PDA

View Full Version : Jousting Games



Mr. Mask
2014-08-07, 12:30 PM
I've taken an interest in jousting of late. I wonder if there are good examples of jousting games? If not, I'd like to discuss the details of a good jousting game.

As much as I like historical authenticity, I do wonder if some liberties should be taken to make the sport more interesting from a turn-based, tabletop perspective (Blood Bowl comes to mind). For example, giving the jousters enough room to manoeuvre their horses closer and further from the fence as they prefer, allowing them to weave to make striking them harder, or to pick their preferred distance.

Martin Greywolf
2014-08-07, 01:45 PM
Firstly, some things you should clarify:
1) What system are we talking here? FATE and d20 have very different things that need to be tweaked in order for jousting to work.
2) What do you mean by jousting? The correct definition (I'm going to assume you mean this one, for the time being) is basically like a faster MMA, or boxing - two dudes go against each other in a strictly regulated contest, until one of them yields or wins (e.g. by gaining enough points). You could also want to somehow better simulate mounted charges at the mounted and charging opponent, which is a different thing entirely.

First, a word of warning. You may or may not heard about full-contact jousting, when you listen to the guys doing it, listen well to their actual experience, and massively disregard anything they say about history. Most laughable guy was one that claimed they would kick an old-timey knights' behind, because the knights fought with easily-breakable lances (spoiler: they very often didn't, and trained with something a lot sturdier, without non-newtonian fluid gambesons). :smallannoyed:

Now, some things that need to be changed to keep your sanity, and player enjoyment.

1) Lance damage. You have to either ignore it, or make it happen at some easily calculated - preferably constant - value. This is not an easy thing to do, by the way, Ulrich von Lichtenstein mentions, in a very derisive tone, by the by, that some contestants rode too slowly (= not at full gallop) and didn't break their lances. This was at a time when actual lances of war without heads were used, though, so they were a lot tougher than later specialized ones.

2) Dynamics of the thing. Jousting is much like an old west showdown, there's a lot of setup, one or few very, very fast actions, and then someone is left standing (well, sitting in this case), and someone else is lying on the ground. Some kind of system where you gain an upper hand on the opponent before actual arms clash, or even before you get on the field, is probably the best. FATE can do this reasonably well.

3) Equipment. High saddle, limiting your mobility, or low one, making you more agile, but easier to unhorse? What kind of horse? A stallion, that has good "stats" but runs the risk of ignoring you and going for the mare in heat? You can come up with tons of these, and mechanics are just a detail. Then comes the plot hook of trying to find out what your opponent will do and/or convincing him you will go for something, getting an upper hand on him this way.

4) Cheating. Make no mistake, chivalry or not, with money on the line, cheating and accusations of cheating were common, especially leveled against foreigners and/or outsiders. Strapping yourself to the saddle, not-so-easily-breakable lance, aforementioned mare in heat, someone in the audience reflecting sunlight into opponents' eyes/visor, outright attacks with a lead pipe to the knees (well, this is more of a figure skating thing, but still*)...

5) Playing to the audience. Sure, maybe you are after a prize, but wouldn't it be more interesting if a squire really wanted prize, and knight really wanted to catch an eye of a young lady, and those two goals were mutually exclusive? Especially if knight couldn't just ignore his squire for some reason (kings' nephew, rich parents, they are friends,...). Knights' Tale says yes, yes it would. And if fame is your goal before money, going after some famous guy that got knocked into semifinals by bad luck, instead of for the prize, is certainly a thing.

*I used to be a jouster like you, but then I took a lead pipe to the knee.

Brother Oni
2014-08-07, 02:27 PM
This is the oldest jousting video game I can think of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joust_(video_game)).

Other than that, Mount and Blade:Warband multiplayer with certain rules enforced is your next best bet.

I don't think jousting would make a great tabletop game as the strategy mentioned in the other thread is more along the lines of strategy in a boxing or martial arts match - you can prepare as well as you can, you can have a general idea what you're planning to do, but it all boils down to instinct in the end.

Taking the example of distance away from the fence: since lance length is fixed for fairness, whatever you do applies equally for your opponent thus the angle of impact is the same for both of you (assuming you have equal aim).
In any case, distance from the fence would maybe vary by a foot or two, which wouldn't make much difference to a 14ft lance - suppose your opponent was 1ft away from his side, the range loss from you being 1 to 3ft away on your side is less than 4 inches (13.93' compared to 13.43'), with an expected change in angle of impact from 8.2° to 16.6°.

Incidentally, the Blood Bowl Companion had rules for a fairly accurate version of American football, with downs, lines of scrimmage etc and they were horrible to play.

Mr. Mask
2014-08-07, 02:41 PM
1) No system in particular. If someone hasn't made a jousting game, I'd be more likely to build one form the ground up from straight roll system (d20, d100, etc.).

