Requring Character Connections at Chargen

[SpaceKhomeini]

To be a little more verbose, I’ve just found that banking on shared backstory with others sight-unseen (particularly people you don’t know that well) is just an unreliable investment at best for all the reasons that the OP outlined, plus the “shit happens” effect where you just have to conceptually step around the idea that people will idle out or whatever.

Also, most of the best RP and character chemistry I’ve had I’ve just worked out on the fly after a couple scenes I’ve had with someone else on the grid. I’ll happily work on backstory with people then if I feel it fits but the above requirement is something that I would just not mess with. Similarly if I run into a MU* where every character already seems to know each other for ages and I feel like I just stumbled into a group of pre-existing friends at a party I’m strongly compelled to not crash it.

And as a side note, if gamerunners are that worried about “bad actor” problems (which is very much a thing), 1) How about making it a roster game (this is very much not for me but I know some people find this helpful), or 2) Why make a fully public game at all?

Again, if this works for people, good going and I’m glad you’re having a good time. This just isn’t for me.

[Faraday]

@STD said in Requring Character Connections at Chargen:

That said, I’m not sure how effective it would be. In fact, it might give bad actors an easier time; they’d all be able to include each other in their backgrounds and slip on through chargen easier than those who are alone. I mean, bad actors can be alone as well, but a lot of them tend to travel in packs.

I can’t see how requiring people to add IC relationships helps with bad actors. BadActor could just page someone and be like: “Hey, want to have a connection?” If you don’t already know they’re a bad actor (which is nigh-impossible in most cases), how is that going to weed anybody out? I mean, I guess if they’re aggressively creepy enough to not even pass a civil backstory discussion, maybe, but MUs usually are plagued by more subtle manipulators.

[Third Eye]

I went to the game to read their policy files to inform myself on what I was being reactive to (I would nope out pretty quick to something like this): https://swrestorationmush.com/wiki/character_policies

We require new characters to have at least one connection, directly mentioned in their background, to another approved PC. This PC must have at least three scenes posted on the website at the time your pitch is submitted. This connection can be as simple as “I’ve met them before and have a reason to talk to them again.” The idea is to give you RP hooks and reasons to be involved in current events.

You are welcome to be connected to Major NPCs as well–perhaps you were trained by one of the Jedi NPCs, or you work for Darlia Ghezt. Maybe you used to play sabacc with Han Solo. Please look at the Major NPCs page for a list, including which staffer runs the NPC in question.

We also allow new characters to come in connected to one another–so long as you both have at least one connection to another currently approved PC.

The NPC thing makes this less of a hurdle than I’d initially imagined, but I still ultimately think it’s wrong-headed and not going to do much to motivate people to RP or connect. Players will do that on their own, or they won’t, and ultimately I think staff is better-served encouraging this outside CG once people hit the grid. I also can’t see at all how this would help stop creepers/bad actors. Like, literally at all, how do people think it’s gonna do this?

ETA: Is part of this a reaction to how spread out Star Wars games tend to be? With players playing every possible faction/on every possible planet? This place seems to…not be doing that, which seems like a better way get at the ‘nobody has a reason to RP with each other’ issue.

[icanbeyourmuse]

Being forced to have a ‘PC connection’ to play is off putting for me. I’m all for stuff like 'This is a list of players/NPCs/whatever you can ask to have a connection to to help draw you into plots (I might do this sort of thing on Atharia. The having a list of willing character connections). I am even more put off that it is forcing people to post logs. Pretty much the only logs I post are stuff I GMed, something that shows character growth (this is even hit or miss if I do), events, and scenes auto-logged by event codes on places like Ares (Sometimes not even then for Ares code since it is by choice) or Arx.

[mietze]

Tell me if i’m being dumb here but to me this seems like a very weird way of making the game invite only, but wanting to seem like you’re not really doing that at all, if you still need a PC connection even if there’s an NPC connection. Or they don’t want to SAY that they want a certain type of playstyle (one wherein you are primarily interested in connecting with other PCs) without seeming too OOC about it?

Games used to have a stigma if they booted jackasses off without giving them their rules lawyered 3 chances, ect. I could see that some runners maybe kinda do want to have known quantity players or people who aren’t going to be all lone wolf that then whines all the time about not getting play. This seems like a convoluted way to address those concerns. When you could make it invite only OR tell people that it’s expected that you’ll make a PC who can fit in with existing RP rather than expecting constant individual support. I wish more games would do the lattter, though I’ve been seeing it more and more so that’s good (to me). I know we as a community used to be a lot more reactive to any sort of restrictions of “MY CREATIVITY”, but I’ve seen things edge towards more realistic now.

