Bad GM, Purple Sage - Glorantha

[Lamorak33]

Hi

I am a newbie to the Forge, and I am continually learning about the games I have played, and, in terms of RPG's, the direction that I would like to go in.  On with the experience.

In our Gloranthan game I had been feeding a lot of information through this guy called Minaryth the Purple (IMPORTANT: who is a secret rebel leader), who is a sage indirectly linked to one of the players.  Oh he has got them into all kinds of trouble and they have started to develop a beef about him.  They are now all established rebels themselves. Of course he was my 'simulationist' instrument to get them hooked.  You know, the classic, 'you look like honest chaps - want to earn some gold for a couple of days work!!'.  I know, I know - but now I'm learning!

Well, one player asked to generate a new character.  The one he had generated was a whimsical nonsense character based on puss-in-boots in shrek.   My buddy who was stand in GM while I was taking exams is a 'yeah why not kind of guy'.  The thing is, the player just got bored.  I actually  think the problem is that James is a Gamist player, and we have been playing to a very strict simulationist agenda with little for the gamist and a smattering of accidental narrativism.

Anyway, James wants this warrior guy who's family went on a mission given to them by Minaryth where they all died.  He says that his raison d'etre is to 'get even' with Minaryth.  I completely shot this down in flames, but I have now done a complete 180 - I now recognise a great player generated kicker!!!  It is also a great instrument for conflict in the group - James is very well liked and the group are so far up the rebellions arse you can only see their toe nails!!!
This is like tossing a stick of dinamite into the explosives store - stand back and watch the fireworks!!

I also have this girl who made up a character who went mad and run away from home.  Its when her children died that she flipped.  I have been reading sorcerer and recognise this as a great kicker.  Maybe they were brutally slain in their sleep and she ran away.  The clan may suspect her of the murder!!!  She is about 20 years older than the others and they will not remember the stories of Mad Gynhild!  In fact, it was probably hushed up as these kids would have been contempories!!  So much potential and I don't even have to decide if she actually killed them or whether it just made her mad!!  This is great!!

Regards
Rob

[TonyLB]

Isn't it a hoot when you stop thinking "How is this character going to mess up my story?" and start thinking "What great stories is this character going to create?"  That sounds like some good, solid, material on which to practice your Bang-tossing and Bass-playing skills.  The only problem, of course, is that you're going to kick yourself a dozen times after each session at the lost opportunities you only see when you have time to sit and think outside of the pressure of running the game.  But that's life!  I do the same exact thing.  Well, maybe eleven kicks... I am improving, y'know!

[Andrew Cooper]

Rob,

Welcome to the Forge!  Yes, player-driven sessions are really cool.  It's significantly less worry and work for you as the GM.  You said you were reading Sorcerer, so you probably know what an R-map is.  I highly recommend using them whatever system you're playing.  The R-map, some statted NPCs, and a list of names for unexpected NPCs are about all you need.

What system are you using?  RuneQuest?  HeroQuest?  Something else?

[Mike Holmes]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

This is what you say when you mention that somebody is gay. Which makes you sound like you're just being egalitarian, but really aren't on board with people being gay.

There's nothing wrong with simulationism. No, I don't expect anyone will believe me when I say that, but it's true.

What you're encountering here is that you were using simulationism as a counter to gamism, instead of pursuing narrativism which is what you really wanted all along. This is nobody's fault, it describes a very large percentage of play that exists (but, no, this is not the same as saying that honest simulationism is a retreat from gamism and narrativism - see the Beeg Horseshoe).

So don't beat yourself up about it. Focus on the fact that you've identified your own agenda, and can now persue it with abandon.

Now, the question is whether or not there is some problem here. You're seeing players creating kickers for their characters, which sound like narrativism. And you realize what you can do with this. So...it's all good, isn't it? Is there some potential problem here that I'm not seeing?

Gaerik, I believe he's using Hero Quest (Rob is a frequent and valuable contributor to the HQ mailing lists).

Mike

[Lamorak33]

There's nothing wrong with simulationism. No, I don't expect anyone will believe me when I say that, but it's true.

No, but you need the players on the same page, and mine are not.  I can say that half the group are very simulationsist, as I am, the others are not - and therein lies the problem - incoherent agenda which is what lead me here in the first place. 

So don't beat yourself up about it. Focus on the fact that you've identified your own agenda, and can now persue it with abandon.

But the thing is I am, or have been, a dyed in the wool simulationist.  But I also want to run games that interest my friends and that they want to and enjoy playing.  It is my (maybe bold at this stage) belief that narrativism will be accepted by all of my players because when I have (unknowingly) introduced narrativism into our game it has excited and engaged the group.

