I'm just getting exposed to HQ, having recently purchased the book and looking forward to gaming with some eager friends come winter. Now, it seems to me that HQ requires the players to be proactive, snapping them out of their reactive stance, and contribute to the collaborative story (in essence, introducing their own bangs). I like this idea and look forward to the challenge of writing a HQ adventure for my old D&D group (based on advice offered in Barna's thread below).

However, I'm confused at the examples in the HQ book which seem to indicate an adversarial relationship between Narrator and Player (one example is "Uncle Farhenri is Here" on page 179, and others abound). This adverserial stance just seems to step all over the Player's desire to be proactive. Personally, I need a strong example of what an HQ game plays like so I know how to inspire an environment of "cooperative creation" and ween my players from the reactive stance from years of D&D.
Are there any good examples of HQ play on the net which also include how contests/rules were handled that would be clear to an HQ beginner?

Thanks! (And my apologies if there is already a thread addressing my concerns)

Hi

First off, Heroquest does not require the players to be proactive, in terms of snapping them out of their reactive stance. That might be your, the GM's, agenda for them, but they will come to the table with their own idea of what they want to do. The only time you should or can ask players to create their own bangs is the 'kicker'. Any bangs that flow after will be because of their in-game actions and your promptings. You should seek to plant seeds and hope they turn into bangs. Otherwise I can see that some of your players may get bored while they wait for you to present some game activity and you will become frustrated at their lack of engagement. This is perilous and i have seen it happen.

The examples of play in the book show very well the game mechanics in my opinion, but it is generally accepted that they present a style or mode of play that some find un-appealing. That said, the mechanics support very well the kind of Creative Agenda that I believe you may be shooting for, that is, Narratvism.

You can get narratavist play by employing narratavist techniques, and by the type of scenario's you generate.

I would be happy to exchange emails off list (as I dont think this is the forum for it) as to how I frame contests and show what narratavist techniques that I used in my game, which was a strongly hybrid narratavism/ simulationism Gloranthan game. Maybe we could co-opt Mike in to the dialogue?

I can let you have a copy, not for distribution, of a narratavist scenario that I wrote with Mike Holmes for convention play. I am a member of the European Branch of the Masters of Luck and Death, who are an independent Demo group for Heroquest. Mike heads up the US group. Don't worry we aren't some corporate group, just a bunch of guys who enjoy demo'ing HQ. And we certainly dont advocate that our way is the only way, but if we can help in any small way then we will.

Regards
Rob

I think you're assuming a lot, Rob, but I'm going to simply skip back to Aaron's post.

I don't see the book examples as "adversarial" personally. But I agree they're not promoting what you want to promote, either, so you're right to ignore them for the purposes you have here. All said, while you don't want the narrator as an adversary per se, you do want the narrator to be the "story advocate" if you will, meaning that it is his main responsibility to throw in things that create conflict and challenge. It's not a question of whether or not the narrator does this that makes for proactive play, but how he does this.

I'll give you a couple of hypothetical examples, since nothing is jumping to mind right at the moment. In this next (stilted for effect) exchange, the narrator is using his role to create conflict to shut the player down. This is what you want to avoid:

Player: "I want my character to go to the tavern to hunt down that girl he met."
Narrator: "As he turns to leave, suddenly a bunch of trolls descend upon him - let's fight! When the contest is over, you'll either be carried off, or you'll be chasing the trolls out of town."
Player: "But what about the girl?"
Narrator: "Your character will have to wait until the important stuff is over."

The Narrator obviously has a plan for how the plot must go, and is enforcing it by determining the goals and outcomes of the contest he's creating. Simply, the Narrator here should follow the player's lead. Heck, he can still complicate it with nearly the same color, and simultaneously facilitate the player desire.

Player: "I want my character to go to the tavern to hunt down that girl he met."
Narrator: "As he turns to leave, suddenly a bunch of trolls descend upon him - let's fight! As it turns out, one of them is carrying the girl from the tavern away with him."

When it comes down to it, there's really only one technique that's going on here that makes this all work. All of the other technique devolves from it. And that is to allow metagame play.

What does that mean? In most RPG play, there are rules in place that say things like, "Don't have your character act on player knowledge." Now, the reason for the existence of such rules is simple. A player used to playing games like, say, chess, isn't used to having to separate what he knows from what his character knows. It takes a bit of skill. What happens is that a situation will occur where the player has his character do something implausible from an in-game POV, because he's not made said separation.

To the extent that these rules are in RPGs for this reason, and this reason alone, they're good rules. The problem is that most people see such mistakes occur, and in a competitive RPG, assume that "cheating" is going on. Over the course of a decade or so of this, a more general assumption came to be that it's not just good play to play plausibly, but one has to eliminate the appearance of their own personal preferences even from plausible play, or else the player is now just "cheating" in a less discernable fashion.

This is a huge problem. Because how do you know when it's not the player's preference, but some "channeling" of the PC that's going on? You don't, and can't know this. This is further exacerbated by some players who, given this environment, really do take advantage of this set up to hide their desire to do things that annoy other players behind "It's what my guy would do!" So players react even more strongly, and clamp down on any perception of metagame drive appearing in the game.

Which doesn't work. Oh, when the players actually trust each other, it won't be problematic. But it then only serves the dubious good of creating a particular subset of simulationism.

