The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: Railroading and Heroquests
Started by: Ian Cooper
Started on: 9/11/2005
Board: HeroQuest


On 9/11/2005 at 2:16pm, Ian Cooper wrote:
Railroading and Heroquests

Red Cow is a non-linear game using techniques like relationship maps (a big relationship map admittedly), bangs etc. So it becomes a litte jarring when we try and play out a HeroQuest. Now HeroQuesting is an essential Gloranthan activity and I'm keen that the players are drawn to it as a mechanism for solving problems. But I don't want them to feel that they are just 'on the train ride' when they play one.

Now HeroQuest does give some good advice about trying to avoid a station-to-station feeling to the play, so that stations occur naturally rather than feeling as though the narrator is saying 'now we are at the station make your rolls' and relates this to forcing the players to decide when to use any support that they have prepared for a station. In addition I have tried creating variance by sending npcs with the heroes to make interaction with those npcs as much part of the story as completing the steps of the quest. All pretty standard techniques to reduce the feeling of being railroaded. But this still feels like illusionism, it still feels a little bit as though this is the 'impossible thing before breakfast'.

So I am looking for advice on how to overcome or side-step this problem. One approach I have considered is to allow the players to create the myth as they go along. Not in the sense that this is an experimental HeroQuest, but in the sense that the players reveal the myth that everyone already knew in play: "Ah this is the bit were Ulanin did the Seven Skips Across the Water and Farandar will do that too here, so this is a HeroQuest station and I use my community support for jumping magic". Anyone had any experience of doing this?

Message 16788#178229

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ian Cooper
...in which Ian Cooper participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/11/2005




On 9/12/2005 at 2:21am, Donald wrote:
Re: Railroading and Heroquests

First off I'd make sure the players don't know what the stations are. Get them to get details from several sources, all incomplete and contradictory in minor ways. Then when they actually perform it, make it slightly different again. I understand Greg reorders the stations and makes them completely unrecognisable but you may not choose to go that far.

Secondly I'd look to bring NPCs they've encountered on the mundane plane as the opposition to HQs. So if the opposition is a sun worshipper they get to meet the clan Elmali - how's he going to take being dragged into this quest and what effect does it have on their relationship with him. Do they even stop following the quest because he's someone they know?

Thirdly I'd make failure interesting. If they haven't every detail there's a bigger chance of them failing so make sure failure doesn't break the story line and leads to something worth following up.

Message 16788#178288

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Donald
...in which Donald participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/12/2005




On 9/12/2005 at 2:48am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Hello,

My advice is quite different.

I suggest that the stations be rather explicit and that the characters go into the Heroquest with some expectations of what they'll be. They may be surprised by "extra" or "missing" stations, or by the intersection with other Heroquesters on a series of stations of their own. But the characters are going by the myth they know or have doped out, and so they have very clear understanding that "after we talk to the black wolf, we'll have to cross the Sighing River."

The players know all this. This is important. You and they are having the characters embark on ritualized activities.

Railroading is when you dictate the characters' choices by taking them away from the players. Since they can choose how they deal with the stations, and since you and the players are well aware that Heroquesting often changes myths rather than reenacts them (the core of the Hero Wars!!), embarking on the fixed path of the Heroquest is nothing more than an opportunity to enter the grand/weird multitude of possible metaphysical outcomes. You as GM have no idea what they'll do once they get into the Otherworld and realize how much power they have once they're there. That's why it's not railroading.

In our experiences of play, the early Heroquesting was more tentative - the players had their characters try out the myths and stick to them. As play continued, they became very bold and often went into the Otherworld with the intention of altering the myths, making the gods/stories do what they thought was right.

See? The fixed-path model of Otherworld rituals (as understood by most characters in Glorantha) becomes a wide-open opportunity to the active participant in the Hero Wars. That's why sticking to the fixed-path prep on your part is crucial. It means they have the power, and you don't.

Best,
Ron

Message 16788#178291

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/12/2005




On 9/12/2005 at 10:20am, Ian Cooper wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Hi Ron,

Very interesting answer, and I appreciate your point that it is not railroading if the stations are clearly flagged beforehand. I will need to mull over your answer for a couple of days before responding. However as an amplification: have you found players author the myths of the HeroQuest beforehand, or have you tended to supply the myth that they enact. What I am pushing at here is that if a player decides to HeroQuest to help end the feud with the neighboring clan and I supply the details of the myth that they can enact to help them do this, am I removing their ability to author their story by telling them what the myth is? Am I still playing bass or have I just picked up lead guitar?

Am I expressing my concern here clearly?

Message 16788#178327

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ian Cooper
...in which Ian Cooper participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/12/2005




On 9/12/2005 at 10:39am, GB Steve wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

I don't think the GM deciding on the HQ structure is any more railroading than the GM, say, building the town in Dogs in the Vineyard.

