The Forge Archives

QuoteYoung knight learn, to love God and revere women, so that your honor grows. Practice knighthood and learn the Art that dignifies you, bringing honor in wars.

...So should you learn with skill to work and defend. If you frighten easily, no fencing should you learn.

- Liechtenaur, father of the German tradition of Defense

So I'm in the early stages of a new game, one I've been wanting to do for a long time. The basic premise is this:

In the Renaissance fencing masters set up their own schools to teach youths the Noble Art of Defense, mostly in large cities. They attracted students based on their reputations, connections and advertising. Most were highily skilled and well respected...but not all (for instance, the German master Paulus Hector Mair was hanged for tax evasion).

In this game, you play a charlatan fencing master. You've taken some lessons, and watched plenty of other people fight, but you're hardly a master...yet setting up a fencing school can be lucrative. Therefore, you've decided to set up shop in a middling-sized German city, where no one has heard of you and you can milk the middle class merchants who are eager for their sons to learn the hobby of noblemen. However, another businessman has had exactly the same idea -- and now you must compete for your clientelle.  You'll have to make yourself seem the more impressive, knowledgable swordsman, and maybe by actually learning something.

---

That's the set up. I imagine gameplay between two player, maybe more, with no GM. Each has a charlatan swordmaster as a character. They'll periodically engage in duels (mostly arising from spurious legal charges) and do a whole host of background work, like setting up their schools, spreading gossip, spying on one another, and so on. Obiovusly, it's not a very serious game and it should retain a strong historical flavor (we're talking 15-16th century Germany here, BTW).

At the moment, I'm working on the rules for the duels themselves. The game actually opens with a duel, when the two "masters" meet for the first time -- this is character generation, at least as far as their martial abilities goes:

In each phase of the initial fight, a straight-up random roll determines who wins the phase. That master's player then gets to define either one of his character's stats or one of his opponent's. Obviously if it's his stat, he'll raise it, and vice-versa. Even once a stat is modified (from a base-line level) it's not fixed but can be modified more. There will be a point exchange system so that more critical stats are changed less, and each stat will also have a "fixedness" rating that can be added to, and which creates a barrier to subsequent change.

The fight ends after some number of phases but well before every stat has been completely "fixed" -- the two masters have only felt each other's abilities out to a degree. They still don't know each other completely, and in fact they don't even know their own abilities, since they're total fakers. In later duels, their stats will continue to be defined, albeit in smaller increments.

That's all pretty solid, in my mind, and I like it. What I'm having trouble with is the later, more structured dueling system. I like the cleanliness of a new post, so scroll down.

The dueling system is kind of the meat of the game, or at least a big chunk of it. Right now, I have several key features or sub-systems that I'd like, but I don't know exactly how to combine them, or if it's even possible. So I'd really appreciate some advice on doing that, possibly by modifying these sub-systems or scrapping them completely, as long as a similar effect can be had. In broad terms, the purpose of the dueling system is:

[*]Provide an interesting tactical game for players to engage with
[*]Be the principle method of character definition / alteration. During a fight, skills get pinned down or modified.
[*]Present the feel and flavor of historical combat
[*]Possibly generate humor by showcasing the ineptitudes of the charlatans--but it shouldn't be slapstick[/list:u]
So I'll outline my current working model, as awkward as it is.

---

A key idea in the German school is the idea of three phases of combat: the Approach [Zufechten], War [Kreig] and Withdrawal [Abzug]. Thus, each engagement (with multiple engagements per fight) will consists of these three phases, possibly with 2 War phases. Kreig is the most complicated phase, both in real life and in terms of the mechanics I'll be using for it. The other phases involve fewer skills and involve fewer choices.  So I'll mostly talk about Kreig, and you can guess more or less what the others will be like.


