Narrativist Scenario Writing

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi Ron,

In my opinion, we have already established that our audience are narrators of HeroQuest. They are not newbies to roleplaying, narrating (GMing) or HeroQuest. They may not know of, or even be interested in, roleplaying theory, but they do enjoy Narrativist play.

More later.

Cheers,

/Peter N

[Peter Nordstrand]

Oh dear. I have written over 2,000 words about this, but I can't seem to get it right. I have things to say, but don't quite know how to say it. How  frustrating.

Anyway, here is a short version, a start while I try to figure things out.

Writing a handbook about "How to Play Narrativist" is not at all the issue here. It has never been. Don't worry about it. Besides, if I ever wanted to discuss that, I would not pick the HeroQuest forum.

However, How to Play This Scenario is the issue. Perhaps you are mixing the two up a little bit, despite your obvious intention not to. In my opinion the Well of Souls is 100% a scenario, and 0% "How to play Narrativist" hand book. In fact, I don't think we should mention Narrativism or protagonism at all. Instead we should concentrate on a few paragraphs of good advice on how to run the Well of Souls. Will this happen to include advice that is also useful as more general "how to play Narrativist" advice? Yes, probably. But so what? You don't need an article about Simulationism in order to play Masks of Nyarlathotep (for Call of Cthulhu). Yet  Masks does contain some advice on how to play it. Some of this advice is good Sim advice. All of it relates to the adventure at hand. I see no contradiction, and no problem.

More later.

Best,

/Peter N

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi again,

This is long. Please bear with me. I suffer from the delusion that there is method to my madness...

The Unwitting Narrativist
For years I could never figure out why some of my gaming sessions rocked and others were dull at best. One of my most successful roleplaying campaigns is a good example. I was the GM, and there were only two players: Henrik and CJ. We were playing Mage, but in a alternate setting where mages were very rare. No Technocracy, no Traditions. Only a couple of dozen powerful magicians and their apprentices.

The first session didn't work out very well. I had prepared a scenario, a mission for the PCs to accomplish, which they did. The thing is I really, really, really suck at writing objective based scenarios. I can come up with a good conflict, and a bunch of cool NPCs ready to fight each other and the PCs, but when I try to make up a plot... I am simply not able to make it engaging. So we were all pretty bored. However, I had planted clues to a larger conspiracy. I had no idea what it was about, but it sounded cool at the time.

I came completely unprepared to the next session, and boy did we have a good time! Our heroes traveled to India and Nepal to combat an evil slave-keeping sect, and to ally with a magic school teaching tantric magic to a small number of talented students. They also became mortal enemies of a Japanese ghost. They found out that they had been a couple of very powerful mages in a previous life, known as the Golden Warrior and Captain Uranus. A zillion cool things happened, and the players were happy.

During the rest of the campaign I relied on my ability to improvise. And since the plot soon became way to complicated for me to keep track of, I listened very carefully to what the players had to say. They would say things like "it doesn't make sense, in order to do that he would have to be in two places at once," and suddenly the major villain had the ability to be at two places at once, or perhaps he had a twin brother, or perhaps someone was impersonating him. What actually happened in the campaign is not as important as this: Whatever interested the players is what I would concentrate on. When they wanted to go to the South Pole, I made sure that they found an abandoned base with lots of clues to their mysterious pasts, as well as a neat egg-shaped vehicle. When they wanted to see if their magical flying egg could go into space, I said "off course it can," and made up a weird hermit mage living on one of Jupiter's moons.

It was a fantastic campaign and we still, many years later, like to remind each other of the breathtaking adventures of Captain Uranus and the Golden Warrior. As a GM I especially liked that I was surprised too. All the time. Anyway, I winged it, made it up on the spot, improvised. Or rather, the players did, and I just followed their lead. This seemed like a great way to roleplay.

