[Actual Play] Heroquest Midnight: the first session

[Lucy McLaughlin]

I'd expanded my R-map to include established NPCs' allegiances and goals regarding the greater political factions.  If the other player had been there, play would likely have gravitated around the local power struggle (and some details of my R-map) a great deal more:  the other player plays an Elf and both players have tended to have their PCs gravitate towards each other.  As it turned out, the other player called off sick at the last moment, so it was Lucy alone. This took the game off in quite a different direction from what usually happens, with Katrin happily off on discoveries of her own.  

I'm not sure if this will sound terribly selfish, but I actually relished having a session "all to myself". With the other player there, I guess I wouldn't even think of haring off away from the established campaign to do the sorts of things that are important to Katrin and her goals. It felt pretty liberating to me to be able to do that.

Goes to show how liberating it is to kick free of "what would suit the entire group" thinking.  I do hope we can get the other player to come round to occasional solo PCing when he comes back.  

Me too - it kind of seems to me that Katrin and Apari might have rather a lot to do on their own separate journeys.

Also for me as the GM, it showed how easy it is to wing along in this system.  We were off most of my list of prepared bangs (and kinda off the more detailed bits of the R-map) ten minutes into the game.  
I'd expected that once I knew the other player wasn't coming.  I didn't have time to re-prepare, so I stared in shock for a heartbeat or two when he called - then shrugged.  
It's not DnD, baby!  No hours to spend statting up stuff!  
(Then of course the solo player for the night being Lucy, I already knew from past experience that I could count on her to help me out if I ever was stunted for how to go on.  Knowing that helped a lot.)

Yeah, we've got a pretty good basis for trust established, one way and another, and when the two of us game alone together we seem to do the "creative collaboration" thing really well.

Resolution:  As Lucy has said, we didn't roll a lot of contests.  We resolved most things by simply playing out a conclusion that looked natural.  IIRC the two only contests were:
- Katrin defending Bernt against the spider (minor victory);  
- Katrin talking Nollorn into taking here to his leader (marginal defeat, no HP spent).  I started out by having the Wood Elven patrol interrupting them just as Nollorn was about to agree, then moments later I realised there was potential for a much more interesting (for Katrin) development... hence her being later intercepted by Roland's men.  
(I wish I could have remembered that the local captains were going to talk about raising a human force to relieve the Keep - I could have inserted a scene about that at this point, with some other nice complications potentially. Well, can't do everything all at once, I suppose.)

Regarding contests, on the whole we are currently far too excited about experimenting with the film scene style, with swapping narrative power in some moments (we're getting incredibly fast at negotiating this, too) and with finally being able to concentrate on the story to bother overly much with the support the system provides.  I expect we may get into a slightly more contest-y mindset once things get more dramatic and desperate (this was a bit of a setup for future conflicts, after all...).  
Also I guess we both have a well-engrained habit of ignoring system; well, we were playing DnD and not using it a large part of the time because using it simply wouldn't have worked for what we were doing.  

To give credit where credit's due, I started using film scenes in the Midnight game after Lucy ran a Feng Shui "Jackie Chan" one-shot for me a while ago, which was fabulous fun (also I believe the first time we experimented with swapping narrative power).  

Yup; I'm in agreement with all of that. I borrowed the "film scene style" from a wonderful GM I played with when on holiday in the US this summer, and it worked so well in his games I thought I'd hijack it for mine. That style seems to be developing into a more and more central part of the way we game, and I really think it works well.

As Lucy says, using film scenes helps us both to focus on what's cool and dramatic, and it makes negotiating narrative power much easier as well,  I think that must be because the elements of a film scene are much more clearly defined somehow than a those of a scene played out in the traditional RPG way.  There's no, "Well, so I go to the smithy." - "Well, so you get there and the door is open."  - "So I walk in and say, Greetings, Master Smith, greetings..."
Instead, we get Lucy having Katrin say, "So that's what how we'll do it,"  to Tam at the beginning of their scene.  Or, "Not coming?" to Bernt - thereby also establishing that she wants Bernt to stay behind.  Or deciding Katrin's kissing Tam like he's never been kissed to end the scene, rather than having her say goodbye and walking her back over to Bernt's command hut to tell him that now she's set to go.  

I have to say, I love those moments of what I think I'll call "active framing": just jumping into scenes at what I think (or Kerstin thinks) is the dramatic or otherwise pertinent moment, usually without much discussion. Sometimes it feels more like improv drama than an RPG, but in a way that's cool, and it doesn't seem to wander off the story. We manage to jump into the scene, accomplish or establish what we need to, and jump out again. No guff.

