Hi

I am a newbie to the Forge, and I am continually learning about the games I have played, and, in terms of RPG's, the direction that I would like to go in.  On with the experience.

In our Gloranthan game I had been feeding a lot of information through this guy called Minaryth the Purple (IMPORTANT: who is a secret rebel leader), who is a sage indirectly linked to one of the players.  Oh he has got them into all kinds of trouble and they have started to develop a beef about him.  They are now all established rebels themselves. Of course he was my 'simulationist' instrument to get them hooked.  You know, the classic, 'you look like honest chaps - want to earn some gold for a couple of days work!!'.  I know, I know - but now I'm learning!

Well, one player asked to generate a new character.  The one he had generated was a whimsical nonsense character based on puss-in-boots in shrek.  My buddy who was stand in GM while I was taking exams is a 'yeah why not kind of guy'.  The thing is, the player just got bored.  I actually  think the problem is that James is a Gamist player, and we have been playing to a very strict simulationist agenda with little for the gamist and a smattering of accidental narrativism.

Anyway, James wants this warrior guy who's family went on a mission given to them by Minaryth where they all died.  He says that his raison d'etre is to 'get even' with Minaryth.  I completely shot this down in flames, but I have now done a complete 180 - I now recognise a great player generated kicker!!!  It is also a great instrument for conflict in the group - James is very well liked and the group are so far up the rebellions arse you can only see their toe nails!!!
This is like tossing a stick of dinamite into the explosives store - stand back and watch the fireworks!!

I also have this girl who made up a character who went mad and run away from home.  Its when her children died that she flipped.  I have been reading sorcerer and recognise this as a great kicker.  Maybe they were brutally slain in their sleep and she ran away.  The clan may suspect her of the murder!!!  She is about 20 years older than the others and they will not remember the stories of Mad Gynhild!  In fact, it was probably hushed up as these kids would have been contempories!!  So much potential and I don't even have to decide if she actually killed them or whether it just made her mad!!  This is great!!

Regards
Rob

Isn't it a hoot when you stop thinking "How is this character going to mess up my story?" and start thinking "What great stories is this character going to create?"  That sounds like some good, solid, material on which to practice your Bang-tossing and Bass-playing skills.  The only problem, of course, is that you're going to kick yourself a dozen times after each session at the lost opportunities you only see when you have time to sit and think outside of the pressure of running the game.  But that's life!  I do the same exact thing.  Well, maybe eleven kicks... I am improving, y'know!

Rob,

Welcome to the Forge!  Yes, player-driven sessions are really cool.  It's significantly less worry and work for you as the GM.  You said you were reading Sorcerer, so you probably know what an R-map is.  I highly recommend using them whatever system you're playing.  The R-map, some statted NPCs, and a list of names for unexpected NPCs are about all you need.

What system are you using?  RuneQuest?  HeroQuest?  Something else?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

This is what you say when you mention that somebody is gay. Which makes you sound like you're just being egalitarian, but really aren't on board with people being gay.

There's nothing wrong with simulationism. No, I don't expect anyone will believe me when I say that, but it's true.

What you're encountering here is that you were using simulationism as a counter to gamism, instead of pursuing narrativism which is what you really wanted all along. This is nobody's fault, it describes a very large percentage of play that exists (but, no, this is not the same as saying that honest simulationism is a retreat from gamism and narrativism - see the Beeg Horseshoe).

So don't beat yourself up about it. Focus on the fact that you've identified your own agenda, and can now persue it with abandon.

Now, the question is whether or not there is some problem here. You're seeing players creating kickers for their characters, which sound like narrativism. And you realize what you can do with this. So...it's all good, isn't it? Is there some potential problem here that I'm not seeing?

Gaerik, I believe he's using Hero Quest (Rob is a frequent and valuable contributor to the HQ mailing lists).

Mike

Mike wrote:

There's nothing wrong with simulationism. No, I don't expect anyone will believe me when I say that, but it's true.

Mike wrote:

So don't beat yourself up about it. Focus on the fact that you've identified your own agenda, and can now persue it with abandon.

Mike wrote:

Now, the question is whether or not there is some problem here. You're seeing players creating kickers for their characters, which sound like narrativism. And you realize what you can do with this. So...it's all good, isn't it? Is there some potential problem here that I'm not seeing?

Mike wrote:

Gaerik, I believe he's using Hero Quest (Rob is a frequent and valuable contributor to the HQ mailing lists).

Fortunately, I'm seeing a potential avenue of discussion here (as "just sharing" is discouraged and often fizzles here). Basically you want to get the group to have a narrativism agenda in play. To that extent, you're encouraging what you see as signs of latent narrativism in character write-ups. That's a cool start, but what else are you doing at the moment to ensure a nar agenda?

