Rules variant: Very Simple Contests

[soru]

This is kind of inspired by the big thread on syncretism, but would only confuse things there.

In standard HQ, as everyone knows, there are two types of contests, simple and extended, which the narrator picks between as appropriate. In either, you take some numbers from the opposing character sheets, roll some dice, and some fact about the world or story is decided.

One thing most narrators almost certainly already do, without thinking about it much, is use a third type of contest, the 'very simple contest'. In this you look at the numbers on two opposing character sheets, and decide some fact about the world without any dice rolling, but simply on which of the numbers is higher.

For example, Strogi has Tall 14, Troska has Tall 17, so the result of a 'very simple contest' would be that Troska is taller than Strogi.  

I think, using a strictly literal reading of the rules, that wouldn't be allowed. If it ever became game-relevant which was taller, you would roll a simple or extended contest, and the winner would be judged taller.

On the other hand, some people seem to read traits as if they were absolute statistics, so reading a character sheet think that they objectively know a great deal about that character, in fact more than they would know about themselves. This soon leads to contradictions, confusion and dissatisfaction.

Rather than letting it slide, or be a matter of interpretation, I think it might be useful to consider using the 'very simple contest' an explicit rule, out in the open as a tool for the narrator to use. In a very simple contest, minimal or no augments are allowed, and there are no mechanical penalties for failure.

Just as the narrator chooses whether a a simple or extended contest is appropriate, they would decide that sometimes a very simple one worked better. Factors making that choice a good one would be:

- abscence of dramatic tension - the result is know in advance

- repeatability - the result will always be the same

- transitivity - if A beats B and B beats C, A beats C

- reliability - perhaps this time, failure isn't interesting.

Obviously, just like other contest choices, it is a judgement call when are where to use very simple contests. Some examples where I would tend to use them are:

A new army officer shows up on base. There is no tension or confrontation about who is higher rank or not, both officers just compare insignia, and immediately start acting out the roles of peers, superiors or inferiors.  

A skilled sword sage assesses your fighting style. 'You are good, but he is better. Train harder, or cheat, if you want to fight him'.

At the start of a heroquest, the party tries to cross to the other side. If they don't, your ideas for the session are pretty much shot, but this is not something 'no hero can reasonably fail'.

soru

[Bankuei]

Hi,

But isn't this whole idea covered in the concept of "contest"?  I mean, if there isn't a contest(that is, nothing is IN contest), then of course there is no need to roll, right?

Chris

[xenopulse]

soru,

HeroQuest has rules on automatic success that you could use.

Of course you're right, the narrator should be consistent about the application of that, so your guidelines there are useful.

[soru]

HeroQuest has rules on automatic success that you could use.
.

No, really those are very different. There is nothing is the HQ rules that says that, under some circumstances, one character with an 18 trait just automatically beats someone with a 16 trait.

soru

[Bankuei]

Hi,

Well, assuming then that you're talking about something that actually could be a contest, who decides when it applies?

I would suggest it applies only if no one at the table objects.  Otherwise it could be abusively applied to less common sense type things.

Chris

[soru]

Well, assuming then that you're talking about something that actually could be a contest, who decides when it applies?

Whatever method your group would use to decide whether a contest should be simple or extended. I suppose usually this is just the GM deciding, based on pacing, interest and so on, with occasionally a player suggesting an alternative: 'I think this conflict is worth focusing on more'.

Depending on the needs of the story, essentially the same contest could be run any of three ways. For example, if two characters are in the same religious hierarchy, working out who outranks who could be done by:

very simple contest:
1. look at numbers
2. 'Ok, Bishop, what do you want me to do?'

simple contest:
1. 'what right do you have to tell me what to do in my own parish?'
2. look at numbers, augment, roll, lose
3. 'I have orders from the Patriarch'

extended contest:
1. 'I cannot allow you to take the position of Patriach'
2. Look at numbers, augment, roll, adjust AP
3. 'By Malkion's Law, you have no right to oppose me while you are in a state of sin from your actions in Vustria'
etc.

soru

[Mark Galeotti]

I'm inclined to say that what you're calling a contest isn't. Let's take your general example; you're a parish priest and the bishop tells you to do something. There's no question as to who has hierarchical authority on his side. But maybe you do want to challenge him. That isn't a test of hierarchical standing, because that is cut and dried, but maybe your conscience vs his Big Hat... I think what you call Very Simple Contests are just how things are, and thus it feels to me as if you are making something pretty transparent into more than it needs to be.

All the best

Mark

[Mike Holmes]

Just to get all Forgey, what you're calling for is Karma resolution. And, yes, I agree with you that it's a form of resolution no matter what the contest rules say.

I also agree, however, that the Automatic Success rules cover this, or rather should. That is, what they say in Automatic Success is that the characters should never fail something that "no self-respecting hero would fail."

The notion is, of course, that this refers to stuff like crossing the street. But when do you invoke that "no self-respecting hero" clause. In fact, what happens is what you say where many people do this sort of comparison already. That is, I think that the best interpretation of the automatic success rule is that it also applies to karma comparisons.

Actually what I think is that when they wrote the rule, instead of the unclear clause, they should have used the criteria that you did. Lack of dramatic tension, and repeatability, etc. They should have said that in those cases that you should just pick the result that makes the most sense to you.

Because what the rule definitely misses is "automatic failure." Oh, you think it's not in there?

Mike: "My character leaps off the cliff and tries to fly."
GM: "Using what abilitiy?"
Mike: "Uh, agile?"
GM: "Using the improv mod rules that becomes an automatic failure."

Somehow this doesn't get listed with the other contest rules, however. Basically, overall, the rule is to only do one of the other contests when it makes sense using the drama criteria that you propose. Otherwise, just choose what makes sense. This is most of what a GM does. I could roll the city's "Has Lots of Temples" abilities against some resistance to discover if it has a certain kind of temple. But that's not warranted by the rules. In fact, read literally, the only time you ever have a contest is when a player hero is involved. Even if two NPCs fight, you don't have to roll for that. I believe because this jibes with the Drama criteria.

As to whether to use ability ratings to decide...well, the game doesn't say what criteria to use as what makes sense. So if that makes sense to you, the game certainly isn't in the way of it. Does it need a specific rule itself? Well, I don't know. I mean, like you've said, people do it anyway so why bother? Also, it has the trouble that then when we try to make our claims that the stats are player-centric and relativistic, this militates against that - it makes it seem as though the stats are definitely intended to be direct descriptions of the in-game characters. So I sort of oppose it on those grounds.

Basically what I'd prefer is simply more clarity on the IIEE overall, but for the system to remain largely as it is now.

Mike