Using simple contests for combat?

[TheLHF]

I ran my third HQ game yesterday. I'm introducing both my players to Glorantha and one of them to role-playing in general.

I tried my hand at running a combat with simple contests and I was wondering if I ran in correctly according to the rules.  Should I have used less simple contests? How would you have handedled it?

The two hereos are fighting one bad guy each.

Dessa is attacked by bad guy 1. Simple contest, Dessa wins.

At the same time, Rar is attacked by bad guy 2.  Simple contest, bad guy wins.

Dessa attacks bad guy 2. Simple contest, bad guys wins.

Rar changes into a Puma, attacks bad guy 2. Simple contest, bad guy 2 wins. Bad guys gets very freaked out and tries to flee on horse back.

Rar attacks horse, simple contest, wins. Brings down horse, trapping the bad guy under the horse. Combat over.

I used five simple contests. To me, it feels like to many. at five simple contest, maybe I should just of used an extented contest?

--Victor

Fear the Dice.

[Nils Weinander]

Dessa is attacked by bad guy 1. Simple contest, Dessa wins.

At the same time, Rar is attacked by bad guy 2.  Simple contest, bad guy wins.

Dessa attacks bad guy 2. Simple contest, bad guys wins.

Rar changes into a Puma, attacks bad guy 2. Simple contest, bad guy 2 wins. Bad guys gets very freaked out and tries to flee on horse back.

Rar attacks horse, simple contest, wins. Brings down horse, trapping the bad guy under the horse. Combat over.

I used five simple contests. To me, it feels like to many. at five simple contest, maybe I should just of used an extented contest?

To me it sounds like the player heroes lost after Della lost the contest with Bad Guy 2, so the ensuing contests are superfluous, especially Rar vs the horse as Rar is defeated again before this.

[joshua neff]

What Nils said. The difference between a simple contest & extended contest is one of size, but only for the players. In the gameworld, they're both just contests that resolve conflicts.

So, if you have a fight that is a simple contest, & PC#1 loses to NPC#1, then PC#1 has lost that contest for good. PC#1 could have a different contest using a different ability--if the first simple contest was Sword & Shield Combat against Sword vs Shield Combat, the second contest could be Argue Heatedly against an appropriate ability. It works the other way, too: if PC#1 loses a simple contest of a debate, PC#1 can't roll another debate simple contest in the same scene, because the conflict is resolved.

Now, the simple contest could, in the game world, have taken a few seconds, a few hours, or a few days--or whatever. Same with extended contests. Simple contests are for smaller conflicts, while extended contests are for the big, "start playing the theme music" conflicts.

[simon_hibbs]

First of all, I think a single extended contest would have been preferable in this case. If you wanted to used simple contests, I would have used one group simple contest for the whole encounter. That's bye the bye though.

One thing to remember about simple contests is that they have long-term consequences. The rules clearly state the severity of the consequences depending on the level of victory/defeat.

There's nothing inherently wrong with chaining simple contests one after the other, applying the consequences of defeat to the loser after each simple contest. It's not strictly how it's supposed to work, but it can be done and in fact I think personaly that it's a perfectly valid way to play the game.

I not that you don't say what the levels of defeat were in each case, but if you're chaining simple contests like this you should realy only impose a final end to the enounter when one side or the other achieves a Complete Victory. That shouldn't take long once one side or the other has recieved an Injured/-50% penalty or two.


Simon Hibbs

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi,

I think Nils may be right. On the other hand I don't think you did anything wrong per se. Anyway, we can't know for sure. Here's why: We know that it was a combat, but we don't know what the goals of the participants were. What were they trying to accomplish?

If you begin each contest by making sure that you know the goals of the participants, you will make things a lot easier for yourself. Also, don't forget to narrate/describe/interpret how the goal was reached or not. In HeroQuest this is happens after you roll the dice.

Example 1:
Bad Guy is trying to

kill Dessa. Dessa is trying to kill Bad Guy. Simple Contest. Dessa wins Minor Victory. Narration: "After a long and furious fight, you manage to wound the guy, but in a last desperate act, he manages to disarm you and run away." [/list:u]

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. It doesn't matter if the contest takes seconds, minutes, hours or years of actual game time. Dessa's stated goal was to kill Bad Guy, but after trying her best she gained only a Minor Victory. End.

Rule of thumb: 1 goal = 1 contest.[/list:u]

Example 2:
Bad Guy is trying to

kill Dessa. Dessa is trying to save herself by climbing up a tree. Simple Contest. Dessa wins Minor Victory. Narration: "You climb a little higher and a little faster than the bad guy, until he can no longer reach you with his spear. After half an hour, he gives up and heads back to the village." [/list:u]

Compare the two examples. Note the difference (and importance) of the stated goals, and how they affect the interpretation (narration) of the outcome. Hope this helps.

All the best,

/Peter N

EDIT 1: And welcome to The Forge, Nils!

EDIT 2: Cross posted with Josh and Simon.

[simon_hibbs]

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.

Iagree 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 see anything wrong with a new contest following on in this way, so long as the consequences of the previous contests are properly taken into account.


Simon Hibbs

[Nils Weinander]

I think Nils may be right. On the other hand I don't think you did anything wrong per se.

Peter is right and I didn't intend to say "you did wrong!" (which it looks like on second reading). Sorry about that.

[Nick Brooke]

There's nothing inherently wrong with chaining simple contests one after the other, applying the consequences of defeat to the loser after each simple contest. It's not strictly how it's supposed to work, but it can be done and in fact I think personaly that it's a perfectly valid way to play the game.

Graham Robinson has some well-thought-out proposals for Chaining Simple Contests, which may repay a look. (They're written for Hero Wars, but what's the difference, eh?

