Premise for WoS-style Char-Un game?

[Mandacaru]

***Spoiler alert for people like Bryan or Keith who might play in this ***

I want at some point to take a break from narrating (PbEM) my Heortling game and run a short, structured game based on Unspoken Word's Sons of Kargzant. Briefly, the reasons are: I want to use some of the other material I acquire, I want to direct my reading of this interesting stuff to a specific purpose (a game), I want to include a time limit for the current phase of the current game, I want to run a short game, I want to refresh myself, I want to try some things out. I have discussed this with the players.

I would like to do something along the lines of the Well of Souls (which I've read only) - before anyone suggests just adapting it, that's not the point - I want a 'project' (also, passing on of power is different among the Char-Un). But I only have a very sketchy premise, so it is with this I want to ask for help.

The Char-Un, for the uninitiated, are essentially Mongols only more interesting. Power is acquired in bloody fashion, not inherited.  They are animists - following two main paths, the Sun for men, the Moon for women. Fine. The third path, the inbetween one, has two fascinating sibling shamanic traditions - one is male and female, the other is alive and dead.

The very sketchy premise I have seems to be only a few very short steps away from that of the WoS. I don't, however, want the whole "the future of the clan rests with you" business, I have enough of that elsewhere. But, for some reason, just abandoning that leaves me quite bereft of ideas (is there a list of premises somewhere?). So, once again, I have the idea of the death of an important figure. Only, here, it is death as in dead, shuffled off and so on...when someone dies among the Char-Un, though, several things may happen:

1. Slaves - left to rot or fed to the dogs.
2. Normal clan member - burnt or left to the birds.
3. Noble - embalmed etc and carried on the migration (if this doesn't halt for mourning) until near the forests, great tomb, rune-carved logs, chuck a horse and some slaves in for good measure.
4. Some warriors - placed on the backs of their dead mounts and held up on sticks, ropes etc like puppets, to act as guards/warnings.
5. Noble enemy - skull cleaned out and used as a tankard for strength.

My idea is that there is disagreement about which of these funerary procedures to follow. So, unless there is a better suggestion for a premise than my very sketchy quarter-premise of what do you do with yer dead, how do I make this count to the players, build factions, a relationship map into which players can jump and a game out of it? My one idea is that the shaman says one thing*, someone else (the chief?) says another, but who is really not going to do what the shaman says? I mean, you'd need your head examining.

Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Sam.

* I'd also be unlikely to end up without almost-shamanic PC's at the very least, too.

[soru]

How about you start with the idea that one of the PC's is dead.

Then flashback to events in their life to work out which funeral treatment they are going to get.

soru

[Brand_Robins]

Looking at a premise having to do with life, death, and leadership I'd get into ideas of how we chose those that rule and lead us, and what we find acceptable – especially when the normal order of things breaks down.

Onto this you'd need to layer issues of family (both because family is always good for drama and because in a tribal people like the Char Un family is always tied to who rules), mythology, and (if you can swing it) gender and class rolls – just to be sure to have something that will punch everyone at the table in the gut.

So, how about a basic setup like this:

The old lo-pan is dead, and must soon be replaced because the clan needs to be lead against its rival clans during the coming Great Gathering, and being without a leader would be a great sign of weakness.

Rivals start to come forward, each reading to challenge the other and gathering their supporters, families, and fellow practitioners around them. While the final decision should be a matter of combat, we all know that "Victory is victory, and defeat is death" and so everyone is gathering as much power and support as they can before the clash. (Ring up those augments, oh ye who wishes to rule the Char Un!)

Then things start breaking down. There aren't enough good candidates, people start getting murdered in their yurts, and enemies start encroaching on tribal lands. Everyone starts choosing sides among the dismal conditions, and that's when the Shaman's step in.

Of course the Shamans step in on different sides. The shaman of the Sun Stallion backs a strong male warrior, a man known for his brutality and dismissal of women's rolls and with any number of blood feuds with important families in the clan. The shamans of Iriloy, touched by madness say some, put forth a Durla worshiping woman to be pan! The horror of it even being said, but the shamans will not back down and claim the spirits demand it. Then the in-betweener Shamans come forward with another option – the old lo-pan back, retrieved by their magic from the Dead Steppe.