Later it turned out that I was just lucky. When I tried winging it in other campaigns, they often fell apart. And I couldn't figure out why. Did I do something wrong? Did the players do something wrong? I had to go back to the pre-prepared plot, the story that was already written, the scenario where the players only contribution was to provide color. Not only was I bad at this, it also bored me to death. I never told the players, but here is what I was thinking: "C'mon guys. Surprise me! Astound me! Do something unexpected! Sweep me off my feet!" It rarely happened, but when it did, everything seemed to fit again, and everybody, including me, had a good time. Yet I never understood why it went well. In what way were the successful sessions different from the unsuccessful ones?

The way I saw it, there were only two ways to run a game:
   

1) The pre-determined plot.
   2) Winging it.[/list:u]

The pre-determined plot was a relatively safe method. As long as I relied on published scenarios and studied them well, the result was ... acceptable. When using this method, the quality of my GMing was stable. It was not very satisfying, however. Improvisation, on the other hand, was a gamble. Sometimes it created truly amazing experiences. Other times it was just dull. A few times, it turned into disaster.

One of the games where I usually managed to pull it off to everybody's satisfaction was Vampire. In Vampire I sort of mixed the two methods. I prepared a large conflict, wrote a lot of NPCs with ties to either the conflict itself or to one of the other characters (thus setting up sub-conflicts). Then I started it all off with a macguffin of some kind, such as "you hear a rumor that someone in town has a piece of the original cross in their possession." The players chased the macguffin, and I improvised the rest. Whenever things began to slow down, I improvised some kind of event, usually drawing inspiration from the main conflict. This is beginning to sound familiar, isn't it? Inspired by Chicago by Night and similar sourcebooks, I even made complex relationship maps, which I continually referred to during play.

Only in hindsight do I recognize these patterns, however. Back then, I wasn't able to separate the behavior I just described from all the other odd stunts I pulled. For example, I did not see the relationship map as a potential tool for non-Vampire campaigns. In my mind, these maps were closely connected to a game of conspiracy and intrigue. What use could they possibly serve in a Gloranthan fantasy game?

So did I recognize different kinds of roleplaying? Sure. There were two sorts: Boring and fun. I liked the fun kind.

The Point
If you had shown me the Well of Souls I would have recognized it as great background material for a campaign. That's right, despite my own experiences as a GM, I would have labeled it background material, and I would have thought of the Bangs as a bunch of rather weak scenario ideas. In short: I would have seen the Well of Souls as an unfinished scenario. I would not have recognized it for what it is: Precisely what I was looking for.

So when you want to know what target audience I think we should aim at, I have a pretty clear idea: Peter Nordstrand five years ago.

Airwaves (an Over the Edge scenario, and one of the few Narrativist scenarios I have ever read) puts it like this:

There is a danger that you will have a preconceived notion of how the adventure will be played by your gamers. Try to resist this urge, as it is the players who should determine the outcome of the adventure.

The question that comes to mind is how? Now, if we can answer that question in 700 words or so, we will have what I am looking for. ;-)

/Peter Nordstrand
Mad Hatter

[Bankuei]

Hi Peter,

That was a great post, and probably something I'll be referring some folks to.  Unfortunately I haven't seen that OTE scenario you've mentioned, but now I'm definitely interested in checking it out.

I just wanted to point out that Narrativism requires player input, and the prescripted plot doesn't allow player input, hence the reason you've had "more success" with improv.  

But, the methods that many folks have pushed for, Ron with Kickers, Bangs, and R-Maps, Jake with SA's, and a variety of other folks, is that it need not be "unfocused, pulling miracles out of thin air, um, um" improvisation, but rather, a focused set of tools used to allow the GM to maintain a coherent gameplan, but still adapt on the spot to anything the players create.  Pretty much what I've said in the rpg.net column, that is, give the GM tools equivalent to what the character is to players.

