The Forge Archives

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote from: StalkingBlue

Quote from: Mike Holmes
What's key about this is that, not only do the players have more information to work on, but you can make the NPC demands interesting. Basically they should set up do or don't dillemas that say something about the character.  

Examples would be much appreciated.  :)

That's a whole 'nother post as well. Check out "Bangs" under Sorcerer. Or start the thread, and I'll get to it when my typing fingers have recuperated.

Mike

I'll also be checking out Bangs - that's a reference to a thread in the Sorcerer forum, yes?

Actually, it's a technique first introduced in the Sorcerer RPG.

A Bang is when a scene is introduced which requires a choice from one or more of the players. Often, this means that the character's response to a Bang will provide one possible answer to the unasked question posed by the situation (and perhaps a personal answer to the "question" that lies behind the whole campaign).

"You're a holy knight, and you just met a pack of gnolls looking for a fight" is not a Bang.

"You're a holy knight, and the pack of gnolls you're chasing splits up, one group carrying away your church's holiest reliquary, the other group leading a chain of slaves that includes your sister..."  That's a Bang.

Yep, Bangs are an important idea. Basically, in every sort of play, there has to be some punchy moment for the player in terms of decision-making. Simply "playing the character" in terms of making up it's dialog really isn't enough to play out a game. Depending on what the player wants from a game, there are different ways to deliver these moments of choice to them.

Gamism: the player has some choice or choices that affect how well their character does. So the character's success is the player's success.
Simulationism: the player has some choice that makes the world seem more "real." That might be chosing which path to take, and discovering A and not discovering B.
Narrativism: the player has some choice to make that either alters their character, or at least the player's understanding of the character, and which takes the story in a new direction therefore.

Bangs are designed to deliver those moments that support Narrativism. Note that the character is not actually forced to change, just the player understanding of the character. For example, if we have a character who is known to be brave, and his bravery is called into question, and he remains brave, then that's not a bang. That's just playing the character correctly, which is always required by plausibility. If, however, the character has to choose between bravery and family, as in Doyce's example, then after the decision is made, we know which is more important to the character at that point.

It also means that the character can change, however. So if the character is loyal, and is given a choice between loyalty and greed, and he is disloyal to go for the greed option, that's cool, too. An important thing to avoid is players feeling that they have to stick with pre-defined character ideas of what the character is like. This is for two reasons. First, it's not realistic or dramatic for people not to change. Rather, it's both realistic and dramatic for people to change. Happens all the time that people betray their own principles. Secondly, this is the stuff of great stories. Boromir is a noble fellow, but then he tries to steal the ring from it's bearer, uncharacteristically. Sure we can blame the ring to some extent. But it's the fact that he's going against what we know of him that's interesting.

HQ allows character change, because nowhere in the rules does it say anything like, "If the character acts against their Psych Lims, the GM can veto that action." Or worse, "The GM should dock the player EXP if they act out of their alignment."

The only "punishment" in HQ for acting against a character's type is that they don't get the augments that they otherwise would get. But, since we know that augments are simply a display of the character, this is merely another just as interesting display of the character. He's acting against what makes him himself normally, so he's not as powerful, so this makes the statement all the more interesting and meaningful.

And given that they might be getting augments from the other side of their own house, well, this is just the character choosing his priorities. All fun stuff for the player to get to do (asssuming they're into narrativism, which is pretty safe; that's not the same as saying that they're not into other modes).

So, yes, Bangs, Bangs, Bangs.


But how do you find Bangs? Well, that's the real subject of this thread. One very consistent way to find Bangs is to create very human situations. To do this requires humans, or good surrogates. Yes, even the baby kobolds count, as long as they're not worth any EXP dead.

The point is that in setting up situation, the best tool you have are NPCs who have certain qualities. First, they have to have strong motives, something that they're willing to act to get. Second, and more importantly, they have to need the PCs to get these things. Thirdly, and most difficultly, the things that they need the PCs to do to get what they want, have to have Bang potential.

Remember, and this is key - the NPCs do not exist to tell a story of their own, but to create situation wherin the PCs are the story. Hamlet is the center of the story, not his stepfather. The king character exists to give Hamlet something to "be indecisive" about, and nothing more. The Queen, his mother, exists to make the situation all the more greusome and pitfall laden. Polonius exists to be killed by Hamlet, so that Ophelia will kill herself, which is all to make Hamlet's life more complicated.

The PCs are Hamlet, and the NPCs are everyone else. Yeah, they're interesting characters, but they don't have a story, they're simply there to be discarded as need be by the needs of the PC to be the center of an interesting set of dilemmas. "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" is the best example I can think of. No die roll by Shakespeare there to see if they survive. No caring that the story of these characters has been cut short without any sort of closure. Just GM Fiat to build the PCs drama.

Often the best way to create these NPCs is to work backwards from the PCs. The process works like this:
1. Find a PC issue.
2. Find a situation that would be good to make a Bang out of the issue.
3. Find a motive that would create that situation.
4. Create an NPC who would have that motive.

For example, we have Doyce's example above:
1. We see that the character could have a conflict over family vs order loyalty.
2. A good situation would be to have something important to the order stolen, along with the PCs sister.
3. A motive that would get the PC into this situation would be for somebody in the order to command him to go after the relic.
4. So we create the leader of the order who informs the character of the theft, and who can command him to go after it.

So we have our NPC and Bang. Master Negarias comes to the PC and says get that relic, or you'll be out of the order! We know that the character is dedicated to the order and will do anything to protect it. The character is formed from the requirements of the PC.

Now, the problem at this point is that we can do this all day, but it's difficult, because you have to always be finding a new issue or whatever. This is where NPC mapping becomes important. That is, once you have one or two ideas for NPCs, a good idea is to find some ways in which they all interact.

Ron's "Relationship Map" is an example of this, and one which points out specifically that amongs other ways, a very effective tool for linking NPCs is via them being related either by blood or by sexual relations. Family, basically. You'll note that if the character kidnapped in the example above is just some man from the village, then there's instantly much less pressure to go after him. If you even make the NPC a female, a potential mate, that suddenly she's more important to save. And if she's family, well, then it becomes critical.

There are other ways to make characters important to each other, of course. So just make sure that the map has strong connections between the characters involved.

Now this doesn't mean that all of the characters have to be related this way, or even related to the PCs. You can, in fact, create entire NPC maps that the PCs don't even know before play starts, or use more than one isolated map. The key is to have each PC have some connection to the map in terms of that strong NPC motivation we mentioned before. Either the PC is strongly related, or the NPC has to have a real need for the PC in some way that brings him "onto the map."

Once hooked, what happens is that all the GM has to do is put stress on the connections between the NPC to alter things to create new motives and thus new ways to tap into NPC issues. For example, if the PC is a friend of a married man on the map, and this man's wife turns out to be cheating on him, the NPC in question might come to the PC and ask him to get rid of the other man. By putting pressure on the NPCs relationship, you create a new motive. Put into action, that motive can become a bang. The PC having a relationship with the NPC has a reason to help him, but we'll assume for the example that he's moral and doesn't want to kill somebody. So he has a choice.

A good NPC map can keep play going for a long time this way. Once many of the NPC issues are resolved (often because they're dead, interestingly), then it's time to introduce a new map.

Questions? I've been brief (yeah, this could have been a lot longer), so I hope I didn't make anything unclear.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesQuestions? I've been brief (yeah, this could have been a lot longer), so I hope I didn't make anything unclear.

Actually, Mike ... for the first time now, I think I really get it. Thanks for keeping it brief and simple.

Fantastic post, Mike.  I feel compelled to illustrate your point with an example from the game you ran last night, because I'm still thinking about it.  It was one of those defining moments -- the first time I'd experienced a good Bang as a *player* rather than a GM:

QuoteBangs are designed to deliver those moments that support Narrativism. Note that the character is not actually forced to change, just the player understanding of the character.

As I said, this happened with me last night.  To explain briefly, I'm playing a thief who is a member of a tribal sort of people (think of them as... sort of Grazers, but with a real psychotic problem with liars).  Until recently, he'd lived in the only real city that these people had (until it got overrun by undead), and he's currently at ... well, what amounts to a refugee camp, consisting of the campground of one tribes, and a trading outpost from another country.

Anyway: someone comes up and says "Hey, you can come and go as you like in the tribe's camp, and they have this great silver idol in their shrine, and I'd like you to steal it and I'll sell it and we'll both make quite a bit of money."