That’s kind of what that policy says to me. They don’t want people to come in antisocial to the RP that’s happening but don’t like want to come out and say that you can’t make a PC who’s main interaction is to complain about how they don’t fit in or constantly bat down all interactions and expect to get a more personalized staff driven experience.

[Faraday]

@icanbeyourmuse said in Requring Character Connections at Chargen:

I’m all for stuff like 'This is a list of players/NPCs/whatever you can ask to have a connection to to help draw you into plots (I might do this sort of thing on Atharia. The having a list of willing character connections).

Yes, this is a great variant. We used to have a “Hooks Wanted” forum for precisely this purpose, where people could connect.

RP Hooks (which are built in to Ares’ default configuration, but easy to implement on any game) are also a good way to make connections easier.

@mietze said in Requring Character Connections at Chargen:

Tell me if i’m being dumb here but to me this seems like a very weird way of making the game invite only

I have no clue about the specific game, but I could see something like this being an invite-only compromise. Instead of being explicitly invited by someone, you just have to be quasi-invited by connection.

[icanbeyourmuse]

Since I did say it was how I would do it for connections to draw people into plots/the game: https://atharia.vertinext.com/index.php?title=Relationship_List

My players liked the idea and they made the choice to be on the list or not. Just so people can see how I would implement it.

[Third Eye]

@mietze said in Requring Character Connections at Chargen:

That’s kind of what that policy says to me. They don’t want people to come in antisocial to the RP that’s happening but don’t like want to come out and say that you can’t make a PC who’s main interaction is to complain about how they don’t fit in or constantly bat down all interactions and expect to get a more personalized staff driven experience.

In other places in the news files they do kinda do this, in fairness.

We strongly suggest that, for your very first character on the game, you go with someone who has strong attachments to the world around them and easy reasons to be involved in RP. New Republic military will always have such reasons; for Independents you may want to join the Marauders pirate band or talk to another long-term player about working for or with them. A character who finds it easy to make friends will need fewer prior connections than a distrustful loner. We want everyone to play what they find enjoyable, but we’ve also seen, both here and on other games, a tendency for characters that don’t have strong reasons to show up to multiple scenes to get left out, and those new players wind up drifting away–and that’s no fun at all.

It feels like just stating this and having staff that actually push back on disconnected loner character in CG would be better than just making someone claim they’d gone to a bar with another random PC who’d been in 3 scenes.

[untitled]

This is weirdness the opposite of weirdness I saw and was thinking on earlier this week .

IDR which game it was, but there was a game I was paging through the wiki and how-to-cg of and there was a COST associated with rolling in as part of group concepts. I actually maybe kind of get this one more, BC I’ve seen games get raided like a Discord server by small groups of people with chips on their shoulders and in a lot of these RP games, all it takes is a couple to wreck shit.

Maybe the background attachment requirement is a heavy-handed way of pushing brand new players into a mentorship with an established player. Doesn’t negate any of the valid criticisms already voiced here, OFC.

[Wizz]

@Third-Eye said in Requring Character Connections at Chargen:

The NPC thing makes this less of a hurdle than I’d initially imagined, but I still ultimately think it’s wrong-headed and not going to do much to motivate people to RP or connect. Players will do that on their own, or they won’t, and ultimately I think staff is better-served encouraging this outside CG once people hit the grid. I also can’t see at all how this would help stop creepers/bad actors. Like, literally at all, how do people think it’s gonna do this?
ETA: Is part of this a reaction to how spread out Star Wars games tend to be? With players playing every possible faction/on every possible planet? This place seems to…not be doing that, which seems like a better way get at the ‘nobody has a reason to RP with each other’ issue.

I dunno if this is 100% why the game in question made this choice, but just for the sake of maybe adding some clarity, this is how generating a PC works in FATE, which is what they’re using. Backgrounds have three “phases,” the second of which is character connections.

Works great at a table, but does not translate at all to MU*s IMHO.

[MisterBoring]

I’m divided on requiring connections at CG.

My ideal game would be a smaller playerbase (no more than 20 or so players), and I’d want all of the player characters to have at least 1-2 connections from the start, because that connection would be part of the setting.

However, in practice, I feel like requiring it is a bit more tricky. It really depends on how a player writes a new character. If that character is meant to be an established person in the community represented by the game world, then yes, I would require that player to set up some connections with other PCs before approval, maybe 3 at most. If the character is new in town (or planet or dimension or whatever), then no, connections aren’t required. But in both cases, I’d probably offer some level of incentive to have some connections at character creation, and incentivize new connections in play as well.

[icanbeyourmuse]

@MisterBoring said in Requring Character Connections at Chargen:

I’m divided on requiring connections at CG.