I think the PCs will likely be better prepared than Dogs, given that the general myth structure is generally well known to the cult and I think you'll probably have to think fast on your feet to incorporate new elements that the players introduce through play but I think that given that the structure of Hero Questing is well understood by most players, that you have a potentially very intesting game ahead.

I've run HQs under RQ3 and the Pendragon Pass variant which was a much better system for it. I've never found the structure to be a hindrance to player input and creativity.

I think the issue with HQs and railroading is a bit like the Yellow Brick road in Oz. You know that if you step off the path you're in for interesting and dangerous times, but you can move away from the path if you want. It's interesting to have that temptation and to see what players make of it.

Message 16788#178328

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by GB Steve
...in which GB Steve participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/12/2005




On 9/12/2005 at 12:53pm, Peter Nordstrand wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Hi Ian,

I know this is directed at Ron, but here are my 50 öre.

Perhaps you are making it a little bit more difficult than it is. If the outcome of the quest matters to the players I think that the myth itself can easily be a straightforward, linear ritual. Even something as simple as "go into the cave, confront the dragon and free the princess" will work just fine (the heroquest in Well of Souls is exactly like this, btw).

Ian wrote: However as an amplification: have you found players author the myths of the HeroQuest beforehand, or have you tended to supply the myth that they enact.


You can always ask the players what they want: "Do you have any ideas or suggestions for this myth, before I prepare the quest?" You will probably find that the players are often quite happy to let you make it up. And if somebody has good ideas, you can always incorporate them.

Ian wrote: What I am pushing at here is that if a player decides to HeroQuest to help end the feud with the neighboring clan and I supply the details of the myth that they can enact to help them do this, am I removing their ability to author their story by telling them what the myth is?


No you are not. The myth is as much a part of the setting as all the other great background and conflicts that you've made up for your campaign. The key, I think, has nothing to do with whether a player makes up the myth or not, but whether "a player decides to heroquest". Is not heroquesting a viable option in your game or have have you taken that choice away from them?

Why does Farandar's player want to go on this End the Feud heroquest? Because his character wants to marry a woman from the enemy clan, right? So the stakes for the quest is about something very tangible in the mundane world. Who else cares about the outcome of the quest? What will they do, and how will Farandar deal with it situation? --- Now you have a conflict for the player to deal with. Suddenly the quest becomes about something bigger than the difficult, but straightforward, task of aqcuiring a strand of Roitina's sacred rug.

I hope this makes sense.

Cheers,

Message 16788#178333

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Peter Nordstrand
...in which Peter Nordstrand participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/12/2005




On 9/12/2005 at 2:31pm, Ian Cooper wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Peter wrote:
I know this is directed at Ron, but here are my 50 öre.


Although I was responding to Ron's comment, I still welcome everyone's contribution to the topic.

Message 16788#178342

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ian Cooper
...in which Ian Cooper participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/12/2005




On 9/12/2005 at 4:02pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Hi there,

I agree with Peter's and Steve's points, very strongly.

How much the players contribute to the myths that they will be investigating/entering through Heroquests, is a matter of individual play-group approach. Textually, the game doesn't encourage a whole lot of group-creation of setting elements, beyond character creation. It does strike me that when I play again, I'd like more group participation in coming up with clan myths, for instance, but that would definitely be pushing the boundaries a little.

As a more general point, and referring to right-there-in-play rather than prep, I want to stress that Narrativist GMing does not mean "no input, no content, no structure, no constraint." Improv is a technique, but frankly, I find it to be best used secondarily for many games. HeroQuest, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard ... less, if any. InSpectres, Universalis (by definition), My Life with Master ... more, often maximal.

Best,
Ron

Message 16788#178354

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/12/2005




On 9/12/2005 at 5:14pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

I agree with everyone, but have to empathize with Ian. It's not precisely that they're railroady - in fact in all cases that I've had in play players have come up with the ideas that lead to the heroquests. And, as everyone points out, they're just setting to interact with.

But what I found a bit disconcerting is that during play of the heroquest itself, it seems like there's little opportunity to throw bangs into play. That is, if we all know largely what's going to happen, and the plan is to stick to the heroquest to get that to happen, well, then it's just a pass/fail sort of situation. Or a string of them. With no really important decisions being made along the way. I sometimes have an urge to make a "simple conflict" out of it, and abstract it to just one roll. Left the way they are, they often feel to me to be very extended contests (using the bad "linked contests" rules drift).

If, in fact, there's only one conflict happening, shouldn't there only be one contest? Or so my brain reasons. This is probably in part because I haven't gotten into so many heroquests in play yet that the players have the notion to start off down the road to doing experimental heroquests (this is, in part, because I tend to do a lot with the idea of being separated from home communities). I'm trying to rectify that.

