I was doing some research for ideas how to write scenes which are dramatic but happen without combat. This resulted in a write up for Bladerunner.
If somebody is interested, here it is:

Episode 1:
Gaff picks Deckard up
Bryant forces Deckard to get on the case
Gaff does an origamisculpture: chicken
briefing
Episode 2:
Deckard visits Tyrell Corporation
Rachael meets Deckard
Dr. Tyrell meets Deckard
Voight-Kampff test on Rachael
discussing the testresults with Dr. Tyrell
Episode 3:
Deckard und Gaff search Leon´s hotelroom
Deckard finds fotos and snakescale
Gaff does an origamisculpture: stickman
Episode 4:
Leon and Roy interrogate Chew of Eye-World
Episode 5:
Rachael wants answers from Deckard
Deckard shocks Rachael
Episode 6:
Pris meets J.F.
Episode 7:
Deckard dreams of a unicorn
scanning Leon´s foto with the Esper machine
Episode 8:
on the animoid mart
analysis of the snakesscale
interrogating Abdul Ben-Hassan
visiting Taffey Lewis´s bar and interrogating him about the snake
Deckard calls Rachael
trick-interrogation of Miss Salome/Zhora
Zhora attacks Deckard, but is interrupted before she is able to kill him - flees
the chase
Deckard kills Zhora
Episode 9:
Bryant reveals more info
Leon attacks Deckard – Rachael saves him by shooting Leon
Episode 10:
lovescene Rachael Deckard
Episode 11:
Roy enters J.F´s flat, Priss and Roy „persuade“ J.F. to help them
Episode 12:
Roy and J.F. get entrance to Dr. Tyrell via the game of chess
dialogue Roy and Dr. Tyrell about how to stay alive
Roy kills Dr. Tyrell and J.F.
Episode 13:
Deckard learns of Dr. Tyrell death via radio and is instructed to go to J.F´s flat
Deckard enters  J.F´s flat, Pris attacks him
Deckard kills Pris
Deckard searches Roy
Roy mourns Pris, finds Deckard – the chase begins
„fight“ Roy vs. Deckard, revenge for Zhora, Leon and Pris – Deckard gets his fingers broken
Deckard tries to get out of the building
Roy saves Deckard from falling, then dies
Episode 14:
Deckard and Rachael leave his appartment and find the origami unicorn

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roy Batty: Nexus 6 Replicant
-combat model and leader-
opted on self sufficency
wants more life
methodical
ruthless
has seen things people wouldnt believe
has done questionable things
has done extraordinary things
has burned very very brightly
„prodigal son“
„attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion“
„watched C-beams, glitter in the dark near Tannhauser Gate“
develop own emotional responses: loves Pris

Pris: Nexus 6 Replicant
-basic pleasure model-
sommersaulting
racoon make-up
sexy clothing

Leon Kowalski: Nexus 6 Replicant
-combat model-
precious fotos
cruel
stupid (?)
engineer waste disposal
acts dumb (is he ?)
painful living in fear
lives in hotel

Zhora: Nexus 6 Replicant
trained for an off-world kick murder squad
beauty and the beast
showact: Miss Salome and the snake
works for Taffey Lewis
suspicious

Rachael: experimental Replicant
works for Tyrell
begins to suspect that shes a replicant
has implanted memories of Tyrell´s niece
expensive clothing
smoke cigarette

J.F. Sebastian: genetic designer
methusalem syndrome
plays chess
makes his own toyfriends
employee of Dr. Tyrell

Dr. Eldon Tyrell: head of Tyrell corporation and genius
genius
fatherly
plays chess
big glasses

Bryant: captain of rep-detect
calls replicants „skinjobs“
exert authority

Gaff: cop
fly spinner
make origami sculpture
cityspeak

Rick Deckard: (Ex) Cop, (Ex)Bladerunner
one man slaughterhouse (or not?)
use Esper machine
use Voight-Kampff test
drive spinner
belly full of killing
fire gun
act
intimidate
retire replicant
unicorn dream
drink alcohol
act rough
loves Rachael

That sounds like a fairly complete set of data.  I could probably amplify if I went through the movie scene by scene, but what would be more interesting to me, is what you have learned from it.

I'm trying not to have a kneejerk reaction to this. But there's a part of me that wants to scream "don't write scenes!" And I'm going to go on about this notion, but feel free to tell me that what I'm talking about is not your goal, and to do as Fred said and clarify what you're after, and whether you've found it.

What you have above is a list of the events of the scenes in question from the movie (one of my favorites, BTW, either cut). For an RPG, that's only useful if you intend to play in such a way as to force the play to follow a plot. That is, if "writing dramatic scenes" means writing up things that you intend to make happen, including the outcomes of the action. While this is not impossible, I strongly recommend against doing this. Because there are actually very few RPG players out there, heck, very few people, who enjoy playing RPGs when they don't have control of something important to the play.