Rather, I think I see what you're saying, but the wording is confusing. That is, the reason we don't use the terms "simulationist" and such is precisely for this reading. By saying that "half my group are simulationists" are you saying:

A) Half my group has played with simulationism as their agenda in the past.

or

B) Half of my group prefers to play only with simulationism agendas.

I think it's A. Because if it's B, then we're talking about "converting" which is problematic. If it's A, and they just happened to be playing sim perhaps because that's what they were offered, then it might be true that you probably don't have to do much other than simply not using the sim techniques you've used before, substituting nar technique. If it's actually B, however, then you can expect a rough ride in trying to overcome a preference.

Rob and I have had some substantial discussion in private regarding nar technique, and why it applies. Are you using any nar prep techniques, Rob? When's your next game?

Mike

Mike wrote:
Fortunately, I'm seeing a potential avenue of discussion here (as "just sharing" is discouraged and often fizzles here). Basically you want to get the group to have a narrativism agenda in play.

Mike wrote:
To that extent, you're encouraging what you see as signs of latent narrativism in character write-ups. That's a cool start, but what else are you doing at the moment to ensure a nar agenda?

Mike wrote:
Rather, I think I see what you're saying, but the wording is confusing. That is, the reason we don't use the terms "simulationist" and such is precisely for this reading. By saying that "half my group are simulationists" are you saying:

A) Half my group has played with simulationism as their agenda in the past.

or

B) Half of my group prefers to play only with simulationism agendas.

I think it's A. Because if it's B, then we're talking about "converting" which is problematic. If it's A, and they just happened to be playing sim perhaps because that's what they were offered, then it might be true that you probably don't have to do much other than simply not using the sim techniques you've used before, substituting nar technique. If it's actually B, however, then you can expect a rough ride in trying to overcome a preference.

Lamorak33 wrote:
Well, so far I have to get through the very linear simulationist scenario 'The Cradle' that we are half way through.  I am going to review their Heroquest character sheets to generate bangs by choosing 2 conflicting abilities.

Of course a couple of players already have characters who have narratives that could be construed as having 'kickers'.

Going forward, I think I need a theme or a premise?  There is the general 'free sartar' premise, but I may at the Sorcerer 'but at what cost?'.  Any ideas for others?  Is it possible/advisable to have a premise or theme for individual characters??  For example the guy who wants to get even with Minaryth the Purple.  His premise or story is about revenge.  The shaman gal is about facing her past.  The scholar I guess is about gaining knowledge.  I'm still a bit fuzzy on all this.  Brain overload!  Any advice?

I think the relationship map is very important?  I have yet to get to grips with this.  The main thing for me is to get the group back into their community.

Are there any others?

Mike wrote:

I think the thing to do is to not worry about generic advice, and move on to the local problem. Why don't you just post some abstracts for the characters, and what you think the players like about them, a brief update on the situation including NPCs and such, and then we can look at a practical example of how to make this all work.

Mike

Which is the character that you said has a kicker? What is it?

What do you see as the issue that each player is most interested in dealing with in terms of his character? For example, it would probably be easy to create issues around Aren's leadership, but it sounds like the player might not be interested. What part of Aren does interest the player?

This is the key. Separate the players from the characters, and look at what it is about each character that interests their respective characters. Why did they create the character they did? For example, for the player who created Olend, does he like the idea of his character being renowned for his heroism? Does the player of Kurash like that he has to make moral decisions for the group?

Note that I'm just guessing, and have no idea really from what you said. But you should have a pretty good idea at this point in the game. What causes each player to particularly perk up?

Once you have those identified, you know where to go with each character, generally. For instance, if Olend is all about renown, then give the character a choice about getting the character one sort of reputation, or another. You might have some young member of a rival clan challenge him, and then, when Olend beats him (in all likelihood), the player has to decide on what to do with the defeated kid as a large crowd watches on. Leading to a particular sort of reputation depending on what he does. Does he become "Known as Merciful in Victory"? Or is he "Known as Merciless"? Yes, actually assign the character the appropriate ability per the player's choice, and let him know that's what's going to happen as a result of his action.

Once you've identified the sort of things that interest the player this way, coming up with bangs is a lot easier (and without such an idea, we really won't be able to help much).

Mike

Mike wrote:
Which is the character that you said has a kicker? What is it?

Mike wrote:
What do you see as the issue that each player is most interested in dealing with in terms of his character? For example, it would probably be easy to create issues around Aren's leadership, but it sounds like the player might not be interested. What part of Aren does interest the player?

