Succession Conflict in Pimia First Session

[Eric J. Boyd]

So the game discussed in Prepping for a Succession Conflict in Pimia is finally underway. Here's a summary of the first session.

************************************************************

The game began at the funeral rites for King Rickard, father to the three PCs. Patriarch Ven, head of the church, led the rites and after completing the rituals he asked the Emperor Sun God Yelm to watch over and guide them all as they used the ancient oracles to choose the next king at the new moon (five days hence). Hearing this, Lord Rowland muttered an oath and stormed out of the church. Tristan decided to follow him out.

The sons were given the opportunity to eulogize their father. Oscar went first and began to speak at length about Yelm and Buserian and the guidance of the heavens.

Meanwhile, Tristan caught up with Rowland outside. Rowland told him that he would not have the priests declaring a king, when the Knights of the Inner Circle were obviously the most suited to do so. Tristan seemed to agree, but felt their hand had been forced. They arranged a later meeting and Rowland left, while Tristan returned inside.

Oscar had finished and Fallon was speaking by the time Tristan returned. Fallon lamented the lack of a missive despite their father's wisdom and prudence, and stated that the people should consider carefully how they wanted their next king chosen. The rumblings from the crowd showed they caught his meaning, but were at best uneasy about it.

Patriarch Ven tried to close the rites, but Tristan strode down the aisle and unsheathed the family sword, demanding his right to speak. He praised the strength and wisdom of his father, strength that had kept the peace for ten years. He then said that any new king must have the same strength if Pimia was to remain whole.

The rites were closed, and the family filed out. Patriarch Ven requested a meeting with Oscar that evening, and Tristan asked Ven about the nature of the oracles. The Patriarch said he would be happy to tell him more at a meeting after the tourney tomorrow.

Fallon and Tristan mused that the church had made its play, likely intending Oscar, who was an initiate of Buserian, to be king. Oscar joined them and the barbs flew between them all, interrupted only when their mother Marian Canter came and asked Oscar to accompany her back to the royal keep and provide her comfort.

In the carriage, Marian told Oscar she thought the succession was a family matter that should be decided by the family. She told him how proud she was of his accomplishments with the church and Society of Noble Inquiry, and that she would not want to see his interests squelched under the burdens of statecraft. She suggested that Tristan would make the best king, and tried to elicit agreement from him. Oscar was reluctant, but unable to completely deny his grieving mother. She seemed pleased by his response and then asked Oscar to speak with Fallon on the matter.

Fallon left the church and met with Elliot Sadler, the head of the Merchants' Guild. Sadler hinted that the Guild would be willing to support his claim to the throne and pay a hefty bribe to Patriarch Ven to ensure the oracles named Fallon. All Sadler wanted in exchange was for Fallon to be bound to Sadler's daughter Denise as his consort. Fallon said he would consider all this and left.

Tristan returned to the castle and asked his seneschal to look into the matter of the nonexistent missive. He also met with a childhood friend, Darin Trantor, who asked for Tristan's help in locating Darin's cousin Geoffrey, a member of the Knights of the Inner Circle assigned to guard the king, who had disappeared in the wake of Rickard's death. Tristan agreed to help find Geoffrey.

Tristan went next to his mother's chambers and she told him of her desire that he be the next king and of her discussion with Oscar. Tristan took the news as a sign that Oscar was abdicating any claim to the throne.

Tristan, frustrated by the day's events, went to the courtyard to practice swordplay with Griffith and several other knights. Oscar was preparing to see Patriarch Ven and came through the courtyard, while Fallon watched the sparring from a window overhead. Fallon sent his raven Rook to harass Oscar, who was laden with scrolls and books, but Oscar managed to fend the bird off. Tristan asked to speak with Oscar about his abdication, and the two went off in a carriage.

Their discussion revealed that Marian Canter had exaggerated Oscar's position — he was plainly not abdicating completely. Nevertheless, Oscar stated he could support Tristan's claim if the sciences were properly supported and he could offer his wisdom to the new king. Tristan seemed amenable to this solution, but no agreement was actually reached. Tristan disembarked from the carriage and returned to the keep, while Oscar proceeded to keep his appointment with Patriarch Ven.

Fallon went to see the eldest sister Katarina and spoke about the travails of the succession, but did not find out any additional information from her. He promised to meet her for tea again soon.