Now the PCs are caught in the center. Who do they want to rule them, the brutal man who fits all the standards but is vile, the strong woman who would be perfect save for the fact that it is a thing of horror to be ruled by a woman, and the glorious and beloved old lo-pan, whose only strike against him is that he is walking dead.

I'm sure you can find some premise in there somewhere, and something for the PCs to throw down about while having others with equally strong passions stand firmly against them.

[Mandacaru]

Soru:

How about you start with the idea that one of the PC's is dead.

Then flashback to events in their life to work out which funeral treatment they are going to get.

I like that idea a lot. It's sufficiently different as to be quite a nice challenge and I think would be a novel way to run a game (even if it is fairly common in literature, films etc). It'd be all the PC's dead though - "How did you live and how will you die?" Jimmy Stewart does nomad. Leading to different options for death, including as some sort of traitor, enemy etc, which link to live consequences for the NPC's with whom they have relationships. I shall think some more on this. Thanks.

Brand:

Looking at a premise having to do with life, death, and leadership

Thanks Brand. While I do like the leadership aspect, this is too close to the "Can you save the clan?" premise which I want to try to get away from (or maybe have as more of a background, saftey net premise?). I think you have laid out a very nice transposition of WoS to the Char-Un, though, and there I certain features I'd like to work with.

The old lo-pan is dead, and must soon be replaced because the clan needs to be lead against its rival clans during the coming Great Gathering, and being without a leader would be a great sign of weakness.

I'd pictured it being on the northward migration, perhaps Soru's death idea being at the hands of the Hollri (ice demons).

Then things start breaking down. There aren't enough good candidates, people start getting murdered in their yurts, and enemies start encroaching on tribal lands. Everyone starts choosing sides among the dismal conditions, and that's when the Shaman's step in.

I like all this, and I like the three shaman factions, each having been given a line by the spirits. I do want to find a way to step away from the deciding the clan's future model, however. I could merge it with Soru's idea perhaps, but I suppose I just want something different, somehow.

Finally, a question: for this style of play, I suppose I need to remove external events or challenges, and keep it purely on the central theme?

Cheers,
Sam.

[Brand_Robins]

Thanks Brand. While I do like the leadership aspect, this is too close to the "Can you save the clan?" premise which I want to try to get away from (or maybe have as more of a background, saftey net premise?).

That's cool. In that case you can just take out the urgency and the sense of the PCs saving anything. No matter what way the clan choses there will be good and bad, and so it isn't about saving the clan -- it's about chosing what you, personally, want because of your own personal bias.

Remove the big bad of the other clans, focus heavily on the choices of NPCs and how they effect the PCs lives (and vice versa of course!), and on the nature of the choice and what it means about their clan rather than on "OMG we're gonna die!" and I still think it could work.

Especially if you combine it with Soru's kick ass idea. Maybe make the dead Pan one of the PCs? What do you do when you're a great man with a will to power, but in order to satisfy that will have to break the natural order by using a very shaky loop-hole in your people's religion?

Another PC could either be the woman up for pan, or one of her close friends. This would give the group a really good chance to look at women's roles in Char Un society and the tensions and ambiguities around it. Just imagine the kinds of politics that go on in the women's circles around this, with diffrent factions fighting rabbidly for what they believe, only to close ranks in the face of the men.

Getting the PCs tied, tightly, to the various figures will make a lot of story meat and will give a different perspective than if the PCs are a seperate group coming to step neatly into the middle to fix everything.

I do want to find a way to step away from the deciding the clan's future model, however.

That's cool. It's an easy mode to default into, but it doesn't have to be the only one. The thing about it is that you have to rig your setting to fit the level of what you want to do. In Nar play characters will shake the setting to it's foundations. So if the setting is all of Char Un you're in for a big trip. If, otoh, it's one family all in a yurt and the problems they face, you can have a much smaller and more focused scope.

So I'd suggest figuring out where you want to hit before going further. If you don't want to save the clan or chose the clan's future, where is it you want to shake things? A family divided (which you don't need to save, btw -- you could leave the family, change the family, kill the family), a dispute over hunting grounds, a divide in the shamanic lodges? Find someplace that you can see a level of conflict that you want and flesh it out, focus the game down on it, and you'll find your players reacting to it.

Finally, a question: for this style of play, I suppose I need to remove external events or challenges, and keep it purely on the central theme?

