Extended Contests - Mining HQs Narrativist core

[Web_Weaver]

There have been many discussions here that have focused on utilising HeroQuest for a narrativist agenda, and many have expoused the view that the best way to facilitate this is by concentrating on the Simple Contest.

Now I know that few, if any, have advocated never using extended contests, but it seems to me that any de-emphasis of the extended contest is potentially detrimental.

Let me list the benefits that I feel Extended Contests bring to the table:

Narrative Detail
Extended Contests allow a mechanically enforced method of negotiating story elements within a contest. If a player or narrator identifies a conflict for a character but wants more from the system than the eight or nine possible outcomes, an Extended Contest can provide this. It provides narrative detail (not to be confused with narrativist) for the contest.

Multiple Goals
Group Extended Contests can allow many conflicting goals to be contested at the same time. It allows for "orthogonal contests", where two or more conflicts have an effect on each other without direct opposition, as well as far more complex situations, including unusual goals, the entry or drop out of participants and shifting alliances, in fact, any imagined contest can be handled so long as goals can be identified.

Emergent Goals
Extended Contests allow goals to shift during the contest. What may have seemed a straightforward conflict can mutate and shift under the players'  feet (narrator included) based solely on decisions within the contest. This emergent story quality of Extended Contests is precisely the stuff of Narrativist play.

Tactical Story
Extended contests are the only element of HeroQuest that encourage tactical play. Far from this working against him, this can prove to be a narrativist's greatest asset. If everyone focuses on the conflict, then the tactics are mainly thematic or story-based, as the player is forced to confront how much his character wants the goal and what he is prepared to risk in achieving it. The tactical element, the AP bid, and the resultant die roll all support and enhance the story.


In summary, in extended contests, we find a taste of the sought after elixir of narrativist game design: the mechanics help to tell the story.

[Vaxalon]

I haven't seen extended contests do anything that a string of simple contests couldn't do with (imho) less overhead.

A string of simple contests brings more narrative detail because each one has to be explicitly staked and narrated, so there's less temptation to just play the numbers.

A string of simple contests allows for orthogonal goals to be pursued in separate conflicts.

A string of simple contests allows for emergent goals.

Others have spoken to extended contest tactics, I won't go into them here, except to say that I see no connection between "tactics that represent how much I want to win" and "tactics that actually help me win".

[sebastianz]

Hi, Jamie.

As I see it, the advice to stick mostly with simple contests is for "beginners", people who switch over to Heroquest from other systems. An EC is for dramatic and important conflicts. In many systems, combat is the most emphasized part. So the assumption is, that all combat should be handled via an EC. And suddenly you play your old game just with new rules. Therefore one should not use too many ECs and especially not for combat, simply to break old habits. The rulebook does not help in this regard, as the language it uses is geared towards combat. Rather than being detrimental to narrativist play, the de-emphasis of the EC is meant to enable "newbies" to play narrativist. They are to get their head free of all the ballast.

Narrative Detail
Extended Contests allow a mechanically enforced method of negotiating story elements within a contest. If a player or narrator identifies a conflict for a character but wants more from the system than the eight or nine possible outcomes, an Extended Contest can provide this. It provides narrative detail (not to be confused with narrativist) for the contest.

I am not sure if I understand you here. Do you mean that an EC calls for more detail of narration because it goes action by action? I mean, that is what an EC is for. Putting emphasis on the "How" you reach (or not) your goal. But I have no idea what you mean with "...more from the system than the eight or nine possible outcomes,...". An EC gives the same categories of success than a simple contest. The difference is that an EC tells us how you achieve that goal while a simple contest does not. Is that what you mean?

Emergent Goals
Extended Contests allow goals to shift during the contest. What may have seemed a straightforward conflict can mutate and shift under the players'  feet (narrator included) based solely on decisions within the contest. This emergent story quality of Extended Contests is precisely the stuff of Narrativist play.

