The rules at current state that weapons are settled by mutual agreement. This is ok if swords are being used as you can compromise by allowing each to use his favorite blade. However in the case of fisticuffs what happens if one side wants this and the other refuses outright. Who has preference? I would of thought that the offended party in the case of a character being cuckolded should have total say in the class of weapon ie sword or fists, but what in the case of mutual cause ie court same mistress or polital debate.
What would be the outcome if neither side refused to budge, could it be put to London society to settle or would it be considered both had refused with the resulting disgrace.
Finally if you accept a duel but fail to show is this the same as actually refusing?

My view is that:

If there is cause for a duel and nobody challenges, or if a duel is arranged and neither character turns up, then there is no gain or loss of status.

If a duel is arranged, or a challenge with cause has been made, and one character turns up and the other doesn't, then it counts as refusing. (The refusing isn't really in what you say, it is in what you do.)

The "normal" socially accepted arrangement is to fight with your own choice of weapon until your opponent surrenders. Any other arrangement, such as fighting with fists or with the same weapon or to the third wound etc must be by mutual agreement and stated in both players orders. If one player insisted on fisticuffs not swords it would count as a refusal to fight.

This probably isn't clear in the rules - I will look again at the specific wording and try to make it clearer when they get revised next.

Thesse rules are based on En Garde "tradition" rather than history, where weapons were matched and, (in this period), duels were most often with pistols. It might be fun to make it more historical and closer to the real "code duello", what do people think?

Andy

Personally I am happy to fight with swords...seems more chance of surviving!

Ash

The important thing is that the rules are clear. I've had people argue weapons based on what they think was actually done at that time & various other rationalizations. It helps to point out "this is what the rules say," so the players will know if they are arguing for their own entertainment (or frustration).