That's a Bang.  Mike may not have realized it, but it was a pretty BIG bang for me, as the PLAYER, because, as he said above, it changed how I saw the character.

On the one hand, my character:
* Is trying to get in touch with these non-citified kin -- he's homeless, and he comes from a tribal people, and it turns out that he misses his 'tribe' a bit.

I agonized over this quite a bit during play, trying to figure out what to do.   I could do it anyway... the money was nice, but I didn't know if it was worth it, nor were angry tribesman... maybe they'd be cursed by the idol's theft... whatever.

Then I realized that my character:
* Doesn't even worship the traditional tribal gods or spirits -- AND he's gotten quite 'into' his personal religion, so he wouldn't really care about the whole religion angle... honestly, it's a way for him to assert the superiority of his own Diety over that of the tribes.
* Is Reckless... almost heroic levels of reckless :)

Seen from that point of view, it was a simple decision, and I certainly made it quickly, once I realized that.  The thing is, *I* didn't realize it quickly.  It took thought and introspection on my part, but I came away with a much clearer image of my character -- the Bang brought things more into focus for me.  It doesn't even matter if he actually steals the idol, now, because the important thing is that now I understand that he *would*.

QuoteOften the best way to create these NPCs is to work backwards from the PCs. The process works like this:
1. Find a PC issue.
2. Find a situation that would be good to make a Bang out of the issue.
3. Find a motive that would create that situation.
4. Create an NPC who would have that motive.

So, to use Mike's example:

1. Gennadi is a burglar, but the only people to steal from at the moment are his own people, whom he also has to rely on somewhat for support right now.
2. Someone from the non-tribal camp (the traders), wants something the Tribe has, and Gennadi's right there, quite comfortable with the foreigners.
3. Stealing this thing would make a lot of money for the thief as well as the fence.
4. The sly, shifty quartermaster (who, granted, already existed) is drafted into service, and approaches Gennadi about doing the job.

It was great stuff -- really kind of amazing.  In the game, it took very little time and very little introspection, but for the player... OOooh, there was a lot of thinking going on.

Quote from: DoyceThat's a Bang.  Mike may not have realized it, but it was a pretty BIG bang for me, as the PLAYER, because, as he said above, it changed how I saw the character.

Dude, I think that was the first Bang I came up with. Been on my Bang sheet since before we started playing. :-)

Looking at his sheet, "Hmm, Rhiani, and a Burglar." I didn't even have to go past his keywords to get that one. In fact, I'm finding more and more that just working off of keywords as generalizations about the character is what works best. Hitting specific abilities is harder, and really can't be repeated often.

This is the genius of HQ, BTW. In making character enumeration about identity, as opposed to about ability, it makes this sort of play just too easy.

QuoteThe thing is, *I* didn't realize it quickly.  It took thought and introspection on my part, but I came away with a much clearer image of my character -- the Bang brought things more into focus for me.  It doesn't even matter if he actually steals the idol, now, because the important thing is that now I understand that he *would*.

Bingo. I often say that the resolution system is almost ancillary to the process. Because the choice to enter a contest is usually far more important than any decisions made during the contest (however, that's what extended contests are for).

Quote4. The sly, shifty quartermaster (who, granted, already existed) is drafted into service, and approaches Gennadi about doing the job.

This is, in fact, how Speckler was created. Very precisely. Think about it, what other Bangs has he created? What other relationship stressors has he been a part of? Yeah, once I made him, he became one of my favorite characters (BTW, in my head he looks and acts somewhat like a young Father Guido Sarducci), and I've used him for a few things. But I created him for the Bang in question.

See how this works now in terms of the map, however? Now that I've revealed that he's a crook, how does that affect his relationship as one of Isadora's most important colony members?

Think it's going to stay a secret long? :-)

By making him part of the map, and not just some wandering fence, his actions have reprecussions that make creating more Bangs easy. Just revealing his acts in this case will constitute a Bang that asks, "How will Isadora handle corruption in her organization when she really can't afford to lose anyone?" I mean, if Speckler goes, then the little smith at the Forge has to take over cooking duties. Think about it.

QuoteIt was great stuff -- really kind of amazing.  In the game, it took very little time and very little introspection, but for the player... OOooh, there was a lot of thinking going on.

Here I'll note that I've thrown a few Bangs at Gennadi so far (not many, really), and this is the only one that's worked as intended. This is the nature of Bangs, and why you have several of them prepared. In fact, the Bang in question I had shoved down to third on my list, because it didn't seem as good as the other ones. It's hard to predict what'll turn a player on.

Now that I know, however, that informs me as to how to make the next bang. Bwahahahahahaha!

What's really cool about all of this, however, is that half of the Bangs that happen in this game aren't from me. The players make them for each other. And they're good at it, too.

For example, last night, Fred had his character make a pass at Adrienne's. This is the simplest most direct, and most fecund, Bang there is. It always works. Because when it's done we know the answer to the question of "would she, or wouldn't she." Turns out that the complex answer she gave was, "Maybe (Probably?), but to find out, you'll have to go fight some goblins first." Which says bucketloads about her character right there.

Good move, Fred (now somebody needs to return the favor for him). I find that with this group, and given the medium (IRC) that I'm often struggling to get my bangs in, and instead just rely on throwing PCs together to cause bangs. It's like all I have to do is have them cross paths, like I'm throwing ingredients in a pot, and stirring gently, and story just happens. Basically, I exist in large part to just display the backdrop I've prepared as fast as I possibly can type.

Mike

First, my apologies for the delay in posting again to this thread.  I'm getting lots of useful advice here, so I'm grateful.  Work and looking for a new home has been interfering with my life a lot recently, so the time I can spend here is kinda limited.  

Quote from: Doyce"You're a holy knight, and the pack of gnolls you're chasing splits up, one group carrying away your church's holiest reliquary, the other group leading a chain of slaves that includes your sister..."  That's a Bang.

Thanks for the example.  I have a hazy grasp of what a Bang is in theory, but the more specific examples and concrete advice on creating them I can get the better.

Quote from: StalkingBlueThanks for the example.  I have a hazy grasp of what a Bang is in theory, but the more specific examples and concrete advice on creating them I can get the better.

Once upon a time on RPG.net there was a threat titled "you Kick, we Bang" in which people would give sample PCs in hypothetical situations, and the rest of the forum would come up with bangs for them.

Perhaps something like that would be useful?

Quote from: Mike HolmesIt also means that the character can change, however. ... An important thing to avoid is players feeling that they have to stick with pre-defined character ideas of what the character is like. This is for two reasons. First, it's not realistic or dramatic for people not to change. ... Secondly, this is the stuff of great stories.

HQ allows character change, because nowhere in the rules does it say anything like, "If the character acts against their Psych Lims, the GM can veto that action." Or worse, "The GM should dock the player EXP if they act out of their alignment."

LOL. We're not slagging off DnD again, are we...

Seriously, the point you make about allowing change is important for me to realise. I've always been in favour of change and I've been pretty flexible about letting people change characters, even in DnD (where by the system as written it's a no-no - again, talk about Drifting!).  

QuoteThe only "punishment" in HQ for acting against a character's type is that they don't get the augments that they otherwise would get. But, since we know that augments are simply a display of the character, this is merely another just as interesting display of the character. He's acting against what makes him himself normally, so he's not as powerful, so this makes the statement all the more interesting and meaningful.

And given that they might be getting augments from the other side of their own house, well, this is just the character choosing his priorities.

I like it.

QuoteAll fun stuff for the player to get to do (asssuming they're into narrativism, which is pretty safe; that's not the same as saying that they're not into other modes).

I think with my current players there's a chance of them being into Narrativism - to some extent, for some of them.  

QuoteOne very consistent way to find Bangs is to create very human situations. To do this requires humans, or good surrogates. Yes, even the baby kobolds count, as long as they're not worth any EXP dead.

Ok so far...

QuoteThe point is that in setting up situation, the best tool you have are NPCs who have certain qualities. First, they have to have strong motives, something that they're willing to act to get. Second, and more importantly, they have to need the PCs to get these things. Thirdly, and most difficultly, the things that they need the PCs to do to get what they want, have to have Bang potential.

Brilliant.  And intimidating.  :)

QuoteRemember, and this is key - the NPCs do not exist to tell a story of their own, but to create situation wherin the PCs are the story.

