Character Design by Committee

File: 1467611815391.jpg (92KB, 463x700px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 463x700px

>>49749183
>some
I'm open to suggestions and input from other players, but that shit stays as SUGGESTIONS. Suggestions that I am completely free to ignore, consider retarded, and not use if I so wish it.

To actually make it part of the game rules and take away my ability to veto things I don't like... yeah fuck that. It's MY character, I'm the one playing the character, fuck off and let me make a character I want to play.

>>49749183
>Is character creation sacrosanct or does it contribute to investment and cooperation across the group?

The latter. A lot of the concepts in Fate are just things good GMs and players learn to do naturally after a lot of play, but presented - ostensibly - for newbies.

While there's nothing wrong with everyone coming to session one with a character, especially if you're doing a traditional dungeon crawl, I think it's better if everyone comes to session one with a character that's in some way "on the same page" as everyone else's. This could be as simple as the GM setting some constraints. "Everyone should make a character who lost someone in the big war," for example.

Fate goes a step further and assumes the characters are already a team of some sort, or at least know each other and have interacted with past, in order to tie everyone's backstories together slightly. I can see how this would chafe some people, so it's going to work differently for every group.

What I DO like about Fate is how they make it explicit that chargen should be a clue to the GM about the kind of game the players want to experience. If a player pick the Warlord class and the Leadership abilities, then he probably ought to get to show off his skills and have a squad he gets to command at some point. If a player throws points into Drive and lists his backstory as "former stuntmant" you throw that guy a chase scene bone.

>>49749230
>To actually make it part of the game rules and take away my ability to veto things I don't like

Which games do that?

>>49749183
It makes it easier to build a party and a campaign if everyone is in communication with each other about what they want and what they're running. It can be hard to build connective tissue between player characters that are wildly different in tone and scale.

>>49749243
Powered by the Apocalypse. Then again, those are the same games that allow other players to decide for me my character is gay for theirs.

>>49749255
Yeah that's why it's smart to make your characters together. But there shouldn't be game mechanics letting other players decide parts of your character.

Yeah, no, fuck that bullshit.

The problem isn't anything to do with the characters. The problem is that players aren't on the same page. That's always the problem. Before you even start the game you need a clear idea of what the powerlevel of the group should be and what the roles should be. I don't know how to put this in FATE terms, but to put it in D&DPF terms, you don't bring a lame, half-assed fighter to a table full of optimized full-casters, because you should have talked about it beforehand and realized everyone wants a high-power game with ridiculous opposition.

>>49749263
Which ones? Can't think of a single one that does any of what you say.

>>49749378
Honestly that's only relevant if you're just dungeon crawling.

It's a roleplaying game, powerlevels shouldn't be the defining factor for your character. A character that's underpowered in combat isn't by definition a bad thing.

>>49749347
Well, the social contract between the players already does that (i.e. don't make a paladin for a game of murderhobos etc.), so wouldn't codifying that with game mechanics be a good thing, as an example for newer players just becoming introduced to the hobby?

>>49749452
I disagree. The only exception is if you never, ever get into physical combat at all, and conflicts are resolved by other means. My reasoning is this: you can fail at other things, and you'll probably survive it, but if you fail at combat, that's pretty questionable.

Everyone wants great characterization and roleplaying and really getting into the meat of your character, y'know? I get that. I totally get where you're coming from. I actually hate combat in most rpgs because it just feels like such a fucking drudge, like the worst goddamn fun return on my time. But that's no excuse for your character to be bad at it, and not have anything worthwhile to do when you have to throw down. You can have characterization, a decent concept and more hooks than a rap album and still have a character who can fight well enough to not die.

>>49749526
But wouldn't making everyone good at fighting step on the toes of the player who wants to be the fighting guy of the group? I mean, if being good at combat is his niche then everybody else being just as good at it devalues his character concept completely.

>>49749390
He's referring to Monsterhearts, the only one that does what he says.

GM should have ultimate veto on characters brought to a game.

