Tourneys and jousting

[joelbf]

Originally Posted by Icelander

In principle, I'm in favour of this method.

How would you stat it out? Can you give me a suggested write-up?

Well I'd consider giving Combat Sport -1/-1 per 2 dice (or -2/-1 per die) damage in exchange for say x1,5 or double knockback (IIRC you aren't afraid of math), but you have to tie this in to your expanded rules for staying in the saddle (which seem highly needed after reading your posts).

I don't think any sane warrior would wan't to use it outside of torneys (99% of the time at least), which would be a minimal sanity requirement.

Lance breakage has to be a factor too. If lances regularly break 50% knockback increase paired with -1/-1 per 2 dice would be better I think.

[Mateus]

Only a reading sugestion: Ivanhoe of Walter Scott. You may already read it but a second read after a Jousting game is a good shot in m opinion..

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Boobis

Well I'd consider giving Combat Sport -1/-1 per 2 dice (or -2/-1 per die) damage in exchange for say x1,5 or double knockback (IIRC you aren't afraid of math), but you have to tie this in to your expanded rules for staying in the saddle (which seem highly needed after reading your posts).

I don't think any sane warrior would wan't to use it outside of torneys (99% of the time at least), which would be a minimal sanity requirement.

My idea is as follows:

Tournament Fighting

At TL3-4, in medieval Europe or cultures based on that, it was common for warriors to fight in tourneys. Such events featured the melee, jousting and sometimes archery and foot lists. The object of the melee and the lists was to knock the opponent off his horse. As such, horsemanship was equally important as weapon skill.

Tournament combat was full contact for much of the period. Tourneys were intended as training for warfare and only after the armoured cavalryman lost his primacy on the battlefield did the tourney field have any chance to develop a rarified sensibility completely divorced from battlefield tactics. Injuries were common and few strikes were regarded as illegal. As such, it is possible to use unmodified combat skill in the tourney and many knights did so.

On the other hand, specialised tourney knights trained extensively in techniques to knock the opponent off his horse or his feet. Harming the foe seriously as regarded as unchivalrous, however, so doing damage was not a priority. A GM who wishes to simulate this may reduce the damage of Combat Sport skills commonly used for the tourney (Lance Sport, but also such possiblities as Axe/Mace Sport Broadsword Sport, Polarm Sport, Two-Handed Ace/Mace Sport and Two-Handed Sword Sport) by -1/die, but give a bonus to the damage for the purposes of knockback only, equivalent to that given by the Shoves and Tackles Perk, i.e. +1/die for skill DX+1 and +2/die for DX+2. This is not cumulative with either the damage bonus from Weapon Master or the Shoves and Tackles Perk itself.

This means that a ST 13 swordsman with Broadsword skill DX+2 would do 2d-2 cr damage with his blunt tourney sword, but treat the damage as 2d+4 for the purposes of knockback. A roll of 7 would enable him to knock another ST 13 knight back.

Originally Posted by Boobis

Lance breakage has to be a factor too. If lances regularly break 50% knockback increase paired with -1/-1 per 2 dice would be better I think.

Well, you want the lance to break, as that gives you points. But basing the lance breakage on the knockback damage would seem to be realistic enough.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Mateus

Only a reading sugestion: Ivanhoe of Walter Scott. You may already read it but a second read after a Jousting game is a good shot in m opinion..

I've read it, but what mostly influenced my desire for tourneys to play a role in my game is the A Song of Ice and Fire series.

[joelbf]

Originally Posted by Icelander

My idea is as follows:

In general I like your suggestion. The only thing that nags me is that with one perk you get to be an equally good jouster as someone who is highly specialized in it, and a much worse warrior (since using combat sport). But IDHMBWM so I don't know what the Shoves and Tackels perk does ATM.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Well, you want the lance to break, as that gives you points. But basing the lance breakage on the knockback damage would seem to be realistic enough.

That takes care of my concern.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Boobis

In general I like your suggestion. The only thing that nags me is that with one perk you get to be an equally good jouster as someone who is highly specialized in it, and a much worse warrior (since using combat sport). But IDHMBWM so I don't know what the Shoves and Tackels perk does ATM.

The Perk only gives the damage bonus when making an armed shove or slam, which is limited to shields and two-handed weapons. It wouldn't give any bonus to a normal lance charge.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Can the left arm move with DR 12? Is the whole arm really that high? And didn't it happen at least occasionally that the comparatively unprotected lance arm was hit instead of the shield arm?

The left arm can move a little but not much. The right arm was locked in position, there were no chinks to hit since the limb was completely encased in plate.