Yup, I get that.  (Thanks, as always, for illlustrating with an example.)

Weirdly enough the group has "inherited" some NPCs I had originally created with certain PCs in mind, who are now dead or retired. No wonder I'm dithering a bit trying to set up a proper R-map and all that: some of my NPCs are creatively dead weight for me.  I can change that of course, I just had to realise it first.  

QuoteOften the best way to create these NPCs is to work backwards from the PCs. The process works like this:
1. Find a PC issue.
2. Find a situation that would be good to make a Bang out of the issue.
3. Find a motive that would create that situation.
4. Create an NPC who would have that motive.

Oh cool! I was doing that all along, to some extent.  I wasn't so good at identifying PC issues, but that's partly because in DnD issues aren't on the char sheet, they are in the backstory, if any, in meaningful moments in past play, and in the player's comments.  I've usually created NPCs with specific PCs in mind.  Not necessarily expecting that this would actually come into play unless it happened to fit, more simply because it is the way I work a game around the players and the PCs.  

I'll really have to edit my sense of who my NPCs are in this game. Too many of them "died" creatively when "their" PC passed out of play and remained there as hollow shells, as "the camp's disillusioned, underestimated healer" or "the camp's grizzly, constantly overworked commander" and such.  Ok colour and and an ok consistent base for players to come back to, but no creative leverage for me.

Now how do I get better at identifying PC issues?  I suspect HQ will be a great help.  In HQ, reading the char sheet actually helps me in my work.

QuoteNow, the problem at this point is that we can do this all day, but it's difficult, because you have to always be finding a new issue or whatever. This is where NPC mapping becomes important. That is, once you have one or two ideas for NPCs, a good idea is to find some ways in which they all interact.

Ah yes, of course, that's why the R-map is so useful in keeping the game focussed!  It draws all the threads together in ways people can recognise intuitively.   I had used R-maps a few times in dreamtravel scenarios and always noticed that the game felt more "centred" than when I didn't.  It was as if the game moved around a focal point, almost like a complicated dance around a fire rather than wild uncertain hopping all over the place.

QuoteRon's "Relationship Map" is an example of this, and one which points out specifically that amongs other ways, a very effective tool for linking NPCs is via them being related either by blood or by sexual relations. Family, basically.

I understand why.  I've used the "blood or sex" limit on my first R-maps without knowing what it was there for, and found it gives everyone at the table a very quick grasp of the situation and evokes tons of cultural and personal dimensions and connotations.  No other ties have quite the same effect.

QuoteYou can, in fact, create entire NPC maps that the PCs don't even know before play starts, or use more than one isolated map.

Great.  I have isolated maps for various dream-place-times in the game, and I was worrying that with switching over to HQ those scenarios will become much less cool because the PCs aren't tied into the new cast of NPCs (although their NPC "hosts" are, it isn't the same thing).

QuoteThe key is to have each PC have some connection to the map in terms of that strong NPC motivation we mentioned before. Either the PC is strongly related, or the NPC has to have a real need for the PC in some way that brings him "onto the map."

NPC needs that bring PCs on the map?  You mean examples that first help tie the PC in?  Do you have examples?  That's one of the (not so few) things I'm lacking.  

QuoteQuestions? I've been brief (yeah, this could have been a lot longer), so I hope I didn't make anything unclear.

Mike

Brilliant, brilliant post, thank you very much. It has made things a lot clearer to me.

Quote from: DoyceAnyway: someone comes up and says "Hey, you can come and go as you like in the tribe's camp, and they have this great silver idol in their shrine, and I'd like you to steal it and I'll sell it and we'll both make quite a bit of money."

That's a Bang.  Mike may not have realized it, but it was a pretty BIG bang for me, as the PLAYER, because, as he said above, it changed how I saw the character.
...

Seen from that point of view, it was a simple decision, and I certainly made it quickly, once I realized that.  The thing is, *I* didn't realize it quickly.  It took thought and introspection on my part, but I came away with a much clearer image of my character -- the Bang brought things more into focus for me.  It doesn't even matter if he actually steals the idol, now, because the important thing is that now I understand that he *would*.

Oh, a fantastic example.  It shows me another angle on Bangs that I've felt insecure about without quite being aware of what it was:  half of whether something is or isn't a Bang is in the mind of the player.  

I've felt kind of an obligation to come up with ideas that would be "good enough" to count as Bangs, and have been secretly frustrated when they didn't seem to work as Bangs because the player in question "simply" decided and moved on, or conversely I've been mystified-and-delighted when something turned into a character-defining moment when I hadn't anticipated that it might.

So maybe I've been doing something right already, and I can just get to it and practice to become more confident.  

Why don't any roleplaying books tell you that?  

Not even Sorcerer does, or not in a language I can understand.  (And that's not to diminish the impact of Ron's thinking - I awoke to a whole different dimension of thinking about roleplaying games when I first riddled my way through the strange and inaccessible terminology in Sorcerer. I  think it's a work of genius. I wish it were written in a way that would allow more people to read and understand it though.  End of rant.)

QuoteIt was great stuff -- really kind of amazing.  In the game, it took very little time and very little introspection, but for the player... OOooh, there was a lot of thinking going on.

Sounds like a great moment in the game.

Quote from: Mike HolmesIn fact, I'm finding more and more that just working off of keywords as generalizations about the character is what works best. Hitting specific abilities is harder, and really can't be repeated often.

With my limited experience trying to use Bangs, I've mostly had a easier time playing off general player expectations and situations than with specifics players had created, say, as part of a character background.  "Bangs" have tended to fall flat when I was catering to a player's expectations, and worked (or created themselves, almost) at times when we suddenly found an issue that no one had ever looked at too closely before.  

Quote

Quote4. The sly, shifty quartermaster (who, granted, already existed) is drafted into service, and approaches Gennadi about doing the job.

This is, in fact, how Speckler was created. Very precisely. Think about it, what other Bangs has he created? What other relationship stressors has he been a part of?

Great for me to be able to see the little cogs and wheels of design here, and in what followed.

QuoteHere I'll note that I've thrown a few Bangs at Gennadi so far (not many, really), and this is the only one that's worked as intended. This is the nature of Bangs, and why you have several of them prepared. In fact, the Bang in question I had shoved down to third on my list, because it didn't seem as good as the other ones. It's hard to predict what'll turn a player on.

I hadn't realised that.  I've felt rather inadequate with my unpredictable Bang/not-a-Bang results - but it's actually normal!  Yay. How cool, I can simply go ahead and practice.

QuoteFor example, last night, Fred had his character make a pass at Adrienne's. This is the simplest most direct, and most fecund, Bang there is. It always works.

Heh, cool.  (Also cool that you don't have a group where players cringe at the first hint of romantic interaction.  Or maybe because it's online, cringing in front of a screen here and there doesn't show...)

QuoteIt's like all I have to do is have them cross paths, like I'm throwing ingredients in a pot, and stirring gently, and story just happens.

Oh.  I just realised I created a Bang for another player in the HQ I've been playing in for a few sessions.  I had my character go ask his PC whether she wanted to come along on a cattle raid to patch people up if needed.  She's an ex-healer but now married and pregnant for the first time (and is bearing a long-desired son, the outcome of a successful Heroquest), so I expected a No.  Instead, the player considered and dithered and in the end decided to go along, to everyone's surprise (almost I want to say not least his own, but I can't be sure of that).

Quote from: Brand_RobinsOnce upon a time on RPG.net there was a threat titled "you Kick, we Bang" in which people would give sample PCs in hypothetical situations, and the rest of the forum would come up with bangs for them.

Perhaps something like that would be useful?

Wonderful suggestion.  Not sure I dare split off yet another thread right now ... :)

Quote from: StalkingBlueI'll really have to edit my sense of who my NPCs are in this game. Too many of them "died" creatively when "their" PC passed out of play and remained there as hollow shells, as "the camp's disillusioned, underestimated healer" or "the camp's grizzly, constantly overworked commander" and such.  Ok colour and and an ok consistent base for players to come back to, but no creative leverage for me.

They sound like cool NPCs. So the players will probably really enjoy them coming back to life in this way. Consider this: in HQ, when a character dies, any characters who have relationships to that character still have those relationships. Just because somebody dies, doesn't mean that your relationship with them ceases to exist.

The typical example is that if somebody the character loves is killed, then they can employ their relationship in exacting revenge from the agency that caused the death.

