Hi guys,

Over in another thread(http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9417), the different focus of play and preparation before play in HeroQuest was touched on and I mentioned that I felt HQ would have done well with a section included on that to help transition folks into the game. Christopher Kubasik request some more info, and I actually happen to be in the midst of writing an article about it, so here's some thoughts...

First, a major part of preparing for play, in my mind, regards the fundamental assumptions that folks have when coming into play. Two stumbling blocks for many folks coming from habitual play in other games are Player Input(and Author Stance) as well as what I call Interpretation.

Interpretation is the simple fact that HeroQuest demands that you as a group, as a player, interpret the setting for yourself on some level. "Your Glorantha Will Vary" isn't just permission to change things, but a simple fact, because instead of giving a dogmatic background to memorize and adhere to, you're given bare bones, and a question. HQ gives you the setting and turns it into an essay question. "What does 'We are All Us' mean to you?"

By forcing the group to interpret the setting, you're forced to ask nasty question from the start. It's like a class where you're expected to argue with the teacher.

I think if this sort of thing was laid out a bit better in the book, folks would be a better forewarned about the sort of play they're stepping into. As a player, as a GM, you are saying something about your own views through these interpretations. You're not allowed to swallow some prepackaged "thematic" bit, like a political stereotype wrapped up in a Clan or Class. You have to cut the path for yourself, and what you say has meaning. You put a bit of your views on the line, and it requires some critical thinking for interpretation.

Anyhow, given that concept, plus the necessity of Player Input(in order to give interpretation, during play itself), I have the following steps:

1. Group decides length of play in terms of sessions
2. Choose a location, choose the cultures involved
3. Group discusses and decides thematic conflict and issues at hand
4. Group outlines the conflict in concrete terms, who’s involved, over what, etc.
5. If a focal myth is used, the group discusses and creates it together
6. If personal myths are used, players create them at this point
7. Players create characters, tying them into the conflicts and issues, sharing and making suggestions
8. Narrator develops a Relationship Map based on everything so far, filling in the details of the conflict using everything above.

A timely topic, Chris, since I'll be sitting down with my players on Thursday to begin prepping for our HQ game. I like your list (so consider it snatched for use this week), but I think that considering the player characters should come a bit sooner. Not actually creating the characters (you've got that in the perfect place), but rather deciding on the broad concept of what kind of character a player wants. I can see this additional step coming in either after step #2 or #3 on your current list.

Now granted, the decisions made in steps #2-4 are deeply influenced by the character preferences of the players, but making those character preferences more explicit early on seems like it would enrich the discussion during these steps and perhaps lead it in new directions (e.g., everyone decides they want to play in Dragon Pass and focus on the Heortlings, but one player wants to play a fish out of water Western wizard--this will change the issues that will arise in game).

Just something to consider. Knowing my players (and that's it's our first HQ game), I think figuring out what "my guy" will be like is a priority they will want to engage early.

Eric

Chris--

That gets to the heart of why I've been having frustrations with the HQ game I'm running. It's not because of the players--I couldn't ask for three better players than the ones I have. They make GMing really, really easy & fun in many ways. It's not the PCs, because I think they're three incredibly cool PCs. It is, however, me & how I went into the game. I read the book, got really jazzed about the Lunar Empire (which has become one of my all-time favorite settings), decided to set the game in a certain area (Tarsh, specifically the city of Furthest), had in my head a really vague idea of a really general conflict that was going on, had the players make characters, came up with a handful on NPCs, most of whom were connected to the PCs in one way or another, & just let it go. We're now...nine or so sessions in, & while every session has been great, & everyone is having a lot of fun, I feel like it's not really going anywhere.

The biggest problem for me is focus. If I had to go back & do it all over again, I would've had things a lot more focused, especially as two of the players knew nothing about Glorantha & the third is Mike Holmes, who by his own admission has issues with the setting.

Now, in terms of your list, I have some slight disagreements. I don't think it's necessarily crucial to have the group vocalize thematic issues. I think thematic meat can come to play simply by having the heroes embroiled in some conflict or other from the get-go. And I don't think it's necessary for the group to work out the cultural & location stuff together. For Glorantha newbies, I think it can be more helpful for the GM to come to the table with "we're setting the game here, & your choices for homeland & religion are these."

But I definitely agree that this kind of thing should've been in the main book.

Chris, very nicely outlined. I agree that preparation can be a major issue with HeroQuest, as it is decidedly not the average "generate heroes and start playing" sort of system to which most people are accustomed. One thing which made setting up a campaign very simple during playtest was the Clan Questionnaire, which found its way into print (in significantly altered form) in Orlanth is Dead. I wish Issaries had equivalents for all the cultures described in the core book (and I am sure they eventually will), as it would make every narrator's job far easier.

