rules variant: unified contests

[soru]

Between HQ and Mythic Russia, there are quite a few different systems (simple, extended, group extended, chained, heroquest, ritual) for conflict resolution out there, each of which behave differently, with different odds of success, different pros and cons, and so on. As you have to select a system in advance, a fairly common mistake of new HQ narrators is to use the wrong system at the wrong time, and so end up with an unsatisfacotry outsome

I think I've got an idea for a framework which has the potential to combine the good points of all of them, and does some other stuff too.

1. decide starting AP totals for each side, based on primary skill and automatic augments.

2. Each contestant with positive AP takes it in turn to select an action from the list below.

2.A   augment action: rolled or narrated augment to a skill or AP total
2.B   bid action: set AP bid, roll skill versus skill, narrate action, deduct/add action points (as in current extended contest)
2.C   decisive action: roll AP total versus AP total of the two sides, using simple contest table. AP totals below zero count as masteries for the opposite side.
2.D   mop-up action: select a desired success level, then each PC rolls AP versus AP as above. Desired success level automatically happens, but for each level below it in the simple contest table, the contestant picks up one wound level (1 = hurt, 4 = dying). 
2.X   transfer, summon ally, etc

3. The contest ends with either a 2.C or 2.D action, or when noone with positive AP wants to act.

You can replicate pretty much exactly any of the existing contest types by just picking the appropriate sequence of actions.

Example 1: sneaking past a guard (replacing simple contest)

1.     AP totals start at 33 vs 21.
2.C    decisive action: roll 13W1 versus 2W1 on simple contest table, get minor success.

That's what happens.


Example 2: fight of a PCs with followers with some broo (replacing extended contest)

1. starting AP totals are 50 and 45
2.A: variable augment sword skill with spell
2.B: broos attempt to intimidate henchmen, pc side loses 9AP
2.B: pc hacks at a broo, broos lose 20AP
2.B: broo attempts to infect pc, fails and loses 15AP

At this point, assume everything interesting about the fight has been done, continuing it would only repeat stuff. PC is clearly winning, but AP totals are  41 vs 15, the fight is not over as a contest, and might continue for several rounds of non-fun.

So:

2.D: mop-up action: pc declares total defeat of the broos the goal, he wants them dead. 41 AP = 1W2, 1W2 versus 15 when rolled produces a major victory, 1 success level less than that declared. The broos die, but the PC is Hurt (-1 to appropriate ability) and his followers are impaired (-10%).

Alternative: the pc decides the fight is not worth the risk, he declares a minor defeat the goal, backing off but not runing away. The roll as above produces a major defeat for him, but still 1 success level less than that declared. He takes wounds as above.


Example 3: law court argument (replacing chained contest)

1. starting AP point totals are 17 and 19.
2.X summon action: present prosecution evidence (GM-assigned 2W1 rating, automatic success, prosecution gains a 21 AP 'follower')
2.B raise procedural objection to evidence (skill versus skill, prosecution loses 5AP)
2.B cross-examination of defendant (skill versus personality trait, defendant loses 10 AP)
2.X summon action: present an alibi (roll 'relationship  versus skill, prosecution loses 20 AP)
....
2.B defence closing argument (skill versus judge's personality trait, prosecution loses 8AP)

At this point, the trial is over, but the contest isn't. So:

2.C: judges decides, roll current AP versus AP.

That's the verdict.


Advantages, as I see them:

- can effectively switch the type of contest on the fly, rather than being stuck in something that is not working out.

- winners can get wounded, even in single-round contests.

- can define a fixed set of stages, like in a ritual, quest, courtroom procedure or obstacle course, get to use all of them, and not have to make up any others on the fly.

Let me know what you think...

[sebastianz]

Your idea looks promising but I see some (minor) problems with it.

1. decide starting AP totals for each side, based on primary skill and automatic augments.

First, how do I figure AP? In an extended contest, one side starts choosing a skill plus augments. The other side chooses an appropriate ability based on the action declared by the first side. How does it go here? Do we use the extended contest method? Or can any side choose the abilities anyway they like?
This ties in with second, what if I just want to make it a simple contest? That is, I opt for #2c or 2d below. There are different options to resolve simple contests (symmetrical or asymmetrical). How would it go here?

2.C   decisive action: roll AP total versus AP total of the two sides, using simple contest table. AP totals below zero count as masteries for the opposite side.