Katrin's dream was entirely framed by Lucy, except she asked me to supply the Jester's words, telling me she wanted him to say something cryptic in his usual style;  and I added Katrin crying out Arrenu's name (with her permission) because I knew I wanted her to wake up with a start.  

The dream sequence was a great bit of creative collaboration and negotiation, I thought, and it had echoes of other dimensions that I'm sure will come up at the right moment.

Thinking in scenes also makes it much easier for us to negotiate around bookeeping for possessions (something we both have learnt to hate with a passion, in high-level DnD).  So we were constantly doing things like, "Are we taking horses?" - "Hm I think this scene looks cooler on foot.  You might still have your horses later if the story demands it, ok?"
Or:  "Can I have some sort of insignia?" - "Hm ok, sounds cool.  Go ahead." (So Lucy decided Katrin was throwing down something she's been wearing around her throat, to be picked up by Roland's men.  For that scene we didn't even need to negotiate what exactly it would look like.  That might yet come up though.)

I'm sure it will! It'll very likely be relevant next session, I reckon... what do you think?

This filmy stuff is fantastic, it's so much more story-efficient and soo much more fun.  And also it reminds us all the time that what the PCs are supposed to do is look cool.  Even when they fail.  Which helps us in deciding how to frame Contests and state goals, and helps me narrate Consequences that are funa nd appropriate.  So it looks like one of our other favourite recent discoveries is meshing wonderfully well with our new favourite system, HeroQuest.

Yes, you hit the nail squarely on the head there. Looking cool is the key, and the film scene style really helps us to realize that and make our gamr work.

Did I mention I like this game? [grin]

[Lucy McLaughlin]

The Song of Ice and Fire HQ game I played the other night would average 10ish minutes for figuring out what the final target number for the PC was.

We might have taken about ten minutes I reckon, but we were taking our time negotiating which augments came into the contest and how - it was really cool to see Katrin's "signature style" beginning to develop.

Yeah, I really felt Katrin's character strongly at that session, not strangled like she had been by D&D for so long... it would be kind of cool to hear how you'd describe her "signature style", though.

Thanks, that's very useful to know - and it makes eminent sense to me looking at it from the "film scene" angle:  the moment to reach for the dice is when the scene goes to slo-mo for the dramatic climax (so we actually have time to leave the screen alone for a moment and do the calculating stuff).  

Maybe we'll be more eager for Contests once we get a good feel for the timing.  Takes practice, I suppose.  But (at least for me) this was a really, really marginal problem.  I'm liking this system a lot already, even though I'm not actually good yet at running it.  

Oh yes, it's a tiny little thing, but it was the one thing that we talked about during the session as something that needed attention, so I thought it would beasr bringing up. :)

I think we're learning fast, though!

I think that it's important to remember (related to both of the above) that HQ, while it is a simple and elegant system, isn't what traditionally gets called a light or transparent system – it is set up to have definite mechanical support and direction of action. Where many systems these days are built to disappear, making task resolution a non-thing that takes two seconds to roll out, HQ goes a different rout and assumes that when a contest is worth rolling it's worth making dramatic through the rules.

That's what it feels like, yes. Hm.  That'll likely become another aspect we'll look at in future scenes, I'm thinking:  do we or don't we want to place focus on a moment by making it a Contest? What do you think, Lucy?

Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. We're starting to get a feel for it already, and that'll only get better with time.

I'm definitely in favour of giving the system a chance.  I have to admit we have already fiddled with it slightly, what with the two-sided Relationships, and a magic system greatly reduced in complexity to make it feel more like Tolkien and less like Glorantha, but we're trying to use the resolution mechanic as such (when we can remember it's there...).  

We should try and get an Extended Contest in again soon, Lucy - I'm eager to try out those shiny new poker chips!

Me too; I've even got an idea or two what that extended contest might be about!

(Why do I have to wait over a week to play again? Sigh....)

[Bankuei]

Hi Lucy,

Okay: to a certain extent I guess I still have that D&D-instilled "need to succeed" whenever we roll dice. That tendency in myself annoys me a bit and I'm casting around for a new mindset.

