Alright, this is a topical discussion about how integrated into a campaign characters usually are. This is my question: How well is your character integrated into the campaign?
Let me elaborate: How much role do you have in the gameworld? Are you an outsider watching the lives of others unfold (such as unknown person A doing X for important person Y) or does your character have their own goals, motivations, personality and does this affect your game? (Are you person A doing X for person A)
Here's an example: You are running a task for the Noble of Brenton; whose son has dissappeared near the Goblin's Cave and is presumed to be taken hostage. Would you be an outside party simply helping the noble? Or would you be a knight/wizard/rogue in the Noble's employ? Do you move from quest to quest at the mercy of the GM or does the GM work with the party to help formulate where the party is headed?
I'll elaborate more on this later but you get my idea, yea?
I think it is hard as a player to integrate your character into the GM's plot with out some fore-knowledge of what the campaign is going to be.
For Adventures Paths they have tried to bridge this gap with the Player's Guides, and I think they are a good start, but only if the players care and want to get involved.
Additionally, there is a big concern about not revealing spoilers of the upcoming campaign in this type of material, but the more that is kept secret the less players can integrate with the story and the easier it is for them to assume the campaign is going in a very different direction than intended (Second Darkness comes to mind).
I guess where I am going with this is that character integration has to be a cooperative effort between the players and the GM. But when both work together I think this can come out beautifully.
The GM needs to listen to the player and figure out what it is that is important to that player about their character.
My experience is that the more mechanically focused the player is the easier this is, they just want the mechanics to stay the same and if you want to mess with the background to make it fit closer into the story... GREAT!!! There isn't anything wrong with this, in fact it makes your job as a GM easier. The challenge comes in when you want to make sure they remember the carefully crafted foreshadowing you put into their background.
Some of your hard core role-playing types though care more about their carefully crafted story than anything else about their character... heck that IS their character. For these players it is important that the GM be there for a significant portion of the crafting of the background. You know the story you want to tell and the world you are setting it in better than the player... help direct them subtley so that they can be fully integrated into the story. While this type of player will be the most resistant to this manipulation of the core of their character, they are also the player who is going to be the most appreciative of it working out. Hopefully you can both get to a point where you trust the other for the parts each of you are playing in crafting this character.
Traditionally when I have run games I have done some sort of prequal sort of thing to get them involved. For example, in Age of Worms I might play the group through as 10-12 year olds daring each other to go sleep overnight in the Whispering Cairn, a spot only the local kids know about, and when a kid finally accepts they aren't seen again... then some of the fallout and whatnot afterwards before fast forwarding to the start of the campaign. Basically play through some of the stuff that gets the group together and gets the campaign moving.
For my most recent campaign, I didn't get much response from my players on what their characters were going to be other than maybe a class. So, I decided to rely a bit more on Campaign Traits. It worked a LOT better than I worried it would, but I still think I prefer my prequal. I was able to, at the beginning of the session pull out information from my players about the situation that was described in the trait they chose (even if they chose it for purely mechanical reasons, they had to come up with a story when put on the spot). It worked well, but didn't result in as deep a connection as I like... still I think it was more than many in this group had really done previously (normally those with backgrounds write them independently, then keep it to themselves with the odd hint dropped in a conversation making no sense to anyone but them and their brooding character... what's the point of that?)
Anyway... just my two coppers on the topic...
Sean Mahoney
|
Strange :/ I always furnish my dm with a copy of my character background. It doesn't really exist if the dm doesn't know about it.
So True...
I always have a good background for my character but in our games it does not come up much so character background does not see the light of day. I still believe they are a good idea though because it makes them more "real" to you, the person playing them.
I remember one game we were already at 5th level (about 3 game sessions) and I asked the guy across from me what his characters name is? He gave me a blank look for a second (as he glanced down at his sheet) and said... I have not picked one out yet? LOL But that in my groups and each group has their + Bonus and - downers...
