***Spoiler alert for people like Bryan or Keith who might play in this ***

I want at some point to take a break from narrating (PbEM) my Heortling game and run a short, structured game based on Unspoken Word's Sons of Kargzant. Briefly, the reasons are: I want to use some of the other material I acquire, I want to direct my reading of this interesting stuff to a specific purpose (a game), I want to include a time limit for the current phase of the current game, I want to run a short game, I want to refresh myself, I want to try some things out. I have discussed this with the players.

I would like to do something along the lines of the Well of Souls (which I've read only) - before anyone suggests just adapting it, that's not the point - I want a 'project' (also, passing on of power is different among the Char-Un). But I only have a very sketchy premise, so it is with this I want to ask for help.

The Char-Un, for the uninitiated, are essentially Mongols only more interesting. Power is acquired in bloody fashion, not inherited. They are animists - following two main paths, the Sun for men, the Moon for women. Fine. The third path, the inbetween one, has two fascinating sibling shamanic traditions - one is male and female, the other is alive and dead.

The very sketchy premise I have seems to be only a few very short steps away from that of the WoS. I don't, however, want the whole "the future of the clan rests with you" business, I have enough of that elsewhere. But, for some reason, just abandoning that leaves me quite bereft of ideas (is there a list of premises somewhere?). So, once again, I have the idea of the death of an important figure. Only, here, it is death as in dead, shuffled off and so on...when someone dies among the Char-Un, though, several things may happen:

1. Slaves - left to rot or fed to the dogs.
2. Normal clan member - burnt or left to the birds.
3. Noble - embalmed etc and carried on the migration (if this doesn't halt for mourning) until near the forests, great tomb, rune-carved logs, chuck a horse and some slaves in for good measure.
4. Some warriors - placed on the backs of their dead mounts and held up on sticks, ropes etc like puppets, to act as guards/warnings.
5. Noble enemy - skull cleaned out and used as a tankard for strength.

My idea is that there is disagreement about which of these funerary procedures to follow. So, unless there is a better suggestion for a premise than my very sketchy quarter-premise of what do you do with yer dead, how do I make this count to the players, build factions, a relationship map into which players can jump and a game out of it? My one idea is that the shaman says one thing*, someone else (the chief?) says another, but who is really not going to do what the shaman says? I mean, you'd need your head examining.

Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Sam.

* I'd also be unlikely to end up without almost-shamanic PC's at the very least, too.

How about you start with the idea that one of the PC's is dead.

Then flashback to events in their life to work out which funeral treatment they are going to get.

soru

Looking at a premise having to do with life, death, and leadership I’d get into ideas of how we chose those that rule and lead us, and what we find acceptable – especially when the normal order of things breaks down.

Onto this you’d need to layer issues of family (both because family is always good for drama and because in a tribal people like the Char Un family is always tied to who rules), mythology, and (if you can swing it) gender and class rolls – just to be sure to have something that will punch everyone at the table in the gut.

So, how about a basic setup like this:

The old lo-pan is dead, and must soon be replaced because the clan needs to be lead against its rival clans during the coming Great Gathering, and being without a leader would be a great sign of weakness.

Rivals start to come forward, each reading to challenge the other and gathering their supporters, families, and fellow practitioners around them. While the final decision should be a matter of combat, we all know that “Victory is victory, and defeat is death” and so everyone is gathering as much power and support as they can before the clash. (Ring up those augments, oh ye who wishes to rule the Char Un!)

Then things start breaking down. There aren’t enough good candidates, people start getting murdered in their yurts, and enemies start encroaching on tribal lands. Everyone starts choosing sides among the dismal conditions, and that’s when the Shaman’s step in.

Of course the Shamans step in on different sides. The shaman of the Sun Stallion backs a strong male warrior, a man known for his brutality and dismissal of women’s rolls and with any number of blood feuds with important families in the clan. The shamans of Iriloy, touched by madness say some, put forth a Durla worshiping woman to be pan! The horror of it even being said, but the shamans will not back down and claim the spirits demand it. Then the in-betweener Shamans come forward with another option – the old lo-pan back, retrieved by their magic from the Dead Steppe.

Now the PCs are caught in the center. Who do they want to rule them, the brutal man who fits all the standards but is vile, the strong woman who would be perfect save for the fact that it is a thing of horror to be ruled by a woman, and the glorious and beloved old lo-pan, whose only strike against him is that he is walking dead.

I’m sure you can find some premise in there somewhere, and something for the PCs to throw down about while having others with equally strong passions stand firmly against them.

Soru:

How about you start with the idea that one of the PC's is dead.

