My group doesn't use anything as formal as this, but we use informal techniques - tossing around PC ideas, background ideas, etc - to try and get similar sorts of results: PCs who are connected to one another, or to similar goals/themes.
I think the game needs some basic character generation ground rules. That may be as simple as “altruistic boy scouts” or “cynical money-driven mercenaries”, but some guidance an agreement as to the type of game we will be playing and the kind of characters that will fit. It does not have to be a joint/group character development system, nor is it essential that all, or any, of the characters have met before.
Like @
Campbell, I'm not entirely sure whaty you're trying to show. Upthread, you expressed puzzlement at Hussar's criteria for a good game. You (and other posters) professed not to be able to see why Hussar would have a different outlook on the siege, or the city, compared to the desert and the nomads. Hussar (and a different group of other posters) have tried to explain this. Are you saying:
- that you still don't understand the explanation?
- that you regard the explanation as unsatisfactory (ie you still think Hussar's distinction of preferences is irrational)?
- that that is not how you would want to run a game?
For myself, I still see no clear delineation between “siege” and “desert nomads” other than “Hussar likes one thing that delays entry to the city and dislikes another”. The acceptance of one and not the other actually renders his views less consistent than previous to the siege discussion, to me. But I doubt we’re going to get any closer to understanding each others’ views in that regard, so it’s not worth a bunch more discussion.
You really think that can't be done in a collaborative chargen setup? But, at this point, the player has just told the DM, "I don't want to have anything to do with how this campaign is set up. I want the DM to do all the work while I passively spoon up everything that falls off the plot wagon."
I get criticized for assuming the worst of other players and the GM. Then you toss out the “player is a useless lump” argument. At the end of the day, a lot of these issues on both sides come down to trust. I don’t need to set all the details of what will, and will not, arise in the game. I TRUST the GM and the other players to add elements that will be interesting and engaging, and I do not need (or even want) all those elements laid out before me in a roadmap. You TRUST the other players not to abuse their veto power, or skip scene power. My view is that, if I lack trust in the former, I can have no more faith in the latter. The reverse is also true.
Ok, I've been really, really patient about not presuming bad faith on anyone in the examples.
No, actually, you haven’t. You assume the GM will include irrelevant, boring encounters if you don’t cut him off by circumventing his scenes (such as the desert). You assume that the other players will use any leeway you provide them to “hijack the game” or scene hog. I point out that it is just as possible to hijack the game or scene hog under your model, and you get your back up and accuse me of “jumping to the worst possible conclusion”, but you fail to perceive that you also assume the worst possible conclusion of any approach that does not match your preferred model.
You automatically assume that chargen will be dominated by one loudmouthed guy.
I assume that, if there is a jerk in the group who is able to, and willing to, dominate the game with secrets in his background, he will be just as willing to, and may still be able to, dominate the game with veto power, scene skipping power and “collaborative character generation” mechanics. I do not believe either approach effectively deals with a jerk in the group, so I don’t rely on either approach to achieve this objective.
After all, every character must be linked to at least two other characters. Which means, at the very, very minimum, you're going to have two goals at the outset.
Out of how many that I may have put forward and had shot down? Are you seriously going to tell me that my wish to have the Dark Cult plotline will be greeted with open arms and full buy-in if I tell everyone about it up front, but will be a boring waste of time if you have to find out about it a few sessions into the game? I don’t see it that way but, again, I don’t find a group-generated plot railroad at all superior to a GM created railroad. They are both railroads.
Not because I'm the Loudmouthed Jerk who has to make things All About Me, but because I believe in a far more collaborative style game than you do.
You keep talking about a collaborative game, but you also demand unilateral veto rights (“skip the desert as I am not interested”, for example). The former and the latter are not, to me, consistent.
Star Wars has been brought up as an example of mystery, so, let's use Han Solo for a second. Now, Han has a backstory element - he owes money to Jabba The Hutt. But, let's presume, for the moment, that he wants to keep this secret from the rest of the group. He presents himself as a mercenary out for money with no real attachment to the Rebel cause. Note, everyone else in the group (apart from Chewie I suppose) has direct links to the Rebel Cause. This is what the campaign is going to be about.
So, just before they fly off to fight the Death Star, Han's player announces he's leaving because he has something he has to do. He's gotten paid, and he flies off. Luke's acid comments about "That's all you are good for" ring pretty true. Han comes back in the nick of time, so, everything is still good. Note, nothing, at this point in the campaign, has actually happened that connects Han's background to the events in the game. Apart from a very short bit with Greedo I suppose, but, since Han is alone at that time, no one actually knows about that because it was done away from the table to maintain Han's secret.
So, forward to Empire Strikes Back. Again, Han announces he's leaving because he's got to go see a man about a horse. The other players, by this point, are asking him why he's leaving, but, he remains mum about it. The in game situation, which everyone else is directly invested in, interrupts Han's plans (frustrating Han's player to no end) but, he keeps playing through it because he's at a N'raac style table and he's not allowed to voice any disagreement with the group.
