Oh, sure, Ian beat me to it...
:)
Mike
The pre-amble-------------This post is about preparing for play (a more generic phrase than writing a scenario) because there was some interest expressed in `how I do it' in response to my comments on focusing on the `gears and levers'. I do not intend to imply that I think that you have to play this way. I change my own style as I learn new things and the way I prep for play has changed from the days when I first started playing HeroQuest. There is no `truth' here, no criticism of other styles.I cannot claim to have originated and of these ideas either. They come from playing `story games' like Sorceror, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Master, and Burning Empires and from reading articles from people like Chris Chinn and Mike Holmes. There is a great example of prep-for-play in this thread at the Forge (do not worry it's not full of Forge theory) here: http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=6696.0 which led to this scenario by Chris Chinn and Peter Nordstrand:http://www.geocities.com/doctorpeace/well.html.The thread is as important as the result if you want to discover how to do it yourself.I am also going to offer some opinions on why I think this style of play works well for HeroQuest. Please mentally insert `in my opinion', `my preferred' etc. This is one way to use the toolkit, there are others, but peppering conditionals everywhere makes it hard to write (and read).Finally, while I am happy to do Q&A, I do not want this thread to degenerate into a `why my way is better than yours' discussion. So I will shutdown threadjacking along those lines. Can I recommend that if you have an alternative, you post your own thread describing how you do it instead? In fact, I would actually call on people to do it, so we can see those alternatives.The bones---------One of the keys to playing HQ is to appreciate that you do not have character classes or lists of skills. Instead, players determine what abilities spotlight their characters. Chris Chinn calls these `flags' and they are important because they are what the player is telling us he wants the hero to be doing during our adventures. HQ characters suck at things they do not have abilities for, so forcing the players to engage in activities they are unskilled in results in players experiencing a lot of `whiff factor' (the feeling that your character is not a hero but as zero). In a novel, heroes tend to use their abilities, not their failings, and this should be the same for you. This aspect of the game makes it important to make it possible for players to decide how they want to overcome the obstacles you present them. My Heortling warrior might want to use his sword to force a solution, my Esrolian merchant be able to negotiate a settlement, or my Trader Prince sorcerer use magic to overcome his foes. This creates three forces: The conflict must be open to different resolutions i.e. set up don't conclude; the players need to feel able to set scenes in which they determine what is happening, not react to scenes set by the narrator (which leads to folks scrabbling over their ability list for something to keep them involved in the narrative); you have to be prepared to `split the party' as players find approaches that suit their abilities.This tends to lead us to a preparation model that is all about the setup, not the conclusion.Another key is that in HQ the players provide the narration not by the system. In RQ, by contrast, the system provides some of the narration, by telling us for example what happens with each sword swing. The creative energy for an extended contest is greater than that for a simple contest, because you have to find narration more times. Everyone's creativity wears thin, so too many extended contests drain the life out of the game, but so do many simple contests that have the same form. The reason dungeon adventures just do not work for HeroQuest is that by the third room the repeated demand to narrate combat has drained the life from the table. If you want to loot Rubble basements, choose RQ or Burning Wheel, or GURPS, where the system provides the narration in combats.This creates two forces: Scenarios need to be about people, and we need to create scenes that have dramatic or emotional impact.This leads us to a preparation model that focuses on creating a `cast of characters' and creating a dramatic conflict for those characters.Putting meat on the bones-------------------------Step 1: SettingWe want to allow players freedom, but we need to constrain it so that they can play together. Therefore, our first step is to come up with the setting. It is where I choose to lavish a lot of my preparation time. The setting tells us what kind of characters the players can make, what flags players will find useful for their heroes, binds them together somehow, and it tells us what kind of conflicts might occur.As an example, we might decide our setting is trouble-shooters for House Caroman in the city of Fay Jee and that the conflict in our game will be the house's struggle for survival through intrigue with other Trader Prince houses. Alternatively, our setting might be folk from the Red Cow clan engaged in a life-or-death struggle with the Split Waters clan of the Maboder and the conflict will be blood feuds, legal cases, politics and peace weaving.Step 2: The Cast I tend to create a cast of narrator characters at this point too. Given my conflict, I want people on both sides, people who have a stance or position and desire a particular outcome to the conflict. There size of my cast determines how long the game will run: a small cast of three-four characters might be a session or two, a cast of a dozen characters might consume four or five sessions and so on. Generally, I feel uncomfortable with more than about a dozen in play and the players will find it confusing too. Having a cast list to share with the players really helps. As an example, I might cast the key members of House Caroman and House Jhoraz so I know who is in conflict, or I might cast the members of the Red Cow and Split Waters rings.Sometimes I build the setting with a number of possible conflicts and a larger cast of characters than I will use for any given scenario. This is the essence of a campaign in this style of play. Of course, you can start with only what you need and expand. As an example, I might create conflicts within House Caroman for the succession, or I might create conflicts within the Red Cow as to how to react to Imperial rule. These extra threads help weave a more complex scenario, because whilst I might support Enothan the Guileful's attempts to broker peace. I might despise his support for the Empire.Step 3: The heroesThe next step is to gather with the players to create their heroes. Put aside an evening and do this together as it allows the players