The point is that these NPCs still have their feelings for the heroes in question. So they may still have related motives. If, for instance, there's an enemy out there running around that killed one of the PCs, then the NPC may want the current PCs to eliminate it for revenge's sake. And that's just the obvious stuff.

Want to do something really fun? Have one of these characters also be a bard or something like it. He's remembered all these dead, and has composed beautiful laments to their names that are deeply moving. Heroes who listen to the bard's stories can take relationships to the dead in question. So the players can link their new characters to any dead ones that they like. Thus giving more meaning to some of the deaths. They can become avengers of the fallen. Thus the dead lend strength to the living.

How cool is that?

QuoteNow how do I get better at identifying PC issues?  I suspect HQ will be a great help.  In HQ, reading the char sheet actually helps me in my work.

Yep.

Keep in mind that Issue is not quite the correct term. I use it too much as shorthand. Yes, if the character has some "kicker" hanging out there, these are obvious issues. For example, a character might have on their sheet. Needs to Avenge Ragnar 5W. Those are easy to pick out as sources for bangs.

What's less obvious, but just as fruitful ground, is that you as narrator can create issues from any value that the character has. And that's almost anything on the character sheet. For example, all relationships and personality traits are easy targets. Take two characters with whom the hero has relationships, and have them at odds with each other, and suddenly the character has an issue.

Players usually don't create their own issues unless asked, to do so - so you'll have to create them via situation.

More examples with personality traits. NPC relationship A wants character to do something dishonest, but the character has an honest personality trait. Character's drive to achieve some goal alienates Relationship B. More concretely, a character is given an opportunity to rise in rank which his Ambitious side likes (ambitious is so good at getting heroes in trouble, I'm starting to think that I should suggest it as a flaw), but to do it he has to really talk up a lot of people, which goes against his "taciturn" trait.

But you can go even farther. HQ abilities establish identity. So you can have a character who is a warrior by occupation, but who's people have surrendered, and are requiring him not to fight. Thus his occupation opposes his homeland interests. Even the most "valueless" of abilities have value in terms of identity. If the character has a very high "swordsman" ability, he might be offered a chance to expand his magic abilities if he sets aside his sword training. So the player has to decide who the character is in terms of what abilities he pursues more actively.

Try this little exercise. Take two random abilities from the character sheet, and see if you can't come up with some NPC motive (or motives, sometimes you need two or more NPCs to make it work) that would entangle the character in some way that puts the one ability up against the other ability. I think with practice you can probably do it with any two abilities, though some are probably hard to make really interesting.

Fortunately you don't have to do this, however; you can intelligently pick from the list. Given that each character has a ton of abilites, and that some pairings can be hit repeatedly from different angles, there's a vast source of potential issues that you can create doing this that'll have some really dramatic effects on play.

Then you just create or "adjust" NPCs to fit these issue creations, and you're off and running.

QuoteAh yes, of course, that's why the R-map is so useful in keeping the game focussed!  It draws all the threads together in ways people can recognise intuitively.   I had used R-maps a few times in dreamtravel scenarios and always noticed that the game felt more "centred" than when I didn't.  It was as if the game moved around a focal point, almost like a complicated dance around a fire rather than wild uncertain hopping all over the place.

Precisely. If the issues arrive from random NPCs that aren't entangled themselves, then you have the problem that the characters really can go off on their own without interacting at all with the other heroes. Which isn't undoable. But generally isn't sought. Player interaction in character is still ver fun, and the R-map allows you to do this.

There are lots of other centralizing methods, however, one of which you're already employing, which is the "team" concept. Different from the "party" concept (in which we may occasionally not be sure why the characters are hanging around with each other), the team concept simply says that there are some extant social forces that keep the team together.

If you want to have this continue in the game, then you should immediately give the players a free, and rather strong, "Member of Team" relationship right off the bat that pretty much functions whenever more than one team-member is around and helping in the slightest. What's really cool about this, is that then you can actually toy around with characters leaving the team, which is a classic issue with this sort of situation. Instead of in party play where you're struggling to keep everyone together because there are no real ties, with the relationship, they're all giving up that augment that they get constantly when they're with the team.

Call this the Power Rangers rule. OK, I have a four-year old son. But the theme rings true in everything up to buddy movies. When they go off alone, they do badly, but when the patch things up, everything goes their way.

There are other centralizing methods as well, but these are the two best known.

QuoteI understand why.  I've used the "blood or sex" limit on my first R-maps without knowing what it was there for, and found it gives everyone at the table a very quick grasp of the situation and evokes tons of cultural and personal dimensions and connotations.  No other ties have quite the same effect.

Yep, it's true. Ron made a keen observation when he noted this. When you make your map, throw the characters out there, and when you see one's floating a tad "loose" on their own, just find somebody for them to be related to. It's fascinating how often this works with very little adjustment. You can even do this mid-stream.

"She's your sister? I didn't know that!"
"Yeah, not something I like to admit. But we have the same father."

Quote

QuoteYou can, in fact, create entire NPC maps that the PCs don't even know before play starts, or use more than one isolated map.

Great.  I have isolated maps for various dream-place-times in the game, and I was worrying that with switching over to HQ those scenarios will become much less cool because the PCs aren't tied into the new cast of NPCs (although their NPC "hosts" are, it isn't the same thing).

Careful with this. If you have only on PC "contact" the new map, he might get sucked into it, and away from everyone else. Try to introduce the map only when you can hit several heroes with it at once. Not in an implausible way - don't have them appear out of the woodwork separately all looking for different PCs. Instead have them encounter a family at a get-together, where it's plausible to have the NPCs come at different heroes.

Quote

QuoteThe key is to have each PC have some connection to the map in terms of that strong NPC motivation we mentioned before. Either the PC is strongly related, or the NPC has to have a real need for the PC in some way that brings him "onto the map."

NPC needs that bring PCs on the map?  You mean examples that first help tie the PC in?  Do you have examples?  That's one of the (not so few) things I'm lacking.  

It's that "needing" the PC thing, again.

NPC A says that she needs PC B to kill NPC C. Well, right off, the PC is involved with two characters on the map. Meaning that it's easy to entangle him with more, because of the relationships. NPC D, father of NPC A overhears the plan, and begs PC B to forget what he's heard. NPC E, lover of NPC A, kills NPC D, and implicates PC B, because he wants PC B to do the murder, too, and also wants D out of the way so he can marry A and get her inheritance.

See how suddenly the PC is "grabbed" by the map. That's the phrasology that Ron and Paul Czege use for this stuff (amongst others), you want the map to be "grabby". As opposed to "hooky." That is, the player should feel compelled to give some sort of response to the characters on the map because it's interesting, not because the system tells him that his character "would" respond to the situation. That is, a "grab" grabs the player and says, "This is fun!" Wheras a "hook" hooks the player in and say, "You have to do this!"

Note that grabbing can be quite forceful, actually. In fact, it can look like railroading to a player who's not interested in the situation. It's only got to provide multiple avenues for the player in question.

Mike

Posting right after the above...

Quote from: StalkingBlueOh, a fantastic example.  It shows me another angle on Bangs that I've felt insecure about without quite being aware of what it was:  half of whether something is or isn't a Bang is in the mind of the player.  

Incorrect. Whether or not something is a Bang is 100% in the mind of the player. Only he is concerned with railroading and such concerns - the character is oblivious.

QuoteI've felt kind of an obligation to come up with ideas that would be "good enough" to count as Bangs, and have been secretly frustrated when they didn't seem to work as Bangs because the player in question "simply" decided and moved on,

Well, this sounds like a mode problem. For the "sim" player, it's no different a decision than any other - he only has to consider what his vision of the character says, and not what he himself thinks about the situation.

Quote...or conversely I've been mystified-and-delighted when something turned into a character-defining moment when I hadn't anticipated that it might.

And this will continue. But hopefully it'll be a tad more emphasized in that everyone will "get" that these are big, fun moments.

QuoteSo maybe I've been doing something right already, and I can just get to it and practice to become more confident.  

I believe that you are already doing things to promote narrativism. Just in an unfocused way, and using a system that's militated against your designs previously. So no surprise that it's hit and miss.

QuoteWhy don't any roleplaying books tell you that?  

Not even Sorcerer does, or not in a language I can understand.

Because even Ron didn't understand all of this when it was produced. I'm mostly reiterating his development on the ideas in Sorcerer over the past few years since it's publication. These ideas are cutting edge.