Anyhow, the point is that, sans competition in play, the only thing we really seek from player vs character knowledge separation, is that the character act plausibly. What isn't required is trying to hide the fact that there's a player behind the character. Rather, you actively promote the player creating the actions of the character in a very visibly metagame way.

Here's the classic example of metagame play (sometimes used to explain "author stance"). Player A's character is in a scene where he's at a bar. Player B's character is getting beaten up in another scene at the park, something of which Player A's character is blissfully unaware. The GM asks Player A what his character is doing.

Player A, "Dude, your character is getting beat up. You want some help for him?"
Player B, "Sure!"
Player A, "OK, my character is going to happen by the park on his way home."

Plausible? Well, assuming that the park isn't ridiculously out of the way, sure it is. What it's not is transparent as far as player intent. Many GMs would say, "Nooooo, you can't do that, your character doesn't know he's there." But note that this doesn't invalidate the plausibility, it only points out that the player is taking advantage of his knowledge to create a convenient co-incidence.

This is a relatively extreme example - not all such decisions will result in co-incidences or other dramatic effects. But the point is that it should be encouraged.

Why? Well, because how can you expect a player to be proactive with his character, when all he is told he can do is to channel the character without the player's will showing? It's like, "I want my character to go get a new sword....oh, wait, I have to be sure that it's what he wants, too, not just what I want."  The player who thinks like this, misses the chance to get his character in on the fight at the partk, because he fears that he'll be seen as cheating. It's fine to have the character be precisely who you want them to be. In all cases, even when it doesn't look like it, you still are, in fact, deciding what he'll do. He does nothing without you.

As GM you have to encourage having this in the open. All of the other techniques come down to some way to get players thinking this way. When you start playing metagame this way, communication opens up. Players feel more free to discuss things, and come up with ideas. They understand that the creation of plot is not the purview of the one player called the GM, but of everyone. And once they know that it's OK for them to do that, then they're off and running, coming up with the coolest things they can think of for their character to have.

So here's an example of what sort of dialogue you should be seeing in this sort of play:

Player: "Can I have a scene in which my character runs into the girl NPC that player B's character met?"
Narrator: "Sure! I'll set the scene. You're in the tavern, and you see her across the room. But before you can get over to talk to her, Rocco comes over, and looks like he's looking for his money."

A few things going on above. First, the narrator is giving the player enough control to actually create coincidences. Some people think this is a violation of some standing rule in HQ (and other games), about the separation of power between players and narrators. But think of it this way. The player is only asking the narrator. The narrator, as story advocate again, has the right to say no, if he deems that it's really not in the best interest of all of the players to have the scene. If he says yes, technically it's not the player creating the scene, it's the narrator. He's just taking a good suggestion from the player.

GMs do this constantly, they just usually hide the fact that they're taking cues from players, because the aforementioned prohibition against metagame play extends to the GM as well in these cases. This comes about from GMs "abusing" players by using their power to take away player choices (railroading). So the GM is held to the same no-metagame standard (which, of course, is problematic, since then the question becomes who is driving the drama)?

In metagame play, forget trying to look like some genius who has predicted his player's needs and instead become the GM they like because he shares his power with them. If you're taking a cue from a player, give him credit, and go with it.

Narrator: "Great idea, dude, let's go with that for the next scene."

Also in the above example at the bar, the narrator is creating an obstacle. But is it preventing the player from achieving what he wants? Well, no, the player wants to have some action involving the girl, and having to struggle to get to her is probably fun. More on this below.

Once you're communicating in the metagame, you can't actually railroad players without lying to them.

Player: "Why did you have that avalanche hit us that drove us underground?"
Narrator: "Well it was on the random event table..."

Like hell it was. The GM selected it off that table with a fudged roll to provide a way to get them into the dungeon. Should be more like:

Player: "Why did you have that avalance hit us?"
Narrator: "Because there's a ton of cool stuff for your character to do in the dungeon, and I couldn't think of anything for outside."

Isn't that railroading in both cases? Well the best definition I've found for railroading is creating situation that doesn't have any player choice involved. If the narrator above lied to get them to a choice...well why lie then? The only reason to lie is if you've taken away player choices, and you don't want to admit it. If, in fact, you've moved play on to a particular state to give choices, then tell players that you have done so.

If, in fact, you're giving the player some interesting choice, then using GM authority to do so is good play, not railroading. And with metagame play, if you're not sure, you can ask:

Narrator: "Guys, I can't think of any cool stuff out here, how about there's an avalanche that forces the characters into a dungeon? I have lots of ideas for bangs for you there!"
Players: "Go for it!"

Or...or:

Player: "Wait, I have an idea for out here. How about if we're attacked by a Yeti band, and they run off with important equipment in all sorts of directions forcing us to pick which to track down?"

If you ask the players what their metagame opinion of what should happen is, then they know, again, that they're empowered to ask for such things, and become quite proactive. You'll start to see things like:

Player (who thinks the narrator has a dungeon planned): "My character is going to look for a cave to shelter in."

Player: "My character comes up to yours and asks him to have mercy on the troll that killed your character's family."

As Rob mentions, this is really where you want to get. Where the players realize that it's not only up to the narrator to provide conflict to their characters, but that they can feel free to do so as well. In a non-metagame session, the response might be:

Player B: "Dude, we're supposed to be friends, why is your character messing with mine like that?"
Player A: "It's what he would do."

