Hero Wars Actual Play Wintertop Fair

[Ian Cooper]

For me, one of the great things about attending conventions is the chance to play with new people and learn from their techniques. At Convulsions this year I had the pleasure of playing in, and then GM'ing, John Hughes's 'Everything is Thunder' game http://home.iprimus.com.au/pipnjim/questlines/thunder.html. John was one of the authors on Thunder Rebels and I have long been a fan of his vision of the Orlanthi tribes of the Far Point. I picked up a number of interesting ideas from the session. I wanted to experiment with some of them in my own games, particularly Siegel's Nine Act, Two Goal structure http://www.dsiegel.com/film/Film_home.html and setting the tone.

The Setting
The scenario took place at Wintertop Fort. I set the events during Wintertop Fair  - the Earth Season  (autumn) cattle market. At this time, farmers from miles around flock to Wintertop to trade surplus cattle. Winter is approaching, and snow and ice will blanket the whole area around Wintertop. This is the last chance for everyone to prepare what he or she needs to survive the winter. Wintertop Fair follows important Earth cult festivals. The Orlanthi are a clan-based people (celt/viking look and feel) who marry outside their clan. The gathering of people from many clans here coupled with the available for feasts from the slaughter, mean this is a traditional time for marriage negotiations and weddings. The gathering of so many clans under the 'peace of the Fair' also mean it is a time of political intrigue as clans within the tribe jockey for power. Politics are further complicated around Wintertop because the tribes here are members of an Overtribe which gives them another set of conflicts. To complicate matters the Orlanthi of Wintertop remain free from the moon-worshipping Lunar Empire, but are in a state of siege in their mountain fastness.

The Backstory
Two plotlines in our game came to a head at the Fair: an attempt by Orios, King of The Hendarli to unite the feuding tribes under his banner, and a plot by Lunar missionaries to engineer the communities downfall, then appear as its saviors.

The Premise
The premise of the episode was: 'Must power corrupt'.

The Nine Acts
I was conscious of avoiding railroading and I envisioned using the nine-act structure to manage the pacing of events in the episode rather than providing the story that would happen. I wanted to give the players freedom within those acts to react to events around them.

As an aside, having a premise is useful in prep, because it helps me decide what events to prepare in advance. In this case, I focused in preparation on events that would ask the players to confront questions of power and accountability.

My current benchmark for trying to ensure the events do not turn into must occur scenes is to make them as 'stateless' as possible. If the can occur at different times and places, or with varied protagonists, I am probably on the right track, if not there is a real danger of railroading.

The acts were intended to be:

Act 0 Backstory. Offstage - the plot events that happen before the heroes appear. Not part of the session, but hints at the Story Now idea: the players arrive at crisis.

Act 1 Open with an Image. I tried an experiment and read the heroes something to set the tone establishing recent events, and delivering parts of the myth of 'The Making of the Storm Tribe,' an Orlanthi myth about how Orlanth became King but not an Emperor. I was worried about the dangers of telling and not showing, with the players sitting around pumped for action. However I kept it short and the players all responded well saying that it helped get them into the right atmosphere. I may try it again.

Act 2 Start with Action. The heroes arrived at Wintertop and straight off there was an encounter inside the crowded gatehouse square with a local Uroxi bullyboy harassing some visitors to the fair. In town following a recent holy ceremony, he was drunk, obnoxious, and violent caring little for the peace of the fair. I thought I was start the players with an obvious question about might is right and the rule of law. The players reacted in much the way I had assumed. One of the heroes (Benedict) plays a Vingan (women's war cult) who saw it as her duty to protect the weak. She stepped in to help but the Uroxi quickly gave her a bloody nose. Mark's Humakti (death-worshipping warriors) stepped in to run the bully off improvising a feat of Shame Bully from his Honor affinity.

This scene was a good warm-up, but also introduced an important plot element. The Iristaros cattle have been suffering from a mystery disease and the Uroxi was trying to 'persuade' some Iristaros to leave Wintertop in case their cattle were infected...

Act 3 Meet the heroes. This act was designed to show the heroes that the Wintertop tribes were endangering their survival through constant in fighting and offer them the chance try to help halt the tide of conflict. Events in the campaign have left the characters as local heroes, so this was a chance to invite them to meet with the local leaders at the feast tables, and draw them into political machinations. The players spotted the direction this was going but seemed happy to move the game in this direction, though I did feel some guilt for pushing the story this way I knew from previous conversations that at least one of the players (Charles) wanted to go this way.

