The Ensemble Cast

[OneSeventeen]

So a friend and I were discussing campaign settings the other day and I had a wonder. Before I put the question I am compelled by a -5pt Disad to give a ton of context. So:

The way he and I prefer to do a campaign is much different from normal. We conceive of a setting and story arc with beginning, middle and end in mind (of course the middle is vague and the end is more of a sketch of a thought). As opposed to just running continuing serial adventures of the PCs. We then work really hard with the players (traditionally trying to stay in the 3-4 range) to make characters that fit into the campaign setting with hooks that tie them to the world and the events going on, etc. etc.

End context.

Recently, we got into a discussion about what a setting really is (and in that context, what our settings tend to be and what else they might be). Generally, we think of settings as being a place: a city, a planet, a country or region. That is, I'd say, one of the easier kinds of settings for a GM to manage.

However, sometimes the place changes. Maybe it's that there are several important places (which is more of a region, then, really, or whatever). Or else the key place in the setting moves (like a ship; sea or space). In the case of a ship, if the ship's the setting then i'm going to argue that most of the NPCs will live/work on the ship and that the places the ship goes will be less important in and of themselves and that there'll be fewer NPCs there.

But settings can be other than geographical. My friend ran a campaign where the PCs were all the youngest generation of a rather extended family of super-powered demi-gods in, effectively, the Bronze Age. Players didn't get a map, they got a family tree. The setting was basically the family and teleporting hither and thither about the globe meant no one city of plain of battle mattered so much.

That got me thinking about how else you might construct a setting out of people. I've always (this is more context now) loved Firefly/Serenity and I have often despaired of running a game in that universe because... of something I couldn't define. And now I know what: The setting isn't the worlds. It's not even Serenity. The setting is the crew (and the Serenity is almost a character in that sense). However, the crew's small enough that they don't have an NPC mass if you see what I mean (specifically in relation to my above comment about ships).

So, really, the whole crew feels like PCs and the crew is the setting... This means that a lot rests on the players for a setting like that. It means that a) you need a decent number of players; b) They need to be really comfortable exploring their characters "soft" emotions in a non-trivial way (loyalty, love, friendship, joy) and in front of each other. Maybe other requirements.

In my (somewhat limited) experience, B is really hard for folks. Admittedly (and sadly), I've got the typical all-male player base, which might contribute to the sort of... fear of addressing emotions, but I don't think that's all of it. I guess you could argue that there's a maturity issue here.

Anyway, what experience have people had with an ensemble cast of characters where everyone is not tied all to the same person, but where personal interactions between the PCs were the primary setting and the adventure things they did were just a fun backdrop for those interactions? Has anyone switched from adventure being more primary to the other? Has anyone recruited players specifically to fit this style of play? What does the player who's good at this look like? Thanks much!


Ben

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by OneSeventeen

Anyway, what experience have people had with an ensemble cast of characters where everyone is not tied all to the same person, but where personal interactions between the PCs were the primary setting and the adventure things they did were just a fun backdrop for those interactions? Has anyone switched from adventure being more primary to the other? Has anyone recruited players specifically to fit this style of play? What does the player who's good at this look like? Thanks much!

I would not say that I've gone that far. But I've run campaigns that tended in that direction:

Zimiamvia was a campaign where all the PCs were avatars of God and Goddess, gifted beyond the limits of mortals. The character creation process allowed a PC to have an army of followers, or magical gear, or a substantial estate for a really trivial cost. The story largely emerged from the PCs wandering around and crossing each other's tracks.

Manse was a campaign about a huge castle occupied by five noble lineages of mages who together maintained the magical barriers that kept wild magical chaos from sweeping over their land. Each player got to make up a lineage, including drawing up its family tree, defining its marriage rules and its rules for succession to authority, and figuring out its magical focus. Then I took the family trees and figured out which spouse had come from which other lineage. Each player had an established adult noble, a young adult noble, a soldier from the castle guard, and a servant working in the castle as their four PCs.

I've got the logs for both campaigns if you'd like to see the details of how they played out; just e-mail me at macavity@mindspring.com.

Bill Stoddard

[trooper6]

I think whswhs's Transhuman Space campaing was in that vein. I mean...we only had two and a half combats in three years...and while we all went on adventures...we spent a LOT of time having dinner in character and chatting. I mean...we had a facilitator come in and do team building exercises with us all...because...you know...we needed it!

And many of the adventures we all had...well, we all filtered that back through our characters' emotions and their relationships with each other. It was awesome!

We had a very strong external setting...Montreal and our Private Investigator's Offices...but I think the relations between us all were very central.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by trooper6

We had a very strong external setting...Montreal and our Private Investigator's Offices...but I think the relations between us all were very central.

The offices, specifically, were mapped out in detail by koressa, who was playing Aki. As was Aki's upstairs apartment. Speaking of player creativity being incorporated into the world.

