d20 to Heroquest: introducing narrativism?

[Scripty]

10-digit phone numbers? I'd say you are ruined then, Brand. :)

I totally agree with the NPC arsenal vs. central cast terminology. Although I think that the Forge terms are already pretty full to bursting, if a change in terminology is going to actually add clarity to the discussion, then I'm behind it.

Mike, first, you're a great GM. And I totally understand your desire to use something rather than hold off and miss an opportunity. As Lemony Snicket pointed out in his last book, "those who hesitate are lost..."

I'm afraid my last post put you in a position to defend yourself, which is how I felt after your last post. That was not my intention. I was just illustrating how my experience as a player and a GM has led me to believe that a tighter R-Map is better. But that's really just my impression. I have never posed it as anything but. I could've just as easily pointed to the Wuxia game I ran with a R-Map based on the movie "Death to Smoochy". That was a disaster. There were 15+ NPCs in the R-Map before play even started. NPC creep led to upwards of 25 NPCs, only about 15 or so were necessary. The rest were all extemporaneous. It was inefficient on my part. A mistake. But your game was much more fun than that one. I don't mean to slight your abilities. I agree with Brand's assessment of your faculties (how many other people get called a genius twice in one day?). I'm sorry to have put you in a corner like that.

Again, we just disagree here. It's no big deal really. I think NPC creep should be guarded against. I doubt it can be avoided entirely. But that is a limitation of myself as a GM, I think. I've seen other GMs manage it quite well, including yourself. However, I think that once players start missing out on elements of the story, including NPCs, they become a bit disempowered and reliant on the GM to fill them in on the rest of the story.

That's why I say NPC creep isn't a friend. But it shows up at almost every game I've run and every game I've played (barring those games where the entirety of the session is spent in a dungeon or significant portions of the setting are destroyed for some reason).

I agree this is Charles' thread and hope he can get something useful out of all this. Sorry to hijack it.

Scott

[CCW]

Wow, this thread has reached a size that I'm having trouble absorbing it all.  Not that I'm complaining, mind, it's full of fantastically helpful ideas.

I must admit though, that the size of the r-map is not of maximum importance for me: I'd be overjoyed to reach a point in my campaign in which the r-map, any r-map, plays an important role of any kind.

The game on Wednesday didn't go quite as I had hoped. The players wanted to continue playing out the situation, which I had thought was pretty much done with.  Thus we never reached a point in the game where I felt I could try out the advice I'd recieved from all of you. This has left me feeling a bit deflated  and the truth is don't really know what further to ask or to contribute here until we've played some more.

Charles

[CCW]

Oh dear, that does sound whine-y doesn't it?  That'll teach me to post while I'm tired AND hungry.

Fortunately, at the moment I'm merely very very tired so I'm sure I'll have no problems at all (although for some reason things keep getting farther and farther away...).

The characters in my game have, for the last while, been off on a quest far away from their home, and far away from almost all the NPCs who they connected to at the beginning of the game (their families, contects, etc.).  This has made it hard for me to entangle them in a web of conflicting responsibilities and deceit (or what-have-you)  because I made the mistake, mentioned by Mike a page or so ago, of moving the source of action way outside the r-map.  Even at the time it didn't feel right, but only now can I identify why.

Fortunately, they're on their way home, unfortunately (at least in some sense) the players wanted to play out some of the journey.  Fool that I am, I couldn't resist introducing some complications to make things interesting.  The good news is that they've now found their way to the homeland of one of the characters, which isn't too far from their destination, so I'll be able to start throwing relationships at them a bit more next week.

Good night,

Charles

[Mike Holmes]

Mike, first, you're a great GM. And I totally understand your desire to use something rather than hold off and miss an opportunity. As Lemony Snicket pointed out in his last book, "those who hesitate are lost..."

Yer bucking for extra HP, aren't ya? Well, no way, dude, this GM is uncorruptable (unless you want to talk about cash...). ;-)

I was just illustrating how my experience as a player and a GM has led me to believe that a tighter R-Map is better. But that's really just my impression. I have never posed it as anything but.

It's not empirical science, all we have are our impressions. Neither of us is wrong here.

I'm sorry to have put you in a corner like that.

Not at all. Things just seemed to need clarifying. In any case, I don't even mind all out attack, so don't worry it.

Again, we just disagree here. It's no big deal really. I think NPC creep should be guarded against. I doubt it can be avoided entirely. But that is a limitation of myself as a GM, I think. I've seen other GMs manage it quite well, including yourself. However, I think that once players start missing out on elements of the story, including NPCs, they become a bit disempowered and reliant on the GM to fill them in on the rest of the story.

I agree, actually. This is a limitation that I've accepted, however. A trade off of one thing for another.

I'm not the "all power to the players" GM that some people might think that I am. In fact, in earlier days before I spent a lot of time advocating for narrativism, I was thought of as the "simulationist" guy on the Forge. Right now I'd like to think that I'm the "everything as it's needed" guy. Rather, the most important thing to have in a game is a coherent CA shared by all the players. Not a specific mode of play.

