HeroQuest Campaigning in the Lunar Empire

[doubtofbuddha]

Oh yeah and the dicussion on said topic is:

http://www.livejournal.com/community/worldsoftuerny/99479.html

[Mike Holmes]

Sounds like you're still fighting your players. If anything that they said is innaccurate, or doesn't really tell the whole story, then ignore anything below that's not pertinent. But consider that their perception of what's going on may be more important than the reality.

From what they've said, you seem to still feel the need to keep information from them, for instance. This is a huge narrativist no-no. The purpose of NPCs is, as your players realize, to deliver information on which they can act. So never say no when it comes to information.

Now does that mean that you can't have conflicts regarding information? No, these are amongst the most fun sorts of conflicts. It's just that you need to apply the "yes, but" principle to failures. That is, when a hero fails on a die roll to persuade someone to give information, they still get it, but something else goes wrong. The very simplest method here is to just say that the penalty that's delivered represents resentment, or a feeling of being owed by the target.

So, a character gets a minor defeat against a NPC. Well, then the -10% is applied on any future rolls to get more information from that NPC. Eventually, if this isn't rectified, the player will end up causing a complete failure, at which time they've made an enemy of the B. Or any other result in between. A major failure could result in the NPC spreading word that the character is a cheapskate making any attempt to financially influcence everybody who has heard have a -50% to the ability used.

This is the general rule, failure doesn't mean that the player doesn't get what they want, neccessarily, it just means that something bad happened related to the attempt.

Why wouldn't you let them roll to find a doctor? In the example that was given it sounds like you just said no. When players do somthing like this, don't look at it as trying to circumvent conflict, but that they're trying to define the scope of it. Which is a positive thing. In this case, just adjust the conflict to something regarding that. Can they find a doctor in time? If they fail the roll, mayhap they've found an expedient doctor who may not be the best? And does a failure on his part mean that the character dies? Or does it merely leave the character with a bad limp that will be a fun reminder of the close call?

Eventiually they'll get the idea that you aren't so much trying to hose their characters as just put them in interesting situations. To get there more quickly, try to co-opt them into the process. Again, ask them what they think would be a fun conflict to get into next. Get to the point where the players are hosing their characters as hard, or harder than you do.

Also, remember to ensure that the situations and conflicts are part of what the player sees as interesting about the character. Staging conflicts that don't address something that's interesting to the player results in them feeling that you're just attacking the character pointlessly. Ensure that whatever the result of the conflict, the player will like their character more when it's done.


On the subject of directing PC actions, I still maintain that this is a good idea. I think that you still have a little bit of a trust issue, and that their worries are centered on this. Basically, they see you as trying to "hose" them, so they worry that if you're directing their activity, that you're doing it just to ensure that they're in a hard place. Which is somewhat accurate. You have to get to a place where they see you putting their characters in certain situations as enabling for them. So all of the above paragraphs are important to this.

If the player decides that their character wouldn't do something, that you've framed too far, then go back and tell them why you wanted to do that - what's supposed to be fun about it. Or just go back and let them declare what's going on. Yes, this may be mistrust on their part for no reason, but don't let that breed more distrust. You have to trust them too, and accept that the player is making the change for the right reason (whether they are or not). So don't display displeasure with this, and don't try to change their minds on this with discussion; just work on the trust issue. Eventually it'll work itself out to where they'll be willing to have you throw their characters on hot coals if it helps the game.

Mike

[doubtofbuddha]

Hmm....

My only problem with players just automatically finding the information that they want to have is that alot of the times they end up asking people who would have no clue of the situation. Should I just randomly decide that a bartender suddenly knows all about the some random noble's secrets just because the PCs decide that he is the sort of person who would know that thing?

I do wish that the players would bring up the situations where they feel I have taken GM force too far. I didn't realize that they had percieved me as going too far with it..

Also as for failure meaning that they get information but there are reprecussions. I guess I am just having difficulty dealing with that sort of situation. Once again why would the NPC always divulge the information that the PCs want. I mean, does this mean I should never have secretive or stubborn NPCs who don't want to share their information or what?

Also does this extend to scene framing?

For example the PCs left off the game trying to find Yrsa, but she has fled the scene (realizing her cover is blown she is returning to her Blue Dog Clan). None of the PCs have tracking abilities and the only person who might be aware of the Yrsa-Blue Dog connection isn't with them.

Should I just let them find her even though there isn't a plausible way for it to happen?

What do you suggest?

