I wonder about the last one (defining key relationships) being a fixed rule? I did this with my recent Vaesen campaign and now wonder whether I've hamstrung some plot elements by making it all about those specific people.
Isn't there a case for starting with one defined character, and allowing other character relationships emerge organically as the story develops?
But defining key relationships from the start are a part of foundational worldbuilding--establishing the player's place in the world before their hero's journey begins.
I don't think it's set in stone. I do think some understanding of the relationships can be helpful but it's like that classic problem of the person who brings you a five page backstory, they have left no room for growth or finding out through play.
Yeah the fighter is a badass...on paper. The fates consistently say otherwise. That kind of thing.
And as you point out we risk it becoming the focus.
I think it can work both ways, depending on campaign and player. For example, since Tristan is part of a military organization, it makes sense that there are built in and established relationships, especially since the campaign is starting while he’s already a member of the dragoons.
Whereas, for example, in your Novembuild campaign, I thought it was perfect that the relationships were formed (mostly) organically. It made sense because Dante was setting foot on Karum for the first time ever.
So, I guess I would say I lean against it being a “fixed” rule, but I definitely see the value in it, especially for someone who may be trying solo ttrpg for the first time, or who struggles with sandbox type campaigns.
I wonder about the last one (defining key relationships) being a fixed rule? I did this with my recent Vaesen campaign and now wonder whether I've hamstrung some plot elements by making it all about those specific people.
Isn't there a case for starting with one defined character, and allowing other character relationships emerge organically as the story develops?
There are no fixed rules in Solo TTRPG.
But defining key relationships from the start are a part of foundational worldbuilding--establishing the player's place in the world before their hero's journey begins.
Unless you're playing an isekai.
I don't think it's set in stone. I do think some understanding of the relationships can be helpful but it's like that classic problem of the person who brings you a five page backstory, they have left no room for growth or finding out through play.
Yeah the fighter is a badass...on paper. The fates consistently say otherwise. That kind of thing.
And as you point out we risk it becoming the focus.
I think it can work both ways, depending on campaign and player. For example, since Tristan is part of a military organization, it makes sense that there are built in and established relationships, especially since the campaign is starting while he’s already a member of the dragoons.
Whereas, for example, in your Novembuild campaign, I thought it was perfect that the relationships were formed (mostly) organically. It made sense because Dante was setting foot on Karum for the first time ever.
So, I guess I would say I lean against it being a “fixed” rule, but I definitely see the value in it, especially for someone who may be trying solo ttrpg for the first time, or who struggles with sandbox type campaigns.