Starting at the next meeting of the group I run a game at, i plan to "wipe the slate clean" as it were, and have everyone make characters as a group. I saw the idea in a thread on here, but don't remember which. So instead of adding a post that would be very off topic for that thread, I'm going to start my own.

My goal is a group that acts like one, instead of a group that acts like 5 or 6 people who were thrown together randomly. My theory is this: if they have all of their one-upmanship taken care of in character generation, they wont be always taking each other out, or vieing for power. It should also allow for more plot to get worked through, but not to the point that I have to write a 1500 word essay every week :-).
I also hope that the players will stay in-character more often, and when they DO go OOC, it'll be more of a roundtable instead of a cacophany.

Anyway, I will be posting here as this comes along. if anyone has any ideas, please feel free to toss them in. i have about a week and a half until my next meeting, so plenty of time for revision!

Thanks!

If you're doing communal character creation like this, then I'd encourage characters to build linked concepts. Twins with Empathic Bond (or Mistaken Identity), a Mad Scientist and her Robot boyfriend, an Angel and a Dark Angel both sent to influence the same Human, A Dreamwalker and a Faery from the same Dream Realm, etc.

An early Sweet Dreams playtest had all of the characters in a band together. This gave them a common goal and reason to hang out togaether despite their differences. They could all be involved in the school play, paper, or sports team. They could all live on Elm Street. Any characters who don't fit into the club can be linked into it by Passions or Missions.

Also, let them know that if multiple players put points into the same NPC, as a Contact, Hunted, etc, then that NPC becomes a Star instead of a Co-Star. that way they can pool their resources and create a powerful group mentor, pet or arch-enemy.

Hi FarFromUnique,
Some questions:

Is it the players that you want to act as a group, or their characters?

Are the players one-upping each other?

What game are you playing?

What's your real name?

Comments:
I am only guessing, but I see some hints that you and some of your players don't want the same thing from play. The primacy of "in-character" play is a common feature of one kind of creative agenda -- while "one-upmanship" between players is the sign of a different priority -- both of which are valid in themselves, but which tend to put the group at odds. The best solution I know is to pick your game system carefully. For example, D&D3e or Exalted will tend to support the competive players, while Arrowflight might be more your bag.

You're better off acknowledging the group's diversity than trying to make them conform. If you find a game system that some players really like, you might play that for a month or two, then play a different set of characters with a game _you_ like for an equal time. Talk about the differences and why different people like them. Suggest that the group alternate so everyone gets their favorite kind of play often.

With all that said -- the group character creation session is a good idea. Go with it.

I'm a huge fan of group character creation...it may have even been posts by me your're remembering.

But the true benefit to group character creation is not to reinforce the party mentality...its not to give everyone an in-game excuse to adventure around together. I mean...sure you could use it to do that, but you'll be missing out on the big advantages of why create characters together in the first place.

First I'll ask you to consider why it is you want your players acting like a group to begin with. There are a TON of preconceptions and assumptions about roleplaying that are embedded in that ideal that may or may not be helping you get what you want out of play.

The two main reasons for wanting players to act like a group are:
1) The GM has a preplanned plot line he's trying to deliver and it gets very difficult to do that if the players are all running around on their own or spending time in conflict with each other.

2) Running individual scenes for individual characters is really boring for the rest of the players at the table.


I'm only going to touch on the first long enough to say that there are PLENTY of threads already on the Forge about alternate ways to generate kick ass stories other than GM driven plot lines. If you're interested in exploring those options I recommend reading This thread on bangs and then doing a search on Bangs and Kickers.

As for the second...THAT is the main primary benefit of group character creation. To make the other players as interested and excited about your character as you are. That way when your character is seperated from the group doing his own thing, every body else is as interested in what is going on as if their own character were there. This is enhanced if you allow lots of kibbitzing suggestions and player to player comaraderie to go on at the table.

Don't allow the idea of "getting in character" to shut the door on the many other great ways to have fun at the table. I can tell you from experience that there is nothing better than to be playing your character and have some other player, whose character isn't even in the scene to say something like "ooh, ooh and then you have to have your guy say X" and at that moment you just know from that players suggestion that they really GET your character, who he is and what he's about. They get him well enough to play him as well as you do. And that is seriously cool.

Group character creation is the first step of many techniques designed to make your PLAYERS excited about whats going on at the table.

Using it just as a way to write a coherent backstory seems to me to be missing most of the point.

