Narratively Powerful Duels

Fights, in good stories or in real life, are rarely constant attacks until someone is defeated. 

‘I am Sir Launcelot du Lake, King Ban’s son of Benwick, and knight of the Round Table’ - Newell Convers Wyeth 1917

In all instances [stories, movies, street fights, professional fights, historical duels, etc], there are moments of intimidation, manoeuvring, negotiation, and the like, in which the combatants test each other, themselves, and try to gain a psychological or tactical advantage. This is an amazing part of conflicts, both narratively and tactically. RPGs regularly failed to produce this experience. The Trent B Duelling system addresses this as follows: 

Note: These rules are designed to be used for the Pendragon system, but with some small tweaks can be easily mutated to fit many games, I believe. And, probably, should. 

Duels are composed of Standoffs and Exchanges; where the stand-off phases are essentially pre- and mid- fight non-combat contests, the outcome of which increasingly increase the likelihood of a dramatic consequence [e.g. a crit/major wound]. The exchange is the trading of strikes. 

 The point of this system is threefold: 

1. To build and resolve tension, 
2. To provide interesting and narrative decisions during the duel, and 
3. To express character in the duel. 

Standoffs represent pre-battle stare-downs, measuring, taunts, flaunting, etc, and intra battle dialogue, goading, intimidation, manoeuvring, and the like. This is the space in between the brutality, into which the violence will rudely burst. 

Any Attribute, Trait, Skill, or Passion may be considered for use as a Tactic in a Standoff. 

• A Tactic is Ideal where it is relevant to the circumstances of the duel, and it is easily explained how it can be used to unnerve, intimidate, manoeuvre for advantage, etc. [ e.g. Dexterity can generally be used to demonstrate agility, or manoeuvre into advantage; Orate can be used to intimidate or boast; Reckless, Valorous, or Hate [Foe] might be rolled to try to quickly end the Standoff and start the Exchange right away].
• A Tactic is Secondary where it feels like a stretch; Secondary Tactics may be rolled at -5.
• Some Tactics are probably unlikely to be applicable – it is difficult to see how Falconry or Recognize could be used in most Duels.
• The primary consideration is relevance to the *purpose* of the Duel. If a knight has more reason to be in the fight, they have more viable/Ideal Tactics to gain Advantages in the Standoff.

Relevance is contextual – for example, Horsemanship may be used to manoeuvre or show-off if mounted; Lazy could be Ideal if a famously Lazy knight wishes to demonstrate that they are winning the fight *despite* their famous laziness “[I rolled off the lounge and put you in the mud!”]; Lustful may be relevant for a knave in a duel over lady. Size may be Ideal where a significant difference exists, or Secondary where it does not. Recall that this is an opportunity to express a knight’s character in the fight. Consider what is narratively satisfying or interesting as much as, or perhaps more than, what is “realistic”. The purpose is *not* to improve the simulation, but the narrative.

Exchanges are the fighting bit, which I believe to be self-explanatory.

TrentB's Knightly Duel Mechanics!

Standoffs occur at the following times:

• At the beginning of the Duel, before the first Exchange,

• Whenever there is a Tie in a combat roll, and

• After 3 Exchanges, assuming both combatants are still capable.

Standoffs are resolved as such:

1. Tactics: Both combatants choose a Tactic to roll against, and the GM determines that Tactic’s Relevance – see previous page for guidance on Tactics.
2. Opposed Roll of the Tactics of the two combatants;
1. The GM may grant modifiers as appropriate: for example, taunting or mercy related Tactics might enjoy a +5 if an opponent is wounded and the combatant is not, or their opponent has suffered a Major Wound and they have not. 
3. Resolution:
1. Win: Winner either;
1. Gains an Advantage and begins another Standoff [go to 1], OR 
2. Begin the Exchange - If foe has Advantage/s, reduce it by 1 [to a min of 1],
2. Tie: Start Exchange with NO Advantages; BUT both roll +5 in the first Exchange.
3. Critical: Winner gains an Advantage and begins the Exchange.
1. Where relevant, an opponent may instead surrender, for example.
4. Fumble: Fumbler suffers -5 to their next Standoff or Exchange Roll. 
4. Advantage: In the first Exchange following a Standoff, the combatant with Advantage/s rolls at +2, +5, or +10. [+2 if they have 1 Advantage; +5 for 2; and +10 for 3 Advantages.]

Mechanical Notes:  

• Only one Combatant may have Advantage at a time. If one gains an Advantage, the other loses all of theirs.
• The same Standoff Tactic may not be chosen twice in the same Duel.
• Thus: A Duel will be a cycle of several rounds of Standoff, followed by several rounds of Exchanges, repeating, until someone is defeated or surrenders.
• In the case of a Tied combat roll beginning a Standoff, any fallen/broken weapons from that tie remain on the ground between the combatants during the exchange; the tension of the Standoff building around that weapon as combatants manoeuvre/banter around it. Mechanically: The fallen weapon can influence the relevance of certain Standoff Tactics but does not otherwise affect the penalty of the broken/dropped weapon in the next Exchange.

Conceptual Notes:

• I have tried to include some gambling/risk-taking. Do you risk trying to gain a bigger advantage, and maybe lose it? If your opponent has Advantages and you win, do you start the exchange with them having a +2? Or do you take advantage, and risk losing it…
• I have made Ties impactful, since they are rare and interesting.
• I have removed Null results [except for the first round, which might start the exchange with no advantage if the winner wants that], because null results undermine the point of the mechanic.
• There should be RP from each combatant relevant to their Tactic for each Standoff.

___________________

Enjoy!