Using "Grabby" here to mean ways the hero can grab onto the story...or to put it another way "You don't like the way things are going, what are you going to do about it?"

One common way is combat ("Violence is always an option") Social skills, certain magic skills, wide contacts, even "Hold your liquor" can all sometimes be grabby. Basically anything that can be used proactively and reasonably flexibly.

But I feel a bit like the proverbial blind man at the elephant, seeing a piece of what it means to be grabby, byt sure that there are other views. And given the HQ hero generation mechanic, really anything is possible.

So assuming key words are already set (yes, merchant is far grabbier than farmer, but assuming key words are already set), what would you do to make a hero grabbier?

--Bryan
PS. Mike, I know you feel all HQ heroes are interesting given the basis of how they are structured, but I'm greedy, I want to do MORE than the default!

Relationships are always a good way of providing added 'grabbiness' -- that farmer may seem not to have a great deal of traction on the story, but if his son is clan champion, his brother the clan lawspeaker, his mother the clan TKT crone and his drinking buddy the clan merchant (OK, this is rather simplified!) then he suddenly becomes the kind of character who can become a key facilitator. Of course the key in these situations is to make sure these contacts don't end up becoming just abilities-at-one-remove that the hero can use when useful and ignore when not, but 3D characters with their own characters and ambitions.

This builds in a second level of story engagement: if the hero wants to make use of them to 'grab' the primary story, then he is also enmeshing himself in their stories too, acquiring obligations and promising favours which can be cashed in there and then or later.

All the best

Mark

Bryan_T wrote: ... yes, merchant is far grabbier than farmer...

Hello,

Ultimately, "grabby" means "relevant." I find this difficult to discuss in an on-line context, because reader-projection is so strong, and because people in general seem disinclined to agree that what they like can also be understood. So let me try to clarify.

By "relevant," I do not mean:
- representative of one side of a current political debate
- expected to change the participant's behavior toward something else (outside the story)
- immediately recognizable as an issue independently of the fictional protagonist (i.e. one could do this, but it's not necessary to have made the jump overtly)

What I'm driving at is this:
- concerns human conflicts that we know of in our own lives, and the lives of those close to us

Sure, the Yanafal Tarnils initiate stands over the desperately-wounded body of a Heortland villager, and uses his magic to defy his superior officer. "We are not here to destroy these people!" Is his defiance blessed by his god, or is it blasphemy? Roll!

You and I do not wield symbolic death-magic. We are not soldiers in an occupying military force. We do not live literally months and months of travel from home, at best/fastest. I, at least, do not expect to have to kill anyone tomorrow as part of my job and lifestyle (don't know about you).

But what's grabby about that scene is not all the flash and the death-rune manifesting in the air between my character and the other one. It's not the wyter of the village voicing its death-shriek through the totem pole. It's not even our imaginations that color in the look & feel of the fictional armor, clothing, and the weather.

It's the look in the eyes between my character and the look in the eyes of the officer, and the look in the eyes of the villagers who are barely daring to move, following my character's announcement.

That we can all understand. What makes a character grabby is his or her expression of human passion - whether that passion be scholarly, physical, violent, religious, or whatever.

To play HeroQuest, I think, it is necessary that character creation generate a tension of passions "humming" in one's mind, whenever that character stalks onto the scene. Even an overly-complacent, placid character can fill that role, when we realize he or she is minefield of consequences.

You look at the character and think, "Can this person do the wrong thing?" And if there are features on the sheet that just have "uh oh" written all over them, then you're good to go.

Contrast two characters - in one of them, all the relationships are positive; the magic is harmonized with the personality traits; the abilities are nicely matched to occupation, and so on. But it just so happens that the homeland is ... Boldhome. Uh oh! We know that no one can be neutral in Boldhome; it's occupied, dangerous ground. This guy's stability is going to be under major stress, really soon. In fact, the more harmonized all his "stuff" is, the more a good ambiguous conflict (say two relationship-NPCs who take opposite sides) is gonna elicit dramatic passions.

In the other character, oh goodness, he's a mess. An off-culture religion. An occupation that doesn't suit his personality. In fact, a personality trait that's contradictory to his highest relationship. An ability that's opposed to his religion. This guy is already conflicted left and right, but what makes him grabby is the opposite of the above guy - a social situation that's stable and wants to remain that way. How's he going to fit in? How's he going to contribute? How's he even going to survive?

