I just sent a likely overlong post in which I made reference to this post of
Ian's, in which he describes how:
> Orsta’s [tawdry] conflict was [a] real high-point of the game for us, more
so than many a bloody fight, and a great example of how social conflicts
flourish in heroquest.
I'd just like to ask Ian which particular "techniques" most fostered this sort of play? I don't mean players (incl. narrator) buying in to the social side of things, my question is more mechanistic. I understand that we are talking a long-running game in which you have material kept up to date (and available on line) but what of that would you say was key? A clear understanding of the relationships, in an R-map? I expect that that is the answer (I can't think of any other), even if not explicitly laid out, but I'd like to see if you say so too.
Or was the key to have set things up way before with characters and NPC's havng conflicting goals?
I'm just stabbing at things, but I'd be interested to know what you think was key to get you to that situation?
Cheers,
Sam. Received on Sun 08 Jul 2007 - 18:22:23 EEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri 04 Jan 2008 - 22:49:30 EET