Are duels to surrender a viable training method? Are there ways to minimize risk of injury?
Quote from: pcw27 on April 02, 2012, 11:08:51 PM
Are duels to surrender a viable training method? Are there ways to minimize risk of injury?
You can train with them.
There's always a chance of injury, including serious injury.
It is absolutely intentional that there is no risk-free, no-cost method of training your swordsmanship skill.
If you ever find a way to do that, please report it as a bug immediately, as it is not intended to exist.
If I find a way to minimize or if I find a way which never results in a wound?
Then it's a bug which should be reported.
What? You can use duel to surrender to train?
Quote from: Zakilevo on April 03, 2012, 12:31:28 AM
What? You can use duel to surrender to train?
Dueling to surrender provide the chance for a skill gain. Using duels to train without a real context, well I certainly would think it is a SMA violation, and generally has been frowned upon in general. Duels are for honour.
I know of a character that has declared duels on several others due to his honor feeling hurt by them just recently so it does seem that people are using it for its purpose. One has accepted but with time to train so people are accepting too. Also he didn't use the game mechanic yet but a letter of his wanting to duel.
Quote from: Penchant on April 03, 2012, 02:20:26 AM
I know of a character that has declared duels on several others due to his honor feeling hurt by them.
lol well he is a sensitive one.
Quote from: Zakilevo on April 03, 2012, 02:21:30 AM
lol well he is a sensitive one.
As he should be. In this world, your reputation is everything, and if you let people go after they slight you, you're worth nothing.
Quote from: Slapsticks on April 03, 2012, 03:02:18 AM
As he should be. In this world, your reputation is everything, and if you let people go after they slight you, you're worth nothing.
There is a balance here though. If you are too easily offended it reveals a lack of self confidence and calls your reputation into question. Sometimes it does you reputation more good to ignore or ridicule the insult. It is all very dependent on circumstance.
Quote from: De-Legro on April 03, 2012, 02:18:02 AM
Dueling to surrender provide the chance for a skill gain. Using duels to train without a real context, well I certainly would think it is a SMA violation, and generally has been frowned upon in general. Duels are for honour.
We were going to roleplay them as "sparring matches". It might not matter in the end as we'll probably just build and academy soon.
There are Training Matches for that purpose, at least on Testing.
Quote from: pcw27 on April 03, 2012, 11:16:11 PM
We were going to roleplay them as "sparring matches".
You've got to be kidding me. Not this again.
I think it's time we remove duelling from the game. The ratio of abuse to intended use is 10:1 at the very least.
Please keep death duels around, Tom. Surrender duels get abused, true, but people agreeing to death duels are generally serious about it. You can even make it more lethal if you want.
Maybe make it cost money to challenge someone to a duel? You'd have to hire an impartial judge, an arena, etc.
If you just want to RP sparring, have both nobles go to the academy and train together. Sparring equipment costs money and need frequent replacement.
QuoteWe were going to roleplay them as "sparring matches".
Absolutely not.
Duels are matters of honor between nobles used to resolve conflicts between them. They are not practice sessions, sparring matches, dueling leagues, training fights, light recreation, or whatever other rationalization you want to invent to jusify abusing game mechanics.
If you want to spar with another noble to test your skills, then use the special Training Match option. If you're on stable, then just cool our jets til it gets there.
There should be Training Matches and Duels to the Death. +1 for removing Dueling till surrender.
Quote from: Foundation on April 04, 2012, 12:17:15 AM
There should be Training Matches and Duels to the Death. +1 for removing Dueling till surrender.
Sounds good to me...
Quote from: Foundation on April 04, 2012, 12:17:15 AM
There should be Training Matches and Duels to the Death. +1 for removing Dueling till surrender.
+1, requested something to this effect a while ago myself.
I don't think duels till surrender should be removed to be honest. Who really is abusing them? I've never had someone come at me asking if I wanted to duel till surrender just for laughs or skillz... Clearly pcw is only considering this quite drastic option (because there's a very real chance you'll get wounded) because he's in a newly colonized realm with no academies.
Don't go removing cool features because someone somewhere under specific circumstances may /think/ of abusing them. It seriously is one of the reasons that the game has become less fun and easy-going over the years. If you have a cool feature, for crying out loud, /keep/ it.
