Extended Contests - Mining HQs Narrativist core

[Web_Weaver]

My concern with this system is that it sounds like a sequence of task resolutions with an overall goal that may or may not be conflict resolution.

Maybe if we work on a situation for for a point of reference.

Joe wants to sing a heroic song about his exploits at the next tribal moot in order to impress Hargar, the Father of his sweetheart.

As a simple contest this would be a straight forward Sing skill (+ bonuses for any recent heroic actions, and an augment for boast) against a resistance representing the Hargar's current attitude to Joe. Any roll will present an outcome that either modifies Hargar's attitude or possibly gives Joe modifiers in future social gatherings. Sure I could go into great narrative detail about how well he sung, or how the warriors taunted him but it would all be based on that simple roll.

Now lets imagine that Joe's player has spent weeks of game time getting to this position, he has been doing the standard fairy tale thing of actively seeking heroism in order to win the girls hand. Joe's player may say "I want to really play this scene up. Its real important to Joe, and its his big chance to get the girl". Now to me this is music to my ears, I have an opportunity for real conflict, I can really play for the detail, and everyone can get involved.

So we start with Joe standing up and proudly proclaiming he has a song and we work out his starting skill as before.

But, I decide to widen the context of the scene to pull in the other players, and state that the resistance is the attention of the assembled longhouse, and that  Hargar's eventual opinion will be swayed by how well he performs to the crowd. The active members of the contest are Joe and Hargar, with potential modifiers from player actions and any important NPC actions that I care to introduce. Importantly relative AP levels will inform us of how the crowd is reacting at any time, and I choose a resistance (could be seen as a modifier to Hargar but it makes little difference) to reflect the fact that the crowd that has seen young guys stand up and sing before, it always ends badly when the older warriors start heckling.

Straight away we have an ideal situation for emergent story with plenty of peripheral detail that could inform elements of the plot in the long term.

Does Joe go for an initial gambit and sing of the previous glories of the warriors, gambling that if he gets them on side early things will go smoothly, do the other player characters just cheer and support or do they subtly draw other peoples attention. Does a PC who knows the prepared song sit with the warriors and attempt to sway their reactions. Does a previously unnoticed love rival try and detract from the song with inappropriate laughter. Does Hargar act against Joe with calls for more beer and less song. At just the right moment, can Joe attempt to drag a tear from Hagar's wife, a notorious battleaxe with little emotion.

At all times, I will ask the players to tell me what they are doing and why, and I hold total say on what the AP bids are, this way the players will try and phrase their actions in a dramatic manner to get bigger bids or bonuses. I will do the same with NPCs.

Sure each of the individual actions could potentially be simple contests, but in a film or book these details would be used to highlight the drama, and the AP mechanic gives the narrator an ideal way to present all of these elements and still be involved in a meaningful mechanical contest.

The outcome may be very similar to the first contest, but the seeds for further conflict and drama have been presented throughout, and a real feeling of how the crowds reaction changed can be produced that brings deeper meaning to the scene.

[Valamir]

I think maybe you guys are talking past each other.

Correct me if I'm wrong Fred, but I imagine you'd handle such a scene in much the same manner as Jamie just described.  Only instead of all of those supporting actions being rolled as part of an Extended Contest and using the results to shift the points around you'd just roll each as its own simple contest and use the results to augment the final roll.

After all an extended contest is essentially just a series of simple contests which substitute the action point subsystem for the augmentation sub system.

What you gain by doing this scene as just a series of simple contests is you don't have to introduce any new subsystems.  You don't have to worry about sorting out strange bidding effects and you can from initiation through resolution fairly systematically.  I suspect its also much easier to keep track of for online play because its much more methodical.

What you gain by doing this scene as an extended contest is the chance for any one of the intermediate rolls to really be the deal maker or deal breaker with a major AP shift instead of limiting all of the intermediate rolls to a fairly narrow range of augments.  You also get a bit more uncertainty as to when the contest will end as the AP shifts can bring a foe back into the fight, small bids can slow down the pace, big bids can finish it quickly.  Those could be potentially more dramatic...or potentially more tedious if the wrong contests are handled this way.  I also suspect its much more difficult to manage for online play because there's more to keep track of.


Is that a pretty accurate summary of the two?  Cuz I'm not really seeing much else going on.

