Railroading and Heroquests

[Mike Holmes]

HeroQuest characters have plenty of abilities that can help them figure out what their god would do in various situations - or at least get hints. There are 'Mythology of the Cult' abilities, 'Relationship' abilities with the god, and of course abilities directly related to the thing being tests. An Orlanthi character might have a 'Just' ability. So there is plenty of mechanical support for the gamist approach.

Er, I'm not sure I get your point. I agree that characters have a good chance to know the sorts of things they need to know to get through things. But that's my point. Either you allow a player to roll against these abilities, or you force the player to know the subject matter. If the former case, the challenge to the player is gone, because, presumably, if you roll well enough, the character will know what to do. Now you could allow good rolls to just give information that's sort of ambiguous, and then have the character try to make sense of it, but then what's the point of the rolls? Why not just give the player the information so he can make the judgements on it. That is, if you're after gamism here, why allow a bad roll to allow the character to fail for the player?

Gamism has nothing to do with whether or not characters make their die rolls. By definition, they're random, and this is no challenge to the player (unless it's to throw dice in such a way as to come up with higher numbers or something). Yes, randomness can play a part in player challenge, but only when it involves coming up with expected value calculations and the like. There's no planning in the case of a few binary rolls.

I also agree that Bangs make a very good substitute for stations. When I wrote my post I realy wasn't sure if what I was saying could realy be of any use, or was even explained well enough to be comprehensible to anyone else, but I think you're very close to a practical aproach. You're right about published heroquests being limited by the state of the adventure-writing art. I think Greg is well aware that he hasn't found a truly effective way to write them yet. He's probably never even heard the term Bang, but in retrospect the way the stations and encounters in the quest were presented was very Bang-ish.

That's interesting. Because I've heard that in other cases that he's presented heroquests in extremely linear fashions. Could just be the players not seeing what he was doing, however; not understanding that there are implicit choices at each station (even if they're not obvious). Might be the problem that I'm having. :-)

In any case, all I'm proposing is that what you're saying about how HQ's can be run makes stations into bangs automatically. Not that you have to come up with additional dilemmas. Much like Ron says happens assuming that players see the quests as points for potential departure. Then each station asks the question, "Do I stick to the path, or do I forge a new meaning?"

I don't think stickign to the path is gamism. If a quest is about Justice and Truth and Fair Play, and actualy most quests are about moral values and testing personal qualities, then why would you want your character to go off on a tangent? HeroQuesting isn't about experimentation, it's about finding out if you are Just enough for the Rulership of your people, Cold Blooded enough to wield True Death, Determined enough to earn Immortality, etc. Most people (characters) will want to complete the quest because they believe in the values of their culture. People who deliberately go off at a tangent do so either because they couldn't give a fig about the values of their society, or because they've seen that their societies values ren't adequate in some way and want to fix that.

Oh, sure, sticking to the path can be narrativism. Like I say above, if the player finds the answer to each station's question, "I want to stick to the path" that's fine. What I was saying is that, if the challenge is understanding how to stick to the path, that's gamism. That is, if the player is treating the station not as the question above, but as, "How do I best determine how to be successful here?" then that's gamism.

I think there often are rewards for doing the 'wrong thing' in many quests, and these are why some quests are so hard - the temptation is very real. However there should always be a down side for betraying the principles you're supposed to be upholding.

The choice should be a choice, in other words. Couldn't agree with you more. The only problem is that I've never seen a reward for varying. In fact, there don't seem to be much rules for varying from the path other than to wing it. If a player is presented with only "do it right and get a reward, or do something else, and who knows what'll happen?" that's not equal incentive. Now, it might be the right way to present it to a player, but it would also help if players understood that there was always some potential benefit to be gained. That could be just the narrator reassuring the players, or there could be some way to do it mechanically.


Jane,
I can't remember for sure, but I think that with a Soul Vision roll for a theist quest that you do get to see the person underneath. Or something like that. Or perhaps I'm remembering the same heroquest that you are where they get the ability to see...

Anyhow, I'd sorta agree with you that to follow the quest that you won't be able to respond to the identity of the other character in some ways. That is, if a quest enemy turns out to be a friend, you're still supposed to attack him or whatever. But that's somewhat the point. If you do discern that the hero playing an adversary is a friend, then perhaps your character will have an urge to change the quest where Orlanth kills this monster to a quest where Orlanth befriends the monster. Yes, selfish, but there you have it, an event that might happen. This information puts the power in the hands of the player to make a decision on what's important to him then and there.

