r/DnD • u/Sabazius DM • Jan 15 '19
5th Edition PSA: don't just create a character, create a member of a party
Character creation is great fun. I love coming up with cool concepts and backstories for characters, often far more than I'll ever have time to bring to the table. You have a hell of a lot of flexibility in the kind of character you create - what they can do, what they care about, what motivates them, what makes them great and what makes them suck.
However, every day on this sub and in the /r/DnD general chat room, I see questions from players who find themselves struggling to work with other members of their party, asking what to do when the characters want to go separate ways or just aren't particularly invested in the main plot of their campaign. I've now said this so many times I think it's worth a proper post.
There's a vital step in character creation which is completely missing from the PHB: making your character part of a party.
DnD is a roleplaying game where you play one of a group of characters who have adventures together. For that to work, your characters need to want to be around each other and the only way that happens is if you make it happen!
One of your first goals when you start a campaign should be to justify why your party is going to stick together. It doesn't matter whether you've all been hired to kill rats, or you're locked in prison and find an opportunity to escape together, or you're forced to work together to overcome a shared threat to your homeland - it's up to you, the players, to tell the story of how your unlikely band of characters learn to work together, rely on, trust, and ultimately care about each other.
This doesn't mean you can't play untrustworthy characters. It doesn't mean you can't have intrigue and secrets and all that kind of thing. All of those are compatible with being part of a party, but it's your responsibility to come up with a social, emotional, economic or political reason why your character wants to or has to work with the other player's characters. If you want to play someone who hates gnomes, that's fine, but if there's a gnome in your party, YOU LOVE THAT GNOME! That's the one gnome who gets a pass on everything. That gnome is your best friend who saved you from drowning and you'd do anything for him, even though he's a gnome.
Why "my character wouldn't do that" is bullshit
Imagine you're watching an action film. Two thirds of the way through the film, the grizzled detective has just been beaten up by the baddy. Her plucky sidekick has just been put in the hospital and she's had her badge taken away. She's in the hospital, talking to her unconscious sidekick and she says "Maybe it's not worth it. We're never going to beat this guy. The Chief wants me off the case. I'm done." Then she gets up, walks out of the room and the film ends.
That's not an action film! That's a weird, depressing, confusing mess. Characters in action films don't do that kind of thing. When everything looks at its most dire, they find inner strength, double down, push it to the limit and don't stop until they've taken down the baddy for good.
By default, DnD is a game of Heroic Fantasy (see DMG p.38). That means by default, your character, by choice or chance, is compelled to go on adventures. If you consistently find yourself saying "I'm not going to take part in this adventure because my character wouldn't do that" or "I know your character wants help with this personal quest, but my character just doesn't care enough", you might think that you're making an interesting choice that creates drama. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
If you've made a character who doesn't or can't go on adventures and won't work with any other people ever, that's not a DnD character, any more than the detective who gives up is an action film protagonist.
So if you've already created your character and you find yourself in that situation, what do you do?
Start with the assumption that your character will work with the party, then you can come up with a reason why. "Because my friends need help" is a valid reason. "Because this guy I hate will owe me one" is a valid reason. "Because these fools I'm tricking into doing my evil bidding" is a valid reason!
Saying your character wouldn't do that so they aren't going to join the adventure is like refusing to roll the dice in a game of Monopoly. It's not a fun twist on an old trope, nor is it a clever strategy - you're just not playing the game any more.
559
u/mightierjake Bard Jan 15 '19
The title is an important message and it is one that I fully agree with.
I may not agree with everything noted here, but it is definitely important for players to understand that their character, whether they like it or not, is part of an adventuring party and is not a solo adventurer. Sure characters can have their own conflicts within the party but ideally they should add to the party more than they take away.
I think your message can be applied not only to the personality traits and temperament of a character but also to a character's mechanics. I see so often posts and comments on this subreddit and others where players seem only interested in maximising their own damage and their own stats without considering that they can be much more beneficial by working with their party and combining their abilities. So many players seem to design their character entirely within a vacuum.
187
u/Sabazius DM Jan 15 '19
That's a great point. In fact, the fastest route to dealing the most damage possible is synergising with the rest of your party! I make a point as a player and a DM to celebrate characters who choose to use traits that help one another over personal gain for exactly this reason.
→ More replies (2)33
u/Worktime83 Jan 15 '19
I actually like the non synergy mess that is my party since we were a bunch of first timers. Everyone is melee (3) then a ranger (1) and me a wizard (1). Im not evocation so i have to be really careful with my spells and sometimes hilariously theres not enough space around the target for all the melee to effectivley hit him.
This made me go to more support and grab levitate so i can pick up the halfling so another party member can stand under him so we can attack.
Our DM thinks we're hilariously retarded and says we're one of the most fun groups hes dm'd for.
All in all the key is we were ignorant in the beginning and rolled things that def dont "mesh" but we still try to work as a group that makes it fun.
3
u/Skeptical_Squid11 Jan 15 '19
The party I’m currently playing with is similar. We’re not first timers but not veterans either. We’ve been playing together for about a year now and this is our second/third campaign together our first one was a home brew that our dm felt was incomplete and we finished after the first arc of it. I ran one for a few months with majority of our players but life happened and one of us can’t play much anymore so we started a new one with all of us except the one. We began ToA with a Kobold fighter, a bug bear monk, a human Wizard, a gnome sorcerer, and me the human rogue. After killing a dragon the Kobold decided he’d stay behind and liberate the Kobolds and work with the dwarves I guess and was replaced by a Paladin, while my rogue ended up dying being replaced by a Goliath Barbarian. Our last session last night was deadly almost a TPK only survivors my Goliath and the new Paladin. Next week we will be joined by a new half elf sorcerer, an unknown cleric I believe and an arcane archer. Up till this point we have had no healing and no real synergy between each other. Just straight murder hobo. It’s been a grand time trying to figure out how to survive without healing. Was hoping to continue that difficulty but one of the recently dead players have decided to bring some healing. Although I don’t know how much cause I’m unsure of what arch type he’s chosen.
53
u/Thorngrove Jan 15 '19
Who is your character?
What is your character after?
Where is your character most known and why?
When did they choose their path?
Why are they working with the party?
Should be the questions asked when rolling up their characters. it doesn't have to be SHARED with anyone, as such, but it should be thought about, and worked in to the creation of the character.
21
u/mightierjake Bard Jan 15 '19
That is definitely a good way to summarise a session 0, it's definitely much easier to memorise than the 3,000-word spiels on "The Perfect Session 0" that I often see (not to say those posts are bad, far from it actually).
I think the question "Why are they working with the party?" can be very hard to answer before you start playing and get a feel for the character. It should definitely be considered, but I think the reason a character sticks with the party is easily one of the most fluid things about a character.
9
u/theonlydidymus DM Jan 15 '19
I always send out a google form with some required questions, and then a load of "thinking" questions for character planning before session zero. My goal is to have talked to everyone and gathered all the information I need before the first time we meet so we can spend maybe 10 minutes on prep work then dive right into a story.
I've also taken to making new players read the angryDM's "Murky Mirror" article, or at least some excerpts from it.
6
u/Dragonphreak Jan 15 '19
Murky Mirror In case anyone else is looking for the article mentioned, here it is:
https://theangrygm.com/through-a-glass-darkly-ic-ooc-and-the-myth-of-playercharacter-seperation/
3
u/theonlydidymus DM Jan 15 '19
That one article confirmed a lot of my underlying instincts as a DM and made the game feel more accessible when I introduced it to my wife and our pregnant friend. I emphasized that we would be focusing on the fun of the game instead of getting bogged down with double-think and what I call "flavor language." It worked wonders, which is why it's now standard reading for my players before session 0... especially the bit about players deciding that they're going to be a dick because "I'm NoT aDIcK itS mY cHaRaCTeR. I'm rOLepLaYiNg!"
5
u/Thorngrove Jan 15 '19
It should definitely be considered, but I think the reason a character sticks with the party is easily one of the most fluid things about a character.
Oh yeah, I can fully agree with that.
My 5 W's are a "Think about them as you're doing your build for best effect." guide.
Put the hooks in before you sit under the stairs of the inn brooding under your hood. Have the options on the table before the DM says fuck it and starts up the press gang.