2) I mean contested horseback full-contact lancing. Men on horses hitting each other with sticks for points to put it laymanly.

Honestly, it is hard for professional jousters these days to dedicate the same effort to the sport as the knights of the past. Aside from rougher safety standards, these were also knights whose very lives depended on their ability to put a lance where they needed it in battle, in a time when jousting tournaments were probably the world's foremost sport (nowadays, it's hard to make a living off jousting even for the best). Better padding and metallurgy as well as more reliable break-away lances help today, though I wonder if jousting armour for the best competitors might have been made with more skill (the stuff in Full Metal Jousting looks cheap and uncomfortable).


1) There are a few ways you could do damage. The simplest is probably a critical hit system, that allows for uncommon but devastating injuries to occur, or very unlucky ones (splintered lance going into the visor, opening the visor, then lifting the jouster up by his helmet in neck). The type of lance will evidently make quite a difference to the damage, from painful and dangerous to outright lethal (you could include rules for jousting with headed war lances).

You could use a system of wounds that apply sometimes cumulative effects. If you wanted to use HP, you'd need to balance it for whatever system you intended. I like to use d100 systems and placement numbers to start with, as it's easy to adjust them (though converting them to d6 gets questionable results).

2) This is why I wonder if some poetic license is necessary with jousting. Depending on the exact type, there are a few choices you might make and a few elements to consider. If it's before fences are used to separate the riders, you have a lot of movement options (and potential to crash into the other rider to disastrous results). If it's in the time when hitting them in the head is an option... you might need a system of reputation penalties to compensate for all the knights you murder. Stuff like how you use your shield might be interesting (in jousting with shields).

3) I'd wondered how much flexibility you'd have in equipment, beyond horses and armour. I wasn't sure if knights would ever choose a low saddle, since dodging is made out to be a suboptimal tactic. In the really early jousting, I wonder if you might even have some choices in lances, so long as they lack a head.

4) Cheating and gambling are fun aspects, which could help to add strategy to the sport. Accusations and arguing about cheating whether some took place or not could be fun, though the mechanics would likely be better derived from a system specializing in social warfare.

5) I like multiple goals being an option. As mentioned, if hitting the helmet isn't outlawed, you could try that to rattle/maim your opponent or earn points, at the expense of the good will of your peers.



Oni: Joust was pretty good, considering the simplicity of it.

Personally, I see it as easier to make a strategic turn-based game with boxing or MMA than jousting. There are a lot of decisions a fighter has to make in boxing/MMA, even if those decisions aren't made consciously in reality. In jousting, the number of decisions for the event is less diverse (some forms having more than others).

I might have overestimated the change those few degrees would make to impact. I wondered if it might be difficult to be accurate despite the small change, since already the lance is moving a foot at the tip when you move it an inch at your end, and your visor tends to be obstructive to your vision.

As for blood-bowl companion... did they still have the system where it was turn based, with it changing to the other player's turn when one of your guys got hit?

Brother Oni
2014-08-07, 03:22 PM
Personally, I see it as easier to make a strategic turn-based game with boxing or MMA than jousting. There are a lot of decisions a fighter has to make in boxing/MMA, even if those decisions aren't made consciously in reality.


Again, somebody's well ahead of you: Knockouts and Tapouts (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/35633/knockouts-and-tapouts-mixed-martial-arts-card-game), Pocket MMA (http://www.pocketmma.com/) are just some.

I stand corrected on the MMA game front, judging from the reviews Knockouts and Tapouts has received.



I might have overestimated the change those few degrees would make to impact. I wondered if it might be difficult to be accurate despite the small change, since already the lance is moving a foot at the tip when you move it an inch at your end, and your visor tends to be obstructive to your vision.

It's another one of my back of an envelope calculations. The actual angle of impact would be very tricky to model since it would depend on the on the other knight it struck them, since armour is typically curved.

The point I was trying to make is that whatever you do to change your aim, the same happens to your opponent (assuming he has the same aim). The best you can do is to maximise the odds in your favour.



As for blood-bowl companion... did they still have the system where it was turn based, with it changing to the other player's turn when one of your guys got hit?

That's 3rd or 4th Ed I believe, where a turnover happens when something bad happens to one of your players during your turn (typically when you screw up on a roll). The BBC was for 2nd Ed and that ran much more like a skirmish wargame, although it was a bit more abstracted from 1st Ed, which was WFB for all intents and purposes.

Mr. Mask
2014-08-07, 03:52 PM
I'd heard of a few boxing/MMA turn-based games, haven't gotten to try many.

It's true that plate armour is sloped (though plate armour wasn't always worn to jousts), but the angle based off your distance from the fence is in addition to the sloping (more or less) and it forces them to look/lean more to the left.

Never did like that turnover rule... forced you to prioritize your actions in order of risk, while still having to plan your formation for if you get an unlucky roll.