In a metagame game:

Player B: "Dude, are you messing with my character to create a dilemma for him?"
Player A: "Yep."
Player B (with a smile): "Bastard!....that's so cool."

How to players know that the narrator is not adversarial? Because you talk about it.

Player: "Hey, if I lose this, my character loses his prized possession. That's not cool!"
Narrator: "What I'm thinking is that if he loses to this guy, that said guy will offer the item back if your character is willing to spy on the Duke for him."
Player: "Aaah, I see. Cool, let's do the contest."

So the player knows that the narrator is facilitating the story, and not trying to hose him as a player by punishing him by taking away a favored item. By discussing these things openly, you can make failure results interesting for the player in all cases, which makes you partners in creating the drama of the story (as opposed to adversaries). See this article for more on this: www.glroantha.com/support/na-defeat.html

Ok, so now just by talking about it in the open we have:
1. Players who see that you're playing to what they want, so they'll ask for things.
2. Players who know that you're not adversarial to them, but using conflict to create drama around their character's actions.
3. Players who know that you're not railroading them, meaning that their actions will actually create plot, and not just be the window dressing around it.
4. Players who know that it's good play to create conflict for the other players.
5. Players who know that when their characters fail, that you're working to make that into more fun for them. So they don't have to be hesitant with their dramatic plans for their character.

This is the start. What you'll find is that the more this all becomes an assumption, the less you'll actually have to communicate in the metagame. It gets shortended down to occasional reassurances, or quick statements of desire. You start to be able to read where a player wants to go with something.

For instance, in the game I played last night, the narrator had my character run into a female NPC. My character's reaction was to be strongly attracted to her - not quite what the narrator had expected. He could have ignored this, and gone on with what he'd originally seen as the interesting part of the scene - whether or not she figured out that my character was doing something sneaky. In fact, that continued to be a sub-plot in the scene. But the important part of the scene became my character getting a date with the NPC. The narrator didn't just let my character do it - there were contests involved. But the drama was around what I wanted it to be around.

All by him reading my first line of the scene, and figuring out where I wanted to go with it. There was an implied conversation there where I asked for a particular kind of scene, and he went with it. But it couldn't have happened if we both weren't used to this sort of way of looking at it.

Note, interestingly, that people coming to RPGs for the first time haven't been trained in the whole no-metagame play style, and so come to RPGs with this POV as the default. So it's not a complex way of thinking about RPGs, its actually quite natural. Yeah, once in a while you'll have to tell a newb that they're doing something implausible. But you never have to tell them that they need to tell you what they want to see in play. Because that's what they're used to in games. It's only ever trained RPG players who have any problem with this methodology, having to overcome large amounts of training.

I still, to this day, make mistakes based on two decades of playing trying to restrict metagame.

Anyhow, hope that gives the basic idea of what play is like. Come by the IRC game on Monday nights if you want to see this all in action.

Mike

Lamorak33 wrote: I can let you have a copy, not for distribution, of a narratavist scenario that I wrote with Mike Holmes for convention play.

Mike Holmes wrote: By discussing these things openly, you can make failure results interesting for the player in all cases, which makes you partners in creating the drama of the story (as opposed to adversaries). See this article for more on this: www.glroantha.com/support/na-defeat.html

Mike Holmes wrote: They understand that the creation of plot is not the purview of the one player called the GM, but of everyone. And once they know that it's OK for them to do that, then they're off and running, coming up with the coolest things they can think of for their character to have.

Mike Holmes wrote: Player: "Can I have a scene in which my character runs into the girl NPC that player B's character met?"

Mike Holmes wrote: 1. Players who see that you're playing to what they want, so they'll ask for things.

Mike Holmes wrote: 2. Players who know that you're not adversarial to them, but using conflict to create drama around their character's actions.
3. Players who know that you're not railroading them, meaning that their actions will actually create plot, and not just be the window dressing around it.

Mike Holmes wrote: 5. Players who know that when their characters fail, that you're working to make that into more fun for them. So they don't have to be hesitant with their dramatic plans for their character.

Mike Holmes wrote: It's only ever trained RPG players who have any problem with this methodology, having to overcome large amounts of training.

Mike Holmes wrote: Come by the IRC game on Monday nights if you want to see this all in action.

Hi, Aaron.

I corrected your link (glorantha) but I got an error from the HQ site - perhaps they took that article down?

Stop right there. :) That's a huge leap (and I'd be happy to see it in my games). I'm looking for baby steps to warm my players up to aggressive scene requests. I mean, to some extent I do this by listening to what my players talk about and treating their character sheets as menu orders for what sort of challenges they want to face. But for *them* to make a request is a paradigm shift.

Some of the examples in HQ definitely seem adversarial/railroady to me. "You've given him your agreement, your word, to help him out. Understand?" This line from the page 179 example is pretty much a DM threatening a reluctant player who only agreed because the DM included a hated villain (Danbrilla). It's subtle, but if you look at what Kathy says earlier it's pretty clear that she is imposing upon the player Rick: "they're family, you ought to want to help them" (and if Uncle Farhenri is bluffing and isn't actually Hengal's uncle, it's an even worse adversarial stance) and "If that is not enough, then, we can only say one more thing. Ok, then, here is the truth. I wanted to give you good reasons for doing the job first. I wanted to see where your virtues were. Let me tell you this: Danbrilla, the sorceress, is our ruin. We need your help to destroy her."
Sounds like the Narrator Kathy is stalling for time to come up with a hook that will make Rick consent to being rail-roaded into helping Farhenri. That strikes me as the opposite of the sort of play HQ is trying to provide.

