I have an interesting dilemma in my Heroquest game, that I would like to discuss here.

So, I guess the only way to do so is to provide the Actual Play, but that may take some context so please be patient (skip to Now to the Dilemma if you really don't care about that stuff but some people will see this next bit as vital).

Background & History of the Group
The group is made up of friends that socialise together occasionally, but primarily the group is there to play games together. The reason this particular group exists was that HeroWars was released and a couple of us really wanted to get back into Gloranthan gaming, and saw something in the new game that suggested potential.

However, we were in for a long learning curve, as the rules and the HeroQuest rules that followed were a long way from our various backgrounds:
RuneQuest, Call of Cuthulu, Pendragon, World of Darkness, 1st ed. D&D, Tunnels & Trolls, Shadowrun, Paranoia, In Nomine.

My Previous Experiences as a GM
Before this group came together I had run some RQ,  Pendragon, CoC/Delta Green, next to none of this experience with any of the current group. The only problem area had been running RQ, I was never comfortable with it, I was always forced to fudge things to get anything to work out the way I envisaged. RQ placed such an emphasis on combat, and I realised it was my job to balance the opposition in this style of game, but it just wasn't my skill, I was more interested in the background and telling a story. Looking back I resorted to illusionism, and the players just let me get away with it.

Early experiences with HW/HQ
HQ is not RQ, and now it is obvious that the style supported is different, but when I first read it I thought "Cool now we can have different things instead of combat as the climax of the game". My entire experience had been based on the model:

• Introduce scenario
• Allow players to work out what is happening by revealing the plot bit by bit
• Heighten the drama
• Build to a final confrontation
• Big Fight

So I saw the Extended Contests as just a way of swapping the "Big Fight" for any big climatic scene.
Our first playtest did just this, ( a big clan debate), and it seemed to work. We were enthused by the possibilities, and decided to embark upon a campaign, and I volunteered to continue GM duties but new group, time to try and change my style.

Early Problems
So I made it clear that I was not interested in such issues of balance and predetermined plot. I would be providing the background, the players would do stuff, and I would react and shape the world around them. To be honest I was still falling back on illusionism, thinking up cool situations to put the players in, but I was sure that as long as the players did things then the story would emerge.

Well it did and it didn't, I picked an unfleshed out area of Glorantha (Right-Arm Isles for those interested), so that I could provide a reasonably flexible background, and my political outlook held me in good stead when it came to background and NPC reactions. However, the players often got lost in the possibilities, and looked to me for clues. Initially I just said "do anything" but bit by bit I felt that I was expected to provide plot. When this was done I had good feedback, and the players appreciated by background preparation, but I knew this wasn't what I wanted. I wanted to "play" the political system and the NPC's as a realistic reactive force, surely the players would get it soon, "just do stuff guys".

My real problem was that when they did just do stuff it was as individuals not as a group, and the only way to encourage group play was to provide scenarios. At one point I nearly hit on full Narrativist play by accident, when I provided a villiage with a secret, and fleshed out everything else based on player character interactions with the villagers. But it was a one off fluke.

Mostly I had to switch between my style, and the expected style in order to make progress.

The Forge and Game Theory
without looking for answers I found the Well of Souls thread in the HeroQuest forums here at the forge, and after spending time reading the theory articles and many threads here in the actual play forums I slowly but surely realised our group was pulling in at least three directions Creative Agenda wise. And that my style was mainly Narrativist.

My Changes
I decided to make four fundamental changes to my play.

• Utilise scene framing to provide pace and story structure
• Enumerate Goals, only allow Character Improvements once goals were met, and use goals as flags
• Concentrate on conflict resolution not task resolution
• Use a map of the political situation (a very complex relationship map) to provide conflict and bangs

OK that is the background thanks for your patience.

Now to the Dilemma

Now things are going better than expected, a few teething problems with staying focused on conflict resolution (note to self keep asking "why" not "What"), but the plot is emergent and scarily fast, two weeks in and we have progressed about 5 weeks based on previous pace. Story is a mixture of emergent plot, resolution of old plotlines (resolution! oh joy) and map based NPC plot.

But therein lies a problem that I would never have guessed.

I have always been clear that due to my style, I was making up a large proportion of stuff as we went along. The only difference now is that I have removed the veil. My political map of the city which contains nearly every NPC or faction of importance to the plot and how they interact (60 or so nodes) is now public. I think it will be easier for the players to understand the agenda if I am open about my techniques.

