Note: This first long post discusses HeroQuest in general, but "Fields of Freedom" not at all. Rather, it focuses on my group's makeup, our recent gaming history, and a profile of each player and their interests, play styles, and relationships.

When I got my hands on HeroQuest last year, I was really intrigued. I had read a lot about it, especially on the Forge via Ron. I didn't have much inkling of what Glorantha was all about, but the game really was appealing to me. So much so, that I featured it in the first issue of Daedalus.

At the time, my group was playing The Riddle of Steel. I had started and stopped GMing a handful of games with the group, while another member (Tony) ran our TRoS game. I brought the book to show and talk about with fellow group members. They weren't especially interested at the time, and they found the book and Glorantha immensely unappealing. I don't find Glorantha itself very appealing either, frankly, but I loved the hell out of HeroQuest. So, I kept reading and re-reading, and thinking how and what I could do with the game.

Over several months, our group played a handful of other games (usually short-lived), among them Nine Worlds, a funky World of Darkness carnival game, Pendragon, and some good ol' fashioned Shadowrun. Our group make-up changed some, too. Last winter, shedules and conflicts and people moving kept us from playing regularly. We did have one interesting Come-to-Jesus meeting involving me, Flash, Lisa and Tony. Our group seemed to invariably involve us four, plus other members off and on, including Wendy, Dave, and Sai ... and an occasional guest star (e.g. Hobart, who is in the army, and played once or twice while on leave). We talked in that meeting about what we wanted, why interest in previous games waned, what we wanted. I arranged the meeting, and my agenda was clear and open -- what can I do to meet people's needs and run a longer-term game?

We came out of that meeting enthused, I recall. Lisa coined the phrase "gaming on purpose" in reaction to our groups often too-casual approach to gaming. I liked that attitude quite a lot. I worked furiously at the time to put together some ideas for a game I would run.

Life, as ever, intervened. My wife and I had a baby, and Flash and Lisa sold their house and moved to another one (actually closer to me now!). Tony, who had lived with them, moved to an apartment. In short, gaming was less frequent, though we did enjoy some continued Shadowrun games enthusiastically.

In the late spring or so, I sat down with Flash and Lisa to "pitch" HeroQuest to them. I explained how it differed from other games, how it was similar, what interesting features it had, and why I really liked it. We all talked through it very optimistically, and they seemed genuinely interested in the game, especially after understanding it a little better. Lisa liked the narrative character creation (she wanted more than 100 words!), and Flash really liked the followers treatment. Those were some of their initial impressions.

So, I continued working on some ideas for a HeroQuest game. My ideas finally settled on some specifics. But, when that happened, it appeared that just the three of us (Flash, Lisa, and me) would play. Our group was, effectively, scattered.

I decided to press on. I created a setup for HeroQuest using a fantasy world of my own creation. I call it Ulthara. It's a setting I created during my very active AD&D 2nd ed. days in college, and kept tinkering with via my own early, clumsy fantasy heartbreaker-type designs later. The main reason I was so excited about HeroQuest was that it captured almost exactly the kind of play I tried to achieve in my tinkering and hopeless attempts with AD&D 2E. I couldn't wait to try HeroQuest in the Ulthara setting.

I sat down with Flash and Lisa and explained the setup. They liked the setup, I believe, and we talked about what characters would be appropriate, how to go about creating them, and so on. We decided to create characters a week later.

By the time a week passed, I had easily recruited my brother Dave to join the game. When we arrived at Flash and Lisa's (new!) house, Lisa's best pal Wendy was there. Lisa had earlier said she wasn't sure Wendy was interested in playing anything at all, but Wendy shot that theory out of the water. As we spent the evening making characters, she joined in. The group was set at four! Excellent. They all created characters. Flash and Wendy used the list method for character creation, while Dave and Lisa used the narrative method.

One week later, we played our first session. I'll explain the setup and characters in the next post, then move to the actual play events. Tonight (Tuesday, Oct. 12) is our second session. Tony, another group member, will be joining the game after tonight's session. (We play Tuesday nights.)

To wrap up this one, I'll attempt to describe all the people playing the game and their relationships to one another:

First, there's me, of course. I'm the GM, and I introduced the group to HeroQuest as well as our previous long-running game, The Riddle of Steel. I am long-time best friend of Flash (we went to high school together), and we've gamed together for years, among many other activities. I have the ugly reputation (much deserved, alas) of getting excited too frequently about new games or new game ideas, and not sticking to my guns long enough to see any game to its completion. ADHD gamer, you might say. That will be my challenge in this game -- staying focused and dedicated to the idea, which I think is a really good one. I'm a game whore, eager to gobble up and play many types of games. Given my druthers, I seek to create powerful stories as evidenced by my Narrativist designs in Dust Devils and Nine Worlds. I'm a long-time fantasy nut, so having a fantasy-oritented Narravist game like HeroQuest is a godsend.

Flash is a long-time gamer. He's fond of fantasy games, generally, but has played many types over the years. Some of his favorites are D&D, Earthdawn, and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. He also played Vampire and Werewolf extensively with he and his wife's "college group" with whom I generally did not play games (occasionaly "guest star" game) until the last 2-3 years. Flash tends to focus on his character and accruing abilities and effectiveness. As a generally laid back kind of guy, he's sometimes a quiet gamer, and we often kid him about being the slowest gamer in the world. I've found that he really gets into the game, is indeed excited about it, and becomes very deliberate to "make the right choice." I believe that means a couple things: He's looking for the best strategic choice, often. But, I think he's also looking for the "right thing to say" such that his fellow players have the most fun. Flash is almost always a player, not a GM. Also, our games are almost always at his house (and Lisa's of course).

Lisa is also a long time gamer. She's in it for the story, and she says so unapologetically. Lisa has often been a GM, but less so over the last couple years. She has an excellent grasp on setting up dramatic conflict, but I believe she is sometimes frustrated when fellow players miss those cues or perhaps ignore them. Lisa dislikes what she terms "pointless combat." She wants combat and/or action to be dynamic and relatively quick. But, above all, it should propel the larger drama in the game. Lisa tends to simplify or skirt rules, and greatly dislikes time spent detailing and resolving complicated fight scenes or any handling time. She wants the game to move at a good clip, be exciting, and above all be worth telling.

Dave is my younger brother. He's easy to please, and a generally laid back guy. But, beneath that easy-going, often humorous attitude is, I think, a real interest in exploring characters on a serious level. He has played several games with me over the years, most of them fantasy oritented. Dave has an good ear for in-character dialogue, and I think he surprises his fellow players (and perhaps himself) with his character portrayals that elevate the game's sincerity and meaning. Dave often has a vision for his characters, and he strives in play to meet those goals he sets. Dave has played less often with this current group than I have.

Wendy is Lisa's best friend from Flash and Lisa's college days. She's infamous among the "college group" for playing the oddball -- the iconoclast player character who quietly goes along with the group's activities until her domain is challenged. She loves to "lie in wait" until her niche role is needed. Then, she shines. Wendy really gets involved in those cases, eager to show the group her value and ability. She often plays a misfit who defiantly, eagerly resists the norm. Wendy proclaims Vampire as her favorite game, but bemoans the fact that she can't get others to play. She often shows mild interest in a game until she recognizes her niche, at which point she becomes very enthusiastic about the game to everyone's surprise and delight. Her characters are often very strong, defiant, and determined. After that point, with her role often defined, she elevates her involvement, more sure of what, when and how to participate.

Tony is another best pal Aaron and Lisa. He was among the "college group," and in fact lived with Aaron and Lisa for about two years or so, having recently moved out. In recent years, Tony has been the primary GM of our group. He ran a long-lasting Riddle of Steel game, and our more recent back-to-basics Shadowrun games. Tony enjoys action and adventure, and his games are enjoyable action-dramas. I think his ideas about running games shifted dramatically as he ran our TRoS game. As a player, he's superb at creating a backstory loaded with dramatic potential and interelated with fellow player characters. My experience in GMing with Tony are always exciting. He's eager and attentive, and he often shakes things up with daring choices and kinetic danger! Tony adores TRoS, not only for its combat emphasis, but also its powerful Spiritual Attributes mechanics. I think that is a perfect example of the kind of gamer he is -- and "old schooler" who has a relatively new-found respect for the power of drama and story.

Phew. Ok, now that I've set the social scene, so to speak (and bring on the questions, of course -- I'm sure I forgot something worth telling), on to the game itself.

First, here is the "white paper" I put together, sans visuals that I ... um ... appropriated online. Imagine a really cool picture of charging knights.

Fields of Freedom wrote: There is a village on the edge of the Kingdom of Coradria. Haven is its name. It is your home. Haven’s people have lived peacefully for years, after King Leoric Arundel withdrew from the last of the border wars two decades ago. The younger generations know only peace and prosperity. Their forbears doubt the young could have survived dark and troublesome times as they knew then.

