Example of HQ Play for A Newbie?

[aaronil]

I'm just getting exposed to HQ, having recently purchased the book and looking forward to gaming with some eager friends come winter. Now, it seems to me that HQ requires the players to be proactive, snapping them out of their reactive stance, and contribute to the collaborative story (in essence, introducing their own bangs). I like this idea and look forward to the challenge of writing a HQ adventure for my old D&D group (based on advice offered in Barna's thread below).

However, I'm confused at the examples in the HQ book which seem to indicate an adversarial relationship between Narrator and Player (one example is "Uncle Farhenri is Here" on page 179, and others abound). This adverserial stance just seems to step all over the Player's desire to be proactive. Personally, I need a strong example of what an HQ game plays like so I know how to inspire an environment of "cooperative creation" and ween my players from the reactive stance from years of D&D.
Are there any good examples of HQ play on the net which also include how contests/rules were handled that would be clear to an HQ beginner?

Thanks! (And my apologies if there is already a thread addressing my concerns)

[Lamorak33]

Hi

First off, Heroquest does not require the players to be proactive, in terms of snapping them out of their reactive stance. That might be your, the GM's, agenda for them, but they will come to the table with their own idea of what they want to do. The only time you should or can ask players to create their own bangs is the 'kicker'. Any bangs that flow after will be because of their in-game actions and your promptings. You should seek to plant seeds and hope they turn into bangs. Otherwise I can see that some of your players may get bored while they wait for you to present some game activity and you will become frustrated at their lack of engagement. This is perilous and i have seen it happen.

The examples of play in the book show very well the game mechanics in my opinion, but it is generally accepted that they present a style or mode of play that some find un-appealing. That said, the mechanics support very well the kind of Creative Agenda that I believe you may be shooting for, that is, Narratvism.

You can get narratavist play by employing narratavist techniques, and by the type of scenario's you generate.

I would be happy to exchange emails off list (as I dont think this is the forum for it) as to how I frame contests and show what narratavist techniques that I used in my game, which was a strongly hybrid narratavism/ simulationism Gloranthan game. Maybe we could co-opt Mike in to the dialogue?

I can let you have a copy, not for distribution, of a narratavist scenario that I wrote with Mike Holmes for convention play. I am a member of the European Branch of the Masters of Luck and Death, who are an independent Demo group for Heroquest. Mike heads up the US group. Don't worry we aren't some corporate group, just a bunch of guys who enjoy demo'ing HQ. And we certainly dont advocate that our way is the only way, but if we can help in any small way then we will.

Regards
Rob

[Mike Holmes]

I think you're assuming a lot, Rob, but I'm going to simply skip back to Aaron's post.

I don't see the book examples as "adversarial" personally. But I agree they're not promoting what you want to promote, either, so you're right to ignore them for the purposes you have here. All said, while you don't want the narrator as an adversary per se, you do want the narrator to be the "story advocate" if you will, meaning that it is his main responsibility to throw in things that create conflict and challenge. It's not a question of whether or not the narrator does this that makes for proactive play, but how he does this.

I'll give you a couple of hypothetical examples, since nothing is jumping to mind right at the moment. In this next (stilted for effect) exchange, the narrator is using his role to create conflict to shut the player down. This is what you want to avoid:

Player: "I want my character to go to the tavern to hunt down that girl he met."
Narrator: "As he turns to leave, suddenly a bunch of trolls descend upon him - let's fight! When the contest is over, you'll either be carried off, or you'll be chasing the trolls out of town."
Player: "But what about the girl?"
Narrator: "Your character will have to wait until the important stuff is over."

The Narrator obviously has a plan for how the plot must go, and is enforcing it by determining the goals and outcomes of the contest he's creating. Simply, the Narrator here should follow the player's lead. Heck, he can still complicate it with nearly the same color, and simultaneously facilitate the player desire.

Player: "I want my character to go to the tavern to hunt down that girl he met."
Narrator: "As he turns to leave, suddenly a bunch of trolls descend upon him - let's fight! As it turns out, one of them is carrying the girl from the tavern away with him."

When it comes down to it, there's really only one technique that's going on here that makes this all work. All of the other technique devolves from it. And that is to allow metagame play.

What does that mean? In most RPG play, there are rules in place that say things like, "Don't have your character act on player knowledge." Now, the reason for the existence of such rules is simple. A player used to playing games like, say, chess, isn't used to having to separate what he knows from what his character knows. It takes a bit of skill. What happens is that a situation will occur where the player has his character do something implausible from an in-game POV, because he's not made said separation.

To the extent that these rules are in RPGs for this reason, and this reason alone, they're good rules. The problem is that most people see such mistakes occur, and in a competitive RPG, assume that "cheating" is going on. Over the course of a decade or so of this, a more general assumption came to be that it's not just good play to play plausibly, but one has to eliminate the appearance of their own personal preferences even from plausible play, or else the player is now just "cheating" in a less discernable fashion.

This is a huge problem. Because how do you know when it's not the player's preference, but some "channeling" of the PC that's going on? You don't, and can't know this. This is further exacerbated by some players who, given this environment, really do take advantage of this set up to hide their desire to do things that annoy other players behind "It's what my guy would do!" So players react even more strongly, and clamp down on any perception of metagame drive appearing in the game.

Which doesn't work. Oh, when the players actually trust each other, it won't be problematic. But it then only serves the dubious good of creating a particular subset of simulationism.

Anyhow, the point is that, sans competition in play, the only thing we really seek from player vs character knowledge separation, is that the character act plausibly. What isn't required is trying to hide the fact that there's a player behind the character. Rather, you actively promote the player creating the actions of the character in a very visibly metagame way.