The questionnaire guided the players through the process of determining the crucial mythic and historic events of their heroes' community and, in its original form, enabled narrators to calculate ratings for a community's wealth, morale, magic and ability to deal with mundane threats (attacks, cattle raids, etc.). While outlines on how to use these ratings to generate scenarios made their way into Barbarian Adventures, the method to determine the ratings themselves was excised. A pity, because a random community crisis was often just the thing to bridge sessions between one story-arc and another (or to fill the gaps when the narrator has no ideas of his or her own for a session).

Josh, were you ever able to acquire or peruse either Tarsh in Flames or In Wintertop's Shadow? While the former is officially out of print, there is a nice article summarizing Tarsh in the Hero Wars era here. The latter covers the Tarsh Exiles, rebels forced into the wilderness surrounding Kero Fin by the conquering Lunar forces.

No, but I did read some of the Tarsh stuff online, as well as in the Hero Wars Glorantha book. In the end, I decided I didn't care what others were doing with Tarsh--I had my own ideas of what Tarsh is like & what's going on there. I sort of collaged everything into my own Tarsh.

In the end, though, it's not Tarsh that's my problem.

Hi guys,

I agree that broad ideas of character creation need to happen earlier, but I'm referring to the point of looking at keywords, assigning abilities, and numbers, later in the process. That's why I mentioned that the numbers may overlap or happen out of order.

Second, to address Josh's concern, that's also why I mention that #3 is optional, depending on how well your group can get on the same page. My assumption is the broadest scenario, that of a group recently form, or with little communication skills regarding theme, hence the reason #3 gets mentioned so early.

On that note, Josh, have you considered how long you want your game to run? Having that time limit works wonders for driving focus into play, allowing both the Narrator and the players to pace themselves and know when to slow and speed up.

Chris

I never did think about how long I wanted the game to run. Actually, that's not quite right--what I wanted to do was run a nice, long-term, open-ended game like I used to run back in the old days. But I'm coming to the conclusion that I do better with shorter runs (anywhere from 3 to 6 sessions) than I do with long ones. When I know it's going to be a shorter run, I have more direction & I'm able to focus the game more. When it's a longer, open-ended run, I feel like the focus goes kerblooie. And then I get frustrated.

So, in a sense, I've learned my lesson. I do better with shorter, more focused runs, with the possibility of sequels, than I do with open-ended runs.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the first in-game year of play is going to be essentially pre-play for my group: introduction to HQ, re-introduction to Glorantha.. after that, I'm probably going to abuse PrimeTime Adventures 5-episode season structure and explicitly play to one season per session, choose "character premise of the week" (or setting premise, or whatever, if the characters are overdue one) and planning around that.

Hi guys,

One of the reasons I promote being up front about setting a limit to sessions for a given story arc, is that for the players to fully make use of their author stance, to bring conflicts to a climax, they need to know when and how to do so. Otherwise, players typically slide into "wait and respond" mode, because the Narrator ends up being the only one in control of when things close up.

I spent two years running Feng Shui, and my success to play was limiting my story arcs to neat 3-6 session durations. Now with a better grasp on Narrativism, I'd use that same format, except let the players in on it, for longer term play.

Chris

That can be determined on the fly, tho, can't it? That is, can't you just talk about it at the end of each session, and come to a consensus at some point like, "I think we should angle for two more sessions - what do you think?"

Further, this is just narrativist advice, no? How does it pertain to Glorantha particularly, other than most people are going to want to run longer games? I'm seeing lots of ideas here, but nothing about Glorantha specifically.

Mike

Mike,

I'm just thinking that everyone getting a feel for the pacing from beginning to end, rather than, "Well, looks like its time to start wrapping things up, go faster," let's everyone... pace the thing better. I guess I'm with Chris on this: It makes more sense to me, but there'd be no way I could prove it.

Chris,

I think Mike's got a point. In the other thread you said there was stuff specific to HQ/Glorantha that people might not be ready for due to previous game experiences. Is it simply Group Prep? Or are there certain issues/ options/ treats in the setting that are unique to a Glorantha set up.

Thanks.

Christopher

Hi guys,

Has anyone considered the fact that Nar play IS unsual for many folks conditioned to Sim/Illusionist play? A recurring issue that crops up in HQ (and TROS) discussions are new folks coming in to play, who are running on different assumptions. As Ron has pointed out in his Model, most roleplaying texts fail to cover important aspects of play up and down the Box hierarchy, leaving it to assumed standards of play.

