Extended Contests

[Michael Bowman]

I ran Hero Wars for a group last year. I was using HW to wean them from D&D 3/e. It worked, primarily due to the excellence of the setting.

However, I had two problems with extended contests: 1) the searching and handling time, I like fast and transparent mechanics; and, 2) the bidding began to dominate the contests, rather than the description. So, I eventually converted the campaign to Fudge mechanics and continued.

But, I think I've found a way to run extended contests to my taste.

I will handle all the math in the contests. The players will tell me what they want to do, and I'll determine what their bid is, and will record AP changes. I will then describe what happens, and they will go on that for future actions. They can ask at any time to find out their and their opponent's AP total. I've  discussed my guidelines, so they have a pretty good idea of what I'd bid for what level of riskiness. I'll be using the Hero Wars program from the website to help me keep track.


Comments?

Michael

[Michael Bowman]

Another question about my proposed extended contest mechanic:

I'm interested in Fortune-in-the-Middle. I'm thinking this will preclude that, as the player won't know the result. Which makes me think my idea is not so good after all.

So, how can I run extended contests to make them more fluid, and less about the points bid and lost?

Michael

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Michael,

I suggest that the question deserves backing up a little. To help you with this, I need to know, How often did you run Extended Contests? What criteria did you use to employ them as opposed to Simple Contests?

This is a pretty big deal. I've found that nearly all concerns about the "game within a game" issue in Hero Wars can be solved at this level. That might not be the case for you, but we should make sure before getting into the Bids themselves.

Best,
Ron

[Michael Bowman]

I suggest that the question deserves backing up a little. To help you with this, I need to know, How often did you run Extended Contests? What criteria did you use to employ them as opposed to Simple Contests?

I normally ran 2 extended contests in a session. They tended to be the 2 battles during the session (don't forget, I was weaning D&D players, so combat was still their primary focus).

I've played one session with HW again. This time I did a battle (fighting off guards during a cattle raid) as a simple contest, and the debate with the clan chieftain on whether to offer self-judgment to end a blood feud as an extended contest (and one that only had one exchange, as the PC bid lots and the chief rolled terribly, ending the contest in one roll). This was a short session, as character creation took most of the time.

Michael

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Michael,

I bet you can anticipate my response ... that Extended Contests are best reserved for climactic resolutions - and by climactic, I don't mean "life-threatening," but rather "all about the important decisions."

My first session of Hero Wars was a lot like that last session that you described. I had expected, in fact, that the Extended Contest of the session would be a fight with some trolls, but as it turned out, we ran that as a Simple Contest (actually, each PC rolled separately, but each was Simple), and the Extended Contest became a "law rock" policy debate much like yours.

I also encouraged fairly large bids - in dramatic terms, I told them, bidding 3 points is a lot like writing/filming a scene in which the hero tipptyoes around wincing behind his shield and looking kind of unhappy to be there. I think you'll find that when you continue this policy, the opponents don't always roll badly like your chieftain did, and you'll get a lot more oomph out of the Extended Contests.

(Oh yeah, and the rulebook recommends that some NPCs get Hero Points of their own. I tended not to do this very much, as my NPCs tended to have brutally high scores a lot of the time. However, when they did, I kept it to just 1 so its use was dramatic; bumping a foe to a Success from a Failure just once in a Contest of any kind can be really exciting, if it's a rare thing.)

I definitely hear you when you describe the D&D transition as making Extended Contests problematic - clearly, as you point out, such players will equate "the fight" with "most significant," and furthermore, "more complex resolution" will be equated with "maximum whup-ass." I found it interesting that over time, my players reversed this assumption - they found that if you really want to kill/kick ass, stay with Simple Contests and augment the hell out of it, plus go nuts with Hero Points after the roll. Whereas Extended Contests represented highly nuanced situations in which the tension involved was actually a priority, as well as the possibility that lots of details could up swinging in different directions.

I suggest enforcing Simple Contests for most fights, at least for a while. It might be good that way to convey the idea that not all fights are equal: when the rubble runners try to chew on the player-characters, it's no big deal; but when the bandit who raped your cousin's daughter is finally flushed out of hiding, and you're the one who's cut off the escape route he's taken ... well, that is a big deal.