There is, however, one thing that I've found very interesting about how heroquests are set up in the current rules. Basically when the heroquest moment comes, the character has to risk an abililty to get the reward. That's a fascinating bang with mechanical repercussions that requires the player to make a hard decision in terms of what he thinks the character would wager. All of the other stations can be seen as lead up suspense to that occurance.

Anyhow, throw in the ability that you actually do have to create bangs with unexpected stations, aberrations, or with interference, and I think you have a situation that's just as ripe as any other for play. Again, it's just the notion of having the quest be a series of stations (and attendant contests) to which the player has already committed that make heroquests feel as if they could play out as just a series of rolls with no attendant decisions.

Mike

Message 16788#178361

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Mike Holmes
...in which Mike Holmes participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/12/2005




On 9/13/2005 at 12:27pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

IMHO there are good reasons why it can sometimes be very difficult for questers to know when they are at a parrticular station. The tactic I've seen Greg use several times is to throw in red-herring encounters and situations that look like they might be stations but aren't. I think the reason for doing this is that in actual fact the stations themselves aren't what heroquestign is all about.

Quests are about learning things about yourself (ok, your character). They are about moral dilemas and how to cope with them. They are about what is important and what can be sacrificed. They are about going through experiences that test and reinforce these values.

I've played a heroquest with Greg only once, at the Tentacles convention in Germany. It was part of the Lightbringer's Quest, I was playing Challana Arroy and were lost as to what to do right from the word go even though we knew that part of the quest fairly well. Greg even gave us a rundown of the 'classical' stations for this part of the quest for us in advance.

What I relaised was that I had to forget about what the stations were. I couldn't tell, so that means I had to find another tactic to survive and succeed other than my memory of the quest. What I decided to do was to forget the stations and instead, whenever faced with a dilema, think 'What would Chalana Arroy realy do right now' - and it worked!

Some of the other players tried to second-guess what they should do based on their knowledge of the stations. They tried to 'powergame' the situation and as a result did things that were clearly very much against the natures of their characters. The Orlanth guy launched an unprovoked attack on a passing predator (that we were even told looked feline) because he knew that fighting Canis Chaos was one of the stations. Why would Orlanth attack someting for no reason? Isn't he supposed to be Just? And of course it turned out to be Basmol and not Canis Chaos at all so now the Orlanthi have a completely messed up mythic cockup to deal with WRT to the Lion People when we get back home. The Issaries guy used his trade magic to cheat someone, who's help it turned out we needed later so again we were all cocked up because the god of fair trade went against his nature. And so it went.... I can't remember it all now but it all went very horribly wrong.

What I got out of it wasn't that heroquesting is about doing what you're supposed to do. It's about living up to the values of your culture, and being true to what you believe. The stations are simply a means to that end and in themselves are not what is realy important. I think that's also why 'creative' heroquesting is possible, and even sometimes necessery. It's what happens when the conditions of life change. When society itself must adapt to new circumstances.

Simon Hibbs

Message 16788#178431

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by simon_hibbs
...in which simon_hibbs participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/13/2005




On 9/13/2005 at 1:14pm, Ian Cooper wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Reflecting on the responses I seem to have a number of issues rather than one. The two most important ones seem to be:

• Worries over the GM's authorship of myth removing choice from the players.
• HeroQuests tending to deteriorate into a pass/fail sequence


I am good with Ron, Peter, and Steve's advice that myths are a setting detail so authorship of them is no different to other setting elements. Thanks for the re-assurance on that one, you have raised my comfort bar on that.

But I have to agree with Mike that too often the play on a heroquest seems to deteriorate to 'paint-by-numbers' play in which the passing of the objective at each station becomes the prime objective. That is the source of my confusion I suspect because in that it begins to feel like the product of railroading, even though I am satisfied by your arguments that it is not railroading. I guess that I saw smoke and assumed fire. So it looks as though it is how I am playing them out that represents the difficulty to overcome. Thanks for crystalizing that for me.

Message 16788#178435

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ian Cooper
...in which Ian Cooper participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/13/2005




On 9/13/2005 at 1:20pm, Ian Cooper wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Ron wrote:
I want to stress that Narrativist GMing does not mean "no input, no content, no structure, no constraint."


Thanks, I felt that with HeroQuest, but its good to know that somebody else believes that too.

Message 16788#178436

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ian Cooper
...in which Ian Cooper participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/13/2005




On 9/13/2005 at 2:13pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Simon,

That's an interesting description of how to play heroquests. The problem is that it isn't what's described in the books or in the sample quests. Or, at least it's not what I got from my reading of the material. If what you present is what's intended, then I wonder why we haven't seen more direction towards this.