Quote from: Lorgan on April 04, 2012, 01:32:06 AM
I don't think duels till surrender should be removed to be honest. Who really is abusing them? I've never had someone come at me asking if I wanted to duel till surrender just for laughs or skillz... Clearly pcw is only considering this quite drastic option (because there's a very real chance you'll get wounded) because he's in a newly colonized realm with no academies.
Don't go removing cool features because someone somewhere under specific circumstances may /think/ of abusing them. It seriously is one of the reasons that the game has become less fun and easy-going over the years. If you have a cool feature, for crying out loud, /keep/ it.
I've seen it quite a bit in the older continents.
Quote from: Lorgan on April 04, 2012, 01:32:06 AM
Don't go removing cool features because someone somewhere under specific circumstances may /think/ of abusing them. It seriously is one of the reasons that the game has become less fun and easy-going over the years. If you have a cool feature, for crying out loud, /keep/ it.
If you
really need the duel feature, then it should be a duel to the death.
To be honest, death duels also get abused. I can't count the times that Overlord has been challenged to one. Seriously, people? The guy is immortal and has skills maxed out. I could've killed a dozen characters just by accepting their challenges. You are really lucky that he considers you so far below him that he doesn't even consider duelling something he sees as the equivalent of a rat.
How is that abuse? If they want to get their chars killed, let them...
I can live with duels till surrender disappearing, but I feel that over the years too many restrictions have been made to avoid abuse while in my experience abuse was really not running rampant. And well... I don't like that parts of the game that are enjoyed by many need to be completely removed because of some bad apples.
In this particular case: I had an idea all worked out where duel till surrender would be used to fight over a hugely prestigious position. It can be done with training matches, but training match doesn't sound quite as grave or fitting as duel till surrender. Especially as if you lost, you'd actually have to surrender your position.
Of course this is just one - rare - use for the feature, and it is not even absolutely necessary, but it really sucks that duel till surrender might be removed because of the hint of abuse and I don't think you should take removing a feature lightly. Sometimes the good outweighs the bad.
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 01:53:07 AM
To be honest, death duels also get abused. I can't count the times that Overlord has been challenged to one. Seriously, people? The guy is immortal and has skills maxed out. I could've killed a dozen characters just by accepting their challenges. You are really lucky that he considers you so far below him that he doesn't even consider duelling something he sees as the equivalent of a rat.
How is this abuse? This is just them being stupid, and it makes sense IC. It's not being abused for personal profit and it doesn't ruin the atmosphere of the game.
Quote from: Lorgan on April 04, 2012, 02:27:58 AM
In this particular case: I had an idea all worked out where duel till surrender would be used to fight over a hugely prestigious position. It can be done with training matches, but training match doesn't sound quite as grave or fitting as duel till surrender. Especially as if you lost, you'd actually have to surrender your position.
That sounds kind of abusive to me. Duels should be over matters of honor. You should only try to kill a peer if he has disrespected you somehow. (And duels to surrender still have a non-zero chance of one party dying.)
Quote from: GoldPanda on April 04, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
(And duels to surrender still have a non-zero chance of one party dying.)
From what I understand, that is not the case.
Quote from: GoldPanda on April 04, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
That sounds kind of abusive to me. Duels should be over matters of honor. You should only try to kill a peer if he has disrespected you somehow. (And duels to surrender still have a non-zero chance of one party dying.)
Quote from: Lorgan on April 04, 2012, 02:27:58 AM
How is that abuse? If they want to get their chars killed, let them...
I can live with duels till surrender disappearing, but I feel that over the years too many restrictions have been made to avoid abuse while in my experience abuse was really not running rampant. And well... I don't like that parts of the game that are enjoyed by many need to be completely removed because of some bad apples.
In this particular case: I had an idea all worked out where duel till surrender would be used to fight over a hugely prestigious position. It can be done with training matches, but training match doesn't sound quite as grave or fitting as duel till surrender. Especially as if you lost, you'd actually have to surrender your position.
Of course this is just one - rare - use for the feature, and it is not even absolutely necessary, but it really sucks that duel till surrender might be removed because of the hint of abuse and I don't think you should take removing a feature lightly. Sometimes the good outweighs the bad.
Abuse: using something in a manner that is unintended. The overlord is not indended to be a suicide mechanism. Dueling is not intended to be a training mechanism, or for anything other than slights to honor.