On a bluff above the village is the castle of Lord Alvar Ganeston, cousin of the king and overseer of the northwestern borders of Coradria. He and his garrison of knights keep an easy peace in these quiet times. There is a division between the old veterans and young knights seeking their approval, especially the lady knights Oliva, Josianne, and Reyne. House steward Durmond Bleys deals often with the townsfolk, while Brother Aldus, devout follower of the King’s patron god, Ardan, spreads the light of his religion among the populace.

The village houses a number of artisans and feudal servants. There is the mill, run by the enterprising Tunrick Kynes. Nearby, Achard Cordon tans hides and his brother Emric fashions shoes and boots from the leather. Kenrick, a hefty aging man and veteran of the old wars, is the town blacksmith. He pounds more ploughshares than swords, more horseshooes than armor. At the center of town is Wackrill’s tavern, the heart of the community. Here the portly proprietors welcome townsfolk and travellers for some of Madam Galida’s delcious pies.

Near the village are many families working their farms and tending their lands. You know them well, much like the artisan familes in the village – families like Fossard, Gillain, Walder, and Tiriel herd cattle and sheep and raise barley and wheat.

Other familar souls live just beyond the village, like old Old Quint, the hermit and supposed wizard.

Life is simple and peaceful, but dark tidings hint at coming dangers. The Anduren freelords have begun to raid their neighbors. There is something sinister in their recent violence, and they may reach Haven in coming months and years.

Will the younger generations live up to their forbears’ greatness? Will they risk their lives as their parents and grandparents did in the past? Will it be enough? What will they do for freedom?

Hi Matt,

I hope you have fun with HeroQuest. You have not asked for any advice but a couple of quick tips:

Lisa dislikes what she terms "pointless combat." She wants combat and/or action to be dynamic and relatively quick. But, above all, it should propel the larger drama in the game. Lisa tends to simplify or skirt rules, and greatly dislikes time spent detailing and resolving complicated fight scenes or any handling time. She wants the game to move at a good clip, be exciting, and above all be worth telling.

Our first session of the "Fields of Freedom" game was meant as a way to introduce the system among the players and to set off some initial conflicts for each player character. Actual time for the first session was relatively short -- slightly shorter than our normal 3+ hour sessions. The players were: Flash (Squire Gwyn), Lisa (Gabrielle), Wendy (Asheria) and Dave (Squire Thomas).

So, to get everybody involved, I explained that it was early summer in Haven, and that Lord Ganeston was hosting a small tournament. It was a "county fair" atmosphere where farmers and traders exchanged goods, met to talk shop, and the village itself reveled in the all-day party. The knights of the castle -- all 12 or so of them -- would take part in a melee and joust as part of the festivities, of course.

Play began with Wendy's character, Asheria. For the first actual conflict of the game, she faced the challenge of calming a spirited horse who had trampled a stable boy. She successfully did so, and earned the notice of the stable master. This was the first among several simple contests for the evening.

Next up was Flash's character, Gwyn. His mistress (as in, the woman knight he serves), Dam Josianne, prepared for the melee with her two fellow lady knights (they sought to ally with one another to face off against the men and prove their worth). She send him on a errand back up to the castle to fetch her armor. Gwyn promptly convinced his cousin and subservient page boy to fetch it instead. The eager-to-please boy did so, and Gwyn managed to laze away and take the credit. His first in a series of such "efforts."

Lisa's character Gabrielle mingled with merchants and farmers, looking for herbal ingredients. In so doing, she heard rumors about a visitor from the capitol of Coradria to visit the faire. Her master, apothecary Ewmond Hurrell, urged her to look for ingredients from merchants.

These episodes involved much discussion and dialogue among the players, and relatively few rolls. The players struggled a bit to learn how to apply augments, but it generally worked out. Next up, however, was an extended conflict -- a good learning exercise for everyone, I think. The reactions amond the players were actually pretty mixed. They soldiered on, however, and seemed better attuned in the second session.

The extended conflict involved Dave's character, Squire Thomas. His master, Sir Baldwin, is an older knight. He is loud, fat and boisterous, and he drinks like a fish. With the onset of the melee, he was too drunk to fight. So, he granted his squire, Thomas, permission to fight in his stead, with the lord's approval.

Thomas entered the ring with two dozen knights. Dave said he wanted to ally with the youngest knights, Sir Carras and Sir Rahier. The three of them began facing down other fellow knights and knights from other counties.

I probably botched the mechanics for this first extended conflict, to Dave's favor. But, the results were quite enjoyable. Dave set himself between his comrades, and they began fighting waves of other knights in "first blood" style combat. For 3-4 rounds, the results were generally good for them. The opposition began to take shape in the form of a general pool of AP representing "unnamed" knights, a pool of AP representing the female knights, and a pool of AP representing 3 older knights from Haven. Those pools fluctuated up and down slightly. Thomas and his comrades managed to whittle down the "general" pool of knights reasonably well. Meanwhile, the ladies and the older knights had a bit of back-and-forth.

I may have forgotten the precise progression, but the dramatic scene involved the following: First, the lady knigthts performed well. Between them and Thomas' group, the general pool of knights disappeared. I kept narrating this round to round as knights getting "tagged" with a sword, and leaving the fenced area. The ladies then staged a "rear attack" on the veteran knights, who were themselves attacking Thomas, if memory serves. The ladies started well, but soon fell (losing all AP) to the veterans. Meanwhile, Thomas' team held their own, but nothing extraordinary.

In the "final" face off between Thomas' group and the veterans, things got interesting. As he began losing AP, Dave decided to switch his ability. His character, Thomas, is fond of martial history and aspires to be a tactician in the king's service. So, he used his leadership-like abilities to issue a rally cry to his comrades, who repsonded well after a successful bid.

In the next round, however, Dave really stole the show. He then used his historical knowledge to recite a popular poem glorifying the border wars, which involved these very veteran knights he now fought. Overtaken with their nostalgia, grief, and respect, and honored by the young knight's (squire's) gesture, the veterans simply stopped fighting and left the melee quietly. Dave had won the contest.

Of course, the melee was to the last man. At that point, we decided that his comrades -- fellow knights to his lowly rank of squire -- took a knee and ceded the melee to "Sir Baldwin." Because Thomas fought in Baldwin's stead, and wore his colors and arms, Baldwin took the trophy. Thomas earned much respect, but could not actually reap the rewards he'd won for his master. Baldwin was overjoyed, of course, and Thomas earned himself a night of beer and good fun. His fellow squires are now mixed with jealousy and admiration.

Late in the knight, near midnight, Dam Josianne summone Gwyn from the festive parties (and girls!) to prepare their horses for a ride. They were to escort the Lord Ganeston himself to the county border to the south. Other knights also rode along. The commotion also alerted Asheria, who overheard something about escorting a special guest to the lord's manor. She followed on her horse and with her loyal pack of dogs.

The knights arrived at the border near a small bridge. There, they waited until a small group of knight escorts from the next county arrived with a finely dress woman.

Meanwhile, Asheria had spied an Andurian bandit sneaking towards the troupe with his bow readied. She flushed him to the roadway, where the knights captured the bandit. Wendy had won a simple contest, but I confess I can't recall exactly how she scared the bandit toward the knights.

She then decided to check the other flank. Good thinking on her part. There again was another Andurian bandit making his way toward the lord's troupe, now in much disarray with the first bandit in hand. Asheria again worked to somehow stop the bandit.

At this point, Flash's character Gwyn, part of the knightly troupe, decided to enter the conflict. Flash wanted to use his character's cowardly abilities to run into the woods, hoping to literally run into the second bandit. He succeeded! I narrated the scene thusly: I described Gwyn's spooked flight in the woods. His horse ran him under a low treebranch in his blind flight, and knocked Gwyn senseless on the ground ... right where the bandit emerged from the woods onto the trail and fell overy Gwyn. The bandit cursed as Gwyn's mistress and fellow knights captured a second bandit.

The knights returned to the castle with a mysterious lady guest. Asheria followed along, with the knights unaware of her aid. Back at the tourney, Gabrielle and many other party-goers noticed the arrival of a lady, but none knew her identity.

The session ended there.

The players liked the game session, but had mixed feelings about the game system. They remarked that Dave stole the show. He certainly did, and my intention was to devote his scene as the one and only example of an extended contest for the evening. Regarding the system, the near-unanimous complaint regarded masteries like 1W or 2W (we use 1M or 2M, btw). They didn't like how they failed with a roll like 13, while their opponents succeeded with a roll like 12 and won a marginal victory. I reminded them about the bump, and that their abilities (say 18 vs. 1M or 2M) are actually quite close. So, a marginal win for the underdog isn't too unlikely). During the second session, they were a bit more enthused about the system, as some criticals and fumbles occured, both to their benefit and detriment.

I felt like I didn't involve Lisa's character enough, though Lisa was also feeling very much under the weather and not as attentive as normal, which was understandable. The other players, Flash and Wendy, seemed very much interested in their scene with the bandits in the woods. Dave very much liked his romantic victory during the melee, and I appreciated his ideas to bring his lore and poetry into the scene. It really brought out some of the community's emotional involvement over the old wars and the general skepticism of "today's youth" in terms of honor and ability.

