Creating a Community

[Reithan]

I put a little more thought in on it and was thinking, with the Peace-Corps 'hub effect' on a community, perhaps it would be useful, when constructing an NPC community for players to interact with, to create a sort of 'web' diagram?

Like, you could put that hub person or persons at the top, then link from that person to others in the community, and put a short description of what that link is, then maybe even links from those down to another level.

I figure if you put in 2 or 3 levels and then just fleshed out the links you could probably create a lot of depth there - then just 'background' the rest of the social structure.

[Paul Czege]

Hey,

How do I tie this all together and make it feel more like the players are part of this community?"

I think you're close to doing it. But I think you might not be truly processing the advice that folks have given into a general paradigm for achieving "community". I think you might be looking at the advice as suggested techniques. "Superiors" are a problem if it means the player characters have no authority. But "left to their own devices" is just as much a problem if it means the player characters aren't being troubled by people's needs, and those needs coming into conflict with responsibilities, and the needs of others.

What you want always in the front of your mind is that the player characters are inherently *significant* in this community. That means they have people relying on them, they have responsibilities, and those responsibilities come with problems.

"Captain, my mother is dire sick. I just can't do the morning watch tomorrow. And maybe not for a few days."
"Sir, it's clear the councilman is open to our bribes. Should I pay him for his vote?"
"Dammit Kenneth, your so called 'guards' are the brothel's most regular customers!"

And if they don't have responsibilities then they have people who want them to assume responsibilities.

"Gladwin, you're highly spoken of. My daughter has been gravely dishonored by the Baron. I'd be grateful if you'd press her honor upon the villain in a duel. I'm sorely tempted to do it myself, but I'm an old man."
"Draco, we need your help."
"Carlton, my daughter has put her mind to making a husband of you. It'll be a lot less painful if you just accept it."

If you're making the players work for this significance you're working against your goal of having them integrated in the community. And it's not about crafting some static background web you hope will grab them with its depth. When you're thinking of how an individual NPC should react to a player character, simply imagine how they need the character, or if the character has responsibilities, or the player has real desires for the character, imagine how the NPC's needs might be a problem for those responsibilities and desires. Treat the characters like everyone in the community unconsciously knows they're significant.

Paul

[Reithan]

"Superiors" are a problem if it means the player characters have no authority.

The way the structure of authority is set up in this setting (based on the game books) is about analogous to the setup between State & Federal in the US Government.
The player characters' 'Cabal' is the State level here. They manage they own members and their own area and are the 'law' in that arena.
The local 'Consilium' has authority ove disputes between cabals, or over issues that would affect more than one cabal, or the community in general.

So, the players have plenty of authority in their own 'arena'.

But "left to their own devices" is just as much a problem if it means the player characters aren't being troubled by people's needs, and those needs coming into conflict with responsibilities, and the needs of others.

Hmm, if I follow your logic here, then the problem is my players' characters have a decent dose of responsibilities, but aren't been troubled by other people's needs.

Their main responsibility is to reside over their own members and their chosen/assigned territory.
Unfortunately, in the setting of the game, disparate cabals and mages in general are fairly standoffish. It's a game system that serves to promote political positioning and intrigue. I suppose in terms of this setting, the common way another mage or cabal of mages would express a need to the characters would be in terms of a request for a favor, or in the form of some type of jockeying to get them to take care of something by either placing it in their juisdiction, or trying to trick them into thinking it already is...

What you want always in the front of your mind is that the player characters are inherently *significant* in this community. That means they have people relying on them, they have responsibilities, and those responsibilities come with problems.

And if they don't have responsibilities then they have people who want them to assume responsibilities.

I think this may actually be part of the problem: the players' responsibilities. The community here basically 'gifted' the player characters at the start of the game (over a year ago, IRL) with their own territory. The catch here is that they gave it to them because it's a trouble area no one else wanted. So, the players' responsibility is basically to either solve, or at least contain the trouble this area causes.

This seems like it may be antithetical to the rest of what you're suggesting.

If you're making the players work for this significance you're working against your goal of having them integrated in the community. And it's not about crafting some static background web you hope will grab them with its depth. When you're thinking of how an individual NPC should react to a player character, simply imagine how they need the character, or if the character has responsibilities, or the player has real desires for the character, imagine how the NPC's needs might be a problem for those responsibilities and desires. Treat the characters like everyone in the community unconsciously knows they're significant.

I don't think I'm making them work for significance. They have significance, I'm mroe trying to make them work for respect, as in this setting the heirarchy is a 'meritocracy'. Respect is basically the key factor to the whole political system. So, I don't want the players walking in with a couple cool tricks and having the whole community suddenly swoon over them - it would create a huge power upset and a big play imbalance.

I'm fine with the NPCs needing the characters to do something, or expecting them to handle certain things, or helping the characters out when they need it.

