I´ve made a few posts in other recent threads regarding how I intent to introduce my gaming group to HQ. However, I believe that a lot of new HQ players and GM´s like me could benefit from other people´s experiences presenting this game to groups.

Since there seems to be quite a bit of HQ conversion chat here, I would like to stress that I am more interested in introducing the system itself rather than Gloranthan background, but feel free to digress.

I sense that you're feeling that there may be issues presenting HQ to players? Because I'm pretty sure that if I say, "Just play the game with them" that you'd accuse me of missing the point.

Because it's been my experience that you just present HQ like any other game, and it plays beautifully. People pick it up in short order, and are playing like pros in no time. In fact, I'd say it's one of the easiest games to teach players that I've ever taught. I regularly run demos for complete newbs. In fact in one recently for a player who didn't even know what a role-playing game was ("Ooh, so that's what those Dungeons & Dragons games that my friends at the dorm used to run are like, oh!") I've never had anyone fail to have a great time. To say nothing of having any trouble with the rules.

Now, that said, I'm pretty experienced at this and that gives me one thing that I think a lot of GMs lack in presenting a new game, namely confidence. I think that a confident presentation of the game is, by far, the most important thing in introducing any game for play. If your demeanor says that you know you're going to have fun, then everybody else will be confident about it, and they'll be that much more likely to have fun, too. Go in all shaky, and unsurprisingly players will think, "Hey, if he doesn't think it's going to work, why should I?"

Now, yeah, sometimes we talk about play styles and such, and how some players don't like to play certain kinds of games. But know what? I don't actually believe that. Rather, I think that all styles of play are fun for everybody, and the only question is how well the game promotes that style, and how well the game is run. Presented with something that's well prepared, and functional, I think that only the strangest of curmudgeons will say, "That's not how I like to play." Or anything like that.

What I do get, quite often, is "That's quite different." And so it can be at times. But they also say things like, "That's not how we usually play, but I could see doing that sometimes." HQ is good, it sells itself on playing it.

But, OK, I'll admit there are some potential points of confusion for the "traditional" gamer, especially if he gets the "traditional" presentation. Now, I'd argue that, if you're doing the presentation not as suggested in the text, and the player is recieving it not as in the text, then you're not playing HQ - the problem is with the players and not with the text. But, OK, let's clear up those places that traditonal players make mistakes by inserting their own assumptions into HQ play.

Conflict Resolution
First and foremost, they miss that HQ is conflict resolution, and not task resolution. That is, they miss the part in the text that says, "No repeat conflicts." Presentation here is crucial - when resolving a contest, always come up with the reason why the action has moved forward as part of the resolution narration.

Don't say:
"You missed him, now what?"

Say:
"You miss him, and he gets away, now what?"

The first example isn't resolving the contest, the stakes are not settled. It appears that we can just try again, and if presented with this, we'd wonder why we couldn't just have the character try again. Always be sure to completely conclude the contest by explaining who got what out of the goals that were at stake.

Setting Stakes
Often the problem with getting conflict resolution is that players don't set stakes. When asked what their goal is, they say, "I attack him." This isn't a goal, it's a method to achive a goal. If/when a player says something like this, immediately ask, "Why, what do you want to have happen if he's successful in attacking?" If you're not sure what the goal is, ask "Why?" until they state a goal. It's really simple, and works 100% of the time (for me, to date). "Because I want him dead." Ah, now there's a goal. So is, "Because I want to protect my people."

Thrash Them
If you think that there's even a chance that players are trying to win contests, immediately correct this perception that HQ contest are about player skill in winning or losing. The simplest way to do this is to have a contest against an amazingly powerful opponent. The example I always give is to have some massive giant come along and step on them - they don't see it coming or anything, it just happens. Tell them that you're not allowing any augments, just their Large rating - 6 if its not elsewhere on the character sheet (oh, allow tough or something if they really want it). When the result comes up as a failure, make that failure entertaining - i.e. don't kill the character, give them something to work on.

Then immediately allow them to take the giant out with whatever clever plan they come up with. If they try to trick the giant, he doesn't only lack defenses against this sort of thing, but he's Stupid 10W2, as well. Allow the players to come out on top with no effort.

The idea here is to inform players that contests are not about trying to figure out some mechanical way to show their tactical brilliance, but just a mechanical way to display their character, and figure out which way the plot goes next.

BTW, if either of these contests "backfires" then this method works even better. The players are even more informed that scrounging for tactical advantage is meaningless, and not part of the game.

OK, this is an extreme way to do this, and there are other techniques. For instance, simply cut a player off in the middle of finding augments. Right before he finds some that seem to apply. Indicating that it's about keeping the pace of the game flowing with interesting stuff, and not about finding every little advantage on the character sheet.

BTW, I've never had to use these techniques to date. I've never had anyone try to "game" the resolution system (not even Brand - just kidding, Brand). I think it's obvious that it's not about that. But, just in case...

Did I say Make Failure Interesting?
Like I say above, don't punish players when their characters fail, reward them instead. Get it so that, rather than fearing failure, players crave it so much that they have their heroes do crazy heroic stuff. HQ isn't about "Ragnar the Coward who stole away because the hit point total of the opposing giants was too high." It's about characters who take on larger than life challenges. And who frequently lose, only to come back bigger and better than ever in the end.

"PvP"
Even better, if possible, set things up so that the players have their characters go after each other. Encourage this. When they're asking for goals, ask the players to agree to each other's goals. That is, player A has to OK player B's goals for his character in the contest, and vice versa. What this does is to show that there's no Player vs Player competition, and that having your character go after another is no different than the friendly way in which the narrator is creating adversity for your character.

Basically get the players to understand that they're also supposed to make failure fun for each other.

Just some ideas. I hope that they help, but really I feel that they'll mostly be unneccessary for most groups. Remember, confidence is the true key.

Mike

Thanks for all the tips Mike!

Regarding confidence, I've been rambling to them for a month about how great this system is, so that one is covered. And I truly do beleive the HQ system will fit my game a lot better than R&K. As I've indicated before, from the small ammount of GNS I understand, I think my group has Narr interests mainly, with a small penchant for Gamist bits and little interest in Simulation. I do think that HQ will make the game more fluid for them. My only concern is that two of them learned how to roleplay with R&K 7th Sea, and the switch may be a bit strange at first. Still, they are an adaptable bunch, so it may be more painless that I feared.

Up till now I've been introducing the mechanic aspects of the game. However, when those are clear, I intent to show them the, shall we say, "metagaming" implications of the system, mentioning issues such as Conflict Resolution, Failure as an interesting option, etc. That perhaps is the true change, since dice conventions and the rest shouldn't pose that much of a problem.

Still, I think you are right when you say I'm worrying too much.

PS: OK, it's a go. My HQ book is arriving on friday :)

Barna wrote:
PS: OK, it's a go. My HQ book is arriving on friday :)

It arrived!

Except for the cover, which I don't really like, it's a very nice book. As a matter of fact, even though my main interest is playing 7th Sea with it, it has picked my interest regarding Glorantha, specially will all that magic laying around. I already knew most of the system, but I've already been skimming the GM section for the extra optional rules, such as wounding with AP, Edges, etc.

I really think is is one terrific RPG. As soon as I have my first session, I'll post a short Actual Play thread.

Barna wrote:
As soon as I have my first session, I'll post a short Actual Play thread.