Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Theo R Cwithin" data-source="post: 5225270" data-attributes="member: 75712">Imxp, #2 varies a lot.&nbsp; I think the guy who writes a 12 page backstory has his PC's motivations pretty well figured out.&nbsp; And at lower levels, at least, the default &quot;kill things and take their stuff&quot; is actually a fairly decent rationale for adventuring.&nbsp; At higher levels, PC motives I think naturally work themselves out in the game, even if they're not terribly &quot;deep&quot;:&nbsp; Seek revenge.&nbsp; Find my father.&nbsp; Wine and wenches.&nbsp; Get rich.&nbsp; Seize the throne.&nbsp; Stay alive.The &quot;why&quot; behind the party is much stickier, imxp.&nbsp; At lower levels, it kind of makes sense: there is strength in numbers, so in the absence of other better reasons, there's&nbsp; always the mutual protection angle.&nbsp;&nbsp; But this breaks down especially at higher levels, when the PCs are more or less self-sufficient and have developed all sorts of personal reasons to do what they do-- personal reasons that don't necessarily mesh with those of their colleagues.&nbsp; At this point, they're possibly only adventuring together, as Umbran said, because there's no game otherwise!I like ElMahdi's approach of having the PCs define why they are together; this is what I do, as well.&nbsp; I'm now thinking I might take it a step further and ask the players to re-examine this every time they level across a &quot;tier boundary&quot; (ie, cross from 3e Gritty (5) to Heroic (6), or 4e's Heroic to Paragon, then Paragon to Epic), or even every level or two.&nbsp; At level 1, it's &quot;Why is the party together?&quot;.&nbsp; At the next tier, it's &quot;Why is the party still together?&quot; and maybe &quot;What does the party want to accomplish?&quot;&nbsp; It might even be helpful to map this out (like a UML diagram or similar).&nbsp; At a minimum, this informal Q&amp;A forces the players to think about their characters in the greater context of the party.&nbsp; Mechanically, I don't know what could be done to make the party more directly relevant to the game, although I get the impression that (for combat at least) 4e does a little of this already.&nbsp; A few ideas off the top of the head:- A group Reputation/Notoriety mechanic?&nbsp; - Party synergies that kick in only when they're all together, and get better the longer they stick with each other?&nbsp; - XP bonuses for team work?&nbsp; - A separate &quot;character sheet&quot; for the party itself that grants some sort of perks to individual players the &quot;healthier&quot; the party is?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Theo R Cwithin, post: 5225270, member: 75712"] Imxp, #2 varies a lot. I think the guy who writes a 12 page backstory has his PC's motivations pretty well figured out. And at lower levels, at least, the default "kill things and take their stuff" is actually a fairly decent rationale for adventuring. At higher levels, PC motives I think naturally work themselves out in the game, even if they're not terribly "deep": Seek revenge. Find my father. Wine and wenches. Get rich. Seize the throne. Stay alive. The "why" behind the party is much stickier, imxp. At lower levels, it kind of makes sense: there is strength in numbers, so in the absence of other better reasons, there's always the mutual protection angle. But this breaks down especially at higher levels, when the PCs are more or less self-sufficient and have developed all sorts of personal reasons to do what they do-- personal reasons that don't necessarily mesh with those of their colleagues. At this point, they're possibly only adventuring together, as Umbran said, because there's no game otherwise! I like ElMahdi's approach of having the PCs define why they are together; this is what I do, as well. I'm now thinking I might take it a step further and ask the players to re-examine this every time they level across a "tier boundary" (ie, cross from 3e Gritty (5) to Heroic (6), or 4e's Heroic to Paragon, then Paragon to Epic), or even every level or two. At level 1, it's "Why is the party together?". At the next tier, it's "Why is the party [B][I]still[/I][/B] together?" and maybe "What does the [B][I]party[/I][/B] want to accomplish?" It might even be helpful to map this out (like a UML diagram or similar). At a minimum, this informal Q&A forces the players to think about their characters in the greater context of the party. Mechanically, I don't know what could be done to make the party more directly relevant to the game, although I get the impression that (for combat at least) 4e does a little of this already. A few ideas off the top of the head: - A group Reputation/Notoriety mechanic? - Party synergies that kick in only when they're all together, and get better the longer they stick with each other? - XP bonuses for team work? - A separate "character sheet" for the party itself that grants some sort of perks to individual players the "healthier" the party is? [/QUOTE]

Verification