Prepping for A Succession Conflict in Pimia

[Eric J. Boyd]

So I'm prepping the first HQ game for myself and my group. We're committed to exploring narrativist gaming, but I'm still getting a feel for how to go about putting together enough to keep things interesting without falling into old illusionism habits.

In our initial prep session, the guys stated they were interested in playing something like the A Game of Thrones series, with each of them a sibling in a royal family where the king has just died leaving succession unclear. We decided not to use an established setting like Glorantha, but rather to play it more loosely using some Gloranthan elements. The expectation is that this will be a self-contained story arc that will end with succession decided.  

All the characters used the Dara Happa homeland keyword to represent their urban cultural background and received the petty noble keyword at 13 as well as another occupation of their choice at 1W.

The first character, Oscar Von-Newl, is a scholar specializing in alchemy and an initiate of Buserian. His kicker is that one of his fellow scholars sent Oscar a letter proclaiming he had discovered a powerful alchemical catalyst and was bringing samples, but he has since disappeared. He is not interested in being king, but wants to wring funds for the church and sciences out of whoever wants his support.

The next character, Tristan, is a shock calvary soldier who sits on a knightly council of the major noble families. His kicker is that a close friend has asked to meet him to discuss suspicions that the king may have been murdered. Tristan wants very much to be king.

The last character, Fallon, is a combination of merchant and thief who has close ties to the local smugglers. His kicker is that his merchant uncle drunkenly made insinuations that the king only married their mother because of a large dowry and despite the fact she was "damaged goods." Fallon is ambivalent about being king, but does not want Tristan to be king.

My first concern is that Oscar's kicker has no obvious tie to the succession conflict. Should I simply craft the backstory and relationship map to make it somehow connected, or is it acceptable to let one kicker remain a subplot? Or perhaps should I leave it to the player to figure out how the alchemical discovery relates to the succession?

Here's some additional background that I crafted based on the conversations we had at the prep session and using a relationship map based very loosely on The Goodbye Look. I've sent this to the players.

-Pimia is a small coastal city-state located at the intersection of a large river and several trade routes to and from a neighboring archipelago. It controls several nearby towns and villages. The Von-Newl family has ruled Pimia for 8 generations since siezing power from the tyrant King Ludovic Nelme. [I'm purposely keeping the scope of things rather limited, but we can add competing city-states and such during play if necessary.]

-Pimia is strictly patriarchal. Nobles have consorts rather than wives, which can be put aside (so long as they are maintained) for certain reasons, particularly the inability to give birth to an heir. Traditionally, noble men are bound to a consort at the age of 25. The consort is usually 15 to 17.

-Succession among the royal sons is determined through official designation by the reigning king at a special ceremony or a missive in his writing and sealed by the royal mark. The eldest son is given no great preference; usually the son deemed most fit to rule by the king is designated. Succession has been determined in this manner by the Nelme and Von-Newl lines for over 200 years. Histories tell of long past uncertain successions being determined by "the king's closest advisors" or the "oracles of the Sun God."

-King Rickard Von-Newl (your father) had two consorts during his life. The first consort was Agneta Treves, a member of a family with a long noble history. She gave birth to two daughters, Katarina (30) and Elinor (28), so Rickard had her put aside over the loud objections of the Treves family. Rickard took a second consort, Marian Canter, daughter of Garret Canter, a prosperous spice merchant, and she has borne him three sons: Oscar(27), Tristan (25), and Fallon (22).

-Katarina is unmarried, but Elinor is married to Duke Brice Newarke and they have a young son named Charles. None of the brothers is currently married.

-Lord Rowland Von-Newl is younger brother to the king and head of the Knights of the Inner Circle. His consort is Grace Cheltnam, the eldest daughter of a lesser noble family. Grace had great difficulties bearing a child, but Rowland remained devoted to her nevertheless. She eventually gave birth to Griffith, who is now 17 and page to Lord Tristan.

-Deacon Phillip (Von-Newl) is a devotee of the Solar Pantheon Church and the youngest brother of Rickard.

-The Knights of the Inner Circle is charged with defense of the realm and has representatives of each of the 8 noble houses (Von-Newl, Treves, Newarke, Seborne, Cheltnam, Pantr, Poole, Trantor) in its leading council as well as a commander (Rowland). Decisions are made by vote of the council, with the commander breaking ties. Tristan is the representative from the Von-Newl family.

-There are 6 great mercantile houses operating in Pimia under the loose authority of the Merchants' Guild. The guild provides infrastructure in exchange for a percentage of profits. It has no official decisionmaking body. The current Guildmaster is Elliot Sadler.

-The Solar Pantheon Church is led by Patriarch Ven and Bishops Gyles and Ansell (family names are left behind once you become a devotee to the church).

-The Society of Noble Inquiry is led by Duke Reginald Poole and largely funded by Oscar Von-Newl.

