Originally I had posted this on the following thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9671

But I thought it was a significant enough threadjack to deserve its own thread. At first, I was just going to give a high-five to Bankuei/Chris for his suggestions on how to handle orphan PCs, but (as is usual for me) the typing took on a life of its own. Chris' advice, IMO, is good enough to deserve being featured in its own thread in any case.

Thanks, Chris! Here's that high-five...

Bankuei wrote: What may be a useful "quick fix" for your players, without railroading them at all, is offer each of them 3 different relationships at 17 each, for free. The only stipulation is that the relationships have to be to specific individuals, not communities as a whole. Then just present your heroes with a variety of narrator characters without any pressure, and let them pick their friends.

Chris

Hey man. Great post :)

I think it covers the top very well.


Was this originally a comment to my Lunar Empire post?

doubtofbuddha wrote: Was this originally a comment to my Lunar Empire post?

Another thing worth mentioning is that you don’t necessarily have to be part of a community to have a relationship with it. Many early HQ players think of relationships in terms of being part of a group, when relationships can be much more flexible than that.

Let’s go back to the examples Scripty gave, shall we?

Harmonica Man: Harmonica Man has a Hate Outlaw Coyboy Group personality trait, an Adversary of Frank relationship, and a Love Family that he uses to augment whenever dealing with the folks that killed his family. Despite the fact that the character isn’t part of the outlaw cowboy community, the entire plot of the movie is dependant on his relationship to them.

Batman: In addition to having his buddies Commissioner Gordon, Alfred, and “lady friends,” Batman has a relationship to the common people of Gotham – something like “Fearsome Protector” that keeps them from turning him in, occasionally gets him help, and gives him a network of contacts, snitches, and so forth. Even more importantly Batman has several Adversaries. Ever wonder why the Joker issues tend to pack more punch than when he just fights some random villain of the week? Probably because Batman’s Adversary of Joker relationship is off the scale. Batman is, to a degree, defined by his adversarial relationships. Combine it with something like “Adversary of Catwoman” and “Catwoman’s Lover” relationship traits and you start getting the point that the character’s main strengths lie in his relationships with the community, his close friends, and his enemies.

Scripty mentioned Yojimbo, but I’m going to go with the more familiar (to me at least) Joe from “A Fistful of Dollars” – the Western remake of Yojimbo. In that movie the main character certainly has “Buddy of Bartender” (he risks his life for him at the end) and “Buddy of Undertaker” (who smuggles him out of town) – but just as important is his Adversary of Ramón Rojo, or the relationship he had with his mother that lead him to saving the woman that the Rojos were using as a whore. His adversaries, buddies, and past relationships (which were only ever shown through how he reacted to the present, but were none-the-less tangibly there) made the movie.

Look at the others and you’ll find the same thing: Wolverine not only has his friendship with Rogue and love of Jean Grey, he also has his rivalry with Cyclopse, his hatred of Sabertooth, his hunted by Striker, his enemy of the State, hunted by mutant haters, and so on and on. For every one of the X-Men the relationship between them and normal society is the very key to the theme of the comics and movies. Vampire Hunter D may be an outsider – but he still protects normal human society, is adversarial with vampires, and is an outsider precisely because he DOES have relationships with both communities.

These things: adversaries, outsider relationships, past relationships reflected in current events, can be used to make “orphan tank” players more integrated into HQ games. If your player doesn’t want to love the village he’s protecting and be a member of the community, suggest he hate the people attacking the village and have an adversary on the other side. Then the enemy of his enemy becomes his friend. If he wants to be the Batman who watches over the community but isn’t part of it, then have him take a “Protector of X” along with a “Mistrusted by X” relationship.

Just don’t get stuck thinking relationships have to be positive or inclusive. You have relationships with multiple groups, regardless of whether or not you are part of them.

Hi Scott,

You pretty much nailed it. The only thing that I would add is that I'm against the idea of "bringing out big guns" to force players into connecting their characters.

Usually I insist that people produce 3 connections to the current area before play even begins. Recognizing the situation presented in the Lunar thread, I figured giving players free traits would give them incentive to use it, without forcing their hands as to how and who they choose to link to.

Aside from that, I also would take a second to point out some of those examples to the players before character creation, and over again to anyone producing orphan characters. Orphans don't fight because they're badasses, they fight because they protect the people they like. They just happen to be badasses who get into other people's business.

Chris

Excellent points from both Chris and Brand! Thanks especially to Brand for showing how my examples of the clanless war machines in pop culture really do have relationships.

My one caveat with the three free relationships, which is a good idea BTW, is that I honestly could not get players to use them. In the Cthulhupunk-HQ game, I decided to make ANY relationship a free trait during character creation. Not just three, but any plausible relationship was free.

Now, those familiar with HQ are probably salivating at the damage they could've caused with that...

but...

These players didn't even nibble. Like I said, I had two orphans with no more than a handful of relationships between them.