Now, the question is whether or not there is some problem here. You're seeing players creating kickers for their characters, which sound like narrativism. And you realize what you can do with this. So...it's all good, isn't it? Is there some potential problem here that I'm not seeing?

No problem, just sharing really.  And the intersting thing is my friend James created the kicker, and I shot it down in flames.  Not any more!!!   

Gaerik, I believe he's using Hero Quest (Rob is a frequent and valuable contributor to the HQ mailing lists).

Thanks Mike, and yes its Heroquest.  I'm a Glorantha nut, so I am normally bugging the hell out of all the Gloranthan lists.  I broke my ankle so I have recently had way too much time sitting around with nothing to do but read the forge and chat on the lists!

Regards
Rob

[Mike Holmes]

Fortunately, I'm seeing a potential avenue of discussion here (as "just sharing" is discouraged and often fizzles here). Basically you want to get the group to have a narrativism agenda in play. To that extent, you're encouraging what you see as signs of latent narrativism in character write-ups. That's a cool start, but what else are you doing at the moment to ensure a nar agenda?

Rather, I think I see what you're saying, but the wording is confusing. That is, the reason we don't use the terms "simulationist" and such is precisely for this reading. By saying that "half my group are simulationists" are you saying:

A) Half my group has played with simulationism as their agenda in the past.

or

B) Half of my group prefers to play only with simulationism agendas.

I think it's A. Because if it's B, then we're talking about "converting" which is problematic. If it's A, and they just happened to be playing sim perhaps because that's what they were offered, then it might be true that you probably don't have to do much other than simply not using the sim techniques you've used before, substituting nar technique. If it's actually B, however, then you can expect a rough ride in trying to overcome a preference.

Rob and I have had some substantial discussion in private regarding nar technique, and why it applies. Are you using any nar prep techniques, Rob? When's your next game?

Mike

[Lamorak33]

Fortunately, I'm seeing a potential avenue of discussion here (as "just sharing" is discouraged and often fizzles here). Basically you want to get the group to have a narrativism agenda in play.

Spot on.

To that extent, you're encouraging what you see as signs of latent narrativism in character write-ups. That's a cool start, but what else are you doing at the moment to ensure a nar agenda?

Well, so far I have to get through the very linear simulationist scenario 'The Cradle' that we are half way through.  I am going to review their Heroquest character sheets to generate bangs by choosing 2 conflicting abilities.  Of course a couple of players already have characters who have narratives that could be construed as having 'kickers'.

Our next game is monday coming, or the monday after that.  I am actually going to be broaching Sorcerer tommorrow with my old gaming buddies who would rather stick hot pokers in their eyes than play in Glorantha!! You can't have to much gaming eh!?? :^D

Going forward, I think I need a theme or a premise?  There is the general 'free sartar' premise, but I may at the Sorcerer 'but at what cost?'.  Any ideas for others?  Is it possible/advisable to have a premise or theme for individual characters??  For example the guy who wants to get even with Minaryth the Purple.  His premise or story is about revenge.  The shaman gal is about facing her past.  The scholar I guess is about gaining knowledge.  I'm still a bit fuzzy on all this.  Brain overload!  Any advice?

I think the relationship map is very important?  I have yet to get to grips with this.  The main thing for me is to get the group back into their community.

I have been moving on from the essays to this link,

http://random.average-bear.com/Sorcerer/HomePage

It seems very helpfull.  Of course I have already had some very helpfull Heroquest specific advice from you Mike - mostly relating to bangs.  Are there any others?

Rather, I think I see what you're saying, but the wording is confusing. That is, the reason we don't use the terms "simulationist" and such is precisely for this reading. By saying that "half my group are simulationists" are you saying:

A) Half my group has played with simulationism as their agenda in the past.

or

B) Half of my group prefers to play only with simulationism agendas.

I think it's A. Because if it's B, then we're talking about "converting" which is problematic. If it's A, and they just happened to be playing sim perhaps because that's what they were offered, then it might be true that you probably don't have to do much other than simply not using the sim techniques you've used before, substituting nar technique. If it's actually B, however, then you can expect a rough ride in trying to overcome a preference.

Its most definitely A.  As I say, I have introduced what could be called bangs into the game, and they have provided the best moments.  Its like everyone really enjoys bangs and that kind of play.  Only half the group enjoy pure simulationist play.

Regards
Rob

[Mike Holmes]

Well, so far I have to get through the very linear simulationist scenario 'The Cradle' that we are half way through.  I am going to review their Heroquest character sheets to generate bangs by choosing 2 conflicting abilities.