Slow down. What if the player has emotional investment in and identifies with their character? What if they're trained to be rewarded for success and not for "failure"? Even worse, what if they can't see the rewards of "failure" because they're not concrete enough? Again, it's a paradigm shift toward author stance. What I want to know is how is that shift made?

Note that this is cross-posted with Sebastian's post above...

aaronil wrote:
I did get a chance to read "Well of Souls" by Chris Chinn and Peter Nordstrand, which is designed with a plot outline, narrator characters, and Narrator-controlled bangs. This adventure looks like it'd be great for narrativist players, but I could see less-narr players just waiting around until a bang happens.

My group does metagame conversation - usually my players are eager to share feedback and to make guesses (I call them "menu orders") about what will happen as a consequence of their actions. Usually it's kept to a minimum because we don't like to break our immersion and have been gaming so long together there's implicit trust.

I've gotten them to agree to this verbally and I think they understand the theory. However, many years of D&D have trained them to wait for my bangs, and years of D&D have trained me to give it to them - making the players (and their characters) mostly reactive.

Stop right there. :) That's a huge leap (and I'd be happy to see it in my games). I'm looking for baby steps to warm my players up to aggressive scene requests. I mean, to some extent I do this by listening to what my players talk about and treating their character sheets as menu orders for what sort of challenges they want to face. But for *them* to make a request is a paradigm shift.

Mike Holmes wrote: 1. Players who see that you're playing to what they want, so they'll ask for things.

I believe I have been playing to what they want, and they usually tell me when I have (and when I have not) met their expectations. However, they don't ask for things. There's more going on here.

Totally. Trust is huge for narrativist games.

Some of the examples in HQ definitely seem adversarial/railroady to me.

Slow down. What if the player has emotional investment in and identifies with their character? What if they're trained to be rewarded for success and not for "failure"? Even worse, what if they can't see the rewards of "failure" because they're not concrete enough? Again, it's a paradigm shift toward author stance. What I want to know is how is that shift made?

Thanks! It would probably be helpful for me. How can I get more information?

Hi

You have had lots of good advice here, but I would like to summarise my opinions.

1. Don't sweat it. Just play. If you use some of the techniques that Mike describes you will most likely have great results, I did.

2. Get players talking out of character about their characters. Give them information, and then tell them that their character doesn't know that.  See the difference it makes to the play. Players start doing stuff for dramatic and fun and cool reasons. IE for the story.

3. Never say, 'you can't say that your character is not there.' Always let players have some input into another characters and players actions. Just don't let them take over the scene.

4. Don't expect your players to be proactive. If they learn that fine, but your the GM.

5. Be prepared to make up fun out of failure. Its probably the hardest technique, because its thinking on your feet.

6. Remember that you in a successful contest roll, the player gets to do the narration, within the parameters of the success. The narrator has final say on what the final outcome is, although this may well be influenced by the player.

7. When narrating, remember the 'Fat Lady Sings Rule'. That is, its not over until a contest is over. So if both protagonists have 50 AP and one causes the other to lose 49 AP in one shot, the narration cannot state that the loser has lost an arm, had his head cut off or something like that, because its possible for the character to come back and win the contest and be completely unharmed.

Hope that helps,

Regards
Rob

sebastianz wrote:
Hi, Aaron.
Perhaps you want to give them an incentive. Offer them Heropoints for framing a scene or making a concrete request. I'd say two HP per scene. And for starters, give points for only one scene but allow them to do more, of course. This is just to help them overcome their reluctance.

sebastianz wrote: Mike will probably give more advice. First thing to do is to explain your players the probabilities of success. There is more or less always the chance to fail. I try to remember, but one mastery advantage means you win 70%, two masteries 90% and 3 masteries 95%. I hope I have them correct. So they always have to count on losing. Next, make it clear that losing does not mean a stand-still, but continues the story. It only adds a complication. And make that clear during the game. When negotiating contests, look for a goal that allows for that.
A few threads that could be helpful.

Mike Holmes wrote: Throw out any pretense of trying to support immersion for a session. Just try it. See if it's any less enjoyable.

Mike Holmes wrote: Hmmm, not quite perfect, but should get the point across...you've earned Mike's Standard Rant #7: You Can't Sneak Up on Mode.

Mike Holmes wrote: You keep coming back to that. I suggest you take a black marker, and blot out all of the Kathy examples.

The HQ rules were originally written as HW by Robin Laws, who did not intend do support narrativism nor proactivity especially (his belief is that GMing can overcome these things). Then those rules were modified by several people for HQ. Few of whom, if any, know or buy into any of this theory here.

Mike Holmes wrote: What's going on here, is that the player is still stuck on D&D competition. Where character failure is player failure. There are several exercizes to get players out of thinking this way.

Lamorak33 wrote: 3. Never say, 'you can't say that your character is not there.' Always let players have some input into another characters and players actions. Just don't let them take over the scene.

Lamorak33 wrote: 4. Don't expect your players to be proactive. If they learn that fine, but your the GM.

Lamorak33 wrote: 5. Be prepared to make up fun out of failure. Its probably the hardest technique, because its thinking on your feet.

Lamorak33 wrote: 6. Remember that you in a successful contest roll, the player gets to do the narration, within the parameters of the success. The narrator has final say on what the final outcome is, although this may well be influenced by the player.