[Mike Holmes]

My only problem with players just automatically finding the information that they want to have is that alot of the times they end up asking people who would have no clue of the situation. Should I just randomly decide that a bartender suddenly knows all about the some random noble's secrets just because the PCs decide that he is the sort of person who would know that thing?

That's sim-think. How do you know who would "have a clue"? Plausibility, right? If the players are asking, hasn't it passed the plausibility test for them? So the only person for whom it's not passing is you.

Now, I'm not saying that you ought to throw out your own plausibililty requirements. But if somebody really offends you on this, then say, "Are you sure a bartender would know? Perhaps we can think of someone more likely." In any case, the point is that the player wants the information, and it's your job to get it to them. Find the plausible way. Does it seem like Joe Random the barkeep is unlikely? Well, because the player asked, it turns out that Joe is actually from that family, but was banished a year ago for an alleged theft actually done by his brother. And, yeah, he's bitter about it, and ready to tell all their secrets. In fact, Joe may actually ask to join you on that raid on the castle that the PCs are planning when he overhears it later.

This is amongst the best ways to create NPCs. Remember, if a player talks to an NPC, he might just be important to the story somehow.

I do wish that the players would bring up the situations where they feel I have taken GM force too far. I didn't realize that they had percieved me as going too far with it..

Well, apparently they think that they have brought it up. And that you've gotten angry about them bringing it up. So there must be some miscommunication going on.

Remember with these things that it's best to assume that you are at fault so as to avoid bad feelings. Be the bigger guy.

Also as for failure meaning that they get information but there are reprecussions. I guess I am just having difficulty dealing with that sort of situation. Once again why would the NPC always divulge the information that the PCs want.

That's your job as GM. Figure out a reason why, and stick it in there. Here's a better question, why wouldn't they give the information out. People are social, and fall over themselves to give people directions and gossip, etc. Assume that the NPC has lots of reason to tell the PCs unless...

I mean, does this mean I should never have secretive or stubborn NPCs who don't want to share their information or what?

I never said they shouldn't. Sometimes they will resist. This should lead to a roll against some ability. If the player wins, then they get the info. If they lose, they get the info, and some problem occurs.

Let's say, for instance, that Joe Random clams up because you've pre-determined that he has a motive to do so (maybe in the example, he's protecting that member of his family). So the player has their PC use Persuasion on Joe. If they win, Joe realizes the error of his ways, and gives the info to the cool character who he now realizes only means the best. If they lose, then Joe gives out the information to the persuasive character, but then realizes afterwards that it probably was a bad idea. He then informs his family member about the PC, and in future attempts to persuade the PC has a -10% (or whatever the failure result is).

Also does this extend to scene framing?

For example the PCs left off the game trying to find Yrsa, but she has fled the scene (realizing her cover is blown she is returning to her Blue Dog Clan). None of the PCs have tracking abilities and the only person who might be aware of the Yrsa-Blue Dog connection isn't with them.

Should I just let them find her even though there isn't a plausible way for it to happen?

What do you suggest?

This is an interesting situation because you have PCs in potential conflict. That is, you have two things to consider. You want to enable the plot by allowing the one PC to be found, but you also want to give the other player what they want for their PC.

So the player doing the search must come up with the plausible reason that satisfies the other player. IOW, no, you don't help them out with some passing stranger. The interaction, in fact, should go like this.

Player A: I want my PC (PC A) to find PC B (played by player B).
Narrator: Well, how would they do that?
Player A: Well, he could use his Oratory ability to stop the crowd in place, and ask if anyone saw which way she went.
Narrator: Player B, does this make sense to you?
Player B: No way, PC B left there a long time ago.
Narrator: Player A?
Player A: Well, how about I use my Merchant Connections to ask if any of the travelling merchants has seen you on the road?
Player B: That seems reasonable.

The point is that you want to get the players to co-operate on framing the conflict. Again, you need to get the players on board with the idea that they, to an extent have an ability to affect the world like the GM does. Hence the bartender thing above. Essetially, the GM then is just the "player without a character" who's job it is to create conflicts when the players aren't doing it themselves.

Seeing the model yet? You all are players, and all are trying to set up conflicts for the characters that are interesting to everyone. Some of the players have characters, and more responsibility for them, and one player has no character and more responsibility for playing "the world" and setting up conflicts. But otherwise everyone is working together to create the action. Facillitating, not opposing.

Now, that's ideal, but even getting close is enough. Just to the point where everybody trusts everybody elses judgement on doing things plausibly and for the promotion of the story.

Mike

[doubtofbuddha]

Maybe I would be better off playing a sim-style game....