Because it sounds pretty good to me in some ways. That is, there's a gamism version of it that I can see that doesn't really sound very good, but I think you could avoid that, and make it into a highly narrativism driving experience. The gamism version would be that the players simply have to suss out what they have to do in each spot in order to have the best chance to "win" the quest. This might be interesting for some players, but I think that it's going to be hard to engineer challenges that are fair, challenging, and realistic, given that the players aren't really Heortlings. That is, no, I don't expect players to have read a ton of background on each character in a myth and know "what the god would do" in ambigous situations. If the situations aren't ambiguous, then a real Heortling would have no problem diserning which way to go.

This, actually, is how I see most heroquests right now - the character takes on the challenges, rolling at each station to see if he knows how to best the ambiguity there. Yes this takes the player interaction out of it, but rightly so I feel in this case. The way you portray your version with the implication that the player should know that Orlanth wouldn't do something unjust seems very non-functional to me.

Now, the non-gamism version that you also seem to imply is what interests me. If we assume that Orlanth attacking the beastie is a player decision based not on what Orlanth's values are, but on what the player wants to see, that sounds like fun to me. That is, what I would do is always just tell the player what Orlanth would do (or have the player make a roll for the character to see if the character knows). Then, that knowledge in hand, the player makes up his mind - do I have the character stick to the right path, and make it easy on the character? Or does the player have the character alter the path, accepting that it's going to be hard to do so, in order to change the myth?

Now that's interesting. And what I think we're talking about with experimental heroquesting (or even it just being an option) being narrativism play. What you're portraying, Simon, is superior for this, because instead of being a series of contests, it's a series of bangs the decisions which are made from them affect the subsequent contests. Decisions with mechanical impact - narrativism with teeth.

I'm going to propose that, perhaps, the reason that heroquests aren't displayed this way, is because they're displayed like the vast majority of adventures to date. That is, the adventures are all linear railroads from one contest to the next, too. Which I think is a function less of wanting the adventures to be railroads than not understanding how to write an adventure such that it is not one.

This would apply to the heroquests we've seen, too, the mistake again being to place contests in the text for each station where Bangs should be. Those bangs all largely conforming to the general form, do I stick to the path, or do I forge a new meaning here? It's a pretty simple difference in presentation, I think, just remind players that they aren't constrained to following the path of the myth.

How does this change the reward, however? That is, if all this does is to mechanically make it more difficult to get the normal reward at the end, then I think that, again, this promotes gamism, and sticking to the path. Ron, when your players went off the path, what outcome did they get that was different than what they'd have gotten if they stayed on the path? What was the reward for forging new paths? Just the satisfaction of having done it a "better" way? Or did the outcomes change to match their choices such that they forged a new reward for themselves?

Mike

Message 16788#178442

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Mike Holmes
...in which Mike Holmes participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/13/2005




On 9/14/2005 at 5:12pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Mike,

HeroQuest characters have plenty of abilities that can help them figure out what their god would do in various situations - or at least get hints. There are 'Mythology of the Cult' abilities, 'Relationship' abilities with the god, and of course abilities directly related to the thing being tests. An Orlanthi character might have a 'Just' ability. So there is plenty of mechanical support for the gamist approach.

I also agree that Bangs make a very good substitute for stations. When I wrote my post I realy wasn't sure if what I was saying could realy be of any use, or was even explained well enough to be comprehensible to anyone else, but I think you're very close to a practical aproach. You're right about published heroquests being limited by the state of the adventure-writing art. I think Greg is well aware that he hasn't found a truly effective way to write them yet. He's probably never even heard the term Bang, but in retrospect the way the stations and encounters in the quest were presented was very Bang-ish.

I don't think stickign to the path is gamism. If a quest is about Justice and Truth and Fair Play, and actualy most quests are about moral values and testing personal qualities, then why would you want your character to go off on a tangent? HeroQuesting isn't about experimentation, it's about finding out if you are Just enough for the Rulership of your people, Cold Blooded enough to wield True Death, Determined enough to earn Immortality, etc. Most people (characters) will want to complete the quest because they believe in the values of their culture. People who deliberately go off at a tangent do so either because they couldn't give a fig about the values of their society, or because they've seen that their societies values ren't adequate in some way and want to fix that.

I think there often are rewards for doing the 'wrong thing' in many quests, and these are why some quests are so hard - the temptation is very real. However there should always be a down side for betraying the principles you're supposed to be upholding.

Simon Hibbs

Message 16788#178618

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by simon_hibbs
...in which simon_hibbs participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/14/2005




On 9/15/2005 at 6:50am, Jane wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Donald wrote:
Secondly I'd look to bring NPCs they've encountered on the mundane plane as the opposition to HQs. So if the opposition is a sun worshipper they get to meet the clan Elmali - how's he going to take being dragged into this quest and what effect does it have on their relationship with him. Do they even stop following the quest because he's someone they know?