Either way is good! Practically any character is grabby, in HeroQuest - what matters is whether the player and group are committed to being grabbed. Creative Agenda, big-time.

Best,
Ron

I've been reading the responses, thinking "NO! They are answering a different question that what I was trying to ask."

Struggling to put a feeling into words can be hard. But sometimes it is its own reward--as in this case.

I finally realized that what I was trying to ask was "How to make a more interactive hero?" To which of course the answer is "Use interactive abilities." (which brought to mind that classic resume-writing advice: use active verbs! Although that isn't always what is required). When they can't be interactive, at least evocative

"Know dragon legends" => "Researches dragon legends"
"Likeable" ==> "makes friends easily" or "Puts people at ease"
"Wealthy" ==> "extensive trade contacts" or "wealth of plunder" or
"owed many favors by merchants"
"Resist cold" ==> "Keep warm"

and so on.

I think this is the root of my comments about the different key words. Some are more prone to interactive words than others. But that is OK, you don't need every ability to be interactive. I think what I was struggling towards was that if you are using a not especially interactive key-word, put an extra emphasis on interactive abilities in your narrative or list.

I suspect that some people do this instinctively. I'm not one of them, but now I can do it conciously.

One part of me wants to apologize for starting this thread when the answer was within me all along, but then I realized that without reading your responses I may not have found that answer. It took reading them to make me tighten up my question.

Thanks for your time!

--Bryan

I think I'll quickly chip in here...

Assuming Bryan is talking about the farmer of his who has just jumped into the game I'm running, he's done so just when the exiled heroes and their forty-or so hangers on are going to run out of food because (1) they are exiles, so hungry, (2) they have a cute little Fire-boy with them who is very very hungry and eats grains like a cosmic goose, and (3) the local plants are having their own cosmic struggle underground with Chaos, so all the plants are tainted and it's almost harvest time.

So his farmer, who can do all sorts of cool farmery-things you'd never think of if you were creating a farmer with no game context, is incredibly grabby in that sense.

The other sense I think derives in part from a lot of occupational keywords, as they is published, being a bit skimpy on interesting derived abilities, especially compared with a warrior who can run, jump, ride, be grim and be loyal on top of the other stuff. Of course you can make more up, but you might not have the imagination that particular day or feel able to ask the narrator if you can have more (that's always a bit painful).

If you follow the rule of matching character with setting (in whichever direction), it's not a problem. It just takes a bit more effort is all.

pip pip and thanks for all the great tips (for want of a better word) around here..

Sam.

Sam;

Assuming Bryan is talking about the farmer of his who has just jumped into the game I'm running

Bryan,

I'm totally not getting it. Are you saying that some abilities because of how they are named will come up in play more often? That "likable" will be less used than "Makes friends easily"? If so, I'm not seeing why that's so at all. Is this merely some mental block on your part that doesn't allow you to use "likeable" in the same places that one could use "Makes friends easily"? I'm not saying that they're synonymous, either, just that I don't see how one is more widely applicable or more likely to get used than the other.

And I'm with Kerstin on the Farmer thing...I simply don't get it. Yes, if you play the farmer character, and all of the conflicts are about trading, then the merchant character might seem out of place, or less grabby. If you play only traditional adventures about killing and looting, then I suppose that the warrior is more easily engaged. But the point is that this is all backwards. Make the action fit the characters. That is, when looking at where things are going, if you use the character sheet as a road map as narrator, you'll always end up with characters who are "grabby" in this sense.

And I agree with Ron. What Makes a character interesting is how much we feel about the character. So, yeah, if you're not feeling the farmer (or his issues), don't play the farmer. But a farmer can have just as much potence thematically as a merchant or warrior.

So whether it's a matter of abilites that get used in play a lot, or ones that are interesting somehow, it all comes down to what the players want to see. Anything works just as well as anything else, as long as the players are interested in what happens to the characters (including the GM as a player here).

Right now in the game I'm running, the single ability that has been used most is origami.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Are you saying that some abilities because of how they are named will come up in play more often?