If you can set up every single fight ever as a duel between him and whoever, then sure, I can see the logic. Otherwise, everyone needs to be tough enough to not die. Maybe not as good as him in a straight-up fight, but they need to be able to contribute in a fight and not die. I think that's kinda the running theme here: 'tough enough to not die.' Hmm. Anyway. Exactly how tough that is, and how much they need to be able to contribute, is really less about party dynamics and more about how hard you want combat encounters to be anyway. (It's not even about how often they come up, because you at least need to be good enough to not die every single time. At least stay in one piece long enough to surrender to someone who'll accept it, or run away, or whatever.) But even so, everyone needs to be able to contribute and not die.

>>49749390
not him but in MonsterHearts players can roll to have other characters find theirs attractive

>>49749378
FATE is one of the best systems I know for allowing characters of dramatically differing power levels to a) hang out together, and b) all be able to meaningfully contribute to the story.

Generally, low refresh characters are better at driving the plot forward (because they've got all the neat powers, but have to take compels more often in order to use them to full advantage), while high refresh characters are better at steering the plot (because they can afford to spend Fate Points like Halloween Candy).

Of course, I'm talking about characters that are INTENDED to be strong or weak.This doesn't help players who can't CharOp their way out of a paper bag, but that's less important than it is in crunchier systems.

>>49749183
That guy with the mohawk know's what's up.

>>49749263
every PbtA game I've seen still says that players have control over everything which concerns their character, could you point to the game and rule which annoys you?

>>49749183
i think it only works well if you're all making a game and 1 person together.

in an actual game where only one person has that character, its mostly just suggestion and theme.

File: spirit of the century pulp novels.png (189KB, 1174x744px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1174x744px

>>49749183
I always kind of liked the idea of this, though I'll admit that I've never actually used it.

>>49749562
>>49749639
That's entirely in-theme then.
I'm more curious about which games do not let you veto other players' influence on your character at creation.

>>49749639

But in context that totally makes sense. It'd be weirder if the game DIDN'T do that.

>>49749714
>>49749726
eh, some people really don't like their character not being 100% the way they pictured them, if they imagined their character straight they're going to be annoyed when the rules say their character finds one of the male PCs attractive

>>49749822
It's a fucking supernatural teenage romance game.
If you don't want romantic attraction, physical attraction, confused feelings and doubts about sexuality, why the hell are you even so much as reading the rulebook?

>>49749875
Because you can want those things without having the choice taken out of your hands.
Like with any other game, you can create those dynamics through discussing character relationships like civilized adults, not irresponsibly leaving the whole group's fun in the hands of the dice.
I can vividly imagine a situation in which the group Tumblrina or annoying furry targets a player character with an otherwise focused concept that could lead to an interesting game, instead tearing the game apart as the character isn't allowed to play what the player wants to or feels confident in playing.
Involving sexuality also makes it possible for players to wage war on each other by singling out other players to forcibly engage in romantic relationships against their character concept, their own personal opinions and their own interests.
The GM already has plenty of potential to ruin a game, so please don't put that potential in the hands of every player at the same time, and especially not when it can't even reasonably be interrupted and vetoed by the GM without a politically and emotionally tinged shitfight.
How would you feel if you made a character defined by for example being a perfectionist who's picky about romantic partners because he's afraid of seeing his own flaws reflected in them or being dragged down by them - and then Hamplanet McFive-Syllabic Pronoun (who has been acting iffy towards you since before the game started) rolls for your character to be head over heels for her/its dragonwolf abomination with seven different self-diagnosed mental illnesses and the behavior of a Sonic OC?
Most importantly, the GM can't do anything without being accused of railroading and interrupting the game, because the control is taken out of the hands of everyone but the players who want to exploit it. It's a system in which the real control lies in the hands of the player who's willing to take the most out of everyone's fun to masturbate to their own teenage fantasies.