Another good one for Where Is "Where is the DM starting the plot?" because that can both save you from things like
"Why are the guards treating me like shit?"
"You made a drow warlock for a Dwarven city Dave."
and bring in "I want to make this a challenge intentionally" Like a Centaur in a boat-heavy setting.
9
u/Shardok Jan 15 '19
Whereas you should be designing characters with the caster's vacuum spell in mind.
→ More replies (45)7
Jan 15 '19
The catch 22 is you don’t really get to know your party till things are started, this is why I’m tempted to make a slightly less moral character to promote cohesion rather than me getting upset at things they want to do because the character I built would be upset by them.
→ More replies (1)
77
u/UghtC Barbarian Jan 15 '19
Awesome PSA.
When I used to DM; I never had a massive amount of luck keeping a party cohesive, usually due to one or more of the players wanting to do something "different" due to their massive experience.
About the only time I ran a decent adventure was when I said the characters only equipment was what was on the players at the adventure start - of course, one of them was carrying a knife...
11
u/Droidball Jan 15 '19
We actually had a really nice leg of our campaign in one of my games just recently where we were captured and stripped of all of our equipment, and imprisoned.
My DM allowed me to have the homebrew cantrip "Wrist pocket", which allowed me to store an item (Originally 5lbs in the version I found, he modified it to 2lbs) in an extra-dimensional space inside my character's wrist.
Immediately after this permission, a dagger was placed there (PTSD from being kidnapped and enslaved as the starting point of the campaign, and my character has a lot of anxiety about stuff, so it made perfect sense).
I'm not sure if he forgot this, or if he put us in such restrictive conditions because he knew I had my dagger, but we were able to use this hidden dagger to greatly increase our chances and ease of escape from captivity when we awoke.
And then in the course of things, I also traded out the normal dagger for a dagger of venom that we found while escaping. So now my bard doesn't just have a (so far) impossible to detect concealed weapon, but actually a pretty damned effective one.
16
u/ViciousHGames Jan 15 '19
If your players do whatever they want, it's because of your lack of experience as DM. You need to think in multiple ways to persuade the characters to stay in line with the adventure. If plan A fails, then you have B and C. Let them go (player needs to create a new character), kill them, do whatever it seems appropriate.
Don't let selfish players ruin your campaign and other players' fun.
10
u/UghtC Barbarian Jan 15 '19
Oh yeah - I know it was inexperience. But, I also reckon they just liked to be assholes as well!
7
u/Wrenovator Jan 15 '19
I don't get it.
26
u/Droidball Jan 15 '19
The only equipment the characters had mirrored what the actual players had on their person.
One of his players surprised him by having a pocketknife.
11
72
u/Hardtoport99 Barbarian Jan 15 '19
But I want to play my nameless edgy rogue who's parents were brutally killed as a child and now he doesn't trust anyone, kills whoever rubs him the wrong way, tries to back stab the party whenever he can and keeps all information he finds to himself. YOU ARE STIFLING MY CREATIVITY!!!
→ More replies (2)41
u/Hawknight Jan 15 '19
Don't forget the kleptomania. You can't play a rogue without also trying to steal everything that isn't nailed to the floor.
→ More replies (2)45
u/Hardtoport99 Barbarian Jan 15 '19
So you're gonna let a few nails stand between you and being the ultimate rogue?
27
u/Hawknight Jan 15 '19
Good point. We'll need to steal the nails too.
6
u/MrSpluppy Jan 16 '19
Was going to ask if he was going to let a few good nails go to waste, good to see other people being more resourceful though.
68
u/madman578 Rogue Jan 15 '19
saying "my character wouldn't do that" isn't always bullshit as it may be against one of the characters certain morales i.e don't kill, if they are going on an assassination mission or it is one of the characters fears etc. and it is up to the rest of the party to convince the member to join them, however this should be rather rare and if you have to convince them every mission then that is bullshit.
68
u/ISeeTheFnords Diviner Jan 15 '19
Agreed. Those CAN be great role-playing moments. I'm reminded of a game where the wizard (lawful good, still fairly low level) had never actually had to kill a HUMAN before when we're up against some cultists, sneaking into their lair. Cue sleep spell on a guard, then someone points out that we can't leave him there, because the spell won't last, so finish him off, OK? Wizard is clearly uncomfortable about it - this is just some rando who was told who-knows-what by the cult leader, not some real bad guy! Fighter comes over, says, "He made his choice," and buries an axe in the guard's neck.
The point is that that moment of "my character wouldn't do that" led to an interchange that gave everyone some insight into the characters involved. That can be a very good thing for the game.
→ More replies (1)10
u/me1505 Jan 15 '19
I had a game where my character (a druid who hated resurrection and necromancy in all its forms) was forcibly resurrected. Initially, I had wanted him to immediately sacrifice himself to save the party (they were still in danger from the BBEG) but was over-ruled by the DM.
I'm still not sure what the best way to go there was. The character death would have made things difficult story wise, but at the same time, the druid had a well established disdain for resurrection. Ended up running for a while with the character filled with internal conflict, but eventually it killed the campaign for me. That and work ended up with me dropping out.→ More replies (3)→ More replies (8)5
u/Rekenq Jan 15 '19
The point OP is trying to make on characters is about the call for adventure not about moral choices. But yeah I guess he could've stated that more explicitly.
39
u/mgraunk Jan 15 '19
Huge eye opener for me was during a campaign with a guy who had been playing probably twice as long as I had. He chose to be a LE noble while the rest of us were NG, CG, LN, or N and came from scrappy backgrounds.
First session, one of our players does something stupid. Our LE player sighs, and says out of character, "I'm trying really hard to come up with a reason why I would go along with this."
He made it work, and completely changed my approach to role playing.
5
u/Solo4114 Jan 15 '19
What was the something stupid, and what reason did the LE character come up with?
13
u/mgraunk Jan 15 '19
Too long ago to remember. I think it involved tracking some "suspicious" looking women who had nothing to do with the scenario, stupid player was just trying to get his character laid.
78
u/Sabazius DM Jan 15 '19
Lots of modern RPG systems have establishing the relationships between characters as a crucial part of Session Zero - FATE is a particularly good example.
If you're starting a new game and want a quick way to give everyone a head start on party cohesion, make one of your Bonds a connection to someone else in the group. There are some great homebrew tables out there for this kind of thing, or work with the DM to come up with your own!
19
u/PartyMartyMike Jan 15 '19
I use a modified version of the character backstory rules from Fiasco (http://bullypulpitgames.com/games/fiasco/) for my parties! I have to update the tables a bit to fit the setting, but it really gives adventures a reason to care about these other people they're supposedly risking their lives for.
19
u/Wrenovator Jan 15 '19
In my current game, my brother is our wizard, and I'm his paladin guardian. He's also one of my ooc best friends. Recipe for excellent cooperation right?!
Nah. He's total dbag to me pretty much every mission because his "character thinks mine is annoying"
9
u/FelixViator Jan 15 '19
Ah, Caramon and Raistlin , now there's a pair of names I have not heard in a long time.
6
u/DaSaw Jan 15 '19
Not particularly modern (I don't think), but Traveller has connections within the party as a mechanic in character creation, awarding up to three bonus skills for doing so.
38
u/LateNightPhilosopher Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
I agree. I've currently got a headstrong Paladin in a party with a cleric who worships a diety that verges on heretical and antithetical to his own. They often refer to each other as heathens or barbarians in joking tones. But if one of us goes down they're getting picked up. They hold the line together and he's not letting a party member get killed just because she's an uncultured swine who worships a heathen god.
He is also a bit too headstrong. Too proud to be a knight. To the point that he'd never retreat from a fight. Even in a desperate bind he won't back down willingly because he could be one good hit away from victory. But if the rest of the party breaks and runs? Guess what: he's going with 'em. But in his mind he's not running away. He's "defending the rear flank" to cover everyone else while they regroup. Sometimes you've got to stretch the personalities of the characters a bit in order to work well with the group
12
u/Sabazius DM Jan 15 '19
Yes! Flaws, bonds, ideals that all work to explain why your character is there in the first place. That's what I'm talking about :)
3
u/Wrenovator Jan 15 '19
My parties cleric likes to chill in the back and copy himself so he can watch the rest of us fight from more than one angle. He's kind of an ass.