More to come! Session two was a huge success, and the players greatly enjoyed it. We've planned session three for Tuesday night (tomorrow).

Good comments on the extended conflits, Ian. Thanks!

In our first two sessions, we've had one extended conflit each. Both have been combats, but involved non-combat abilities with interesting twists. I look forward to non-combat extended contests, and I expect them to occur soon. I think you're right -- they aren't "combat details." They are dramatic pacing techniques. I'm very enthused about them for that very reason, and I hope to show my players how that happens.

We have used augments, especially relationship augments, in every single conflict thus far. The Haven community is essentially a big relationship map, lots of family relations, but also hierarchical feudal relationships. The players caught on to that really well.

Matt, I could go on and on about the dice mechanic and ratings. It'll have to suffice to say that everyone has these initial feelings (I certainly did - played an alternate method for a while), but that they just go away after a while as players understand the system better. You are right about the scale - have them annote things without masteries for a while if it's a problem. And hit them with a 65 rating at some point (3W5) to show them how small the 18 to 21 difference really is in the scheme of things. After a while you really get to appreciate the output. That's been my experience, anyhow.

On that same count, rate resistances and opponent abilities appropriately. That is, don't be afraid to put the character up against some rating that's way higher than them. For one, they might win (especially with HP). For another failing in HQ is really fun. Remember to give out "injury" penalties for whatever hit them. These give them things to think about and either color future conflicts, or become the source of them.

And most importantly, again, they see that the difference between 18 and 21 isn't all that significant.

If they're augmenting with relationships now, great, for every relationship have them find an associated personality trait - at least ask them to look. These relationship/personality combos are great because they really inform on the current status of the relationship, and how it's being employed. Loves Elaine plus Valiant says something quite different from Loves Elaine plus Jealous. You'd be surprised how often personality traits can get squeezed in there. Once players are used to this, they'll be hooked on how often they can get +8 or more from their personalities.

And this makes the character seem very invested in what's going on, leads to better player characterizations, etc, etc, etc.

Just some hints.

Mike

Cool. Good points, Mike.

We are using several personality traits as well. Flash has milked "Craven" for all its worth so far.

But, that said, you're right to point it out. We've used relationships abilities nearly every time, but personality abilities slightly less (still quite frequent).

But, I really like the kinds of contexts you suggest. Love vs. Jealous, for example. Hadn't thought about it in those terms.

Another thing I've got to get a better handle on is a workable amount of Hero Point awards, and also GM awards. Things like abilities, cementing and the like. I haven't really wrapped my brain around that in practice as yet.

Matt Snyder wrote: Another thing I've got to get a better handle on is a workable amount of Hero Point awards, and also GM awards. Things like abilities, cementing and the like. I haven't really wrapped my brain around that in practice as yet.

Hey all,
It’s been awhile since I’ve posted, but I’m back! ;)
Matt has done a pretty good job describing the events of the Hero Quest game that we’ve started, so I’m going to add a player perspective. I’m not going to talk about the in game events much, Snyder will cover all of that. Rather, I’m going to talk about what works, and my opinion of what doesn’t. This post isn’t strictly a critique, more of a parsing out my thoughts on the matter at hand. Here we go.

As Matt as stated, I am unapologetic about the telling of a good story. This is why, at nearly 30 years of age, I still game. I could be doing a lot of other things with my time, but I *choose* to engage in this hobby for its creative potential and the emotional satisfaction that comes from hanging out with my pals and designing a tale that is meaningful and worth remembering. For me, that’s that bottom line. When Matt originally pitched the HQ idea, I’ll admit I had my reservations. Matt has a tendency to like the flava of the week. What that means in practical terms is that he jumps from game to game, system to system, and it’s hard to get excited about something you know you’re only going to play once or twice. He has assured the group that this isn’t the case with HQ. I know he’s been researching games for their long term play potential for sometime. I think this kind of diligence is important to Matt as a GM as it makes him confident that This Is A Game he will run Long Term. Good stuff.

Having said that, HQ would not have been my first choice for a game, matter of fact, it wouldn’t have even hit my radar. I’d never heard of it, and if I had seen it at the game shop, the ugly cover and less than appealing layout would have had me skimming past it to look for something else. My actual handling time of the text over the last few months has been next to nil. I depend on Matt to know the rules and explain them verbally. He’s quite good at the task. The same goes for the rest of the group. No one besides Matt has actually read the damn thing. No biggie, we trust him to know his stuff.

Matt has also taken a different tack in running the game. The heavy emphasis is on N with a smidge of the other categories thrown in for good measure. As a group, we all agree that to date, this is easily the best game Matt has run, and we’re only 3 sessions in. Flash, who has gamed with Snyder for probably 10 years or more, is positively beaming about the difference in Matt’s style compared to say, last year. Why is this game different than the others Matt has run? I think it’s a couple of things that may or may not touch on CA. For the sake of simplicity, I’m not going to try to tie Forge terminology in here opting to just talk about what’s going on.

1. Matt has decided to Game on Purpose. This included canceling a session after everyone had shown up, but no one was really focused on playing. Instead of trying to fight the tide, Matt saved himself some frustration and let the game go. We used the time as a purely social hour instead. Right from the start, Matt set the tone. If we’re gamin’, we’re gamin’. This little (and in my opinion) critical decision sent the message loud and clear: This game, this story, these characters are important and I’m gonna treat ‘em that way, and so are you.

2. Matt has really solidified his grasp on two really important concepts: Personal conflict and Public conflict. Public conflict is something that everyone can sympathize with or at least care about to some degree ( i.e. a bus load of kids getting hit by a drunk driver.) It triggers a response, perhaps not a strong one, but there is a reaction. Personal conflict hits closer to home (i.e. my spouse was the drunk.) Thus far Matt has set up scenarios that everyone in the group can care about and then whammies his victim…er…the individual player by striking close to home. This leads to conflicts that have powerful emotional appeal and the decisions players make are Important and Critical to what is going on in the game world. In this way, Matt gets everyone vested in scenes, even if their character isn’t there for the action.

3. Matt has picked a large cast of NPCs that are interesting, complicated, and fun to interact with. As players, we feed off of each others reactions to the NPCs, giving each other ideas about what to say, what to do, and how to go about accomplishing certain tasks. Again, everyone is involved, even if they aren’t actually in the scene. This makes for a tight focus.

4. If I had a complaint, last night would have been the showcase of my woes. There was an extended combat. I’ll be the first to say, when the dice start endlessly rolling, I want to spork my own eyes out. To me, it’s dreadfully boring stuff. However, that’s just my preference. I can’t let that be a deal breaker because if I did, I’d never get to play with this particular group. The scenario wasn’t as long as say a D&D combat, nor was it as complicated as a SR vehicle collision test, but it just ain’t my thang. So it goes. Everyone else reacted favorably and the evening ended on a high note. Matt is really getting the hang of pleasing the masses.

5. My role in this game is a bit different. I’m not sure if it’s an adjustment in my play style or what the deal is. Usually I like to kick start things as a player to keep the ball rolling. In HQ, I’m content to sit in the background, watching and waiting to see what will happen next. I had far less ‘star time’ than everyone else, but it didn’t bother me. Perhaps this is because what everyone else is doing is so engaging that it’s no big deal if I’m getting play time or not.

Holy cow, look at the reams of text here! I’ll close this one out and let Matt continue his commentary! :)

Matt? Any comment on Lisa's post? I found it very interesting, personally.

How often are you guys doing extended contests? Have you had any simple contests for combat?

Mike

Hey, Mike! I am planning on posting session two as soon as I can. Session three went well, though not quite as gloriously as the 2nd.

To your questions: Lisa made really interesting points, and she offered viewpoints I hadn't considered. She and Tony said they thought some of my perspective and opinions were mostly right, but somewhat off regarding other people. I think that's great, really. The beauty of her posting is that it lend more perspective. I've never claimed to be providing objective truth of our actual play and social identities.

Thus far, our extended contests have been combat. In that, we've not experimented as much as I'd like, and I'm the one to blame for framing those conflicts in that away. However, the players have performed very creatively in those contests, and the "combats" involve many non-combat abilities that really enliven the story.

We have used simple conflicts for combat / physical confrontations. In the third session (last Tuesday), Tony's character tried to assassinate a jailed bandit prince. He failed in the simple contest, and in fact used a hero point to avoid some real injury (can't recall the appopriate category off hand -- the level of injury that incurs 50% penalties). I'll explain that one more in detail.

I believe we've used simple contest in other physically threatening situations. One involved a bear hunt gone wrong, so it wasn't quite combat, whatever that means.

Our second session of "Fields of Freedom" was one of the finest games I've run and participated in throughout the course of my hobby. I doubt I'll do it justice in this write up. And, indeed, it's taken me long enough to get to this write up, that I've no doubt conflated events with those of session three. Here goes:

My fellow players for the session were Flash (playing Squire Gwyn), Lisa (playing Gabrielle), and Wendy (playing Asheria).

