HQ Prep for play

[Bankuei]

Hi Mike,

Sorry if I miscommunicated about that.  The article will more specifically point to utilizing the setting, although in a general technique fashion, not a "nitty-gritty chunks of setting" fashion.

Although I recognize that many people do play functional Sim HQ, there's also lots of quotes from the HQ book pointing towards Nar play.  The section on scenario design happens to be the glaring exception.  With that said, the goals are put forth in there, the necessary techniques are absent in many places.

Chris

[contracycle]

I was hoping this would get addressed spontaneously or someone else would bring it up, but seeing as these have not occurred, I'd like to ask a direct question.

What are the myths for?

Over here in the list of preparation steps, it says:

5. If a focal myth is used, the group discusses and creates it together
6. If personal myths are used, players create them at this point

What I'm really aiming at is, why is there a presumption that the settings mythology will be front and centre of SCENARIO design, as part of the games subject and action?

I can understand mythology as setting exposition: the "what my father told me" sections, for example, only extended to an ideological arena.  I think that this is great stuff, demonstrating conflicting views of the world and presenting them in a useful, socially relevant form.

I can also see the mythology as a form of horribly extended FanFic, like the first person introductory stories used in many RPG's (and consequently, I similarly find reading them as a *necessary* play step annoyingly laborious).  Glorantha tacitly supports this because of its accretive history.

I can see the mythology as metaphysics, as an explanation for magic powers in an essentially rational way; however, in this regard it hedges so reflexively that understanding never arrives, no firm statements are made, it seems.

Setting exposition, FanFic, and metaphysics.  Those are the three modes in which I would expect to engage with the abundance of mythological material.  But none of these require or expect that the mythologies be front and centre at the gaming table; they are background, embellishment or causal explanation.

Why therefore does there seem to be such a presumption that the mythology features significantly in play?  A "myth de jour" appears expected, but what actual function is it there to carry out in terms of the actual play interactions between the participants?

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Gareth,

I think that's a great question. Here's my initial thought, that might be completely off base:

I think it's got everything to do with all the Myth/Fable/Magical World threads floating around on the RPG Theory Board: Myth is front and center in a Glorantha game because the players want it to be.  It's part and parcle of why one picks (or certain people pick) to play in Glorantha.  The players are jazzed about playing not only in a "fantasy" setting, but in playing in the mode of Mythical storytelling.

I'll note that Chris made this an optional step, because, I think, he knows a lot of folks can use Glorantha in a lot of different ways.  But the core to me is, given all the work put into to build this House of Mytholigical thinking (the contradictory nature of the tales and the reality and so on), Glorantha is currently the best shot at this kind of game -- if you've got players who want this kind of game.

And this goes back to the Religious threads we had at the Forge a few months ago, where I was desperately trying to say *something* about plyaying with a truly religious POV -- and not simply stapling religious elements onto a setting in cultural/economic/color manner.  

The point I was trying to make (I see now), is that the religous point of view would be part of the Premise of the session that would matter to the players.  Ron has pointed out that a) Premise must matter to the players and b) not all Premises will matter to all people.

Glorantha, I believe, at its core, isn't a setting that says, "Okay, it's a mythogical setting -- Go!"  It says, "This is a Myth -- Go!"  Two different things.  And I'll offer that some people (most in the RPG community) really dig and lean to the first option, and don't much care for the second.  And the people who care about the second, will care about a Premise from an unexpectedly religious point of view.  (When I say "religious" here, I'm not talking about a certain faith, but the idea that there is a world within the world of matter, invisible, but everpresent and it matters.)

If we're talking about Nar Play, and we're talking about Premise having to matter to the players, I'd offer that there's a HUGE split between folks who want something to "feel" like myth, and people who really want to put the stakes of myth on the table -- that telling stories in a world where there is spirit, magic, and more MATTERS.  Because to them, using the idea from William James' "Will to Believe" -- the concept is "live."  It's possible.  It matters.  

In the same way the Premise, "Is fortune worth the loss of family?" might be live to some people (and must be to make Nar premise work for the group), but not to others, the underlying Premise "How do you live when religious faith is built on the concrete nature of reality" is going to jazz some folks playing Glorantha and put Myth front and center.  For other folksk, that's a dead option, and Glorantha's myth stuff is simply there to be use for other very interesting dramatic Premises, or an overgrown Sim setting.

