Homebrew System for Duels

[SumDumMuffin]

I'm trying to create or find a system to model duels, and the unstable equilibrium within them.

I mostly play Pathfinder and World of Darkness, and they are generally great systems but the time's I've run long fighting duels in them make me think :smalleek: about using them to run a campaign revolving around long fighting duels. So I'm thinking up a whole new system that may be retrofitted into other systems later.

Core mechanic so far:

There is a bar drawn on a piece of paper that goes from negative to positive, say, 20. The combatant with the worse fighting ability places their token at 0 and the other places it at the positive difference between both their fighting abilities.

Each round both combatants roll three d6's (or some other combination of dice with a bell curve) and adds their fighting ability to it, and if one of them rolls higher than the other, the combatant who rolled higher increases their fighting ability by the difference between the two rolls and the combatant who rolled lower decreases their ability by that number.

If somebody hits +20 they win, representing complete fighting domination over the other. If they hit -20 they lose, representing getting beat up too much to continue. I might have to add something in because now you can lose at 18 if your opponent gets to 20 a turn before you, but for now the race aspect of it is part of the duel.

The positive/negative distinction is to allow for boss battles; you could put four players and one boss on the same bar and have everyone roll, and the boss will, ideally, get reduced to -20 more easily than for one party member to get to +20. The inverse can work for when a party member fights hordes of minions; they just have to get to +20 to flop all of them, like Neo exploding out of a crowd of Agent Smiths in the Matrix Reloaded. I haven't worked out how multiple people on a side affects their fighting ability; maybe everyone starts at +1 for every ally.

I haven't playtested the numbers yet; perhaps 20 is too high or three d6's too centrally biased. I was thinking about having fractions or having different fighting styles use different sets of dice, like in Savage Worlds.

The point I was trying to model was that combatants with equal fighting ability will start at the will be evenly matched until one of them gets a lucky blow in. Then they can press their advantage until they win. Combatants with disparate fighting ability will have shorter and more one-sided fights, maybe only requiring one easily-made roll to . Like in kung-fu movies, the hero can mow down tons of mooks, but then get in a stalemate with an elite ninja for awhile before dodging at the right moment and then beating the stuffing out of him.


You can replace "fighting ability" with "magical ability" to model wizard's duels, and maybe with "public speaking" to model formal debates.

I know that, by itself, fights revolving around unstable equilibrium aren't very compelling; once someone gets an advantage they will win. So players should have powers that they can activate to offset unbalance or trigger it sooner.

Current Ideas:
- A 'total attack' gambit that doubles any difference, so a win is twice as effective but a loss hurts twice as bad.
- A defensive stance that, after three turns in, automatically increases fighting ability by one every turn, up to zero.
- A 'taking you with me' attack that hurts the user by one but hurts the enemy by three.

If you know of a system that already does this, have any thoughts on the core mechanics itself, or ideas for powers to make the system less predictable, your input would be appreciated. :smallsmile:

[6thEdition]

Why not add stats instead of "fighting ability"? Add your Str and Con modifier for the bar, so if your Strength is 18 and your Con is 16, you start at +7.

For magical duels, you add [your primary stat] and Constitution, and for formal debates you Charisma and Intelligence or Wisdom.

In this, most people are equal, so it depends on strategy and luck to win.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

There is a bar drawn on a piece of paper that goes from negative to positive, say, 20. The combatant with the worse fighting ability places their token at 0 and the other places it at the positive difference between both their fighting abilities.

Each round both combatants roll three d6's (or some other combination of dice with a bell curve) and adds their fighting ability to it, and if one of them rolls higher than the other, the combatant who rolled higher increases their fighting ability by the difference between the two rolls and the combatant who rolled lower decreases their ability by that number.

This system hugely punishes the worst combatant. And I mean hugely.

Firstly they start behind their opponent. Advantage to the more skilled combatant, which does make sense.

Secondly they're less likely to succeed, as their fighting ability is lower so their average roll will be lower. This is a twofold penalty now.