Anyhow, I think this mostly only applies to theist quests (or, perhaps only those in the god world where the one in question that we're remembering does happen). I don't think animists or wizards have this problem, even when in quests not in the heroplane, but in the spirit world or the essence or saint worlds. That is, they still aren't supposed to react to the characters in a way that messes with the quest if they want it to turn out normally. But they do see who they're dealing with, and get to decide at that point whether this means they want to continue with the quest as it's supposed to go, or to veer from it in response to who the other actors are.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

The classic example fo a reward for varying is the good old Hill of Gold Quest. If the Yelmali quester does what he's supposed to do he gets clobbered by Zorak Zoran who steals his fire powers (actualy rips an organ from his body). If he doesn't do what he's supposed to and defeats Zorak Zoran (very hard) then he becomes a Yelmalion with Fire Powers - but doesn't get to be Immortal.

Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Is this written up anywhere for HQ? Or is it from HW or RQ?

Mike

[Jane]

Is this written up anywhere for HQ? Or is it from HW or RQ?
Mike

It's in Arcane Lore (pp62-67). It dates back to early RQ, yes, but it's one of the great classic Gloranthan myths, so it'll be around. Try a web search to get lots and lots of versions.

[Web_Weaver]

To return directly to Ian's initial concern over "HeroQuests tending to deteriorate into a pass/fail sequence", I would seek to reassure him with my hard earned understanding of what HeroQuests were designed to be (IMO obviously).

HeroQuests should not be designed this way even if most, if not all, of the examples seem to suggest it. Mike Holmes comes close when he suggests each station is a bang.

Think of a station in a HeroQuest as a convergence of stories similar to the mass of often conflicting cross references in Greek mythology.

In Glorantha this is referred to as Aracne Solara's web; web strands relating to story fragments and the nexus points being the key interactions between the stories.

So very loosely their are two types of station (see Heavy Earth HQ p253ff for examples) :
Travel: Find Earth-Witches Cave (a strand of the web)
Interaction : Bad Earth Boy (a nexus)

Note: travel stations can also involve colourful encounters  and these can appear to be nexus points, as encountered by simon_hibbs above in Gregs HQ game.

You can use any method to tell the overall story with as much player involvement as you like, but behind the scenes you have notes of key interactions that will occur (order often not essential) that are integral parts of the surrounding cultures' mythologies.

So in the myth from Heavy Earth there exists another story about Bad Earth Boy told from the other perspective - i.e. Faithful Earth Nephew, who seeks to be a man in the eyes of his uncle Great Lord Below, quests for the strength of the earth but on returning home is challenged by Bush Child who confronts him over the consequences of his actions.

Note in one myth the interaction may be an early build-up staion but in the other it could be a major station of the quest. So for Faithful Earth Nephew this could be the first station of a quest about consequences of previous actions (simillar to the early stage of Orlanth's LightBringers Quest).

Also, who you meet is rarely preordained as many stories contain similar elements. We could probably invent hundreds of earth myths for different heroes that involve a neighbouring culture hero suffering because of over-powerful earth powers, resulting in an out of the blue challenge. Any one of these myths could be intersected at this station.

So to summarise, the best way to write a satisfactory HeroQuest is to decide on the story interactions and try to see each station from every angle. Carefully tailor the important interactions to the themes of your game and the characters existing or potential relationships. Every interaction station should play on the characters personal involvement of the myth and ideally should present dilemmas based on  cultural biases or previous actions.

Heroes met should come from cultures that either are already involved in your game or you intend to bring in later. Remember that even minor and seemingly inconsequential actions on the other side can have repercussions in the world and can serve for inspiration for all concerned in future games.

[MarkAdri]

As a player in Ian's Red Cow campaign, I want to state that at no point in my playing of the Heroquest was my enjoyment of the game reduced by the linear nature of the quest.

However, the added wrinkles from the addition of certain narrator characters did add to the play very significantly especially for my character and I feel worked really well.

Mark

[Tim Ellis]

I'm not sure that this is quite the answer to your particular questions, but my musings on how to make a heroquest more than just the GM "teeling a story" can be found here

[Mike Holmes]

Wow, very cool, Tim.

I have to go back and read the HQ text to see if there's something in there that implied stuff like this and I just missed it on my initial reading. :-)

Mike

[Bryan_T]

I think most interesting heroquests should be about choices.  Some of those choices may be potential bangs.  Some particularly appropriate quests may be almost a sequence of potential bangs--I think most of the really famous, life altering quests are probably best modelled that way (i.e. not every quester would face them quite like that, but it is the way to get the intensity across to the players).  Examples that jump to mind are the lightbringer's quest and the Horned Man quest to become a shaman.

