[Heroquest] Serenityquest

[screen_monkey]

Hi - I thought I'd share with you my recent session of Serenityquest, wherein I tried a much more Narrativist approach than I've done before, and it worked really well.

We've played one session of this before, and it went pretty well - it was a standard heist, simulationist, with a climax and plot, yadda yadda.  But ultimately I felt like I was just guiding rats through a maze, and I wanted to try the Narrativist approach.  The last session ended up with a couple of interesting hooks - they had the dead body of Colonel Saxon, the villain, in their hold after he died of his wounds while recieving (half-hearted) medical treatment on board.  And they had Absalom Baird, the accountant of the local crime lord, Colonel Lathrop (lot of Colonels round these parts) drugged on board their ship.  Finally, they had double crossed Colonel Lathrop and returned the stolen money to the locals who needed it to make the local payroll.

The characters - out group is normally four - but only two played tonight.  The first is Kip Ge, an uptight ex-Fighter Pilot from the Core, kicked out for 'seeing too much' on a black op, and his goal is to get back into the service, since being a pilot is all he ever cared for.  He has an experimental shuttle. 

Second, in no particular order, is Jack O'Connor, a Space Pirate, who is looking to avenge the death of his brother.  He is also an ace shot.

So we begin.  I start with the most obvious bang - the body.  Both payers don't even bat an eyelid - into the airlock it goes.  Jack considers blackmailing the baddies, but eventually they decide against it.  Typical sociopathic player behaviour up until now.  Colonel Saxon's body sails into the Black.

Next, the medic on board gives a shout - this is the second bang.  Baird is going into cardiac arrest, and the only way to save his life is to give him an adrenaline shot which will wake him up.  Jack wonders why they don't shoot him, but Kip has 'Strong Moral Compass' and decides that they have to wake him up.  They resuscitate him, and then tie him to the bed while they decide what to do.

Eventually, after much in-character discussion (I really enjoyed watching them settle into points of view) Jack washes his hands of the whole affair and Kip decides that they will return to Persephone to return Baird home.  This is all done without dice rolls - played in-character.

There is an interlude, where they try to negotiate with Lathrop via a Wave, but Lathrop takes a strong moral stance, and demands they repay their money.  He also says that Baird is a family man, and he's willing to bet they won't kill Baird in cold blood.  Kip hangs up.  I reckon Lathrop has Good Judge of Character, and i see him as a moral man, making hard decisions as a crime boss.

At this point I get Jack to exlain his relationship with the medic, Xor Kane - he was a friend of Jack's brother who got into some trouble gambling, and lost his job after stealing and trying to fence some medical equipment.  Jack helps him out because of a sense of guilt over his brother's death.

They tie up Baird and bundle him into Kip's shuttle, and fly off.  Kip flies (he is the only person who can fly the shuttle) and Jack watches the prisoner.

This is where it got really interesting - I threw in an impromptu bang - Baird was originally knocked out by Kip, so he is really angry with him, and blames him for the whole situation.  He tells Jack that if he turns Kip in to Lathrop, he'll arrange for his debt to be wiped clean and for Jack to recieve a modest reward.  We played this out with Jack's Get His Own Way augmented by his Ambitious and Sly vs his Friend augmented with Kip's strong moral compass, and honourable. So Jack's dark side, versus Jack's light side augmented by a desperate Kip.  Kip knocks out Baird, but Jack (a short contest) wins and draws a gun on Kip, and tells him to land at Eavesdown docks, where the crime lord is.

This description doesn't give credit to all the discussion - in trying to justify the various augments, the two players really defined their relationship to each other.  Kip tried to get a few dodgy augments, but by forcing them to act out how the augment would actually work, I could get them to justify augments.

Kip tries a couple of things (he's at a -10% for the marginal defeat, so I rule he's nervous with the gun in his face).  We have another contest - Kip declares a feature of his ship is it can paralyse passengers 15 (some sort of shock) - he augments this with his Diciplined Mind and Daredevil.  Against this Jack uses his keen vision, augmented by Suspicious and Sly, with a discounted Gunslinger (to intimidate Kip).  This plays out as a minor defeat for Jack - he sees Kip press the button and leaps out of his chair in time, but his lombs feel heavy and numb (-10%).  I declare the two -10%'s even out and cancel them out.