My ideal game would be a smaller playerbase (no more than 20 or so players), and I’d want all of the player characters to have at least 1-2 connections from the start, because that connection would be part of the setting.

However, in practice, I feel like requiring it is a bit more tricky. It really depends on how a player writes a new character. If that character is meant to be an established person in the community represented by the game world, then yes, I would require that player to set up some connections with other PCs before approval, maybe 3 at most. If the character is new in town (or planet or dimension or whatever), then no, connections aren’t required. But in both cases, I’d probably offer some level of incentive to have some connections at character creation, and incentivize new connections in play as well.

Requiring connections doesn’t really build comfort levels with the person (since not everyone comes in knowing people). Another alternative is to encourage people to join as a group. Don’t make it required or anything but encourage it so people bring their friends. It typically gives them a built in connection. Maybe not to the current playerbase but it does provide the reason to RP.

[Faraday]

@MisterBoring said in Requring Character Connections at Chargen:

If that character is meant to be an established person in the community represented by the game world, then yes, I would require that player to set up some connections with other PCs before approval, maybe 3 at most.

But why put that burden on a new player who has no idea who’s who? Why not let players build those connections more organically in the first days/weeks of RP?

(First time RPing with NewPerson) “Oh, I see you’re the baker. You’d probably know my char as a regular, since they have a total sweet tooth.”

That’s how we’ve always done it on BSG games where there’s a mix of established crewmates and new faces, and it’s always worked just fine.

EDIT: I have no problem encouraging people to create connections in chargen, only with requiring it.

[shit-piss-love]

What if I want to play a character that is an outsider? (I usually do)

[MisterBoring]

So in my ideal game, the players would basically be a hand picked group who were familiar and comfortable with each other from other games, so requiring them to have connections at CG doesn’t seem bad. Again, in my ideal game. Not every game. Just my dream game.

At the same time, @icanbeyourmuse is right on the money about comfort levels. Which I think can even effect trying to build connections organically during RP. If you’re not yet comfortable with someone and they’re trying to connect by being a regular at the bakery, denying that can leave a bad feel for all parties involved. I’ve seen it happen, and I try (when I do get around to playing) to prevent that where I can.

As far as people playing total outsiders, if the setting allows for it, go for it. I would never incentivize it, but I definitely don’t have a problem for it where the game world and narrative have space for it.

[mietze]

@shit-piss-love probably games that don’t really want outsider characters will be a poor fit. Better to know up front so as to not waste everyone’s time but I think that’s something that should be clearly spelled out rather than hinted at.

[sao]

I like to make connections at character generation when it suits me but if a game told me I had to talk to strangers and figure out how I was connected to them I would noperocket into the sun.

[Pyrephox]

@sao I wouldn’t mind, but I think I would prefer for a game to just give me those connections. For example, if I were making a, I don’t know, psychic mechanic, I’d love for a game to say, “Okay, based on your background, you definitely at least know of Player A, B, and C. I’m copying them on this mail so you guys can figure out what that knowing might look like, and if you have previous interactions.”

But I do like interconnected characters, and don’t think it’s a wrong choice to have people need those connections for their characters, depending on the game. It’d clearly turn a lot of people off, but it might attract some, too.

[DrQuinn]

@Pyrephox Or even just a board with possible connections where people could post and say “I’m a mechanic who also plays board games! Feel free to ping me while you’re in chargen for a connection or connect with me once you’re on grid.”

That way you could also allow people to set preferences like: I’m okay with someone including me as a connection without talking to me OR no randos please, talk to me before you make a connection.

I know when Arx implemented the connection thing I was shocked to find myself on someone’s list in what seemed like a not-so-complimentary way–but I then found out who wrote it and it wasn’t meant that way so it was fine, but it was real jolting to see before that, so I made sure if I included anyone on any rosters I wrote I always checked in with the person to see if they were okay with it first.

[Third Eye]

@Pyrephox said in Requring Character Connections at Chargen:

@sao I wouldn’t mind, but I think I would prefer for a game to just give me those connections. For example, if I were making a, I don’t know, psychic mechanic, I’d love for a game to say, “Okay, based on your background, you definitely at least know of Player A, B, and C. I’m copying them on this mail so you guys can figure out what that knowing might look like, and if you have previous interactions.”

Yeah, I felt kinda softer on this when I saw you could use NPCs because I actually would do that. Like, saying I trained under a specific Jedi master or worked for a written NPC rebellion leader on past missions feels helpful in terms of orienting a character and as an affirmation someone read theme info staff considers important. That’s kind of appealing to me, versus just saying I know some dude who’s been in 3 scenes because we went to the same bar or whatever. It also feels like a more long-term workable way to integrate the FATE stuff @Wizz described on a public game.