I just have to say that Ralph is absolutely right on with everything he just said.

Group character creation, above all else, gives your players a chance to get involved in the creative process for each others' characters, which in turn encourages players to care about what happens to each others' characters.

When I run a game, my goal is for the players to all act together, even if their characters are trying to kill each other.

I also heartily encourage what Ron had at one point called 'cheerleading', of which Ralph also gave a sterling example. In my games, cries of "Quiet! You're not there!" are not tolerated. Remember: When people are giving you suggestions for what your character should do or say, take it as a supreme compliment; it means they're paying attention to you.

-- Ben

Wow, everyone reacted a WHOLE lot faster than I expected! okay, to answer:

Allan: thanks for the info. did it wind up working well?

Alan:

Is it the players that you want to act as a group, or their characters?

Are the players one-upping each other?

First I'll ask you to consider why it is you want your players acting like a group to begin with. There are a TON of preconceptions and assumptions about roleplaying that are embedded in that ideal that may or may not be helping you get what you want out of play.

I'd never considered communal character creation as a way to deal with player boredom from characters being separated. But it makes total sense. Sweet Dreams does force the characters to split up, especially in Dream scenes, so anything that makes the players feel involved even when their characters aren't, would be great. I'm really interested to see how your experiment plays out.

The test group with the band worked very well at getting the characters to stick together. I remember the characters got separated a lot less often than in other playtests, but I don't remember how the player kibitzing or cheerleading (got to use that term in the book!) differed from other tests. This was a long time ago, and I should have been taking better notes.

As for the one-upmanship, maybe try to encourage players to think "my guy can do things your guy can't", and fill in the blanks left by the other characters. If player 1 builds a combat powerhouse, and player 2 wants to build a BETTER powerhouse, show player 2 that they can build a political mastermind or a stealth machine instead. They can still "beat up" player 1's thug, if that's what they want to do, but in the arenas where he's more vulnerable. And now you've got a better-rounded, more balanced group. Instead of 2 combat beasts always competing for the top spot, you've got 2 characters who rely on each other's different strengths.

I'd like to echo what others have said about group character creation actually making it easier to run games without a party mentality.

When the PCs are five guys who are thrown together, it might be difficult to get excited about what those other folks are doing. But in the game I'm currently running, we've got five characters who are dramatically different, and spend much of their time separated.

The difference for us is that our communal character creation allowed us to find certain themes that each of the characters addresses in different ways. So even when Max is off doing research, Marie is dealing with the ghosts of her daughters, and McGee is working his way up the professional wrestling circuit (what can I say, it's certainly diverse), every plot thread is dealing with loss, desire, and how far people will go to get their heart's desire. It works surprisingly well, as many threads elsewhere on this site can attest.

As for your group specifically, I'd say you probably want to explicitly discuss the whole oneupsmanship thing during that character creation session. It sounds like out-of-game issues between the players are intruding on your game, so dealing with them up front and openly may help keep them from getting sublimated into in-game dysfunction.

Well, 90% of these points were mooted for me, for the time being. The group I have been gaming with (Realm Runners) is no longer meeting, and thus, I have no access to the same players. On the other hand, i have a fallback school to go to, so I can (try to) gather players there. My most loyal players are willing to follow me wherever to get a game in, however they number only 2. 1.5, if you want to be picky.

Here's what happenned when I tried to do a group character creation with my two loyalites and a friend of one of them, who had never played before:

David (who is a GM in his own right, and has also played under Allan) was happy with the arrangement, until he and Anna (who brought a friend) started butting heads. About five minutes before gametime. Cody (the novice) Was unfamiliar with the system, and role-playing in general, and so required a lot of guidance.

I started with Anna, then moved to Cody and then to David. Anna was the most strong-willed, and most likely (in my mind) to break the game. I moved to cody because, being new, I wanted him to get a chance to have a feel for what i wanted. I moved to David last because he's hard to get to talk.

I asked everyone who they were, before even cracking the books, and how they knew each other; it broke down like this:
Anna knew Cody (they were using character names, but I don't remember them) from way-back-when, as he had moved in next to her when they were young. THey had grown up together and so knew each other's (minor) secrets. David was somewhat of a newcomer to the area, and had caught their eye as different recently.
I then went for castes: anna decided to be a Rebel, and Cody decided to be an athlete with criminal tendancies. (Wanderer: Athlete Criminal). David, against all expectation, decided to be a goth.

