Create a new character that does have a reason to stick around.
*Session 0 should be the creation of the story of how the group met, they should not meet in session 1.
Strongly disagree. Nothing wrong with doing that, but nothing wrong with having them meet in session 1 too, as long as you have built characters who will be willing to go along with the GM's hooks.
And even that part is flexible, depending on the nature of the hook. If the hook is "you see an ad look for rat exterminators", then you better have a character who wants to be an adventurer and will cooperate with other would-be adventurers. If the hook is "you're prisoners being ordered to go explore this dungeon by order of the vizier", there's room for slightly less cooperative PCs, as long as you PC is cooperative enough to go along with that order, even if (at first) reluctantly.
Meeting people with the inclination and schedule that I enjoy the company of to make a party with is the worst part of d&d. Please don't make me role play it, too.
It might be your least favorite part of DnD, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who enjoy meeting a new group of characters and finding out about their particular ticks and specialties.
I learn about the characters, myself included, throughout the campaign through their actions. Otherwise session one is like that time I asked a coworker about one of his tattoos and had to hear about his sister's murder. That's more of a session two+ thing to me.
For me, the tired trope of "strangers meet in a tavern" approach is the inevitable round of introductions that feels like that time at the start of school when everyone had to stand up to say their name and one interesting fact about them. It's just awkward and everyone wants it to be over quickly.
Much better to just create characters together in session 0. Everyone already knows each other, their motivations, prior relationships established, etc... and just begin the campaign as if everyone is already on mission.
There are options besides "strangers meet in a tavern and awkwardly introduce themselves" and pre-made perfectly-tailored party. I'm a fan of starting in media res, with the characters all in a location for their own reasons, when shit happens that forces them to act as a group. I've just recently started the video game Baldur's Gate 3, and it's not a bad example of what I mean.
The friction of people rubbing off of each other for the first time creates so many wonderful opportunities for storytelling, and forming bonds naturally through play, instead of prescribing them in a clinical session 0 context, tends to make the players much more invested in those bonds, in my experience.
Yeah, I'm gonna back you up on that one. Sometimes assembling the group in session 0 is what's right for the story, and sometimes it really, really isn't. Think about how many movies literally have "Assembling the team" as almost their entire plot. The Avengers hangs two hours of non-stop action on "We need to put a party together." Every heist movie is basically required to have an "I'm putting a team together..." sequence.
Session 0 is where you lay out the expectations of the game, and your players think about either how their characters have already interacted, or how they will interact when they eventually meet. You give people an idea of what they're getting into, you pitch the tone and the style of the game, and you help people shape characters around that.
As an example a friend of mine always pitches his games by describing who they would be directed by. I remember vividly his "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Halflings" game, a Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay If It Was Directed By Guy Ritchie experience. Just setting that sense of tone up front meant that we all knew to make characters who would fit the vibe. I played "Blackhand Seth, The Scummiest Elf You've Ever Met," one part Brad Pitt Pikey, one part Jack Sparrow, and I had a blast.
In my most recent campaign I'm running a Shadowrun game where the group would be assembled in session 1 by a down on his luck fixer. My pitch to the players was simple; make fuck-ups. I wanted characters who were at the end of their rope, lacking in options, either so green no one would trust them or so tainted by past failures that no one wanted them. The kind of people who would take a job from a fixer who had burned every other bridge. They rose to the assignment beautifully, and by four sessions in the group has already formed some absolutely fascinating relationship dynamics. A lot of that has been shaped by their first experiences together, figuring out how to work as a team, sometimes distrusting each other, and slowly discovering reasons to care about each other.
Sometimes assembling the group in session 0 is what’s right for the story, and sometimes it really, really isn’t. Think about how many movies literally have “Assembling the team” as almost their entire plot. The Avengers hangs two hours of non-stop action on “We need to put a party together.”
Oh, that reminds me of a 4th way campaigns can start (in addition to the 3 I said in a different reply) that I've been in before and quite enjoyed—though wouldn't want to be overused. The MCU method. Where each player individually gets a 1 session (maybe 2 at most) solo session introducing them and getting them to the right place to start the campaign.
Doesn't have to be a solo session. If you have the right group for it (big IF there) you can jump back and forth between the individual characters, essentially running four solo sessions in parallel. This relies heavily on your players being the kind of people who are invested in the action even when their character isn't present, but it can be done.
That said, I think for the most part the "Solo movie" should really be a character's backstory. This is why I don't like D&D, or at least the D&D presumption of starting at level 1. It leaves no room for characters to have an interesting history if they're basically at the level where the average house-cat is a threat. If I run D&D, I start people off at somewhere around level 5 - 10. Give them enough ability that they can actually have done some interesting things already. Get the solo movie out of the way before the game even starts.
The DM came up with the plot hook and the players agreed to play, so the players need to put some effort into finding a reason to go along with the plot hook.
Suggestions on making the hook more engaging is an option too!
It goes for the players among each other too. It's not just the one character in OP that dislikes or distrusts the party. It's up to the rest of the party to also accomodate them. If you have a moral character in the group you might refrain from murdering, raping and pillaging for shits and giggles.
As they say "the only way to have a friend is to be one".
Mac and cheese for dinner is lame and lazy too, but also fucking delicious. TTRPGS are something your friends put together for you out of love, not necessarily some clinically perfect professional product. And to extend the metaphor, if you go to a dinner party and start bitching about your friend not plating the food like a Michelin star place, you're an asshole.
I agree with both. It is lazy, yes. But it is also meant to be fun, and Shadowrun is a particularly goofy game (cyberpunk, with fantasy creatures, ghosts, gods, and magic? How can you take it seriously?) so being a super solid story isn't extremely important. It's also literally the first suggestion in the rulebook for getting players to cooperate. 🤣
I've seen it once...it was used against a single player because he refused to play anything but loners who backstabbed immediately and it was mostly used to piss him off enough he quit the group.
He should have just been kicked out, sure. I think the dm just hated doing that which was cowardly. Buuut he was gone and that game was much more enjoyable!
Players who do this ARE BAD PLAYERS. I don't care what it takes, you WILL find a reason to cooperate. Call it metagaming if you have to. This is a team game, you will work as a team.
Players are expected to make characters that will, for whatever reason, will work together and, for whatever reason, will take plot hooks. Without those two things the game doesn't happen.
I mean, it's good, but it feels like an over reaction. They don't need to make an entirely new character, they just need to think of a reason they'd cooperate. It can be a contrived reason, that's fine, but they need to work together. Some examples,
Highly shy character "warms up" to at least one other character and sort of talks to the group "through" that character, but you can still (as a player) face the whole table to talk as a group.
Character who is extremely distrusting has met a character before (just tweak backstory) or finds at least one other character implicitly trust worthy. Maybe the Rogue who has been backstabbed too many times trusts the Paladin because they know they're too honest to lie.
Edit: It can also be like "my god told me" or "I just know y'all are a good bunch" lol. Doesn't need to be elaborate.
My fix has always been: that's fine! They go off on their own adventures. Now please roll a character that's going to play the game we're running here tonight.
I started running games for my wife and her niblings, and the oldest boy is getting into that "I'm such a rebel" phase where they think they're bad ass for taking slightly longer to do a chore than needed and say "no" the first time you ask them to do something.
He thought it was hilarious to have a character that refused to join the rest of the group, so I said "okay, you can stay at the inn if you want" and then proceeded to intentionally ignore anything he was saying or doing, leaving him out of rolls, and never addressing him.
He's 12 and started literally crying to his mother about how we're all being mean to him. Apparently "he had the opportunity to participate and chose not to" wasn't a good enough response to his mother. I stand by my choice. Although my wife managed to convince me to let him "rejoin" at the next town/session.
He doesn't pull that shit anymore though, when he's playing he's playing or he gets shut out again.
Genuine question to anyone reading: does that make me a bad DM? If so, suggestions on how to handle it?
Tell him "look, this game isn't about being a Total Badass By Yourself. It's about working with your team and overcoming challenges you couldn't otherwise. If you wanna be a Total Badass By Yourself, there are games you can play. But if you wanna play this, you're gonna have to work with me here. Because my time and effort is valuable, and I want to have fun just like you do.
I really need to do some kind of team building exercise before a game, something that they'll want to do, but requires teamwork, just to demonstrate the point that they need to work together.
When my first character did the whole "I'm gonna be all by myself because I'm a lone wolf" thing, the DM let me go off and the totally unexpected happened and my character got into a scuffle he wasn't prepared for, but a group sure would have been.
The easy way out is "abuse action economy". There are better uses for it, though, and better options here.
The other easy way out is to let people roll to see if something happens. Never, ever allow stalled play to resort to this. They have to search and talk.
Oh god so many DMs in the past have done this, and I just roll my eyes every time.
Like I'm okay if you want to roll your own dice behind the screen to see if we get attacked overnight, but that should be the only kind of "roll to see what happens" going on.
The fact your seeking feedback suggests no, but it was certainly a bad move, both as a DM and as an uncle. Punishing anyone, though especially children, without explaining why is mean. You have a responsibility to clearly communicate problems with others as an authority figure at the table and in their life. I don't necessarily think the punishment was unreasonable, but if it's not explained to them, it just comes across as arbitrary and vindictive.
Imo, the best way to handle issues like that is to set the rules and consequences, making them clear to everyone, and to be consistent in their application. Letting people off or being vindictive will just exacerbate things.
