A couple of items I'd like to respond to ...
Hannibal wrote:UNFORTUNATELY, you look at the Houserules that Bryk/GM Matt set up for the Lite game that HE is GM'ing. Not mine.
...
In fact, every Duel that has ever run has had the 2-turn rule, usually mentioned and then stressed as a reminder in the Houserules. Except for Bryk's. Bryk took an old Houserules set of mine, and crossed oput the bit about 2 turns. His is the only case. As fate would have it, you defaulted to HIS rules, not any that I've written. Unlucky, but hardly my fault ... I wasn't even aware of Bryk's version of my rules. The rules are as I've written in the current, on-offer, Lite game-to-join. It's always been 2 turns ... except for the place you looked.
I've considered your point on 1 versus 2 turns, but I'm not persuaded. As designer and as GM, I choose to stick with 2 turns, as per normal Duel rules and as per my latest Houserules on latest Lite game for sign-up.
I don't want a hiuge debate on the design of Duel. It works. It's worked for 20 games. I'll listen, but on the issue of 1 or 2 turns I've listened and considered and decided. GM's can depart from my standard rules, of course; but as GM in this game I'm sticking to them. I've thought it through a lot.
I completely agree that 2 turns of no headhunting in Duel games works quite well. The reason the Duel-lite I setup for Vortan & Dragonette was setup for 1 was mainly due to it being my first Duel game setting up, and I left the default of "1" in the "turns of safety" GM settings for the game, and didn't know how to un-do that. So, I altered the house rules to match, not knowing that the engine itself would enforce the 2 turns. So, it was a technical/administrative glitch, which I don't expect I'll make again.
But, as Han has said ... 2 turns of safety out of the gate for a Duel game really does improve the game, imo.
Saladin wrote:I don't really like the forced naps in the full duel. I feels just like an artificial change to add a bit more strategy to the game (which it already has plenty).
I think the NAP idea is simply brilliant. Of course it's an "artificial change to add ... more strategy" ... that was its very purpose. Not exactly sure how you separate an "artificial" change from a "natural" change when it comes to designing games (actually, I do understand how some rules "feel natural" and others feel "forced", but still) -- all rules are imposed by the designer. From what Han has said, the intention was to add a bit more to think about, and allow for some additional strategies and tactics to be employed ... and that seems to fit it perfectly.
-Bryk