I have an idea for how both character creation and play could work. Rather than each player create an individual character, collectively the players create a group. The magnitude of this group can vary. The players describe various things about the group and game mechanically how good the group is at different areas. This may well be in terms of how much of an area a group does and to what level of maximum expertise.

During play the players describe what the group does which would be particularly suitable for describing large tasks which take several people some time to complete. However when desired the group could move to playing individuals. The stats of the individuals is determined by what's available within the group. Just to clarify that point, an individual who is created might be the one who has a particular strength of the group but doesn't have have to cover all the areas that the group covers.

Some examples. First the group magnitude. The group could be the the Famous Five, The Fellowship of the Ring, A branch of a thieves guild, a local church, an army. The point being you can set the size of the group were ever you feel comfortable, although I like the idea that you could go from a large magnitude group to a subsection on it with stats derived from large magnitude group.

After determining the group then the stats need to be developed. My gut feeling is that this would be done in terms of having an amount, a maximum and a distribution but exactly how to represent it is something I've not determined yet.

When it comes to making individuals, it is a case of determining who could exist within the group. More open endly, it's checking if the individual character could exist in the group. I do like the idea that the individual characters do not have to be always controlled by the same player.

Ok, it's very early in development but I would appreciate some feedback particularly in regards to have the stats for the group are noted. Thank you.

I think this idea is intriguing, but the execution of it sounds a little tricky.  Here's an idea, though it does involve a little math.  Having a master stat (perhaps this is the magnitude?) which reflects the number of people in the group and then the "power" or the "presence" of the group.  I hate to do this but the only idea that comes to mind is the cast from Scooby-Doo, but let's use them for an example anyway.  There is four of them and out of a scale of 1 to 10 in power (let's just make that a general stat of the group's synergy, or what ever) they're a 6.  Then you have all the other stats that represents the group.  For example sake, Speed (how fast the group moves), Intelligence (How smart they are), Ingenuity (How well they can build things), Luck (a stat which helps random events happen), and Perception (how well they view the area or find clues or whatever).  I'll just make up how much by using a scale of 1 to 10.  They have a speed of 6 as a group, Intelligence 8, Ingenuity 7, Luck 9, and Perception 8.

Then when they split up, I use that master stat (which I think it was being called magnitude earlier) as a fraction.  So I would multiply stats by 4/6 (2/3 for those playing at home).  So, each individual would have a Speed of 4, Intelligence, 5, Ingenuity of 5 (yeah, I rounded up), Luck of 6, and Perception of 5.

Then to further the individual experience you can give modifiers.  Like if Scooby and Shaggy are out on their own their speed is increased, while their Ingenuity, Intelligence, and Perception are really low.  Or Velma is super perceptive and intelligence so you could add 5 to both whenever she's out by herself (but minus thirty to perception if she loses those freaking glasses!)  Or if modifiers aren't great, individuals could have skills in which they become an expert in an area.  Like Fred would have a skill in trap making, or Daphne in... Getting Captured?

To put this in a different light, stats can be modified by rank if it is a military group, or even years at a a job if it is like firefighters/cops.  Or if it is like a group of thieves trying to pull off the biggest heist in history, you want that one guy who can hack into a computer system now-a-days, the get away driver who could drive out of any situation, and the guy who has the mind to put it all together.

I know though that this is slightly flawed.  A scale of one to ten only can provide 9 people until everyone has the same stats as the overall group, but then again, is that a problem?  If there's 10 people and their power is 2, and the overall group stats are 3 and below, you would be multiplying everything by 5.  This would just mean the group works horribly together (maybe like the three stooges?)

Hopefully this has helped you out and has given a springboard to go off of.

Thanks for the input.

I can see what you are suggesting, the ability stats get averaged out across the group with the potential for some of the individuals to be above or below average. May be able to have that work, but I'm still pondering.

An example of what I had in mind was that while the players are discussing what the group is they may decide that the group can read Elvish or see though invisibility; then during play one of individuals turns out to be able read elvish, or cast a spell to see invisible, or have an item that lets them see though invisibility. The amount would determine if it was just one individual that could have one of those abilities, or if it is several members of the group that could do that.

I hope that's making sense. Thanks for your time.

I see what you are getting at now, hopefully.  It's kind of like how a panel of experts for a committee is set up.  They are doing a panel on "Protecting yourself from Flesh Eating Bacteria", but it turns out that 1 guy is a scientist in the field, 3 are Doctors with general knowledge, and 1 is a spokesman for a pharmaceutical company.  In all right they have knowledge in that field but only one guy has had hands on experience and can do something about it.

I have a few suggestions getting that into a stat.  First if you like my original idea of the group size versus the "power", the fraction that is made out of that could also be a ratio of experts in the group.  So, let's take your example fantasy group and let's say there's 6 characters in it and they have a fairly good synergy (or they rolled this, which ever) and it turns out to be a 9.  6/9 is 2/3, so maybe you can say 2 out of 3 characters are experts in a specified field.  So, since there are 6 characters there are at least 4 experts who read Elvish, but you could have a stat like Knowledge which would justify one as the top expert.

Just to warn you, I am going to use reading Elvish for the rest of my example on the means of that reading and speaking any language is more skill (or knowledge) based then seeing through invisible charms/barriers with an item.