Kip then tries a maneuver - to open the door and then loop the ship to throw Jack and Baird out.  But he loses marginally against Jack (Keen Eyes again) and he feels the cold ring of steel against his neck.  "Just put her down, Kip," whispers Jack.

At this time we had a real feel for the conflict.  Taking a step back, the whole thing was just three people travelling in a shuttle, but it played like an episode of Firefly.  The interpersonal drama felt real, and there was a lot at stake, and the players were actually inhabiting their characters point of view.  I explained the game afterwards to my wife, and she asked me, "what did you do while all this was going on?" and it was a good question - I wasn't narrating, just facilitating two characters in conflict.

At this point I decided to force things to a head - Absalom orders Jack to kill Kip.  This lets Kip back in the game - Kip actually uses one of Jack's traits (Love Family) to remind Jack that this sort of selfish behaviour is what led to the death of his brother. I felt that was truly inspired and gave Kip a bonus. Kip spends a hero point and Jack narrates the following - he says, "Get off the ship," and we think he's talking to Kip, but he turns the gun around - he's actually speaking to Baird.  He kicks Baird off the ship, and Baird picks up his bowler and shouts at them that they are dead men.  The players were relieved that the situation was resolved, and had a bit of fun at this point, narrating the outcome.

We then narrate a nice little scene where on the way back, Jack takes out a creased photo of his brother, and then unfolds it - to show him with his arm around his brother.  Kip is in a foul mood on the way back to their ship, but he sees this in the reflection of his shiny dashboard, and sees that perhaps Jack isn't a total jerk after all.

The Bangs worked very well - even little things could end up being a good conflict. I liked the fact that character abilities could drive a character into a conflict with himself or with another character, and that this conflict actually worked well as the central conflict for the game.

The next step for me is to try and think of some Bangs that relate directly to their character issues/wants (Jack wants to avenge his brother's death, Kip wants to get back into the service).  Thre was a bit more to this session, relating to Jack running into an old Piracy buddy on Beaumonde, but I'll add it later.

To summarise, the bang worked really well.  I felt nervous not having anything prepared in the traditional sense, and a bit later I found myself doing 'plot' not 'bangs' but I feel these are just the remnants of old habits that are hard to break.  My players seem to really like Heroquest, and really enjoy doing little 'flashbacks' about their characters that make them come to life - through the conflicts the charcter really came alive.  I think a 'Group Bang' is a workable concept - the conflict can be within the group not just wthin a character.  Within a character is workable, but within a group is also doable.

Any comments or questions welcome, and any advice is very welcome.

[Mike Holmes]

OK, a couple of preliminaries to get going.

First, welcome to the Forge, and what's your real name?

Second, where did you learn about these techniques? It's good to get some context on what you know, so we don't have to reiterate anything that you've already read, and we can make references to those things, etc.

Lastly, kinda starting back from the end, "Group Bangs" are a great technique. It's good to have bangs that hit only one character at a time, too, to give them a little more spotlight now and then. But bangs that hit the entire group, if they really force everyone to make decisions that reveal their characters or highlight them somehow, are great stuff. In part because the outcomes of them are often really muddy rather than just the black and white of, say, a typical dilemma type bang. That is, first, the players have to consider the ramifications that their characters' decisions are going to have on the other characters and, therefore, players. Second, once decisions are made, these often automatically cascade into further decisions that have to be made by other characters in response. The Bang sorta mutates as it runs its course amongst the players, or sprouts new bangs.

For instance, if you have a situation where the characters of a village have been sworn to protect the peace, but have an incentive to go to war, the first character that breaks the peace creates a new bang for the rest of the characters about whether or not to join with them, or act to stop them or ameliorate the damage done. If a second character acts to stop the first by attacking him, then player 3's has to consider which side to enter on, or to just the fight play out. Eveyone else has to respond to the questions raised by that action, then ("Why didn't you help me?!?") Before you know it, one bang has become a whole pack.

