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.

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".

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.

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.

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

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

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

Hi Sebastian

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

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

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

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.

Hi Rob.

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

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.

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

Hi Rob, (correctly this time)

Lamorak33 wrote:
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.

Hi

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

Web_Weaver wrote:

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.

Hi

sebastianz wrote:

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.

Lamorak33 wrote: quote]
I disagree. In a film...

I never got into roleplaying for realism!

Lamorak33 wrote:
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.

My wrote:
The contest also encourages qualitative and quantitative decision making, as the player is forced to confront how much his character wants the goal and what he is prepared to risk in achieving it.

Lamorak33 wrote:

Vaxalon wrote:
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.

Melinglor wrote:
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 about it as a potentially useful tool.

wrote:
You may find it helpful to keep a pile of scrap index cards on hand. During any group contest, write each participant's name on a separate card. At the beginning of each round, arrange the pile of cards according to that round's order of action, so you can just look at your stack of cards to remind yourself who's up next.

Hi

Vaxalon wrote:

I find that simple conflict resolution in HQ has a moderate amount of handling time... it's not quick, but it's reasonable, and it has the right amount of granularity.  If I want to make a fight into a Big Deal, I can pull elements out and resolve them as individual simple conflicts, all of which can drive augments into the final "Who wins?" resolution.

I find this a far more flexible and dramatic system than EC's.

What you seem to be saying, here, is that you don't find EC's to be any better, you just use them because... you use them.

A string of simple contests has "to-ing and fro-ing" too, in fact moreso because it doesn't have a simple optimal strategy.

I don't think that Rob was saying that EC are neccessarily better than the method in question, Fred. Simply that they work fine.

I think that ECs are, in fact, a series of simple contests, with some extra rules added on to ensure that the goal is eventually achieved and the contest doesn't go on interminably.

Could it be better? Yeah. But I don't see anything wrong with them as they stand.

Mike

(Note I'm not using conflict in the specific sense of conflict resolution here, but the broader sense of opposed goals)

One thing to note on the simple vs. extended debate is that simple contests between evenly matched opponents tend to result in a minor victory or defeat. If you want to be sure of getting a complete defeat or victory you need to go to an extended contest. Why does this matter? Because it means that when you want to run the big takedown on the villain you may want to use an extended contest, because it is most likely to allow us to resolve the conflict permanently. In game when you default to running as simple contests you get a pattern of a set of minor victories or defeats over a specific aspects of a conflict. When player frustration builds they tend to plot to 'end this once and for all' and then you bring in the extended contest. By now hopefully everyone wants to savour the big takedown.

So the engine naturally mimics the usual pacing of stories. Stick with simple contests until its time to end that conflict when you bring in the extended contest climax.

The difficult usually comes when a simple contest produces a complete defeat too early and there is a dissatisfaction with the way that the conflict ended with a whimper and not a bang. Because this tends to be forced by hero points though, it often means the player was bored with the conflict and is using hero points to bring it to an early end. The natural 1 vs 20 roll is rare enough that it shouldn't phase on this.

I can probably give some Actual Play if it would help, but I'm stuck for time this weekend.

I am stepping in with "my thread authority" here to try and bring some structure to a discussion I think can be productive. I'm not comfortable pulling rank here, but I feel it is needed before the thread degenerates. I am thankful for ALL contributions so far, but I am keen to halt any potential entrenched arguments.

In short, If people want to have an Extended v Simple debate please open a new thread.

The thrust of this thread is, for me and my group, Extended Contests are the best option in certain situations. And that far from detracting from the narrativist agenda of my game, I feel that they enhance it.

I am happy for us to talk about those situations where they have worked or not, pull in actual examples, and even analyse if they would work as linked simple contests, either equally or better. So, lets get specific and productive.

Some questions to participants so far:

Vaxalon (not sure what your real name is sorry, is it Fred?): Can you provide an example of play where you handled a complex scene with chained simple contests so that we can examine which elements of play would be emphasised with each technique? Not too much detail, as that can be hard to produce on demand, just an overview of the contest and goals, the thrust of the narrative through the contest and the resolution. Please see this request for what it is, genuine enquiry, not an opportunity to snipe at your chosen methods.

Also, I think this quote may indicate where we differ in style:

Vaxalon wrote:
A string of simple contests has "to-ing and fro-ing" too, in fact more so because it doesn't have a simple optimal strategy.

An interesting aside is that as a GM I have on occassion declared an extended contest and had the players say "Wouldn't that be better as a simple contest?" On those occasions I deferred to the players.

Hi

Web_Weaver wrote:
I am interested in your aside:

An interesting aside is that as a GM I have on occasion declared an extended contest and had the players say "Wouldn't that be better as a simple contest?" On those occasions I deferred to the players.

Could you expand on the details here, specifically what the contest was and what the players reasons where. I agree that it should be open to discussion as to which style of conflict is used, if the players are not invested in the extended contest then they will not usually work well. I will provide an example where this happened to me in my next post.

I also get the impression that far from "using them because you do" that you use extended contests because they offer something to your game, can you define what it is that you feel they offer? I know you have been asked a similar question before but I am interested in the answer here.

An example where an Extended Contest failed for me and my group.

In the early days of playing HW I was still climbing the learning curve, and back then I felt that the main advantage of extended contests was that you could portray non-combat scenes in a similar way to combat. This really did not suit my overall agenda, which was proto-narrativist without having any idea what that meant.