That's a pretty standard method that has good results. But you can get in a rut relying on it. Make sure you try to find other ways to come up with Bangs.

Of course a couple of players already have characters who have narratives that could be construed as having 'kickers'.

Bring some element of this into play right away. That is, I'm assuming that these have gone unaddressed so far? Then they're overdue. Actually one problem that I have is taking too long to get to action that addresses kickers (I tend to noodle around with lesser stuff first). It's a hard habit to break. But just go for it, and get it out there.

Going forward, I think I need a theme or a premise?  There is the general 'free sartar' premise, but I may at the Sorcerer 'but at what cost?'.  Any ideas for others?  Is it possible/advisable to have a premise or theme for individual characters??  For example the guy who wants to get even with Minaryth the Purple.  His premise or story is about revenge.  The shaman gal is about facing her past.  The scholar I guess is about gaining knowledge.  I'm still a bit fuzzy on all this.  Brain overload!  Any advice?

You're working under a very common set of misconceptions here. First, you already have an overall premise that HQ provides which is something like "Given people from a world of amazing magic, what will they do for their beliefs?" All broad premises like this are automatically tailored by the player for their character without having to do anything. Not only that, these premises can constantly change in play, they're not set. Basically every bang is a little mini-premise, a question answered by the player's response.

This should all happen subconsciously, however. If you have to think about it, there's something wrong on a deeper level.

I think the relationship map is very important?  I have yet to get to grips with this.  The main thing for me is to get the group back into their community.

Relationship Maps are just a tool. A good one, but not the only way to get things done. I'm assuming that you already have NPCs in the scenario, and other things that are supposed to be there to provide adversity. For now, just use those devices. As a focusing device, you have the "mission" implied by the cradle scenario. You can continue to lean on that, likely. Just put the bangs in the course of the mission.

As a good example, actually, have some information related to a kicker present itself in one direction, and the mission be off in another. This creates an instant bang in the form of, "Do I go off after my own priority, or go after the mission?" Which subsequently may create the Bang of "Do I go help my friend or continue on without him."

Yes, as I've mentioned to you, this might end up "splitting the party." That's fine. Make sure that the players understand that it's fine if this happens, too (that you're not expecting them to make their decisions based on "the party is going this way, so I have to as well").

Are there any others?

I think the thing to do is to not worry about generic advice, and move on to the local problem. Why don't you just post some abstracts for the characters, and what you think the players like about them, a brief update on the situation including NPCs and such, and then we can look at a practical example of how to make this all work.

Mike

[Lamorak33]

I think the thing to do is to not worry about generic advice, and move on to the local problem. Why don't you just post some abstracts for the characters, and what you think the players like about them, a brief update on the situation including NPCs and such, and then we can look at a practical example of how to make this all work.

Mike

Hi

Aren is the nominal leader of the hero band.  His character is a loner Hunter type, Devotee of Desemborth.  Josh is a quiet fellow and avoids leadership at all.  He has the connection to the Herobands Guardian, an Ernaldan spirit named Mikka.

Kurash Ingardsson is a Lhankor Mhy wild sage.  He  is pompous and officious.  He is the spiritual leader of the band and is always consulted.  If he has a strong opinion the group will normally follow his lead (except when I was the player, when we agreed on little!!)

Olend Yetorsson is a Helering Devotee and a proud member of the Stormwalkers.  He is the groups muscle, and has named himself Batbane due to his remarkable deeds against the Crimson Bat.

Drenyen the Blunt.  Orlanth Mastakos devotee and warrior.  He is on the run after a failed assasination attempt against Minaryth the Purple, the chosen ones herobands patron.  He doesn't know about the herobands assosciation at this time, but is a member of their clan, the Anzarni.

Gynhild is a spirit practitioner who went insane when her children died and fled her homes and wandered the plains of Prax where she was taken in by the BIson tribe as a holy woman (becasue of her madness)  Cured she has disowned her past and remembers the members of the group, although they don't remember her.  She is about 20 years older than all the group.

As you can see they are all Anzarni clan members except for Olend who is a Colymar tribesman in exile.

They are aboard the Cradle.  They have earned the respect of Garrath Sharpsword, but have developed a frosty relationship with Jarang Bladesong, Garraths righthand man.   There a number of warriors brought by Garrath  onto the cradle.  I wanted to play on inter caln and tribe rivalries and the hate Trolls trait Olend has.  Aren of all the characters doesn't hate Lunars.  But he is a killer (17).

Thats the skinny, any more info needed?

Thanks for your help!