Quote from: egamma on April 04, 2012, 04:15:30 AM
Abuse: using something in a manner that is unintended. The overlord is not indended to be a suicide mechanism. Dueling is not intended to be a training mechanism, or for anything other than slights to honor.
Lorgan's idea of putting the position at stake in the duel, for the strongest to prevail and claim the title, is very good, and if there is a small chance the contestants die, even better. That is what I call fun and interesting RP.
If that is not intended, then I feel that some game mechanics are becoming way too restrictive, seriously limiting the creativity of the players and the RP-side of BM.
A feature is abused if it brings unfair advantage (such as swordsfighting skill training), but for people to claim a position? How can that be abuse?
Quote from: egamma on April 04, 2012, 04:15:30 AM
Abuse: using something in a manner that is unintended. The overlord is not indended to be a suicide mechanism. Dueling is not intended to be a training mechanism, or for anything other than slights to honor.
That's my point. If you restrict everyone to doing /only/ exactly what the game intends you to do with stuff, without any creative input, BM would be boring like hell.
Or you guys would have to start working on implementing a ton of various new features.
Quote from: egamma on April 04, 2012, 04:15:30 AM
Abuse: using something in a manner that is unintended. The overlord is not indended to be a suicide mechanism. Dueling is not intended to be a training mechanism, or for anything other than slights to honor.
That's not the definition of abuse. Abuse is deliberately exploiting a mechanic in a way that obviously contravenes the intention of the mechanic specifically to gain a benefit or to disadvantage someone else. Like, say, reporting sensitive messages as vulgar in the hopes that an enemy of the realm will be chosen to judge their "vulgarity". Trying to duel Overlord is not abuse. Tom has said that even someone completely outmatched skill-wise still has a chance to win a duel. Who wouldn't try to kill the leader of the invasion if they had the chance? The
characters certainly don't know Overlord's immortal, and I'm willing to bet many players don't either.
Quote from: Lorgan on April 04, 2012, 09:18:41 AM
That's my point. If you restrict everyone to doing /only/ exactly what the game intends you to do with stuff, without any creative input, BM would be boring like hell.
Or you guys would have to start working on implementing a ton of various new features.
I'm getting sick and tired of arguments that go along the lines of "BM would be ___ unless ___". If you find a realm boring, move. If you find
that realm boring, move again. Keep changing realms until you find one you like, or one willing to let you make changes. You can't make blanket statements about BM unless you've played in every realm on every island, which I'm guessing you haven't.
Quote from: Tom on April 03, 2012, 11:28:34 PM
I think it's time we remove duelling from the game. The ratio of abuse to intended use is 10:1 at the very least.
Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the skill gain you can get by duelling? Remove the abuse mechanism, not the RP mechanism.
Quote from: GoldPanda on April 04, 2012, 10:34:19 AM
I'm getting sick and tired of arguments that go along the lines of "BM would be ___ unless ___". If you find a realm boring, move. If you find that realm boring, move again. Keep changing realms until you find one you like, or one willing to let you make changes. You can't make blanket statements about BM unless you've played in every realm on every island, which I'm guessing you haven't.
Ehm, that's not the point. Not one realm I'm in is boring, at all.
What I am saying is that there is a tendency, and it has been like that for years, to immediately resort to restricting and removing as soon as there is even just a hint of abuse, and in some cases that's necessary, but in many others, it is just spoiling the game for others.
It is often said that BM is a roleplaying and a strategy game but if you go about and interpret everything in the strictest sense possible and consider every other use of a feature abuse then you can just as well do away with the roleplaying aspect of BM because you're basically restricting the players' creativity. So leave a little room for various interpretations and uses of the features that are available, because freedom to do as you want (or at least explain the things you do as you want - within rational borders) is what makes BM great.
And I absolutely agree that using duels for swordfighting training is idiotic and abusive, but that does not mean that you have to do away with the feature completely because it can be used (and probably is being used) in
many other non-idiotic and non-abusive ways.
A much less drastic solution would be to just stop giving sword skill benefits from duels till surrender, nobody would miss a thing.
This actually gves me an idea. We could add a limitation to duels where the participants need to put something on the line in order to fight it.
It could be a title, it could be honour.
In the early middle ages, in some cultures, it wasn't uncommon to fight for titles. This could be an interesting and new way to challenge, say, a king. If you win, you are the new king.