>>49749982
>How would you feel if you made a character defined by for example being a perfectionist who's picky about romantic partners because he's afraid of seeing his own flaws reflected in them or being dragged down by them - and then Hamplanet McFive-Syllabic Pronoun (who has been acting iffy towards you since before the game started) rolls for your character to be head over heels for her/its dragonwolf abomination with seven different self-diagnosed mental illnesses and the behavior of a Sonic OC?
but that's not what the role says, the roll indicates that in that moment you thought they were physically appealing, this gives them some minor influence over you which is pretty easy to ignore completely or could wind up being a good thing

>>49750888
You know just as well as I do that a disruptive player only needs one clue from the rules to bite on and not let go.
You get one bad player in that game, and they'll be ripping you apart for your character not having sex with them or returning their ham-handed idea of what flirting is. It's supported by the rules and can be argued to death by a player that's disruptive enough.
The only way to avoid scenarios like that is to keep the players' characters a matter between the player and the GM, with other relationships being decided mutually between two players completely outside of the rules. This way, the characters will still fit with each other because the GM can synchronize their backstories, roles and personalities, and you'll avoid tons of metagaming and drama at that while having a less bogged-down plot.
Some roleplaying concepts, while they might seem interesting in theory, are just not viable in practice - take this from a long-term Vampire LARPer (on and off, though - it kills the soul to do it more than twice a year).
If you give one player emotional or social leverage over another player's character, it's risky already - one game I was in had some pretty serious drama going on about a horrible neckbeardoid using Dominate on a female player's character to get her to do something that I don't remember but was at the very least creepy, and the opposite happens too (but since these places are basically Tumblr, it's just considered "deep roleplaying with strong female characters" and you end up in trouble for complaining).
When it's something all players have to be in on and is a central part of the game, you're playing in a minefield. You don't give That Guy ammo, and you don't cause bleed unless you're some kind of Swedish theater troupe that knows how to handle it.
These kinds of things result in arguments, drama and ruined game evenings, and I've witnessed a fair handful.

>>49749982
At first, I was going to take your post apart and respond to each complaint individually, but I got a headache halfway through, so I'll stick with the tl;dr version:

Have you tried not playing with complete and utter retards (yourself potentially included)?

>>49749982
>>49750979
You realize you're not supposed to play Monsterhearts with random people, right? It's a game about teenage monsters fucking, and you're playing it with people you don't even know or trust not to fuck with your character? Are you really that much of a faggot? Even if you are playing like that, not only is it not how the rules are meant to be played, it literally isn't even how the rules work.

>>49750979
your entire arguement seems to be based around the idea that there's that one guy in every group who will try and ruin everyone else's time, which always ruins everyone's enjoyment regardless of the game. The far more obvious solution to the scenario your presenting as opposed to 'don't play MonsterHearts' is quite simply 'don't play with cunts'

>>49750989
Yes.
I do that most of the time, but you can't pick and choose every single person you play with, and you can't perfectly judge a person in the time between recruiting them for a game and playing it.
On top of that, few people are perfect. There are times where someone will play like a Godsent miracle for years, then be exposed to some kind of trigger (a character type, a genre, an ability) and all of a sudden sperg out all over the place, then become normal again when taken away from that.
I don't know if you play with a loge with a membership ritual and psychological screening, but there is a limit to how much you can leave in the hands of people. Even if you trust players as people and get along well with them, some things are just not good to bring up even between mature adults, because no one is perfectly mature in every aspect.
Roleplaying is supposed to be fun, and bringing in rule-supported risks of any kind in excess of what the average roleplaying game has (it's become that way for a good reason) is risking friendships and perfectly good groups for a session of gratuitous hipsterism.

>>49749183
It's great, increases player and campaign cohesion. Allowing you to enjoy longer and healthier games.

>>49749183
Heading into my first FATE/SoTC campaign soon. So far I'm loving the idea of the cooperative character creation, but as with any TTRPG it depends on not playing with complete asshats.

>>49751044
then I would ask you to explain the various MH campaigns that have been or are being played which haven't experienced complete meltdowns, by your logic there would always be some problem which would ruin the game but that's clearly not the case

>>49749183
I can see it be fucking AWESOME and absolutely horrible. All depending on the group. If the group has people who actually get investing in their characters and role play them out as they should and not meta game / avoid bad things I see it being a pretty fun thing.

