| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When starting a new game, players often come to the table with an idea of the character they want to play (or possibly multiple such ideas). While there's nothing wrong with that, it can often lead to an odd situation when these ideas are thrust together and told that they are now a party.
To me, it seems very odd that such a group would naturally form. Now, when I've run games in the past, I've always used the first session for creating characters and developing their various backgrounds. The problem is that most players will completely map out their character first then look around to see what others have made and (perhaps) try and decide if there's room in their back story to have any history with another character.
I would like to change the way I run games and how characters are created (see my other thread on ability score generation, if interested). Regarding backgrounds, I've mined some ideas from other RPGs and here's what I think I'm going to do for my next game:
1. Being Born: Each player chooses a race and generates ability scores.
2. Growing Up: Each player writes 2-3 sentances about their character's childhood.
3. Striking Out: Each player writes 2-3 sentances about setting out to make their way in the world. This should foreshadow their choice of class at first level.
4. A Defining Moment: Each player writes 2-3 sentances about an event *that also involves the character to their right*.
5. In Other Words: Each player writes 2-3 sentances about the same event involving their character from part 4, but from their perspective.
6. Here We Are: Each player writes 2-3 sentances about the current state of their character including desires, motivations, etc.
After everything is complete, players can choose 2 traits but they must be ones directly associated with two different steps listed above.
The real key to making this work is that players should not be wedded to a rigid view of their character's background *prior* to the first game session. As you might note, other players will be writing some elements of your character's background.
What do people think? Would you play in such a game? Why or why not?
I like it. Party cohesiveness is a difficult thing. having everyone have similar goals is key to keeping a party together over the long haul.
The problem is getting buy-in for the above from your players. Are they willing to group think in this way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not averse to having some pre-game connection with other PCs, but I really don't want someone else writing any part of my backstory, other than, grudgingly, the GM. And I really want to minimize his/her involvement to defining the setting, if possible.
I prefer to keep my characters' histories mysterious, and don't want other PCs to know anything they can't observe. I do tend towards the paranoid, mind you; until other characters have PROVEN reliable, I keep myself to myself.
If somebody wants to have gotten that proof out of the way in pre-game, I'm willing to write them in -- but I still want to be doing the writing.
I also DO tend to be wedded to a rigid view of my character prior to coming to the table...
I'd be willing to try a game like this, but I wouldn't be overjoyed with it. ENTIRELY an issue of my own, not that it's badwrongfun in itself.
The problem is getting buy-in for the above from your players. Are they willing to group think in this way?
That's the question, isn't it? As I mentioned, this is heavily borrowed from other RPGs where this sort of thing is the *standard* method for character generation. When I'm playing those games, no one bats an eye. Playing Pathfinder? Different group, for sure. That's why I'm curious what the community here thinks of it.
It's YOUR group. if you can get buy in then any method you come up with will be acceptable.
Unfortunately you will come up with players like Alitan who don't want to give up story and make creating a cohesive group difficult. Not that it's a wrong way to play, but torpedoes Cohesiveness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And to be clear, it isn't that I'm opposed to cohesive action within a party... but I prefer role playing the development of friendships and loyalties over the course of the game, rather than having that handed to me by fiat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the apprehension with 4-5 distinctly independently made characters. It is difficult.
What I find most difficult is that some players insist on making lone-wolf characters. Completely neutral and never wanting to take a stand on issues characters. Also, the ever elusive trouble making character (in various forms).
Getting them on-board, realistically, is always a headache of a challenge even with back-stories.
I think it's a good suggestion if the players go for it. The players do have the right to enjoy the character made, and if this is not how they would like it, then some other choice/alternative would have to be done.
I just try to sit down with them, let them know the realm and ask them questions and help provide direction. In the end, I prefer group positive characters over group negative. Just makes life easier.
I'm not averse to having some pre-game connection with other PCs, but I really don't want someone else writing any part of my backstory, other than, grudgingly, the GM. And I really want to minimize his/her involvement to defining the setting, if possible.
I prefer to keep my characters' histories mysterious, and don't want other PCs to know anything they can't observe. I do tend towards the paranoid, mind you; until other characters have PROVEN reliable, I keep myself to myself.
If somebody wants to have gotten that proof out of the way in pre-game, I'm willing to write them in -- but I still want to be doing the writing.
I also DO tend to be wedded to a rigid view of my character prior to coming to the table...
I'd be willing to try a game like this, but I wouldn't be overjoyed with it. ENTIRELY an issue of my own, not that it's badwrongfun in itself.
Exactly, we are clearly private players, lol. This is a fascinating topic, because it came up recently in a few games. There is another dm, a new guy exposed to pathfinder that really believes in party cohesiveness, he even believes it should be enforced. My background is not like that at all. I first got thinking on this, when a dm didn't ask for our backstories, but insisted we all started as friends, drunk, after a binge at the tavern, an amusing start for sure. This got me considering the premise though, and I said "I'm not sure Mosca (the scout) has friends." That might sound a little sad, but the chaotic rogue I was playing had some charm sure, but he wasn't easy-going or easy to get along with. The lust for adventure in him was too high. Yet, the dm insisted we were all friends. As the game went on, Mosca the scout moved away from the party. He did his job, but didn't entirely mesh with all the other classes. A party within a party as it were.
