Last week we talked a bit about how creative we can be -- and I made a case for the idea that our ability go give PCs choices in the game is a way of giving them some creative power in the game.
So, over the next couple of weeks, I'm going to propose a couple of ideas that give your players some creativity opportunities inside the game. These ideas are stolen from a some other story-style games, but I'm presenting them as ideas that could be used in any more typical, D&D-style RPG.
The theme of all of these ideas is creating a framework in which your players can add their own creative ideas to the game. It's not about just letting them make up anything they want, but giving them a specific set of opportunities to be creative within your game -- without breaking down your own ideas and intentions for the game.
View attachment 56547
(So, hopefully this will produce better backgrounds for your PCs than "We Met On Facebook")
Stealing From Fiasco: PC Backgrounds and Relationships
If you haven't seen Fiasco yet (from Bully Pulpit games) It's well worth taking a look. It's not a classic RPG -- you aren't going to have character sheet, attributes, you won't make any sort of attack or skill rolls, and there's no DM. What there is, though, is pathos, character development, and mayhem.
This isn't the right place to explain how Fiasco plays -- And there's an excellent example of play that Wil Wheaton has put together in his Tabletop Vodcast. But the phase of the game called "Setup" -- in which characters are invented by defining the relationships they have with each other -- can easily be adapted to build relationships between PCs for a new campaign.
It works like this: I created a set of relationship, Need, Object, and Location tables -- in Fiasco, these tables and a few other resources are called a "playset" and I'll use the same term here. Each Playset table consists of six broad categories, and each broad category has six details. So, for relationship, a broad category might be "family" and detailed relationships might be "spouses" or "parent and child(or stepchild)".
When you and your players sit down for the first session of the game, you'll roll 4 d6 for each PC, and put the whole mess of d6 in the center of the table (it helps to group them by results). The process creates a relationship between PCs of players to the right and left of each PC, so everyone will have two relationships. Each relationship is defined by four things -- a general category of relationship, a specific type of relationship, a category of either a need, a location, or an object, and a specific detail of that need, location, or object.
In turns, each PC picks up one of the d6 on the table and uses it to define one of those elements -- in order -- for one of the relationships at the table (not necessarily their own. I have an example of a four-player version of this I'll attach as a PDF to this post.
What you end up with is two relationships for each PC, which are defined in fairly broad terms. The players, then, get to flesh out the connection and invent their shared backstories.
Of course, it helps a lot if the DM has taken some time to customize the playset lists to fit the campaign you're planning to run. For our game, for example, we are setting the new campaign in Hochoch, a city in the Greyhawk campaign setting that was actually detailed in the December issue of Dragon. Because the city is the last holdout of a nation that has been invaded by armies of giants, I create a special set of relationships related to that campaign plot element.
What this does, for me as DM, is let the PCs place themselves in the backstory of the campaign. Even players who don't end up with relationships based on the Giants element of the campaign will have read over these options.
This specific sort of seeded creativity is a great way to give your players some creative control over the game and the story. What’s even better is that everything that you’re defining is a relationship between a couple of PCs — there’s still plenty of room for them to make the characters they would like to play and make it work with most of the choices in the playset.
Not every relationship is terrific, but enough are that the PCs have reasons to interact with each other, and some great fun can come out of it. You’ll have some that just end up being fairly ordinary — or maybe they will not be fleshed out as quickly by the players because other relationships are flashier and more obvious fun.
Our home group just started a new campaign (finally switching from 4e to DDN play test), and we went ahead and gave this a try (our playset is attached to this post). In our version, one pair of PCs ended up with the relationship: "Giants/One of you hid the other from an invading war band/Location- Outside of town/goat Farm on the edge of settled territory".
The two players really bit into this, tossed it back and forth, and in the end, based on the character that hid the other saying (to an imaginary searcher) "Nothing up there but goats" resulted in the other character changing his name to "The Goat". Hey, it was fun at the table, even if it sounds lame here.
