Problem with jousting rules.

[apeloverage]

There seem to be some options that there's no reason to pick. That is, there are options X and Y such that, regardless of what your opponent chooses, you'll always do as well or better with X than with Y.

Aiming Points DC and DF seem to be inferior to CP--and CP allows a wider range of stances.

Similarly, Defensive Position 4 ('Steady Seat') seems to be superior to Position 5 ('Shield High').

[foster1941]

Presumably people who know what they're doing won't choose those options (and when people do choose those options you'll know they don't really know what they're doing)

[Deleted]

Mar 8, 2018 15:44:02 GMT -6 foster1941 said:

Presumably people who know what they're doing won't choose those options (and when people do choose those options you'll know they don't really know what they're doing)

No fooling.

Not all choices are necessarily equally viable. Shocking, I know.

[Deleted]

Hint: It's NOT a "problem," it's a design decision. How much reading have you done about actual medieval tournaments?

[derv]

I've fiddled with adding some unpredictability to the table through the idea of drift. Basically it adds a 2d6 roll prior to determining results. People can mess with the probabilities if they think it should be different. I basically eye balled what I thought was reasonable.

2-4, 10 (AS AIMED)	5-6	7	8-9	11-12
CP	DC	FP	SC	HELM
FP	DF	CP	SF	BASE
DC	CP	MISS	DF	HELM
SC	CP	MISS	SF	HELM
DF	DC	MISS	FP	BASE
SF	SC	MISS	FP	BASE
5-7 (AS AIMED)	2-4	8-12
HELM	CP	MISS
BASE	FP	MISS

So, a player picks FP Steady Seat. His opponent picks CP Lean Left. I roll a 9 for the first player and a 4 for the second. The first players lance drifts right to SF. The second player strikes where he aimed. The results are B/U (instead of B) and B.

[foster1941]

FWIW in an article in The Dragon #17 (which I remember because that's one of the issues I had in hardcopy BITD) Jon Pickens added a random element to the Chainmail jousting system, as well as incorporating modifiers for D&D character level and magical equipment. His systems seems a bit TOO random to me (it the relative position matrix becomes modifiers to a d20 roll) but I could see doing something similar based on, perhaps, 1d6 or 2d6 roll. I actually think I may have already written something like that up years and years ago, or maybe I just thought about doing so...

[derv]

Yeah, I was going to mention that article. But I thought the OP was strictly talking about Chainmail. I actually used some of the adaptations in my pbp here. Magic items weren't a consideration though. Essentially I liked the idea behind the article of benefiting from experience and gave it a whirl.

[gemini476]

I don't know that Breaks Lance/Helm Knocked Off leading to a near-guaranteed loss the next turn is that much of a problem, for multiple reasons.
The Jousting rules assume that it only lasts three "rides", so it's not all that serious if it occurs on ride 3.
Not to mention that you can still do whatever you wish in position 4, so a draw is quite possible. Somewhat unlikely, though, unless they also broke their lance/lost their helm during the last run -- they can take any position they wish, so you've only got a 14-in-48 (29%) chance of guessing right!

The mindgame, of course, is that they will probably take 4. Steady Seat as well since that one only has a 1-in-8 chance of unhorsing them and leads to no injuries, which means that you will presumably want to go FP against them as well to unhorse them and draw the game, except that knowing that they will likely go for 6. Shield Low and have your lance break, except knowing that you will go for CP and injure them as well as unhorse them, except knowing that you will both continue the Princess Bride exchange forever.

And also, of course, if they go for unhorsing you while you're in position 4 they'll break their lance and only add 19 to their tourney score rather than the 20 they'd get from a clean win so they may very well wish to keep you horsed for a ride if they feel confident enough in outsmarting you the next ride as well. (Perhaps they'll aim for your Helm to grab a free 3 points, since that's another option vs. 4. Steady Seat. 19 is probably plenty fine most times, though.)
In most cases B or H are pretty much just a delayed U, though, that's definitely true. Especially if you're using it in, for example, OD&D's one-on-one Lord fights.


Meanwhile, changing it to forcing position 4 or 6 changes the situation entirely. If you aim FP, you will unhorse them if they are in 4 but break your lance in either case -- in other words, them going Shield Low lets them capitalize on you next ride. If they are in 6, then, you should go for either CP (injures and unhorses, but if they're in 4 you break your lance) or SC (unhorses, just glances off if they're in 4).
The only relevant safe aim is SC, and the opponent knows that so will clearly choose 4 - but because of that, you will clearly choose FP.

To make a rough graph of it:
.....4...6
SC.G....U
FP.BU...B
or, with tournament scores:
.....4...6
SC.0/0....20/0
FP.19/0...-1/0*
* This repeats the conundrum from the opposite side.