Hi

Quote from: Lamorak33
5. Be prepared to make up fun out of failure. Its probably the hardest technique, because its thinking on your feet.
Aaron:
It seems to me this is done by making no failure absolute (e.g. no character death without player consent and always allowing a goal to be reached possibly by a different route than intended) or by rewarding failure with hero points. Are there are ways?

Rob:
What I mean here is that whatever the contest, be prepared for it to fail. Like in a combat with some Broo's I knew that if the players lost then the broo's would impregnate them!! Nice! lol

Quote from: Lamorak33
4. Don't expect your players to be proactive. If they learn that fine, but your the GM.

Aaron:
Would you expand more on this, particularly the second sentence? I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

Rob
Just make sure that you have something, anything, prepared to throw at players who might not have some way they want their characters to go. For example, if player X turns up and hasn't got any clear ideas about what he wants his character to do, make sure that you, as the GM, have something to engage the player with. You know a bang or some other device. Otherwise you might end up givingthat player no screen time in that session. This is bad. Its happened to me.

Quote from: Lamorak33
6. Remember that you in a successful contest roll, the player gets to do the narration, within the parameters of the success. The narrator has final say on what the final outcome is, although this may well be influenced by the player.

Aaron
That's really going to throw my players for a loop, but I've given them advance warning. Hope they'll like it!

Rob:
I learnt this the hard way. I had this guy playing and I narrated the outcome if his character succeeded at a roll. He would often say, 'Nah! My guy wouldn't do that, he'd....' and then tell us all the cool thing that his character had done to effect the AP loss to his opponent, or how he had achieved victory (guided by how complete the success was).

Sometimes quiet players like some help; some like the GM to describe what happened; others like to do it for themselves. I encourage narration from the players, but I don't enforce it. Its meant to be fun, so I don't ask folks to do stuff they arenot comfortable with.

Regards
Rob

It was certainly a transition for us when we switched over to this style of play. I always recommend reading Chris's articles on flag framing and ways to play:

http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/flag-framing_03.html
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/waystoplay.html

as well as Well of Souls:

http://www.geocities.com/doctorpeace/well.html

A couple of things that we found people had to unlearn early on:

• The Party Play instinct. Bangs are often directed at what one player cares about. Other players may not care about it. That means that you might have to work with players doing different things while you cut between them. The learned behaviour to 'not split the party' can be counter-productive, because you will find it hard to write bangs that resonate with everyone. Don't be afraid of conflict between the players. But keep it out in the open, don't allow plotting or note-passing. If a  player wants to betray another player he should be able to look him or her in the eye and say 'It would be more fun if I betrayed you'.
• Provide the players with bangs that their abilities relate to. This can be really important in HQ because the skills a character has depend on what the player wants the hero to be good at. So one character might be good at killing things, another at talking. You need to drive with bangs the hero can use their skills on. Throwing sword-fighting bangs against a hero who has taken merchant skills gets boring for that player. He or she identified what abilities they wanted to use when they wrote their character. Let them. Sure once in a while, giving a player a challenge that their skill set seems ill-suited for is entertaining, but once in a while. HQ characters are often not rounded. Don't force players to use a default ability of 6 too often
• Say yes or roll the dice. HeroQuest has a lot of advice about saying yes, but learn from DiTV and say yes where possible, but if you don't agree roll those dice. In Red Cow one of the heroes was exiled from the clan. The chief's authority on the matter was questionable. I had imagined the player trying to clear the hero's name. I had some bangs set up with choices. One where his estranged brother - a Lunar convert - would offer him help, and a chance of reconciliation with their father. Instead the player decided he wanted to take shelter with the neighbouring clan. My initial instinct to this new direction, which I had not considered, was 'they wouldn't want to harbour an exile, the risk of conflict with the Red Cow...' but instead of saying no, I let the dice decide. We played out the conflict I was internalizing - they wouldn't allow that - and we had a scene where the hero had to convince the neighbouring clan to let him hide out. He won.
• Complete victory or defeat is hard to come by. The real resolution to a conflict comes on a complete defeat or victory. They are hard to come by outside of an extended conflict (unless the hero has built up a mastery or two advantage). Sometimes folks consider this a problem with the resolution mechanics, but I'm not so sure. Complete means its over and done, the finalie ought to be an extended contest if we care about it. It also means that sticking with simple contests usually allows you to advance a conflict without risking of prematurely terminating it, until the time is right to give an opportunity to really resolve it. Think in terms of pacing when deciding between the two.
• Setting the stakes. It helped us to set the stakes explicity before a conflict. Mainly because it taught the players that defeat just meant a new story direction. Some folks don't like explicit stake setting fro HQ. But it worked for us, perhaps as training wheels, for folks less used to this style of play.

Hi

Ian wrote:

• Setting the stakes. It helped us to set the stakes explicity before a conflict. Mainly because it taught the players that defeat just meant a new story direction. Some folks don't like explicit stake setting fro HQ. But it worked for us, perhaps as training wheels, for folks less used to this style of play.