In a game I ran, the characters worked more on story, background and character, and the guy who was dm made a character who was very much against another, and some of the npcs. No, the selfish neutral evil young cavalier determined to get military power, does not get on with the selfless lawful good monk. It ended up in a showdown actually, with the monk, a hobgoblin swashbuckler and some thieves (who had been looting a dead city just trying to survive) against the cavalryman and a large military unit. Such a gritty battle, the evil commander was spared, many men died that day. It added a lot to the story. Later the commander got killed by bandits (he seemed to be seeking death).
And still one more story concerns the Korvosa game, no spoilers. The party were an eclectic bunch, that came together in game to save the city and were lavished with honours when they served the new queen well. Unfortunately, the necromancer had wizard entitlement syndrome, and he assassinated the prime minister (equivalent) and tried to take his job. He did a bad job and was arrested by the ranger spec ops after the courtiers worked out what had happened. This divided our group down the middle, should the necromancer be executed or freed? Some chose to back the party member, never leave a guy behind, others supported his death due to the heinous evil of it. Yes, that day my CN barbarian actually supported law. He had seen how dark necromancers go before.
So as much as it causes problems, and there are more problems I might list later, I don't force cohesiveness. If two characters want to brothers or lovers (seen it for couples a lot) sure, work on your story together, but it rubs some people the wrong way to force it.
P.S: funniest story of backstories not mixing I heard, was a group of three. One guy played evil arrogant wizards through two characters, who died, alas. When he went to bring a third in, the other players said the party was not recuruiting any more wizards. They had had bad experiences. Magnificent! It made a lot of sense too.
And to be clear, it isn't that I'm opposed to cohesive action within a party... but I prefer role playing the development of friendships and loyalties over the course of the game, rather than having that handed to me by fiat.
You will love your brothers and you will like it!
:DLike the dm that started the party all drunk and as friends, what if you were playing a detached monk that doesn't drink? Got to make some adjustments for the players or leave it open for them.
Or, a hardened merc that is impressed by the party's past accomplishments, and has recently signed up with them, but starts out not as their friends, more cautious with a wait and see attitude.
It comes down to whether the players are okay with it. If some aren't, make some adjustments. On the other hand, the somewhat forced cohesiveness can be somewhat odd at times. Even out of place.
I recall a player wishing his wizard had more cohesiveness with the ranger. Didn't work out though, and his backstory did not fit with the ranger either (not to mention alignment).
Yes. The party wizard and ranger in the kingmaker campaign. The ranger was purely a survivor in the wild. Protector of those preyed upon by evil creatures. The wizard had a niece and made one display of magic in front of her each day. This was supposed to be the equivalent of teaching her the arcane arts. He was however, especially obsessed with buying, selling and doing the mercantile stuff. They didnot get along. Especially when the wizard wanted to level her from commoner to wizard within a week or so interms of game time. He abandoned her. Left her to die. Then got killed by a good-aligned ninja(3.5 version). Interesting times.
Korvosa was the best for party conflict though.
To be clear, the intent of the method described isn't to force party cohesiveness. As a DM, I don't really want to hand that out to players either. The intent is to have a method by which players have to think about how they have interacted with each other in the past.
Step 4&5 don't have to even be a "positive" interactions, but something that'll create a rift among the characters will clearly cause problems.
It also doesn't specify a time frame for when it might have happened. Say you want to play a reclusive monk with no friends (for whatever reason). You still have to get from your cave in the mountains to where the plot of the adventure is going to start. At some point along the way, you're going to run into the rest of the party - even if it's only a couple days ago. Certainly there must have been something interesting that happened that made you want to throw your lot in with them for whatever is to come.
So, to sum up - I don't want to find a way to *force* party cohesiveness. I want something that'll make players think about their characters' relationships with each other. If that happens to help with cohesiveness (and it tends to), then great.
Ah, my bad. Mis-interpreted it there. I agree it could cause problems. However, based on the characteristics of two very different party members, that sort of conflict may eventually still occur. Just go with it. I remember a DM who actually put a stop to party in-fighting after the party shaman hit the party cavalier with frost. Purely accidental but that didn't sit well with the cavalier. He asked the shaman to apologize after the encounter. Witch doctor refuses. It goes initiative and really didn't go well for the shaman despite his spells. Had this legs and one arm broken. The DM then advocated that such a thing was not allowed to happen in his game from that point on(He even broke his own ruling later on). The point is, party conflict can occur but its not necessarily a bad thing. Some of them even become buddies after the short punch-up. If a character death occurs.....tough luck. It all boils down to the players. Whether their first priority is to have fun or to hog the limelight at all costs.
To be clear, the intent of the method described isn't to force party cohesiveness. As a DM, I don't really want to hand that out to players either. The intent is to have a method by which players have to think about how they have interacted with each other in the past.
Step 4&5 don't have to even be a "positive" interactions, but something that'll create a rift among the characters will clearly cause problems.
It also doesn't specify a time frame for when it might have happened. Say you want to play a reclusive monk with no friends (for whatever reason). You still have to get from your cave in the mountains to where the plot of the adventure is going to start. At some point along the way, you're going to run into the rest of the party - even if it's only a couple days ago. Certainly there must have been something interesting that happened that made you want to throw your lot in with them for whatever is to come.
So, to sum up - I don't want to find a way to *force* party cohesiveness. I want something that'll make players think about their characters' relationships with each other. If that happens to help with cohesiveness (and it tends to), then great.
Hmmn. I was misinterpreting you, too. This sounds a lot more 'do-able' to me than what I first took it for. With that clarification, yeah, I'd play in a game like this.