QuoteWith my limited experience trying to use Bangs, I've mostly had a easier time playing off general player expectations and situations than with specifics players had created, say, as part of a character background. "Bangs" have tended to fall flat when I was catering to a player's expectations, and worked (or created themselves, almost) at times when we suddenly found an issue that no one had ever looked at too closely before.

Hmm. This is as likely to be wrong as it is right, but that, combined with other things you've said before, sounds like "battered player syndrome." That is, some GM or GMs used lots of hooks to railroad the characters in previous games, and so they're cautious about their characters being "hookable." They bought into the campaign issues implicitly when they decided to play it, so they're not being hooked by those issues.

Again, in this case, a player responding in a "well of course he does X" manner is saying that they don't want to allow the GM the power to hook their character. They'll do whatever "My Guy" would do.

Another symptom is "turtling" where the player resists all attempts to involve the character in any meaninngful way. Got any of those players?

QuoteHeh, cool. (Also cool that you don't have a group where players cringe at the first hint of romantic interaction. Or maybe because it's online, cringing in front of a screen here and there doesn't show...)

Heh, think that I could feel Adrienne cringing even through the computer screen - though only she can say for sure. But Fred was adult about it, and the scene ended very interestingly.

Again, narrativism is about player reactions - 100%. So the players are exposing themselves to each other in some ways. And that can be uncomfortable at times. But I'd say that handled well, that uncomfortableness is actually healthy for the game. So throw some romance at your players, and make em squirm a bit till they get used to it.

Excellent example bang, with the pregnant healer. Yep, that's classic. Consider that there's a hidden "Sex" Keyword on each character's sheet - we've been over this on the rules list. So all issues of maleness, or femaleness (including pregnancy) are automatically valid for all characters.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesWant to do something really fun? Have one of these characters also be a bard or something like it. He's remembered all these dead, and has composed beautiful laments to their names that are deeply moving. Heroes who listen to the bard's stories can take relationships to the dead in question. So the players can link their new characters to any dead ones that they like. Thus giving more meaning to some of the deaths. They can become avengers of the fallen. Thus the dead lend strength to the living.

Very nice.  Now the system will no longer force me to use the silly Bard class when I want an NPC to sing, it'll be much easier to do!  

QuoteWhat's less obvious, but just as fruitful ground, is that you as narrator can create issues from any value that the character has. And that's almost anything on the character sheet. For example, all relationships and personality traits are easy targets. Take two characters with whom the hero has relationships, and have them at odds with each other, and suddenly the character has an issue.

D'oh. This is so easy it shouldn't be allowed. :-) No wonder I had a hard time coming up with Bangs for DnD PCs.... (Not that I expect all my Bangs to work all of a sudden - but I'll have an idea how to go about creating them!)

And as always, thanks for the tons of examples.

QuoteHQ abilities establish identity. So you can have a character who is a warrior by occupation, but who's people have surrendered, and are requiring him not to fight.

Oh, fantastic. You may just have given me an idea for a HQ PC of my own. (In th eHeortling game I'm struggling with.)

QuoteIf you want to have this continue in the game, then you should immediately give the players a free, and rather strong, "Member of Team" relationship right off the bat that pretty much functions whenever more than one team-member is around and helping in the slightest.

Will do.  (Damn, I forgot about this one in the conversion session, but I'll definitely do it when we play again.) I think the players will love that.

QuoteThere are other centralizing methods as well, but these are the two best known.

Hm... Do I dare ask for more methods?  If you like to post more, I'm still avid. :-)

QuoteIf you have only on PC "contact" the new map, he might get sucked into it, and away from everyone else. Try to introduce the map only when you can hit several heroes with it at once. Not in an implausible way - don't have them appear out of the woodwork separately all looking for different PCs. Instead have them encounter a family at a get-together, where it's plausible to have the NPCs come at different heroes.

The maps I've used in time/dream scenarios were tiny - no more than half a dozen NPCs with a few simple ties, some obvious, others not so much.  We never played for long enough to fully exploit any map, but the players usually had a strong sense of what mission they wanted their PCs to be on and would treat the NPCs like supporting cast in, say, Star Trek shows: to be involved with for one episode, then to fade3 away again.

Unfortunately, one player was so attracted to the dream/time places that he insisted to have a new PC come from one of them.  He played the PC only for two sessions and had a lot of trouble finding his way into the Team the group has formed.  He gave up during our character conversion session on Thursday.

Perhaps I shouldn't have allowed the character. (I told him about my concerns, but when he insisted and seemed really enthusiastic, I let it go.)

QuoteSee how suddenly the PC is "grabbed" by the map. That's the phrasology that Ron and Paul Czege use for this stuff (amongst others), you want the map to be "grabby". As opposed to "hooky." That is, the player should feel compelled to give some sort of response to the characters on the map because it's interesting, not because the system tells him that his character "would" respond to the situation. That is, a "grab" grabs the player and says, "This is fun!" Wheras a "hook" hooks the player in and say, "You have to do this!"

Or simply states, "Follow Line at End of Hook to Find Interesting Adventure." With (if it gets really bad) an implied threat that if you refuse the hook, you'll sit around bored for the rest of the night.

QuoteNote that grabbing can be quite forceful, actually. In fact, it can look like railroading to a player who's not interested in the situation. It's only got to provide multiple avenues for the player in question.

Railroading?  But the player is free to have the PC walk away from all those crazy NPCs who want him to murder someone.  Of course that, too, will do two things: make a statement about the PC and affect the NPCs on the map. Some of whom might trail after him trying to kill him before he can tell about the murder plan...  Hm. Still, how is that railroading? I'm just throwing starting conditions at the player and having them deal with the consequences of their actions.  I've done that quite a bit in traditional linear games with no Bangs - sprung an ambush, sent spies or assassins after PCs, put PCs in the middle of a violent event without asking etc.  As long as I'm not taking away the players' freedom of choice after the kickoff event for a scenario, I'm not railroading. Or am I? Are we using the word with different meanings?

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote from: StalkingBlueOh, a fantastic example.  It shows me another angle on Bangs that I've felt insecure about without quite being aware of what it was:  half of whether something is or isn't a Bang is in the mind of the player.  

Incorrect. Whether or not something is a Bang is 100% in the mind of the player. Only he is concerned with railroading and such concerns - the character is oblivious.

Misunderstanding.  My mistake, I should have expressed my thought more clearly. It wasn't the player-PC divide I was thinking of, it was the player-GM divide, in the sense that a large part of the reasons of whether a Bang will work is inside the mind of the player alone and not accessible to the GM because it has never come up in play before and never been talked about by the player and GM.  

Quote

QuoteI've felt kind of an obligation to come up with ideas that would be "good enough" to count as Bangs, and have been secretly frustrated when they didn't seem to work as Bangs because the player in question "simply" decided and moved on,

Well, this sounds like a mode problem. For the "sim" player, it's no different a decision than any other - he only has to consider what his vision of the character says, and not what he himself thinks about the situation.

Hm yeah.  The two players I remember doing this have strong Sim tendencies (strangely enough ones that weren't too well compatible with each other).

Quote

Quote...or conversely I've been mystified-and-delighted when something turned into a character-defining moment when I hadn't anticipated that it might.

And this will continue. But hopefully it'll be a tad more emphasized in that everyone will "get" that these are big, fun moments.

That'd make me one happy GM.  I like to be surprised by my players.

Quote

QuoteWhy don't any roleplaying books tell you that?  

Not even Sorcerer does, or not in a language I can understand.

Because even Ron didn't understand all of this when it was produced. I'm mostly reiterating his development on the ideas in Sorcerer over the past few years since it's publication. These ideas are cutting edge.

No doubt about it. I only wish they were more accessible to roleplayers, I'm sure many groups would are more than ready to go beyond that weird "role" vs. "roll" view of playing.  

When I first read "Sorcerer and Sword" (borrowed from a DnD GM I was playing with and my first access to a Sorcerer text), I understood perhaps 5% of it. The bits I did understand I liked immensely and I kept coming back despite continuous frustration - because frankly, my frustration at not being able to do what I felt I wanted from RPGs grew even greater once I realised there might be another way.  

On the whole that GM didn't do himself a favour when he circulated the book around his group - the majority of the players hated it and if anything, grew more resistant to mode and style changes than they might otherwise have been.  