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 11:20:42 AM
This actually gves me an idea. We could add a limitation to duels where the participants need to put something on the line in order to fight it.
It could be a title, it could be honour.
In the early middle ages, in some cultures, it wasn't uncommon to fight for titles. This could be an interesting and new way to challenge, say, a king. If you win, you are the new king.
I love it!
So here's my take on everything that has been said:
- We need to remove training benefits from duels ASAP
- We should remove the distinction between surrender and death. Formally, all duels are "until one side is unfit to continue the duel". Informally, we allow players to choose, like they choose a strategy, to go into the duel with mercy or killing in mind. That offers options for roleplaying if we make it so that even if you go mercy there's a small chance of a killing blow and even if you go for killing there's a small chance you just can't get that killing blow in. That opens the way for claiming "oops, I didn't mean it" and since all duels can end in death, it wouldn't ever be your fault.
- Allow players to put something on the line - a title or an amount of honour. The risk of death should be enough to stop people from abusing the system as a cheap appointment replacement.
What do you guys think?
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 11:20:42 AM
This actually gves me an idea. We could add a limitation to duels where the participants need to put something on the line in order to fight it.
It could be a title, it could be honour.
In the early middle ages, in some cultures, it wasn't uncommon to fight for titles. This could be an interesting and new way to challenge, say, a king. If you win, you are the new king.
By honour, do you mean something as simple as "if you lose the duel you lose x honour points"? That would make little sense to me; the true dishonourable are those who refuses duels; there is honour in accepting to put your life and limb on the table even if you expect to lose.
Which brings the point that every dueler does put something on the table: they risk being wounded.
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 11:26:15 AM
So here's my take on everything that has been said:
- We need to remove training benefits from duels ASAP
- We should remove the distinction between surrender and death. Formally, all duels are "until one side is unfit to continue the duel". Informally, we allow players to choose, like they choose a strategy, to go into the duel with mercy or killing in mind. That offers options for roleplaying if we make it so that even if you go mercy there's a small chance of a killing blow and even if you go for killing there's a small chance you just can't get that killing blow in. That opens the way for claiming "oops, I didn't mean it" and since all duels can end in death, it wouldn't ever be your fault.
- Allow players to put something on the line - a title or an amount of honour. The risk of death should be enough to stop people from abusing the system as a cheap appointment replacement.
What do you guys think?
I like it. I also like that you replaced "need" by "allow". :-)
Quote from: vonGenf on April 04, 2012, 11:30:50 AM
By honour, do you mean something as simple as "if you lose the duel you lose x honour points"? That would make little sense to me; the true dishonourable are those who refuses duels; there is honour in accepting to put your life and limb on the table even if you expect to lose.
Maybe the one who refuses would lose a small percentage of the honour that he was challenged for?
Quote from: Lorgan on April 04, 2012, 12:30:12 PM
Maybe the one who refuses would lose a small percentage of the honour that he was challenged for?
No that's prone to abuse as one could repeatedly challenge the same person and drain his honour.
The proposed mechanic is fine - it's only that the result does not fit my concept of honour. Maybe prestige would be more appropriate.
Quote from: vonGenf on April 04, 2012, 12:39:39 PM
The proposed mechanic is fine - it's only that the result does not fit my concept of honour. Maybe prestige would be more appropriate.
H/P is being reworked anyway, but I see where you go, it makes sense.
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 11:26:15 AM
- Allow players to put something on the line - a title or an amount of honour. The risk of death should be enough to stop people from abusing the system as a cheap appointment replacement.
Would this be something RP'd or would it be game-mechanics-wise? The second is better, naturally, but seems hard to implement. Would the game read what the other character possesses and put those as options (titles, gold, prestige, items)? Yet more of a reason for some Judges to forbid or allow duels, very good.
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 11:26:15 AM
What do you guys think?
Love it.
What do you guys think?
[/quote]
Sounds good. What about this: You can declare to take risks, which increases your chances of winning, but if you lose, you increase chances of dying. So you would essentially make three choices:
1) The rock-paper-scissors choice
2) Intend to kill - intend to spare
3) Take risks - play it safe
It could be that if both choose to take risks and intend to kill, someone would be very likely to die, just like in the current death duel.
