Bad GM, Purple Sage - Glorantha

[Mike Holmes]

Grabbing
How do you get going with something like a relationship map? You have to have the map "grab" the PCs. That is, some of the NPCs on the map have a need for all of the PCs. You can have them grabbed if the PCs are associated, but often different NPCs will grab different PCs. A "grab" is characterized much like a bang in that the NPC involves the character in a way he really can't ignore. An obvious one, but one not to use too often, is to have the NPC simply attack the PC. No matter what happens at that point, the PC is "on the map." A key here is to think about the fact that people usually resent such treatment. Players often reasonably have characters "walk away" from attempts to ambush PCs into doing things for NPCs. So either use unignorable carrots, or just maipulate the situation such that the player has no choice here, but is thrown onto the map.

As has been said, don't "hook" PCs. That is, don't throw out a "this might be cool" thing to hook the character into the plot. Because one of two things happens. The player will either have the character walk away from the hook, in which case, you don't have them on the map, or the player will swallow the hook, and feel as though his decisions are being railroaded via the "take the hook or no adventure tonight" method. Grabs use GM authority to simply put the character on the map without the player even having a say. His "say" is what he does once on the map.

NPC Creation
The way to ensure that they're really interested with a grab is to use the same techniques with bangs again. That is, make sure that the grab relates to something that the player is interested in playing out with the PC. This suggests an order then to creating the PCs. Do not create the PCs and then try to figure out how they can grab the PCs. Figure out the grabs first, and then figure out the PCs. Like so:

1. What does the player want to see in terms of issues for his character?
2. What situation would bring these issues to a head?
3. What NPCs do I need to create this situation?
4. What NPCs could be related to these NPCs in such a way as to continue the action?
5. Why do the NPCs care so much?
5. Why do these NPCs need the PCs?

The last two need some explaining. The story isn't about the NPCs, but the PCs. As such, and to be catalysts, many NPCs are actually unable to act much without the PCs. Perhaps they're indecisive. Maybe they're shy, and need someone to speak for them. Maybe they just don't know what action to take. Or they just don't have the capabilities that the PC has to do what needs to be done. Whatever the case, remember that they're "normal people" in some ways, and need the "heroic" PCs do these things for them.

To make this reasonable, the idea has to be that the goal for these characters is strong. Else, why go through all the effort to embroil the PCs in question? So make sure that the NPC has a reasonable goal. Generally this is what makes NPCs memorable - an obvious goal. NPC X is "The guy looking for the magic sword." Often all I know about an NPC before play are some relationships, and what the character's goal is.

This is counter-intuitive to all other forms of adventure prep, where you come up with cool plot stuff and head the characters for it. This is not to say that you should pass up all of the cool color of the game world in doing this (a mistake I've made on occassion). Make sure to highlight the issues by making sure that magic or other fantasy elements are part of the equation for prep in Glorantha. Go back over the map, and get some ideas for sprinkling these about. Consider strongly making some NPC slot a "monster" or "magic item" as in Glorantha, these have their own personalities. Make sure you know what dieties are involved through the NPCs so that their belief systems fit with what's going on.

But fit this all in after the fact. Start with identifying character issues.

Continuing Action
The value of any such map is in continuing action. That is, once you've got some action going in one scene, this will produce stress on some other lines on the map. Classically, if you have a PC sleep with the wife of an NPC, well, all you have to do is have the NPC walk in, and, Voila! Instant bang as the NPC reacts with typical violence or rejection, etc. Allowing you to set up some question like "Is it OK to kill a man angry with you for sleeping with his wife?" or "Is it OK to kill a man because you want his wife?" or "Is it better to fight somebody for something you don't really care about, or to flee in dishonor?" or whatever depending on how the player decides his character feels about the other characters.

Player acts, map reacts. Once the player has made their decision, then the map continues to move. The brother of the dead husband announces that he's coming for the PC (Does he stay and fight more?). Then, when he's killed two men for her, the woman announces that she doesn't love him (fight for her love, or leave having killed two men for nothing? Then when he's left, her mother comes along and says that he has to marry the girl, because he's left her without a husband or brother-in-law (duty vs freedom?). Then the husband's mistress, tries to kill him feebly with a knife before he can leave (kill an enraged but untrained woman?). Then her brother, thankful for the PC not killing her, and for not telling the town about her infidelity, offers to become a retainer for the PC (accept the new responsibility and advantages of a retainer?). Each NPC act a "grab" again, that sets up a bang.

And this is all with only one PC in question. Hit the map with more than one PC, and the situation soon becomes so complex (but not so that you can't understand it), that there's always some new situation to create through all the interaction. Keep this in mind, however: you're not playing to play out the map. You're playing the map until it's been spent in getting to some good plot point for the PCs. Once you're there with it, move on to the next. So, yes, that means you should be ready to go to the next relationship map at any time, and who cares if NPC X got their goal or not. Those questions can be left to dangle, because they're not the plot. The plot is what's important to the PCs.

Walking Off the Map
Because players will "walk off" of relationship maps. And so they should. Oh, usually there's something (or things) compelling going on that's involving the PC. And that'll have to get resolved first, before the player will have the character go. But at some point "just leaving" often becomes the coolest statement a player can make with his character. Sometimes signaling the end of a plot arc, and other times simply demanding a new NPC Map or other stuff to work off of.