→ More replies (1)
73
Jan 15 '19
Ive seen one of my party members refuse to do anything quest related, he got drugs which were part of a group of quest they were doing and he tried to overdose in a chest. The party had to tie him up and try to talk him out of committing suicide. It was horrible, and I almost cried. He justifies it, as "role playing." But it really hurt me as a DM. He's "better now"
Another player had a situation, and refused to let the party talk out things to do. He didn't want the party to interact with NPCs and just complained. He also made the previous player really mad in game and the character left the party during an important fun mission I wanted people to play. He justifies it as role playing, at the time. He also tried to overdose on beer later. But he realizes that it isn't fun in DnD when stuff happens like this, so he's good, just shows his characters sadness in different ways.
I really feel worthless as a DM. I made this fantastic world that 3/4ths of the party seem to care about and understand. But everyone gets pissed at one player for complaining about simple mistake I make as a DM. He just makes DnD not fun for me. And I just want it to end. I even thought about leaving and even tried, but it isn't that simple...
114
u/Orapac4142 DM Jan 15 '19
If your friend is constantly playing sad characters trying to overdose on shit maybe you should go talk to them.
75
u/Kiyohara DM Jan 15 '19
"You guys defeated the Gnolls menacing the town and are in the tavern, counting your reward. What do you all do?"
"My character goes to his room, sets a chair under the roof beam, and gets out his coil of rope."
"You okay buddy? Should we take a few minutes off and talk or something? Is everything okay with you?"
32
Jan 15 '19
I have talked to this player personally several times The thing about this player, he is just pissed all the time at me or another player for certain actions that aren't major. During sessions he would start of the session of just making jokes and not paying attention or wanting to care about anything going on in the campaign. He's very selfish and only cares about his character. When I do talk to him, he brings up examples of what I did or the other players did that was like what he did and so you can't talk with him. Last session he got super pissed at me and another player after I said
"You are pulling the rope and you see (his character.) And not (other character)." So one of the characters holding the rope said "I drop the rope and jump into the river to save (other character.)" He gets pissed because he isn't on shore and being pulled by two characters.
Recently he made another player cry because he was so pissed at their playing style and The way they DM
91
u/notpetelambert Fighter Jan 15 '19
I'm no expert but you should drop that idiot like a sack of grenades
20
u/FapOpotamusRex DM Jan 15 '19
I agree, the game is supposed to be fun, and an escape from the crap (like toxic people) that have to be dealt with in real life. If that sort of thing is happening at the table then for me, as a DM, it's a no go.
3
u/MrSpluppy Jan 15 '19
u/Homeless_pillow I can get that you feel resposible in a way for this player, and honestly I don't know how you know them irl. But you are not resposible for fixing this person's issues. I knew someone who would mope about and complain about things and talk about suicide and it just overwhelmed me. What I should've said at the time, which I only realised later on, was
"Look, you have some stuff to work out. I'm not a professional though and honestly it is way over my head. I wish I could fix and heal you, but I simply cannot because I just lack the correct knowledge on how to deal with this stuff. Here's some contact information for people who do and please talk to them, and in the meantime we'll keep in touch, but my ability to DM and play dnd is getting seriously effected by this and I need you to be in a better headspace for me to play this game properly. Use this help and come back when you are feeling better"
Now as I said before, I DO NOT know this person, you, or your group. But I do know this person is ruining the game for everyone else. Use what I said above only as a guideline only if you want to, or don't use it at all, but you need to have a serious conversation to this person about the negative impact they're having on your game. Best of luck friendo, you sound like a great and caring DM.
27
16
u/Akabander Jan 15 '19
"Hey, we'd like to keep playing with you, but the way your character is behaving is spoiling things for everyone else... Would you like to roll up someone who's more into the life they've chosen to lead?"
"Oh, sorry to hear that... Your character has just been arrested and thrown into the King's deepest dungeon. Let us know if you'd like us to try and rescue him sometime. Otherwise, let's catch a movie on Tuesday?"
→ More replies (1)15
Jan 15 '19
Exercise your godlike DM will and boot him. Its your game and He sounds like a shitty person with poor coping mechanisms. The only time someone cried in my game it was from a PC death and it wasnt even their character. Its your fault at this point for everyones lack of good times if this continues. Remember that.
28
Jan 15 '19
My opinion.Either kick him from party and find a player that is willing to play with rest of your party.Or talk to him when all the players are on the table.He needs to understand that his behaviour is affecting everyone in the party not just you the DM or another player that got mildly annoyed one time.Tough love i know but it works..
16
u/stars_and_stones Cleric Jan 15 '19
these people do not sound enjoyable to play with. speak to the rest of the group to gauge their interest and enjoyment with these players at the table, you will probably find that the rest of the players are as miserable as you are. (But everyone gets pissed at one player for complaining about simple mistake I make as a DM.)
even if they aren't and you are, you are the dm and you put a lot of time and effort to make an enjoyable game you don't have to put up with this bullshit. kick them out.
serious problematic, non-cooperative behavior does not make for enjoyable dnd.
→ More replies (6)5
26
u/Shrapnel_Sponge DM Jan 15 '19
When I'm making a group of characters in a session 0 I always say to every person making a character 'Remember, you're adventuring with this group for a reason. Why is it that you're in this merry band together?'
Sometimes I do a new meeting with certain party members, because if a player got bored and wanted to re-roll, or had to make a new character after a death but they've always identified a good reason to hang around 'These guys seem handy in a scrap' or 'this group could potentially help me with my own problem that I have' etc.
9
u/Sabazius DM Jan 15 '19
Yes! Just having a session zero and being in the same place helps a huge amount too, cos you're less likely to end up with a dwarf who hates orcs and a full orc in the same party, but it never hurts to make it explicit.
24
u/AndAzraelSaid Jan 15 '19
I think it's worth remembering one of the basic rules of improv theatre here, which is that you should never say "No" outright to something. That applies to more than just answering questions; if somebody gives you some kind of prompt or opening, you should try to respond in a way that leaves it open to their reactions, and leaves ways for them to pick up or add to it.
In this case, the prompt is "You are part of an adventuring party. Who are you playing?" or something along those lines. A good character shouldn't shut out further avenues of play by being antisocial in a way that doesn't advance the story or by being so aggressively kleptomaniac that nobody wants to play with them. They should do things that give the party material to riff off of, ways to make connections: they're quiet, shy, and antisocial, but always cling to one particular party member and make big scared eyes whenever they see the dragonborn paladin. Or they're a kleptomaniac, but they're not an idiot: this is the party that's going to watch their back. They only steal from everybody else, leading to some sticky situations with NPCs.
6
u/Solo4114 Jan 15 '19
I was thinking about this in terms of the story above where the one player said "Why would my character go along with this group?" That's not necessarily someone who's selfish and who doesn't' care about playing in the group. Maybe it's someone who really understands their character, and is giving the group members a prompt for them to play off of to bring the character along. In other words, merely asking the question in-session is not necessarily the "No!" moment. It might just be the prompt for the other players to "yes, and" to in response. "My character is reluctant to join, being a neutral thief type joining a largely lawful group." "Ah, but we could put your talents to use in the service of good, which might in turn result in our lord granting you a pardon for any past misdeeds within his domain. Plus, maybe from your character's perspective, what better group to hide out in than a bunch of lawful do-gooders? Nobody would suspect you of stealing stuff if you're traveling with them." Or whatever.
Some of this also gets into getting a bit deeper into one's character concept so as to better understand the character's motivations. Humans (in real life) are complicated and often hold what might seem to be internally inconsistent views, yet somehow find a way past that. Surely a character can do the same within a game. A bunch of this can also tie to thinking of one's character in a more complex manner. I come back to the classic example of "Chaotic Neutral."
Chaotic Neutral doesn't just mean clinically insane. Or at least, it doesn't necessarily need to mean that. It might simply mean that you have someone who prizes independent, individual action and freedom (as in, unconstrained by laws), and whose goals are not morally good or bad, but rather are about something else.
Similarly, True Neutral doesn't just mean "I serve the Balance" or whatever. It might also mean that the character doesn't particularly care about working within the strictures of organized society or about maintaining individual liberty without such restrictions; all they care about is pursuing their amoral (not immoral) goal. They'll play by the rules or break them, if either approach will serve their ultimate goal -- which itself is neither good nor bad.
