![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gridloreBecause campaigning is prohibited at polling places!
Hahaha, I slay me. I'll be here all week, be sure to try your waitress and tip the veal.
The other day I nattered a bit about what would motivate characters in FRPGs to take the insane risks that are the standard fare of the wandering adventurer. That post seemed to be well received, so I thought I'd tackle the harder question: motivations for a party sticking together. Because let's face it, most FRPG parties are wildly improbably associations of classes, races, and alignments that are assembled for tactical reasons. They kind of remind me of my first fire team in the Army; four people with nothing in common thrown together in common cause. But the difference is I had to be given a legal order to work with PFC Kosut (a right-wing religious fanatic with no tolerance for anything that varied from his bigoted views.) Given a choice, I would have rabbited from that team at my first chance. So what motivates these PC groups?
Creating a good party is much harder than developing a single character's motivation. A character and his/her back story can be highly individualized, and doesn't need to be meshed with others. Modern fiction is filled with such solitary heroes (and anti-heroes) who move through the world on their own, or with an ever-changing cast of temporary companions. The Doctor, Samurai Jack, James Bond, Wolverine... all great characters, but lousy for a social activity like gaming. I once ran a Champions game where everyone brought their own Moody Loner Hero. Lasted three sessions. sigh
So, how do you do it? Traveller and other SFRPGs have a great dodge if you start the characters off as the crew of a starship. Firefly took this one step further by making a couple of passengers part of the team in the first episode. We'll return to that example in a bit. But you still face the problem of why the crew doesn't break up at the first port after a successful job. Then there's the cliche that's so old that even Tolkien used it. "You meet in (place) and a mysterious (stereotype) offers you a (quest/job/threat)." Seriously, I first read the Lord of the Rings after I had been gaming for a couple of years. When I got to that scene, I actually said "I didn't know a railroad ran through Rivendell." (Note: I have never actually finished The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's leaves me cold. Thank Halford for the movies.)
To build a good party you need to go back to the characters. I am a huge advocate of the GM sitting down with the players and working on the character story with each player. The GM knows the campaign setting better than each player and can suggest details and work with the player to create a story that encourages future scenarios. Take the example from the previous post of the fighter who is the lesser son of a minor baron. Working with the player, I can place the family holding on a border that I know will eventually be engulfed in war, set up family connections, and so on. The player can help build the world at this stage. If s/he shows enough interest, I might hand over the details of the barony to the player while retaining editorial control.
This is the stage where you create a true party. Because once you know what everyone is playing, you can establish links. Let's create a fairly typical low-level party:
OK, so why are these people traveling together?
One of the easiest ties to establish are bonds of family or obligation. Marie is Amaury's older cousin, and feels a sense of obligation towards him. When he straps on his sword belt and declares his intention to venture out into the world, she decides to join him. Work with the players to develop the history of this relationship. How does Amaury feel about his cousin's protectiveness? Do they bicker? Are they close? Annubn was one of the foresters for Amaury's father. A childhood friend of the fighter, he too choses to accompany the cousins on their journey since he feels unwanted at home.
There, a close-knit group. Where do these other guys come from? One big error many GMs make is to insist that campaigns start at the absolute beginning. This is mistake. Let's look at Firefly again. We start with Mal, Wash, Zoe, Jayne, and Kayleigh already established on the ship. We learn their reasons for joining at various times "pre-game" later in the series. The first "adventure" introduces Shepard Book, Simon, and River. This is perfectly acceptable. There is nothing wrong with creating off-camera background material with your players. Want a reason for Br. Benito to be there? Have the players come up with a story. Rahde joined after a particularly satisfying brawl. The party got caught up in one of Jebwicket's scams, and now find themselves tied to his enemies. But he's useful. The key is establishing story ties. Then comes the personal ties. This really depends on the players, but I can see a fun relationship developing between Benito and Jebwicket.
Sustaining the party requires tying the various character motivations together so that the party become mutually supporting. As a GM, this means making sure that each character gets at least an occasional starring role in a scenario with ties to another character's goal. Clues to the fate of Rahde's lost clan lies in a crumbling monastery's records. But once there, murder and betrayal reveals a heretical sect backed by.. you get the idea. Each plotted non-Place of Mystery adventure should showcase one character's story with a strong sub-plot for another character's story.
Some will be easier than others. Amaury would appear to be the main hero of the group. He has the most straight forward goal of the group: Gain power to claim his place. This makes him the hardest to write for! More often than not, Amaury is going to be the secondary hero until near the end of the campaign when he really comes into his own. Depending on how the player handles the character, Jebwicket could be an eternal secondary character, providing comedic relief and support, or might come to the fore for several adventures. Some players might not really have a good story line for their character, take Annubn. So far, he simply seems to be a loyal retainer (a perfectly good character type) happy to go along with the others. But a good GM will look for a chance to develop a plot line for this type of character.