Each combatant has a host of skills, like Footwork and Timing, which get combined in various amounts for each phase (each being a bit different). This will give a modifier or a number of dice or something, which is fed into the roll. Each player rolls and a winner is found based on what total is higher. The difference in rolls becomes the "Advantage." If small, the Advantage will become a bonus for the next phase. If a little larger, it will turn into an injury for the other character, and a penalty that lasts for the whole engagement. If really big, it produces a much larger injury that lasts for the whole fight, and may end the fight right there. I haven't figured out a wounding system yet, but I don't consider it important right now. The winner should also get some kind of choice, I think, so that he can either inflict a minor wound or get a somewhat larger bonus in the next phase. He can also store the advantage for later use as a "secret observation" or somesuch (with a big % loss). So far so good, right?

Now, I want different techniques to come up in play. I'm not sure how many I'd use; possibly as few as 5 broad types. But how to choose which gets used? Here's what I'm thinking about: One of the dice in each player's roll will be a different color. This die determines the type of technique the character uses. Once the roll is made, each player counts up all his bonuses, including the bonus he has for that technique (i.e. his skill with it). Then whoever wins, wins.

Now whoever won has the option of modifying his skills, or his enemy's skills, but he's limited to modifying whatever techniques were chosen. The rationale for the change is that if he won, using some technique, he must be pretty good with it--better than he thought even. Or the enemy must be worse than he thought. So the player can either change a skill's actual value, or its "fixedness." Fixedness imposes a curb on skill change, so that to lower the enemy's skill, you first have to pay the "fixedness" value, makign the change much smaller. The same applied to raising your own skills, unless you've acquired Training Points back at your fight school. But raising one of your own skill's fixedness is a good idea, to defend it against be lowered by the enemy.

I'm not sure what resource will get used for making these changes. Using advantage doesn't make much sense, since the rationale for a skill change is a good solid victory--if the skill is incrased then the advantage can't go into a bonus or injury, and thus there's no solid victory. I'd really welcome suggestions on this.

Another thing I'd like to have included is a way for players to exert some kind of influence over what technique gets chosen. I don't want the selecting it outright, at the beginning because it's not realistic. An earlier idea I had was allowing them to trade advantage for a switching the technique (probably +1 postiion on a fixed list, so not free choice). But since, at the moment, advantage is calculated from what technique you've rolled, it's a little backwards and awkward to then go changing it. Plus, it's a non-decision, since it'd be obvious what your bonus with alternate techniques were, and whether spending the "switching" cost would be worth it. So that's not interesting. An alternative might be each player choosing a "preferred technique" up front, and dedicating advantage in advance (or from the previous round) to changing it; but it'd be a gamble because he might roll what he wanted anyway. That seems...crude though, and still not very interesting.


So there are two big issues:

[*]How do techniques get chosen? Can players influnce the choice and if so, how?
[*]How are skills changed? I.e. what resource gets used? Is it predicated on a further die roll?[/list:u]
I hope I've been clear in describing all this. I realize that it's sort of stream-of-consciousness. Unfortunatelely that's just the state of things right now. I've been wrestling with this stuff for a while, and need some fresh thoughts. Advice on how to combine the separate pieces I have, or on how to achieve similar results with completely differeny pieces, would be very welcome.

Hi Jasper,

This may not be very detailed advice, but it's what I thought on reading your posts:

The duel at the Cliffs of Insanity in the book The Princess Bride. Yes, the film is delightful, but I'm talking about the book. If you haven't read that chapter, which includes Inigo's back-story flashback, then you simply must.

Rules for conflicting moguls/madmen across a variety of Cheapass Games games. The best one of this type is probably the older game Parts Unknown, which served as a model for others. Let's see, Deadwood, or yeah, Get Out would also be good. All of these are really educational for resource-based trickery and strategizing off of rolls, with combinations of betrayal and tactics.

I'm not recommending these for direct emulation, but rather to add to the free-associative stew, which seems like the best way to help at this stage.

Best,
Ron

An example of play would probably be useful. In outline form, this is kind of how I imagine things going.


The two charlatans begin their duel. Their players roll a handful of dice each for the first phase of the first engagement.

Player 1: I have the advantage; 4. I'll tag hit you, for a -1 penalty through the engagement.

Player 2: Okay. Now we're in Kreig.

They consult their sheets for the dice they roll in Kreig, and roll them.