Another way to do this, is to go it on the fly with a dice roll or a simple coin toss.  Your group claims that a character named Sumubur and a character named Boadallic have scouted ahead in a tunnel to make sure that they won't get ambushed by Orcs.  They get to a door, it has Elven writing on it.  Both characters are knowledgeable in Elven, thankfully, and they both try to read it.  A player calls a coin (or rolls a die) for Sumumbur and fails but Boadallic ends up succeeding, then there can be a point given to Boadallic individually which makes her more expert than Sumumbur.  So the next encounter with Elven writing maybe Boadallic can have an easier time reading it.  Then progressively throughout the experts arise and the coin tossing or dice rolling gets phased out (or set to a new level) for more wholesome role playing.

One more way to see how many characters in a group situation is there could be skills for the group.  And depending on the number of points they collectively have for that skill the more characters have the knowledge of this skill.  Then this would also give way to more characters ganging the knowledge (which does happen in a group situation) throughout the game.

I hope this helps you out too!

I think one of the important things to  bare in mind is that I think it would be useful for it to be very group centric. This means that you can role play though situations and events purely as the group, for example this could be the group doing a lot of leg work to find out information but without the need for play to go into the minutia of it. However you do retain the ability to go down to the individual level when you want to.

For an example the group that are doing a panel on "Protecting yourself from Flesh Eating Bacteria" could achieve that goal where they state that the group answers a variety of questions and collectively they deal with the situation. Later you could determine that only of them is a research scientist Dr Lansbottom who may not great individually at conveying to people his ideas but can show the relevant information on to another member of the group who can orate appropriately.

In your second paragraph you state that "they have a fairly good synergy". I'm not exactly sure what refers to. Is that the idea that each of the individuals has a relationship rating to the group or that the overall group has a level of cohesion which is rated, or something else entirely?

Onto your example, it's an interesting idea that you only determine when you attempt a task if you can do it or not. I must confess it was not one I thinking of although I do know of a game that was run entirely on that premise! The idea that was coming more to mind was having a pool of points with a maximum rating and a rating of say common, diverse, few and specialist. Common would mean that virtually everyone in the group has it, diverse means most have it, few means very few in the group have it and specialist means just the one.

An example may be, working on a 1 - 5 scale of ability, [Elvish 3 Few 3] meaning say in a group of six people two of them know Elvish to rank 3. The question question then becomes how broad a skill base to have, and that I prefer the idea that the group is defined in it's ability to deal with obstacles and not the particular way in which they manage to. So for example we could have [Overcome Invisibility 4 Specialist 4] meaning that just one member of the group can overcome invisibility  but does it rather well and can coordinate well enough with the rest of the group for them to successfully deal with invisibility.

I was thinking that as far as any experience system goes, it would go to the group and not the individuals. You could even at some point have defined an individual and have them return to the story with slightly different abilities having got stronger may be in some areas and weaker in others. This something I think is often missing in a lot of games where xp is a relentless march of more power! Another piece of imagery which I like the idea of was very much inspired by the Blues Brothers, we're putting the band back together. I was just picturing the group of retired adventures who are not farmers, teachers, drunks etc, who have all kind of gone to seed but when they act as a group once more, it all comes together.

Again thanks for your time, and any further thoughts appreciated.

Whoops, I changed words from post to post.  By "Synergy", I meant the bottom number in the master stat.  I think in my first reply I referred to it as "power" of the group.  I think I ended up liking the word synergy better then power because power is a vague word and can mean many things.  While synergy would make a little more sense with my example with the master stat.

For those who rather not look this word up or don't want to lug that heavy dictionary around, this is the definition of synergy.  Synergy is when the combined efforts of individuals with complementary skills produce a greater result with less effort than any result they could have gotten single-handed.  Imagine, if you will, someone trying to cut down a large evergreen tree with just a manual handsaw.  That person is not going anywhere fast, then compare it to two people with a two-manned crosscut saw.  They will probably down a tree with less effort and less time than the guy who is foolishly using the handsaw.

Thanks for clarifying that. I do like the idea of a role playing game representing that the sum is greater than the sum of its parts, in particularly the idea of a group adventurers coming out of retirement and from being relatively weak they regain their former glory.

Just as a bit of a tangent, I have heard that the new Deathwatch will have two different modes which of operating, group and individual. Shall have to see how it plays out.

this really needs more specifics in terms of type of group

for instance Iliad style heroic warfare you would have a hero as the main of the group and then his allies and followers would add to his power (and be ablative protection).  It isn't a grouping of equals, but a main with supporters.

alternately you could have a scooby style group which is more a group of equals, no one is the main.  They can split up and work independently.

I don't see the need in a scooby gang game to have group play.  With 4 characters just play them as individuals.  Group play would make more sense when dealing with a group of 10+.

You can also have a main and have the others add special abilities.  For instance in HERO superheroes they had an armored suit hero who had allies back at the base who were geeks with skills.  The hero had computer and other technical skills all bought as being the guys back at the base doing the work remotely or answering questions through his radio.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

At present it is true to say that it is set up as a universal system. This is deliberate because I can picture many settings it could work with, from a society who investigates Cthuloid goings on to a Global Frequency style team.

Regarding the balance of power, nothing I have stated indicates that the power has to be evenly distributed. What I am interested in is the groups capabilities. Obviously the group as a whole has those capabilities and that could be done with just one character with some lackeys if you liked. One of the aspects of Universalis that I liked as a player was coming up with characters on the fly. I believe that the basis of this system would allow that. I do still need to work on deriving stats for the individuals in the team.

The reason why I originally though of group play was because of the way that normally characters are made, there are occasions when you have to crow bar them in to working with the rest of the party. I think that there is potential in starting with a group that works together as its concept.