[Lord Carnifex]

As regards to Lance versus Lance Sport, given that you describe the tournaments as also being practive for war fighting, I'd fall on the side of Lance Combat. I could easily see someone trying to learn to ply a lance only for the purpose of doing well in tournaments as being regarded as incompetent, cowardly, or effete. As a morecomplicated answer, I could see working up the tourney rules such that using Lance Sport gives one certain advantages on some roles, but not on others. For example, someone using Lance Sport may roll at the usual -3 to hit his opponent, but if he succeeds in hitting, his opponent has an additional -3 to avoid being unhorsed, as the Lance Sport practioner has trained specifically in how to unhorse people rather than drive pointy metal bits through them.
...
As per the discussion on armour, forcing an unhorsed knight to give up his armour sounds a little harsh. Certainly it restricts realistic tournament entry to the wealthiest - those that can afford to lose their armour if they lose. Obviously, it's your setting and you can do what you want with it, but it does feel to me that a lower level knight entering a contest who loses his armor is now useless i(as a knight) n tournaments and war, and pretty much stops being a knight.

One solution to make the consequences less harsh might be to scale it back and say that the unhorsed knight must give up his shield (which presumably has his arms on it). That allows the victor to show off exactly which knights he has unhorsed, and serves up a bit of humiliation to the loser who loses something with (effectively) his name on it. But the shield itself is more easily replacable than a custom set of plate armour.

Or perhaps tradition states that the winner CAN claim the loser's armour, but it's considered generous and chivalrous for the winner not to, especially if there's a large gap in wealth or status. That way you can have it in the background as a risk, but it won't loom quite so large. Meanwhile, it allows you to differentiate between knights who are honorable and those who are dastardly and give them a bit of character.

You could combine the two as well, saying that most winners are content to take the shield, but some claim the full armour as being their's by right.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The left arm can move a little but not much. The right arm was locked in position, there were no chinks to hit since the limb was completely encased in plate.

Does this have any game effects?

A DR 12 plate arm that limits movement (and a DR 7 one that prevents it entirely) probably ought to be cheaper than the equivalent thickness armour that allows full articulation.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnifex

As regards to Lance versus Lance Sport, given that you describe the tournaments as also being practive for war fighting, I'd fall on the side of Lance Combat. I could easily see someone trying to learn to ply a lance only for the purpose of doing well in tournaments as being regarded as incompetent, cowardly, or effete. As a morecomplicated answer, I could see working up the tourney rules such that using Lance Sport gives one certain advantages on some roles, but not on others. For example, someone using Lance Sport may roll at the usual -3 to hit his opponent, but if he succeeds in hitting, his opponent has an additional -3 to avoid being unhorsed, as the Lance Sport practioner has trained specifically in how to unhorse people rather than drive pointy metal bits through them.

Did you see the suggestion to that effect above?

Originally Posted by Lord Carnifex

As per the discussion on armour, forcing an unhorsed knight to give up his armour sounds a little harsh. Certainly it restricts realistic tournament entry to the wealthiest - those that can afford to lose their armour if they lose. Obviously, it's your setting and you can do what you want with it, but it does feel to me that a lower level knight entering a contest who loses his armor is now useless i(as a knight) n tournaments and war, and pretty much stops being a knight.

Well, yes, it's harsh. Essentially, it's gambling on a large scale and the minimum stake is about $15,000 (with a respectable one being more like $60,000). This means that only a Very Wealthy character can realistically enter it and most tourney knights need to be Filthy Rich.

But winning once allows the knight to absorb another loss. That means that there only needs to be one overconfident and/or rich loser for every one 'hedge' knight.

The churches are prepared to stake the more talented of their holy knights, given that they'll probably make money on it and even if not, it doesn't do them any harm to advertise the prowess of their martial arm and the wealth of their temples.

There are plenty of rich nobles, as well, willing to stake a promising knight in return for a healthy portion of the purse.

Originally Posted by Lord Carnifex

One solution to make the consequences less harsh might be to scale it back and say that the unhorsed knight must give up his shield (which presumably has his arms on it). That allows the victor to show off exactly which knights he has unhorsed, and serves up a bit of humiliation to the loser who loses something with (effectively) his name on it. But the shield itself is more easily replacable than a custom set of plate armour.

Or perhaps tradition states that the winner CAN claim the loser's armour, but it's considered generous and chivalrous for the winner not to, especially if there's a large gap in wealth or status. That way you can have it in the background as a risk, but it won't loom quite so large. Meanwhile, it allows you to differentiate between knights who are honorable and those who are dastardly and give them a bit of character.

You could combine the two as well, saying that most winners are content to take the shield, but some claim the full armour as being their's by right.

It's always considered chivalrous to allow the opponent to ransom his gear at a reduced rate. And refraining from claiming any prize if the foeman fights gallantly is a chivalric trope.

But this is the primary source of income for many of the knights. At least 30% of the competitors will be full-time tourney knights, betting on winning more times than they lose, and allowing a foe to keep his mount and harness might mean lacking the money to feed their destrier or maintain their gear.