There are other great binding methods. A party can be an actual religious group. Paladin, clerics, and other classes of appropriate alignment and faith. A fun version of this is the pilgrimage party, traveling or escorting pilgrims to a religious site. Read up on what pilgrims to Jerusalem went through in the Middle Ages. Having the entire party be members of a group like the Knights Templar can make for interesting adventures. Having the characters thrown together by fate and facing a common foe can be a bit of a railroad, but is great for bringing together wildly different character types in a "we hang together, or hang separately" style game. The great British SF series Blake's 7 is probably my favorite example of this. There are more esoteric ways of banding together (you all wake up in a room with identical sygils burned on your arms) but they are more deus ex machina than I like.
Finally, handling change. Characters die. Benito's player may get a better job and move, leaving the campaign. The GM should always have a couple of "Very Special Episodes" in his pocket to handle these events. If you know in advance a player is leaving, work with the player for a great farewell episode. Establish ground rules for what happens with PC death. If someone just gets tired of their character and wants a change, have at least an outline to account for the change.
Well, that was fun to write.
Any requests for more RPG blathering?
Hahaha, I slay me. I'll be here all week, be sure to try your waitress and tip the veal.
The other day I nattered a bit about what would motivate characters in FRPGs to take the insane risks that are the standard fare of the wandering adventurer. That post seemed to be well received, so I thought I'd tackle the harder question: motivations for a party sticking together. Because let's face it, most FRPG parties are wildly improbably associations of classes, races, and alignments that are assembled for tactical reasons. They kind of remind me of my first fire team in the Army; four people with nothing in common thrown together in common cause. But the difference is I had to be given a legal order to work with PFC Kosut (a right-wing religious fanatic with no tolerance for anything that varied from his bigoted views.) Given a choice, I would have rabbited from that team at my first chance. So what motivates these PC groups?
Creating a good party is much harder than developing a single character's motivation. A character and his/her back story can be highly individualized, and doesn't need to be meshed with others. Modern fiction is filled with such solitary heroes (and anti-heroes) who move through the world on their own, or with an ever-changing cast of temporary companions. The Doctor, Samurai Jack, James Bond, Wolverine... all great characters, but lousy for a social activity like gaming. I once ran a Champions game where everyone brought their own Moody Loner Hero. Lasted three sessions. sigh
So, how do you do it? Traveller and other SFRPGs have a great dodge if you start the characters off as the crew of a starship. Firefly took this one step further by making a couple of passengers part of the team in the first episode. We'll return to that example in a bit. But you still face the problem of why the crew doesn't break up at the first port after a successful job. Then there's the cliche that's so old that even Tolkien used it. "You meet in (place) and a mysterious (stereotype) offers you a (quest/job/threat)." Seriously, I first read the Lord of the Rings after I had been gaming for a couple of years. When I got to that scene, I actually said "I didn't know a railroad ran through Rivendell." (Note: I have never actually finished The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's leaves me cold. Thank Halford for the movies.)
To build a good party you need to go back to the characters. I am a huge advocate of the GM sitting down with the players and working on the character story with each player. The GM knows the campaign setting better than each player and can suggest details and work with the player to create a story that encourages future scenarios. Take the example from the previous post of the fighter who is the lesser son of a minor baron. Working with the player, I can place the family holding on a border that I know will eventually be engulfed in war, set up family connections, and so on. The player can help build the world at this stage. If s/he shows enough interest, I might hand over the details of the barony to the player while retaining editorial control.
This is the stage where you create a true party. Because once you know what everyone is playing, you can establish links. Let's create a fairly typical low-level party:
- Amaury de la Montagne, Human Fighter (NG). Seeking his fortune away from his squabbling older brothers.
- Annubn Warlyre, Half-Elf Ranger (CG). Outcast by the elves, unwanted by humans
- Marie-Léonore Girard, Human Sorcerer (CN). Questing for ever more power.
- Br. Benito Conrad, Human Cleric (LG). Inspired crusader for the Church.
- Rahde Shalecairn, Dwarf Fighter (LG). Tracking down a lost branch of his clan.
- Jebwicket, Gnome Wizard (Illusionist)/Rogue (CN). As usual, on the run.
OK, so why are these people traveling together?
