Jamie wrote:
>I have read and tried out the new extended contest system in HQ but it
just doesn't seem to do anything for me.
>The mechanics seem to promote multiple rolls for the sake of it, with
any corresponding narration just tacked on.
>There is little opportunity for feedback back from the fiction to the
roll, and the individual rolls feel like a waiting game, withholding the
result as if waiting adds to the tension in some way.
I certainly have felt this from a read through but have not really had the chance to test it myself yet. (Just re-introducing my players to the system and the world.)
>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).
Jamie, could you give an example of what you mean here? I suspect I am on the same page, but am not sure.
>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.
The new contests do seem to be more focused in their goals, which I actually have found helpful as figuring out how to carry over contests with wildly changing goals was a problem for me in the old HQ. (The infamous "I am losing this debate so I seduce the princess instead" issue.)
>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.
I think this is mostly what I am worried about. I found it a problem with the previous extended contests as well. For me it has to do with the aspects of generating a feeling of ebb and flow in the contest. For example, in the example given in the HQ2 book, absolutely nothing done by the players has any mechanical effect until the last round. Not even the small token effect of a situational modifier, if I recall correctly. And that is for something as easy to model as a fight.
Thus it seems, in the new rules, that you have the same problem you had with the old system: Does a victory in an extended contest exchange only give you a move toward resolution (RP or AP), or does it also give a mechanical advantage? (We now have higher ground, we have the backing of the court, you have been pantsed in the courtyard) Is it possible or desirable to have one and not the other, and if so does the system give any guidance for how that works?
In the simple contests, one can garner a lingering benefit that comes into play later, but the extended contests as presented seem to imply it is just rolling multiple times with the same skill (maybe switching skills) a number of times, with each roll having no impact until the end.
There are the alternate "death spiral" rules and such, but they seem to not quite fit the bill.
>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:
>
>1) the current contest is informed by the current tally and the
situation of the ongoing narration.
>2) the current contest is informed by the most recent change to the
tally and the situation of the ongoing contest.
>
>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.
I'd like to hear any feedback you have if you tried this and how it worked out for you. I have the feeling you and I are looking for something similar. Concerning ebb and flow, I always thought there was too much forward progression in both contest rules, and would like something that felt more see-saw. The assist rules slowing down an approaching victory help some for me, but then I *like* a dramatic contest lasting more than 3-4 rounds and very much like the idea of "I've just made victory harder for you without making it easier for myself" as part of the flow of a contest.
LC
Powered by hypermail