In the case of HQ, folks really need to understand the idea of player input, Author stance, and most importantly interpretation of the setting and mythology by the group as a whole(aka addressing Premise). Group preparation is simply a natural outcome if you have those three elements in action. Specific to Glorantha, new players need to realize that the setting is a question, not a finished static object.

If you notice, most of the issues folks have with HQ come either from the first part about basic Nar play assumptions, or the second part, about Glorantha as a setting requiring input and interpretation on the part of the group, instead of simply being study material for play.

So, yes, a fair amount of what I'm writing about are basic Nar techniques, but only because they are absent, or briefly mentioned without any support as to "how to do" given in the core book. I'm not writing to cover new ground, but simply present basics for play in a clear fashion to new players.

I'd actually prefer to steer this thread back to questions from folks regarding preparing for play, questions regarding my writing and approach can be pm'd to me personally.

Chris

Hi Chris,

Good points. I missed that. Since this thread got split off the Glorantha thread, I thought your notes would be specifically about prepping Glorantha. (For this reason, my comments where *not* about questioning your writing.)

I'd also offer (having thought about this thread before reading your last post), that what you tagged as the "optional" steps are the very steps that make this prep work you're describing specifically about Glorantha. Thus, you're already on track with what I asked about in my last post.

Sorry about the confusion.

Christopher

I think that HQ supports Nar play best, but that may be bias on our parts. That's to say that any such advice ought to be prefaced by the idea that you're talking about Narrativism for Glorantha.

See, I too thought that this was just going to be about Glorantha, as Brand put it, as a genre. To be even more pointed, you realize that we are the only people on earth out of all the HQ players out there who make the assumptions that we do about how it's best played. That is, from what I've seen all other players play it just fine with Sim adventure methodology.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Sorry if I miscommunicated about that. The article will more specifically point to utilizing the setting, although in a general technique fashion, not a "nitty-gritty chunks of setting" fashion.

Although I recognize that many people do play functional Sim HQ, there's also lots of quotes from the HQ book pointing towards Nar play. The section on scenario design happens to be the glaring exception. With that said, the goals are put forth in there, the necessary techniques are absent in many places.

Chris

I was hoping this would get addressed spontaneously or someone else would bring it up, but seeing as these have not occurred, I'd like to ask a direct question.

What are the myths for?

Over here in the list of preparation steps, it says:

5. If a focal myth is used, the group discusses and creates it together
6. If personal myths are used, players create them at this point

Hi Gareth,

I think that's a great question. Here's my initial thought, that might be completely off base:

I think it's got everything to do with all the Myth/Fable/Magical World threads floating around on the RPG Theory Board: Myth is front and center in a Glorantha game because the players want it to be. It's part and parcle of why one picks (or certain people pick) to play in Glorantha. The players are jazzed about playing not only in a "fantasy" setting, but in playing in the mode of Mythical storytelling.

I'll note that Chris made this an optional step, because, I think, he knows a lot of folks can use Glorantha in a lot of different ways. But the core to me is, given all the work put into to build this House of Mytholigical thinking (the contradictory nature of the tales and the reality and so on), Glorantha is currently the best shot at this kind of game -- if you've got players who want this kind of game.

And this goes back to the Religious threads we had at the Forge a few months ago, where I was desperately trying to say *something* about plyaying with a truly religious POV -- and not simply stapling religious elements onto a setting in cultural/economic/color manner.

The point I was trying to make (I see now), is that the religous point of view would be part of the Premise of the session that would matter to the players. Ron has pointed out that a) Premise must matter to the players and b) not all Premises will matter to all people.

Glorantha, I believe, at its core, isn't a setting that says, "Okay, it's a mythogical setting -- Go!" It says, "This is a Myth -- Go!" Two different things. And I'll offer that some people (most in the RPG community) really dig and lean to the first option, and don't much care for the second. And the people who care about the second, will care about a Premise from an unexpectedly religious point of view. (When I say "religious" here, I'm not talking about a certain faith, but the idea that there is a world within the world of matter, invisible, but everpresent and it matters.)

If we're talking about Nar Play, and we're talking about Premise having to matter to the players, I'd offer that there's a HUGE split between folks who want something to "feel" like myth, and people who really want to put the stakes of myth on the table -- that telling stories in a world where there is spirit, magic, and more MATTERS. Because to them, using the idea from William James' "Will to Believe" -- the concept is "live." It's possible. It matters.