It's perhaps worth pointing out that according to Canon, they won't recognise the mundane person playing the opposition role, they'll see Elmal. Personally I much prefer to have him semi-recognisable, depending on abilities and rolls, but I believe that's the canon position.

Of course, that may depend on the "depth" of the HQ. A practice-level quest takes place on the mundane, so of course people are recognisable. The Sky Ship, in Gathering Thunder, is full God World, and explicitly gives the PCs an opportunity to get the extremely rare ability to recognise mundane identities while there. So the "ordinary" HeroPlane should be rights be somewhere in between?

It may help to think of HQing as being the characters role-playing parts? And even if you do recognise who's playing what part, reacting to their out-of-game identity is in some ways "bad play"? If you're being Orlanth, he's never heard of your local clan elmali, he just knows Elmal. So if your PC reacts to Elmal as the local guy, he's doing less well at "being" Orlanth, and should perhaps get penalties for his bad roleplay? Just a thought.

Message 16788#178704

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Jane
...in which Jane participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/15/2005




On 9/15/2005 at 4:11pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

simon_hibbs wrote:
HeroQuest characters have plenty of abilities that can help them figure out what their god would do in various situations - or at least get hints. There are 'Mythology of the Cult' abilities, 'Relationship' abilities with the god, and of course abilities directly related to the thing being tests. An Orlanthi character might have a 'Just' ability. So there is plenty of mechanical support for the gamist approach.
Er, I'm not sure I get your point. I agree that characters have a good chance to know the sorts of things they need to know to get through things. But that's my point. Either you allow a player to roll against these abilities, or you force the player to know the subject matter. If the former case, the challenge to the player is gone, because, presumably, if you roll well enough, the character will know what to do. Now you could allow good rolls to just give information that's sort of ambiguous, and then have the character try to make sense of it, but then what's the point of the rolls? Why not just give the player the information so he can make the judgements on it. That is, if you're after gamism here, why allow a bad roll to allow the character to fail for the player?

Gamism has nothing to do with whether or not characters make their die rolls. By definition, they're random, and this is no challenge to the player (unless it's to throw dice in such a way as to come up with higher numbers or something). Yes, randomness can play a part in player challenge, but only when it involves coming up with expected value calculations and the like. There's no planning in the case of a few binary rolls.

I also agree that Bangs make a very good substitute for stations. When I wrote my post I realy wasn't sure if what I was saying could realy be of any use, or was even explained well enough to be comprehensible to anyone else, but I think you're very close to a practical aproach. You're right about published heroquests being limited by the state of the adventure-writing art. I think Greg is well aware that he hasn't found a truly effective way to write them yet. He's probably never even heard the term Bang, but in retrospect the way the stations and encounters in the quest were presented was very Bang-ish.
That's interesting. Because I've heard that in other cases that he's presented heroquests in extremely linear fashions. Could just be the players not seeing what he was doing, however; not understanding that there are implicit choices at each station (even if they're not obvious). Might be the problem that I'm having. :-)

In any case, all I'm proposing is that what you're saying about how HQ's can be run makes stations into bangs automatically. Not that you have to come up with additional dilemmas. Much like Ron says happens assuming that players see the quests as points for potential departure. Then each station asks the question, "Do I stick to the path, or do I forge a new meaning?"

I don't think stickign to the path is gamism. If a quest is about Justice and Truth and Fair Play, and actualy most quests are about moral values and testing personal qualities, then why would you want your character to go off on a tangent? HeroQuesting isn't about experimentation, it's about finding out if you are Just enough for the Rulership of your people, Cold Blooded enough to wield True Death, Determined enough to earn Immortality, etc. Most people (characters) will want to complete the quest because they believe in the values of their culture. People who deliberately go off at a tangent do so either because they couldn't give a fig about the values of their society, or because they've seen that their societies values ren't adequate in some way and want to fix that.
Oh, sure, sticking to the path can be narrativism. Like I say above, if the player finds the answer to each station's question, "I want to stick to the path" that's fine. What I was saying is that, if the challenge is understanding how to stick to the path, that's gamism. That is, if the player is treating the station not as the question above, but as, "How do I best determine how to be successful here?" then that's gamism.

I think there often are rewards for doing the 'wrong thing' in many quests, and these are why some quests are so hard - the temptation is very real. However there should always be a down side for betraying the principles you're supposed to be upholding.
The choice should be a choice, in other words. Couldn't agree with you more. The only problem is that I've never seen a reward for varying. In fact, there don't seem to be much rules for varying from the path other than to wing it. If a player is presented with only "do it right and get a reward, or do something else, and who knows what'll happen?" that's not equal incentive. Now, it might be the right way to present it to a player, but it would also help if players understood that there was always some potential benefit to be gained. That could be just the narrator reassuring the players, or there could be some way to do it mechanically.