So, the three free relationships are a great idea, but it also walks a line between saying "take 'em if you want 'em" and having no one use them at all and saying "all characters must take three relationships during character creation." Some groups will respond differently to these approaches, I recommend that everyone consider which approach will work best for your own group. I did the latter for Hyborea HQ and the former for Cthulhupunk-HQ. Overall, with this group, the latter worked better. I don't think that would be true in all cases.

Further, my statement regarding bringing out the "big guns" was a poorly worded references to whipping out the examples I mentioned in order to show to the prospective player, as Brand did, that these popular icons of orphaned buttkickers weren't so isolated after all.

I honestly stopped bringing real guns to the gaming table a few years ago.

And my players have been belligerent little tykes ever since.

Doggone this new narrative stuff...

Nothing beats a loaded .45 pointed at a player and followed by the question...

"So, what do you do?
What...
do...
you...
do?"

Would that be considered Illusionism?

:)

(BTW, I was just kidding. The .45 was never really loaded.)

Your basic point is sound, and your examples from film and comics are good, but I think you are making a bit of a strawman point if you think the HQ mechanics have a built-in immunity to combat monsters.

Taking one of every possible combat skill is obviously a pointless move from a powergamer's perspective. Any competent powergamer will be getting as many 'strong' and 'quick' etc., augments as you allow, along with three varieties of combat magic.

And then they spend as many hero points as possible on a single weapon skill.

Without GM bias (which you could just as easily apply in any other system), a single-dimensional pc like that will kick the arse of a normal diverse PC every single time in physical combat (and be virtually useless, and quite likely disruptive, anywhere else).

soru

Hi Soru,

Don't forget that the person with a lot of relationships can, with a little bit of preparation, call in a lot of friends with good combat skills. "She's a runt, but she's got a lot of big brothers, cousins, and uncles!" That aside, if the non-combat person can ever shift the contest out of the physical, it becomes terribly easy to whip any character in a narrow focus.

For example, take Intimidate, and an influential character.

"Beat me up. That's fine. My family has magic to deal with you. For 3 months you'll be in terrible pain. Then you'll find yourself unable to father children!" Roll against their Intimidation. What's that? Don't have Iron Will or anything like that? Too bad!

Remember, injuries can be more than physical! Spirits can be broken, the weak manipulated, tricked, or subjegated. Even if the person has had their family killed, some magic threatens souls beyond the grave... The key to the mafia is part force, part intimidation.

Chris

Great post Scott, yoiu've nailed a problem I've been peripheraly aware of for years, but never realy focused on. It's certainly ture that the 'loner' character of popular fiction always does have relationships to characters in the story, and often (always?) does actualy have a very good reason for being involved in the story.

One thing that occured to me though is that when these characters make close friends in a story, those friends are often people you'd consider to be Player Character material in a roleplaying game. Wolverine is a prime example, all the other X-Men he has relationships with are PCs (except Prof. Xavier?) and so those relationships aren't realy candidates for a relationship ability rating.


Simon Hibbs

V. slight threadjack: the poster boy for integrating "loners" into RPG situations is, for my money, Dust Devils, which takes the Genre most "loner" characters either originat efrom or emulate, and forces their screwed up asses into conflict with the setting / situation.

I recommend anyone having trouble with the "lone wolves" (which shouldn't be that many after this thread) to check it out.

Back onto topic... bear in mind that even when "lone wolves" decline engaging with setting / situation through relationships, it doesn't encessary follow that the setting / situation will reciprocate.

Take it from the demonstration how "relationship guy" can at least be the combat equal of "grim loner" guy. What if "relationship guy" is the PC's nemesis? Let the "loner guy" know that the guy he keeps pushing down is using his defeats to justify increases to his "hate loner guy..." till he gets a royal augment, dramatically described as uncontained frothing, boiling rage... which he's augmenting everything in his life with.

"But... he's just some black oak mook we trounced YEARS ago... why doesn't he get over it?"

"Because you got over it. It's a warrior culture crypto-erotic thing. You know, like in Ben-Hur."

simon_hibbs wrote:

One thing that occured to me though is that when these characters make close friends in a story, those friends are often people you'd consider to be Player Character material in a roleplaying game. Wolverine is a prime example, all the other X-Men he has relationships with are PCs (except Prof. Xavier?) and so those relationships aren't realy candidates for a relationship ability rating.


Simon Hibbs

pete_darby wrote: Why shouldn't PC's in HQ have relationship abilities with each other? Best source of augments & storylines I can think of.

Hell yeah, if the players aren't taking relationships between their characters, I give them away for free (but usually they take them). Hands down, this is the best way I've ever seen to incentivize players to have their character stay together. I hate "party" play, but realize that it's fun to have PCs interact. Instead of saying that the reason for why the PCs stay together is "because they're PCs", in HQ I have a mechanical representation of why it's happening. And the players eat it up.

Nothing makes a group of "adventurers" more potent than all being able to augment to get the others out of danger. Already in the four sessions that I've run online, I've got three PCs in a love-triangle (actually it's about to become five point star shaped, IMO) that has driven half the action of the game. Brand ought to know, his character is one third of te triangle. Once you have these you can almost put the game on autopilot.


