> Me
> >you have to
> >change the framing of the contest as you go, which is a change to
> >the rules.
>
> David
> I think situational modifiers (p. 53) are a good way way to handle
> this. You can also see switching abilities in the long example (p.
> 47).
Yes, a situational modifier can help a little, and switching abilities isn't a concern per se. But in the example the ability shift is within the narrow band of which I spoke, it is not really much of a change, one fighting ability changed to another.
> I'm eager to see Rob's reply, but...
> FWIW, Extremely Extended Contests explicitly may have ability or
> augment changes.
>
> >in extended contests ... we are forced to narrate indecisive
> >outcomes and or a sequence of causes and effects.
>
> True, but I think in most cases this isn't that hard. In this wooing
> contest I think Rob's summary makes it pretty obvious when the
> overall status changed (i.e. someone scored an RP).
How easy or hard is not so much my interest here, its the fact that the style is changing from decicive actions (simple contests) to indecisive actions (single contests within extended contests).
In the old extended contests one could make each contest decisive and then have a represented goal change (although I suspect few people did this), this allowed for logical progression of the contest instead of incremental progression, (if you were careful you could mix the two). Such a contest could be wide in scope, and contain surprising shifts in context and goals. The new contests don't seem to have this built-in and although you could adapt them I am more interested in unadjusted usage at the moment.
> >narration has been informed by the previous narration and the
> >current outcome, but less by the previous outcome
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.
I was checking what mix of mechanical and narration input from the previous round was being used. My holy grail of system is one that allows a complete feedback loop between what happens with the mechanics and what is narrated, many systems tend to have a flow in one direction, usually mechanics towards narration. HQ suggests the power to allow this feedback, and it certainly works with simple contests. I am less clear how successful it is at this during extended contests. In the games we tried (and we have played it on and off for the last 12 months so we are reasonably familiar with the rules) I have yet to get that loop going to my satisfaction, but others may have, hence my call for examples.
> But your contest SHOULD be
> informed by the previous round's narration.
Yes indeed, but is it also informed by previous mechanical outcome? The current tally of points does this of course, but the previous mechanical outcome represents a change to these points and the new situation could also be influenced by that change.
The two ways I can see this working are:
The first seems more implied by the rules, but the second could perhaps lubricate the feedback loop I am looking for. For me the second contains a potential for the feeling one gets in stories and sport, when the current loosing side starts to gain momentum from minor success.
So for example your choice of situational modifiers could be different in each method. I haven't tried focusing on situational modifiers based on momentum yet, so this discussion could well have helped already, it would fit within the rules without impact on the system. I'll feed back when I have given that a try it out.
Jamie
Powered by hypermail