The mental leap, that you're talking about from 5 years ago to now, is this:

NPCs are more than a list of stats and responses to if-then conditions triggered by player choices on a flowchart of events.  NPCs are simply characters, that happen to be played by the GM.  

That's it.  The idea that Well of Souls is simply "background" is because no set of if-then actions and reactions are given here.  Notice that in prescripted play, either the GM must push the players or the players must willingly walk into the various event paths for things to happen.  Here, either the players push their characters to do things, or the GM pushes the NPCs to do things, and no specific, if-then events must be triggered.

So, with that...

The Well of Souls, how to use this scenario

Well of Souls departs from traditional scenario design in many ways.  You won't find a set of events, a plot, or a flowchart of things to happen and "run" your players through.  We take a different design philosophy here.  Instead of giving you a set of specific things which you must manipulate, cajole, or railroad your players into, we give you a set of flexible tools that can adapt to anything your players do.

Sound hard?  It's not any harder than trying to predict your players' actions or push them to fulfill a set plot.  Here you're given a set of NPCs with motivations and goals, and all you need to do is pick an NPC, or two, and have them do something, either of their own accord, or in reaction to what the player characters are doing.  Pick one or two, put them in a scene with at least one PC, and let things happen.  When things slow down, cut to another scene, pick another NPC, drop them in a scene.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

There's only 2 skills you need to apply regularly to make this sort of scenario work.  First, you must be able to roleplay a single character.  If you have that much skill, which is basically the same as any of your players, then you are halfway there.  The second skill, is to think of what would be interesting, or at least dramatic.  If you know two characters don't like each other, you know that putting them together will make trouble, and make things interesting.  Boom!  It's the same skill applied by producers of reality tv and talk shows over and over.  

There are no "hooks" in this scenario.  If you decide to run this scenario, both you and your players must agree to hook in the PCs.  The PCs may already know folks in Spring Fountain, they might have arrived a few weeks ago and just made friends, it doesn't matter.  Everyone has to agree to have emotional ties with some NPCs in Spring Fountain, aside from that, its open game.

Finally, recognize that the NPCs and their conflicts we've provided are all simply tools for you to use to make interesting stuff happen.  Take any or all of them, change them, play them nice, play them mean, use them the way you want to.  Add characters to the conflict, create servants, friends, family if you want.  Expand the conflict, create the neighboring fiefs, have politics, drag in the King if you like.  Well of Souls is a flexible set of tools for you to use to run a series of sessions or a whole campaign off of.  The scenario ends when the group has closed a climax and decides they've done most of what they want to do with it, whether we're talking having decided the fate of Sir Eustef and his sons, restructured the politics in the entire kingdom, or simply gotten the "girl"(whoever they've fallen in love with).

The Well of Souls is a flexible set of tools, loaded with conflict, drama, and characters, and is waiting for you to pick it up, and use it.  It's designed to work for GMs in the same fashion that characters work for players.  The players come to the table, never knowing what's going to happen, but they can always look to their character and figure out how to act or react.  As a GM, look to the list of characters, look to the central conflicts, and use that as a guide for "what happens next".

The Well of Souls is yours to use.  It's waiting...


How's that, Peter?  Does that adequately sum up how this works?  "Selling" it more than that, I'm afraid, is simply trying to push it to folks who aren't interested.  I've just laid out what WoS does, and how the GM is supposed to use it, along with the basic requirement of introducing PCs as a group concern, not a plug and play sort of thing.  Explaining it deeper, or further, I think goes beyond what we're trying to do here.

Thoughts?

Chris

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi Chris,

Wow. Yes! This is exactly what I had in mind. I'm so glad you got what I was rambling on about.

I can hardly wait for the complete draft version.

The OtE scenario isn't really that interesting. In the Forge terminology Airwaves presents a conflict (and a number of subconflicts), a bunch of NPCs, and a small number of Bangs. That's it. It is 16 pages long.

All the best,

/Peter N

[Mad-Eye Moody]

The Well of Souls is yours to use.  It's waiting...

