Tourneys and jousting

[Icelander]

I'd like to get more opinions on whether the joust uses Lance skill or Lance Sport.

I was also wondering about the melee. The last one still mounted wins, so the object is to unhorse the others, but broken bones and concussions are expected. The knights use blunted swords, axes and maces without spikes; but it's still not a safe sport. Would this rely on Combat or Combat Sport skills?

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'd like to get more opinions on whether the joust uses Lance skill or Lance Sport.

I was also wondering about the melee. The last one still mounted wins, so the object is to unhorse the others, but broken bones and concussions are expected. The knights use blunted swords, axes and maces without spikes; but it's still not a safe sport. Would this rely on Combat or Combat Sport skills?

I'd call it Combat Sport skills, or Combat-3 for someone new to tournament combat and using his regular skills. While injuries do happen, thy aren't the point of such a tournament.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

I'd call it Combat Sport skills, or Combat-3 for someone new to tournament combat and using his regular skills. While injuries do happen, thy aren't the point of such a tournament.

Indeed, indeed.

But players will, and rightly too in my opinion, ask what happens if they use their regular Combat skills? Will they be disqualified for an illegal strike?

And the only thing I can see there is that it's illegal to strike at the mounts, but that's really not enough to qualify. I mean, in duels you're not exactly supposed to strike the seconds, but a limitation to one target isn't enough to reduce something to a Combat Sport skill.

It doesn't matter how brutally the character attacks, his attack is always permissable. If you kill your foe, you've still won. It might be seen as dishonourable, at least for certain types of injury, but it's still legal.

One idea that I have is make Combat Sport and Combat both work at full skill, but with any Combat check that only succeeds with a margin of 3 or less being a dishonourable blow of some sort that might cause a loss of reputation with those who spot it.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by aesir23

And don't forget the Stay Seated technique from martial arts.

*Sigh*

Yet more modifiers which make it nearly impossible that a trained knight will ever be unhorsed.

It can't be that easy to stay in the saddle after colliding with a lance to the torso at full speed.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

*Sigh*

Yet more modifiers which make it nearly impossible that a trained knight will ever be unhorsed.

It can't be that easy to stay in the saddle after colliding with a lance to the torso at full speed.

One option: you could say that since the lance strike is designed to unhorse an opponent rather than injure him, that it's treated as a shove. This wouldn't allow you to break your lance, however....

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'd like to get more opinions on whether the joust uses Lance skill or Lance Sport.

I was also wondering about the melee. The last one still mounted wins, so the object is to unhorse the others, but broken bones and concussions are expected. The knights use blunted swords, axes and maces without spikes; but it's still not a safe sport. Would this rely on Combat or Combat Sport skills?

I suspect it's very much dependant on the period - early tournaments were meant to be much bloodier than the late period, heavily stylised ones.
Initially they were meant to be, essentially, military exercises and the melee was at least as big a deal as the lists, for that we use combat. By the end of the period (I think Henry VIII was our last jousting king) it was so heavily regulated that combat sport would be more appropriate.
IIRC unseating an opponent was meant to be hard - and was quite often the result of your opponent falling off his horse because he was stunned by the impact rather than being knocked clean out of the saddle. In some eras unseating your opponent won you a horse...

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by aesir23

One option: you could say that since the lance strike is designed to unhorse an opponent rather than injure him, that it's treated as a shove. This wouldn't allow you to break your lance, however....

I think my problem is that in GURPS rules, it is (quite realistically) very hard to drive someone back with momentum from your attack. In general, it takes far less damage to disable a person than throw her back even one yard.

But then we have blows which really are powerful enough to throw someone back a whole yard, but when that someone is sitting on a horse, he suddenly gets a rather easy roll to resist it? A standing person has 0% chance of resisting knockback, but if that person were sitting on a horse, those odds suddenly go up. Why do they go up? Someone standing, perhaps even braced to receive the blow, has less chance of staying in his position than someone sitting on a moving horse?

As far as I can see, a skill 12 person sitting on a war saddle has 62.5% chance of resiting knockback. That's far too high. A blow powerful enough to cause knocback* should be nearly impossible to sit through, not fairly easy.

Any solid hit should have a chance of unhorsing people and those causing knockback should be nearly guaranteed to do so. My intuitive sense would be to call for a Riding check any time the character is hit, but I accept that this might be fiddly and would in any case probably never unhorse anyone but an amateur. I'd want the penalty for yards to knockback to be far more than -4, though.

Hmmm... sounds like any hit of at least HP/10 (to prevent gnats from unhorsing giants riding mammoths) might call for a Riding check and knockback should cause a Riding check of -8/yds.

*Which, you'll remember, is pretty damn powerful. For a ST 14 man to knock another ST 14 man back one yard with a baseball bat, he needs to roll 11 or more on a 2d6. That's a 1/9 chance. Even with an All-Out Attack (Strong) and the bat held in both hands, he still has a less than 50% chance of doing it.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

I suspect it's very much dependant on the period - early tournaments were meant to be much bloodier than the late period, heavily stylised ones.
Initially they were meant to be, essentially, military exercises and the melee was at least as big a deal as the lists, for that we use combat. By the end of the period (I think Henry VIII was our last jousting king) it was so heavily regulated that combat sport would be more appropriate.

In my game, it's meant to be a matter of location. Some areas have heavily stylised jousts as the main attraction, others have brutal melees. The standard is pretty much that the joust is more important, but the melee is also prestigious. And in all cases, it's rare for a tournament not to involve several life-threathening injuries.

Magical healing is available, so no one really thinks that breaking bones and concussing skulls is out of line. It's all in good sport.

Originally Posted by The Colonel

IIRC unseating an opponent was meant to be hard - and was quite often the result of your opponent falling off his horse because he was stunned by the impact rather than being knocked clean out of the saddle. In some eras unseating your opponent won you a horse...

I plan for that to apply here as well. Unseating a foe wins you his horse and his harness. The practice is most often to allow him to ransom both, for a price somewhat below market value (depending on how much you like him, whether you think he'll unhorse you in the future and whether you feel the need for cash over the desire to be perceived as fair and generous).

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Specialised jousting armour exists, but that doesn't mean that everyone can afford it.

??? If you didn't have the wealth and status to afford jousting armour then no way would you be allowed to take part in a tournament.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

??? If you didn't have the wealth and status to afford jousting armour then no way would you be allowed to take part in a tournament.

It's a fantasy setting. Knights in the service of churches, but with little income and no lands of their own, are very much in genre.

But beyond that, if someone can afford only a single set of armour, meant to be usable in the field and at least passable in the joust, why should be be prevented from competing?

Sure, it's better to have two sets of armour, each custom-made for the activity, but it's not impossible to joust in decent field armour.