[HeroQuest] Lifting the Veil

[Web_Weaver]

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?

[Tim Alexander]

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

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Callan S.]

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.

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Ron,

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

You are on track in one sense, but I think the worry of the player is that both are the same, although I may be blurring the two issues.

The big bad guy from my background is someone that the players are aware of in the shadows, this new revelation is just a guy who has had dealings with him. But, the player wished this also to be a "big revelation" not an overtly made-up one.

Let me think further on this before replying fully.

[Web_Weaver]

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.

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Callan,

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.

This is to me a question not easy to answer.

My first instinct is that when I previously made the effort to keep such things behind the veil I encouraged play of a type that didn't feel directed by player choice. The players have too readily in the past fallen back into a look to the GM to move the story forward attitude.

I am really looking to them to push the story a bit more, by taking a clear dramatic stance over issues arising, and choosing a direction to go based on this. I was hoping, that by letting them see the clockwork, they would better understand how to do this. The thrown up issues will probably be the same either way, but in one mode of play they may think that I have heavily structured a plot for them and be tempted to sit back and await its outcome,  and in the other they may realise that the loose framework of the plot gives them opportunities to twist the story in a way that better fits their characters, and that their actions in no way will spoil my preconceived ideas.

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Web_Weaver]

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.

[Ron Edwards]

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.

Here's what I see in that paragraph.

If I prep an NPC with a given background, a given set of relationships, and a given set of priorities, his or her role in the story is fixed and established for later.

This is flatly wrong on a very basic level. I know what kind of role-playing trains it into people's minds and especially their GMing habits. I also know it can be worked through and eventually abandoned.

I also need to point out the concept's equally-false partner,

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.

Well, I'm now going to try to destroy or at least de-fang these false concepts. Let's see, maybe an example. Working with me, please try to contrast these two NPCs:

Sophie is a nice, well-behaved late-teen girl who is the source of evil in the scenario. She killed her little brother with her psychic powers when she was six, and ever since, has been able to kill or discredit anyone who ever bothered her. Everyone thinks she's such a nice girl, to the extent they've actually covered up for her. The player-characters will eventually figure this out and confront her in some way – whether it's through convincing the other NPCs, or fighting them, or whatever, sooner or later they must come face-to-face with her considerable and dangerous powers.

Sophie is a nice, well-behaved late-teen girl who, to date, has used her powers for evil. She killed her little brother with her psychic powers when she was six and ever since, has been able to kill or discredit anyone who ever bothered her. Everyone thinks she's such a nice girl, to the extent they've actually covered up for her. The player-characters will ultimately judge her and the other NPCs in question, and whether Sophie is or isn't going to pay for her deeds, is or isn't going to be helped, is or isn't going to be killed, or whatever, will rely on them.

See the difference? Let's make sure. Please don't read the second one as "must save Sophie from herself" as a mere substitute for the fight in the first one. That would be mistaken. The second approach can result in a psychic-battle showdown with Sophie just as easily as the first one.

The real difference between them is that in the first, the GM is locked into "final showdown with Sophie." Whatever happens, if it's too soon for the showdown, he must block them; if it's time for the showdown, he must (a) get the characters into position for it and (b) make sure the players can't stand Sophie, maybe via more actions by her.

Whereas in the second, who knows? Sophie's actions during play are totally up for grabs, as the GM sees fit to play her relative to the player-character's actions. Who's the real villain? It might indeed be Sophie, or maybe the players hate the enabling brother way more than they hate her, in which case the real climax arrives unexpectedly during their confrontation with him, and dealing with her (violent or not) is just mop-up. In this way of playing, what constitutes the climax is always left up for grabs, to develop via the interactions. Sophie might try to change. She might not. The GM has prepped Sophie in full, and does not share her details or her history with the players. But he has not made her decisions for in-play use ahead of time.

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. Sophie is a psycho, or borderline-so. All right. What does she do? How does she respond to stuff? Is she the villain to fight at the showdown, a way-station along the way, or what? Leave all of that up to the conflicts and resolutions of actual play itself.