I'd generally encourage it, yes. However, external challanges that act as an intensifier or mirror for internal problems can work out very well. If your divided family is having problems because their only daughter wants to become a warrior woman, for example, having a lunar missionary come in with a whole bodyguard of women warriors who pick fights with the boys in the family can be a great way to push buttons until something pops.

[Mandacaru]

Brand:

...focus...and on the nature of the choice and what it means about their clan rather than on "OMG we're gonna die!" and I still think it could work. Especially if you combine it with Soru's kick ass idea.

I think Soru's idea could be very liberating as a player - your hero will die - you have to choose how, and so hooks in to the theme being about some more personal choices. I will still have to be clever, mind.

I think that, yes, higher level heroes might be good, which would allow them to be shamans (I was in a fun game wherein three of us were playing shamans). I guess not prescribing roles such as the Pan or the warrior woman for the players, but giving them such archetypes, perhaps by making up some higher level profession keywords, building up some of the clan's history (if I say, 'the clan has always forbidden female warriors' - well, you know players :)  ).

I like the balance of temporal power and, for want of a better word, piety, that you have suggested. I think that does start to become interesting premise territory. Going back to the WoS big guy is dead idea, perhaps I should explain a little more of my thinking:

I had thought to base the game on the northerly migration. This particular clan goes to the barrows first, where they gather a few of the barrow steeds which will travel north with them to fight the hollri. At the Divide, they compete in the festivities, but not to win, as their position is always to travel second once the way has been opened. Then, they rush northwest, have an epic crossing of that river and spend the winter their. The point then is that the clan variously takes battle to the hollri (atop the ancestral barrow steeds), representing the eternal struggle against the Glacier, shamans go get spirits, women look after the herds etc, hunters go after musk deer. All basic stuff, but it does include an annual mission for the clan - fighting the winter, which could serve as a climax for the game (bloodbath, dead PC's), and some bits and bobs which bring piety, purity in along the way. However, one unusua thing is that that dead leader has just died so, conceivably, must be carried with them for half a year. Or, he could be set up as a warrior to guard the north. Or, he could be reviled because of what he did (the theological loophole idea).

I'd have a fair number of PC's, so I'd need to focus on links between them. Thanks again for the thoughts, Brand, must stop writing now.

Cheers,

Sam.

[Mandacaru]

I have made a little progress, having sorted out the three NPC's in the central, triangular, conflict of their desires for the dead one. Second choices are there just in case, but I'd downplay them I reckon. I'd welcome any comments. Edit: ...and how to incorporate Soru's idea?

Cheers.
Sam.

lo-Pan Hyyfal (dead)
Hyyfal was a ruthlessly firm but a fair leader, so much so that, during his three month decline, inertia, fear or a desperate hope that he would survive prevented anyone from challenging for his position, although victory would have been assured. Amidst rumours of poison and death curses, he decayed into a lifeless husk until his son, very much cast in his father's mold, took on the role of lo-Pan with not a word said in opposition. Hyyfal's death occurred but a few days after the clan had quit the ancient burial mounds, and this has been interpreted by some as sign that the Ancestors would not welcome him in their yurt.

As the clan travel north, the dead Pan is borne within the shrouded shrine wagon of the Enarees [shamans], to one of three fates. The new lo-Pan argues for his father to be embalmed and preserved until the summer and a great tomb to be constructed within the earth, his wives and his steed to accompany him on his final journey. Hyyfal's first wife, mourning bitterly her loss, proclaims that Hyyfal should be taken to the northerly extremes, there to be erected on stakes and ropes as one of the greatest warriors, held atop his mount to face down the hollri [ice daimons] and protect the clan. Finally, Hyyfal's brother, the shaman quietly states that the lo-Pan merits no such honours, but should instead be cast into the Hollrigash River, that his polluted bones may be swept towards Valind's maw, as a sign of contempt for their ancient enemy.

