HQ Prep for play

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

Over in another thread(http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9417), the different focus of play and preparation before play in HeroQuest was touched on and I mentioned that I felt HQ would have done well with a section included on that to help transition folks into the game.  Christopher Kubasik request some more info, and I actually happen to be in the midst of writing an article about it, so here's some thoughts...

First, a major part of preparing for play, in my mind, regards the fundamental assumptions that folks have when coming into play.  Two stumbling blocks for many folks coming from habitual play in other games are Player Input(and Author Stance) as well as what I call Interpretation.

Interpretation is the simple fact that HeroQuest demands that you as a group, as a player, interpret the setting for yourself on some level.  "Your Glorantha Will Vary" isn't just permission to change things, but a simple fact, because instead of giving a dogmatic background to memorize and adhere to, you're given bare bones, and a question.  HQ gives you the setting and turns it into an essay question.  "What does 'We are All Us' mean to you?"

By forcing the group to interpret the setting, you're forced to ask nasty question from the start.  It's like a class where you're expected to argue with the teacher.  

I think if this sort of thing was laid out a bit better in the book, folks would be a better forewarned about the sort of play they're stepping into.  As a player, as a GM, you are saying something about your own views through these interpretations.  You're not allowed to swallow some prepackaged "thematic" bit, like a political stereotype wrapped up in a Clan or Class.  You have to cut the path for yourself, and what you say has meaning.  You put a bit of your views on the line, and it requires some critical thinking for interpretation.

Anyhow, given that concept, plus the necessity of Player Input(in order to give interpretation, during play itself), I have the following steps:

1. Group decides length of play in terms of sessions
2. Choose a location, choose the cultures involved
3. Group discusses and decides thematic conflict and issues at hand
4. Group outlines the conflict in concrete terms, who's involved, over what, etc.
5. If a focal myth is used, the group discusses and creates it together
6. If personal myths are used, players create them at this point
7. Players create characters, tying them into the conflicts and issues, sharing and making suggestions
8.  Narrator develops a Relationship Map based on everything so far, filling in the details of the conflict using everything above.

Notice the following:
-These steps may overlap, or happen out of order
-5 and 6 are distinctly optional.  A group that "vibes" easily can skip 3.

Expect a more detailed treatment when I'm done writing.

Thoughts, questions?

Chris

(edited for clarity)

[Eric J. Boyd]

A timely topic, Chris, since I'll be sitting down with my players on Thursday to begin prepping for our HQ game. I like your list (so consider it snatched for use this week), but I think that considering the player characters should come a bit sooner. Not actually creating the characters (you've got that in the perfect place), but rather deciding on the broad concept of what kind of character a player wants. I can see this additional step coming in either after step #2 or #3 on your current list.

Now granted, the decisions made in steps #2-4 are deeply influenced by the character preferences of the players, but making those character preferences more explicit early on seems like it would enrich the discussion during these steps and perhaps lead it in new directions (e.g., everyone decides they want to play in Dragon Pass and focus on the Heortlings, but one player wants to play a fish out of water Western wizard--this will change the issues that will arise in game).

Just something to consider. Knowing my players (and that's it's our first HQ game), I think figuring out what "my guy" will be like is a priority they will want to engage early.

Eric

[joshua neff]

Chris--

That gets to the heart of why I've been having frustrations with the HQ game I'm running. It's not because of the players--I couldn't ask for three better players than the ones I have. They make GMing really, really easy & fun in many ways. It's not the PCs, because I think they're three incredibly cool PCs. It is, however, me & how I went into the game. I read the book, got really jazzed about the Lunar Empire (which has become one of my all-time favorite settings), decided to set the game in a certain area (Tarsh, specifically the city of Furthest), had in my head a really vague idea of a really general conflict that was going on, had the players make characters, came up with a handful on NPCs, most of whom were connected to the PCs in one way or another, & just let it go. We're now...nine or so sessions in, & while every session has been great, & everyone is having a lot of fun, I feel like it's not really going anywhere.

The biggest problem for me is focus. If I had to go back & do it all over again, I would've had things a lot more focused, especially as two of the players knew nothing about Glorantha & the third is Mike Holmes, who by his own admission has issues with the setting.

Now, in terms of your list, I have some slight disagreements. I don't think it's necessarily crucial to have the group vocalize thematic issues. I think thematic meat can come to play simply by having the heroes embroiled in some conflict or other from the get-go. And I don't think it's necessary for the group to work out the cultural & location stuff together. For Glorantha newbies, I think it can be more helpful for the GM to come to the table with "we're setting the game here, & your choices for homeland & religion are these."

But I definitely agree that this kind of thing should've been in the main book.

[RaconteurX]

Chris, very nicely outlined. I agree that preparation can be a major issue with HeroQuest, as it is decidedly not the average "generate heroes and start playing" sort of system to which most people are accustomed. One thing which made setting up a campaign very simple during playtest was the Clan Questionnaire, which found its way into print (in significantly altered form) in Orlanth is Dead. I wish Issaries had equivalents for all the cultures described in the core book (and I am sure they eventually will), as it would make every narrator's job far easier.

The questionnaire guided the players through the process of determining the crucial mythic and historic events of their heroes' community and, in its original form, enabled narrators to calculate ratings for a community's wealth, morale, magic and ability to deal with mundane threats (attacks, cattle raids, etc.). While outlines on how to use these ratings to generate scenarios made their way into Barbarian Adventures, the method to determine the ratings themselves was excised. A pity, because a random community crisis was often just the thing to bridge sessions between one story-arc and another (or to fill the gaps when the narrator has no ideas of his or her own for a session).