I told him the game focuses on the group and if he's not part of the group then he won't be playing, and since that first game he has participated, with few issues popping up.
I probably could have been clearer before we even got to the table that if you aren't playing with the group then you aren't playing, rather than just expect them to stick with a group on their first game.
I think that was the right action, but you could have explained better. Instead of just "Ok, you stay at the tavern" something like "Ok, you can stay at the tavern if you really want to, but you do understand that will mean you're sitting here bored all afternoon while the rest of us play, right?"
I told him multiple times that if he was going to try and do his own thing, he won't be participating with the group, and the group is the entire focus of the game.
I suppose I could have made it more explicit that he could join the group or he could leave the game.
I should add that that was many games ago, and he has since begun participating, although he often tries to go his own way and threatens to leave the group constantly, but so far he hasn't actually tried leaving the group unless it was agreed upon for strategy reasons. (they split up inside a crypt in the most horror movie fashion possible)
I recently tried to DM for my son and his friends. One of his friends insisted he wanted to be a DM. I tried to gently encourage him to allow me to DM for them, and he would have much more fun as a player. Nope, he insisted, and like a good DM, I let him discover for himself why he was wrong. It was fun to be a player character, and they all learned a lot about running a game, so wins all around.
I GM public games and games at conventions, so sometimes it still crops up. People don't always make it readily apparent ahead of game time that they're going to pull shenanigans like this.
"Make friends with gamers, don't make gamers out of friends" is an old tabletop adage that took me a long time to really learn.
For public stuff the best that can usually be mustered are safety tools and clear guidelines. But (rarely, thankfully) some people are just there to sabotage.
I did this in the very first RPG I played. It was Star Wars and I was playing a smuggler (who thus had a ship). Obviously the GM intended my ship to be used to move the party around. Well, the jedi PC shows up wanting to board my ship as I'm getting ready to leave. I don't know this guy so obviously the first thing my character would do would be to say that and then turn the turrets on when this strange jedi tried to insist on joining me, followed by promptly flying off so he ended up needing to find another way to our adventure.
No idea why I was like that. The player was pretty much my best friend at the school, too, so it wasn't anything personal against him. I think I was just trying to hard to do what "my character would realistically do" instead of just playing a game.
That would have been more cool than whatever unmemorable shit actually happened in that campaign. Only other thing I remember is the GM offering me 3 capital ships if I bought him lunch one day and then promptly destroying two of them that same session, which I actually appreciate in hindsight because it contributed to seeing pay to win games as a waste of time and money. Either the shit "bought" in game can be lost that easily or it just breaks the game into a "just give me money and you, uh, win! That's the whole game!"
Obviously, I'm probably missing some context here, but reading the way you've described this, I don't think you were at fault here. If the GM's decision really was to fold that character into the group by just having them stroll up to a smuggler's ship like "Yo, I'm the jedi, let me in," that was an incredibly fucking stupid way to handle that character introduction.
If that happened in an actual Star Wars movie or TV show there would be a million youtube videos ripping on how stupid that scene was. Forget "Paranoid smuggler trying to evade the law", basically anyone working against the empire should have been suspicious as fuck there. That's not a jedi, that's an imperial spy, or worse, a sith lord.
Yes, players owe to each other to try to move the story forward in a collaborative way, but the GM also owes it to the players to never demand that their characters act like complete and total morons for the sake of the story. There should have been some kind of framework there for why this group of people would trust this random-ass dude wandering into the docking bay. A message sent ahead by their contact in the resistance saying "This guy is gonna help you out, you can trust him," something like that. Not just "Yo, I'm a party member, lemme in." Real life doesn't work like that, and when games try to work like that it just makes everything feel stupid and pointless, because it's so obvious that none of it is real or meaningful.
Why is it always a jump to "Overly Paranoid to the point of seeing everything moving as a spook" instead of just "reasonably cautious but otherwise still level headed"?
If the GM's decision really was to fold that character into the group by just having them stroll up to a smuggler's ship like "Yo, I'm the jedi, let me in," that was an incredibly fucking stupid way to handle that character introduction.
Do you forget that this is almost literally what Obi Wan and Luke did to recruit Han and Chewie? Ya know, the famous Smuggler pair? They just walked up to the pair in a bar and had a polite discussion about requesting some discreet passage aboard Han's ship.
Last I checked, no one bitches about that part of A New Hope.
No, Obi Wan and Luke found Han through contacts Obi Wan had at Mos Eisley having lived on Tatooine for years and gone to the trouble of maintaining underworld connections knowing he was on the run from the authorities, and they didn't just rock up and say "Yo, we're buds now," they employed Han and Chewie to smuggle them somewhere, that being the job of a pair of smugglers.
The Expanse books (and eventual TV show) were started as a unique role-playing campaign where the person running it (Ty Franks) would write a prompt, the players would explain their character's reactions. He'd then write a story section incorporating that and the players would say how they reacted and so on.
There was a core group of characters who were the "survivors" early on, but one of the players had to drop out early-ish, so in the next bit of story that character died.
That was carried into the books and TV show, which is why after the core group of characters is established, there's a sudden, shocking death.
You can get away with it while having some downtime in a village. The bard is making coin in the tavern and the barbarian is drinking in the same place, the priest visits the local chapel, the warlock looks to spend some coin on magic baubles, etc. This also increases the creativity in which you can give your players their next quest.
But once you're out adventuring on that quest, you're a goddamn party. If you don't want to be a party, then go home and play a single player game.
Edit: I have had good DMs separate the party themselves though, but we always spend it trying to find each other again.
Splitting the party is fine! Here's some great reasons why you might:
If you get in through the servants entrance, you're gonna have access to different stuff than if you get in through the front door.
You have the most wanted woman im the country and an anthropomorphized war crime in the party, and you've decided you need to ask a duchess about a thing.
The tunnel splits, and you're not about to allow that fucker to get behind you. Again.
I don't trust these other fuckers. I spy on the rest of the party.
You fucked up and only got one invitation. Hopefully they can open a back door somewhere.
He actually can't take the armor off. It's a whole thing. He can be the distraction.
The rest of the party moves 3x as fast as me and has stealth nonsense. But I have points in siege engineering, and resistance to fall damage. Shout when you need me.
My rule on this is very simple; if your character isn't a part of the group, they're not part of the story. That goes for lone wolves, people who betray the party, "evil" characters who work against the party's interests, etc. You make the choices you want to make, you do what seems right for your character, but the moment that means you're not a part of the group, you either figure out a good story for how we're going to fix that, or you hand me your character sheet. It's really that easy.
"But thats just what my character would do!"
OK, let's unpack that. If that's truly, genuinely the case, if there's no way your character could no work against the group or leave them at this point, then this is how your characters story ends. If that comes twenty sessions into a game, well, waking away rather than betray your morals is a pretty good story if you ask me. If it comes two sessions in then we need to figure out why you're not on the same page as everyone else.
But more often, the player simply thinks its the only possible way their character can act in this situation because they're not thinking creatively. People are complicated. Consistency is actually the bane of interesting characters. A good character is inconsistent for interesting reasons. "My character would never trust someone in this situation!" OK, but what if they did? Now we're left with the question of why, and figuring that out is surely going to be interesting.
There's also the other side of this coin, which is the responsibility on the GM's shoulders. Yes, your players owe it to each other to try to keep the story moving forward, but you also owe it to them to respect the reality their story takes place in. Don't run a gritty crime game and then expect your players to just automatically trust some NPC that turns up with no bona fides. You actually have to put the work into crafting scenarios where the players can have their characters react naturally and still drive the story. It's a bad GM who pisses their pants and cries because they created something that looks like an obvious trap (whether it is or not) and their players refused to walk into it.
OK, but what if they did? Now we're left with the question of why, and figuring that out is surely going to be interesting.
"I ."
"You're about to, when you change your mind. What made you change your mind?"
It's a powerful tool. It can be overused, but it's good for bringing people into the right frame of mind.
Maybe something happens that's more urgent than the trust issue. Maybe they see a tattoo on another character that has meaning for you. Maybe they just realize it could be useful to be in the party for now. Whatever it is, they are solidifying the team while also taking more authorship of the story.
I don't like prescribing a characters actions to that degree, but I would certainly work with the player to try to help them come up with an alternate path.
If a player ultimately chooses to commit to a path that puts them at odds with the party, I'll respect that, but I'll make it clear to them that this is where that character's story ends.
I'm a big fan of "you all wake up in loincloths sitting in a wagon, hands bound" and as long as someone at the table can roll higher than a 1, they can break free.
Or something attacks them while they're all in a tavern
Basically I'm a fan of "you could ignore having your shit kicked in, but will you?" since so many players would stop at nothing.
Fallout NV had the right idea. "Where's that little fucker who shot me in the head?!"
back around late 90's early 00's I was pretty lucky to have a group of friends that all just hung around together. Talking like 8 or more of us and it always wound up that 3 of us would have a place together out in the sticks (it changed locations/roommates from year to year but we had a good long 5+ years of everyone being consistently together). We ended up playing basically any tabletop we could get our hands on or pirate (napster/limewire back then) and print off (we still ended up spending 100's a piece though on dice and official releases), we even ended up starting to make our own games that I still think about doing something with to this day. (all just context for how we could pull off some of what I'm about to say)
Getting EVERYONE together was rather difficult at times, people would come into stories and be quickly rotated out if they had to work or weren't available when we were wanting to continue running a story-line (multiple different DM's and storylines from different games going on in concert, still can't fathom how that all worked out looking back). So we all got pretty used to being fluid about it and no one really had any FOMO unless their character was low-level versus everyone else.