My DM had a chat with all of the other players before/during/after character creation to successfully incorporate our characters into his campaign. He actually influenced some of my decisions so that my character is more a part of his story than I would have thought. Now people are trying to assassinate my character left and right, and she is "prophesied" to become a Dragon Disciple instead of me just taking the prestige class because I wanted to become more dragon-like.
There are inconsequential side quests we can do (like hunting down thieves or solving a murder), actions that force our GM to invent new scenarios/relationships (like accidentally burning down a brothel), plus various other things (like starting a shipping/trading syndicate), but we are never key-holed into doing anything but the main plot... which only advances when we choose to do so.
It's nice to have the freedom to explore and grow, but with a higher purpose always lingering in the background.
I tend to discuss their characters with my players, they tend to give me some short background information which I can work with often I can model bits of the campaign to involve players more. I can usually also give some advice to make their character work within a certain concept or give them some direction, I rarely create plots around the characters unless multiple characters share a similar background.
|
When 1E came out there was a lot of number crunching. We were still learning to role play. NPCs in the early mods were lucky if they even had a name.
In 2E role-play was well established and while the game had a lot of crunch, it also had a lot of meat on those bones. Mini's and a battlemap were still optional.
3E brought mini's and battlemaps to the forefront. Roleplay was there, but the mechanics of the game came first. Skills and Feats helped to define what your character could do, but you were left on your own about who your character really was.
Luckily, Pathfinder has added campaign traits which help to tie the character to the campaign. The choices may still be limited and uneven, but it puts more importance on roleplay in the game than in the past. GMs and players have to think about it a little more. And unless it's Society play nothing is stopping the group from coming up with other campaign traits that better suit the player's character concepts.
We also have very rich and luxurious gamespaces now. Which can be trouble if the player has a detailed background in mind that doesn't fit the campaign. It's really up to the GM and player to work out PC backgrounds ahead of time. I think smart players nowadays develop a basic personality for their PC, add some background based on what they know about the world they are in and then let their PC develop via the campaign itself.
My personal experience has been groups with more roll-play, but I mostly do organized play (first Living Greyhawk, now Pathfinder Society). So far I've found LG slightly better at roleplay because of the real-world regions and triad aspect to the game. But PFS is still young and having venture-captains spread in different lodges throughout the real world may help to give players more sense of belonging to the campaign (if not their actual characters).
I prefer a game with a lot of roleplay and less focus on the rules, but most of those I game with are more rules oriented. I suspect it is partly because of the vast amount of core rules players need to deal with these days. They spend so much effort on the rules that roleplay takes a back seat.
Strange :/ I always furnish my dm with a copy of my character background. It doesn't really exist if the dm doesn't know about it.So True...
I always have a good background for my character but in our games it does not come up much so character background does not see the light of day. I still believe they are a good idea though because it makes them more "real" to you, the person playing them.
I remember one game we were already at 5th level (about 3 game sessions) and I asked the guy across from me what his characters name is? He gave me a blank look for a second (as he glanced down at his sheet) and said... I have not picked one out yet? LOL But that in my groups and each group has their + Bonus and - downers...
In nay game I am in I always ask for every PC name in the first session. I like to know what my PC is calling everyone else. In our current game the monk, a young lad right out of the monastary, didnt have a name. So he is now known as Grasshopper :)
|
Traditionally when I have run games I have done some sort of prequal sort of thing to get them involved. For example, in Age of Worms I might play the group through as 10-12 year olds daring each other to go sleep overnight in the Whispering Cairn, a spot only the local kids know about, and when a kid finally accepts they aren't seen again... then some of the fallout and whatnot afterwards before fast forwarding to the start of the campaign. Basically play through some of the stuff that gets the group together and gets the campaign moving.
I did something similar, but as a handout, rather than playing it through.