I agree but want to put a different emphasis. For a narrativist creative agenda it is completely unimportant whether you use a simple or extended contest. It is about addressing premise. But address of premise usually happens before any contest. A contest may result from that decision, but there is no need for that. An example: Your clan has a tradition to keep thralls. For some reason the character has a differing opinion. Now, some captives could be taken as thralls. How does the character behave? What do you, as a player, want to express in that situation? The character could be quiet. He could try to persuade his clanmates to let these new guys go. Or to abandon the practice of slavery alltogether. Whatever you let the character do, you address premise. But if the character stays quiet, there probably won't be any contest. And even if there is a contest, it is a result of addressing premise, but it is not address of premise in itself.
That aside, an EC has the potential to up the stakes. From peaceful persuasion to unveiled threats as the means of achieving your goal. And this upping of the stakes is the result of wheighing your answer. You show how much something is worth for the character. That happens in reaction to the events of an EC. While you can cover all this through augments in a simple contest, you might just have not thought about it. But as the goal stays the same, you cannot go for another contest (usually). Of course, you can trade augments between contestants before rolling. This extending of a simple contest can allow for the same. But an EC also allows the change of the main ability thus giving different odds for success, and therefore giving a bigger incentive to risk more. And lastly, this can result in a change of the goal. For this, the EC gives a unique framework, which emphasizes the how a character does something. You can describe all you want in a simple contest, but only the EC gives mechanical support.
I think this is what you mean in your last point about tactical play. But note: If what I say above, that the address of premise lies before the contest, is correct than it does not matter for a narrativist agenda, whether you win the contest or not. You have made your statement. And if you lose, that only gives further engagement with the premise, so it could be preferable to winning from a narrativist viewpoint. Of course, there will be contests you do not want to lose. That is what HPs are for. Or even the "no self-respecting hero" clause. But, if it is not important whether you win or lose, you may just as well play the game hard, look for augments and additional boni.

Hi, Fred.

Could you give an example for a string of simple contests which replaces an EC? I have some difficulty imagining how that works.


Sebastian.

[Vaxalon]

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20061.0

[Lamorak33]

Hi

I am broadly in agreement with Jamie on this one. I have seen over use of the simple contest, and it does not recommend the system. My view is that the contests should be used as described in the rules, and that is that they should follow the dramatic logic of movies.

Personally, I probably over used the extended contest, especially for combat. My group had a large difference between who was good, or bad in a fight. I liked having situations where some players were out of their depth and this put pressure on the 'fighters' to help them out by dispatching their foes quickly. Also, some player could be wonderfully creative in using non combat abilities to shift the focus of the conflict/ combat on their turn.

This, I found, works quite well as long as you don't over use combats. We would have some kind of melee every other week on average.

Regards
Rob

[Vaxalon]

Robert, what do you see as the advantages of extended contests?

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Sebastian

As I see it, the advice to stick mostly with simple contests is for "beginners"...

I agree with you whole heartedly; it is a good way to cut down on combat/task focused play if one is switching from a more traditional game. I just feel that as a beginners strategy it can take away the heart of HQ and leave a potentially uninspiring game. As someone who went through the HQ learning curve, I found Extended Contests to be the most rewarding and eye-opening element of HQ, and as such the most instructive.

The difference is that an EC tells us how you achieve that goal while a simple contest does not. Is that what you mean?

Yes, but in spades. Once you "get" the focus on goals and conflicts, and the "why" of them (or how they address premise as you put it), they give a granularity to the process, and they force questions to be asked.

For instance, persuading the Tribal Moot not to wage war on the neighbouring clan can become a back and forth multi-party discussion, complete with skills, relationships and flaws. This is much more satisfactory than a quick list of augments and being left to narrate an outcome that fits the 'shades of grey' dice roll mechanic that simple contests offer.

To rephrase: I use the individual elements in an extended contest to provide the narration, and use the overall outcome to provide the ramifications or fallout. Simple contests only really provide the fallout, and the narration has to be worked around this.

For a narrativist creative agenda it is completely unimportant whether you use a simple or extended contest. It is about addressing premise.

You follow this with lots of great advice, and I agree with you, ones choice of technique when handling contests is not the important thing for defining ones agenda. However, Extended Contests have had a bit of a raw deal in these forums, and I wanted to remind everyone that they can also support a Narrativist Agenda.

You can describe all you want in a simple contest, but only the EC gives mechanical support.

Precisely, and I would argue that this mechanical support for such issues of stakes, shifting goals and changing tack, can make for a much more satisfying game.

I think this is what you mean in your last point about tactical play. But note: If what I say above, that the address of premise lies before the contest, is correct than it does not matter for a narrativist agenda, whether you win the contest or not.

Indeed, I feel that the tactical element is well suited to those times when the players do want to win. This in itself is neither bad nor not proper narrativist play (in moderation), it is just a natural consequence of player goals matching character goals. The important thing is that anyone embarking upon an extended contest may have to put things at risk and confront the possibility of surprise or dramatic cost.

I think this prospect of playing-to-win is why many are dubious about extended contests, but they can be used in just the same way as simple contests, to highten drama and provide further conflict, both within the bounds of the extended contest and afterwards.

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Rob.

I haven't seen extended contests do anything that a string of simple contests couldn't do with (imho) less overhead.

I have, with extended contests one can perform very subtle tricks, as well as work through less concrete conflicts. I also, have never seen any game deal with orthogonal conflict or multi-goal conflicts in a satisfactory way by splitting them into single conflicts. One needs a more fluid solution sometimes.

But I don't want the thread to go down the "this way is best" route.