Then flashback to events in their life to work out which funeral treatment they are going to get.

Looking at a premise having to do with life, death, and leadership

The old lo-pan is dead, and must soon be replaced because the clan needs to be lead against its rival clans during the coming Great Gathering, and being without a leader would be a great sign of weakness.

Then things start breaking down. There aren’t enough good candidates, people start getting murdered in their yurts, and enemies start encroaching on tribal lands. Everyone starts choosing sides among the dismal conditions, and that’s when the Shaman’s step in.

Mandacaru wrote: Thanks Brand. While I do like the leadership aspect, this is too close to the "Can you save the clan?" premise which I want to try to get away from (or maybe have as more of a background, saftey net premise?).

I do want to find a way to step away from the deciding the clan's future model, however.

Finally, a question: for this style of play, I suppose I need to remove external events or challenges, and keep it purely on the central theme?

Brand:

...focus...and on the nature of the choice and what it means about their clan rather than on "OMG we're gonna die!" and I still think it could work. Especially if you combine it with Soru's kick ass idea.

I have made a little progress, having sorted out the three NPC's in the central, triangular, conflict of their desires for the dead one. Second choices are there just in case, but I'd downplay them I reckon. I'd welcome any comments. Edit: ...and how to incorporate Soru's idea?

Cheers.
Sam.

lo-Pan Hyyfal (dead)
Hyyfal was a ruthlessly firm but a fair leader, so much so that, during his three month decline, inertia, fear or a desperate hope that he would survive prevented anyone from challenging for his position, although victory would have been assured. Amidst rumours of poison and death curses, he decayed into a lifeless husk until his son, very much cast in his father’s mold, took on the role of lo-Pan with not a word said in opposition. Hyyfal’s death occurred but a few days after the clan had quit the ancient burial mounds, and this has been interpreted by some as sign that the Ancestors would not welcome him in their yurt.

As the clan travel north, the dead Pan is borne within the shrouded shrine wagon of the Enarees [shamans], to one of three fates. The new lo-Pan argues for his father to be embalmed and preserved until the summer and a great tomb to be constructed within the earth, his wives and his steed to accompany him on his final journey. Hyyfal’s first wife, mourning bitterly her loss, proclaims that Hyyfal should be taken to the northerly extremes, there to be erected on stakes and ropes as one of the greatest warriors, held atop his mount to face down the hollri [ice daimons] and protect the clan. Finally, Hyyfal’s brother, the shaman quietly states that the lo-Pan merits no such honours, but should instead be cast into the Hollrigash River, that his polluted bones may be swept towards Valind’s maw, as a sign of contempt for their ancient enemy.

The Son
After many years in his father’s shadow, the new lo-Pan took up his position on the basis of his father’s reputation. To cement his somewhat shaky status as leader, he needs his father to buried with the honours of a hero. If his father were cast into the river as a polluted one, this would not reflect well at all upon the new lo-Pan, but being set up as an undead warrior would at least be honourable.
1. Burial. 2. Undead warrior. 3. Cast into river

The Wife (NB not Son’s mother)
The clan would best be served if the old lo-Pan were set up to protect it. That he be buried as a hero is unthinkable, given he disappeared for three years when he married her and discarded her upon his return. It would also mean her death, followed by an eternity serving one she despises.
1. Undead warrior. 2. Cast into river. 3. Burial

The Brother
The Enaree insists that Hyyfal has betrayed the Ancestors and must be treated as polluted. If pressed, he will begin to spout some nonsense about Hyyfal having been possessed by a hollri, so must on no account be given back to them. An honourable burial would bring the Ancestors’ anger down upon the clan but at least would not aid the ancient enemy.
1. Cast into river. 2. Burial. 3. Undead warrior

The Throat Singer
Operatic “Fourth Business” if I understand right – outside the whole affair, like Friar Lawrence in Romeo and Juliet.

I like what you have so far, but you need a bunch more NPCs. More combinations are available. I'll add another option, too.

In-betweener Shaman (per Brand) - offer to raise him, denying the accusations of his treachery.

Sun Stallion Shaman - says the old lo pan was a great warrior, but not worth burying because of his transgressions. But he thinks that the old lo pan should be treated as an enemy, and a skull tankard be made of his skull.

The Crazy Iriloy Shaman - wants to to use the body of the traitor to propitiate some nature spirit. He was a great man if a traitor, so he can give power to their spirits, so that next year the grass will grow longer on the grazing grounds.

Son 2 - the son of the "wife," step-brother to the current lo pan. He hates his father for chosing the other son, and so wants the worst options for him.