I then delved into backstory; what made them interesting? Anna had been bitten a few years back by a Giant dog-like thing, and for the last year, had been changing into a werewolf every Wolf Moon Cycle. Codyknew that she had been bitten, but did not know she was a werewolf, but had heard the howling from nearby, and it creeped him out. David had not heard the howling, and was interesting in his own right. However, he seemed a bit uncomfortable talking, so his interesting thing was either mumbledy-mumble or I forgot.

IT was at this point that i was going to have everyone start taking abilities (powers, talents, creature features) but David and Anna just took off, creating their characters via the templates system (a very useful device). However, it left me stuck doing the same thing with Cody, and fielding questions from Anna. David knows the old book well enough that he just found what he wanted and did it.

So, all in all, a bit of a bust. I DID introduce a new player to the game, and he seemed to like it, but i don't think he'll be coming back.

I plan to try this again, after poaching (to use someone else's term) a few players from the LARP I've joined.

More updates as they become availiable, I hope. Maybe this time my hard drive won't die.

You should not have allowed them to take relationships with one another that were as nebulous as "we grew up together". That gets you straight back to the environment of the one upmanship.

What you want in a group of characters is NOT a group of friends. They must have reasons for sticking together that go beyond mutual emotional blackmail. Such as: one employs the other, one provides the others necessary drugs, one is blackmailing the other.

Also I have to say this: the general diagnosis here for players, in effect, playing with each other instead of the GM, is that what the GM is offering is in fact not engaging them. This may be indicative that they have been deprotagonised due to railroading, or something.

Same GM, different players, different characters, and a more complete book. I would have like to have more players, but I worked with the three I had.

Tonight's game had three players: Amanda F. (Faith, a faery rebel*), Her friend Amanda G. (Morgan, a Faery Wanderer (rebel/goth)) and Nick, a guy who is Amanda G's RL boyfried (Mortimer [not mine], a Mystic Geek).
Also, a revamped Zack, for when they needed direction. zack was the Geek Template + the human "Lucky" template. Luck and intuition, 7 times a game!

For the first 5 or so hours, we hung out at a coffe shop and made characters as a group. It FINALLY worked, although my players were a bit bored while I explained stuff to the others. Nick and Amanda G. had never gamed before, although amanda G. had watched a game of D&D. Amanda F. has Larp'd and played D&D.

I started with 900 points in the pool, and then started giving requisites away (3 in all attributes, and 3 manna). I kept track of points (roughly 300 per character), and by the end of the creation session, everyone was having fun, everyone knew each other's character (somewhat) and was happy with it. I saw very little headbutting (no, you can't do THAT!) and only saw a little points-hogging (by the most outgoing and experienced person, Amanda F.) In the end, I think everyone got what they wanted, even if Faith wound up a bit over-powered.

The first game, we all learned our roles. I set some circumstances up, and... no one knew what to do. Faith kept trying to act like a rebel, and failing, so she decided to be a princess. Very little happenned in the game, in spite of it lasting 2 hours. the charactesrs kinda just moved along, like Mario on a scroller-level. After that, we took a short break, where I explained a bit about what the characters needed to be doing, to make the game GO, and they told me what i needed to be doing. all in all, constructive critisism. We then went back in game, after i created Zack, and modified Faith to be a Princess, and I started us over. I ran the scenario from the Con, Demon Cola, and it moved along MUCH faster, and everyone liked it. players were bouncing off of each other, double-crossing, and having fun. Morgan rolled Honors on a stealth roll to dump the cola out (no one at the con even THOUGHT of that!) and poured it in a bush near the mystic. 3 cans worth. The shrub started reaching out to Morty, he roasted it with PK, and it had no effect (because i couldn't find the right type of creature in the GB). He then started hacking away at it with his Great Sword (bought legit with resopurces... wow) and killed it in a few swipes. We decided to end there, becuase people had to be getting home, and i had to be getting to bed.

But I proved that with Time and patience, group character creation can be fun especially if everyone has some experience with the system.

FarFromUnique wrote: Amanda F. (Faith, a faery rebel*), Her friend Amanda G. (Morgan, a Faery Wanderer (rebel/goth)).

FarFromUnique wrote: After that, we took a short break, where I explained a bit about what the characters needed to be doing, to make the game GO, and they told me what i needed to be doing. all in all, constructive critisism.