And I couldn't just photocopy the text from the mag, as I'd changed the date of the last entry into the ruins. It seemed unlikely that everyone would have forgotten the place after only 10 years, so when two players who decided to play locals both picked dwarves, I set the missing children hook back forty years, long enough for it to be forgotten by the humans, who'd be in late middle age.(normally those with backgrounds write them independently, then keep it to themselves with the odd hint dropped in a conversation making no sense to anyone but them and their brooding character... what's the point of that?)
Inigo Montoya: "The six-fingered man!"
Wesley: "Huh?"Fezzik: "--?"
The six-fingered man: "What are you waffling about?....Oh! ..err.. <pulls player's backstory out of his bag>...hold on....Right! Yes. I run away."
Inigo Montoya: "My name is Inigo Montoya! Prepare to die!" <runs after TSFM>
Wesley: "What was THAT all about?"
Fezzik: "--?"
|
|
In any game I am in I always ask for every PC name in the first session. I like to know what my PC is calling everyone else. In our current game the monk, a young lad right out of the monastary, didnt have a name. So he is now known as Grasshopper :)
He nearly didn't have a head, last session. So we'd never have found out.
He'd have been tossed in a hasty grave, "Grasshopper, Master of the art of Ecky Thump."
As both a player and as a dm I like the pc's to be integrated into the game world. I dont want to feel like I am just running errands, I try to make the story about the PCs and thier interaction with the world. Personal hooks always have more value to me then generic ones. To that end I give my players an idea of what kind of story I plan to tell, and how to integrate the players into the world. Sometimes that will include minor spoilers, but I am ok with that if it means a richer game experience.
When I run a campaign I start with an idea and don't expand upon it until characters are created.
For starters, I try to have my players make characters cooperatively as a group rather than on their own. This allows players to bounce ideas off of each other and link their character backgrounds. Plus, I'll be present to give suggestion on how each character might best fit into the setting I have in find.
I always require players to create at least two NPCs when writing their backgrounds, then work those NPCs into the setting.
I also have players give me two short term goals and 1 long term goal for their characters, and I build aspects of the campaign around those goals.
Those three things ensure the campaign always has things the players find interesting.
As far as when I'm not the GM, it all depends on who is running. In most cases I have a pretty good idea of what the campaign will be about and can build a character based on that. I also try to work with other players and try to find/create connections between our characters.
In the few instances where I've been forced to make a character blind, the campaign is usually unsatisfying.
Wow, didn't expect this topic to see light of day when i posted it :P
I like to envelope my characters into the worlds they live in. GM's world or not, i like my guys to have something that drives them; and usually that's what the backstory/character intergration is for. I mean, it's all fine if you want to play the fighter who says "I do X for Y amount of Gold/treasure/riches" but i prefer the characters have more intergrating into their world then just being greedy money-hoarders.
I'm not sure. How would one come up with a backstory that would be useful to the campaign plot but still give the DM the element of surprise and the power to put his own spin on things?
Yea, i know a few of you have answered this but still, I'd like some more feedback.
|
The last campaign I ran (D&D4e Eberron setting) I made sure to go through collaborative campaign creation with the players, basically asking what sort of campaign they wanted and coming up with a means that the characters know each other and how much direction in terms of adventures they wanted.
The PCs were basically members of the dragonmarked house Orien employed as troubleshooters.
The players also came up with backgrounds for their characters that allowed me to write the plots around them, bringing in old enemies and having one player character (a worforged) discover how he was created.
So basically, when I run a campaign of my own writing I make it a point to make the PCs completely integrated.
Thnx for the feedback, btw
My GM's (two guys taking turns between PC and GM) started the campaign out simple, and are wanting to flush out the story of their world. I love to create elaborate characters (take a guess why im known as Writer) and masterful storylines. It's something i just like to do. But i don't do so until after I've played a few games with my character and it seems i have come to that point in my first Pathfinder game.