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 11:26:15 AMSo here's my take on everything that has been said:
- We need to remove training benefits from duels ASAP
- We should remove the distinction between surrender and death. Formally, all duels are "until one side is unfit to continue the duel". Informally, we allow players to choose, like they choose a strategy, to go into the duel with mercy or killing in mind. That offers options for roleplaying if we make it so that even if you go mercy there's a small chance of a killing blow and even if you go for killing there's a small chance you just can't get that killing blow in. That opens the way for claiming "oops, I didn't mean it" and since all duels can end in death, it wouldn't ever be your fault.
- Allow players to put something on the line - a title or an amount of honour. The risk of death should be enough to stop people from abusing the system as a cheap appointment replacement.
What do you guys think?
1. Yes. Awesome.
2. This is a great idea, but I would suggest a modification. Going into a "duel until disabled" duel and using killing tactics should have some repercussions. Noble duels were fairly public affairs with seconds and audiences and such. Maybe add an option for having a "private duel"- you would use a private duel which wouldn't send out a message to the realm about the duel, including tactics used, but might not protect you from dirty tactics. In a public duel you could still get surprised with an aggressive opponent, but they would have to face the wrath of the realm afterwards.
I would suggest putting "intent" on a spectrum, instead of being a boolean yes/no. You would have "merciful" options on the left, "aggressive" options on the right, and "pragmatic" options in the middle. Pragmatic options would give you the best chances of winning since you would go for whatever wins you the duel, while options to the left or right would decrease your chances of victory, since you would either be focused on only delivering glancing blows, or focused on killing your opponent rather than merely defeating them, ignoring potential winning moves that wouldn't be fatal.
3. This is an awesome idea in every single respect and I love it.
Quote from: Slapsticks on April 04, 2012, 07:40:12 PM
Maybe add an option for having a "private duel"- you would use a private duel which wouldn't send out a message to the realm about the duel, including tactics used, but might not protect you from dirty tactics.
This already exists - it's called "Assault someone... - backstab and wound other nobles." Duels are, by definition, public affairs - otherwise it's a brawl.
Quote from: vonGenf on April 04, 2012, 07:46:09 PM
This already exists - it's called "Assault someone... - backstab and wound other nobles." Duels are, by definition, public affairs - otherwise it's a brawl.
People fought "private" duels all the time IRL, and people would do it ingame too, when their realm forbids dueling.
Quote from: Slapsticks on April 04, 2012, 07:51:38 PM
People fought "private" duels all the time IRL, and people would do it ingame too, when their realm forbids dueling.
Yes, of course. As I said, the mechanics does already exist. If you want to ask the target's "permission" first, RP a bit before you click the button.
Quote from: vonGenf on April 04, 2012, 08:00:32 PM
Yes, of course. As I said, the mechanics does already exist. If you want to ask the target's "permission" first, RP a bit before you click the button.
What button? The Infiltrator Assault button, that only a few people have?
Quote from: Indirik on April 04, 2012, 12:12:59 AM
Absolutely not.
Duels are matters of honor between nobles used to resolve conflicts between them. They are not practice sessions, sparring matches, dueling leagues, training fights, light recreation, or whatever other rationalization you want to invent to jusify abusing game mechanics.
If you want to spar with another noble to test your skills, then use the special Training Match option. If you're on stable, then just cool our jets til it gets there.
Training match requires an academy, which I guess we're getting. I didn't realize it was considered abuse to have a surrender duel for reasons other then a genuine dispute.
Is there a wiki page about training matches? I didn't see one when I last looked.
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 11:26:15 AM
So here's my take on everything that has been said:
- We need to remove training benefits from duels ASAP
- We should remove the distinction between surrender and death. Formally, all duels are "until one side is unfit to continue the duel". Informally, we allow players to choose, like they choose a strategy, to go into the duel with mercy or killing in mind. That offers options for roleplaying if we make it so that even if you go mercy there's a small chance of a killing blow and even if you go for killing there's a small chance you just can't get that killing blow in. That opens the way for claiming "oops, I didn't mean it" and since all duels can end in death, it wouldn't ever be your fault.
- Allow players to put something on the line - a title or an amount of honour. The risk of death should be enough to stop people from abusing the system as a cheap appointment replacement.
What do you guys think?
The ability to chose if you want to kill or not is a good idea.
I don't think there needs to be a mechanic for dueling over a title, that can easily be roleplayed. Wouldn't allowing people to duel to gain honor go against several past rejections of honor gain through dueling?