So, yeah, Group Bangs, early and often. Just don't let them substitute for individualized bangs entirely. Because the one potential problem with group bangs is that it's always more likely that one of several players isn't impacted by the bang. If that player is the same one over and over, then group bangs just aren't going to do it. Make sure that you have stuff for individuals too. You might not have to use it, but it's important to have if you do need it.

Mike

[screen_monkey]

Thanks Mike,

My real name is Russell, and reading the list of users I see that the standard is to use a real name - apologies.  I've been reading the forge for a while now, but I never really picked up on that until now!  Long time lurker, first time poster.

I never got Narrativism until Droog pointed me to several essays on the web, mostly here at the Forge, and I took them on board.  We had an abortive game of Sorcerer which introduced me to some of the concepts, but they weren't really clear to me.

I've felt frustrated for some time with roleplaying as a medium because I had experienced it's limitations with players who passively sat back and watched the story unfold - in many cases none of the characters ever came 'alive', and when you have already plotted an adventure there is not much challenge for you as a GM in making, as I said in my original post, the rats run through the maze - I think that is referred to as 'illusionism' here.

In regards to the Bangs, group bangs work quite well - but as I get more into individual (to borrow a movie term) story arcs related to their individual goals, the bans will be more individual, I think.

Heroquest I feel is outstanding for enabling this kind of play, but also enabling traditional 'scenario' type of play, too.  The thing I love about last nights game is that all they really did was return a prisoner to his homeworld and then (not part of the writeup above) have dinner with an old Pirate buddy of Jack's.  But it was more engaging and interesting than the previous adventure, where they robbed banks, flew around in ships and had gun battles.

[Mike Holmes]

Nice to meet you, Russel.

Yep, the play you mention sounds like illusionism. At least as long as the players weren't sure when you were putting the walls in front of them to enforce the maze. That is, if you force the left hand turn, then, at least occasionally, it's a matter of them thinking that they were the ones that chose to turn left. If they can see you pushing them through the maze, then it's politely called Participationism if you really think they liked it, or Railroading otherwise. :-)

I'm intrigued by your comment about "Scenario play." Interestingly HQ adventures are mostly written this way, but I think that it's largely a wast of HQ play to do scenario play. Might just be me, however. :-)

This is all done without dice rolls - played in-character.

Are you in the "roleplaying shouldn't be interrupted by die rolling!" camp? That is, do you find it superior to have play such that players never roll for social stuff? Or do you allow that? What about player vs. player?

Mike

[screen_monkey]

I think all adventures are written in a 'maze' way, and I can't see that changing in the future.  Narrativism depends (IMHO) on using attributes of a character to drive the story.  If an adventure supplement is going to be useful to all players of a game, you can make some broad assumptions about characters (the players are all adventurers, the players are all Heortlings) but not specific ones (the players want to find the Browncoat who killed their brother).  So, in order to sell, adventures must be structured and plot driven, and be broad enough to accommodate any type of character who might end up playing.

I like these sorts of adventures, but I like 'settings with cool adventure seeds' better.

With regards to roleplay vs roll=play, it's good to encourage players to talk in character - I think it's good not to interrupt with dice unless;
1) The talking has died down and needs to be forced to a climax
2) The stakes need to be raised, to 'compartmentalise and contain' the conflict
3) A player stands to lose something, and therefore the use of abilites and dice gives the player some ownership over the result, but also some risk of loss.

I find the use of dice in the above game helped characters think about their attributes, and served to separate themselves from themselves and think more as their characters would.  The arguments and discussions followed the characters positions, less than the players.  By forcing the players to think in terms of augments, they ended up referring to the character.

It's a balancing act, eh?

[Mike Holmes]

I think all adventures are written in a 'maze' way, and I can't see that changing in the future. 

