> Below is a representative incident from a long-running Glorantha game we ran with HQ 2.
Thanks for this I can probably more clearly explore my concerns and even perhaps have them reduced by exploring this example. Do you mind if I ask you a few questions? Feel free to ignore parts or change tack, I am looking for something a little intangible, and I may not express it clearly.
> The incident was important to the overall campaign, so the narrator decided to run it as an Extended Contest.
This is interesting of itself, did the narrator take this decision on their own, or include the other players?
> They key thing: The players and the narrator have to pause at the end of each round of an Extended Contest, interpret the roll and the resulting change in resolution point totals, and embellish the unfolding story in an entertaining way based on results. The mechanics tell you what direction the story is going, in general, but it's pretty much the people in the room who make it interesting.
Yes, I agree, but this is not a clear distinction in the rules, as they only describe a 'series of simple contests', but simple contests have decisive outcomes to narrate, and we clearly don't have this option in extended contests. instead, we are forced to narrate indecisive outcomes and or a sequence of causes and effects.
Your solution appears to be to narrate based on an intuitive combination of; the outcome of each exchange, the current points tally, and how the tally has been effected since the last exchange. Is this a fair assumption?
If so, does the actual choice of skill, refined tactics or current contest standing ever have an effect on the next round? i.e. have you noticed a completed feedback loop where each iteration of the contest actually informs the next round?
> Londrulf at last found a moment when he could speak to
> Rangare. "I am glad to speak to you aside from your relatives a
> moment."
> "I have many relatives here," she said, "and it's cold - I
> should be getting back to them."
> "I have a warm cloak," said Londrulf, wrapping Umbo's shaggy
> bulk around her shoulders, "let me show you the stars, and sing you a
> song my father made."
> The gentle caresses of the winds brought her under the cloak
> to look at the stars, but she kept her distance
>
> [Round 1: I think this was a Minor victory for Londrulf, so he's slightly ahead on resolution points.]
Presumably the above narration contains things that were narrated both before and after the actual dice hit the table, do you remember if this was so, and if so which parts occurred where?
> Londrulf passed her the wine vessel and asked her what she wanted out of life. "I want to provide for my kin, and protect them," she said. So Londrulf sang one of Voski's songs of love for the bear.
> "I still can't believe I'm under a cloak with a Longneedle,"
> she observed.
>
> [Round 2: Tie or marginal victory for Rangare, I think, Londrulf still ahead.]
This appears to be a discrete contest or more specifically, the narration has been informed by the previous narration and the current outcome, but less by the previous outcome is this the case or was there more going on here?
> "I am determined to end the feud, and I could never harm
> you," said Voski.
> They sat wordless, and Londrulf tried to draw her into an
> embrace. She answered it stiffly at first, but the warm embrace of
> the bear cloak and the cool whisperings of Orlanth's winds at last
> brought her into his arms.
>
> [Round 3: Victory for Londrulf, but not a massive one.]
>
The overall impression I get from this is that each round had a cool and satisfying narration, and that satisfaction came primarily from choosing narration in an attempting to match the current mechanical situation. Is this true?
as a side point of interest, who had the primary input into what the narration should be after each round, and who had final say in each instance?
Jamie
Powered by hypermail