Hey,

The following comes from Ron's original review of Hero Wars which can be found at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/16/

My most major concern is whether the story will be told for us over time, as in Vampire and L5R, in which case Glorantha will be something we can witness but not create. The scenario book enhances this concern, as the player-characters may participate in a pre-arranged plot event, specifically the appearance of a dragon during the armed conflict in Sartar. I really, really hope that 1620 or so, or whenever it is that the dragon unearths itself, remains the last year in the canon, so that working out the various issues remains with the individual play groups rather than with some official line of fiction. The rules do give some weight to this hope, based on how Heroquesting permits even the mythic canon to be altered somewhat, such that conceivably a play group might end up with a unique modification of the mythology.

Hmmm...I'd be more concerned if the "plot" were advancing across all the supplements. For the moment, I don't see that happening. If they just advance the plot through the Sartar Rising campaign books (which should end with the fourth book), I don't really see it as a problem. They're just advancing a sample campaign.

Also, I find stuff like the "You Can Be Argrath" sidebar in Orlanth Is Dead to be fairly reassuring. Even in the context of the metaplot, they are being sure to leave openings to allow your players to be absolutely central to the story.

And let's face it: all this stuff we're seeing in the Sartar Rising campaign is following Gloranthan history that is already more or less laid down in King of Sartar (at least so I understand, I'm a newcomer to Glorantha and don't own it; I'm hoping for a reprint soon).

Also, considering the nature of Glorantha and the way Heroquests can change the world, it's pretty much impossible for history to be stagnant in the world. How can a metaplot stand up to that?

I find myself of two minds on this issue. On one hand, I really like the whole Hero Wars plotline as it appears in King of Sartar, etc. On the other hand, this *is* a game we are talking about. So...

One litmus test I use is the amount of description or (worse) reading to the players that happens. The Ship Raising adventure (which is just one of many adventures in Gathering Thunder) doesn't fair all that well here. I think the authors succumbed to the temptation to tell the cool shipraising story rather than write a good PC focused adventure. I believe that if the players are not actually the protagonists of the Ship Raising, then the adventure should have focused on where they *are* centrally important. The Ship Raising itself should then happen off camera as "Thanks to your valiant and completely necessary efforts the Ship Raising succeeded."

I was also left foggy on what exactly was going on in the Ship Raising adventure, but that is another issue. :)

What I would really like to see, instead of "it happens this way" adventures, would be supplements with more information on the basic HW plotlines themselves. There are supposedly gobs of secret plots and so forth going on in Glorantha that will all trip over each other and cause the end of the world as we know it. I can tell my own stories if I know the basics of what these plots and major groups/NPCs are. Issaries' position of "these will be described in later supplements" is not all that helpful - especially if, as in Ship Raising, the future supplements don't really tell you anything significant about the other participating groups. A "Plots of the Early Hero Wars" book would be much more generally useful.

It appears that the new World of Glorantha book (http://www.glorantha.com/products/1105.html) might have some of this, and I am very interested to see what they do with it.

~Kevin McD

[rumour]Apparently, a more "active" version of the adventure was proposed, but shot down by Greg himself in preference for Minaryth infodumping and pc tourism.[/rumour]

Now, I'll be ripping the story out of gregs hands and running into the hills laughing like a maniac with it, but the drift towards assuming PC's are observers of great events rather than instigators to be [darth] disturbing[/darth]

Part of me is a bit upset by the revealed mindset of greg drifting towards the attitude of "your players are observers of my story", but another part of me is saying "meh, after the terrible things you did to the arc plots of Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Lucas knows what else in other games, you worry about futzing with Glorantha's arc plot?"

But it always seemed that Glorantha was developed with "clearly demarked lines of ambiguity" to slot PC's into, and this seems to be going away a bit now...

Or I'm an overreacting fanboy. Nah, couldn't be.

Hiya,

Actually, I'm optimistic about this issue, based on the following ideas.

Pre-set events don't mean pre-set character decisions. I've written pretty extensively in various places since that review that changing setting does not necessarily mean the same as metaplot (in the common sense of pre-determined story).

The key concept is that the canonical "Glorantha history" events are openly available and known to everyone at the table. That's the big difference. In a White Wolf style metaplot, the point is to wow the characters and the players with the pre-planned revelations, via play itself. In a Gloranthan changing-setting, the point is for everyone to milk the commonly-known event (before, during, after) for as much Premise-meat as possible throughout play.

