In the Mongoose Traveller thread, people were praising the inclusion of rules to encourage the characters to have established relationships before the game starts, describing it as a sort of universally good thing.

A few things confuse me about that reaction, based on many experiences of playing long and excellent campaigns that started out with the characters not knowing each other and, in at least some of the cases, never really getting to the point where they are fully on the same page with each other.  Some of the best role-playing I've seen involves PCs arguing about what to do or what to do next and having to work that out in character.  But it seems like to many other people, working those things out is nothing but a problem that they are happy to get past.

So that leaves me with a few question.

Are bad experiences with the characters not knowing each other at the start of the game really that common and predictable for many people?

Do people really not like having to work out common goals and other issues in character as an element of role-playing?  

Is saying that the characters know each other before the game starts really a magic bullet that solves the problem and, if so, how?

Yes, my group has certainly played games where the characters knew each other before the game started, but in my experience, it doesn't change all that much.  If it did and made our games universally better, I suspect that my group would normally create characters like that but some of the best campaigns that we've had started out with characters that didn't know each other.

I've never run a game where the characters knew each other at the beginning of play- but in the old days I had my share of shitty first sessions. Now, though, I virtually always start with an action sequence. Rarely do I speak more than once as GM before the dice start a rolling. This forces the characters together, and it really gets things moving right off the bat.  I might have everybody meet up in an inn, but that inn will be on fire and under attack by zombie dinosaurs.

Quote from: John MorrowAre bad experiences with the characters not knowing each other at the start of the game really that common and predictable for many people?

Nope, because the silent majority of roleplayers out there don't give a shit.  They just wait around for the GM to tell them they are together and what the goal of their adventure is.  Most campaigns still basically start off as a variations on meeting the mysterious old man in the inn.

Quote from: John MorrowDo people really not like having to work out common goals and other issues in character as an element of role-playing?

Here's the thing - the people who like to do that sort of thing will do it.  Everyone else will just assume the characters stay together because they are PCs and that's what PCs do.  It's just a game, after all, not a serious attempt to model "realistic" behavior.

Quote from: John MorrowIs saying that the characters know each other before the game starts really a magic bullet that solves the problem and, if so, how?

Not at all.  Rationalizing a group staying together after the initial plot point is just as difficult, if not moreso, than getting them together in the first place.  That's the problem with that kind of thinking, if we start creating "realistic" characters, then you need constant reinforcement to get them to stay together because at a certain point, there's no reason for PCs not to retire and live a quiet, peaceful life instead of being adventurers.

Quote from: John MorrowYes, my group has certainly played games where the characters knew each other before the game started, but in my experience, it doesn't change all that much.  If it did and made our games universally better, I suspect that my group would normally create characters like that but some of the best campaigns that we've had started out with characters that didn't know each other.

As I said in the other thread, you have about 5 options how to handle PCs as a group.  IME, group backgrounds during chargen is by far the least popular approach because most players simply don't care that much.

Just because characters start out knowing each other does not really mean they "know" each other. There would still be a lot of stuff to be worked out by role playing. I've ceased doing the whole starting out as strangers or it's cousin "a stranger comes up to you (strangers) in a tavern" because frankly it does kind of encourage the suck for a variety of reasons.

My campaign pitch normally holds the seed as to how the characters know each other. For instance in my current Aces & Angels campaign they are all pilots/crew men in the same squadron. In my Six Guns & Sorcery game they are all death row inmates.

IME experience the hardest thing is how to begin role playing your character. Having something to work off on in this case, someone else, helps a great deal. For instance in my OtE campaign, the players were hired by big Pharma to ensure their proxy won in the general election. They each came from different fields. The "security" specialist pc was a former navy seal who knew another character who played an aid worker because both had spent time in the Congo doing different things.

They were not friends but they did "know" each other and both were surprised that each had chosen this new carreer as "election consultants"...and were eager to discover why this sudden occupation change.

Now, I don't think that it should be an in built design feature in all games....I like the flexibility that is a feature in group collaboration.

Regards,
David R

I think perhaps these sorts of connection mechanics are a bit like all the clauses and subclauses you get in rules-heavy games, an attempt to protect against the stupid minority. There's always some idiot who'll try to find a loophole in the rules and drive a tank through it, and there's always some idiot who'll say, "why am I with these guys anyway? Screw 'em." Splitting the party in the first ten minutes of a campaign is a pain in the arse.

Most players will co-operate and find excuses for their characters to hang out and work together. But there are a few who'll walk away, and many GMs don't know how to deal with that. It's just another version of the old "I roll to dodge the plot!" problem. Like the rules raper, most players don't do that, but games still try to protect against that annoying minority.

That said, a pre-existing connection between the PCs can help drive the plot. Asking "why are we together?" can help answer "and what do we do?"

IME, this is a function of the length of a campaign.

Short campaigns (3-10 sessions) tend to be scripted ("story arc"), and a priori relationship maps will be part of that scriptedness. This is because PCs must connect fast for the plot to play itself out before the deadline. I rilly rilly dislike short campaigns.

Long or open-ended campaigns tend not to be scripted and not to require a priori relationship maps. I rilly rilly like long or open-ended campaigns.

Re. MongooseTrav, IIRC correctly the specific offense here was that during chargen PCs get bonus skill points for forging relations with other PCs.

I'm bored to death with the "we are getting to know each other" phase.
Compared with the possible conflicts of a good setup the conflicts in that phase are shallow and boring. At least for me.

I generally just establish at the beginning of the campaign that all the characters know each other by association or reputation and have formed an adventuring party, and then let them get to know each other through play.

In the campaign I just started, the players were all hired by the cohort of a powerful Loremaster to explore Castle Whiterock and search for artifacts.  In the first session we breezed through the contract negotiation, and just got right to the adventure.  Worked out great.

