Post by The Bloody Nine on Mar 14, 2018 8:34:55 GMT -5
Oriental Sword Duels the file is missing, Good discussion though with ideas
I play tested this with Jimm on Saturday (and became Lord of the Lamp after losing). I really liked your layout of the rules and the changes you made to the results table.
Jimm was saying these rules could be simplified but lets take a look at what that might look like:
1. Reduce the complexity of stances; either by allowing any attack angle from any stance, and/or by removing the speed component from each stance so that all attacks are simultaneous. Such a change will require a rewrite of the dueling matrix in order to balance out weaknesses among each stance. This will make it easier for a DM to learn, but will not move the game along much faster than it already does.
2. Reduce the types of attacks that can be made; upwards, downwards, side-to-side, and stab (and possibly a sixth: counter or parry). This makes it easier for a DM to randomly roll an action for the NPC in the duel. Coupled with the original 6 stances from my ruleset, the DM would have to give very little time and thought to the NPC's actions. If counter or parry was included, I would suggest something like the player declaring they will counter a specific attack type; if the target makes the called attack, the player automatically parries and makes a counter attack resulting in an injury. If the target makes a different attack, the player makes a parry check (dex check, saving throw, or HD dice off) to avoid the blow but is not able to attack that turn.
3. Remove stances and replace with dodge direction or parry direction. This changes the process to a player declaring a dodge/parry direction and a simultaneous attack direction limited by the movement. This brings it closer to the traditional jousting rules, but loses all Oriental flavor. The rules are much simpler to understand.
----------------------------
I have some additional ideas on the topic as well. The more research I've done on the topic, the more it makes sense that a duel will not always be limited to just one versus one. Higher level and more confident swordsmen may agree to duel more than one person at once. Historically the wood stance was what a samurai used when surrounded by several foes, allowing the defender to dodge or parry each attack as it comes while granting a number of counter attacks in the process. I would give the wood stance the ability to do just this, but perhaps limit it to the same attack types that the fire stance can perform.
Metal stance was specifically for concealing the length of the blade and it's reach from an opponent, and so those with a broken blade could still fight but were forced to use a left- or right-facing metal stance. I didn't see this in the rules, but adding it would extend the length of the duel.
Also regarding breaking of a weapon, samurai usually had two swords at hand in any duel. The first was the long sword and the second was a back-up short sword. Breaking a sword may give the attacker a chance to make an additional attack or may require the defender to save in order to pull out their backup weapon.
----------------------------
The purpose of the minigame should be to provide a brief but interesting change of pace for a D&D player; and I would also argue: to put more of the outcome in the hands of the player rather than the character. The first few times a player encounters the ruleset they may not be familiar enough with how it works to choose optimal skills, and so chance and character strength are what determine the outcome. By the time a player has seen it a few times, they should know how to identify the advantages of each move and it becomes more about player choice and the random chance built into the rules.
The downside of jousting and sword duels is that is a relatively solitary affair. The players choose their champion, and the DM fights the champion one-on-one. The DM should try to find ways to include the party in the action wherever possible, either by staking their fate upon the outcome, or by some other means.
During these types of minigames, players see the rules and roll their eyes thinking that it will be super complex time-consuming affair. I would avoid design decisions focused around whittling away a character's hp in order to win. The instant win result should be built into each set of outcomes no matter the stance. Fail to parry? You take an injury. Fail to save against the injury? You take a mortal blow or are KO'd. I feel this would be a more effective way of building in the level advantage while allowing the players to feel like they have some amount of chance.
I didn't like the HD vs HD roll we used in for the Dueling Roll. I felt like it adds too much of an advantage for the higher level opponent. Using the HD vs HD roll I would have to make a good roll and my opponent make a bad roll in order to KO them, while if a saving throw was used I would simply have to wait for my opponent to make a bad roll. I also feel that it makes it impossible to win given a large enough level difference.
Anyways, I enjoyed using your rules. These were just my thoughts on polishing these up.
Jimm was saying these rules could be simplified but lets take a look at what that might look like:
1. Reduce the complexity of stances; either by allowing any attack angle from any stance, and/or by removing the speed component from each stance so that all attacks are simultaneous. Such a change will require a rewrite of the dueling matrix in order to balance out weaknesses among each stance. This will make it easier for a DM to learn, but will not move the game along much faster than it already does.
2. Reduce the types of attacks that can be made; upwards, downwards, side-to-side, and stab (and possibly a sixth: counter or parry). This makes it easier for a DM to randomly roll an action for the NPC in the duel. Coupled with the original 6 stances from my ruleset, the DM would have to give very little time and thought to the NPC's actions. If counter or parry was included, I would suggest something like the player declaring they will counter a specific attack type; if the target makes the called attack, the player automatically parries and makes a counter attack resulting in an injury. If the target makes a different attack, the player makes a parry check (dex check, saving throw, or HD dice off) to avoid the blow but is not able to attack that turn.
3. Remove stances and replace with dodge direction or parry direction. This changes the process to a player declaring a dodge/parry direction and a simultaneous attack direction limited by the movement. This brings it closer to the traditional jousting rules, but loses all Oriental flavor. The rules are much simpler to understand.