Thirdly every time they lose not only does their fighting ability drop, but their opponent's ability also increases. That's a four-fold penalty for anyone who is worse off than their opponent, and it mechanically eliminates the potential for exciting mid-duel turnarounds: the duel is effectively decided after the first one or two rolls, as chances are someone's ability has become to high and the others too low (barring the very rare chance of a natural 1 vs a natural 18, for example).

Further Note: The penalty is actually even worse than I initially thought. Since the dice rolled form a bell curve, this means that the average roll is much more common. This FURTHER benefits anyone with a higher number.

In short...there might be potential of some kind here, but the math is SO MUCH in favor of the combatant with the higher initial score (unless it's only a 1-2 point difference) that it's basically not worth the trouble in my opinion. It's also a foregone conclusion after 1-2 rolls have gone in one combatant's favor.

[SumDumMuffin]

First off, thanks for the input. I'm still figuring most of this out. :smallsmile:


Why not add stats instead of "fighting ability"?

I haven't thought about the system around the core mechanic yet, but yeah, I'm pretty sure "fighting ability" will be some calculation on stats.



This system hugely punishes the worst combatant.

That was a bit of point, that an action hero can flop minions left and right. But yeah, it could stand to be toned down a bit.


{this system} mechanically eliminates the potential for exciting mid-duel turnarounds

This is why I need to implement powers or special moves. The most dramatic turnarounds I've seen players pull has been the result of them trying a different tactic or just realizing they had an ability or piece of equipment. I ran a fight between rogues once where a PC was losing a face to face battle until he remembered he had an ability that allowed him to be invisible for one round to get a sneak attack off.

The idea is that in a fight between two people with no special abilities, like two random dudes in a bar, the stronger person will eventually win. Different tactics should be represented by abilities.


the duel is effectively decided after the first one or two rolls

Yeah, after doing some sample rolling I see where a fourfold penalty to a worse combatant may be a bit much. So maybe each combatant starts at 0 instead of their fighting scores. Maybe there's some power you can take that has you start at a higher number, even if your fighting ability is lower than the opponents.

And after doing some rolls, I see that doubling the difference in rolls between the combatant's fighting abilities is a bit much. So maybe fighting ability allows fractions, and you split the difference in rolls in half and alter each player's bar accordingly. I'm considering having another ability that multiplies a positive difference in rolls, representing how a skilled fighter might make more use of an advantage or better cover up a defense than an unskilled fighter.

Additionally, maybe a combatant has the option to fight defensively, where their fighting ability can't change (so even if they roll lower they stay the same on the bar. The opponent still goes up or down, so the fight doesn't go to a standstill) and gives them a flat bonus (because I imagine it's harder to beat up someone who's not leaving themselves open). Someone who knows they're outclassed can try to hunker down or stay out of range, which prevents them from getting beat up but also prevents them from gaining an advantage. I know the problems of parrying in other systems involve the fact that its much more cost-effective to eliminate a threat earlier than try to survive longer, so this might need to be worked on.

When you mentioned mid-fight turnarounds, I thought of a boxer covering up for a while until his opponent left an opening. So maybe that could be modeled by someone having a power that, if they're fighting defensively, once their opponent rolls low they can break out of the defense and force their opponent to use the same roll for the next round. They'll roll to give their opponent something to beat, but their bar doesn't got up or down, and when the opponent rolls, say, a 7, the next round they can hope to roll an 11 to beat the opponent by 4, changing each person's bar by two. This might be a little low, so maybe there's an added effect of doubling the difference, or giving a +2 to the defender's check, or maybe lasting for two rolls.

[BRC]

For 3.5/Pathfinder, I would do it like this.

A Duel (As opposed to just single Combat), should be extra dramatic.
Personally, I would just do All damage dice are maximized (To avoid it turning into a slogfest).
All Crits are automatically confirmed.
Every round Crit ranges increase by +1

In order to increase the chances of that Final, Dramatic attack that ends the duel.