We began with Asheria. Her step-father, Gant, ordered her to accompany him north of the county where some wild game, probably a bear or maybe a boar, had killed some livestock. With her dogs (which are her Followers) and her step-father's pack, they set out.

Gant is the castle kennelmaster. He is a mean-spirited man, and his dogs are likewise. Asheria and Gant first spoke with the farmer who spoke of a bear, then entered the north woods, beyond which is the kingdom's border. Within several hours, they had tracked the bear.

Asheria is a spiritist, and her practice spirit is the Red Bear. She has a natural fondness for the wild, including a Personality ability of something close to "Dedicated to Wild Animals."

Her step-father doesn't share her fondness, apparently. He charged the bear, spearing from horseback it as his dogs attacked. Then, Gant proceded to butcher the bear. Now, Wendy was getting into the situation. She portrayed Asheria as calm but angry. Asheria demanded Gant let the bear be. He scolded her. She then fired an arrow near his feet. And another after he yelled again. She was about to shoot him directly, when I elevated the situation. Behind Gant appeared a dozen Anduren bandits (outlanders). After a curt warning, they quickly fired their own arrows, killing most of Gant's dogs.

Asheria then leaped into action, racing down to Gant's position, and putting herself between Gant and the bandit assailants. This made things very interesting. Just at the moment Wendy had decided to risk hurting or even killing her character's step-father, she instead decided to save his life! A simple-contest fight ensued. Asheria ended up escaping while the bandits captured Gant.

Asheria followed and discovered the bandits were part of a 100+ member war clan. All males, most fast cavalry raiders. She immediately travelled through the night to Castle Havenford.

...

Meanwhile, Gabrielle attended her ailing father. Her parents are older -- a nice old couple. While she sat at his bedside, Gabrielle's father informed her that she was not truly their daughter. The local hermit, Old Quint, brought her to them as a babe rescued from the aftermath of the last of the border wars. She was found in a small abbey, the last survivor of the town of Aldren. Her origins were unknown, but she came swadled in a fine cloth and Quint also brought a tome, which he kept, found near the baby. (Lisa included these as possessions in her character creation write up). Gabrielle was devastated by the shocking news of her origins. Lisa portrayed Gabrielle's concern for how others in the village knew her origin, but never spoke of it. And, Lisa wanted to visit Old Quint right away.

Before she could, however, Gabrielle met new visitors at her master's workshop. Gabrielle works and studies with Ewmond, Haven's apothecary. The visitors were three young ladies-in-waiting and their mistress, a regal beauty named Lady Thorel, who had very recently arrived to Havenford Castle. Ewmond informed her that the lady wished to speak of her needs with another woman, and he needed Gabrielle's help in the matter. He then left the cottage shop.

The lady excused her servants to speak in private. She then, as appropriately as possible, informed Gabrielle that she was with child and sought a "remedy" for the situation. Lisa played on, with Gabrielle naively assuming she meant a medicine for morning sickness and so on. No, Lady Thorel insisted impatiently. "I am with child. I am a LADY. There is no LORD. Ahem. I wish to have an elixir that will make me no longer with child. Immediately. I am a lady." Lisa's played along. "Ohh.....!" So, she arranged to consider it overnight, and return to Lady Thorel in the morning at the castle.

(My memory lapses -- it may have been that Gabrielle didn't "get the message" until a second meeting in the castle, but I can't recall specifically.)

At this point, I could see Lisa was really into the situation. She really gave it some thought as to what she would do. Her course surprised me a little, but was very interesting. When Gabrielle revisited Lady Thorel, she proposed that she would find an adoptive family for the baby among the farmers in the area. And, she would help Lady Thorel through the pregnancy and deliver the baby, then take it to the adoptive family. Lady Thorel, apparently relieved, agreed.

Later, Gabrielle visited Old Quint. This was, for me, the weakest part of the session because I was ill-prepared for Lisa's good questions to Quint about her character's origins. Quint explained the situation in some more detail, but I think Lisa was looking for something more compelling in her history. I dropped the ball here, in my opinion, not thinking on my feet well at that point. Quint handed over the Tome of the Ancients, although Lisa hasn't yet made use of the unique possession.

...

With Asheria's warning, Lord Ganeston dispatched four knights and their squires to see to the bandits, ill aware that their numbers were so daunting. Sir Krenner, a middle-aged knight, led the young knights Sir Carras, Sir Rahier and Dam Josianne. Josianne is the lady knight who commands Squire Gwyn (Flash's player character). Asheria also followed along in secret, partially in hopes to rescue Gant.

The knights found the Anduren warband's encampment at the vague border of the kingdom. Sir Krenner decided, amid some uneasy discussion among the knights, to approach the bandits and parley. He and his squire were quickly overtaken by a mob of the Anduren clansmen, their fate uncertain. At that point, the mob began moving toward the remaining knights.

At that point, Sir Rahier and Sir Carras fled into the woods. This was THE crucial moment for Flash and his character, and I deliberately set it up this way. His lady knight, Josianne, constantly tries to prove her worth and valor to the men who are her superiors and comrades. She stood her ground, and scowled at her famously craven squire "Stand your ground!"

Flash squirmed a bit. He's famous for taking his time during games. He laughed, a bit axiously perhaps. I think the situation made him re-think what he was going to do. He decided to use his character's magical "Weasel's Luck" ability to convince Josianne to "go around the mob." He won a major victory! I narrated the success that some absurd motion on his character's part distracted Josianne's focus on the oncoming warriors. Thus shaken, she took Gwyn's advice and led him on a charge around the mob ... and THROUGH the camp!

At the same time, Asheria approached stealthily from the opposite direction. She infiltrated the camp, found Gant, and started to make her escape. But, two bandits intercepted them. Wendy started an extended contest with superior odds. She fought with her knife, then even resorted using her magical spirit-based abilities (Bear's Paw attack thingy). Boy, was she unlucky! I really enjoyed this extended contest, however. It was only our second one, and it helped me figure out how to run them better. It also demonstrated how failure didn't require death, hit point loss, etc. In fact, the failure really made things interesting, and set up another great conflict for session 3. After some incredibly unlucky exchanges, Asheria received a hurt, and I declared her and Gant captured by the bandits.

As Josianne and Gwyn rode through the camp, they searched in vain for Sir Krenner and his squire. Josianne fought well, while Gwyn clutched of for dear life. Flash kept up Gwyn's desperate, fearful pleas to flee the scene. In the end, they saw a pair of figures being dragged through the dirt (Gant and Asheria), but they clearly weren't Sir Krenner. So, they fled.

...

That was the end of the second session. My write-up is probably too focused on the "in-game script" and not enough on real player interactions. Let me know if I can clarify or explain more. Hopefully, my fellow players will clarify with posts of their own at some point.

I will say I received great feedback about the session. I had prepared three key conflicts for the session -- one for each player. Lisa's was the decision to help Lady Thorel with an abortion, Flash's was whether to flee or fight with Josianne, and Wendy's was what she would do when she saw her family member butchering one of her beloved bears. The players really responded to these situations.

Flash said it was the best session I've GM'ed in years, which I consider extremely high praise coming from him. I don't peg him as a Narrativist-preferring guy, and this game is Narrativist, overtly. What's more, nearly every game I've played in ANY capacity for 10+ years as a GM involved Flash. Wow! It was really great to hear such high praise; I needed it! Wasn't sure I was up to this stuff. So far, it's going great!

Session three involved two more players -- Dave and Tony. We're gearing up for Session 4 tonight! I have some doozie conflicts coming their way. Hopefully, I'll catch up on Actual Play posts!

The shortest version of session four that I could possibly write would say something like this: OMFG!
What a game! I didn’t know if Snyder would be able to top session two for its pure dramatic impact, but he went well beyond the call of duty last night. Unbelievable! I’ll let him post the in game events, but suffice it to say, it rocked. Again, I’m going to talk about what worked, and what didn’t, IMHO.
1. Gaming on Purpose works. I can’t recommend this method highly enough. As a group, we’re focused, jazzed, and on the same vibe. I’m certain this all ties into CA, and to a lesser extent, SC. However it works matters less than the fact that it *does* work. We show up, everyone is excited and ready to rock. What a difference attitude makes in the story that’s being painted here.
2. Snyder has nailed to perfection the type of conflicts he creates and then who he’s pitching them to. I had a great dialogue scene with him about the consequences of guilt and remorse. Tony had a fabulous scene about vengeance and honor. Dave shone in his bit about justice vs the order of law. Flash got a great scene about discovering strengths he never knew he had. Wow. Powerful, emotional, very cool.
3. NPCs are continuing to develop and become more and more interesting. The cast Matt has created is right on target with what we, as players, want to see. After Matt left, Tony, Flash and I were talking about this very topic. Matt has really come a long way in establishing personal relationships between the ‘cast’ and the ‘crew’ of characters. This is a far cry from the way Matt used to run things. It’s chewy morsels of goodness, and we’re lovin’ it.
4. If I had a critique, it would be that Wendy got no play time to speak of. She never said much, but I could tell by her body language that this was far from pleasing. She had stuff that she wanted to do, she came into the game excited, but her cues didn’t get picked up on.
5. The range of emotion in the game went from laughter to outright silence during one particularly disturbing scene. It was a real rollercoaster ride, one that everyone enjoyed, even if their characters weren’t in the scene. Matt really dropped the floor out from under us at one point and everyone just stared dumbly at him for a second as if to say, ‘Did he really just say that?!?!’ It was great. Matt should rightly feel that this session was a feather in his GM cap. After it was done, we were all asking, ‘How the hell do you top that?’ I dunno, but I can’t wait to find out.

