Using simple contests for combat?

[Valamir]

I think that the "feature" that Ralph is talking about (and he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is merely that you can't do precisely the same contest over and over,

Exactly.  You can have a ton of rolls if you want.  But once the sword vs. sword roll is made, that's it.  You either succeeded in besting him with a sword or you didn't.  There is no second chance because the simple contest already subsumes all of the second chances were made and the ultimate result at the end of the day is what the dice says.

Chris is also quite right when he points out that a key way to generate the narrative Mike's talking about is to do it by focusing on the augments and the results they give.

In fact, I've found this to be the biggest difference in practice between extended and simple contests.

Only rarely during an extended contest have I seen a lot of narration involved for the augments.  Typically each player just lists all of the stuff he's trying to augment with and rolls.  If the GM questions a useage, the narration is limited to whatever is necessary to try to convince the GM to allow it.

The narration in the extended contest then centers around the result of the roll and the transfer of APs.


In simple contests however, each augmenting roll tends to get treated like an extended contest roll, complete with its own narration.

[simon_hibbs]

In simple contests however, each augmenting roll tends to get treated like an extended contest roll, complete with its own narration.

This is a good point. I'm not personaly a big fan of extended contests because I find them too game mechanical, and the more time you spend talking about game mechanics, the less time you spend narrating the action. In theory Extended Contests can work very well, but that doesn't come naturaly to a lot of players.


Simon Hibbs

[buserian]

In a simple contest, one die-roll represents all and everything the contestants do in order to reach their goals. Therefore, in the example above the player is not entitled to say "yeah, but I hit him again", since all those attempts are included in this one roll.

I agree that this is how it's supposed to work, but there are problems with it. For example, in an extended contest it's possible for a character to be injured but still win in the end. This is not possible is this interpretation of a Simple Contest. In fact, there are lots of potential outcomes of a contest that aren't possible with this interpretation. In the example you gave, suppose I try and pursue the fleeing bad guy? I might be able to catch up and start another combat contest. What about the character that climbed out of reach. Presumably the bad guy was using a close combat ability, but suppose the bad guy actualy had a realy huge climbing ability? Shouldn't he be able to start a new contest and climb up the tree?

I don't think so -- this is a simple contest, and her stated goal actually was a good way to cleverly limit her opponent's choices. The point is, no matter what he has tried, he hasn't managed to close with her -- to climb up, he would have to drop his spear and armor, and maybe he isn't willing to do that; or maybe she keeps picking coconuts and throwing them down on him so he can't follow her; whatever.

IF the narrator knew that the guy was a good climber and the hero was likely to try to escape up a tree, then the narrator could decide this would be a fun extended scene, and run it as an extended contest. But if it is rolled as a simple contest, it is completely unfair to the hero to say, "Well, I know you got a minor victory, but I've decided this guy is a really good climber, so I'm going to make this a new contest."

Also, how about a novel use of the augmentation rules: if the narrator really thinks that this guy is a great climber, then let him augment his fighting ability with his Climb -- in this circumstance, the hero's stated goal of climbing up a tree will actually make her opponent _more_ effective, because he's a great climber. But because she's trying to get away, she can't get the same sort of advantage.

Be creative, but don't make things unfair to the heroes by flipping the rules on them completely just because they won. I know that's not what you're saying to do, but i think many players would feel like it was. If the contest is THAT important, make it an extended contest. Otherwise, just be creative in explaining _why_ that guy's Climb 10W2 didn't help him win.

buserian

[simon_hibbs]

The point is, no matter what he has tried, he hasn't managed to close with her -- to climb up, he would have to drop his spear and armor, and maybe he isn't willing to do that; or maybe she keeps picking coconuts and throwing them down on him so he can't follow her; whatever.

Maybe, maybe not but if that wasn't determined by the contest then it still hasn't been resolved and therefore is fair game for a new contest. I think we agree that the key is framing the contest correctly.

IBut if it is rolled as a simple contest, it is completely unfair to the hero to say, "Well, I know you got a minor victory, but I've decided this guy is a really good climber, so I'm going to make this a new contest."

Suppose it's the hero who wants to start a completely new contest, with different goals and different abilities? All your argumnets look great when they're presented as protecting successful heroes from having their victoriues taken away, but the real problem and the more likely one to occur in play, is when you have frustrated heroes that on finding one avenue of progress blocked want to pursue another line of progress.

Also, how about a novel use of the augmentation rules: if the narrator really thinks that this guy is a great climber, then let him augment his fighting ability with his Climb

I think that's the obvious solution because then attempts to pursue the opponent have been included in the frame of the contest.

Suppose I'm attacking with close combat and my opponent escapes with climb, even though I use my Climb to augment my pursuit and attack. I lose and my opponent is up a tree. Suppose now I say "ok, I'm going to chop down the tree". Surely this is an entirely new contest? It isn't even between my character and the tree-climbing fugitive but against the tree itself. It's all a matter of finding the limits of what a given contest can resolve and what it can't. If the fugitive realy wanted to escape ove rthe horizon never to be seen gain, then their goals in the contest should be framed in that way. If they acheive their goals in the contest but then find themselves exposed to a new danger that their previous success does nothing to protect them from, that's just tough.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Again, I think we're all talking about the same thing. I agree with Simon that there's no reason if it's suitably dramatic not to link up many Simple Contests. I think the key here is in applying the consequence of the victory. That is, if the outcome of the win is a leg wound, then the character climbing will have a penalty to do so. The point being that the successful character does get some outcome if you do this. Now it may or may not apply to the following contest, but the player isn't going to feel screwed unless what the GM is doing is not dramatic. If his character continues to be presented with new and interesting challenges, he'll apprecieate this.

I think that so much of this is situational to the in-game situation and the players that it's going to be hard to say never or always here. The rules do say that you should allow reapeated attempts on occasion. Basically, the "no repeat attempts" rule limits players from undramatically trying things over and over, it doesn't prevent the GM from presenting any conflict that happens to be dramatic. The player is informed that they have to consider that the most dramatic thing may be to move on no matter how frustrated, and the narrator is informed to keep things moving unless it makes more sense to revisit something. This seems just right to me.

Mike