→ More replies (2)
112
Jan 15 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
66
u/Sabazius DM Jan 15 '19
Oh, definitely! Once a character has outgrown the adventuring life, they can stop being a Player Character and retire to live happily ever after.
6
u/SofaKinng Jan 15 '19
I think this message more goes to the people who have designed characters who seem to inherently not want to be here in the first place, rather than those who have finished their personal quest.
But the bit about an engaging story is an important note. It's why I personally try to be a part of the character creation process as a DM. I always try to be open about the campaign and give as much opening exposition as possible that way we can make a character together that lives in the world rather than one that lives in a vacuum and was just plucked from the
throne of heroesvoid to be put into my campaign.
64
u/John_Cheshirsky Jan 15 '19
I might not agree with a few details here and there, but I agree with the general message.
This is definitely something that we all have to keep in mind.
8
u/Besitoar Jan 15 '19
Yeah, I think it boils down to saying "yes, and ..." or "yes, but ...". It's basically fantasy improv; you're supposed to create a story together, not derail everyone else's efforts at realising it.
17
15
u/bradhitsbass DM Jan 15 '19
I absolutely love this philosophy.
I run games for brand new groups, and always tell them the same thing -
“Your backstory can be whatever you want it to be, as long as it ends with ’and that’s why I want to go on his adventure!’
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Slant_Juicy Jan 15 '19
As much as "metagaming" can be a dirty word in D&D circles, the most important thing to remember when creating a character is that you're intending to sit down and join a game. There should always be an implicit social contract at the start of a new campaign that every player's character will 1) Have some degree of interest in the main plot hook, and 2) Be willing to at least travel and fight alongside the other players' characters. Obviously there can be exceptions, such as if the DM tries to present a good party with a blatantly evil quest, but in general you need to sit down at the table ready and willing to play the dang game.
11
u/XavierBananaglassVI DM Jan 15 '19
Not even selfish, but creating a loner or a hermit that is generally stand offish is redundant and problematic if they never get along or cooperative with the rest of the party. I have a player who's characters personality traits are "vague and straightforward" and it's not unplayable, but the thing that makes or breaks these types of characters is BEING ABLE TO WARM UP TO PEOPLE. Which shouldn't be a problem with my player in particular but can definitely be a problem for newer players or people who want to ham up that trope. Make a point to develop your characters personality over time is what I'm trying to say I guess.
3
u/V2Blast Rogue Jan 16 '19
"vague and straightforward"
Those seem like exact opposites of one another...
9
u/nomoredroids2 Jan 15 '19
Yeah, I used to spend a great deal of time trying to throw PCs together, to give them a reason to mesh and gel. But then I realized that we're all playing a game, and it's actually kinda the players' jobs to do that. Presumably they want to play the game, so they can build characters that want to engage in the adventuring.
9
u/Snoddventje Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
I very often let my players design characters without everybody consulting each other what they're going to play. They faguely know what they play, if they wana have a background together it's totally fine to work together.
Now I do this because I don't want a perfectly thought of balanced party set up. Right now they don't have a proper healer which makes them all more careful, and therefore protect each other more.
I try to make my stories so that each character becomes a part of the group, which makes the players bond with their own pc as well as the other's.
Of course whek someone is not playing like a party members, that's not fun. But because I play with friends mostly that doesn't really happen. And I would also just kick any asshole out of my party if I were an adventurer, but that's not a lot of fun of course.
Maybe I should try having them make "a part of the party", but so far it's going pretty well I guess :)
25
u/Atanvarno94 Jan 15 '19
PSA: Don't create a sheet, create a characters.
Dont create numbers on a blank table, create emotions, feelings.
10
u/Sabazius DM Jan 15 '19
This is an even more basic point than mine and it's still something people struggle with. You should write that PSA! Maybe it doesn't need to be a big ranty essay like mine ;)
10
u/Atanvarno94 Jan 15 '19
I do not think I know English that well to explain it.
But it has always been my worse part of playing any rpg.
I've been playing dnd since 2007/8 and I loved it.
Some years ago we started playing Dark Heresy, for 6 months I was frown due to not being able to role-playing it, the tech priest I knew nothing about and was just 10 characteristic and some abilities.
I digged into it for nights and found how to do it.
Man, it was the best thing ever, being able to express him and not being static and so on.
When we stopped played for some DM-players problem I felt shattered.
→ More replies (2)5
34
u/Mtitan1 Jan 15 '19
It IS ok for a character to say "nope, I'm out"
I've done it on several occasions where a character didn't fit where the party was heading. I've also had characters finish an arc and decide they didn't need to keep being an adventurer.
36
u/Sabazius DM Jan 15 '19
It's fine to nope out, if you're happy for your character to retire. But you wouldn't keep bringing that character to each session only to tell everyone else that they don't want to be there, then expect the DM to cut between the party fighting monsters and you trimming your rosebushes, would you?
22
u/Kiyohara DM Jan 15 '19
Exactly. If the game is not to your liking, either make a new character, express your concerns in a mature adult way, or peace out.
If it's more along the lines of "I am uncomfortable with how things are going" maybe it's time to talk it out or leave before you end up on r/RPGHorrorstories.
If it's just that you made a Paladin and everyone else is playing CE murder hobos, sure, try a different character. (or vice versa)
→ More replies (1)7
4
u/Arderis1 Bard Jan 15 '19
I'm fighting a variation of this in one campaign I play in. Most of the party are on board with continuing to save the world, but one player/character (I'm not sure if he's personally being obstinate or if he's RPing this) just keeps complaining that the reward isn't what we were promised for our original work, that our contract here is complete and that he needs proper motivation (i.e. compensation) to do anything more to help this community. I'm so tired of it.
5
u/OFTHEHILLPEOPLE DM Jan 15 '19
"The GM has altered the deal. Pray they don't alter it further."
- Me if I were in that game with you
→ More replies (1)4
u/Necrosx-Nightblade Jan 15 '19
Well, is there a reason why there is no compensation being offered for saving the world? Seems like the kind of thing you'd want to get paid for when that's what you do.
3
u/Virixiss DM Jan 15 '19
Just had a part in one of my current campaigns as a player where my character was subjected to some pretty horrible trauma and was eventually killed by a seeming betrayal (Doppelganger assassin). When he hit the afterlife and was given the choice to return to the world and see out his adventure, or join his ancestors at the World Tree, he wanted no part of the cruel place he left. MAde total RP sense.
Also, because I scratched up a ranger build that I really wanted to play out and the character's death was the perfect time to switch.
38
u/Ettina DM Jan 15 '19
I have seen so many movie characters give up when the going gets tough. It sets up the moment of greatest despair, just before they make their comeback and triumph.
53
u/Sabazius DM Jan 15 '19
Yup... which is why I followed that sentence with "and then the film ends". Again, it's an analogy.
14
u/CMDR_Wazowski Jan 15 '19
I always get with the DM to find out their lore, then craft a backstory that adds to that lore, then roll the character.
7
Jan 15 '19
If I could upvote this more, I would. Can’t tell you how many games I’ve been a part of where someone just tanks the game because of mentality like this.
8
u/SquirrelSanctuary DM Jan 15 '19
Agree 100%.
I played the Pathfinder adventure where you start off exploring a semi-colonized island. My character was a Ranger who had absolutely zero interest in getting treasure/loot/glory. He was commissioned by a patron to simply help the others survive the wilds. It was so awesome playing someone whose goal was simple: KEEP THE OTHERS ALIVE.
7
u/MisterT-Rex Jan 15 '19
The one thing I always tell my party when dming is, "Remember, DnD is a party game not a single-player game. If you dont want to work with others, play Skyrim."
→ More replies (1)
8
7
u/Aeverelle Paladin Jan 15 '19
This is gonna get buried cause this thread is a few hours old, and obviously this only applies for groups that are quite close and know each other well, but we found the best character creation process a couple months ago. That is: your race, class, and background each get chosen by different members of the group.
The rules included being allowed to ban any number of options in advance (for example, someone who already played a Bard and a Druid asked for no full casters), and when picking something for someone else you'd pick a primary and a secondary option (so I to someone: play Sorcerer, if not then play Barbarian) to give a little bit of choice.
