On Sale: GamesAssetsToolsTabletopComics
Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags

One Hit Duel

A topic by Adrian Thoen created Aug 28, 2019 Views: 225 Replies: 4
Viewing posts 1 to 4
Submitted(+1)

Welcome back Another question podcast! 

I love the idea of 1 HP RPGs, and want to take it a step further. Instead of having 1 HP each, what if those involved in a conflict share 1 hitpoint? I've been experimenting with using standard playing cards as a resolution system lately and listening to the HP episode of AQ on my way to work got some ideas sparking. I have the bare bones of the core mechanic drafted out, with some concepts for peripheral systems that aren't about conflicts.

There's no skill tests, only duels. I don't have the fictional framing yet, either 1 on 1 duels in robots, or dance battles, or swords or guns or debates or rap battles. Whatever the setting, these conflicts play out over time, where individual stakes have fictional impact and consequences accumulate over time. The key tension is deciding when to forfeit, and how much of a cost you can claim from the victor. When does the chance of victory become too expensive VS the reward? Do you abandon this battle to make your opponent weaker for the war?


Duelling:

Players set the stakes for the Duel, discard any cards in their hands they don’t want  and draws up to a hand of [5] cards.

Stakes are things like:

  • A moral or rhetorical victory
  • Social status or renown
  • Physical wellbeing
  • the affections of someone they both court
  • a ransom or valuable trinket
  • territory
  • military supremacy


    Players flip a card each from the deck, the player with the highest card chooses who goes first. If it’s a tie draw again until one player has a higher card.

    Players take turns to attack each other.

    The Attacker  plays a card face down, and describes their attack – what they say, how they strike, what they are aiming for.

    The Defender then chooses 1 of the following:

    • Block: The Defender plays a card from their hand face down and describes how they attempt to block, evade, or nullify  the attack.
      • Both players flip their cards, the highest value wins. Defender wins ties.
      • If the Attacker wins, the Defender’s [Concession] of the matching Suit is eliminated.
      • If the Defender wins, their [Concession] is not eliminated.
    • Endure: The Defender does not play a card, but instead describes how they weather the storm of the attack and accepts to have one of their [Concessions] eliminated.
      • The Attacker flips their card, and the Defender’s [Concession] of the matching suit is eliminated.
    • Concede: The defender yields to the attacker, forfeiting the conflict. The Attacker wins the stakes, but may need to make a [Concession] to the defender.
      • The Defender holds out their remaining Hand, and the attacker randomly selects 1 card.
      • If the selected card matches one of the defender’s [Concession]s that have not been Eliminated, the Attacker suffers that penalty.
      • All cards are discarded, and play resumes until another conflict arises
    • If the Conflict is not over, the flipped cards are discarded and the Defender becomes the attacker & the process starts again.

    [Concession]s cause permanent harm to a character, reducing their hand size or meaning they never take the first turn as Attacker, or permanently eliminate a [Concession] Characters don’t improve over time, they get injured and become less effective.

    There's still lots of work to do but i'd love to hear folks' thoughts about the sort of setting they'd like to see this in, or any mechanical holes they can spot.

    Sounds playable! It'll heavily depend on how fictionally-interesting you can get those concessions to be.

    From Apocalypse World v2's "Board a Moving Vehicle" move:

    To board a moving vehicle, roll+cool, minus its speed. To board one moving vehicle from another, roll+cool, minus the difference between their speeds. On a 10+, you’re on and you made it look easy. Take +1forward. On a 7–9, you’re on, but jesus. On a miss, the MC chooses: you’re hanging on for dear life, or you’re down and good luck to you.

    Fictional positioning x small mechanical changes makes for good play. You don't want players to just ignore the fictional basis, I don't think.

    Submitted

    Very true! That little note of fictional context makes the choices much more impactful feeling. Like when videogame devs change only the sound a gun makes, and players start saying it's overpowered even though it's not doing any extra damage.


    I'm still debating whether Duet of Steel is going to have a more solid setting, or be the premise of a conflict made of several confrontations over a period of time in different contexts created by the players. I love the idea of duelling mechs, or pistols/swords at dawn, or two rival immortals pitting their wits over centuries and milennia, or two crabby old philosophers with a public feud in the style of Diogenes & Plato.

    One option is multiple playsets with custom fictional context that helps establish these settings. It all depends on how much writing I want to do.

    Perhaps for the jam, pick one setting to get it done, and then consider whether it's easy to adapt after that?

    Submitted(+1)

    The first draft is done for A Duet of Steel is ready! 

    Check out the rules and playsheet here!

    A Duet of Steel is a game about Duelists caught in an ongoing conflict engaging in Duels where they affect each others effectiveness until one party decides to lose their only hitpoint & forfeit the Duel. 


    This version has the players construct their own setting and do more of the interpretation & creative heavy lifting. The next step is to get at least one specific setting completed for the Jam.