> 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?
Sorry I didn't respond sooner -- for some reason, I didn't see this message until yesterday.
> > 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?
In this incident, I think it was obvious to everyone that it should be extended, because the courtship had been playing out over several sessions, and it concerned all the characters (it was part of a plan to settle a major feud between clans). It was probably the most dramatic incident in the session, and one of the more dramatic ones of the campaign.
In our campaign in general, the narrator usually suggests a resolution mechanism but has been willing to take suggestions; for example, I can remember him suggesting a simple contest and then asking the principal player if that's OK, or if the player wants an extended contest instead.
> 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?
Yes.
> 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?
I'm not sure I understand this. In general, the narrator and the players both occasionally change the main or augmenting skills involved. I think our narrator does it more often for dramatic effect, the players more often because some tactic isn't working, but that's just an impression. See one example below.
> > 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?
Everything up to "The gentle caresses..." was before the die roll. I think the narrator decided the NPC came under the cloak after the dice came down and the point totals were worked out.
>
> > 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 think this was still the same extended contest, but with a change of augmenting ability by the player (I think the song became the augmenting ability for the round). I think it also reflects the narrator still using the NPC's kinship relationship as the NPC's main ability in the contest, but describing it slightly differently than before.
>
> > "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?
I think that's basically right. Both narrator and players cooperated to that end, if I remember correctly. On average, I suspect it's the narrator more often than than the players, but both are involved. I can certainly remember trying to come up with interpretations of what happened to my character after each round.
As far as final say: I can't remember any actual disputes on interpretations, although sometimes more than one suggestion was made, and occasionally other players have actually suggested the winning interpretation of what happened to my character.
Rob
Powered by hypermail