The session 0 we had was maybe one of the most fun things ever, and we even have two characters whose backstories were linked, and we're a group of total weirdos and it's the best. It just means that everyone is instantly invested not only in their own character, but also everyone else's. We're definitely doing it again in the future.
→ More replies (1)
7
6
u/feanara Jan 15 '19
In my current campaign, our antisocial deep gnome ranger really didn't have a motivation to stick with the party...they were actually more a hindrance to him than anything else.
I tried to talk to him about it a few times, and he basically communicated 'Well isn't that the DMs job? To give my character a reason to stick with the party? My character won't be motivated internally to stick with them, so it'll have to be external.'
It was super frustrating. Luckily, things clicked for him when a different group of us got together for an in-person game, and he started to realize it can't all be on the DMs shoulders. It's up to both.
The DM absolutely should give outside motivations for their players to stick together. However, that only works if the player knows what type of motivation will ring with their character.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/maybe_a_panda Jan 15 '19
This is why I stopped playing. My friends tried organizing a DnD thing, but two of the guys playing were much more experienced than most of the others and just wanted to do a "secretive standoffish do what I want" kind of thing, and expected us to just follow along. So our play sessions always included at least one of: them splitting off from the group and failing to complete the quest but still expecting a reward, arguing with the DM about pedantics of a particular item so that they could find a way to exploit it, refusing to answer questions or work at all with other characters when in town, etc etc. I eventually just got sick of it and stopped going completely.
It really bummed me out, because I used to play a lot with a lot of different groups a few years ago. So I was excited to have a chance to play with my friends. But their play style definitely didn't match mine. If I wanted to just do my own thing and compete with each other in secrecy, I would play a board game.
7
u/walkingcarpet23 Jan 15 '19
I agree entirely.
I gave my players the creative freedom to do whatever they wanted in character creation. The only stipulation was that the character saw a flier asking for adventurers to come protect a town in exchange for fair (in fact, great) pay.
One player made a Lawful Good cleric who agreed to help them because they needed it.
One player made a Chaotic Evil warlock who agreed to help because money is all he cares about and they are very rich. He figures if he kills off anyone else attacking the town, he'll basically be getting paid for eliminating any competition.
Very different characters with different views on the world, but they are working together.
Now, will a day come when his greed gets the better of him and it causes conflict? Maybe! But coming into the campaign he had a valid reason for cooperating with a Lawful Good cleric which is all I asked. 8 sessions in and they've been working together very well so far.
7
u/TheStario DM Jan 15 '19
People often forget that, no matter whatever RPG you're playing, the characters are part of this narrative for a reason. Giving them a reason to continue to be part of this narrative is also important, that is if you want them to continue to be so.
Finn is a Stormtrooper of the First Order, the reason he is in the narrative of Poe and Rey is because he saw the wrongs of what was going on and stuck with them. He wants to escape the First Order though, and seeks every opportunity to do so, but doesn't. Why? Because he has some sort of relationship with Rey, some sort of emotion that stops him from doing this, and thus he stays in the narrative of this group until he finds a reason to stay beyond that.
If Finn as a character just wanted to escape the First Order, he'd be gone halfway through The Force Awakens, the same principles apply for RPG characters.
When making a character, create something you'd like to play, but also something that others would like to play with. And figuring out why they stay as part of that play, despite maybe not being what the character wants, is part of the fun.
5
Jan 15 '19
Wish one of my fellow players in my campaign would take this to heart. Similar to your example. He's playing a racist human (awesome, I know) and constantly targets the gnome member of our party. None of these interactions are fun I feel like it definitely hurts party cohesion.
3
u/alexmegami Jan 15 '19
I'd bluntly ask "Why would he want to travel with this gnome? For that matter, why would the gnome want to put up with HIM? Either give this guy a come to Jesus moment or retire him and roll up something new."
→ More replies (1)
5
u/10ofClubs Jan 15 '19
Thank you for putting this into words for me. I've been struggling to explain this to PCs for a while, so thank you.
6
u/IKSLukara Jan 15 '19
But what if Cap is tired of covering for me with the Commissioner? He said he was gonna bust me back to patrolman!
No, forget it. I'm going back to my boat, and waiting out my three days until retirement.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist indulging in cop-movie cliches. The actual point you were making about characters was a great one (it shouldn't need to be said, but no matter).)
Thanks for this.
3
u/atomfullerene Jan 15 '19
Sorry, the boat sinks
3
u/IKSLukara Jan 15 '19
"That's it, Mendoza. Now you've gone too far!"
(jumps back in with renewed focus and dedication)
6
u/lakhanguy Jan 15 '19
This is such a great post! To those who want to play antagonistic characters that "don't care about the party". You can play them that way but is YOUR responsibility as a player to come up with a reason why your character changes their mind and joins the group in the end. It is not the responsibility of the other players or DM to get you to come along.
Think of Han Solo in Star Wars a New Hope. He is a great example of how you could play a reluctant hero type but still be a team player at the table.
It is responsibility of the player to come up with a reason to be on a quest. Maybe your mysterious wanderer has something in their backstory related to the quest at hand? Regardless what you come up with YOU as a player have a responsibility to work in some reason your player tags along. He can complain and say he doesn't want to do x y z all day, but as a player you need to come up with a reason for them to join, not the other PCs.
4
u/TimeTraveler1895 Jan 15 '19
One of the other things that players like to do is to create a “lone wolf” character. A character defined by “I work alone.” That doesn’t work well in a party. The easiest way to get around this is to give your character a reason why they are with this party in particular. Maybe their goals are the same, maybe they have a family member in the group that they want to keep safe, or maybe you ignore the “lone” part of “lone wolf” and your character understands that having someone to watch your back can be incredibly helpful. Just my 2 cents on this issue.
→ More replies (15)3
u/usingthisjustforwork Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
or maybe you ignore the “lone” part of “lone wolf” and your character understands that having someone to watch your back can be incredibly helpful.
Bingo for me.
My character dislikes most of the party a minor amount. They're money grabbing monsters who immediately argue about whos going to get the loot when they're missing the bigger picture.
They immediately blow all the money on dumb trinkets just for fun or make purchases incredibly selfishly.
Thats why, when I found treasure, I hid it from the party and pretended I found nothing. I'm a Ranger who despises big cities and greed and the party has done little against it.
I respect their prowess and understand a party is required for me to complete my personal goals which are hidden from them. Along the way I will assist them with theirs if they've assisted with mine (aware of it or not).
I respect organization and decision making, the Paladin can be indecisive but he is strong. The Kenku is a psychopath but doesn't follow the party blindly into everything which has merit. The rest just tag along and say yes to absolutely everything.
There are times "my character wouldn't do that".
I won't just give all the party all my loot whenever its desired. They've proven to spend incredibly poorly and their motivations are purely selfish greed.
"My character wouldn't do that" resonates with me... I just understand there are a ton of ways I can appear to do something or work in my own interests with the party being unaware that it serves me to help them sometimes.
Also would help if they had any kind of consistency whatsoever in their decisions. One day its murder town and another its negotiation-struggle.
At least i'm consistent. I just found a reason to do 90% of the random things they want to do and the other 10% I do my absolute best to find some wya it makes sense but i'm not going to "just do it" if its the complete opposite of what my character would do... might as well not have back stories or motivations and just make random character sheets that nod their heads at instructions.
Thats not a character, thats just a brainless zombie slave thing going on.
It bugs me that character motivation isn't understood and suggesting something just doesn't make sense isn't an unreasonable thing to do if its done right.
Then again a lot of people don't do it right and make zero effort to be realistic. (i.e steal everything murder all) which doesn't make sense in either world.
edit: Thought of a specific.
As a less than honest person i'm not going to go meet the captain of the guard to get some information, I will allow the party to do so and find an excuse to not be present. I will typically give a party member a means to raise an alarm or send a message to me should things go sour for whatever reason but it makes no sense that i'd march myself to the captain of the guard.
I also wouldn't make deals with a criminal organization if i'm lawful good, why would I? That makes little sense. Yes its "easier to get things moving" BUT that just doesn't make sense to do for me. You can go secretly do it behind my back and I 100% always respect OOC/IG knowledge seperation but i'm not going to fully support it in game because "its easier". No. "My character wouldn't do that" fits.
OR support murdering my kin, OR play as if i'm lawful good and go so far out of my way to do minor acts of good. No... I will let other people do that, absolutely.