Check this out: http://www.geocities.com/doctorpeace/well.html

Narrativism depends (IMHO) on using attributes of a character to drive the story.  If an adventure supplement is going to be useful to all players of a game, you can make some broad assumptions about characters (the players are all adventurers, the players are all Heortlings) but not specific ones (the players want to find the Browncoat who killed their brother).  So, in order to sell, adventures must be structured and plot driven, and be broad enough to accommodate any type of character who might end up playing.

Quite astute. I have the same problem, generally, as you do. You're right, generally there are three solutions:

1. Scattershot appeal, like Well of Souls.
2. Pregenerated characters that fit the scenario. This works great for games at conventions and such.
3. Don't play with pregenerated scenarios.

Mostly I go with the third option.

With regards to roleplay vs roll=play, it's good to encourage players to talk in character - I think it's good not to interrupt with dice unless;
1) The talking has died down and needs to be forced to a climax
2) The stakes need to be raised, to 'compartmentalise and contain' the conflict
3) A player stands to lose something, and therefore the use of abilites and dice gives the player some ownership over the result, but also some risk of loss.

I agree somewhat. If players are heartily debating something, I feel that there comes a time when you know that both players want their way, and that neither is going to back down. There is a sort of verbal sparring that goes on then, often times, that's really not healthy. I feel it's best to cut players off at that point, and go to resolution. I've never known this to stifle player dialog. As long as you let them dialog to the point of conflict, they're informed that this is a desirable form of player direction for characters.

That said, actually I'm not all that concerned, personally, with first person portrayal and dialog. That is, I'm just as satisfied personally with third person, "I try to get him to do that." But that's just me.

[/quoe]I find the use of dice in the above game helped characters think about their attributes, and served to separate themselves from themselves and think more as their characters would.  The arguments and discussions followed the characters positions, less than the players.  By forcing the players to think in terms of augments, they ended up referring to the character.

It's a balancing act, eh?

Well, actually I think that good design promotes these things, and that it's not, then, a balancing act. That is, with HQ, I have yet to see any player think about their character as a pawn. There's just too much built in advantage to thinking about them as individuals with the personality indicated on the character sheets. So, actually, my experience is that the more you use the mechanics in HQ, the better the play gets.

Mike

[screen_monkey]

That said, actually I'm not all that concerned, personally, with first person portrayal and dialog. That is, I'm just as satisfied personally with third person, "I try to get him to do that." But that's just me.

Agreed - by 'in character' I think i'm just saying that the players are fully engaged with their characters and situation, and the drama at hand - first or third person is irrelevant.

Well, actually I think that good design promotes these things, and that it's not, then, a balancing act. That is, with HQ, I have yet to see any player think about their character as a pawn. There's just too much built in advantage to thinking about them as individuals with the personality indicated on the character sheets. So, actually, my experience is that the more you use the mechanics in HQ, the better the play gets.
Mike

From my brief experience I would have to agree.  A good system can really support good game play.  I've taken the plunge and purchased the excellent 'Dogs in the Vineyard' and I am impressed by how well it supports a simple premise and enables exploration of conflict.  Heroquest seems to support good play in the same way, but it also seems to lend itself to more 'traditional' styles of roleplaying as well.  It's ultimately flexible.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This discussion got abstract awfully quickly.

Russell, I'm more interested in straightforward journalism about your group's play-experiences. I liked your account of two players' interactions, although I'm not sure how to talk about them, because you only provided character names. Are the other two players, the ones who were absent for this second and more successful session, returning to play next time? Do you think their absence contributed to the success of this session?

Also, has this group played Heroquest in the past, with other characters or another setting?

Best,
Ron

[screen_monkey]

Hello,

This discussion got abstract awfully quickly.

Russell, I'm more interested in straightforward journalism about your group's play-experiences. I liked your account of two players' interactions, although I'm not sure how to talk about them, because you only provided character names. Are the other two players, the ones who were absent for this second and more successful session, returning to play next time? Do you think their absence contributed to the success of this session?

Also, has this group played Heroquest in the past, with other characters or another setting?