This puzzles me a bit. What do I roll if my AP total is zero or below? Against a target number of 0? Looks like an automatic failure to me. Let's assume I have -17 AP. The opposition gets +17 to their roll, right? But I still have zero.

Alternative: the pc decides the fight is not worth the risk, he declares a minor defeat the goal, backing off but not runing away. The roll as above produces a major defeat for him, but still 1 success level less than that declared. He takes wounds as above.

How does this work? He suffers a minor defeat as intended. Does he now receive a further hurt result? That looks like good strategy than. Even against a far superior resistance I cannot be penalized more than 20%. I aim for a minor defeat, suffer a complete defeat, so that is two levels off, for another minor defeat. Only -20% compared to -100%. Similar on a major defeat as in your example.
Also, what about aiming for a complete victory and receiving a complete defeat. This should result in a complete victory as desired, but also a complete defeat. How to resolve that?

Advantages, as I see them:
- winners can get wounded, even in single-round contests.

That is right. I like this option, even though there is already the 7 AP rule. I want to throw in another option for a similar effect:
Using heropoints for bumping costs a hurt.
This is similar to your rule to aim for a desired outcome, but foregoes the problems mentioned above. After all, if I want to win, that is what heropoints are for.

Now, I want to argue against a wounding option. I think it is not required at all and misses important aspects of the HQ resolution mechanics. It depends on the point of view, though. In my opinion, the ratings and the target number respectively represent dramatic impact, not reality. Is the winner really not hurt? Well, he can be a bloody mess but this does not impediment him. Look at Die Hard. Bruce Willis wins all contests, but doesn't look like it. Yet his effectiveness is not reduced, at all. The numbers represent dramatic importance, not reality. Therefore a wound need not reduce effectiveness. Dramatically, the character remains just as virile as always. And if you think a character should get hurt, ruleswise? Than offer a bonus to the roll for taking a wound. Or make the contest about the character getting his goal without getting wounded. This last option seems to me to work really fine. You can adjust the resistance accordingly and make it pretty high even. Consider, one could have a second contest asking that question. "You rescued the princess. Now, as you look down on you, you see blood. Yours?" And roll for it.

Looking forward to you answers

Sebastian.

[soru]

First, how do I figure AP? In an extended contest, one side starts choosing a skill plus augments. The other side chooses an appropriate ability based on the action declared by the first side. How does it go here? Do we use the extended contest method? Or can any side choose the abilities anyway they like?

Same as for a simple contest - skill used in opening exchange + value of automatic augments.

I think you can usefully add a 'raise' action that swaps to a different skill and adds to your current AP total the difference in the two skills.

'Insult me? Feel my blade!'

This puzzles me a bit. What do I roll if my AP total is zero or below? Against a target number of 0? Looks like an automatic failure to me. Let's assume I have -17 AP. The opposition gets +17 to their roll, right? But I still have zero.

If AP totals are -17 and 5, add 20 to each side to get 3 versus 5W1. If the lowest AP total is below -20, add 40 instead, and so on.

How does this work? He suffers a minor defeat as intended. Does he now receive a further hurt result?

Yes, you get two hurts, perhaps one to your reputation for bravery and one for actual wounds.

That looks like good strategy than. Even against a far superior resistance I cannot be penalized more than 20%. I aim for a minor defeat, suffer a complete defeat, so that is two levels off, for another minor defeat. Only -20% compared to -100%. Similar on a major defeat as in your example.

Well yes, if you meet an overwhelmingly powerful opponent, running away as soon as possible, without any concern for putting up even a token fight, is a pretty sound plan. As is surrendering.

One thing you could do is count up any extra masteries above those needed to get a complete victory and add them to the resulting wound level.

Example:

Assassin initiates contest, dagger +ruthlessness + stealth 5W2 versus default 6, all out bid, target ends up at -39.
Target begs for mercy, accepting a humiliating major defeat in return for getting out alive.

-39 + 40 = 1, 42 + 40 = 82 = 2W4

Roll is minor defeat for target, bumped twice using assassin's masteries to complete defeat. That leaves 2 masteries spare, which are more than enough to turn the major defeat into a complete defeat and death for the target. Perhaps the extra mastery makes him unresurectable.

It's simpler using numbers:

wound level (0 to -4) = rolled success (-3 to 3) - desired success (-3 to 3)  + mastery difference + hero point spend

Also, what about aiming for a complete victory and receiving a complete defeat. This should result in a complete victory as desired, but also a complete defeat. How to resolve that?

