I broke a bad habit

[Clavis]

Bravo to the Original Poster!

In my own campaign, players fill out a Character Profile with the following questions:

Where was the character born?
Who are the character’s parents?
How many siblings does the character have, and what are their names?
How was the character educated?
Does the character have any close friends, and what are their names?
Does the character have a mate or lover? If so, what is their name?
Has the character ever been the victim of a crime?
How does the character earn a living?
What are the character’s religious and/or philosophical beliefs?
What does the character especially love, and why?
What does the character especially hate, and why?
What does the character especially fear, and why?
What does the character have no fear of, and why?
What about themselves is the character most proud of, and why?
What is the character’s secret shame, and why?
Why did the character become an adventurer?

I encourage the players to come up with minor groups, secret societies, and weird customs to fill out their character's backgrounds. Some major features of previous campaigns were the result of a player wanting to play a particular kind of character. I've found that when players have creative input into the campaign world, even in a minor way, they have a feeling of "ownership" and participation that often results in better roleplaying. Also, the backgrounds are very useful for me when creating story hooks.

 

[Ry]

I'm working up a relationship map of the connections, I'll post that once it's done. That probably will be cooler than just rambling on about the characters.

 

[Wik]

We did something similar with our Eberron game - the whole first session was character generation. But about half the the four-hour session WAS rules-related CharGen.

Still, afterwards, I had a few questions that each player had to answer:

1. How do you know the main Contact? (an NPC that is a Master Inquisitive)
2. What did you do in the Last War?
3. How do you know the PC of the player that sits to your right?
4. Name an enemy you'd have, and a friend you'd have.

Those four simple questions took up a lot of time, and they really developed the characters. We had people trying to figure out how they knew the main NPC (and this would explain how the PCs got together), and trying to tie that into their experiences in the last war. We wound up with a former assassin/spy who felt just a little guilt over what he did in the war, and wondered if the shadow war he was involved in against house Phiarlan was "really worth it". We had a warforged trying to just find a little bit of peace, a changeling trying to make a quick buck, and on and on.

Trying to find a relation to the guy next to you meant that you had two PCs in the group of five that you knew well (you chose how you knew the guy to your right, and the guy to your left chose how he knew you). The connections got just a little weird, but in a fun way.

That being said, I'll have to agree with Fifth Element that the method doesn't work for all groups, and in many groups, this sort of behaviour would be seen as a bad thing. If my first roleplaying experience consisted of me figuring out how my imaginary character related to other imaginary characters, and I never got a chance to brain me a skeleton, I'd probably not be back for the second session.

Spending a whole session doesn't really get our group "pumped" - we just see it as a necessity so that next week, we'll be ready to kick some butt.

I personally think that any game where CharGen *and* party generation can be done in less than half an hour (Savage Worlds comes to mind, and WFRP) is probably the better way to go. But that's just my two cents.

 

[Delta]

Well, I must say that as a player, I've had a DM do this to me, and boy, was it a drag for me (same for my closest player friends). The other thing is that more you do this, the more the DM feels compelled to make PC death unlikely so as to not lose those PCs' and the amount of work put into their backstories. So some of us will have to disagree with this as a good thing. As a player, I avoid these kinds of games.

 

[Ry]

I don't have to worry about PC death, in fact, I look forward to killing a PC as soon and as often as possible. I can go after players to the Nth degree because it's in their hands whether or not their character's life is on the line. That's why I wrote the Death Flag - because even if there's some wrestling involved, it's only fun when it's consensual.

Anyway, here's the r-map so far (definitely in its early stages of conversion but all the Drives are there).

 

[GlassJaw]

Well, I must say that as a player, I've had a DM do this to me, and boy, was it a drag for me (same for my closest player friends). The other thing is that more you do this, the more the DM feels compelled to make PC death unlikely so as to not lose those PCs' and the amount of work put into their backstories. So some of us will have to disagree with this as a good thing. As a player, I avoid these kinds of games.

Yup, it pretty much all comes to "Know Thy Players". Some groups will love this, others, not so much.

I've tried things like this before but feedback was marginal at best so I tend to avoid requirements like this nowadays. As a side note, I've also found that giving the players more "work" (or input as the case may be) doesn't necessarily equate to more fun.

 

[robhthedm]

Mixing/Matching Steps

Very cool (Ryan has said he's not posting anymore, don't know if he's reading).