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 11:26:15 AM
So here's my take on everything that has been said:
- We need to remove training benefits from duels ASAP
- We should remove the distinction between surrender and death. Formally, all duels are "until one side is unfit to continue the duel". Informally, we allow players to choose, like they choose a strategy, to go into the duel with mercy or killing in mind. That offers options for roleplaying if we make it so that even if you go mercy there's a small chance of a killing blow and even if you go for killing there's a small chance you just can't get that killing blow in. That opens the way for claiming "oops, I didn't mean it" and since all duels can end in death, it wouldn't ever be your fault.
- Allow players to put something on the line - a title or an amount of honour. The risk of death should be enough to stop people from abusing the system as a cheap appointment replacement.
What do you guys think?
I like it. There should be a bit of a 'prisoners dilemma' where a person who chooses mercy would be at a disadvantage against one who chooses to go for the kill.
As for putting something on the line, I think honour should be required to be risked by at least one party. I also think that both characters should have to agree to what is on the line for the duel to continue, something like this:
1. Player A challenges Player B to a duel, and puts his honor on the line, and chooses how bloodthirsty he will be.
2. Player B accepts the duel, puts his title on the line, and chooses how bloodthirsty he will be.
3. Player A must accept the duel terms (title versus honour) before the duel can start. Maybe another opportunity to adjust the lethality for Player A?
Just have Player A state what both will be risking, then have B accept/refuse the duel. That's one step less and if they disagree, they can always first bicker about what they put on the line before sending out the official Duel.
Another cool idea might be to actually assign seconds. Then there can be an option to "cheat" which can give the player an advantage, but also can be seen by the second allowing them to intervene.
How about we don't kill this idea by loading it down with more and more features and complexities? Keep it to an absolute minimum, please.
Quote from: Duvaille on April 04, 2012, 07:02:47 PM
Sounds good. What about this:
No. Overcomplication, loss of focus, bad balancing.
Quote from: Slapsticks on April 04, 2012, 07:40:12 PM
2. This is a great idea, but I would suggest a modification. Going into a "duel until disabled" duel and using killing tactics should have some repercussions.
No, and absolutely "never, ever, over my dead body" on the "private duel". The whole point about duels is that they have an audience. Might not be a crowd, but if you want to have a 1-on-1, become an infiltrator.
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 10:50:18 PM
No, and absolutely "never, ever, over my dead body" on the "private duel". The whole point about duels is that they have an audience. Might not be a crowd, but if you want to have a 1-on-1, become an infiltrator.
If duels are a public affair, why not send the realm a report of the duel and tactics used?
Quote from: Indirik on April 04, 2012, 10:04:02 PM
How about we don't kill this idea by loading it down with more and more features and complexities? Keep it to an absolute minimum, please.
Thank you.
No seconds, no cheating, none of that overcomplication bull!@#$ of matrix choices. Really, it adds NOTHING to gameplay except more buttons. Titles would work exactly like Telrunya mentioned. The challenger would specify what he's challenging for. The other guy would get a message saying "Kepler has challenged you to a duel over your title of Baron of Keplerville. Do you accept? If you lose this duel, you will forfeit your title to him."
And if Kepler wins, bang, he's Baron of Keplerville. The game mechanics aren't that complicated.
Quote from: Slapsticks on April 04, 2012, 10:52:19 PM
If duels are a public affair, why not send the realm a report of the duel and tactics used?
Why?
Duels are already public - everyone in the same region will be informed about the duel and its result, including tactics used.
Of course, if a title changes hands, that would be announced to the realm.
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 10:55:35 PM
Duels are already public - everyone in the same region will be informed about the duel and its result, including tactics used.
Didn't know this, forget everything I said.
This also allows you to have your "private" duel. Just go to a region where you're the only two around. The only way anyone else will find out is if the result is a serious wound or death. Or if someone wanders in...
So... remind me again why someone would accept a duel with such lopsided risk/reward? :)
I don't see the point in making a mechanic for putting a title on the line in a duel. If a realm wants to establish a tradition like this there's nothing stopping them from roleplaying it.
Plus there's more roleplay potential as someone could lose a duel and live then try to refuse to give up his title. This could spark rebellions, secessions and wars. Lots of fun.
