Hi

as mentioned in another post I'm going to play my first HQ-game in near future.
My fellow players never played HQ or any similar game. Since now they have been playing more 'standard' rpgs like D&D, GURPS or Earthdawn.

Do you have any suggestions how to introduce this type of game to these players? Any ideas how to make the difference between the games they know and HQ clear? Which approach would you choose? Or maybe you've already done something similar and might share your experience?

Caynreth

Hi Caynreth,

There are three major differences between HQ and the games you have mentioned, which tend to be the conceptual hurdles for new players.

Mechanics

Easiest of the three to explain, most people tend to have trouble here simply because HQ is more cinematic than the more "realist" or simulationist oriented games. Important concepts such as shifting APs doesn't translate into a "hit" that "does more damage", or that "Love of Daughter 17" can translate into directly more effective rolls via augmentation. Get your players to firmly grasp that the game is based on cinematic play, not realism.

An easy way to start is to ask players what they want to do, in a freeform sense, and then explain how it would work mechanically, as you play. This gives many players an excellent feel for the rules.

Setting

As has been mentioned in the other thread, Glorantha is big, and very scary in the sense that it requires some work from the group. I suggest starting with a culture that is reminiscient of something everyone is comfortable with from the real world. Personally, I watch a lot of HK movies, and so do my friends, so its easiest for me to use Kralorela as my "entry point" to Glorantha. Use a culture that has the least amount of culture shock for your players.

Approach

Finally, HeroQuest supports a style of play called Narrativism, which is rarely supported by written materials in roleplaying in general. The major issues that crop up in utilizing it are that there can be no preplanned plot, no railroading, and that players should be allowed some form of input into "what happens". This is the hardest part of introducing most people to HQ play, just because it goes against a lot of ingrained habits or assumptions of play.

The only level of discussion I tend to do is to emphasize that the player may have metagame desires for the character which would be more fun to utilize in play(Author Stance), and let the players experience what it means to NOT be railroaded in play. It may take players a while to come out of the shell, and really explore what that means. It usually helps if you have at least one player who already tends to do this, as they act as an example for the others to follow.

Of course, you can certainly play HQ Sim style(the default in the other games you mentioned), but you'll get pretty similar play experiences to those games, just with more mythology floating about.

Chris

Bankuei wrote:
Finally, HeroQuest supports a style of play called Narrativism, which is rarely supported by written materials in roleplaying in general. The major issues that crop up in utilizing it are that there can be no preplanned plot, no railroading, and that players should be allowed some form of input into "what happens". This is the hardest part of introducing most people to HQ play, just because it goes against a lot of ingrained habits or assumptions of play.

Chris

Hi Scott,

I believe your example deserves its own thread, probably over in Actual Play. To touch on a few points, without getting all deep into things:

-Play of any sort(Nar or otherwise) only functions when the group as a whole generally wants that sort of thing
-Player input begins at the point of "how we're going to play"
-A bang without emotional commitment from the player, not the character, is pretty empty. Bangs should really riff off a central conflict that the group is jazzed about.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: Hi Scott,

I believe your example deserves its own thread, probably over in Actual Play. To touch on a few points, without getting all deep into things:

-Play of any sort(Nar or otherwise) only functions when the group as a whole generally wants that sort of thing
-Player input begins at the point of "how we're going to play"
-A bang without emotional commitment from the player, not the character, is pretty empty. Bangs should really riff off a central conflict that the group is jazzed about.

Chris

-Play of any sort(Nar or otherwise) only functions when the group as a whole generally wants that sort of thing

-Player input begins at the point of "how we're going to play"

-A bang without emotional commitment from the player, not the character, is pretty empty. Bangs should really riff off a central conflict that the group is jazzed about.

