I’ve deferred my Love/Hate connection experiment for at least one more session. I could do this differently; I could use that experiment now to improve my players’ understanding of their own PCs, as well as bettering my understanding of their relationships with the rest of the setting. I deferred that experiment yesterday because I wanted to get a session of play under our belts, whet my players’ appetites, that sort of thing. That went well. I think it was a good choice.
Now I’m holding off because I suspect…
…a few of my players might feel uncomfortable making the choices involved in that exercise before they know more about their characters. I want time to check with them before I push them out of their comfort zone. Rushing them without communicating here would likely leave them less invested in their characters and the game, not more.
I’m also holding off because I don’t yet feel like I have a solid handle on what ingredients to include in the exercise. Part of my uncertainty comes from my players’ multiple mentions of wandering and exploration. I’d originally thought of running the exercise with a tight focus on the game’s starting city. If the PCs wander, NPCs and groups that only exist in our game’s starting city have less lasting relevance. I’ll need NPCs, groups, and themes that are more widespread or abstract than the ones I’d first prepared.
I made a list of general theme tags tied to each PC, but not every PC is equally well-covered. I want a more well-spread list of tags, and I want a wider range of options beyond those tags. That means I need to do more brainstorming (which I haven’t made time for), and want to check in with my players about their characters.
While I haven’t yet tested my Love/Hate exercise, I do have another connection-building tool. I fleshed out the Spectaculars-inspired concept I mentioned before and created this:
Establishing History
Each PC, max 1/session
When a player declares that their PC has history with a place, a group, a thing, or an NPC, GM chooses one or both:
- Say “yes!”, give some detail about the entity, and invite the player to contribute
- Ask player to roll 2d6:
12: you’re buds, “need a favor?”
10-11: you’re cool, do business quid pro quo
7-9: you still owe them, clear that debt or grease their palm before doing business
6-: you rat!, they remember you but NOT fondly… how did they suffer because of you? (7-9 but worse / with higher cost)
I might want to shift the target numbers. The current set create a 41.6% chance of needing to buy your way back into favor before they’ll even look at you and another 41.6% chance of you owing them. I think this is okay as long as I’m clear that the ‘6-’ isn’t quite the same as a hostile result on a reaction roll. I’m tempted to reward the players with XP once every PC has used this once, and I may require each PC to use it once before any other PC can use it again (even over multiple sessions). We shall see.
There’s also the obvious question of “how does this work with a place or thing?” I’ll have to figure out whether (and how) to use the roll, but I’ll probably just go with the vibes until we figure out a better solution. The vibes are enough for my improv-heavy GMing habits.
Fistful of Wits 