My experiences through play confirmed this point again and again. When we took the characters to Boldhome, for instance, everyone was fascinated by the various canonical textual details of Temertain's assassination, although our story took place two years prior. Our fascination led us to spend quite a bit of time developing Temertain and various other characters, both canonical and original, in a variety of conflicts for the player-characters.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
Pre-set events don't mean pre-set character decisions. I've written pretty extensively in various places since that review that changing setting does not necessarily mean the same as metaplot (in the common sense of pre-determined story).

The key concept is that the canonical "Glorantha history" events are openly available and known to everyone at the table. That's the big difference. In a White Wolf style metaplot, the point is to wow the characters and the players with the pre-planned revelations, via play itself. In a Gloranthan changing-setting, the point is for everyone to milk the commonly-known event (before, during, after) for as much Premise-meat as possible throughout play.

bluegargantua wrote: It is commonly asserted that you need to be some sort of Glornathian expert to play HeroQuest. I have a friend who bristles at the idea of playing HQ because of all the arcane game history you need to know. He's currently running a Cold War spy game. I know next to nothing about about intelligence agencies during the 70's, he's got a bookshelf of material. Clearly, his argument is hollow. Any setting, real or imagined, can be incredibly detailed and require a fair amount of reading to get into.

Hi folks,

I agree with Ron that when you have predestined events on the table, it can open up plenty of room for creating great stories. I also agree with Jere that the in this particular case, not all the information is really available. The HQ book gives a very brief rundown of events before the Hero Wars, but not much about what happens later("Um, there's going to be Hero Wars, and it starts here.")

Chris

Hiya,

Tom, I'm disagreeing with you on a couple of points.

1. There's literally no meaning to having a constraint and not having a constraint. Whatever details of Kallyr's story are set - OK, that's a constraint, and the point is to make it a creative springboard for a Premise. Not "will Kallyr live or die, oh no!" but rather, "what does my character do (or contribute to!) when Kallyr kicks the bucket in the fashion that we know she will?"

Who knows, maybe your Lunar's plan works!! But do you see that by using the word "foolproof," you effectively reject the constraint. That can't happen - a constraint is a constraint. Mess with that and it's like someone deciding to move the goalposts a yard further apart.

2. No one has to know all of Gloranthan lore in order to play it, mainly because there's no prize for running Glorantha the most faithfully to canon. For instance, we used a lot of material in The Haunted Ruins - but placed it all in Far Point.

Oh no! Does that mean that groups across the land suddenly looked at their maps in surprise as the Haunted Ruins unaccountably disappeared from their original position, to relocate in Far Point? Nope. Screw it. Doesn't matter.

Nor does a much more significant change matter, which was based on mis-understanding the canon rather than on a mere logistic shift. I didn't grasp the Windstop at all; when we were playing, the Sartar Rising stuff wasn't even barely in pre-production. So our game went right through that set of events with about 20% conformity.

Disaster? Nope. That's our Glorantha. We used what we knew, and it was fine.

And finally, what's the big deal about knowing it "all" at the start? My players and I learned a ton of things on the fly - "Hey, we're in Boldhome. Pass me that book." Tod became a troll junkie only after some trolls came into play, and he buried himself in texts just because he liked it. His readings led to tons of new cool stuff for our game. We essentially just built and sophisticated our knowledge of the setting as we went.

Granted, I had a running start on them, enough to get the game going, but the point was that we casually and painlessly soaked stuff up by becoming interested during play.

Best,
Ron

Jere wrote: The problem isn't level of detail, its availability of detail. The problems of game settings like Glorantha, Tekumel or even the Forgotten realms is that a large chunk of assumptions are unknowable to any but a small group of people (heck they might even be making them up as they go) and these assumptions drive a fair amount of the events in the world.

Unlike historically absed games where the past is pretty much available for anyone with the time and energy to look (thanks to the wodners of libraries) that of these fictional worlds is not (though not necessarily the case with all fictonal worlds).

And this leads to levels of esoterica that I, and many others choose not to explore. I do not want to have to refer to MAR Barker's campaign notes written up in some Tekumel covention zine, or an article printed in a British Glorantha fanzine from 10 years ago in order to understand crucial things bout a world I choose to game in. Unfortunately Glorantha currently still has a lot of the detritus gathered from so many eyars of being a cult game. And the only way t escape tht is to blow open the doors and let all the secrets out.