Hi Caynreth,

To bring things back on topic, here's my suggestion for introducing new folks, on the concrete steps level:

1. Pick a culture and a location (as a group, should excite everyone)
2. A little bit of interpretation(talk a little about ideas for interpreting the culture, area, or myths to make it personalized to the group)
3. Define Conflict(who's against who, over what, and why?)
4. Folks should talk about their characters, share ideas
5. Produce characters(as in, writing them down, defining scores, etc.)

In terms of approach to play, let the players know:

1. There is no "plot", simply the conflict. Create a character who will get involved in the conflict. As a player, you are agreeing to get involved in the conflict. You may wish to limit them to one "side" but its not necessary.

2. Relationships in the conflict. I usually suggest each hero have 2 to 3 relationships with folks already involved in the conflict(although they can come from different "sides"! )

3. Run some example contests, both short and extended. Allow players more input into narrating how things happen. Grab things like examples from movies, comics, and books to show how it would be modeled in a contest(ex: AP lending- throwing your friend a sword, just before they get charged)

4. Start with a small conflict, one that can be resolved in 1 to 3 sessions. Although Glorantha begs for big, nasty conflict, start small to introduce the players. It also keeps the energy level up and the action going, which is necessary to really give them "what its about" in a digestible chunk.

Chris

Wow, that's what I like so much about this forum: you ask a question and in almost no time you get really substantial answers. Thanks for them.

I suppose Scripty hit the point I'm really afraid of.

For many years I played those Sim-RPGs and once in a while I'd get the feeling that there is something wrong and would ask myself if this was really the reason why I chose roleplaying to be my favorite pasttime.
Last fall now I felt extremly frustrated and bored by the way our rpg sessions went and started to search the net for some ideas. I stumbled across this site with all those ideas and theories and found a valid set of answers to many of my questions.
I tried "The Pool" with some people I thought might understand it and we had so much fun.
Later I tried "The Pool" with some of the players I have been playing GURPS and stuff for years. The didn't like it. Their objections were: 1) If they do the story telling there will be nothing left to discover for them because they built the whole story. The want to discover my story.
2) They don't have any character sheets with numbers on them for guidance and they can't roll the dice to make decisions for their characters.
3) Their characters could do anything or nothing.

Now I thought HQ could be more suited to introduce them to this way of playing if The Pool is to freeform for them.

Actualy I think I'm just afraid of loosing them as players....

Hi Caynreth,

Most Nar play does not involve making up the backstory as you go. You can have a solid backstory of relationships and history, but the key to Nar play is not dictating what happens in play. So your players can still enjoy discovering mysteries or who is really allied to whom, simply not in a railroaded, clue to clue sense.

In fact, I recommend developing a solid backstory full of conflict and subconflict, because it ends up replacing the "plot" for the GM. All you need to do is say, "Which NPC is going to do what, in regards to the conflict?", and you pick an interesting one and start a scene.

This is especially key to HQ play, since usually we're talking communities and cultures in conflict. If you want a good example, Peter Nordstrand and I wrote a pretty deep scenario called Well of Souls, which you can look up here:

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

Here you have a complex set of relationships and subconflicts, but the basic premise is simple. There's plenty for players to "discover" during play, but there is no set outcome.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: The key to Nar play is not dictating what happens in play. So your players can still enjoy discovering mysteries or who is really allied to whom, simply not in a railroaded, clue to clue sense

My personal opinion is that if you have an existing gaming group and want to switch play-styles, you shouldn't confuse the issue by switching game-systems at the same time.

If you've already been playing effectively narrativist games with your current group for 2 years, then you can jump into HQ and carry on doing the same thing no problem. And you can run perfectly good HQ games with just somewhat less combat mechanics than D&D.

But trying to learn a new system and way of running the game at the same time is very likely to cause problems, like trying to take a quantum mechanics course in a language you started learning a week ago.

But maybe someone has a different experience.

soru

Hi Michael,

Any form of railroading instantly destroys the possibility of Nar play. Scene framing in a Nar sense, may be an aggressive start, but cannot determine what the outcome will be.

