Nerf the Academy

[Chenier]

It is their time, their gold and their choice. People choosing to spend time at the academy is not a real problem.

It's not fun for them, though, nor is it fun for you when they finish their deed, because you know the only way you can compete with them is to go through the same grueling training.

[De-Legro]

It may not be fun for them, but the result for them must be fun else they would not bother to go through it. Its not fun for me when my tiny 1 Duchy realm is beset by 3 larger neighbours (hypothetical) , we certainly can't compete with them, should we change that too? If you can't compete with them with the sword, bring them down using other methods. If you character fails to excel at any of the areas that would provide a means to do this, then just like in RL grit, bear it and plan revenge.

[Chenier]

It may not be fun for them, but the result for them must be fun else they would not bother to go through it. Its not fun for me when my tiny 1 Duchy realm is beset by 3 larger neighbours (hypothetical) , we certainly can't compete with them, should we change that too? If you can't compete with them with the sword, bring them down using other methods. If you character fails to excel at any of the areas that would provide a means to do this, then just like in RL grit, bear it and plan revenge.

Except dueling only uses swordfighting.

That training is so long and grueling is one of the reasons why people either don't do any at all, or do quite a lot of it. The result is that people either have around 5% swordfighting, or around 90%, with relatively few in-between.

And therefore, dueling is always full of scandals and whining, because the ones with 90% will go around challenging everyone 'till death, and the ones with 5% will never accept any challenges. Or pretty near.

[De-Legro]

Except dueling only uses swordfighting.

That training is so long and grueling is one of the reasons why people either don't do any at all, or do quite a lot of it. The result is that people either have around 5% swordfighting, or around 90%, with relatively few in-between.

And therefore, dueling is always full of scandals and whining, because the ones with 90% will go around challenging everyone 'till death, and the ones with 5% will never accept any challenges. Or pretty near.

And? I don't know how much history people bother to read, but this did happen in the medieval age. Depending on the exact age and the culture it was either tolerated, or the challenging noble was actually shamed by his actions. Just as realms should make some effort to shame those that always try to avoid duels, they should likewise shun those of renown skill whom use it as constant threat. In society people will tend to do what they can get away with, if you allow the best swordsmen to profit from that skill, then it makes total RP IG sense that at least some of them will.

[Norrel]

And? I don't know how much history people bother to read, but this did happen in the medieval age. Depending on the exact age and the culture it was either tolerated, or the challenging noble was actually shamed by his actions. Just as realms should make some effort to shame those that always try to avoid duels, they should likewise shun those of renown skill whom use it as constant threat. In society people will tend to do what they can get away with, if you allow the best swordsmen to profit from that skill, then it makes total RP IG sense that at least some of them will.

Wouldn't it be more fun if duels actually had some element of risk and weren't ENTIRELY predetermined because of an enormous skill disparity?

[Chenier]

And? I don't know how much history people bother to read, but this did happen in the medieval age. Depending on the exact age and the culture it was either tolerated, or the challenging noble was actually shamed by his actions. Just as realms should make some effort to shame those that always try to avoid duels, they should likewise shun those of renown skill whom use it as constant threat. In society people will tend to do what they can get away with, if you allow the best swordsmen to profit from that skill, then it makes total RP IG sense that at least some of them will.

Regardless, I don't find that fun. I would fun duels to be a lot more interesting if most people had comparable swordfighting skills.

[De-Legro]

Most the people in a realm DO have comparable swordsman skills. So perhaps the question is, why do duels always end up being between such disparate skill levels? The answer is probably because those of us with mediocre skills are too damn timid to offer duels against anyone, whether we know they have higher skills or not.

Wouldn't it be more fun if duels actually had some element of risk and weren't ENTIRELY predetermined because of an enormous skill disparity?

They do have a pretty good element of risk. Obviously the risk decreases as the difference between skills increase, but their is always a chance :) Personally no I wouldn't find it so. Duels don't have to be to the death to start with, and losing a duel is still an honourable option. Then again my characters are often slightly odd, so in general a death duel against impossible odds appeals to them.

