach you want me to take here.

En Garde! games vary on duelling rules a lot.

On one end of the spectrum you have Jim's excellent Britain En Garde! game, which automates the process and makes it completely random. That makes it very easy to do, both for the GM and players, but obviously removes choice from the duels.

At the other extreme, you have something like The Paris Tribune, which treats duelling as a full tactical skirmish game in its own right. That obviously gives the most player options, but at the cost of considerable complexity.

Currently Liminal falls somewhere in the middle, with a limited number of optional routines allowed.

I'm happy to lean more towards either camp if people have a preference there, but it would be useful to know that as soon as possible before any serious rewriting is underway!

[huillaume]

Several points I have to say here are:

I don't know the Paris Tribune system, but if it is a full tactical system on its own, it's easy that it includes action/reaction sequence that can need a chat (or at least several responding PMs), somthing I believe should be avoided for easiness of resolution.

I personaly would separate auto-duels (regimentals being the main example) than formal ones. British EnGarde does it quite well, allowing most auto-duels to be posponed as formal. In this case, I'd limit the seuqences one to formal ones, while auto-duels, more close to brawls, could be resolved quicker.

BTW, duels agains NPCs that could came from any event (e.g. drunkness) should be, again IMHO, solved quickly and easily (e.g. 3d6 vs skill), sot that they don't take the GM too much time.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Thanks for these! A few responses.

Feb 1, 2021 10:45:17 GMT huillaume said:

Several points I have to say here are:

I don't know the Paris Tribune system, but if it is a full tactical system on its own, it's easy that it includes action/reaction sequence that can need a chat (or at least several responding PMs), somthing I believe should be avoided for easiness of resolution.

It may add more complexity than people would like, but it is fully automatable. The main thing it adds is fencing styles that can be ordered like a normal action.

This probably needs an example, so this is one of their "Knacks":

Roll ‘n’ Gut [Marinière (Cutlass)]

A disguised up-swinging blow designed to disembowel one’s opponent, though if they survive, the attacker is left in a vulnerable position for the following round. The attacker gains a +5/-5 reflexive modifier to Swordsmanship which cannot be parried, but the following round will find himself at a -5/+5 reflexive modifier and be unable to parry as he will be effectively prone.

So, as you can see, they're ordered normally. What they do is at more tactical options, but at the cost of simplicity.

I personaly would separate auto-duels (regimentals being the main example) than formal ones. British EnGarde does it quite well, allowing most auto-duels to be posponed as formal. In this case, I'd limit the seuqences one to formal ones, while auto-duels, more close to brawls, could be resolved quicker.

That probably isn't necessary because we don't have auto duels! Impromptu duels only take place if a) both PCs have ordered them and b) have provided me with default duelling orders.

BTW, duels agains NPCs that could came from any event (e.g. drunkness) should be, again IMHO, solved quickly and easily (e.g. 3d6 vs skill), sot that they don't take the GM too much time.

They're rare enough that they don't really cause me much work, but I'd be happy to automate them if people prefer. I get that duels with NPCs are a lot less interesting!

[Jacques Bougiedure]

I approve of anything that improves the immersion and simplifies things for the GM.

However, I am a little dissatisfied with the randomness of the dueling system in Britain EnGard as it entirely depends on the roll of the dice. I have been fairly closely matched to my opponents and my record is a predictable 2-3.

I haven't fought a duel in Liminal so I can say if I like or dislike its system. I remember setting up the default routine was complex but haven't changed it in the nine months I have been playing so the complexity hasn't been an issue.

The TPT sounds like a level of complexity that is better suited to table-top than Play-By-(e)Mail. Do you have a link or can you post the TPT rules so we can review?

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Yeah, my instinct was that people would probably prefer it not to be completely automated, but I thought it was worth checking!

The complexity versus more player options is the big one I think. Duels are rare enough (somewhat ironically considering the game name!) that I'm not especially worried about the workload here.

I am aware that my tolerance for crunchy rules is pretty high, which may not be the case for everyone. While a lot of us obviously come from wargaming backgrounds, that's not necessarily the case for everyone.

Unfortunately TPT rules are too big to attach on here. I won't send them to everyone, but I'll send you a copy and anyone else who requests one. I do think they're less complex then they occur, but definitely more complicated than the current system. (I'd say they're a bit less complex than the spy or merchant rules, but those at least have the benefit of being safely ignored by most players).

[huillaume]

The main problem I see with Liminal system (and original EG! one, for what's worth) is that, unless at first blood, END has more importance than skill, as it becomes a protracted attrition war.

Let's imagine two characters fight a duel. The first )A) one has STR and COn both at 11, and expertise 15. The other one (B) has STR 15 and both, CON and expertise at 11 (same rolls different distribution). Who will win?

A will have END 110, B will have END 130.

A will hit (when table so tells) on 3+. B will hit on 4+, if both can hit 6 times, A will hit 4 and B will hit 3.

With thsoe hits, A will have inflicted (assuming rapiers) 44 hits, while B will have inflicted 45, so A will be left to 65 hits while B to 86...

So, who will win in the end?

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Feb 2, 2021 15:45:11 GMT huillaume said:

The main problem I see with Liminal system (and original EG! one, for what's worth) is that, unless at first blood, END has more importance than skill, as it becomes a protracted attrition war.

Let's imagine two characters fight a duel. The first )A) one has STR and COn both at 11, and expertise 15. The other one (B) has STR 15 and both, CON and expertise at 11 (same rolls different distribution). Who will win?

A will have END 110, B will have END 130.

A will hit (when table so tells) on 3+. B will hit on 4+, if both can hit 6 times, A will hit 4 and B will hit 3.

With thsoe hits, A will have inflicted (assuming rapiers) 44 hits, while B will have inflicted 45, so A will be left to 65 hits while B to 86...

So, who will win in the end?

Shifting to a d20 system might go some way to balancing that.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

What I'll do here is write up a more complex system and scale it back if people find it too much. That's easier than the other way round.

[huillaume]

I guess when you say the d20 system you're thinking in something similar to what Jim uses in Britain En Garde! (where, BYW, there have been many more duels).

If I'm not wrong, this system is taken from Pendragon. IF so, I'd suggest to allow the Pendragon tactics (mostly defensive and bersek ones), as they give the players more options and possibilities.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

This would be pretty different than Jim's system. As you say, it would have a lot more tactical options.

[huillaume]

Just beware not to make it too complex to be bearable...

[Jacques Bougiedure]

I would like to volunteer to play test the system (outside of the game).

G

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Feb 12, 2021 18:35:59 GMT huillaume said:

Just beware not to make it too complex to be bearable...

No worries. And as I said, the general idea here is that I'll write it up but simplify it if people find it too crunchy.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Got the draft of these done. In the end I went for tinkering rather then a full rules rewrite; it was just too hard to put in more tactical options without it getting either too complex or hard to use in PBF!

The main changes that have been made:

Extensive rewrite of the social context rules for duelling. Really happy with those.

It's now been made explicit that challenges to the death and refusing surrender need GM approval.

Everything's been moved to d20 for expertise.

Finesse moves for the fancy duellists.

First Blood duels no longer give expertise, but do give SP.

Some basic rules for mass duels if it all kicks off!

More variety in pistol duels.

Being able to buy fancier weapons.

Duelling Rules Rewrite.odt (38.79 KB)Duelling Rules Rewrite.pdf (160.18 KB)

[huillaume]

After a skip reading, some details about hte SP gain/loss table:

Fights Member of Own Regiment -5

So no longer does this mean disgrace?

Defeated by someone from rival province +1.

Positive?