Thus, many people will use "Myth" -- as in, I want a mythical game -- to mean "I want all that cool magical stuff as color for my game."  That's myth as a dead premise.  Other people (a teeny-tiny minority) might mean myth as, "This is real to me.  This matters.  Let's play  Let's see what happens."  Exactly the way one approaches any other "human, moral dilema premise."

This is exactly what I was trying to get at months ago (but hadn't figure out) in the Religious thread discussion.  And I think it might (but only might), touch on the Hesitancy/Gloratha issue.  In other words, how many people are really interested in jumping into the deep end of the Glorantha pool?  Given how I've defined the deep end of the pool, probably not many, and that's really understandable.

Christopher

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

Excellent question.  Christopher has it pretty much on target.

Myth in HQ can be utilized in two ways, the Sim way, in which case, it adds to stuff like "Backstory" and serves as nifty color to be referenced, or it can be used in the Nar sense, in which case it serves as a guideline, much as character definitions serve as a guideline, and that meaning comes through the players' willing adherence, violation of, or reinterpretation of the myth.

So, to use the Dark Crystal as an example.  The myth is that when the 3 suns align, a gelfling will heal the crystal and order will return to the world, or evil rules forever.  That's it, a one sentence myth.  Yet the movie is about how it comes, and almost doesn't come about happening.  The myth behind the Matrix is that "The One" will appear, and save humanity.  That's it.  Who is the One?  How will they do it?  From here, the story and meaning emerges.

A focal myth is one which the entire group is involved with, and that will affect the lives and destinies of heroes.  A personal myth applies to just one character.

The point in writing it beforehand, is that it is basically a way of establishing thematic issues for your characters, so that character creation falls in line with them, not trying to squeeze them afterwards.  The myths should mostly be revealed to the players beforehand, although a couple might be secret, and foreshadowed throughout play, to be revealed later.  The 9th Gate is a good example of this.

The willingness to violate, or reinterpret the myth is where it becomes very interesting.  You could say that by creating such myths, the group utilizes them much in the same way Kickers get used for Sorcerer, or SAs get used for the Riddle of Steel, as a big flag to everyone else about what play is about.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Chris, you wrote,

You could say that by creating such myths, the group utilizes them much in the same way Kickers get used for Sorcerer, or SAs get used for the Riddle of Steel, as a big flag to everyone else about what play is about.

Yup. Entirely. That is the spine of our entire game that I described in my Thed threads and article.

Best,
Ron

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi Chris,

A focal myth is one which the entire group is involved with, and that will affect the lives and destinies of heroes.  A personal myth applies to just one character.

The point in writing it beforehand, is that it is basically a way of establishing thematic issues for your characters, so that character creation falls in line with them, not trying to squeeze them afterwards.

You are magnificent! Now you really got my attention! My only problem is that your examples are, uh well, not myths at all, but prophesies. Myths, as defined in HeroQuest, are about actions in the past that can be re-enacted (and changed or reinterpreted) in heroquests or mundane rituals.

Would your idea about focal myths still be useful using my definition of myth?

Thanx in advance,

/Peter N

[Bankuei]

Hi Peter,

You are correct that the examples given are prophecies, but myths, for all intents and purposes in Glorantha, also serve as prophecies, in that they "tell" people what should be done in many cases.

For example, Nargath the demon was sealed into a sword 1000 years ago.  A good man, a bad man, and the wielder all died on the sword to seal it away.  Now, for whatever reason, the demon escapes... What do you expect is the solution to sealing it away?  

What makes this interesting is that perhaps there is another answer that can only be found in reinterpreting, or denying the myth.  For example, getting the demon to wield the sword, and killing the prerequisite people, then killing it with its own blade?  Perhaps the sword is really its source of power, and breaking it is the answer.

Instead of reenacting the myth, word for word, its point is making a conscious decision to affirm it, deny it, or reinterpret it on your own terms.

This is why I say that the concept of "Interpretation" is absolutely necessary for HQ.  Otherwise, you're simply a slave to the past, and that is far from what the Hero Wars are about.  It's about taking the past, and remaking it, making it your own.

Chris

[Valamir]

Actually Peter, I think the only real difference is accepting the notion that myths repeat themselves.  Thats the power of a hero quest.  To find a myth from yesterday similiar enough to a problem today, that by reinacting it, the problem today can be solved by a myth from the past.

So the myth of the Dark Crystal then becomes something "else" in myth terms.  Anything that involves someone inconsequencial, at an auspicious celestial moment, performing a deed at a select space and time to defeat a greater enemy.  The reinactment of that myth is the story of the gelfling and the dark crystal.