Last night was session four (my second with the group after a long hiatus away from my group), and so far I think it's the best game Matt has run for me. Lisa is right on when she says Matt pulled off a some great scene conflicts.

I won't attempt to analyze any particulars until Matt posts comments about last night's game (hint-hint, Matt), but I will say that I jumped in on session three with no clear picture of HQ's game mechanics, and came out of that session feeling like I'd made some bad choices during character creation, and overall was frustrated that I hadn't been able to accomplish things in a way that made me appreciate my character. After talking to Matt later, I realized it really boiled down to consistently poor luck on dice rolls and my own limited understanding of the game mechanics.

In a complete reversal, last night's session was incredibly fun for me. In an email earlier yesterday, I'd informed Matt of a decision I said my character would make (given certain circumstances). It appears that he liked it so well that he used it to tie my character (until that point, he had tenuous bonds to the rest of the group) into the story much tighter, and gave him a socially respected (perhaps I should say "feared") position in the game world.

This is what appeals to me moreso than most any other after-effect of gaming - when player characters create ripples in the world. I'm an old-school gamer, and remember so many times having built these long-standing characters in our gaming worlds that had achieved high levels (or karma, or legend points, or insight points, etc. - you get the picture) without having any real influence on the world around them. As if they were slogging through a static landscape with no hope of creating any lasting impression on their surroundings. It was horribly unsatisfying. Thankfully, I haven't had that issue often with this gaming group, and we've been gaming for over 10 years now.

The point to this ramble is that right out of the gates with HQ, our characters are being woven into the deepest fabric of this story, and Matt has used a keen sense to toss interesting conflicts at the characters, especially with Squire Gwyn last night.

Matt, when you post comments about last night's session, I think you ought to mention the concept of granting Hero Point awards from fellow players, as well as from the narrator. It's a great way for us to let each other know what we liked about each session.

Cool stuff, Lisa. I have some questions about how these things occured...

The GM wrote: 1. Gaming on Purpose works.

2. Snyder has nailed to perfection the type of conflicts he creates and then who he’s pitching them to.

3. NPCs are continuing to develop and become more and more interesting. The cast Matt has created is right on target with what we, as players, want to see.

4. If I had a critique, it would be that Wendy got no play time to speak of.

5. The range of emotion in the game went from laughter to outright silence during one particularly disturbing scene.

Matt really dropped the floor out from under us at one point and everyone just stared dumbly at him for a second as if to say, ‘Did he really just say that?!?!’

Matt, when you post comments about last night's session, I think you ought to mention the concept of granting Hero Point awards from fellow players, as well as from the narrator. It's a great way for us to let each other know what we liked about each session.

Mike Holmes wrote:

And from another country...

Matt, when you post comments about last night's session, I think you ought to mention the concept of granting Hero Point awards from fellow players, as well as from the narrator. It's a great way for us to let each other know what we liked about each session.

A rule hack! Do tell, Matt; what's this all about?

Mike

Sounds pretty good - I like that the award is nominal.

That said, why not make the players give it to somebody else, if it's good for discussion? Why allow a player to give it to himself? From a Game Theory POV, that's creating a conflict of interest it seems to me. Given that it's a nominal reward, that's probably not a big deal, but given that it's nominal what's the advantage of allowing a player to give it to themselves?

Hmmm. I have only two players tonight. I'm thinking of using this, but with my version the rewards become perfunctory (they must exchange). Hmmm.

As to overall level of reward, the official rule is that they get HP before and after every "adventure." I too count this as every session, and if that's the case, then 7 is about right. In fact, I recently realized this myself, and have started to give out big piles of HP each session.

Mike

I hope that Matt is enforcing the rule as described. If you want to keep your Hero Point, you have to describe the cool thing that you did that means that you deserve to keep the Hero Point.

At least that's what I read his rule as saying.

I'm assuming that he is enforcing it that way. The thing is that with rules like this, there are odd social presures at work. Let's say that I think that I had the best scene, so I want to give it to myself. Well, if the others don't think that I had the best scene, they might suspect me of hoarding. Even if they don't, I'm disincentivized to give myself the HP because they might think that.

If you simply make it mandatory to give it to someone else, then you take that pressure of that decision away, more people get rewarded (at least two, the guy with the actual best scene, and the person he thinks was second), and more connections between players are forged. If I say, "Yep, mine was best because of X" there's not a lot of reason for others to respond to that. It ends up being an internal reinforcement, and nothing more, possibly. Wheras even giving the HP from one player to another says something about what the player thought of that player's play.

This is generally true with all such mechanisms. For example, at cons to determine the winner of an event I have everyone vote for somebody besides themselves. This garuntees that I'll be getting what they really think, and not the results of a greedy player who couldn't resist voting for themselves. Similarly, if the change is made to Matt's system, nobody ever has to wonder whether or not a player giving a HP to himself is doing it for the right reason.

Mike

As to overall level of reward, the official rule is that they get HP before and after every "adventure." I too count this as every session, and if that's the case, then 7 is about right. In fact, I recently realized this myself, and have started to give out big piles of HP each session.

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm assuming that he is enforcing it that way. The thing is that with rules like this, there are odd social presures at work. Let's say that I think that I had the best scene, so I want to give it to myself. Well, if the others don't think that I had the best scene, they might suspect me of hoarding. Even if they don't, I'm disincentivized to give myself the HP because they might think that.

That's precisely my point, A, I feel that way, too. So why not take away the possibility of rewarding yourself, and never have that conflict come up? Where you know you are the right person for the reward, but you still reward someone else anyhow. It's just pointlessly uncomfortable.

Mike

How is it that this game has this quality? Put another way, why didn't previous games? What was done this time that has changed the attitudes of all of the participants? Was it Matt's refusal to play the one night when people didn't seem engaged? Did that send a message? Is it something about Matt's attitude? This is, indeed, a social contract issue, and my question is how it was established? Was there a piece of paper with requirements on it?

What do you think he's doing to come up with these conflicts? What's his inspiration? I'm actually interested more in what you think it is, than in an answer from Matt.

Again, what did he do that made them better? Was it better characterization? Or was there something about the composition of the NPCs that made them seem interesting to what was going on?

Do you feel that Matt has made it clear that people should speak up if they want to do something? Basically, is this Matt missing cues, or a player too shy to make her wants known? A bit of both? Something else?

So, how was it that Matt nailed making these things emotionally engaging? Was it the situations or NPCs or what that caused the action to be so engaging? Again, what do you think inspired him to come up with the things that worked? Compared to other games where things might have been less engaging?

I have to ask. What did he say? Why was it such a shocker? Again, how did he know it would be. Anyone can make up a surprise, "There's an earthquake, and the tower begins to fall!" But whether or not it's engaging has more to do than it just being a surprise. What did he use that existed already to make this statement a real shocker?

That's precisely my point, A, I feel that way, too. So why not take away the possibility of rewarding yourself, and never have that conflict come up? Where you know you are the right person for the reward, but you still reward someone else anyhow. It's just pointlessly uncomfortable.

The GM wrote:

Nope, at the risk of sounding critical, he dropped the ball on this one. Granted, she could have said more, but she tried twice, got no response and gave up.

Ok, I suck. Talked to Wen and that wasn't the case at all. She said she loved it and understood that Matt has split focus going on.

See, that's what happens when I try to be insightful.
Blah. Sue me! ;)

I wanted to comment on the HP award because I tried the same approach but hit on a problem. I still like the idea of players rewarding other players but my implementation failed.

I also gave the players HPs (I gave them two each) that they should assign to other players as a reward for creating fun. The bad news was that everyone agreed that player X had created the best event, and he then got all the HP. Now, his contribution had been good, but he got something like 8 HP and others didn't get any. It was not a fair distribution of HP, so I dropped it. I now* give a couple of points, plus a few specific things like one for "biggest AP transfer", one for "most heroic action", for "best dialogue" etc. (these specifics are mostly made up one the spot to give each player similar scores.

*'now' being the last time I played, which is not recent. I also no longer use straight Hero Points but "Heroic Taglines" in a Dying Earth/Hero Wars hybrid.

Isn't a fair distribution the very antithesis of what this sort of system is trying to achieve? Meritocracies do not reward everyone, they reward the meritorious.

TonyLB wrote: Isn't a fair distribution the very antithesis of what this sort of system is trying to achieve? Meritocracies do not reward everyone, they reward the meritorious.

nellist wrote: I wanted to comment on the HP award because I tried the same approach but hit on a problem. I still like the idea of players rewarding other players but my implementation failed.

inky wrote: Yes, but this system tends to give the most meritorious person a disproportionately large award. That is, if you have five people, and they all agree person X did the best job, person X ends up with 8 points and the next-best person gets at most 2. Which is fine if X did a really great job, but if they only did somewhat better than the next-best person, it's a weird result.