If your group instead are mostly roll players or dont get invested really I see it as being a huge clusterfuck.

>>49751069
The problem isn't that there will always be a meltdown.
The problem is that there is always the potential for a meltdown, and choosing a game that's riskier for group integrity is an irresponsible move that shows that you don't care for your group or the other players.
Taking a risk inherently is not the same as suffering the consequences, but it is the same as willingly opening yourself up to them.

>>49751106
>choosing a game that's riskier for group integrity is an irresponsible
I've had far more players messing with each other in D&D games than in MonsterHearts, and even when they were screwing with each other in MonsterHearts people didn't mind as much and were generally more good humoured about it. I still think you're massively over-estimating the risk of this sort of thing becoming a problem, as you said there's always a risk, which I agree with, but I don't think there's anything special about MH which makes that risk significantly higher.

>>49751131
I know I'm overestimating it.
In fact, I'm intentionally exaggerating it.
I've just seen exactly how goddamn messy drama instigated by players getting into inter-character sex or romance can get, and while I'd dearly like to be able to tell people to go out and play fun or innovative games that push some boundaries, I can't responsibly do that.
If a game goes well, you have fun.
If a game goes really badly, you lose friends for life, break up groups and (in some countries, mostly the US from the stories I've heard) might actually escalate things into intimidation or violence.
The idea of pushing boundaries and involving more intimate emotions in roleplaying games is good, but I've been at Fastaval (a pretty large and international roleplaying con held in Denmark and in practice run by Swedish Tumblrites). One thing I've learnt from that is that these games get very messed-up very often, and some of them get to the point where it's really not fucking funny regardless of how thin-skinned you are.
I've played enough games to know how autismal people can be and how wrong emotional involvement can go, so for Christ's sakes let's just be satisfied with keeping the upper limit at the World of Darkness and not tempt fate.

>>49751185
So your main impression comes from complete strangers playing an intimate game?
Gee whiz, that makes for some very representative experiences.

>>49751185
>If a game goes really badly, you lose friends for life, break up groups and (in some countries, mostly the US from the stories I've heard) might actually escalate things into intimidation or violence.
who the hell are you friends with that a bad game night could have that result

Hasn't character creation always been a collaborative effort, even to the days when DnD was an expansion for Chainmail?

"We need someone who can cast Cure Wounds between battles. Steve, you rolled decent mental stats, do you mind making your guy a man of the cloth?"

>>49749183
This image is comfy
>tfw you will never sit around at dinner with a bunch of bros discussing youre waifus

>>49751731
There's a difference between that and one of character creations steps being "now, the guy on your right says what your character's motivation is."

>>49751861
Look, even by 4chan standards you're being hard on yourself.
The absolute easiest kind of acquaintance to make is other neckbeards, and the absolute easiest topic of conversation is preferences in animu girls.

>>49751861
>tfw you will never sit around at dinner with a bunch of bros discussing youre waifus

Why not? I do it with my friends. Hell, sometimes I do it with my friends and their girlfriends around the same one. When three-fourths of your social circle is made up of nerds, it's all cool.

>>49749542
Not same anon, but
>Being good in combat is a niche
Not in the systems anon named.

>>49751879
>implying 'never' is because of no bros
Nah, I just wouldn't feel comfortable discussing waifus with them. It feels too autistic, even by my standards.

>>49751892
Then it's your own fault, really.
Imposing arbitrary restrictions on what you're allowed to do with your friends in private because it's "too weird" is how you lose truly good friends and make only pointless one-week acquaintances who won't remember your name after a month.

>>49751874
which games have that as part of character creation?

>>49749183
People are people. They'll just use this to troll, assert dominance, or get someone to leave the group.
You are giving each player a kill switch for another player's character, and I can't see anything good coming out of it, unless there is a very cohesive group.

>>49751879
Neckbeards aren't Bros though. They're just people who will talk about their obsessions to anyone. In college, I would have 5-6 people in the game club just start talking about their RPG sessions or their fanfiction or their animes and act like I wanted to hear about it because I didn't tell them to stop and go away.

