[swashbucklers] Dueling

[Dangerious P. Cats]

I've been doing some research into dueling as part of my thesis which has lead me to wonder how dueling works in GURPS and how it can be made more exciting or realistic (or both). One thing I noticed about duels is that they tended to lead to death only a fraction of the time, more so death was less common in pistol duels than in sword duels. Pistol duels tended to be a test of will with participants often firing in the air or not loading a bullet, and ussally one or two shots being fired before the dispute was put to rest (rather than the partisipants). I'm guessing that this is not the way it works in GURPS but how would one represent this while possibly adding to tention. Duels with swords often ended when blood was drawn or minor injury occured, even if this was not the stated goal of the dual. I'm wondering how to better represent this in GURPS. I was thinking of having will rolls to not back down at the end of each turn's firing in a pistol duel and when any amount of damage is done in a sword fight. Additionall I was thinking of allowing fast talk or diplomacy rolls to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of both parties while reloading in pistol duals. Thoughts?

[Akicita]

IDHMBWM, but I'm pretty sure there were extended dueling rules in GURPS Swashbucklers that addressed this.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Dangerious P. Cats

I've been doing some research into dueling as part of my thesis which has lead me to wonder how dueling works in GURPS and how it can be made more exciting or realistic (or both). One thing I noticed about duels is that they tended to lead to death only a fraction of the time, more so death was less common in pistol duels than in sword duels. Pistol duels tended to be a test of will with participants often firing in the air or not loading a bullet, and ussally one or two shots being fired before the dispute was put to rest (rather than the partisipants). I'm guessing that this is not the way it works in GURPS but how would one represent this while possibly adding to tention. Duels with swords often ended when blood was drawn or minor injury occured, even if this was not the stated goal of the dual. I'm wondering how to better represent this in GURPS. I was thinking of having will rolls to not back down at the end of each turn's firing in a pistol duel and when any amount of damage is done in a sword fight. Additionall I was thinking of allowing fast talk or diplomacy rolls to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of both parties while reloading in pistol duals. Thoughts?

"First blood" rules achieve some of this effect. In my swashbuckling campaign, I had three of the PCs get drawn into duels with students at a rival school. One of the three took a serious wound to the torso that incapacitated him . . . but because his sword struck his foe a fraction of a second sooner, and inflicted one point of damage, he was adjudged the winner, and honor was satisfied.

Bill Stoddard

[The_Nightwatch]

I think it's less the rules as it is the people using them. As in: one of the things I game for is to spend time in a world where I don't have to put up with minor evils. Instead, I can confront major ones, and kick their butts. :) In other words, gamers frequently (not always) prefer to leave their enemies dead and move on to the next thing.

One thing I came up with for 3rd edition (4th replicates this somehow, if I remember right) was Grudge-Enemy, someone opposed to you but not lethally. In other words, out to ruin you socially or economically, etc. If the setting is a society that allows dueling but frowns on killing, there should be a lot more duels to first blood, or to the point of "demonstrating superiority" through not firing at all or into the air, etc.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by The_Nightwatch

One thing I came up with for 3rd edition (4th replicates this somehow, if I remember right) was Grudge-Enemy

Yes, in 4th you can buy Enemy with the Rival or Watcher limitations, neither of which want to see you dead.

Originally Posted by Dangerious P. Cats

I was thinking of having will rolls to not back down at the end of each turn's firing in a pistol duel and when any amount of damage is done in a sword fight. Additionall I was thinking of allowing fast talk or diplomacy rolls to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of both parties while reloading in pistol duals. Thoughts?

For NPCs a Will role makes sense. Many Players would balk at having their actions determined by a dice roll. I say Roleplay it out. E.g., the duelists fire at each other, neither hits, but one or both of them may need to roll a fright check. Then the seconds approach you and ask if you're willing to apologize, etc... the NPC's reaction can be determined by any number of factor, reaction roll, intimidation vs. will, the result of his fright check. The PC's reaction would be up to the player.

In order to encourage your players to be sensible about it, make it clear that being merciless, blood thirsty, or foolhardy in a duel comes with clear social consequences: a negative reputation, legal trouble, enemies, etc.... Of course the social consequences of cowardice were just as dire at the time, but you demonstrated your courage by showing up and taking your licks.

