Writting adventures for Heroquest

[Barna]

Thanks Mike, that cleared things up a LOT. If it ain´t much of a problem, I´ll ask you for your opinion on some more bangs later (and re-think the ones you found lacking). I specially agree with the one regarding "helping the village or leaving", it brings about a problem if the PC´s dont. But on the other hand, I have already added a few NPCs further down the road (physical road here ;) ) whose reactions depend of what the PCs did. I´ll see how to rehash it. 

I´m truly starting to enjoy planning my sessions, which is also a good thing. Apparently is everything goes well I will be meeting with my group on Sunday the 11th. We´ll se how it goes.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that part of the ease of this style of prep, yes, is about the fact that figuring out ways to hose the PCs is a ton of fun. And make no mistake, that's what you're going to do. Most of this sort of decision that you're throwing before the player is of the "Choose one way, and lose the other," sort. Interestingly the players will appriciate it. It's the same thing as throwing monsters in front of them in D&D, giving the players some interesting problem to attend to.

Mike

[Barna]

Vassily & Remy must decide if they help the town of Escavalon, sacrificing any chance to catch up with Diego & Fiorella.

This is a good bang, technically, but it's a bad grab. In that one of the decisions is, essentially, to walk away from the map. Ah, but wait, if the village has some reason to feel vengeant against the PCs if they don't help, or something like that, then maybe things can be entangled. Actually, the "Roads to Rome" solution here is for them to discover, should they decide to persue Diego and Fiorella that the pair haven't left. That's dangerous, however. If you do enough of this sort of shenanegin, players tend to get the idea that you're manipulating their decisions through plotting. What you don't want is for the player to feel, "OK, I get it, you want us to help the village first."

Better is if you can get it such that Diego and Fiorella are somehow related into something that's happening in the village, so that no matter which decision the player's make that it'll mean more trouble.

Vassily & Remy find out that Father Martelli is a spy for Prince Villanova and has been informing him on the whereabouts of their friend Michael Benning

This sounds like a good grab, but only if it's a good bang first. That is, once they find out that he's a spy, what choices do they have? Is there any reason that they wouldn't try to remove him? Or is it simply a question of how they remove him? If, in fact, there was some reason that the PCs would not want to harm Father Martelli, then this is a bang.

I think I might have a way to link all of this. How about Father Martelli secretly poisoned Diego & Fiorella during their stay in the town inn and now blackmails Vassily & Remy into staying in order to give them the antidote to this slow-acting poison? He knew that Vassily & Remy were part of Diego & Fiorella's group because of his informants in the nearby towns. And I STILL want to make Father Martelli a "good" person. Just a good person that would do anything for his town and his prince. "Ends justify the means" and all. Therefore, Vassily & Remy are forced to stay if they want to help their friend.

Now what's even more interesting, I can make all sorts of cool side-scenes where Diego feels slightly ill or sick and not knowing why. What would be even better would be if Vassily & Remy decided to stay and, if they solve the situation, Father Martelli gently thanking them in the name of the town and suggesting that they leave in haste, as he smilingly pulls out the bottle of antidote and explains his actions in a matter-of-fact tone. After they helped the man save his town, he confesses without regret that he poisoned their friends.

OK, I'm projecting too much here, but still interesting...

[Valamir]

Beware of the choice that's not a choice.

If you offer "choose A or your friend dies" its not really a choice if you know full well the players will not let their friend die.

Now, if your players are perfectly happy to take actions that will wind up killing off other PCs...then this could be a really good choice.

[Barna]

I understand what you mean. Thing is, the choice the PCs take will shape their relationship to Father Martelli during the adventure and their following actions.

If they choose to help the town from the start, they will see the good side of the priest. They might find out that he is a spy for Villanova, but neither of the characters is so naive to think that politics (specially in Vodacce) are outside a priest's sphere. Only at the end will they realize that they have been betrayed, and by that time they willbe forced to run to Diego before the poison kills him. Their revenge, if any, will have to wait.

If they choose not to help the town, the blatant blackmailing from Father Martelli will probably make them see him as a villain; even if they try to help the town, there's a strong possbility that they try to get the antidote from him through either force or subterfuge. Those options alone will change the whole dinamic of their stay in Escavalon and will also bring forth the questions of how far they are willing to go to save Diego, and if they will follow the priest's directions in order to avoid physical confrontation or get medieval with the Father.

It does sound like railroading, but in a way it's not. The characters are not trapped into the situation by some GM sleight of hand, but rather by the consequences of an in-game situation (the Father's mischief). And even so, the PCs may not trust the Father or even reject his blackmail and try to reach Diego anyway, trusting their ability to find alternative cure. Which would be really interesting too.

[Mike Holmes]

As I've said, the definition of railroading is problematic. So it's best just to skip it here. The only question is whether or not you're leaving options for the players to choose, so that they have an input into how the game goes. If they do, then no matter how heavy-handed you're being elsewhere, it's good play.

Now, that said, there is a technique called "All Roads Lead to Rome" ("Roads to Rome" for short). I'm not sure if it applies here, but it's worth mentioning. It's usually used by GM's to give an illusion that the players have a choice, but in the end the results are always the same. Usually what the GM does is set up a branching situation that splits off into several possible avenues, but all of which eventually lead to the same event.

Now, there's a fine difference between "Roads to Rome" and just thowing in events when they're good to throw in. You may have a bang that's really good and you intend to throw into play at some point no matter what. This is not quite the same thing. The "problem" with Roads to Rome (for Sim play, it's actually excellent technique), is that the players may figure out that they're being funneled at the end. This sort of thing, along with other such "Illusionism" techniques can cause harm to this form of play if and when they are discovered to be in use. And players are ever so capable of determining when a GM is manipulating them. What happens is that the players become informed that their choices are really irrellevant, and that they might as well "play along."

The point is that you have to keep play "open" to potential changes in direction. In fact, the more it's obvious that you're running to keep up with the players choices, the better. Because then they know that they've got real authority to drive the direction of play. And that's when they start taking proactive steps.

It's ironic how many GMs using Illusionism or Sim methods complain that their players don't take the initiative to have their characters get proactive or do anything. This is simply because the methods in question make player additions to direction irrellevant in many or all cases. So why should they try?

This is what you want to avoid. Some times it comes down to simply being open with a player. If he asks, "What'll happen if my character leaves?" and you reply, "I haven't the faintest idea, but I'll make something up. Do what you find most interesting for your character." Consider that as general advice for this sort of play, take time to discuss things out of character, and make sure that the player knows things that the character does not. This is often difficult because other forms of play tell us that this is very bad form. But for this sort of play, it's very good form.

Mike