>>49752206
firstly as has already been said in this thread: don't play with pricks

secondly which games are you referring to which give players a kill switch on each other's characters?

>>49749243
>>49749390
>>49749680
>>49749714
>>49751946
>>49752602
Funny how that question keeps getting asked, yet never really answered.

>>49749230
This. Basically the only exception would be a character giving themselves hidden powers that suddenly activate.

File: 1464680662800.png (80KB, 339x355px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 339x355px

>Create a character that's either your ideal self-insert or your perfect waifu
>Hand your character sheet to the guy on your left
How would this turn out on an average gaming table?

>>49749263
>Powered by the Apocalypse. Then again, those are the same games that allow other players to decide for me my character is gay for theirs

Could you provide screencaps of the rulebook that state this?

I mean, you wouldn't want to be accused of just making shit up to troll people, right?

>>49754437
see >>49754104 all these posts, people have been asking for examples the entire thread and haven't gotten any

>>49749982
Do you think that a player character taking damage in combat is a violation of the player's "vision", or is "taking choice out of their hands" because they don't want their character to ever be injured?

Or would you agree that if you don't want your character to be put in a situation where they can suffer harm, you shouldn't be playing in a system that focuses on combat?

File: monsterhearts.png (26KB, 953x175px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 953x175px

>>49749243
>>49749390
>>49749680
>>49754104
>>49754437
>>49754475
Not OP. It's not every Apocalypse hack. It's from Monsterhearts. It's in the core rulebook, under "Queer Content".

Here's the rule

>>49754537
as has been explained though that just means that who your character thinks is hot isn't up to you, how your character act sin response is entirely though, it fits with the general themes of the game. Also it's a balance thing since giving players the ability to decide that a certain roll can never succeed against them when they don't want it to can cause some issues.

>>49754694
>who your character thinks is hot isn't up to you
That's part of your character. It also could end up effecting your backstory.

I agree it can help balance the game, but I don't like the way the section pushes so hard for you to do this. Some games could make sense to have straight/homo characters.

It honestly seems like (the whole Queer Content section) is pushing the developer's politics.

I also just don't like playing as gay characters.

>>49754775
>I also just don't like playing as gay characters.
you don't have to, if one of the other PCs hits on you then you may momentarily consider them attractive but where you go from there is your call, no one's saying you have to start making out (it's an option just not the only one)

>>49754775
>It honestly seems like (the whole Queer Content section) is pushing the developer's politics.
nah, their game about lesbian sex is that, Monsterhearts is just teenage bullshit, which therefore includes sexual confusion

>>49749183
My group has found its sweet spot with a session zero where every player propose their characters, discuss them and weave their relationships before the beginning of the campaign.
It ensures that the party is thematic and able to work together; you know (at least on a meta level) who you're working with, and don't have to pause the game to listen to pages of backstories; and there are some basic paths of interaction going on between the PCs.

Put a lot of grease in the cogs imo.

>>49754775
>It also could end up effecting (sic) your backstory.
No, it affects your character in the present situation. It doesn't retroactively mean you're a faggot, it means that you suddenly have an uncomfortable emotion.

It seems like you don't actually understand the rule system and just skimmed the book searching for something to get upset about.

>>49754879
pretty much every PbtA game actually mechanises this, every class has several 'fill in the blank' statements about the other PCs which serve to establish relationships and shared history

>>49754823
I still think that means you're gay, but I see what you mean. You could be a mostly straight guy who was just attracted to a particular guy at one point in time.

It's more I just don't like doing gay things with my character, which is fine, because, as >49754888 said, I'm not a Monsterhearts player. I just skimmed the text because people ITT were asking for what OP was talking about.

File: mh-excerpt-1.png (66KB, 494x787px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 494x787px

>>49754861
I don't know. The whole section seemed pretty cringy.

File: mh-excerpt-2.png (48KB, 483x588px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 483x588px

>>49754861
Though it's probably true it's just the one section. The game seems mostly an excuse to RP Twilight.