[Chenier]

Most the people in a realm DO have comparable swordsman skills. So perhaps the question is, why do duels always end up being between such disparate skill levels? The answer is probably because those of us with mediocre skills are too damn timid to offer duels against anyone, whether we know they have higher skills or not.

Or rather, because you usually don't know what everyone else's skill with a sword is. All you know is that yours sucks, so others' either sucks just as much, or is so much higher than you so that you don't stand a chance. So you either get a 50% loss chance or a 95% loss chance. Most people would not gamble such things (death or, alternatively, a time-out that may last few a few days) over such odds.

[De-Legro]

Or rather, because you usually don't know what everyone else's skill with a sword is. All you know is that yours sucks, so others' either sucks just as much, or is so much higher than you so that you don't stand a chance. So you either get a 50% loss chance or a 95% loss chance. Most people would not gamble such things (death or, alternatively, a time-out that may last few a few days) over such odds.

In the modern age, maybe not. When honour is at stake as medieval noble? sure they would.

[Jens Namtrah]

Or rather, because you usually don't know what everyone else's skill with a sword is. All you know is that yours sucks, so others' either sucks just as much, or is so much higher than you so that you don't stand a chance. So you either get a 50% loss chance or a 95% loss chance. Most people would not gamble such things (death or, alternatively, a time-out that may last few a few days) over such odds.

That goes back to the original problem - it's not supposed to be "gambling", it's supposed to be a matter of honor. You're not supposed to sit and calculate your odds of winning, you're supposed to roleplay a reaction of a medieval knight to an insult.

I think the issue here is almost entirely a role playing/player behavior one, and like it has been said, you can't really govern that. But you CAN start by setting the tone with your own characters.

As for the 5%/90%, those numbers are a terrible exaggeration in both directions.

[De-Legro]

That goes back to the original problem - it's not supposed to be "gambling", it's supposed to be a matter of honor. You're not supposed to sit and calculate your odds of winning, you're supposed to roleplay a reaction of a medieval knight to an insult.

I think the issue here is almost entirely a role playing/player behavior one, and like it has been said, you can't really govern that. But you CAN start by setting the tone with your own characters.

As for the 5%/90%, those numbers are a terrible exaggeration in both directions.

I agree with Jens, the world is surely coming to an end.

[Bedwyr]

I've always wanted to see an option for nobles leading units...

Lead from the front, or lead from the back.  Take the risks and pain and gain morale bonuses and sword skill, or stay safe and increase leadership.

[Norrel]

I've always wanted to see an option for nobles leading units...

Lead from the front, or lead from the back.  Take the risks and pain and gain morale bonuses and sword skill, or stay safe and increase leadership.

Isn't that called being a hero?

[Chenier]

That goes back to the original problem - it's not supposed to be "gambling", it's supposed to be a matter of honor. You're not supposed to sit and calculate your odds of winning, you're supposed to roleplay a reaction of a medieval knight to an insult.

I think the issue here is almost entirely a role playing/player behavior one, and like it has been said, you can't really govern that. But you CAN start by setting the tone with your own characters.

As for the 5%/90%, those numbers are a terrible exaggeration in both directions.

People with poor swordfighting wouldn't sit and calculate their odds if they weren't so bad. Most people know they've never done anything to increase their swordfighting skills, which means that basically everyone is likely to be better than they are. If the increases were greater due to fighting, then things wouldn't be the same, because at least everyone would know they are far better than they were when the character was created.

As for 5/90, sure it's an exageration, but even with 15/50, what are your odds? I would find it interesting, however, if someone with access to the dbase could give some stats on everyone's swordfighting skills.

Isn't that called being a hero?

Yes, except that being a hero doesn't seem to change much about the things we are talking about.

[Norrel]

Yes, except that being a hero doesn't seem to change much about the things we are talking about.

Boost all hero's SF gain from combat?