Ian wrote:

• Setting the stakes. It helped us to set the stakes explicity before a conflict. Mainly because it taught the players that defeat just meant a new story direction. Some folks don't like explicit stake setting fro HQ. But it worked for us, perhaps as training wheels, for folks less used to this style of play.

aaronil wrote:
While the HQ rules say you use one ability to augment another, I'm inclined to make one change: circumstances can augment too (and they can augment A LOT based on the sample modifiers on pg. 77). For automatic augments I'd limit it to previously narrated circumstances (either by Narrator of by player in monologue of victory). Whereas risky augments can be used to discover previously unstated circumstances (as long as they don't contradict anything), though to make them possible I'll need to reduce the resistance (which would normally be desired bonus x5, and in the case of having the high ground (+10) the resistance would be 10W2!)

sebastianz wrote: Okay, why would you do that? And how? I mean, what does it add to the game if your players have to roll to get a circumstantial bonus? I can see that they should work for it. But a nice narration of how they utilize the terrain, for example, should suffice. After all, there is only high ground (to stick with this example) if you want it to be there.

Now, how? You say something about "risky augments" and what you quote sounds like a variable augment. For that you want to lower the resistance. Okay so far, but what do your players roll? Using a variable augment means using the augmenting ability and rolling against the resistance. That works fine. But what is the ability I roll against higher ground? And can I not aim for a totally different number? Why should higher ground always mean +10, if I just can make less use of it and lower the resistance? Therefore, I think your idea needs some further thought.

Perhaps you should just use HQ without houserules, at least at first. Then you can see what works for your group and what doesn't.

Aaron

Maybe you should at least try 'vanilla' Heroquest before going with new house rules. Hey, there's no Heroquest Police who are going to knock down your door and arrest you for making up house rules, but see how the system works in practice first is not such a bad suggestion.

The thing is that, looking for tactical advantage in numbers on dice rolling is inconsistent with the agenda you seem to be saying that you are aiming for. It is also a flag to the players that tactical thinking is a desired part of the game, when your really shooting (if I read you right) drama and co-operative story telling.

regards
Rob

[Note! Cross-posted with Rob.]

Hmm. You do not want to pick modifiers, modifiers listed in the book. On the other hand you intend to use the numbers suggested in the book, at least as a baseline. This strikes me as a bit contradictory. Also, what about penalties? As for a logical mechanism: No, there is none. All the numbers are arbitrary, though they (probably) try to be consistent. As a guideline, look at the improv penalty suggestion in the narrator's chapter.
+/- 5 is the default you use if something should have impact but is nothing special,
+/- 10 is a solid advantage or disadvantage, but still nothing out of the ordinary,
+/-15 is a significant (dis)advantage and
+/- 20 is more or less the best single modification there is. Compare that to a surprise attack. Is there really time to react?

OK, now I will offer some more ideas. Why roll? You don't wanna pick the modifier? Then let your players do it.

GM: Ten knights are rushing you.
Player: Ah. I look for a rock to have high ground. What bonus will I get?
GM: What do you think?

One problem that I see with your approach and which I believe to be against what you want, is that it is "tactical" as you put it. All this tactics stuff is already in there. Just allow your players to narrate stuff and all the tactics they like. And give them a big bonus for that or, as suggested, let them do it. Otherwise they will remember D&D and roll for group tactical advantage just for the sake of getting that bonus. There lingers some kind of adversary. Also, most contests are simple contests. They take just one roll on all sides to be resolved. Making an extra roll tells your players, that this roll has some significance. If you roll for a variable augment, the player probably has chosen to do so himself and he escalates things a bit more. While he can get a higher bonus than automatically, he can also lose. So, if you want your players to roll for these modifiers, you tell them that this is important for the game. Suddenly it is less important why you have that contest but how you solve it.
I see that you want to give your players more tactical choices, but all you do is to add more rolling. This higher ground could be there and one step for the players could be to reach it before the opposition does. Or they can devise a cunning plan to use it for their advantage otherwise. Like shooting at them once they are up there. Anyway, if your players choose the number, you tell them that it is not about winning but about working together to get a fun story. That is what you want, right?
Now, if you want to have a bit more tactics but not that competition, you could set up two pools of points for modification. They get 100 points and you get 100 points.
You use your pool for penalties and they get their pool for a bonus. Set a limit of 20 points. If you penalize, they cannot use their pool, but they get your points in their pool. If they use their points you cannot penalize and do not get their points. With this method you get something of both. First, it is cool for them if you penalize, cause they get more points for later use. Second, they have a limited number for the whole adventure/session/what ever you want. So they have to do some strategizing of this resource. They also choose the number on what is important for them. So it's like.

GM: Ten knights are rushing you.
Player: Ah. I look for a rock to have high ground. What do you think of +15?
GM: Sound like a hell of a rock you got there!

That is just a rough idea and some further thoughts for you. I do not want to talk you out of your idea (well, perhaps a bit) but rather consider the consequences such a change has. Therefore again my advice: First try it as it is and then go and experiment. Or, make a few test sessions comparing different rules. Solely for that purpose.

Sebastian.

sebastianz wrote:
Hmm. You do not want to pick modifiers, modifiers listed in the book. On the other hand you intend to use the numbers suggested in the book, at least as a baseline. This strikes me as a bit contradictory.

As a guideline, look at the improv penalty suggestion in the narrator's chapter.

OK, now I will offer some more ideas. Why roll? You don't wanna pick the modifier? Then let your players do it.

One problem that I see with your approach and which I believe to be against what you want, is that it is "tactical" as you put it. All this tactics stuff is already in there. Just allow your players to narrate stuff and all the tactics they like. And give them a big bonus for that or, as suggested, let them do it. Otherwise they will remember D&D and roll for group tactical advantage just for the sake of getting that bonus.

