Jousting: Broken Lance Rule

[delta]

The Chainmail Jousting Matrix has a whole lot of "B" (Break Lance) results, and a single "H" (Helm Knocked Off) result. Footnote to those results says: "Any Knight who breaks his lance or has his Helm knocked off must assume position 4 during the next ride."

Now, such a result immediately concludes the joust on the next ride, because the rational opponent (knowing the target is now in position 4), can obviously pick the FP (Fess Pale) aim point and score the B/U (Breaks Lance/Unhorsed) result there. If the game is being played for points, then the opponent should likewise pick the 4 defense, probably also resulting in a B/U result, and so winning on points (including the 1-point differential from the initial broken lance; and avoiding any results of plain U for a tie or U/I for a loss). So gameplay and strategy-wise, that's a little wonky.

But the thing I'm really asking about: Anyone know what the motivation for inventing that (strange) rule was? Some historical rule, or scene from a book? Is it meant to represent an in-joust rule adjudicated by stewards, or some disadvantage to the jostled knight? The judge running it at the last GaryCon I attended explained it as a squire running to get a new lance, and so the knight was making the next ride not fully set. Is that the initial idea, or something else?

An added wonkiness, of course, is that the rules treat breaking your lance as something to be penalized (both in points and auto-loss restriction on next ride), whereas most current interpretations of jousting I see today consider it something to be rewarded (e.g., GaryCon point system, Full Metal Jousting, etc.). What understanding made that flip, I wonder?

[angantyr]

My impression is that the research done on jousting was rather limited, contrary to Gronan's (?) comments on this in an earlier thread on this sub-forum. I say this mostly because I don't really know of any solid research on jousting that was done c.1970s - much that has been done is much more recent. Given that the 1e AD&D DMG specified absurdly out of date references for arms & armour (leading to Victorian Era hallucinations such as "splinted mail" etc.) I suspect the rules on jousting were based more on thin air than anything else.

[Phenster Dragorgn]

Mar 30, 2021 19:35:25 GMT -6 delta said:

Anyone know what the motivation for inventing that (strange) rule was?

I’ve been pondering the same question lately, delta. From what little I can glean from the internet, jousting rules evolved over the few centuries the sport was in vogue and differed from place to place as well.

I found two specific references to breaking the lance. To make it more fun, the two sources oppose each other. A sort of joust.

In 14th-century Iberia, the goal of the joust was to break your lance! Noel Fallows translates King Alfonso XI’s rule for the Order of the Band:

“And if in these four courses one knight should hit the other, splintering his lance, and the knight upon whom that lance splintered did not break his own lance by striking his opponent, he shall be vanquished, for he did not break his lance.”—Noel Fallows, Jousting in Medieval and Renaissance Iberia, cited in Medieval Rules for Jousting on the Medievalist.net. (Otherwise, the book is available on Amazon for a hundred bucks.)

Speaking of the time of “the minority of Henry III,” which I take to be circa 1200, another source, Salzman, writes:

“These early tournaments were very rough affairs, in every sense, quite unlike the chivalrous contests of later days; the rival parties fought in groups, and it was considered not only fair but commendable to hold off until you saw some of your adversaries getting tired and then to join the attack on them; the object was not to break a lance in the most approved style, but frankly to disable as many opponents as possible for the sake of obtaining their horses, arms, and ransoms.”—L. F. Salzman, English Life in the Middle Ages, London: Oxford, 1926 (202).

What understanding made that flip, I wonder?

I also saw some texts that mention safety became more of a concern. Could they maybe have turned around the object of the game: you failed to unhorse but breaking the spear is a sign you almost did. Conjecture.

I like your idea that it might have come from a book. I don’t remember my Ivanhoe so well.

[Phenster Dragorgn]

Browsing Ivanhoe (great read), I don’t find anything flagrant yet. Lances break left and right with no apparent ramifications.

I do see a couple entries that give cause for conjecture.

In the first encounter between Bois-Guilbert and the Disinherited Knight, Scott describes the latter’s attack:

“That champion had, in the beginning of his career, directed the point of his lance towards Bois-Guilbert’s shield, but, changing his aim almost in the moment of encounter, he addressed it to the helmet, a mark more difficult to hit, but which, if attained, rendered the shock more irresistible.”—Walter Scott, Ivanhoe

The helm is a difficult target. Knocking it off an opponent demonstrates the knight’s prowess. The knight earns three points, and, to simulate an advantage, the rules oblige the opponent to take a Steady Seat the following ride.

That doesn’t help with Breaks Lance, which in historical sources seems to be the opposite case than the rules present.
__________

I wonder what the Domesday Book #6 iteration shows. And is there a pre-Domesday version? Given differing provenance for each of the other rulesets in Chainmail, where did Jousting come from?
__________

What if the original rules were Breaks Lance +1 and the opponent takes Steady Seat next ride…?

Not speaking of the breaking of the lance but the possibility of injury:

“The antagonist of Grantmesnil, instead of bearing his lance-point fair against the crest or the shield of his enemy, swerved so much from the direct line as to break the weapon athwart the person of his opponent—a circumstance which was accounted more disgraceful than that of being actually unhorsed; because the latter might happen from accident, whereas the former evinced awkwardness and want of management of the weapon and of the horse.”—Ivanhoe

Could it be, also in an earlier instance of the rules, that an “I” result was -10 for the attacker?

[delta]

Excellent stuff, Phenster Dragorgn! Thanks for pursuing that and writing up your thoughts.

[asaki]

Mar 30, 2021 19:35:25 GMT -6 delta said:

The Chainmail Jousting Matrix has a whole lot of "B" (Break Lance) results, and a single "H" (Helm Knocked Off) result. Footnote to those results says: "Any Knight who breaks his lance or has his Helm knocked off must assume position 4 during the next ride."

Now, such a result immediately concludes the joust on the next ride, because the rational opponent (knowing the target is now in position 4), can obviously pick the FP (Fess Pale) aim point and score the B/U (Breaks Lance/Unhorsed) result there. If the game is being played for points, then the opponent should likewise pick the 4 defense, probably also resulting in a B/U result, and so winning on points (including the 1-point differential from the initial broken lance; and avoiding any results of plain U for a tie or U/I for a loss). So gameplay and strategy-wise, that's a little wonky.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=459104&sid=bfbc0537f8b5b279f031a36993eb472e#p459104

"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 gve the option of assuming 4 or 6.

I have talked to Gary about this and he concurred."

[delta]

Jul 31, 2021 22:56:18 GMT -6 asaki said:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet...

Thanks for the reminder! I was aware of that but wanted to focus on the motivation (why?) for the rule, if anyone was aware of such. I've also played under that modification at GaryCon. There's more discussion of that quote and the strategy implications in this prior thread over here.

[asaki]

Aug 5, 2021 15:52:44 GMT -6 delta said:

I was aware of that but wanted to focus on the motivation (why?) for the rule, if anyone was aware of such.

Idunno. Like most of (A)D&D, it's probably just something that Gary overlooked.

But the whole historic "breaks vs. no breaks" is interesting.

Meanwhile, you've got movies and television where jousts were a source of violent entertainment... ¬_¬

[naiyor]

I was wondering the same thing last week. I do like the idea of offering 4 and 6 positions...still gives some chance but it recognizes a bonus.