I don't know any way to fix this without greatly complicating the system, though. Maybe give them two points each and say they can't give them both to the same person.

The GM wrote: Yeah, I think Matt took it seriously enough that we understood it was important to him, so we treated him with the respect he’s earned as a pal and give his wishes some weight. Also, we really wanted a cool, tight game. In order for there to be a chance in hell of that happening, you have to go in with a certain mindset. IOW, we take responsibility for our own fun. No, we do not have a SC written down. I think everyone would have rolled many an eye at someone posting ‘rules of conduct’ or some other type of socially reinforcing document. We’re good enough friends that if someone has a beef, they can have it addressed.

I believe that Matt is playing to his target audience. Who gives a crap what my character believes, or what Ton’s character believes? That’s just a piece of paper, easily changed or discarded. What doesn’t change so much is *us*, the players. He’s playing to different facets of *our* personalities. Very clever.

Again, what did he do that made them better? Was it better characterization? Or was there something about the composition of the NPCs that made them seem interesting to what was going on?

All of the above, really. It never seemed that his NPCs were 3 dimensional before. Now, they have a breath of life to them.

The trust factor was pretty high. It didn’t seem a risk for us to engage in his scenarios. We couldn’t get it wrong or screw it up. We didn’t worry much about ‘Matt’s good time.’ We focused on ‘Our good time’. (Our includes Mr. Snyder.) An important shift in our group, I believe.

I have to ask. What did he say? Why was it such a shocker? Again, how did he know it would be. Anyone can make up a surprise, "There's an earthquake, and the tower begins to fall!" But whether or not it's engaging has more to do than it just being a surprise. What did he use that existed already to make this statement a real shocker?

Because he knows us, he knew what would pull at our strings…note, I say *our strings* not the characters. Who cares about the characters when it comes to planning a whammie scene? It’s not the character who reacts, it’s the player! ;)

I think we should have the option open because simply closing it off implies that we don’t have the maturity to pick ‘the best scene’. Immaturity is not an issue with this group.

The GM wrote:

The GM wrote:

Nope, at the risk of sounding critical, he dropped the ball on this one. Granted, she could have said more, but she tried twice, got no response and gave up.

Ok, I suck. Talked to Wen and that wasn't the case at all. She said she loved it and understood that Matt has split focus going on.

See, that's what happens when I try to be insightful.
Blah. Sue me! ;)

Fascinating.

Do you think that it's possible that you were projecting a tad? That is, perhaps it's you who wanted to see certain things happen with her character that got "missed"?

Did you say anything about it when the opportunity was passing? I'm guessing not? Why?

Mike

Note this is my third post in a row here, please don't miss the above two...

On the ammounts for players to give as rewards: Inky, the problem is solved by a couple of things. First, give only one (or, like you suggested, have people split up the two). Second, give more HP, generally. That is, 4 HP only looks like a lot when the normal reward is 4 HP. If the normal reward is 8, then 4 isn't out of proportion.

Further, how many times did you try this. The "problem" only will occur on those occasions where one player was truely outstanding. There will, presumably be times where this is not the case. As narrator, also, you can try to focus on players who've not gotten rewards in the past under the assumption that maybe they aren't getting enough chance to shine.

Lastly, don't make the reward for "best scene" or anything like that. Instead make it "One HP to any player for any reason you want to state." That way, I can give the slow player a HP just because I like them coming to play. Or whatever. This way, you get broader feedback, less focus on single events, and the HP are likely to get spread around - people like me will be giving them to the underdogs just for trying hard, etc.

Because the point is correct, above. If you're really creating a meritocracy, then you'll get stacks on one player. If you're merely trying to create a method for players to interact with each other and communicate, then don't make the award for "best."

Mike

The GM wrote: Ok, I suck. Talked to Wen and that wasn't the case at all. She said she loved it and understood that Matt has split focus going on.

Session Three

Session three began with a lot of good anticipation. While it didn't have the focus and intensity in conflicts like the second session, the game was enjoyable overall. Playing this session were: Flash (playing Squire Gwyn), Lisa (playing Gabrielle), Wendy (playing Asheria), and Tony (playing Bronn).

I began the session with an attentive group. So, I simply asked "Who wants to go first?" Wendy beat everyone to the punch. Her character, Asheria, was last seen as a captive of the Anduren war clan north of Haven. So, I set the scene. She awoke in the morning, feeling slightly better. She has a practice spirit called Red Bear. One of it's abilties is something like "Healing Slumber." So, we said her injuries were gone.

Guards ushered Asheria to a tent with fellow captives Gant (her step-father), Sir Krenner, and his squire. There, they faced Robat, the war clan leader.

In a dialogue exchange between Asheria and Robat, Wendy played the proud, defiant woman. Robat inquired about Prince Gildas the Stormrider -- his warclan’s prince, who set out to kill her “king.” Asheria reacted condescendingly to the Anduren’s apparent ignorance that Lord Ganeston of Haven is a lord, not a king. But, she soon discovered their intent -- the Anduren wished to free their prince from Lord Ganeston’s dungeon.

Robat made an offer. Either Asheria or Gant would be allowed to go free. Then, he or she must go to the castle and free Gildas within two days. Failure meant the Anduren would kill the other.

Once offered, I could see Wendy excitedly volunteer. She didn’t miss a beat to have Asheria offer to go to the castle and free Gildas. She joked -- I many of us did -- that she had little concern for Gant’s fate.

…

Next up, we introduced Tony’s character, Bronn to the game. First, I’ll explain his character a bit.

Here’s Tony’s initial concept delivered via email:

Character concept wrote:
Maybe the son of a powerful nobleman barely escapes from the destruction of his house and family during a coup, and escapes to join a brotherhood of exotic assassins.  He returns home to seek vengeance against the opposing house, with no identity, as he's thought to be dead.  He sets about infiltrating the opposing house to begin taking out the house leaders.  He was once a happy, well-adjusted youth from a truly "good" house, but he's so consumed by revenge that he'll stop at nothing to see the opposing house burn.

I should have added that session three was well-received by the players in general. We remarked that it was less focused and dramatic as session two, but good overall. I know that Tony, Lisa and Flash stayed up and discussed the session that week. When I learned that, and some of what they said (both good and bad), I was really enthused. That they were discussing it like that at all I took as an extremely good and enthusiastic sign.

I felt pretty good overall about the session as GM. I know I felt like Lisa was missing out when her "lone" character didn't participate in the extended contest battle. Later, in the fourth session (as previous replies in this thread indicate) I felt like I shorted Wendy. So, clearly, thus far my weakness as GM has been shining sufficient spot-light time on all players when there are more than 3-4 playing.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Fascinating.

Do you think that it's possible that you were projecting a tad? That is, perhaps it's you who wanted to see certain things happen with her character that got "missed"?

Did you say anything about it when the opportunity was passing? I'm guessing not? Why?

However, I think a large part of it is due to dysfunctional habits around game where players have trained themselves to sublimate frustrations and get over it for “the good of the group.” When this leads to players who are repeatedly getting frustrated and not identifying it, accepting a lessened stake in the creative agenda then it can become a problem.

Matt Snyder wrote: I began the session with an attentive group. So, I simply asked "Who wants to go first?" Wendy beat everyone to the punch.

She awoke in the morning, feeling slightly better. She has a practice spirit called Red Bear. One of it's abilties is something like "Healing Slumber." So, we said her injuries were gone.

Robat made an offer. Either Asheria or Gant would be allowed to go free. Then, he or she must go to the castle and free Gildas within two days. Failure meant the Anduren would kill the other.

Once offered, I could see Wendy excitedly volunteer. She didn’t miss a beat to have Asheria offer to go to the castle and free Gildas. She joked -- I many of us did -- that she had little concern for Gant’s fate.

Tony created a magical keyword involving a spider cult to tie with his upbringing in an assassin’s coven. His abilities are neat ideas!

When Lord Ganeston told him that Gildas already admitted his intentions to kill the lord, Tony chuckled. He continued Finn’s desperate dialogue, making up more lies.

Upon returning to his cell, Finn decided to make his move. Tony also created a magical ability called “Shadow Dancer” that lets him “leap” from shadow to shadow. (Just now writing this, I recall that HeroQuest advises against teleportation powers almost entirely; I didn’t find it to be a problem.)

Gildas gasped at the magical transformation, but he successfully fended off Bronn’s strangling attack. (In a simple contest, Tony lost a simple contest) The guards entered the cell, and Bronn vanished into the shadows.

Tony greatly enjoyed the sinister moves of his character, but seemed a bit frustrated with die rolls. His post above in this thread explains some of that.

Squire Gwyn and his lady knight, Josianne, returned to the castle from their encounter with the war band.

...

This set up a fun conflict for Flash’s character, Gwyn. He’s stuck between his loyalty to Josianne and his constant cowardice.

