NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6122128" data-attributes="member: 6681948">It looks like a volunteer force of Rebellion forces has undertaken to (or perhaps volunteered to) rescue him.  I don’t recall seeing a scene where Han, Chewie, and Leia volunteered for the Endor mission either. I get the sense the Rebellion runs a lot more on volunteerism than a chain of command and series of orders.  Or maybe the GM set this crack commando squad up with much more leeway than regular troops to avoid railroading the players, or being accused of doing so, with missions assigned by those NPC higher ups. We’re not ignoring your point, by the way.  We simply do not agree with you that the PC’s cannot form a bond for reasons other than PC Halo.  Now, PC’s do have a huge advantage in forming bonds – they get a lot more screen time than most NPC’s.   But that also gives them the opportunity to create a negative impression, and I don’t find my players shy away from indicating their character is unhappy with another character’s actions.   But most of my players like playing heroes, so they generally find their characters get along OK.  Even without some pre-fab backstory links (and some of those tend to seem pretty contrived, in my experience). How did you meet your friends and co-workers?  I suggest you lived through a shared “backstory”.  We all set out to accomplish something.  Our paths crossed.  We found we worked well together.  We found we liked each other.  Lack of linked backstories doesn’t mean a lack of backstories, goals or personalities that may mesh.  I also find my players are willing to tweak these a bit if it will make for a more cohesive whole.   But I also find it’s a pretty dull game if all the characters are a riff on the same theme, and their decisions more or less interchangeable. Initially?  Possibly.   Bonds do form.  People do keep in touch with people they worked with in the past, and can seek opportunities to work with them in the future.The players can decide their ties.  The other PC’s can certainly cut BobPC loose.  Can they not do so in your game, if BobPC’s current issues and behaviour are negative, and override those pre-play backstory ties, or does “backstory halo” link us together forever?  I don’t consider that in any way superior to a “PC Halo” – I pretty much despise both. So it is wrong for me to assume a player in your model might be a scene hog, but in my model there will clearly be a scene hog.  I’m not clear on why your players can be trusted, but mine cannot.  Nor do I believe your approach is any less, or any more, conducive to allowing a problem player (or GM) to create problems in the game. This is a significant observation, to me.  The “joint backstory” can be designed pre-play, or played through.  Either way, I detest when the PC’s never grow or change based on actual (or subsequent) campaign events.  “We were war buddies” may explain why we choose to work together now, but current events may erode, or reinforce, that pre-existing bond. I think this is also important.  There is an onus on the player to create a character who (for all his flaws or foibles) would actually want to be part of the group, and the group would actually want present in the group.  If I make a character whose desire is to lead a peaceful life as a blacksmith (live example – 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] ed Fighter who maxed Blacksmith, Weaponsmith and Armorsmith), then I also need to build in some personality that motivates him into the group (altruist, travelling bug, protective of innocent people) at least long enough for him to form bonds with his teammates so he’s no longer “forced into an adventure”,  but rather “helping and defending his friends”. PRECISELY To be clear, I don’t find the collaborative approach more likely to facilitate scene hogging or other selfish gamer behaviour.  I just don’t find it any less likely either.</blockquote>

Verification