Not sure how to tie this all together, so I'm gonna stop typing for the moment and think some more on it. Please feel free to expand on any of this in the meantime. That would be most helpful.

[Frank Tarcikowski]

i]at all<

[Reithan]

	Logged

There is no true power with but one edge.

Penetrator - WIP, Cyberpunk/Sci-fi RPG

[Frank Tarcikowski]

Okay, here's a suggestion. It's not meant as a criticism, just as an example of how I handle situations like the ones you described, where player characters might get killed. Heck, maybe you even did something of the likes.

In your first example, I would have told the player: "You know that NPC X is out there, don't you?" Just to make sure he does. "He might attack you, and he's more capable than you are." And if that player still insists on going there, so be it. Let the PC die.

Same in the second example. "You know, you might get killed", is a line that I sometimes used. It's a warning sign. What it achieves is that the players don't constantly look for potentially lethal traps because they know there will be a clear warning. Players in my games have decided to ignore the warning several times. That was a real statement, about what mattered to them. It was fun. Sometimes the PCs survived, sometimes they didn't. I was in a comfortable position: I had warned them. I had not forced them into taking that risk.

As for the gamist/narrativist thing, I very strongly recommend to spare these two words (and the third one that goes along) when talking about this with your players. I'm not going to play the GNS cop because that's not my job, but I have a feeling it would also benefit this discussion if we could just leave the jargon out of it.

- Frank

[Reithan]

Heck, maybe you even did something of the likes.

Yup, I always do. Though, I don't give more than 1 warning, and it isn't always explicit.
For example, when the character left and got ambushed, I mentioned that "you don't know where <enemy> is right now, are you sure you wanna go up there?" and he proceeded anyway.

As for the gamist/narrativist thing, I very strongly recommend to spare these two words (and the third one that goes along) when talking about this with your players. I'm not going to play the GNS cop because that's not my job, but I have a feeling it would also benefit this discussion if we could just leave the jargon out of it.

I don't usually bring it up in specifically those terms. I bring it up more in terms of "combat & strategy" versus "drama, plot & intrigue".
They're not so much into the theory-whoring as I am, and though they're smart enough to grasp it, they just don't care to.
So, I have the GNS wheels turning in my head as well as they can, but the conversation is generally along the lines of what sort of scenes they'd like to see, what sort of activities they want the characters to do, etc.

So far theie "ideal itenerary" for their characters has involved politics, mystery, drama, horror and exploring points of the theme of the game.
Their actual play though, has mostly involved plotting, strategizing and killing things and taking their stuff.
Normally I'd just go "whatever" and go with the flow as I have nothing against gamist play - but this doesn't seem to be entirely satisfying for them, as they know it's not what they're trying to do - it's just what they keep doing...

Not sure if that makes sense.

[Frank Tarcikowski]

Hi Reithan,

Sure, this makes sense!

I bring it up more in terms of "combat & strategy" versus "drama, plot & intrigue"as players (and authors) of a given scene while you are playing that scene?<like authors and push it in a direction they find interesting?

Or is it more like: Whatever you say your character says; you only know what your character knows?

- Frank

[TonyLB]

I think what you're trying to say is the create a sort of "community liason" NPC. There has been this NPC at times, in the player's herald NPC - however he was killed and has yet to be successfully replaced (one of the players killed his successor [another player] in a duel). So - this position may be filled again in the future, but for very in-character reasons the position's beginning to be looked on as somewhat 'cursed.'

Wellll ... yes, and no.  I do think that a character who is conscious of how he's tied in to the whole community is important.  But I also think that it's important that there be NPCs who are not aware of the fact that they (like everyone else) are tied in to the whole community.

Look at it this way:  As GM, you have all of the connections and interactions in mind, yes?  It takes a lot of mental energy, in fact, to keep them all in mind.  "If Edgar sets a dismantled car up on blocks in his yard, Morgan his Homes-and-Gardens-obsessed neighbor across the street is going to be incensed, which means that as union boss he's going to be more intransigent in the strike talks, which means ...."  This is a chain of cause and effect which should crop up pretty well instantly when you think about the community.

The trick I'm suggesting is to make sure that, even though you the GM have that in mind, Edgar the character does not realize any of that.  Actual people have different levels of understanding of their impact on the community, and its impact upon them.

And the people who don't get it are, fundamentally, one of the main driving factors for good community-related PC missions.  Why is Maggie on the edge of bankruptcy?  Because she can't work in the factory, because the union talks are so screwed up, because of Edgar and his stupid '67 Thunderbird!  The PCs are the ones (one presumes) who are connected throughout the community, and have the leverage to go and convince Edgar of a better plan (or perhaps just help him fix the car!) in order to untangle the whole chain of human consequence.

You've got to have people who are filamented through the community, and can work with it as a whole, and you've got to have people who barely even understand that they're part of a community at all.  Together, they create the funny, push-and-pull reality of a vibrant human community.