(All that hasn't stopped me from buying all the Sorcerer books for the brilliant ideas in them;  but I'll know better than to hand them out to people to read - and that is what frustrates me a bit.  These ideas deserve much wider access than a few determined GMs are able to provide to their own groups, I think.)

Quote

QuoteWith my limited experience trying to use Bangs, I've mostly had a easier time playing off general player expectations and situations than with specifics players had created, say, as part of a character background. "Bangs" have tended to fall flat when I was catering to a player's expectations, and worked (or created themselves, almost) at times when we suddenly found an issue that no one had ever looked at too closely before.

Hmm. This is as likely to be wrong as it is right, but that, combined with other things you've said before, sounds like "battered player syndrome." That is, some GM or GMs used lots of hooks to railroad the characters in previous games, and so they're cautious about their characters being "hookable." They bought into the campaign issues implicitly when they decided to play it, so they're not being hooked by those issues.

One player on Thursday finally told us that he tended to stay away from NPC relationships (and make sure that an NPCs and family in his background were dead) because of that GM he'd had who'd always kill them off.

The saddest thing about this is that it is such a commonly used GMing technique in games like DnD;  and I suspect the reason can be a good one:  the GM may be trying to involve the players in the game emotionally and to make the game more fun and interesting and meaningful.  
(Of course there also are GMs who simply enjoy screwing players over, I've briefly known one of those;  and GMs who can't draw their players into a scenario (or groups that won't be drawn in) other than by killing important NPCs.)

QuoteAgain, in this case, a player responding in a "well of course he does X" manner is saying that they don't want to allow the GM the power to hook their character. They'll do whatever "My Guy" would do.

Another symptom is "turtling" where the player resists all attempts to involve the character in any meaninngful way. Got any of those players?

I had a turtle until a couple of months ago (I posted a thread in Actual Play asking for advice).  It was obvious that the turtle wasn't enjoying the game a lot, yet he claimed he did, always turned up, and always chronicled sessions most reliably.  He finally left the group after personal tension between him and another player erupted.  

QuoteHeh, think that I could feel Adrienne cringing even through the computer screen - though only she can say for sure. But Fred was adult about it, and the scene ended very interestingly.

That makes my arm hairs bristle.  What I'd want to know in this situation is what Adrienne felt the whole thing.  Male players having their male PC hit on a female player's female PC is very common in roleplaying games, and I've seen too many situations in which this was clearly dysfunctional because it made the female player uncomfortable (usually unnoticed by male players/GMs) to be quite comfortable here.  

QuoteAgain, narrativism is about player reactions - 100%. So the players are exposing themselves to each other in some ways. And that can be uncomfortable at times. But I'd say that handled well, that uncomfortableness is actually healthy for the game.

Yeah, as long as both players have ways to make each other uncomfortable. In most games I've seen (especially fantasy), unspoken group consensus implies a sexist attitude towards women.  It's taboo in the sense that the attitude can't be mentioned, much less criticised at the table, yet it is played on a lot.  

I think this is a topic for another thread iy fou want to discuss it further?  

QuoteYep, that's classic. Consider that there's a hidden "Sex" Keyword on each character's sheet - we've been over this on the rules list. So all issues of maleness, or femaleness (including pregnancy) are automatically valid for all characters.

Again, I'm not comfortable with this, from past experience.  Care to split this off?  (If so, what is the rules list? Can I access it to find that discussion?)

Quote from: StalkingBlueD'oh. This is so easy it shouldn't be allowed.

It is easy to engage players via the NPCs they've created. Keep in mind that some or all of these NPCs can be on the R-Map. Heck, the PC can be on R-Map, too if you like. Whole games can be played just within the confines of one's own family.

Quote

QuoteThere are other centralizing methods as well, but these are the two best known.

Hm... Do I dare ask for more methods?  If you like to post more, I'm still avid. :-)

Here's another one: the organization. All the characters are at school at Hogworts. For Glorantha, all the PCs belong to the same village - or even more tightly, the same temple. The "team" concept implies missions. Whereas the organization method says merely that the PCs have some similar concerns.

Often the "team" concept implies an organization, but not always. Just as often, the team is independent (think supers), or reports to a single powerful patron - theoretically the Three Musketeers belong to the army, but they really only report to one person, if at all.

Note how you can mix and match these. The tightest combination I can think of involves a PC team that troubleshoots for an organization, where the R-Map used is the organization. The classic rooting out the traitor thing, or somesuch. That's probably overkill, but you get my point.

Any value can be used to centralize. Could be a single NPC that the characters are all in love with. Or a religious movement that they all believe is crucial. As with R-Maps, these things can be added in play. Basically any value, or set of values can be presented to the group as a whole, and work to create centralizing action.

Yes, even a shared "Loves Adventuring with These Guys" can work, creating the classic "party." The advantage is that with HQ, there's a numerical committment to this concept that represents something in-game. And it's something that can then be challenged in-game as well, so you never have the case where play is "shaped" unnaturally to avoid such conflict. It's an interesting concept when you play with it right.

QuoteThe maps I've used in time/dream scenarios were tiny - no more than half a dozen NPCs with a few simple ties, some obvious, others not so much.  We never played for long enough to fully exploit any map, but the players usually had a strong sense of what mission they wanted their PCs to be on and would treat the NPCs like supporting cast in, say, Star Trek shows: to be involved with for one episode, then to fade away again.

Well, this all sounds pretty positive in terms of getting people in touch with the R-map. Was there some problem you were pointing out here?

QuoteUnfortunately, one player was so attracted to the dream/time places that he insisted to have a new PC come from one of them.  He played the PC only for two sessions and had a lot of trouble finding his way into the Team the group has formed.  He gave up during our character conversion session on Thursday.

Perhaps I shouldn't have allowed the character. (I told him about my concerns, but when he insisted and seemed really enthusiastic, I let it go.)

This seems like a whole new concern. I would have allowed the character in an instant. I'm not sure what the problem here is. That he didn't get onto the team?

One thing to keep in mind is that not all characters have to be in on the centralizing method used. If all the PCs are on a team but one, then engage that other character via R-Map. The whole point of what I've been saying about teams and such are that players can have their characters walk away at any time if they like. So you have to be prepared with something else to keep them linked with the other PCs.

QuoteOr simply states, "Follow Line at End of Hook to Find Interesting Adventure." With (if it gets really bad) an implied threat that if you refuse the hook, you'll sit around bored for the rest of the night.

That's what I meant by "have to do this." It's a player level penalty. You play the scenario, or you don't play at all.

Quote

QuoteNote that grabbing can be quite forceful, actually. In fact, it can look like railroading to a player who's not interested in the situation. It's only got to provide multiple avenues for the player in question.

Railroading?

"Look like", I wrote "look like." What I'm saying is precisely what you were saying. That is, if player A doesn't see what's interesting about a decision to player B, then using a lot of GM authority to move the game to that place can seem to player A like you're railroading player B.

This is not an issue, I'm merely trying to illustrate that tactics that are used for railroading in some cases can be used to create bangs when done properly.

QuoteI've done that quite a bit in traditional linear games with no Bangs - sprung an ambush, sent spies or assassins after PCs, put PCs in the middle of a violent event without asking etc.

Yep, this is what I'm talking about. And they probably were bangs, BTW. Or, perhaps the gamism version. "You wake up naked in a slave pen" is how one of the famous D&D A series modules begins. Which is merely setting up the challenge. It gives the players opportunity to shine, it doesn't take it away. The only difference between this and a Bang, is that a Bang intends to deliver a thematic decision instead of a tactical one.

QuoteIt wasn't the player-PC divide I was thinking of, it was the player-GM divide, in the sense that a large part of the reasons of whether a Bang will work is inside the mind of the player alone and not accessible to the GM because it has never come up in play before and never been talked about by the player and GM.

I see. It's true that you can't be 100% certain about what'll turn a player on. But HQ is all about giving you assitance in this. Watch especially which abilities the player spends HP on. This is a strong indicator about what they'd like to see.

QuoteOn the whole that GM didn't do himself a favour when he circulated the book around his group - the majority of the players hated it and if anything, grew more resistant to mode and style changes than they might otherwise have been.

(All that hasn't stopped me from buying all the Sorcerer books for the brilliant ideas in them; but I'll know better than to hand them out to people to read - and that is what frustrates me a bit. These ideas deserve much wider access than a few determined GMs are able to provide to their own groups, I think.)