Lord Rowland awaited Tristan when he returned to the keep. Rowland asserted that something must be done about Ven and that Tristan should take a large amount of gold and his dagger to his meeting with Ven on the morrow—letting the patriarch choose which he preferred. Tristan was aghast at the suggestion that Ven be killed, but Rowland assured him that it would not come to that.

Oscar arrived at the church compound and was met by Deacon Phillip, his uncle and youngest brother of King Rickard. Phillip took Oscar aside and revealed that Rickard had often come to him to unburden his heart of sorrows and secrets, and that Rickard's bond to Marian Cantor was motivated by a shortfall in the royal treasury and the promise of a huge dowry. The dowry was so large because Marian was already with child when Rickard married her. Oscar was shocked with the revelation that he may not be a Von-Newl at all, and questioned Phillip's sincerity. But Phillip said he had to reveal this to Oscar to let him make the proper decisions regarding the succession.

Fallon was visited in his chambers by his retainer Ildar, who reported that one of Fallon's smuggler connections was being sought by the City Watch and had shown up at Fallon's brewery requesting asylum. Fallon instructed that the man be well hidden and the situation reported back to him by Ildar before the night was out.

Tristan came to Fallon's chambers and asked for his aid in finding information on Geoffrey Trantor. They also discussed Fallon's eulogy and the strangeness of the lack of missive. Tristan bluntly asked Fallon what he wanted from the succession conflict, but Fallon was indirect in his replies.

Oscar finally met with Patriarch Ven. Ven asked after Oscar's ambitions and goals — did he want to become a devotee to Buserian and give up the Von-Newl name, or did he have other goals? Ven also asked about both Tristan and Fallon, expressing distaste for their lack of piety and doubting the church's continued prosperity under their rule. Oscar tried to deflect Ven's concerns and asked about the oracles. Ven produced an ancient book written in a language unknown to Oscar and pointed to certain pages that described the oracles. Unsure where he stood with Ven, Oscar was ushered out into the night and returned to the keep.  

************************************************************

I thought play went very well--I see what Ron means now about "playing bass" and facilitating. I went with Mike Holmes' suggestion and did not stat out the opposition beforehand, although actually very few contests took place. I only had the players roll for social interactions when they were trying to influence an NPC to do something (e.g., support their claim), and a lot of interactions were between the PCs themselves. Anyone got suggestions on when to make social interactions a contest and when not to?

I'm also wondering how prep between sessions differs from initial prep in the narrativist mode. The players seem hellbent to believe that Patriarch Ven has a dastardly plan beyond just demanding bribes from the likely successors, so it seems I should try to have something developed to whet their appetites. Similarly, it seems prudent to have an outside threat ready in case the players have their characters reach an agreement on succession. How many options, bangs, etc. do you tend to chart out? How often do you just wing it based on player preferences expressed during play? Any other ideas or comments on how to keep the game fun and running smoothly?
[/url]

[Mike Holmes]

Anyone got suggestions on when to make social interactions a contest and when not to?

The rule is really the same with any contest, roll it when it's a conflict. Not just because it's a difficulty, but because the player is interested in what's happening. This seems counterintuitive to some people. But, basically, you shouldn't roll if the player (not the character, the player) isn't into it. You only get those appropriate ohh's and ahh's from mechanics when something interesting is riding on the roll.

That said, I try to ensure that all interactions between characters are on this level or close. And even when I'm not sure, I roll. Just to be sure that I'm not "steamrolling" something that I wasn't aware had some real weight for the player.

I'm also wondering how prep between sessions differs from initial prep in the narrativist mode. The players seem hellbent to believe that Patriarch Ven has a dastardly plan beyond just demanding bribes from the likely successors, so it seems I should try to have something developed to whet their appetites.

Maybe. Depends. It's might just be fine if the characters are wrong about their suspicions. The thing is to have bangs, whatever they are, ready - Bangs that appeal to the players. So, if the only thing you can think of is to make Ven a villain, then go ahead. OTOH, since they're wrong, have something comes up that capitalizes on that innaccuracy. Maybe somebody is trying to make Ven look bad...lots of possibilities.

Similarly, it seems prudent to have an outside threat ready in case the players have their characters reach an agreement on succession.