Best,
Ron

Let's call player one, (Jack), J, and player two, (Kip), R.  R is up for anything, and I've been playing with him for three years or so, mostly Hackmaster.  J I've played with on and off for ten years or so.  None of us have played Heroquest before, except for J and myself playing Hero Wars three years ago, which didn't go anywhere.

The absence of the other players I don't think had any impact on the success of the session - I think it was the emphasis on character rather than plot that made the game come alive.  The other players should be there next session, and we'll see how they respond to this style of play.  But I think it will be good.

One comment I'll make is that the one-on-one conflict in the shuttle was only really possible with two people.  If a third had been there, it would have broken up the symmetry, and that person would have taken sides and broken the standoff.  But I think there would also have been the possibility that (if the bang was set up correctly) that the third and fourth players might have had completely different reactions, further complicating the situation.

I didn't post the rest of the tale - I'll summarise it here.  We cut to eaumonde, where the ship had some much-needed repair.  Kip and Jak were in a bar, when an old pirate buddy of Jack's appears.  His name is Dainty and, true to his word, he is dressed in a fine suit.  He and Jack trade pirate tales, until a tall woman enters the bar and Dainty hides nder a table, and begs the players not to turn him in.  The woman goes tot he bartender and shows him a photo, and he directs hor to the heroes table.  She shows them a photo of Dainty, and they don't turn him in.

they want to know who she is, and he explains she's his sister in law, since he's somewhat late home.  They are incredulous, and so Dainty invites them back to his house for dinner.

They accept - and Dainty has a comfortable existence, working as a manager in a transport company.  His apartment is nice with a doorman, and his wife looks like the woman in the bar, her name is Kitty Danty (Danty is Dainty's real surname).

At this point it's playing out okay - but the players are a bit more passive, since this is familiar territory for them - a classic setup.  Over dinner, Kitty is quiet and angry (Dainty has been out drinking and brought two seedy characters home).  Dainty steps out of the room for a moment and Kitty asks the heroes if they can do something for her.  They ask what, and she says 'leave this house right now and never come back'.  The heroes argue, and decide to stay, then Dainty comes back.  Kitty goes to bed (there's a young daughter floating around somewhere) and Dainty outlines his plan - that the two heroes help him rob his transport company, they flee offworld with his wife and child, and live the life of a pirate.

Kip argues pretty strongly that there is a big flaw in this plan - Kitty doesn't want the life of a pirate.  Dainty argues she does, she just doesn't know it.  Jack points out that he has a young daughter, who might not respond well to living the life piratical.  Dainty is obviously blinded by boredom - he is convinced that it will all work out.  The players argue him down, but he threatens to report their ship and get it grounded if they don't come in on the heist.  He even picks up the phone and dials.  They manage to convince him to put the phone down, but they are twigging now that dainty has little appreciation of the reality of pulling this heist, and he's blinded by his desparation to get out of his 'normal' life.

There is a knock at the door - it is the police.  The call was noted and the fact it was cut off was also noted - seeing as it's a good area, a patrol was sent around.  Jack crawls into the bathroom and starts the shower.  Kip manages to get out a window, and stands on a ledge.  For some godforsaken reason Jack start the shower.  Danty is useless witht he police, further indicating he's lost his touch.  The police look around, and then Jack comes out, wet and wrapped in a towel.  the police retina scan him, and I run a contest to see if Jack is wanted by the police (his Sly vs Space Pirate 17).  It nds ina minor defeat, and there is a beeping noise as the retina card registers.  Meanwhile Kip is standing outside the window ledge, at night, on something like the 20th floor.

We end on the cliffhanger.

[Mike Holmes]

That last bit is interesting, about the contest to see if he's wanted. That's a very drama oriented conflict. Did it have an in-game explanation? Or did you just use it to set up the metagame situation?

Generally speaking on these posts, try to give a player context to the events of play. That is, recounting it as a narrative doesn't tell us a whole lot about the play, just the output. It's the play that's the interesting part.

