After sitting down with my group and discussing the upcoming campaign (and I'm happy to report that not only are they becoming more excited about the game, but that more people are now clamoring to join in...), I ran into a bit of a snag.

There is a particulary difficult-but intriguing-situation brewing as one player is running a die-hard Orlanthi rebel and another is running (you guessed it) a militant, fanatic Lunar soldier/Yanafal Tarnils devotee. How in the hell am I going to integrate those two together? Any thoughts? I would really like to integrate the two characters together, as both players are excellent roleplayers; the tension between those two (and the ability of the players) has the potential to drive the entire campaign.

Also, there is an obvious source of tension in Dragon Pass in the clash between Lunar and Orlanthi characters/cultures, but I'd be interested to hear input regarding intra-Orlanthi and intra-Lunar conflict. Is anyone else running a game with the PCs all one culture? What did you use for kickers and bangs in a culturally homogenous (damn that Red Goddess!) group?


Thanks for any feedback...

How would the two heroes feel about the extremists on their own side? What would the Yanafali think of (say) a rogue Lunar sorcerer using Chaotic magic (or summoned Chaos monstrosities) to blight peaceful Orlanthi steads, in pursuit of some grand design that works against the Lunar Army's plans for the region? What would the Orlanthi think of (say) a Heortling Tarshite warband scalping and mutilating Lunar settlers in their vicinity, in order to provoke an Imperial over-reaction against their clan?

General-Purpose Lunar Bad Guys: slavers, tax-collectors, the Crimson Bat, chaos auxiliaries, Char-Un cossacks, misinformed imperial plenipotentiary envoys, your household's ancestral enemies, your culture's political rivals, your Sultan's wicked vizier, your inter-service rivals, the Imperial Secret Police, or any of the Secret Service(s)...

General-Purpose Orlanthi Bad Guys: head-hunters, cannibal Tarshites, werewolves, sinister horse-nomads from beyond the border, fools who attempt to use ancient evils (Dragons, Giants, EWF, etc.) against the Lunars, rival claimants for the throne of Sartar, rebel extremists, your clan's next-door neighbours, the enemy chief who killed your father / married your sister...

Intra-Lunar conflict? There's so much, we wrote a 50-player freeform game about it: Life of Moonson. See also my articles on Who Rules the Lunar Empire? for possible factions at court, and the flamefest around what happens when there's a New Red Emperor for extreme levels of intra-Lunar conflict (up to and including Civil War). Don't forget the heretical pacifist White Moonies, either... they make great traitors and/or victims, depending on what your game requires.

Intra-Orlanthi conflict? That's just day-to-day Heortling life, isn't it? :)

Cheers, Nick

Thanks for the suggestions Nick!

I was reading over the Life of Moonson freeform, and I kept thinking to myself, "Damn, I can't believe I missed that!"

I remember reading a snippet about an all-vampire legion in the Lunar army, but I can't recall where I read it. Is that still traipsing around someplace? Or am I hallucinating?

I particularly like the suggestion about the Lunar sorcerer who consorts openly with Chaotics...that has some serious potential for confronting the Yanafali with bits of his own culture that he might (violently) be at odds with. (as an American I of course wouldn't know anything about that:P)

Any word on whether Issaries intends to publish stats for Ralzakark?

Thanks again for the suggestions,
Dec

Decurio wrote: I remember reading a snippet about an all-vampire legion in the Lunar army, but I can't recall where I read it. Is that still traipsing around someplace? Or am I hallucinating?

I particularly like the suggestion about the Lunar sorcerer who consorts openly with Chaotics...that has some serious potential for confronting the Yanafali with bits of his own culture that he might (violently) be at odds with. (as an American I of course wouldn't know anything about that:P)

To answer the other part of the question, how to "integrate" two characters who are likely to have good reason to hate each other, well, the answer is don't.

That is:
A) If you're planning a more "traditional" game with a "party" mentality, then don't even try it. As Nick points out, there's plenty of potential conflict within a group of folks in just one culture without having to go to another culture.

B) Don't play "party" play.


This is one of those Forge ideas that's hard for folks to wrap their heads around sometimes. What people are used to is the idea that play will be a series of scenes in which the group goes from place to place all following each other around. This is done mostly for convenience's sake, as people assume that "spliting the party" is something that leads to long, boring down times for players.