P1: Don't forget the -1.

P2. Nope. I got 10 total.

P1: 18. I win the Kreig by 8.  It says I've performed a Thrust as the final move. Hm. I'd really rather give you a slice, because I'm much better at those, and the injury table is more useful. I'll spend 3 advantage to shift it to Slice.

P2: Sure you don't want to wrestle?

P1: Yes, thanks. Very sure. I'm better at slicing, so I get a bonus there. I'l turn the rest of my advantage into a bonus for the next phase. I want to stay in Kreig.

P2: I want to withdraw of course.

P1: Right. Oh, but before that, I'm going to try raising my Slice skill. Let me roll here...alright! That training came in useful. I'll fix it more.

P2: Okay. Now the next phase?

Rolling...

P1: With that bonus, I have an 8.

P2: Aha! I have 10. Not enough to injure you, but enough to withdraw safely. The engagement is over.

---

Kind of brief, but maybe it'll be somewhat useful. Obviously, I've glossed over the problem areas.

Nice char gen, which is what my comments are on- actually fits quite nicely with a fighter's philosophy. I've heard it said numerous times in anime, and even in the Contender now that thats running, that you never really know someone until you've fought them.

That also goes to say, you get to learn something if you win or lose against.
Assuming I were in a real, honest duel, things I could see myself comprehending/understanding of my foe would obviously be skill, but also morality, fairness, determination, etc. Do they take masterful strokes or quick, simple ones? Is it an elegant match or a down and dirty, barebones, no tricks? Does my opponent relent at any time? If so, why?

Suggested Tweak: Each round the players state something about their opponent, regardless of who wins. The winner gets to note a flaw or weakness of their opponent while the loser notes a strength of the winner. "Quick draw", "Slow reflexes", "Over lunges", "poor style", "Elegant handling,", "Playful parries" etc.
The duel has to start for some reason, which could allow the players to state a couple of opening facts about the characters and the concept, encouraging their opponent to follow a lead within reason. Statements about families, fighting styles, dress, craftsmanship of their weapon, etc would likely offend or be used to intimidate. "The centuries tested skill of the Benvolio swordsmen are more than a match for you!"

Lemme mull over the other portions.

Just FYI, Krieg is spelled like that - Krieg (not Kreig).  It's pronounced something like Creak (just with that German throaty r).  Words with "ei," on the other hand are pronounced differently (the German word for wine being Wein, and it's pronounced almost the same, just that the W is intonated differently).

That minimal point aside, I really like the idea. Though for me, the most interesting part is going to be the con game of tricking people and pretending you're all that.

As for the duel, when I read, "Be the principle method of character definition / alteration," I was getting my hopes up for defining all sorts of personality traits and so on during the fight, not only the combat stuff. Maybe there's potential there? Ron mentioned flashbacks, that could work great... it reminds me of some of the discussion in the Mexican Standoff thread.

Thanks for the tips, Ron. I haven't seen those particular Cheapass games. Nor have I read the Princess Bride. I'll check 'em out.

Nate,

The automatic fact-declaration isn't a bad idea. Would you still give the choice to apply your statement to either character? (i.e. if you won, something good about yourself or something bad about your enemy)

The other thing I should have mentioned about character gen. is that I was going to have the combat traits, which would be directly defined, balanced by non-combat traits, or more specifically by non-combat resources. The in-game justification would be that the charlatans are both pretty good at fakery--so if one isn't good at fighting, he must be good at everything else, in order to have gotten where he is. This would include things like reputation, money, initial students, etc. My plan was that after the initial fight, you'd sum your combat traits and accordingly get points to spend on non-combat stuff.

I do like the suggestions to open up char gen to include non-fighting traits as well. I'll have to think about what other traits will have meaning in the game, and thus would be definable. I had thought previously about including spirituality, since most of the masters talk abuot how Christian devouteness is necessary for proper fighting. Someone (von Danzig?) talks about donning "spiritual armor."