Put on the spot by Lord Ganeston himself to vouch for her report. Flash moaned with the tension and choice, chuckled, then ultimately decided to have Gwyn go along with Josianne. Flash seems to really enjoy making these choices (there have been several in the game so far), but he also role-plays them in a way that portrays Gwyn as the clever coward (often humorously so).

I realize, now, that it may have been interesting to use simple contests, or even extended contests to have her convince the two farm wives she talked with to take the baby. But, it still worked out wonderfully.

Gabrielle then visited Lady Thorel and told her she had found a suitable home. Lady Thorel then asked to meet the “family.” Lisa and I both got a chuckle out of this – part of the reason she had difficultly convincing the farm families to take the baby was that they wanted to meet the mother. Lisa’s plans were to see that didn’t happen to protect the lady’s identity. So, this was me giving her a good razzing, and I think she found it humorous. We chuckled. I don’t think I’d have done this to her had the idea of Quint as adoptive father come into play. I think it could have been a very frustrating thing for her, and it may have felt like rail-roading on my part.

I had prepared Lisa’s main choice for the game, but it became a bit blurred. Originally, I was going to have her choose between Lady Thorel’s need for constant help and Quint’s offer of tutelage (hinting that it would be magical instruction). Quint did make the offer, but with the spontaneous idea of having him take Lady Thorel’s baby, that conflict deflated. Still, the story events were surprising to me (and I think Lisa, too), and I enjoyed them very much for that reason!

Interestingly, Dave demonstrated some mild frustration at that point. He was concerned that he’d be losing his best ability -- his relationship with Sir Baldwin. So, he showed me his character sheet, and we came up with a pretty generous and interesting solution. Thomas has a magical ability Dave came up with called “Old Man’s Eye.” We had no idea what that did or meant, but he had it! So, I let him transfer the entire rating from his relationship with Baldwin to his magical ability Old Man Eye, setting the ability somewhere around 14M1 (we use M instead of W for our mastery nomenclature). He would have to cement this, but the bonus was still pretty generous, I think. I also reasoned that he’s less likely to use Old Man’s Eye

This set up an interesting moral dilemma, but one that Dave took no hesitation to make. He wanted knighthood, and had his father circumvent tradition.

NOTE: At this point, we had several narrative “strands” that began to converge. And, we realized that the “timeline” for each wasn’t quite correct. So, we talked about it openly as a group, and decided to “edit” the timeframes so that every strand (Gwyn’s rescue, Baldwin’s death, and Asheria’s return) converged on the same early morning.

I enjoyed that bit, because it set up a conflict for Flash and his troupe. Their under-reporting of the war clan gets them in a bit of trouble. I like it when the players are helping create such situations.

Dave took the opportunity to make an interesting gesture. Thomas took out his sword, which is a special possession he created during character creation (the sword's name currently escapes me -- something like Haven's Claw). Thomas grabbed the edge of the blade, cutting his hand as an oath of fealty. "To the last drop," he said. A nice little moment! Dave portrayed his character quiety, honorably.

Lisa later remarked that she thought Dave's role-playing for that oath was the best of the session, and that she thought the other players missed the subtle beauty of the moment. I think it was relatively subtle, and perhaps Dave should have earned more reaction from the players. I did enjoy the moment immensely, if not as vocally as it may have deserved...

I recall some discussion about attack plans and concern about combat abilities. At that point, I reminded them that there was less need to be concerned about blow-by-blow tactics and combat effectiveness -- that HeroQuest abilities need not be swords and armor and riding to make this plan work.

Thus began the session's only extended contest. I divided the camp into two sections/AP pools, then had a third AP pool for Robat, the warclan leader.

For the contest, I asked for AP bids, then let the highest bid go (including my own bids, which ended up being lower almost every time than those risk-taking players!).

Flash got more humourous kicks playing the cowardly squire hanging on for dear life while the din of battle crashed around him.

Bronn had snuck ahead into the main tent where Robat held Sir Krenner, Gant, and the squire. He tried to use his assassination ability to slay Robat. Thus began a fight between the two, which got pretty interesting.

So, the two continued to fight Robat. In the end, Dave and Tony began using exceptionally high bids like 20 and higher. With a helpful transfer, they managed to put Robat in the dying category. (They had no real understanding that their high bids were the only way to put Robat into that state.) I narrated that Bronn stabbed Robat in the back of the shoulder with his knife, at which point Thomas sliced open Robat's belly with Haven's Claw, his sword.

Another note: I realize now that nearly all my players are using and abusing Magical Abilities, through no fault of their own. Am I correct in understanding that only characters with concentrated magic should be able to use their Magical abilities directly, rather than just as augments? I had completely forgotten that! We're going to have to discuss this as a group, because many players have devoted a lot of attention to their magical abilities. Likely, they'll concentrate and all will be well. (BTW, Wendy has concentrated Aheria's animist magic at character creation.)

Did it again. Two posts in a row (see above).

The GM wrote: Then Flash, Wen and I got to talking about the Forge and Flash had to drag out the obligatory GenCon pics so Wendy could put a face with a name, etc...

Back to the point at hand...Do I want to see Wendy do cool things w/ her character? Sure, I do. I'd like to see that from the whole troupe, Matt included. Do I feel she missed opportunities? Perhaps, but that's not my call to make. It's hers.

Mike Holmes wrote:

When this leads to players who are repeatedly getting frustrated and not identifying it, accepting a lessened stake in the creative agenda then it can become a problem.

Deep, Brand, deep. I'm assuming that you're talking "experienced gamers" here? Or do you find this happening with newbs too?

Especially with a few members of my group who used to play with an extremly... um... what's the proper Forge term for "destructive asshole GM"...

Of course, her character, she's where tthe buck stops on the character. But, that said, don't you guys ever make suggestions to each other? "Dude, you could have your guy show up now, and we could fight the demon together!" Doesn't mean she has to accept the suggestion. But usually it doesn't hurt to make the suggestion. Often it's appreciated.

Mike Holmes wrote: OTOH, who knows, maybe it happens on much subtler levels, too.

Cool, Matt.

Got any room for an online participant?

Let's see, Mapquest says that it's only 375 miles from me to Carlisle, slightly less than 6 hours travel time. Bet I could do it in 5. Hmmm.

;-)

Mike

p.s. Brand, I'm sure you're right. The question is whether or not it pertains here.

Before we begin, Matt, keep in mind that I know you've seen me GM, and that I know that you know that I don't play as good a game as I talk in terms of advice online. Hell, I probably don't play as well as you are here - this sounds like a spectacular game (wish I was playing). Still, I think it's still good to mention good technique even if one isn't perfect in its use. That is, none of this is so much criticism as commentary on what might work if one remembers to do these things. Not to mention that I'm learning a lot from your responses.

Matt Snyder wrote: I began the session with an attentive group. So, I simply asked "Who wants to go first?" Wendy beat everyone to the punch.

This is that same Wendy who seems to be unengaged from other comments? Or is that just in other games?

One of the rules of HQ is the "automatic success" rule. Is that what's being applied here, or is this a case of traditional fiat? Or was the opportunity for a contest simply missed? I'm not saying that there should have been one here, I assume you made the right choice for the time. My question is how you came to the conclusion that there was no need to do a contest here?

Just for argument's sake, wouldn't it have been interesting to see if her spirit may have failed her in this situation? Or her relationship with the spirit, depending?

Once offered, I could see Wendy excitedly volunteer. She didn’t miss a beat to have Asheria offer to go to the castle and free Gildas. She joked -- I many of us did -- that she had little concern for Gant’s fate.

Something seems contradictory here. The tension here was in choosing who to go? Or not?

So far, everybody who I've talked to gets over it by simply playing more sessions.

Is (Josianne) a follower, technically? Ally? Sounds like not a follower, as you're making the moves for her, Matt?

OK, this needs a little expansion. Was it just that you hammered on this problem repeatedly? Why was it "razzing"? Was it almost like railroading because of the potential implausibility of so many people asking after the family?

This happens a lot. I'm betting, however that you were thinking on your feet, and found a way to turn this into a different conflict?

I did something similar recently, actually. But generally speaking, a "stacked" ability is worth more than two unstacked. That is, do you think you may have sorta overdone it in givng the player such a high ability out of the blue? Anyhow, the common wisdom as to the options with relationships that die are:


• Replace the relationship with another....
• The ability does not go away...
• Replace with an heirloom...

I used to worry that if a player jumped on a particular choice without anguishing over it, that I had made a weak bang, or was railroading. Not true. It's only bad if the player doesn't sense that it really was his choice.

For the above, you actually retconned the action? Or did you simply leap ahead to some convenient future time? Why not just say that those in an earlier frame are delayed, for some dramatic reason, til the times coincide, thus avoiding the retcon? Or is that what happend?

Basic narrativism. Nothing tactical about it, nothing saying it was the "correct" thing to do in such a situation, simply a player displaying his character through a decision he created on the spot (to do or not). This is what I'm trying to indicate in another current thread, actually. Narrativism is just play and occurs unconsciously, and often without any special technique at all.