The Son
After many years in his father's shadow, the new lo-Pan took up his position on the basis of his father's reputation. To cement his somewhat shaky status as leader, he needs his father to buried with the honours of a hero. If his father were cast into the river as a polluted one, this would not reflect well at all upon the new lo-Pan, but being set up as an undead warrior would at least be honourable.
1. Burial. 2. Undead warrior. 3. Cast into river

The Wife (NB not Son's mother)
The clan would best be served if the old lo-Pan were set up to protect it. That he be buried as a hero is unthinkable, given he disappeared for three years when he married her and discarded her upon his return. It would also mean her death, followed by an eternity serving one she despises.
1. Undead warrior. 2. Cast into river. 3. Burial

The Brother
The Enaree insists that Hyyfal has betrayed the Ancestors and must be treated as polluted. If pressed, he will begin to spout some nonsense about Hyyfal having been possessed by a hollri, so must on no account be given back to them. An honourable burial would bring the Ancestors' anger down upon the clan but at least would not aid the ancient enemy.
1. Cast into river. 2. Burial. 3. Undead warrior

The Throat Singer
Operatic "Fourth Business" if I understand right – outside the whole affair, like Friar Lawrence in Romeo and Juliet.

[Mike Holmes]

I like what you have so far, but you need a bunch more NPCs. More combinations are available. I'll add another option, too.

In-betweener Shaman (per Brand) - offer to raise him, denying the accusations of his treachery.

Sun Stallion Shaman - says the old lo pan was a great warrior, but not worth burying because of his transgressions. But he thinks that the old lo pan should be treated as an enemy, and a skull tankard be made of his skull.

The Crazy Iriloy Shaman - wants to to use the body of the traitor to propitiate some nature spirit. He was a great man if a traitor, so he can give power to their spirits, so that next year the grass will grow longer on the grazing grounds.

Son 2 - the son of the "wife," step-brother to the current lo pan. He hates his father for chosing the other son, and so wants the worst options for him.


In the end, have enough positions that the PCs actually come up with something entirely new to fit the needs of more than one character - enough that a consensus (or a forcing of the lo pan's hand) can happen.

Mike

[Mandacaru]

I like what you have so far, but you need a bunch more NPCs. More combinations are available. I'll add another option, too.

I had thought, as with WoS, of having the principal NPC's representing a relatively simple, if insoluble problem, with all other NPC's cascading down. I'm surprised you suggested more positions, Mike. Any particular reason? (My triangular scheme was intended to allow players to have conflicts with other players very rapidly, not to let them come up with a solution in co-operation :)  )

In-betweener Shaman (per Brand) - offer to raise him, denying the accusations of his treachery.

That's the enaree and there was always going to be one. I do prefer the lo-Pan to be dead dead dead, but raising him is certainly another option (perhaps an avenue for the players to find should they choose?).

Sun Stallion Shaman - says the old lo pan was a great warrior, but not worth burying because of his transgressions. But he thinks that the old lo pan should be treated as an enemy, and a skull tankard be made of his skull.

Yes, to me the enemy thing'd have to come from another clan at least, perhaps as an outside pressure causing everyone to unite temporarily.

The Crazy Iriloy Shaman - wants to to use the body of the traitor to propitiate some nature spirit. He was a great man if a traitor, so he can give power to their spirits, so that next year the grass will grow longer on the grazing grounds.

I was thinking the Wife could be an Iriloy shaman but I preferred her to be a practiitioner of the Crone one, with attendant manipulative of people magics rather than horse magics. I like the idea though.

Son 2 - the son of the "wife," step-brother to the current lo pan. He hates his father for chosing the other son, and so wants the worst options for him.

Yes, that's the sort of second tier NPC I was planning. Probably make him love his brother too :)

In the end, have enough positions that the PCs actually come up with something entirely new to fit the needs of more than one character - enough that a consensus (or a forcing of the lo pan's hand) can happen.

Really? A consensus? I was angling more for...well...you know...it all breaking down into a blood opera where the characters all die (Soru's idea, still to incorporate) but hopefully having done so well.

Sam.

[Bankuei]

Hi Sam,

Sorry to have missed this thread.  If you're using WoS as a model, it breaks down to 3 things- Family, Power, and Sub conflicts.  

You've got the family thing going on with the issue of the dead leader, and that works fine... as long as the players create characters who have a vested interest in it, either because they really liked/disliked him, or else that they will have a big change in lifestyle based on how he gets set to rest.  This would tie the Family and Power issues together well.  

As far as subconflicts, in WoS that's all the other characters who are scrambling for power, supporting this guy or the other, and/or having love affairs, scheming for money, etc.  Seeing how you know who you're playing with and what they're interested in, you won't need nearly as many subconflicts as are in WoS.