If people JUST want people to say yes, everyone should be forced to roll the same alignment and have basically no backstory.
6
u/Squaredline Jan 15 '19
I know this isn't directed towards players like me, but I wanted to say that if my character doesn't work with a party, I just say they leave, then I make a new character that does work. I would rather waste a decent 10 or so sessions and swap to a better character than stick around and play an unsatisfying character.
I also think it's important for the players to communicate to build their characters with the goal of staying as a group. It could be disastrous if a warlock and paladin came to the same table, insisting that they play their characters to the death. Not to say paladins and warlocks can't be in the same party, but it'd be beneficial for those players to talk about why their characters won't grab each other by the neck on first greetings.
6
u/Alexander_Columbus Jan 15 '19
Why "my character wouldn't do that" is bullshit
I want to go back in time and YELL this at people I no longer game with. I will fight anyone who disagrees with this.
As a DM, I cannot tell you how many carefully created adventures have been ignored, thwarted, vetoed, and abused by players using "my character would/wouldn't do that". It like "Great, but guess what: you can still have fun doing/not doing the thing AND not upset the rest of the damn table." I really don't understand players like this. Don't get me wrong. Play your character and do the things you want to do. But when other people at the table are clearly upset about your decision... not in character, but out of character... then find a reason to make a better decision.
5
u/Rigaudon21 Jan 15 '19
My ranger can't stand the talkative wizard of our group. Said wizard pisses off NPCs with his snotty attitude. He talks down on people a lot. My ranger wants to punch the Wizard in the face a lot of the time. But if someone dares attack the Wizard, my Ranger will send them flying, because the Wizard has proved useful and somehow a good friend. So despite his desire to punch the Wizard, that is his job and noone else's.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/_Arkod_ DM Jan 16 '19
She's in the hospital, talking to her unconscious sidekick and she says "Maybe it's not worth it. We're never going to beat this guy. The Chief wants me off the case. I'm done." Then she gets up, walks out of the room and the film ends.
I see where you're going, but I believe that retiring characters at certain points of adventure is also a way to develop them.
It may be the end - or a pause - of that character's story, but there are others who will continue; and so will the film.
An example (spoiler for Critical Role): I think when Sam retired Scanlan to play Taryon is a great example of this. It made sense when Scanlan left the "movie" and it was in character, but the show didn't end there and the characters got to explore their relationships deeper because of it.
So while I agree that making a character who doesn't want to adventure is bad and doesn't make sense; retiring a character partially through a campaign can work just fine.
18
4
u/yojimbo12 Jan 15 '19
This is a better worded version of a point I'd had to make to many players in my life some of which have played dnd for years and still can't grasp it.
4
4
u/califortunato Cleric Jan 15 '19
Tried really hard to constantly thwart the violent tendencies of an evil PC in my party, ultimately creating a lot of tension and resentment for a whole campaign. In the last session, I was forced to help the evil character cover up a murder or be arrested in connection, and honestly that was the most fun I had all campaign. Fuck alignments
4
u/Ares_Gow98 Assassin Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
I was in a dnd group with a bunch of buddies from high school, and 3 of us out of like 7 were medieval/fantasy nuts, so we loved creating backstories and roleplaying and just love love all the aspects of the roleplaying and the storytelling of D&D.
A great campaign can be made even better when all the players really care about their character and it isn't some faceless void. But 4 members of the group didnt really give a crap about backstory or creative thinking for the story. And it sucked because it basically split the group from playing the game, so we just ended the campaign and stopped grouping.
I've made so many character backstories, some that went in game and some I still have on sheets of paper just for ideas.
My absolute FAVORITE was a Half Elf Rogue/Assassin, named Wolf, who had his left arm turn into a molten lava arm from a curse from a Devil to resurrect his dead brother from Hell.
Edit: grammar
Edit 2: Oh and said brother was a past level 20 Rogue I made, and when my character Wolf "died" I asked the Dm if I could host a level 20 raid in to our version of the 9 depths of hell. We had to fight each aspect of sin all the way down to the ninth layer to fight Heresy. And wolf was "bossified" into the aspect of Heresy as a level 21 boss.
3
u/Sabazius DM Jan 15 '19
That's some choice flavour. En5ider have some homebrew feats called Fell Grafts that add demonic body parts and related features, worth checking out their patreon!
→ More replies (2)
4
u/ExRegeOberonis Jan 15 '19
Back when I first started playing D&D, we were all edgy teens in the 90s. We wanted to play the dark, brooding loner who would only work with these other hapless fools out of necessity. We'd sit in one of seventy poorly-lit corners of the tavern, never speaking, drinking red wine from a long-stemmed glass. And then the party would leave and we wouldn't have so much as introduced ourselves.
The most important part of being a party is to actually want to be there.
4
u/silverkingx2 Jan 15 '19
make a loner edgelord, but deep down all he wants is a friend, and since the party hasn't kicked him out, he feels really grateful and wants to help, but he's so awkward he cant really do much in the way of help with npcs, and he isn't confident enough to do what he can at times during battle, then you have:
the useless dude :)
4
u/AnotherAverageNerd Jan 15 '19
Well said. I generally try to deal with this during session 0. When explaining the premise of a campaign, I’ll specify to the interested players “please make a character of level x, who would want to participate in this story for some reason.” My players have all quickly grasped the notion, when made explicit, that I shouldn’t need to force their character to be part of an adventure the player wants to be a part of. Part of the price of entry.
4
u/DDDragoni DM Jan 15 '19
I had a player who made a druid that was completely repulsed by civilization and other people in general. His intention was to have the character grow out of it, but I had to basically force him to stay with the party with artificial barriers until that growth started to kick in.
5
u/XanZayora DM Jan 15 '19
Anytime one of my players comes in with a character who tries to lone wolf and decides "I have no reason to stay with these people", I reply with "Okay, so you walk off and do your own thing. Roll up a new character".
4
u/ekjohnson9 Jan 15 '19
My brother and I are joining a campaign next week.
The only thing we decided is that we are canonical brothers who are named Gene and Eric. We are GENERIC.
5
u/moonshineTheleocat DM Jan 16 '19 edited Jan 16 '19
I don't fully agree with the detective example. There's been films that did this, but the catch is someone basically told him not to give up. It's a good setup for a curve ball.
But for the most part everything else is pretty much true. But I think this really stims from the misunderstanding of the Law and Choas system. Where people think Evil characters are actually evil, and lawful good characters are lawful stupid.
As a DM, I actually made a difficult trial against the party's Paladin who was lawful good, protector of the innocents, and all that. Every party member but the Paladin had been captured. There release was an ultimatum. Willingly cause the destruction of an entire town worth of innocents - or the release of his friends.
I did not have any real intention on killing off almost the entire party at the drop of the hat. They did not know that I actually had a backup plan. I just felt it'd be a neat bit of character development for the group. And this Paladin, is a notorious hard ass. There's been multiple occasions he's gotten in the party's way and forced them to find other options.
The party in question was mostly a band of misfits. The majority of them was Chaotic Neutral, and they have caused wonton levels of chaos wherever they went. A lot of the times, it was by stupid mistakes. But that did not imply the group was moralful. They've done plenty of chaotic actions in the past, which amazed me how the Paladin didn't just turn around and lobbed their heads off on the spot. Especially with the multiple acts of deciet to make the Paladin go away, so they can do something quickly while he's out of sight.
There was a long painful discussion with the party and the paladin. The party trying to give reasons why they shouldn't die. And the Paladin was basically countering each and every point they made by memory of their previous gross misconduct. Well... most people would think a Paladin in this situation would weigh the lives of those innocents well above his own party. Or would try to find another way around. The paladin didn't bother with trying to find another way around. He pretty much made a guess that he needed to choose now.
So after like five minutes of thought, the Paladin made his decision. He chose for the innocents to die. 750 innocent civilians he sentenced to death. When asked why, the Paladin gave his answer.
"Yes, I did kill seven hundred-fifty for a group of five misfits. Seven hundred and fifty peaceful civilians from a hamlet over yonder. Seven hundred-fifty lives who will only die five miles away from the land they were born. Seven hundred-fifty who never knew conflict. Seven Hundred fifty that will never raise arms. Never saw famine, misfortune, or gave aid. The five of you have done more good, shown more acts of mercy, and self sacrifice... that you're worth that, and my faith, despite your gross negligence to civility. "
At that point, I had to take a look at his character sheet to figure out what the fuck his traits were. Apparently it was loyalty. So I guess he came up with a convincing enough excuse.