Hmm. That's the first I've heard of that happening. Seems to me that if the ideas are good that the books should be a fine way of getting the message across. I dunno.

QuoteOne player on Thursday finally told us that he tended to stay away from NPC relationships (and make sure that an NPCs and family in his background were dead) because of that GM he'd had who'd always kill them off.

Classic.

QuoteThe saddest thing about this is that it is such a commonly used GMing technique in games like DnD; and I suspect the reason can be a good one: the GM may be trying to involve the players in the game emotionally and to make the game more fun and interesting and meaningful.

Well, I think in a lot of cases, the problem is that the GM is using the NPC deaths as a hook. The scenario is that there are a band of orcs wandering about looting. But the PCs don't seem interested in stopping them. So we'll kill off an NPC to get their attention and give them a motive to kill the orcs.

And this is seen as dramatic - I mean it is the stuff of good stories, vengeance and all. The problem is that the player isn't really "compensated" for their loss. That is, they're out an NPC that they care about, and all they get for it is an excuse to kill orcs. Which doesn't resolve anything about the death of the NPC, really.

So, unless the player uses a lot of Pawn stance, they're likely to find NPC death this way to be abusive.

QuoteThat makes my arm hairs bristle. What I'd want to know in this situation is what Adrienne felt the whole thing. Male players having their male PC hit on a female player's female PC is very common in roleplaying games, and I've seen too many situations in which this was clearly dysfunctional because it made the female player uncomfortable (usually unnoticed by male players/GMs) to be quite comfortable here.

Yep, I'll admit that being in IRC probably made the situation worse. That is, here's Fred, pretty annonymous to Adrienne, doing this.

The problem in this situation is that the female player in this case is being forced to make a personal statement about how comfortable she is with this sort of thing. It's quite complex - I don't think it's that women have a problem playing a sexual character, I think that they rightly have a problem when a man forces them to display just how interested they are in these things by forcing them to create a response in-character.

Basically, it's the player using his position in the game to feel someone out, without the normal repercussions for doing so. Very invasive.

Except in this case, I knew that this wasn't what Fred was up to. I'm not Fred's bestest friend or anything, but he's a member of this community who participates conscientiously, and from what I knew of him, I was pretty sure that he was just playing out the drama of the scene as he felt best (in fact, he opened up his character in that the scene was based on a misunderstanding on his part that he'd enginnered knowingly - he was just asking to get shot down). I almost stepped in, just because I thought that Adrienne might be uncomfortable anyhow. But she seemed to catch on to what Fred was up to, so I didn't. I hope that I was reading things correctly. Hard via chat.

Instead, the pressure ended up creating a pretty neat situation. Adrienne told me today that she's purchased a "Conflicted about Okhfels" ability for he character (that's Fred's character). And I think he might have something similar. Meaning that it's just rife with all sorts of potential conflict in the future.

Sexism in general might be a topic for elsewhere (and do a search as it's already been done a lot). But, generally, all players must feel that they're equal participants in looking at issues, or they're not going to have fun. So no player should be there just to be the subject of other players objectification. Be it sex, religion, age or whatever that's being preyed upon.

I'm still not sure what your issue is with sex as a keyword, or why it might make you uncomfortable, but, sure, start a new thread so we can elaborate on it. The "rules list" is: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/HeroQuest-rules/

You may have trouble finding it there, however, as it's pretty high volume. Might just be easier for me to synopsize in the new thread.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesYes, even a shared "Loves Adventuring with These Guys" can work, creating the classic "party." The advantage is that with HQ, there's a numerical committment to this concept that represents something in-game. And it's something that can then be challenged in-game as well, so you never have the case where play is "shaped" unnaturally to avoid such conflict. It's an interesting concept when you play with it right.

Very. I loved your suggestion of giving a "Member of NN Team" at a fairly high rating.  

Quote

QuoteThe maps I've used in time/dream scenarios were tiny - no more than half a dozen NPCs with a few simple ties, some obvious, others not so much.  We never played for long enough to fully exploit any map, but the players usually had a strong sense of what mission they wanted their PCs to be on and would treat the NPCs like supporting cast in, say, Star Trek shows: to be involved with for one episode, then to fade away again.

Well, this all sounds pretty positive in terms of getting people in touch with the R-map. Was there some problem you were pointing out here?

No, on the contrary, just a clarification. I was responding to your warning about the danger of individual players getting "sucked" into such maps and trying to explain why the danger was maybe less than it must look like from my previous descriptions.

QuoteThis seems like a whole new concern. I would have allowed the character in an instant. I'm not sure what the problem here is. That he didn't get onto the team?

That's leading away from the topic, but very briefly speaking (and with hindsight) I suspect it may have reinforced latent OOC issues.  

QuoteThe whole point of what I've been saying about teams and such are that players can have their characters walk away at any time if they like. So you have to be prepared with something else to keep them linked with the other PCs.

Absolutely;  and as I've said I like the team concept for our game.  I look forward to seeing what the remaining players do with it.  

QuoteHmm. That's the first I've heard of that happening. Seems to me that if the ideas are good that the books should be a fine way of getting the message across. I dunno.

Again, that leads away from the topic a bit.  But here goes.  

Presentation is core to getting a message across, and while the game rules and (to my perception) the general advice for creating character concepts are written in a concise and crystal clear way, the GNS terminology is somewhat obscure to anyone not used to it and may be offputting.  

Here are the responses from the three people who didn't like Sword and Sorcerer; all of them have some sort of degree, all hold jobs, age range is mid-twenties to early forties.

- One player admitted he didn't understand the book, other than that it had rules for a game in it that as far as he was able to work out couldn't be used with DnD.  After some attempts at explanation from someone who claims he likes Ron's thinking, this player now says that Narrativism is "when you have your character speak as if they were in a book or a film".  (Rolling eyes while saying that - I can't blame him.  He's the self-labelled "rollplayer" in my game, but really likes to play a character to the hilt.)

- One player has read everything but wasn't thrilled.  He wasn't drawn to playing Sorcerer (fine by me, that's not what we were planning anyway) and the theory went straight by him.  By that point I could see why (it's just not explained in clear enough words for a first-time reader, and not all roleplayers are enthusiastic about theory, or frustrated enough to turn to theory anyway in the hope of finding solutions);  so I dropped the theory stuff and I asked him specifically what he thought of the guidance for making characters with protagonist potential.  He shrugged:  he wasn't impressed.  He likes supers games a lot, so I wonder why not even that bit appealed to him.  (I don't have the book with me, but I'm pretty certain that the character creation chapter (The Hero?) is written very clearly.) Then again, this guy is a trained actor, so he may have his own views on how to approach a character concept.  

- One player had lots to say about the bibliography, he disagreed (in great detail) with most of Ron's evaluation of books and authors.  He appears to have followed all the internet links in the back of the book (he expressed surprise to find many of them broken, years after the book was published...).  He claims to have read the entire book but when we talked about other chapters (such as game theory, or how to make a character a protagonist), he clammed up. He's usually good at pointing out "problems" with things, so this makes me suspect that in reality he at most skimmed over those parts of the book.  

QuoteThe problem is that the player isn't really "compensated" for their loss. That is, they're out an NPC that they care about, and all they get for it is an excuse to kill orcs. Which doesn't resolve anything about the death of the NPC, really.

So, unless the player uses a lot of Pawn stance, they're likely to find NPC death this way to be abusive.

Yes.  Although I've known players who will sit back and do nothing until the GM delivers a plot hook "good enough" to grab their attention. That's abusive too;  so a GM killing players' NPCs may be abusive, or simply desperate to get the game moving in the face of disdainful players.  (This may be a chicken/egg situation here.)  I know I've had players like that. I've always wanted player input and player involvement in my games far too much to start killing off NPCs just because, but it can make life extremely difficult.  


It looks as if we have exhausted the thread's topic though? Or am I overlooking something?

I'd had some hazy idea of bangs before reading this.  This thread however....opened my eyes.  Or ears.  Or some unamed sense, or something.  By happenstance, in the first character interaction of my first HQ game (just starting in PByahogroup--oh how long have I been waiting!).......bang happened.  Deep and tangled family ties versus multiple personality traits of the type responsible, reliable, wise, and patient.  Does he rush off to try and intercept whatever it is approaching the village, or stay with the warrior's patrol which is going to go more slowly but probably deal with whatever it is properly?  There we were in the equivalent of the first five minutes of playing, and I had an essential decision to make about the character.