In the same way the Premise, "Is fortune worth the loss of family?" might be live to some people (and must be to make Nar premise work for the group), but not to others, the underlying Premise "How do you live when religious faith is built on the concrete nature of reality" is going to jazz some folks playing Glorantha and put Myth front and center. For other folksk, that's a dead option, and Glorantha's myth stuff is simply there to be use for other very interesting dramatic Premises, or an overgrown Sim setting.

Thus, many people will use "Myth" -- as in, I want a mythical game -- to mean "I want all that cool magical stuff as color for my game." That's myth as a dead premise. Other people (a teeny-tiny minority) might mean myth as, "This is real to me. This matters. Let's play Let's see what happens." Exactly the way one approaches any other "human, moral dilema premise."

This is exactly what I was trying to get at months ago (but hadn't figure out) in the Religious thread discussion. And I think it might (but only might), touch on the Hesitancy/Gloratha issue. In other words, how many people are really interested in jumping into the deep end of the Glorantha pool? Given how I've defined the deep end of the pool, probably not many, and that's really understandable.

Christopher

Hi guys,

Excellent question. Christopher has it pretty much on target.

Myth in HQ can be utilized in two ways, the Sim way, in which case, it adds to stuff like "Backstory" and serves as nifty color to be referenced, or it can be used in the Nar sense, in which case it serves as a guideline, much as character definitions serve as a guideline, and that meaning comes through the players' willing adherence, violation of, or reinterpretation of the myth.

So, to use the Dark Crystal as an example. The myth is that when the 3 suns align, a gelfling will heal the crystal and order will return to the world, or evil rules forever. That's it, a one sentence myth. Yet the movie is about how it comes, and almost doesn't come about happening. The myth behind the Matrix is that "The One" will appear, and save humanity. That's it. Who is the One? How will they do it? From here, the story and meaning emerges.

A focal myth is one which the entire group is involved with, and that will affect the lives and destinies of heroes. A personal myth applies to just one character.

The point in writing it beforehand, is that it is basically a way of establishing thematic issues for your characters, so that character creation falls in line with them, not trying to squeeze them afterwards. The myths should mostly be revealed to the players beforehand, although a couple might be secret, and foreshadowed throughout play, to be revealed later. The 9th Gate is a good example of this.

The willingness to violate, or reinterpret the myth is where it becomes very interesting. You could say that by creating such myths, the group utilizes them much in the same way Kickers get used for Sorcerer, or SAs get used for the Riddle of Steel, as a big flag to everyone else about what play is about.

Chris

Hello,

Chris, you wrote,

You could say that by creating such myths, the group utilizes them much in the same way Kickers get used for Sorcerer, or SAs get used for the Riddle of Steel, as a big flag to everyone else about what play is about.

Hi Chris,

Bankuei wrote: A focal myth is one which the entire group is involved with, and that will affect the lives and destinies of heroes. A personal myth applies to just one character.

The point in writing it beforehand, is that it is basically a way of establishing thematic issues for your characters, so that character creation falls in line with them, not trying to squeeze them afterwards.

Hi Peter,

You are correct that the examples given are prophecies, but myths, for all intents and purposes in Glorantha, also serve as prophecies, in that they "tell" people what should be done in many cases.

For example, Nargath the demon was sealed into a sword 1000 years ago. A good man, a bad man, and the wielder all died on the sword to seal it away. Now, for whatever reason, the demon escapes... What do you expect is the solution to sealing it away?

What makes this interesting is that perhaps there is another answer that can only be found in reinterpreting, or denying the myth. For example, getting the demon to wield the sword, and killing the prerequisite people, then killing it with its own blade? Perhaps the sword is really its source of power, and breaking it is the answer.

Instead of reenacting the myth, word for word, its point is making a conscious decision to affirm it, deny it, or reinterpret it on your own terms.

This is why I say that the concept of "Interpretation" is absolutely necessary for HQ. Otherwise, you're simply a slave to the past, and that is far from what the Hero Wars are about. It's about taking the past, and remaking it, making it your own.

Chris

Actually Peter, I think the only real difference is accepting the notion that myths repeat themselves. Thats the power of a hero quest. To find a myth from yesterday similiar enough to a problem today, that by reinacting it, the problem today can be solved by a myth from the past.

So the myth of the Dark Crystal then becomes something "else" in myth terms. Anything that involves someone inconsequencial, at an auspicious celestial moment, performing a deed at a select space and time to defeat a greater enemy. The reinactment of that myth is the story of the gelfling and the dark crystal.

There is an even more extreme example of this in Return of the King, when Aragorn and Company go on a "hero quest" to reinact the myth of the traitorous <whatever their name was> who betrayed Gondor in ages past. In this case the myth literally comes to life and rides to the aid of Gondor...because the Hero Questors forced the myth down a different path.