Jane,
I can't remember for sure, but I think that with a Soul Vision roll for a theist quest that you do get to see the person underneath. Or something like that. Or perhaps I'm remembering the same heroquest that you are where they get the ability to see...

Anyhow, I'd sorta agree with you that to follow the quest that you won't be able to respond to the identity of the other character in some ways. That is, if a quest enemy turns out to be a friend, you're still supposed to attack him or whatever. But that's somewhat the point. If you do discern that the hero playing an adversary is a friend, then perhaps your character will have an urge to change the quest where Orlanth kills this monster to a quest where Orlanth befriends the monster. Yes, selfish, but there you have it, an event that might happen. This information puts the power in the hands of the player to make a decision on what's important to him then and there.

Anyhow, I think this mostly only applies to theist quests (or, perhaps only those in the god world where the one in question that we're remembering does happen). I don't think animists or wizards have this problem, even when in quests not in the heroplane, but in the spirit world or the essence or saint worlds. That is, they still aren't supposed to react to the characters in a way that messes with the quest if they want it to turn out normally. But they do see who they're dealing with, and get to decide at that point whether this means they want to continue with the quest as it's supposed to go, or to veer from it in response to who the other actors are.

Mike

Message 16788#178756

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Mike Holmes
...in which Mike Holmes participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/15/2005




On 9/15/2005 at 5:14pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests


The classic example fo a reward for varying is the good old Hill of Gold Quest. If the Yelmali quester does what he's supposed to do he gets clobbered by Zorak Zoran who steals his fire powers (actualy rips an organ from his body). If he doesn't do what he's supposed to and defeats Zorak Zoran (very hard) then he becomes a Yelmalion with Fire Powers - but doesn't get to be Immortal.

Simon Hibbs

Message 16788#178764

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by simon_hibbs
...in which simon_hibbs participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/15/2005




On 9/15/2005 at 11:36pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Is this written up anywhere for HQ? Or is it from HW or RQ?

Mike

Message 16788#178830

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Mike Holmes
...in which Mike Holmes participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/15/2005




On 9/16/2005 at 6:40am, Jane wrote:
Hill of Gold

Mike wrote:
Is this written up anywhere for HQ? Or is it from HW or RQ?
Mike


It's in Arcane Lore (pp62-67). It dates back to early RQ, yes, but it's one of the great classic Gloranthan myths, so it'll be around. Try a web search to get lots and lots of versions.

Message 16788#178867

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Jane
...in which Jane participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/16/2005




On 9/16/2005 at 12:50pm, Web_Weaver wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

To return directly to Ian’s initial concern over "HeroQuests tending to deteriorate into a pass/fail sequence", I would seek to reassure him with my hard earned understanding of what HeroQuests were designed to be (IMO obviously).

HeroQuests should not be designed this way even if most, if not all, of the examples seem to suggest it. Mike Holmes comes close when he suggests each station is a bang.

Think of a station in a HeroQuest as a convergence of stories similar to the mass of often conflicting cross references in Greek mythology.

In Glorantha this is referred to as Aracne Solara's web; web strands relating to story fragments and the nexus points being the key interactions between the stories.

So very loosely their are two types of station (see Heavy Earth HQ p253ff for examples) :
Travel: Find Earth-Witches Cave (a strand of the web)
Interaction : Bad Earth Boy (a nexus)

Note: travel stations can also involve colourful encounters  and these can appear to be nexus points, as encountered by simon_hibbs above in Gregs HQ game.

You can use any method to tell the overall story with as much player involvement as you like, but behind the scenes you have notes of key interactions that will occur (order often not essential) that are integral parts of the surrounding cultures’ mythologies.

So in the myth from Heavy Earth there exists another story about Bad Earth Boy told from the other perspective - i.e. Faithful Earth Nephew, who seeks to be a man in the eyes of his uncle Great Lord Below, quests for the strength of the earth but on returning home is challenged by Bush Child who confronts him over the consequences of his actions.

Note in one myth the interaction may be an early build-up staion but in the other it could be a major station of the quest. So for Faithful Earth Nephew this could be the first station of a quest about consequences of previous actions (simillar to the early stage of Orlanth's LightBringers Quest).

Also, who you meet is rarely preordained as many stories contain similar elements. We could probably invent hundreds of earth myths for different heroes that involve a neighbouring culture hero suffering because of over-powerful earth powers, resulting in an out of the blue challenge. Any one of these myths could be intersected at this station.