Here's the classic example of metagame play (sometimes used to explain "author stance"). Player A's character is in a scene where he's at a bar. Player B's character is getting beaten up in another scene at the park, something of which Player A's character is blissfully unaware. The GM asks Player A what his character is doing.

Player A, "Dude, your character is getting beat up. You want some help for him?"
Player B, "Sure!"
Player A, "OK, my character is going to happen by the park on his way home."

Plausible? Well, assuming that the park isn't ridiculously out of the way, sure it is. What it's not is transparent as far as player intent. Many GMs would say, "Nooooo, you can't do that, your character doesn't know he's there." But note that this doesn't invalidate the plausibility, it only points out that the player is taking advantage of his knowledge to create a convenient co-incidence.

This is a relatively extreme example - not all such decisions will result in co-incidences or other dramatic effects. But the point is that it should be encouraged.

Why? Well, because how can you expect a player to be proactive with his character, when all he is told he can do is to channel the character without the player's will showing? It's like, "I want my character to go get a new sword....oh, wait, I have to be sure that it's what he wants, too, not just what I want."  The player who thinks like this, misses the chance to get his character in on the fight at the partk, because he fears that he'll be seen as cheating. It's fine to have the character be precisely who you want them to be. In all cases, even when it doesn't look like it, you still are, in fact, deciding what he'll do. He does nothing without you.

As GM you have to encourage having this in the open. All of the other techniques come down to some way to get players thinking this way. When you start playing metagame this way, communication opens up. Players feel more free to discuss things, and come up with ideas. They understand that the creation of plot is not the purview of the one player called the GM, but of everyone. And once they know that it's OK for them to do that, then they're off and running, coming up with the coolest things they can think of for their character to have.

So here's an example of what sort of dialogue you should be seeing in this sort of play:

Player: "Can I have a scene in which my character runs into the girl NPC that player B's character met?"
Narrator: "Sure! I'll set the scene. You're in the tavern, and you see her across the room. But before you can get over to talk to her, Rocco comes over, and looks like he's looking for his money."

A few things going on above. First, the narrator is giving the player enough control to actually create coincidences. Some people think this is a violation of some standing rule in HQ (and other games), about the separation of power between players and narrators. But think of it this way. The player is only asking the narrator. The narrator, as story advocate again, has the right to say no, if he deems that it's really not in the best interest of all of the players to have the scene. If he says yes, technically it's not the player creating the scene, it's the narrator. He's just taking a good suggestion from the player.

GMs do this constantly, they just usually hide the fact that they're taking cues from players, because the aforementioned prohibition against metagame play extends to the GM as well in these cases. This comes about from GMs "abusing" players by using their power to take away player choices (railroading). So the GM is held to the same no-metagame standard (which, of course, is problematic, since then the question becomes who is driving the drama)?

In metagame play, forget trying to look like some genius who has predicted his player's needs and instead become the GM they like because he shares his power with them. If you're taking a cue from a player, give him credit, and go with it.

Narrator: "Great idea, dude, let's go with that for the next scene."

Also in the above example at the bar, the narrator is creating an obstacle. But is it preventing the player from achieving what he wants? Well, no, the player wants to have some action involving the girl, and having to struggle to get to her is probably fun. More on this below.


Once you're communicating in the metagame, you can't actually railroad players without lying to them.

Player: "Why did you have that avalanche hit us that drove us underground?"
Narrator: "Well it was on the random event table..."

Like hell it was. The GM selected it off that table with a fudged roll to provide a way to get them into the dungeon. Should be more like:

Player: "Why did you have that avalance hit us?"
Narrator: "Because there's a ton of cool stuff for your character to do in the dungeon, and I couldn't think of anything for outside."

Isn't that railroading in both cases? Well the best definition I've found for railroading is creating situation that doesn't have any player choice involved. If the narrator above lied to get them to a choice...well why lie then? The only reason to lie is if you've taken away player choices, and you don't want to admit it. If, in fact, you've moved play on to a particular state to give choices, then tell players that you have done so.

If, in fact, you're giving the player some interesting choice, then using GM authority to do so is good play, not railroading. And with metagame play, if you're not sure, you can ask:

Narrator: "Guys, I can't think of any cool stuff out here, how about there's an avalanche that forces the characters into a dungeon? I have lots of ideas for bangs for you there!"
Players: "Go for it!"

Or...or:

Player: "Wait, I have an idea for out here. How about if we're attacked by a Yeti band, and they run off with important equipment in all sorts of directions forcing us to pick which to track down?"

If you ask the players what their metagame opinion of what should happen is, then they know, again, that they're empowered to ask for such things, and become quite proactive. You'll start to see things like:

Player (who thinks the narrator has a dungeon planned): "My character is going to look for a cave to shelter in."

Player: "My character comes up to yours and asks him to have mercy on the troll that killed your character's family."

As Rob mentions, this is really where you want to get. Where the players realize that it's not only up to the narrator to provide conflict to their characters, but that they can feel free to do so as well. In a non-metagame session, the response might be:

Player B: "Dude, we're supposed to be friends, why is your character messing with mine like that?"
Player A: "It's what he would do."

In a metagame game:

Player B: "Dude, are you messing with my character to create a dilemma for him?"
Player A: "Yep."
Player B (with a smile): "Bastard!....that's so cool."

How to players know that the narrator is not adversarial? Because you talk about it.