Also, seeing how you know your players, ask them for what they're interested in.  When I wrote WoS, I had to make it rather sprawling because I wasn't restricting it to a very narrow range of character types, nor giving pregenerated characters, and I wanted to give a range of interesting conflicts.  All of this is based on building a scenario for an unknown group with unknown interests.  Honestly, all the information in this thread isn't going to ruin anything for the players, and you might get some info as to what kinds of conflicts they'd find interesting, and how they might want to tie their heroes into it all.

Chris

[Mandacaru]

Hi Sam,

Sorry to have missed this thread.  If you're using WoS as a model, it breaks down to 3 things- Family, Power, and Sub conflicts.  

Gotcha!  :)

Thanks Chris.

I agree about player input. In this instance, though, I think I am trying to do this as a 'project' like Peter and you did. That is, without player input. (I'm trying out a completely virgin game with players to see how maximising player input goes.) If I don't misremember, Peter's question was roughly can a narrativist 'scenario' be written for HQ. Well, my question is altogether more selfish and potentially more tiresome for others - can I do this?

Within this, I think you or it might have been someone else said you'd not run WoS with >3 or 4-ish players. I want to up that, meaning restricting the other subconflicts going on, or making players plant themselves firmly within it ("I'm his other son", frex). This is why Mike's suggestion of escalating the central conflict doesn't work for me (but I may be wrong) as I think it reduces the potential for players to have their own issues.

There's food for thought in what you say - thanks, I shall digest. I liked your articles, BTW, and your new Y! Group - seems a refreshingly  intelligent discussion (vs. its progenitor).

Sam.

[Bankuei]

Hi Sam,

In this instance, though, I think I am trying to do this as a 'project' like Peter and you did. That is, without player input.

Ok, gotcha.  I think the key point is to maximise the emotional kick, and make it real clear how this affects others.  In the sense of the emotional kick, it might help to better define where the leader has done right, or done wrong(and both would probably be best) in order better "load" the question.

You also might want to add some other pressure to force everyone to have to make a decision quickly.  In WoS, the whole thing about other fiefs moving in was basically a fuse to kick people into either supporting one son or the other, or rescuing Eustef.  For you, it might be an unreasonable spirit that curses the tribe and gets progressively worse until a decision is made, or some other kick to speed things up.

Other than that, you can choose to limit the types/roles of the player characters (Ron's Final Days at Skullpoint- all the PCs are trying to get the clan to help them...), add more sub conflicts, or perhaps even create role "slots" for the players to fill.  For example, if you wanted, you could make a slot, "Second Son" with traits ranging from "Loved father" to "Abused and resentful", or maybe a different sets to choose from.  The key would be to tie all these slot options into the conflict and each other.

Within this, I think you or it might have been someone else said you'd not run WoS with >3 or 4-ish players. I want to up that, meaning restricting the other subconflicts going on, or making players plant themselves firmly within it

Overall, I don't think the number of optimal players is necessarily a result of how complex the R-map is, but rather just a matter of Narrativist play.  That is, in order to craft Bangs, juggle NPCs and make sure everyone gets some spotlight time, I think more than 4 players can be difficult.  

A fun option you might want to consider is if all the players had to choose between being blood kin or a wife...  

Chris

[Mandacaru]

You also might want to add some other pressure to force everyone to have to make a decision quickly.  In WoS, the whole thing about other fiefs moving in was basically a fuse to kick people into either supporting one son or the other, or rescuing Eustef.  For you, it might be an unreasonable spirit that curses the tribe and gets progressively worse until a decision is made, or some other kick to speed things up.

Great points, thanks again. I guess the external factor(s) has to be something on a sliding scale, which you can add in when you think it necessary - a break from my preconceived notions of scenarios with scenes. D'you think?

Overall, I don't think the number of optimal players is necessarily a result of how complex the R-map is, but rather just a matter of Narrativist play.  That is, in order to craft Bangs, juggle NPCs and make sure everyone gets some spotlight time, I think more than 4 players can be difficult.

This is where I was considering insisting on inter-PC ties so they are dealing with one another rather than externalities. It at least would keep the number of names to remember down. I've not the experience to know if that does trade off with number of players.

A fun option you might want to consider is if all the players had to choose between being blood kin or a wife...