Again, don't try to wrangle characters back on the map. Oh, if there's something that an NPC really seems like they would do that may drag the character back in response to the character leaving, go ahead. Just don't artificially create things to keep the characters on the map. Because after a point, this is taking away the player's authorship in having the character walk away. Again, when this happens, you haven't "lost" your prep here, it means that you've played through it.

If a PC walks away in the first part of the first session, consider that you may not really have grabbed the player at all in the first place. Did you not hit an issue that interests the player?

Mike

[Lamorak33]

Hi Mike

Thanks for the replies.  I am going to print them so that I can read them a few times to digest them. 

Just a couple of notes;

I ran a game on monday night and got some very positive feedback.  I had four players, all seperated and narrated there scenes working round the table in a clockwise manner oddly enough.  I kept enouraging people to join in with other peoples decision making processes so I think people felt more involved even when it wasn't their turn. 

The cradle has a set of pre determined things occuring, but I had prepared bangs (or what I understand bangs to be at least!) for each of the characters in advance and threw them in when appropriate. 

With regard to your post, I must say that I always feel a need to make changes on a players character sheet - I guess thats the autocrat in me.  I will avoid doing that in future.

I also love the idea of the hp rebate technique making decisions neutral.  Where does it say that in the rules?  Do you have a page ref? 

Thanks as always

Regards
Rob

[Mike Holmes]

I also love the idea of the hp rebate technique making decisions neutral.  Where does it say that in the rules?  Do you have a page ref? 

Don't have the book with me, but it's the part where it says that if a player has a character that loses a follower, that they should get the follower back, or equivalent. Read literally, I'm taking it a bit far. But I think it's the essence of what the rule implies. If it's OK for the player to get back the NPC, or get an equivalent NPC, then why can't he choose something else instead? The idea behind giving the player the NPC back is, again, so that they don't worry about losing the NPC in the first place. But if you can't actually lose the NPC...well that's just odd. Better to allow the player to decide if he wants them back, or to buy something else with the equivalent points.

Or so I reason.

Mike

[Lamorak33]

I also love the idea of the hp rebate technique making decisions neutral.  Where does it say that in the rules?  Do you have a page ref? 

Don't have the book with me, but it's the part where it says that if a player has a character that loses a follower, that they should get the follower back, or equivalent. Read literally, I'm taking it a bit far. But I think it's the essence of what the rule implies. If it's OK for the player to get back the NPC, or get an equivalent NPC, then why can't he choose something else instead? The idea behind giving the player the NPC back is, again, so that they don't worry about losing the NPC in the first place. But if you can't actually lose the NPC...well that's just odd. Better to allow the player to decide if he wants them back, or to buy something else with the equivalent points.

Or so I reason.

Mike

Olend used one of his air spirits (an Umbrolli) to try and rescue one of the other player characters, but it was dismissed by a Lunar magician.  I wanted to exploit this with giving the player a hard choice.  Does he want his old umbrolli back (the original sidekick he created at char gen) or does he wants the points to spend on another follower.  I take it from your post that this is good yes?  Ali is quite sentimental and sim-orientated (IMO) and will have a strong pull to have his old Umbrolli back but the temptation to take the points and create something quite different!!!  I really couldn't say which way he would go.  Is that a bang?  If not it still quite revealing of Ali as a person I would say.

Regards
Rob

[Mike Holmes]

Olend used one of his air spirits (an Umbrolli) to try and rescue one of the other player characters, but it was dismissed by a Lunar magician.  I wanted to exploit this with giving the player a hard choice.  Does he want his old umbrolli back (the original sidekick he created at char gen) or does he wants the points to spend on another follower.  I take it from your post that this is good yes?  Ali is quite sentimental and sim-orientated (IMO) and will have a strong pull to have his old Umbrolli back but the temptation to take the points and create something quite different!!!  I really couldn't say which way he would go.  Is that a bang?  If not it still quite revealing of Ali as a person I would say.

Well, usually you think of bangs as revealing something about the character...but this also reveals something about the player. So it's a tad unorthodox to call it a bang, but I do think that it's a good player choice, and very narrativism producing. Remember narrativism isn't synonymous with bangs. It's synonymous with giving the player control over plot. As such, what you're talking about is an excellent idea, generally.

Specifically, it sounds like it'll work well, because you can see the pulls of both options for the player. Another thing you can do here is to allow him to decide how he gets the Umbrolli back if he decides to go that way. And you can complicate that with contests, if you like. So, for instance, if the Spirit is just banished back to the spirit world, then perhaps he'll have to find a shaman (if he's not one), and go looking for it on the other side. Which makes for a a lot of extra action. Along the way he could find other spirits that he might want to bind instead. So the choice keeps presenting itself. Don't drag this out too long, however, or the player will get the idea that you want him to choose some other option. If he really wants the Umbrolli back, see that he gets it.

There's a good general principle here, which is that when there's some mechanical choice, build action off of that choice. That's as strong an indicator that you can give to the player that you're playing to their choices.

Mike