Player: "Hey, if I lose this, my character loses his prized possession. That's not cool!"
Narrator: "What I'm thinking is that if he loses to this guy, that said guy will offer the item back if your character is willing to spy on the Duke for him."
Player: "Aaah, I see. Cool, let's do the contest."

So the player knows that the narrator is facilitating the story, and not trying to hose him as a player by punishing him by taking away a favored item. By discussing these things openly, you can make failure results interesting for the player in all cases, which makes you partners in creating the drama of the story (as opposed to adversaries). See this article for more on this: www.glroantha.com/support/na-defeat.html

Ok, so now just by talking about it in the open we have:
1. Players who see that you're playing to what they want, so they'll ask for things.
2. Players who know that you're not adversarial to them, but using conflict to create drama around their character's actions.
3. Players who know that you're not railroading them, meaning that their actions will actually create plot, and not just be the window dressing around it.
4. Players who know that it's good play to create conflict for the other players.
5. Players who know that when their characters fail, that you're working to make that into more fun for them. So they don't have to be hesitant with their dramatic plans for their character.

This is the start. What you'll find is that the more this all becomes an assumption, the less you'll actually have to communicate in the metagame. It gets shortended down to occasional reassurances, or quick statements of desire. You start to be able to read where a player wants to go with something.

For instance, in the game I played last night, the narrator had my character run into a female NPC. My character's reaction was to be strongly attracted to her - not quite what the narrator had expected. He could have ignored this, and gone on with what he'd originally seen as the interesting part of the scene - whether or not she figured out that my character was doing something sneaky. In fact, that continued to be a sub-plot in the scene. But the important part of the scene became my character getting a date with the NPC. The narrator didn't just let my character do it - there were contests involved. But the drama was around what I wanted it to be around.

All by him reading my first line of the scene, and figuring out where I wanted to go with it. There was an implied conversation there where I asked for a particular kind of scene, and he went with it. But it couldn't have happened if we both weren't used to this sort of way of looking at it.

Note, interestingly, that people coming to RPGs for the first time haven't been trained in the whole no-metagame play style, and so come to RPGs with this POV as the default. So it's not a complex way of thinking about RPGs, its actually quite natural. Yeah, once in a while you'll have to tell a newb that they're doing something implausible. But you never have to tell them that they need to tell you what they want to see in play. Because that's what they're used to in games. It's only ever trained RPG players who have any problem with this methodology, having to overcome large amounts of training.

I still, to this day, make mistakes based on two decades of playing trying to restrict metagame.

Anyhow, hope that gives the basic idea of what play is like. Come by the IRC game on Monday nights if you want to see this all in action.

Mike

[aaronil]

I can let you have a copy, not for distribution, of a narratavist scenario that I wrote with Mike Holmes for convention play.

Rob, thanks for your insights. I certainly would be interested in reading your sample adventure with the understanding that it is not for distribution - my e-mail is aaronil [at] yahoo [dot] com. I did get a chance to read "Well of Souls" by Chris Chinn and Peter Nordstrand, which is designed with a plot outline, narrator characters, and Narrator-controlled bangs. This adventure looks like it'd be great for narrativist players, but I could see less-narr players just waiting around until a bang happens. I'm wanting a more Narrativist game, and my players are willing to try it out, but I'm guessing it'll be a bit jarring for them at first to come up with requests for scenes as Mike recommends.

By discussing these things openly, you can make failure results interesting for the player in all cases, which makes you partners in creating the drama of the story (as opposed to adversaries). See this article for more on this: www.glroantha.com/support/na-defeat.html

Thanks Mike. My group does metagame conversation - usually my players are eager to share feedback and to make guesses (I call them "menu orders") about what will happen as a consequence of their actions. Usually it's kept to a minimum because we don't like to break our immersion and have been gaming so long together there's implicit trust.

I corrected your link (glorantha) but I got an error from the HQ site - perhaps they took that article down?

They understand that the creation of plot is not the purview of the one player called the GM, but of everyone. And once they know that it's OK for them to do that, then they're off and running, coming up with the coolest things they can think of for their character to have.

I've gotten them to agree to this verbally and I think they understand the theory. However, many years of D&D have trained them to wait for my bangs, and years of D&D have trained me to give it to them - making the players (and their characters) mostly reactive.

Player: "Can I have a scene in which my character runs into the girl NPC that player B's character met?"

Stop right there. :) That's a huge leap (and I'd be happy to see it in my games). I'm looking for baby steps to warm my players up to aggressive scene requests. I mean, to some extent I do this by listening to what my players talk about and treating their character sheets as menu orders for what sort of challenges they want to face. But for *them* to make a request is a paradigm shift.

1. Players who see that you're playing to what they want, so they'll ask for things.

I believe I have been playing to what they want, and they usually tell me when I have (and when I have not) met their expectations. However, they don't ask for things. There's more going on here.

2. Players who know that you're not adversarial to them, but using conflict to create drama around their character's actions.
3. Players who know that you're not railroading them, meaning that their actions will actually create plot, and not just be the window dressing around it.

Totally. Trust is huge for narrativist games.
Some of the examples in HQ definitely seem adversarial/railroady to me. "You've given him your agreement, your word, to help him out. Understand?" This line from the page 179 example is pretty much a DM threatening a reluctant player who only agreed because the DM included a hated villain (Danbrilla). It's subtle, but if you look at what Kathy says earlier it's pretty clear that she is imposing upon the player Rick: "they're family, you ought to want to help them" (and if Uncle Farhenri is bluffing and isn't actually Hengal's uncle, it's an even worse adversarial stance) and "If that is not enough, then, we can only say one more thing. Ok, then, here is the truth. I wanted to give you good reasons for doing the job first. I wanted to see where your virtues were. Let me tell you this: Danbrilla, the sorceress, is our ruin. We need your help to destroy her."
Sounds like the Narrator Kathy is stalling for time to come up with a hook that will make Rick consent to being rail-roaded into helping Farhenri. That strikes me as the opposite of the sort of play HQ is trying to provide.