The Relationship Map idea is a good one to keep NPC's actions "flowing naturally" as play goes on. Chris Chin's essays on setting up campaigns with low prep and that plus "conflicts" plus "flags" is the advice. The drives are "flags" in a sense with a feedback mechanic on them via Raising the Stakes.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/waystoplay.html

Working as GM with 5 players on our next campaign, when current one wraps, there are two phases being used to have players "create all the grist (campaign elements) that the adventuring mill will turn into flour (GM prep) that will then be baked into story (play)"

First, we're doing a "tenets" phase based on Universalis, each player (GM counts as just another player) has 10 coins. Each coin can be spent (up to 2 at once) to express a tenet which is a fundamental component of campaign that will persist, only be changed via truly heroic effort and will be felt. Coins are paid for the key element. Before we started we agreed on a general theme for campaign players wanted to explore (last was a voyage of exploration), this is a "military campaign" (PC's are members of a mercenary unit). The general feel is similar to the inter-war period between WWI and WWII.

E.G., Tenet 1: Hotspot in a cold war (e.g., Spanish Civil War, Korea, Vietnam etc.); Tenet 2: Legitimate regional government/authority has collapsed, replaced by puppet warlords/strongmen, opportunists and factional infighting; Tenet 3: Despite the shifting alliances, there is a core conflict between the Ryanad and Sindar [two major fantasy powers/nations in the setting]. All of the others (Horned Realm, various Sonjon states, the Bazos city-states, the Zel, the Phaerimm, etc.), are all either allied with one of those two, or forming other axes to mess things up even more. etc.

From this list of tenets, as GM I will create a web of conflicts and "regional overview", likely about 2 pages. Everything in this overview will be derived from the tenets, embody them, be about them and also be "driving towards conflict and adventures".

For example, Core conflict is that Town A seceded from rule by City B during the disruption of a recent war ("the Great War"), taking advantage of the chaos etc. The active conflict is City B trying to retake control of Town A. City C doesn’t want to get directly involved but prefers to see City B weaker and is supporting Town A, with funds for mercenaries. Each of these communities also has past associations with different sides in the Great War and the “Great Powers” have interests in the outcome, making this a hot spot in the cold war.

With the regional overview (tenets expressed into web of conflicts and adventure elements), then Phase II.

The Players each create 4 relationships, each being like a "chapter" in their past (per Spirit of the Century) that helps define their characters but also creates drivers in play. One must connect to another PC (not satisfied by a connection from them, thus creating a web where each PC has 2 prior connections to others). The other 3 are to NPC's either already named in the “campaign bible” or ones created from the general types in it (e.g., from tenet above, PC can create a warlord who they have a connection to).

Each NPC must want something in respect of the PC (they want or need something from character or they have a goal that aligns or conflicts) and which is appropriate fo the category. It’s not good enough to describe the ogre that killed and ate your parents, what does that ogre still want from you or that conflicts with what you want? Violence, it wanting stay alive and you wanting it dead are adequate (though hardly ‘wow’). Money, it having the family treasures that you want back would be adequate.

The relationships must thematically fit into four categories (one each) of Blood (kinship), Violence, Sex (including romance), and Money (and the past chapters must thus say something about the character in terms of each of those themes). They can be friendly but still have to have some goal/issue in play in them that "pushes a PC button" - e.g., when your past lover who broke your heart sends you a call for help, you will answer.

So we get connections between PCs which must be "active" in that "something could flow from that, challenge it etc." and up to (with 5 players) 15 NPC's tagged or created by Players as "pre-written hooks for adventures". It could be fewer as players are encouraged to overlap NPC choices.

We expect adventure plots and complications should flow pretty well from there, the campaign will be about striving to 'change' particular tenets at overall level and resolving those issues on personal level.

Rob

 

[Delta]

... it's in their hands whether or not their character's life is on the line. That's why I wrote the Death Flag - because even if there's some wrestling involved, it's only fun when it's consensual.

Well, there you go, that's just what I'm talking about -- the DM needing to institute a "Death Flag" rule to prevent PC deaths. Definitely the opposite of the kind of game my friends and I would want to play.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Anyway, here's the r-map so far (definitely in its early stages of conversion but all the Drives are there).

How did you make that relationship map? Can you do that with Adobe? (I have AdobePro, but I don't know what it is capable of...)

 

[kensanata]

What I dislike a lot is when the DM requires a 1-on-1 character concept and generation session before the campaign starts. When this happened to me, I stalled and eventually decided not to play.

Thus, my advice is to keep this short. As a DM, I also don't have the time to read more than half a page of background per character. None of us writes well enough to entertain for so long. Keeping it short makes sure we get to actually play.