Tonight we played the third session of our Dark Ages HQ game, and I realised that I'm just starting to get a good handle on what I'm actually doing.

There are five players, all of whom took quite different characters:

Lucius (Claire) - a young Brythonic clergyman of the Roman church.
Quintus (Rafe) - a Roman pagan; a haruspex.
Silvanius (Lev) - a pagan Briton; a woodsman.
Morgaine (Erica) - a girl dressed as a boy; a young Celtic Christian thief.
Mairead (Sue) - an Irish druid.

These are the principal NPCs:

Ambrosius - now dead of a knife in the side (probably Medrodus). Was last Count of Britain.
Artos - a huge and powerful man. Has the sword of Ambrosius, symbolising the office of the Count of Britain. Leaning strongly towards Christianity.
Medrodus - Ambrosius' ward. Bitter over not getting the sword. Love/hate thing with Artos.
Uther - Artos' father and king of Lis Pengwern. Old but nasty. Lustily pagan.
Gwenhwyfar - Uther's daughter by rape. Artos' half-sister and lover; they have a son, Anir. They are forbidden even to look at each other, but of course they meet secretly.
Myrddin - Uther's druid; fears and hates Christianity. Currently in the faery world with Mairead.

Constantine - king of the Dumnonii. Old and mad.
Cunoglasus - king of the Middle Lands. Fleshy and libertinistic.
Votiporix - king of the Demetae. Dark and enigmatic.
These three pagan kings have agreed to accept Artos as battle-leader.

So I realised tonight that what I've been doing, essentially, is presenting group bangs; usually in the shape of gatherings at which many important NPCs are present. Each of these gatherings gives a chance for the players to further their agendas and influence future events; they usually spark off a round of activity in the next stretch of undefined game time as well.

Lucius has been getting chummy with Artos and has become his personal counsellor. L. has also tried to influence Medrodus in the direction of humility and forgiveness.  Claire is doing a nice line in Christian values, but can they stand against barbarism?

Quintus is intent on destroying the influence of the Christians and has plans to get rid of the symbolic sword. He's been breaking Medrodus' mind as fast as Lucius fixes it. Rafe is playing his character to the hilt, and tells me he doesn't mind if he comes to a bad end.

Silvanius has gained command of a force of archers and slingers. He seems to be working for religious harmony, but Lev plays some of those cards close to his chest. This is a difficult character to engage--a classic strong-and-silent hunter.

Morgaine has befriended Gwenhwyfar and revealed her secret to her. She's undertaken to carry messages whle Artos is away on campaign against the Saxons. Erica gets a lot of underbelly action due to her character being an oddball. Now she wants to seduce Artos (in female guise) and steal the sword.

Mairead has disappeared into the Otherworld in search of a pagan spear to eclipse the Christian sword. She's been pushing paganism vs Christianity, but less agressively than Quintus. Sue seems to enjoy the pagan legend angle, and the spear was her idea (one of the Four Treasures of Britain).

Some thoughts: Exhausting! Bells ringing when I read Ron's comments in the D&D thread re the use of colour and the GM's role in contributing to the SIS. Interesting how important the sword has become as a focus and symbol.

Hi Jeff.
Sounds like a great game. I’ m always interested in hearing more about the techniques employed by others. Therefore I’d like to know more about those ‘group bangs’. I understand that you offer one situation for all players, but that they are not aimed at the party as a single entity, right? But in which way are they bangs? That is, do you present dynamic situations which necessitate action on part of at least one of the players like, Artos wants to convert Wales to Christendom? Or do you you introduce an event and wait for player input to then apply pressure to the characters? Perhaps you could bring an example from play.
Also, how does your plan to use historical details for colour work out? Do your players react positively whenever you bring in facts in your description? You mentioned in the original thread that your players intended to read up on historical facts. Does this show at all during play, that is, do they describe historical facts or events or talk about them out of character?
As an aside, I am currently running a HeroQuest game myself. My players also focus on one item, a book, which is part of one player’s character’s goal. I did some weaving to further conflict between the characters. But the extent to which they reacted to this surprised me. I guess, players like inter character conflict because of increased interaction time. If each character follows his own goals and does not conflict with others, it’s usually the GM getting to act the most. He is then in almost all scenes playing NPCs. Direct confrontation reduces the need for narrator opposition and gives the players involved more screen time. Just a thought on my side. After all, there are other options to keep players interested during off time.