You get a complete victory in the contest, and then you die.

Now, I want to argue against a wounding option. I think it is not required at all and misses important aspects of the HQ resolution mechanics. It depends on the point of view, though. In my opinion, the ratings and the target number respectively represent dramatic impact, not reality. Is the winner really not hurt? Well, he can be a bloody mess but this does not impediment him. Look at Die Hard. Bruce Willis wins all contests, but doesn't look like it. Yet his effectiveness is not reduced, at all. The numbers represent dramatic importance, not reality.

Which is why it is a wounding option. Bruce won all his contests fair and square, so he didn't get wounded (in the sense of narratively impaired). In other films, the dice fell differently.

There's another way things can work: a sacrifice. Look at the end of Buffy s5 -  the only way for Buffy (a hero), to defeat the plans of Glory (a god) was to sacrifice herself. The narratively fixed thing was that she would die, she knew that outcome, she didn't know if it would work.

That means, switching round the formula form before:

outcome (-3 to 3) =  rolled success (-3 to 3) + accepted wound level (0 to 4)  + mastery difference + hero point spend

Admittedly Buffy did come back in s6, but even with unprecedented and doom-laden resurection magic, she had a whole bunch of injuries and impairments that lasted all season (causing it to suck, but thats off-topic).

In other words: there are three distinct questions you can ask;

1. I am going to die. Will that work?

2. I am going to do this. How badly will I be hurt?

3. How is this going to turn out?

This is just a way of systemising that.

[Der_Renegat]

Can somebody explain how a chained contest works ?!

[sebastianz]

Thanks, that clears it up completely. Of course, just adding 20 to each side is the obvious thing to do.
But there is still something unclear:

Example:

Assassin initiates contest, dagger +ruthlessness + stealth 5W2 versus default 6, all out bid, target ends up at -39.
Target begs for mercy, accepting a humiliating major defeat in return for getting out alive.

-39 + 40 = 1, 42 + 40 = 82 = 2W4

Roll is minor defeat for target, bumped twice using assassin's masteries to complete defeat. That leaves 2 masteries spare, which are more than enough to turn the major defeat into a complete defeat and death for the target. Perhaps the extra mastery makes him unresurectable.

Okay, the target wants a major defeat, so that is a given. Because he is even worse, he is a total of three masteries below. That gives him a second major defeat if I understand your clarification to my question correctly. 'Cause adding it to the intended result would be no change at all. Of course, a mastery more to the assassin results in a complete defeat. This would not mean death, by the way, as this is resolved in the contest. The target is still alive. So probably it is now under control of the assassin owing some huge favor or what have you. This is an interesting feature. I'd like to see a playtest of this.

There's another way things can work: a sacrifice. Look at the end of Buffy s5 -  the only way for Buffy (a hero), to defeat the plans of Glory (a god) was to sacrifice herself. The narratively fixed thing was that she would die, she knew that outcome, she didn't know if it would work.

That is more or less what I propose in my rant against wounding options. Giving a huge improv modifier for sacrificing the character. Or making it an automatic success. Pretty much saying "it is not my life that is at stake, but whether I accomplish X". But your option 2d is nice because it gives a structure for it. 

One thing I failed to adress earlier:

Advantages, as I see them:
- can effectively switch the type of contest on the fly, rather than being stuck in something that is not working out.

This is only half true. If you opt immediately for a closing action, that is making the whole thing a simple contest, the contest is over. So you cannot switch to an extended or chained contest.

I'd really like to see a playtest of your idea.

Sebastian.

[sebastianz]

Can somebody explain how a chained contest works ?!

Hi, Christian.

I am not sure whether soru refers to this, but you may find this thread useful.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21432.0

Sebastian.

[soru]

Okay, the target wants a major defeat, so that is a given. Because he is even worse, he is a total of three masteries below. That gives him a second major defeat if I understand your clarification to my question correctly. 'Cause adding it to the intended result would be no change at all.

You are right.

1. the selected contest result is 'major defeat', so he gets 1 'injured' result from that.

'I'll give you half of my wordly goods if you spare my miserable life' => -50% to relevant abilities, e.g. wealth.

2. the rolled contest result is  'complete defeat + W2', 3 levels worse than that selected, so he gets another 'injured' result:

'never dabble in politics in this town again if you value your life'  => -50% to relevant abilities, e.g. Member of Town Council.

I guess that makes PCs appropriately hard to kill, if they are willing to do anything to escape death.