Mike wrote:
This is the key. Separate the players from the characters, and look at what it is about each character that interests their respective characters. Why did they create the character they did? For example, for the player who created Olend, does he like the idea of his character being renowned for his heroism? Does the player of Kurash like that he has to make moral decisions for the group?

Note that I'm just guessing, and have no idea really from what you said. But you should have a pretty good idea at this point in the game. What causes each player to particularly perk up?

Once you have those identified, you know where to go with each character, generally. For instance, if Olend is all about renown, then give the character a choice about getting the character one sort of reputation, or another. You might have some young member of a rival clan challenge him, and then, when Olend beats him (in all likelihood), the player has to decide on what to do with the defeated kid as a large crowd watches on. Leading to a particular sort of reputation depending on what he does. Does he become "Known as Merciful in Victory"? Or is he "Known as Merciless"? Yes, actually assign the character the appropriate ability per the player's choice, and let him know that's what's going to happen as a result of his action.

Once you've identified the sort of things that interest the player this way, coming up with bangs is a lot easier (and without such an idea, we really won't be able to help much).

Lamorak33 wrote: I will have to decide how I think Minaryth will feel about all of this of course.  But its a fun start. 

Mike wrote:
He chose to kill the guy and set up this elaborate plot to sneak off with this guy when the next bit of fighting occured!

Mike wrote:
Cool.  I like that Olend idea.  I shall have good think about the other players motivations.  Thanks for your input as always!!

Mike wrote:
So does Drenyen have any association with the other heroes yet? Or will he be coming in as just another character who happens to be on the cradle?

Mike wrote:
It sounds like a set-up, as you mentioned, for conflict. But it sounds like your players are used to the "conflict = combat" style of play. Meaning that things might escallate quickly, unless you present things right. Escallation isn't bad, neccessarily, it's just that you might want to string out the conflict for a while, and allow it to build a bit (some folks would disagree with me on this, however). So is there anything that can get them competing on a non-combat level before things get to that point? Trying to remember something about the Cradle, there are folks who are in charge who might object to fighting generally, aren't there?

Mike wrote:
(Rob talking about the character Aren) He chose to kill the guy and set up this elaborate plot to sneak off with this guy when the next bit of fighting occured!

He chose to kill which guy? And sneak off with which guy? In any case, it sounds like a successful bang in that it's got the player creating stuff from it. Did you think his idea was interesting?

Mike wrote:
Rob:
Cool.  I like that Olend idea.  I shall have good think about the other players motivations.  Thanks for your input as always!!
Mike:
Careful, that was an Olend hypothetical, not a real idea. That is, I don't know the player. Only use the idea if it turns out that it really fits what the player is looking for with the character.

Mike

Hi Mike

Regarding the murderous Aren character, do you think he is hiding behind the 'my guy' style?  What can be done, if anything should?  I am thinking that you just keep asking questions until he starts responding as himself?

Regards
Rob

Regarding the murderous Aren character, do you think he is hiding behind the 'my guy' style?

Lamorak33 wrote:
He is on the cradle and has been introduced to the Heroband.  They recognise each other as clan mates.  He already knew one of the other player characters, Gunhyld.  During the session I had my old PC tell him tales of the deeds of the Heroband, dropping that they had dealings with Minaryth, and inviting him to join.  He said yes, when I have a hero point to spare!!  lol  James (Drenyen's player) is a true gamism guy!

Lamorak33 wrote: Minaryth is a thousand miles away.  He is back home in Sartar (Idon't know if it is exactly 1000 miles, but its a very long way!).  They will be given the option to stay on the cradle at the end of 'the adventure'.  I have some sea based stuff for them, and a chance to meet Harrek the Beserk.  Of course they will return to Sartar when we will really start to address what the are willing to sacrafice for the good of the rebellion.  The Minaryth plot will be a good part of that now.

Mike wrote:
The guy he snuck off with is the one he was meant to steal the dagger from.  Josh upped the ante by offering to kill him as well.  Yes I did think it was interesting.  I told him that there maybe some big battles upcoming and he looks like a very good warrior (the one he was planning to kill)  He still chose to continue with his vile plan!!

I have been thinking that I should have told him that his actions would have changed his 'killer' ability to 'murderer'.  That would have been a better bang I think, and a concious move by the player to make a quantum shift in his characters personality!  I don't think I can retrospectively get him to change it now however. 

I have now got an interesting idea regarding the Heroband Guardian that he is the custodian of.  She is an Ernaldan spirit that they saved from destruction in an early scenario.  I think she will have a strop because of his antics!!  Any suggestions?  I think she will withhold her blessings from the band.  It will be up to Aren to decide whether or not he tells the band why.  A bang?  Maybe they will have to do something to make amends?

