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.