Sebastian.

Hi Sebastian

Basically I do as you articulated: introduce a highly-charged scene and apply pressure to the characters. At least I think that's what I'm doing. I think of them as 'weak' bangs; I don't think they would work as well with a less proactive group; the 'gotta-do-something' factor is a bit lacking.

An example from the last session was the Beltaine ceremony, which I felt afterwards was mainly colour and didn't have enough plot-turning potential. A damp, fizzy kind of bang. Nevertheless, there were still some character-defining moments, eg Quintus decided to become intiated into the tribe.

All the players are interested in the historical colour to the extent of having side conversations about interesting tidbits. But my dirty little secret is that I've hardly presented anything in the way of historical material. It's all about the relationship map. It's an entirely different proposition from when I used to run Pendragon. In the other thread, Nigel Evans mentions that he's practically had to lock his reference materials in a vault, and I'm feeling a bit the same way.

I'll let you know how it goes with the inter-player conflict. One interesting thing is that a major conflict is going on for the hearts and minds of various NPCs, especially Artos and Medrodus. The HQ system handles all of this with great ease, as it's handled everything we've done in the game so far.

Reactions to the system have been very positive. Rafe did say that he thought the system wouldn't be as good for combat, but we haven't actually had a combat yet. We haven't yet had an extended contest, either--we just set up a conflict, do augments and roll.

Well, as I read your reply, I noticed that actually there is no character conflict in my game, yet. It is clear that the characters are headed to some sort of confrontation because of conflicting goals. Still, my players are looking forward to this confrontation and I guess it's a good sign. Perhaps I'll come around to post some actual play myself sometime.

Sebastian.

I think the Beltaine bang worked OK. I think sometime I sit and wibble for a bit, because I'm not immediately sure how Lucius would react, so I don't immediately leap in.  And what mattered to me was Artos' reactions.

Honestly, I'd rather we did the historical colour in the game, rather than having players launch into out of character discussions about the colour that sometimes strike me as a little like chest thumping.  I mean, the cool knowledge the players have is great, but I'd personally prefer they brought it into the game fiction, rather than stopping the game in the middle of an exciting scene to tell the group what they know about the history, particularly when it can turn into a debate about the actual history, with no link I can see to the game itself.

But I like to have that stuff in game first, and discuss it after it's entered the fiction, and I'm pretty far up the end of that spectrum as far as I can tell.

I think the conflict between the characters is working well, and largely because it hasn't fallen into easy camps.  There's been different people on different sides rather than the same people together all the time.  And even when characters can largely agree on some issues, they've got really different agendas.  They might work together on one conflict, but then the moment it's over go in different directions again.

Claire

beingfrank wrote:
But I like to have that stuff in game first, and discuss it after it's entered the fiction, and I'm pretty far up the end of that spectrum as far as I can tell.

beingfrank wrote:
I think the conflict between the characters is working well, and largely because it hasn't fallen into easy camps. 

droog wrote:

beingfrank wrote:
But I like to have that stuff in game first, and discuss it after it's entered the fiction, and I'm pretty far up the end of that spectrum as far as I can tell.

Absolutely, but luckily the GM is right there with you. What can I say? I think it's very common behaviour in 'gaming' circles. I try not to encourage it. Does it irritate you enough that we should give it an airing?

droog wrote:

beingfrank wrote:
I think the conflict between the characters is working well, and largely because it hasn't fallen into easy camps. 

Yeah, that's fascinating. I noted from the beginning that there were different overlaps between the characters, and it's played out well. Which is interesting, because given more control over character creation I might well have made you all more homogenous, as in DitV (soldiers in a unit, missionary monks, Norse raiders etc). But it rather fits the era to have all the characters experiencing pulls in different directions.

I like it that one of the major conflicts between PCs has taken place inside an NPC's head. Poor Medrodus! No wonder he gets a bad rap--you're driving him mad.

beingfrank wrote:
I think that if I start up a group designed to try new things, play games and styles we might not consider normally, because they're not our first preference, I should make an effort to play in different ways, including tolerating stuff I that bugs me in other contexts in order to see what I can gain from it.