In Thursday's game the player characters were Interviewing/interrogating a high ranking official that has been exposed as partly responsible for their many problems over the years. He was revealed as one of a group who sold a ship to a 'trusted' NPC who in turn passed it onto the PCs, which turned out to be real trouble (undead complications ensued). The ship was the focus of most of the previous campaign, and has recently been destroyed by PC actions.

The PCs are trying to expose one of those responsible for the whole mess, and true to my game style and agenda I had not actually decided, because things change and I try and remain flexible with plot. I think the players perceived me as having kept this vital secret for the last six years. Yes we have been playing this campaign on and off for that long, now you know why I am keen on resolution.

So, in my new spirit of openness I reach for my political map and pick the guy that ticks the most boxes to get the best bang. Oh look, its the head of the rival trading faction to one of the characters, that has always been there in the PCs background but never fully explored before. That sounds cool. And it was, ideas and perceived wheels within wheels immediately jumped to the players minds and we are set up for more fun.

But.

One of my players told me yesterday that he felt cheated. In his words from an MSN discussion (with permission)

After all that work we did uncovering a significant machinator in the plot, it seemed
that the character never even existed. The person we had manipulated, cajoled, politic'd
and threatened into revealing had no relationship to the one he was protecting at all.
There was no reason for him to be frightened of revealing his name, no compassion for
an old friend or desire to drop a rival in to trouble.

Now part of this is a misreading of the scene by the player, as the revealed name is not necessarily a major player unless they want to emphasise this, and he has always existed as part of a player's background.

But, the issue as I see it is that the player doesn't want me to spoil the illusion that the NPCs are real; introducing an NPC in this manner makes the experience feel less convincing to him.

I have clarified that he does approve of NPCs being introduced primarily to fit with back story and character relationships. And, that ignoring how I came to the decision, he does think that my choice of NPC was a good one.

And, I have attempted to make my point that if I keep my reasons a secret then it may make players act in a way that is not suited to my agenda.

I did inform him and everyone else that this was how I had been doing it all along, but now it has hit home. And this player isn't comfortable with it.

Anyone been here before?

Is this an intractable issue?

Should I maintain a screen between me and the players in this regard?

Hey Jamie,

You're certainly not the only person to have ever experienced this sort of feeling from folks in play. I'd like to ask if you could clarify what kind of response you're looking for regarding this because I could see suggestions coming from a lot of different angles. Basically there are ways to prep such that you could well know that x is the guy behind y without it being up in the air and shifting behind the scenes and without that prep being railroady or deprotagonizing for the players. Classic Sorcerer prep is all about that sort of thing. I'm not sure if that's what you're asking for though, because it seems like what you're doing is pretty successful for the group with the exception of this player. You might just be asking if there's a way to keep your newer style of play and satisfy this player at the same time, and that's a different kettle of fish. Can you clarify a bit what direction you're hoping this takes?

-Tim

Hi,

I'll be a little pushier than Tim ... what I'm seeing seems to be a bit of confusion about these two things.

1. The back-story. Who killed the butler. Who's screwing whom. Why this guy has his tongue cut out. "What's going on."

2. The absolutely unknown plot which can only become real plot through play itself. A fundamental feature of Narrativist play.

A lot of folks with the background you're describing stumble over how these things can be related. As it turns out, they can be related lots of different ways.

However, for HeroQuest, Sorcerer, The Burning Wheel, The Riddle of Steel. Conspiracy of Shadows, Dogs in the Vineyard, Trollbabe, and some related games ...

... #1 is best left fixed, not to be adjusted through play itself. In this, your friend is "right," or to put it better, his aesthetic sensibilities are on target.

I hope it's not too confusing to say as well that a certain looseness can be preserved, but it's a matter of a jot here or a tittle there, not leaving whodunit (for instance) up for grabs.

The good thing is that #2 is still left wide, wide open. For instance, you may find that players like a given character who did something really bad in the back-story (or for that matter, in an earlier session). And they want to take his side and fight his enemies. In an illusionist game of the sort you used to run, that might be disastrous, as this guy was the bad guy, and the Big Fight was supposed to be with him. In the kind of game we're talking about now, though, it's all well and good, and you just continue to play the guy according to your vision of him, and what happens, happens.

Am I on the right track with answering your questions? My current assumption is that in driving hard toward achieving #2, you also allowed yourself a great deal of flexibility with #1, in the sense that some folks here call "No Myth" (although it's an imprecise term, I think). That sort of thing works really, really well in games like The Mountain Witch, Primetime Adventures, and Best Friends, but not so much with the games I mentioned earlier.

Best, Ron

I dunno if this is an illusionist suggestion, but can't you make up the relationship (relative to the current factors) and pretend it was there all along "Of course there is no connection - he made damn sure to hide them all, because the guy he is protecting is his own son, from a rape he commited years ago and has wrung himself guiltily about ever since (while supporting this guy)!"