Hi Charles,

That's a well-phrased argument that works fine in terms of its internal logic. However, what is your experience with these ideas in actual play?

For a while, in many games published in the mid-1990s, evocative descriptions were all the rage. It was merely assumed that "Mighty Blow" was a better thing to have on a character sheet than "Strength," and that one's game became all kinds of profound when people used such terms.

That argument does carry some weight ... but I've also found, in application and after playing literally a hundred games, fairly seriously, over the last few years, that it's not as meaty as it sounds.

But I'm open to the idea that your play-experience may differ. What are your play experiences, as opposed to the convincing ring of the argument, that support your conclusion?

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Before I start grasping around for examples, I want to make sure you understand I'm not suggesting a principle of game design. If evocative descriptions are to be used they are best made up by the players.

I have seen a couple of examples of players taking special care with the language they use to describe abilities. One guy stuck with plain words but would change them, one every session or two, not to reflect in-game changes, but to reflect his conception of the character and what he could do. He ultimately changed his archery ability to "Murder" as his idea of the character got grimmer, and gladly took penalties if he were merely trying to kill someone in a face to face combat.

Another of my players' characters has the ability "That was my favorite suit!" (instead of the more prosaic "Vain"). He regularly asks in the middle of an extended contest whether some action has torn or dirtied his suit, and then invokes an augment. We've come to, almost, look forward to it.

In each of these cases, the unusual language did help the other players to imagine the character, and the ability in question was used quite often. I think in the second example, the language encouraged the ability to be used more often, while in the first example, the player took special care with the wording because the ability was important to the character, and so was used a lot anyway.

I must confess, also, that a little of this can go a long way. More than one or two abilities like "That was my favorite suit!" on a character sheet and I don't think I could stand it for the kitsch.

Charles

Well, OK. I mean, for me it's just as fun, or more, to try to find the way in which a particular ability name works for a particular situation. So this may just be player interest speaking here. Fortunately HQ allows this.

I mean, if all that's going on here is Bryan figuring out a way to name stuff that works better for him, then cool. I guess one should always name their abilities in a way that works best for them.

My rule, which I make explicit from time to time, is that we don't know what any ability does, in fact no ability is even set for the character, until it's used in play. That is, I allow players to change what's on the character sheet, as long as we haven't seen the ability in play yet. This is an extension of the "As You Go" creation rules that says basically that all characters are as you go, and that anything on the sheet is just a suggestion until it shows up in play.

And then the interpretation of that ability is set then and only then. For example, one player in my game has a character with "Gather Information." In my mind, when I saw this, I figured that it was a sort of abstract ability that said that he could go off and find information from contacts. But in play he decided that it's more about getting information from individuals through subtle means. Which is pretty cool.

Anyhow, the point is that if you use this method, you'll never be disappointed by your selections of abilities. Because they're formed by a first use of the ability. I mean, if you look at the sheet, and see that your merchant's Knowledge of Fine Wines isn't coming into play, then change it to something that will. More importantly, however, don't assume that ability X must mean something specific. That is, one assumes that an ability taken was taken because it sounded interesting in some way, so there's often a reason to keep it. Instead of throwing out an ability that's not seeming to be used, just try to stretch or alter your original meaning to make it more worthwhile.

This is hard for some people to wrap their heads around because we're so used to having to protect against this behavior as abuse in other games. It's just good play in HQ, to figure out how your character applies to a situation.

This is why I don't tend to give out a lot of improv modifiers on first uses. That would be me saying "I know better than you what you meant by this ability." I might, occasionally, if the use seems very odd, but instead I'll usually suggest a different ability title to represent that ability in that case. Once I've seen the ability in use a couple of times, however, then we all have an established idea of what the ability is about, and that's when the modifiers may come out. The whole arguing in of abilities, and improv modifier sequence is a formalized negotiation between the player and narrator about how broad they want an ability to be, and helps define the ability better and better as play progresses.

Some people don't get this, but this is how abilities work in HQ, why there's no need for a set list of abilities. Just like one can define the character in play in terms of what abilities they have, the abilities themselves are defined by play. Over time we get to know the characters better and better.