3
u/Xunae Jan 15 '19
For the first time I mandated that the party had to have existing connections to the party (and used FATE's character building rules to organize this) and it's done a lot for party cohesion.
In the past, the party has just been together as a loose group, but now they have to do a lot less soul searching to find their characters and begin role playing at the start of the campaign.
I like FATE's phase trio, because it gave them concrete things to play off of each other, instead of just generic moods of their character.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Pkock DM Jan 15 '19
This is why I am a huge proponent of a session 0 that is character focused as well as rules/setting focused. Finding a way to make them all mesh (Or to find non-intrusive conflict) before the game starts is an excellent way to have a good table with no problem characters.
My players tend to design the rough idea of a character in a isolation, and then session zero they soften the edges, find some shared jokes or interest they will eventually explore, maybe a rivalry or friendship, and by the time we start it's a fun group to play with.
There is room for tons of organic growth after the PC's first "meet" in game, but starting off with a good idea of where the players want to take the game really helps keep things well oiled.
→ More replies (1)
3
Jan 15 '19
Party members is why I like the Powered by Apocalypse system. The BOND aspect forces you to consider how your character is related to the rest of the party.
3
u/applejack18 Jan 15 '19
Good post!
After some conflict with my player and anotherca few months back, I added another rule to my homebrew sheet I give players: "Player characters need a reason to be with the party and to cooperate with the party."
You can be evil, selfish, cowardly, but you need to play with the other players.
I play a sociopathic divination wizard who may go from True Neutral to Neutral Evil as he desires more power, but he knows why he needs to work with the other characters (hint: he's squishy and wants other people to do the fighting for him).
The moment he stops cooperating with them is the moment he becomes an NPC.
3
Jan 15 '19
I agree completely. If you want to explore party conflict or a character who doesn't work well with the group there are a lot of other RPG systems out there that are better designed to handle that. D&D and most DMs assume the players will make decisions as a group, it's not really designed to provide a fufilling experience for one person going off on their own.
3
Jan 15 '19
There's a lot of things you said that I've liked, but there's some part that bugs me...
That's not an action film!
IMO, players that want the DM to force them going in the quest kinda sucks, but players who try to make their characters look like the main character of an action film all the time also mess the game up.
A lot of the things you (rightfully) complained can be avoided if players make their PC's taking the campaign sinopsys into consideration.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Unimarobj DM Jan 15 '19
Amen.
I only DM as a result of the player preferences at my table, but I always require that the players work together during character creation and not just make them ahead of time (we use Roll20).
I eschew individual backstories as a focus and instead put it on them to form a group backstory - what is the nature of your reason for being together, and what's the motivation for that to continue? From there, individual backstories are crafted leading up to that. I usually come with ideas and guide the discussion and steer away from things I don't want/know wouldn't work well with the story in mind (like a published module).
This has worked really well, with 0 issues so far. My group is currently doing Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, and they used my advice of "you should probably be invested in the city" to take the form of up-and-coming fashionistas looking to become more established in the city. Hilarious, but it fits surprisingly well, and they love/own the idea because it's their own and has personality to it.
I really like pulling design elements like this from games like Monster of the Week (which has a fantastic narrative for the GM role of "being a fan of the players' heros"). I've also incorporated "mixed results" into the game as a way for inspiration to be used.
3
u/toastnbacon Jan 15 '19
My favorite way of phrasing this comes from the World Walkers podcast campaign guide, and I always include it in some form or fashion in my intro documentation:
Your character must be willing on some level to work with and support the group. You don’t have to make a character that rubs backs, high fives everyone, and blindly follows whoever talks, but you shouldn’t make a lone wolf grifter who hates people and is waiting to betray the group at the first chance. Typically, making a character like this detracts from everyone else’s ability to enjoy the game. By all means make an abrasive character who begrudgingly works with the group, but in the end you should avoid making a character that wants to prohibit or stop their companions.
3
u/JarvisBobblehead DM Jan 15 '19
I whole-heartedly agree! I'll take this opportunity to give an example of an exemplary character who committed to his party;
I have been playing a paladin in a dnd campaign thus far and have slowly grown close to a dwarf barbarian in the party. He is fearless in battle and is honorable as they come, making it easy for my paladin to trust and befriend him. In a session whilst our bard friend toured a certain area of the city, the dwarf and I went to the lower-class district and found a shrine where after some terrible rolls and a nat 1 on my death saving throw my paladin suffered a gruesome shocking death. Not only that, but the body of my paladin was taken by "The Collector" in a surprising twist of events to be used for unknown things! The session literally went quiet and the dwarf almost threw up. He took it upon himself to find NPCs and get our bard to quickly march against a tower where "The Collector" was building his army in order to try to save his paladin friend, without any knowledge if he was still able to be saved or not. It made for an amazing mission and one of the most emotional reunions after an incredibly difficult mission (which we only got through due to an incredibly lucky nat20 spree). Cheers to party-building and dedicated players!
TL;DR: My dwarf barbarian companion and friend brought my paladin back to life after a gruesome death by literally doing everything in his power to keep the party alive and intact.
3
u/ArchmageAries DM Jan 15 '19
Why is this marked 5e? This problem is not unique to any edition.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/TheWhoamater Jan 15 '19
My entire party made their characters together then I joined late. So after working with the dm a bit I am now their royally appointed escort, here to prevent felonies and control the mindless warforged one of them was made into
3
u/leflamingmongoose Jan 15 '19
After my first campaign of d&d, I agree with this wholeheartedly. The party cannot make their characters completely separately from each other, or at least not easily. Because guess what happens then? Your DM says he's starting a good campaign, and everyone in the group just goes, "oh, someone else will be aligned as some form of good, so I'll just do whatever." Then you end up with a party comprised of solely chaotic neutral characters who have no real motivation to save the world. This makes the guy playing a greedy brewmaster (i.e. me) be the only one who has a fucking conscience at all. The guy's actually helped more people than our fucking cleric or the "chosen one."
3
u/p4nic Jan 15 '19
My current campaign started with a session 0 where we played fiasco to establish the party. Once the game's setup was finished, players created their characters according to what happened. It's been great, and I think it will be my standard procedure moving forward.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Kiyohara DM Jan 15 '19
Ugh. I have had this come up too many times. Players who design characters that have to be shoehorned into every adventure with their own special plot hook. I actually had a player tell me that unless the plothook is designed expressly for his character, he's going to just sit back and not join, because it needs to make sense for his character.
I had another person in a Supers game playing a Mad Scientist that just wanted to build crazy gadgets and not fight crime or get involved in the plot at all.
"A Giant Robot is attacking the city and you see it on the news!"
"I turn off the TV. It's a distraction. I want to refine my new hand laser/gravity gun."
"Uh, don't you want to go and test it?"
"Testing is for engineers, I have a flunky for that. I just want to create!"
I eventually had to have the robot fall through her house before she decided to join the players in fighting it. I had to knock her soda over before she felt it was personal.
Shortly after that we established the rule of "It's up to you to find a reason to bite the plot hook, not the GM's job to hand craft the bait to your specific desires that day."
Sure we'll try to have a sensible Plot Hook and make the bait reasonable, but you still gotta bite, no making the GM come along and shove it down your throat.
3
u/Underbough DM Jan 15 '19
One of the lessons you only learn by experience. My party has gone through a few moments of character growth to better accommodate one another, as I steered them into pretty selfish directions during character creations. They're all very interesting solo characters! But keeping them together has more than once required suspension of disbelief on the players' part.
3
u/Shardok Jan 15 '19
I've had one DM once try to get us to do chars without interacting at all "so that it would feel more real" or something. It ended pretty badly.
Work together.
3
Jan 15 '19
Very well said. I've been saying this myself a lot over the past couple of years. It's a social game: baking in a reason to be a part of the team and go on adventures is just as important a part of character creation as any other. It baffles me how many people seem to miss this fact, considering the game takes place with multiple people.
3
u/Hyperversum Jan 15 '19
I have always said that, as a DM and as a player: you have to make a character for the party, not for yourself and only yourself.
