Do your pcs start out knowing each other

[Jolly Giant]

Wow. I looked at the options in the poll and realised I've started campaigns in all of the ways listed...

No vote from me!

 

[DragonLancer]

I nearly always start them off knowing one another. Its just a lot easier that way, and I'd rather have the game getting going rather than the players roleplaying an hour or more introductions.

It also means that they (should) trust one another. Theres no way such people would adventure together if there was no trust.

 

[astralpwka]

We're guilty of the higher power bringing everyone together.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

I nearly always start them off knowing one another. Its just a lot easier that way, and I'd rather have the game getting going rather than the players roleplaying an hour or more introductions.

Same here.

The first time we started off a game with all the characters knowing each other, the game was so much better so much faster that the next time we sat down to make characters for a new game everyone just started trading ideas back and forth and putting together a collaborative background of who-knows-who and why, as well as what kinds of things every character is interested in doing. We didn't even really discuss why we were doing it, we just did it, because it made so much sense.

It's great from a player's perspective because you get to do things like make up old arguments with other characters, you have a good in-character reason to trust and respect everyone else, and you know ahead of time what kinds of things you'll be doing. It's even better from a GM's perspective because you don't have to worry about party cohesion, you don't need to find excuses to jam everyone together, and you know ahead of time what kinds of things the players want to be doing.

Since then, it's become a routine part of character creation for our group. No game gets started without at least one full session devoted to nothing but all of us sitting around talking about the setting, the kinds of characters we're thinking of making, and a general effort to make everyone's characters compatible with each other. I honestly can't imagine ever willingly doing it any other way, considering how much smoother our games have run since we started doing this.

--
we do collaborative backgrounds even when we're actually playing out the first meeting
ryan

 

[Evilhalfling]

The current campaign started with brother and sister, and a childhood friend just back from training at the royal academy of magic. They were asked to work with the fourth by their mentor.
It was adding in the two replacements and the new player that was harder.
Two sent by seperate 'Higher powers' and the third is from the PCs next quest area. Although he did spot their bonfire and come to investigate just as they were attacked. ( lots of people come to investigate when you accidently leave smokesticks and a thunderstone in your bondfire)
I consider road meetings necessary, but frequently lame.

 

[nopantsyet]

Hmmm...that depends. All of the above. I start each campaign differently. Sometimes they know eachother, sometimes they don't. Either way, I always start the campaign with some kind of precipitating event that thrusts them together with a certain goal. I find it works best when the PCs have a reason to work together, especially with character types that wouldn't necessarily play well with others. But I never stipulate the nature of relationships between PCs. It's up to them to find a common goal.

If you specify that the group must all start out as friends or must all have the same motivations, you eliminate a lot of great roleplaying opportunities within the party. But if you have a Paladin who is forced to work with an attention-deficit sorceror and an unintelligible dwarven lout, not because they are united in idealogy--they're not, and it has actually led to in-character fights. They're working together because they have shared a common traumatic experience and have nobody else to turn to in a dangerous world.

 

[Wombat]

I prefer having the PCs know each other, either through deep background interactions of a professional or friendship basis, sometimes even having siblings in the group. The tighter I can draw the group together, the more likely I can get away from the, "So, what's my motivation?" problem in games.

Of late I have also switched over to having the PCs part of a larger organization; not only the initial PCs, but all subsequent ones as well, belong to the same grouping, thus there will be continuity even in the event of death or retirement.

 

[Epametheus]

I voted for the "higher power" option, since that's what we just did for the new campaign we just started.

Granted, "higher power" = our kingdoms; the party has been assembled from two kingdoms' talent pools, for a joint venture that might take some time. This seems to be the most common form in our campaigns.

I don't think I've ever played in a campaign where all of the PCs had always known each other, though its not unusual for at least a couple of PCs to be familiar with each other.

 

[JDJarvis]

for me over the years the best starter formula is to assign each PC a mini-quest or some goal they can't complete on thier own put then in a
Village/Inn/Trading post/Fortress have baddies attack the Village/Inn/Trading post/Fortress have several of th players mini-quests related in some fashion to the attack on the Village/Inn/Trading post/Fortress. Let the game go form there.

 

[Whisper72]

I prefer the PC's to know eachother. Either very well (i.e. childhood friends etc., usually if all PC's start at 1st level, or through some common bond if the PC's start at higher levels)

IMHO in most cases the idea of not knowing eachother and then being forced to work together and trust one's life to eachother either works very contrived (i.e. the players know they'll end up working together and you get all this contorted play of not trusting eachother at first often played out a bit too extremely), or all the mistrust etc. detracts from the fun the players should be having in a cooperative game.

Only in cases where the players play evil PC's, and trust is a rare thing among them to begin with, then them not knowing eachother works fine to further enhance this mistrust. At that moment though, this is a large part of the game, and thus _should_ be enhanced in any way possible.

Elsewise, it is very often just and excuse to 'roleplay' in a way that in reality has very little to do with roleplaying and definately little with having fun together.