>Unlike historically absed games where the past is pretty much available
>for anyone with the time and energy to look (thanks to the wodners of
>libraries) that of these fictional worlds is not (though not necessarily the
>case with all fictonal worlds).

For what it is worth, I completely disagree. I've run (or help) strongly historical games set during the Persian Wars, the First Crusade, Elizabethan England, and the Thirty Years War. Frankly, there is actually far more easily useful material to set a roleplaying game in Glorantha than in any of those historical periods. Moreoever, it is easier to get players into the mindset of a Gloranthan than it is to really get into the mindset of a 11th century de Hauteville or a 5th century BC Athenian.

Jeff

Canon. <shudder>

If there is a more fun-sucking word in the gamer's dictionary I don't know what it is. I am not sure why so many people get bent out of shape over it. Canon should only matter to people writing for publication or who are playing the trivia game on the mailing lists. I really don't think it has anything to do with playing an RPG at all.

I suppose this is the paradox of Gloranthan publishing. Gloranthan supplements serve at least two functions: 1) To help narrators run more interesting games. 2) Cool reading material to enjoy and maybe discuss with friends. These two functions are not always compatible. The best Gloranthan supplements strike a happy balance between the two extremes, but I don't guess it is an easy thing to do.

I do like published adventures, and recognize that they need to make certain assumptions to work, but I see them more as expamples and sources of inspriation than anything else. My feeling is that narrators should be given the overall plotline (for inspiration), and enough background material to adapt the story when things get weird. The more flexible they are the happier I will be.

~Kevin McDonald

Hey,

Ron Edwards wrote:
1. There's literally no meaning to having a constraint and not having a constraint. Whatever details of Kallyr's story are set - OK, that's a constraint, and the point is to make it a creative springboard for a Premise. Not "will Kallyr live or die, oh no!" but rather, "what does my character do (or contribute to!) when Kallyr kicks the bucket in the fashion that we know she will?"

Who knows, maybe your Lunar's plan works!! But do you see that by using the word "foolproof," you effectively reject the constraint. That can't happen - a constraint is a constraint. Mess with that and it's like someone deciding to move the goalposts a yard further apart.

2. No one has to know all of Gloranthan lore in order to play it, mainly because there's no prize for running Glorantha the most faithfully to canon.

We've been over these metaplot issues a lot before, here at The Forge. I've been staying out, because I really wanted to see these ideas develop again independently. But now that they have, compare them to this sampling:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9630
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7358
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7333
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1974
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=886

One idea comes up again and again. Lots of people say that history works as metaplot. Well, the difference between history and problematic metaplots is player acceptance of what can and cannot be changed. That is, if history is known to the players, or they understand that history is going to march on as it did, historically, then they're more likely to accept that they, as Ron puts it, are playing "underneath" the metaplot. In a fantasy world, this is less acceptable to some players, because one of the advantages of a fantasy world is that it's history might not yet be set. Meaning that the players could change it, if they were only allowed.

Ron calls history that's understood to be non-changing just a part of the setting. Metaplot, then being those events which the players are to be exposed to as the plot of the game. But without agreeing or disagreeing with these definitions, the point is pretty clear. Most (not all) players are in a game to be able to have an affect on the outcome of events in some ways. Some players just want to win at challenges. Some want to explore what it might be like to do X or Y, deciding where to go on their own. Some want to make decisions that say things about their characters. Metaplot is bad for this majority of players who want things like this, if and when it makes it so that they can't do those things. So, if I as a player am looking to be creating the plot, then if I'm forced to go along with the events of the metaplot, with no chance of altering them, then I'll be upset.

Worse, if the adventure plot takes us to the point of decision, seems to give it to the players, but assumes that the players will make a particular decision...then we have a real problem. Because you can't give someone the power to make a decision and be sure that they'll make the right one. If you're sure, then there's no real decision being made (and worse, players will rebel and make the "wrong" decision just because they're expected to make the other).

