Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6168442" data-attributes="member: 27160">Having the Icon relationships fleshed out with a line or two of  explanation is certainly a good idea. I probably wouldn't insist on it from the very start, but, like OUTs, it should be firmed up within the first few runs. Some folks only really get a feel for "who their character is" after playing them for a bit, so a bit of leeway is probably helpful.As an extension to this (in the spirit of being constructive and so on), I would recommend holding a session with all players present where the task is to decide why the characters form a "party". The GM might have a plan for this to be enacted in the first session - in which case it may not be needed - but having up-front agreement to form a group can be helpful. All that is actually needed is an agreed story/montage, but it could be fun to add in things like a shared background (with a minimum investment of 1 point out of 8, this shouldn't impinge on players' build freedom too much - and I might be tempted to give them all an extra point if they chose to go this way).Another possibility would be shared Icon relationships, but I'd be careful, here. If all the characters have a relationship to one Icon, then that Icon is going to figure a lot in the relationship roll "hits". This will tend to make that Icon a big focus of the campaign; this should probably be discussed and agreed in advance by all the players (including the GM!)</blockquote>

Verification