At that point it became apparent on my storyline that I was going to have to catch some people up so we started doing 1-on-1 DMing where I would spend a few hours running someone basically on a solo mission that I could tie into the rest of the story and give them something to catch up to everyone else. Sometimes we would do it before a bigger session and people showing up early could sit in or do cameo appearances to help out/etc. People are a lot more comfortable to ask questions and be involved with the story that way and translates well to the group play.
It ended up being a huge success and had some of my favorite interactions. Sometimes we would have a bunch of people over and some wanted to play and some wanted to listen to music and party so it just always felt natural and those involved really wanted to be there for it.
Basically my only rules for character creation are 1) your stuff must be from an officially published 5e rulebook, and 2) it must make sense for your characters to party up. It's really hard to make an interesting campaign for a group of four lone wolves who are totally disinterested in The Quest
Lots of other good points already made, but I'll add my own two cents.
When I run a game, I always require players to make characters together. No "go off and make a character in isolation". That's just a recipe for disaster. You can have some ideas already in mind, but nothing is canon until the whole group agrees.
Second, everyone needs to have buy-in to whatever the hook is. If the scenario is "you're starting a courier business at the edge of civilization", there are lots of good options. Guy on the run from the law. Lady studying local wild life. Intelligent, local, wildlife. Don't play "guy who doesn't want to be here and is a total killjoy"
Third, it's better when characters have connections to each other. You can play the "we just met and we're forming a relationship!" arc, but like "what if we play ourselves in a fantasy world??" it has been done.
"I don't want to have to fight and force you in to making this game work, because even though I'm GMing, I'd like to enjoy myself too. You need to create a character that will want to stick around with the rest of the group. You don't have to all get on, or have deep attachments, you just need a character that I won't have to railroad"
100% this. Have a conversation about expectations before you begin. DnD is a little bit game, a little bit therapy. The DM isn't your Unity Engine. Make sure everyone is on board for the same experience and you'll be fine.
This is a good take. I remind players all the time that even though I'm GMing I'm a player too. I'm just playing a slightly different game. I'm here to have fun and enjoy myself, not babysit.
I absolutely used to be that "my character is a quiet rogue-ish type that definitely wasn't modeled after Aragorn when he was introduced at the Prancing Pony mixed with Robin hood" who always "had to be convinced" to join, and nobody ever called me out for it. I honestly wish they had because that's annoying as fuck and you miss out on playing an actually fully developed character.
Nowadays I tend to be less tactful that you are, but essentially tell people the same thing, or literally beat their characters over the head with ambushes.
Everybody plays RPGs differently, but it's funny how some people don't get the term "roleplaying" and are constantly, relentlessly playing their real selves in the game. So you get barbarians with the sensibilities of software developers.
Yeah that's a good parallel. Lately I've been watching Kaitlin Olson's show High Potential. Even though she's playing a super-smart crime solver, to me it's the same character she played in It's Always Sunny and The Mick. Not that there's anything wrong with that lol.
I'm new to my party and roleplaying in general (though I've consumed it as entertainment) and I'm having a slightly different issue. My character was intentionally designed to be a bit naive to match me as a player, and doesn't have high skills in any int based stuff (at least for now) and instead has medical, nature, survival, etc.
A lot of puzzles or traps etc I can as a player try to reason through, but my character shouldn't be able to sus out, and I feel torn between playing the character as it should be or adding ideas to solve stuff so we aren't just sitting there twiddling our thumbs for ideas.
Sometimes it's hard to distinguish between factual knowledge and just cleverness. There's no reason a bumpkin fresh off the farm can't be curious about what makes something tick, so they look under it or break it open - and whaddya know, they find a hidden thing. It's really up to the DM to say no, your character wouldn't know to do that. The intelligence you show when you figure out a puzzle or a trap could make total sense as the same spark that made the naive character want to leave the farm and explore the big wide world.
Maybe your char bumbles around the room doing goofy things instead of working hard and logically to crack the puzzle and the dm can make your bumbling uncover extra clues that advance the plot.
You as the player know what to do to move the story forward. Just need to figure out how the character you built would go from Point A to Point B, then roleplay doing it, even if it means they bumble their way through it like a clown.
Let the DM worry about what skills you need, if you even need them at all; the only thing the player has to do is describe their actions and their intentions.
But the amount of players I've DM'd for who always play the exact same character that is just "idealistic version of self" with different coats of paint is way too damn high.
Forget that for average people it is incredibly difficult to put themselves into the perspective of others, much less hold a continuous train of logic based on that perspective, which is what roleplaying is all about.
Biggest pet peeve with players. This is why, during session 0, I make players pre-establish a reason that they not only go along with the party and the planned campaign but also a reason why they trust at least two other characters.
I've made it a hard rule, "Your characters are at least familiar with each other. They're not total strangers." It just makes everything so much easier.
Best advice. Players start the game knowing how and why they are going to stick together.
I'm also inclined to put my thumb on the scale a little as DM and give the players a loose connection that they can build on and incorporate into their characters while building. BG3 did it really well - everyone has a tadpole in their head, y'all gonna be mindflayers if you leave the group.
I recently had players all start as fresh recruits in an organisation - they got to decide the organisation - where the higher-ups put them together. Previously I did a one shot at level 5 where players already had an adventuring group together 20 years before and were called back together for one last mission.
One of the campaigns I play in is more of a West Marches or Adventurer's League style with a rotating cast of players. There are... differening levels of effort.
I've played and DMed both. A West Marches campaign has been the right fit for some groups with tough schedules. That format can work really well when you have a larger world plan and story that different venn diagrams of groups slowly discover and have to post notes about to a group chat or Discord. Players remember and read about things from different sessions and piece together the story and world, then can decide on new missions and exploration in a real collaborative setting. Picture a tavern setting where they're arguing about different plot hooks, missions, and tips, and start to switch from the selfish motivations of wanting cool loot to also wanting to uncover the story. It can be great if you lay the groundwork.
A few lazy players can disappear into the background, and they still have fun and want to hang out.
Picture a tavern setting where they're arguing about different plot hooks, missions, and tips, and start to switch from the selfish motivations of wanting cool loot to also wanting to uncover the story.
Yea, this is exactly what I'm purposely trying to avoid with a Session 0. I, as the DM, list the plot hooks of the campaign I have prepared to run and players create characters around them that are guaranteed to be invested in the story as well as be cohesive with each other.
No arguing needed. If anyone wants to argue, they know where the door is.
make checks until you fail. take 40d8 damage from a mysterious source. no one's around you to help unfortunately because you were dumb enough to separate from the party.
now make a better character or go home, your choice.
Your character purchased and ate bad fish the night before, and you have uncontrollable gas, which quickly turns to greasy, putrid diarrhea. As the pub bouncer tosses you out the door for smelling like raw sewage, a micrometeorite hits you in the eye and lodges itself into your brain, disrupting your medula. As you lay there struggling to breate, you shake yourself awake. It would seem you fell asleep at the table and had an awful dream.
Sorry, what were you saying about not wanting to stick around?
Gotta build those connections and relationships into the party during session zero. I like to model mine after the game fiasco where players are linked by relationships, locations, objects or needs. For DnD I think the dragon slayer classic playset works best, you can find it under the downloads section
If the person playing is hellbent on being a lone wolf, they shouldn't have entered the game. Roleplaying a character who has trust issues but is willing to give the party a chance to convince them they're trustworthy is very reasonable, though - realistic, even.
I have been a Dungeon Master for over 25 years. I am also a longtime anarchist, and many of my regular players are not.
I have three rules if im going to DM: 1) I pick the game system. Sorry, non-negotiable. I'll play 5e (if I have to) but I won't run it. Luckily, I also don't have to run the same game my players are playing. Yall can use Worlds Without Number, Into The Odd, the Rules Cyclopedia, Mork Borg... what goes on on my end is my own thing (and involves plenty of the RC) 2) Party resources are communal. However you wanna work that out is up to you, but if you steal from The Party, The Gods will Curse You. And 3) You have to be willing to work in a group. This isn't Skyrim, its a party game. The whole point is social problem solving. If you're not up for that, its cool, I won't make you talk or anything - but you gotta be a part of the team. Part of that is on me to make the initial hook good enough, but part of it is on you not to run a counterproductive pain in my ass.
I almost never have any problems if I do my job right and make all this clear and understood off the bat.
Sorry for being off-topic, but I don't think I understand anarchism as a political philosophy. Isn't anarchism the absence of imposed rules? Communal resources seems to go against that, (it does make sense that the players get to divvy it up, though) and being cursed by the gods feels like a more theocratic thing than anarchist. Im not trying to be rude or anything, I just like to pick people's brains about this stuff.
it means "no rulers", from Greek. Not no rules. You can't have more than 2 people without some rules, we just want to all be able to agree with them. Anarchists by and large are opposed to hierarchy, that's the focus. We tend to like direct democracy and communal organizational structures.
The stories I tell don't have to be purely anarchist in structure. If im DMing, and we all agreed to the God Curse if you screw over your party, and then one player does - who's responsible? The one with full knowledge of the consequences who then did the thing anyway, right?
Look: as a political philosophy, anarchism exists in the real world. There are people who've done it very successfully. But that's not why I call myself an anarchist. I do so because when I discovered anarchism, I found other people who thought the way I did. I'm an anarchist because my soul is anarchist and always has been. I also think its what we need to do if we're going to survive climate change, but fuck me for trying to convince anyone of that, so I keep to myself.