One of the easiest ties to establish are bonds of family or obligation. Marie is Amaury's older cousin, and feels a sense of obligation towards him. When he straps on his sword belt and declares his intention to venture out into the world, she decides to join him. Work with the players to develop the history of this relationship. How does Amaury feel about his cousin's protectiveness? Do they bicker? Are they close? Annubn was one of the foresters for Amaury's father. A childhood friend of the fighter, he too choses to accompany the cousins on their journey since he feels unwanted at home.
There, a close-knit group. Where do these other guys come from? One big error many GMs make is to insist that campaigns start at the absolute beginning. This is mistake. Let's look at Firefly again. We start with Mal, Wash, Zoe, Jayne, and Kayleigh already established on the ship. We learn their reasons for joining at various times "pre-game" later in the series. The first "adventure" introduces Shepard Book, Simon, and River. This is perfectly acceptable. There is nothing wrong with creating off-camera background material with your players. Want a reason for Br. Benito to be there? Have the players come up with a story. Rahde joined after a particularly satisfying brawl. The party got caught up in one of Jebwicket's scams, and now find themselves tied to his enemies. But he's useful. The key is establishing story ties. Then comes the personal ties. This really depends on the players, but I can see a fun relationship developing between Benito and Jebwicket.
Sustaining the party requires tying the various character motivations together so that the party become mutually supporting. As a GM, this means making sure that each character gets at least an occasional starring role in a scenario with ties to another character's goal. Clues to the fate of Rahde's lost clan lies in a crumbling monastery's records. But once there, murder and betrayal reveals a heretical sect backed by.. you get the idea. Each plotted non-Place of Mystery adventure should showcase one character's story with a strong sub-plot for another character's story.
Some will be easier than others. Amaury would appear to be the main hero of the group. He has the most straight forward goal of the group: Gain power to claim his place. This makes him the hardest to write for! More often than not, Amaury is going to be the secondary hero until near the end of the campaign when he really comes into his own. Depending on how the player handles the character, Jebwicket could be an eternal secondary character, providing comedic relief and support, or might come to the fore for several adventures. Some players might not really have a good story line for their character, take Annubn. So far, he simply seems to be a loyal retainer (a perfectly good character type) happy to go along with the others. But a good GM will look for a chance to develop a plot line for this type of character.
There are other great binding methods. A party can be an actual religious group. Paladin, clerics, and other classes of appropriate alignment and faith. A fun version of this is the pilgrimage party, traveling or escorting pilgrims to a religious site. Read up on what pilgrims to Jerusalem went through in the Middle Ages. Having the entire party be members of a group like the Knights Templar can make for interesting adventures. Having the characters thrown together by fate and facing a common foe can be a bit of a railroad, but is great for bringing together wildly different character types in a "we hang together, or hang separately" style game. The great British SF series Blake's 7 is probably my favorite example of this. There are more esoteric ways of banding together (you all wake up in a room with identical sygils burned on your arms) but they are more deus ex machina than I like.
Finally, handling change. Characters die. Benito's player may get a better job and move, leaving the campaign. The GM should always have a couple of "Very Special Episodes" in his pocket to handle these events. If you know in advance a player is leaving, work with the player for a great farewell episode. Establish ground rules for what happens with PC death. If someone just gets tired of their character and wants a change, have at least an outline to account for the change.
Well, that was fun to write.
Any requests for more RPG blathering?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 02:05 (UTC)Yes, please. :)
no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 03:28 (UTC)no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 17:07 (UTC)(I would have asked about what to do when characters' stories end, but that's being covered in comments below as well as the last paragraph of your post.)
no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 02:22 (UTC)Parties stay together because you can't do it alone, and having people you can trust when you're in some ancient wizard's catacombs up against a legion of Undead? That's NECESSARY.
no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 08:41 (UTC)The problem with this, of course (especially with an Adventuring Guild) is that, while party members are necessary, the SAME party members aren't necessary. Especially if some of them are incompetent or irritating.
Unfortunately, the choice of fellow players is frequently much more restricted. ^_^
no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 12:47 (UTC)Well, I've been playing for... 35 years, and for most of them I always found that the choice of players wasn't restricted; you simply didn't play with idiots or jerks. If that meant your gaming group was three people, hey, you'll have ten times the fun with two good players and one good GM than you will with two good players, one jerk, and one good GM.
The most key rule of playing RPGs is "Everyone has to have fun; if your fun comes at the expense of the rest of us, you're not playing."
no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 02:34 (UTC)no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 02:48 (UTC)When we were dropped into a snowy wilderness near the base we were supposed to infiltrade was the ONLY one on the team who [a] went to the base, [b] infiltrated, [c] did the mission & [d] got to the pick-up point - because ALL 4 of the wolvy-idiots started fighting each other, berzerking out - and they drew the attention of the guards. It made some rolls easier for me. ^_^
I still LOL about that.
