Party creation instead of character creation?

[Luthien Greyspear]

I've tried to do this in the past, with limited success. The only time it really worked well is when I had a group of characters that all started out at 0-level (this was waaay back in 2E). They were all from the same small town, and so sort of HAD to know each other. I didn't try to limit their personalities or motivations, other than limiting their P-O-V to that of a small town, so the party was okay with it. It still left gaps in the party skill set, as no one developed their character into anything even remotely thief-like.

I have been toying with an idea like this for a super-hero campaign, in which not only the player characters, but in fact all of the super-powered beings on the planet, are given their powers by the same localized event. The PC's are guards, scientists, administrators, even visitors at a huge super-prison where the government has okayed special top-secret experiments, using prisoner volunteers (in exchange for reduced sentences or even full parole). SOMETHING happens (not sure what yet, but who cares) that gives everyone in the complex superpowers of some sort or another (again, not sure of the pseudo-scientific explanation I want to use). The closer you are to the event, the more powerful you are.

Because the bulk of the population of a prison is criminals, I have a ready-made (and logical) source of career super-villains. The mental ward of the super-prison provides my psychos, and the top-secret CIA-run political vault gives me super-terrorists or world conquerors. The PC's are all witness to (and recipients of) the event, and take it upon themselves to join the fight to bring these proven criminals back to justice.

It isn't quite a 'party creation', but it is a shared origin that has built-in mechanics for the all of the party's abilities and a shared ethos (capturing freed criminals).

 

[Rothe]

Does anyone have a framework for party creation instead of character creation? Something along the lines of "this is how we got together, this is why we're an adventuring party, here's a few of our contacts, Ted the Ranger's a cousin of Tom the Fighter, Brinder the Dwarf is kind of the party father figure, etc." - but with more structure?

Have you tried something like this in your campaign?

Always. For characters that are part of an organization, Druids, Clerics, Rangers, Paladins, etc. it is failry easy, you are adventuring with x because the organization has decided they would be helpful in advancing the organizations goals. Then add layer of familial / from the same town / friends in childhood connections where needed. Finally there is room for one, "we don't know if we can trust him but we need his skill set" kind of guys.

This only works if the players want to create a party. If they are more into backstabbing each other then it is really rather pointless.

 

[Aramax]

I thought I posted this already but.....
The party is a 3 dimentional representaion of a 4 dimentioanal concept.In reallity the party is GAKL or Greater Adventuring Karmic line.When they first meet they are instantly drawn together,very similar to love at first sight,they realize that they are ment to be together for a higher purpose.In the 4th dimention they are one being (sort of like an anti-body)that works rfor the Vivvar or Life Plane.

Thus it is the parties job to rid the life pLane of threats.The benifits of being GAKL are:
The party is almost never seperated,They could split up anywhere and within a day they will all wander back together
They have full acsess to the kharmic memories of their prior characters.
And of course they feel like they belong

 

[wayne62682]

Thus it is the parties job to rid the life pLane of threats.The benifits of being GAKL are:
The party is almost never seperated,They could split up anywhere and within a day they will all wander back together
They have full acsess to the kharmic memories of their prior characters.
And of course they feel like they belong

That's a... very meta-gaming way to explain it. And yet, I find that it makes the most sense, at least given how things in gaming normally occur.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I've done this a few times with mixed success:

I get a group together and propose a goal for a team to accomplish (steal said item from said mansion, or recon certain area behind enemy lines, or simply keep target alive/dead). I will even go so far as to create maps and npc flavor text to guide them. I explain that I want them to create a cohesive group that could accomplish the goal.

I then use that initial scenario as a type of short springboard into my campaign.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I've done fairly well with dictating that the party have a similar background (same town, same church, same organization, etc) and some innate desire to be part of a group of adventurers. I let them choose their own motivations for that desire (in a very OOTS fashion before OOTS was ever posted, the rogue was after cash, the mage for power, ranger to kill goblins, etc, etc) and back story within that background.

I stress that if someone's character becomes a loner, off by themselves most game sessions, I will turn them into an NPC. I want to run a group, not a loose federation of loners.

Starting at 1st level helps; no one has the hit points, skills, spells, or resources to go solo. The teamwork is developed in those first few levels where survival of a lone wolf is doubtful. The use of natural predators (wild dogs, panthers, etc) who target lone individuals reinforces the "stay with the party" mantra.

 

[Piratecat]

My next campaign will have all the PCs being members of a semi-military organization, similar to the Black Brotherhood in GRRM's A Game of Thrones. This will tie them together for a plot reason and give them a reason to stay together, and gives me huge opportunities to draw them into politics and conspiracies. Even better, because the organization is a neutral force that typically draws from exiles, prisoners and inconvenient bastard children, I can have PCs from any socioeconomic background they want.

And that lets me give them enemies within their organization as well as without...

I'm seeing a plot arc where the PCs find out the the ostensible purpose of the oprganization is not its real purpose, which is much more important than anyone had thought.

 

[krichaiushii]

A method of party-building I would like to try (no real opportunity, yet) is to use a "circle of friends" approach.

PC A knows PCs B and D
PC B knows PCs A and C
PC C knows PCs B and D
PC D knows PCs A and C

etc.

I then would leave it up to the players themselves to work out HOW they know each other. Same town, organization/schools/academies, family, lovers, friends, rivals, etc. With the caveat that there are no blood enemies or otherwise hate each other enough to NOT work together.

It sounds fun, but so do lots of my untried ideas.

One day...

 

[GwydapLlew]

I'm seeing a plot arc where the PCs find out the the ostensible purpose of the organization is not its real purpose, which is much more important than anyone had thought.

So you making them members of the Sapphire Guard?

 

[hong]

My next campaign will have all the PCs being members of a semi-military organization, similar to the Black Brotherhood in GRRM's A Game of Thrones. This will tie them together for a plot reason and give them a reason to stay together, and gives me huge opportunities to draw them into politics and conspiracies. Even better, because the organization is a neutral force that typically draws from exiles, prisoners and inconvenient bastard children, I can have PCs from any socioeconomic background they want.

And that lets me give them enemies within their organization as well as without...

I'm seeing a plot arc where the PCs find out the the ostensible purpose of the oprganization is not its real purpose, which is much more important than anyone had thought.

Honestly PC, these days it would be more surprising if an organisation ISN'T a front for some hidden, conspiratorial purpose....