Or he keeps playing through it because he continues to enjoy the game. Not everything has to be about him, or linked to his background. And what is he “directly invested in”? To the point of the attack on Hoth, Han has done precisely two unselfish things in the entire series/game. He saved Luke at the Death Star, and he saved Luke in the frozen wasteland (and what did that frozen wasteland, or the attack on it, have to do with the overall plot anyway?). It seems like Han may not be as bitter and cynical as he likes to portray. He has certainly found a soft spot for Luke.
Oh, and how is the trip to Bespin NOT about Han’s background? He is leveraging that Lando guy he won the Falcon from to resolve a challenge in the game.
Finally, The Big Reveal. Han is caught by Vader and given to the bounty hunters. Before the rescue, he gets frozen in carbonite (removed from the game - a direct consequence of his own actions) and carted away. Everyone else finishes up the storyline and moves on.
Now it's Return of the Jedi. There is a huge galactic war going on. A new Death Star is being constructed. There's death and chaos everywhere and things look hopeless for our PC's.
I don’t recall the PC’s knowing a second Death Star is under construction.
Han's player pipes up, "Uh, guys, aren't you going to come and rescue me?"
Now, why would they? They have no investment in this. This is entirely Han's player's thing. At no point was the rest of the group every consulted about this, nor did they ever have any real chance of fixing this. Had Han's player simply turned to Leia and asked her to use her spy network to forward the money to Jabba, or, considering this is an SF setting, had he just used some sort of banking service, he'd be in the clear. But, no, he kept it secret.
So, now the entire group is expected to drop whatever they are actually invested in, so that they can retrieve Han's character from a situation that none of them are even remotely invested in. The only reason is because Han's character has a glowing PC halo above him, so that makes him important. Things like the Princess doing her duty to her people, Jedi ethics about the greater good, all that kind of stuff? Don't matter. We are presented with this plot and we must follow it to its conclusion.
Yeah, as a player in this game, I'd have booted the Han PC from the group after Hoth and gotten someone we could actually trust and who actually wanted to play the same game as the rest of us.
Why would Luke be motivated to rescue Han? Who saved Luke’s life in the Death Star trench? Who saved Luke’s life in the frozen Hoth wastelands? Gosh, you’re right - I can’t see how that could have engendered any loyalty to Han! So Leia is falling in love with him – that wasn’t part of our agreed upon plot. How DARE her player want her to actually develop and grow – just keep spending xp to enhance your Blaster and Diplomacy skills, chickie!
In my game, it would not matter whether Han were a PC or an NPC – his actions would be judged by the PC’s, and THEY would decide whether they want to expend the time, and risk their lives, to rescue him. They would not be railroaded into the “Defeat the Empire above all else” plotline – not by the GM, not by some preordained plan of the “collaborative players’ union” and not by one player who wants to skip that scene when the rest of the players want to play it through.
In my games, the players would play their characters and make their choices. Maybe they would decide that Han’s not worth it. Sorry, buddy – your character is a wall hanging, so you need a new character. Maybe one PC decides that continued activity with the Rebellion is more important – so maybe that player, who is out of step with the group, needs a new character.
You are confusing two examples. In my game, Bob's secret would be known by everyone at the table and at least two of the PC's would have a vested interest in Bob's character. Thus, there is a built in reason for keeping Bob around.
In N'raac's game, the only reason to keep Bob around is because he has a PC halo. None of the other characters have any investment in keeping him around. They don't drive the answer out of him because players are obligated to play out any complication that is presented to them. There is no investment, no buy in. Only obligation.
OK, just for the record, I think if you go back you will find my comment that I hate the “PC Halo”. I expect Bob’s PC to be treated in accordance with his actions. As I have said before, the PC needs positives to outweigh his negatives.
Those positives need not (and, IMO, should not) be backstory driven. If we write up our backstories that one PC is Bob’s younger brother who always idolized him as a kid, and a second is Bob’s old war buddy, does that require them to be loyal to BobPC through thick and thin, no matter what? Or are they expected to role play? Maybe BobPC is greedy and selfish, expects the other PC’s to risk their lives for him, and flees at the first sign of danger to himself. No matter those backstory links, my character is not going to put up with that. He’s endangering the group – he needs to go.
Maybe travel on the road is the first time my character met BobPC. And, during that travel, danger erupted. BobPC and my character fought side by side. They risked their lives together, and have probably saved each others’ lives a dozen times over. They have forged a bond as strong as any brothers. BobPC is endangered by this cult? My PC is there – BobPC has earned that loyalty.
That paragraph could come out of backstory, but it relies on BobPC continuing to be played consistent with that backstory, and not as a selfish, greedy coward. Or that paragraph could describe what has previously happened in play, in which case its consistency with the way BobPC is played has clearly been established. To me, “established in play” is far more powerful.
“Backstory” is what has gone before. It may be unplayed, or it may have been played. It lead the characters to this moment. But a backstory that has been played out is more powerful, and creates more engaging characters, relationships, loyalties and motivations by far than a backstory that is a scrap of paper or a discussion before we started the game. At least to me.