Building Your Playset
One of the great things about Fiasco is that there are dozens of playsets that have been created to run games in all kinds of different settings — including some classic fantasy and D&D tropes. The playset I created for our campaign drew inspiration (read: stole) parts for several existing playsets, including these :
* Keeping on the Borderland
* London, 1593
* Dragon Slayers
* Quest for the Mystic Panda
To customize it for your own campaign, think about the backstory for the campaign — how might players have encountered it along the way? In my case, I created the section for Giants. If your campaign is going to feature Drow, or Dragons, or gang wars between thieves guilds — each one of those could be reflected in your playtest.
Once you seeded the playtset with those ideas, however, I’d recommend that you not go too much further before your players get their hands on it. It will be tempting to do things like try to define some of those elements. Going back to the example I cited from our game, it would be silly for me to already have made a combat map for the Goat Farm on the off chance that the players ended up there and it turned out to be an important location. Pre-defining NPCS tied to specific elements in the playset will ultimately put the players on railroad tracks, and what you’re really trying to do is give them a little creative control. Let em exercise it, and then roll with what they come up with.
In case you're very curious, I've attached the full setup playset we used for the Geoff game, and an example of setup I created to demonstrate how it plays out.
Fiasco and Inter-Party Conflict
So, classic Fiasco is played with each player looking out only for herself. It would be best, though, as you create your own playset, to limit the number of options in the tables that pit your player characters against each other. A few, here and there, is fun — some inter-party conflict can be fun for roleplaying — but those should be the exceptions. A party where everyone is at each other’s throats will be tough to play with.
But a little tension — either professional rivalry or a some other business going on between two PCs can be a very powerful driver of intra-party roleplaying, and that is very beneficial for a game. If nothing else, it can take a little pressure off the DM to be the sole source of activity at the table.
What About During Play?
Next week, we’ll discuss another idea, stolen from another story-driven RPG, that will allow players to contribute details and ideas to the world around them during play.
But, given this week’s topic, what are your solutions for helping your players developing interesting, engaged player characters?
So, over the next couple of weeks, I'm going to propose a couple of ideas that give your players some creativity opportunities inside the game. These ideas are stolen from a some other story-style games, but I'm presenting them as ideas that could be used in any more typical, D&D-style RPG.
The theme of all of these ideas is creating a framework in which your players can add their own creative ideas to the game. It's not about just letting them make up anything they want, but giving them a specific set of opportunities to be creative within your game -- without breaking down your own ideas and intentions for the game.
View attachment 56547
(So, hopefully this will produce better backgrounds for your PCs than "We Met On Facebook")
Stealing From Fiasco: PC Backgrounds and Relationships
If you haven't seen Fiasco yet (from Bully Pulpit games) It's well worth taking a look. It's not a classic RPG -- you aren't going to have character sheet, attributes, you won't make any sort of attack or skill rolls, and there's no DM. What there is, though, is pathos, character development, and mayhem.
This isn't the right place to explain how Fiasco plays -- And there's an excellent example of play that Wil Wheaton has put together in his Tabletop Vodcast. But the phase of the game called "Setup" -- in which characters are invented by defining the relationships they have with each other -- can easily be adapted to build relationships between PCs for a new campaign.
It works like this: I created a set of relationship, Need, Object, and Location tables -- in Fiasco, these tables and a few other resources are called a "playset" and I'll use the same term here. Each Playset table consists of six broad categories, and each broad category has six details. So, for relationship, a broad category might be "family" and detailed relationships might be "spouses" or "parent and child(or stepchild)".
When you and your players sit down for the first session of the game, you'll roll 4 d6 for each PC, and put the whole mess of d6 in the center of the table (it helps to group them by results). The process creates a relationship between PCs of players to the right and left of each PC, so everyone will have two relationships. Each relationship is defined by four things -- a general category of relationship, a specific type of relationship, a category of either a need, a location, or an object, and a specific detail of that need, location, or object.
In turns, each PC picks up one of the d6 on the table and uses it to define one of those elements -- in order -- for one of the relationships at the table (not necessarily their own. I have an example of a four-player version of this I'll attach as a PDF to this post.