I have no idea why a king, duke, or even baron would risk his position with no gain from it. If someone wants to duel for the position they should have to have a risk too not just the one being challenged. Also I doubt your rebellions, secessions and wars theory will really happen, the only thing I can see is the judge fining the title holder until he gives it up and even then its unfair because the one who dueled still has no way to gurantee they get because appointing has to be agreed upon by the duke and elections use either the lords or all nobles. Again its lopsided as one would risk a lot by challenging someone to a duel for the title in the first place and then they don't get anything from it except a reputation of being aggresive?
Quote from: Foundation on April 05, 2012, 12:49:32 AM
So... remind me again why someone would accept a duel with such lopsided risk/reward? :)
Perhaps the marquis is the one offended, and is willing to put his title on the line for satisfaction?
Quote from: Tom on April 04, 2012, 10:50:18 PM
No, and absolutely "never, ever, over my dead body" on the "private duel". The whole point about duels is that they have an audience. Might not be a crowd, but if you want to have a 1-on-1, become an infiltrator.
You can do 1-on-1's with an infiltrator? Then why are there always guards around when I try to stab someone... >:(
Quote from: pcw27 on April 05, 2012, 01:13:27 AM
I don't see the point in making a mechanic for putting a title on the line in a duel. If a realm wants to establish a tradition like this there's nothing stopping them from roleplaying it.
Plus there's more roleplay potential as someone could lose a duel and live then try to refuse to give up his title. This could spark rebellions, secessions and wars. Lots of fun.
Maybe you'd also need the consent of your ruler or duke, or maybe you'd need to have a couple of people sign a petition or something?
Some sort of addition that would make it so that you get the power to usurp someone, but you'd need more than just your sword skill.
Though these probably falls into the realm of overcomplicating things, they also add both motivation for someone of upper station to duel someone of lower and create the notion of "champion":
a)Fight not only for occupying the title, but also for appointing the title holder. That way Duke Kepler duels Duel Weakling for his loyal Vassal Puppet to inherit the Weaklingstan Duchy, but risking losing Keplerstan Duchy to Duke Weakling.
b) Want it moar complicated instead? One noble writes a "contract" which other one or three noble(s) will have to accept for the duel to happen. Two nobles duel and the title goes to the winner or the winner's sponsor.
P.S.: Tom, please don't hate us for dreaming.
Quote from: JPierreD on April 05, 2012, 07:29:03 AM
Though these probably falls into the realm of overcomplicating things, they also add both motivation for someone of upper station to duel someone of lower and create the notion of "champion":
a)Fight not only for occupying the title, but also for appointing the title holder. That way Duke Kepler duels Duel Weakling for his loyal Vassal Puppet to inherit the Weaklingstan Duchy, but risking losing Keplerstan Duchy to Duke Weakling.
b) Want it moar complicated instead? One noble writes a "contract" which other one or three noble(s) will have to accept for the duel to happen. Two nobles duel and the title goes to the winner or the winner's sponsor.
P.S.: Tom, please don't hate us for dreaming.
These are all fine roleplaying ideas. They can be enforced in game. I don't think new mechanic is needed.
Quote from: Foundation on April 05, 2012, 12:49:32 AM
So... remind me again why someone would accept a duel with such lopsided risk/reward? :)
Because honour demands it. It is exactly when it is not a gamey null-sum game that we can find roleplaying happening.
Well, tell me that again when someone who doesn't have high swordfighting skills accepts such a challenge for his position from someone else who does. I accept your explanation in theory, but I'd be surprised to see it in practice.
heh. a geriatric king fighting some young knight for the king title.. XD
Quote from: vonGenf on April 05, 2012, 09:33:34 AM
These are all fine roleplaying ideas. They can be enforced in game. I don't think new mechanic is needed.
I'd like any of them happening without game mechanics to support them.
Barony of Makar has a tradition of allowing duels for positions when there is several, equally qualified applicants.
As this is neither a duel of honour nor a challenge to someone already holding a position, the new proposed system would actually be more awkward rp-wise for us than the old one...
Quote from: Galle on April 14, 2012, 04:07:11 PM
Barony of Makar has a tradition of allowing duels for positions when there is several, equally qualified applicants.
As this is neither a duel of honour nor a challenge to someone already holding a position, the new proposed system would actually be more awkward rp-wise for us than the old one...
Hmm, fair enough. :-X