There is an even more extreme example of this in Return of the King, when Aragorn and Company go on a "hero quest" to reinact the myth of the traitorous <whatever their name was> who betrayed Gondor in ages past.  In this case the myth literally comes to life and rides to the aid of Gondor...because the Hero Questors forced the myth down a different path.

[contracycle]

So, to use the Dark Crystal as an example.  The myth is that when the 3 suns align, a gelfling will heal the crystal and order will return to the world, or evil rules forever.  That's it, a one sentence myth.  Yet the movie is about how it comes, and almost doesn't come about happening.  The myth behind the Matrix is that "The One" will appear, and save humanity.  That's it.  Who is the One?  How will they do it?  From here, the story and meaning emerges.

Hmm, I have trouble seeing what part of this is NOT backstory.  Person X in settings history said X at some point based on insight Z.  Thats back-story, setting exposition.  This sort of thing can be the seed for an adventure/mission, sure, but why then would the MYTH itself be front and centre?  It should not be, learning it is merely a Bang.  

I would also fear that it would run on cast-iron rails, being constructed as it is directly "out of the book" in the majority of cases (I expect).  This is a fear substantially reinforced by the references to the myths sort of prophetic nature or a default cyclism.  And if so, do you then discuss the myth at the beginning, as part of setup, and then put it aside, or what?

See, now already in the responses, we see remarks like "thats the power of a hero-quest".  Why?  The responses seem to imply that the default position is that the myth-based hero-quest is the DEFAULT TROUBLE-SHOOTING ACTIVITY FOR CHARACTERS.  Why?

Again, if the myth is supposed to provide, say, the central moral conundrum, then how can one be secret?  I would think, even if a myth were secret in the game world, it would need to be public in the real world, otherwise the players are blind.

So at the moment I don't think my question has been answered.  As I said initially, CAN see the myth being used as backstory and setting exposition - exactly as in the Matrix and Dark Crystal scenarios, it seems to me.  But to then use them to impose a structure on play only appears to be hard-core railroading to me.

And how DOES re-enacting a myth solve a problem today?  Why should this be so?  Is there some metaphysical reason for this occurrence, and if so what is it?  Why would my characters think this is likely, or even possible?

Edit: hopefully to illustrate my question better, I would suggest that Vampire has a perfectly serviceable founding mythology in the book of nod etc.  Vamps as the children of cain, yada yada.  But immediately play begins, the mythology fades into the background.  Sure, it raises moral issues: the very act of predation requires that daily.  But the MYTHOLOGY ITSELF is backstory, it is not front and centre of the action.  My question is, what further life does Gloranthan myth take on in Actual Play, and why?

2nd edit:
If myths give origins, and myths are true (or true for all intents and purposes), then myths are indistinguishable from history.  History may or may not reapeat itself, but that is not in itself morally significant.  A game or story premised on the repetition of history surely needs specific exposition on this very point.

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi Chris,

I realize that you are not quite finished, and that my questions may very well be answered in due time. Let me know if you want me to wait with this until I can see the full picture.

Okay. Let's say that we decide to start a HeroQuest campaign, based on your prep. It could go something like this:

1. Group decides length of play in terms of sessions

We decide something in between 5-10 sessions would be cool. We don't want to rush, but we don't want it to go on forever either.

2. Choose a location, choose the cultures involved

We decide that we want the heroes to be Bison Riders from Prax/The Wastes.

3. Group discusses and decides thematic conflict and issues at hand

The Sable riders, who are Lunar allies, have taken control of traditional Bison Rider grazing lands. We want to focus on this conflict. Possible premises are something like this: Does might make right? Who are you willing to ally with in order to get what you want?

4. Group outlines the conflict in concrete terms, who's involved, over what, etc.

Hm. Part of that has already been done, above. Groups involved in the conflict are:

* Our Bison clan. We decide that it is split in two fractions: One that wants to fight the Sable Riders, the other wants to go east or north to look for new land.

* The Sable Rider clan that now occupies our grazing lands.

* The Antelope Lancers, a Lunar cavalry regiment, with many connections to the Sable clan.

* The Pol Joni horseriders who are our traditional enemies. We despise them, but they would make a great ally against the Sables.

* Oppressed oasis people who slave away in the oasises controlled by the Sables. When we were in control, we treated them just as badly as the Sables do. Some say that there is more to this enslaved people than meets the eye. They primary interest is to stay out of trouble; to survive.