5. Players who know that when their characters fail, that you're working to make that into more fun for them. So they don't have to be hesitant with their dramatic plans for their character.

Slow down. What if the player has emotional investment in and identifies with their character? What if they're trained to be rewarded for success and not for "failure"? Even worse, what if they can't see the rewards of "failure" because they're not concrete enough? Again, it's a paradigm shift toward author stance. What I want to know is how is that shift made?

It's only ever trained RPG players who have any problem with this methodology, having to overcome large amounts of training.

Amen.

Come by the IRC game on Monday nights if you want to see this all in action.

Thanks! It would probably be helpful for me. How can I get more information?

[sebastianz]

Hi, Aaron.

I corrected your link (glorantha) but I got an error from the HQ site - perhaps they took that article down?

http://www.glorantha.com/support/narrator_advice.html It's the first entry on that page.

Stop right there. :) That's a huge leap (and I'd be happy to see it in my games). I'm looking for baby steps to warm my players up to aggressive scene requests. I mean, to some extent I do this by listening to what my players talk about and treating their character sheets as menu orders for what sort of challenges they want to face. But for *them* to make a request is a paradigm shift.

Perhaps you want to give them an incentive. Offer them Heropoints for framing a scene or making a concrete request. I'd say two HP per scene. And for starters, give points for only one scene but allow them to do more, of course. This is just to help them overcome their reluctance.

Some of the examples in HQ definitely seem adversarial/railroady to me. "You've given him your agreement, your word, to help him out. Understand?" This line from the page 179 example is pretty much a DM threatening a reluctant player who only agreed because the DM included a hated villain (Danbrilla). It's subtle, but if you look at what Kathy says earlier it's pretty clear that she is imposing upon the player Rick: "they're family, you ought to want to help them" (and if Uncle Farhenri is bluffing and isn't actually Hengal's uncle, it's an even worse adversarial stance) and "If that is not enough, then, we can only say one more thing. Ok, then, here is the truth. I wanted to give you good reasons for doing the job first. I wanted to see where your virtues were. Let me tell you this: Danbrilla, the sorceress, is our ruin. We need your help to destroy her."
Sounds like the Narrator Kathy is stalling for time to come up with a hook that will make Rick consent to being rail-roaded into helping Farhenri. That strikes me as the opposite of the sort of play HQ is trying to provide.

Two things. One, do not confuse player-GM-antagonism with opposition to the character. It is the job of the GM to provide opposition to the PCs. That has nothing to do with adversary. It is a boring play when there is no opposition. Two, the example you quote here is almost a bang. Hengal's player has to decide what value family has for Hengal. Does he stop whatever he is doing to help his family? Of course, that almost bang is spoiled by allowing Hengal to have both. Going against Danbrilla and helping his family. There is no attractive choice left.

Slow down. What if the player has emotional investment in and identifies with their character? What if they're trained to be rewarded for success and not for "failure"? Even worse, what if they can't see the rewards of "failure" because they're not concrete enough? Again, it's a paradigm shift toward author stance. What I want to know is how is that shift made?

Mike will probably give more advice. First thing to do is to explain your players the probabilities of success. There is more or less always the chance to fail. I try to remember, but one mastery advantage means you win 70%, two masteries 90% and 3 masteries 95%. I hope I have them correct. So they always have to count on losing. Next, make it clear that losing does not mean a stand-still, but continues the story. It only adds a complication. And make that clear during the game. When negotiating contests, look for a goal that allows for that.
A few threads that could be helpful.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14660.0
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14591.0 This is the last in the series. You can follow the links backwards.

Sebastian.

[Mike Holmes]

Note that this is cross-posted with Sebastian's post above...

I did get a chance to read "Well of Souls" by Chris Chinn and Peter Nordstrand, which is designed with a plot outline, narrator characters, and Narrator-controlled bangs. This adventure looks like it'd be great for narrativist players, but I could see less-narr players just waiting around until a bang happens.

Well, in play of the scenario, that's not what happens.

Narrativism is actually a red herring here. Some people who like narrativism are very proactive, and others are not. It's a common mistake to think of player proactivity or special player powers as narrativism. Let's just keep talking about what you have clearly said you want, which is player proactivity. I believe that the methods that I'm talking about will increase proactivity for any player in any mode (yes, even gamism).

Anyhow, I doubt your players are any different from any other group. I don't run demos of HQ for "Narrativists" or even "Proactivists," I run them for whomever I meet who wants to play. And I've never found these methods to fail.

Of course, I'm getting pretty expert at this, so that might have something to do with it. But you're not going to get to the point where you're an expert worrying that your players might not react. Know what? They might not. But there's no shortcut that I'm aware of. Run the game as suggested, with the techniques in question, and I think you'll make as much headway as you're going to make.

Man, did I mangle that URL (I did it from memory and typing fast). Corrected its: http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_defeat.html

My group does metagame conversation - usually my players are eager to share feedback and to make guesses (I call them "menu orders") about what will happen as a consequence of their actions. Usually it's kept to a minimum because we don't like to break our immersion and have been gaming so long together there's implicit trust.

Uh-oh, the "I" word. This relates to what I was calling non-metagame play above. Try this. Throw out any pretense of trying to support immersion for a session. Just try it. See if it's any less enjoyable. That's step one.

