In either case I think it is better, or at least more accepted by the shooters, if the action "does something" allowing the competitor to complete the course of fire.

Carry a briefcase and place it on the table which opens the last door/port. Hold down the button which holds a port open or otherwise makes targets visible. And so on. Each of these also provide feedback to the shooter that they have DONE the task; which can be important.

Holding down a button which does nothing readily apparent to the shooter while they are engaged in the COF just because the stage description says so adds little to the production value and overall enjoyment of the stage. Is it a valid test given a particular scenario? Probably; but it is boring.

I suspect that a lot of what drives the need to do something "because it says so" is the complexity of engineering props that will present the same challenge to every competitor and function throughout the match. Most course designers that have been around the sport for very long and who have tried to be innovative have been burned by "cool" props that just didn't last or didn't present the same challenge to shooter #53 as it did to shooter #1 and the stage ends up getting tossed from the match.

Thus, we see a lot of "carry the widget from here to there" because the stage description requires it. Nothing to break. Nothing to go wrong. Same challenge for everyone. Boring.

We also, now and then, see things get taken to the other extreme where the real challenge becomes fitting the right keys into the right padlocks or solving jigsaw puzzles and not solving the shooting challenge. All too often these introduce an element of randomness that is potentially unacceptable where we are supposed to be testing shooting skill.

If these sorts of props are going to be used, especially for Level II and higher matches, they should provide a motivation to complete the task (open door, present targets, etc), be able to be completed by the smallest junior shooter and the oldest super senior without undue difficulty, be repeatable so the challenge is the same throughout the match and add to the production value and therefore the fun factor of the stage.

My 3 cents anyway.

Let the time and score determin the winner not props or games

First, the disclaimer: I apologize in advance if I sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm afraid I don't. I'm a relatively unskilled shooter who just picked up a gun for practice again after several dry years. (I was living in one of those unenlightened states where only police and criminals were allowed to carry guns. OK, "allowed" is not quite accurate for crooks, but the fact that the decision makers didn't actually approve of guns for them didn't change the practical situation for the rest of us.) Anyway, I have only just begin to inquire about practical shooting matches; I haven't even seen one yet.

That said, I do have some noticeable experience with training in other martial arts, and the principles of this topic do seem familiar. Maybe some of what appears in the (other) martial arts relates to shooting, too.

Any organized competition would be pulling off a high achievement if they could keep both sides happy: the people who want mostly to shoot and the people who want more to apply shooting. Most of us probably lean one way or the other, but it is a continuum and there is a balance in there somewhere.

The practical problems sound fairly easy to conceptualize. Instead of pushing a button --which may come across in the heat of the moment like "busy work" (ugh)-- you could have competitors, say, pull a cord which goes through a pully and opens a window revealing their targets. (or swings up cardboard hanging over an opening in a barrier). They have to hold the cord to keep the window open and shoot through the window with the other hand. Low tech, no button, easy to rig, easy to repair. It might feel more relevant than a button.

--Or someone might have to push over a box and use it as cover, etc. Matches have problems like that in them anyway, right? -- like working with cars, shooting under barriers, etc.

The main thing, as Kevin addressed in his comments, is that it should be meaningful in the moment. It should "feel" meaningful and relevant, in the moment, in the context of the situation that the shooter is dealing with. It should come accross congruently as a natural part of the simulated problem, and not merely a contrived distraction.

So the problem is also one of "theatre". The problem tells a story, however short, which the competitor participates in. He plays a part. Ideally, the elements of the story should be at least congruent enough that they do not unduly interfere with the shooter's ability to feel comfortable believing a little bit in his part.

This is also a question of what the main emphasis in these competitions is. It isn't just general combat. I mean, the main topic is shooting in particular. That being the case, one must make a judgement regarding how much time and energy to spend on other things. To spend too much of the scenario on other things might be great training in some respects, but may still interfere with the shooter's enjoyment of the act of shooting itself.

Here is some more esoteric stuff: I'll bet there is also a zen thing going on. Kyudo (zen archery), for instance, keeps things very simple. In this sense it is very "clean". One just shoots. They say one learns to be at one with the bow, the arrow, the target. The archer reaches a very refined psychological state. I imagine good shooters experience some of that.

This "oneness" stuff sounds pretty fluffy, but Kyudo developed in that direction because the psychological state was useful in real life. We're talking about warriors trying to develop both a very acute awareness of the environment around them, and a calm steadyness of mind which allowed them to meet the unexpected with equanimity.

If the mechanics are practical, and the "theatre" is intact, the remaining question is, how much complication do you want to throw in anyway? You want to apply shooting in problem scenarios, but you don't want the problem to take over so it becomes the main thing instead of the shooting. You want them to still be able to enjoy the shooting itself.

There has to be an element of combat zen going on in pistol shooting like there is in Kyudo --that same "in the zone" mental state. That's one of the reasons we enjoy it.

Back to the story analogy, each scenario or problem is a chapter or scene. The whole match is the whole story. My guess would be, when you are deciding how much "props and games" to throw in, you have to find the balance in each scenario, as well as the match overall.

I don't see any problems with props that are solely to distract the shooter from the task of shooting. The courses of fire that most shooters want is wide open blaze away run here, run there and usually shoot on the way. As a fat, over 65 shooter who can't do any of the about, I have no problem carrying the Teddy Bear/Baby/briefcase/bomb (well maybe not the bomb) as a distraction.

At the Open/L10 Nationals, the Open shooters were mainly concerned about being able to shoot the stage without a reload irregardless of the movement. While the L10 shooters seemed to be concerned about the ability to stuff a magazine in a washtub size magwell with some exceptions.

I mainly shoot for fun and if I win something for it fine if not thats fine too but every one is shooting the same courses of fire so does it really matter if you have to knock the box off the table or throw the bag on an activator or drop the 3" washer in a 5 gallon bucket before going through the turnstile.

I don't see any problems with props that are solely to distract the shooter from the task of shooting. The courses of fire that most shooters want is wide open blaze away run here, run there and usually shoot on the way. As a fat, over 65 shooter who can't do any of the about, I have no problem carrying the Teddy Bear/Baby/briefcase/bomb (well maybe not the bomb) as a distraction.

At the Open/L10 Nationals, the Open shooters were mainly concerned about being able to shoot the stage without a reload irregardless of the movement. While the L10 shooters seemed to be concerned about the ability to stuff a magazine in a washtub size magwell with some exceptions.

I mainly shoot for fun and if I win something for it fine if not thats fine too but every one is shooting the same courses of fire so does it really matter if you have to knock the box off the table or throw the bag on an activator or drop the 3" washer in a 5 gallon bucket before going through the turnstile.