What do you think?

This part of my post also has a sub-section, concerning this guy you made up in the session. This is actually not a Sophie situation. My reading leads me to think that you fell into a habit that maybe, you ought to consider abandoning.

The habit, or more properly technique, is this:

I want them to talk to the big boss. But the big boss is really important. I can't just have him walk on. We need build-up. We need atmosphere. I know! I'll have them meet a guy and have some stuff happen that paces out the "get to meet the boss" process. That'll do it!

Unfortunately, it never does it. Whether you improvise him on the spot, or prep meticulously with this intermediate character, this technique always fails to work. The intermediate character falls flat.

So I think the prep/no-prep issue is, in this case, a red herring. That's my main point for the sub-section.

(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.)

PART TWO

I think we need to throw away this term "Veil" that you're using. Let's call it instead the integrity of what's happening in the fictional, shared, imagined stuff. I think it's easy and fair to say that both you and the other guy want to keep the integrity nice and strong.

I think that you and he can both be satisfied if you make a category of information in your mind. I don't know what you want to name it. But it applies to all information which you, the GM, do use as "given" for playing NPCs and making other decisions, and which the players happen not to have (or not have yet, or never get at all, or whatever).

What the player wants to know is that you do have such a bank of information and that you'll stick to it. It is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of a player-character sheet to a person playing that character.

Just because you have and use such information does not make your role-playing Illusionist. Illusionism relies on something far more specific, what I call The Black Curtain. What the Black Curtain hides is not merely information, but actually the GM reaching over and playing the characters under the players' noses. (I call this "Force," but let's not have too much jargon in one place, eh?)

My understanding is that you're not doing this, or if you are, you're trying to wean yourself away from it. So, no Force? Then no Black Curtain, and no Illusionism.

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.

See? Full integrity. But also full flexibility. Please let me know if that sounds like fun or a good idea of any kind. I realize that almost no RPG text or standard training acknowledges it as an option.

A final point: you're right about one thing – you aren't going to be able to discuss this with the other guy. Not if he's wrapped up in standard RPG terminology and not if he's uncertain about whether you're really committed to him having fun (with you). But I do think he'll be OK if you tell him that (a) you are prepping and (b) you will not revise your prep.

(We can talk later about whether, if you do manage to let "plot" emerge from in-play decisions, whether he'll believe you're doing so. That's another issue.)

PART THREE

Who knows, maybe this part is unnecessary. However, I am starting to think that I need to kick at your tires a little, to revise a notion that might be lodged there. This notion is what you're referring to as a "pure Narrativist" game. Such a game, in your mind, seems to be one in which all back-story is fluid, all NPCs' features are up for grabs, nothing is prepped, and all is improvised – the classic winging-it approach.

That has nothing to do with Narrativist priorities. Nothing at all. I think it arises because people are shown Capes or Universalis and are told "that's Narrativist!", or maybe it's because they think it has to do with hard-core invention of setting elements ("your enemy! His name is Bob! He appears!") right there at the table. Maybe they confuse narration (talking) with Narrativism (address of Premise) with authority (establishing what is happening).

Any questions or thoughts on that?

Best, Ron

[Web_Weaver]

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.

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Web_Weaver]

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.

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,

I think this is true, not as clearly as you suggest, but I feel reluctant to finalise things until I need to. This must be a reaction to having previously led people by the nose through scenarios when I ran RQ, and it probably needs balancing out.

My previous posts betray an aversion to "setting things in concrete" as if by deciding on NPCs motivation in detail will somehow cut down on my creativity. It would seem better practice to draw them in more detail and then allow them to change as circumstances do.

However some of my words contradict this:

... 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.

And are actually an attempt to point out that I am not winging everything: to point out that these antagonist NPCs exist in my story. But I choose the word antagonist carefully as I see these guys as not really the protagonists that I control (see below when I explain the NPC situation). My concrete phrase here is not accurate. In fact it is skewed in the opposite direction as detailed above.