I've played a few games of 3.5 and 4e. To be honest, i was never as integrated into a campaign as i wanted to be. Doing X for Y amount of Gold was very shallow, and I didn't want this campaign to go the same way. Now I have discussed it with one of my GM's (he's running the stoy tonight) and wanted to know how/if there is a good way to present the backstory ideas i have come up with so far.
Thnx for all the suggestions and support.
|
|
I always require players to create at least two NPCs when writing their backgrounds, then work those NPCs into the setting.
That's an interesting idea.
Do you put any limitations on that?I can see it being useful when it's "This is my fencing instructor, who still acts as captain in the town guard.".
A bit less so, when it's "This is Belldandy, my personal goddess....".
I like to play in Adventure Paths, so I usually try to adapt my PC's back story to the campaign (to a greater or lesser degree) rather than expecting the GM to write my PC's back story into the campaign.
But then again, I'm not a fan of the "twenty pages of background" school of PC building; a few paragraphs is enough for me.
|
|
In most of my games, how well integrated the players were was determined mostly by the players themselves.
Those that had established backgrounds and solid character concepts were usually fairly well integrated. Those who were just stat blocks, I assumed to essentially be unknown individuals from obscure villages.
How much impact the characters had within the world was also determined by their actions. I ran fairly sandboxy games. Those who spent all their time in the wilderness / dungeons rarely achieved much in the way of fame. Those who spent time interacting with towns and NPC's typically managed to eventually develope reputaions for themselves, good or bad.
I always require players to create at least two NPCs when writing their backgrounds, then work those NPCs into the setting.That's an interesting idea.
Do you put any limitations on that?
I can see it being useful when it's "This is my fencing instructor, who still acts as captain in the town guard.".A bit less so, when it's "This is Belldandy, my personal goddess....".
I usually don't put limitations on it, but I do reserve the right to veto something. My players are usually pretty reasonable though.
One of my standing policies is that I'm pretty much willing to give players anything they want within reason in exchange for an equivalent amount of adversity. If you want to be childhood friends with Cayden Cailean, then you better be prepared for some major tragedy to balance that out.
I do require that backgrounds be reasonable when compared to your level. if you're starting at 1st level, you've obviously never killed an army of demons or something like that. Unless your background somehow explained WHY you are only first level.
It can depend from game to game, but I generally like to design relatively detailed character backgrounds, and like it when my players do the same.
In fact as a GM, I often work with the (willing) player to integrate the character more deeply into the campaign if their background doesn't do it a lot---often to help tie PCs to the same organization or region so they have a reason to be together (the players are also encouraged to work together to come up with reasons why they are tied together). Part of why I work with them is I have a homebrew world some players have more time and interest to read up on than others. IIRC in my last campaign one of my players who tends to be busy managed to come up with, "Okay, I know he moved into X region because he liked the policy of racial tolerance and has probably been there several decades." And I said, "Okay, well if you've been there that long, you probably helped out during the rebellion there. Being known as a local war hero by those who remember, you've got friends at the PC Meeting Place who suggested you...." That kind of thing.
I don't "force" anything on anyone and try to work with players with their tolerance and interest levels of background development (and believe me my players are more than capable of letting me know if I'm trying to get them to do something they don't want to).
As a player, it can depend on whether I have a general character concept I want to play separate of campaign variables, or the setting in question has inspired a specific character concept. It also depends on how well I know the setting. Some of my characters have had very deep ties into the campaign world (at GM's encouragement); others are things like, "Uh, well, she's a scholar, is there a university she could be attached to?" and then going from there. Some pick up games, or games where characters are developed in a very quick period of time, obviously will result in characters with less developed backgrounds (though I usually try to find campaign hooks for them as I go along).
The whole point of this is of course to give players extra fuel for roleplaying and character goals (hopefully several of which are mutual), and to give the GM plot fodder to work with as the campaign unfolds. Any character background details are intended to help make gameplay easier, not bog it down with unnecessary stuff. It works well for the groups I play in, usually.
