Navigation
Talk:Like A Velvet Glove

Talk:Like A Velvet Glove

From Ludocity

Jump to: navigation, search

Old forum comments

(The Ludocity website previously had integrated forums, but they fell into spam-covered decline and were shut down in 2015. The comments in this section have been automatically converted from that forum.)

Request for comments on this rather sketchy design:

http://ludocity.org/wiki/Like_A_Velvet_Glove --benhenley (talk) 2009-10-14 21:59:48

Seems like a good setup for some gambling and plea-bargaining. I think my only concern would be that the quieter players would see less of the action, if it's up to the players to initiate the duels - drunk extroverts will enjoy standing up and saying "I challenge you, sir, for impugning blah blah blah", and will (I'd guess) tend to pick other drunk extroverts to play off of. But sitting out for a round helps prevent that, and I suppose as soon as the drunker extroverts run out of honour, there's no point challenging them any more. And the quieter players can get plenty of sly gambling in without risking any honour.

Look forward to seeing this one play out at the Sandpit. --Kevan (talk) 2009-10-14 22:25:26

Picking names from a hat sounds like a good solution.

Does anything happen if you run out of honour? Given that nobody will want to duel against you, and that it seems unfair if you can still initiate uneven-risk duels against people who still have sashes, maybe the dishonoured players could be explicitly reduced to spending their final days drinking and gambling. --Kevan (talk) 2009-10-15 16:22:40

Yes, I guess if you have no honour, you can't initiate a duel. Holly was saying earlier that once the middle classes started interacting with the nobility, duelling declined because nobody wants to duel a bank manager. --benhenley (talk) 2009-10-15 16:26:05

Is it necessary to obey the (agreed) rules of a duel? Can I agree a duel to 'first blood', then go crazy with a sword in order to get all the target's honour, not just one sash? --gwyn (talk) 2009-10-16 09:12:22

I think if someone balks at the agreed duel and refuses to go through with it, it should cost them one honour.

I wouldn't allow someone to go beyond "first blood" if that hadn't been agreed - the seconds are very much supposed to set the terms of the duel. --benhenley (talk) 2009-10-16 09:56:27

So, second hits "don't count", unless agreed as a possibility at the start?

Is "accidental" killing in a "wounding" duel a useful mechanic? Reinforces that duelling is a fundamentally dangerous thing to do. And, of course, there's the "it was an accident, honest..." mechanic, especially if one person has a lot of accidents. I'd model this as headshots == death. --gwyn (talk) 2009-10-16 10:24:19

It was hard enough to moderate whether someone had been hit or not without looking for "accidental" wounds. Also, I don't think it's a good idea to encourage people to shoot each other in the face, even with Nerf guns. --benhenley (talk) 2009-10-22 11:06:25

So, the general idea is OK, but the details of this need reworking.

In a simultaneous duel, it's hard to see if someone was hit - although if they deny it, you can have the spectators vote, and since they have money on it, their verdict may not be disinterested, which is great.

The actual gambling should probably be done more formally, since players couldn't keep track of what bets they had made.

Having honour and money makes it too complicated to score at the end - players didn't seem to be able to count how much money they had and divide by 200 to work out how much extra honour it was worth.

Maybe the solution is to make "honour" a code that the players must obey, and make all the scoring about money.

A player suggested that the second should negotiate their fee, with the implicit threat of betrayal if they don't

It would be good to present the weapons for the duel in boxes, prepared by the seconds, so they're a surprise and also to facilitate sabotage. --benhenley (talk) 2009-10-22 11:59:33