Depending on how y'all like to play, even the competitive desire to win can be used in a fun manner beyond straight gamism.  A personal rule I apply when GM'ing HeroQuest is that I give modifier bonuses for cinematic(entertaining) descriptions of actions.  This bonus can range from +5 to +20, and as such, can be as or more useful than augmenting everything out.  

In this regard, it allows action oriented players to come up with neat things and get a reward, it allows gamist players an option that doesn't involved taking 20 minutes to try to pick out each augment(but still be highly effective).  Plus it makes folks add fun color to the game.  It's not about denying what you enjoy- but using it to make fun for everyone.

Chris

[Kerstin Schmidt]

I made a mistake just to show you guys that I don't know everything about playing this game. That is, I suggested before that you take a relationship to the group. I take that back. What I should have said is that you should come up with a Hero Band!

Hm, what I liked about your idea of a band Relationship was that it avoids all problems of who "has" the guardian when the band splits up and whether the guardian will then help that one band member alone but not others (kinda unfair), or will withhold its aid (kinda unfair as well because another entity withholding help smacks of punishment).  

But Lucy, if you're keen by all means let's discuss what Hero Band rules will do once Apari's player is back from India.  

You like the game? Cool, that's supposed to happen in RPGs. ;-)

Oh fantastic. I hadn't realised.  ;-)  Now if I can stop beating myself up about being inadequate as a GM, then maybe my fun will come to outweight my stress...

Kerstin, Lucy's character is so ready to get stomped. I have a character for her in my game. If you don't stomp her in yours, I'm going to stomp her in mine... :-)

Only if I don't?

So do I get credit for fixing the bothaya? Huh? Just kidding!

LOL

Hey, we'd kinda started experimenting before that thread!  But I guess you can have some of the credit.  

A bit.  ;-)

"When our group still contained two highly paranoid and traumatised players" I thought it still did? Just kidding!

Fair enough.  (No kidding.)  What I should have said was "two highly paranoid and traumatised players who were giving me hell trying to run any sort of meaningful game for them."  Which Lucy, and other players, never did.  :)

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Actually, the very end of last night's session was a prime example of a moment that I wanted a contest but for some reason decided not to ask for one.

Hey! No shutting up and enduring in my game, remember? :)

Seriously, I do think that Katrin's story is going to need some kind of crushing defeat at some point in the near future.

Nah, I don't think that would ever happen...   o:)

Hm, cool ideas. The "army" thing struck me as interesting, mostly because one of Katrin's major goals is to acquire an army with which to attempt to do serious harm to the Shadow.

Funnily enough it struck me as even more interesting because it skips all that Sim "now how do I realistically speaking go about gathering, training, feeding and keeping that army" stuff that neither you nor I find particularly appealing in a game.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

(Why do I have to wait over a week to play again? Sigh....)

Well, here's some added torture for you: can you bear to stay out of a game prep thread if I post one? :-)

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Depending on how y'all like to play, even the competitive desire to win can be used in a fun manner beyond straight gamism.  A personal rule I apply when GM'ing HeroQuest is that I give modifier bonuses for cinematic(entertaining) descriptions of actions.  This bonus can range from +5 to +20, and as such, can be as or more useful than augmenting everything out.  

Oh great, numbers!  The players and I briefly talked about this possibility when we decided to convert over, but I hadn't actually brought it into play yet and was wondering how large to make the bonuses. Thanks, this helps me a lot in deciding where to start experimenting (I guess we'll work out what numbers work best for our group eventually).

[Bankuei]

Hi Kerstin,

Well, according to the book, the way modifiers are supposed to work is that its supposed to be a penalty applied in cases where A) an ability doesn't quite fit or is too broad in scope or B) negative factors kick in.  These numbers range about -5 to -20 for most cases.  

My logic is that most of the time, in play, you want to encourage players to take active measures that improve their own advantages and increase the disadvantages of any opposition(just like in real life...hmm).  The key thing about rpgs is that they aren't real life, and unless the players know that this option is available and see it kick in on a regular basis, they won't take action.

I go for adding to the player's effective score instead of subtracting from the opposition because players don't tend to feel rewarded when you subtract from the opposition(though the effect is mostly the same).

As far as how big to make the numbers?  It depends on how much you want them to compete with, or possibly overshadow augmenting and basic scores.  I encourage big numbers (usually going +5/10/20) because it encourages players to creative action for each roll instead of sitting back and relying on their numbers to carry them through.  That's me though, you'll need to figure out what works for you and your group.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Kerstin's always been a facilitator GM rather than an opponent GM, but - surprise surprise! - D&D had a tough time supporting our style of play in that regard.