The Orphan Phenomenon is usually caused by the fact that players feel that relationships aren't all that potent in the first place (after all, if you're in a dungeon, you can't call on your friends, right), and, moreover, they sense the "disadvantage" side to relationship abilities. What I mean is that, in most games, folks like this are used to hook players into a plot. The DNPC Girlfriend is captured by the villain, so now we have to go save her. They feel they should be getting points for taking these, not paying. From a player POV, how can I responsibly go down to the dungeon when I have a family to feed? How can I go off on a quest if I have to manage an estate (even the book says that's why the nobles in question are "petty").

But the answer is that, in Hero Quest, the reason to go "adventuring" is based on these very abilities from the start. That is, characters are so well crafted that the player should never have to ask himself why his character is hanging around with the other PCs, and why he's going off on some adventure into some hole in the ground. If he's going there, he's doing it because of his family, or his village, or something. Even if it is for money, that's on the character sheet too, in exactly the same format as all the other potential reasons.

So, to me, the problem isn't so much that the players make orphans (though it's a deplorable state, all those PC orphans), but that they don't understand what they're supposed to be doing in the game. That is, I think the orphan works just fine as long as the player in question realizes that the characters motives must come from somewhere on the character sheet. So, if the character is an orphan, why is he out adventuring?

Well, does he come from absolutely nowhere, have no relationships at all? Not even a village? If so, how did that happen? Is he also an atheist? Why? Because every religion contains a relationship in it between worshipper and worshipped. Even if he's an atheist, that's a value. It's really hard for me to imagine a PC being completely without some relationship or value.

Further, if the character is sooo into fighting that he doesn't seem to have any values, then how did he get that way? Presumably then he values the fighting skills that he has. That itself can be a source of values for the character. Consider the use of "Sword" skill obtained as a member of some army as a personality trait. That is, if someone came up to the character and got into an argument about what culture was superior, couldn't he use his Sword skill to augment that? I'd certainly allow it.

Here's the thing if you want to "learn" the Orphan Bastids. Don't make a Dungeon Crawl (TM) to compensate. That is, the standard thing to do when you can't think of how to grab a character's attention in-game, is to railroad them into the dungeon (or temple, or fortress, or wherever the action is). Basically, this is forcing basic values on the character. "You're life is in jeopardy!" "You've been offered a staggering amount of money." "Someone insults you." These all will elicit a response, but not one that has anything to do with the characters in question.

Instead of the Dungeon Crawl, face their character with some conflict that's central to their nature. If they're Orphans, for goodness sake, have their parents show up (and tell them that due to biology alone that they suddenly have the relationship trait at 13, whether they like it or not)! If they're atheists, have them presented with incontrovertible proof of god. If they're swordsmen that use twin katanas, then they encounter somebody with but one who claims that the twin katana tradition is inferior. The point is that this shows the player that play is about the stats, whatever they are.

If you want play then to be about relationships in particular, then clobber them with conflicts that can only be solved by relationships. Have someone testify that they did something illegal, for instance. With no friends, who's to testify on their behalf?

But, simpler is just to require players to take things. That is, if you want three relationships, don't make them free. That says to the player that they can't be worth anything because, well, you've just said they aren't. Like you're luring them in. Instead, charge for them, and then if you want to ensure that they have some, just use GM fiat to say that they must. And then show them how important relationships are by focusing on them in play.

Mike

Hi All,

A late point, and one sort of passed up, but the key to ALL of the Loners discussed early in this thread is not that they don't have relationships, or even that they don't have complex relationships with communities. They don't have _normal_ relationships to communities.

They are not Loners because they have no friends. They are loners because they do not have a [Member of Community] relationship. (Wolverine does, and Batman eventually gained one, but those are accretions of game play, not part of character design). The Man With No Name doesn't have a community that he belongs to or supports, and certainly doesn't have one that supports him. He may help a community, but at the end of the story he moves on. But his friends and enemies accrue, and continue to entangle him in the world (to use some dragonewt analogies).

Batman has a relationship with Gotham City, and it can get him augments, but it is NOT a normal relationship by any stretch of the imagination.

The number of individuals in stories or movies with NO relationships is almost non-existent. I remember that gunslinger guy in Preacher, who became the Saint of Death or whatever. He never really ended up with any real relationships, even adversaries. Not really. Can't really think of anyone else.

buserian

Yeah, it's a good point about accumulation. If your players don't take any relationships before starting, give them to them as soon as you can.

Scott, once again I think it needs to be pointed out that these were your socially maladjusted players. Am I right? Meaning that, for most Narrators, the resistance to doing things the right way will be much less. If I had players like that, again, I wouldn't bother trying to "show them the light". They're not worth it. If the players are dead set against playing the game like it's designed to be played, it's time for new players.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Scott, once again I think it needs to be pointed out that these were your socially maladjusted players. Am I right? Meaning that, for most Narrators, the resistance to doing things the right way will be much less. If I had players like that, again, I wouldn't bother trying to "show them the light". They're not worth it. If the players are dead set against playing the game like it's designed to be played, it's time for new players.

Mike