Regards
Rob

[Mike Holmes]

Which is the character that you said has a kicker? What is it?

What do you see as the issue that each player is most interested in dealing with in terms of his character? For example, it would probably be easy to create issues around Aren's leadership, but it sounds like the player might not be interested. What part of Aren does interest the player?

This is the key. Separate the players from the characters, and look at what it is about each character that interests their respective characters. Why did they create the character they did? For example, for the player who created Olend, does he like the idea of his character being renowned for his heroism? Does the player of Kurash like that he has to make moral decisions for the group?

Note that I'm just guessing, and have no idea really from what you said. But you should have a pretty good idea at this point in the game. What causes each player to particularly perk up?

Once you have those identified, you know where to go with each character, generally. For instance, if Olend is all about renown, then give the character a choice about getting the character one sort of reputation, or another. You might have some young member of a rival clan challenge him, and then, when Olend beats him (in all likelihood), the player has to decide on what to do with the defeated kid as a large crowd watches on. Leading to a particular sort of reputation depending on what he does. Does he become "Known as Merciful in Victory"? Or is he "Known as Merciless"? Yes, actually assign the character the appropriate ability per the player's choice, and let him know that's what's going to happen as a result of his action.

Once you've identified the sort of things that interest the player this way, coming up with bangs is a lot easier (and without such an idea, we really won't be able to help much).

Mike

[Lamorak33]

Which is the character that you said has a kicker? What is it?

Drenyen is the one with the kicker.  He tried and failed to assasinate Minaryth the Purple and is now on the run.  We had a game tonight and we all sat around discussing the details of the assasination (which is a departure.  I think the shared storytelling of this worked very well).  James wanted to water the assasination down a bit.  I think he was worried about the over arching implications of his actions in terms of how it would affect the other PC's.  I told him to enjoy himself and make it juicy if he wanted.  The story we agreed on is based on the fact he is a powerful teleporter.  He teleported in and struck at Minaryth, killing one of his flunkies instead.  He got away, but they know who he is and they turned up at his home.  He managed to escape after some sharp fighting.  Hence he fled to Pavis to hide out.  This is where he got hooked in on the Cradle adventure.

I will have to decide how I think Minaryth will feel about all of this of course.  But its a fun start. 

What do you see as the issue that each player is most interested in dealing with in terms of his character? For example, it would probably be easy to create issues around Aren's leadership, but it sounds like the player might not be interested. What part of Aren does interest the player?

Spot on.  He is not interested in the leadership aspect at all.  He is interested in poisons, sneaking around, shooting folk with arrows and general murder.  On this basis I set up what I thought would be a bang.  One of the warriors on the Cradle during some down time started chatting with Aren.  It turns out he would like Aren to steal a small ornate dagger off one of the other defenders.  Aparently he lost this sentimental dagger in a game of chance and the guy wont trade it back.  The guy says he can offer him gold or a particulary powerful poison he has.

What was the bang?  I thought it would be interesting to see how Aren would react, and if he would put his personal gain before the mission.  He chose to kill the guy and set up this elaborate plot to sneak off with this guy when the next bit of fighting occured!

This is the key. Separate the players from the characters, and look at what it is about each character that interests their respective characters. Why did they create the character they did? For example, for the player who created Olend, does he like the idea of his character being renowned for his heroism? Does the player of Kurash like that he has to make moral decisions for the group?

Note that I'm just guessing, and have no idea really from what you said. But you should have a pretty good idea at this point in the game. What causes each player to particularly perk up?

Once you have those identified, you know where to go with each character, generally. For instance, if Olend is all about renown, then give the character a choice about getting the character one sort of reputation, or another. You might have some young member of a rival clan challenge him, and then, when Olend beats him (in all likelihood), the player has to decide on what to do with the defeated kid as a large crowd watches on. Leading to a particular sort of reputation depending on what he does. Does he become "Known as Merciful in Victory"? Or is he "Known as Merciless"? Yes, actually assign the character the appropriate ability per the player's choice, and let him know that's what's going to happen as a result of his action.

Once you've identified the sort of things that interest the player this way, coming up with bangs is a lot easier (and without such an idea, we really won't be able to help much).

Cool.  I like that Olend idea.  I shall have good think about the other players motivations.  Thanks for your input as always!!

Best regards
Rob

[Mike Holmes]

I will have to decide how I think Minaryth will feel about all of this of course.  But its a fun start. 

So does Drenyen have any association with the other heroes yet? Or will he be coming in as just another character who happens to be on the cradle?

I'm not seeing how Minaryth could see him as other than an enemy? But, then, I don't know the character all that well.

