HeroQuest Campaigning in the Lunar Empire

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

There's a couple of things that may be of use.

First of all, as Mike said, if you're playing Narrativist, or in fact, any non-Illusionist play, there's no definite outcome to play.  If you don't write a list of events, missing an event doesn't preclude the action continuing.   Missing a clue doesn't have the domino effect of destroying an possible solution.  It simply means finding out the information in a different way, or at another time.

Second, as other people mentioned, you can always choose to make the contest about what happens WHILE getting the info, not the actual info getting itself.  This doesn't actually remove challenge, nor make things boring.  Success or failure means the difference between seeing a witness safely to hiding or hearing the clue as they die in your arms.  

Third, instead of seeing the mystery as "done and waiting to be solved", see it as a cover-up conflict.  There are people who want to keep things hidden, and there are people who either want to reveal it, or simply know too much and want to be left alone.  All of these people will be trying to cover their rears and further their goals.  Even if the heroes missed every single clue, someone will assume they know too much and come looking to stop them or pump THEM for info.

I don't plan each scene in advance, but I look at each scene as a way of providing information to the players(not necessarily the heroes).  Mostly it has to do with what kind of personality a given character has, or a relationship between characters.  The mystery/cover up itself is simply an excuse to pump up the tension for characters to conflict and try to cheat, lie, hide and use each other all around.  Instead of it being a mystery to be solved, like real life, its a bunch of drama and bullshit all around, that happens to erupt in violence and action.

Chris

[buserian]

Third, instead of seeing the mystery as "done and waiting to be solved", see it as a cover-up conflict.  There are people who want to keep things hidden, and there are people who either want to reveal it, or simply know too much and want to be left alone.  All of these people will be trying to cover their rears and further their goals.  Even if the heroes missed every single clue, someone will assume they know too much and come looking to stop them or pump THEM for info.

A very common occurrence in detective shows, certainly. And usually, it is the people trying to pump the heroes for information (or to try and find out how much they know) who end up giving them the information in the ennd.

I do think that a well-designed "railroading" scenario, which provides for options if the players do fail, can accomplish much the same thing. That is, if the players fail to get the information through detective work, for example, then the heavies will come in to beat them up and inadvertently give them the info they need. This point is important, as many narrators and players are not comfortable with a 100% narrativist approach, where the villain is not known beforehand. It is very non-intuitive.

buserian

[Bankuei]

Hi Buserian,

I think there may be some miscommunication.  Narrativist play only requires that players be allowed input into events in play, and that some form of premise gets addressed during play.  By no means does Narrativist mean you have to be willing to change the backstory at the drop of a dime.  

Many games have preset R-maps, where the "murderer" is determined, and that isn't going to change.  On the other hand, how people find out who the murderer is, and what they do about that, is completely open.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Buserian,

What you're refering to is often called Illusionism around here. It's not strictly speaking railroading because, presumably, the players are amenable to it. That is, it's like going to a magic show. We know that the illusions are just tricks, but we enjoy the "magic" just the same. In Illusionist play, the idea is to give the players the illusion that they're creating the plot, when in actuality the GM is doing it via manipulating things behind the scenes.

Note that, as Chris says, not having information pre-prepared or having it prepared are both methods that can support either method of play. That is, I've run Illusionist games where I was making most of it up as I went along. And I've run Narrativist games where I didn't diverge from one pre-established fact. And I've done the reverse of both as well.

These are all just techniques that, used correctly, can help or hinder your mode of play. None are required.


But that's all getting off of the topic of the thread, which is Jesse's game. And it seems that the last session wasn't too great. Any ideas as to why the "whimper" ending? I mean, did people not expect to stop playing, hence not getting to any plot resolutions? Or was the choice to end playing a result of players just seeming disinterested?

I'm getting a sinking feeling that the advice that we're giving Jesse isn't working for some reason. I'd like to try to rectify that if possible. Jesse?

Mike

[buserian]

I think there may be some miscommunication.  Narrativist play only requires that players be allowed input into events in play, and that some form of premise gets addressed during play.  By no means does Narrativist mean you have to be willing to change the backstory at the drop of a dime.  

Many games have preset R-maps, where the "murderer" is determined, and that isn't going to change.  On the other hand, how people find out who the murderer is, and what they do about that, is completely open.

Thanks Chris and Mike, but I do understand this well enough -- just not enough to be sure I was using the term correctly. :) But, my primary response was to the suggestion that the narrator not even decide who the murderer is at the beginning, and the discussion that followed it. That's where I was coming from when I said this -- I think many players, if they ever found out that the narrator hadn't decided who the murderer was, might feel tricked. Of course, you can always point out the alternate endings to Clue for cinematic justrification.

buserian

[Mike Holmes]

That's where I was coming from when I said this -- I think many players, if they ever found out that the narrator hadn't decided who the murderer was, might feel tricked.

True. This makes illusionism a tricky business - there's always the question of how it gets established. That is, do the players know that they're at a magic show? Or are you doing your illusions without them being aware of the fact?

OTOH, with the Narrativist version of this, you make it clear to the players up front that you haven't decided who the murderer is. If they know up front that the world is being determined as you go along, they can't be dissapointed by discovering the fact later.

Mike

[doubtofbuddha]

Buserian,

What you're refering to is often called Illusionism around here. It's not strictly speaking railroading because, presumably, the players are amenable to it. That is, it's like going to a magic show. We know that the illusions are just tricks, but we enjoy the "magic" just the same. In Illusionist play, the idea is to give the players the illusion that they're creating the plot, when in actuality the GM is doing it via manipulating things behind the scenes.

Note that, as Chris says, not having information pre-prepared or having it prepared are both methods that can support either method of play. That is, I've run Illusionist games where I was making most of it up as I went along. And I've run Narrativist games where I didn't diverge from one pre-established fact. And I've done the reverse of both as well.

These are all just techniques that, used correctly, can help or hinder your mode of play. None are required.


But that's all getting off of the topic of the thread, which is Jesse's game. And it seems that the last session wasn't too great. Any ideas as to why the "whimper" ending? I mean, did people not expect to stop playing, hence not getting to any plot resolutions? Or was the choice to end playing a result of players just seeming disinterested?

I'm getting a sinking feeling that the advice that we're giving Jesse isn't working for some reason. I'd like to try to rectify that if possible. Jesse?

Mike

Honestly, I am not quite sure why its not working. I am inclined to think it might be a number of factors, both my own and the player's.

As far as the last session went I think mainly what was going on was that alot of the plot stuff turned out to have pretty much been resolved.
Okamar had been given entrance in the city and there was no further conflict between his character and the PC's as among the first things he did was agree to let Khorkenus have the entrance.
The potential for conflict with Yrsa was cut off because the PCs decided that they did not want to follow her.
There was no resolution for the conflict with the other reincarnate, because he chose to follow them rather than confront them again in the town where he had been captured and whipped. That conflict was going to be delayed again until they arrived in Jillaro.

As it stands though, we are taking a break from the game and playing Spycraft for the next few months, as one of the players is going away for the summer (student) and is feeling burnt out on gaming in general so he might not return to the game. Also after a dispute with another player, she has been ejected from the group, and we are probably bringing in a few other people.

I am probably going to be spending my extra time away from the gf and misc. other interests putting together a non-Gloranthan HQ setting.

Thanks for all the help Mike and everyone else, hopefully I can look back at this thread in a few weeks and something more will gel then did so previously.