A card-based duelling mechanic

-


 

Many a swashbuckling adventure contains a fencing duel or ten: our hero facing off against one or more opponents, their swords clattering as the fight takes them around the scenery in a way that is very difficult to emulate with a succession of attack (or damage) rolls. Where are the feints? where are the clever reversals?

Instead, I present here a duelling mechanic (or perhaps rather a minigame?) using a deck of playing cards to emulate the back and forth of a classic fencing duel for two combatants:

First, unless the game has a clearly defined attacker, both players draw a card to determine who starts on the offence and who starts on the defence. Highest card is offence.

The duel is played out over a number of rounds, in the beginning of each round, cards are drawn, then cards are played, continuing until one combatant is defeated.

In the first round, the players each draw a hand of five cards. In later rounds, they will draw two new cards for their hand, to replenish those played.

The offence player plays one card face-up, the telegraphed attack, as well as one card face-down, the feint attack.

The defending player then plays two card face down, the primary parry and the feint counter.

The attacking player then decides if they want to continue with their telegraphed attack or with their feint attack. If the attacker chooses the former, the defender flips their primary parry, for the latter, they flip their feint counter.

The player with the highest valued card wins the round (the defender wins ties). This will have different outcomes depending on who won and how:

  • If the offence won with either a telegraphed attack or a feint attack, the defence takes damage, discarding a card at random from their hand.
  • If the defence won with against telegraphed attack, the roles swap. The defence player becomes offence, and vice versa.
  • If the defence won with against feint attack, the roles swap. The defence player becomes offence, and vice versa. In addition, the player who was offence takes damage, discarding a random card from their hand, except if the defence wins from a tie.

If a player must discard but has no cards left, they will draw one fewer card in all future rounds. If a player is reduced to drawing zero cards, they have lost the duel.

If a player on the offence only has one card to play, they are exhausted and only have a telegraphed attack. If a player on the defence only has one card to play, their card will apply to whichever attack the offence chooses.


This fairly simple card (bluffing?) minigame can maybe try to capture some of the excitement of a swashbuckling fencing duel. It can also easily be modified with variant rules, or additional complications to fit into a wider RPG system. Here is a couple of additonal options:

  • All face cards (jack, queen, king) share a value of 11 (or even 10) - this would lead to more ties, and thus more reversals without damage. Aces could still be 1 higher?
  • Incorporate character stats/skills into the game: better fencing skills gives a value bonus to all cards, better stamina/endurance gives a larger starting hand.
  • Suit-based mechanics: suit based tie-breakers? character skills giving bonuses to specific suits? or specific card values?
  • Fencing beyond the one-on-one duel? choosing a target to attack, while defending against the rest?

I don't have any conscious RPG inspirations for this minigame, but I have been reading His Majesty the Worm lately, and its use of tarot might have wormed its way into my brain.

Hopefully this rudimentary minigame might inspire you, please let me know if you have any thoughts, feedback, or use it for anything!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A method for condensed worldbuilding

-
Image
  An important part of playing role-playing games is a shared understanding of the fictional world. A common assumption is that the game master knows everything there is to know about the world, and the players know some subset of this. Of course, what the players know, and what their characters know might not always fully overlap, which can cause issues in the game. What happens when my diplomat character wants to talk about the different empires he has visited in his travels, but I, the player have forgotten, or worse, haven't been told about them? A common way of countering this problem is shared worldbuilding on the fly, having the GM share their power of "just making something up" with the players. However, this may not always be a satisfactory solution. Sometimes it is just nice to have a shared foundation to build on from the start, not having to nail it together while we are actually in the middle of some other encounter. Having a pre-existing idea of the world ca
Read more

Toppling the pillars of the OSR: against lethality

-
Image
  One of the accepted wisdoms in the OSR (as codified in e.g. the Principia Apocrypha ), as well at the NSR (as defined by Yochai Gal or Pandatheist) is that lethality is good, and a core component of OSR/NSR play, because it means that player choice has real consequence. I do not entirely disagree with this, but I also do not entirely agree. My opinion aligns more with Pandatheist's follow-up post , arguing that "consequential" would be a better term. Perhaps my brain is poisoned with modern "trad" ideology, but when playing longer campaigns rather than one-shots, I find that the characters tend to evolve beyond vehicle's for the players' problem solving, developing interesting quirks and personalities that it would be a shame to lose because of an unlucky dice-roll (because that is one OSR tenet I do still believe in - the sanctity of the dice result). A dramatic death because of calculated risk gone wrong, or a heroic last stand against an ogre whil
Read more

Rules are a Safety Tool

-
Image
  I have recently been reading Fabula Ultima (more thoughts on that in a future post), and one thing that struck me is how often the rules text emphasises to not deviate from the rules-as-written unless everybody consents. This feels like a departure from the tabletop culture of allowing the GM to override the rules whenever it suits the game, or come up with their own house rules and expect the table to accept them. However, after further deliberation, it appears to me that this can be because the rules are a safety tool. Many people with more experience and knowledge and me have written about safety tools, so I will not go into deep detail here (see e.g. the TTRPG Safety Toolkit ), but one thing that seems generally true is that they only really work when everybody engages with them in good faith. They will not stop a problem player, who can easily ignore them, abuse them, or just generally cause an uncomfortable situation. What they are good for, is preventing those who want to eng
Read more