Hm, some personality quirks could actually become relevant in a fight, like "angers easily" or "bad knee acts up when it rains." Another combat system I was thinking about primarily involved the invocation of such weaknesses, countered with advantages. So one player would say "I use my patented winding technique!" and the other would respond "Oh, but I invoke your poor footwork!" That made it less about numbers and produced colorful results. But it had less to do with historical combat and I couldn't think of a good way to introduce tactical depth without huge lists of interacting traits.

Good thoughts so far. Keep 'em coming.

PS. Christian, I don't know why I kept spelling it "Kreig." I should know that. Thanks.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm seeing a contradiction, or at least a tension, in this idea:

1) Duelling rules are complex, detailed, and (strive to be) realistic, WHICH IMPLIES duelling is the focus of the game and honorable fighting skills are essential.
2) Player-characters are charlatans trying to get by on mediocre fighting skill and a lot of B.S., WHICH IMPLIES fighting is for honorable idiots and honorable fighting skills are less important than fast-talk,  bluff, dirty tricks, and other deceptions.

And I can see three ways to deal with this contradiction:
i) Emphasize (1) and deemphasize (2), so that the player-characters start as charlatans but ultimately must grow into real swordsmen. This would imply continuing with your highly detailed (and pretty cool) "know/define someone by fighting them" system.
ii) Emphasize (2) and trash (1), so that the player-characters are con men with rapiers who prevail by deceit over honor-bound imbeciles. This would require an elaborate system for lies, bluffs, and dirty tricks that could override actual combat skill, so that you can talk your way out ofa  duel in which you're overmatched, or trick a superior foe into doubting his own skill and hindering himself so you can defeat him.
iii) Reconcile (1) and (2) so that real fighting is really deadly, yet the player-characters can still con their way around it, so they constantly live in danger of being exposed and impaled.

Sydney,

Your're right, there is a tension. My conception of the game has been mostly like (i). I imagined the charlatans beginning as total fools, but seeing that the only way to succeed is to actually gain some skills.  So the rivalry is partly to see who can train himself faster, while balancing that with underhanded tricks. I hadn't really seen a huge role for blustering during a fight, though I have nothing against it either, and might expand the role of bluster.

Yet I like (iii) as well. Maybe a player should have a choice, to make his character remain a charlatan or actually become a semi-proficient swordsman. If I can pull this option off, I think it'd be best.

Thanks for bringing attention to this issue. A focus is definitely needed before anything else can be decided.


FYI, rapiers will probably be a minor weapon. 'Fencer' is a more generic term, and at the time, longsword, wrestling and other military weapons would have been of paramount importance. Since the longsword is seen as the fundamental weapon, and I'm most familiar with it, I may even restrict the duels to longswords alone. On the other hand, judicial duels were fought with all kinds of crazy implements. Frex, domestic disputes could be settled with a sack of knobs / cudgel duel. (The man got the sack of knobs and had to stand in a hole to even things up.)

Jasper,

Great fun and I'll have to try it out.  I really love the German arts too and have been working extensively with Liechtenauer and Ringeck lately, so to come to the forum and see this is a hoot on may levels.

One small note: in the judical duel between husband and wife the man had to stand in the pit with the club.  The woman got the "rock in a sack" to bean him with.  (If she pulled him out of the pit it was also considered a win for her.)

Best of all,

Pete

PS - Don't forget the dueling shield...nothing says judicial combat like killing someone with a hooked, spiked, surfboard-sized shield.

Sounds interesting will spend some time in reading it all when I get some time.

Jonathan

Jasper-

In how I'm seeing my suggestion, no, its pretty straight forward. Your remarks are always about your foe, observances of their style, manner, skill, (or lack thereof) etc.

