Surrender duels as a training method

[GoldPanda]

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.

[vonGenf]

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.

[Lorgan]

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.

[Tom]

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.

[Lorgan]

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!

[Tom]

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?

[vonGenf]

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.

[vonGenf]

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". :-)

[Lorgan]

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?

[vonGenf]

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.

[JPierreD]

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.

• 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.

What do you guys think?

Love it.

[Duvaille]

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.

[Norrel]

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?

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.

[vonGenf]

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.

[Norrel]

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.