TL;DR I think campaign integration works well if both players and GM are invested in it and encourage it.
|
|
But then again, I'm not a fan of the "twenty pages of background" school of PC building; a few paragraphs is enough for me.
Does anyone think this is a product of what era one started playing?
The 'twenty pages of background' style seems to mesh with the 'my PC is destined for great things' belief, and thus to the 'I will pout if my PC experiences any trivial setback' problem.
(What many of us old-schoolers sometimes refer to as the 'Dragonlance' genre..."I can't possibly fail! I'm on the cover of the next five-volume trilogy!")
OE, BECMI and early 1st Ed seemed to promote the style of 'Your PCs are no different to anyone else who just fell off the turnip cart. Roll some random stats, we'll play through what happens to them, and THEN we'll see what kind of fate lies in store for them.'.
I saw a lot of players who played 'the nameless stranger', so they didn't waste a good name or background on a character who wasn't going to be played past level 2.
If they went on to high levels, they'd open up and have a story; if they didn't, they obviously weren't fated to be heroes, just to be some worthless chump who got kicked into a ditch.
But then again, I'm not a fan of the "twenty pages of background" school of PC building; a few paragraphs is enough for me.Does anyone think this is a product of what era one started playing?
I think it has more to do with the following:
1) How much the player likes to write. Some players just like to write stories and jump at the opportunity.
2) How disappointing or railroaded the previous campaigns have been. If a player thinks his background is the only time he will have input into the campaign he's gonna load up as much as he can.
Alright, this is a topical discussion about how integrated into a campaign characters usually are. This is my question: How well is your character integrated into the campaign?
Let me elaborate: How much role do you have in the gameworld? Are you an outsider watching the lives of others unfold (such as unknown person A doing X for important person Y) or does your character have their own goals, motivations, personality and does this affect your game? (Are you person A doing X for person A)
I rarely get to play, but my group tends to involve themselves without me doing anything other than providing them an opportunity. The strategist doesn't really care if his character is involved background-wise. He always views his characters as outsiders (whether accepted, ostracized, or generally ignored) who are pulled into the campaign by the other characters and reacts accordingly. The other players want a more involved backstory that will tie into their activities later on. They tell me event_G involved a character/organization with these [vague description] traits knowing that I'll find a way to integrate it into the story. The most important part of the game, to them, is how their characters are introduced to each other; this usually involves three or more sessions.
But then again, I'm not a fan of the "twenty pages of background" school of PC building; a few paragraphs is enough for me.Does anyone think this is a product of what era one started playing?
I'm not so sure. I knew a few D&D players in "days of olde" who had verbal diarrhea as well.
LOL 20 pages . . .
Usually a page or two will suffice. Tbh, if i can write more then 3 pages about a character then I prolly shouldn't be running that character in a campaign ^_^ ie it means im too attached to that character. I know balance is needed.
As a fellow player and GM in Kolokotroni, I like to build the setting around the players. In the kingmaker game I run, the PCs grew to want a much more interactive role-playing oriented game than what we usually run, more than Kingmaker even creates. So, with the players and especially Kolo, we developed an actual charter/Bill of Rights for their kingdom. It's simple but fairly all-inclusive, compared to other such legal documents. It also has given me a great avenue for encounters, as they have to weigh the 'normal' player mentality of killin' and lootin' vs. following their own declared laws. It's pretty good, works well, and lets the PCs play their role in the kingdom instead of just stats and class. It's also getting to the point where some PCs cringe when the word 'Fae' is uttered, because they don't know if it's an ally, nuisance, enemy, or world-changing madness.
In the game Kolo runs, the party, IMHO, really feels like we are making a difference in more than just the encounter. He does it well, and really tailors the campaign to how we play, even on an encounter basis.