Also, most contests are simple contests. They take just one roll on all sides to be resolved. Making an extra roll tells your players, that this roll has some significance. If you roll for a variable augment, the player probably has chosen to do so himself and he escalates things a bit more. While he can get a higher bonus than automatically, he can also lose. So, if you want your players to roll for these modifiers, you tell them that this is important for the game. Suddenly it is less important why you have that contest but how you solve it.

I see that you want to give your players more tactical choices, but all you do is to add more rolling.

Now, if you want to have a bit more tactics but not that competition, you could set up two pools of points for modification. They get 100 points and you get 100 points.

Therefore again my advice: First try it as it is and then go and experiment. Or, make a few test sessions comparing different rules. Solely for that purpose.

Actually, for one of my players (an avid SCA participant and medieval recreationist) this makes a lot of sense. However, for the others it might not work too well (at least at first) because they're not familiar with the system and one is a firm gamist who would tend to max out his bonuses. Still, I like the spirit of the idea! Perhaps I will end up doing this if I can come up with simple readily comprehensible guidelines for creating modifiers.
Point well taken. I'll add that arguing good-naturedly over poorly defined modifiers is not desirable either because it takes up more time than I want - and this is what I anticipate the HQ modifier system as written doing (at least in my group). To me, such arguments lead to gamism...And our goal is to shift more towards narrativism (at least as an experiment).

Just so I'm clear, what makes it so that the how is more important than the why?

I see what you mean about adding extra rolling for an augmented contest. Right now I'm inclined to use the augment rules as written, with the following proviso: You may declare you are taking advantage of an environmental condition suitable to the setting; if so, it becomes part of the scene (or possibly the ongoing saga) and may be used by allies and enemies alike. No major changes to rules, but keeps the spirit of what I'm shooting for. Of course, whether it provides the same advantage for anyone using it is up for debate. If it's a modifier then (according to HQ core) the bonus would be constant. If it's an augment the bonus would depend on the character's ability to take advantage of it (e.g. Know Tactics to use higher ground more effectively than a character without that ability).

Interesting idea, Sebastian. Did you just come up with this, is it a house rule in your games, or from another RPG?

Hi

This thread has got me reading some of my old e-mail's when I was learning the kind of play that you seem to b shooting for. I found an interesting passage that you might find helpful to consider,

"The process of altering a RPG to accommodate your mode is called "Drift." Basically I think that HQ supports Narrativism with the least amount of drift. I think it supports simulationism with a lot of drift. And I think it really doesn't support gamism at all without really altering the rules dramatically (might as well be playing something else). "

I didn't write that, but I agree with it wholeheartedly. Therefore I think you should be cautious about sending gamist signals to gamist players while using a game system that does not support that style of play at all/ very little.

Here is a gross example: If you run a dungeon bash using HQ then your players may well end wondering why you don't just use D&D, and they would be right in my opinion. D&D does that much better. But if you run a game where community and relationships matter, and the drama of combat is more important than the process of hacking cantels of one another, then Heroquest does it better, because it codifies what is important to the player about the character, and does not just create a generic type character. Think about it, the D&D Level 4 warrior is very similar in terms of numbers to the next D&D Level 4 warrior. The differences will be the superficial characterisation the player adds in terms of name and backstory (if any) and the kit which will be the 'badges' the player has earned through good play.

Therefore, if you want to get a different approach from your players, then I suggest don't present the same type of play they are used to with inferior mechanisms than they are used to. If they ask for a tactical bonus, enjoy their engagement with the game, give them a quick of hand bonus and move on. This signifies that its not a priority. If you dwell on it then they will probably see it as the way HQ should be played, when really it is your accommodation of their perceived preferred style of play.

Regards
Rob

Hi

I mentioned this before, but have you considered running 'Last Days at Skullpoint' from the Heroquest Gathering Thunder book? It was written by Ron Edwards, is Narratavism supporting. I started running it for my group just before we concluded our campaign due to external factors. It was developing nicely with a few interesting twists and turns. I have no hesitation in recommending it. Now that I have finished my degree I will be on the lookout for a group to run it for again. (if you live in London drop me a line!)

Regards
Rob

I'm sorta ambivalent here. What you may find, what I've found, is that you end up using very few situational modifiers at all. That's whether or not you use your particular rule. So, that being the case, why bother? Basically I think you'll find it a non-issue in play.

That said, this isn't really a modification to the rules. You're simply applying a rather more radical standard on when to use Variable Augments. As long as you're applying some judgement to the process, it'll turn out fine. That said, we're all talking in circles here with regards to what level to set augments at. The problem is that you keep wanting to pander to the players' gamism. You say that they'll be disappointed by the lack of tactical options. That's completely intentional. Rather, if you want tactical play, I really don't suggest HQ.

Let me be clear by what I mean by tactical play. I mean that the player, through use of tactics, proves that he is good at playing the game. That's not the same as the character using tactics. If it's merely the player describing the tactics his character is using then it's just cool narrative color. Both can be fun. HQ supports only one (like Rob points out above).

For instance, if a player says, "My character is looking for high ground so I can get a bonus." This is the player trying to win the contest. Either there is high ground for him to get a bonus from, or there is not.

