[contenders] match duration
Filip Luszczyk:
We've been discussing the length of matches after our yesterday's session.
Now, the way we play Contenders, there's not much narration in comparison to other games (though I'm sure the game would quickly become boring if we completely ditched narration, if only due to the lack of color). Also, we have little role-playing and certainly no character immersion. There is the story, but it's of a secondary importance. There's a lot of strategizing, and threat scenes were used mainly strategically so far. I don't think it defeats the point of anything - it's totally fun for us that way, so I suppose your dissatisfaction is a matter of personal preferences.
Two things that limit the length of matches are Conditioning (unless your stats are worse, you don't really want to level the playing field) and the fact that you might not want the opponent to gain too much Cash (you can earn enough for your own needs through bets anyway). Our matches tend to last for 3-6 rounds, though we're still experimenting with the rules.
However, there's this thing about our Promotion scenes: the length of matches, rather than an agreement between players, is normally a matter of the spotlight player setting the length and the other player nodding. Possibly, our mode of play would benefit if it was always the challenged player who sets the length, or maybe even always the uninvolved player. The latter option would prevent matches for dragging too long, I suppose, so I'll probably propose it to the group the next time we play.
Regardless of the mode, I think non-fighting players could get more involved in fight scenes by role-playing the audience, preferably Connections. However, this probably doesn't solve your problem, since there is apparently no desire to role-play among the other players.
Also, I had an idea for a rule change that could help in engaging non-fighting players in the matches. What if the Cash bet before the match translated to a pool of points that non-fighting players could later spend to give the fighters bonus cards? This would, naturally, require the player to narrate/role-play whatever is boosting the contender. Obviously, the rule would shift the balance, and it has some potential to be used tactically - but perhaps something like this could help in a situation such as yours and ecnourage some role-playing?
Joe J Prince:
Hi there
Thanks for posting Moreno, it's a shame your Contenders game didn't go so well.
I picked up on a couple of things in the original post that may have caused problems.
There are no victory conditions - there are narrative constraints imposed on the Contenders at the end of play.
Also it is Hope vs Pain not Rep that determines these constraints.
Personally I agree with you, the game works better when you immerse and go for the role-play. I don't really understand why people would want to play an RPG and then not role-play?!
However as Filip mentions - it can be fun to just game it. Filip you may want to check out some of the Contenders house rules on the Collective Endeavour site - they are intended to game it up. Not sure about the wagers becoming bonuses but hey give it a whirl and let me know!
I've toyed with the idea of mechanical impositions on match length but I like the in-character negotiations, ultimately it's the social contract at work. So if there are difficulties then there are likely problems with the group dynamic. As Moreno rightly mentions.
Cheers
Joe
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page