There were two conflicts prepared. One drew on the Celtic legend of the Champion's Portion (the feast of Bricriu) and I had the King's trickster tempt Mark and Benedict, the warriors in the band, to contest for the Champions Portion. The trickster had tempted all the leading warriors into contesting for the portion and series of tests ensued to see who was most worthy. We played out the tests for the players though winning or loosing was unimportant, compared to the fact that it increased tension among attendees.

For the second I wanted to emphasize that the player's hero band (a group sharing an ideology that gets magical support when working together) had become local heroes recently, and were likely to be offered power so I had King Orios asked them to preside over some cases at the inter-tribal court (think Viking thing). The Orlanthi clans are always feuding with each other and the tribe forms a check on violence by providing a legal 'judgment' to resolve a dispute. Because I wanted to tempt the heroes with power, the cases that came before them asked them to make a judgment between their friends and the letter of the law (most of the cases were inspired by genuine Icelandic ones). I had Orios assign a lawspeaker to the player's assistance to advise them of the law, but allowed the players to interpret that for each case as they saw fit. The players chose the 'just' option every time, which surprised me as it was somewhat politically naïve, until they told me that they wanted to help unify the feuding Orlanthi here, so they felt compelled to show justice in action. They even surprised me with a couple of judgments punishing the clan trickster as the 'scapegoat' in one particularly involved case.

I was prepared for the players to do their own thing around the fair. I knew what was taking place but was ready to improvise if the players requested anything. However I had guessed that someone would take the bait and try 'running the bulls' with the local lads during the fair, so I was a little surprised when the scar-faced Koschei (the Humakti) declared he wanted to get married. Cue arrival of the Velan matchmaker who saw the almost impossible prospect as a heroic challenge. We had some fun playing out the negotiations but I began to worry that the plot was moving away from the premise. This is a difficult decision point for me, I wanted to allow the players to tell his story, but I also wanted to move back to the central theme.

My solution solved another problem for me. The heroes arch-enemies are a group of Lunar missionaries and courtesans called the corn bringers (they worship the seductive goddess of maize).I knew that they behind the cattle-plague and I wanted to foreshadow their later arrival, so while Koschei was out 'getting to know' a proposed matches brothers at a dance and had had way too much to drink  I had one of the courtesans  attempt to seduce him. He tried to use his honor magic to resist, she used her dance, and seduction magic to enthrall him and a night of passion ensued. Word got back from the brother's that Koschei was not focusing solely on his intended match and I gave Koschei a new flaw of Enthralled by Salevra to act as a penalty when confronting her in future.

The players were pleased and horrified when their old enemies turned up that way, so it seemed to be a success but there was that nagging feeling that I pushed them into playing my plot...

One of the heroes also discovered clues that someone was smuggling trolls into Wintertop and hiding them in the caves the locals claim to have hidden out the Dragonkill in. One of the heroes investigated, found it was one of the king's men and when asked kept his mouth shut

Act 4 Commitment. I brought the disunity of the tribe to a head with a direct challenge to Orios to prove his fitness to rule. I used the old Brehon Law idea of the law of distress: someone in power will not listen to your just demands – sit on his doorstep and starve yourself to death. This is a refusal of hospitality (and of course hunger strike is still used as a from of protest). Feed the tribe was their cry. The Iristaros are starving because their cattle are sick you should do something. The heroes were summoned to a council meeting to look for a solution.

Then I hit them with a pre-prepared event, about which they could do little beforehand. I feel somewhat guilty about that because I pretty much planned on running it unless the heroes did something very unexpected, so at what point are they just passengers in my story here. But angst side it was time for:

Act 5 Go for the wrong goal. During the council, the trolls attacked. All part of Orios's plan to unite the tribes by presenting the threat of an outside enemy and drawn from an important Orlanthi myth 'The Making of the Storm Tribe.' In the myth, the attack helps Orlanth's attempts to unite his kin by showing them that they must work together to survive. Individually they would be have destroyed. As above, so below.

This was the extended contest. Generally I now prefer to keep the extended resolution down to the real high drama point of the session where the players are interested enough to create exciting descriptions of their bids. Everything else is a simple contest. Too many extended contests quickly deteriorate into 'I swing at him for 7AP', 'I parry' so I like to save it for times when the heroes are keyed up by their opponents, setting, or objective. With the smashing of the gates to the citadel by a huge great troll shock trooper we were on. Know that scene In LoTR where the cave troll splinters open the door ? That was the mood I wanted. I like to know when the extended contest is going to occur so I can think about the opposition and create people for everyone to use their different skills against and to be interesting. That does tend to mean I end up with at least one set-piece and that does tend to create the danger of the players just being there for the ride, now matter how exciting the ride is.