In the case of HQ, the difference between Nar and Sim play is determined in how you set up and run "scenarios". The core book provides the typical Sim style of scenarios, which, you'll notice, only function if certain conditions are met. A Nar based scenario eschews preplanned events as the foundation of preparation, and instead focuses on characters and relationships, without determining how or in what order these things are encountered, discovered, or how they will change in play.

Chris

<rant>

Hi Chris,

I think the fundamental problem here is that you consider Narrativism to be superior to Simulationism, and therefore interpret everything that fits your style and philosophy of play as Narrativism. All the things you state about character- and relationship-focused events and the indeterminacy of outcomes are things I consider hallmarks of Simulationism as well.

Would you consider good, internally-consistent characterization a feature of Narrativism or Simulationism? I would say the latter as, in the former, it is ultimately the story which most matters. Narrative does inform and complement Simulation, as well as vice versa, but to broadly declare that more sophisticated play is the exclusive purview of your style... well, that is just plain elitist.

Sorry, I do like your posts but the overall tone of many people here bugs the heck out of me. Narrativism is no better than Simulationism, nor are either better than Gamism. Whatever style works and is fun for you and yours, but keep in mind that other people enjoy other styles, and many of us manage, despite assertions to the contrary regarding the possibility, to blend styles pleasingly and effectively.

</rant>

Hi Michael,

I don't consider Nar play better than Sim play, only less supported in terms of written material explaining the techniques. You are reading into my words things that are not there.

All I am saying is:

-Nar play cannot happen without player input into "what happens"
-That player input cannot happen with a predetermined plot
-Finally, thematic premise must get addressed during play in Narrativism

Anything else you are reading into there simply isn't what I'm saying.

Chris

I'm going to try to make myself unpopular here by disagreeing with everyone.

First, I think that it's pretty obvious that the HQ text is only so narrativist. As you point out, Chris, the scenarios aren't at all narrativist. And people play it other than narrativist. You may think that narrativist is the only way to play the game, but in the end that's just propaganda. If you'd said, "I think it's the best way to play," or something, then I wouldn't object. But the implication that it doesn't support other methods of play is only believed here at The Forge, by only a few people. I'm not one of them.

Yes, my game is probably somewhat narrativist, but that doesn't mean I would tell anyone else playing otherwise that they were doing it wrong. Especially when it seems that they're having fun doing it. Caynreth, what I'd say is that if you're interested try narrativist methods, I can only suggest giving it a closer look. But if you want to try playing it more traditionally, go ahead. Up to you.

Don't anybody use the term Railroading, please I beg you, without defining it first. Per usual it's being used here to mean "GM control where I don't like it". Which is too personal to mean anything to anyone else.

Soru, System Does Matter. I think that if a GM wants to change to a new mode, the way to do it is to change to a system that supports the mode. Will this be easy? Maybe not. But trying to convert players over to the new mode using a system that doesn't support the style is really difficult, will take forever, will be unsatisfying while you do it, and in the end, there's no garuntee that the players will convert. Better to just present the players with the new system and see if they get it. If they don't, then frankly, they probably never will. That is, all modes are easy to do, and only players who are canalized by a certain mode ever have problems adapting to new modes. So either they will or they won't, and it's best just to find out the quick way.

I've "converted" many players to new modes simply by presenting them with systems that supported the mode well. Often takes about ten minutes.

Michael, there are two kinds of Sim play, one in which the players are free, and one in which they aren't. I get that you like the free one, but to say that the other form doesn't exist is simply incorrect. Unless you're using some personal definition of which we're not aware for Simulationism.

Scott, your horrible experiences, while lamentable, are not typical. That is, your players were terribly canalized and maybe even had social problems. So what you're doing to poor Caynreth is making him fear something that's just not likely. Yes, it's possible that something like that might happen. It's also possible that he'll be hit by lightning tomorrow, but I don't think he should worry about that either. This doesn't mean your experience was any less relevant, just that it only pertains if his players are like yours. Most aren't.