I mean sure, they'll probably see through you. But I dunno, do they really want a puzzle created in proper causal order to undo, or do they want some wicked trauma/issues to be shown up after all their hard work and politicing? If the latter, sure you've lagged a bit in giving them their prize, but you can still add something.

Hi Ron,

Ron wrote:
Am I on the right track with answering your questions? My current assumption is that in driving hard toward achieving #2, you also allowed yourself a great deal of flexibility with #1

Hi again Ron,

After some thought, I am still finding this a difficult distinction.  The problem isn't that your two examples are not distinct, but that in practice the lines get blurred.

For instance, in my game, I have a number of background plot elements, all of which contain NPCs that have a reasonably concrete roll in the ongoing story. In that, their actions and attitudes will probably remain consistant and their effect on play will be mainly to act as antagonists. Stirring up plot lines and effecting NPCs that fall into category 2.

This is where my situation can be seen as a blurring of the two categories, as the NPC revealed during play was clearly in my mind type #2. But because of his interaction with a type #1 NPC he has been cast by the players as a "type #1.5 guy". If my full workings had been revealed it would have been clear that this guy was only dragged into the story to make their route to the #1 antagonist more complex and more atmospheric. I introduced a consortium of political players into the mix to add a feeling of conspiracy.

My problem therefore clearly is related to your category distinctions, but I propose, whenever the plot of the game begins to converge on the back story plot elements this grey area will continue to be a problem.

I am not convinced that their isn't a more fundamental problem at the heart of this. This is by no means the first time I have been open about who I introduced into the plot. When players put me on the spot, it is not in my nature to pretend to have all the answers. However, this is the first time this has happened after I have made overt changes to my employed techniques. I believe this change has made the player in question nervous about how the game will work, and concerned that his fun in the game will be diminished. He is more openly critical over things now than before, which may be just useful feedback, but may also reflect his frustrations and fears.

I have been surprised at how difficult it has been to discuss this issue with him, there is more than a simple communication barrier at the heart of this. At one point we went completely round the houses on the idea of "maintaining the illusion" and realised that we had no idea what the other actually meant by the word illusion, and I am reasonably sure we were not talking about illusionism anywhere, so this wasn't a theory thing. He seems to be worried that I am somehow turning my game into a pure narrativist game, rather than a game where I more conciously employ a few techniques to guide things along more smoothly.

So, we have three possible solutions as I see it. But each may have problems.

Put the veil back: may please the player in question, but a couple of other players have been far more invested in the game since I made my diagrams and workings clear.

Make NPC category distinctions clearer round the table: Would be very artificial, and could make more sim grounded players see play as a two tier affair.

Keep on as I am: Which relies on the player coming round to my way of thinking, or at least being less frustrated, or runs the risk of him remaining dissatisfied.

I may be tying myself up in knots here, if there is a clearer way of seeing this I would love to know.

Hi Callan,

Callan wrote:
I dunno if this is an illusionist suggestion, but can't you make up the relationship (relative to the current factors) and pretend it was there all along "Of course there is no connection - he made damn sure to hide them all, because the guy he is protecting is his own son, from a rape he committed years ago and has wrung himself guiltily about ever since (while supporting this guy)!"

I mean sure, they'll probably see through you. But I dunno, do they really want a puzzle created in proper causal order to undo, or do they want some wicked trauma/issues to be shown up after all their hard work and politicing? If the latter, sure you've lagged a bit in giving them their prize, but you can still add something.

Hi there,

Hey Callan, if you could, please give me a few posts of exchange to work with Steve one-on-one for a bit. Your input and questions are excellent, but this is probably necessary for a number of reasons.

Steve, I'll post in reply shortly. Settle in for a bit of intensity.

Best, Ron

Ron,

Intensisty is OK, but my name is Jamie. I am struggling to see where the name Steve came from, so I will put it down to Mondays.

Hi Jamie,

Sorry ‘bout the name thing. I could have sworn some guy named Steve had a “weaver” Forge handle …

Anyway, I want to go over three things: (1) a look at prepped characters vs. non-prepped characters and their respective relationship to plot (i.e. events during play); (2) dealing with the real people, their access to information about your GMing, and the Black Curtain; and (3) a general point about Narrativism that is pretty abstract, but I’m pretty sure will be helpful to you.

PART ONE

I am suggesting that the reason your lines get blurred lies with you. The blurring is not fundamental to the interaction between the two sorts of NPCs, nor is it fundamental to the basic priority of Narrativist play.