Political anarchy is not inherently against rules. Anarchy does not mean that everything is on fire and everyone steals from others and do whatever they want, that's just a common misconception.
Also it's only 3 pretty basic rules, nothing particularly crazy about them
I've given a lot of thought to this. I want everyone to have fun, even if its not my kinda fun. But any player's right to do so stops when they make that impossible the rest of us.
Anarchism means "no rulers" not "no rules". If we all consent then what's the problem?
IRL consent is complicated by coercion - you can't disagree with your boss because if they fire you, you can't pay your bills.
DND is an asymmetrical activity. One person, the DM, has an outsized level of effort required. If im expected to create a whole world, NPCs, plots, and respond to all your nonsense, I think its totally fair to ask the players abide by a simple code of conduct.
Your rules are great, I agree you deserve some privileges when acting as DM because rod the effort you put in. My comment wasn't on that front.
But if you are enforcing the rules, and receiving different treatment because of them, you deserve that. But if you are win control of the space, you set the rules and you enforce them. You're a 'ruler' in that context. My point is, your anarchism isn't really at play here.
The system where the enforcement of rules is delegated to trusted person who everyone agrees on is closer to "Democracy".
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you should read some anarchist political theory if you want to address their actual beliefs.
This is exactly the kind of communal structure that anarchists advocate for: a voluntary collective where everyone agrees to contribute to furthering certain goals, values, and objectives.
OP is not coercing players to be in their game or to do things their way; they're saying "this is the game that I run, take it or leave it," and the players can join if they share the same goals.
I could tell by your first comment that you didn't care to know about how others think.
Ignorance is a lot easier than educating yourself, so I can see why you'd choose the easy path; I'm just disappointed that you decided to be incurious instead of learning something.
But I'm sure your "highschool rebel" understanding of anarchism is truly accurate, thanks for the notes. Or you could explain what mental gymnastics I'm performing? This is all basic anarchist theory that you can confirm with a five minute read of a wikipedia article summary.
Lol you have zero ground to tell me my own table isn't anarchist. I've been doing this for a long time. Go on out of here. I gave you enough of my day.
Go read the Bread Book I linked you instead of wasting our time.
What if you had a player who wanted to secretly backstab and subvert the party, in character? They'd play as if they were part of the team, but in between sessions the player would communicate with the DM and decide ways to betray the party, with in-game consequences. It was the worst campaign I've ever been in. I still wonder if it was bad DMing or I'm just sour.
Ngl, this has never been a problem for multiple sessions for me. As a player or DM.
As a player, I show up willing to play characters that will work with a group, even if they don't trust them. Trust isn't necessary to work together.
As a DM I remind all players of that fact before they roll one up. If they don't have an idea on how their character would manage that, I'll give them ideas.
Yeah, you'll run into players that just don't get that not every character has to have the same motivation to work with others, or just refuse to play different characters (instead, they try to play the same character with different names). But those are rare. And, so far, I've yet to run into a player that wouldn't take the "look, you don't have to keep playing with us, but give it a try my way and see how it goes, yeah?" talk and give it a fair try.
I've also never had a player quit because of the game not being engaging and fun.
look, you don't have to keep playing with us, but give it a try my way and see how it goes, yeah?
I've heard of players refusing to adjust their play to meet the party where they're at but I've never seen it happen. I've played with a player who did that intentionally, but their in real life stated goal was to ruin the game and ensure no one else had any fun. I don't play with that person anymore.
I actually made this work in a recent cheesy short campaign. My character was an intelligent monkey, although he was still an animal and couldn't speak. After meeting the party, he decided to go do his own thing, which just so happened to be the same thing as the rest of the party.
It worked out really well. The rest of the party could navigate social challenges without having to explain the monkey, I could sneak around and grab MacGuffins without having to accommodate huge humans who were terrible at climbing.
I doubt it works well for longer or more serious games, but it matched the hectic nature of the campaign and led to some hilarious moments.
DM: As you walk away, you feel a slight tingle in the air before a flash as bright as a thousand suns blinds you for an instant before... nothing. A bolt of lightning has vaporized your body. Miraculously, nobody else in the vicinity seems to have been harmed in any way nor even do they seem to have noticed what just happened, including the fact that you just disappeared. It's as if the Gods themselves, for no particular reason, have arbitrarily decided to smite you out of existence entirely.
DM: "Alright, so your character walks off after refusing to go along with the group. Okay. Well, guess you can pack up and we will see you next session. I don't have anything planned other than what the group is doing, so, guess you won't be playing today. Bye."
Make it sting. Refuse to let them roll a new character and have them do the walk of shame. They made their choice So they can deal with the consequences of them.
This shouldn't be the GMs job btw, players, roleplaying and backstory are YOUR department, write a reason why your character would end up with the others. Work together.
Disagree. The DM should provide some sort of reason for the party to come together. Some sort of external influence, to bring in any characters that don't start the game together.
But it is the duty of the player to roll with it. Don't fight the plot hook. What's the point?
I got let off in my game (second session tonight). I found that I belong to the party's pack yak. He's a holy yak and my monk is his protector. Party needs its yak.
I don't know. One time I joined a game, and I had plenty of reasons to join the party, but the DM started RPing a really rude character, and it's like his method of getting me to join the party was to be a huge asshole to me? I just didn't pick up on it, and when I finally gave my character an ass-pull reason to join (that I could do some good if I tagged along) the DM was like "jeez, finally" and it sucked.
Like, if I'm playing a level 1 wizard, and the DM tells me I'm gonna die if I enter the conflict, it's not really my backstory's fault that I don't jump into the fray. Sometimes you're dealing with an inexperienced DM that expects you to metagame your way into the party. I genuinely thought he was on the verge of giving me the opportunity to convince the party to run away from the dragon, not stay and fight it.
The whole We play a game so you have to cooperate together even if role-play wise it makes no sense is a bad practice, May-be not at the point you'll leave the table but definitely a serious sign that the table doesn't function properly.
Luckily, there is a very easy fix Do a session zero, and build a coherent party ab initio, it include in game reason for the party to work together, coherent goals (because when player A wants to abolish the reign of the emperor, and player B wants to defend the emperor you'll have a PvP fight within 3 session) and a meta discussion to have a pallet of skills matching the party's goal (At least in more epic game where you don't want to feel powerless). Almost every RPG published in the last 10-15 years contains an extensive session zero guide and tons of tips to build a relevant party.
If someone wants to play a law priest in a pirate campaign or any other character not fitting the campaign theme or opposing other PCs, it's perfectly OK to tell the no. Obviously if everybody is aligned on some PvP and betrayal the answer may be different, but it's again something to address in session zero.
Nobody in here is saying "even if rp wise it makes no sense". We're saying exactly what you are - the DM and the players set boundaries as to what kind of game they wanna play and are willing to, and then you make PCs.
Don't be an edgelord Rogue who's too cool to work with anyone else. Go play Skyrim.
Compleatly understandable. Roll three d20... unfortunelty, your character died from sevear case of buzz kill. Go ahead an roll out n new one that is exactly like this one but more trusty toward people exactly like those in the party.
Generally speaking, this is something that an experienced GM can handle in session zero. An important part of session zero is establishing expectations for the style of game to be played: Things like "are the player characters friends?" "Is PvP encouraged or discouraged?" "Do I as a DM want the characters to stick together?" etc etc.
Generally when running DnD, I request of my players to design characters who:
Have a disposition to get along well with their companions. (this can be for any reason: because they're like that with everyone, or because they're loyal to the group, or because they view it as useful to have some friendly scapegoats nearby or any other motivation.)
Be the kind of person who will go on adventures and take risks. (This can be because they're a daredevil, or because they're desperate, or because they're devoted to their duty, or any other motivation.)
Fundamentally, most DnD games are the story of a group of friends going on adventures together. If your DnD game is the story of a group of friends going on adventures, then it's extremely beneficial for your players to build characters who will be friends, and who will go on adventures. Together.
If your character has no reason to stay either the plothook was insufficient or you made a bad character. Both should be adressed ooc.
Create a new character that does have a reason to stick around. *Session 0 should be the creation of the story of how the group met, they should not meet in session 1.
Strongly disagree. Nothing wrong with doing that, but nothing wrong with having them meet in session 1 too, as long as you have built characters who will be willing to go along with the GM's hooks.
And even that part is flexible, depending on the nature of the hook. If the hook is "you see an ad look for rat exterminators", then you better have a character who wants to be an adventurer and will cooperate with other would-be adventurers. If the hook is "you're prisoners being ordered to go explore this dungeon by order of the vizier", there's room for slightly less cooperative PCs, as long as you PC is cooperative enough to go along with that order, even if (at first) reluctantly.
Meeting people with the inclination and schedule that I enjoy the company of to make a party with is the worst part of d&d. Please don't make me role play it, too.
It might be your least favorite part of DnD, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who enjoy meeting a new group of characters and finding out about their particular ticks and specialties.
I learn about the characters, myself included, throughout the campaign through their actions. Otherwise session one is like that time I asked a coworker about one of his tattoos and had to hear about his sister's murder. That's more of a session two+ thing to me.
For me, the tired trope of "strangers meet in a tavern" approach is the inevitable round of introductions that feels like that time at the start of school when everyone had to stand up to say their name and one interesting fact about them. It's just awkward and everyone wants it to be over quickly.