One key point to the fight was that it was tough (some opponents who were a mastery above our heroes). The heroes were only able to survive with aid from people they had met in earlier scenes, and saw the value of unity. The battle was won but this raises another issue, the plot called for a victory, sure the players might not live to see it, but there was going to be a victory. Of course raises the problem that if the players think hard enough about it they can see through the illusion  - their actions had no effect. Hmmm, more work needed here.

Act 6 The Reversal. This was foreshadowed by the encounter with the bully at the gate, the seduction, and the protest at the gate. Plague breaks out among the cattle, a few are dead now, more will be. Can something be done in the new spirit of unity? (There is some additional complexity here, the tribes collectively had the answer, but because they were not co-operating could not out it into effect).

The answer was to be a heroquest. Now Thunder Rebels has a mythlet about how Ernalda and her sisters tame the household fires, one of which is a purifying fire (think driving cattle between Beltane fires and you have the right picture). Someone suggests that doing this quest for the community, marrying the healing fire will help the community's magic, and help them drive the disease out.

Now I wanted the heroes to do it this was because I had been toying with the idea of a heroquest for James whose Ernaldan puppeteer, Nevana, has yet to have a starring role in a heroquest. Now the myth is quite short, but it did allow James to use some of those Ernaldan feats for making husbands happy, as Nevana attempts to 'tame' the uncivilized lowfire. But I reasoned the Lunars (who we met earlier), who were infecting the cattle to starve the Orlanthi of Wintertop into submission, would be aware of this likely tactic and so started their own counter quest. Meanwhile the remainder of our heroes, not o the quest, learning of the lunar plot tried to track them down. They re-enacted a myth of SurEnsliba, a goddess of, uh, loose morals and her seduction of Lodril (peasant fire god). The two opponents were drawn together by their intertwined hatred, and Nevana found herself the wife fending off an attempt to seduce her husband. Nevana fought off the seduction, aided by her colleagues in the Inner World disrupting the Lunar ceremony and returned with the magic of the purifying fire.

Act 7 Aftermath. From here, it was towards wrap. The long-term villainess escaped to fight another day (of course, but this does not bug the players – we'll know when it is time for her to dies) but the community managed to use the magic brought back to weave a ritual to heal the cattle.

I'll post some more comments later, but right now I want to let you read this and get anything you need clarified. My main concern is that from act 5 on the whole thing became illusionism in that there was no real player choice in how events would develop.

[Ian Cooper]

OKay, assumiong some of you may have had the chance to read this by now. My question is this: How do you feel about the conflict between the desire to entertain, by creating the set piece scene, that allows you to spend prep time envisioning a cool location, dramatic action with the desire to let the players tell the story. I find I want both, as player and GM, moments when either of us is in control of the narrative, but fear that for the GM to be allowed to do the big pre-prepared special-effects crowded finale always risks the danger of railroading the players. I am not saying that those kind of scenes do not evolve from play, without prep, but I have played too many all-imporvised games that seem to be climax with a whimper not a bang to trust in that. So I like to go armed...

I think that there is often a trade off, the players accept greater GM control for a scene for which there is a payoff, but I also think it is a fine line, because the temptation is to ignore their desires, because you believe that they will forgive you when they experience this great scene you have soming up.

There must be a balance - how do you find it?

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm. This is tough.

First, how in the world did you manage to use illusionism in the midst of a HW extended contest? Fudging die rolls?

Second, what's wrong with the PCs losing the conflict? Why was it neccesary to have a Victory? Why did "the plot require it"? What would have been bad about the player's losing in this situation?

To avoid fudging in HW, you're going to have to accept that using the resolution system means accepting the random outcome of using it. But given that the system is very unlikely to produce a bad result, I see no reason that you should ever fudge anything.

What do I mean by that? Well, combat is the situation that people worry about most. The assumption is that if the player's lose, they will die. But that's just not the case. In HW, as long as you don't overcommit the NPC, the PC will not die (heck he might only be dazed).

Now, I'm hazy as to the circumstances of the trolls just appearing out of nowhere. But I'm assuming that Orios had some sort of plan in case the PCs got beat. That is, perphaps the trolls are hired to beat the players up and then just leave. Mysterious to the PCs, but explains why he doesn't kill them all. But there's no reason in this case why the PCs need to win.

That said, if you wanted to have a fight which the PCs won, why not just downgrade the trolls to the "sweet spot" in ability? Probably be reducing their numbers. What's not dramatic about a pitched battle in which the PCs win by spending an Hero Point or two?

It seems to me that HW makes the "balance" you seek unneccesasary. Just plan interesting encounters and let the dice decide the result.