When designing an adventure what you can't do is make the adventure take away the fun decision making that the players like to do. Simple as that. Metaplot often causes this problem - but not neccessarily. If you make it into "history," like Ron says, or make it into backdrop that's not just there for the players to experience, but have their own affect upon, then it's not a problem. Think of it this way, the metaplot of Dragon Pass as presented is of no consequence to a lunar. Yeah, it may impact him, but he doesn't have to worry about the narrator forcing him down a specific rout just to experience certain events. It's just news from afar.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Yeah, it may impact him, but he doesn't have to worry about the narrator forcing him down a specific rout just to experience certain events. It's just news from afar.

Brand_Robins wrote:
Until the world blows up. Then it matters.

Invain wrote: In my Carmania, one year the winds got stuck blowing down from Valind's Glacier for almost a year. A couple of years later some folks associated with Castle Blue raised the Boat Planet as part of some mysterious plot, possibly kicked into high gear by the Windstop. A couple of years after that, the Temples of the Reaching Moon all went haywire, which served the interests of the Boat Planet conspirators nicely...

Is any of this canon? Do I care? :)

The point, Kevin, has to do with the use of the material. My point is that, yes, if you use the "metaplot" as just background, and do not require the PCs to go see it in action, then it's not a problem. This is why it's not a problem for a Lunar. Because the metaplot that's written up right now only requires Orlanthi PCs to go and see it. That is, the adventures written are for Orlanthi PCs, not for Lunar ones.

What I mean by "go and see it" is that the way that the adventures relating to the metaplot are written, the characters are required to get involved with the metaplot, but only as observers. That is, they get into positions where, theoretically they could change the plot, but since it's metaplot, they aren't allowed to do so. This is the important point. Events in a campaign are never bad if the character never has a chance to really change them. They're only bad when you theoretically put the character in a position to affect them, and then make it so that they can't affect them.

For instance, I happen to know that the PCs are not written as being the ones who are involved as destroying the Temple of the Reaching Moon in Sartar. But what if they were? What if an adventure were written in which they were responsible for destroying the temple? The problem is that such an adventure can't have any choices for the player to make. They must accept the assignment, and then go along the predestined path to success. In fact, they cannot be allowed to fail, or else the metaplot fails, and all subsequent material is useless. So there is no real challenge to succeed, there are no moral questions for the player to answer, they don't even get to decide how to approach the problem. They're merely window dressing in such an adventure.

This is when Metaplot is most problematic. When the adventure designer is really writing fiction in which the player is intended pretty much only to make up his character's dialog along the way. The other case is what Brand talks about. But there's a simple solution to that problem, Brand, knowing that large scale changes are going to occur, you just have to have the Heroes play on one scale smaller. Their decisions can, say, change anything about their village's politics, but they can't decide who it is that will be in charge of stopping the oncoming doom (the dragon in this case, but we don't have to know that).

Now, if you want to have your Lunar characters involved in world-shaking events (and I can understand the urge), then, yes, you have to pick a point in the metaplot, and start there, allowing for divergence at that point. So, yeah, to the extent that the metaplot is not known, it's limiting in that way. What I suggest for HQ is that you start characters as listed in the book which makes them unexperienced, and let them impact only lower scales. Then, have them get more powerful over the years with the Saga System, and other advanced experience rules. Then, once they've played through the 30 years, yes, the 30 years of the metaplot (I like to start people at 17, so that would be 47 years old - late Conan), and it's all over, then allow them to affect the portion of history that's unwritten. Or just start them there if that's what you want to see.

This is what I did in my HQ game as it came to a close on Monday. I decided that there was no way that the PCs were at all powerful enough to stop the curse that was about to befall the city, and that they would get to see it first hand, as well, but that they'd have decisions to make that would be relevant to their characters. Meaning that, obviously, how to stop the curse was not one of them. Instead, the characters got to decide things like whether they'd fight hopelessly against the curse, and, if so, what for? If they were going to flee instead, what would they be willing to risk their lives for to get those things?

BTW, for your character, Thomas, who I had to play out for you, he ended up trying to fight to protect the poor despite all odds, until Regina came and told him that she'd bargained for his safe passage out of the city, and convinced him that he couldn't possibly succeed (which was becoming pretty obvious at the time with hundreds of demons descending, and millions of bats, and worse). If you had been playing, you would have to have decided whether to go with her, or to stay and fight, possibly to your characters doom - I felt his honor made this as likely a choice.

So, here we have a nearby metaplot, with loads of direct effects on the players, but no incapacitation of the player decision making ability because I presented decisions to be made "underneath" the metaplot.