Much better to just create characters together in session 0. Everyone already knows each other, their motivations, prior relationships established, etc... and just begin the campaign as if everyone is already on mission.
There are options besides "strangers meet in a tavern and awkwardly introduce themselves" and pre-made perfectly-tailored party. I'm a fan of starting in media res, with the characters all in a location for their own reasons, when shit happens that forces them to act as a group. I've just recently started the video game Baldur's Gate 3, and it's not a bad example of what I mean.
The friction of people rubbing off of each other for the first time creates so many wonderful opportunities for storytelling, and forming bonds naturally through play, instead of prescribing them in a clinical session 0 context, tends to make the players much more invested in those bonds, in my experience.
Yeah, I'm gonna back you up on that one. Sometimes assembling the group in session 0 is what's right for the story, and sometimes it really, really isn't. Think about how many movies literally have "Assembling the team" as almost their entire plot. The Avengers hangs two hours of non-stop action on "We need to put a party together." Every heist movie is basically required to have an "I'm putting a team together..." sequence.
Session 0 is where you lay out the expectations of the game, and your players think about either how their characters have already interacted, or how they will interact when they eventually meet. You give people an idea of what they're getting into, you pitch the tone and the style of the game, and you help people shape characters around that.
As an example a friend of mine always pitches his games by describing who they would be directed by. I remember vividly his "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Halflings" game, a Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay If It Was Directed By Guy Ritchie experience. Just setting that sense of tone up front meant that we all knew to make characters who would fit the vibe. I played "Blackhand Seth, The Scummiest Elf You've Ever Met," one part Brad Pitt Pikey, one part Jack Sparrow, and I had a blast.
In my most recent campaign I'm running a Shadowrun game where the group would be assembled in session 1 by a down on his luck fixer. My pitch to the players was simple; make fuck-ups. I wanted characters who were at the end of their rope, lacking in options, either so green no one would trust them or so tainted by past failures that no one wanted them. The kind of people who would take a job from a fixer who had burned every other bridge. They rose to the assignment beautifully, and by four sessions in the group has already formed some absolutely fascinating relationship dynamics. A lot of that has been shaped by their first experiences together, figuring out how to work as a team, sometimes distrusting each other, and slowly discovering reasons to care about each other.
Oh, that reminds me of a 4th way campaigns can start (in addition to the 3 I said in a different reply) that I've been in before and quite enjoyed—though wouldn't want to be overused. The MCU method. Where each player individually gets a 1 session (maybe 2 at most) solo session introducing them and getting them to the right place to start the campaign.
Doesn't have to be a solo session. If you have the right group for it (big IF there) you can jump back and forth between the individual characters, essentially running four solo sessions in parallel. This relies heavily on your players being the kind of people who are invested in the action even when their character isn't present, but it can be done.
That said, I think for the most part the "Solo movie" should really be a character's backstory. This is why I don't like D&D, or at least the D&D presumption of starting at level 1. It leaves no room for characters to have an interesting history if they're basically at the level where the average house-cat is a threat. If I run D&D, I start people off at somewhere around level 5 - 10. Give them enough ability that they can actually have done some interesting things already. Get the solo movie out of the way before the game even starts.
The DM came up with the plot hook and the players agreed to play, so the players need to put some effort into finding a reason to go along with the plot hook.
Suggestions on making the hook more engaging is an option too!
It goes for the players among each other too. It's not just the one character in OP that dislikes or distrusts the party. It's up to the rest of the party to also accomodate them. If you have a moral character in the group you might refrain from murdering, raping and pillaging for shits and giggles.
As they say "the only way to have a friend is to be one".
For me, as a DM, real shit always happens on session 1, you swim together or fucking die.
That's why it's pretty common in Shadowrun to just have everyone be kidnapped and fitted with a bomb in their skull.
If their character doesn't want to cooperate, you activate the player's brain bomb.
No. 😈
Mac and cheese for dinner is lame and lazy too, but also fucking delicious. TTRPGS are something your friends put together for you out of love, not necessarily some clinically perfect professional product. And to extend the metaphor, if you go to a dinner party and start bitching about your friend not plating the food like a Michelin star place, you're an asshole.
I agree with both. It is lazy, yes. But it is also meant to be fun, and Shadowrun is a particularly goofy game (cyberpunk, with fantasy creatures, ghosts, gods, and magic? How can you take it seriously?) so being a super solid story isn't extremely important. It's also literally the first suggestion in the rulebook for getting players to cooperate. 🤣
That's not common in Shadowrun... 30+ years playing and running that game, and I've never encountered it!
I've seen it once...it was used against a single player because he refused to play anything but loners who backstabbed immediately and it was mostly used to piss him off enough he quit the group.
He should have just been kicked out, sure. I think the dm just hated doing that which was cowardly. Buuut he was gone and that game was much more enjoyable!
What are we, some sort of Shadowrun?
One day I'll play Shadowrun... I'm too lazy to learn it well enough to DM it.
DCC/MCC likes character funnels for similar reasons
THANK. YOU.
Players who do this ARE BAD PLAYERS. I don't care what it takes, you WILL find a reason to cooperate. Call it metagaming if you have to. This is a team game, you will work as a team.
Players are expected to make characters that will, for whatever reason, will work together and, for whatever reason, will take plot hooks. Without those two things the game doesn't happen.
What if they leave the party and create a new character to join the party that fits in better? Is that good or bad?
I mean, it's good, but it feels like an over reaction. They don't need to make an entirely new character, they just need to think of a reason they'd cooperate. It can be a contrived reason, that's fine, but they need to work together. Some examples,
Edit: It can also be like "my god told me" or "I just know y'all are a good bunch" lol. Doesn't need to be elaborate.
My fix has always been: that's fine! They go off on their own adventures. Now please roll a character that's going to play the game we're running here tonight.
I just don't DM for people like that anymore.
Oh god I might when my kids and their friends are older though. This is why you gotta raise em right.
I started running games for my wife and her niblings, and the oldest boy is getting into that "I'm such a rebel" phase where they think they're bad ass for taking slightly longer to do a chore than needed and say "no" the first time you ask them to do something.
He thought it was hilarious to have a character that refused to join the rest of the group, so I said "okay, you can stay at the inn if you want" and then proceeded to intentionally ignore anything he was saying or doing, leaving him out of rolls, and never addressing him.
He's 12 and started literally crying to his mother about how we're all being mean to him. Apparently "he had the opportunity to participate and chose not to" wasn't a good enough response to his mother. I stand by my choice. Although my wife managed to convince me to let him "rejoin" at the next town/session.
He doesn't pull that shit anymore though, when he's playing he's playing or he gets shut out again.
Genuine question to anyone reading: does that make me a bad DM? If so, suggestions on how to handle it?
Tell him "look, this game isn't about being a Total Badass By Yourself. It's about working with your team and overcoming challenges you couldn't otherwise. If you wanna be a Total Badass By Yourself, there are games you can play. But if you wanna play this, you're gonna have to work with me here. Because my time and effort is valuable, and I want to have fun just like you do.
I really need to do some kind of team building exercise before a game, something that they'll want to do, but requires teamwork, just to demonstrate the point that they need to work together.
When my first character did the whole "I'm gonna be all by myself because I'm a lone wolf" thing, the DM let me go off and the totally unexpected happened and my character got into a scuffle he wasn't prepared for, but a group sure would have been.
Yes you do.
The easy way out is "abuse action economy". There are better uses for it, though, and better options here.
The other easy way out is to let people roll to see if something happens. Never, ever allow stalled play to resort to this. They have to search and talk.
Oh god so many DMs in the past have done this, and I just roll my eyes every time.
Like I'm okay if you want to roll your own dice behind the screen to see if we get attacked overnight, but that should be the only kind of "roll to see what happens" going on.
Absolutely. The GMs got tables to help them determine what's going on - you've got one person. Engage with the setting, not a piece of paper.
And yes, DMs, sometimes that means adjusting your plans on the fly to make what they do have fun consequences. That's our job.
The fact your seeking feedback suggests no, but it was certainly a bad move, both as a DM and as an uncle. Punishing anyone, though especially children, without explaining why is mean. You have a responsibility to clearly communicate problems with others as an authority figure at the table and in their life. I don't necessarily think the punishment was unreasonable, but if it's not explained to them, it just comes across as arbitrary and vindictive.
Imo, the best way to handle issues like that is to set the rules and consequences, making them clear to everyone, and to be consistent in their application. Letting people off or being vindictive will just exacerbate things.
I told him the game focuses on the group and if he's not part of the group then he won't be playing, and since that first game he has participated, with few issues popping up.
I probably could have been clearer before we even got to the table that if you aren't playing with the group then you aren't playing, rather than just expect them to stick with a group on their first game.
I think that was the right action, but you could have explained better. Instead of just "Ok, you stay at the tavern" something like "Ok, you can stay at the tavern if you really want to, but you do understand that will mean you're sitting here bored all afternoon while the rest of us play, right?"
I told him multiple times that if he was going to try and do his own thing, he won't be participating with the group, and the group is the entire focus of the game.
I suppose I could have made it more explicit that he could join the group or he could leave the game.
I should add that that was many games ago, and he has since begun participating, although he often tries to go his own way and threatens to leave the group constantly, but so far he hasn't actually tried leaving the group unless it was agreed upon for strategy reasons. (they split up inside a crypt in the most horror movie fashion possible)
Nah brother you did the best you could, 12yos are pains in the ass.
