Greetings and Campaign Notes....

[doubtofbuddha]

Hello,

I just wanted to send my greetings to the forum, as I just joined. :)

I am a big fan of HeroQuest (and was of Hero Wars before it) and am just about to start off on a December to January HeroQuest campaign.

In the past I have stuck mostly with playing BD&D, 2nd edition D&D, then d20 with small forays into Exalted, Mage, and GURPS.

When Hero Wars came out I was pretty excited about it but I had difficulty getting my group into it as they were pretty staunch D&Ders. I have since moved and acquired an entirely different group who seem pretty receptive to the idea of the game. The improved organization of HeroQuest and the very fact that there is a Hero's Book (which one player is holding onto at the moment) has definitely helped in this. However, they are fairly attached to the current Arcana Unearthed campaign we are running and, rather then mess with a good thing, I decided to run a mini-campaign for those people who are going to remain in town (plus a few other gamers whose groups will be absent).

Currently, with two people having created characters, it looks like I am going to be running an Esrolian campaign.

The two players have made a Puma Person Hunter Practioner of the Puma Ancestor Spirit Tradition (though I have to admit some annoyance over the scant details about the Tradition in the book, I plan on writing up a pretty comprehensive Tradition and Practice description) who grew up in Esrolia itself and a rather wimpy and young Esrolian Scholar who after many years writing and creating his own myths about a hero he discovered he had the ability to inadvertantly summon said hero to defend him.

I particularly like the latter character as it is a good example of the flexibility of the system. By establishing the mythic hero as a sidekick and the ability to summon him as the Hope Mythic Hero Shows Up relationship (which will of course go against the standard magical resistance of 14, with levels of victory determining how long it takes for him to show). Of course this is also the sort of unique character that you would see in fiction but would rarely, if ever, see in D&D. I am looking forward to the other player's ideas. Hopefully they will be just as creative as this one.

My only issue is that it seems that if the other makes equally creative and unique characters that I will have trouble working with their place in society. The Puma Person already is an outsider by virtue of being a Puma Person, the Scholar is hardly a typical Esrolian male, and from initial information I have gotten from a third player, I doubt that she will be playing a character that will fit into the setting that well either. I had thought that perhaps they could all be members of a hero band that is associated with one of the different Esrolian factions but that feels like a cop-out for some reason.

Just as an aside this is what she stated was the basis of her character (she doesn't know anything about the setting so she put it on its most basic level):
"the most, most basic level is that she's been raised all her life with a certain world view, a set of values and morals, except things have been happening that make her question what she's been told.  she then is starting to feel conflict: what is really right and true, or is there any such thing? it's just by circumstance that she's a killer.  she doesn't have to be one, but it certainly makes for very dramatic tension. :)"

Does anyone have any suggestions on how I could integrate this sort of idea into the setting?

I have two ideas of my own that I have suggested to her:

The first idea I have is that she was a troll who lost her darkness rune for whatever reason and is having to grapple with her trollish impulses vs. the fact that she isn't really a troll anymore.

The other was that she was from some brutal mountain tribe, perhaps as some sort of champion or warrior and is sent after her brother after he breaks a taboo. He flees into Esrolia and she is sent to kill him and bring back his head so the gods/spirits do not get so angry that they curse the entire family. She encounters Esrolian culture and is thrown into culture shock because of its immense differences, and from there she can explore the development of her character in play.

So thats about it.

Any thoughts, ideas, or suggestions?


Thanks,
Jesse Dean

[Donald]

Why not make her an Esrolian? It's a pretty static culture with everyone in their place so plenty of reasons for someone wanting a change. You could then establish a reason for her to know the scholar which ties them together - perhaps they are brother and sister and she has killed another woman for abusing him. Throw in a Puma person who witnessed it and doesn't understand why it's a problem and you've got a load of plots going before you define NPC motivations.

[doubtofbuddha]

I could do that but part of her character concept is that she is an outsider to the society which the main campaign is involved with and that, for some reason or another, she considers herself to be less then human. Either because the Esrolians consider her subhuman or she has some reason from her own culture to see herself as subhuman.

[Mike Holmes]

I'm not sure that I see the problem. You have three nifty characters, all outside of the "norms" of the local society. The players seem to be telling you that this is the sort of game that they want to play. You've got tons of interesting things to explore in terms of cultural alientation and the like.

So what's the problem? You're worried about trying to figure out "their place in society"? They're outsiders.