-King Rickard died suddenly from a bout of the fever. He had never designated an heir and no missive has been found.

I've also started to fill out the backstory and relationship map a bit further. This is the secret stuff I have thus far that the players will discover during play.

-The wedding between Rickard and Marian seemed a bit rushed and rumors were that Marian was pregnant. Rickard agreed to marry her b/c the royal treasury needed a large dowry to pay debts and she was very beautiful. Source: Garret Canter II

-Rickard suspected that the child Marian carried was not his but the indiscretion of another nobleman, but he did not care b/c he should shuttle the child off to the priesthood. Source: Deacon Phillip

-Rowland is actually quite cold to Grace, who is not quite right in the head. Rowland was carrying on an affair with Marian Canter and hoped to marry her before her marriage to Rickard and they remained lovers after the marriage. Oscar is definitely his son, and he strongly believes that Tristan is as well. Perhaps all three are? Rowland wants to use the power of the Knights of the Inner Circle to proclaim Tristan king. Source: Grace/Rowland/Marian

-Rickard discovered that Marian and Rowland had been having a long-standing affair and intended to disinherit all of his sons. Marian had him killed with yellow lotus poison to prevent this. Only Marian, a bodyguard and the royal physician were present for Rickard's dying words. He said: "I know what foulness ye are, woman. But I have had my revenge by my own hand. You will see." Source: Marian/Royal Physician/Bodyguard

-Marian and Rowland want to find any missive Rickard may have left and destroy it. Rowland hopes to have the Knights of the Inner Circle declare Tristan king. Source: Grace/Marian/Rowland

-Patriarch Ven detests Lord Rowland and the influence of the Knights of the Inner Circle. He hopes to gain support for using the ancient oracles of the Solar pantheon to determine the next king.

-Rickard's missive declares the existence of the affair and names Charles Von-Newl Newarke as king with Katarina as his regent. Rickard entrusted the missive to one of his royal scribes, Mellard Halladaie. Mellard is actually a descendant of the deposed tyrant Ludovic Nelme and is purposefully withholding the missive to create chaos.

So I guess my question is--am I doing this right so far? How deep do I need to prep in order to have a workable model to improvise off of during play? How do I avoid making it simply too easy for Tristan to assume the throne? I'm just starting to craft bangs and get some scenes together for our first session. Does anyone have some suggestions on how to go about this without getting sidetracked into illusionism? Any particularly potent potential bangs you see hiding in the backstory and relationship map?

I've come to greatly appreciate the wisdom and helpfulness I've seen exhibited on the Forge, so I thank you all in advance.

Eric

[RaconteurX]

Ah, would that the kickers for Tristan and Fallon were reversed... that'd make for a far more tangled web of intrigues. Making things difficult for Tristan is easy: make the other members of the Inner Council aware of Tristan's true parentage, Rowland's ambition, and unwilling to acclaim Tristan as king unless he proves, to their satisfaction, that he is his own man and will not be a puppet controlled by Rowland. Perhaps Rowland actually wants the throne for Griffith, as he is entirely certain as to his parentage. There could also be Council members with like ambitions who do not want to crown another Von-Newl, or who want the return of the Nelme dynasty.

The disappearance of Oscar's colleague definitely needs to be succession-related. One idea would be to assign the catalyst a considerable military value (i.e., it could eliminate the need for armies to defend Pimia's frontiers by harmlessly disabling attackers before they even cross the border) and have it stolen, plus the scholar abducted, by either enemies of the realm or by Rowland himself. After all, if Oscar could establish that he has an infallible means to preserve the realm which would never cost another human life... well, he would be acclaimed king in an instant just by the women and peasants alone, the high-born patriarchy be damned! :)

Edited for increased wickedness...

[Bankuei]

Hi Eric,

There are two things that I always use, even more fundamental than Bangs.  Conflict, and Opposition.  Conflict, is pretty much well defined in that everyone involved has a vested interest in one side or another taking the throne.  The rule of Opposition is that each side has opposition to it taking power.

In the case of Tristan, who amongst the various groups and powers DOESN'T want him on the throne?  I'm sure not all of the Noble Houses are in agreement with Tristan, and maybe a few might pull some behind the scenes manuevering to put him out.  If any side seems to have it too easy, look for who opposes them.  Once you know the opposition, and the actions they're likely to take, Bangs become easy.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

So I'm prepping the first HQ game for myself and my group. We're committed to exploring narrativist gaming, but I'm still getting a feel for how to go about putting together enough to keep things interesting without falling into old illusionism habits.

Hey Smithy, it looks like you're doing fine. Keep in mind that your illusionist skills aren't a benefit to you. That is, there's nothing wrong with half the tactics of Illusionism in producing plot. The only thing that you have to watch out for is "finishing" things. That is, illusionism and narrativist GMing both use GM power to ensure that plot will occur - the narrativist GM just doesn't have it all planned out, and lets the players decide where the plot will go.

