If your character has no reason to stay either the plothook was insufficient or you made a bad character. Both should be adressed ooc.
For me, as a DM, real shit always happens on session 1, you swim together or fucking die.
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?
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.
Everybody's gotta learn some time
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,
- 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.
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.
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!
There's a few ways I have approached this as a GM. I'll go from least to most effective (and, I feel, mature).
The first is to put a shared enemy in front of the party, so that even if the characters do split up, they're working towards the same goal. The character who has "no reason" to trust the party also has reason to recognize the effectiveness of sticking with allies in a world full of enemies. If the player wants them to go off on their own, fine, but as GM, the game stays with the party - oh, and have the player who left roll on a random injury table because they were outnumbered.
Second is to invoke the "Wolverine Approach". Wolverine in Marvel Comics always goes on and on about not being a team player, being a bad person, being a loner, etc. - and he certainly has had his fair share of solo adventures. At the same time, there was at least one month where nearly every major Marvel title had Wolverine in it - Avengers, West Coast Avengers, X-Men, the Defenders, Spider-Man, Marvel Team-Up, Alpha Flight, etc.. And because it was in the era where She-Hulk was part of the F4, he had a cameo there because of the WCA. Wolverine might claim to not be a team player, and he might be a pain in the rear end, but he's always there if there's a villain to be thwarted or a fight to be had. You have a right to have your character complain. Just stick in or near the party. I don't care if you sleep in a different hotel or a separate camp. Be there in the important scenes.
Third, "Take it or leave it". I'm not ashamed of myself for this one - I have told people, this is the game we're playing. if you want to play this game, I want to have you. If you don't want to play what we're playing under the terms we're all in agreement on, there's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out. It's effective, but I don't think it's the most mature method in my arsenal because of the all-or-nothing nature.
Fourth is an open and frank discussion. Explain that the concept of the game is cooperative. Make sure you get buyin from everyone, not just the loner. Express the expectation I have of both players and characters for the game in play. Paranoia, for instance, has a very different set of expectations and goals than Shadowrun or Spirit of the Century / Dresden / Fate. I have GMed for a loner character in a Fate game who never showed up with the other players, but because the system is so narratively driven, they were helpful by setting up Aspects with free tags because the character could realistically be "doing his own thing" and still contribute. So I've learned to be open and clear with my goals and intentions. I don't care if your character is going to be a pain - I care whether or not you as a player will contribute positively to everyone's experience in a fair way.
The more we are clear about goals and intentions, and the more we can apply nuance and understanding to the situation, the better our games will be.
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!
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 <something disruptive >."
"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.
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.
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
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"
I have found it productive to make part of the character creation prompt a motivation for the main plot. Like tell me your class and backstory and all that, and then also tell me why you want to be on this adventure
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
"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."
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:
- 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.
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
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.
Yeah, that's the kind of person that's invited to GTFO and never come back.
(instead, they try to play the same character with different names).
I'm imagining every session they play a new character who meets the party and decides not to join them.
None of the kids you're talking to on this site have friends, much less play actual D&D, they probably just read the manuals and imagine running campaigns based on how they interact with other loners online.
As a game, it's a purely social experience that even the rules are far less important than the narratives and shared storytelling experience, most adults know this and it's why they play these kinds of games, not to "win" or be some champion of self-expression.
I am ranting about it because there is a wild disconnect between the kinds of people who use sites like this and reality. I don't think a lot of people who comment about things online have healthy, balanced lives. I mean, I know I don't, but I also know that many others have totally different kinds of issues that pulls them into the comment sections of sites like Lemmy or Reddit.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