Here's your first scenario. Some Esrolian high muckety-muck woman has fallen for the two male PCs. If the female PC isn't troubled by this (and as they may represent her only potential mates, maybe she should), then the NPC sees her as competition anyhow.

Make up a ralationship map around the Esrolian woman involving her family and the people who respect her and you're off and running. Throw in a mysterrios theft just to add pressure to the situation.

Mike

[Donald]

I could do that but part of her character concept is that she is an outsider to the society which the main campaign is involved with and that, for some reason or another, she considers herself to be less then human. Either because the Esrolians consider her subhuman or she has some reason from her own culture to see herself as subhuman.

I hadn't realised that outsider was part of her character concept.

So how about making her the daughter of a Rokari knight from Heortland fleeing an arranged marriage. Esrolia is the obvious place to go because women are in charge. There are some Rokari in Heortland and it's a pretty patriarchal culture. So you've got the clash of cultures between patriarchal and matriarchal as well as a conflict between a strict monotheistic background and a theistic one. It's not quite as extreme as subhuman but should be a big enough change.

[doubtofbuddha]

Actually, on further character development (and the remaining players making their characters) there isn't really a problem. This is what I ended up doing:

I figured that since this was Esrolia that making it so the characters were all part of a particular faction would be a convenient way for them to work together. Assuming we could come up with good reasons for them to work with/for the same faction.

The Lunarized Camarian Petty Noble, Initiate of Natha who has come to Esrolia in order to pave the way for imperial expansion. He is now serving as sort of a diplomatic lisason with important members of the Red Earth faction.

The Puma Person Hunter, Practioner of the Bush Voice Practice of the Puma Person Ancestor Tradition has some human lineage and has come to find and interact with her human family. Which happens to be part of the Red Earth Faction.

The Makorling (an Orlanthi culture native to the Skyreach Mountains known for its xenophobia and llama herding.) Warrior devotee of Barbeester Gor, and member of the Bloody Virgins of Barbeester Gor. She was sent into the Esrolian civilization to find and kill someone who broke a taboo and now she can't go back. the Queen who leads the Red Earth Faction saved her life and so she is bound by oath to her.

The Esrolian Foot Soldier Initiate of Vinga the SpearThrower. She was formerly one of the guards of the High Queen but lost the job after she got caught seducing the son of the High Queen. She wants to become a Queen and has figured the Red Earth Faction could be her ticket to power. She has a strong, eunuch sidekick who is a master of a two sword fighting style.

The Esrolian Scholar and communal worshipper of the Earth Pantheon. He mysteriously acquired the ability to summon a mythic hero to defend himself and has acquired the Queen in charge of the Red Earth Faction as his patron. I statted out the mythic hero as a sidekick.

So I have a common thread tying them together and a way to have them involved with the events at large happening in the setting. :)

Though I really doubt I am going to follow the official time line in any way, shape or form.

Jesse D.

[Mike Holmes]

I figured that since this was Esrolia that making it so the characters were all part of a particular faction would be a convenient way for them to work together.

That's what I thought. Well, that should work out for you, I suppose.

Have you ever given any thought to the idea that the characters don't have to be working together? We've got a lot of techniques that are available that make it so that you don't have to have this sort of linkage from the start. OTOH, given that you've already solved your problem, I suppose that I'm a day late.  

Mike

[doubtofbuddha]

Well, if you have the techniques then I would be more than willing to hear them...


To be quite honest I am kind of stumbling on coming up with a scenario as I want to avoid the whole "d20 gamist experience"

I think I already manage to avoid some of the pitfalls of running d20 games fairly well, but I would really like to take it to the next level.


So any suggestions you might have on Glorantha-specific scenario creation would be nice.

I GM on Sunday.

[simon_hibbs]

I think I already manage to avoid some of the pitfalls of running d20 games fairly well, but I would really like to take it to the next level.


So any suggestions you might have on Glorantha-specific scenario creation would be nice.

I'd put them up against an enemy they can all hate - The Malkioni! So Heortland has been taken over by Richard the Tiger Hearted, and taking over Esrolia is next on his agenda. Rokari missionaries are sent in secretly to sow dissent and destabilise the Queendom. Pick a Malkioni hero band and make them the instrument of Richard's plan. Maybe Richard, or one of his over-zealous henchmen, is in league with the Vadeli as the result of some unspeakable pact.

Perhaps they're trying to spread plague or an infestation of chaos creatures in the city, then offer to help get rid of it and thus gain influence.