Thoughts?

That was bloody brilliant.  I want more.  NOW.

That is exactly what I'm looking for.  Both in my own designs of scenarios and in published materials.  Do you have a web page or draft version that contains more info?

Amazing.

Nathaniel

[Bankuei]

Hi Peter,

Glad that's on target.  I was a bit afraid you were asking for the full "How do I play Narrativist?"* handbook.

I'll be rewriting, touching up, organizing, some stuff, and I'll present a "draft version" for you.  I invite you, or anyone else who is familiar enough with the system to stat up characters.  To be rather honest, I myself, probably would just scribble down 3-5 traits for each character and make up the rest on the fly, but I'll let you diehard HW folks determine how many stats are necessary.  

My personal organization of such a thing would probably put the actual stats in the "back" of the book, maybe on character sheets, thereby allowing the actual text to be free of all the math.  One thing I will ask is for Peter, or someone(whoever volunteers) to write up something short on Spring Fountain as a place, and the culture, etc, since I'm (woefully) ignorant of the culture and "environment".

The only other "stat-wise" thing I think would be nifty might be ratings forL
-The strength of Sir Eustef's fighting force, broken down into the followers of the various factions and leaders, plus the Militia
-The manpower and wealth ratings of the Church(locally, under Sister Josette, contacts through Father Ratier, influence from Father Rance, etc.)

Well, off to work then...

Chris

PS- Mick, if you're still around, I'd be very interested in your input given the last few posts.  Again, while this may not be your preferred playing style, does this clarify at all what we're doing here?

*I always hear that question being asked in the most annoying, whiny voice, the one you always want to slap a person for using :)

[Ian Cooper]

I am enjoying this dicussion and learning fromit. This comment is slightly at a tangent to Heroquest, but fits. I think with what is being discussed here.

Does anyone remember the Morrow Project scenarios from TimeLine. These were, in form, very similar to what is described here.

The format for their scenarios was always similar. The majority of the module was the desciption of a place, npcs and usually a crisis affecting that place into whichtheplayers were thrust.

There was no scene by scene scenario. The closest thing perhaps was a section entitled 'play of the game' which described inserting the players into the events  (the module usually began with a desription of some emerency that wakes the players fromcold sleep) and then discussed likely player actions and likely npc reactions, and suggested events to throw at the players.

Interestingly though, while my GNS terminologyis poor I would describe the Morrow Project as pretty heavily sim with an exploration of setting focus. Anyone else agree?  Certainly it seems there maybe a distinction between non-linear scenario design, which is what we are discussing and making something narratavist by consciously considering a premise.

[Bankuei]

Hi Ian,

Certainly it seems there maybe a distinction between non-linear scenario design, which is what we are discussing and making something narratavist by consciously considering a premise.

I agree 100%.  My earlier point is that mistaking the two is common because Narrativism requires player input, which cannot occur while the linear plot determines "what happens".

My hope here is that the moral issues presented with the primary conflict, and sub-conflicts produce a natural push towards theme.  I know with what we have here, it's sufficient for me, I'm hoping that the final product of this is sufficient for everyone else as well.

Chris

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi Chris,

I have already begun with statting the characters up and expect to be finished in a couple of days or so. I think the major players are best represented using a leader sheet, which is a graphic way of presenting the characters with the main character in the middle, surrounded by the supporting cast. Thus, Guilberts leader sheet would include Guilbert himself, Etienne, Sister Josette, and perhaps generic Idealistic Young Man. The remaining 5-6 characters will be written as individuals.

I disagree about putting the stats in the back. They will not take up much space. For example, Lady Noella's might look something like this:

Keywords: Seshnegi Housewife 16W2.
Significant Abilities: Assess Social Standing 4W3, Canny 3W, Command Inferior 5W. [/list:u]
The leaders sheets will take up perhaps two full pages altogether, and I think they should be put as close to the characters they are describing as possible. This is just a matter of taste, of course.

