Campaign focus: Group vs. events

[Bankuei]

  I was thinking about some of the ideas about gaming group dynamics.  Particularly after reading one of the threads about Zombie movies being about the interaction of the characters, not so much with the events around them(except as catalysts).  I would say that most emotionally satisfying stories focus on the changes with the characters, and the relationships between them, more than the simple events around them.

Most rpgs tend to be focused on events around or happening to the group, while the relationships of the characters tends to stay static.  Of course some games are more focused on the interaction of the members, usually the politically based games(Amber, Vampire, Larps, etc).  Has anyone found particular stories/genres/methods lend themselves better to staying focused on the characters as characters and not as xp banks or power lists?

Chris

[jburneko]

Hello,

This is one of my favorite things in roleplaying to experiment with mainly because I love 'self-destruction' stories.  Namely, stories in which the central character(s) are ultimately destroyed by their own failings rather than any kind of external threat or conflict.  Long live EC Comics.

In any event, I've found there are a great number of ways to fascilitate treating PCs as Characters and not just vessels of gaming power for the players.

The first is via system.  I'm working on a game I call Isolation.  It is designed to fascilitate the behaviors seen in the Zombie genre you mentioned.  The mechanics themselves basically reinforce the conflict between the central characters and lead them easily down that self-destructive path.  If you'd like to know more find the "Railroading With Dice" thread up in the Design Forum.

However, my system is a bit specific to the small group under pressure genre.  In general, I find that there are a great number of pure GMing techniques that can be aplied to fascilitate character development (as CHARACTERS) over power development.

The first technique is don't be affraid to break the notion that the players are, in fact, a group.  Think of them rather as multiple lone protagonists driving a small portion of the over all story.  They should be close together and their paths should cross often but by no means do they need to be working as a group.  I've found that if you can break the TEAM mentality among the players it goes a LONG way in making the players percieve each other as characters rather than utility belts.

The second technique involves the NATURE of the events that the players face.  If you throw moral and philosophical conflicts at them rather than physical or mental ones you'll begin to see much more character development.  In my group a rather interesting phenomenon has occured.  When faced with physical or mental conflicts my players talk about their actions in first person.  "I shoot the zombie." and so forth.  When faced with moral or philosophical conflicts the players talk about their actions in the third person.  "She wouldn't just let the guy starve!"

Ironically, I find this third person thinking to produce MORE character development and BETTER role-playing than the standard attempt to 'transend' one's own personality in favor of that of the character.  If the players distance themselves from the character they are more likely to make more interesting and character building decisions than logical, rational or 'safe' decisions.

A third technique you'll find discussed around here is called a relationship map.  I think people's milage out of a relationship map varries depending on how their minds work.  Just hunt around and you'll find lots of information on this tool.  Particularly down in the Sorcerer forum since the relationship map is a technique that is described in one of Sorcerer's supplements.

Hope this was insightful.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

Hey Jesse, right away after reading Kuei's post I thought of Isolation.

What if there were a mechanic to facilitate the change of relationships that would create the dynamism that Kuei was looking for? An easy example that still fits in with Isolation is that a player should be able to take a bonus for the current task if he reduces the quality of his relationship with another character. So, perhaps character A shouts at character B to gt them to work harder, but that causes character B to resent character A. Working to forge them them back to good relationships would then be a resource building thing, and make for further changes/interaction/dynamism.

With work this could be made to work in other genres as well.

Cool.

Mike

[Bankuei]

  I definitely have been looking into incorporating relationship maps into my game, but I was thinking primarily of getting the players to focus on the relationships of the characters.  Whether a team coming together, coming apart, personal conflicts, or growing loyalty, I wanted that to be the focus.  I find most players find a comfort level of character niches, and never stray or change from that.

I tend to look at movies as my inspiration for games, and watching LOTR and seeing Samwise show his devotion to Frodo only reminded me of the importance many stories is within the characters, not their actions, the events or their powers.  In fact, throughout the movie, the events serve only as a catalyst for characters to show their personalities, and to grow, succeed, or fall victim to their flaws.

Mechanically I did this in my Persona system by making xp solely dependant upon expressing your character by affirming their personality or growing/changing it due to events and lessons learned.  This works great as individuals, but doesn't necessarily bring it to a group dynamic.  Any ideas?

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Chris,

Hero Wars, Hero Wars, Hero Wars. The relationship mechanic is one of the finest role-playing devices I've ever enjoyed.

The way it works in HW, as you know, a relationship is frequently an augmenter for an action. I would very much like to see a game in which it goes the other way around - all actions begin as expressions of relationships, and "skills" are only augmenters.

Clinton's nascent superhero game, Panels, was built on a similar concept. I'm still waitin' on that one.

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

DUH!  That's right!  I'm going to have to get my copy back from my friends!  Of course, that also links into the Cheating Death thread idea of the helpful flashback...You could use a character's relationship value to perhaps access a skill or another value for a single roll!("Always take your time, aim, then pull")

I'm going to see if there's anything I can use to incorporate the group values into my system.  Thanks for the insight!

Chris

[Tim C Koppang]

In my group a rather interesting phenomenon has occured.  When faced with physical or mental conflicts my players talk about their actions in first person.  "I shoot the zombie." and so forth.  When faced with moral or philosophical conflicts the players talk about their actions in the third person.  "She wouldn't just let the guy starve!"

We've all been conditioned to speak in the first person.  Supposedly we are getting into our characters if we talk as they would.  I would agree for the majority of actions this is true.  However, for a great deal of players their games have been very situation intensive.  They are used to dealing with challenges external to their own character.  When they are forced to handle a event that their character may disagree with then they fall back on third person.  Maybe they want to make the division between their own persoal views and their character's views stand out so that no one questions the action about to take place.  I'd say that in your game you are throughing a lot of these events in their face so that the 3rd person narration taking place does in fact signal some challenging issues that many of the players are not used to dealing with.  They use 3rd person to justify their actions.  With time I'd say that they would become more comforatble assuming that others know about charcter/player division and use more 1st person.