Anyhow, I like the versimilitude of a large cast. Again, that's not to say that for a short game that it isn't realistic to have a small map. Just that I see "creep" as a natural outcome of play, and not an unwanted one. As such, I'd much prefer to find some way to make the communication channel problem less troublesome than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

To an extent, I want to have my cake and eat it too, here. There are trade-offs, no doubt. But, basically I come down on the side that says, let creep occur, and just do a better job of keeping people aware of who the NPCs are. That means having handy references (did you see the NPC list I posted on the Wiki?), and doing a better job of making the NPCs encountered stick in people's minds.

I'm actually quite guilty, IMO, of treating NPCs as plot objects meant to interject bangs and such, and not transmitting why it is the character is doing what they're doing - or anything else much about them. That doesn't serve the NPCs well, as the player starts thinking of them as, "That guy who wanted me to kill Ragnar." I'd blame IRC, if I could, but I do this in FTF play as well. Making an NPC memorable is a skill that one needs to develop, and one of the areas of my play that I'm least satisfied with.

So, to my mind, I want to focus on making the larger map work better instead of trying to just make it easier by having fewer characters. Call it a personal goal. This is one reason that I'm trying to get art for all of the characters, because I think it really helps most people with solidifying an image of the character in mind (OK, sorta obvious).

That's why I say NPC creep isn't a friend. But it shows up at almost every game I've run and every game I've played.

Well, that says to me that the trade-off that I've gone for in my game wasn't working for you. Can't back out of it. That, or it did work, in which case, I think I'm correct in saying that it's something that a person can use.

In any case, I'd agree with you that starting slow might be a good idea. Especially in any game where having a coherent CA isn't automatically true from the get go.

I'm going to follow this post immediately with another to Charles.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Posting twice in a row here (don't miss the one above)...

Oh dear, that does sound whine-y doesn't it?  That'll teach me to post while I'm tired AND hungry.

Nah, didn't sound whiny to me. In fact, observations made right away are often important.

The characters in my game have, for the last while, been off on a quest far away from their home, and far away from almost all the NPCs who they connected to at the beginning of the game (their families, contects, etc.).  This has made it hard for me to entangle them in a web of conflicting responsibilities and deceit (or what-have-you)  because I made the mistake, mentioned by Mike a page or so ago, of moving the source of action way outside the r-map.  Even at the time it didn't feel right, but only now can I identify why.

Well, actually this isn't all that problematic. That is, you could have (maybe still can) created a map of people at the destination they were at. Yes, the "personal" map is often stronger than a completely "foreign" map, but that doesn't make it impossible to do. Far from it. In fact, when abroad, that's the best time to throw in a whole "adventure" worth of map separate from the original map.

Keep that in mind, essentially each map individually should have about an "adventure" or "story" worth of impact - possibly a lot more. So you can play a sort of episodic game by having characters impact first this map, and then this other. And, to the extent that they end up combining, you can create longer term play from that. Often single characters will get plucked from map A, and move to map B.

This is essentially what's happend with my game - it started with a couple of maps worth in Sherezak, and some of the same characters have moved on over to the new Green Lake map.

Fortunately, they're on their way home, unfortunately (at least in some sense) the players wanted to play out some of the journey.  Fool that I am, I couldn't resist introducing some complications to make things interesting.  The good news is that they've now found their way to the homeland of one of the characters, which isn't too far from their destination, so I'll be able to start throwing relationships at them a bit more next week.

Again, no rush to get them home - let it happen organically. Just have that "complication" turn out to be a whole relationship map.

Or not. If your prep to date has been all about home, then feel free to get them there. Use agressive framing if you have to. "After a long trip with lots of arduous challenges, the heroes find themselves home again with people asking them about their travels..."

Mike

[Scripty]

Yer bucking for extra HP, aren't ya? Well, no way, dude, this GM is uncorruptable (unless you want to talk about cash...). ;-)

Bummer. I'm busted AND I don't get any HP. Great post, Mike. I think the concepts of NPC creep and NPC arsenal and adjusting the size of R-Maps to meet the proposed duration of play have overreached the topic. Mostly my fault there. I'd love to continue the conversation in RPG theory or maybe Actual Play, if you feel up to it. I'd like to see what some other Forgites might have to say about it. Charles said it's not really a concern of his, so I don't want to clog up the bandwidth beating a horse he ain't gonna ride...

I will make a couple of quick comments, if I could. Then, maybe we could discuss this further on another thread??

In fact, in earlier days before I spent a lot of time advocating for narrativism, I was thought of as the "simulationist" guy on the Forge. Right now I'd like to think that I'm the "everything as it's needed" guy. Rather, the most important thing to have in a game is a coherent CA shared by all the players. Not a specific mode of play.

You and I share that sense of pragmatism in play, I think. I do think it's funny though that you were "the "simulationist" guy on the Forge" considering that you pretty much single-handedly baby-stepped me through Narr play in the threads here on the HQ forum, in your HQ game, and also in the Midnight-HQ conversion to which you made a sizable and important contribution.