I decided that I should reserve Extended Contests for contests I felt were important to the game, and would endeavour to have at least one per session. One week a debate/interrogation of a prominent NPC with an opposing hidden agenda to the players was deemed to be this weeks 'big thing'.

The players seemed un-convinced that this was suitable for an extended contest, but I pitched it as an opportunity to expore how the system worked in these instances and we started calculating opening skills. The first oversight was not bothering to analyse the goals aside from "we try and convince the NPC to tell us what we need to know". So, in our rush to the mechanics we were already somewhat task orientated. Next, a debate ensued, and we tried our hardest to frame what was effectively an "in character" debate into AP bids and die roll outcomes. This was where we made our second mistake, we didn't really tie the dice outcomes back into the conversation, it was effectively two concurrent activities. A mathematical / mechanical contest, and an in character discussion.

Not surprisingly, one of the activities came to a natural end before the other. The players had deduced the information from the NPCs reluctance to discuss certain elements, well before the EC had worked its way through. We ditched the contest, and I was left wondering what had gone wrong.

It took many months and discovering the forge for me to learn the lessons from this, but the lessons were:

Don't decide unilaterally on extended contests.
Don't force extended conflicts for pacing reasons alone.
Make sure that goals are clearly defined as meaningful conflict, especially before an extended contest.
Be mindful of changing the goals or the situation if the contest begins to become abstract.
Discuss the meaning of the contest with the players throughout, prompt them to change goals if required.
Make sure that the actions in the contest map to the mechanics with dramatic meaning, not as a gauge of who is winning.
Ensure that all dice rolls have impact and import to the conflict.

Lamorak33 wrote:
One situation that springs to mind is a combat situation. ... I was going to give them a 3 rounds of fighting before the alarm was raised.

What do EC's add? Drama, pure and simple. Extended drama. I am not fond of this notion of running consecutive simple contests. If its what I think it is then my opinion is that its clunky and not the least bit elegant. Also, Ian is spot on when he says that sometimes you want a decisive end to the contest which is just not possible with SC's.

An early example of where extended contests worked well for me.

As an addition to my above actual play example I will detail the very next extended contest in my game, as it also helped me in the HW/HQ learning curve and highlights other aspects of their use.

One of the players had taken it upon himself to fight against an animist weather front, simply because it wasn't theist like his character. I decided the storm was actually a part of a ritual, and ensured that a local village witnessed the conflict, and in the course of the story the character became engaged in a staring contest with an NC from the fishing village which had just had its rituals disrupted.

The player in question took on the contest as a "step up" moment, where he could make himself look good to the group, as he was a relatively new player. (Some alarm bells may be ringing here for theorists.)

For me on the other hand, it presented an opportunity to emphasise differing religious outlooks between players. How this conflict differed from the previous one was mainly in me being prepared to go with the flow, and also my being active in shifting and expanding the conflict to highlight the drama.

The contest started innocently and with little real conflict implied, I narrated that the village champion was unimpressed by the newcomers and was staring at the most obvious fighter in the party. The player took up the gauntlet and started a contest, and I decided as before that this would be the weeks "big thing". Initial exchanges were straight forward with the goal from the player "I will stare him down". My proposition that this should be an extended contest was welcomed by the player in question but another player had some concerns as he couldn't see how other players could be involved.

I was careful to both illicit responses from other players and tie in their actions into the contest and the conflict rapidly escalated. It was always a "who will blink first" contest, but the actual actions in the round were focused on character traits, relationships and, as the contest stepped up, magical reserves. The battle of wills eventually transmuted into a magical battle with weather changes such as darkening clouds and rising winds, surrounding the two contestants, as well as other players augmenting various sides (depending on character outlook). The first to blink was the champion of the village, and the resulting major victory was narrated as a theist downpour of rain totally ruining the planned animist ceremony. The fallout was that two of the players took on opposing attitudes to storms as character skills, and the village both chastised their champion and framed the player characters as rivals who were ejected from the village.

Again I could not fully analyse what had happened at the time, and why this contest had worked where the first had failed, but now I can look back and see these lessons:

I didn't get distracted by the initial skills used, and allowed a dramatic escalation based on shifting goals (despite it appearing static).
At all times I kept focused on how the contest effected the overall dramatic situation in the village, narrating the villagers reactions.
I used the weather analogy as a focus to represent current AP totals, giving a clear story value to the mechanics.
I encouraged the other players reactions as leads into the conflict, both as augments and specific AP bids.
I embraced player character conflicts as a functional offshoot of the contest.
I was careful to make sure the players understood the ramifications and meaning of the conflict as it escalated.

Unfortunately I was too slow in learning all of the lessons from this, and we struggled on, sometimes getting the choice of EC / SC spot on and other times missing badly. A regrettable fallout was the eventual dropping out of the newest player due to major clashes of agenda. But hey, I didn't even understand what my agenda was and neither did he or the other players, so I look back on it as a learning experience.

I am completely baffled by the last few posts.  I really have no idea how to respond; it's so far outside my own experience that I can just say, "Hunh" and stock it up to "different strokes for different folks".

As I have said before, I'm going to record my method of doing complex conflicts so that you can see what I'm talking about.

Vaxalon wrote:
I am completely baffled by the last few posts...
As I have said before, I'm going to record my method of doing complex conflicts so that you can see what I'm talking about.

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

http://games.spaceanddeath.com/yudhishthirasdice/55  (scroll down to item 4)

This should give you a basic idea of what I do.

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.

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. 

Valamir wrote:
I think maybe you guys are talking past each other.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Hi Soru,

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

soru wrote:
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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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