The key factors for a GM to fully integrate players into a campaign is:
- Imagination - this seems like a no-brainer, but many GMs stay too focused on rules or reading block-text. Which leads to:
- Ad-libing - a good GM can make up a plausible explanation for 'X' on the spot. A great GM can make a cohesive, deep explination on the spot. A phenomenal GM already has an explination ready because he already knew his players were going to ask that specific question.
- Contingencies - a bit of both of the above. Players will never follow the perfect story-line. Whether on the fly or planned out, a GM has to know what encounters to change or forgo.
All this is pretty basic, but it always bears repentance. I've always viewed the job of GM as this:
- Any GM can get a player to kill a monster
- A competent GM can get a player to fear or hate a monster.
- A good GM can get a player to like and help an ally.
- A great GM can get a NPC to gain the trust of the players and betray them at a critical moment in the game. As a PC finally delivers the finishing blow, they feel anger and betrayal, as well as a twinge of guilt and sadness for loosing a friend.
That is what I aim for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I keep trying to remind my players of, and which they are having a very hard time "getting":
They are free to make stuff up. I do not claim sole authorship of the game world. It's an additive process. If one of them If I haven't provided them with details about something int he campaign, those details can be whatever they want to be. If one of them asks "Do I have any relatives who work in the palace?" I'll answer "I dunno, do you?"
They are free to make up NPCs, history, culture, etc, whatever. Saves me brainpower coming up with stuff myself. More than that, I want them to "own" the campaign setting, so that they'll be more involved in it.
This can be done SO successfully SO many different ways... it really depends on the players. I have 2 friends who are involved in most of my cmpaigns, and the 3 of us usually collaborate to some extent for the entire game world. Then, we play our first session. After i see how characters are played i ask them a few questions and write up a background for their character, which is then given to them for approval or editing, or even a complete veto. Even PC to PC there can be huge differences. In one game I DMed, one character was a Revenant Blood Warrior from Liber Vampyr (player loves RP) and the other, a half orc barbarian (none to interested in RP), was his "familiar" (think Blade or Cirque du Freak), and both worked for a group of aristocratic vampires, in which they did ascen, have a chain of command, etc. Worked great for both characters, and was a blast! I'm beginning a campaign tomorrow where the PCs (many new players) will be beginning escaping from slavery to an orc tribe. Should provide plenty of background ideas and suggestions.
|
|
One thing I keep trying to remind my players of, and which they are having a very hard time "getting":
They are free to make stuff up. I do not claim sole authorship of the game world. It's an additive process. If one of them If I haven't provided them with details about something in the campaign, those details can be whatever they want to be. If one of them asks "Do I have any relatives who work in the palace?" I'll answer "I dunno, do you?"
They are free to make up NPCs, history, culture, etc, whatever. Saves me brainpower coming up with stuff myself. More than that, I want them to "own" the campaign setting, so that they'll be more involved in it.
That's something I wish more players would do (or GMs allow, when I'm a player).
I think most players don't ask, because they feel they'll tread on the GM's toes ("They enjoy doing all that work!"), or contradict what's coming up in the adventure.
GMs don't ask because they fear having to vet a pile of munchkin cheese.
|
|
That's something I wish more players would do (or GMs allow, when I'm a player).
I think most players don't ask, because they feel they'll tread on the GM's toes ("They enjoy doing all that work!"), or contradict what's coming up in the adventure.
GMs don't ask because they fear having to vet a pile of munchkin cheese.
The first rule of improv is that you work with whatever your fellow performers give you and never really reject anything. While I retain veto power when it comes to RPG campaigns, I still hew as close to that rule as I can. Good stuff comes from it.
Usually we start pretty low level (1-3) and therefor don't have a whole lot of influence over the game world but that quickly changes. Not everyone in our group drives to actively shape the game world but I always do. Our DM does a good job of giving us those opportunities.