That's the sort of thing I'm looking for to tie into the central triangular conflict. Sticking with that (I can fill in other NPC's later), a flaw remains. Players can be or not be in the new lo-Pan's faction. They can be pious (broadly-speaking) or not to tie in with the shaman.

The wife seems out on a limb, though - it's too personal to her. I'm trying to steer away from a gender split, that'd be too simplistic and cliche'd. I think the key is those external pressures. Clan rivalries can bring in the new lo-Pan's position - a strong leader is needed and the new one has had enough of being second at the Gathering (tying in to the clan's role as enemies of the ice demons further north). Events on the migration north can bring in the purity, what the spirits think (tying into the undead ancestral steeds, again to their role in fighting the ice demons). If the wife sees defending against the ice demons as the priority, then there is disagreement about how best to do so (directly as the wife argues, indirectly, for the longer term, by keeping the ancestors happy (shaman) or by sheer strength and unity (new lo-Pan)).

Thus, events can swiftly move north, the Gathering and other bits and bobs illustrating the conflict, then the threat from the north can be the incremental pressure. It's a bit clumsy, perhaps needing an overlong introductory expository sequence. I have, however, previously used that to good effect as prologue questions which help define the characters, based on the HQ clan generator questions.

Examples could be: "At the Gathering, the new lo-Pan rallied the men, exhorting them, this time, to win outright and pass the Divide first, but putting at risk the migration north. What did you do?"

Then..."At the Hollrigash River, the Enaree tried to cast the body of the old lo-Pan into the waters, arguing that it was impure and...da-de-dah. How did you argue?"

This leads us to the situation at hand. The lo-Pan is disappointed not to have won at the gathering, the shaman is disappointed not to have been able to do as he wished, the first ice demons' attack has illustrated the wife's position, and we can begin play proper.

I'm overdoing this bit because it leads me into Soru's idea of the PC's dying. "That summer, the Clan's heroes fell but the manner of their deaths determined the future of the Clan. A few survived but in doing so betrayed their ideals...ya-de-dah". That does proscribe actions to some degree, but frees players up to risk all and try to die nobly. How to tie that up is going to need a masterstroke :)

Sam.

[Bankuei]

Hi Sam,

I guess the external factor(s) has to be something on a sliding scale, which you can add in when you think it necessary - a break from my preconceived notions of scenarios with scenes. D'you think?

The biggest jump is to look at your NPCs as the Narrator's version of PCs.  That is, a player interfaces in the world through their hero, the Narrator interfaces through his or her Narrator characters.  Instead of preset events and scenes, those characters are your pieces on the chess board to play with.  The external forces could be an actual character, or just something that threatens, thereby putting all of your pieces into action...

The wife seems out on a limb, though - it's too personal to her. I'm trying to steer away from a gender split, that'd be too simplistic and cliche'd.

Ultimately, I think any culture where spouses and servants get buried, burned or forcibly sent to follow someone into the afterworld, it's immediately a gender issue.  I mean, do the husbands follow the wives if they die first?  

I think the key is those external pressures.

That's important, but only in the sense that it drives the characters who are present to desperate actions.  I think one of the reasons that this conflict kinda begs for a few more NPCs is that each side ought to have a sympathetic character and a down low and dirty character...  Sympathetic characters give any side to a conflict a reason for the players to consider it as an option.  The shady characters are what really push action though.  You always have to have someone who is willing to lie, cheat, murder and steal to achieve their ends, otherwise the conflict lacks teeth.

And though it is possible to have a sympathetic and shady character, most people in gaming have a hard time grasping both sides, although you can have sympathetic characters get more and more shady as pressure mounts...

If you compare this idea to WoS, the two sons are generally ok people, flawed, perhaps, but not completely out to do each other over.  It's all the people who I put around them that are driving them against each other hardcore.  And those people are driven either by petty motives, or honest ideals, all being pressured by the those external forces.  Some of them are only willing to go so far, others are willing to go as far as it takes...

So in this regards, you've got motives, the next question is how far is any of these characters willing to go?

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Wow, lots of stuff.

First, the "central conflict" is never actually central. I think even Chris will agree with me that the whole "central conflict" idea is just what you need to have as a centralizing force to create a situation that will draw in all of the characters. But when it's all said and done what we really want to see is the conflicts of the characters.