And it felt SO GOOD!

In the end I used his flaw "doubts own competence" to break the tie in favor of staying with the patrol, and for sure there will be long term implications of this decision.  

Having had the experience, then reading the theory, makes it all come into focus.  

But it occurs to me that as a player, you can do a LOT to make a hero more "bangable."  I've always thought of this as giving the narrator "handles" to be able to get a grip on the character, but now I'm looking back to see how those handles can be positioned to make bangs easy.  

Wow, it is like a door was just opened in my mind, with a whole room full of possibilities behind it that I hadn't even realized were there.  Not quite as cool as first learning calculus, but up there on the scale of "new mental tools that let me do things I couldn't reliably do before."

Thanks a ton, Mike, and the others in this thread too.

--Bryan

Quote from: Bryan_TAnd it felt SO GOOD!

Yep, actually having control of theme creation is pretty cool. My personal theory is that everyone really wants this, the only question being how aggressively you go after it relative to activities meant to provide a feeling that the game world is "real." But that's GNS theory that I won't go too deeply into. The point is, however, allowing players the opportunity to create theme is a great place to create interaction.

QuoteBut it occurs to me that as a player, you can do a LOT to make a hero more "bangable."  I've always thought of this as giving the narrator "handles" to be able to get a grip on the character, but now I'm looking back to see how those handles can be positioned to make bangs easy.  

I agree with you, here, but I'd say two things. First, players tend to do this naturally with the system I find. For example, flaws may at first seem kinda pointless, but if you put them out in front of a player, they tend to bite on them based on a "well, if it's an option it must be there for some reason" rationale (I try to spice this up by telling people that flaws are "free" abilities that just happen to be double edged). Whatever the case, players take 'em. And they take all sorts of other juicy stuff too.

But in part this relates to the second thought, which is that HQ simply gives you mostly juicy options. Relationships are the obvious example. Players take loads of them, and they're all, every one, a perfect source of an issue for the character. Personality traits, too. In fact, given how resolution works, and other features of the system, almost any ability you take becomes "issuable." So, really, the system makes it hard to create a character sans good handles.

For example, you'd have to refuse to take all the mandatory relationships. Stating that, somehow, your character was an orphan who'd become a hermit at a very young age. And he'll have no magic, because he can't believe in anything. He really can't even have an occupation, because that even establishes identity. I mean, you really have to depower a character in order to substantially reduce his level of issue potential. And even then, that, itself, can be an issue. I mean, what's more premise-laden than being an orphan ("Will I ever belong to a family?")

By linking character power to abilities that have to be meaningful in play given the system, HQ ensures that it's always possible to "bang" a character. Now, it doesn't make it so that such Bangs are automatic. The GM still has to look. But they're always there.

And, yes, a player consciously trying to give the character more easy to identify issues can do so. But I don't think that it's neccessary to do so to make the character easy for the GM to handle, and you can end up with an overly melodramatic character if you try too hard. You, know, only one evil twin, or secret past or the like per character.

What I'm saying is that if the player isn't A) an active turtle, and B) really creates an interesting character to play, then I think that it's usually fine.

One place that can be problematic with chargen is a meta-consideration (unrelated to the rules), which is appropriateness to situation. That is, if you detatch a character from his home (and this is, of course, really common in fantasy play), and worse, put him in a place where nobody practices the character's religion, and don't find some way to connect the character well to the situation at hand, then it becomes a lot more difficult to create bangs for the character. It's a lot easier to have a father character show up and cause pressure than it is to create a situation that evokes the father relationship indirectly. It can be done, but it's a lot harder to come up with the circumstances that'll cause this. Try to collide two values like this, both tangentially, and it becomes really, really hard. Bangs like this often fizzle.

This is why it's really important to do group chargen, and to have the players aware of the general concept of play before things begin. That is, you should all agree that the action is in a Heortling village or something. Then, even if someone plays a Lunar, they know what they're getting into, and can make the character work with the "away from home" concept. It also means that the narrator can then try to help the player find his connection to the scenario.

For all the above about how relatively easy it is to create Bangs from the average player, that doesn't mean that the other participants shouldn't have a hand in creating each character. Because not only will the players give good advice, but when taken, each player becomes invested in the characters he helped. Unconsiously each suggestion helps create a character that the player wants to see played out. (And this sets up the dynamic you need to have for scene play to work really well).

Mike

QuoteBy linking character power to abilities that have to be meaningful in play given the system, HQ ensures that it's always possible to "bang" a character. Now, it doesn't make it so that such Bangs are automatic. The GM still has to look. But they're always there.

Sorry, I hadn't expressed one thought very clearly.  I'm sure the above is valid, but I look at this mostly from the point of view of a player (it is what I do best).  Reading this thread gave me the vocabulary to say "in building characters, I've always been looking for ways to make bangs happen naturally as part of the game."  

Not that I don't appreciate a narrator making the extra effort to create them.  That is awesome, and can lead to most excellent role playing experiences.  I'm not discouraging narrators from looking for bang opportunities, or even creating bang driven games.

BUT, I'm saying as a player, I can create a character (either explicitly or not, depending on the system) who has fundamental choices built in, fundamental choices that will pretty much inevitably get triggered.

Sure, you have to be careful not to get carried away....when fiddling with a new game system I've often started off building a pathologically conflicted character first, not to play but just to get it out of my system before making someone more sane (although every now and then playing such a time bomb, given the right circumstances, is fun).

Anyway, I'd agree, HQ by it very nature tends to build in certain conflicts.  But as a player, by making concious decisions, I can focus these where I want them, and help influence the theme of things (yah, I'm the sort of player who has more of a "let's create a story together" attitude than a "I'm ready to be entertained" attitude.  Not claiming one is better than the other, just explaining where I'm coming from)

To draw a parellel, some modern theory says that kids heavily influence their parents parenting style.  In a similar vein it seems that the heroes should influence the telling of the tale.

OK, I'll stop babbling now and go walk through the snow with a big grin on my face :)

-Bryan

Quote from: Bryan_TAnyway, I'd agree, HQ by it very nature tends to build in certain conflicts.  But as a player, by making concious decisions, I can focus these where I want them, and help influence the theme of things

Well, my point was that the players decisions about things like keywords are what make these automatic conflicts happen. Meaning that the player is unconsciously incorporating the sort of themes that they want to focus on.

In this way, the players automatically do have that sort of influence. They may not realize that these decisions will do this, but they will.

Yes, you can do this consciously, too. And that's even more fun when you're doing it, as you anticipate the issues. It's just that it seems to work out the same way in play, whether the players preferences of character premises are encoded as such intentionally or not. The game doesn't let them fail to do this.

I'm not saying that one shouldn't do it consciously. Nor am I saying that you can't improve on the game by doing it consciously, you probably can. All I'm saying is that if you don't, you'll be just fine. Which isn't a reason not to do it. I'm just trying to reassure players who don't understand this idea that they're not going to make uninteresting characters if they're not creating them this way consciously. Also, narrators don't have to bug their players to do this, either - which seldom works anyhow. Either a player has "seen the light" on how/why to do this, or they haven't.

So, hopefully your example will make some "converts" to the idea of proactive character design. But for those who don't, I can still trust to HQ's design to ensure good characters for these purposes.


What's a more powerful skill, however, and usually only seen a lot in players who are sometimes also GMs, is the ability to manipulate situation in play to create bangs. As hard, or harder to teach than making characters with good handles, creating "player bangs" is a truely nifty skill.

For instance: your character loves girl X, and desires object Y. The player has the character run off in the middle of a date with X to check on some data about Y. This cues the GM to have X come to the character with an ultimatum, "What's more important, me or that Y!" Sans the player's action, there is no conflict present.

Basically, it involves to a large extent having your character make mistakes intentionally based on OOC knowledge. For example: the player knows that a certain phrase will insult NPC A, who they are interested in influencing, but the character does not. So they have their character insult A "accidentally" at just the right moment, setting up a situation where A demands some sort of compensation in order to be influenced. Said compensation can he something as omnipresent as honor. "Grovel before me, and I'll consider it!" Again, the sutuation that allows for the bang is created by the player in this case.

Anyone can create bangs in play. It's just a lot easier to engineer with the control of a narrator. But skilled players do it all the time, too.

Mike