The "problem" with party play is that it asks the players to come up with reasons why their characters follow each other around. That is, essentially there's some link between the characters that keeps them together. Often this link is really thin - basically just a veneer put up to explain why the characters don't split up more often. Meaning that players are often (usually, even) asked to subsume their desires for where to drive their characters in order that the "party" remain united.

But there's an entirely different style of play that a lot of us use here that doesn't have this problem. Basically you just throw out the assumption that down time is bad. Once it becomes the established style of play to take turns, essentially, with characters, what happens is that players aren't dying to get back into the spotlight, and they instead settle into a comfortable "audience" role.

What this means is that, in theory, you could just play six different stories that never crossed each other. Now, that might start to stretch the boundaries of even comfortable audience stance, so we don't advocate going that far - I say it just to make the point. What you do, instead, is to have the narrator come up with some situation into which all of the characters are thrown.

This is what Ron was advocating in the other thread. Instead of saying, "You all meet at the tavern," instead play starts with, "You all reside in a Heortling border village." Much more plausible, and then play goes from there. A good way to establish a situation in which the PCs paths will cross is to have what Ron calls a relationship map. Essentially a listing of interellated NPCs who start out the game by "grabbing" the PCs by their motivations.

I'll get back to that part in a minute. But the idea in general is that, then they'll tend to naturally bump into each other, being involved with the same people. Next, play is composed of scenes, not like the ones advocated in the sample HQ advantures, but ones mostly created by the players.

GM: "Bob, your turn for a scene, what kinda trouble is your character getting into?
Bob: "I'm going to find that pesky Lunar that I saw the other day to teach him a lesson. Oh, and I want Mary's character to come along."
GM: "Mary?"
Mary: "Sure, Aileena would come along for sure."
GM: "Cool, the two of you are asking about in the military quarter..."

Play becomes all about driving after character goals. Here's the really cool part. Let's say that the Heortling does find that pesky Lunar soldier who's assigned to garrison duty in this border village, and who taunted him at the tavern the other day. This means that somebody's going to die, right?

Not in HQ. Not neccessarily.

Yes, if it's dramatic, it might happen that one of the character dies. But if it's early in the game, then there's really no way that a character can die in HQ if the narrator doesn't think it's time for it to happen. Even if the Heortling manages to roll the one in 400 Complete Victory against the Lunar, that leaves him "dying." The Heortling does a victory dance, and when he turns around he finds that the body isn't there anymore having been spirited away by the old hag at the edge of town who brings him back to health with a promise to impregnate her demonic daughter. Or whatever.

Then, after a long recuperation, the Lunar plans his revenge. And he manages to mangle the Heortling. Who is then healed by a cult who sends him on a quest. When he returns, then maybe he thinks of some way to get his arch-enemy.

And this is the "worst case scenario." That is, if you're a really good narrator, you can prevent the first few fights, by having getting to them be a matter of some other conflicts. Maybe the heortling has been told that the time is not right, and he's not allowed to attack the Lunars yet, not wanting to bring down the wrath of their army. That sort of thing.

As I'm now very fond of pointing out, the PCs in my HQ game do little else but try to kill each other. There have been no less than twelve PvP fights where the PCs intended to kill other PCs. Sometimes bunches of them at a time. And nobody dead, or even badly wounded yet. And all quite plausible, I assure you (you can ask the various players who haunt these boards what the fights are like).

When you're watching one PC take on another PC, being an audience member almost demands popcorn. Anyhow, the point is that this method of play works, and works well. It allows players to have the characters that they want, and to play them as they see fit without remonstrance. How many times have you seen a GM look harried saying, "Are you sure Lord Mortimort wants to attack Lisa's character?" In HQ, it's like, "Mortimort attacks Lisa's character? Wow, cool!"


Just to fill in the blank above about how to "grab" PCs with the relationship map, it's important that the NPCs doing so are, yes, after their own goals, but that the narrator designs all of this so that what really happens is that the player has a chance to make interesting decisions with his character. If what's happening is a "hook" in which it's "do what the NPC wants you to do, or nothing happens at all" then this sort of play doesn't work, because the player doesn't get proactive. He then expects the narrator to do the work for him in deciding what his PC does in terms of following his goals. So use "grabs", not "hooks".

