jousting consequences

As per page 169, any of the options presented in the list for common consequences can be used if an opponent is defeated by reducing their Health to 0 in the joust.

1) It is preferable and sportsmanlike to choose unconsciousness though should the jouster intend on being honorable and fair (and should someone choose death or maiming as a consequence when they are both displaying honor and adhering to the rules of a joust then the winner can expect to have In Game consequences, such as being looked upon disfavorably or suspect of cheating).

2) Should one of the jousters be intent upon cheating then they can choose death as a consequence (although even still it will be looked upon suspiciously and with disfavor)

3) Should a jouster be subject to a cheater and yet still defeat cheater then they can reasonably inflict a more serious consequence (such as maiming) without In Game consequence, especially if the cheater was spotted cheating or appeared incompetent

4) If a competitor is using Eyes Fixed as their maneuver, then their opponent can choose maiming or death as a consequence without In Game repercussions (such as being suspect of cheating or incompetent) since most everyone knows or can be easily informed if their character would know know IC that not turning away before the impact is a risky (often foolhardy) tactic

5) Players should take all of the above into consideration and ultimately, as Damon said, speak with their opponent via PM (if it's another player character they defeated) on the consequences. Keep in mind though the setting of Westeros, if your opponent chooses an ill consequence such as maiming or death for please take it in stride and remember there is a reason you have destiny points. And the final note on number 5 is this, it is just a game. If your character is slain (even if you really liked the character) it should not be the end of the world. Draw up another character and jump back in. It's no different than when my Level 13 Fighter in D&D was sucked into a Sphere of Annihilation (and I had been playing the character for 5 IRL years), I just drew up another character and kept going.

I have to say that as much as I like the chronicle system, I dislike that a character has to choose for their opponent to die or be seriously hurt. It is unrealistic and does not fit the setting. People get seriously hurt or killed in RL sporting events, and jousting is more dangerous than most if not all modern professional sports. Those injuries are not (always) the result of someone's intent to do harm.

If any change were to be made, I would want there to be a random chance for serious mishap. As PCs, we have DPs to help us avoid such mishaps.

I of course will abide by Stranger's decision, and will update Ser Ronald's consequence when I'm not typing on my phone.

Thing is, consequences of defeat is often more narrative control than character intent. Except maybe on the battlefield, because if a character wants his foe dead, then it probably isn't too hard to make sure.

Like when Caleb maimed a guy in the melee. It was not Caleb that had any ill intentions, it was the player deciding that a mishap sounded fun. In the joust, I get the impression that all Symon the character cares about is to unseat his challenger and would in fact prefer no injuries to happen. Now, Symon the player may be a different matter entirely. And it is Symon the player that is given the narrative choice of the matter. In this case, we're talking about some no-name character, so I say go for whatever offers the best story. Unconsciousness if one wants a big argument about cheating scumbags for example. Or death if one wants the rumors for day 4 to say that this wedding is cursed.

Now, if it's consequences for a PC we're talking about, then I would generally advocate playing nice.

She did use the word "generally." lol

I agree Ayleth, narrative control is generally good. However, sometimes things just go catastrophically wrong despite everyone wishing for the contrary. I'm a big fan of organic stories as well as grand narrative arcs.

Not that it's terribly related, but in my home campaign the players would roll endurance tests when they suffered defeat. The Endurance test was Routine (6) so that if they made the test, they were fine. Five or less resulted in being maimed (at which point I would select an ability as per normal maim rules that fit the wound) and a 1 resulted in death. This mean that foes that fought to full wounds/injuries before accepting defeat had a very real chance of death, and made players admit defeat rather than fighting to zero health rather and counting on the Narrator to spare their character. Other results (ransom, taking the black) were RP results and wouldn't happen from normal defeat rules (as one could be both maimed and held for ransom, etc).

Anyways, it was good for PCs and narrators as it put the responsibility for what happens to a defeated character on the character and prevented hard feelings from players who were killed by the narrator in such situations.