Split Extended contests

[lightcastle]

 Something I'm never quite sure how to handle are extended contests with multiple goals.

Let me explain: Our evil priest is on the top of the ziggurat, with the princess. He is convincing/compelling her to open the gate to the Demon Dimension (she is the only one who can do this).

Our heroes are at the bottom of the ziggurat, rushing to stop her. The priest sends his goons to keep them busy while he completes his dastardly plan.

How do I set this up as an extended contest? (Let's assume for the moment everyone wants it to be.)

1) The Priest is one side, the Players another. Priest uses thugs and magic to attack players. (Multiple attack penalties offset by followers.) Players counter priest how they want to.
The problem here is that it seems to ignore the issue of the Princess and her struggle.

2) Two contests: The Priest vs the Princess, the Thugs vs The Players.  The problem here is the Princess isn't a PC, so why should I have a contest between two NPCs?

What I want is for the players to be involved in trying to help the Princess break free (if they want) while at the same time fighting off the thugs.

I have the feeling there is a very obvious solution that I'm missing.

[Vaxalon]

The obvious solution is that the stakes of the extended contest include the princess.  "Do we get to the top of the pyramid before the Princess opens the gate?"  it's not WHETHER she does, but WHEN.

[lightcastle]

I told you there was an obvious solution. :)

So, leave the princess out of it, but shouted verbal support, etc. is resisted by the Priest, possibly augmented by the Princess having "willfull" or "loves her family" (if such a line of support is being used).

What I don't like about this is that it would seem whenever the Priest wants to push the Princess more, he gets to attack her. I suppose I just hand her abilities over to the PCs, in that case.

[Web_Weaver]

Surely the priest in this instance would be attempting to defeat the players if he attacked the Princess, by shortening the deadline.

I wouldn't get into worrying about her skills, I would have the priest act to reduce the players action points which effectively model their ability to meet the deadline.

i.e. the Priest makes a veiled threat to the Princess suggesting he will reveal her darkest secret - he bids AP (high if he is bluffing) against the players aim of getting there in time. The players can then act to defend her by actions that either speed them to their goal or bolster the Princess by countering the threat.

I think a good rule of thumb is keep the actual AP contest as simple as possible and narrate everything else in the context of that contest. And don't be afraid to rationalise, ideally with the players help, how an action effects the AP.

[lightcastle]

I don't understand this:

i.e. the Priest makes a veiled threat to the Princess suggesting he will reveal her darkest secret - he bids AP (high if he is bluffing) against the players aim of getting there in time. The players can then act to defend her by actions that either speed them to their goal or bolster the Princess by countering the threat.

What is the Priest bidding against here? You don't bid against an aim, you bid against an ability. I don't see what you are suggesting here, the Priest makes a 10 AP bid and uses his "Menace" vs a player's "Run Fast"?

[Mike Holmes]

Actually, in the case in question, I'd probably allow it, given that there's no direct interaction. Often when I have dissimilar sorts of abilities used, I'll force a player to play into the arena of the opposition on their round. So with the classic Rapier vs Rapier Wit example, on Rapier's turn, we use Rapier abilities, and on Rapier Wit's turn we use wit abilities. This is fun because it gives a neat back and forth.

But let's say you've got two characters trying to win a foot race. In a way, you can say that they're actually both competing against a third competitor, time. That is, one going fast really doesn't slow down the other. So let's say that the contest is to see if one guy can finish a long poem before the other creates a small statue. Again, their abilities don't really interact with each other, but for comparison's sake, you can certainly pit them against each other to see the relative gain on each other.

In use this actually works really well with the individual success/failure die rolls. That is, you can narrate each side on it's own merits (sorta like the old HW stat rolls).

You want some effect from the princess's "Stubborn 10W2"? She can augment you then.

Try it.

Mike

[lightcastle]

Hmm.. I've always done it in the Rapier vs Rapier Wit style. (In fact, it was an Axe combat vs "Makes friends with everyone" but you get the idea.)

It never really occurred to me (outside of a simple contest, where it would make obvious sense to me) to pit the two "offensive" abilities against each other. I see your point, although it still feels intuitively "wrong" somehow. But I don't see another way to handle the situation where the abilities really don't interact.

Thanks. That's a tool for the toolbelt, no doubt.

[Web_Weaver]

What is the Priest bidding against here? You don't bid against an aim, you bid against an ability. I don't see what you are suggesting here, the Priest makes a 10 AP bid and uses his "Menace" vs a player's "Run Fast"?

I think Mike answered you here, but basically its a matter of style. Who says that the contest has to be directly opposed. If it can be narrated then it can be played within the mechanics, and you can lean on the players to help with justifications. Players are good at finding ways to join in if you allow wider interpretations.

[lightcastle]

Players are good at finding ways to join in if you allow wider interpretations.

That is a truism. :)