>All very useful, dramatic & good, but doesn't it strike anyone as odd,
>to say the least, that everyone agrees the way to make HQs interesting
>is to screw them up?
This and the following excellent points by Robin and Bryan I think constitute a terrific topic. I like the concept of heroquests, but I agree that this kind of play is very challenging for a GM. I think that there are a few thing that would help a ton. First off, I think it would be nice if the designers kept in mind that there is a great deal of difference between over-deliniating a game and thereby taking the *life* out of it with many specifics on the one hand, and providing tips, techniques, and proven approaches on the other. If you look at White Wolf's Wraith: The Oblivion, they have something called a Harrowing that is similar to what Jeff was decribing in his heroquests since it confronts a PC with the *dark* side of their own psyche. If you check the Wraith book out, you'll see that although they give virtually no specifics on what should or shouldn't be in a Harrowing, they give *tons* of tips and approaches and seem to be highly sensitive to the fact that doing this sort of thing well is *hard*. I'd suggest that the designers and any players that want to GM heroquests better, read through the section on Harrowings in Wraith, and perhaps the designers could provide similar material for HW when a heroquest has this flavor of battling with internal aspects of the psyche. It is assumed that other PCs join in to make the Harrowing more intense instead of just leaving it to the GM so it is indeed a bit differnent, but many of the tips I feel could apply very well. Particularly because the world of Wraith has a very *other plane-like* feel. Also, to answer Wulf specifically, these Harrowings are indeed designed to *screw up* the PC, but there is always a path that allows them to both navigate the Harrowing successfully and to also benefit from it. They are also almost completely non-linear and have little similarity to a dungeon dive.
Another resource that could be reviewed and learned from in this respect is the Festival of the Damned scenario for Ars Magica by John Tweet. While this doesn't take place on another *plane*, it once again explores methods of PCs meeting up with forces that are powerful and out to *screw* with them. In this case to corrupt them in various ways. Once again there is a great deal of sensitivity by the designer that this is *hard* and many tips, details, and information are provided to aid in doing a good job. Note that this scenario has about 15 pages of notes to help make this experience compelling.
In summary, I feel that if the designers realize that what they envision to be heroquests are 1) an advanced form of RPGing, 2) more challenging than most RPG situations for the GM and PCs, 3) *hard* to pull off well, and 4) often in need of quite a bit of good background notes, 5) very much in need of tips, techniques, and methods by which this specialized form of RP is conducted, then GMs might then have a better chance of understanding how to proceed better.
The good news here is that many claim that Festival of the Damned is one of the finest scenarios ever created for an RPG specifically because it does involve the PC's psyches in a similar what that some heroquests might. So, when well done, many would agree that this is RPGing at it's best. However, presenting a myth and expecting the typical GM to just whip up a heroquest that is interesting and compelling with no more tips, methods, techniques, nor any sensitivity to the difficulty of doing this well is, I think, absurd.
A.K. Berner
Powered by hypermail