Lisa later remarked that she thought Dave's role-playing for that oath was the best of the session, and that she thought the other players missed the subtle beauty of the moment. I think it was relatively subtle, and perhaps Dave should have earned more reaction from the players. I did enjoy the moment immensely, if not as vocally as it may have deserved...

Did it get him HP from players?

Thus began the session's only extended contest. I divided the camp into two sections/AP pools, then had a third AP pool for Robat, the warclan leader.

Flash got more humourous kicks playing the cowardly squire hanging on for dear life while the din of battle crashed around him.

So the separate pool was for a separate contest? Hmmm. Don't you set pools as needed by the situation? Something I'm missing here.

Actually this depends on the magic keyword in question. The terms used are "Passive," meaning augments only, and "Active" meaning able to augment or use the normal ability.

It'll stop that pesky Flash from winning too easily with his Weasel's Luck ability!

Matt Snyder wrote: Good point! That is a reason I like for doing the contest. But, I simply said Asheria was hurt-free given the context. It was me applying auto-success, as you suggest. She'd slept through a night and a day, so it made sense at that point in time, which literally was the start of the session.

Yep. There was much "Aha!" in a secondary rules explanation in the minutes before session 4. And, more successes in session 4 made people seem much more comfortable. Tony especially.

She is THE central figure in the much-alluded-to "shocking moment" in session four. Ron, author of Sex & Sorcery (ahem), should eat it up.

That is, Gabrielle's strict concern that mom and adoptive parents must not meet was unwarranted; she thought she had Lady Thorel's best interests in mind. And, yet, she made big choices on that assumption. I didn't like that this may have been taken as me railroading so that she'd leave the kid with Old Quint.

Great ideas! I almost opted for No. 2, but hadn't considered the others.

I realized right away that stacking two abilities was a very generous trade off in Dave's favor. But, I also thought it evened out pretty well. In the game, people's relationships are constantly used. By comparison, I reasoned, how often is Dave going to use "Old Man's Eye"? Now, sure, if he's really clever, a LOT.

But, he has not at all abused it,

and we both thought it was too cool to pass up that "old" Baldwin's soul would be inspiring his Old Man's Eye. Very neato. One of my greatest "side effect" delights in HeroQuest is making use of some obscurely worded or arcane title like that.

We werent' using that rule until session four, alas. In fact, Lisa's remarks about this scene were a major reason why I did implement the rules.

Good question. I guess I divided it that way to present challenges to each player. Now that you mention it this way, I can see how it really could have been a more cohesive and rewarding group victory had they all faced off against the Anduren host as one AP pool.

Frankly, my "proper" handling of the masses in combat was probably way off base, rules-wise.

I was likely far too kind to the players, not granting sufficient ratings and AP to the warriors. Robat himself, was, I think, properly "statted", although he may have lacked for support of his warrior community.

Actually, Flash PAID for his "Craven" abillity, and he uses it postively (i.e. successfully) often. Too often! It isn't a flaw, really. At least, not in practice to date. I SHOULD have penalized him (all of -2) in session 4 when he acted very heroically, though I suspect he'd have still triumphed as he did.

Since it's slightly fuzzy what our character's magical abilties are (this not being Glorantha, albeit pretty analogous), I'll have to think on it. Most people have Common Magic, it seems clear to me. But, one or two might have a Theist ability -- Bronn's spider abilities for example.

It'll stop that pesky Flash from winning too easily with his Weasel's Luck ability! I've also considered imposing more "improvised" penalties for that ability, specifically.

Valamir wrote:

It'll stop that pesky Flash from winning too easily with his Weasel's Luck ability!

Heh. Is "Weasel's Luck" a Trait of the character...or a Trait of Flash himself ;-)

Mike brought up the following:

You're missing the answer that I'm looking for, here. I get that Matt is taking it seriously, and that you're all playing this way because of your respect for him. But, OK, you didn't have a piece of paper. How was this communicated? What I'm looking for was how it was that you all got the idea that he was serious. Was it some change in his expressions? Did he say something? If so, what?

I'm trying to get at the very specific "how" this came about. It's easy to say, "we just decided" but that never happens. There has to be communication first for the change to happen. I'm looking for that communication.

Very cool answer. Now, presumably he's not having implausible things happen, right? That is, everything that's going on has some relevance to the characters, not just to the players, no? Given that, how is it that what's a plausible issue for the character ends up being so interesting to the players? Is it co-incidence? Or is something else going on?

OK, but, again, digging a bit deeper, was it all characterization? That is, was it simply that Matt improved his acting skills, and was portraying the characters in a more lifelike way? Or was there something about what the NPCs were about that made them so lifelike?

Spectacular answer. What was it that was different this time that caused this to happen? Was it the dedication to playing per #1 above? Was it just all the time you've spent together? Did the setting or system have anything to do with it?

Yer not going to tell me, are ya? What it was that Matt said? Too personal? I'm really curious as to the actual in-game event. Just waiting for Matt to lay it out?

I think I've just been called immature! ;-)

Mike Holmes wrote: Cool, Matt.

Got any room for an online participant?

Let's see, Mapquest says that it's only 375 miles from me to Carlisle, slightly less than 6 hours travel time. Bet I could do it in 5. Hmmm.

;-)

The GM wrote:
Um, that’s a hard thing to answer. I think it has some to do with a critical meltdown the group had last winter. No, I’m not going to go into what happened. Please don’t ask. Point being, that our group seemed to come out of the fracas stronger, more sure of each other, and better friends to boot. So when Matt said he was going to run a game, we were excited, and here’s the key part, willing to help him out, Wanting to Help Him Out. By him being successful, so would we be and the fun factor would go up 1000%. Does that make sense? We made (albeit an unspoken) decision to have a blast. I do not recall a specific discussion where we laid out the time we would game, or where, or who was bringing beer and munchies.

Very cool answer. Now, presumably he's not having implausible things happen, right? That is, everything that's going on has some relevance to the characters, not just to the players, no? Given that, how is it that what's a plausible issue for the character ends up being so interesting to the players? Is it co-incidence? Or is something else going on?

Oh certainly. It all has relevance. Please reference my earlier post in the thread about Public conflict vs Personal conflict. That’s what Matt is doing.

OK, but, again, digging a bit deeper, was it all characterization? That is, was it simply that Matt improved his acting skills, and was portraying the characters in a more lifelike way? Or was there something about what the NPCs were about that made them so lifelike?

Frankly, NPCs were always a weak link in Matt’s games. They were cardboard cut outs of what people might be like. He’s shored up this issue immensely by giving NPCs motives, personalities, etc…

Lisa's claim that the agreement was unspoken is not quite right. We did have a very open discussion among myself, Tony, Flash and Lisa in late winter / early spring of this year. In it, we discussed, literally, the "gaming on purpose" idea, openly discussed everyone's gaming preferences. I arranged the meeting, which was cordial and enjoyable. It lasted a few hours. I specifically wanted to meet (and said so vocally) for two main reasons. The first was to get people to acknowledge openly and verbally whether or not gaming was important to them (it was, universally), and to agree (or not -- we did agree) that when we game we would literally be more attentive and engaged.

The second reason was to discover what game or idea they wanted me to GM on a longer term basis.

Fields of Freedom grew very specifically from that meeting, but it took a long time to happen. And, I worked on and proposed other games in that duration. It was not too long after that meeting that I met with Flash and Lisa to explain HeroQuest. (I explained that meeting in my first post in this thread.) Again, it would be some time (several months) before we did anything at all with HeroQuest, and we played other games (Shadowrun only, perhaps) in the meantime.

That meeting was, as I recall and from my perspective, utterly crucial. And, I believe everyone involved walked away very excited about gaming and openly espousing more attentive, more engaged sessions.

The group knows each other very well. My experience with our gaming sessions, and I think others will generally agree, is that they had a very casual attitude. We started when we did. The games were hit and miss successes, with a better-than-average "fun factor." Sessions often involved lots of people getting up and going to check email or tending kids or reading some magazine, or knitting (no joke!), or something else, or whatever. No one seemed bothered by this, including myself, often. I certainly did not have a bad time gaming. But, I also think this engendered a too-casual attitude about the activity itself. "We're all friends, so we're having a good time gaming." Not always true. I found that the sessions could be disjointed, and any dysfunction, however slight or severe, was dismissed as "We're friends so it doesn't matter. We're having fun."

Over time, I think it mattered. Hence more discussion on it, and the meeting I allude to above. We realized that our gaming suffered about as much as it soared with that too-casual attitude. I believe we showed each other how we could have ten times the fun when we dedicated ourselves to the game. And, of course, there would be times when that dedication lacked. So, we enjoy each other's companionship and do something other than game at those times.

Matt Snyder wrote: Lisa's claim that the agreement was unspoken is not quite right.

Hey Mike, sorry I won't be able to respond to this thread for awhile due to RL events. It may be awhile before I'm back. If Matt wants to field some of your points, that's cool w/ me.
Thanks.

No problem. Matt?

Mike