Bankuei wrote:
So, to use the Dark Crystal as an example. The myth is that when the 3 suns align, a gelfling will heal the crystal and order will return to the world, or evil rules forever. That's it, a one sentence myth. Yet the movie is about how it comes, and almost doesn't come about happening. The myth behind the Matrix is that "The One" will appear, and save humanity. That's it. Who is the One? How will they do it? From here, the story and meaning emerges.

Hi Chris,

I realize that you are not quite finished, and that my questions may very well be answered in due time. Let me know if you want me to wait with this until I can see the full picture.

Okay. Let's say that we decide to start a HeroQuest campaign, based on your prep. It could go something like this:

1. Group decides length of play in terms of sessions

We decide something in between 5-10 sessions would be cool. We don't want to rush, but we don't want it to go on forever either.

2. Choose a location, choose the cultures involved

We decide that we want the heroes to be Bison Riders from Prax/The Wastes.

3. Group discusses and decides thematic conflict and issues at hand

The Sable riders, who are Lunar allies, have taken control of traditional Bison Rider grazing lands. We want to focus on this conflict. Possible premises are something like this: Does might make right? Who are you willing to ally with in order to get what you want?

4. Group outlines the conflict in concrete terms, who’s involved, over what, etc.

Hm. Part of that has already been done, above. Groups involved in the conflict are:

* Our Bison clan. We decide that it is split in two fractions: One that wants to fight the Sable Riders, the other wants to go east or north to look for new land.

* The Sable Rider clan that now occupies our grazing lands.

* The Antelope Lancers, a Lunar cavalry regiment, with many connections to the Sable clan.

* The Pol Joni horseriders who are our traditional enemies. We despise them, but they would make a great ally against the Sables.

* Oppressed oasis people who slave away in the oasises controlled by the Sables. When we were in control, we treated them just as badly as the Sables do. Some say that there is more to this enslaved people than meets the eye. They primary interest is to stay out of trouble; to survive.

5. If a focal myth is used, the group discusses and creates it together

Okay. Can you give an example of what to do now? EDIT: Assuming, of course, that a focal myth is used. :-)

Cheers,

/Peter N

Hi Gareth,

I'll address your questions out of order, for clarity's sake:

And how DOES re-enacting a myth solve a problem today? Why should this be so? Is there some metaphysical reason for this occurrence, and if so what is it? Why would my characters think this is likely, or even possible?

I would also fear that it would run on cast-iron rails, being constructed as it is directly "out of the book" in the majority of cases (I expect). This is a fear substantially reinforced by the references to the myths sort of prophetic nature or a default cyclism. And if so, do you then discuss the myth at the beginning, as part of setup, and then put it aside, or what?

Instead of reenacting the myth, word for word, its point is making a conscious decision to affirm it, deny it, or reinterpret it on your own terms.

Hi Peter,

Step 3 and 4 you've kinda mixed up. Although both should be happening together, the simple fact is that the concrete conflict you've put forth doesn't really ask those questions.

What seems like a more interesting take on it, is the oasis people, and really, the role of the Bison riders to them. Here, the thematic issue is re-examining the social structure of the Bison riders, and possibly having to restructure it for their survival. The real thematic question is, "How much do we have to change to survive?", because, whether moving to new lands, or allying with former slaves, is a change to the clan.

So, if we're using that, and we have a formal myth, the group could come up with something dealing with how the Oasis people were enslaved to begin with. Actual play would consist of reflecting that myth, with both the Sable Riders and the Bison Riders. As movers and shakers of the clan, the heroes would either be competing with the Sable Riders to "steal" the events that reenact the enslavement, or reinterpret them, perhaps changing the relationship between the two groups, and maybe, just maybe, seeing them as people instead of slaves.

So, perhaps a simple myth would be:

Long ago, our clan rode in on the Oasis of 3 Trees, crushing the warriors who lived there. Our chief took their chief's daughter for his wife, and then we slew their holy cow, white and rare, from lands distant. Finally, we slashed each tree, marking the land as our own.

So in play, the Bison clan would be trying to prevent the Sables from acheiving anything similar, and perhaps reenacting it to get bonuses to recapturing the labor of the Oasis people, or, more likely, redefining the relationship through their actions, perhaps, in this case, giving them a more fair status in exchange for help.

Does that clarify things a bit?

Chris

Hi Chris,

Bankuei wrote: Does that clarify things a bit?

Peter Nordstrand wrote: If a focal myth is used, the group discusses and creates it together

Okay. Can you give an example of what to do now? EDIT: Assuming, of course, that a focal myth is used. :-)