[swashbucklers] Dueling

Dangerious P. Cats · 10-21-2009, 03:06 AM

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 · 10-21-2009, 06:09 AM

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

whswhs · 10-21-2009, 09:17 AM

Quote:

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 · 10-21-2009, 01:16 PM

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 · 10-21-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 10-21-2009, 02:22 PM

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 · 10-21-2009, 02:51 PM

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?)

10-21-2009, 03:06 AM	#1
Dangerious P. Cats Join Date: Sep 2007	[swashbucklers] Dueling 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? __________________ There is no "i" in team, but there is in Dangerious!

10-21-2009, 06:09 AM	#2
Akicita Join Date: Aug 2004	Re: [swashbucklers] Dueling IDHMBWM, but I'm pretty sure there were extended dueling rules in GURPS Swashbucklers that addressed this. __________________ Akicita

10-21-2009, 01:16 PM	#4
The_Nightwatch Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: The top of a skyscraper downtown	Re: [swashbucklers] Dueling 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.

10-21-2009, 02:22 PM	#6
Anaraxes Join Date: Sep 2007	Re: [swashbucklers] Dueling 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. Last edited by Anaraxes; 10-21-2009 at 02:29 PM.

10-21-2009, 02:51 PM	#7
The_Nightwatch Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: The top of a skyscraper downtown	Re: [swashbucklers] Dueling 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?)