So to summarise, the best way to write a satisfactory HeroQuest is to decide on the story interactions and try to see each station from every angle. Carefully tailor the important interactions to the themes of your game and the characters existing or potential relationships. Every interaction station should play on the characters personal involvement of the myth and ideally should present dilemmas based on  cultural biases or previous actions.

Heroes met should come from cultures that either are already involved in your game or you intend to bring in later. Remember that even minor and seemingly inconsequential actions on the other side can have repercussions in the world and can serve for inspiration for all concerned in future games.

Message 16788#178896

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Web_Weaver
...in which Web_Weaver participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/16/2005




On 9/20/2005 at 11:42am, MarkAdri wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

As a player in Ian's Red Cow campaign, I want to state that at no point in my playing of the Heroquest was my enjoyment of the game reduced by the linear nature of the quest.

However, the added wrinkles from the addition of certain narrator characters did add to the play very significantly especially for my character and I feel worked really well.

Mark

Message 16788#179414

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by MarkAdri
...in which MarkAdri participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/20/2005




On 9/20/2005 at 1:51pm, Tim Ellis wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

I'm not sure that this is quite the answer to your particular questions, but my musings on how to make a heroquest more than just the GM "teeling a story" can be found here

Message 16788#179428

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Tim Ellis
...in which Tim Ellis participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/20/2005




On 9/20/2005 at 7:10pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Wow, very cool, Tim.

I have to go back and read the HQ text to see if there's something in there that implied stuff like this and I just missed it on my initial reading. :-)

Mike

Message 16788#179483

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Mike Holmes
...in which Mike Holmes participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/20/2005




On 9/24/2005 at 2:19am, Bryan_T wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

I think most interesting heroquests should be about choices.  Some of those choices may be potential bangs.  Some particularly appropriate quests may be almost a sequence of potential bangs--I think most of the really famous, life altering quests are probably best modelled that way (i.e. not every quester would face them quite like that, but it is the way to get the intensity across to the players).  Examples that jump to mind are the lightbringer's quest and the Horned Man quest to become a shaman.

If you have a quest station where the story has the hero fighting his way past trolls and take some special berries from them, you will face some sort of darkness based obstacle that you will need to pass and take something from.  This could be trolls, this could be related darkness creatures, this could be simple but pure darkness, this could a darkness worshipper of another species.....  The creature or thing can be tricky to get around, or could trigger a very soul wrenching choice.  To take a crude Heortling example, say it is trolls, and you could maybe beat them, but your trading partners worship Argar Argan and beating the trolls is apt to have a negative effect on that relationship through mythic reverberations.  On the other hand they are willing to let you go and give you the berries if you give them your cloak to eat, but the cloak was made for you by your wife as part of your courtship.  Which do you value more, the economic health of the clan, or your relationship to your wife?  Or for a wizard questor, the darkness seems unending and the berries impossible to find, but surely defeatable with even a small flame....if only you had something to burn, but the only thing you have burnable is your grimmoire.  You could sacrifice the knowledge of a spell to slide easily through this step, is it worth it?  (especially if you are not doing the quest for your own benefit?).      On the average character sheet it should not be too hard to find a couple of personality traits and/or relationships to bring in conflict with a somehow darkness related trigger.

The thing is that in a stand alone quest, without listing endless options, it is hard to know what will resonate with individual players and heroes.  Especially if you don't frame the quest in a situation where you suggest relations and alliances.

Of course, having an occasional gameist choice can be fun too :)

--Bryan. 

Message 16788#179869

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Bryan_T
...in which Bryan_T participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/24/2005




On 9/26/2005 at 2:38pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

The thing is that in a stand alone quest, without listing endless options, it is hard to know what will resonate with individual players and heroes.  Especially if you don't frame the quest in a situation where you suggest relations and alliances.
This is why I like Ron's idea, generally. That is, instead of trying to fiddle with the myth to get it to have parts where bangs come up, I'd just stick with whatever bangs just happen to come up in it (as pointed out, there are some that are just likely to stick to most people), and instead rely on the implicit decision at each station to stick to the orthodox path, or to wander off of it.

Again, if players understand that they can diverge at any point, and that when they do they'll largely have some say in the result, that means that there's always an interesting decision at each node. Whether or not the station itself has some dilemma to be decided, there's an additional one to just detour and make your own meaning.

What I'm trying to figure out, however, is how to get the players to understand this. There is, of course, just discussion. But mechanically I think that what's scary is that the series of contests laid out sorta says to the player to stick to the program. Rather, I think what happens is that I, in the past, have simply said, "OK, you move on down the road, and come to the place where you have to lift the rock, what are you going to use to move it?" That is, I think the problem has been in my presentation that I simply move from contest to contest. Instead what I'm going to try to do is to move from scene to scene, and relate what the expected contest is, but imply that the character can do whatever they like.