If you have a quest station where the story has the hero fighting his way past trolls and take some special berries from them, you will face some sort of darkness based obstacle that you will need to pass and take something from.  This could be trolls, this could be related darkness creatures, this could be simple but pure darkness, this could a darkness worshipper of another species.....  The creature or thing can be tricky to get around, or could trigger a very soul wrenching choice.  To take a crude Heortling example, say it is trolls, and you could maybe beat them, but your trading partners worship Argar Argan and beating the trolls is apt to have a negative effect on that relationship through mythic reverberations.  On the other hand they are willing to let you go and give you the berries if you give them your cloak to eat, but the cloak was made for you by your wife as part of your courtship.  Which do you value more, the economic health of the clan, or your relationship to your wife?  Or for a wizard questor, the darkness seems unending and the berries impossible to find, but surely defeatable with even a small flame....if only you had something to burn, but the only thing you have burnable is your grimmoire.  You could sacrifice the knowledge of a spell to slide easily through this step, is it worth it?  (especially if you are not doing the quest for your own benefit?).      On the average character sheet it should not be too hard to find a couple of personality traits and/or relationships to bring in conflict with a somehow darkness related trigger.

The thing is that in a stand alone quest, without listing endless options, it is hard to know what will resonate with individual players and heroes.  Especially if you don't frame the quest in a situation where you suggest relations and alliances.

Of course, having an occasional gameist choice can be fun too :)

--Bryan. 

[Mike Holmes]

The thing is that in a stand alone quest, without listing endless options, it is hard to know what will resonate with individual players and heroes.  Especially if you don't frame the quest in a situation where you suggest relations and alliances.

This is why I like Ron's idea, generally. That is, instead of trying to fiddle with the myth to get it to have parts where bangs come up, I'd just stick with whatever bangs just happen to come up in it (as pointed out, there are some that are just likely to stick to most people), and instead rely on the implicit decision at each station to stick to the orthodox path, or to wander off of it.

Again, if players understand that they can diverge at any point, and that when they do they'll largely have some say in the result, that means that there's always an interesting decision at each node. Whether or not the station itself has some dilemma to be decided, there's an additional one to just detour and make your own meaning.

What I'm trying to figure out, however, is how to get the players to understand this. There is, of course, just discussion. But mechanically I think that what's scary is that the series of contests laid out sorta says to the player to stick to the program. Rather, I think what happens is that I, in the past, have simply said, "OK, you move on down the road, and come to the place where you have to lift the rock, what are you going to use to move it?" That is, I think the problem has been in my presentation that I simply move from contest to contest. Instead what I'm going to try to do is to move from scene to scene, and relate what the expected contest is, but imply that the character can do whatever they like.

I hope that's enough. To disclose, actually I'm right in the middle of a heroquest in a PBEM game, with Kerstin as the guinea pig. So we'll see how it goes. :-)

Mike

[Kerstin Schmidt]

To disclose, actually I'm right in the middle of a heroquest in a PBEM game, with Kerstin as the guinea pig.

Am I now?  Well, all right then.  Scenes sounds great already. Be as experimental as you like. :-)


Kerstin

[Mike Holmes]

Am I now?  Well, all right then.  Scenes sounds great already. Be as experimental as you like. :-)

No, no, no. You be as experimental as you like. That's the whole idea. :-)

Mike

[Kerstin Schmidt]

No, no, no. You be as experimental as you like. That's the whole idea. :-)

... said the intrepid researcher to the guinea pig. :-)

Just pulling your leg, you know that, right?

Seriously: having choices is wonderful, and I do agree that since heroquests are at the heart of the game system, they deserve to offer as much potential as any other part of the game - for both the player(s) and the narrator.  And this experiment is looking great so far to me.  Right now I'm finding an unscheduled rain of marlins even more irresistible than a rain of toads. (Even one that consists of only one marlin.)  Ian, I'll have more bits to report to you when you're back.




Kerstin

[Neil the Wimp]

I've run a couple of initiatory heroquests and described them on my website at http://home.freeuk.net/wimp/roleplaying/heroquests.html .  On reflection, I think they're quite Bang-oriented, though I didn't know that term at the time.  My advice on that page is similar to what's been aready said in this thread: tailor the events to the PCs, and keep separate the events and their mythic significance.  I've also written up two examples of where I've done this in practice: one were Stars-no-shine becomes a shaman, and one where a bunch of players re-enact the Cleansed One quest, from the River of Cradles book.

Another thing to consider is that the quest is not about whether the questors succeed, but how they succeed, and what the implications of their choices are.  In Start-not-shine's quest, there was a real choice about whether he followed Storm Bull's route or Daka Fal's. 

Neil.

[Mike Holmes]

Nice write ups Neil. I think I see what you're saying. The one choice you mention is a huge bang, yes.

I note with interest on the site that you say not to use the rules. But also that this may have been for RQ. Do you advocate the same for HQ? Or do you like what HQ does for heroquests mechanically? I think this is pretty central to the original topic of the thread.

Mike