5. If a focal myth is used, the group discusses and creates it together

Okay. Can you give an example of what to do now? EDIT: Assuming, of course, that a focal myth is used. :-)

Cheers,

/Peter N

[Bankuei]

Hi Gareth,

I'll address your questions out of order, for clarity's sake:

And how DOES re-enacting a myth solve a problem today? Why should this be so? Is there some metaphysical reason for this occurrence, and if so what is it? Why would my characters think this is likely, or even possible?

A heroquest is a magical ritual re-enactment of a myth, that provides the results as given in the myth.  So, if you did the "Jack and the Beanstock" heroquest, your character would emerge at the end of it with the Golden Goose.  Of course, if you don't follow the myth, but instead do different actions, you'll receive different results.  

And yes, from the viewpoint of the characters, there is no difference between myth and history.

This is a fundamental idea of HeroQuest, and is explained in the core book.  I suggest you research this idea, as understanding it will answer much of questions, you might want to search for some older threads, or browse the rulebook at your FLGS.

I would also fear that it would run on cast-iron rails, being constructed as it is directly "out of the book" in the majority of cases (I expect). This is a fear substantially reinforced by the references to the myths sort of prophetic nature or a default cyclism. And if so, do you then discuss the myth at the beginning, as part of setup, and then put it aside, or what?

First of all, myths are constructed with player input.  In this way, they serve much the same role that Kickers or SAs do, that is, you, the player, can inject input about "what play is about", even if the character is completely unaware of it.  

The way I see movies such as The Dark Crystal and the Matrix playing out, is that the myths and prophecies were constructed with input by the "player" of the characters, and the characters make the discoveries in play.  The player would be taking author stance, dropping in foreshadowing, working with the rest of the group and the GM to enact the myth.

What keeps this from becoming a predictable plot, is this:

Instead of reenacting the myth, word for word, its point is making a conscious decision to affirm it, deny it, or reinterpret it on your own terms.

In doing this, your character affirms, denies, or reinterprets the values of their culture.  This is what takes it out of the backstory, and throws it front in the foreground.    You are not chained to the myth, you are free to break it.  Choosing to stay within it, or break free, either way, you are making a thematic statement as a player.

Chris

[Bankuei]

Hi Peter,

Step 3 and 4 you've kinda mixed up.  Although both should be happening together, the simple fact is that the concrete conflict you've put forth doesn't really ask those questions.  

What seems like a more interesting take on it, is the oasis people, and really, the role of the Bison riders to them.  Here, the thematic issue is re-examining the social structure of the Bison riders, and possibly having to restructure it for their survival.  The real thematic question is, "How much do we have to change to survive?", because, whether moving to new lands, or allying with former slaves, is a change to the clan.

So, if we're using that, and we have a formal myth, the group could come up with something dealing with how the Oasis people were enslaved to begin with.  Actual play would consist of reflecting that myth, with both the Sable Riders and the Bison Riders.  As movers and shakers of the clan, the heroes would either be competing with the Sable Riders to "steal" the events that reenact the enslavement, or reinterpret them, perhaps changing the relationship between the two groups, and maybe, just maybe, seeing them as people instead of slaves.

So, perhaps a simple myth would be:

Long ago, our clan rode in on the Oasis of 3 Trees, crushing the warriors who lived there.  Our chief took their chief's daughter for his wife, and then we slew their holy cow, white and rare, from lands distant.  Finally, we slashed each tree, marking the land as our own.

So in play, the Bison clan would be trying to prevent the Sables from acheiving anything similar, and perhaps reenacting it to get bonuses to recapturing the labor of the Oasis people, or, more likely, redefining the relationship through their actions, perhaps, in this case, giving them a more fair status in exchange for help.

Does that clarify things a bit?

Chris

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi Chris,

Does that clarify things a bit?

Yes. Thank you.

Cheers,

/Peter N

[Nick Brooke]

If a focal myth is used, the group discusses and creates it together

Okay. Can you give an example of what to do now? EDIT: Assuming, of course, that a focal myth is used. :-)

You could set this near Moonbroth Oasis, and borrow my old myth of the Devil's Soup Bowl - what kind of allies (perhaps representing 'everything in the world') can you find to turn things around, when the former centre of your world becomes a festering hotbed of unspeakably evil outsiders? And how does it change the world when this happens?

Sorry if this is a bit vague... I've been meaning to do some stuff with Sables & Pol Joni at Moonbroth, building on the myth as a seed. But no reason the Bison couldn't have been there first... the Pol Joni coming in the last few centuries, and the Sable arrivistes most recently.

Cheers, Nick