So, just make sure that you aren't making situations that can have only one outcome. Get the characters in trouble, but in ways that you have no idea as to how they'll respond. Then react to their reactions. Soon you'll find your illusionist skills standing you in good stead for the sort of play you want.

On the theoretical side, Illusionist GM's don't play "open" they are intentionally using author stance (this isn't as obvious as it seems) to ensure that interesting situations come up. The only difference with narrativist GMs is that the Illusionist also finishes situations so that they can maintain those plots. All you have to do is to stop short of using your author stance to make these decisions for the characters, and allow the players to do so, and you're playing narrativist.

Mike

[Eric J. Boyd]

Thanks for the encouragement and the great ideas guys. I particularly appreciate the clarification of how illusionism and narrativism differ and yet share many of the same traits, Mike. It probably explains why I feel I haven't been doing things drastically different from past games in setting up the backstory. It's actually a relief of sorts to leave the hard choices to the players (more exciting too).

I've heard several folks mention on other threads that they do not always fully stat out NPCs in their HQ games. Any advice on when statting out is necessary to ensure proper challenges or that the players can exploit an NPC's weakness in not having a strong skill in an area? Does anyone actually use the method with the 10 lines explained in the HQ book?

[Bankuei]

Hi Smithy,

Most of the time, I usually stat out only Keywords and a couple of personality traits and relationships, a magic item or two and leave it at that.   I figure between improvisation penalties and augments, it tends to leave most folks around the level of their keywords anyway.  For challenges, just remember that an entire Mastery is a big deal, and 2 or more is overwhelming.  Typically things are pretty weighted once you have once side with +/-10 points either way, but still manageable.  

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

I've heard several folks mention on other threads that they do not always fully stat out NPCs in their HQ games. Any advice on when statting out is necessary to ensure proper challenges or that the players can exploit an NPC's weakness in not having a strong skill in an area? Does anyone actually use the method with the 10 lines explained in the HQ book?

I stat out an NPC, uh, about just prior to rolling the dice.

I would put to you that the only way to stat out a character to "ensure proper challenges" is to wait until you know what the challenge is, who is participating, and under what circumstances. And you don't know that until the last second.

Now, I also sense an implication is that you want a Gamist challenge, that the players should be able to defeat their opponent by being "sneaky", or in other words playing well as players. If this is something that you want, then we have a whole different problem (and I'll wait to discuss this if you answer that this is true).

If that's not what you meant to imply, then I'd wait until the last second. Another good reason for doing this is that it means that you don't have to stat any stat that won't get rolled. No wasted effort.

Some people claim that this is problematic because the characters aren't as fleshed out as they should be to make the opponent's realistically deep. But I'd argue that, first, the PCs are the only characters that really need to be possible to plumb in depth all the time, and, second, that any NPC that is worthwhile will get statted out over time using this method.

I mean, there's no reason not to jot down an ability level if the urge strikes you to do so either. If you want to say that the villain is augmenting with his "Villainous Hate 3W2" then go ahead. But in general it's just not neccessary. In fact, I find it cool for characters opposing the PCs to have relatively little in this way, so that you can jack up their "primary" abilities and still have them be defeatable by characters with lower scores (but more augments and HP). Makes defeating them that much more cool.

Heck, until such time as I'm sure that the character is going to live, and be interesting for further conflicts, I don't even write down the stat - call me lazy but even that might be a waste of effort. Because I also don't decide before hand who the primary antagonists will be. I base that entirely on who the players have the most fun beating up, or losing to, during play.

Now, another thing that people accuse me of is making the characters implausible. That is, by stating they out in relation to the action at hand, they think that automatically I'll be ignoring plausibility and just assigning a rating arbitrarily. But that couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, compared to some "pervy narrativists", I'm positively simmy when doing this sort of stuff. I'm always looking for benchmarks to make them have "appropriate" levels of ability and such. For me, drama is there to "break ties". That is, when there's a reasonable range for the opponent to be, when nothing has been pre-determined that would make the character have to have a specific level of ability (the best example being a previous use of the Ability), that's when I let drama dictate what to set the ability level at.

For example, if a fight comes up, and I feel that It's a throw away conflict meant more to display the character's prowess, then I'll stat the character as low as is reasonable. Such that the PC ends up likely making a wreck of the character, in way that makes him look good. If, OTOH, the character is building up to be a really fun villain, I'll put their stats almost out of reach for the first conflict, and have them trounce the PCs. Sometimes I put them at surprisingly high levels - making the NPC seem deceptive, and providing a fun surprise. Other times, if I can tell that the player is spoiling for a close, tense contest, I'll place stats so that they're around the PCs level in total.