[Anaraxes]

Generally, RPG rules intentionally avoid dictating PC actions. That's the realm of the player. Choosing to fire into the air, quitting after a minor injury, and so on, are all legitimate PC decisions. If you need rules to force the PCs to produce the outcomes that you want, then your PCs aren't really roleplaying, at least not roleplaying the sort of characters you expect to populate your campaign world. Why do they not value the prestige gained by firing into the air and taking chances with their Fate? Why do they insist on fighting to the death -- or killing -- for a cause that isn't actually that important? Perhaps you need to have one of those out-of-game discussions about the expectations of the group and the game. If the players just want to kill things dead with their cool abilities, maybe you need more of a traditional dungeon crawl or action movie game.

[The_Nightwatch]

Yeah, might be better to offer a carrot than use the stick of rolling to determine actions. Maybe:

- A campaign where Reputation is all, and the one who shows himself the most daring at duels gets the highest rep?

- Duels are used to determine Status, and killing will make you drop, whereas deloping (firing in the air), etc. will help it rise (a society that greatly values coolness under fire?)

- Successful duelists (who haven't had to flee a murder rap) get all the groupies? ;)

- The most powerful magical items can only be used by those who have never killed (why, I have no idea, but it's a story hook, right?)

[gilbone]

Originally Posted by The_Nightwatch

- The most powerful magical items can only be used by those who have never killed (why, I have no idea, but it's a story hook, right?)

Stolen. I love it ;)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by The_Nightwatch

Yeah, might be better to offer a carrot than use the stick of rolling to determine actions.

Alternatively, use the one that was used in the real world: If your opponent dies, you will be tried for murder, and if the witnesses testify that you deliberately aimed to kill, you go to the headsman's block. And make sure you explain that to the players.

Of course, if you're really good, you can pierce your foe's heart and make it look like a blow that was meant to inflict a minor wound, and landed just wrong. . . .

Bill Stoddard

[SuedodeuS]

In general, it should be up to the player what his character is willing to die and/or kill for. Thus, a mechanic to determine if the character gives up (or accepts a surrender, or even thinks to offer one) would be inappropriate. Certain Disadvantages, however, should be taken into account.

Bad Temper: Make a self-control roll at the beginning of the duel. On a failure, you will fight as though you were in normal combat (with nasty targetted attacks and the like). Additionally, if you fail, you must make another self-control roll anytime you wish to offer your foe a chance to surrender.

Berserk: If you go Berserk during combat, you basically won't let up unless your foe falls to the ground and starts begging for you to stop. If this occurs, make a self-control roll to snap out of it; failure means you go ahead and continue attacking.

Bloodlust: As Bad Temper, but with the following changes. If you fail your self-control roll, you cannot offer your foe a chance to surrender, and if your foe tries to surrender you must make another self-control roll. If you succeed, you must make another self-control roll to later offer the foe a chance to surrender, but accepting surrender requires no roll (you've essentially already made it).

Compulsive Vowing: If you made a vow with regards to the outcome ("I vow to defeat you!" "I vow to make you a corpse by sunset!"), you have to make a self-control roll to later violate this (in the former, you'd have to make a roll to surrender; in the later, you'd have to make a roll to surrender or accept your enemy's surrender).

Cowardice: Anytime you are wounded, or when a foe who has demonstrated superior skill offers you the chance, you must make a self-control roll to not surrender.

Honesty: You must make a self-control roll to refuse a surrender, aim for a vital target, etc. Note this is only if such an action is actually illegal course. If the duel is over a subject with legal consequences, however, and you know you are on the right side, you'll have to make a self-control roll in order to surrender. This is because you are effectively under oath during such a duel, meaning that claiming your side in the challenge was wrong (despite it being correct) is effectively perjury!

Low Pain Threshold: If you have a Disadvantage that makes you more likely to surrender, Low Pain Threshold applies a -2 to your self-control check (provided you've been hit). If you have a Disadvantage that prevents you from surrendering, LPT applies a +1 to your self-control check (again, provided you've been hit). High Pain Threshold gives you a bonus to resist surrender, but no penalty to yield.

On the Edge: You must make a self-control roll to surrender.

Overconfidence: The GM might require a self-control roll to surrender, but generally only if the opponent doesn't clearly have the upper hand.

Pacifism: Most of these are self-explanatory. Reluctant Killer would probably only apply to attacks to the vitals, eyes, etc, and attacks once the enemy is clearly below 1/3 HP. Expect a reluctant killer to give his opponent a lot of chances to surrender! Self Defense Only means you won't try to kill your foe unless he is clearly trying to kill you.

Truthfulness: Duels are frequently the result of someone saying something about another person, and the other person taking offense. Surrendering in a duel means saying that your stance was the wrong one - if you know this isn't the case, you must make a self-control roll to surrender! This is essentially a lie by omission.