I'm confused by this. You're wondering if you should prevent them from reaching a conclusion to the story? Putting in something to stretch things out? Again, maybe. OTOH, consider that if they're pressing on closing things out, then they may feel that it's time to do so. There's no reason this has to be more than a two session story, is there? Go with your gut, but don't protract things just in the name of getting more sessions out of it.

How many options, bangs, etc. do you tend to chart out?

Far too "it depends" to generalize a lot. But I usually have about one per PC, and maybe a bang or two that affect the whole group. What tends to happen, is that some of the Bangs don't get used, and build up over time waiting to potentially be used. This is cool, because for an effort of one Bang per character per session, often you have a lot of options by the third session.

How often do you just wing it based on player preferences expressed during play?

Always. 100%. That is, if I can detect something that I think a player would want to see in terms of conflict, something that I hadn't thought of before, I put it into play right away. Preparing Bangs is just in case something doesn't come to you in play, IMO. Most of play is just winging it.

For example, in last weeks game, I did a very heavy-handed thing. In the middle of the game, I realized that a substitute player's character had Loves Foreign Girl 5W2. But he'd not defined who she was. So I decided to make her the same character that another PC has a Love with. I got the idea about a third of the way through the session, and did the reveal near the end. "Ethical" questions aside, it was a perfect way to get the PCs in question to interact. OOC banter had loads of well-intentioned threats to kill each other's characters and the like. And their characters have not yet met. So I've got each player distinctly interested in the play of the other player, now. :-)

Heck, lots of times what I come up with in play voids some of my Bangs. Doesn't matter - the priority isn't to get to any specific Bang, but do the best thing for the game right now.

Any other ideas or comments on how to keep the game fun and running smoothly?

Relax a little. That doesn't mean forget to prepare or to try to do well. It means don't worry about it. If the first session was good, the second will likely be a blast, whether you play a perfect game or not. Remember that I and other GMs who play like this screw up a lot; the perfect game just never happens from a performace POV. What these techniques are designed to do is to make the game fun despite the imperfections (to whit I had a much harder time running illusionist games well).

Mike

[Eric J. Boyd]

Mike, I truly appreciate your advice and feedback as I find my rhythm with narrativist gaming. Hopefully, you (or anyone else) will be able to offer thoughts on a couple more issues.

Anyone got suggestions on when to make social interactions a contest and when not to?

The rule is really the same with any contest, roll it when it's a conflict. Not just because it's a difficulty, but because the player is interested in what's happening. This seems counterintuitive to some people. But, basically, you shouldn't roll if the player (not the character, the player) isn't into it. You only get those appropriate ohh's and ahh's from mechanics when something interesting is riding on the roll.

That said, I try to ensure that all interactions between characters are on this level or close. And even when I'm not sure, I roll. Just to be sure that I'm not "steamrolling" something that I wasn't aware had some real weight for the player.

I like what you're saying about player interest being the key, but how do you actually implement rolls with social interactions? My players tended to start RPing what they want to say and I would RP the NPC responses. When it became clear they were trying to convince an NPC to do something I stopped and asked for rolls. Then the roll results determined NPC attitude and response. Should I follow the progression for any other contest and ask for intentions before allowing the conversation to begin, call for a roll, and then begin RPing the actual conversation based on the roll results? I guess I'm not sure where in the sequence to insert the fortune mechanic.

Similarly, it seems prudent to have an outside threat ready in case the players have their characters reach an agreement on succession.

I'm confused by this. You're wondering if you should prevent them from reaching a conclusion to the story? Putting in something to stretch things out? Again, maybe. OTOH, consider that if they're pressing on closing things out, then they may feel that it's time to do so. There's no reason this has to be more than a two session story, is there? Go with your gut, but don't protract things just in the name of getting more sessions out of it.

You've sussed me out completely here. I am concerned that the players will not realize that the actions they're taking will wrap up the story because of a lack of familiarity with narrativist gaming. I suspect they believe I have some overarching plot in mind, even though I've explained that the progression of events is mostly in response to their actions. I don't want to have disappointed players who don't realize their own power in the game. Any thoughts on how to communicate this at the beginning of the next session?

Any other ideas or comments on how to keep the game fun and running smoothly?

Relax a little. That doesn't mean forget to prepare or to try to do well. It means don't worry about it. If the first session was good, the second will likely be a blast, whether you play a perfect game or not. Remember that I and other GMs who play like this screw up a lot; the perfect game just never happens from a performace POV. What these techniques are designed to do is to make the game fun despite the imperfections (to whit I had a much harder time running illusionist games well).