Yep, to be precise, in D&D the GM isn't quite an opponent, per se, but he is the guy who puts challenges in the way of the player. Not the character, that happens in all modes of play. In D&D, the GM challenges the player. His job it to make the "dungeon" tough enough that the player, if they get their character through alive, will feel good about their tactical abilities as a player. The character merely being their tool to accomplish this task.

This is quite valid, but the GM then has incentive to do things like making player challenges out of in-game knowledge. That is, if the player knows that there's a pit trap ahead, but the character doesn't, then player challenge is destroyed - there's no opportunity for the player to "discover" the pit through remembering to check, or by having built a sensative character.

So in such a case, the GM has incentives to obstruct the player in ways that are counter-productive to collaboration in telling stories. Here's the dividing line in style where you have to make your choice. Am I challenging the player, or collaborating with them to tell a story.

Okay: to a certain extent I guess I still have that D&D-instilled "need to succeed" whenever we roll dice. That tendency in myself annoys me a bit and I'm casting around for a new mindset. This pretty much looks like the right one!

Well, I think it'll come naturally. That is, if you have to force yourself to feel this way, then something is wrong. As you play the system, my hope is that you'll feel the lack of player challenge, and start to invest in the real fun of this mode, which is investigating character motives.

Here's an excercise to see where you're at. Pick a contest next game, and try to figure out some really fun loss condition for it, for your character. Like maybe it would interest you to see how your character acts when they've lost face in a social context. Or whatever. Once you've decided what you think would be a cool negative outcome, tell Kerstin what that negative outcome is, get her to agree that this is what will happen if the character fails, and then do whatever you can to make sure that the character fails interestingly. That is, don't fail to find the most appropriate ability, and select any augments that are really, really obvious. But then don't go out of your way to select any augments beyond that, instead looking on the sheet for negative augments. Point out that your character's "Intimidating Smell" works against them in a court situation. That their Scary Visage isn't winning them any points with the other courtiers, etc.

The result doesn't matter. If you can get into trying to hose your character, to get an interesting story result, you'll know you're "ready" for this mode of play.

The fun thing about HQ, is that your character might win anyway - which is also cool. The key is to always have outcomes, either positive or negative, that are cool for the character. There is a little GM skill involved here. The principle is called "Failure means more Conflict." That is, a failure should never mean that the character is just stopped dead in their tracks with nothing new to face. It should instead mean that the character has some new problem to overcome, so that the game keeps moving, and becuase it makes the character more interesting. Even the mechanical penalties given out as a result of contests can suffice. If you lose a social conflict, then the face you lose can be an obstacle to overcome. Resistance? That's in the "healing" chart in the book. Or losing face causes somebody to order the character to leave the city. Or whatever. It doesn't mean that the character is out of options, and nothing new happens. Because that would be penalizing the player for failure.

More than anything, I want Katrin to be a cool protagonist, and I think I love her more than any character I've had before (except maybe her predecessor, Jez, which just goes to show that D&D can't completely kill a cool game.

Well, what you'll find is that narrativism in D&D happens "between combats," by which I mean that it's an ancillary activity added on to play unsupported by the system. So, yes, it's more than possible, and the "quality" of that play can be very high. You'll find that in HQ it's not so much that you do "better" narrativism - you might find that this character never is the equal of the D&D character in terms of your attatchment to them. But what you'll find is that the character's story gets told in about one tenth the time.

Consider that you might play, say, ten sessions, and then be done with the character, because her story is played out. That just can't happen using D&D (unless you're largely ignoring the rules, and what they promote). It's been pointed out that one likely reason that people play the same sorts of characters from game to game is because they haven't played out the story of that character. They're still looking for how it all ends for that character. In D&D, the end may never come. It doesn't have to come in HQ, either, but that's all up to the players, and ends do happen.

Can I do that as a player too? Please? [grin]

Quite, yes. In fact, like I talk about players engineering bangs, players can also engineer contests.

I would have loved to make that a contest, to "show off" the abilities in her Lord keyword, most of which were nonexistent in the D&D version of the character. It was a big moment of change for the character IMO, very dramatic for me at least, and somehow I would have liked to mark it with a contest.

But maybe that's not what you're getting at?

That's precisely what I'm getting at. Why didn't you ask for a contest? That's rhetorical, I know it's because you've never been "allowed" to ask for contests before in other games. Note that in the HQ text it does say that the narrator states when rolls are made - but there's nothing in there that says that a player can't ask them to do so (in fact, there's a lot that would imply the opposite).