Oh, thats just what Ali would love.  I don't know whether it has anything to do with him being a preacher in real life, but his character is the one who acts more like a 'classic hero' rather than a 'soldier of fortune at the gates oblivion'. 

Do you think that it would be legitimate to have one of his followers captured and then asking whether he wants to attempt a rescue or continue his getaway?  Maybe I could make a simple contest for him to escape, and if he fails by any degree have him choose whether he gets captured or his followers?  What one would be best?

Jim as Kurash the scholar has always been dismissive of his 'retainer' always refusing to give them names and generally bossing them around mercilessly.  He has a pompous ability.  I want to stage a student revolt, maybe having the student quiting (or threatening to) Lhankhor Mhy and joining another cult because of his treatment.  What in game effects will this kind of conflict take in your game?  Would he lose a couple of points in pompous and gain a couple in his relationship to his student?  My guess is for the bang to be effective you give the player all the information as regards outcomes and have them choose.  Yes?

Relationship Maps

Mike, do you have a link to a definitive model or essay on how to create and use them.  All I can glean so far is clues and hints, but no like 'Relationship Maps for Dummies' article.  Or have I missed something obvious?

Grabbing
How do you get going with something like a relationship map? You have to have the map "grab" the PCs. That is, some of the NPCs on the map have a need for all of the PCs. You can have them grabbed if the PCs are associated, but often different NPCs will grab different PCs. A "grab" is characterized much like a bang in that the NPC involves the character in a way he really can't ignore. An obvious one, but one not to use too often, is to have the NPC simply attack the PC. No matter what happens at that point, the PC is "on the map." A key here is to think about the fact that people usually resent such treatment. Players often reasonably have characters "walk away" from attempts to ambush PCs into doing things for NPCs. So either use unignorable carrots, or just maipulate the situation such that the player has no choice here, but is thrown onto the map.

As has been said, don't "hook" PCs. That is, don't throw out a "this might be cool" thing to hook the character into the plot. Because one of two things happens. The player will either have the character walk away from the hook, in which case, you don't have them on the map, or the player will swallow the hook, and feel as though his decisions are being railroaded via the "take the hook or no adventure tonight" method. Grabs use GM authority to simply put the character on the map without the player even having a say. His "say" is what he does once on the map.

NPC Creation
The way to ensure that they're really interested with a grab is to use the same techniques with bangs again. That is, make sure that the grab relates to something that the player is interested in playing out with the PC. This suggests an order then to creating the PCs. Do not create the PCs and then try to figure out how they can grab the PCs. Figure out the grabs first, and then figure out the PCs. Like so:

1. What does the player want to see in terms of issues for his character?
2. What situation would bring these issues to a head?
3. What NPCs do I need to create this situation?
4. What NPCs could be related to these NPCs in such a way as to continue the action?
5. Why do the NPCs care so much?
5. Why do these NPCs need the PCs?

The last two need some explaining. The story isn't about the NPCs, but the PCs. As such, and to be catalysts, many NPCs are actually unable to act much without the PCs. Perhaps they're indecisive. Maybe they're shy, and need someone to speak for them. Maybe they just don't know what action to take. Or they just don't have the capabilities that the PC has to do what needs to be done. Whatever the case, remember that they're "normal people" in some ways, and need the "heroic" PCs do these things for them.

To make this reasonable, the idea has to be that the goal for these characters is strong. Else, why go through all the effort to embroil the PCs in question? So make sure that the NPC has a reasonable goal. Generally this is what makes NPCs memorable - an obvious goal. NPC X is "The guy looking for the magic sword." Often all I know about an NPC before play are some relationships, and what the character's goal is.

This is counter-intuitive to all other forms of adventure prep, where you come up with cool plot stuff and head the characters for it. This is not to say that you should pass up all of the cool color of the game world in doing this (a mistake I've made on occassion). Make sure to highlight the issues by making sure that magic or other fantasy elements are part of the equation for prep in Glorantha. Go back over the map, and get some ideas for sprinkling these about. Consider strongly making some NPC slot a "monster" or "magic item" as in Glorantha, these have their own personalities. Make sure you know what dieties are involved through the NPCs so that their belief systems fit with what's going on.

But fit this all in after the fact. Start with identifying character issues.

Continuing Action
The value of any such map is in continuing action. That is, once you've got some action going in one scene, this will produce stress on some other lines on the map. Classically, if you have a PC sleep with the wife of an NPC, well, all you have to do is have the NPC walk in, and, Voila! Instant bang as the NPC reacts with typical violence or rejection, etc. Allowing you to set up some question like "Is it OK to kill a man angry with you for sleeping with his wife?" or "Is it OK to kill a man because you want his wife?" or "Is it better to fight somebody for something you don't really care about, or to flee in dishonor?" or whatever depending on how the player decides his character feels about the other characters.