Mike

[screen_monkey]

That last bit is interesting, about the contest to see if he's wanted. That's a very drama oriented conflict. Did it have an in-game explanation? Or did you just use it to set up the metagame situation?

Generally speaking on these posts, try to give a player context to the events of play. That is, recounting it as a narrative doesn't tell us a whole lot about the play, just the output. It's the play that's the interesting part.

Mike

Roger wilco.

with our second session in this mode, and our third with Serenityquest overall, we had two other players, 'A' who plays Kirin, a scarred martial artist, and 'C', who plays Wilbur, the owner of the ship, and UFO enthusiast.

I tried to get A to talk a little about his character, the attack on his monastery and why he has the 16 year old Wasabi as a ward - it was weird at first, but I think once A got a sense of being 'safe' to make things up, it worked quite well.  He's still not entirely comfortable with 'owning' his character information in this way, but he rallied to the challenge.  I got a great sense of what happened at the attack, and a much better idea of Wasabi as a character (for example, she's called Wasabi because she likes Wasabi, and she travels with Kirin because she's afraid if she returns to her old life she'll be killed).

Then I tried to do something similar with C - big mistake, and the first major obstacle.  I asked C to tell me about why his character was interested in UFO's - and hit a brick wall.  C told me upfront he wasn't interested in this sort of play, and was uncomfortable with it.  I didn't persist, but a couple of the other players, R and J, jumped in and explained how useful it had been.  Still no avail.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, we ended up in a situation where Kirin was helping rescue Wasabi from some armed men - at this point C decided W 'would have been there if he'd known what was going on'.  This was something I'd seen a lot before, but A really didn't like it - we were following his story arc, and another player was muscling in on it.  It's not as if C had been neglected - but perhaps he felt that way.  I think he may have thought that 'the adventure' was happening, and he would miss out on it if he didn't speak up.

In rescuing the girl they found they had also rescued a small chinese girl, who was blind.  This led to the best part of the game - they debated for around 30 minutes what to do with the girl.  Each had a position that was consistent with their character, and at one stage they suggested rolling a conflict to resolve it, but in the end an uneasy agreement was reached to look after her, for a while at least.  This was a great group bang for me - do you agree to look after a girl who will probably die or be kidnapped if you don't?

The final conflict was interesting - mostly for me getting too involved, I think, and screwing up.  They arranged a meet with the banditos, and I had Kirin recognise a fellow bodyguard who should have been killed in the attack.  Kirin's goal is to 'stop the faceless one' so I thought this would make a good hook for him to pursue that goal.  Mayhem ensued, and the group fled - A didn't seem too interested in finding the adventure for his character.  Then R had decided to grab a suitcase full of money that the banditos had brought as ransom (long story).  I thought it would make an interesting bang for his character, and tried to initiate a contest between whatever traits vs his Stong Moral Compass.  R argued that strong moral compass would not preclude him from such an act.  I didn't and don't agree, but I should have let R decide - it is his character, and it is grey enough.  If I want players to 'own' their characters I have to allow elements that seem a little wrong to me enter the story.

He lost and left the money behind.  Tthere was an interesting bit where R was begging J to have Jack draw his gun on Kip, to give him good augments to overcome his strong moral compass, but J refused.

We discussed it afterwards, and the players felt I had been heavy-handed and I have to agree.  But they understood and appreciated what I was trying to do, and had enjoyed similar situations (intra-character conflict) in the past.  C I don't think will ever be comfortable with Narrativist play, but I will attempt to keep it going - he is a stubborn chap, but I think has the potential for some real creativity.  R and J have taken to this style like a house on fire.  A, I think, enjoys it, but parts of it are still strange to him.  Most people have forgotten their character goals so I think I will open these up for them next session - conflicting goals might make for interesting Bangs.  I've thrown some mystery elements in there as well - the blind girl, pursued for what reason?  She has a mysterious gem, which is the same type of mineral found on an abandoned ship after the war that was completely bleached white inside, and is thought to be classic evidence of UFO activity (for C/Wilbur).  There is also the lead to the faceless one.