Step two is deliberate use of language. Use language like the back of your hand to wake players up from their "in character" stupor. Ex:

Player: "Wouldn't it be cool if it turned out that the guy we talked to happened to be at the tavern when we got there?"
Narrator: "Yeah, it would. OK, because you asked for it, he's there."

Show them the metagame reasoning. And that it's OK to use the metagame reasoning.

Narrator: "Do you think it would also be cool if the other guy you met was there?"

I've gotten them to agree to this verbally and I think they understand the theory. However, many years of D&D have trained them to wait for my bangs, and years of D&D have trained me to give it to them - making the players (and their characters) mostly reactive.

Well conditioned? Work at it harder, be more obvious. Or, if it's too much work, get new players.

Stop right there. :) That's a huge leap (and I'd be happy to see it in my games). I'm looking for baby steps to warm my players up to aggressive scene requests. I mean, to some extent I do this by listening to what my players talk about and treating their character sheets as menu orders for what sort of challenges they want to face. But for *them* to make a request is a paradigm shift.

Hmmm, not quite perfect, but should get the point across...you've earned Mike's Standard Rant #7: You Can't Sneak Up on Mode.

Club them hard. Like baby seals.

1. Players who see that you're playing to what they want, so they'll ask for things.

I believe I have been playing to what they want, and they usually tell me when I have (and when I have not) met their expectations. However, they don't ask for things. There's more going on here.

The difference is the language. I gave the examples I did, instead of explaining them, because I wanted you to see the language. Make sure that the players understand not only that you're giving them what they want, but that it's OK to talk about it, and to explicitly ask for it. If you have to, say:

Narrator: "OK Joe, what would you, Joe, the player, not your character, but you, Joe...what would you like to see in the next scene?" Hard to misinterpret that. Then if:

Player: "Uh, well my character would like it if he foun..."
Narrator: "No. I didn't ask what your character would like, I want to know what you would like. You, Joe. My good buddy, and player in my game. I want to know what you want to see."

Totally. Trust is huge for narrativist games.

Again, not a narrativism thing. Trust is huge for all RPGs. No, that's too light. Without trust, there is no fun in RPGs. How's that?

For proactivity, the player must trust specifically that the GM will take his input and run with it.

Some of the examples in HQ definitely seem adversarial/railroady to me.

You keep coming back to that. I suggest you take a black marker, and blot out all of the Kathy examples.

The HQ rules were originally written as HW by Robin Laws, who did not intend do support narrativism nor proactivity especially (his belief is that GMing can overcome these things). Then those rules were modified by several people for HQ. Few of whom, if any, know or buy into any of this theory here. So expecting the HQ rules even, much less the examples, to match the style of play that we're supporting here is simply not reasonable.

Why do we play it with narrativism and these proactive measures? Because, by accident, the rules support it well. So Rob's right above when he says that HQ does not demand proactive play. It largely doesn't demand any single style of play (which is, in fact, something that was intentionally designed in). So there may well be lots of the book that you should ignore if you want to play the way we're encouraging.

Second to the expmples, throw out the scenarios. Linear scene play. Not at all useful for creating proactive play.

Slow down. What if the player has emotional investment in and identifies with their character? What if they're trained to be rewarded for success and not for "failure"? Even worse, what if they can't see the rewards of "failure" because they're not concrete enough? Again, it's a paradigm shift toward author stance. What I want to know is how is that shift made?

I sure hope that they have an emotional investment with the character. Identifies? Yeah, to some extent I think you have to identify with the character to be invested.

Does the player feel that they "are" the character? Then get psychiatric help. OK, that's harsh. But...if you're watching Indiana Jones (I use this example a lot), and the girl gets taken away from Indy...do you run crying from the theater? You don't have to move your players towards author stance, they're already quite familiar with it.

What's going on here, is that the player is still stuck on D&D competition. Where character failure is player failure. There are several exercizes to get players out of thinking this way.

- The Stomp - have something waaay too powerful for the characters to stop come along and crush their characters. When they see that there's no challenge presented, and that there's no way they could succeed, and, most importantly, how the game becomes more fun after they're stomped, then they may get it. How do you make their defeat fun? See the article linked to above.
- Reverse Stomp - have some dramatic build-up to a contest turn out to have their opposition be horribly weak. Let them crush the opponent without even having to augment. When they see that there's no challenge presented, again, they learn that play is not about thier tactical acumen, but about the decisions they've made, and how they portray the character (including what augments they select).
- Simple Contest for the big fight - Orchestrate some huge fight. Then resolve it with a simple contest. This should show the player that play is about the resolutions of the contest, not about whether or not the player was clever enough to get to a particular result.
- Do Lots of Contests - the game tends to teach this lesson all by itself. Do a ton of contests, and players will get that they're going to fail a lot, and that failure is simply a part of the dramatic cycle that they should look forward to rather than feel is their fault.
- Cut Off Augments - I'm generally all for letting players augment as much as they like. But in this case, take a relatively unimportant contest. Get the player's primary ability and TN. Let them augment with one ability. Maybe. Then before they can augment again, cut them off and tell them to roll. If they protest that there's something else cool to add, let them do it. If they want to add more to win (you can tell), then tell them no. This sends the message that augmenting is not a tactical exercise. Later, when they've learned what augmenting is about, then let them go on until they're satisfied. Don't do this one a lot, early, or you may inadvertently teach them that augmenting lots is wrong. It's not. Augmenting solely because you want to win is.
- Ask the Player what TN to Use for Resistance - after they've come up with their TN, ask them what TN would be fun for a resistance. Use whatever figure they come up with even if it's default 6 or less.
- Automatic Success - ask the player if he minds failing here. If he says yes, declare the contest an automatic victory using the "something that no self-respecting hero would fail at" clause.
- Have them Set the Negative Stakes - once they've set the goal for the contest, ask them what the would be a cool loss condition. Give suggestions, if neccessary, but go with what they choose. When they realize that there's not some standard condition, they'll see that it's about drama, not tactics, or personally showing off tactically. Instead it's about showing off creatively. In the groups I play with, the player willing to take on the biggest stakes for his character is often rewarded for being so dramatic (said rewards being social).

