What makes an extended contest fun and interesting?

[Vaxalon]

First, read these two posts:

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=601&page=1#Item_8

In my highly limited experience with extended contests in HQ, they have seemed fairly unnecessary.

When do they work?

[Mike Holmes]

Actually I think that "unnecessary" is a good description of extended contests. The default for all HQ contest are simple contests. The unenlightening answer to the question of when they "work" is somewhat tautological: they work whenever the players feel that they will work. That is, after you get some experience with them, you get a feel for when they are interesting, and when not.

So, Fred, if you're saying that you never feel that they will add anything, then perhaps for you they won't. In which case we'll never use them for you. That's just fine if that's how it works out.

But, for me, I do like them in certain circumstances. When do they work for me? Well, both of Josh's examples were from my play with him, and I concur with him that we chose well for those. Another one from play with Josh that I remember well was his character and Julie's in my game having an extended contest of wordplay to put the other character off guard - yep, as I remember the stakes were really mostly just to disconcert each other. The only word I can use for the result is to say that it was Shakespearean. No, we didn't recite blank verse at each other, in fact we didn't narrate too much of the conversation. But you felt that the back and forth was the sort of thing that you'd read in Taming of the Shrew or something.

That's the sort of thing that I feel "works," contests that, if it were a movie or play, would take a long while to get through on screen. And I mean a pretty long time. For example, the movie the Princess Bride has some examples that I would say would take extended contests to resolve.When Westley first fights Inigo Montoya in the "I'm not left handed" fight, the back and forth there would take an extended contest to reproduce. Same when Inigo fights the six-fingered man, and makes several rounds where his action is to simply say, "My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!" (counting on his huge relationship ability to his dead father to carry the day). The Fire Swamp could be an extended contest, or even a Hero Quest - one that fails as they don't end up escaping.

Whereas all of the tests in the Fire Swamp are simple contests. Even fighting the ROUS doesn't really have any back and forths. Narrating it, you'd say something like, "They struggle fiercely, the ROUS getting a few bites in, but in the end Westley hears a fire jet about to erupt, and throws the ROUS onto it just as the flames burst forth, vanquishing it."

The key is that there are no changes of tactics, no real changes in situation, etc. Another example of a movie situation that I always use is that of the final fight in a Kung Fu film between the protagonist and the bad buy boss. That's got precisely the sort of back and forth detail that an extended contest can produce.

Now, all this said, doing this sort of hindsight analysis is relatively easy, I'll admit. Looking at an impending contest, and trying to determine if it'll be cool to do with an extended contest output, takes more analysis. But the basic question is, "would it be cool to have a contest here that's like the duel of wits that Westley has with Vezzini in The Princess Bride, or the final fight of a Kung Fu film?"

Remember this is a Robin Laws design, so there's one rule we can throw out there right away: never have extended contests with mooks. If the character doesn't have a name, or at least some thematic meaning (I'm reminded of a nameless warrior that Conan fights in the mountains while going from country to country in one story), then he's definitely not worth an extended contest. That's not the same as saying that you should always have extended contests when against named characters, far from it. Just that the opposition needs to have some real meaning for the characters.

There was once an example we went over here of having an extended contest to climb a tower, it being a key obstacle to some hero. What you look for, too, is the number of augments that a character is likely to be able to bring to bear. If the character isn't invested in terms of relationships, values, and personality, then it's probably not worth an extended contest. But, given the right circumstances, even an inanimate object can count as being a suitable opponent.

If you're eager just to know the outcome, do a simple contest. But if the situation is such that you want to draw out the anticipation of that outcome, then that's when you want to do an extended contest. Sometimes it just takes a bit more lead-in narration to do a resolution description justice.

Anyhow, that's my opinion on the subject. Again, it's entirely a subjective thing, however, and each individual will have their own opinions on when it suits things to do an EC. As a group you have to agree on when specifically you want to do these, so there's often some compromise. But, generally, it's not too hard to come to a consensus on when to do an EC. When in doubt, err on the side of moving things forward with a simple contest, IMO.

Mike

[joshua neff]

As Mike said, in both of those instances, doing the conflict as an extended contest seemed absolutely right. In the first example, the back and forth of actions and APs gave the seduction a cool dramatic feel that I don't think we would have gotten with a simple contest (just narrating the back and forth). Plus, since I didn't want the NPC to be seduced by Mike, it gave me a chance, round by round, of throwing difficulties at him and gave Mike a chance to put different modifiers (from augments and actions) in. In the second example, I think it would've been disappointing for Ryan to have his character uncovered as the villain after just one roll of the dice. It certainly would've been disappointing if it had been my character. Plus, this was one of the biggest dramatic moments of that run--Ryan's villainy was one of the main conflicts that needed resolving. As a player in the game (even as the GM), it wouldn't have been nearly as much fun to resolve the whole thing as a simple contest. In the rules, extended contests are said to be there for the big dramatic moments, with large AP bets, gains and losses meant to reflect camara close-ups, music score swells, slo-mo and "bullet time" moments, and so on. I've found that extended contests do exactly that. Both of those examples I gave definitely felt cinematic and dramatic to me.