So use this principle to your advantage. Always be defining abilities as you feel best make your character interesting to play. No player should be penalized for having taken an ability that's deemed as "boring" because it doesn't make it into play. Instead everyone should be looking how to get those abilities into play. Either by defining them in a fun way, or by modifying the world so that the current definition is interesting.

Now, that's optimal - I'll admit that lots of abilities that players take get overlooked in play. To some extent, some of the abilities simply serve to give a character a feeling of depth that we may never see in play. Yes, if we never see the character's "Tarsh Customs" come into a contest, that's not the end of the world. The key isn't to make absolutely ever ability stand out in play - it might be possible, but I don't think it's neccessary. You only have to make "enough" abilities shine so that we get to see the character get revealed. "Enough" will always be locally determined, but I suggest that if you're seeing half of the character sheet get into contests with some regularity, that this will satisfy most if not all players.

Mike

Maybe I'm just approaching these things from a different angle than most people?

As a player I'm perhaps overly devoted to outside of the box solutions to problems. Sure, sometimes there is a situation that requires immediate response, and you are mostly reacting. But sometimes there is space for the hero to do something totally different.

So let's take an almost cliche HQ situation: your heortling clan is suffering under heavy lunar taxes, and to pay this year you are going to have to give up TOO MUCH of your herds. You could react, and it probably doesn't matter how things on your sheet are phrased (you have some sort of bargaining ability, or skills appropriate to cattle raiding, or whatever).

Or you could do something TOTALLY else. Travel to Boldhome, seduce the tax collectors wife, then threaten to make a fool of him in front of the provincial elite unless he backs off this years taxes. Go to the Lhankor My temple and research the dragon move that once hid a whole village in the second age. Bamboozle a 7 mums priestess into thinking that your clan is about to sponsor a shrine on its tula, so long as it can afford it, so if she could just get this years taxes waived since you are all trying to convert. Find a way to re-create the syndic's ban even.

Basically, to reach out, grab the story line, and twist it at right angles to do a totally new thing.

To be a hero, in other words.

This is where "researches dragon myths" is more active than "knows dragon myths", etc. Maybe yet another way of saying this, abilities that have reach, that give the potential (especially with heropoint use) to stretch the hero beyond what it/she/he is already.

It isn't a matter of routine play every session. It definately isn't a matter of augmenting, in fact the total opposite, it is about making abilities more than just useful augments. It isn't a way of making an ability better. It is just giving it more claws to grab the story with.

Of course, I can see where narrators may not all view this is a good thing :) Although I think it also gives the story more grip on the hero. Hard to narrate a "know" ability in an interesting way. But "research" can send you anywhere. "Trains tirelessly" opens story-lines that "enduring" or "fit" doesn't. Basically saying more about what the hero does and less about what the hero is just seems, to me, to create more story opportunities.

Heroes DO

But having said all that....it is obvious that I'm the only one who sees this as a problem in describing heroes. I do appreciate your attempts to understand me (just as I appreciate my wife's attempts to label the knobs for our stove elements, but the fact that to me they map to the burners the wrong way means I'll still instinctevely turn on the wrong burner, without reading the labels, and she'll never understand why). So I'll take this particular conversation back inside my own head. It seems to be one of those basic either you see it as an issue or you don't see it as an issue sort of things--just like I can't understand why I'd want a faster car when I can already get a healthy speeding ticket in my little Echo, while millions clammer for more powerful engines.

Ron: I'd happily see this thread end, because I just don't see us hitting anymore of a resolution--the only person who seems to see it as an issue is me, and I'm satisfied in my own mind now with my answer, and see no need to try to persuade others that it is an issue if they don't see it as such.

-Bryan

[prompted by an off-list email]

I was not trying to suggest that anyone else's way of doing things was better or worse than my own. I took it as a given that whatever works for you is is a valid soution for you, and that there is no way to say that one persons solution is better than anothers. I'm saying it explicitly now, as apparently I implied that others' solutions were somehow inadequate. Far from it! You all answered with wisdom and tolerance and far more experience than I, and in each case it sounds like your own approaches work brilliantly. If anything I'm envious :)

If anyone else sees things left to discuss here by all means keep the thread open, but it seems that
- I'm satisfied with my own answers, and
- everybody else seems to have consensus that there was never a problem in the first place,

which was why I suggested closing the thread.

--Bryan