Player acts, map reacts. Once the player has made their decision, then the map continues to move. The brother of the dead husband announces that he's coming for the PC (Does he stay and fight more?). Then, when he's killed two men for her, the woman announces that she doesn't love him (fight for her love, or leave having killed two men for nothing? Then when he's left, her mother comes along and says that he has to marry the girl, because he's left her without a husband or brother-in-law (duty vs freedom?). Then the husband's mistress, tries to kill him feebly with a knife before he can leave (kill an enraged but untrained woman?). Then her brother, thankful for the PC not killing her, and for not telling the town about her infidelity, offers to become a retainer for the PC (accept the new responsibility and advantages of a retainer?). Each NPC act a "grab" again, that sets up a bang.

And this is all with only one PC in question. Hit the map with more than one PC, and the situation soon becomes so complex (but not so that you can't understand it), that there's always some new situation to create through all the interaction. Keep this in mind, however: you're not playing to play out the map. You're playing the map until it's been spent in getting to some good plot point for the PCs. Once you're there with it, move on to the next. So, yes, that means you should be ready to go to the next relationship map at any time, and who cares if NPC X got their goal or not. Those questions can be left to dangle, because they're not the plot. The plot is what's important to the PCs.

Walking Off the Map
Because players will "walk off" of relationship maps. And so they should. Oh, usually there's something (or things) compelling going on that's involving the PC. And that'll have to get resolved first, before the player will have the character go. But at some point "just leaving" often becomes the coolest statement a player can make with his character. Sometimes signaling the end of a plot arc, and other times simply demanding a new NPC Map or other stuff to work off of.

Again, don't try to wrangle characters back on the map. Oh, if there's something that an NPC really seems like they would do that may drag the character back in response to the character leaving, go ahead. Just don't artificially create things to keep the characters on the map. Because after a point, this is taking away the player's authorship in having the character walk away. Again, when this happens, you haven't "lost" your prep here, it means that you've played through it.

If a PC walks away in the first part of the first session, consider that you may not really have grabbed the player at all in the first place. Did you not hit an issue that interests the player?

Mike

Hi Mike

Thanks for the replies.  I am going to print them so that I can read them a few times to digest them. 

Just a couple of notes;

I ran a game on monday night and got some very positive feedback.  I had four players, all seperated and narrated there scenes working round the table in a clockwise manner oddly enough.  I kept enouraging people to join in with other peoples decision making processes so I think people felt more involved even when it wasn't their turn. 

The cradle has a set of pre determined things occuring, but I had prepared bangs (or what I understand bangs to be at least!) for each of the characters in advance and threw them in when appropriate. 

With regard to your post, I must say that I always feel a need to make changes on a players character sheet - I guess thats the autocrat in me.  I will avoid doing that in future.

I also love the idea of the hp rebate technique making decisions neutral.  Where does it say that in the rules?  Do you have a page ref? 

Thanks as always

Regards
Rob

Lamorak33 wrote:
I also love the idea of the hp rebate technique making decisions neutral.  Where does it say that in the rules?  Do you have a page ref? 

Mike wrote:

Lamorak33 wrote:
I also love the idea of the hp rebate technique making decisions neutral.  Where does it say that in the rules?  Do you have a page ref? 

Don't have the book with me, but it's the part where it says that if a player has a character that loses a follower, that they should get the follower back, or equivalent. Read literally, I'm taking it a bit far. But I think it's the essence of what the rule implies. If it's OK for the player to get back the NPC, or get an equivalent NPC, then why can't he choose something else instead? The idea behind giving the player the NPC back is, again, so that they don't worry about losing the NPC in the first place. But if you can't actually lose the NPC...well that's just odd. Better to allow the player to decide if he wants them back, or to buy something else with the equivalent points.

Or so I reason.

Mike

Lamorak33 wrote:
Olend used one of his air spirits (an Umbrolli) to try and rescue one of the other player characters, but it was dismissed by a Lunar magician.  I wanted to exploit this with giving the player a hard choice.  Does he want his old umbrolli back (the original sidekick he created at char gen) or does he wants the points to spend on another follower.  I take it from your post that this is good yes?  Ali is quite sentimental and sim-orientated (IMO) and will have a strong pull to have his old Umbrolli back but the temptation to take the points and create something quite different!!!  I really couldn't say which way he would go.  Is that a bang?  If not it still quite revealing of Ali as a person I would say.