I've seen the random-strangers-meeting device work out badly many times, and turn into a PvP bloodbath more than once.

Quote from: SaphimI'm bored to death with the "we are getting to know each other" phase.

Yeah, it's pretty boring in general.

Where it works well is if the players are new to each-other as well. Then it works as a bit of low-stakes roleplaying to help everyone warm up to each-other. Just like how often GMs will start a campaign with a practice fight or burglary or whatever, so that players can learn the system. So maybe...

Low stakes startups

• Players new to each-other: make characters new to each-other, so that players can do warm-up roleplaying to get into the feel of the new group.
  
• Players new to the system: practice combat/encounter/etc, so that players can learn the system.
  
• Players new to setting, and unwilling to study it: make characters new to setting, so that character discovery and player discovery can happen together.

But if the players know each-other, the system and the setting, don't fuck them about making them roleplay getting to know each-other. Just ask them how they're connected, then game on.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhere it works well is if the players are new to each-other as well. Then it works as a bit of low-stakes roleplaying to help everyone warm up to each-other. Just like how often GMs will start a campaign with a practice fight or burglary or whatever, so that players can learn the system. So maybe...

The few rare times I've had to do this, it didn't really work out well. In fact I've had more success esp with the role playing when new players don't play strangers but characters who know each other.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowAre bad experiences with the characters not knowing each other at the start of the game really that common and predictable for many people?

I wouldn't have said it if it weren't so IME.

QuoteDo people really not like having to work out common goals and other issues in character as an element of role-playing?

IME, you might have two or three players who enjoy this phase and make it enjoyable for others. But IME, you rarely find a whole group that is capable of making an enjoyable experience out of this for everyone in attendance.

I'd also note that just because two characters have an established relationship doesn't mean there isn't room to do further development of character relationships in play. It just let you get on with the premise of the adventure without waiting for the basic elements to get put into place, and lets you resolve them while the adventure is in full swing, an activity that typically everyone in the adventure can enjoy.

QuoteIs saying that the characters know each other before the game starts really a magic bullet that solves the problem and, if so, how?

By not putting the good play on hold while you wait for the multiple iterations of character relationships to develop, an activity that not everyone at the table will enjoy.

QuoteYes, my group has certainly played games where the characters knew each other before the game started, but in my experience, it doesn't change all that much.  If it did and made our games universally better, I suspect that my group would normally create characters like that but some of the best campaigns that we've had started out with characters that didn't know each other.

Some of my best games have been with groups that have a vastly divergent level of character power. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that it's still generally a good idea to have a general principle of character equivalence in place.

If I had something particular in mind that character introductions promised to be an interesting part of the introductory scenario, I wouldn't hesitate to start that way. But in the more general case where the scenario assumes the characters are a team of some sort to start with, I don't care to put the real action on hold while I'm ad hoccing ways that the characters might know each other.

Yes, I have had bad experiences with games that started off with the PCs as strangers, both as a player and a GM.  The badness ranged from mild (you waste most of a session with the PCs talking to each other without ever going out and doing anything) to severe (one or more PCs end up dead at the hands of the others).  

Now as a GM, I vastly prefer everyone starting out on the same team.  There doesn't need to be any elaborate explantion or back story though, just "you're all together and setting out to adventure" suffices for most games.  As a player, I make sure to quickly welcome any new PCs into the group just to keep the game moving along.  

Beyond the meeting phase, another potential problem that comes with stranger PCs, is once they complete their first adventure- why do they stay together?  They probably have different goals and plans, why in the world do they stay together as a team?  Depending on your players they may be happy to do so because they know the point of the game is to go have adventures, or they may think the point of the game is to play "in character" and drag the game to a halt as everyone goes their own way.

I've run games that used both approaches.  The "fizzle rate" seemed about the same whether the PCs were strangers or old friends.

A few of my players really enjoy playing out their first meetings.  I've found that, from my end, if the PCs are new to one another, I have to kick off the action with a definite mission or a session-long railroad ride to keep things from meandering.  After that, things can open up a bit more.

After the first adventure, my players will most often stick together (as it's kind of implicit they should).  However, I've had a game or two where everyone split up...which just entailed running separate sessions to keep everyone abreast, time-wise, having folks make new characters for each little group, etc.  I don't really have the time or energy to do that much anymore, though.  These days I usually make it clear up front that it's on the players to make characters that would work well together, whether or not they know each other.

I haven't seen the Traveller rules so I can't comment directly. But a couple of tables to suggest connections sounds handy - there if you want it and easy to ignore if you don't. Unless it's taking up a huge chunk of the book, I can't see getting upset about it.
 
Randomness often pushes thigns in new directions. Instead of having the players who are dating always team up, associations might play out in a new direction, at least at the beginning.
 
I often (but not always) put together a sitatuion where the characters are new to each other but are pushed together by circumstances - they are all starting at teh same school, all fell into the chasm, are a newly formed unit, or something along those lines.
 
What's odd (and pointed out in the movie The Gamers)  is when a character dies and characters automatically accept his replacement.  "Oh look, there's a druid wandering nearby, 'Come join our party!'"  A list of ideas for working in new characters would be handy for when the group is blank on ideas.

Quote from: John MorrowSome of the best role-playing I've seen involves PCs arguing about what to do or what to do next and having to work that out in character....Do people really not like having to work out common goals and other issues in character as an element of role-playing?

It occurs to me that these really aren't closely related to the issue of starting out knowing each other.  Differing goals and working out approaches is going to happen if even characters know each other.  If anything, arguments can be more intense due to history; people tend to argue with their relatives more than they do with strangers.  
 
A common history just provides a quick answer to why the group is staying together at all instead of wandering off in separate directions.