My concern is that there might be a conflict between having mechanics that encourage the player act on things which they deem critical to their characters (mechanics along the line of SAs in TROS), and still having the group of characters (i.e. the party) act in overall unison. I can see many cases where a player decision that might be the most appropriate as an "in character action" will cause the party to fragment. To keep the party whole, the player must instead choose an option which might fly against the "most probable action my character would take", introducing inconsistencies in how the character behaves. I feel like there should be a justification as to why the character did X (which keeps the party unified) instead of the seemingly more "character accurate" option Y.

It might be valid to ask, why worry about party cohesion in the first place? The biggest reason is unequal screen time for all the characters, especially if one player is a much more assertive roleplayer. If the party is constantly fragmented, the GM has to switch from player to player. This can be boring for the non-active players. The worst case is when one character has to perform some extended task, while the rest of the party is not doing anything (and having the other players describe character actions would only be filler). If this is well executed, with perhaps the other players getting to make rolls for the NPCs and the action itself is very exciting for everyone, not just a single player, this is not a problem. What causes problems is if a player or players go solo all the time, with no OOC planing and no time for the GM to be ready for it.

What I used to do in the past, is strongly encourage the players to avoid such party fragmentation. This didn't mean that no one ever went solo or that there were never any in-party conflicts, but the players were asked to provide the justifications for their X/Y decisions (this could be done as an OOC discussion, or assigned retroactively – I am also fond of having the player describe their characters thoughts. This clues in the other players, but leaves their characters in the dark). I used more of the stick than the carrot to get this done. But I don't want to punish the player for choosing to "act in character", and so I'm looking for alternate methods to accomplish this.

I really like the view express countless times by Mike Holmes. Reward the desired behaviour. My solution now is to give game currency to a player who chooses go with the less "character perfect" options and provides a justification (I should point out that justification is not needed for gray areas of decision making, but only for the instances where everything else about the character and how he was played up to this point says do Y and break group cohesion, and the players does X instead). Likewise, if the player goes about not only serving his own character's needs, but brings in other characters as well (sharing the limelight so to speak) there is a reward. Initially this currency went directly to the player, but since I already assign currency for having the player follow his character's priorities (encouraging action Y), I decided to try something different. The currency is assigned instead to a general pool. The pool is distributed at the end of each session amongst the players by the players. They can either split it equally, distribute it based on need, or based on contributions as they see fit. Some of the currency can be left to carry over into the next session. Also, a player can withdraw currency from the pool during play, but the other players must agree to this, and this can be only done once per session (and there should probably be limit to how big a chunk the player can get, either during play or when they are being divided up at the end). My question then is, is this a sufficient reward since the points don't go to the player directly? Any other possible pitfalls or solutions? Or maybe this whole party cohesion is a non-issue?

I think that if you value party cohesion and in-character behavior both, then you are probably better off with setting un in-character reasons for the characters to act cohesively than any game mechanic.

I might set up a player-driven award system where other players award each othre for actions that they particularly liked, as well.

Probably the best solution is group characther creation. Heck, then you can have the players create reasons for their group to be togehter. It increases the chances that when a player has to go off solo, that they will bring others with them.

The intial group setup and their reason for functioning together is not a problem. But for long term play there might be divergent character goals. Always making groups of characters that have the exact same goals could take care of this, but it doesn't seem like fun. In fact, I do like diversity in the group, and the tension for each player between holding the group together, and acting "true" to the character. Figuring out why the character chooses to hang around instead of taking off should be a responsibility of the player, and I'm looking for ways to encourage this. Having the characters always together is not ideal. If a single character goes solo, then the rest of the players should be in agreement with this and have a vested interest in the outcome. Either because of tactical necessity, or because it will make for a cool story. Most of this is probably covered by the social contract, but somehow I would like to have it incorporated and supported in the game. Allowing players to form relationship links amongst their characters is certainly a good way to start.

I also like four willows weeping suggestion of having an award system among the players. And I think I might know just how to do it. Thanks.

Hi KS,

I confess that I see no a priori reason to desire "the party" to cohere. I'm not even sure that I understand why there has to be "a party." Can you give me a reason for this so that I can better understand what your personal goals-in-play are?

I'm not looking for a possible reason that anyone would want "party" to have "the same long-term goals." I've role-played long enough to grasp the range of options. What I'd like to know, in detail and with examples, what your reason is.