Now, in placing equally, one has to rememeber the protagonist factor that I expect that the players will come up with lots of augments (if they can't then often I feel that I haven't done my job well). As such, and with HP again, I usually rate a "close" NPC somewhat above the PCs. That way I don't have to worry about augments, and, again, when the PC wins, it's just more fun. OTOH, there are times when it's cool to have them really equal and show the protagonism through what ends up being a relatively easy win in what "seems" to be a close situation.

Lots of considerations. One important thing to remember - don't be afraid to have the NPCs win, even win big. HQ makes this non-fatal, and even allows you to do it in such a way as to make the PCs look good going down. And then you have a villain or rival that the players will look forward to defeating all the more. One of the things that I love is having the players watch my die rolls and do the math in their heads trying to figure out who won or lost. Because protagonism in HQ isn't about winning all the time, it's about being in conflicts that matter to the player. In the end, if the players want to win, they'll engineer a way anyhow.

This is the "ultimate illusion", BTW. What Fang Langford called "No Myth" play for the narrativist side, but it's exactly what I used to do when I was an Illusionist GM trying to keep my plot on its track - PCs low on hits?  Then time to make the orcs inexperienced, instead of veterans. The difference is with this mode of play, I'm not "cheating" anybody out of anything, I'm facilitating the mode. So I don't particularly have to hide it anymore (though I must admit that I take pride in presenting things as though they're all solid as rock worked out before hand, FWIW).

So, that's probably overlong, but I really believe in not statting out characters. As one staffer (who shall remain nameless) at Issaries told me reccently, statting, not statting, it's all valid by the rules. And, indeed, the chargen rules do not say that you have to use them at all, even for PCs, much less for NPCs. So I think that this is not only a valid method, but a very effective, not to mention time-saving, method.

Mike

[Eric J. Boyd]

Now, I also sense an implication is that you want a Gamist challenge, that the players should be able to defeat their opponent by being "sneaky", or in other words playing well as players. If this is something that you want, then we have a whole different problem (and I'll wait to discuss this if you answer that this is true).

If that's not what you meant to imply, then I'd wait until the last second. Another good reason for doing this is that it means that you don't have to stat any stat that won't get rolled. No wasted effort.

Hmm, I guess some Gamism is sneaking in here. What I was trying to reference was using the option to change what active ability you're using in a extended contest to better suit your strengths (or your opponent's perceived weaknesses), or to start an extended contest with an ability you think the opposition is less good at (debating with a barbarian warrior rather than fighting) to keep him from using what you think his strong suit is and make his AP lower. I'd like to try to facilitate these strategies without becoming overly Gamist (the Narr focus is why I am so enamored of HQ). Is that something you think is doable using your at-the-moment statting method, Mike?

Eric

[buserian]

We decided not to use an established setting like Glorantha, but rather to play it more loosely using some Gloranthan elements. The expectation is that this will be a self-contained story arc that will end with succession decided.

A late reply, but I think this is too bad -- your write-up of the actual gameplay was very evocative, and read much more like a novel summary than it did an RPG session. I'd love to see these events occurring somewhere interesting in Glorantha, perhaps in one of the Ralian city-states.

Edit: Or maybe somewhere along the Manirian coastline, where the Trader Princes are in control of various cities along the trade route.

buserian

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm, I guess some Gamism is sneaking in here. What I was trying to reference was using the option to change what active ability you're using in a extended contest to better suit your strengths (or your opponent's perceived weaknesses), or to start an extended contest with an ability you think the opposition is less good at (debating with a barbarian warrior rather than fighting) to keep him from using what you think his strong suit is and make his AP lower. I'd like to try to facilitate these strategies without becoming overly Gamist (the Narr focus is why I am so enamored of HQ). Is that something you think is doable using your at-the-moment statting method, Mike?

This is a big "depends" moment. First off, it depends on how the players feel about it. I mean, how can they guess which stat is low if you're making them up on the spot? Basically, at every turn you're either validating or refuting their guess by making it true or false. So, if the players really want this to be a player challenge, then the method is problematic.

OTOH, if what you're saying is that the players are just determining plausible ways the character might advance their own self-interest, then it's not a problem at all. This isn't really Gamism. The question is who is being challenged to "win", the player or the character?

Also, and I probably shouldn't mention this, but the "illusionist" approach would be to just look down at a sheet of paper each time you make something up, and announce the level as though it were already written (or, rather, just never announce the levels at all). AKA lying. This works up to the point that the players catch on, and then, if they're gamists, you've just cheated them.

In practice, I use a sorta illusionist approach in that I don't make it well known that I'm making up the stats. Well, I do here, but not in play. So it's an open secret. The thing is that the players I have aren't into gamism, so it's not a problem. I'm only increasing the "hard" feel of the game world by using the Illusionist technique.

Mike