Fred, is it possible that your strong preference for the series of simple contests is largely a result of you playing alot (predominantly?) on-line. 

[Web_Weaver]

I think maybe you guys are talking past each other.

I don't think we are yet, I demonstrated a scene in order for others to explain how they would run such a scene.

What I want to get to is the differences, because I can't accept your statement:

After all an extended contest is essentially just a series of simple contests which substitute the action point subsystem for the augmentation sub system.

The mechanics will dictate how the contest proceeds. There will be differences, possibly subtle. You suggest the following:

[quote
What you gain by doing this scene as just a series of simple contests is you don't have to introduce any new subsystems.  You don't have to worry about sorting out strange bidding effects and you can from initiation through resolution fairly systematically.  I suspect its also much easier to keep track of for online play because its much more methodical.

This seems a strange statement, the online thing is valid and something I have considered too, but what makes AP bids strange? How is narrating the effects of APs changing any different from narrating a simple outcome? You only need worry about consistency, which is the same either way. I would suggest that worrying about carry-over modifiers is more awkward and to some extent more arbitrary. (Although Fred's system seems to automate that).

What you gain by doing this scene as an extended contest is the chance for any one of the intermediate rolls to really be the deal maker or deal breaker with a major AP shift instead of limiting all of the intermediate rolls to a fairly narrow range of augments.  You also get a bit more uncertainty as to when the contest will end as the AP shifts can bring a foe back into the fight, small bids can slow down the pace, big bids can finish it quickly.  Those could be potentially more dramatic...or potentially more tedious if the wrong contests are handled this way.  I also suspect its much more difficult to manage for online play because there's more to keep track of.
[\quote]

I can agree with most of this but I wouldn't sell extended contests with this line of reasoning. I do not see ECs as mathematical bidding contests. And I am wondering if this aspect is putting people off of them. They are not designed to be such, they are designed to help narrate the changes in fortune in a contest. If players are worrying about the size of bids then this will encourage the wrong style of play, tactics for their own sake.

My earlier, learning curve examples certainly show how they can be the wrong thing to use, so I certainly agree that you should pick and choose mechanics carefully. What I would like this thread to do is explore how the different techniques effect play, and discuss what works well where. Examples are the key I think, just chatting about perceptions only helps us know so much.

[Web_Weaver]

messed the quotes up there, didn't preview, but I think it is clear which part is which

[sebastianz]

Correct me if I'm wrong Fred, but I imagine you'd handle such a scene in much the same manner as Jamie just described.  Only instead of all of those supporting actions being rolled as part of an Extended Contest and using the results to shift the points around you'd just roll each as its own simple contest and use the results to augment the final roll.

That is my impression as well. Fred's method, which I will call Staged Contest, appears to be an extended contest in disguise. There could be a major difference concerning the stage setting. But it sound to me that stages are not prefixed. Rather, they are added during play as long as it is interesting to do so. That leaves only one change: There are no APs, but instead we track modifications.
One thing that should be clear by now, is that it is misleading to say, Staged Contests would just be a linking of simple contests. First, none of the "contests" leads to resolution of the conflict, but only changes odds of success. Second, it uses a completely new system. Neither does it use the consequence system for simple contests nor is it a variable augment. Yes, it looks like a simple contest, but so do individual rolls during an extended contest.

Therefore I have to disagree with you, Ralph. You say

What you gain by doing this scene as just a series of simple contests is you don't have to introduce any new subsystems.  You don't have to worry about sorting out strange bidding effects and you can from initiation through resolution fairly systematically.  I suspect its also much easier to keep track of for online play because its much more methodical.

Point is: There is a new subsystem in place.

What you gain by doing this scene as an extended contest is the chance for any one of the intermediate rolls to really be the deal maker or deal breaker with a major AP shift instead of limiting all of the intermediate rolls to a fairly narrow range of augments.  You also get a bit more uncertainty as to when the contest will end as the AP shifts can bring a foe back into the fight, small bids can slow down the pace, big bids can finish it quickly.  Those could be potentially more dramatic...or potentially more tedious if the wrong contests are handled this way.  I also suspect its much more difficult to manage for online play because there's more to keep track of.