In the end, have enough positions that the PCs actually come up with something entirely new to fit the needs of more than one character - enough that a consensus (or a forcing of the lo pan's hand) can happen.

Mike

I like what you have so far, but you need a bunch more NPCs. More combinations are available. I'll add another option, too.

In-betweener Shaman (per Brand) - offer to raise him, denying the accusations of his treachery.

Sun Stallion Shaman - says the old lo pan was a great warrior, but not worth burying because of his transgressions. But he thinks that the old lo pan should be treated as an enemy, and a skull tankard be made of his skull.

The Crazy Iriloy Shaman - wants to to use the body of the traitor to propitiate some nature spirit. He was a great man if a traitor, so he can give power to their spirits, so that next year the grass will grow longer on the grazing grounds.

Son 2 - the son of the "wife," step-brother to the current lo pan. He hates his father for chosing the other son, and so wants the worst options for him.

In the end, have enough positions that the PCs actually come up with something entirely new to fit the needs of more than one character - enough that a consensus (or a forcing of the lo pan's hand) can happen.

Hi Sam,

Sorry to have missed this thread. If you're using WoS as a model, it breaks down to 3 things- Family, Power, and Sub conflicts.

You've got the family thing going on with the issue of the dead leader, and that works fine... as long as the players create characters who have a vested interest in it, either because they really liked/disliked him, or else that they will have a big change in lifestyle based on how he gets set to rest. This would tie the Family and Power issues together well.

As far as subconflicts, in WoS that's all the other characters who are scrambling for power, supporting this guy or the other, and/or having love affairs, scheming for money, etc. Seeing how you know who you're playing with and what they're interested in, you won't need nearly as many subconflicts as are in WoS.

Also, seeing how you know your players, ask them for what they're interested in. When I wrote WoS, I had to make it rather sprawling because I wasn't restricting it to a very narrow range of character types, nor giving pregenerated characters, and I wanted to give a range of interesting conflicts. All of this is based on building a scenario for an unknown group with unknown interests. Honestly, all the information in this thread isn't going to ruin anything for the players, and you might get some info as to what kinds of conflicts they'd find interesting, and how they might want to tie their heroes into it all.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: Hi Sam,

Sorry to have missed this thread. If you're using WoS as a model, it breaks down to 3 things- Family, Power, and Sub conflicts.

Hi Sam,

In this instance, though, I think I am trying to do this as a 'project' like Peter and you did. That is, without player input.

Within this, I think you or it might have been someone else said you'd not run WoS with >3 or 4-ish players. I want to up that, meaning restricting the other subconflicts going on, or making players plant themselves firmly within it

Bankuei wrote: You also might want to add some other pressure to force everyone to have to make a decision quickly. In WoS, the whole thing about other fiefs moving in was basically a fuse to kick people into either supporting one son or the other, or rescuing Eustef. For you, it might be an unreasonable spirit that curses the tribe and gets progressively worse until a decision is made, or some other kick to speed things up.

Bankuei wrote: Overall, I don't think the number of optimal players is necessarily a result of how complex the R-map is, but rather just a matter of Narrativist play. That is, in order to craft Bangs, juggle NPCs and make sure everyone gets some spotlight time, I think more than 4 players can be difficult.

Bankuei wrote: A fun option you might want to consider is if all the players had to choose between being blood kin or a wife...

Hi Sam,

I guess the external factor(s) has to be something on a sliding scale, which you can add in when you think it necessary - a break from my preconceived notions of scenarios with scenes. D'you think?

The wife seems out on a limb, though - it's too personal to her. I'm trying to steer away from a gender split, that'd be too simplistic and cliche'd.

I think the key is those external pressures.

Wow, lots of stuff.

First, the "central conflict" is never actually central. I think even Chris will agree with me that the whole "central conflict" idea is just what you need to have as a centralizing force to create a situation that will draw in all of the characters. But when it's all said and done what we really want to see is the conflicts of the characters.

Even in the Well of Souls creation thread and afterwards I've said that writing a "pregenerated" scenario is always going to be inferior to writing a scenario for the players and characters you have present. Chris touches on this when he says that you don't have to do as many sub-conflicts, because you know your players. That is, with a scenario written for unknown characters, played by unknown players, you have to take a somewhat "shotgun" approach to things with the hope that something inside will be engaging to the players. WoS shoots very wide, and that's why it's successful in most cases in play.

But, unless you're doing this to publish the scenario, you're taking the wrong tac. Peter's original goal was to write a pregenerated scenario to see what writing such a thing for publishing would be like. So, unless you're doing it for that reason, and you're not writing the scenario for actual play with players you have on hand, I'd suggest doing it the better way. Which is to take into account the players and their characters as your first source of inspiration.