See then "Bangs" for how to make sure that play keeps on going (and going, and going).

This isn't an easy think for traditional players to grasp sometimes. I'm not talking about incrementally moving away from party play and having "sub-plots." I'm talking about dumping party play altogether, and going with nothing but scene framing.

Is any of this making sense? In the immortal words of the Starship Trooper movie's propaganda shots, "Would you like to know more?"

:-)

Mike

Mike, that is some of the best advice I have ever received regarding dithcing the Ye Ol Tavern ploy; awesome!

Of course I would like to know more; I'm able to admit I'm still making the conceptual leap to a lot of the notions discussed on the Forge, but the little I have already learned has simply whetted my appetite for more. I am, honestly, looking forward to this campaign more than any other I can remember (maybe my very first D$D campaign, but thats mainly for nostalgia:) . Not only do I get to "return" to Glorantha, but I also get to try out the new approaches to roleplaying that I've learned about on the Forge's fora. As I stated elswhere, don't be shy about offering advice-just don't be surprised if I come back in a couple of days with questions!:)

Nick, I wish I had known about www.etyries.com earlier-I spent hours this afternoon (and got the Look from my wife) reading over the site and exploring Lokarnos.com. Tomorrow I plan on chipping the rest of the soda I spewed over the monitor after reading "Ten Things I Hate About Glorantha."

Thanks again for the feedback guys....and keep it coming!

Sorry to be away from this thread so long. Origins n stuff.

I think that perhaps the best way to go about this is a practical example. I helped another player with using some of this methodology on this forum previously. The results produced were far from perfect, but that's actually good, because the problems that were presented will give you a heads up as to what might come from playing with these methods. Also, the problems will show you that these methods won't create perfect play - no techniques can. But hopefully that'll be instructive, too.

Here are the threads in question:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8920
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9351
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9671

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: To answer the other part of the question, how to "integrate" two characters who are likely to have good reason to hate each other, well, the answer is don't.

That is:
A) If you're planning a more "traditional" game with a "party" mentality, then don't even try it. As Nick points out, there's plenty of potential conflict within a group of folks in just one culture without having to go to another culture.

Hiya,

One of the strongest things about Glorantha as a setting, for me, is that in many cases the boundaries of culture, religion, and race have to be discarded at the personal level - which then leads to real values-decisions.

Imagine the Orlanthi clansman and the Lunar soldier who uneasily coexist day by day in a relatively "pacified" area of Dragon Pass. They both have lovers and friends, they both have day in, day out work to do.

And then they are together, with the woman who fancies them both, besieged by a swarm of bat-broo. And guess what? The bat-broo are controlled by an old-school Thed shaman who hates all the modern religions equally, and has the moxie to back it up.

The clan chief is dead. The squad leader is driven mad by the bat-things. It's night. The moon is round and red. Here come the bat-broos.

See, what matters to me is that after this situation, pending that they both survive, these two characters may have to deal with the fact that, if they cooperated to survive and save the girl, they now respect each other. And they both bled for the community. And they both care more about that than they do about any fucking politics over at Boldhome or back in Silver Shadow.

So now what? Ummmm. Good question. Role-playing in Glorantha isn't about making the political into the personal ("my clan hates your religion! yah!") but rather the other way around.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: One of the strongest things about Glorantha as a setting, for me, is that in many cases the boundaries of culture, religion, and race have to be discarded at the personal level - which then leads to real values-decisions.

Yeah, nothing more thematically resonant than playing the next generation dealing with dad. Father's and Sons.

Mike

Nick Brooke wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: Because, every so often, you listen to them them (in or out of character) and think, "But that's just plain wrong."

Especially if you have the same dad as Calvin.

Much of how the culture clash between rebel and Lunar depends on how the players have developed their personalties and backstories. Were the Lunar a retired soldier granted his plot of land in the rebel's tula, he may seek to ingratiate himself to the locals out of concern for the safety of his family. Or perhaps he married the rebel's sister/cousin/widowed mother and now, for good or ill, is the rebel's kinsman; killing him would instigate kinstrife and bring chaos to the rebel's clan.

The possibilities are endless...