It sounds like a set-up, as you mentioned, for conflict. But it sounds like your players are used to the "conflict = combat" style of play. Meaning that things might escallate quickly, unless you present things right. Escallation isn't bad, neccessarily, it's just that you might want to string out the conflict for a while, and allow it to build a bit (some folks would disagree with me on this, however). So is there anything that can get them competing on a non-combat level before things get to that point? Trying to remember something about the Cradle, there are folks who are in charge who might object to fighting generally, aren't there?

He chose to kill the guy and set up this elaborate plot to sneak off with this guy when the next bit of fighting occured!

He chose to kill which guy? And sneak off with which guy? In any case, it sounds like a successful bang in that it's got the player creating stuff from it. Did you think his idea was interesting?

Cool.  I like that Olend idea.  I shall have good think about the other players motivations.  Thanks for your input as always!!

Careful, that was an Olend hypothetical, not a real idea. That is, I don't know the player. Only use the idea if it turns out that it really fits what the player is looking for with the character.

Mike

[Lamorak33]

So does Drenyen have any association with the other heroes yet? Or will he be coming in as just another character who happens to be on the cradle?

He is on the cradle and has been introduced to the Heroband.  They recognise each other as clan mates.  He already knew one of the other player characters, Gunhyld.  During the session I had my old PC tell him tales of the deeds of the Heroband, dropping that they had dealings with Minaryth, and inviting him to join.  He said yes, when I have a hero point to spare!!  lol  James (Drenyen's player) is a true gamism guy!

It sounds like a set-up, as you mentioned, for conflict. But it sounds like your players are used to the "conflict = combat" style of play. Meaning that things might escallate quickly, unless you present things right. Escallation isn't bad, neccessarily, it's just that you might want to string out the conflict for a while, and allow it to build a bit (some folks would disagree with me on this, however). So is there anything that can get them competing on a non-combat level before things get to that point? Trying to remember something about the Cradle, there are folks who are in charge who might object to fighting generally, aren't there?

Minaryth is a thousand miles away.  He is back home in Sartar (Idon't know if it is exactly 1000 miles, but its a very long way!).  They will be given the option to stay on the cradle at the end of 'the adventure'.  I have some sea based stuff for them, and a chance to meet Harrek the Beserk.  Of course they will return to Sartar when we will really start to address what the are willing to sacrafice for the good of the rebellion.  The Minaryth plot will be a good part of that now.

(Rob talking about the character Aren) He chose to kill the guy and set up this elaborate plot to sneak off with this guy when the next bit of fighting occured!

He chose to kill which guy? And sneak off with which guy? In any case, it sounds like a successful bang in that it's got the player creating stuff from it. Did you think his idea was interesting?

The guy he snuck off with is the one he was meant to steal the dagger from.  Josh upped the ante by offering to kill him as well.  Yes I did think it was interesting.  I told him that there maybe some big battles upcoming and he looks like a very good warrior (the one he was planning to kill)  He still chose to continue with his vile plan!!

I have been thinking that I should have told him that his actions would have changed his 'killer' ability to 'murderer'.  That would have been a better bang I think, and a concious move by the player to make a quantum shift in his characters personality!  I don't think I can retrospectively get him to change it now however. 

I have now got an interesting idea regarding the Heroband Guardian that he is the custodian of.  She is an Ernaldan spirit that they saved from destruction in an early scenario.  I think she will have a strop because of his antics!!  Any suggestions?  I think she will withhold her blessings from the band.  It will be up to Aren to decide whether or not he tells the band why.  A bang?  MAybe they will have to do something to make amends? 

Rob:
Cool.  I like that Olend idea.  I shall have good think about the other players motivations.  Thanks for your input as always!!
Mike:
Careful, that was an Olend hypothetical, not a real idea. That is, I don't know the player. Only use the idea if it turns out that it really fits what the player is looking for with the character.

Mike

Oh, thats just what Ali would love.  I don't know whether it has anything to do with him being a preacher in real life, but his character is the one who acts more like a 'classic hero' rather than a 'soldier of fortune at the gates oblivion'. 

Another bang for Ali is based on the last scene from our game on monday.  The deck of the cradle was overwhelmed and they were all to make their escape down the hatches or whatever.  Do you think that it would be legitimate to have one of his followers captured and then asking whether he wants to attempt a rescue or continue his getaway?  Maybe I could make a simple contest for him to escape, and if he fails by any degree have him choose whether he gets captured or his followers?  What one would be best?