Thanks! It would probably be helpful for me. How can I get more information?

The server is magicstar.net (I use linuxguy.magicstar.net), and the social room is #indierpgs. I'll be there, or folks can direct you from there.

Mike

[Lamorak33]

Hi

You have had lots of good advice here, but I would like to summarise my opinions.

1. Don't sweat it. Just play. If you use some of the techniques that Mike describes you will most likely have great results, I did.

2. Get players talking out of character about their characters. Give them information, and then tell them that their character doesn't know that.  See the difference it makes to the play. Players start doing stuff for dramatic and fun and cool reasons. IE for the story.

3. Never say, 'you can't say that your character is not there.' Always let players have some input into another characters and players actions. Just don't let them take over the scene.

4. Don't expect your players to be proactive. If they learn that fine, but your the GM.

5. Be prepared to make up fun out of failure. Its probably the hardest technique, because its thinking on your feet.

6. Remember that you in a successful contest roll, the player gets to do the narration, within the parameters of the success. The narrator has final say on what the final outcome is, although this may well be influenced by the player.

7. When narrating, remember the 'Fat Lady Sings Rule'. That is, its not over until a contest is over. So if both protagonists have 50 AP and one causes the other to lose 49 AP in one shot, the narration cannot state that the loser has lost an arm, had his head cut off or something like that, because its possible for the character to come back and win the contest and be completely unharmed.

Hope that helps,

Regards
Rob

[aaronil]

Hi, Aaron.
Perhaps you want to give them an incentive. Offer them Heropoints for framing a scene or making a concrete request. I'd say two HP per scene. And for starters, give points for only one scene but allow them to do more, of course. This is just to help them overcome their reluctance.

Thanks for the tip Sebastian. If Mike's advice doesn't pan out I may try that!

Mike will probably give more advice. First thing to do is to explain your players the probabilities of success. There is more or less always the chance to fail. I try to remember, but one mastery advantage means you win 70%, two masteries 90% and 3 masteries 95%. I hope I have them correct. So they always have to count on losing. Next, make it clear that losing does not mean a stand-still, but continues the story. It only adds a complication. And make that clear during the game. When negotiating contests, look for a goal that allows for that.
A few threads that could be helpful.

Thanks for the links Sebastian. I will make sure to explain the odds of success and to look for ways to make failure fun.

Throw out any pretense of trying to support immersion for a session. Just try it. See if it's any less enjoyable.

Terrifying! Ok, I'll try it because you say so. :) I'll be more obvious and use meta-game languaging like "What do you Vishal want to see in the next scene?"

Hmmm, not quite perfect, but should get the point across...you've earned Mike's Standard Rant #7: You Can't Sneak Up on Mode.

The jist of your article seemed to be "So, if you're game is going fine now, don't change it. But if something is not going right don't about a half-ass Narrativist stance - go ALL the way." I'll just say that yes, we'd like to improve our game, and also that I've been confusing proactive players with narrativism - you've pointed out a difference to me, but I'm still trying to grok it. Seems that proactive players and narrativism go hand in hand.
Thanks for your rant, I'm sure I was bound to get it sooner or later. ;)

You keep coming back to that. I suggest you take a black marker, and blot out all of the Kathy examples.

The HQ rules were originally written as HW by Robin Laws, who did not intend do support narrativism nor proactivity especially (his belief is that GMing can overcome these things). Then those rules were modified by several people for HQ. Few of whom, if any, know or buy into any of this theory here.

OK, that explains alot. Consider it black markered.

What's going on here, is that the player is still stuck on D&D competition. Where character failure is player failure. There are several exercizes to get players out of thinking this way.

Just the kind of help that I needed! Amazing nothing like your 8 suggestions was included in HQ, but in light of your above comment about the authors I can see why. Thanks for illuminating me with your wit and experience, Mike.

3. Never say, 'you can't say that your character is not there.' Always let players have some input into another characters and players actions. Just don't let them take over the scene.

But what about -- sigh, ok, I'll agree to that.

4. Don't expect your players to be proactive. If they learn that fine, but your the GM.

Would you expand more on this, particularly the second sentence? I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

5. Be prepared to make up fun out of failure. Its probably the hardest technique, because its thinking on your feet.

It seems to me this is done by making no failure absolute (e.g. no character death without player consent and always allowing a goal to be reached possibly by a different route than intended) or by rewarding failure with hero points. Are there are ways?

6. Remember that you in a successful contest roll, the player gets to do the narration, within the parameters of the success. The narrator has final say on what the final outcome is, although this may well be influenced by the player.

That's really going to throw my players for a loop, but I've given them advance warning. Hope they'll like it!

Thanks for your advice, Rob.

[Lamorak33]

Hi

Quote from: Lamorak33
5. Be prepared to make up fun out of failure. Its probably the hardest technique, because its thinking on your feet.
Aaron:
It seems to me this is done by making no failure absolute (e.g. no character death without player consent and always allowing a goal to be reached possibly by a different route than intended) or by rewarding failure with hero points. Are there are ways?