IE Juan and Antonio (not german, but the best fencer names I get off the top of my head) are dueling in the streets. Juan attempts a fancy backflip off a cart (footwork?) while Antonio anticipates his move and strikes a glancing blow as Juan lands.
Mechanically, Antonio's player merely won the roll. However, the result can be inferred "Juan - Sub-par acrobatics" while "Antonio - Easily judges distance" or some such.
The idea that the opponent names the bonus or "defect" as it were comes from the idea of each person observing the other. I'm a losuy singer, and were I making a character in game based on myself I'd most certainly not list singing as a skill. My ex-theatre teacher, however, might list "Sings well in character" - he can observe something about myself that I cannot.
So, the swordsman who lost would note some admirable skill or trait of his opponent while the winner would note some flaw or exploitable trait in the defeated.
Least thats how it works in my head. Gives a little more of that honor among fighters kind of feel, because thats what they are. Then again, theres also honor among theives...

Nate, I think it would be really entertaining to see the sort of things that people start defining on other characters as defects and bonusses.  The inherent judgment call is great in terms of what it says about the character making the judgment..

"He is a spectacular duellist, but his sense of honor is strong... which is a horrific defect, of course, easily exploited."

"He is wholly unskilled, but has a mad, almost suicidal lack of common sense... it is a formidable strength, one which I deeply respect."

It always is interesting ^_^
Personally, *I* rather like the concept, and seems to fit with what I mentioned earlier, the idea you can never know someone until you fight them. And ideas tossed in by other characters seems to make things livlier.
My Imp Game ALWAYS has interesting results with traits defined by other players. One game, someone was being a smart ass and decided my imp "liked cows" *nudge, wink*. Being a little smart alecy myself, I took that into consideration with my other traits (Pacifist, Optimistic) and, with the help of a bad, stereotypical idea and accent concocted a Hindu-Imp. Beeble, with my beloved friend Lulubell the Cow, who was of course sacred and worthy of my love and admiration. I still think he's one of my favorite imps so far.
Proper controls, it can work quite nicely. Really wouldn't be much different than Jaspers first idea and handing yourself "Ungodly speed" or your opponent "miserably slow". Just narrows who says what.

Jon and Pete, it's good to see some HEMA people around. I fear you might be disappointed by the lack of historical detail, but I'm trying to achieve some kind of balance between that and usability. While I think it'd be a massively fun enterprise to play through a combat sequence with consideration of footwork, openings and timing, I don't think most people would--and that's not really the purpose of this game anyway. Still, I hope it retains the right historical flavor, so do call me on anything that seems "off."

Regarding character generation: that seems good, as you desrcibe it, Nate. It's definitely more interesting to have the fighters choose each other's skills. Now I just have to figure out how to adapt that idea of character definition to the main duelling system, where it needs to be more structured and (at least as I envision it now) the players will need to have say about their own characters too. I guess one possibility is that the loser of a phase names either a technique his character is bad at or one his enemy is good at, and then the winner has the opportunity to modify that skill. Or the loser could just name a skill without reference to one fighter or the other, and the winner would get to modify either character's skill.



Turning to a somewhat different issue, I had an idea about the selection of techniques during a duel. In general, I want to have a technique named for purposes of color and for tactical depth. But I don't want to be so gritty as to name every single technique, with a complex inter-change going back and forth (ala Riddle of Steel). This idea isn't where the design is necessarily going and may in fact be really awful, but I thought I'd describe it so others get a chance to riff off it.

Instead of framing techniques as specific actions that get done in a phase, like "thrust to the head," frame them as relevant skills that the phase hinges on, like footwork. This could get used in one of two ways:

1. Each phase becomes a battle between the players, first of all, over what skill will be chosen. Some kind of bidding or other mechanic would have to handle this. So Joe would be like, "I want this fight to be about footwork," but Eliz wants it to be about grappling -- even though a whole host of combat modifiers will still enter into it either way.

2. Rather than choosing just one crucial skill, each player would  invoke one or more of his character's skills during the fight. These would then be "tapped" ala MtG cards and couldn't be used again, at least not without a penalty.  So somewhere in the midst of some rolling, Joe might say "I invoke my superior footwork" and then that gives him some kind of edge in the fight. And if he then rolls very well, maybe he gets to raise his footwork.

This option is a bit less historically accurate, in some senses, since it seems hard to really pick out particularly important skills among so many.  And there's still the fundamental problem of choosing what technique/skill gets used and how that ties into success.  Hm.