Jim as Kurash the scholar has always been dismissive of his 'retainer' always refusing to give them names and generally bossing them around mercilessly.  He has a pompous ability.  I want to stage a student revolt, maybe having the student quiting (or threatening to) Lhankhor Mhy and joining another cult because of his treatment.  What in game effects will this kind of conflict take in your game?  Would he lose a couple of points in pompous and gain a couple in his relationship to his student?  My guess is for the bang to be effective you give the player all the information as regards outcomes and have them choose.  Yes?

Relationship Maps

Mike, do you have a link to a definitive model or essay on how to create and use them.  All I can glean so far is clues and hints, but no like 'Relationship Maps for Dummies' article.  Or have I missed something obvious?

Thanks as always sensei!!!  OSU!

Regards
Rob

[Lamorak33]

Hi Mike

Regarding the murderous Aren character, do you think he is hiding behind the 'my guy' style?  What can be done, if anything should?  I am thinking that you just keep asking questions until he starts responding as himself?

Regards
Rob

[Mike Holmes]

Regarding the murderous Aren character, do you think he is hiding behind the 'my guy' style?

Hard to speculate, but it sounds like a not too serious form of "My Guy." Call it accidental "My Guy." The question is, does he know that he's doing something that's annoying other players. That they don't like his character, or the play the player is producing using him this way? If he doesn't realize this, if he thinks that what he's doing is cool and so everyone else must, too, then he's not really at fault much. At worst, he's not paying attention to the other players.

The bad sort of My Guy player gets off on realizing that he's annoying the other players, but hides behind plausibility arguments to avoid having to take responsibility: "The GM let me play this character, and this is what My Guy would do in this situation!"

I'm betting that the player in question doesn't realize that it's a problem because of one of two things:
1. The social contract in games played previously was to assume that it's basically every man for themselves in terms of having fun. That is, you aren't there to make it fun for anyone else so much as to play your character to your satisfaction. To that extent, the "rule" is that you can do whatever you think is plausible with your character, and nobody can complain as long as it's plausible.

I have doubts as to whether this contract is functional. In fact, I think it occurs in reaction to railroading GMs. "Thou shalt do what thou wilt, because doing what the GM wants isn't fun!" So instead we do what the player wants, which isn't fun either. The social contract should be "We do what's fun for everyone."

2. The player is just dense. I'm kinda this way myself (which is probably the worst problem for me with GMing). Not understanding that what he's doing isn't fun for others, he forges ahead with what's fun for him.


It's actually probably some of each. Either way, the solution is simple, talk about the social contract, and his behavior. That is, tell everyone that they are all responsible not only for making sure that they have fun, but that everyone else does too. And, second, point out to him off to the side, how you feel that his character is making the game unfun for others.

And when you play make sure to talk about such stuff out of character. Focus on rewarding the fun behavior and just don't comment on the bad. Basic stuff like, "Hey, very cool."

He is on the cradle and has been introduced to the Heroband.  They recognise each other as clan mates.  He already knew one of the other player characters, Gunhyld.  During the session I had my old PC tell him tales of the deeds of the Heroband, dropping that they had dealings with Minaryth, and inviting him to join.  He said yes, when I have a hero point to spare!!  lol  James (Drenyen's player) is a true gamism guy!

Yep, via Pawn Stance play. I could write a whole article on this alone (like how in Japanese play, the in-game and OOC are conflated such that there is no difference - characters do talk about their levels, because they exist as an in-game thing).

This is good in some ways, because the player speaks about his OOC preferences directly. What you want to do for narrativism is to get him to switch back and forth between in-game and OOC speech. This is less difficult than it sounds, just use good grammar yourself. For example, do not say "What do you do?" say, "What does Ragnar do?" This forces the player to separate player from character to do plausible narration.


What I'm confused about is whether or not they know he tried to kill Minaryth. Sounded like they did before, but now like they don't. If they don't know about it, then that makes things easier in the short run. It also means, however, at some point you want to spill the beans. Probably about the time they all start considering him a blood brother. :-)

Minaryth is a thousand miles away.  He is back home in Sartar (Idon't know if it is exactly 1000 miles, but its a very long way!).  They will be given the option to stay on the cradle at the end of 'the adventure'.  I have some sea based stuff for them, and a chance to meet Harrek the Beserk.  Of course they will return to Sartar when we will really start to address what the are willing to sacrafice for the good of the rebellion.  The Minaryth plot will be a good part of that now.

Note sure what you're getting at here. Quite frankly, who cares about Minaryth - this is about the PCs. What I was saying is that if they find out immediately that he tried to kill Minaryth, then there's very little conflict, because it's just the PCs against a new PC bad guy. If he becomes a pal first, however, then when they find out, then there's a conflict. Maybe a very murky one. It's all about how the PCs interact here.