to create characters that can work together. Enforce the constraints of the setting and the conflicts there. It is fine to tell a player at this stage that his concept is not going to mesh with the setting. If you are running a game that should play out like and Icelandic blood feud then it may be hard to fit that wilderness exploring sword sage into the mix. Now is the time to have those discussions, not once play begins. Your cast forms an important source of relationships for the heroes, and players who take relationships with them will find it easier to bind into the setting and conflict. Be up front about some of these details; do not hide them, so that heroes can pick a stance of faction to support. If House Jhoraz is the enemy, let the heroes know up front so they can have relationships or attitudes toward them. When Alebard takes `Secretly in Love with a Split Waters Girl' as an ability, then you are on the right track. Decide whether you want to allow players to be on opposing sides. It can be rewarding, but it's more work.At the same time, relax the constraints of the setting and the conflicts there. The players are part of this, so this is a great time for them to tell you what kind of play they want. They may want to introduce new conflicts, introduce new characters into the cast, or change the role of existing ones.These goals, constrain and open, are in conflict, so this stage is all about negotiation.N.B. Some people start here, creating the characters and then negotiating setting and cast. I reckon some constraint upfront is good, but everyone's mileage will differ on how much they want to flesh out the setting before making characters.Step 4: SettingIt is time to return to the setting.First, we need to factor in changes that we negotiated with the players and to think about any changes that make sense now we know the flags of the heroes. If you are using published material this is the time to start thinking about tailoring it for your group.Next, we have to prepare our opening and some middle elements. Put the conflict into crisis with the opening, rather than going for any kind of establishment. If the game is about a feud between the Red Cow and the Split Waters, then have the game open with a killing. If the game is about raising the fortunes of House Caroman, have it open with a threat to their prosperity. This does not have to be the first scene, you may want to introduce your cast, but the big conflict should appear in the first session so everyone can get stuck in.Beyond that, we can prepare a set of scenes, which draws the heroes and cast together as we expand the conflict. Ron Edwards coined the term bang to represent the idea of a scene that demands some response from the player and moves the conflict on, telling us something new about the character. The important thing to recognize is that they have setup but no resolution that is open to the players. So for example if we are playing out the Red Cow feud, we might have a bang that says Harmast's sister (a flag on the player's sheet) reveals that she is in love with a Split Waters man. The easy way to write bangs is to look at the flags of players and stress or test them. If Henrik, has `sword and shield fighting' as a flag then he will want bangs that physically threaten him. At the same time, a series of fights will become dull, so we need to put something else at stake that tells us more about Henrik. Perhaps Henrik's wife (a flag on his sheet) begs him to stay home and not to go out with the other men seeking blood vengeance.Ron talks about having a `bandolier of bangs', that is a collection of scenes pre-prepared to toss at the players. That is an aide to folks who find `seat-of-the-pants' hard, and a useful comfort zone, but you will also find that your players create scenes, and you rapidly improvise new ones too, so you don't need too many.A key here is to remember that you will abandon bangs as they become irrelevant. If you lavish too much effort setting them up you will find that hard to do, so most bangs should be a couple of lines – a seed nothing more. The detail is in the setting and cast, not the events, event details emerge in play.For HeroQuest, myth is a setting element. You might have some important myths you want to establish here that relate to your conflict, key myths for the players to explore in play. The myths you create fit the needs of your story. If you are playing a blood feud, myths about the conflict with the Vadrus, Ernalda's attempts to make peace, the Sword and Helm war may all offer the players ideas for rituals or heroquests. Put them out there, but do not force the heroes to do the hq or ritual to solve the problem, just make it a tool they can pick up.Be aware that some players may want to make up myths in play too, and encourage them to do so, within the setting constraints. If Hendrik wants to do the myth of how `Rastorlath married a Stravuli girl' to show how he can marry his Split Waters love, then your game is really smoking.Eating------Armed with your bangs you begin play. Note that in this style, you are focusing on protagonist play, not party play, and your heroes may go their own way. That is a consequence of the differing flags. While setting elements, like a heroband, can bind them to a collective clause, you will find your heroes as inclined to separate as the Fellowship of the Ring. I tend to roll with it, but like the Fellowship it is useful to engineer scenes that have your heroes meet and co-operate so that people feel as though they are playing together, not separately.As you play the process of creating setting should be as continuous as creating events: new characters and myths should emerge, as the story you are weaving demands their presence.Finally, with this style we find that turning it up to 11, and not self-editing your reactions makes the whole experience more enjoyable. While this may mean that you play out your character's story in a dozen sessions and then retire them, we have found such a conclusion to be more rewarding than continually deferring resolution. Think the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, whose script is turned up all the way to 11 and will play itself out in only four seasons, or Rome where Lucius and Vorenus's story played itself out in two.A campaign is just a sequence of conflicts, within the same setting. Often new conflicts will emerge from old ones, but be sure to introduce new challenges too. This can be one of the harder things to achieve, as while the players were tied into your initial setup they may find that elements they had flags around are resolved or no longer relevant. Encourage spending of those hero points to cement new flags in play to help out with this. _________________________________________________________________Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail