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:
Quote from: Paul Czege on January 23, 2008, 02:04:06 PM
"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'.
Quote from: Paul Czege on January 23, 2008, 02:04:06 PM
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...
Quote from: Paul Czege on January 23, 2008, 02:04:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Paul Czege on January 23, 2008, 02:04:06 PM
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 once played in a game of Dark Ages Vampire where the GM tried the exact same thing, using the Constantinople sourcebook: The player characters came there, a disconnected band of Vampires without real goals or ties, and they easily became part of the community. It was the best part of that game (one of my favourites, ever). We embraced the rich tapestry of NPCs, the different fractions and all that stuff. Each of us started earning his place in the community, quickly picking their “leader” among the NPCs (and each a different one, as if were). Some minor NPCs gained significance as some player just grabbed them, making them a romantic interest or whatever. Others we made up during play, like servants, ghouls, even a childe.
What was the difference to your situation? I think it was the players’ attitude. In my example, two things were there on the players’ side: (a) a genuine interest in colourful NPCs and the game’s background, and (b) a willingness to let our PCs get into trouble.
I certainly see a lack of the second with your group. Maybe this is just a die-hard gamer habit from those games where the GM would just always spoil your plans because, y’know, that was his job. The players need to understand that getting their PCs into trouble will make the game more interesting. They need to trust you that you’ll give them a chance to sort that trouble out again.
The first part, now, if that’s lacking, then maybe you need different NPCs—or your players just aren’t interested at all in what you are trying to achieve. But let’s assume they would generally be interested. Maybe they have their own idea of what kind of NPC they’d like to meet and engage with.
Now, how can you tackle both of these issues? I suggest that the good old trick of “talking about it up front” might be a solution worth considering. Have you tried it?
Reithan:
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 23, 2008, 05:14:48 PM
I certainly see a lack of the second with your group. Maybe this is just a die-hard gamer habit from those games where the GM would just always spoil your plans because, y’know, that was his job. The players need to understand that getting their PCs into trouble will make the game more interesting. They need to trust you that you’ll give them a chance to sort that trouble out again.
...
I suggest that the good old trick of “talking about it up front” might be a solution worth considering. Have you tried it?
I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head with this one.
They are, definitely most concerned about me killing them off. Granted a few player characters have died during the course of the game...but I'll explain it like I've explained it to them. I DO NOT kill characters. What I DO do is let characters kill themselves. To explain further. There are dangerous things in the game. I do not conspire and plot and lpan to find ways to kill the characters, but I do believe in the importance of consequences.
For example, so far 2 characters have died because, in the midst of a dangerous situation, they seperated from the group without any sort of plan or safeguards in place.
One was ambushed while out of sight of the other characters by an opponent they already knew to be in the area, the other KNOWINGLY walking out into a battle to act as bait - without discussing this plan with the others.
That fully explained, I try very hard to NOT become an adversarial GM.
But I think, so far, the group's combined extensive history of playing games with GMs who thought otherwise is handicapping them quite severly.
I did discuss everything up-front before we even wrote up characters, and we all agree we wanted to play a strictly Narrativist game. (after discussing the GNS model and other games we'd all played and the type of play we'd like to see in the future game, including specific examples)...however, they were unwilling to let any risk in and slowly strategized their way fully into Gamist territory.
So, we sat down and talked it all up again, and we settled on "Narrativist/Gamist"...
...a few months later we're now into "Gamist/Narrativist" territory, I think. It's hard to tell anymore.
So, I suppose we could have yet another talk, but I feel like it's going to be more of the same: Everyone saying "Yeah, we wanna play narrativist, we all love a great story!" But then, when push comes to show, they'll stick to strategizing everything out so I don't come along and drop a safe on them...even though I'm not trying to.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page