BTW, this all assumes that the players do not prefer Gamist resolution. If that's true, you really screwed them by hitting them with an encounter that was too tough.

Mike

[Ian Cooper]

First, how in the world did you manage to use illusionism in the midst of a HW extended contest? Fudging die rolls?It seems to me that HW makes the "balance" you seek unneccesasary. Just plan interesting encounters and let the dice decide the result.
Mike

No fudging of the rolls, but the fact that help in the form of NPCs arrived to assist the heroes when they got in trouble. You see my theme here was that of the original myth: Alone you will be defeated, but by co-operation you can stand up to your enemies. But not wanting to play out NPC vs NPC portions of the contest, I had them intervene from off stage when the heroes were close to defeat. But any feeling the players had of risk was an illusion I created by wiehging the odds against them,and then saving them. The phrase 'Deus Ex Machina' springs to mind, which I find troubling. Now when I prepared it I knew that the contest would be too tough for them to take on their own, because to do so would not have made the same point. See, that is my quandry, because I engineered the message, by controlling the events in  a way that theyhad no control over.
But how do you create a theme, without this sort of engineering of events?

BTW, this all assumes that the players do not prefer Gamist resolution. If that's true, you really screwed them by hitting them with an encounter that was too tough.
Mike

One of the NPCs whose organized the whole plot made a rousing speech afterwards about standing together. When the players saw how events had reflected the myth they were fine with their having been outgunned. But I feel a certain guilt over creating a tough batle the heroes were loosing to set up the situation in which they could be saved.

Maybe I worry too much...

[Mike Holmes]

Fudging, Deus Ex Machina... these are both just Illusionist techniques. Matters not which you used. You sensed the "railroad" potential, and this is where it occurs. Interestingly, we recently discussed the definition of the term "railroading" and came to a consensus that it generally refers to doing these sorts of things against the Social Contract of the group. I assume that you've not discussed this out in the open (groups rarely do for a number of reasons). As such, the uncertainty you feel is because you are not sure if you've violated the social contract. You did what you thought right, but you can see that it's not automatically valid. The players must agree.

So, ask them. Tell them what you did (if it's not obvous already), and ask them if it's OK. If it is, then fine, you can continue to play that way without any uncertainty. If it's not, then you have to reconsider your tactics.

Which is all to say that if your players prefer Sim, you've got nothing to worry about. But if they like Narrativism, then you very much have a problem. Because in Narrativism, there is no such thing as the GM creating a theme for the players. The players do it themselves. That's what I've been trying to get at.

In a Narrativist game, you wouldn't engineer the scene to get a particular theme. You'd instead just balance the encounter in question, and let the players create their own theme. In this case, if they employ allies, then it's about Unity. If they do not employ allies and fail, then it's a negative version of the same message ("We shoulda united"). If they do not unite, and win, then the theme is different, one of the power of individuals. Which is just as Orlanthi as Unity, BTW. :-)

See, that's the point. In Narrativism, the players choose their own themes. The GM doesn't do this for them at all. All the GM is responsible for is setting up situations where the players must choose some theme. That is, the situation is important to the characters enough that they can't help but create some answer. But what answer they choose has to be the player's decision.

Fortunately this is made ridiculously simple in Hero Wars. Every character comes ready made with Relationship Abilities, and personality Abilities, and other Abilities that are perfect hooks. Your encounter was potentially a perfect Narrativist Bang. You just chose to play Illusionist instead by "engineering" the choice of outcome. Just don't do that later part, and all will be well (assuming the players want to play in a Narrativist fashion).

Mike

[Ian Cooper]

Fudging, Deus Ex Machina... these are both just Illusionist techniques. Matters not which you used. You sensed the "railroad" potential, and this is where it occurs. ...

Thanks for taking the time on my anxieties on this one Mike. Your right, the difficulty is probably the question of the social contract. We did discuss this incident, and the player reaction was that they had no problem with it because there was a 'moral to the story'. I suspect that they are more comfortable with my use of Illusionist techniques than I am ;-) They are 'lazy narrativists' - they desire to be more narrativist, but a lot of time do not want the effort so look for me to push as much as they pull.  

See, that's the point. In Narrativism, the players choose their own themes. The GM doesn't do this for them at all. All the GM is responsible for is setting up situations where the players must choose some theme. That is, the situation is important to the characters enough that they can't help but create some answer. But what answer they choose has to be the player's decision.

True. Riddle me this though. Is balance a requirement of the narrativist game? In other words can a bang be created that does not reward certain choices (you are outnumbered, unless you choose to get help you will loose, but I am prepared to let that happen), or is the balance something that needs to be decided in reaction to the players actions?