[mneme]

IMO -- the extended contest rules don't really work mechanically -- it's in the interest of the weaker character to go all in as soon as possible, and nothing can stop them from doing this.

OTOH, the concepts behind extended contests are cool -- they're basically hit points for a given conflict.  I think they would work very well indeed if one came up with guidelines/limits for how much could be staked on a given action -- or even just had assigned a stake based on the description of the action (GM-judged, consensus, negotiated, whatever).

[Mike Holmes]

You may have a point, Joshua. I don't want to get into the deep theory about it here, but the question is whether or not the "pseudo-gamism" urge to manipulate the system mechanically to win creates the "closeout" effect regularly, and if that's really not in the best interests of the narration.

There are several mitigating factors here, but I do agree that this may be slightly problematic at times. From what I've seen in play, however, it's not often practically problematic. That is, on those occasions that I've seen players go for an early closeout because they are behind, I think it was probably not the best idea to be doing an extended contest. And, occasionally it actually makes dramatic sense.

This is actually a cool self-correction feature. That is, any contest which probably should have been a simple contest will tend to resemble one as much as possible. For ones that really are dramatically interesting, it seems to me that players are willing to bid lower, risking more HP, to drag the contest out for a considerable time. Just what I've seen.

Mike

[Valamir]

or even just had assigned a stake based on the description of the action (GM-judged, consensus, negotiated, whatever).

They do work like that.  If you describe your character gingerly tiptoeing into combat and then put up all your points you should expect a responce from your fellow players.  I forget the exact verbage used, but IIRC the text is pretty clear that the amount bid should be in scale with the narration.

Also, there is a mechanical benefit to not go all in all at once if you have friends in the combat.  You can quite effectively fight a delaying action hoping for another character with more points to come bail you out before you get squashed...which can't happen if you bet it all in one roll.

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, I misread that the first time. Ralph's right, the rule is that the bid must match the action taken. What does happen is that players do the reverse thing...they decide to bid all the AP, and then figure out an action that would merit that. But at least that takes the player thinking away from his character motives to accomplish. If he's thinking character first, the AP bids will always be dramatic.

The text also encourages players at least, to think dramatically first. They go out of their way to point out that you can "game" it if you're behind, but that it's not always funnest to do so.

Mike

[Ian Cooper]

I have to agree with the principle that you should use a simple contest as the default, moving only to an extended contest when play calls for it. When does play call for it. my yardstick is the 'desire to narrate':

• When a player wants one. Players become pretty good after a while at knowing whether 'this is important to me I want to savour every moment' or 'I just want to get this done' So I negotiate.
• If you are both going to use the same ability, round-after-round, with little narration beyond 'I use my x' and 'he uses his y' then a long extended contest will get dull fast. An extended contest is about the desire to narrate what is happening in detail. No desire, no interesting extended contest. This is an amplifications of the point above.
• The no-named characters rule of Mike's is good, very good. But for me the point about desire to narrate trumps this. Sometimes a player just wants to savour his character's ability to give the opposition a good kicking. And I'm fine with that. Think of this as the teaser to a James Bond movie, we want to know how cool you are. But like a James Bond trailer, you need to be cool
• The worst thing I do is to use an extended contest as a filler. I don't know what to throw out next so I'll throw in an extended contest to soak up attention while I regroup. This is a variation of 'man enters room with the gun' and I think its bad behaviour on my part whenever I do it. Try to avoid it, I know I'm trying to break out of that habit.

[joshua neff]

Fred, have any of these posts answered your question?

[Vaxalon]

Yes.

Not sure what I can add to that...

[Web_Weaver]

In our game we have begun to use extended contests to cover long or extended dramatic sequences, like travelling.

For example, in a recent heroquest, we had to find our way through a maze of hills. The maze of hills opposed us with various augments on its basic difficulty, in order to  add flavour to the encounters within, each lasting for a round. Example "augments" were roving spirits, a gambling trickster, and a gang of broo. As players we were rolling on our most appropriate terrain navigation skills, but could adapt to the flavour of each encounter with augments relevent to the situation at hand.

As a method of telling the story of our journeys this has proved both effective and satisfying, and can be adapted to any number of situations. An old fashioned tunnel crawl would be a very different experience using this system.

[Der_Renegat]

In our game we have begun to use extended contests to cover long or extended dramatic sequences, like travelling.