I strongly recommend looking through some threads at the Forge about hooking players, not characters. One cannot make a given player care about something, nor can any amount of pre-play specification make the characters "stay together." That has to come from players (and here I emphatically include the GM as a type of player) being interested in (a) the task at hand and (b) what the task at hand is about (across the whole range of GNS).

The fundamental concept is that player-group participation can occur with no problems even if the characters are not "a party" and do not necessarily all want the same things. This may seem odd to you or not be compatible with other goals of yours. That's why I'd like to understand those goals better.

Best,
Ron

There's a part of me that doesn't see the problem. I always juggle multiple players on different adventures at the same time, and find it a fascinating way to play. But then, there is a part of me that "gets it", so I'm going to address it.

What I don't understand is why you would really want to reward a player for having his character act "out of character" for the purpose of group cohesion and for no other purpose. That's where the problem lies. But does this have to be the case?

The most dedicated group of anarchists in the world is going to have structure within its own ranks, because it cannot achieve its goals without that structure. If you want the characters to stick together, you need to create at the outset a compelling reason for them to be together at all. If they share a common overwhelming enemy or a mutual fear, this forces them to hang together even if their individual priorities might separate them.

Over time, many groups come to stick together because of friendships. Such friendships can be introduced as part of the reason they are together initially; I have often introduced a character to a party as "someone that this guy knows because they grew up together", implying a bond with an existing history. In this, blood is thicker than water, and there's no reason why characters can't be related, and so have the more reason to stick together.

Ultimately I would never want my players to have their characters do something clearly against the personality, values, and goals of the character. The only remedy, if group cohesion is important, is that group cohesion must be very high in those priorities. If it isn't, then neither the characters nor the players can seriously expect the group to stay together.

--M. J. Young

The game that solves this problem best, in my opinion, is Nobilis. In that game, you can't blow off the other characters because THEY ARE YOUR FAMILY. It can be an incredibly disfuctional family, but all the family members still have to cooperate and live together, no matter how much they disagree. Nobilis exaggerates this a little bit, so it's possible to have someone who serves the Angels and someone who serves the Devils in the same family, but there's this great creative tension going on, where the differences develop plotlines all on their own.

Likewise, if you're going to rely on the party system, you might want to thinking about making it a foundational structure of your game world. Vampire does this a little bit with coteries, Nobilis does this with familes of dieties, and the game I'm currently working on, Storypunk, does this because the characters are safer and more powerful in a group. Make the consequences for not being with the party such that the characters have no real reasons to leave.

Think about all the horror movies you've ever seen. Think about Pitch Black. If you go off by yourself, something bad happens to you. Even in traditional fantasy games, no one's dumb enough to say "Hey, I'm going to go explore the dungeon by myself!"

Since roleplaying is a collective activity, most games have built-in reasons for characters to stick to this structure. Think about the Avengers or the Justice League. Think about The Fellowship of the Ring. THESE are the things that inspired roleplaying in the first place, and we continue to look back to them as models of the party system.

That said, the best games that I've played in have never required the characters to stay together every single minute. It's getting a proper balance that's the hard part.

Later.
Jonathan

Ultimately I would never want my players to have their characters do something clearly against the personality, values, and goals of the character.

What I don't understand is why you would really want to reward a player for having his character act "out of character" for the purpose of group cohesion and for no other purpose. That's where the problem lies. But does this have to be the case?

Getting back to Ron's post.

I confess that I see no a priori reason to desire "the party" to cohere. I'm not even sure that I understand why there has to be "a party." Can you give me a reason for this so that I can better understand what your personal goals-in-play are?

The fundamental concept is that player-group participation can occur with no problems even if the characters are not "a party" and do not necessarily all want the same things.

I strongly recommend looking through some threads at the Forge about hooking players, not characters.

ks13 wrote: Where this can fall apart is when some players end up with a very lean activity for their characters, while others are very activity rich.

four willows weeping wrote: I might set up a player-driven award system where other players award each othre for actions that they particularly liked, as well.

Hi there,

I see your position better now. Your last two posts seemed to be about something very different from your first, but upon re-reading them all, I now see what you're up to (second paragraph in your first post). The emphasis on screen time makes more sense to me than references to "characters staying together." But finally I get what you're saying, so my apologies for being dense.

The initial version of your solution, individual-player rewards, is a bit like Fang's Experience Dice (kind of a deceptive name) in Scattershot, which is a good thing, in my view. You might check out some of his work in the Scattershot forum, which provides a hell of a lot of careful vocabulary about things like Genre Expectations and player-approaches.