The defender prefers B or G, preferably B, while the attacker BU or U, preferably U. SC is safer on a wrong guess, and rewards more on a successful one - FP is disastrous on a wrong guess, and rewards less on a successful one. SC is the logical option, I suppose.
The mindgames you can get into with this seem tricky.

[delta]

Mar 13, 2018 21:12:49 GMT -6 Piper said:

Tim Kask said this about the jousting rules, once upon a time. I saved it because I like the jousts.

The jousting table has a glitch in it; I have used it in the classroom, but had to make a modification. As it is printed, if you most assume a steady seat upon breaking your lance or having your helm knocked off, all your opponent must do is aim FP on the next pass and you will automatically be unhorsed. In the classroom, I give the option of assuming 4 or 6.

I have talked to Gary about this and he concurred.

That's what they do at the GaryCon Jousting Tournament (also: points-value changes; and always 3 rides, even if someone unhorsed).

[Stormcrow]

My only exposure to jousting is through Hollywood. I'd heard of three rides, but I've also heard of three lances, and that once unhorsed, the joust is basically over. What's realistic, and does the Chainmail jousting procedure reflect that?

[Deleted]

I don't have my full library with me, but jousts did indeed have a scoring system, and I in fact think Gary may have used an actual scoring list he found. But I can't swear to it.

[Stormcrow]

My guess is that understanding jousts by watching Hollywood stuff is like understanding boxing by watching Rocky movies.

[Deleted]

There are also rules that survive from the 15th and 16th century, and a few from the 14th. Those would be interesting to mine. For instance, that's where the rule penalty for missing comes from. It was a false pass; a "faux pas."

[derv]

I had the following in pencil in the margins of the jousting table:

0 pts. for glancing blow
1 pts. for breaking lance
3 pts. for knocking from horse
hits to the head frowned upon
best two out of three passes, if no one unhorsed.

Not sure where I got it from.

[apeloverage]

Mar 13, 2018 18:24:04 GMT -6 foster1941 said:

FWIW in an article in The Dragon #17 (which I remember because that's one of the issues I had in hardcopy BITD) Jon Pickens added a random element to the Chainmail jousting system, as well as incorporating modifiers for D&D character level and magical equipment. His systems seems a bit TOO random to me (it the relative position matrix becomes modifiers to a d20 roll) but I could see doing something similar based on, perhaps, 1d6 or 2d6 roll. I actually think I may have already written something like that up years and years ago, or maybe I just thought about doing so...

That article seems to fix most of the problems, but not all of them (the number for 'CP' is always higher than that for 'DF').

[Deleted]

Mar 20, 2018 5:11:22 GMT -6 apeloverage said:

That article seems to fix most of the problems, but not all of them (the number for 'CP' is always higher than that for 'DF').

Give me an objective, historically based reason why it should not be.

Do you actually know anything about real medieval jousting? What are you basing your opinion that this is a "problem" on?

[derv]

I guess he is working from the base assumption that all choices should be equal or balanced. Maybe looking at it as a game of chance instead of strategy?

National Geographic has a short article where they analyzed what wins a joust.

I could see taking The Dragon article and adding some variables based on these conclusions. The object was to knock your opponent from his horse. This can be achieved by hitting him in the center of his torso, knocking him back, or by striking him to one side causing him to pivot in the saddle and back. The key to winning a ride, considering an ideal point of aim, is- those who hit first and those who hit the hardest.

Variables could be considered for:

First strike: this could be a simple initiative roll.
Horse selection: generally destriers (bulky and stable) or chargers (fast and agile)
Speed: trot, canter, gallop.
Skill of rider: the article already incorporates this idea.

[Stormcrow]

When you're learning a new skill, your teacher will tell you, "Don't do such-and-such; it's not effective." The Chainmail jousting rules let you learn for yourself what is effective and what isn't. If your teacher told you, "Don't hold your shield too high; you'll be vulnerable," it would be no surprise if the Chainmail matrix reflected that. Listen to your teacher and don't choose that defense on the matrix.

[Red Baron]

Mar 15, 2018 15:27:19 GMT -6 derv said:

I had the following in pencil in the margins of the jousting table:

0 pts. for glancing blow
1 pts. for breaking lance
3 pts. for knocking from horse
hits to the head frowned upon
best two out of three passes, if no one unhorsed.

Not sure where I got it from.

Is that the scoring system used in the movie "A Knight's Tale"?

[derv]

Ha-ha! It'd be funny if it was.

[dragondaddy]

I used the Jousting Rules from Chivalry & Sorcery, instead of D&D, because Jousting Rules were not included in the LBB version of D&D, being actually included as a part of Chainmail, which just happened to be inconveniently out-of-print, and unavailable in my FLGS's. I actually got my hands on a copy of Chivalry & Sorcery first in 1978, and they had delightful critical hits tables as well, making Jousting the bloody death defying sport it actually was back in the Dark & Middle ages.


Chivalry & Sorcery, all about Knights with lances... and Dragons! ...and Magic! You need a PhD to learn all the rules though...