I hope that's enough. To disclose, actually I'm right in the middle of a heroquest in a PBEM game, with Kerstin as the guinea pig. So we'll see how it goes. :-)

Mike

Message 16788#180037

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Mike Holmes
...in which Mike Holmes participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/26/2005




On 9/26/2005 at 7:50pm, StalkingBlue wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Mike wrote:
To disclose, actually I'm right in the middle of a heroquest in a PBEM game, with Kerstin as the guinea pig.


Am I now?  Well, all right then.  Scenes sounds great already. Be as experimental as you like. :-)

Kerstin

Message 16788#180095

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by StalkingBlue
...in which StalkingBlue participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/26/2005




On 9/26/2005 at 8:46pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Kerstin wrote:
Am I now?  Well, all right then.  Scenes sounds great already. Be as experimental as you like. :-)
No, no, no. You be as experimental as you like. That's the whole idea. :-)

Mike

Message 16788#180104

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Mike Holmes
...in which Mike Holmes participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/26/2005




On 9/27/2005 at 2:15pm, StalkingBlue wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Mike wrote:
No, no, no. You be as experimental as you like. That's the whole idea. :-)


... said the intrepid researcher to the guinea pig. :-)

Just pulling your leg, you know that, right?

Seriously: having choices is wonderful, and I do agree that since heroquests are at the heart of the game system, they deserve to offer as much potential as any other part of the game - for both the player(s) and the narrator.  And this experiment is looking great so far to me.  Right now I'm finding an unscheduled rain of marlins even more irresistible than a rain of toads. (Even one that consists of only one marlin.)  Ian, I'll have more bits to report to you when you're back.

Kerstin

Message 16788#180185

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by StalkingBlue
...in which StalkingBlue participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/27/2005




On 10/3/2005 at 12:15pm, Neil the Wimp wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

I've run a couple of initiatory heroquests and described them on my website at http://home.freeuk.net/wimp/roleplaying/heroquests.html .  On reflection, I think they're quite Bang-oriented, though I didn't know that term at the time.  My advice on that page is similar to what's been aready said in this thread: tailor the events to the PCs, and keep separate the events and their mythic significance.  I've also written up two examples of where I've done this in practice: one were Stars-no-shine becomes a shaman, and one where a bunch of players re-enact the Cleansed One quest, from the River of Cradles book.

Another thing to consider is that the quest is not about whether the questors succeed, but how they succeed, and what the implications of their choices are.  In Start-not-shine's quest, there was a real choice about whether he followed Storm Bull's route or Daka Fal's. 

Neil.

Message 16788#180935

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Neil the Wimp
...in which Neil the Wimp participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 10/3/2005




On 10/3/2005 at 8:42pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Nice write ups Neil. I think I see what you're saying. The one choice you mention is a huge bang, yes.

I note with interest on the site that you say not to use the rules. But also that this may have been for RQ. Do you advocate the same for HQ? Or do you like what HQ does for heroquests mechanically? I think this is pretty central to the original topic of the thread.

Mike

Message 16788#181006

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Mike Holmes
...in which Mike Holmes participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 10/3/2005




On 10/4/2005 at 8:13am, Neil the Wimp wrote:
RE: Re: Railroading and Heroquests

Mike wrote:
Nice write ups Neil. I think I see what you're saying. The one choice you mention is a huge bang, yes.

I note with interest on the site that you say not to use the rules. But also that this may have been for RQ. Do you advocate the same for HQ? Or do you like what HQ does for heroquests mechanically? I think this is pretty central to the original topic of the thread.


Thanks.

You're right, I wrote these up in the days of RuneQuest, where the rules were completely unsuited to this kind of thing.  I don't think that HeroQuest (or any other rule set) is much better for this type of quest.  In these initiatory quests, what's important (IMO) is the decisions made by the player.  If the character gains the requisite self-knowledge, understands the duties of the new positions, understands the sacrifices that need to be made, and then makes those sacrifices, I think they should succeed in the quest.  It's purely about player choice, and to force them to make those profound, irrevocable, and probably unrepeatable steps and still fail would be to shortchange the player greatly.

As for the original topic, I thought it was about the predetermined and linear nature of the 'follow the myth' heroquests leading to railroaded players.  My response to that is to take the abstract choices presented in the myth and make them concrete and tied in directly to the character's situation.  This is reiterating what was said by Simon Hibbs  ("heroquests are about moral choices") and Bryan_T (who also showed how the obstacles faced could come from the character's history).  Doing it that way, I think, makes the linear nature of the quest almost irrelevant and retains the focus on the decisions made by the player.

Neil.

Message 16788#181084

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Neil the Wimp
...in which Neil the Wimp participated
...in HeroQuest
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 10/4/2005