[Valamir]

In fact, there are lots of potential outcomes of a contest that aren't possible with this interpretation.

I recommend approaching this from the idea that its a strength and not a weakness.


It is entirely unnecessarily to have all potential outcomes be possible in HQ play.  HQ is not a simulationist "lets mix all this stuff together and see what happens" kind of game.

Simple concepts crank down the focus of the possible outcomes two poles (my goal vs my opponents goal) and various gradiations in between.

All else is surgically excised.  It just isn't relevant.

If it is undeniably relevant, than you probably don't have a situation suitable for a simple contest.

[simon_hibbs]

I recommend approaching this from the idea that its a strength and not a weakness.

It's only a strength if it makes for better games. My problem is that many of the explanations for permanently terminating simple contests are kludgy, unsatisfying and often deprotagonising to boot. I just think it doesn't need to be so.

My take is that Simple Contests terminate when the characters reach a new narative decission point - a point where the goals of the protagonists might legitimately change, and where it's the encounter could end in it's current form. Every simple contest always results in a persistent change in the situation, because the consequences of defeat are applied to the loser. Such a change might take many exchanges in an extended contest. Simple Contests just let you skip from one key moment in the scene to the next, but expecting them to always resolve entire scenes in a single roll is IMHO pushing them too far.

It's a contest resolution mechanic, not a scene resolution mechanic.


Simon Hibbs

[rylen dreskin]

Iagree 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've thought about this, though I haven't had a chance to try it out.   One interpretation, when both sides are fighting to kill or disable, is to leave one unwounded only on a major or better victory.  A minor victory would make the goal while taking some damage.

If the loser is willing to fall back, he takes less damage on the minor victory and doesn't inflict any.

This cuts out some of the win w/o cost feel I get from simple contests.

Rylen

[simon_hibbs]

One interpretation, when both sides are fighting to kill or disable, is to leave one unwounded only on a major or better victory.  A minor victory would make the goal while taking some damage.

Some kind of all-out attack/all-out defence options that escalate or deflate the consequences might be interesting to see.

Essentialy you're re-introducing that element from the A.P bid mechanic though. There's always the argument that if you want the flexibility to make decissions about risk, perhaps you should just use the extended contest rules?


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Simon, I think you and Ralph are approaching the same principle from different directions. The only difference in opinion that I can see is the idea that one character should potentially be able to succeed and be wounded in the process. But, as long as we're all agreed that the contests are in fact suitably different from each other, then "chaining" them, so to speak, is just a normal application of the rules. That is, I think we all agree that it's OK to make more rolls at certain points - nobody wants Story Engine's Scene Resolution (which, when you look at it closely is actually conflict resolution, anyhow). So, yeah, it's completely valid to have one conflict that allows you to get injured followed by a slightly different one in which you conquer your injurer.

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, because we all know that this is bad play for precisely the reasons that you point out about narrative timing, etc. What constitutes this appropriate feel will vary from group to group. Some will find some more metagamey feeling results the way you do (kludgey to use your term). So the principle is to use whatever criteria works for your group. But this should work back towards "rounds" not start at "rounds" as the primary assumption. We all agree that this is what Extended Contests are for.

This all said, I find that combat has no particular privilege here in the games of HQ in which I'm involved. That is, there's no greater need that I can see to do extended, or "chained" contests for combat situations than any other. That is, one can, in a very protagonizing way narrate the result of just about any simple contest without need to go to more contests. And combat is certainly no exception.

One key that I've found with any simple contest is to avoid "undernarrating" the result. That is, if every simple contest gets narrated, "You club him, breaking his arm, but then he runs away," then, yeah, I'm not going to like it. But if you instead narrate the back and forth, and all sorts of stuff happening inside the combat, then the resolution usually is more palatable. That doesn't mean long narration, but narration of events of suitable lengths. I'm reminded of a fight in a particular Conan story in which he encounters some random mercenary who turns out to be a tremendous warrior. The narration talks about them going back and forth for a long time each trying to gain the advantage. It never describes either gaining any particular advantage however. So what you're left with is what sounds to me like a good narration of a Simple Contest. Conan is tired and beaten up, but not in any way that affects the plot - so no need for any wounding effects to be applied. They simply dissapear before the next event.

In fact, come to think of it, I think that most of Conan's conflicts could best be thought of as having been generated by simple contests, with some obvious exceptions.

Mike

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

I typically run most combats as simple contests.  My method is that I pretty much allow a lot of narration by both the player and myself before finally declaring the roll.  Usually this narration is designed to incorporate the augments that are happening("I jump over it", "You're Agile, right?" "Yeah, 19", "Ok").

At some point, I bring it to a "make or break" moment, and that's when the roll happens.  In kung-fu movies, it's the special move.  In samurai movies, its the point when both combatants run at each other screaming.  In court dramas, its the last piece of evidence.  In romance, its that "special line" followed by the kiss.

And then we roll.  It's worked exceptionally well, in terms of both suspense, flow, and mechanically.

Chris

[TheLHF]

One of my players and I just ran a small fight using simple contests, but two diffrent ways. Bob and Thrash were fighting for control of a gang!

First time through, we both rolled figured out who would win then narrated the result by going back and forth.

Second time, we narrated back anf forth for a little bit then rolled to see who won the final action.

Both had some of the feel on an extended contest but were simpler to run and not as dramatic.  First way, however, had no real drama what-so-ever, as we knew who would win. The second way was much more interesting and dramatic.

I think that's how I'm going to run simple contests from now on. Thanks for all the imput! (And I'm glad I started some interesting discussion.)

--Victor

Fear the Dice.