As for supporting cast, Gianni added a supporting cast as big as the whole set of PCs: His daughter Constanza, his older sister Teresa, his younger sister Vittoria, his ex-partner on the police force Bernadette. Though I contributed Vittoria's girlfriend Sonia, I think.

Bill

[sgtcallistan]

With some games, I find the characters define the game.
Usually, small groups have this: frex, the designated hero/ine, the support, the driver.
Robin Hood had hero, girl, adviser, big bruiser, moral support, everyman, etc.

This is close to 'character classes', but has the benefit of them being player-defined roles.

The group can be cohesive by being derived from a background familiar to all players; as long as they don't fight over 'who's going to be Indy', you can have a fun campaign.

A larger group would require each have a dense backstory, all of which should supply seeds for sessions and enhance the ongoing thread of the campaign. Difficult, bot not impossible.

Of course, like Firefly, back-things may never get to be used / be proved irrelavent.
GM's must be prepared to alter stuff to fit, at a moment's notice, and invisibly.

[knarf]

I had something exciting happen when I had to face the problem of "What happens when you split the party?"

Only 1 PC was available for what I wanted to be a particularly big battle scene. (Everyone else apparently had the sense to GTFO) So I gave each of the other players an "alt PC" who was a citizen of the village that was being defended by the PC. The players had a lot of fun with these "disposable PCs" and the trend became infectious. When one character or another was unavailable for a given scene or quest, they would ask to make an alt-PC who could participate. Each player wound up with 2 or 3 characters by the end of the campaign.

[sgtcallistan]

Originally Posted by knarf

I had something exciting happen when I had to face the problem of "What happens when you split the party?"

Only 1 PC was available for what I wanted to be a particularly big battle scene. (Everyone else apparently had the sense to GTFO) So I gave each of the other players an "alt PC" who was a citizen of the village that was being defended by the PC. The players had a lot of fun with these "disposable PCs" and the trend became infectious. When one character or another was unavailable for a given scene or quest, they would ask to make an alt-PC who could participate. Each player wound up with 2 or 3 characters by the end of the campaign.

Have played in a campaign based on the X-Com computer games (with some reference from their source, Gerry Anderson's UFO) and we used several substitute characters; members of a space-fighter group, members of the investigation / MiB teams, members of the science cadre. We would switch them as the story progressed, and sometimes, such when a base was under attack, have multiple charas in combat at once.
Fun, but nerve-wracking, and oddly, I didn't mind losing one now and then.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by knarf

I had something exciting happen when I had to face the problem of "What happens when you split the party?".

You know, that seems to be a big deal for a lot of people. I don't worry about it much. I've run an entire campaign that never had all the PCs on camera together, from start to end.

The big issue for a lot of people seems to be "it's boring for me to have to sit there while my character has nothing to do." And I don't want just to dismiss that out of hand, because I've experienced that sort of frustration myself a time or two. But there are a couple of things that can mitigate it.

*If the other players have good dialogue and good character interactions, then they can be entertaining to watch. This works better if you have players who are into the dramatic and storytelling aspects of RPGs, so it's good to recruit such players.

*If you're working on a mission where success depends on the accomplishment of varied tasks, and each character is good at some special tasks, then players can pay attention because the outcome matters to their characters. This works better if you're doing missions that aren't all "kill the monster, loot the room"; combat is mostly additive, whereas other types of mission can have nonlinear effects from special skills.

*Relatedly, if you're working on a mission where information gathering is important, each player's solo scenes can be a source of information for the other players.

Bill Stoddard

[knarf]

Originally Posted by whswhs

You know, that seems to be a big deal for a lot of people. I don't worry about it much. I've run an entire campaign that never had all the PCs on camera together, from start to end.

The big issue for a lot of people seems to be "it's boring for me to have to sit there while my character has nothing to do." And I don't want just to dismiss that out of hand, because I've experienced that sort of frustration myself a time or two. But there are a couple of things that can mitigate it.

I have no problem with splitting the party under most circumstances. But, as I said, this was a big battle that the rest of the party had the sense to avoid. I was planning on having this battle be most, if not all, of the session that week. It also had the bonus effect of making the battle easier for me to run, since I would only have to run the enemies and not the defenders.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by knarf

I have no problem with splitting the party under most circumstances. But, as I said, this was a big battle that the rest of the party had the sense to avoid. I was planning on having this battle be most, if not all, of the session that week. It also had the bonus effect of making the battle easier for me to run, since I would only have to run the enemies and not the defenders.

Ah. That's somewhat different. Though I think what I would have done would have been to have the one PC try to fight, and lose, and be killed (and the other PCs might have reason to avenge them) or captured (and the other PCs might need to rescue them, or ransom them) or forced to retreat (and they could go and plead with the other PCs to come and help turn the tide).

At a certain point, you need to say that the PCs have rejected your big scene, and improvise something more to their taste.

Bill Stoddard