What I’m seeing in your description of background plot elements contains a self-imposed limitation of your use of prepped NPCs. This is exactly the problem – the “knot” in your mind. You say,

… in my game, I have a number of background plot elements, all of which contain NPCs that have a reasonably concrete roll in the ongoing story. In that, their actions and attitudes will probably remain consistant and their effect on play will be mainly to act as antagonists.

Hi Ron,

That is far too long a piece to make a quick reply and do it any justice, there are some spot on points and some wide of the mark points, and I think it would be useful to clarify each in detail to make progress.

So at this time I will just deal with the last point.

I am under no illusion that a Narrativist game needs no preparation, and a large amount of prep has gone into my game, however, I am definitely guilty of talking down my preparation time.

I am not the best at balancing such things, I will prepare too much some weeks and others too little. But I always have a large amount of background prep to fall back on.  Direct play prep involves trying to be clear on the NPCs that are likely to be key to scenes. I know their past actions, how they will react in certain situations and what they want from players and other NPCs. I will also prepare scenes that provoke action by hitting on player goals.

Most of my deeper prep involves deep thought on NPC groupings and motivations which turn into brief notes or diagrams. I also construct some direction that the world is moving in i.e. grander than play level politics to provide a backdrop. I prepare thematic issues that are important to play and deep background on plot elements.

To provide context I will lay open the thematic stuff without boring you with too much detail. I am working on the theme of sacrificial death, and have introduced concepts of year kings (one of the players has usurped a position that relies on ritual avoidance of death each year), daggers used in ancient rites that have been adopted for other uses in established religion, but are being corrupted or reasserted as symbols of sacrifice. A PC background involves the ritual murder of his father which was used to fuel the whole ship plot being resolved now. I could go on, but suffice to say I prep, but not in the way I used to do.

Now, I am very sure that I am touchy on illusionism, having recognised it in my older GMing days, I am perhaps too guarded against it. And this motivates some of my actions, and almost certainly contributes to a fake bravado of not preparing. I guess I am just trying to give out the message that I don't want to dictate the whole plot, but err on the other side too strongly.

But, this talking down process had best stop, as I think I may be leading the player in question to believe the hype. If I make a virtue of not having stuff written down or set in concrete, and also talk about my style as open to players choosing the direction of the plot, he probably thinks that I have no plot as he would recognise it. This combined with times that I clearly am improvising, as I do when things take an interesting turn and I wish to explore that, probably gives the wrong impression.

The scene that provoked the NPC revelation at the heart of this problem was me reacting to a scene that I didn't see coming in the way that the players may have thought I would have. So I was thinking on my feet. The players were interrogating an NPC that held vital info on another known NPC but they took the interrogation down a route that I was unprepared for. I wanted to play up the grey-area morality of the NPC and they went for the "he may be innocent" "we have been previously lied to" route, and led the interrogation down a much more clear cut "give us all the names" route that I was not prepared for at that moment. And considering the emotional blackmail they employed and the relevent system results, the vital name in this context had to be worth their time so I chose one who was. It cut through my plot with a knife, which was fine, I wanted to reward it as such.

Maybe you are suggesting that I should have at least decided these names, I am reticent to do so unless it needs to be decided, I believe my plot benefits from this flexibility, leaving areas un-decided gives me the ability to work things in much more directly. The NPC was after all a name on my diagram, which gives context to his position in my political background and fleshes him out in a broad brush stroke manner (who he is allied to, who he is against). He is also a natural enemy to one PC.

I mentioned "pure narrativism" because I found myself needing to reassure the player in question that I had no intention of turning the sessions into dramatic improvisation. I meant to place the original mention of this in quotes, and I don't imagine the style to have any relationship to this activity.

Take your time, Jamie. That's a useful clarification and I don't mind waiting for the others.

Please remember, too, that I can only work with what you write. If your first posts were over-representing your degree of improvisation, then there's no way for me to tell that.

Best, Ron

Hi again Ron,

The real issue with doing this kind of exercise is getting it all in, what we do and how we go about those things round the table is so complex at times that a brief actual play post is bound to have some points hanging. I tried to give the history up front, so that I didn't need to go over that again with any possible future Actual Play. I am happy to clarify and identify weak points so "kick the tires" all you want. By expressing my fake bravado to prep and why I find myself doing it makes me realise how that probably effects things, so it all helps.

I will turn to part one now which has a mixed resonance with the situation and my hunch is will yeild some fruit.

Ron wrote:
I am suggesting that the reason your lines get blurred lies with you. The blurring is not fundamental to the interaction between the two sorts of NPCs, nor is it fundamental to the basic priority of Narrativist play.