Running or playing, my preference (and the way it usually works out, my group is pretty like-minded) is to tell the DM my background in important bullet points (major events, major possible NPC's, family status) and how I came to be in the land we're in. Once in game, you can embellish the tale of the journey and so on, so long as you're not claiming to be the Last Highlander or Vegeta or something like that. Also, you're required to name at least one major flaw your character has (usually a psychological one, but not always) compared to the (mythical) 'normal' or 'average' person, and a series of small short-term goals and/or a long-term one if you have one already.
Once in game, the first few levels in the 'new' territory (very seldom is someone from the country where the game starts; not sure how that trend started, but it's a pretty common one these days) is meeting people, figuring out 'something to do' (the early quests), and then branching out from there. The DM uses clues and hints from conversation to determine where the next destination seems likely and plans accordingly. Also, quite possible an event occurs that hits just enough 'buttons' to make a BBEG-type person, organization, etc and sends the players in that direction instead. Either way, it's pretty easy to see where it's going.
Finally, characters and their actions tend to be noticeable in scope, although not always. Whenever possible, we maintain consistency by having old PC's show up as retired tavern owners, wandering adventurers, or sometimes just legends or sad tales...often with unbelievable exaggerations from peasant 'telephone' (Oh yeah, I remember when Hana killed that Linnorm with a peashooter! Don't look at me that way Jebediah, you'n'the boys was there too! Bah, whadda you know, you're still half-drunk anyhow...). They're not all over the place of course...usually a once or twice a campaign thing depending on the land.
Alright; turns out my current Pathfinder game (aka my first Real pathfinder game) has a lot of interactive players in it. My GM's are requesting people to make up an actual storyline, and seem impressed as im the only player contributing largely to the RPG (fluff-wise). Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing other character backgrounds.
Personally, i like to have characters tied together. I'd like to see realistic reasons that explain why I'm with the party; not another 'we happen to travel and fight together' type of campaign that was in my 3.5 and 4e experiances.
What do you think? Do you like to have your characters related to others in the story somehow, or do you prefer to build their friendships from level 1?
Alright; turns out my current Pathfinder game (aka my first Real pathfinder game) has a lot of interactive players in it. My GM's are requesting people to make up an actual storyline, and seem impressed as im the only player contributing largely to the RPG (fluff-wise). Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing other character backgrounds.
Personally, i like to have characters tied together. I'd like to see realistic reasons that explain why I'm with the party; not another 'we happen to travel and fight together' type of campaign that was in my 3.5 and 4e experiances.
What do you think? Do you like to have your characters related to others in the story somehow, or do you prefer to build their friendships from level 1?
Grats on finding a good interactive game. :)
I've done the 'related' thing before, and done a 'childhood friends' thing, but I prefer to build friendships from the ground up. The downside (depending on who you ask) is that we have LONG campfire talks.
"Look, it's the fifth game, don't you think three days of travel so far is a BIT underwhelming?" =P
What my group has been doing for the last few years is before anyone makes their own character we all agree to some general theme. These themes can be mechanical or story based, but help bring the group together and generally give a focus to what the party as a whole wants to accomplish. Then players come up with their own sub-goals that drive towards that objective.
Examples include: Everyone is a dwarf, Spartans, everybody has a spell book, we are all from country X, everybody is a rogue, everyone worships x deity, etc.
As a particular case study, we played a group of characters who all were heretical followers of Anachtyr, a Forgotten Realms deity of justice. The heresy? We didn't support the churches tacit acceptance of slavery. Our characters included a paladin, cleric, inquisitor, and a courtroom wizard. Right from the get go, we threw in some starting cash to buy a team of oxen, a wagon, a portable altar, and a few dozen holy texts and holy symbols to pass around. In central city that we based ourselves out of, our first mission involved clearing out an evil cult disguising themselves as a legitimate church, and when we were finished, we established a church to Anachtyr. Our group set up codewords that used our shared religion as a cypher. In town we fought (metaphorically) with other established churches and the city leaders over subjects like zoning and converting citizens. We formed close ties with the local militia and guards.