BTW, I've given you a real bad picture of how much I know about Glorantha. I know where Prax is, I know generally what the Cradle scenario is about, I own most of the HQ stuff for Glorantha, including the Dragon Pass gazetteer, I know the keywords well, and I even have absorbed some of the Gloranthan minutia. I can tell my Arkat from my Argrath now. So you don't have to explain everything about the situation to me. :-)

No, I can't tell you the state of Pavis in 1285. But I got all the general stuff down about current GAG.

The guy he snuck off with is the one he was meant to steal the dagger from.  Josh upped the ante by offering to kill him as well.  Yes I did think it was interesting.  I told him that there maybe some big battles upcoming and he looks like a very good warrior (the one he was planning to kill)  He still chose to continue with his vile plan!!

Good. You have to be very careful with this sort of warning, I have to stop and say. If at all possible, do it in-game. That is, have a very brief scene in which the stronger character defeats a known quantity with ease or somesuch, so that the player has a good idea of the character's ability levels. Or, more drastically, show them the ability levels, or even have the character trample the PC early on - toying with the PC. That is, don't have it be malicious, but have a minor sort of penalty. Like the NPC sneaks up on the PC catching him completely unawares, and scares the character (apply the penalty to something simple like drinking his beer for the next roll). This gives the player a direct idea of what he's doing.

The only reason that I suggest this is the general problem with scale in HQ. That is, somehow players always seem to assume that their characters are the coolest anywhere, and that there's nobody better than they in their better abilities. That can need to be corrected.

But otherwise, generally allow the player to make the very good choice to have the character make the mistake of trying to outdo opponents who are greater than they. That is, do not do this as a signal to a player to not try to take on opponents that are probably going to beat them. You want them to do precisely this. Because:

A. Failure is fun, and if you narrate it right, the PC will look really cool losing to the cool guy. And failure means more interesting complications to deal with as the player. And,
B. Winning against long odds is really fun.

Put another way, if you think the player might be put off (which he wasn't in this case - good player), don't "warn" at all. Because what you're really doing is not so much as warning, as setting up appropriate expectations about dealing with the other character. So that if the other guy does win handily, the player will think that's cool. Or, if he manages to win (and with HP that happens a lot against otherwise long odds), that it's that much more cool if he understands just what he beat.

I have been thinking that I should have told him that his actions would have changed his 'killer' ability to 'murderer'.  That would have been a better bang I think, and a concious move by the player to make a quantum shift in his characters personality!  I don't think I can retrospectively get him to change it now however. 

I have some mixed feelings about this. What you're doing is trying to use the mechanics to fix a problem with the players understanding of the social contract. I think it's cool to switch like you've said, but it takes GM fiat to do it, meaning that you're mixing your role as arbiter in the game with your role as just another participant.

People try to "explain" this sort of thing through the rules all the time, and it always fails. Because the player will just go looking for the loophole to continue his behavior. You have to let him know that it's not OK on the social contract level. Only then will subtle adjustments made via play have any effect. I like the shifting to "murderer" because it says something cool about the character. But it should be used as a reward to the player, not as a punishment to the player. Worst case scenario, the player then can go really "My Guy" and start murdering lots of people because, "Hey, the GM says my character is a murderer! Who am I to say otherwise!" Note that real My Guy problem players start with "Murderer" becuase they can use it to hide behind. "Says I can right here on my character sheet!"

So only convert this way if it's part of the player playing the right way, and he's taking it as character develpment that he has to continue to use engagingly. For example, the player should then be looking for reasons why his character is not murdering the other PCs, not for reasons why the character now can do so.

I have now got an interesting idea regarding the Heroband Guardian that he is the custodian of.  She is an Ernaldan spirit that they saved from destruction in an early scenario.  I think she will have a strop because of his antics!!  Any suggestions?  I think she will withhold her blessings from the band.  It will be up to Aren to decide whether or not he tells the band why.  A bang?  Maybe they will have to do something to make amends?

 Again, good idea, but do it for the right reasons. Because the player thinks it's cool. Not to try and adjust his behavior away from something else.

Oh, thats just what Ali would love.  I don't know whether it has anything to do with him being a preacher in real life, but his character is the one who acts more like a 'classic hero' rather than a 'soldier of fortune at the gates oblivion'. 

Well, then the example I gave is probably not a good one. That is, given a situation in which the character has to decide between a reputation for mercy and one of mercilessness, we can guess what he'll do. So that's not a bang. The player sees it and can only "play along" by choosing the only option he sees available to be merciful.