Does that make any sense?  I'm having the hardest time getting this intuition out into the open light of words.

[Reithan]

Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 24, 2008, 01:27:03 AM

Quote from: TonyLB on January 24, 2008, 05:26:19 AM

Wellll ... yes, and no.  I do think that a character who is conscious of how he's tied in to the whole community is important.  But I also think that it's important that there be NPCs who are not aware of the fact that they (like everyone else) are tied in to the whole community.

You may be onto something here, though, I must have missed it in your initial discussion.

The trick I'm suggesting is to make sure that, even though you the GM have that in mind, Edgar the character does not realize any of that.  Actual people have different levels of understanding of their impact on the community, and its impact upon them.

And the people who don't get it are, fundamentally, one of the main driving factors for good community-related PC missions.  Why is Maggie on the edge of bankruptcy?  Because she can't work in the factory, because the union talks are so screwed up, because of Edgar and his stupid '67 Thunderbird!  The PCs are the ones (one presumes) who are connected throughout the community, and have the leverage to go and convince Edgar of a better plan (or perhaps just help him fix the car!) in order to untangle the whole chain of human consequence.

I suppose then, a better way to get into this sort of web is to build it from the other side. Instead of building a web of connections and trying to get it to shine through in the plot, build a plot hook, and then connect it back up into the community.

Using you example, rather than starting from Edgar's end and saying, "Well, Edgar lives near Morgan, what can we do with that? Ok - Edgar pissed off Moragn, what happens? Ok, Maggie lost her job and she goes looking to the PCs for help.
Instead, go, "Maggie's been laid off at he factory and is looking for help - why? Well, maybe there was a strike, who's in charge of that? Morgan. Ok - why would he do that? He's pissed off. Why? Well, maybe his neighbor pissed him off, who's that? Edgar. How's Edgar piss him off? Wrecked up his neighborhood with an eyesore in his front lawn."

That jive better with your idea?

Does that make any sense?  I'm having the hardest time getting this intuition out into the open light of words.

Yeah, it's making sense, I'm just not sure it's the same sense you're wanting it to make, so if I don't seem to have grasped it still, please explain further, or at least let me know I got it right, if that's the case.

Thanks again, guys!

[Frank Tarcikowski]

i]in all participants.<change the way you play, and how, in the moment-by-moment interaction, and then see to it that you really do.

And you also need to get the concerns your players might have off the table. You need to accept their concerns and you need to resist the urge to get self-defendant. You need to reassure them and make sure they understand what you are about.

- Franin all participantchange the way you play, and how, in the moment-by-moment interaction, and then see to it that you really do.

And you also need to get the concerns your players might have off the table. You need to accept their concerns and you need to resist the urge to get self-defendant. You need to reassure them and make sure they understand what you are about.

- Frank

[Reithan]

Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 24, 2008, 07:51:10 AM

Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 24, 2008, 07:51:10 AM

You can only ever get past those habits if you create an awareness of the disconnect in all participants.<change the way you play, and how, in the moment-by-moment interaction, and then see to it that you really do.

And you also need to get the concerns your players might have off the table. You need to accept their concerns and you need to resist the urge to get self-defendant. You need to reassure them and make sure they understand what you are about.

I'd like to come back to this point after the above-mentioned ones are resolved.

[Reithan]

Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 24, 2008, 07:51:10 AM

Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 24, 2008, 07:51:10 AM

You can only ever get past those habits if you create an awareness of the disconnect in all participants.<change the way you play, and how, in the moment-by-moment interaction, and then see to it that you really do.

And you also need to get the concerns your players might have off the table. You need to accept their concerns and you need to resist the urge to get self-defendant. You need to reassure them and make sure they understand what you are about.

I'd like to come back to this point after the above-mentioned ones are resolved.

[Bret Gillan]

I learned this from Vincent and DitV, but it seems to be the best way to make a community is to create situations, determine what individual NPCs want out of that situation, and specifically what they want from the PCs with regards to that situation. A large part of community is social aid and social pressure. I live in an apartment with a few other people. There are certain things they expect from me: cleanliness, regard for their space and belongings, not having loud sex with my bedroom door open. They also occasionally pressure me to do things: watch movies with them or wash the dishes or whatever.

Now, all that makes for a boring game, but if you blow it up to situations that make for cool stories it still makes sense. A dragon hatchling is discovered. A local hunter wants the PCs to help him hunt it and get it's claws and scales and skull as a trophy. A local druid things it is a sign from the gods of benevolence or whatever, and wants the PCs to help her tame it. The PCs become a part of that community when those wants are expressed, and as they witness and get caught up in the tension that emerges between the hunter and the druid. Also bring in the fact that whichever way they go will have consequences on the community as a whole, the relationship between the druid and the hunter, and so on.

[Frank Tarcikowski]

i]then<