Yes, this means that I feel that the scenarios in the HQ book are written in such a way that they simply can't be used well as written. That is, the "scene play" format implies that the narrator will force players not only into the scene in question, but into the specific contests implied, and, worst, that the characters will be victorious in most or all of the contests. This is problematic because HQ is designed to cause lots of failure as part of the dramatic cycle, and more importantly, because it doesn't leave the players free to make any dramatic choices.

Let's take an example, and say that Deckard is our PC. And you have written up the first scene as:

Gaff picks up the PCs, and then Bryant forces them to take the case.

Classic scene play setup here; it's the "King demands that you slay the giants" set up. Exactly as it's found, for instance, in the background paragraph of the "Steading of the Hill Giant Chief" module from AD&D 1, where I think it's an effective idea. Here's the difference, however: in the D&D module, it's background, and not a scene. Play is implied to start in Media Res with the characters already having been forced to do this, and standing at a distance from the steading geting ready to attack it.

Basically there's no decision in the scene for the player to make. So why play it out? If you do play it out, there are two outcomes, both bad. Either the player senses that there's no choice, that there's no scenario if he doesn't take the mission, or the player decides that he doesn't like this fact and decides to have his character refuse to take the mission, claiming that it's what "my guy" would do. In the first case, the player is bored. In the second, either play falls apart entirely, or you force the player to go along with the plot (by using in-game reasoning that amounts to saying "If you don't do this, we don't play?). Or you start to improvise.

That last is important. "Good GMing" for this sort of play planning has always been said to be a GM who can improvise in these cases, and work to modify things to bring play back around to where it "should" be. Keep this in mind, that even those who write such scenarios admit that you can't ever keep on them as written because "players will go off and do all sorts of crazy things" (like having their characters avoid danger, for instance). I hope that the irony is not lost.

Does that mean that we can't find out anything useful from looking at these scenes? Not at all. But I think instead of looking at the events of the scenes, you have to look at the conflicts that exist in each. Looking at what you've written, it looks like you have three conflicts that are easily identifiable, in the three scenes in which the fights occur. But in identifying these conflicts, you'd be missing out on the real questions implicit in each.

Put another way, even in "combat" scenes, there are dramatic decisions being made that have nothing to do with answering whether or not the character will win the fight. So let's look at one non-combat scene, and one combat scene to see what I'm taking about.

In the first scene, the conflict is "Does Decker take the Case?" Bryant doesn't "force" Deckard to do anything. Deckard's not the sort who really can be forced to do things. Oh, Bryant tries to apply pressure, sure. But the real conflict is "Can Decker walk away from what he's grown used to, despite it being an ugly business?" We'll come back to this.

Now, the fight with Roy Batty. Does Decker have to hunt Roy? Does he really have no choice? Deckard knows, on some level, that being a Bladerunner is wrong. If he can fall in love with Rachel, doesn't that mean that replicants are human? In the end, Decker has to console himself with the fact that he knows that Roy is a murderer, and that what he's doing is executing errant humans. But that's the choice he makes. Roy has an even more interesting choice, of course, whether in the moment of his death to be a murderer, or to save life.

That last choice is about the most dramatic thing I've ever seen in a movie, Roy's decision not to kill Deckard. The "conflict" of the fight is ancillary, there only to set up the situation in which Roy has to make that decision.

Let's hope that Roy is a PC, too, in this case.

This is key - "Contests" in Hero Quest, are not "conflict," they are "conflict resolution." They tell us what happens, once a dramatic decision is made, including in some cases what the next conflict is. The decision is for Decker to hunt Roy, leading to the extended conflict between them to see who gets the upper hand. Then, once Roy wins, that sets up the question of whether or not he kills Deckard.

Note that in either case, these conflicts are not between the characters, but internal to each of the characters. Roy does nothing to dissuade Deckard from hunting him (he knows he's dying anyhow). Deckard does not plead for his life (no time to do so). Each of these events, if this was RPG play, would  be based solely on the player's decisions.

This is the lightning you want to capture. Not "what contests will happen?" That you can make up easily on the fly, as inter-character friction makes such rolls become apparent based on decisions made. What you want is "What decision will they make?"

That means that in the first scene, you have to be ready for the player to say, "No, Deckard has given up being a Bladerunner." If you can't think of where things might go from there, if you were counting on the player saying "yes," then you need to look at your prep again. The simplest way to do this is to not have anything else prepared that you plan to have happen as decision outcomes. This is what makes improvisation difficult. If the player goes off the track, then you have to figure out how to get them back on to that specific track. Instead of taking whatever decision the player makes, and playing off of that.

Does that mean you only have the first question, and then do nothing but improvise off of that? No. You have other questions that you want to ask, and NPCs and such that, when the decisions are made, react, and create new decisions. Prep situation that's rife with possibilities, have some questions in mind that seem interesting about the character, and suddenly improvisation becomes quite easy.

So, when looking at how to produce drama, don't look at the events of the scene, but find the questions asked in the scene, the conflicts that the characters really face, where their decisions tell us something interesting about them. No matter how the player answers the question.