What you end up with is two relationships for each PC, which are defined in fairly broad terms. The players, then, get to flesh out the connection and invent their shared backstories.
Of course, it helps a lot if the DM has taken some time to customize the playset lists to fit the campaign you're planning to run. For our game, for example, we are setting the new campaign in Hochoch, a city in the Greyhawk campaign setting that was actually detailed in the December issue of Dragon. Because the city is the last holdout of a nation that has been invaded by armies of giants, I create a special set of relationships related to that campaign plot element.
5. Giants
-1. Lone survivors of a small community destroyed by giants
-2. You were part of an ill-fated expedition sent to scout Giant-held territory
-3. Refugees that met in the Dim Wood
-4. One of you left the other for dead
-5. You were part of a rearguard that shielded Gorna from the Giant invasion, buying time for the escape of Duke Owen and his court.
-6. One of you hid the other from an invading war band.
What this does, for me as DM, is let the PCs place themselves in the backstory of the campaign. Even players who don't end up with relationships based on the Giants element of the campaign will have read over these options.
This specific sort of seeded creativity is a great way to give your players some creative control over the game and the story. What’s even better is that everything that you’re defining is a relationship between a couple of PCs — there’s still plenty of room for them to make the characters they would like to play and make it work with most of the choices in the playset.
Not every relationship is terrific, but enough are that the PCs have reasons to interact with each other, and some great fun can come out of it. You’ll have some that just end up being fairly ordinary — or maybe they will not be fleshed out as quickly by the players because other relationships are flashier and more obvious fun.
Our home group just started a new campaign (finally switching from 4e to DDN play test), and we went ahead and gave this a try (our playset is attached to this post). In our version, one pair of PCs ended up with the relationship: "Giants/One of you hid the other from an invading war band/Location- Outside of town/goat Farm on the edge of settled territory".
The two players really bit into this, tossed it back and forth, and in the end, based on the character that hid the other saying (to an imaginary searcher) "Nothing up there but goats" resulted in the other character changing his name to "The Goat". Hey, it was fun at the table, even if it sounds lame here.
Building Your Playset
One of the great things about Fiasco is that there are dozens of playsets that have been created to run games in all kinds of different settings — including some classic fantasy and D&D tropes. The playset I created for our campaign drew inspiration (read: stole) parts for several existing playsets, including these :
* Keeping on the Borderland
* London, 1593
* Dragon Slayers
* Quest for the Mystic Panda
To customize it for your own campaign, think about the backstory for the campaign — how might players have encountered it along the way? In my case, I created the section for Giants. If your campaign is going to feature Drow, or Dragons, or gang wars between thieves guilds — each one of those could be reflected in your playtest.
Once you seeded the playtset with those ideas, however, I’d recommend that you not go too much further before your players get their hands on it. It will be tempting to do things like try to define some of those elements. Going back to the example I cited from our game, it would be silly for me to already have made a combat map for the Goat Farm on the off chance that the players ended up there and it turned out to be an important location. Pre-defining NPCS tied to specific elements in the playset will ultimately put the players on railroad tracks, and what you’re really trying to do is give them a little creative control. Let em exercise it, and then roll with what they come up with.
In case you're very curious, I've attached the full setup playset we used for the Geoff game, and an example of setup I created to demonstrate how it plays out.
Fiasco and Inter-Party Conflict
So, classic Fiasco is played with each player looking out only for herself. It would be best, though, as you create your own playset, to limit the number of options in the tables that pit your player characters against each other. A few, here and there, is fun — some inter-party conflict can be fun for roleplaying — but those should be the exceptions. A party where everyone is at each other’s throats will be tough to play with.
But a little tension — either professional rivalry or a some other business going on between two PCs can be a very powerful driver of intra-party roleplaying, and that is very beneficial for a game. If nothing else, it can take a little pressure off the DM to be the sole source of activity at the table.
What About During Play?
Next week, we’ll discuss another idea, stolen from another story-driven RPG, that will allow players to contribute details and ideas to the world around them during play.
But, given this week’s topic, what are your solutions for helping your players developing interesting, engaged player characters?