Simon Hibbs

[Calithena]

Hey, Buddha's Doubt -

I'm in a game that's switching from d20 to HQ too. I'd recommend coming up with a list of challenges and NPCs that are the kinds of things you would normally create a D&D type adventure out of, and then NOT finish creating the adventure. In other words: you get your band of drunken Heortling savages with a leader who wants to bind some sort of spirit, you get a local healer with an illness she can't cure herself, maybe you even get a tower in the local swamp full of ducks and a necromancer - but you don't necessarily map it, although you can, but rather think of the 'cool encounters' you would want to have if they went to the tower, etc.

Once you've got about a half-dozen groups of these interesting people, conflicts, places, and challenges, you figure out roughly what links them into each other. Then you figure out what links your PCs into them, as a group or as separate individuals.

Then you just present them with a striking situation, let them act, and fill in the blanks as you go.

That's how I approach it anyway - hope this was vaguely useful. The point is that you prepare the fun stuff, the cool stuff, that normally forms the skeleton of a 'finished adventure' in d20 terms, and then you let the players finish the adventure for you in play.

[Mike Holmes]

Right, what Sean is saying. Basically, don't have a plot. Just have "stuff."

From the game Sorcerer, we get a concept called the relationship map, and another the bang. A relationship map is just an interesting bunch of characters who are strongly related to each other (I won't go into specifics, but the stronger the better). These NPCs all have thieir own agendas and motives that include needing the PCs for things. The interesting thing is that different parts of he map can grab different PCs. So they don't have to be working together (and can even be at cross purposes). This usually assumes that you'll be using another technique called scene framing.

Scene framing involves, essentially, getting away from asking the players "what do you do next?" and instead just cutting to conflcits. In that way you keep everybody interested in the action, even those who don't happen to be in the scene at the time. Which brings us to bangs. A bang is an event that happens to a PC that has two qualities. First, it forces the PC to address some issue. Second, and of critical importance, it doesn't force any particular decision on the player's part. Meaning that the player has to make a meaningful decision, but it's all theirs to make.

Using the relationship map, early Bangs are often simply the characters of the map coming to the PCs and enlisting their aid in some fashion. PC interation occurs nearly inevitably when the PCs end up in the same scenes with each other, having been recruited by multiple members of the same map.

Another technique from Sorcerer is the Kicker. This is some player defined event, sort of a bang itself, that starts the character in motion. Some situation that they find themselves in that they have to respond to in some way. Has all the qualities of a bang, but is chosen by the player. The real advantage of a Kicker is that you can be assured that the player will be interested in playing out the events spawned by it (since they chose it). If you do Kickers, then the relationship map can often be designed in part from people that are implied or described directly in the Kicker. So you mix up all the kickers, basically, and you get a crossroad of connections that will involve all the PCs in each other's stories.

One of the cool things about how this works is that the PCs don't have to like each other, and might even go so far as to kill each other (people often gasp at this point). As long as it's the characters competing, and not the players, it all works fine.

Anyhow, these are just the basics. Want to try it out in more detail?

Mike

[doubtofbuddha]

Hmm.....

Yes, that is pretty interesting and I would definitely be interested in trying it out in more detail. I have already been using something similar to relationship maps, though its been in a much more primitive format.

The main part of what you described that I am having diffuclty accepting is the idea of scene framing. By going straight to the conflict (rather than letting players don't you cut out some level of player choice and control?

Also, using that method of getting characters to interact with each other how do you ensure that they continue to interact with each other? It would be kind of contrived if every adventure the PCs ended up in the same situations despite being associated with a variety of different individuals.

[Mike Holmes]

Yes, that is pretty interesting and I would definitely be interested in trying it out in more detail. I have already been using something similar to relationship maps, though its been in a much more primitive format.

Doesn['t have to be anything complicated, I'm sure your extant talents will suffice. Just wrote neat characters who will keep things moving. But remember to be sure that not all of them can get what they want without the PCs. The game is about the PCs, not the NPCs.

The main part of what you described that I am having diffuclty accepting is the idea of scene framing. By going straight to the conflict (rather than letting players don't you cut out some level of player choice and control?

I was hoping you'd ask. That's the perfect question. Do you ask the players if they're going to the bathroom before they leave on a trip? Do you ask them if they stop for breaks on the way? Do you even ask them what they're doing at all when they travel? Haven't you ever just said, "three days later you're at the gates of Horlstead"?