[RaconteurX]

Josh, were you ever able to acquire or peruse either Tarsh in Flames or In Wintertop's Shadow? While the former is officially out of print, there is a nice article summarizing Tarsh in the Hero Wars era here. The latter covers the Tarsh Exiles, rebels forced into the wilderness surrounding Kero Fin by the conquering Lunar forces.

[joshua neff]

No, but I did read some of the Tarsh stuff online, as well as in the Hero Wars Glorantha book. In the end, I decided I didn't care what others were doing with Tarsh--I had my own ideas of what Tarsh is like & what's going on there. I sort of collaged everything into my own Tarsh.

In the end, though, it's not Tarsh that's my problem.

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

I agree that broad ideas of character creation need to happen earlier, but I'm referring to the point of looking at keywords, assigning abilities, and numbers, later in the process.  That's why I mentioned that the numbers may overlap or happen out of order.  

Second, to address Josh's concern, that's also why I mention that #3 is optional, depending on how well your group can get on the same page.  My assumption is the broadest scenario, that of a group recently form, or with little communication skills regarding theme, hence the reason #3 gets mentioned so early.  

On that note, Josh, have you considered how long you want your game to run?  Having that time limit works wonders for driving focus into play, allowing both the Narrator and the players to pace themselves and know when to slow and speed up.

Chris

[joshua neff]

I never did think about how long I wanted the game to run. Actually, that's not quite right--what I wanted to do was run a nice, long-term, open-ended game like I used to run back in the old days. But I'm coming to the conclusion that I do better with shorter runs (anywhere from 3 to 6 sessions) than I do with long ones. When I know it's going to be a shorter run, I have more direction & I'm able to focus the game more. When it's a longer, open-ended run, I feel like the focus goes kerblooie. And then I get frustrated.

So, in a sense, I've learned my lesson. I do better with shorter, more focused runs, with the possibility of sequels, than I do with open-ended runs.

[pete_darby]

I'm coming to the conclusion that the first in-game year of play is going to be essentially pre-play for my group: introduction to HQ, re-introduction to Glorantha.. after that, I'm probably going to abuse PrimeTime Adventures 5-episode season structure and explicitly play to one season per session, choose "character premise of the week" (or setting premise, or whatever, if the characters are overdue one) and planning around that.

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

One of the reasons I promote being up front about setting a limit to sessions for a given story arc, is that for the players to fully make use of their author stance, to bring conflicts to a climax, they need to know when and how to do so.  Otherwise, players typically slide into "wait and respond" mode, because the Narrator ends up being the only one in control of when things close up.

I spent two years running Feng Shui, and my success to play was limiting my story arcs to neat 3-6 session durations.  Now with a better grasp on Narrativism, I'd use that same format, except let the players in on it, for longer term play.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

That can be determined on the fly, tho, can't it? That is, can't you just talk about it at the end of each session, and come to a consensus at some point like, "I think we should angle for two more sessions - what do you think?"

Further, this is just narrativist advice, no? How does it pertain to Glorantha particularly, other than most people are going to want to run longer games? I'm seeing lots of ideas here, but nothing about Glorantha specifically.

Mike

[Christopher Kubasik]

Mike,

I'm just thinking that everyone getting a feel for the pacing from beginning to end, rather than, "Well, looks like its time to start wrapping things up, go faster," let's everyone... pace the thing better.  I guess I'm with Chris on this: It makes more sense to me, but there'd be no way I could prove it.

Chris,

I think Mike's got a point.  In the other thread you said there was stuff specific to HQ/Glorantha that people might not be ready for due to previous game experiences.  Is it simply Group Prep?  Or are there certain issues/ options/ treats in the setting that are unique to a Glorantha set up.

Thanks.

Christopher

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

Has anyone considered the fact that Nar play IS unsual for many folks conditioned to Sim/Illusionist play?  A recurring issue that crops up in HQ (and TROS) discussions are new folks coming in to play, who are running on different assumptions.  As Ron has pointed out in his Model, most roleplaying texts fail to cover important aspects of play up and down the Box hierarchy, leaving it to assumed standards of play.

In the case of HQ, folks really need to understand the idea of player input, Author stance, and most importantly interpretation of the setting and mythology by the group as a whole(aka addressing Premise).  Group preparation is simply a natural outcome if you have those three elements in action.  Specific to Glorantha, new players need to realize that the setting is a question, not a finished static object.

If you notice, most of the issues folks have with HQ come either from the first part about basic Nar play assumptions, or the second part, about Glorantha as a setting requiring input and interpretation on the part of the group, instead of simply being study material for play.

So, yes, a fair amount of what I'm writing about are basic Nar techniques, but only because they are absent, or briefly mentioned without any support as to "how to do" given in the core book.  I'm not writing to cover new ground, but simply present basics for play in a clear fashion to new players.

I'd actually prefer to steer this thread back to questions from folks regarding preparing for play, questions regarding my writing and approach can be pm'd to me personally.

Chris

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Chris,

Good points.  I missed that.  Since this thread got split off the Glorantha thread, I thought your notes would be specifically about prepping Glorantha.  (For this reason, my comments where *not*  about questioning your writing.)

I'd also offer (having thought about this thread before reading your last post), that what you tagged as the "optional" steps are the very steps that make this prep work you're describing specifically about Glorantha.  Thus, you're already on track with what I asked about in my last post.

Sorry about the confusion.

Christopher

[Mike Holmes]

I think that HQ supports Nar play best, but that may be bias on our parts. That's to say that any such advice ought to be prefaced by the idea that you're talking about Narrativism for Glorantha.

See, I too thought that this was just going to be about Glorantha, as Brand put it, as a genre. To be even more pointed, you realize that we are the only people on earth out of all the HQ players out there who make the assumptions that we do about how it's best played. That is, from what I've seen all other players play it just fine with Sim adventure methodology.

Mike