So the order of things for gamism is:
1. Contest is declared by narrator which describes the situation (or, for which the situation is known).
2. Abilities are declared along with aguments by player.
3. Player looks around for bonuses to pad his chances of success.

For narrativism:
1. Narrator declares contest.
2. Narrator suggests that player will have bonus for situation.
3. Player declares abilities and augments.

See the difference? Quite simply do not let the player have an opportunity to play tactically. Just do the contest.

Does the player disagree with some modifier? Well, how can he? Yes, the levels are sort vague. That's intentional. In step 2 above, you say that the player should get a +10 due to height? And the player says it should be +15? What does he base that on?

Player: "How high is the elevation difference?"
Narrator: "Enough to give you a +10."

Find this to lack consistency? Then just don't to situational modifiers in most cases. Make the contest all about the drama between his character and the opposition, and not about how high the hill is.

Players still going to use the gamism order of events above, and ask for modifiers? Do this:

Player: "Shouldn't his elevation give him an advantage?"
Narrator: "Is it important? If you think so, take a +5."

The point is to indicate to the player that you're adding the bonus based on making it an interesting contest, not based on him being clever.
Now, does this mean that tactics don't come into play at all? Nope, it means that they come into play as part of the resolution. Player have some interesting ideas for his character's tactics? Then let him narrate.

Narrator: "Hmm, Minor Victory. I think you run him off. Go ahead and narrate that."
Player: "Cool. OK, my character circles the opponent looking for a weak spot. When he finds it he feints right, and then dodges left taking advantage of a rock that he steps up on and leaps down at his opponent, hitting him right where he plans to."

Character looks good, the player gets to display his knowledge of tactics, but stays informed that HQ resolution is not about trying to win. This is important. If players are trying to win, personally (as opposed to simply adding things up because they sympathize with the character's goals), then they will find failure to be unfun. And the propensity for the HQ system to create failure becomes a problem for such a player (the usual response to which is the player saying that it's "unrealistic, which from his POV it is).

As far as narrating things in...I used to say that too, that players should have to narrate augments. Until I realized that sometimes when an augment is mentioned...it just makes sense. Like you're fighting to save your girlfriend and the player says, "In Love with Griselda +2" everyone just nods in a "well, of course" sort of way. You simply don't have to have the player say, "In the midst of the fight, he looks and sees his lady loves eyes, and is inspired to fight harder." I wouldn't stop any player who wanted to narrate that in, but I simply wouldn't require it, either.

Where I do require "work" on the part of the player is when they augment with something where I can't see the applicability. Instead of simply vetoing it, I'll ask, "Wait, wait. How does your character's Intimidating Beard help him with this cooking contest?"
Player: "He's browbeating the other kitchen help to do exactly what he says."
Me: "Oh, OK, that's +3 more."

Ian, great notes. On the subject of explicit stake setting...I think I beat Ron to the punch with his recent statements that explicit stake setting can be problematic, when I said a while back that I think you don't have to always do this. Oh, by the rules in HQ, you do have to get a goal statement from the player. And that's important, I'd agree. That actually frames the contest more than anything, I feel, however. Most importantly, I don't always actually negotiate the potential outcomes of contests. Yeah, if you need this as "training wheels" go for it. But I think you can move past it pretty quickly. Once players know that you as narrator are looking out to keep their characters protagonists and give them things to do as players even as a result of failure, then I think that you are free to assign any sort of failure you want.

Oh, I ask, "How does that sound?" after assigning a failure, in many cases. But I don't tell the player what's going to happen if they fail up front in 90% of cases. Heck, last night, as a side effect of a victory, I had the veil get knocked off of this elf maiden who has "Enrapturing Beauty 10W4" which caused all in the room to have to roll to see if they fell in love with her (two did). So I even reserve the right to meddle with victory narrations. To say nothing of defeats.

Perhaps surprisingly to some people, while I think that the term Narrator is lousy in general for the GM position in HQ, I do think that if it means, "He who narrates resolutions" that it's just fine. I like to keep that power for myself. That's supported by the rules (to say nothing of RPG tradition).

Does that mean that I don't let players narrate? No, I let them do that all the time. But it's a power that devolves from me, and I reserve the right to do the narration myself unless I specifically reliquish it. Because as the "story advocate" the narrator is in a unique position to move the story forward with narration of resolution. Players may do this as well, actually. But with the duty lying at the narrator's feet, he's just more likely to do a good job it seems to me.

So I mostly only devolve the power to a player if/when I have nothing special that I'm seeing as a way to drive the story forward as a result of the narration. In that case, the player can't do any worse than I would.

Mike

Hi

Sage words from Mike,

Mike wrote:

Perhaps surprisingly to some people, while I think that the term Narrator is lousy in general for the GM position in HQ, I do think that if it means, "He who narrates resolutions" that it's just fine. I like to keep that power for myself. That's supported by the rules (to say nothing of RPG tradition).

Does that mean that I don't let players narrate? No, I let them do that all the time. But it's a power that devolves from me, and I reserve the right to do the narration myself unless I specifically reliquish it. Because as the "story advocate" the narrator is in a unique position to move the story forward with narration of resolution. Players may do this as well, actually. But with the duty lying at the narrator's feet, he's just more likely to do a good job it seems to me.

So I mostly only devolve the power to a player if/when I have nothing special that I'm seeing as a way to drive the story forward as a result of the narration. In that case, the player can't do any worse than I would.