And I also cannot follow you here. It is true, in an extended contest someone can drop out of the conflict on the first roll. But using staged contests, you can also roll good and get a 1/3 bonus. That is quite a major shift. And contrary to extended contests, where at least the AP bid should fit the narration during initiation, there is no such requirement for staged conflicts. You have no mechanical support to express the daring or potential of an attempted action. That makes it harder to fit narration after the roll to the result.

Joe wants to sing a heroic song about his exploits at the next tribal moot in order to impress Hargar, the Father of his sweetheart.

Now, to merit posting, I will try to use Fred's system. If I misunderstood it, that will probably show.

1. Stage: The char has a relationship to his sweetheart? So, let's use the first stage for this. It is before singing anything, backstage if you will. The char meets his sweetheart there, they talk a bit, stuff that happens in movies or on television. The father comes there to get his child. A nice word, a smile. I use the relationship to soften the father. If I fail my roll, he hates me for going after his daughter. I augment my relationship with Good Looks, Tough Warrior and other stuff.

2. Stage: OK, singing commences. This is for using his Make a good first impression skill. Starting with something easy. The other PCs are in the crowd and will either augment by clapping or make this as a new stage. Can they bring the audience to cheer and clap or will it start to buh.

3. Stage: There is a rival in the crowd. So we use the relationship we have with him to pull a pun or to on his costs. All for entertainment, of course.

4. Stage: Now it is time for some heart. So the char uses his Soft Spot flaw to get in touch with his female side, on a good roll bringing the wife of the chief to tears, on a bad roll getting a new nickname.

5. Stage: Now, we are almost there. Time to appeal to the hard warriors. Using some sort of weapon skill or praising the strength of the clan or whatever we have to use.

6. Stage: Endgame. All we worked for comes now to a resolution. Can we impress the chief? Using all we have in store for that.

One question I have, though. Does the opposition get a chance to set its own stages or are they agreed upon? I only set the stages for the player.

Sebastian.

[Web_Weaver]

Now, to merit posting, I will try to use Fred's system. If I misunderstood it, that will probably show.

Cool, thanks for the effort you have put into this Sebastian, it gives me something to think about, and respond to.

One question I have, though. Does the opposition get a chance to set its own stages or are they agreed upon? I only set the stages for the player.

This was also in my mind when reading this, and has also been something I have considered when playing in a game where the GM used standard linked simple contests to represent a large melee. For me the above method makes perfect sense as it is, without complicating it with the opposition having stages of their own.

I will await the answer to this question before I comment on the method you have detailed, so note, everything else in this post is dealing with my own experience of standard linked contests, and is not meant as a critique of the above method.

In my view, for standard simple contests, one only has to provide a general statement of goals for the opposition, and make all rolls player focused with the NPC actions lending narrative and conflict to the resistance. But, the method can feel odd to some, and when this came up in the game I was a player in, the GM in question didn't see how this could work and stuck to a "your go : my go" technique. When I queried why the GM was concerned with the NPC actions another player asked me "what? You expect to just act and not have anything to react too?". Which is a different way of looking at it, but a debate that wasn't appropriate round the table, so I didn't persue the matter.

I think the reasoning here is based on strings of simple contests seeming a lot like standard combat in more traditional roleplaying games. The GM in question tends to have NPC skill lists to play with. This encourages the GM to think in "rounds of combat" rather than discreate conflict issues. I don't see a mechanical difference in making all rolls based on the player character, and for me I would be selecting resistance to reflect the story and so would not really have NPC skills to utilise anyway.

[soru]

I think it helps clarifies things if you put Fred's system into the same terms as standard extended contests.

1. you start with 0 AP, instead of =skill AP.

2. each contest round, you win or lose AP porportional to the value of the skill used, instead of proportianal to a stake.

3. the contest doesn't end when you hit 0AP. Instead, the GM picks one round to be the 'decisive' round.

4. in that round only, 1 AP may be traded for a +1 bonus.

5. the result of the decisive round is the result of the contest.

Of those, the idea that seems useful is the 'decisive round'. Sometimes you run out of ideas for how a contest can continue, want it definitively end it and move on, but the dice won't cooperate.

Maybe there's a way to get the same effect within normal extended contests?

Perhaps after the decisive round, the winner is the one with the most AP?

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Soru,

I am most interested in your clarification, as I think I understand the system employed.