Tournament & Jousting Rules


Jousting Results

[kersus]

Be interesting to see what jousting champions say eg. www.extremejousting.com

I've met Shane a number of times and he's pretty easy to talk to, even when he has broken bones. These guys do some serious jousting and have a very different idea of what "riding" means on a horse.

[macmorrigan]

Curiously, for the Chainmail/OD&D system I wrote, I modified the existing jousting rules (which I also use) to create alternate rules for dueling. In play testing they worked rather well. The fact that the system is wholly not random offers a neat reprieve from most D&D style combat and it ends up resembling an advanced game of rock, paper, scissors. I did have to add a fair amount of additional rules to make it work, but I found the results enjoyable.

Anyway, sorry to interrupt.

[chicagowiz]

Jun 27, 2018 19:31:42 GMT -6 macmorrigan said:

Curiously, for the Chainmail/OD&D system I wrote, I modified the existing jousting rules (which I also use) to create alternate rules for dueling. In play testing they worked rather well. The fact that the system is wholly not random offers a neat reprieve from most D&D style combat and it ends up resembling an advanced game of rock, paper, scissors. I did have to add a fair amount of additional rules to make it work, but I found the results enjoyable.

Anyway, sorry to interrupt.

Well, with an interruption like that, it begs the question... would you be willing to share those rules?

[macmorrigan]

Sure! However the only easy thing I can do is point you to the game’s posting on DriveThruRPG:
www.drivethrurpg.com/product/244822/Faerie-Tales--Folklore-A-Roleplayers-Guide-to-the-Mythological-Earth

Of note, this forum was instrumental in helping me complete the project, so I look at this place a bit like hallowed ground.

(Oh yeah, the game’s community is also in my signature)

[Finarvyn]

back in the 1970's or early 1980's, Avalon Hill put out a couple of sports games called "Baseball Strategy" and "Football Strategy." Both were similar in style, but I'll use the football one as my example. The defensive player could pick a defensive card based on situation (run defense, pass defense, goal-line, etc) and would play it face down, then the offensive player would call out a play. The defender would flip over the card and both players could look at a matrix where the play and defense would match together to give a result.

The problem with those games is that everyone could look at the matrix, and folks could "work the system" by figuring out which offenses and/or defenses were statistically better than others. What I did back in the day was to add a third player (the referee) and made up cards for the offensive player so that both players would hand a card to the referee, who was the only one who got to look at the matrix. The referee would announce the result, but not say which cards had been played.


I used a similar system for my CHAINMAIL jousts back in the day. I put the attack positions on cards and each knight would choose which to play and hand it to the DM (me). Then I would announce the result for the joust without telling the players which attack had been selected by each. This worked well for me because most of my players aren't rules lawyers and didn't have access to CHAINMAIL so they didn't know what the matrix looked like for certain. Occasionally, if I thought one of my friends had figured out some sort of loophole, I might tweak the chart a little. (I would announce that I wasn't using the official chart but not say what changes were made, so the players couldn't "work the system" very well.)

[magremore]

Mar 15, 2018 12:39:53 GMT -6 Piper said:

Here is another set of rules that are a bit closer to what I remember, but they seem similar to the ones I quoted above. I’m just going to post the link because cutting and pasting from this page my iPad is a little more problematic.

www.medievalists.net/2015/01/medieval-rules-jousting/

Piper, That link has proven very useful. Thanks.

delta: re "That's what they do at the GaryCon Jousting Tournament (also: points-value changes; and always 3 rides, even if someone unhorsed).” Do you have those point-value changes handy? (googled to no avail)

Playing this today (first time using the rules) it seems there are only three aiming points worth using, and two (just barely possibly three) defensive positions worth using.

[DungeonDevil]

Does the Pendragon RPG have any rules about jousting? I'd be surprised if they didn't. (I don't have my collection on hand, otherwise I'd look 'em up.)

[delta]

Feb 18, 2019 17:03:29 GMT -6 magremore said:

delta: re "That's what they do at the GaryCon Jousting Tournament (also: points-value changes; and always 3 rides, even if someone unhorsed).” Do you have those point-value changes handy? (googled to no avail)

Great question. Those were never given to us in a written format -- I think they were either unstated or given only verbally by the person running the game. Fortunately, my friend Paul took a hi-res photo of the table that included the judge's record book of a bunch of matches, with M-G-B-H-U results circled for each ride, and a total score for each player over 3 rides. Using that and some math, we can deduce that the scoring must have been as follows:

• Miss: 0
• Glance: 1
• Break: 2
• Helm: 4
• Unhorse: 5

One other thing I should mention is that in the 2nd round of the event, each player submitted their pre-selected moves on paper in toto, with the opponent selected and all adjudication done out-of-sight. In particular, there was no allowance for responding to a possibly restricted ride by either player.