Yeah, in that case I think you did everything that could reasonably be expected of you.
Yeah you definitely showed that 12 yr old who is boss...
If that's what you took away from my comments, have fun I guess.
I recently tried to DM for my son and his friends. One of his friends insisted he wanted to be a DM. I tried to gently encourage him to allow me to DM for them, and he would have much more fun as a player. Nope, he insisted, and like a good DM, I let him discover for himself why he was wrong. It was fun to be a player character, and they all learned a lot about running a game, so wins all around.
That's awesome!
I GM public games and games at conventions, so sometimes it still crops up. People don't always make it readily apparent ahead of game time that they're going to pull shenanigans like this.
That's fair. I'm really picky with my games.
For my personal games I am as well.
"Make friends with gamers, don't make gamers out of friends" is an old tabletop adage that took me a long time to really learn.
For public stuff the best that can usually be mustered are safety tools and clear guidelines. But (rarely, thankfully) some people are just there to sabotage.
Everybody's gotta learn some time
The guy who splits the party on session 1:
Hehehe it's so fun when I just have to sit and watch and can't interact, I love iiiiit!
I did this in the very first RPG I played. It was Star Wars and I was playing a smuggler (who thus had a ship). Obviously the GM intended my ship to be used to move the party around. Well, the jedi PC shows up wanting to board my ship as I'm getting ready to leave. I don't know this guy so obviously the first thing my character would do would be to say that and then turn the turrets on when this strange jedi tried to insist on joining me, followed by promptly flying off so he ended up needing to find another way to our adventure.
No idea why I was like that. The player was pretty much my best friend at the school, too, so it wasn't anything personal against him. I think I was just trying to hard to do what "my character would realistically do" instead of just playing a game.
Probably for the best. If you'd let him onboard it might have ended up like this story.
That would have been more cool than whatever unmemorable shit actually happened in that campaign. Only other thing I remember is the GM offering me 3 capital ships if I bought him lunch one day and then promptly destroying two of them that same session, which I actually appreciate in hindsight because it contributed to seeing pay to win games as a waste of time and money. Either the shit "bought" in game can be lost that easily or it just breaks the game into a "just give me money and you, uh, win! That's the whole game!"
Obviously, I'm probably missing some context here, but reading the way you've described this, I don't think you were at fault here. If the GM's decision really was to fold that character into the group by just having them stroll up to a smuggler's ship like "Yo, I'm the jedi, let me in," that was an incredibly fucking stupid way to handle that character introduction.
If that happened in an actual Star Wars movie or TV show there would be a million youtube videos ripping on how stupid that scene was. Forget "Paranoid smuggler trying to evade the law", basically anyone working against the empire should have been suspicious as fuck there. That's not a jedi, that's an imperial spy, or worse, a sith lord.
Yes, players owe to each other to try to move the story forward in a collaborative way, but the GM also owes it to the players to never demand that their characters act like complete and total morons for the sake of the story. There should have been some kind of framework there for why this group of people would trust this random-ass dude wandering into the docking bay. A message sent ahead by their contact in the resistance saying "This guy is gonna help you out, you can trust him," something like that. Not just "Yo, I'm a party member, lemme in." Real life doesn't work like that, and when games try to work like that it just makes everything feel stupid and pointless, because it's so obvious that none of it is real or meaningful.
Why is it always a jump to "Overly Paranoid to the point of seeing everything moving as a spook" instead of just "reasonably cautious but otherwise still level headed"?
Do you forget that this is almost literally what Obi Wan and Luke did to recruit Han and Chewie? Ya know, the famous Smuggler pair? They just walked up to the pair in a bar and had a polite discussion about requesting some discreet passage aboard Han's ship.
Last I checked, no one bitches about that part of A New Hope.
No, Obi Wan and Luke found Han through contacts Obi Wan had at Mos Eisley having lived on Tatooine for years and gone to the trouble of maintaining underworld connections knowing he was on the run from the authorities, and they didn't just rock up and say "Yo, we're buds now," they employed Han and Chewie to smuggle them somewhere, that being the job of a pair of smugglers.
He also offered him a ton of money!
"Ten thousand. All in advance."
"Ten thousand! We could buy our own ship for that!"
...
"We can give you two thousand now... and fifteen when we reach Alderaan."
Fun fact:
The Expanse books (and eventual TV show) were started as a unique role-playing campaign where the person running it (Ty Franks) would write a prompt, the players would explain their character's reactions. He'd then write a story section incorporating that and the players would say how they reacted and so on.
There was a core group of characters who were the "survivors" early on, but one of the players had to drop out early-ish, so in the next bit of story that character died.
That was carried into the books and TV show, which is why after the core group of characters is established, there's a sudden, shocking death.
Wow that really is a fun fact!
Dice-less, narrative games are so much fun. Sadly finding a good group for it is like pulling teeth, at least in my area.
*Sad theater kid noises*
You can get away with it while having some downtime in a village. The bard is making coin in the tavern and the barbarian is drinking in the same place, the priest visits the local chapel, the warlock looks to spend some coin on magic baubles, etc. This also increases the creativity in which you can give your players their next quest.
But once you're out adventuring on that quest, you're a goddamn party. If you don't want to be a party, then go home and play a single player game.
Edit: I have had good DMs separate the party themselves though, but we always spend it trying to find each other again.
Splitting the party is fine! Here's some great reasons why you might:
If you get in through the servants entrance, you're gonna have access to different stuff than if you get in through the front door.
You have the most wanted woman im the country and an anthropomorphized war crime in the party, and you've decided you need to ask a duchess about a thing.
The tunnel splits, and you're not about to allow that fucker to get behind you. Again.
I don't trust these other fuckers. I spy on the rest of the party.
You fucked up and only got one invitation. Hopefully they can open a back door somewhere.
He actually can't take the armor off. It's a whole thing. He can be the distraction.
The rest of the party moves 3x as fast as me and has stealth nonsense. But I have points in siege engineering, and resistance to fall damage. Shout when you need me.
My rule on this is very simple; if your character isn't a part of the group, they're not part of the story. That goes for lone wolves, people who betray the party, "evil" characters who work against the party's interests, etc. You make the choices you want to make, you do what seems right for your character, but the moment that means you're not a part of the group, you either figure out a good story for how we're going to fix that, or you hand me your character sheet. It's really that easy.
"But thats just what my character would do!"
OK, let's unpack that. If that's truly, genuinely the case, if there's no way your character could no work against the group or leave them at this point, then this is how your characters story ends. If that comes twenty sessions into a game, well, waking away rather than betray your morals is a pretty good story if you ask me. If it comes two sessions in then we need to figure out why you're not on the same page as everyone else.
But more often, the player simply thinks its the only possible way their character can act in this situation because they're not thinking creatively. People are complicated. Consistency is actually the bane of interesting characters. A good character is inconsistent for interesting reasons. "My character would never trust someone in this situation!" OK, but what if they did? Now we're left with the question of why, and figuring that out is surely going to be interesting.
There's also the other side of this coin, which is the responsibility on the GM's shoulders. Yes, your players owe it to each other to try to keep the story moving forward, but you also owe it to them to respect the reality their story takes place in. Don't run a gritty crime game and then expect your players to just automatically trust some NPC that turns up with no bona fides. You actually have to put the work into crafting scenarios where the players can have their characters react naturally and still drive the story. It's a bad GM who pisses their pants and cries because they created something that looks like an obvious trap (whether it is or not) and their players refused to walk into it.
"I ."
"You're about to, when you change your mind. What made you change your mind?"
It's a powerful tool. It can be overused, but it's good for bringing people into the right frame of mind.
Maybe something happens that's more urgent than the trust issue. Maybe they see a tattoo on another character that has meaning for you. Maybe they just realize it could be useful to be in the party for now. Whatever it is, they are solidifying the team while also taking more authorship of the story.
I don't like prescribing a characters actions to that degree, but I would certainly work with the player to try to help them come up with an alternate path.
If a player ultimately chooses to commit to a path that puts them at odds with the party, I'll respect that, but I'll make it clear to them that this is where that character's story ends.
I'm a big fan of "you all wake up in loincloths sitting in a wagon, hands bound" and as long as someone at the table can roll higher than a 1, they can break free.
Or something attacks them while they're all in a tavern
Basically I'm a fan of "you could ignore having your shit kicked in, but will you?" since so many players would stop at nothing.
Fallout NV had the right idea. "Where's that little fucker who shot me in the head?!"
Hey, you. You’re finally awake. You were trying to cross the border, right?
back around late 90's early 00's I was pretty lucky to have a group of friends that all just hung around together. Talking like 8 or more of us and it always wound up that 3 of us would have a place together out in the sticks (it changed locations/roommates from year to year but we had a good long 5+ years of everyone being consistently together). We ended up playing basically any tabletop we could get our hands on or pirate (napster/limewire back then) and print off (we still ended up spending 100's a piece though on dice and official releases), we even ended up starting to make our own games that I still think about doing something with to this day. (all just context for how we could pull off some of what I'm about to say)
Getting EVERYONE together was rather difficult at times, people would come into stories and be quickly rotated out if they had to work or weren't available when we were wanting to continue running a story-line (multiple different DM's and storylines from different games going on in concert, still can't fathom how that all worked out looking back). So we all got pretty used to being fluid about it and no one really had any FOMO unless their character was low-level versus everyone else.