So ask next time. BTW, this is a sign that you're already in the "failure is OK" mode. I mean, what did you have to gain by such a contest? Success would only mean that you show the character off as cool. Meaning that you have to have been willing to risk failure to do so. The only way this gamble makes sense is if failure is a result you don't mind seeing in this case.

Again, none of this means that in a specific case that you prefer to lose neccessarily. You can always prefer that the character win and still be in the mode. What's required is that you feel that the results of failure be, if not as cool or cooler, still cool. "I'd prefer that the character win, but if he loses, that's a pretty cool result, too."

The game promotes this, because it never, ever penalizes the player for losing. You can't lose your character. And loss means, at worst that there's some new sort of conflict in game, and/or a penalty to some actions that makes the character have something fun to overcome. Got a massive leg wound? Cool, now you have to figure out what the character would do to deal with that!

In D&D if the character fails, the player has failed somehow in properly planning their tactics, or whatever. And you may lose your character. In HQ, if the character fails, because, say, the character attacked something way out of his league, then the player wins, because he gains some new conflict. So in HQ, there's never any reason to not do a contest. You can always play the hero, and jump into whatever situation becomes available. Because the results are always just additional fun.

Yeah, yeah, I see exactly what you mean by this. In D&D, Katrin was a concept in my head and a set of words and numbers on a piece of paper, and in some respects the two were wildly different. Blech.

Right. The only way to match character ability and theme in D&D is to have the character be the archtypal "adventurer." Without going into parody ("Why kill the baby Kobolds? Because they aren't worth any EXP alive!"), this character has no ties anywhere, seeks only fame and fortune, and doesn't mind killing loads of sentient beings to get these things.

This just doesn't match many resonant types of character in terms of motivation.

In HQ, the Katrin in my head and the Katrin on paper are the same person. So of course I play the things on my character sheet, because what I wrote on the character sheet was exactly what I wanted for the character in every respect.

(Except for the "I ran out of abilities!" problem, although I'll be rectifying that with Hero Points slowly over the course of the game.)

Did you use the list method (it's what I tend to use)? If you find that you really needed more abilities than the list method provides, try writing up the character with the 100 words. If you can get all of those abilities into the 100 words (or even if it takes a few more), then Kerstin should consider letting you have them.

A few extra abilities is not unbalancing. Not remotely so. The narrative method is meant to try to accommodate the idea that some characters start with more "known" about them.

OK, I don't even know what the hero band rules are, but I really, really love the idea of Katrin-and-Jez's sword being or containing a guardian for the group. It rocks. I literally want to bounce around the room with excitement! (Of course, Kerstin may disagree with me utterly. But I love it.)

What's really fun about Hero Bands isn't even so much the abilities gained, or the like, but the fact that you invest in being in the group (you have to spend HP to join, and the character devotes some of their time to supporting the group). The point being that at some point, you'll have a difference with the band. Or another band will want you. Or some other conflict will come up regarding the band. And then each character has some really interesting choices to make. HQ is cool because it doesn't say anything like "Once in a Hero Band, the player has to make the character play along with it." The character is still free to dissent, or go his own way. Meaning that it becomes a good source for conflict. You'll always have the pull of the group - the abilities that the band provides, and the investment. So all one needs is a little push outward, and interesting decisions get made.

So, I'm watching Teen Titans the other day (hey, I have a four-year old - that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it), and Cyborg decides he has to leave the group because he's "grown out of it" and needs to lead a group of his own. I'm thinking that the Titans are a Hero Band, the "Tower" is their guardian, and that he's heading off to start his own Hero Band for personal reasons. In the end, of course, he realizes that he can be an adult and be in the Teen Titans, too, and so returns to them. This is the sort of thing that Hero Bands are about.

That and kicking ass as a team!

(Is that tragic? I know my mother is about to start ranting that I'm getting too obsessed with my fantasies, or something....)

Tell her that it's about the creation of myth, a deeply personal and spiritual endeavor that western society has lost touch with. That the "fantasies" are important in that they relate to every day life.

If you have to get really prickly with her, tell her that it's just like her TV and movie watching, except that it's interactive, and therefore better for the brain. :-)

Seriously, I do think that Katrin's story is going to need some kind of crushing defeat at some point in the near future. I'm not sure what the nature of it is just yet, but it'll be cool, no doubt. (I don't want her to die from it, but permanently scarred would work. After all, this is LotR based. If I'm going to win, I have to hit rock bottom first.)

