I don't have a problem with levels of detail, I have a problem with using two different paradigms of contest at the same time. (not forced on us by HQ2 but no real support to help us find our way).
> Or is there a different way to break a conflict into sub-conflicts?
This is something I have been grappling with in my head for a ridiculous length of time so I dont have a fully formed answer.
If the overall conflict is expressed as task resolution then you can easily break it into tasks - think RQ contests: overall conflict I kill or incapacitate the bad guy; sub contests I seek to wound the bad guy in order to achieve the overall objective.
But conflict resolution as generally espoused by HQ simple contests is a bit more tricky to break down. A number of games do do it in interesting ways; like I said previously, I think HQ1 did this to some extent without being explicit about it. It had the ability to change the goals of the conflict mid flow, and could handle some wild shifts of advantage and context.
My own definition of Conflict Resolution is: Conflict resolution is concerned with a character's interests in opposition to, or at least interacting with other interests, leading to a description of the resulting outworking of that clash.
Lets look at a classic Conflict Resolution situation "My character tries to get past the guard". In a simple contest we frame the conflict, select an active skill and a resistance and go to dice. The framing of the conflict is key here, as we need to define the conflict of interest, what is each side's interest in this conflict.
It could be:-
PC: 'get past the guard and into the castle',
Guard: 'be super vigilant and earn a promotion'
or it could be
PC: 'get into the castle at all costs'
Guard 'try and have a sly kip without being fired'.
The overall agendas are not dependent on the choice of skill, but it will effect the narrative outcome and if there has been some context about the guard or the situation such as 'sleepy at night' or 'career minded and keen' then the choice will inform the resistance.
In an extended contest, if we break it down into tasks "I sneak through the shadows to get close to the gate" then the individual actions become a level of abstraction removed from the contest. The individual rolls are essentially narrative colour plus corresponding skill selections. This can result in a satisfactory exploration of what happened but it is not exploring the conflict at the overall level as defined in the initial framing of the contest. We only learn if the conflict of interest is resolved at the end instead of exploring it during the contest.
As a contrast Dogs in the Vineyard (which I consider a close cousin of HQ1) would define the conflict at an abstract level of what is at stake. "Do you get past the guard" perhaps, then we would move into individual actions that seek to achieve the aim directly "I sneak right past him while he is sleeping" (roll sneaking dice and push forward a raise) "the guards fear of getting caught makes him awaken" (rolls fear of authority dice and pushes dice to match), and he spots you in the shadows (rolls night-watchman and pushes forward dice for a raise).
Not only is everything here contextually related to the conflict of interests, each act is actively seeking to resolve it directly. Indeed a raise has to be something that the opposition cannot ignore. So the individual actions are directly opposing one another and engaging in the conflict. Not only that, if the stakes change mid contest then the conflict is resolved and a new one started.
Now there is nothing to stop you from narrating each round of a HQ2 extended contest in this manner, but the mechanics don't directly lend themselves to it, the overall conflict is less abstract in HQ having defined what each party wants up front, and the individual rounds are more about accumulation than seeking to end it every round.
In HQ1 each round was about seeking to swing the advantage in your favour and as the goal could change it left the overall conflict more abstract and open to interpretation as it went along.
Powered by hypermail