For example, in a recent heroquest, we had to find our way through a maze of hills. The maze of hills opposed us with various augments on its basic difficulty, in order to  add flavour to the encounters within, each lasting for a round. Example "augments" were roving spirits, a gambling trickster, and a gang of broo. As players we were rolling on our most appropriate terrain navigation skills, but could adapt to the flavour of each encounter with augments relevent to the situation at hand.

As a method of telling the story of our journeys this has proved both effective and satisfying, and can be adapted to any number of situations. An old fashioned tunnel crawl would be a very different experience using this system.

Hi Web_Weaver !

this sounds really interesting but im not sure i understand how "roving spirits, a gambling trickster, and a gang of broo" actually work as an augment to the maze of hills.
So this contest is really a series of chained simple contests, while the "main" extended contest is finding your way through the hills ?
What does the gambling trickster do ?

best

Christian

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Christian,
Glad to have piqued your interest.

im not sure i understand how "roving spirits, a gambling trickster, and a gang of broo" actually work as an augment to the maze of hills.

We are specifically expanding the system to see if things hang together. Imagine it as a  monster:

Maze of Hills
Skills- Difficult to navigate 3W2, Dark & Misty 5W, Roving Spirits 18W, Gambling Trickster 9W, Disease infested Broos 8W2
(skill list is Narrator only info)

Now, the character with the highest navigation skills opposes the Difficult to Navigate and everyone else provides relevent augments.

So this contest is really a series of chained simple contests, while the "main" extended contest is finding your way through the hills ?

No, in fact this is what we are trying to avoid, chained simple contests can get messy. Instead, the Maze of Hills and the "joined players" bid AP and act against the maze.

Where we detract slightly from the standard EC model is in specifying each round which augment the Maze of Hills is using and generally having it and the players attack each other once.

The rest is just selecting situational augments from the players to overcome the obstacle and a few (but minimised) unrelated actions.

What does the gambling trickster do ?

In our game this was very specific, but to imagine an example:
One would narrate the Maze's attack as "you all come across an old man who offers to help you find your way, but he insists that you first roll some dice with him". He bids high AP as the GM wants this to be a significant encounter, and this is reflected by narrating "the area is very misty and you all feel momentarally lost".   
The skill would be 3W2 + 4.

We fudge the rules slightly (for book keeping convenience more than anything) and say that the defence to this is still the default navigation skill but adjust the augmentations to reflect the encounter. We might have Wilderness Scout augmented with Lucky in Games or Wary of Strangers. No relevent augments could result in a negative modifier but this has not happened yet.

If the Maze wins then a side effect of this significant encounter may ensue which if controversial could be an unrelated action with rolls. The trick is to gain agreement on the ensuing narration and so avoid extra rolls.

Of course the players would get to "attack" back once the Maze of Hills has had its go, but the situation may have changed slightly depending on the rolls and the agreed narration of that roll.

Does this make any sense? It plays better than it reads.

[Der_Renegat]

Does this make any sense? It plays better than it reads.

Yes, totally ! Thank you !

I remember this "technique" being discussed several times in the yahoo HQ-rules group.

One example was:
crossing a river
the river had abilities like:

• swift
• hidden rocks
• dangerous eddy

 
another was:
fleeing from an underground crumbling krarshti temple the heroes have desecrated
with abilities like:

• crumble
• attacking krarshtkids
• sudden crevace
• earth tremour
• ominous rumble
• falling boulders
• difficult to find way out

and the third:
tracking a vampire to its tower with the tower itself the main "attacker"
with abilities like:

• strangeness (of the tower)
• (tower) generates fear
• darkness (of the tower)
• the vampire (and its abilities)

All these examples have in common that you maybe have to be prepare a bit what AP bids and outcomes mean.
For the crumbling temple example:
Low bids:
Rock dust gets in your eyes
Small rocks roll around your feet, you might trip
...
High bids:
A huge boulder falls on you
The floor gives way
The walls have shifted. You must squeeze through a tiny gap to go on.
...


Another thought in this context on what Mike Homes proposes about "failure means conflict" (here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19740.0) is what contest outcome mean. If the heroes fleeing the temple get a complete defeat, does that mean they have been crushed to death/killed by the krarshkids/etc ?
If failure means conflict then not.
Im not sure i can aply that theory to the example.
Maybe it means the temple has collapsed and the heroes did not make it in time to get out but might find another way?
Or they made it barely but are so wounded that they cant continue they goals for a longtime because of being injured.
Another idea might be that the heroes wanted to steal something from the temple, so on a complete defeat they succesfully flee the temple but lose their loot.

I think i will create a new thread where this topic can be discussed in more depth.

best
Christian