Thanks for the kind words, Mike. I truly am enjoying myself a lot with HQ and the game so far, enough to know that this is the style of play I want to primarily pursue in the future. My main goals in exploring narrativist play were to reduce my own prep time and to play exciting dramatic games where the players were truly enpowered. So far it has been a smashing success.

Eric

[Mike Holmes]

I like what you're saying about player interest being the key, but how do you actually implement rolls with social interactions? My players tended to start RPing what they want to say and I would RP the NPC responses. When it became clear they were trying to convince an NPC to do something I stopped and asked for rolls. Then the roll results determined NPC attitude and response. Should I follow the progression for any other contest and ask for intentions before allowing the conversation to begin, call for a roll, and then begin RPing the actual conversation based on the roll results? I guess I'm not sure where in the sequence to insert the fortune mechanic.

Excellent question. I think this is a matter of personal style to an extent, and feeling out where people are comfortable. My results are pretty much just like yours. The player starts narrating what he's talking about, or acts in first person, and at some point it becomes clear that an interesting conflict is coming up.

Note that PCs are constantly "persuading" people to do things without any rolls. The player asks, "Can my character find a sword to replace his lost one?" If I think that he just wants a sword, and that there's no issue behind getting it, then the character just gets it. But that means that he persuaded somebody with money or in some other manner to give him the sword. Or he found it or something. Which could be a contest if one wanted. It's just not in this case, because it's not important enough to the ongong play to be included as such. I mean, even asking for a beer at the tavern is an interaction, but is covered by the Automatic Success rule.

So, there's nothing like an action that automatically has to be a contest. It's totally up to what happens in game, and the player response. If the player says instead, "Hey, I want to see if I can wrangle a sword out of that curmudgeon of a smith in town." Then it's more likely that he's spoiling for a confrontation, so you give it to him. Any time a player starts talking in the first person, and you can see him trying to change some other character's mind, personally I think it's likely that it merits a roll.

Now, this is foreign to a lot of players. That is, some would say that this takes the "role-playing" out of the game, because you're interupting the narration (possibly first person), and having a roll. I personally think this works just fine, but I'm sure that there are people out there who abhore this sort of thing. So you have to be careful.

In any case, however, this doesn't mean that narration stops of course, and you can even pick up first person play after the fact, influenced by the result of the roll. A lot of times you'll see something like, say, a fumble followed by someone saying what would be interesting as the source of the problem, followed by the player playing out that part.

From one perspective, I think it's odd that people put physical and social conflicts into separate categories. People will argue forever that they're substantively different in terms of one needing rolls, and the other not. But I'm quite certain that this is just tradition, and that any mix works just fine. The preference seem fairly common, though, and needs to be kept in mind.

You've sussed me out completely here. I am concerned that the players will not realize that the actions they're taking will wrap up the story because of a lack of familiarity with narrativist gaming. I suspect they believe I have some overarching plot in mind, even though I've explained that the progression of events is mostly in response to their actions. I don't want to have disappointed players who don't realize their own power in the game. Any thoughts on how to communicate this at the beginning of the next session?

Say, "Hey, are you guys going to wrap up this story tonight, or do you intend to keep it going for a few more sessions. I was just wondering - if you do decide to end it, then we might want to talk about whether or not we want to extend play into another segment, or just end it there."

I give bad advice like this all the time. What I'm getting at is that you just tell them that they're making the plot up as they go. Sometimes a sorta shocking "matter-of-fact" question like the above can lead to zen-like understanding. But the method is moot. Make them understand that you have no plot.

If you want even more shock effect, hand them all your notes, and tell them that this is all you are going on. An interesting thing about Narrativist play is that this has no effect on play, other than potentially spoiling any surprises you have in Bangs (surprises are fun, but not neccessary), and maybe having some players think too far ahead.

Other things that can snap people into understanding is to ask them what the most important NPCs should do next. Ask them what they think would be cool in terms of some situational event like somebody walking along ("Let's have somebody come along. Who would be cool to appear right now?") Basically, the more power you give them, the more that they have to realize that they're in control of the plot.

I truly am enjoying myself a lot with HQ and the game so far, ...

I have to say that I am, too. I mean, I've had lots of success with other systems, but never have I had as consistently good play as with this system.

Mike