>>49755090
I prefer to use Buffy as an example personally, but sadly yes, Twilight is an obvious influence

File: top quality taste.png (59KB, 416x771px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 416x771px

>>49755165
You're right.

>>49755090
IIRC it was inspired by Buffy, which had a lot of romantic stuff going on.

>>49755200
Lost Boys is also a pretty good movie actually

>>49755266
Early Buffy is so comfy, but I thought the main characters are shit except for Giles (Xander is OK too I guess).

>>49755312
Looks cool. I'll check it out.

To someone thinking about how a character design fully created by comitee would work.
This is a race created by /tg/ using gurps alien generator.
Rules when we made it:
We used a "pick the good choices" voting system (the name is approval system if you are into election systems), we didnt used "give scores to everything on the list and the best score wins".
Also the only stuff that could be selected was stuff that would be able to be rolled at random based on previous answers, one exception is intelligence that I asked how if we wanted or not.

>>49755471
Chemical base: Water-Based Life (Cold to Hot worlds)
Habitat: space dwelling life
Race is sapient
Trophic Level: Hijacking Carnivore
Place the race lives has 0.1 g
Movement: Immobile
Size: 250 yards
Weight: 78130000 pounds
Size in race local gravity = 1150 yards
Weight in race local gravity = 7604375000 pounds.
Strenght = 3933 ST
Bilateral
18 segments (each segment has one limb per side) won.
Has tails
Long tail (Long enhancement) and Barbed striker tail (Striker doing cutting or piercing damage)
Is an tool using race
6 sets of manipulators (each set has normal DX or High Manual Dexterity 1)
Internal Skin
Outer Skin : Scale
Scale Type:Armor shell (DR 5)
Cold-blooded (no disadvantage)
Growth Pattern: Unusual growth pattern (add segments )
Reproduction:Parthenogenesis
Gestation: Pollination
Special gestation: Brood Parasite (young raised by another species)
Moderate r-Strategy: 1d+1 offspring per litter, some care after birth
Vision: Telescopic Vision 4
Deaf
Touch: Acute Touch 4 and Vibration Sense
Has those special Senses:
360° Vision
Absolute Direction
Ultravision
Scanning Sense (Radar)
Primary Sense of Communication: Scanning Sense (Radar)
Lifespan: Extended Lifespan 2
Average IQ: 11
Mating Behaviour: Permanent pair bond
Social Organization: Pair-bonded
Gregariousness: Loner (0)
Concentration = Short Attention Span (9)
Curiosity = Curious (9) (reduce selfcontrol number to 6)
Playfullness: Compulsive Playfulness (9) (becomes Trickster at 12 if specific being of this race is is Overconfident)
Empáthy: Empathy ( add Charitable at 12)
Chauvinism: Racial Intolerance
Suspicion: Normal
Egoism: Selfless (6)
Imatination: Versatile

>>49755484
It's terrible...

>>49749183
>Is character creation sacrosanct
Yes, because ultimately if a player doesn't feel invested in their character, they lose interest in the game. This could come from bad decisions, decisions being made redundant or decisions being forced upon them by other systems. What comes to mind immediately are bonds and HX from Dungeon/Apocalypse world - the ones where they are simply stating opinions (such as "You think X of person Y") can be okay, but poor choosing can potentially derail a character.
Ones which outright force things into the other player's background (example: The Angel's "You've been besides them and seen everything they've seen") Could potentially fuck over a player's plans and make the player feel like they have less agency and control over their characters. This, ultimately, shouldn't be encouraged and can ruin more than one player's fun.

In games designed specifically around those kind of ideas, and with a group you know, they can work. But they shouldn't become a trend, norm, or considered a universally good idea - the emphasis is on _can_ work, rather than _does_ work.

Ultimately, what matters is everyone being on the same page. A strong, well guided game pitch with separated character creation will trump poor communication about the game's direction and group character creation, all other factors being identical.

Also,
>Monsterhearts
Anyone who suggests it has freudian issues and should be avoided and shunned. The fact that it is one of the goon's games of choice speaks volumes about both groups.