Put another way, the story continued to be about the Heroes, and the curse was just a background event, not the plot of the story. In point of fact, I did this intentionally to discover just how well it can work. Because the campaign world that I'm playing in has loads and loads of metaplot written for it. So I'm looking for the most effective way to use it, and not make it problematic for play. And I think that I was successful.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Put another way, the story continued to be about the Heroes, and the curse was just a background event, not the plot of the story. In point of fact, I did this intentionally to discover just how well it can work. Because the campaign world that I'm playing in has loads and loads of metaplot written for it. So I'm looking for the most effective way to use it, and not make it problematic for play. And I think that I was successful.

The price one pays for matrimonial bliss, I guess.

Actually, I'm afraid that I may have been a tad heavy handed. Hard to know. I'll be asking about this on the Indie Netgaming list as we discuss things during the break. If anyone is interested, see my sig.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: For instance, I happen to know that the PCs are not written as being the ones who are involved as destroying the Temple of the Reaching Moon in Sartar. But what if they were? What if an adventure were written in which they were responsible for destroying the temple? The problem is that such an adventure can't have any choices for the player to make. They must accept the assignment, and then go along the predestined path to success. In fact, they cannot be allowed to fail, or else the metaplot fails, and all subsequent material is useless. So there is no real challenge to succeed, there are no moral questions for the player to answer, they don't even get to decide how to approach the problem. They're merely window dressing in such an adventure.

I have never played HeroQuest... Though the more I read, the more I would like the chance. That being said, I've experienced this problem playing Star Wars. (lots of metaplot)

If done correctly, both playing under the metaplot and getting involved in it can be woven together. What do I mean? The main story was about our characters, the background was the Galactic Civil War. But, at one point my Jedi character ran into Darth Vader and managed to cut off his arm. Vader hunted him for awhile for vengeance. I would call that affecting the metaplot (in a minor fashion) while mainly being under the metaplot.

OK, now I'll shut up and just read your HeroQuest thread. (Must resist... buying another game...)
:)

Jonathan

EDIT: BTW, I do have a really old (circa 1977, same as me!) Runequest game book. Is that the same Glorantha?

Oy, Donald, if the players had the choice to do this, then it wouldn't be a problem, no, of course not. Have you been reading what I've been writing? It's when they're forced to destroy the temple that it's a problem.

In the adventures that this thread are about, the potential problem is that the players are put into the situation where they might theoretically be able to say no to doing something like destroying the temple. But then they are required to do so if any of the subsequent adventures in the series are to be able to be played, or, indeed, if you want any of the metaplot to hold.

That is, what would be problematic, in the example, would be if there were an adventure in which the PCs were sent to destroy the temple. Because they can't choose not to do so. The player participation is reduced to minimal, therefore.

Mike

P.S. Jonathan, same Glorantha, different rules by far. Your comments are precisely what I'm talking about in terms of using metaplot correctly.

Mike Holmes wrote: In the adventures that this thread are about, the potential problem is that the players are put into the situation where they might theoretically be able to say no to doing something like destroying the temple. But then they are required to do so if any of the subsequent adventures in the series are to be able to be played, or, indeed, if you want any of the metaplot to hold.

That is, what would be problematic, in the example, would be if there were an adventure in which the PCs were sent to destroy the temple. Because they can't choose not to do so. The player participation is reduced to minimal, therefore.

ErrathofKosh wrote: EDIT: BTW, I do have a really old (circa 1977, same as me!) Runequest game book. Is that the same Glorantha?

Invain wrote: Well, saying "no" to destroying the temple is essentially saying "no" to going on the adventure at all, isn't it? I think the problem with the Sky Ship adventure is that the players are not allowed to make any meaningful decisions at all. They are bystanders in what should be their own story.

Mike Holmes wrote: Oy, Donald, if the players had the choice to do this, then it wouldn't be a problem, no, of course not. Have you been reading what I've been writing? It's when they're forced to destroy the temple that it's a problem.

Donald wrote: Yes, you appear to be arguing that a meta-plot or story arc is bad either because the players are forced to follow a particular line or they are reduced to passive observers. It's up to the GM whether that happens or if they are allowed to take over roles and the NPCs only step in where the PCs fail.