What I’m seeing in your description of background plot elements contains a self-imposed limitation of your use of prepped NPCs. This is exactly the problem – the “knot” in your mind. You say,

… in my game, I have a number of background plot elements, all of which contain NPCs that have a reasonably concrete roll in the ongoing story. In that, their actions and attitudes will probably remain consistant and their effect on play will be mainly to act as antagonists.

If I want to play an NPC with a more dynamic/reactive role in the story, then that NPC is also entirely improvisational, in his or her existence and features and behavior.

What I’m driving at is that you can have full, detailed, hard-core, not-to-be-altered prep for an NPC, and still have his or her role in the story be fully played by you, in the moment, rather than pre-set ...

(We can definitely discuss the question of techniques which do help to establish atmosphere, create a layer of influence or menace around a key NPC, and pace out / build up a key meeting. But that’s not the general issue for this post.)

Hi there,

I'm with you. What you're saying is making sense to me, and I totally agree with you that the real actions and interactions at the table aren't easily delivered in one go.

Best, Ron

Ron,

So we are into point two and I think this one is the most difficult for me to resolve.

Ron wrote:
But none of that means that you must practice full disclosure of your prep and your information. Nor does it mean you must improvise like a madman at all times during play.

What I’m suggesting is that you prep, and preserve the integrity of your prep. But now combine all that with what I said in Part One, which is to say, the NPCs’ actual actions, responses, and roles in the developing plot are totally up for grabs as you play them. By making up Sophie, that doesn’t mean you’ve pre-determined what Sophie does.

No, strike that, I have been mulling over this since I sent the last post, and I have fallen foul of something that I often warn others of.

I am a trainer of adults by trade, and I think I am attempting to coach my players in how to play my game. This is not only a bad idea, it is just plain wrong. I am treating the players as people who need to learn by my example instead of people who are fully capable of learning by exploration.

So I should just do option three, as it isn't my job to dictate play style, it is simply my job to present the dramatic situations and smooth over differences in play for the benefit of everyone.

That make more sense?

[center]How to tie a knot in three easy stages
or How not to play HeroQuest[/center]

Step One
First lay out a piece of string, making sure there are no tangles.

HeroQuest is essentially a simple game, you narrate until a conflict occurs, you enumerate the goals of that conflict, roll dice to resolve the conflict, use this to work out the consequences of the conflict, then narrate the outcome of the conflict.

Step Two
Loop the string

What I did was fine until the dice roll, but instead of just working out the consequences, I applied what should have been a transparent technique, then drew attention to said technique and stated it was cool. I then stopped the scene dead.

Step Three
Push one end of the string through the loop such that it is caught in it

A few days later a player asked "why was that technique cool, you didn't get to narrate the outcome", but all I heard was "why do you consider that cool when I don't".

Step Four
Pull both ends tight

So for two or more fruitless hours we proceeded to argue over the question, both not realising we were arguing two totally different things. Probably because we were both using the accumulated nonsensical language that we had picked during approximately 20 years of roleplaying.

Strangely, I lost a post. When you asked, "make sense?", I responded "yes." I don't know what happened to that post.

Anyway, at this point, I'm reasonably sure there's no point in restricting the conversation to just you and me any more. The knot is apparently identified and I'm not really doing much now except cheerleading. So, anyone, dive on in. Callan, thanks for stepping back a little; again, that had nothing to do with the content of your posts.

Best, Ron

Thanks for your input Ron.

You did exactly what I wasn't doing, by giving me some structured thought and allowing me to work myself through it.

But best of all, on the way to the knot I learnt a lot more, basically by leaving the hardest question until last. The scary thing is as soon as I spotted my knot I had a full on realisation of the whole problem, right down to the exact moment that the problem became an issue for the player. Hence my slightly odd last thread, which was a cathartic exercise and as such a little self indulgent, but I hope it made some sense. Typing it all out as an exact description of my realisation would have taken too long.

OK, looking back on the thread, I can't think of anything to add to it. So I will summarise, what I will try and do next:

I will endeavour to let the game and any changes I make, speak for themselves, and not try and sell them by pointing out my methods.

Related to that, I will make clear that I am not making everything up as we go along, even if some flexibility is required.

I will fill out NPCs that the players take interest in, with at least an equal effort to those in which I am interested.

Actually, that last one is so blindingly obvious to a narrativist style, I am surprised I fell into the trap, but I am still learning the ropes.

I am tempted to start an atmosphere thread straight away, as I have two or three clear examples from my games, but I need a rest from this thread lark!