>>49754377

Combo-waifus.
Or you find out your self insert is now the waifu of the person on your left.

>>49759208
>Anyone who suggests it has freudian issues and should be avoided and shunned.
It is fun if you like trashy teenage romance stories, highschool cliques being dicks to each other, teachers doing drugs secretly and doesn't get bothered by mentioning how you character finds someone hot.

>>49760114
So, if you have a vagina?

>>49760114
What are you, 15?

>>49760114
Exactly - freudian issues, should be avoided and shunned.

>>49760174
No, but I probably wouldn't mind that much.

>>49749243

Any game with an SRD and someone willing to write the rule, since apparently Monsterhearts counts for every Powered by the Apocalypse game in the world.

Here, let me publish to the internet my official house rule, which is 100% commercially viable and compatible with the PFSRD:

>Any time you roll a 17 on any d20 roll, a creature of your choice within 60' of your location becomes gay. There is no save.

Bam, now since an unrelated third party has written a rule into a freely available SRD which absolutely anyone can use as the basis of their own game, the entire d20 system and every game or supplement ever made for it now has rules for turning other people's characters gay against their will.

>>49749982
>I can vividly imagine a situation in which the group Tumblrina or annoying furry

Why would you be playing with a Tumblrina or annoying furry?

Quick Question to the whiny children.
How is PtbA's whole "here's a mad lib of how your characters know each other to fill out in case I don't want to set up a bar scene as an introductory" any different from say the Origin Path in Rogue Trader? Which true in the Imperium you could have similar backgrounds as there's countless planets and institutions those origins fall within but it is also just a measure to make it easier for characters to co-operate and get along based on their backgrounds. It's not as direct but it's not like this kind of "creation by association thing" hasn't always existed in some form.

>>49749183


I don't allow players to see each other's character sheets, I pretend not to care if I notice they know more about each other than they should, then later kill gruesomely those who disobey my rules.

File: strings.png (15KB, 344x188px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 344x188px

>>49750888
There's a lasting effect.

>>49763759
SUCH IS THE PRICE THE SHITLORD MUST PAY FOR REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUPERIORITY OF THE QUEER

>>49763759
it's a -1 penalty to a single roll, or having to make an extra 'hold steady' roll, one of which is really minor and the other could easily wind up being a good thing.

>>49763759
That's a -1 on a roll or one XP less for you. It's not D&D, being behind in XP doesn't mean you are dead weight and basically dead. Besides, you can agree and get the XP. PbtA games require you to be willing to be kinda sadistic to your character because sometimes bad things happening to PCs make for a better story.

>>49768194
Finally. You've admitted that this is a bad thing. Sure, it's a bad thing that can be tolerated, but it's still bad.

Discussion over.

I hate it when DMs say "That's how I imagined your character so that's what they have to be".

>>49768373
what happened? sounds like a storytime

>>49768373
I did something like this in Star Wars once, but only because the players didn't seem to know what they wanted. They created some decent characters, but couldn't decide how they knew each other.

I suggested that our smuggler be the captain of a beat up old YT, our trandoshan be his hired muscle and they were hired by the Force-sensitive to smuggle her to Taris and only she knew why they were going to Taris: the holocron told her too. They said it was cool and accepted.

Is that a bridge too far?

File: famitsu1806-relationship1.jpg (336KB, 1665x511px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1665x511px

I'm working on a game of my own. How do you feel about each character in the party have a mechanical relationship with every other?

Right now in my game each party member has a relationship composed of a short phrase and a letter grade from A to F. Everyone starts at C, with a phrase along the lines of, "I don't know much about [name]..."

As they adventure together, they can improve their bond. At letter grades B and A they also unlock special co-op moves; in fact, each class's ultimate technique can only be used in cooperation with another party member. Improving bonds also helps keep characters from losing hope in their quest.

I tried to create a rewarding reason to act as a tight-knit group of friends without getting too "design by committee". What do you think?

>>49769305
Unrelated, but Dogs in the Vineyard has relationship mechanics.