Even in the Well of Souls creation thread and afterwards I've said that writing a "pregenerated" scenario is always going to be inferior to writing a scenario for the players and characters you have present. Chris touches on this when he says that you don't have to do as many sub-conflicts, because you know your players. That is, with a scenario written for unknown characters, played by unknown players, you have to take a somewhat "shotgun" approach to things with the hope that something inside will be engaging to the players. WoS shoots very wide, and that's why it's successful in most cases in play.

But, unless you're doing this to publish the scenario, you're taking the wrong tac. Peter's original goal was to write a pregenerated scenario to see what writing such a thing for publishing would be like. So, unless you're doing it for that reason, and you're not writing the scenario for actual play with players you have on hand, I'd suggest doing it the better way. Which is to take into account the players and their characters as your first source of inspiration.

Which doesn't mean you can't use the idea that you have. Just that you're creating in a vaccuum when you don't have to in that case.


In either case, however, one thing remains the same. Again, the central conflict is not what's supposed to be most engaging to the players. This is hard for people used to writing scenarios to wrap their heads around. The story will not be about "How they dealt with the dead chief." When all is said and done, the stories should be several including, hypothetically, stories like, "How Arkus-Na got himself kicked out of the clan" and "The choices that Prasna made that ended up with him with the old lo pan's wife as his."

The death, and how it's dealt with, is a precipitating event and backdrop only that explains the demands that the NPCs have. Here's the critical part - once you know what the NPC demands are, then you give them reasons why they need the player heroes. Seem difficult without knowing who the player heroes are? Now you see why it is that narrativism scenario design is tough to do without characters present. What you have to do is to give them generic enough needs that you can attach them to a wide variety of possible characters. But this has the hazard that you might miss anyhow, and even if you do hit, the connection may not be particularly compelling for the player.

Because that's the second element. The things that the NPCs need the players for should trigger issues with the players. This has the same issues as above, but even worse. Shooting scattershot at issues is even less likely to form a good connection. You have to make a lot of assumptions, or shoot at very generic issues. This is why in this sort of scenario design, shooting at gender issues and those of tribal survival becomes so tempting - they're pretty universal and can hit almost any character. But when you use them, you almost garuntee that you'll miss any more character specific issues. Which are often the ones that the player is most interested in seeing come to the fore.

Now, of course a good narrator can create bangs on the fly to hit these issues. But then the scenario isn't helping in this case much. If you design the scenario with the characters in mind, then it can, indeed be of great service in making play interesting.


Anyhow, the fact that the "central conflict" is not central to the players is why I suggest even more angles for the conflict. What you definitely do not want is it just to be each player making the one decision about who he's going to support in terms of how the dead lo pan is buried. That's just one decision which may not say much about the character in question, especially because they're only supporting somebody else's decision. It isn't even as thought they've come up with some idea of their own.

Which is why I suggested that the end state should be a "consensus." Ever play Paranoia? One bit of Troubleshooter advice from that game is "the debriefing will always go more smoothly if you're the only one there to deliver it." The question of how the consenus is achieved is an open one, and can include bloodshed.

The point is to leave it more maleable. Don't present three straightforward choices to the players whatever you do. More importantly, entangle the choices with other issues that can become what the story is "really" about.

For example, let's say that one character is violently against women being in power, but he agrees with the wife's position. Having her appeal to this character brings out that character's issue here. Now, again, if you're writing a pregenerated scenario, then you don't know that such a character is going to be present, so you have to have that maleability so that you can adjust to the character issues.


Also, I was going to mention sub-conflicts as well. That is, one central issue is not enough to mix things up enough to create stuff for more than, say, a session. Maybe two. If you want this to last a little longer, you need to have other conflicts at hand to cross with the central issue. Having these on hand geometically increases the ability of the narrator to come up with bangs for the characters. Of course, a good way to create other conflicts is to have more NPCs with other agendas. Maybe some tribesman is angling to take the wife as his own, which means he doesn't want her buried with the old lo pan. His issue is crossed with the central one, but it's about something else, which will complicate the decisions of any player hero that he engages to help out.

So make more NPCs! Worst case scenario, they don't end up getting used with the pregenerated scenario (as Chris indicates). The more you make, the more angles you'll find to "grab" the players into being interested in the relationship map by their characters.

Mike