I mean if part of the game isn't about trying to find out the right people or the right ways to get this information (which is probably sim) and the game isn't about trying to overcome challanges (which is probably gamism) then what is it about? What is the point in playing?


Also,
I think I mis-expressed the situation.

The one who knows wouldn't have any problems telling them, he is the one who is currently severely injured back at the temple.

Its also possible he never made the connection ( I honestly don't remember).

Supposing he doesn't know (because if he does then I can solve it easily), how should I deal with them having no way of finding out where she is but really wanting to find her (and perhaps beating the crap out of her)?

[Valamir]

I mean if part of the game isn't about trying to find out the right people or the right ways to get this information

Wow.  I wish I could give you the magic bullet that would answer everything for you, but I don't know of it.  Alls I can say is the most boring, frustrating, annoying, collosal waste of time, I'd rather be batheing the cat, roleplaying sessions I ever had were with GMs who thought the point of play was to figure out who the right people to ask for information was.

I mean think about it.  REALLY think about it.

What's more fun, confronting the bad guy in some climactic scene, or playing 20 questions with the GM?

Look at it this way.  Your job is to put meaningful choices in front of the players.  The players job is to make statements about who their characters are and what they believe by making those choices.

Having a list of list of 10 NPCs, 1 of whom may know the answer but the PC doesn't know which, may be giving the player a choice...who do you ask?...but how is that choice meaningful?  Where's the meat?  Where's the interest?  If this were a scene in a movie, is this the part where you yawn and go get more popcorn?

Better:  Of course the bartender knows, of course the bartender is going to claim he doesn't...but of course the bartender is going to let something slip that indicates he does know but just isn't telling.

Now what?

Do the players threaten him?  If so...great...make them carry out their threat...give up the goods and let them leave the broken body of the beat up bartender sobbing on the floor...that was a choice that had meaning.

Do the players try to bribe him?  If so...great...make it a choice between a rock and a hard place, then give up the goods.  Again, the potential for meaningful choice.

Is the Bartender worried about what will happen to his family if he tells?...great...let the players promise they'll protect them and then go after them and see what they do, another meaningful choice.


Your job is most emphatically NOT to be the holder of the great puzzle slowly dolling out a piece here and a piece there if the players figure out how to roll over, beg, and shake like trained poodles.  No player likes to feel like a trained poodle.

Information is NOT the point to play.  Information is the doorway that leads to the point of play.  Why would you ever want to bar them from going through that door?  It doesn't even make sense..."I have this really cool thing...but I'm not going to let you see it because you forgot to ask Farmer Brown about the pick widget..."

No, go ahead and close the door.  Heck...go ahead and lock the door.  But ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS make sure there is a key, and ALWAYS make sure the PLAYERS know what that key is (whether the characters do or not is immaterial).

NOW make that key something that involves making a meaningful choice.  Either way the players choose they get the key and get to go through the door (that is after where the cool thing is, and isn't getting to that cool thing the whole point to play).  But what choice they made to get that key says alot.

In fact...what you'll eventually find...is that you only THOUGHT that that cool thing on the other side of the door is the point to play.  The REAL point to play is the choice (and choices) that the players made in the course of getting there.  THAT'S what matters.  That's what makes the difference...THAT'S the real deal of what this sort of roleplaying is about.

And I gotta tell you, that's a hell of a lot more memorable than trying to figure out which NPC knows where the widget is hidden and what buzz word the GM wants to hear before he'll say it.

[buserian]

Preface: I admit I have not read all of the posts in full, so my advice below may not be 100% applicable, but I think it works as very general advice on the subject.

Quote:
Also as for failure meaning that they get information but there are reprecussions. I guess I am just having difficulty dealing with that sort of situation. Once again why would the NPC always divulge the information that the PCs want.  

That's your job as GM. Figure out a reason why, and stick it in there. Here's a better question, why wouldn't they give the information out. People are social, and fall over themselves to give people directions and gossip, etc. Assume that the NPC has lots of reason to tell the PCs unless...

I am not sure that this is correct -- in HeroQuest, any success means a success at your attempt, not any failure. I would suggest that you lower the resistance in this case, so that you get the information on any success, but not on a failure, and then make the "bad side effect" be part of the function of lower levels of vitory. Otherwise, you are saying the contest is about getting information or not getting info, and then are rewarding a defeat by ... giving them the information. That doesn't seem how heroQuest is intended.

I also don't like the idea of forcing the narrator to make NPC decisions based on the heroes deciding to ask random person X, which seems to be part of the situation here.

