Greetings

I played a couple of short sessions of Contenders some time ago, and I got to say I really like the game. Since they weren't full-lenght games or even full sessions, I cannot write an actual play raport. So, just some pointers.

Contenders is a small game. According to my experience, two players and four hours and that’s it. It fits great for a one-night once-off. I’m also very pleased about its capability for a two player game. Lately I’ve had some problems to get more folks present at the same time, so Contenders is something that can be played, when there is not enough time or players for a bigger game. I wonder whether this means that it doesn’t work too well with a larger group. Since there aren't too many different scenes, the game might become a bit too repetitive with, say, four players. But then again you might say the same thing about My Life With Master, and you'd be wrong.

Contenders is an easy game. I’ve had some problems with the fact that I’m die hard narrativist, while my friends represent a mixture of other playing agendas. Gamist – simulationist seems to be the combination for the most of traditional role-players I’ve met. Somehow, though, they find it easy to play Contenders. Maybe it’s because of the fights, maybe because the differences don’t cause problems in this game: the game system turns your actions to drama, no matter what you try to do. The game idea is easy to comprehend and most just get more excited once the game starts rolling.

Contenders is a flexible game. The default setting of Desert city or suggestions of 20s’ regression are not the only options. There's a thread about playing gladiators, and I recently tested Tekken / Mortal Kombat -style approach and it worked well. The same goes for old-school Cyberpunk milieu. It’s easy to change the little bits: the major recolouring goes for Cash and street style. In the CP game Cash wasn’t just about money, but also about respect, fame and name. The effect was the same, of course - giving you an edge in various social situations. Street style on the other hand serves as the genre element: in the Tekken –game it was all the special moves (like Sub Zero’s freezing bolts), while in the CP game it was the cybernetics / technological body modifications. The fact that sometimes you do get caught fell right into the fiction: the judges in MK/Tekken sometimes point it out, sometimes not. God knows how or why they judge as they do - maybe it has something to do with deeper fighting philosophy. In CP being caught meant that your character was despaired and stupid enough to use some obvious enchancement, like a cyber snake or rippers. The fight narration itself adapts easily, so easily that I don’t even have to write about it. I just say that it was pretty bloody funny to describe how our Tekken-fighters performed the fighting choreographies and kicked one another through walls.

Contenders is a dramatic game. It’s easy to fall into thinking that it’s just about fighting, but it’s not. The key to understand this is not to rely on the game mechanics, but let those follow and interpret your actions. For an example, in the beginning of the game when you check your chances to succeed in different scenes you quickly find out that your best bet is to step into the ring. In order to play narrativisticly – as far as I understand it – do not to follow this rational thought. Instead, go to see your Connection for instance and probably lose. Now your character is motivated to gain more money. So go to work then – and lose and again build your anger and desperation. Then step into the ring and wham! the winning and losing means a whole lot more. This is the real thing it borrows from My Life With Master (the minion's chances to succeed in resisting the Master are just as weak as a contender's chances to gain more Hope, which causes the fruitful tension for drama) and it’s a cool thing. Get emotionally involved and you understand right away why you’d want to use Brawl and Threat scenes.

-Sami