The point is that all GM's take away player power in some dose at some time to keep play moving. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that's the GM's job - the players could just describe their day if they wanted to do so. So, am I saying that it's OK to steal all the player's power? No, not at all. Look back at the definition of Bangs. The most important part of a Bang is that the decision be all the player's.

This is the key. As long as what you're framing to is a player empowered moment, you'll never have a complaint. I've done stuff like, "You find yourself in the midst of a bar fight. You've already knocked down seven, but there are more than a dozen left. And you're strength is finally starting to fade. What do you do?"

The player can try to fight on in desperation, he can run, he can surrender, he can try to talk his way out of it, etc. As long as it's the player's decision as to what happens next, they'll enjoy making it.

Now, that said, you don't have to be so forward in framing. You can just say, "Later that day, you stop in the bar for a drink. Just as you arrive at the bar, you note that the Grambly Boys are there." That might work just as well. The point is that in either case, two things have to be true:

a) Whatever you frame to has to be plausible, and not make the character less of a protagonist. If seven on the floor isn't enough to make the character seem like he's tough, then make it a dozen. Do what it takes to make the character cool.
b) Whatever you frame to has to be something that the player is interested in. That is, you're doing his job for him in that you are predicting what he'd do anyhow. The advantage to you doing it, is that, knowing the backstory, you can ensure that the character gets to the conflict. As opposed to the player flailing about trying to find it.

Also, there's no reason that the players can't frame scenes as well. Instead of asking "what's your character doing?" ask, "What scene would you like to frame to next?" When the player thinks that way, they don't think what the character's next step is, but where their next scene is. Which is what we all want to see anyhow.

Scene Framing is all about empowering players. Find out what the character's issues are that interest the players, and get them to the point where they can address them. Facilitate their play.

If you're not sure what the player thinks is an issue for his character, then find out. Look at the character sheet, or background notes. What are their listed goals? Turn those into kickers. Flaws are another good place to start. Better yet, ask the player directly. Toss some ideas out. Negotiate (it's your game, too). Then get to those issues.

Also, using that method of getting characters to interact with each other how do you ensure that they continue to interact with each other? It would be kind of contrived if every adventure the PCs ended up in the same situations despite being associated with a variety of different individuals.

You don't ensure it. First, there's really no problem if the characters don't interact. This is hard for traditional players to buy, I know, but the "party" mode is even more problematic in this way. Why do characters in a Party stay with each other? Is that linkage you mentioned really going to form them into a party? I doubt it. Instead the players will all agree that the characters are hanging around by convention instead of by character motive.

If you let the players decide what their characters are doing, you'll find that they come up with reasons for their characters to remain with the others. You won't have to contrive methods because they'll be doing it for you. OTOH, if the players don't really care about the characters staying together, then they won't.

"But then people have to sit out while I do split scenes!" Sorry to put words in your mouth, but this is the standard argument. The answer is that if you're playing this way, that people will be content to watch each other play at times. In fact, total "screen time" is actually the same. It just tends to happen in concentrated clumps. What this means is that players who know they are down can relax and be audience to the players playing. You never get that feeling like you want the spotlight to come to you, because you know it'll be your turn soon.

And, again, if a player wants to be in the scene, he can just make that known. "Can I just happen along at that point?" Then you as GM frame his entry if it's plausible, or note that this player wants to get in on some of this sort of action and get to it as soon as possible. And again, if you build the relationship map correctly, you'll find that the character's paths intersect all too often anyhow.

All I can say is that it really works. Best of all, it works great with HQ, in that it allows characters to really get explored. They don't have to worry about "going along with the party", players can have their characters really do their own thing. See the thread in this forum on Narrativist Scenario  Writing[url] for an example in action.

More questions, or do you want to move on to brass tacks?

Mike

[doubtofbuddha]

Hmmm..... actually I think you explained things pretty well.

I just need to decide now how to seperate the players from their alligence to the faction. ;)

Brass tacks?

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm..... actually I think you explained things pretty well.

I just need to decide now how to seperate the players from their alligence to the faction. ;)

No need. It's a fine place to start. I like what you've written. Truth be told, there's no reason not to have the players have some common bond either. The point is that with the methods that I'm describing, you don't have to rely on it to hold things together. Nor do you have to make it a prerequisite of play. But since you're already there, no reason to toss it out. :-)

Brass tacks?

Details man, details. I'd suggest starting with what you already have, and then just building on it. What do you have so far?

Mike