Which doesn't mean you can't use the idea that you have. Just that you're creating in a vaccuum when you don't have to in that case.


In either case, however, one thing remains the same. Again, the central conflict is not what's supposed to be most engaging to the players. This is hard for people used to writing scenarios to wrap their heads around. The story will not be about "How they dealt with the dead chief." When all is said and done, the stories should be several including, hypothetically, stories like, "How Arkus-Na got himself kicked out of the clan" and "The choices that Prasna made that ended up with him with the old lo pan's wife as his."

The death, and how it's dealt with, is a precipitating event and backdrop only that explains the demands that the NPCs have. Here's the critical part - once you know what the NPC demands are, then you give them reasons why they need the player heroes. Seem difficult without knowing who the player heroes are? Now you see why it is that narrativism scenario design is tough to do without characters present. What you have to do is to give them generic enough needs that you can attach them to a wide variety of possible characters. But this has the hazard that you might miss anyhow, and even if you do hit, the connection may not be particularly compelling for the player.

Because that's the second element. The things that the NPCs need the players for should trigger issues with the players. This has the same issues as above, but even worse. Shooting scattershot at issues is even less likely to form a good connection. You have to make a lot of assumptions, or shoot at very generic issues. This is why in this sort of scenario design, shooting at gender issues and those of tribal survival becomes so tempting - they're pretty universal and can hit almost any character. But when you use them, you almost garuntee that you'll miss any more character specific issues. Which are often the ones that the player is most interested in seeing come to the fore.

Now, of course a good narrator can create bangs on the fly to hit these issues. But then the scenario isn't helping in this case much. If you design the scenario with the characters in mind, then it can, indeed be of great service in making play interesting.


Anyhow, the fact that the "central conflict" is not central to the players is why I suggest even more angles for the conflict. What you definitely do not want is it just to be each player making the one decision about who he's going to support in terms of how the dead lo pan is buried. That's just one decision which may not say much about the character in question, especially because they're only supporting somebody else's decision. It isn't even as thought they've come up with some idea of their own.

Which is why I suggested that the end state should be a "consensus." Ever play Paranoia? One bit of Troubleshooter advice from that game is "the debriefing will always go more smoothly if you're the only one there to deliver it." The question of how the consenus is achieved is an open one, and can include bloodshed.

The point is to leave it more maleable. Don't present three straightforward choices to the players whatever you do. More importantly, entangle the choices with other issues that can become what the story is "really" about.

For example, let's say that one character is violently against women being in power, but he agrees with the wife's position. Having her appeal to this character brings out that character's issue here. Now, again, if you're writing a pregenerated scenario, then you don't know that such a character is going to be present, so you have to have that maleability so that you can adjust to the character issues.


Also, I was going to mention sub-conflicts as well. That is, one central issue is not enough to mix things up enough to create stuff for more than, say, a session. Maybe two. If you want this to last a little longer, you need to have other conflicts at hand to cross with the central issue. Having these on hand geometically increases the ability of the narrator to come up with bangs for the characters. Of course, a good way to create other conflicts is to have more NPCs with other agendas. Maybe some tribesman is angling to take the wife as his own, which means he doesn't want her buried with the old lo pan. His issue is crossed with the central one, but it's about something else, which will complicate the decisions of any player hero that he engages to help out.

So make more NPCs! Worst case scenario, they don't end up getting used with the pregenerated scenario (as Chris indicates). The more you make, the more angles you'll find to "grab" the players into being interested in the relationship map by their characters.

Mike

Well I at least am learning a lot, thanks guys. Keeping the conflicts as abstract virtual flow diagrams helps and I am definitely working out the particular reasons why it makes little sense to have prewritten scenarios or premises. The blunderbuss allusion - clan is in danger always works - is great. Even though I've been trying to work out premises based on something other than the destiny of the clan, it ends up back there. It is starting to become, in my mind, equivalent to "you are a party of adventurers / why? / because you are".

I shall think some more on this...

Sam.

Hi Sam,

It might be good to go watch a movie like "House of Flying Daggers" or "Hero" as a couple of good examples of setting up conflict. In both of those movies, the real plot and story stuff comes from the personal relationships of the primary characters- the issue of the clan or nation is just an "external pressure"... it's stakes to push everyone harder and apply pressure to those relationships.

Unless you predefine character relationships and what "ought to" matter to them(see Ron Edward's In Utero for example), you pretty much have to take the shotgun approach.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with :)

Chris