Actually I think that the issue here may be that it was in de-protagonizing the players, not giving them the option beforehand of how the fight would be fought - alone against the dark, or we all stand together - but making that the result of someone else's actions off stage that I removed control from them and thus entered the world of the illusionist.

[epweissengruber]

I wquld take issue with Mike

"See, that's the point. In Narrativism, the players choose their own themes. The GM doesn't do this for them at all. All the GM is responsible for is setting up situations where the players must choose some theme. "

Haven't the players and the GM set up the premise before the game?  Even if premise is phrased as a question ("At what price power?"), premise establishes certain parameters in which play can take place.  Perhaps the GM has established a special premise within a premise heavy game (like Sorcerer).  Doesn't this require the GM to try to nugde players towards dealing with that premise in play?  GM Nudging is not the same as railroading.  Think of it as one player saying to the others, "hey guys, remember how we were gonna test this particular premise."

[Mike Holmes]

Is balance a requirement of the narrativist game? In other words can a bang be created that does not reward certain choices (you are outnumbered, unless you choose to get help you will loose, but I am prepared to let that happen), or is the balance something that needs to be decided in reaction to the players actions?

Not sure what your getting at. As long as you don't know what the players will do, it's probably Narrativist. Look at the situation that you are setting up. Ask, "What will the players do?" If you know the answer for certain, it's not Narrativist.

Actually I think that the issue here may be that it was in de-protagonizing the players, not giving them the option beforehand of how the fight would be fought - alone against the dark, or we all stand together - but making that the result of someone else's actions off stage that I removed control from them and thus entered the world of the illusionist.

That's the technical description, yes. Again, though, if your players are content, it's not a bad style.

OTOH, you might want to try more of the Bang approach, just to see how it goes.

Hi EP,

Haven't the players and the GM set up the premise before the game? Even if premise is phrased as a question ("At what price power?"), premise establishes certain parameters in which play can take place. Perhaps the GM has established a special premise within a premise heavy game (like Sorcerer). Doesn't this require the GM to try to nugde players towards dealing with that premise in play? GM Nudging is not the same as railroading. Think of it as one player saying to the others, "hey guys, remember how we were gonna test this particular premise."

Yes, and no. Keep in mind in the following that I'm using Narrativism in the proper meaning as defined herabouts.

First, Narrativist Premises are not neccessarily decided before play. They can be created in play, and by any player at any time. Given games support certain premises more than others (and are more Narrativist for it), but that doesn't mean that a player playing D&D can't just up and choose to address a Nar Premise such as your power example. Happens all the time. That's a common misconception. Narrativism is narrow, but not that narrow.

A GM who wants to promote a Narrativist response out of the players does have a responsibility. And that is to bring Nar Premises to the forefront by making the questions presented unavoidable. Or at least compelling. So if it makes sense for a particular character to be interested in the power question, for instance, the GM plays on this by making sure that the opportunity comes up to either take power, or refuse it (the usual options).

But the answer to the question, the theme created by addressing the premise, has to come from the player of the character. If he is railroaded, it's not Narrativism. Now, nudging? All depends on how the player sees it. As soon as it's over the line in the player's opinion, it's become railroading, and if the player prefers Narrativism, he'll feel robbed.

So, if "nudging" is just bringing the quesiton to the forefront, great. If it's making the decision in any way as far as the player is concerned, then it's no longer Narrativist.

Is that any clearer?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I want to modify all of Mike's points by just the tiniest little bit, to say that when this phrase is used:
The players create the theme by addressing the premise during play ...
That the GM is a player just as well as anyone else.

Mike is absolutely right that the point of Narrativist play is for everyone to be able to do this, not for the GM to do it "for the players." However, I'd like to make sure no one misunderstands his point as saying that the GM has nothing to do with the process.

Best,
Ron

[Ian Cooper]

As long as you don't know what the players will do, it's probably Narrativist. Look at the situation that you are setting up. Ask, "What will the players do?" If you know the answer for certain, it's not Narrativist... So, if "nudging" is just bringing the quesiton to the forefront, great. If it's making the decision in any way as far as the player is concerned, then it's no longer Narrativist.

Thanks Mike. I think I can see my way through my concerns here better now. I wanted a nudge but prepared a 'railroad'. I think I minded more than them, but that is still important.

Thanks all.

[Mike Holmes]

I think I minded more than them, but that is still important.

Interesting comment. And totally true. If you find yourself wishing that you could just hand over more controll, ask your players if they would be comfrtable with that. Or just try it out some and see what happens. No reason you can't do both.

Mike