As far as the destruction of the Temple of the Reaching Moon is concerned canon says it is destroyed by a dragon being awakened underneath it. Unless you have a PC who's a dragon who has been asleep for several centuries the PCs don't destroy the temple. The PCs may be involved in wakening the dragon or may not, they may get the credit for wakening it or may not. The only thing you have to do as GM is have the dragon waken and the meta-plot carries on.

Published adventures generaly contain characters, events and situations. Characters and events are largely immutable, and seve to frame the scenario. they create the situation in play within which the characters can act. All scenarios contain some events that can't be affected by the actions of the players.

This isn't a problem. If you want to run the adventure as written, fine. If you want to use the location but change the characters and events, that's fine too. If you want to change the adventure so the players take the rles of NPCs in the adventure and the 'PC' roles are taken by NPCs, why not? It is inherently within the nature of roleplaying games that this can be done, and in fact it happens all the time.

You can't have playable examples of big epic plots that affect the course of history, and present them in a playable way, without providing stats for great epic characters and describing great epic events many of which will be immutable within the context of the scenario. Outside the context of the scenario as written, it's your game and you can't blame anyone else for the limitations you play within other than yourself.


Simon Hibbs

You're saying that you can alter the material presented to make it useful? I don't have any problem with that. All I've said is that it's problematic as provided. Saying that it's not problematic because it can be fixed is like selling somebody a new car and telling them that with some repairs that it'll work fine. Why not sell a car that works?

Mike

Alternatively, like buying a highly configurable and tweakable kit car but complaining that it comes pre-assembled into something that's drivable.

True, for someone who wants to do all the tweaking, there's going to be some wasted effort in taking it apart it before doing the tweaking, but really that's nothing compared to building the whole thing from scratch. And some people will want to just buy and drive.

I'd rather have a scenario that said 'in Sea season 1622, the Colymar tribe revolted against the Lunars, massing a warband 3000 strong against the 5000 Lunar troops of the Beryl Phalanx. Here is what happens, here is how your heros can get involved, what are they going to do?' than one that said 'in Sea season 1622 (or some other time appropriate to your campaign) the Colymar tribe (or some other tribe or clan appropriate to your campaign) rebelled (or stayed peaceful), massing a warband (or performing a great ritual)... (rest cut for space).

For the way I think, the first would be far more immediately useful. Taking a concrete example that hangs together, and changing it, is far easier to me than adding in a full set of details to a generic or flexible skeleton.

Admittedly, I know other people think differently, and I don't have any statistics as to how many people think one way or the other.

soru

My possition is that criticising a scenario for being linear, boring, badly plotted, with poor characters and such that's fine.

Criticising it for containing established characters, fixed events and defined locations then you're essentialy criticising it for being a scenario.

Perhaps some people think Issaries Inc shouldn't publish epic scenarios in which major events ocur, but since this is exactly the kind of thing HeroQuest is supposed to be used for, and there have been widespread calls for published examples of how to play HeroQuest, this is moot.


Simon Hibbs

From what Steve Martin (of Issaries) was saying at Continuum this weekend, they see this as more of a problem of presentation than the type of scenario.

In other words, as Simon points out above, these scenarios are designed to tell the epic events of the Hero Wars, so the events themselves are "a given". However the involement of your PC's, and what they do in the course of the events described, and what effect that has on the campaign going forwards is far more open to the individual campaign. So the Dragon will rise occur and destroy the temple in the Dragonrise scenario (Obviously GM's can choose for this not to happen, but will have to work out "future history" for themselves), but the effect this has on the PC's, their friends & followers, their clans, and how their actions are viewed by the onlookers (both sartarite and lunar) are all things that can be dealt with in individual campaigns.

simon_hibbs wrote: Criticising it for containing established characters, fixed events and defined locations then you're essentialy criticising it for being a scenario.

Mike Holmes wrote:

simon_hibbs wrote: Criticizing it for containing established characters, fixed events and defined locations then you're essentially criticizing it for being a scenario.

Is anybody making this criticism? Not that I've seen. It's precisely how to present such material that we've been discussing. Not whether or not to have the material, but just the presentation. How to make it not suck.

Mike Holmes wrote: In fact, one reason I don't play in Glorantha, is so that I can avoid the pitfalls of the metaplot.

Mike Holmes wrote: Is anybody making this criticism? Not that I've seen. It's precisely how to present such material that we've been discussing. Not whether or not to have the material, but just the presentation. How to make it not suck.

