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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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?

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.

Can somebody explain how a chained contest works ?!

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.

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.

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.

Der_Renegat wrote:

Can somebody explain how a chained contest works ?!

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.