Rob:
What I mean here is that whatever the contest, be prepared for it to fail. Like in a combat with some Broo's I knew that if the players lost then the broo's would impregnate them!! Nice! lol

Quote from: Lamorak33
4. Don't expect your players to be proactive. If they learn that fine, but your the GM.

Aaron:
Would you expand more on this, particularly the second sentence? I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

Rob
Just make sure that you have something, anything, prepared to throw at players who might not have some way they want their characters to go. For example, if player X turns up and hasn't got any clear ideas about what he wants his character to do, make sure that you, as the GM, have something to engage the player with. You know a bang or some other device. Otherwise you might end up givingthat player no screen time in that session. This is bad. Its happened to me.

Quote from: Lamorak33
6. Remember that you in a successful contest roll, the player gets to do the narration, within the parameters of the success. The narrator has final say on what the final outcome is, although this may well be influenced by the player.

Aaron
That's really going to throw my players for a loop, but I've given them advance warning. Hope they'll like it!

Rob:
I learnt this the hard way. I had this guy playing and I narrated the outcome if his character succeeded at a roll. He would often say, 'Nah! My guy wouldn't do that, he'd....' and then tell us all the cool thing that his character had done to effect the AP loss to his opponent, or how he had achieved victory (guided by how complete the success was).

Sometimes quiet players like some help; some like the GM to describe what happened; others like to do it for themselves. I encourage narration from the players, but I don't enforce it. Its meant to be fun, so I don't ask folks to do stuff they arenot comfortable with.

Regards
Rob

[Ian Cooper]

It was certainly a transition for us when we switched over to this style of play. I always recommend reading Chris's articles on flag framing and ways to play:

http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/flag-framing_03.html
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/waystoplay.html

as well as Well of Souls:

http://www.geocities.com/doctorpeace/well.html

A couple of things that we found people had to unlearn early on:

• The Party Play instinct. Bangs are often directed at what one player cares about. Other players may not care about it. That means that you might have to work with players doing different things while you cut between them. The learned behaviour to 'not split the party' can be counter-productive, because you will find it hard to write bangs that resonate with everyone. Don't be afraid of conflict between the players. But keep it out in the open, don't allow plotting or note-passing. If a  player wants to betray another player he should be able to look him or her in the eye and say 'It would be more fun if I betrayed you'.
• Provide the players with bangs that their abilities relate to. This can be really important in HQ because the skills a character has depend on what the player wants the hero to be good at. So one character might be good at killing things, another at talking. You need to drive with bangs the hero can use their skills on. Throwing sword-fighting bangs against a hero who has taken merchant skills gets boring for that player. He or she identified what abilities they wanted to use when they wrote their character. Let them. Sure once in a while, giving a player a challenge that their skill set seems ill-suited for is entertaining, but once in a while. HQ characters are often not rounded. Don't force players to use a default ability of 6 too often
• Say yes or roll the dice. HeroQuest has a lot of advice about saying yes, but learn from DiTV and say yes where possible, but if you don't agree roll those dice. In Red Cow one of the heroes was exiled from the clan. The chief's authority on the matter was questionable. I had imagined the player trying to clear the hero's name. I had some bangs set up with choices. One where his estranged brother - a Lunar convert - would offer him help, and a chance of reconciliation with their father. Instead the player decided he wanted to take shelter with the neighbouring clan. My initial instinct to this new direction, which I had not considered, was 'they wouldn't want to harbour an exile, the risk of conflict with the Red Cow...' but instead of saying no, I let the dice decide. We played out the conflict I was internalizing - they wouldn't allow that - and we had a scene where the hero had to convince the neighbouring clan to let him hide out. He won.
• Complete victory or defeat is hard to come by. The real resolution to a conflict comes on a complete defeat or victory. They are hard to come by outside of an extended conflict (unless the hero has built up a mastery or two advantage). Sometimes folks consider this a problem with the resolution mechanics, but I'm not so sure. Complete means its over and done, the finalie ought to be an extended contest if we care about it. It also means that sticking with simple contests usually allows you to advance a conflict without risking of prematurely terminating it, until the time is right to give an opportunity to really resolve it. Think in terms of pacing when deciding between the two.
• Setting the stakes. It helped us to set the stakes explicity before a conflict. Mainly because it taught the players that defeat just meant a new story direction. Some folks don't like explicit stake setting fro HQ. But it worked for us, perhaps as training wheels, for folks less used to this style of play.

[Lamorak33]

Hi

[li]Setting the stakes. It helped us to set the stakes explicity before a conflict. Mainly because it taught the players that defeat just meant a new story direction. Some folks don't like explicit stake setting fro HQ. But it worked for us, perhaps as training wheels, for folks less used to this style of play.[/li]
[/list]

I think this is absolutely fundemental for Heroquest. For example, just before a combat, ask the player what they are trying to do. Pointedly ask them whether they intend to kill the guy. This makes a mini bang for them, because as they get to that final stroke you get to see whether they still want to do it. I always enjoy it when they change their minds!!  But whatever the contest, its really good practice I find. And yes, i will allow a bit of flexibitlity to the stated goal. Do you Ian?

Regards
Rob

Regards
Rob

[aaronil]

[li]Setting the stakes. It helped us to set the stakes explicity before a conflict. Mainly because it taught the players that defeat just meant a new story direction. Some folks don't like explicit stake setting fro HQ. But it worked for us, perhaps as training wheels, for folks less used to this style of play.[/li]
[/list]

Thanks, Ian. As a newcomer to HQ I find your advice very useful. I'm leaning toward each side setting their own winning stakes as well as the losing stakes for the other side.