A campaign series of linked scenarios by it's nature has to maintain more consistency and determinacy in the outcomes of events from one supplement to another however that's mainly a constraint on presentation and the authors, it's not necesserily a constraint on the GM or players

Valamir wrote: I've never seen a series of linked scenarios that didn't disappoint. I think that's an old school holdover and exemplifies the sort of linear thinking that really doesn't belong in Hero Quest.

Simon, correct. That is, my entire content on this thread has been to clarify the problem from that which the poster presented in the first post.

To oversimplify:
1. Orignal Poster: Scenarios are bad.
2. Mike: not scenarios, just certain presentations that force endings.
3. Simon: but it's only scenarios that force certain endings that are bad, not all scenarios.

So here's me nodding, and wondering why the need to reiterate what I took several posts to make clear. If you're just here to agree with me, then yay, we all agree.

Now you're agreeing with Ralph who was just reiterating what I'd said. Yay, more agreement.


Invain, my problems with the metaplot are larger and more personal than the subject of this thread. See this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9417

But, generally, if the metaplot is completely known from the start, then avoiding these problems by playing using the methods that I like is much, much easier. That is, even more of a consternation than metaplot itself is metaplot which is "coming" from the designers. Again, as I've said previously in the thread, I like "history" and "events" just not "metaplot" if that means the sort of scenarios that we're talking about.

But, again, that's almost an entirely different problem than the one of how to design scenarios that this thread is about.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Invain, my problems with the metaplot are larger and more personal than the subject of this thread. See this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9417

We definitely had some problems with one of the 'big event' episodes in play - Orlanth is Dead. I played in the presentation of it we had at our group and did not run it. The narrator's decision was to walk us through the events in the scenario, as the situation becomes increasingly dire, step-by-step. In hind sight this was a mistake, because player choices became unimportant: we could not affect events. So in one episode we we rounded up clan folk and cattle in the dead of winter for a huge sacrifice, struggled through the snow and trolls, and discovered that our effort was for nothing and made no difference to the failure of the ceremony.

Of course you could say we were experiencing a feeling similar to our characters, but there is a 'whiff' factor here. Our heroes may have been powerless, but the players don't want to feel powerless.

The sweetspot here is, I think to treat the write up presented as descriptions of the 'big event' but create actions within them that are meaningful to the heroes. So for Orlanth is Dead the sweetspot for me is how does your clan survive the darkness. It's a disaster movie for Orlanthi. Think 'The Day After Tomorrow'. What you get in OiD is the special effects budget, but you need to add a story. So adopt 'Story Now' treat most of OiD as a handout and begin in media res where it makes sense for your group.

The Shiprise is harder because it is the proverbial 'train ride' by its very form. Again I think the response is to focus on creating a maningful involvement for your heroes, Kallyr's big event is the backdrop, the special effects budget. Amidst that huge event there must be room for smaller events glossed by the text but meaningful to your heroes.

But as Tim points out Stephen Martin of Issaries made it pretty clear at Continuum that they were aware of the issue and would watch for deprotagonizing players in the Dragonrise.

Ian Cooper wrote: The sweetspot here is, I think to treat the write up presented as descriptions of the 'big event' but create actions within them that are meaningful to the heroes. So for Orlanth is Dead the sweetspot for me is how does your clan survive the darkness.

Ian Cooper wrote: It's a disaster movie for Orlanthi. Think 'The Day After Tomorrow'.

Ian Cooper wrote: The Shiprise is harder because it is the proverbial 'train ride' by its very form. Again I think the response is to focus on creating a meaningful involvement for your heroes, Kallyr's big event is the backdrop, the special effects budget. Amidst that huge event there must be room for smaller events glossed by the text but meaningful to your heroes.

Ian Cooper wrote: But as Tim points out Stephen Martin of Issaries made it pretty clear at Continuum that they were aware of the issue and would watch for deprotagonizing players in the Dragonrise.

Invain wrote: Agreed, although at some point in the campaign the PC heroes should be involved in the Big Events. Keeping the PCs involved with side events is not a solution that will last forever unless the "big events" turn out to be a dazzling side effect of the real big events that the PCs were responsible for.

Mike Holmes wrote: So here's me nodding, and wondering why the need to reiterate what I took several posts to make clear. If you're just here to agree with me, then yay, we all agree.