There it is! Woot, woot, wooot! Kerstin, did I tellya?

Sorry for the exhuberance, but you've just proven a point for me. Basically, that being put in a situation where your character is inevitably "damaged" in some cool way is cool. Note that you don't want the character to die, only because it doesn't seem like it's time for the character's story to end, right? And death means the end of player participation in creating the character's story. So you're not objecting to any negative outcome, you're objecting to ending the story. Short of that, you're saying that any damage that makes the character more interesting ("scarred" as you put it) is cool.

Also, you've proven that you're in on the failure mode. You just asked the narrator for a "crushing" defeat. You want your character to go through the same sort of peril and torment that Frodo does when he gets stabbed on weathertop. Consider that encounter. By my personal HQ ratings of LotR characters, you have Frodo with his "Use Sword 14" (base rating, plus one point for having been practicing with Strider), vs, the M*therf*cking Witchking of Angmar, the dude who's personally responsible for the destruction of the realm of Angmar which is why places like Weathertop are ruins. A guy who has abilities like "Cannot be Slain by Men 10W5" is facing Frodo with his massive combat ability (see his fight against Eowen in "Return"), Massive strength, and a morgul blade. I'm thinking something like 5 masteries total at that point. Call it 10W5 against 14.

What's that I hear you say? What's the only possible mechanical result? Dying you say? Sweet. Time to get that little hobbit to Elrond! And give him a permenant new ability like "Been Stabbed by a Morgul Blade 10W".

Hm, cool ideas. The "army" thing struck me as interesting, mostly because one of Katrin's major goals is to acquire an army with which to attempt to do serious harm to the Shadow.

Yes, yes. In HQ there are rules for how to do this, that are just extensions of the normal rules. So it becomes more than possible to see in the course of the game. And getting an army is not about acquiring enough gold or somesuch (though that might help), but about convincing the leaders of such an army to go along with the character. Which can be the source of all manner of adventures.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Well, according to the book, the way modifiers are supposed to work is that its supposed to be a penalty applied in cases where A) an ability doesn't quite fit or is too broad in scope or B) negative factors kick in.  These numbers range about -5 to -20 for most cases.  

Chris, just to clarify, the rules do allow mechanically for bonuses. Equipment aside, which we all know the rules indicate provide bonuses, it does state (in a sorta backhanded way, and I can't remember precisely where) that bonuses can be given out for situation. I'm not sure precisely the wording, and I think it's meant to reflect in-game considerations, mostly. But I remember that the precise wording doesn't disallow giving bonuses for metagame reasons.

IOW, what Chris is suggesting is completely kosher by the rules. Just a particular extrapolation of them.

For my part, I like a lower key game, and don't find that you have to incentivize players to "go large" in HQ, particularly. But I don't think it can hurt, really, either. I'd say the best thing is to consider using, it, and to go with your gut on each contest. If it seems like you need to incentivize better description, then apply bonuses liberally.

Oh, when using something like this, always be more than forgiving. That is, look for effort, not for quality. If a player is trying, give them a big bonus. If they don't get a bonus, because though they tried hard, their narration was lame, they'll forget about trying quickly assuming that they just don't have what it takes. When what it takes is more practice, really.

Mike

[NickHollingsworth]

look for effort, not for quality. If a player is trying, give them a big bonus.

Yes, and don't compare one player with another when deciding this sort of thing. Only compare them with their own previous efforts. It's the reticent people that you are really trying to encourage, so give them a good bonus each time they make a step forwards.

if the character fails ... then the player wins, because he gains some new conflict. So in HQ ... you can always play the hero, and jump into whatever situation becomes available. Because the results are always just additional fun

By way of example:

A while back I deliberately set my character up to compete against another PC in a contest he could not win. The contest was to see who would act as clan champion, a position my PC coveted. The other player bumped himself up to a complete victory; but I would have bumped myself down to a complete defeat if he hadn't.

Why would I want to be defeated so soundly? As a result of the contest I gained a flaw 'resent Zhara 10w2'. This is useful in so many situations. That it will probably apply for and against me in equal measures is half the fun.

Because the new flaw is on the sheet we will see it and apply it as an augment. Because we do that we will vocalise the nature of the underlying conflict between the characters. So there are can be both mechanical and narrative benefits to failing a contest