Of those, the idea that seems useful is the 'decisive round'. Sometimes you run out of ideas for how a contest can continue, want it definitively end it and move on, but the dice won't cooperate.

This is exactly how my first example, with the unresolved conversation, played out. But the reason for the problems are not to do with ECs, but how I percieved them at the time. See my list of bullet points, specifically:

Make sure that the actions in the contest map to the mechanics with dramatic meaning, not as a gauge of who is winning.

If one applies this, one should never end up with a contest that seems to be hanging unresolved in the middle, that would suggest that the mechanics have beem appplied without making sure that everything maps across to the drama.

Maybe there's a way to get the same effect within normal extended contests?

Perhaps after the decisive round, the winner is the one with the most AP?

I think this would be far from an Extended Contest, and would encourage tactical bidding wars instead of a meaningful dramatic contest.

The real problem here, is that the rules as written do not really help explain how to do ECs with a narrativist agenda. In fact, the example "Big Fight", obscures the whole idea. I dont think that the example was written by Robin Laws, and it shows.

[soru]

Thinking about it, a cleaner way of implementing the idea of a 'decisive round' is this:

Take current AP totals, convert them to skills (i.e. 42 => 2W2). Roll then against each other, with the result being the overall contest result.

The neat thing is that a simple contest is then exactly the same as an extended contest with one, decisive round. By declaring a decisive round, you can, in effect, 'back out' of a decision to use an extended contest, without undoing the consequences of actions and rolls.

For example, you have a modern court case, lots of too and fro, but once all the arguments anyone can think of are made (or maybe the landlord calls time), the AP point totals end up as 19 vs 13.

So you say:

the judge sends the jury out to decide. Any last attempts to bribe or intimidate them?'

No? Ok.

*rolls 19 vs 13* 

Minor victory: OK, he is found guilty, with a 4 year sentence. See you all next week.

[Vaxalon]

You're still looking at this in narrow terms, as I see it.

Imagine you have a covert operation... there are people scattered all over the Black Knight's castle, each of which is tasked with accomplishing one part of a grand plan.

The Sneaky One is supposed to swim the moat, climb into the gatehouse and quietly incapacitate the guards so he can open the portcullis at the right moment.

The Dashing Hero is supposed to dress up as a mendicant to slip past the guards so he can get close to the Princess

The Archer is supposed to take out the lookout on the high tower.

The Burly Sidekick is supposed to ride in with the horses so everyone can get out safely

Each player has his own little conflict to resolve, each of which provides a modifier to the ultimate question, "Do we rescue the princess?"

I don't see EC's offering that kind of flexibility, since it's limited to a strictly linear progression.

[sebastianz]

Ah. That is a cool example, Fred.
But of course, there is totally no need for a new consequences system. It does remind me, though, of heroquesting and the stations there (p. 193-196). Have you thought of using that system? It does more or less the thing you describe but is much more intuitive when it comes to the size of the bonus, as it is based on the resistance. That is a way to build up towards the climax of a story, accumulating all those bonuses. That is not the role of the extended contest. It is there to finally resolve the climax in a satisfactorily manner. To use your example: After passing all those stations the characters (or only one of them as the main hero for this "heroquest") finally confront the guy holding the princess prisoner. Or they have to get her out of the castle. That is the dramatic high point and here the extended contest comes into play. Note, this is independent of scale. So, a whole quest could be sequenced into a handful of stations. Interestingly, I do not see this stageing as replacing extended contests, but rather as a way to support them. That merits the question how much use of the heroquesting rules should be made. Whether it is a mechanic that should be utilized outside of heroquests. But that probably merits its own thread.


Sebastian.

[Web_Weaver]

I don't see EC's offering that kind of flexibility, since it's limited to a strictly linear progression.

Trust me, ECs are in no way a linear progression in my eyes, but oddly what you have just described is? I assumed that you don't predetermine stages, and consider each step to be dependant and reactive to the previous contests? But, the sequence that you describe seems to be predetermined.

I believe that your contests are heading in a very different direction style wise, from the style that I employ, and this seems to clinch the view that we are not describing the same thing with different mechanics as some people have suggested.

And, this probably indicates that we do, as you first suggested see the game very differently. In both the reasons to employ longer contests, and also in the style that those longer contests take.

Could I ask a few simple questions of you and anyone else following this discussion.