In this case, have him choose between two virtues. Say, mercy and following the rules. The character he beats is deserving of more punishment (some Orlanthi rule says so), but the NPC was rash. Does the player have the PC mete out the proscribed punishement, or does he fail to follow the rules in the name of mercy? What does the character think is right in this case?

Here's how you know if a bang worked or not: after the player makes a decision about it, do we know more about the character than we used to know (as we say, is the character revealed?). Interestingly, sometimes a bang will work for everyone else at the table but the player it's aimed at. Because the player knows what the character is like, but hasn't told everyone. So it's not revealing for him (he just "plays along"), but it's revealing for everyone else.

This is why it's important for players to have a sense of each other's characters. If the player hides his character's values, then it's hard to come up with something that's revealing to the player in question. You only end up revealing the character to the other players. This can have some legs, but at some point you want to hit the player with a question he hadn't considered before (or doesn't have some algorithm like some code of honor to resolve).

Do you think that it would be legitimate to have one of his followers captured and then asking whether he wants to attempt a rescue or continue his getaway?  Maybe I could make a simple contest for him to escape, and if he fails by any degree have him choose whether he gets captured or his followers?  What one would be best?

This is a great one. The problem with your presentation, however, is that if he rolls a victory, no bang. Simply frame to the problem:

"You manage to get under the decks, but you look back, and Shlem has fallen, and is scrambling toward the hatch just as you're going to close it. Do you want to leap out and help him in? Wait for him to see if he beats the crowd to the hatch? Or take no risks (after all you can't see behind the hatch), and close it right now? Everyone below is urging you to slam it shut."

Have decisions lead to contests, not contests lead to decisions. Whichever way the character goes here, follow it up with some contest. If he leaps out, cool, have a contest to save his follower. If he waits, have a contest to see if he can pull the hatch shut in time after the retainer dives in. If he closes it right away, then have him face the uncle of the follower who happens to be on board, and now wants to open the hatch to save his nephew. And/or, have the possibility of a rescue operation later.

No matter the outcome of these, have it lead to more potential decisions. Develop new decision situations from the outcome of the contest. Here's the thing that's counter-intuitive - the decisions are the important part. The contests are just for seeing how risks pay off, and for giving you an unpredictable outcome to work off of.

Jim as Kurash the scholar has always been dismissive of his 'retainer' always refusing to give them names and generally bossing them around mercilessly.  He has a pompous ability.  I want to stage a student revolt, maybe having the student quiting (or threatening to) Lhankhor Mhy and joining another cult because of his treatment.  What in game effects will this kind of conflict take in your game?  Would he lose a couple of points in pompous and gain a couple in his relationship to his student?  My guess is for the bang to be effective you give the player all the information as regards outcomes and have them choose.  Yes?

Well, first, I wouldn't change the PC at all. Or, rather, that's what the player's HP are for. If he thinks that the outcome changes the character, then he can spend the points to make it happen.

Quickly, that's not to say that I won't alter characters based on contests. But that, generally I only do so to introduce new conflict. Not to resolve conflict in any particular way. That's definitely for the player to do.

In both these cases, however, here's a key. If they lose the character in question, they should get a HP rebate. This is per the rules (though you have to read them closely to see what I'm talking about). The point is that they shouldn't fear NPC loss as a player fearing a loss of resources. The player should just feel for the PC and NPC. By making the situation mechanically neutral, you allow this to happen.

Then, in order to get the same NPC back, they have to succeed at some contests, and spend the point back. Rescuing the one follower, or convincing the other to come back. If the player prefers, he can let the NPC go, and spend the HP on a magic sword or whatever. This allows the player, again, to not feel pressure to get the NPC back if that's not interesting (the replacement puppy somehow is never quite as cool as the original dog).

Relationship Maps

Mike, do you have a link to a definitive model or essay on how to create and use them.  All I can glean so far is clues and hints, but no like 'Relationship Maps for Dummies' article.  Or have I missed something obvious?

The term, proper, is from Ron in the Sorcerer supplements. The "definitive" model on Relationship Maps proper, is there. I can only recommend them.

That said, no reason not to discuss their use. First, realize that Ron's definition is very specific, and people often bandy the term about meaning something more general. What Ron says, in brief, is that you make a diagram that shows for some group of NPCs, their relationships of love, sex, or blood, with solid lines, and then include other connections as you see fit. His general point is that these particular relationships are immutably strong, and work wonders when "stressed." Basically, then, you simply follow these lines when something happens to somebody on the map, and you'll see how stuff happens.

This post has exceeded a max length limit of some sort, so I'll post another response with more R-Map details below.

Mike