The second "pool" version is very different, though - I like it a lot, I think it serves your stated goals really well, and I'd like to play a game using this as either a core or a strong secondary system.

The role of the GM becomes pretty important in such a system, as the "values handler" for adding dice to the pool. It's a lot like Sorcerer in that the GM is arbiter for Humanity rolls. Lately I've been interested in the diversity of ways for a GM-role to be functional (as opposed to "responsible for everything"), specifically the concept that there is a diversity, such that "the GM" as a phrase in game discussion becomes deconstructed into more useful units. Your proposal provides a great example of one such unit.

Best,
Ron

I see your position better now. Your last two posts seemed to be about something very different from your first, but upon re-reading them all, I now see what you're up to (second paragraph in your first post). The emphasis on screen time makes more sense to me than references to "characters staying together." But finally I get what you're saying, so my apologies for being dense.

Basically, I'm saying that avoiding lean activity in play is best...as you say, sessions where half the group "role-plays" a shopping expedition are boring to more-or-less everyone involved. The question is, WHY role-play such events?

I think, perhaps, the problem is not with screen-time or amount of activity, but with the interest generated by or rather, inherent in the action.
….
Further, don't discount the other players as enjoying themselves as audience members -- if as an audience they're engaged with the events of the other characters, if they see them as interesting, exciting and important, the "screen time" problem goes away.

ks13 wrote: I want the players themselves to be able to steer things back on course, and be aware of how much participation the other players have. The easiest way I see for this to happen, is for the player to say "hmm, if I can involve the rest of the players, there will be currency rewards."

If it happens a few times, then it's not so difficult, but if the group is constantly in bits and pieces, keeping everyone interested is that much tougher.

I would like to elaborate on the reward/currency system that I am planning on using.

I think this is a very cool idea.

The Narrativist gang have been saying for a while that the way to ensure that all are involved is to make each individual player's play so interesting as to engage the other players. But I think that's a problematic response. There will be times when the player simply fails, or does not want to do something that's engaging to the other players (for example, much Sim play).

So having a mechanic where players are rewarded for incorporating the other characters seems very powerful to me. This way, you don't have to do "party" play, but you still get characters crossing each other's paths. And all without the GM having to orchestrate it. That's very important, because with the GM orchestrating, things can get a little forced ver time as well (and, heck, I'm lazy).

So I'm all for it. Let's see the execution.

Mike

Has anyone considered the motif rules for the Questing Beast? The fact that motifs can happen any place, any time, allows players to either inocrporate their motifs into another player's scene, or vice versa.

Chris

Jonathan Walton wrote: Even in traditional fantasy games, no one's dumb enough to say "Hey, I'm going to go explore the dungeon by myself!"

M. J. Young wrote: I talk a lot about what I call multiple staging, the idea that player characters are involved in different activities in different places at the same time.

For the Rolemaster pirate game, Run out the Guns, they suggst an idea for combat they call cascading. In this style of combat, insteead of going in rounds, the characters each pair off with a badguy, and complete that encounter before going on to the next pair of opponents. The idea is that by allowing the participants of the combat to be more continuous (interrupted for less duration), that they will narrate better, and make for more a more enjoyable scene for all.

In other words, they noted how concentrating on fewer actors at one time actually made play all the more compelling for everyone watching. Play that always tries to include everyone is bound to be dull. Further, there is a notion that by officially placing a participant in the role of Audience, that they automatically just pay more attention. As a dormant actor in a scene, players tend to get much more bored.

Mike

Jonathan Walton wrote: Even in traditional fantasy games, no one's dumb enough to say "Hey, I'm going to go explore the dungeon by myself!"

Just to follow up on some things that were brought up.

Heck, I might use that for my game, modified a bit, since I like seeing players handing out XP awards to one another and "competing" in a good way to get them from each other.

But I'm probably way off topic here; you're looking for ways to pull player characters together, and I'm talking about the benefits of separating them.

In other words, they noted how concentrating on fewer actors at one time actually made play all the more compelling for everyone watching. Play that always tries to include everyone is bound to be dull. Further, there is a notion that by officially placing a participant in the role of Audience, that they automatically just pay more attention. As a dormant actor in a scene, players tend to get much more bored.

Some use "sidestage" time to quietly eat, write or read.