This is all, of course, just Bangs prep, for those familiar. Again, apologies if it doesn't pertain to your goal here. But, to me, the answer to "how to write interesting scenes" is to do so in play. For prep, write questions from which scenes can be created.

Mike

My post was a little rushed. All the write ups were already there and i just wanted to post them before the weekend.
So you wanna know what i learned from it.
Well i was looking for scenes that are exciting but without combat. And Bladerunner is full of it.
You have:
social combat/character interaction,
investigation/use of gadgets,
interrogation,
trickery,
chases,
etc.
Both, cases of simple and extended contests.
So that gave me a new perspective.
The writing up of the protagonists was just a bit of fun.

Now, Mike, thanks for your input. I really respect you as a very intelligent man. This board would be less useful without you, but let me tell you, im tired of this missionary thing: you have to do it this way, and dont write scenes, bangs are the way to go, flag framing, bla bla bla.
Yes, i know. But as i said before, i like a bit of railroading.
And for all the others: no, i dont wanna play a different game, no RQ, no other game, just HQ, thank you.

Also the game i have in mind, wont have characters before the game starts and there will be at least one newbie.
There will be character driven plot after a few sessions, but not yet and with a reason ! Its all based on some kind of inside story and certain events that must happen. Maybe there are people who think thats doing it the wrong way, i dont.

On your comments about Bryant not forcing Deckard to take the job. I disagree.
He clearly says: „You know the score pal, you´re not cop, you´re little people“
And then Deckard: „ No choice, eh?“
Bryant: „No choice, pal....“(grinning)

OK, like I said, I knew I might be off-base. Sorry.

As for the scene, I think I could make a decent argument for my POV. But it's irrellevant. I can point to a ton of dramatic choices in the scenes. Does he make a pass at Rachel when she comes over? Even if you're looking toward the scenes to create the story by force, assuming you want drama as you say, then it still behooves you to find these conflicts in the scenes instead of just looking at it for contests. So, for you, then, the scene with Rachel can be written "Rachel comes over and the PC tries to seduce her." This is good not just because of the contest, but because it says so much just that one would even try to seduce a replicant if one is a Bladerunner.

BTW, your character write ups are very cool.

Mike

Yes, i know. But as i said before, i like a bit of railroading.
And for all the others: no, i dont wanna play a different game, no RQ, no other game, just HQ, thank you.

Also the game i have in mind, wont have characters before the game starts and there will be at least one newbie.
There will be character driven plot after a few sessions, but not yet and with a reason ! Its all based on some kind of inside story and certain events that must happen. Maybe there are people who think thats doing it the wrong way, i dont.

It looks like Christian was looking for something a bit more mundane. I mean, if I understand correctly, all he's looking for is to derive types of contests from the scenes of movies, so he can have more varied contests in his scenes (which is a laudable goal, in my book). That doesn't require any more mechanical control than you'd have in a typical game of the sort he's looking to run.

But it's an interesting idea. :-)

Mike

Mikes correct. I was looking for "action"scenes without combat.

I see no need for using the Heroquesting rules, because i think every contest automatically has probably consequences for the next "scene", i mean thats what the contest-consequences are all about, yes ?!

Of course. I just wanted to point out that HQ offers a structure beyond contest consequences. I have no idea how a session or more would play out using these rules. It would probably require the players to choose a "correct" route through the adventure to receive the bonus. That certainly means introducing a strategic element to the game.

Sebastian.

Actually for contests that are long, we've used extended contests where "rounds" may occur just two per session or so, leading to a contest that lasts for several sessions potentially. This is great for something like a courtroom drama. Or, as in one time we did it, a long-term courtship/seduction.

Looking at the sample Bladerunner idea, Deckard's whole investigation could be seen as a single extended contest. Perhaps.

Mike

Mike Holmes said:

Looking at the sample Bladerunner idea, Deckard's whole investigation could be seen as a single extended contest. Perhaps.

I'm not sure I'm explaining the technique well.

Basically the scene where he finds Leon's photos and does the analysis on them with the machine is a "round." Instead of the outcome of the contest being simple success or failure, it just lowers the AP total of the replicant side. When their total reaches zero, Roy makes his move, and reveals himself, and the final scene can occur.

Basically instead of each small contest related to the investigation just having it's own success or failure outcome, it leads to an adjustment of the AP total. So when a player has his character do something with regards to the overall contest in question, it's his action for that "round." And then we flash to Roy doing something to try to lower the AP total. His goal being to find out what he needs to know, before the Bladerunner's catch up to him.

What's difficult in a case like the investigation (we did one of these, too), is in making the contest between the investigator and the suspect. Let's say that the suspect kills a witness. The contest is not whether or not he can kill the witness - any chance Roy and gang were going to have any problem killing the eye guy? The contest there is a question of how much trail they leave in doing so, and how well the investigator picks up on the clues. In the movie Deckard has a revelation, IIRC, when he just hears about where the break-in occured.

That's him defeating Roy that round.

Any clearer?

Mike