We discussed all this afterwards, and I think we have three players who are enjoying it, one of whom is still finding his way.  And one player who is openly hostile to the idea.  And one GM who needs to take a step back a bit.

Any advice?

[screen_monkey]

That last bit is interesting, about the contest to see if he's wanted. That's a very drama oriented conflict. Did it have an in-game explanation? Or did you just use it to set up the metagame situation?

Generally speaking on these posts, try to give a player context to the events of play. That is, recounting it as a narrative doesn't tell us a whole lot about the play, just the output. It's the play that's the interesting part.

Mike

Thanks for the advice, Mike - I've tried to follow it above.

There was no real in-game situation.  I think the conflict was 'was Jack such a pirate that he was wanted?  Or was he sly (or charming, or lucky) enough to warrant escaping the attention of the law?  I thought a conflict would be a neat way to decide whether he was wanted or not, and it worked pretty well - it drove the result from the character itself, rather than externally imposed by the plot (ie the GM, me)

[droog]

Could you explain a bit more about C, Russ? What is it he doesn't like exactly? How hostile is he and how does that manifest itself?

[screen_monkey]

Could you explain a bit more about C, Russ? What is it he doesn't like exactly? How hostile is he and how does that manifest itself?

He woud not even attempt to bring any details about his character to the table.  When I asked him about his character's belief in UFO's, and why he believed in them he hedged, and then said he wasn't comfortable with this sort of thing.  To borrow a theatre term, he 'blocked' - that is, he stopped the way things were flowing.  To be fair, he may need a little time and encouragement to be interested in drawing a clearer character - so I'd be interested in what I can do to make him feel comfortable, or to want to, participate in this sort of roleplaying.

Welcome back, by the way, Jeff.

[droog]

It's nice to be back. And I'll explain for the rest of the people reading this thread that, due to my going overseas just as the game was starting up, I haven't actually played in this game yet. So it may be that I'm misreading certain things, and I hope you'll bear with me, Russ.

We seem to have a little bit of contention on the home board over the internal conflict issue. I'd like to throw it out here and see what happens. The issue is this:

Then R had decided to grab a suitcase full of money that the banditos had brought as ransom (long story).  I thought it would make an interesting bang for his character, and tried to initiate a contest between whatever traits vs his Stong Moral Compass.  R argued that strong moral compass would not preclude him from such an act.  I didn't and don't agree, but I should have let R decide - it is his character, and it is grey enough.  If I want players to 'own' their characters I have to allow elements that seem a little wrong to me enter the story.

I disputed whether the HQ rules allow the GM to force a player to conform to his character's personality traits (in the same way that eg a Pendragon GM can). Russ replied: 'If something is written on a PC's character sheet, I can use it as an ability or augment in opposition to the character.'

Now, I still don't agree that a direct attempt to enforce character behaviour in this way is supported by the rules, but I could be wrong. In any case, that's a side issue, as I have no problem with house rules. If you want it to work that way it's most definitely your prerogative, given the group's social contract.

The question that this really raises for me, Russ, is essentially the same as the question I asked you when you first proposed the game; that is, are you looking for Sim or Nar? Because unless my understanding is very off, a basic principle of Narrativism is that the players must be free to make choices for their characters. Note Ron's comparison of the personality mechanics in Pendragon and The Riddle of Steel in the Sim essay.

I know that you feel that the intrapersonal arena of conflict is very important for good drama and I fully agree, but if you want Nar, the GM should only present the conflict (through a Bang). Whether the player chooses to roll for such a conflict (as Mike has mentioned Brand doing) or decides for himself is up to him, but it needs to be his decision.

I also realise that you felt that you overstepped the mark on this occasion, but you also indicated that you may do something similar in future. It seems to me that your reasons (given in your latest post on the home board) are Simulationist in nature--once again, and very carefully, if that's what you want it's what you want. But you have asked me for advice on Narrativist play, and that's my understanding. I haven't brought this up on the home board for obvious reasons.

I'd appreciate some clarification on this from anybody who might be interested.