So of your two partner statements I am probably swinging towards:

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.

To tackle your two NPCs, I absolutely spotted the difference, I nodded staight away at the first one being just the kind of thing I like and attempt to do, being english the Shakesperian attitude of real and often excusable or understandable motivations for the bad guy are deep in my psyche. This really does have a profound effect on English drama, but that is outside the topic here.

But you do make a very good point with your:

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 ...

I have too often used broad brush strokes to define these kinds of guys, which is clearly not required.

Your projected ideas of habit seem a little wide of the mark, but I may not be the best judge here. The bad guy behind this particular plot is one that I have left undeveloped, so I may be unconciously reistant to fill in the details during play. But the character being interrogated didn't actually know or have any dealings with said bad guy, he just knew a man who had. But the fact that I didn't know who that "man who had" was is clearly a problem of prep for said bad guy. I will certainly give him a better treatment before we play again.

The atmosphere I am trying to create isn't really about the "big boss" concept, I am attempting to give the political dealings a feeling of granularity, this probably comes from my appreciation of gothic horror, and short stories in general, which can when done well convey the feeling of a whole world with just a few well chosen phrases.

The issue with the "bad guy" here is that I consider the NPC that the players have had many dealings with to have been the bad guy. This is a guy who was prepared to employ shady characters to get dubious jobs done. The players are certainly getting a vibe from him that all is not well, and although they have never trusted him they are now beginning to really doubt him on many levels. This NPC is fully detailed, and I can now play him with ease in any scene because I know his motivations in that shakesperian way. He is just doing things the way he feels best, he considers it politics, and the city he is located in has taken him in as a major player and become corrupted by touch. He is used to riches in a world that is trying to cut him out from the gravy train, and this dead end city is a good place to start the fight back.

But, my players are focused in the distance, towards the shady guy that has aided him, mainly because he killed a characters father in back story, but hey, I guess with this much motivation they are right to see him as the bad guy for now. When they catch up with him, I doubt they will stop and ask questions, but they will still be left with the problem of the prominent NPC that has overstepped the mark. And the effect he has had.

It's all so much messier in practice than in theory, but I know where you are comming from, if I cast even a trival NPC in my eyes as someone that is important to the plot, then I owe it to my players to give him some decent detail. Precisely because it helps me be flexible as opposed to hindering it.

(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.)

Another post could be arranged for this, it would be an interesting topic, and I certainly employ some techniques here.

Again that was long and difficult, so I will come back to point three when I have reread it and reviewed the over-all thread.

But overall this is working out well, so far I have two things that I should stop doing out of two.

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Web_Weaver]

Ron,

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

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.

All valid and clear but... it does not remove the nagging question in my head. This, I believe is where the knot lies.

Practical advice time: given that I should have at least prepared the details on the contact, in this case I had not, so what should I have done.

Lets do a comparison of actual words I could have used:

What I actually said (approx):

OK you have him there, he is prepared to name everyone, and specifically the guy who put Luigi (Political NPC bad guy) in contact with the Shaman (background shady bad guy), let me see... it could be Bob (PC background bad guy).

But maybe I should have said:

... let me see, I have this guy Bob, that I have been saving up for just such a situation (PC background guy), so he may have been setting Luigi up all along.

Or on the other hand maybe the straight:

.. It is this guy Bob who I am sure one of you will recognise.

As I am still keen to show my workings I am actually keen on option 2, at least this way I am making clear that my choice is neither random or arbitrary, and involves some preparation.

But, am I right in even trying to demonstrate how my game works? This is essentially the question I asked at the beginning but boiled down and stripped of the other factors we have discussed.

Rephrased: I am concerned that without a clear demonstration of where and when I improvise I may encourage the players to wait for the plot to be revealed. Is this concern valid, or is it just me over compensating for my past experiences?

Or is the question negated by the fact that I should have prepared this?

I imagine other circumstances will arise where I again have to think on my feet, so this question needs some resolution.