As to who to ask for info, how about this: make the contest not about getting the information from Person X, but about getting the information, period:

Complete Victory: Find out the injured guy at the temple is the best source of the info, get all the info from him. And you do it quickly.

Major Victory: Find out the injured guy at the temple is the best source of info. Takes awhile to get access to him, or for him to wake up and talk, or whatever.

Minor Victory: Find someone who knows a lot about the info, but not all of it. It takes awhile.

Marginal Victory: Talk to the bartender, who knows something useful, but not everything. It takes a long time.

Tie: Can't find anyone.

Marginal Defeat: Can't find anyone, and attract the wrong kind of attention by nosing around. You don't waste much time doing it.

Minor Defeat: Can't find anyone, and piss off your contacts. You don't lose much time.

Major Defeat: Find someone who claims to know, but they give you misleading info, and you took up a lot of time getting even that.

Complete Defeat: You took forever searching, and finally found someone who fed you a completely believable but completely false set of info.

My example might not be the best to the situation, but the point should be clear -- the contest is about finding the information, not about asking a particular person about it.

Heroes with appropriate abilities (like a relationship to contacts, or Detective Skill) will have a better chance of victory, because they have a higher rating. Heroes with inappropriate abilities or lower ratings won't find out as easily.

This might be an approach that will work better. The idea of the heroes asking some random bartender, and then the narrator being obligated to make that bartender important so that he can give the players the info, just rankles for some reason.

Alternately, if you think the players should get this info, and you believe that the heroes would ultimately discover it no matter what, why are you even bothering with a contest? Either there is a chance of failure or there is not. If there is, the players shouldn't be complaining that they didn't know who to ask -- that is part of the contest. And if there is no chance of failure, have the players get the info they need without rolling for it, one way or another.

Or, change the nature of the contest -- instead of being Contest: Get Info, make it Contest: Get Info without Making Enemies. this completely changes the dynamic -- instead of seeing whether or not they get the info, now you ASSUME they will get the info, and the only question is who they piss off in the process. Or make it Contest: Get Info Discreetly. Again, the assumption is that they get the info (though on a Complete Defeat in either case, I would say they don't), but whether or not they do so in a private or public manner is in question. It depends on the storyline involved, and what the goals and dangers are.

Proper contest structuring is, I think, key to players enjoying HQ and narrators having an easy time of it. But I think it is extremely difficult, since most RPGs don't work that way. If you want to find something out, you roll to see if you do, you don't roll to see _how_ you get it. This ability to define contests is one of the most versatile parts of the system, the greatest narrative tool a narrator has. But it is hard to get used to. Most of the published scenarios don't seem to use contests very well, for example -- most contests are very simulationsist, IMO, without really taking advantage of the finer points of the system.

Anyway, hope this whole post isn't way off-base. or off topic.

Edit: Oh yeah, like always, what method you use definitely depends on how important (both to the story and to the players) both the information and getting it is. If the information is critical to the story but getting it is not important to the narrative, JUST GIVE IT TO THEM. If the information is not important, nor is getting it, JUST GIVE IT TO THEM. But, if getting the information itself IS important, then don't just dole it out. Think about Sherlock Holmes as a HQ hero -- for him, finding the right person to get the info from IS part of the fun and part of the challenge, and he should have to figure out who to ask before you give it to him or let him engage in a contest to get it. If one of the heroes is a Sage type, it might be more fun to let him search for the right person. But if they are just a bunch of heroes trying to get important info, a single simple contest to find the right person AND get the info all at once is appropriate.

If actually getting the information is an important part of the story, if it is the subject of the entire session for example, then perhaps you want to run it as an extended contest. You still have one contest to find both the right person and get the info, but the ebb and flow of the extended contest shows how the players are doing. If they lose a few AP in the first exchange, then maybe they talked to the bartender and he wouldn't tell them anything. The next round they gain back the lost AP + a few more, and maybe now he remembers hearing something about a guy, and tells you to go talk to a guardsman. Third exchange the players lose a lot of AP, maybe the guardsman arrests them. They gain really big in the fourth exchange, they get released by the local magistrate and the guard spills his guts rather than get in trouble for falsely accusing the heroes. At the end, if they get any level of victory, they have found the right person and gotten some or all of the info. Any level of defeat, they haven't.

With an extended contest, you get some drama and interest out of the entire search for the info, and you do not have to worry about who the heroes go to ask, because they can ask several people during the course of the contest. If they ask someone who knows nothing, give them a -10 that round for a circumstance modifier. If they ask a temple guard, maybe give them a +10, since something he says might lead them to find the injured guy in the temple.

Use the extended contest to make something like this more interesting to the players, without you as narrator having to rewrite your campaign to fit what they want to do, and without having to railroad them. Everyone gets what they want out of the game session.

I am starting to like extended contests more and more.

buserian
[/quote]

[Nick Brooke]

Bruce Ferrie has a very good article on Staging Tips for Research in HeroQuest - well worth a look, very germane to the previous posts. Anyway, here's the conclusion:

So what happens if the PCs are researching a bit of information that you definitely wanted to give them. Perhaps it's the vital clue to lead them to the climax of the episide. Would you really hold back this crucial plot element because of a bad roll or two? No, I didn't think so... The simple solution to this is to let them off without rolling, but that's not very dramatic. Surely we can try something else?

What you can do instead is to change the contest, so that failure means they still get the information, but there's another problem. The greater the level of defeat, the bigger the problem:

Marginal Defeat - The information contains minor red herrings.
Minor Defeat - The heroes miss their senior prom because they spent all night in the library, or take so long to find the information they're looking for that they have little or no time to make preparations based on their findings.
Major Defeat - One of the heroes is injured by a falling encyclopaedia, or suffers a particularly painful bout of writer's cramp.
Complete Defeat - The library burns down while they're doing the research.

The goal of the contest has therefore changed from "find the information" to "find the information before/without/as well as/despite some other thing" - this means that, however badly they do, they still get the information.

"Senior prom?" Oh, yeah, this is written for Buffy HeroQuest . The advice is still generally applicable, though... :-)

Cheers, Nick

[Mike Holmes]

Or, change the nature of the contest -- instead of being Contest: Get Info, make it Contest: Get Info without Making Enemies. this completely changes the dynamic -- instead of seeing whether or not they get the info, now you ASSUME they will get the info, and the only question is who they piss off in the process. Or make it Contest: Get Info Discreetly. Again, the assumption is that they get the info (though on a Complete Defeat in either case, I would say they don't), but whether or not they do so in a private or public manner is in question. It depends on the storyline involved, and what the goals and dangers are.

Proper contest structuring is, I think, key to players enjoying HQ and narrators having an easy time of it. But I think it is extremely difficult, since most RPGs don't work that way. If you want to find something out, you roll to see if you do, you don't roll to see _how_ you get it. This ability to define contests is one of the most versatile parts of the system, the greatest narrative tool a narrator has. But it is hard to get used to. Most of the published scenarios don't seem to use contests very well, for example -- most contests are very simulationsist, IMO, without really taking advantage of the finer points of the system.

This is basically what we're saying, B. If the information is critical to a good game, then make the "danger" something else.

And this is all predicated on the notion that getting the information is critical to a good story. If there's another rout for the story to go that's enabled by failure, then actual failure should be an option.

What Jesse's players are "complaining about" as you put it is that Jesse didn't make these decisions well. If I read them right, they're saying that he often put them into dead ends because of these sorts of failures, instead of framing the contest such that failure would mean something more interesting happened.

We're really mostly in agreement here. If we have a difference of opinion, it's maybe on how often information failures dead end games. I think its' a common problem? How do you see it?

I also don't like the idea of forcing the narrator to make NPC decisions based on the heroes deciding to ask random person X, which seems to be part of the situation here.

Why not? If that NPC was previously undefined, I bet you do it on a small scale all the time.

"I ask the bartender for directions."

We all understand that the bartender is likely to be able to provide directions, but by asking the question you make certain assumptions about the game world. So why not allow more lattitude with that for the player? What's the downside? More to the point, how is this substantively different from your example? That is, what if the GM hadn't already created the guy at the temple? Then in creating him to satisfy the results of the contest, wouldn't he be doing the same thing in effect?

Basically, in my version, the only difference is that the player created the guy who knows the information. What does it matter who does the creating? Especially when I've also said that if it's implausibe that the GM should discuss it with the player.

The idea of the heroes asking some random bartender, and then the narrator being obligated to make that bartender important so that he can give the players the info, just rankles for some reason.

Because you're not used to it. In any case, the player doesn't have to know that they've just created something. The player asked, again, because he thinks it's plausible that the bartender would know the information. I think you should try it before you dismiss it.

Heck, the bartender could just point out someone who would know (probably less than six degrees of separation in Glorantha). The point is that what we're talking about here is not making an issue out of something boring like trying to find the person who knows. Which is precisely what your method does.