Well, that says to me that the trade-off that I've gone for in my game wasn't working for you. Can't back out of it. That, or it did work, in which case, I think I'm correct in saying that it's something that a person can use.

I think that the response to that question ("whether or not your technique worked/works for me as a player?") is far more complicated than presented. You are correct in saying that your approach is effective and something that can be used. 100% I won't deny that my CA (other than getting my character killed) was met in your last campaign.

However, there were some hangups for me and where I think the technique didn't work was in smoothly moving me from my role as a player to my role as an audience (a distinction that ron alludes to both in sorcerer and here at the forge). I knew all the NPCs to which I was closely related in the game. But I might have been a more effective character had I had a handle on what was going on with everyone else. I certainly would've been a better audience.

Did the technique work? On a very black/white, yes/no, barebones foundation, yeah, undoubtedly. I think that goes without saying. I've used your technique (NPC arsenal) in many more games than I've used bona-fide R-Maps. But if we extend the question to more nuances of play, such as, did I have enough information about NPCs to involve my character with them to the fullest extent in play? did I feel confident enough in my grasp of what was going on to take ownership of a scene in author or even director stance? did i know enough about what was going on to truly care what was happening to the other characters, to serve as the best audience I could?

Well, if we apply that question to what I feel is the full spectrum of the play experience, we see the answer is yes here, no there, and maybe in other cases. At the end of the day, though, I ask myself if I had fun. If I did, I generally stick with a game and take ownership of my personal hang-ups and work on those for the benefit of the group. If I didn't, I usually bail. So, although I felt that I wished I knew more about what was going on, at the end of the day (and going back to the yes/no question) I had fun, which, to me, is the ultimate goal...

Sorry again, Charles. We should really move this to another thread...

Scott

[CCW]

Mike, I did actually have an r-map on the island they were exploring (based on Griffin Island from RQ3).  The players hadn't yet connected very seriously to the NPCs and I felt that the r-map in their home city had more long-term potential.  Also, I tend to want everything to be connected on some level--a holdover from my other style of GMing where I was something of a master of the complicated mega-plot (25 years of gaming are hard to shake off).

I'm quite excited about the next game.  They have made their way to a ruined city off the coast of one of their homelands.  Naturally it's full of nastyness, and one of the characters has just suffered a 50% wound from a sword blow.  This seems a good time to get the demon that has been riding around in his body to pipe up and offer magical help (so far the characters have been avoiding magic like the plague due to it's demonic roots).  Also with any luck I'll be able to work in another charater's family--I think one of her relatives is second in comand of the 'baddies.'

I'll try to put up an actual play post when I get a chance.

Scripty, No need to apologise.  I've found the discussion of number of NPCs very interesting, it just doesn't happen to be one of my insecurities.  I do tend to have NPC creep, but I also try to have a picture for each of the major ones, and to allow some to fade into the background if the players don't show interest in them.

Thanks all,

Charles

[Mike Holmes]

Mike, I did actually have an r-map on the island they were exploring (based on Griffin Island from RQ3).  The players hadn't yet connected very seriously to the NPCs and I felt that the r-map in their home city had more long-term potential.  Also, I tend to want everything to be connected on some level--a holdover from my other style of GMing where I was something of a master of the complicated mega-plot (25 years of gaming are hard to shake off).

Heh, sounds like what I do, actually. :-)

Anyhow, I see the problem. What you have to prepare yourself for is the possibility that they won't link up with the hometown R-Map, either. That is, it sounds like your group doesn't take to it all that naturally. If that's the case, then it's up to you to fashion bangs that force the connections.

I'm quite excited about the next game.  They have made their way to a ruined city off the coast of one of their homelands.  Naturally it's full of nastyness, and one of the characters has just suffered a 50% wound from a sword blow.  This seems a good time to get the demon that has been riding around in his body to pipe up and offer magical help (so far the characters have been avoiding magic like the plague due to it's demonic roots).  

Neat. Remember to put some pressure to get that healing - some time element. So that it's a choice to take the healing and suffer the consequences, or to not, and, well, suffer the consequences. :-)

Also with any luck I'll be able to work in another charater's family--I think one of her relatives is second in comand of the 'baddies.'

Of course they are! :-)

Kidding aside, you might want to check with the player. Sometimes players get proprietary about their NPCs.

Mike

[CCW]

Heh, sounds like what I do, actually. :-)

It's a disease--but a fun one.

What you have to prepare yourself for is the possibility that they won't link up with the hometown R-Map, either.

Good point.  At least the people at home have more of a call on the characters' time than a bunch of stranger far away did.

Remember to put some pressure to get that healing - some time element. So that it's a choice to take the healing and suffer the consequences, or to not, and, well, suffer the consequences. :-)

Time pressure I can do.

Kidding aside, you might want to check with the player. Sometimes players get proprietary about their NPCs.

I'm in the midst of negotiating her family's roles with the player via e-mail.  I don't think she'll mind, but you're right about making sure.

Charles