In the Mongoose Traveller thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10205), 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.
Some of our best games have been "the getting to know you" parts. We have no hard and fast rule on whether the PC's have to know each other or not.
John,
I don't know about 'Goose Traveller rules but I certainly don't think such rules need to exclude "strangers". Instead they are more the players agreeing on/understanding the framework of what connection the characters have, a rough idea of the ties that bind and conflicts between them. At least the initial ones. The characters can still meet for the first time at the start of, or after the start of play. They may or may not of even heard of each other before.
As such the name of this thread and the premise you assume misses the mark.
Can't comment on MT rules but I have had groups with pre-existing connections many times. This helps a lot. First, it gives a basis for the story. That is to say it often feeds into the plot. So, "we are a bunch of fighter pilots" might not help much for a story about finding a secret underground world...but it might. Generally, it is helpful because the GM discusses with the players what is expected. So, you get the group of archaeologists with the police officer and the guy he caught with the ancient artifact all coming together to form a comprehensive group.
Second, it often helps with suspension of disbelief. I can live with women as strong as men, ;) but a group of strangers suddenly willing to risk their lives for each other because they are "adventurers" has caused problems.
Finally, I don't think I ever considered formalized rules on this point. If you want to do it...well, just do it. If you don't, and I do not always insist on it, then don't.
Bill
Quote from: Kyle AaronThat 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?"
That's a pretty good way to put it. Although the "connection" need not imply knowledge of each other, that I think is where the confusion lays. Simply similar or conflicting likes/dislikes/goals.
It is a refined version of the GM just plunking all your characters down at the entrace to a cave of wealth and danger. :) Instead of having to focus on the external interaction (like zombie dinosaurs and a burning inn) this allows you to more reliably mix more intra-party stuff into the game off the start. It can even give the GM a better handle on framing the external interaction.
I think it's fun from time to time as a change of pace to start out as strangers.
I've done it as a GM a few times and it worked out well.
The one the players liked the most was the modern game I ran: " You wake up in a totally unfamiliar room with unfamiliar people with a massive headache. You have no idea how you got there, but you notice a large open bag with several bags of a white powdery substance in it , a dead body lying next to it and a pistol at your feet. Sirens ringing in the background intesifies you headache to the point of blured vision. What do you do?"
Quote from: NicephorusIt 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.
The problem is that unless the players spend time working out the history, simply declaring that two characters have a history doesn't necessarily bring the depth to the table that creates those real life effects. Yes, I once extemporanously had lengthy backstory conversations with another player about our two characters and while that was fun once, it's not something I'd look forward to repeating.
Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that unless the players spend time working out the history, simply declaring that two characters have a history doesn't necessarily bring the depth to the table that creates those real life effects.
No, but it's likely a better kernel to start from than absolutely nothing. As a gm, for games when I want non-strangers and such a tool was available, I'd likely tell players to either think of something or roll. I'm not seeing a problem with having an additional option.
Quote from: McrowI think it's fun from time to time as a change of pace to start out as strangers.
I've done it as a GM a few times and it worked out well.
The one the players liked the most was the modern game I ran: " You wake up in a totally unfamiliar room with unfamiliar people with a massive headache. You have no idea how you got there, but you notice a large open bag with several bags of a white powdery substance in it , a dead body lying next to it and a pistol at your feet. Sirens ringing in the background intesifies you headache to the point of blured vision. What do you do?"
See, but this is just a variation on the "You all have something in common" theme. You share the affliction, you share the condition. Sure, you do not have a history (that you know of) but you have a shared circumstance).
Personally, I think it depends on how you approach gaming. At one end you have the wargamer and they view the game as the place where I make rolls, the gm throws monsters at me and I either win or loose. There character is a mini with a few quirks attached to it. On the other end, you have people who it is all about story, how I got there, in fact, they often will refer to their characters in the first person. They identify with them. Thus, the need for a context of why I am here. Most important to this observation is the fact that most folks fall in between the extremes.
In the end, if your play style is o.k. with "We all meet in the bar, immediately know we are adventurers, and get on to the game" then the idea of intertwined circumstance and its ability to influence game enjoyment will seem superfluous. To discount either extreme is just not realistic. Some folks make up no more history for thier character than "I am a fighter" and as long as the player, group and GM are o.k. with that...great.
Bill
Quote from: John MorrowYes, I once extemporanously had lengthy backstory conversations with another player about our two characters and while that was fun once, it's not something I'd look forward to repeating.
I've never had such a conversation (EDIT: well I suppose what you mean by 'lengthy', I've had several minutes of conversation at times but always consciously avoided details, it's about laying out the framework ) and I don't expect as a rule that I would enjoy it much, especially the effect on the table. Backstory of length and detail doesn't do much for me. I know someone that does somewhat get off on it and it usually brings little to the table other than baggage that he, the GM, and the other players end up having to labourously wade through to get to the game. :shrug:
You know, it might be helpful to view characters as always starting off as strangers--unless they're blood relations. From this perspective it's not a matter of whether you do introductions but when--in "normal" game time, or as part of the pre-game.
Then you can go on to reflect on whether the characters' introduction to each other and indeed relationships are going to be part of the main action of the game or if there's going to be something else that the players expect to focus on.
Quote from: HinterWeltSee, but this is just a variation on the "You all have something in common" theme. You share the affliction, you share the condition. Sure, you do not have a history (that you know of) but you have a shared circumstance).