At that point it became apparent on my storyline that I was going to have to catch some people up so we started doing 1-on-1 DMing where I would spend a few hours running someone basically on a solo mission that I could tie into the rest of the story and give them something to catch up to everyone else. Sometimes we would do it before a bigger session and people showing up early could sit in or do cameo appearances to help out/etc. People are a lot more comfortable to ask questions and be involved with the story that way and translates well to the group play.
It ended up being a huge success and had some of my favorite interactions. Sometimes we would have a bunch of people over and some wanted to play and some wanted to listen to music and party so it just always felt natural and those involved really wanted to be there for it.
Basically my only rules for character creation are 1) your stuff must be from an officially published 5e rulebook, and 2) it must make sense for your characters to party up. It's really hard to make an interesting campaign for a group of four lone wolves who are totally disinterested in The Quest
Lots of other good points already made, but I'll add my own two cents.
When I run a game, I always require players to make characters together. No "go off and make a character in isolation". That's just a recipe for disaster. You can have some ideas already in mind, but nothing is canon until the whole group agrees.
Second, everyone needs to have buy-in to whatever the hook is. If the scenario is "you're starting a courier business at the edge of civilization", there are lots of good options. Guy on the run from the law. Lady studying local wild life. Intelligent, local, wildlife. Don't play "guy who doesn't want to be here and is a total killjoy"
Third, it's better when characters have connections to each other. You can play the "we just met and we're forming a relationship!" arc, but like "what if we play ourselves in a fantasy world??" it has been done.
Honestly, everyone should read Fate's "Phase Trio" https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/phase-trio and the rest of character creation.
I learned as a GM to set expectations.
"I don't want to have to fight and force you in to making this game work, because even though I'm GMing, I'd like to enjoy myself too. You need to create a character that will want to stick around with the rest of the group. You don't have to all get on, or have deep attachments, you just need a character that I won't have to railroad"
This is a great idea
100% this. Have a conversation about expectations before you begin. DnD is a little bit game, a little bit therapy. The DM isn't your Unity Engine. Make sure everyone is on board for the same experience and you'll be fine.
This is a good take. I remind players all the time that even though I'm GMing I'm a player too. I'm just playing a slightly different game. I'm here to have fun and enjoy myself, not babysit.
I absolutely used to be that "my character is a quiet rogue-ish type that definitely wasn't modeled after Aragorn when he was introduced at the Prancing Pony mixed with Robin hood" who always "had to be convinced" to join, and nobody ever called me out for it. I honestly wish they had because that's annoying as fuck and you miss out on playing an actually fully developed character.
Nowadays I tend to be less tactful that you are, but essentially tell people the same thing, or literally beat their characters over the head with ambushes.
Everybody plays RPGs differently, but it's funny how some people don't get the term "roleplaying" and are constantly, relentlessly playing their real selves in the game. So you get barbarians with the sensibilities of software developers.
It's natural that we gravitate towards familiarity.
Case in point, how some actors always seem to play the same character, no matter which movie they're in.
Yeah that's a good parallel. Lately I've been watching Kaitlin Olson's show High Potential. Even though she's playing a super-smart crime solver, to me it's the same character she played in It's Always Sunny and The Mick. Not that there's anything wrong with that lol.
I'm new to my party and roleplaying in general (though I've consumed it as entertainment) and I'm having a slightly different issue. My character was intentionally designed to be a bit naive to match me as a player, and doesn't have high skills in any int based stuff (at least for now) and instead has medical, nature, survival, etc.
A lot of puzzles or traps etc I can as a player try to reason through, but my character shouldn't be able to sus out, and I feel torn between playing the character as it should be or adding ideas to solve stuff so we aren't just sitting there twiddling our thumbs for ideas.
Sometimes it's hard to distinguish between factual knowledge and just cleverness. There's no reason a bumpkin fresh off the farm can't be curious about what makes something tick, so they look under it or break it open - and whaddya know, they find a hidden thing. It's really up to the DM to say no, your character wouldn't know to do that. The intelligence you show when you figure out a puzzle or a trap could make total sense as the same spark that made the naive character want to leave the farm and explore the big wide world.
Maybe your char bumbles around the room doing goofy things instead of working hard and logically to crack the puzzle and the dm can make your bumbling uncover extra clues that advance the plot.
This right here is what makes it roleplaying.
You as the player know what to do to move the story forward. Just need to figure out how the character you built would go from Point A to Point B, then roleplay doing it, even if it means they bumble their way through it like a clown.
Let the DM worry about what skills you need, if you even need them at all; the only thing the player has to do is describe their actions and their intentions.
A good DM will make sure you fail forward.
Like for beginners just learning that's fine.
But the amount of players I've DM'd for who always play the exact same character that is just "idealistic version of self" with different coats of paint is way too damn high.
Forget that for average people it is incredibly difficult to put themselves into the perspective of others, much less hold a continuous train of logic based on that perspective, which is what roleplaying is all about.
I mean, I think they get the term, but just have a hard time doing it.
Biggest pet peeve with players. This is why, during session 0, I make players pre-establish a reason that they not only go along with the party and the planned campaign but also a reason why they trust at least two other characters.
I've made it a hard rule, "Your characters are at least familiar with each other. They're not total strangers." It just makes everything so much easier.
Best advice. Players start the game knowing how and why they are going to stick together.
I'm also inclined to put my thumb on the scale a little as DM and give the players a loose connection that they can build on and incorporate into their characters while building. BG3 did it really well - everyone has a tadpole in their head, y'all gonna be mindflayers if you leave the group.
I recently had players all start as fresh recruits in an organisation - they got to decide the organisation - where the higher-ups put them together. Previously I did a one shot at level 5 where players already had an adventuring group together 20 years before and were called back together for one last mission.
And the person who didn't gets to default to being the loner outcast who doesn't talk much, easy
How would they not? Session 0 we create characters together, anyone who doesn't follow the previously stated rules can leave my table.
The entire point is to prevent the creation of "rando loner who just sits in a corner and sulks".
One of the campaigns I play in is more of a West Marches or Adventurer's League style with a rotating cast of players. There are... differening levels of effort.
Yea, I don't DM those types of games.
I've played and DMed both. A West Marches campaign has been the right fit for some groups with tough schedules. That format can work really well when you have a larger world plan and story that different venn diagrams of groups slowly discover and have to post notes about to a group chat or Discord. Players remember and read about things from different sessions and piece together the story and world, then can decide on new missions and exploration in a real collaborative setting. Picture a tavern setting where they're arguing about different plot hooks, missions, and tips, and start to switch from the selfish motivations of wanting cool loot to also wanting to uncover the story. It can be great if you lay the groundwork.
A few lazy players can disappear into the background, and they still have fun and want to hang out.
Yea, this is exactly what I'm purposely trying to avoid with a Session 0. I, as the DM, list the plot hooks of the campaign I have prepared to run and players create characters around them that are guaranteed to be invested in the story as well as be cohesive with each other.
No arguing needed. If anyone wants to argue, they know where the door is.
make checks until you fail. take 40d8 damage from a mysterious source. no one's around you to help unfortunately because you were dumb enough to separate from the party.
now make a better character or go home, your choice.
Your character purchased and ate bad fish the night before, and you have uncontrollable gas, which quickly turns to greasy, putrid diarrhea. As the pub bouncer tosses you out the door for smelling like raw sewage, a micrometeorite hits you in the eye and lodges itself into your brain, disrupting your medula. As you lay there struggling to breate, you shake yourself awake. It would seem you fell asleep at the table and had an awful dream.
Sorry, what were you saying about not wanting to stick around?
Gotta build those connections and relationships into the party during session zero. I like to model mine after the game fiasco where players are linked by relationships, locations, objects or needs. For DnD I think the dragon slayer classic playset works best, you can find it under the downloads section
If the person playing is hellbent on being a lone wolf, they shouldn't have entered the game. Roleplaying a character who has trust issues but is willing to give the party a chance to convince them they're trustworthy is very reasonable, though - realistic, even.
I have been a Dungeon Master for over 25 years. I am also a longtime anarchist, and many of my regular players are not.
I have three rules if im going to DM: 1) I pick the game system. Sorry, non-negotiable. I'll play 5e (if I have to) but I won't run it. Luckily, I also don't have to run the same game my players are playing. Yall can use Worlds Without Number, Into The Odd, the Rules Cyclopedia, Mork Borg... what goes on on my end is my own thing (and involves plenty of the RC) 2) Party resources are communal. However you wanna work that out is up to you, but if you steal from The Party, The Gods will Curse You. And 3) You have to be willing to work in a group. This isn't Skyrim, its a party game. The whole point is social problem solving. If you're not up for that, its cool, I won't make you talk or anything - but you gotta be a part of the team. Part of that is on me to make the initial hook good enough, but part of it is on you not to run a counterproductive pain in my ass.
I almost never have any problems if I do my job right and make all this clear and understood off the bat.
Sorry for being off-topic, but I don't think I understand anarchism as a political philosophy. Isn't anarchism the absence of imposed rules? Communal resources seems to go against that, (it does make sense that the players get to divvy it up, though) and being cursed by the gods feels like a more theocratic thing than anarchist. Im not trying to be rude or anything, I just like to pick people's brains about this stuff.
I've got a second tho so I'll try:
The stories I tell don't have to be purely anarchist in structure. If im DMing, and we all agreed to the God Curse if you screw over your party, and then one player does - who's responsible? The one with full knowledge of the consequences who then did the thing anyway, right?
