What we learned, part 2

[subplotkudzu]

The second set of lessons is more about campaign design. I learned that much as I like the idea of the players exploring a strange new world, I chafe at not having NPCs around to give me a voice (however subordinate) in discussions. That’s something I can work on both as a GM and as something to consider if I run a similar campaign in the future.

 

Running parallel to that, I think that next go around I need to have a stronger relationship web between the characters. If the characters are going to be the whole of the civilized world – as they were in New Dawn – they need stronger reasons to be connected and to be in moderate conflict. Since I don’t have NPCs to offer moral/social conflicts or subplots the player characters have to provide those for themselves.

 

To do, rather than have the PCs essentially be strangers at the start of play (which was a planning failure on my part) each PC would have relations with at least 2 other PCs – someone who is a friend or they have worked with and someone who they have a mildly negative relationship (perhaps one PC witnessed another fail at something, or there’s a family rivalry, or a philosophical rivalry, or they share a dark secret). This makes sure everyone has some allies and some potential conflict points that can be explored in play. This should tie everyone together a little more, giving the players more things to talk about in character, and things that might clarify their worldview for dealing with issues.

 

We had this in only one area in New Dawn: Razor and Silver were brother and sister, with some mutual over protectiveness and affection. This played a little bit for Voi’s ogling or Silver, but I think it would have worked much better if we had intimated to those relationships in advance, and extended the web a little bit.

 

Have other people worked with this in other games? How close is this to the R-Map process that Vincent Baker discusses on Forge? Is there somewhere I should go to look for more discussion of these issues?

 

And amongst the players in New Dawn, does this make sense to you? Do you think it would have helped?

Comments

[kriz1818.livejournal.com]

It might have helped, yes, though I'm not sure the effort would have really interested Voi's player.

I think I sort of assumed that characters' relationships would develop out of their interactions as things went along. Even the conflict with Voi over the Cadaver Man could have been part of that, and an interesting part of the story, if he'd been willing to let it go enough to reconcile with the group.

Still, if we'd had a bit more "unit cohesion" starting out, perhaps that wouldn't have gone so badly. But it's hard to say.

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

It depends on the campaign. I have no issue with the idea of interactions developing as you go along when those interactions aren't the whole of the world. In New Dawn you literally had no one else to talk to (except for the wily undead). The issue here isn't so much how to deal with the problem player but how to front load some of that relationship development so as to expedite the game.

Of course, the New Dawn was also distinct in that there was no existing social framework for the PCs either: you were not cops with the senior man in charge; you weren't star fleet officers with a captain and a clear directive (or Arabain merchants on one capatain's ship); there was no outside authoirty that could monitor your successes. If there were I think that it would have given you a stronger starting point for character development.