Multiple answers to each is OK (ie A&B) and extra info is OK too, but please try to pick at least one closest answer from each (except possibly Q3) before you provide your own even it that then requires clarification..

1: What factors in your game help determine your choice of longer or Extended Contests?

A: Situations of greater complexity
B: Situations with greater numbers of participants
C: Situations where a lot of actions can be rolled together for a larger goal
D: Situations where dramatic possibilities are heightened
E: Situations that are climactic or crucial to the story as a whole

2: How often do you utilise longer or Extended Contests in your games?

A: I rarely use them
B: Occasionally for pace
C: When everyone agrees
D: Regularly for emphasis
E: As often as possible

3. If you use ECs how do you interpret current AP totals in your games?

A: To tell who is winning
B: To tell which participant is closest to being knocked out of the contest
C: To give us a picture of where we each stand
D: As a dramatic pulse for the scene
E: As a guide for describing what is happening

4. If you always or sometimes avoid ECs why do you?

A: They don't help me tell the story
B: They take too long or are complicated
C: They seem to much like an unrelated game
D: I like to hold them back for special occasions
E: They encourage competitive play

[Vaxalon]

1: What factors in your game help determine your choice of longer or Extended Contests?

B: Situations with greater numbers of participants
C: Situations where a lot of actions can be rolled together for a larger goal

Mostly, I staged conflicts when I want to give multiple players around the table a way to strongly influence play.

2: How often do you utilise longer or Extended Contests in your games?

F: Whenever I want to give a role to multiple people, or when there's multiple orthogonal stakes.

4. If you always or sometimes avoid ECs why do you?

C: They seem to much like an unrelated game

[Web_Weaver]

Thanks Fred,

Your answers give me the proof that we are looking in opposite directions. We do not see the aims of longer contests the same way at all.

You appear to be concerned with extension when you feel that simple contests do not fully resolve the issues, due to complications of scale and complexity. But, I will only be interested in using Extended Contests when I or my players believe that there is something occurring of greater dramatic significance.

Lets consider a previous example, you will detail the rescuing of a princess as a sequence of tests. But, I would just narrate most of this and cut to the chase. For instance:

"So, you are determined to mount a rescue bid, OK lets set the scene. Bill, your character would probably have provided the perfect covert route into the castle and snuck everyone past the guards, (Do you want to roll for any of that? No OK I agree, this is right up your character's street) (repeat for other characters where appropriate with rolls only if there is disagreement) and you find yourself outside the princesses luxurious rooms with no guards on the door and sounds of pleasure emanating from inside."

Now I am not saying that your play has different dramatic content, just different emphasis. For me the issue is purely will the characters rescue a princess against her will. My hunch is, even if you introduced this same plot twist, you would probably have also done all the covert rolls too, because you want to emphasise that part too. This implies a different emphasis and outlook.

Now for me, the princesses rescue may turn into a extended contest at this point, but by declaring one we are agreeing on what is important to the ongoing drama of the story. The players may want to go all out to rescue her against her will, and have a dramatic argument / rampart hopping fight / race to the castle entrance, whatever, but it would be based on the dramatic impact of the situation. But, until we get to the moment of drama, I am not really interested in the system as it does not really help me, so I just scene frame to the point where the system can be employed to its best effect.

Complexity isn't an issue for me and neither is scale, all extended contests have the same amount of this, the difference is in dramatic pace. But, this is not a difference of extended system placement, (you to get in, me to get out), it is a difference of emphasis of why and when we are interested in extending the system or even employing it.

This is why, for you, replacing the EC system with something that does the same mechanical job with less complex workings is adequate to handle your play. But for me, that replacement would be a move in the opposite direction, towards mechanical emphasis and away from a more drama mixed with system style.

So, that said, I don't think we need explore the debate any further. We are talking about different things, and diverting from the original point of the thread which was to highlight a powerful way that ECs can be employed if you are inclined towards the style that they can promote. A style only hinted at in the actual text and not supported by examples, but a style that is more aligned with Narrativist game systems that are concerned with system/drama mapping. SCs only have this mapping in a small way, your method maps the same way as simple contests with an added meta-resolution mechanic.

In my suggested method, ECs are not about resolution, they are about dramatic exploration.

[Vaxalon]

I believe that you are misunderstanding, but I agree that there's little to be gained by going over the same ground again.