Use the extended contest to make something like this more interesting to the players, without you as narrator having to rewrite your campaign to fit what they want to do, and without having to railroad them.

See, here's a big problem. In a narrativist game, there is no "campaign" to rewrite. Part of the differences in these styles is that the narrativist game doesn't have any set destination at all. So there's nothing to worry about rewriting.

Mike

[RaconteurX]

My solution, when heroes go to the "wrong" person to get information, is to have the "right" person conveniently near-at-hand to provide it. If the person with the necessary information is the noble's valet, he or she just happens to frequent the pub at which the heroes choose to make their enquiry. Perhaps the bartender directs the heroes to the valet, perhaps the valet discretely contacts the heroes after overhearing their conversation... it's up to you.

[Valamir]

Yup.  ALL kinds of ways to accomplish the essential act of getting the information the characters need to know into the hands of the players.

Buserian gives an example above of an outstanding way to accomplish this taking advantage of some of the interesting features of the HQ system (or any system defined by Conflict resolution).  Michael's works well for any game.

A variation on the idea of the "bartender doesn't know, but there's someone in the bar who does" is to have that someone be opposed to the PCs rather than potentially helpful.

Instead of being directed to him and using him to get the info, the person runs off and reports to his bosses that the PCs are sniffing around.  A scene or two later BLAM in come the goon squad kicking down the door and taking names.

Tracking the goons back to who sent them, of course, reveals who the real bad guy is (as this device does in so many movies) and demonstrates yet another way of getting that information to the players without requiring "hunt the widget" play.

In fact, there are SOOO many ways of doing this, that there is no worry of over using any single device to the pointo of it getting silly.

[doubtofbuddha]

Wow.

I didn't realize this many people were actually reading this thread. It had reached the point where I thought it was just myself and Mike talking back and forth. :)

Thanks for all the input, everyone. It gives me something to think about for the next session.


Jesse Dean

[Mike Holmes]

I think that we're all in agreement here that the key is for the GM to provide good conflicts in general. What that means is that conflcits facilitate the advancement of the story. That is, they don't exist to potentially shut down the PCs options - instead, failure, success, either way it just means new and more interesting conflicts.

As long as you keep thinking in these terms, you'll be able to frame contests in such a way as to be an ally to your players in getting them to the fun stuff. Trust follows, and soon you'll see just how fun this mode is.

Mike

[doubtofbuddha]

Well we finished the last game in this particular chapter and it ended with a whimper rather than a bang. In light of almost getting killed by Yrsa, Okamar decided to take up Khorkenus on his offer. The others decided that since they couldn't track Yrsa (and did not want to take Okamar's information about Yrsa's clan to confront her), that they would just let the guards handle it.

Ashaetili entered into the city and was able to meet with the man she was looking for (A Storm Mystic) he gave her some information about the other Ranhar incarnates and she tried to figure out which ones were the ones she had met so far.

Okamar, Calla, and Eronith traveled with Khorkenus to Jillaro and Ashaetili and Radevenash followed a week later.

On the way to Jillaro, Okamar encountered a shadow raven who gave him a (bad) riddle that served as instructions as to what to do after he got to Jillaro.

Ashaetili and Radvenash got the impression they were being followed and watched on the way to Jillaro but were never able to figure out who it was.

A few players are going away for the summer in a week or three so we are taking a break from this game until when they get back.

In the meantime we will probably be playing a HeroQuest conversion of a d20 setting that was popular among the players, Mindshadows.

[Ian Cooper]

Bruce Ferrie has a very good article on Staging Tips for Research in HeroQuest - well worth a look, very germane to the previous posts. Anyway, here's the conclusion:

Bruce has made other good points to me in conversation about 'mystery stories'.  Mysteries present some challenges for beginning narratavists because they naturally seem to fall into a linear pattern: solve clue A and this leads you to clue B etc. Right there you have railroaded your players and created false conflicts and choices. If they do not solve problem A session over, so you'll fudge it, so the players will not feel that their actions were important. With a conflict resolution system like HQ it's even harder. Results are rarely complete defeat or complete success but shades of grey, so the players rarely get or lose everything in a scene. In other words the progress of the story cannot be dependent on player results but must flow from it.

Theh trick to mysteries is not to solve them.  Don't decide what the solution is beforehand. Create some possibilites sure, a list of suspects, but don't predecide who is guilty. If you do that then you have railroaded the story towards a particular outcome. Let the evolving story tell you when to decide the answer to the mystery for the greatest drama.