I'll take a moment of newcomer joy.
I've read several of Mike's righteous rants, and some of the other threads on these forums (I totally devoured the Midnight thread), read the Well of Souls adventure, as well as a superb article by Chris(?) entitled "Flag Framing." At first I was concerned that the tactical challenges my players love would suffer in HQ, and then I fully grokked augments. COOL! :D
While the HQ rules say you use one ability to augment another, I'm inclined to make one change: circumstances can augment too (and they can augment A LOT based on the sample modifiers on pg. 77). For automatic augments I'd limit it to previously narrated circumstances (either by Narrator of by player in monologue of victory). Whereas risky augments can be used to discover previously unstated circumstances (as long as they don't contradict anything), though to make them possible I'll need to reduce the resistance (which would normally be desired bonus x5, and in the case of having the high ground (+10) the resistance would be 10W2!)

[sebastianz]

While the HQ rules say you use one ability to augment another, I'm inclined to make one change: circumstances can augment too (and they can augment A LOT based on the sample modifiers on pg. 77). For automatic augments I'd limit it to previously narrated circumstances (either by Narrator of by player in monologue of victory). Whereas risky augments can be used to discover previously unstated circumstances (as long as they don't contradict anything), though to make them possible I'll need to reduce the resistance (which would normally be desired bonus x5, and in the case of having the high ground (+10) the resistance would be 10W2!)

Okay, why would you do that? And how? I mean, what does it add to the game if your players have to roll to get a circumstantial bonus? I can see that they should work for it. But a nice narration of how they utilize the terrain, for example, should suffice. After all, there is only high ground (to stick with this example) if you want it to be there. That is, you want it to influence resolution. Also, you note that you need to lower resistance compared to standard variable augments. So you want them to go for that bonus and get it. Then why the hassle? Just give it away for free. If some player has a trait he can use to exploit that, like "I love to have Higher Ground", then, by all means, let him augment with that as well.
Now, how? You say something about "risky augments" and what you quote sounds like a variable augment. For that you want to lower the resistance. Okay so far, but what do your players roll? Using a variable augment means using the augmenting ability and rolling against the resistance. That works fine. But what is the ability I roll against higher ground? And can I not aim for a totally different number? Why should higher ground always mean +10, if I just can make less use of it and lower the resistance? Therefore, I think your idea needs some further thought.
Perhaps you should just use HQ without houserules, at least at first. Then you can see what works for your group and what doesn't.

Sebastian.

[aaronil]

Okay, why would you do that? And how? I mean, what does it add to the game if your players have to roll to get a circumstantial bonus? I can see that they should work for it. But a nice narration of how they utilize the terrain, for example, should suffice. After all, there is only high ground (to stick with this example) if you want it to be there.

Basically, the Narrator picking modifiers doesn't sit well with me. All surprise attacks provide +20? There's no logical mechanism for valuing modifiers - something a newbie HQ Narrator like me would find useful. Also, I like the idea of tasking this risk: A benefit which a large number of people can take advantage of...but one which can be taken away and used against you by the opposition.

Now, how? You say something about "risky augments" and what you quote sounds like a variable augment. For that you want to lower the resistance. Okay so far, but what do your players roll? Using a variable augment means using the augmenting ability and rolling against the resistance. That works fine. But what is the ability I roll against higher ground? And can I not aim for a totally different number? Why should higher ground always mean +10, if I just can make less use of it and lower the resistance? Therefore, I think your idea needs some further thought.

Yes, I meant "variable augments". I decided to make the resistance for circumstance modifiers the same as it would normally be (bonus x 5). Essentially, it's the same as making an ability check, but the narration is slightly different and it changes the fantasy world's environment.
For example, a player with Skirmish Tactics could make a check to gain a variable augment as normal - in this case, higher ground. Even though the Narrator didn't specifically mention higher ground, there is now a hill/mountain/staircase or what have you that the hero can use. The Narrator now considers this modifier and may provide it to the hero's allies (without them needing to make an augment) if they obviously would benefit...like coming down the stairs. Of course, heroes who wouldn't obviously benefit would need to make an augment as normal. The drawback is that the advantage can be taken from the heroes by their opponents.
Say the heroes make preparations for defending a siege. Instead of the Narrator giving a set modifier, a hero could make a Siege Warfare check to gain a variable augment - the player specifies that they want a circumstantial modifier of +10 (5W2), succeeds and gains the full bonus. The player narrates the fortifications along the castle walls. It's obvious everyone in the castle would benefit from these fortifications, so all heroes & allies gain +10 without the player needing to augment them. However...should the castle fall, the enemies may benefit from the castle's fortifications when they occupy it.

Perhaps you should just use HQ without houserules, at least at first. Then you can see what works for your group and what doesn't.

I totally see your point, and that was my intention upon grazing the HQ book, but then I realized that there is little support for tactical-minded players (of which I have 2), and modifiers are pretty much in the Narrator's court to decide. So, this easy house rule because my group wants tactical options.

[Lamorak33]

Aaron

Maybe you should at least try 'vanilla' Heroquest before going with new house rules. Hey, there's no Heroquest Police who are going to knock down your door and arrest you for making up house rules, but see how the system works in practice first is not such a bad suggestion.

The thing is that, looking for tactical advantage in numbers on dice rolling is inconsistent with the agenda you seem to be saying that you are aiming for. It is also a flag to the players that tactical thinking is a desired part of the game, when your really shooting (if I read you right) drama and co-operative story telling.

regards
Rob