I also suggest simply taking the time to ask, "Why?" or "How?" when someone Bids - and also when they spend Hero Points, and also when the final AP outcome is settled. I speculate that you'll find that a lot of your players cannot yet distinguish between tasks and conflicts, such that they start with "I swing at him!" then go into kind of daze until the final-final outcome is numerically determined, then look at you and expect a full description.

Here's how I break it down:

1) The first announcement (with the Bid) is conflict-oriented, getting the goal of the Exchange settled. "I am scooting about, keeping them from surrounding me, and going after one with a full spear-charge once I get the drop on him!" [Note that "try to" is not part of the sentence, nor is any definite statement of how far the character gets with his actions.]

2) The second description (after rolls) is provisional, showing what things look to be happening during the flurry. Say the guy got a shitty roll and ended up with a Minor Defeat: "Whoa, turned out that one guy was luring you, and when you start to charge, the others all pile on you! Fuckin' bad, man, you're going down!" [Note that this information might emerge as players-GM dialogue, not just you narrating away. Note also that it's stated in present tense, and does not include an actual outcome.]

3) The final description (after AP lending, Hero Point spending, etc) is the blowout moment, and again, everyone's participation is welcome, it's not just the GM droning on. Here's where "what happens" is established. Let's say our spear-guy turned out to be out of Hero Points! Shit! As it stands, he's taken down to -5 by the various numbers. But a player in the same scene says, "I give you 10!" So what happens? "Whoa! It's a dogpile for a second, but one of the foes goes 'unnnhh!' and flies off, and your spear-butt's sticking up - you bopped him off. Now you bound out of the tangle, but you're still off-balance." [I mean, the guy did lose Action Points and he only has 5; he ain't sitting pretty.]

4) Final point: note that other players do not have to sit there and wait while all this is going on. AP lending can always get tossed in, at any stage; Augments across player-characters are certainly permitted prior to the rolls. I have found our game to be full of eager attention during one another's rolls. Getting away from the "my move," duhhhh, "my move" mode of play is a big priority in Hero Wars.

You probably know some or all of this already, so I don't mean to "instruct" you in some way. This is pretty much the way it played out for us, though.

Best,
Ron

[Michael Bowman]

I also encouraged fairly large bids - in dramatic terms, I told them, bidding 3 points is a lot like writing/filming a scene in which the hero tipptyoes around wincing behind his shield and looking kind of unhappy to be there. I think you'll find that when you continue this policy, the opponents don't always roll badly like your chieftain did, and you'll get a lot more oomph out of the Extended Contests.

Good idea.

(Oh yeah, and the rulebook recommends that some NPCs get Hero Points of their own. I tended not to do this very much, as my NPCs tended to have brutally high scores a lot of the time. However, when they did, I kept it to just 1 so its use was dramatic; bumping a foe to a Success from a Failure just once in a Contest of any kind can be really exciting, if it's a rare thing.)

That had slipped my mind. I would have used one in this situation, as it was somewhat anti-climactic to end so quickly.

I definitely hear you when you describe the D&D transition as making Extended Contests problematic - clearly, as you point out, such players will equate "the fight" with "most significant," and furthermore, "more complex resolution" will be equated with "maximum whup-ass." I found it interesting that over time, my players reversed this assumption - they found that if you really want to kill/kick ass, stay with Simple Contests and augment the hell out of it, plus go nuts with Hero Points after the roll. Whereas Extended Contests represented highly nuanced situations in which the tension involved was actually a priority, as well as the possibility that lots of details could up swinging in different directions.

Now this is interesting. Thinking about it I can see why the simple contest would be more definite, especially using HPs. I really like your advice about using Simple Contests for most fights as well. This makes that much more palatable for the players.

I also suggest simply taking the time to ask, "Why?" or "How?" when someone Bids - and also when they spend Hero Points, and also when the final AP outcome is settled. I speculate that you'll find that a lot of your players cannot yet distinguish between tasks and conflicts, such that they start with "I swing at him!" then go into kind of daze until the final-final outcome is numerically determined, then look at you and expect a full description.

You're right there. I didn't prompt for descriptions if they didn't provide them before as I wanted things to flow quickly. But, by asking I'll get them into the habit of doing so and, soon, won't need to ask.

Here's how I break it down:

This is a really useful breakdown.

4) Final point: note that other players do not have to sit there and wait while all this is going on. AP lending can always get tossed in, at any stage; Augments across player-characters are certainly permitted prior to the rolls. I have found our game to be full of eager attention during one another's rolls. Getting away from the "my move," duhhhh, "my move" mode of play is a big priority in Hero Wars.