Your point is well made that many things can be handled by stringing simple contests, and the book gives this advice also. I use this technique when Extended Contests are not required, but I reach for my pile of cards (the simple way of doing extended contests as described in HW) when we want to get to the heart of the contest, and explore it fully.

[Web_Weaver]

Sorry last post should be aimmed at Vaxalon.

And I will add that if the mechanics fit the situation then use them, if they don't, and cannot be moulded to do so then don't use them.

[Joel P. Shempert]

Quick side question, what's the deal with the cards? I'm not familiar with Hero Wars. . .is the card thing a different EC mechanic, or a method for reducing handling time on an EC? Either way, I'd be interested in learning aboutit as a potentially useful tool.

Also, Fred, this seems like as good a place as any to ask: How do you intend to address the EC issue in our Tuesday IRC game, officially? Have you definitely decided to go with the "Stringing contests" alternative, as outlined in the linked thread, or is that still up in the air? (Actually, it occurs to me that some chains of events in recent sessions could be thought of as using that system, though unannounced.) Personally, I'd like to try ECs myself, to get a handle on 'em and see if they work for me. But whatever you wana do, that's cool.

Peace,
-Joel

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Rob, (correctly this time)

My view is that the contests should be used as described in the rules, and that is that they should follow the dramatic logic of movies.

Personally, I probably over used the extended contest, especially for combat.

I agree with both points but as a side point I was thinking about the movie analogy. Extended Contests are ideal for pacing. Certain scenes will emerge in any story where you want to feel the atmosphere and explore the nuances of the scene as well as add meaning to the contest.

Films are often used as an example of such pacing, but unfortunately movies in the last 20 years have become obsessed with fast pacing and a stripped down dialogue that only serves to drive the narrative forward. This may serve as a good model for games that get bogged down or drag, but for those that already utilise scene framing and other pace enhancing techniques, novels are probably a better model. I personally prefer a little less pace and a little more enjoyment of the scenery.

[Lamorak33]

Hi

Robert, what do you see as the advantages of extended contests?

Well, I don't think it is that extended contests are intrinsically superior to simple contests. Its all rooted in the story and the drama really, as far as I am concerned. As per the rules, if its simple task resolution then I defer to the simple contest, or if it is a contest that doesn't seem worth taking the time to work out with an extended contest. Thus for me the default is the EC, with the simple contest as a very useful game tool to move the game forward quickly when required or desirable. If you know what I mean.

Regards
Rob

[Lamorak33]

I agree with both points but as a side point I was thinking about the movie analogy. Extended Contests are ideal for pacing. Certain scenes will emerge in any story where you want to feel the atmosphere and explore the nuances of the scene as well as add meaning to the contest.

Films are often used as an example of such pacing, but unfortunately movies in the last 20 years have become obsessed with fast pacing and a stripped down dialogue that only serves to drive the narrative forward. This may serve as a good model for games that get bogged down or drag, but for those that already utilise scene framing and other pace enhancing techniques, novels are probably a better model. I personally prefer a little less pace and a little more enjoyment of the scenery.

I disagree. In a film the hero either knocks out the 'mooks' or has a stand up bar room brawl/ battle on Amon Hen, or wherever and it runs for ages! Just like (potentialy) the extended contest does. In fact I always use the battle between Aragorn and Lurtz from the first Lord of the Rings movie as an example of an extended contest. Aragorn is still in the fight (low on AP's) but comes back to drive Lurtz to a complete defeat (head cut off). A few minutes later he runs off with Gimli and Legolas, looking the not so worse for wear 'Lets hunt some Orc.' Realistic? Probably not, but then I never got into roleplaying for realism! Thats all really,

Regards
Rob

Regards
Rob

[Lamorak33]

Hi

I agree but want to put a different emphasis. For a narrativist creative agenda it is completely unimportant whether you use a simple or extended contest. It is about addressing premise. But address of premise usually happens before any contest.

I wouldn't disagree, but in Heroquest the address of premise can be an active companent in a contest, particularly in EC that are not combat oriented. Its the enumeration of narratavist elements (such as character relationships) that makes Heroquest such a powerful facilitator of narratavist play.

Regards
Rob

[Web_Weaver]

quote]
I disagree. In a film...

Don't get me wrong, film scenes are a good way of thinking of extended contests, I was making a side point: I am wary of copying movie pacing in long campaigns.
It makes perfect sense to view AP transfers as the equivalent of dramatic shifts in film scenes, and as you pointed out, the rules encourage this view, and I believe they were designed with this mode in mind.

I never got into roleplaying for realism!

Absolutely. I am amazed how many films and TV shows can be analysed as HQ contests. Mainly because back in RQ days it was near impossible to convert cool movie stuff into the gritty task orientated 'realism' of the system.

Its just a different kind of realism: dramatic realism perhaps.