I also -ran- a group of 'we'll try the game out' guys who set up lots of hunteds, with one guys being a youth director and taking the max # of DNPCs. The were getting together at a beach ... and ALL the hunteds began showing up - including the African tribe of cannibals hunting one guy [who were seen sauntering along with basketballs, in Tshirts]. It was amusing for me to ref juat to see how they dealt with it. [it ended up with lots of running away] ... but it gave a taste of the system. Most came back and designed better balanced PCs that time.
... As for groups, I will have deities, magic or circumstances throw PCs together - but I don't try to manage the PCs to make them stay together. Their players know that if they don't cooperate, that monsters are happy to eat them. Or they can kill each other because no mystic referee force prevents that. It's kind of nice to see that civility occurs among PCs when they know the referee won't stop them from a messy end because of their own actions.
no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 04:32 (UTC)Hands down the character/party creation session I was involved in was the best such session I have ever been a part of.
I was lucky in that my regular Denver gaming group only had emo loner as what who alones all the time.
The Eugene gamer group ( of which the Good Cmdr_Zoom was a member ) had no such players and was a great all around gaming group.
Also, the natering, keep it up.
no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 08:33 (UTC)Even though I've GM'ed games where the group was pretty much thrown together, like the Laundry RPG I recently started, creating the characters together makes much stronger groups. There's also roleplaying in the group formation, but it needs to be done with quickly, in my experience.
In the Stalker game I ran a couple of years ago (sadly, it's a Finnish-only game, about the movie and the novel Roadside Picnic - one of the best RPGs I've encountered) I started the game before the character generation. I just ran a stressful situation asking the players "What do you do now?". After the first scene was over, we broke out the books and created the characters properly. There was already some idea about the characters then, and the choices they made in the spur of the monent were defined more properly.
And please write more! I think all the gaming articles you've written have been brilliant - and I'd like to hear about the new setting.
no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 08:54 (UTC)* those who adventure in order to accomplish something
* those who have adventure thrust upon them
* those who adventure as a life choice.
In your above example, Amaury and Rahde would be of the first kind. Once the place is claimed or the clan is found, these characters need to find a new motivation or their adventures are over. Annubn and Jebwicket are of the second kind -- which is actually a subclass of the first kind with the unstated goal being to find a place or situation where adventures ('nasty, uncomfortable things that make you late for dinner") will no longer be thrust upon them. ^_^ Marie and Benito are the third kind, having chosen to pursue a process rather than a goal.
The trick, of course, being that adventurers of the first and second kind are in an inherently unstable situation as far as the campaign goes. Their players are dependent on the GM not to let them succeed, because the character must then undergo a life-shift or cease to be viable in the campaign, once they have succeeded in their goals. However, backstories of the first and second kind are much easier to come up with and often more interesting. Folk of the third kind are understandably rare, and often looked on as somewhat mentally unstable -- even by their peers.
Of course, character growth within the story can often cause a character to change from one type to another. But recognizing what type of character you have and why they are with the party can help you negotiate with the GM to arrange circumstances in such a way as to avoid a character's premature retirement.
no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 12:58 (UTC)For adventurers of the first and second kind you simply have to be prepared to let them RETIRE once they've succeeded. Or to give them something else that will keep them going. Depends on how the character develops. Often a character who has adventure thrust on them finds that the adrenalin rush is addictive, or that doing things that are important or interesting feels right to them, so while they got dragged into it to begin with, they now feel they have to continue.
And "to accomplish something" can be ongoing; for instance, the Toad Alchemist who adventured mostly to get materials for his work. He was the only one who knew exactly what he wanted, and how to harvest/extract it properly, so he went along with the adventurers to get the stuff. This was of course a never-ending thing with him, to the point that he started going with them ANYWAY because he found that along the way on their adventures he ended up getting more unusual materials than he could by just focusing on the one. (classic scene: party is fighting a bunch of rare monsters and the Toad is bouncing around underfoot with vials, trying to catch blood spatters fresh from the wounds -- including blood from the PARTY, because most of THEM were pretty exotic, too. "BLEED HERE! BLEED HERE!")
no subject
Date: 4 Feb 2011 04:08 (UTC)no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2011 11:53 (UTC)Yes, more RPG blathering. How about on power problems - specifically, how does one cope with groups that can level a town being under the power of a local lord, or with questions like why magic etc. doesn't control everything.