Unless someone else volunteers, I will take care of the Spring Fountain writeup ASAP. All you need to know about Seshnela will be available in the HeroQuest rulesbook, so I think a general account of their culture is unnecessary.

The only other "stat-wise" thing I think would be nifty might be ratings forL
-The strength of Sir Eustef's fighting force, broken down into the followers of the various factions and leaders, plus the Militia
-The manpower and wealth ratings of the Church (locally, under Sister Josette, contacts through Father Ratier, influence from Father Rance, etc.)

Well, I am not entirely pleased with the the lack of info on the communities. The thing is that it is probably more important to know the size of Father Ratier's congregation than his own abilities. "Today we all pray for the safe return of Lord Eustef's soul to the world of the living." There is a hefty bonus right there, but is it +10, +16, or +25? It depends on the size of the community. Hm...it is probably easiest to just attach this information to the Spring Fountain writeup.

Glad that's on target. I was a bit afraid you were asking for the full "How do I play Narrativist?"* handbook.

Perhaps you heard what you expected to hear. :-)

Cheers,

/Peter N

[Bankuei]

Hi Peter,

I disagree about putting the stats in the back. They will not take up much space. For example, Lady Noella's might look something like this:

Keywords: Seshnegi Housewife 16W2.
Significant Abilities: Assess Social Standing 4W3, Canny 3W, Command Inferior 5W.

Well, that works out fine by me.  The only real example I've seen is the giant player character chart coated with 20+ different abilities from stuff like Spear lore, Spear chucking, Spear Care, Spear haggling, etc. :)  If we're doing the short hand list, that works fine for me.  Also, Leader sheets work just fine for me as well.

Well, I am not entirely pleased with the the lack of info on the communities. The thing is that it is probably more important to know the size of Father Ratier's congregation than his own abilities. "Today we all pray for the safe return of Lord Eustef's soul to the world of the living." There is a hefty bonus right there, but is it +10, +16, or +25? It depends on the size of the community. Hm...it is probably easiest to just attach this information to the Spring Fountain writeup.

This is where I ask you or another Glorantha-phile to step in and give detail. Again, I'm completely at a loss as to the details of Seshnela and what is appropriate for their population and numbers.

Right now I'm going through the character descriptions, and adding useful questions for each character, for example, Guilbert:  "How can he show his love for his people?  How can he prove his worth?" based on their motivations.

Also, I'm going through the Bang list again, and probably going to do some serious revisions, clarifications, etc.

Chris

[Ian Cooper]

Hi Ian,
I agree 100%.  My earlier point is that mistaking the two is common because Narrativism requires player input, which cannot occur while the linear plot determines "what happens".

Understood - a linear scenario precludes narrativist play developing, but a non-linear one does not necessarily mean it will - you still have to establish the premise you intend to explore.

Actually I think this is a mistake I have made when experimenting with this in the past - been insufficently clear about the premise to be explored.

PS My apologies for the lack of editing on my previous post

[Bankuei]

Hi Ian,

Right, that's really a difficult distinction for a lot of folks to grasp, simply because the majority of gaming publications have little support for, or little exploration into the variety of non-linear scenarios and non-linear play.

As Peter pointed out, most people understand extremes, linear play, or absolute free-form.  The "gamble" factor of freeform is keeping a focus, or pushing a theme without any sort of solid concept to work towards.  When you have that focus, effectively you have Narrativism.  When you don't have that focus, you have "stuff happen", but the interest level is dropped because there's no recognizable theme of action.