Look: as a political philosophy, anarchism exists in the real world. There are people who've done it very successfully. But that's not why I call myself an anarchist. I do so because when I discovered anarchism, I found other people who thought the way I did. I'm an anarchist because my soul is anarchist and always has been. I also think its what we need to do if we're going to survive climate change, but fuck me for trying to convince anyone of that, so I keep to myself.
See my other reply re: "no rules"
Also, just read the first chapter or two of this. It's very, very accessible https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
Mutual aid is a fundamental principle of (most types of) anarchism, as is freedom of association.
In other words: if the PCs don't like it, they can make their own game with their own rules.
Thank you. ✊️
I'm not hurting for players. I run my game exactly as often as I want to.
I think it's funny that I have the exact same rule zero: I'll reluctantly play 5e, but I won't run it.
Dude, dealing with 5e players is just the worst. I've spent so much time and energy learning how to deprogram them.
3rd edition was a mistake
Yeah. He has a lot of rules and demands for an "anarchist" lol.
Political anarchy is not inherently against rules. Anarchy does not mean that everything is on fire and everyone steals from others and do whatever they want, that's just a common misconception.
Also it's only 3 pretty basic rules, nothing particularly crazy about them
Thank you.
I've given a lot of thought to this. I want everyone to have fun, even if its not my kinda fun. But any player's right to do so stops when they make that impossible the rest of us.
Anarchism means "no rulers" not "no rules". If we all consent then what's the problem?
IRL consent is complicated by coercion - you can't disagree with your boss because if they fire you, you can't pay your bills.
DND is an asymmetrical activity. One person, the DM, has an outsized level of effort required. If im expected to create a whole world, NPCs, plots, and respond to all your nonsense, I think its totally fair to ask the players abide by a simple code of conduct.
Again, I've almost never had issues.
Your rules are great, I agree you deserve some privileges when acting as DM because rod the effort you put in. My comment wasn't on that front.
But if you are enforcing the rules, and receiving different treatment because of them, you deserve that. But if you are win control of the space, you set the rules and you enforce them. You're a 'ruler' in that context. My point is, your anarchism isn't really at play here.
The system where the enforcement of rules is delegated to trusted person who everyone agrees on is closer to "Democracy".
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you should read some anarchist political theory if you want to address their actual beliefs.
This is exactly the kind of communal structure that anarchists advocate for: a voluntary collective where everyone agrees to contribute to furthering certain goals, values, and objectives.
OP is not coercing players to be in their game or to do things their way; they're saying "this is the game that I run, take it or leave it," and the players can join if they share the same goals.
Thank you
Don't forget to hydrate. Must be tired after all that mental gymnastics.
I could tell by your first comment that you didn't care to know about how others think.
Ignorance is a lot easier than educating yourself, so I can see why you'd choose the easy path; I'm just disappointed that you decided to be incurious instead of learning something.
But I'm sure your "highschool rebel" understanding of anarchism is truly accurate, thanks for the notes. Or you could explain what mental gymnastics I'm performing? This is all basic anarchist theory that you can confirm with a five minute read of a wikipedia article summary.
Lol you have zero ground to tell me my own table isn't anarchist. I've been doing this for a long time. Go on out of here. I gave you enough of my day.
Go read the Bread Book I linked you instead of wasting our time.
What if you had a player who wanted to secretly backstab and subvert the party, in character? They'd play as if they were part of the team, but in between sessions the player would communicate with the DM and decide ways to betray the party, with in-game consequences. It was the worst campaign I've ever been in. I still wonder if it was bad DMing or I'm just sour.
Yeah that's not the kind of game I run. Complicating the party is my job.
"Oh, you encounter a desert. There's nothing around for miles"
"I perform a history check to see if there's any historical significance about this desert."
"Sorry, but, as DM, I don't remember calling for a History check. So, no, you actually don't."
Ngl, this has never been a problem for multiple sessions for me. As a player or DM.
As a player, I show up willing to play characters that will work with a group, even if they don't trust them. Trust isn't necessary to work together.
As a DM I remind all players of that fact before they roll one up. If they don't have an idea on how their character would manage that, I'll give them ideas.
Yeah, you'll run into players that just don't get that not every character has to have the same motivation to work with others, or just refuse to play different characters (instead, they try to play the same character with different names). But those are rare. And, so far, I've yet to run into a player that wouldn't take the "look, you don't have to keep playing with us, but give it a try my way and see how it goes, yeah?" talk and give it a fair try.
I've also never had a player quit because of the game not being engaging and fun.
I've heard of players refusing to adjust their play to meet the party where they're at but I've never seen it happen. I've played with a player who did that intentionally, but their in real life stated goal was to ruin the game and ensure no one else had any fun. I don't play with that person anymore.
Yeah, that's the kind of person that's invited to GTFO and never come back.
I'm imagining every session they play a new character who meets the party and decides not to join them.
I actually made this work in a recent cheesy short campaign. My character was an intelligent monkey, although he was still an animal and couldn't speak. After meeting the party, he decided to go do his own thing, which just so happened to be the same thing as the rest of the party.
It worked out really well. The rest of the party could navigate social challenges without having to explain the monkey, I could sneak around and grab MacGuffins without having to accommodate huge humans who were terrible at climbing.
I doubt it works well for longer or more serious games, but it matched the hectic nature of the campaign and led to some hilarious moments.
DM: As you walk away, you feel a slight tingle in the air before a flash as bright as a thousand suns blinds you for an instant before... nothing. A bolt of lightning has vaporized your body. Miraculously, nobody else in the vicinity seems to have been harmed in any way nor even do they seem to have noticed what just happened, including the fact that you just disappeared. It's as if the Gods themselves, for no particular reason, have arbitrarily decided to smite you out of existence entirely.
Ready to roll a new character?
DM: "Alright, so your character walks off after refusing to go along with the group. Okay. Well, guess you can pack up and we will see you next session. I don't have anything planned other than what the group is doing, so, guess you won't be playing today. Bye."
Make it sting. Refuse to let them roll a new character and have them do the walk of shame. They made their choice So they can deal with the consequences of them.
This shouldn't be the GMs job btw, players, roleplaying and backstory are YOUR department, write a reason why your character would end up with the others. Work together.
Disagree. The DM should provide some sort of reason for the party to come together. Some sort of external influence, to bring in any characters that don't start the game together.
But it is the duty of the player to roll with it. Don't fight the plot hook. What's the point?
I got let off in my game (second session tonight). I found that I belong to the party's pack yak. He's a holy yak and my monk is his protector. Party needs its yak.
Alone and vulnerable, you are murdered by thieves. Make a new guy for the next game.
No fuck that. Just 'okay, but the narrator is looking at these assholes.'
If you don’t have a reason to work with the group, accept that this is a one-shot for you, which may be retcon’d as needed.
Also accept that you suck at making characters
I don't know. One time I joined a game, and I had plenty of reasons to join the party, but the DM started RPing a really rude character, and it's like his method of getting me to join the party was to be a huge asshole to me? I just didn't pick up on it, and when I finally gave my character an ass-pull reason to join (that I could do some good if I tagged along) the DM was like "jeez, finally" and it sucked.
Like, if I'm playing a level 1 wizard, and the DM tells me I'm gonna die if I enter the conflict, it's not really my backstory's fault that I don't jump into the fray. Sometimes you're dealing with an inexperienced DM that expects you to metagame your way into the party. I genuinely thought he was on the verge of giving me the opportunity to convince the party to run away from the dragon, not stay and fight it.
The whole We play a game so you have to cooperate together even if role-play wise it makes no sense is a bad practice, May-be not at the point you'll leave the table but definitely a serious sign that the table doesn't function properly.
Luckily, there is a very easy fix Do a session zero, and build a coherent party ab initio, it include in game reason for the party to work together, coherent goals (because when player A wants to abolish the reign of the emperor, and player B wants to defend the emperor you'll have a PvP fight within 3 session) and a meta discussion to have a pallet of skills matching the party's goal (At least in more epic game where you don't want to feel powerless). Almost every RPG published in the last 10-15 years contains an extensive session zero guide and tons of tips to build a relevant party.
If someone wants to play a law priest in a pirate campaign or any other character not fitting the campaign theme or opposing other PCs, it's perfectly OK to tell the no. Obviously if everybody is aligned on some PvP and betrayal the answer may be different, but it's again something to address in session zero.
Nobody in here is saying "even if rp wise it makes no sense". We're saying exactly what you are - the DM and the players set boundaries as to what kind of game they wanna play and are willing to, and then you make PCs.
Don't be an edgelord Rogue who's too cool to work with anyone else. Go play Skyrim.
Compleatly understandable. Roll three d20... unfortunelty, your character died from sevear case of buzz kill. Go ahead an roll out n new one that is exactly like this one but more trusty toward people exactly like those in the party.
In game punishments are the worst for these kinds of issues, just talk to each other.
That's a much better advice. Much worse joke though.
Generally speaking, this is something that an experienced GM can handle in session zero. An important part of session zero is establishing expectations for the style of game to be played: Things like "are the player characters friends?" "Is PvP encouraged or discouraged?" "Do I as a DM want the characters to stick together?" etc etc.
Generally when running DnD, I request of my players to design characters who:
Fundamentally, most DnD games are the story of a group of friends going on adventures together. If your DnD game is the story of a group of friends going on adventures, then it's extremely beneficial for your players to build characters who will be friends, and who will go on adventures. Together.