In the end, all games start with
some connection between the characters. Whether it be "you meet at the tavern" or any other begining they have something in common or the game couldn't work.
It is a matter of what the connection is useful for. "You meet at the tavern" carries you are far as getting the characters in the same room, and then ....[pregnant pause]
zombie dinosaurs and fire, obviously.
Quote from: McrowIn the end, all games start with some connection between the characters. Whether it be "you meet at the tavern" or any other begining they have something in common or the game couldn't work.
It's all about emergent properties, yo.
Shared connections will happen on their own as players experience things together.
IME, these sorts of methods of forcing shared connections through character backstory and the like tend to be rendered meaningless in no time flat, because events experienced in game will create far stronger bonds than artificial ones created before the fact.
Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that unless the players spend time working out the history, simply declaring that two characters have a history doesn't necessarily bring the depth to the table that creates those real life effects. Yes, I once extemporanously had lengthy backstory conversations with another player about our two characters and while that was fun once, it's not something I'd look forward to repeating.
Detailed backstory is not something I look forward to from players. But you don't really need one to establish a connection. Just a brief one or two liner works most of the time. Depth comes from actually playing the character and working on the relationship over a period of time. And since most of the discussion happens before the game, you got a certain amount to work off from once the game starts.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that unless the players spend time working out the history, simply declaring that two characters have a history doesn't necessarily bring the depth to the table that creates those real life effects.
Of course not. Not is such necessarily desirable, nor am I suggesting you try to force such a thing. I imagine the players who are interested would add such details as they see fit, and any method I would use to this effect would facilitate it.
To me, intitial depth is not necessarily the goal, and there is still room for deeper character relationships to evolve. What I think is specifically assisted is a shift from the default assumption "PCs don't know each other", and the attendant wasted time answering how they become a group and why they would work together.
Interesting discussion. I did blanche somewhat when someone stated that in one of their games the PCs just talked to each other and did nothing and they thought that was a bad thing. PCs talking to each other is roleplay gold.
My group are at the role play end of the scale for sure (we once had a tea party in one PCs vicarage in Chthulu that lasted for 2 hours real time... only 1 NPC the vicar's wife and she was just serving buns... and we hadn't even started the investigation yet..).
I have never had a problem bring PC together, as a GM, if that is what the game required. I do it with a mix of you are strangers with a shared circumstance; you are hired by a third party to do a job; you have previous contact with each other; you are relatives , this is a last resort only used to link a very diserate character to the group. Usually you can do this with very little rail roading and it just kind of flows.
The plot is the thing. I think where you have plot based games, as opposed to encounter based games set in a sand box of some description, getting the party together is almost trivial. You sometimes have to let the players know about the frame of reference for the plot prior to them making characters. If the plot is a diamond heist you really should tell the players that its a heist of some type in case they all create rock musician characters. In the fantasy milieu its simple as the classes are by definition 'adventurers' although i have been known as being a real pain and lookign for motivation for why my monk would leave thet sanctuary of the temple to step into the real world.... etc.
What I tend to do is to find the character that is the hardest to fit in and make them the lynch pin and they recruit the obvious ones. So in a fantasy game if you have a bard, an assasin, a hedge mage and a Barbarian mercenary , they you give the plot to the Bard, their lover/patron/uncle needs them to find/kill/destroy the litch king/ring of power/greenstalk they obviously need some help and the other PCs are in town as they are on the run/out of work/working for the litch king etc ... if a PC puts the team together it never really feels forced. Occassionally, it doesn't work on its own and it needs a nudge but more often that not ...
Quote from: McrowIn the end, all games start with some connection between the characters. Whether it be "you meet at the tavern" or any other begining they have something in common or the game couldn't work.
See, I disagree. I have seen enough play and played in enough games where it is literally, "I have the fighter, you have the thief. Yeah, so what do we kill". What you described had much more back story than it appeared to have. To make it equivalent, you would need to have not a lack of memories but an omission of them in the character, then just assume we will all get together. It minimizes the character and maximizes the player. Acceptable, but definitely more game oriented than story. It does not play to my style.
Mind, sometimes I just say "Yeah, you all answered an ad in the local paper" but that is still a shared circumstance. As I said before, there are extremes and most people fall between.
Bill
I've always believed that the party is a character in itself. There are individual dynamics but for the most part games are prepared for the party. I do believe in establishing a party concept as a trigger for adventure. I'm not fond of establishing party scenarios in game because for some reason they actually seem even more forced.
I like to think of party concepts that allow players to create a variety of characters within.
Quote from: John MorrowSo 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?
They're common in my gaming circle.
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?
A system that encourages relationships/connections at startup isn't necessarily going to exclude working out the issues you speak of.
I think conflicts within the PC group is perfectly fine. I enjoy it, most of the roleplayers I know enjoy it too.
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?
Absolutely not a magic bullet. But you gotta start the game somewhere, sometime, no?
You've decided, for instance, on a special op game and let the players build 300-point characters. Now, maybe someone is going to say he'd like to live (play out) the formative years of his military guy. But that's not the game you had in mind.
There's always a starting point. You always cut to it. And the group has been a neglected aspect of that. Please note I don't think the system should straight-jacket too much. Preferably, a system that facilitates connections is enough.
These connections can be loose enough but I like when they are there. Two characters not knowing each other but owing money to the same crime lord, working for the same organization, etc... is enough. But I like for each character to be connected to at least one or two other PC somehow.