----------------------------
I have some additional ideas on the topic as well. The more research I've done on the topic, the more it makes sense that a duel will not always be limited to just one versus one. Higher level and more confident swordsmen may agree to duel more than one person at once. Historically the wood stance was what a samurai used when surrounded by several foes, allowing the defender to dodge or parry each attack as it comes while granting a number of counter attacks in the process. I would give the wood stance the ability to do just this, but perhaps limit it to the same attack types that the fire stance can perform.
Metal stance was specifically for concealing the length of the blade and it's reach from an opponent, and so those with a broken blade could still fight but were forced to use a left- or right-facing metal stance. I didn't see this in the rules, but adding it would extend the length of the duel.
Also regarding breaking of a weapon, samurai usually had two swords at hand in any duel. The first was the long sword and the second was a back-up short sword. Breaking a sword may give the attacker a chance to make an additional attack or may require the defender to save in order to pull out their backup weapon.
----------------------------
The purpose of the minigame should be to provide a brief but interesting change of pace for a D&D player; and I would also argue: to put more of the outcome in the hands of the player rather than the character. The first few times a player encounters the ruleset they may not be familiar enough with how it works to choose optimal skills, and so chance and character strength are what determine the outcome. By the time a player has seen it a few times, they should know how to identify the advantages of each move and it becomes more about player choice and the random chance built into the rules.
The downside of jousting and sword duels is that is a relatively solitary affair. The players choose their champion, and the DM fights the champion one-on-one. The DM should try to find ways to include the party in the action wherever possible, either by staking their fate upon the outcome, or by some other means.
During these types of minigames, players see the rules and roll their eyes thinking that it will be super complex time-consuming affair. I would avoid design decisions focused around whittling away a character's hp in order to win. The instant win result should be built into each set of outcomes no matter the stance. Fail to parry? You take an injury. Fail to save against the injury? You take a mortal blow or are KO'd. I feel this would be a more effective way of building in the level advantage while allowing the players to feel like they have some amount of chance.
I didn't like the HD vs HD roll we used in for the Dueling Roll. I felt like it adds too much of an advantage for the higher level opponent. Using the HD vs HD roll I would have to make a good roll and my opponent make a bad roll in order to KO them, while if a saving throw was used I would simply have to wait for my opponent to make a bad roll. I also feel that it makes it impossible to win given a large enough level difference.
Anyways, I enjoyed using your rules. These were just my thoughts on polishing these up.
Thanks, Steven. I can tell you've put a lot of historical research and accuracy into this. I really want to maintain the flavor of what you've done, but simplify it-- even over simplify it-- so it won't bog down in the module encounter. I'm mulling over your suggestions, but my initial thoughts after Saturday's game were to reduce the number of stances to 4 (right now I have 7, I think they can be reduced to the basic elemental forces: Air, Fire, Water, Earth), reduce the number of attack moves to 5 (eliminate all Left/Right distinctions), and rework the attack resolution matrix as needed (the tricky part), possibly removing some of the possible matrix results (like breaking or locked blades?).
I'm still thinking it all over.
I'm still thinking it all over.
That also seems really effective. Reducing the stances and attack directions can really work. I would remove metal stances and wood stance for starters.
I've found balancing the matrix to be a little complex, and I've done it probably 3 or 4 times to date. One process that worked for me was to:
1. Physically emulate each stance to see what each strength in weakness would be in real life. Can you easily dodge certain directions? Easily parry certain blows before they impact the body if both were launched simultaneously from starting positions? What are the vulnerable/undefended areas of the body. Create a matrix from the results.
2. Summarize in general the strengths and weaknesses of each stance.
3. Create a new separate matrix to game-ify what you wrote in the summary for each stance; carefully balancing advantages and disadvantages. I find it easier to start all results as a neutral result, and add penalties for each benefit granted.
4. If the results from the second matrix are not distinctive enough, add in more from the original matrix.
5. Playtest the finished matrix/ruleset and see how each stance or action can be abused. Are there any combinations that always choosing it guarantees a win or a clear advantage? etc.
6. Adjust the matrix to incorporate changes from playtesting... etc.
I've found balancing the matrix to be a little complex, and I've done it probably 3 or 4 times to date. One process that worked for me was to:
1. Physically emulate each stance to see what each strength in weakness would be in real life. Can you easily dodge certain directions? Easily parry certain blows before they impact the body if both were launched simultaneously from starting positions? What are the vulnerable/undefended areas of the body. Create a matrix from the results.
2. Summarize in general the strengths and weaknesses of each stance.
3. Create a new separate matrix to game-ify what you wrote in the summary for each stance; carefully balancing advantages and disadvantages. I find it easier to start all results as a neutral result, and add penalties for each benefit granted.
4. If the results from the second matrix are not distinctive enough, add in more from the original matrix.
5. Playtest the finished matrix/ruleset and see how each stance or action can be abused. Are there any combinations that always choosing it guarantees a win or a clear advantage? etc.
6. Adjust the matrix to incorporate changes from playtesting... etc.