Because linear play is so dominant, and non-linear play is rarely mentioned, and when it is, no actual useful advice is given, there usually arises a number of assumptions that serve as road blocks to functional non-linear play....Usually folks need to understand these facts:

1. First, that non-linear play is possible, and functional
2. That non-linear play need not be complete improvisation without any sort of preparation or tools
3.  That non-linear play is significantly "harder" than linear play(usually once people grasp #2 properly, this becomes less of an issue)

Narrativism really requires a focus, and not a meandering set of events.  This focus is delivered by the group as a whole, although anybody, players or the GM can be more active in pushing the thematic focus, or take turns even.

You'll really notice that with Well of Souls, most of the work is prepartory work before actual play, but the result is less work during play and before each session.  Linear play provides you a "one-shot" plot that happens, and its over, while this particular style of scenario provides you with a load of conflict that you can use as you see fit.

You get a couple of focal conflicts to come back to, a cast of characters to use around that, and a load of subconflicts for fun and flexibility.  Still, this doesn't guarantee narrativism, as someone can simply take these ideas and create a linear plot, or force feed/railroad the players without giving them room for input.  But, at least we're trying to explain how it should work, and giving actual tools for use along with it.  

I'll be very interested to hear what folks think who get a chance to run this when its complete, as well as a little from people completely unfamiliar with the concept.

Chris

[Palashee]

PS- Mick, if you're still around, I'd be very interested in your input given the last few posts.  Again, while this may not be your preferred playing style, does this clarify at all what we're doing here?

Yes, I'm still here, and No it hasn't clarified anything really.

Why?

Well, you seem to be working on the assumption that i don't like or even know what narrativist roleplaying is, this is wrong on both counts. Narrativist roleplaying is my preferred gaming style, I have never argued against using a narrativist approach to the story. I've been running my Gloranthan campaigns this way for years, in fact I started using these techniques so long ago that i just thought it was how role playing games were meant to be run, and well before anyone had, or at least i found out anyone had, defined the theory of Narrativism.

What i am still dubious about is how much Heroquest and Glorantha are going into this story. So far all i see is a generic narrative story. It lacks any real use of the Heroquest systems unique features, simply appending HQ stats to generic individuals isn't exactly using the system to its full potential. Likewise there's no Gloranthan look and feel whatsoever. In fact, at the moment, it feels to me like it should belong in a medieval european setting rather than in Glorantha.

So if the object of this thread was 'How to write a narrativist scenario' then i'd be relatively happy, but as its 'How to write a narrativist scenario for Heroquest set in Glorantha' then it falls down on two of the three keywords.

Sorry for being negative, but you did ask

Cheers,
Mick

[Bankuei]

Hi Mick,

I apologize for making assumptions about you and your style of gaming.  I'm rather glad to hear about your experience, and in fact, welcome more input, both positive and negative, as good critical advice on improving this scenario.  

As far as the lack of Gloranthan specific details, I have stated before and again that my Gloranthan knowledge is passing, and have and still do invite folks with more specific information and familiarity to input and add to this.

Personally, my experience with Glorantha was the bit contained in the two basic Hero Wars books, which, was insufficient(IMO) to get a good grasp of the Gloranthan feel, much less an area such as Seshnela.  I'm working from the limited base of information I could pull from the internet, plus the bits and pieces folks have sent my way.  Again, input from folks more familiar with the setting is always welcome.

It lacks any real use of the Heroquest systems unique features, simply appending HQ stats to generic individuals isn't exactly using the system to its full potential.

Could you elaborate?  What would you suggest would make use of HQ's unique systems?  

As it stands, here's what I see that would get used in WoS specific to HQ:

- Relationships(lots of these), as augments, extended contests, particularly involving loyalties and politics
- Community relationships/support, from the general populace, the Church, the fighting men, the various factions, etc.
- Personality traits, especially in the character to character interaction
- Magic, lots of it, especially with regards to the Heroquest itself
- Emotionally driven conflicts, such as "conviincing" Sir Eustef to return to life or not, clashes of wills between romantic rivals, etc.

These are the sorts of things I've found especially driving with the HQ rules, perhaps you can give some examples of things that are being missed or completely left out here.

Chris