Hmm. So, you allow people to lend or augment at any time rather than in their AP-determined order? Is that their "action" for the turn?

You probably know some or all of this already, so I don't mean to "instruct" you in some way. This is pretty much the way it played out for us, though.

Thanks. This should prove very useful.

Michael

[Stefan Drawert]

Ron Edwards suggested

4) Final point: note that other players do not have to sit there and wait while all this is going on. AP lending can always get tossed in, at any stage; Augments across player-characters are certainly permitted prior to the rolls. I have found our game to be full of eager attention during one another's rolls. Getting away from the "my move," duhhhh, "my move" mode of play is a big priority in Hero Wars.

while this sounds like adding an interesting drive to the conests, I doubt that it properly reflect the rules as written.
IIRC you ONLY can lend AP as per unrelated action, which is to be executed when it's your turn, to be determined by descending AP order.

my question is: did I misinterpreted the rules, did you, or was it a concious change?

the rules as written now are far stationary and IMHO not very much fun at all. they got this strange torn feeling of Robin Laws writing all the fun and action right out of his head, and Stafford & Co hitting the brake all the way to make it fit their microcosmic vision of Glorantha, like Feng Shui as rules set for Hârn.
and I really dislike the concept of Herobands as rational for PC joining for adventuring, not to mention the akward Wyters...

but just my two euro cent.

take care,

Stefan

[Ian O'Rourke]

Regarding the simple contest thing. Let's say the characters, say three of them have a run in with a group of enemies - but it's not the 'serious/dramatic' conflict - just the equivalent of the Lord of the Rings heroes wading through some Orcs. How would the simple contest work, and how would be it be exciting? Does it just involve one fail/succeed roll?

[Stefan Drawert]

Regarding the simple contest thing. Let's say the characters, say three of them have a run in with a group of enemies - but it's not the 'serious/dramatic' conflict - just the equivalent of the Lord of the Rings heroes wading through some Orcs. How would the simple contest work, and how would be it be exciting? Does it just involve one fail/succeed roll?

exactly so.

just one roll for each participent, compare how well each roll did [fumble, variuos degrees of failures and successes, and finally critical success] and then determine the results.
[for instance: minor success vs. minor failure = first won but didn't achieve everything he wanted]

Hero Wars wants you to see every single scene/action in play as a scene in a movie:
is it a quick scene, composed of a few short cuts [=dramatically unimportant] - then you'll use the quick & dirty simple  contest
or
is it a long shot, special background music theme, highly dramatic and important for the character and the story - then you'll use the more involving extended contest

while this may read a bit strange at first, it makes sense during actual play. no more any "I just wanted the pcs thrown into some short fight but it took us the whole evening" problems.
but, and this could be a big but, the players must [re-] act accordingly & add to the telling of events which are abbreviated by the few die rolls. otherwise this could turn out as a boring backfire...

overall I feel this mirrors cinematic actions of all kind very well.

take care,

Sedenya

[Ian O'Rourke]

The goal is to roll and then describe using the roll as an indicator - rather than describe and then roll? Thus avoiding the need to change your action or have mechanics in place to provide 'heroes' with a mechanism to ensure some level of description/intention matching the roll?

I can see the advantages in the simple contest and experimenting with it would be good - but it does seem to maybe trivialise things too much? Or result in 'one roll dictating all' rather than giving some too and throw? I realise that is the point, but since we have a 'rough and ready' rule that only one extended contest should exist in each adventure does that not put a whole lot of emphasis on a lot of succeed/fail single roles?

Though I suppose the wading through the Orcs to the music may be a succession of simple contests, and then the battle with the Orc Leader (or something, possible daft examples but you get my drift) would be the Extended Contest. Just wondering how those succession of individual contests pan out - it is a fail/succeed roll - if they fail the simple contest at the 'battle at the drawbridge' does that mean it's all over?

This is especially true when in Hero Wars you are more likely to roll for social interaction and other challenges potentially more than in other games.

By the way I really like the game (though its hard work) and I am really looking forward to a hopefully, much clearer, second edition. I even think it may be the closest match of goals (admittedly mine) to system for me.

I have no examples of play of my own though, so I just to poke and jab at those that do :)