We did all of this because we wanted to create a holy army to return to our homeland and overthrow not only the nations leadership, but also our own religion. To "purify" the faith by flame and sword if necessary.
The central theme not only helped the players make their characters fit well with each other, but also with the greater game world. And by having a theme, we cued the GM into what we wanted as players, so he could customize adventures and rewards to our long term objectives.
- A great GM can get a NPC to gain the trust of the players and betray them at a critical moment in the game. As a PC finally delivers the finishing blow, they feel anger and betrayal, as well as a twinge of guilt and sadness for loosing a friend.
- A really bad Dungeon Master does this until the players refuse to make any connections to Non-player characters and expect every one of them to betray the characters.
As for the main topic of discussion; when I get a chance to play I try to intergrate my characters into the world as best I can. However it can be a difficult balancing act to have a nice full background that doesn't step on the Dungeon Master's story. So, I tend for the character to be coming from a far away country so as to avoid story confict and also to allow for a stranger in a strange land style interaction.
I like to have personal motivations for my characters beyond the quest for treasure and monster killing, and encourge my players to do the same when I Dungeon Master. The kind of motivations that can be worked into a campaign without to much difficulty if the Dungeon Master wishes to do so.
@ RATS ARCHIVE: You sir are a g~**$+n @#$%ing Genius. I am going to bring that up during our next session.
@ Gravescion: Good backstory doesn't step on the DM's toes (usually). It just provides fodder for the DM to use to further the story. I just remember that when I do that the DM has the first, last, and final word when it comes to everything. Keeping that in mind helps to keep me in check.
Great feedback guys. Plz keep it up.
@ TheJeff: My general opinion is; if you're using background/character integration to get ahead in the campaign, you're doing it wrong ^_^
Alright, this is a topical discussion about how integrated into a campaign characters usually are. This is my question: How well is your character integrated into the campaign?
Let me elaborate: How much role do you have in the gameworld? Are you an outsider watching the lives of others unfold (such as unknown person A doing X for important person Y) or does your character have their own goals, motivations, personality and does this affect your game? (Are you person A doing X for person A)
Here's an example: You are running a task for the Noble of Brenton; whose son has dissappeared near the Goblin's Cave and is presumed to be taken hostage. Would you be an outside party simply helping the noble? Or would you be a knight/wizard/rogue in the Noble's employ? Do you move from quest to quest at the mercy of the GM or does the GM work with the party to help formulate where the party is headed?
I'll elaborate more on this later but you get my idea, yea?
My players are doing something for someone, but if they come up with a background story I try to work it into the game. I normally do AP's, and even when I wrote my own stories I had an over reaching plot.
My group has played through a number of paizo products, and every time we do we leave behind what we consider permanent changes in the setting. We also leave behind high-level characters in each major location of the various settings. So far we've been through Rise of the Runelords, Council of Thieves, and I believe that this group may have played Curse of the Crimson Throne while I wasn't around. We're currently in Jade Regent, Second Darkness, and Legacy of Fire games.
We might play Kingmaker next, concurrent with the Jade Regent game (which is the game we have played least, thus far) and by that time we'll have had an average of five characters in at least four games, so upwards of twenty powerful adventurers are out in Golarion pursuing a variety of agendas.
Most of our characters tend to remain where they have roots, though. So our Rise of the Runelords characters remained in Sandpoint for the most part, which has made the beginning of Jade Regent interesting. Should any of our parties ever adventure in Cheliax, they will find a very different Westcrown than the stock model. A LG half-elf paladin of Sarenrae as lord mayor, for a start. With a sort of shadow government represented by a hideous but charming LE tiefling inquisitor.
I like this kind of consistency in our games, so much so that if I have free time I'm seriously considering spending it coming up with an epic campaign that will allow everyone to play their favorite characters again.