Good points, Michael. This was precisely the subject of the Return to Apple Lane scanario that I had the privilege of going over for Origins (alas nobody came to play it).

What I came away from it with also is that timeline is also important. After dragonrise, things become even less certain.

Mike

Hi Decurio,

I've been going through this same process, daring to try and leap into a more narrativist style, influenced by all the fine folks here at the Forge.

I decided to give my players the setting of a port-city where almost anything can be found for a price (I eventually settled on Karse, since they wanted it to be Lunar run). I told them each to make a goal that would have brought them to the city.

So far I have an up-and-coming merchant who has lived in the city for some time but comes from Sartar. He has a personal friendship with leaders of the Rebellion and will help them, but isn't actually a patriot. In fact, his life as a merchant has made him think his Orlanthi kinfolk are backwards thinking and hidebound. So he's trying to corner some of the black market and make himself a mover and shaker among the new important people, the Lunars. Specifically, he's trying to muscle another merchant prince out of the scene.

The other character is a sorcerer from an island still locked in the Closing. He found out that the rulers of his island have secretly been using Chaotic magics to keep the island "pure" (looking more and more like this is some version of the Borists). Rebelling against it, he was cast out, but saved in a passing ship. Now he is looking for a way to free his island. The problem is that the greater magics he learned have their roots in Chaos, so he is afraid to use his own magic.

The third is still vaguely formed, but she's hammering it down. She's a warrior from the Lunar-Orlanthi conflict who has committed an atrocity. The rigors of war brought her to the point of abandoning her own ethics. Horrified at what she had done, she has abandoned her old identity and fled to Karse. (She hasn't decided yet what side she was on and what she did, she's toying with the possibilities. These will lead her to what she hopes to accomplish there.)

As has been mentioned by Mike, I'm trying to avoid having a PLOT, and rather have their stories interconnect. Convincing them they won't all be doing parallel stories with no interaction has been a chore, but especially with the merchant, they are seeing ways their stories could overlap. (And I've explained to them that they should feel free to make them overlap as often as possible, since it is more fun.)

This has been an interesting excercise for someone who grew up on "meet in a tavern, find ways to stay together" but I'm enjoying it. The summer makes it difficult to meet, so I've devoted it to people just making their characters. Once I have them, I intend to make the city based on what elements I need to explore the stories they've laid out for themselves and some larger events that all will have to react to just because they live in the city.

I'm worried about some of the players taking to this style though. The three who have already pitched characters don't concern me too much, but there is a 4th who has been remarkably silent, and who I think doesn't understand how this can work without a plot.

Hi lc,

I wouldn't worry too much. Either the quiet player will warm up to it, or decide he doesn't like it. I've found further pre-game discussion in attempts to "convince" people that it is possible only serves to reinforce their defensiveness.

Better to show, rather than tell.

Chris

Right, what Chris said. Don't tell them how it's going to work. Just play that way. They'll keep waiting for the moment where you frame them all to the tavern to hear the call from the dark cloaked stranger to help him with an errand to the wizard's tower nearby. But after a while, they'll just realize that it isn't coming, and that they're having fun anyhow.

I assume that by "interconnected stories" you mean Bangs and Relationship Maps and the like? The word story makes me panic, making me think that you have paths set up for each PC. Which is just as sim as having one path for everyone.

Mike

Chris and Mike,

I do fully intend to just play and let them come to terms with it. But with this last player just not proposing a character at all, I think she's doing a little passive-aggressive resistance. We'll see, hopefully I'll see her tonight.

And Mike, I didn't mean to scare you. Yes, I'm talking relationship maps and bangs. I'm including some fixed events which are Glorantha-history based (namely, the ongoing seige of Whitewall) that will disturb everyone in the city I'm drawing bangs from the goals they're laying out for themselves.

In fact, I'm drawing the relationship map from that too. I've asked the players to sketch some of the people they need to interact with for the sake of the premise they want to explore.

Thus the merchant guy has said he would need the main merchant he's trying to usurp, at least one rival gunning for the same position, the major Lunar client he has and the major rebel client he has. So I'm letting him get some major input into his relationship with those people, and using them as points on the map to start. Is this a rational way to approach this in your opinion?

Sounds good to me. :-)

Mike