Caynreth, it's hard to tell from your observations just what your player preference is. It could be that HQ will solve your problem, and then again, it may have problems for your players that you haven't even seen yet. What I suggest, is just being optimistic, and playing the game. You'll know for sure when you're done.

Have you considered that if it turns out that you want to play something different from them that "losing" them could be a positive thing? Sure, the best thing would be if they would just see things your way. But sometimes that just doesn't happen. In that case, you're going to have to either play their way, or find new players. This is something that you have to face.

I wouldn't say that HQ vs other games is at all a Realism/Cinematic dichotomy. You can narrate as realistically as you like with HQ. And it can take into account whatever level of detail you throw at it, too. What HQ does not do, is to structure outcomes in terms of declarations. That is, you don't declare "I hit it with my sword" and then we roll to see if that happens. It instead uses "conflict resolution" which simply means that we can narrate the in-game outcome in any way that matches the mehacnical outcome. So if I attack a person with a sword, and give them a -1 "Hurt" I can say that I wounded him with the sword, I can say that I swung to make him duck, and kicked him in the face. I can say that I bedazzled him with my swordplay, such that he'll have less confidence the next time we face each other (to the tune of -1).

This is actually simpler than people make it out to be.

The best advice I can give is for you, Caynreth, is to learn the game as well as you can before playing, so that you can give the players the best view of it. Nothing worse than spending half the session looking things up. If you come in an expert, then the players will be impressed with how you handle things with the system, and should have that much easier time adjusting themselves.

No reason to believe that it won't work out just great if you know your stuff.

Mike

Good technique, Mike... pimp-slap everyone equally to bring 'em back to the topic at hand. :)

Hi Mike,

Agreed in full.

Chris

Hi,

Mike Holmes wrote: First, I think that it's pretty obvious that the HQ text is only so narrativist. As you point out, Chris, the scenarios aren't at all narrativist. And people play it other than narrativist. You may think that narrativist is the only way to play the game, but in the end that's just propaganda. If you'd said, "I think it's the best way to play," or something, then I wouldn't object. But the implication that it doesn't support other methods of play is only believed here at The Forge, by only a few people. I'm not one of them.

Mike Holmes wrote: Yes, my game is probably somewhat narrativist, but that doesn't mean I would tell anyone else playing otherwise that they were doing it wrong. Especially when it seems that they're having fun doing it.

Mike Holmes wrote: Don't anybody use the term Railroading, please I beg you, without defining it first. Per usual it's being used here to mean "GM control where I don't like it". Which is too personal to mean anything to anyone else.

Peter Nordstrand wrote: If we are not allowed to jump up and down, waiving our hands and shouting "hey, did you know that HeroQuest plays very well in a narrativist fashion, let me show you how" there is no way we would be able to locate each other. Propaganda? Goddamit Mike!

Mike Holmes wrote: Yes, my game is probably somewhat narrativist, but that doesn't mean I would tell anyone else playing otherwise that they were doing it wrong. Especially when it seems that they're having fun doing it.

Who said otherwise? No, really Mike, who are you accusing of telling anyone else playing otherwise that they are doing it wrong; especially when it seems that they're having fun doing it? Name names and show me the evidence!

Finally, HeroQuest supports a style of play called Narrativism,

Hm ... in fact, in nar play Force is railroading, I think.

Hi Mike,

Please do reread my first post again. I do mention at the end that you can run HQ in a Sim fashion, only that if you do so, there isn't much to "introduce" that will be very different than accustomed play in many of the other games Caynreth mentions.

Chris

True enough. I think that I could argue that it seems somewhat dismissive as an option - almost a footnote. But that would be splitting hairs on my part. In any case, I was mostly railing against what I saw as a trend herebouts. I've made my point, and will be moseying along.

Mike

Hi Mike,

No worries. I'll try to be more inclusive in more of my posts. Being pro Nar doesn't mean being anti Sim :P

Chris