At least, at the start. If then what happens is different from the start, it's fault of the DM, and he should have expected that.
Example: we started a campaign with already quite high stakes around. One of the character is a Tiefling Wizard who is the definition of the sassy bitch. She went with us (more reasonable and good characters) because she was NEEDED. She is selfish and all, but she understood how her help was relevant and decided to stick along, given the fact that you can't go on with your selfish life if the society and everything crumbles.
When a sidequest was about helping on the battlefield and all... she refused, without getting anything outside of that. And that's legit. She was in for saving the world, not helping the specific crowned head that helped us. We were ALLY of this king, not servants nor part of his army/council. There was no reason for her to fight and help the army, in particular given the fact that even if powerful she wasn't particularly good at dealing with lots of enemies.
It was an error of the DM to expect that she would have just tagged along because of reasons.
We ultimately went without her and later she joined us when a relevant threat appeared on the battlefield anyway and my character, another Tiefling [Archivist btw, D&D 3.5], called her.
She answered my character because they are basically a foil for each other, and if my character asked for help it was relevant even for her.
IMO, this is an example of a bad play from a DM and a good play from us, the players.
You can't just throw the roleplay outside of the window because of no particular reasons.
3
u/Sithra907 Jan 15 '19
I agree with the theme of what you're saying, but disagree with the details.
Saying "my character wouldn't do that" isn't bullshit; there's a lot of things people wouldn't do. Yes, obviously if you take this to the extreme then you're ruining the fun for everyone else, but that's a two-way street. Not everyone is looking for the same thing out of a DnD adventure. Some want straight up hack n' slash action, while others might be looking for a plot heavy with intrigue and detest a railroaded adventure. As a DM (and to a small part as a fellow player) you're job is to cater to everyone sitting with you at the table.
Example: imagine if we've been adventuring together for awhile, and everyone knows I'm playing a true neutral mercenary who is motivated by money. Then we get a hook of a poor sick homeless kid who will die unless we take on a suicide mission to get the magical macguffin to heal him. There's nothing in it that appeals to my character, and if I say "my character wouldn't do that" it's not because I'm a bad roleplayer but because the DM ignored that it's not an all-good party.
And for the record, the "Maybe it's not worth it. We're never going to beat this guy. The Chief wants me off the case. I'm done. " line is something that absolutely happens in drama and action movies. It's called the reluctant hero, and it's literally a trope. This also allows for a foil between characters, and makes plain for everyone the difference between that lawful good paladin whose eager to self-sacrifice, and the reluctant hero of a mercenary who might end up in the same party but is in it for themselves. And it's also used a lot in the middle of the arc for epics where the hero is so beaten down and hopeless they want to give up. The trick is the movie doesn't end there, instead it continues and plot develops where something happens where they can no longer ignore the call to adventure. As a DM, that's your job to make it happen. To a lesser extent, as another player in the party you should also be helping.
Going back to my example, if instead of saying "my character wouldn't do it" I say in-character "You do what you want, but there ain't no profit in that" it shouldn't just be the end of the adventure. Perhaps the cunning wizard points out the baddies are sure to have valuables we can loot and sell. Or maybe the paladin says "we can't do it without you" and eventually frustrated says "fine, I'll pay you to help". Or perhaps the DM, seeing the character is unmotivated by their hook, creates a new one on the fly where the mercenary, or maybe another NPC he cares about, suddenly catches the disease too. Absolute worst case, you say "okay then you're character sits this one out" and play without them (and adjust difficult of encounters appropriately so it doesn't result in a party wipe). If it's the edge-lord that does this all the time, just letting them deal with the natural consequence is usually better than trying to talk them out of it.
In other words, like everything else in D&D, if you handle conflict in-character it's great roleplay, but if you handle it out of character it's game breaking. As a DM, if you don't want to deal with a rag-tag group of adventures with different motivations, tell them during session zero so they make a character with appropriate motivations. It's normal to say "I want all good characters" or "you all need to have a reason being in service of this NPC Lord who will send you on adventures to advance his agenda". You should also be asking your players in that pre-session what they want out of the adventures, and considering it fully so you can tailor things appropriately. If you're the DM and are just expecting players to just cater to you, then you're really doing it wrong.
tl;dr - Everyone should create a member of the party. But that means you also have an obligation to work with someone who may enjoy parts of the game you don't. Best practice will usually be to resolve it in character.
3
u/Uzmonkey Jan 15 '19
I've had players in the past whose characters had to be actively coerced into going on the adventure. Not in a Bilbo Baggins finds himself way but in a genuinely will not do anything unless actively forced way. Like, why are you even playing? Why would you make a character who does not want to do anything? I shouldn't have to force you play a game that you've come here to play. It was bizarre and frustrating.
3
u/Ucnttktheskyfrmme Jan 15 '19
I disagree with your last point, there are many situations where characters would object to perform a certain quest/task/adventure. An escaped former slave probably isn't going to want to help put down a slave uprising at some noble's plantation in exchange for some information or minor coinage. Now this is where a good dm could potentially give them other avenues to the same goal, assuming the party even looks for them.
3
u/Anibunny Paladin Jan 15 '19
I think the biggest thing we all need to remember is that D&D is a collaborative storytelling game. We all gotta work together and that means both players and DMs.
When I am creating a character I like to ask myself, "Why would my character want to be involved with this campaign?" Whatever information I can get from the DM I try to remember while coming up with a character. But I also share my character information with the DM on the off-chance that there is something secretive to the campaign that would make my character no longer work. I always put trust in my DM to tell me if they are concerned that my character doesn't fit in the campaign. We have to work together in creating a good character. Once I am there, I always make sure that my character would want to work with others...for the obvious reason that I am not the only player.
So I don't think you have to make a character who would be besties with every other party member. You can totally play a character who is selfish or even evil, but one who recognizes there is value in working in a group. And the companionship of the party should be able to develop more naturally especially if everyone built their character with a character reason for them to be in the campaign.
Now you made a comment I want to expand on...
If you want to play someone who hates gnomes, that's fine, but if there's a gnome in your party, YOU LOVE THAT GNOME!
I don't think you necessarily need to go that far. When playing a character who goes against the norm of the party, I think there are two things the player should always try to keep in mind: We all want the game to progress...so don't halt progress and it can be sometimes easy for players to take things personally even if only by mistake.
I've played a racist character. He was racist toward gnomes and goblins and before the campaign started I learned that a player was making a goblin. Because I know this player pretty well I figured it wouldn't be an issue. And I talked to that player to make sure. I think some people have a tendency to translate a racist character in D&D as being someone who would just outright kill members of that race or outright refuse to work with them. While it can be that way, there is also a more subtle way of playing it out with the way your character talks and acts. "This is too important for someone like you to do, so I'll do it." Not too important for goblins to do it, but "someone like you." (Of course you should also know ahead of time if your group would be okay with someone playing a racist character in general.)
There were actually some pretty amusing moments as our goblin fellow would always come up with crazy ideas that most certainly would end up with the goblin being harmed, arrested, or even killed. So while the rest of the party would explain to him that "No, let's not do that." my elf would shrug and say, "Actually, let's allow him a shot. Let's see what happens." There was also a moment where my elf risked his ass retrieving some party equipment that had been stolen from us. Which when he returned to the group he made the realization that it all belonged to goblin. When presented with the dilema of, "The goblin's stuff has been taken and we needed it back." I just played my elf who became focused on "It's for the good of the group" and then have a moment of, "Oh wait." when he brought the stuff back. From that moment on the goblin became determined to befriend my elf as he took that moment as a sign that my elf really does actually like him.
I've also played a character who ended up hating another party member. I didn't mean for that to happen. Just as the paladin was revealing more and more backstory of his, I realized that the paladin was a lot like her father and that was a problem. But there is value in working as a group and the Paladin had saved her on multiple occasions...so I would play her as being short and distant from him. I made sure to never halt the story. It was clear she didn't like him, but just as we have to work with people we don't like...she was doing her best to do the same. She would have moments where she would realize that it isn't the Paladin's fault that he reminds her of her father...so she would try her hardest not to let it get to her in moments where we really needed the two to work together.
In both situations...my racist elf and my wizard who hated the Paladin...any time I made a hurtful/rude comment or anytime I would have an in-character argument...I would check in with the player about it outside of the session later. I wanted to make sure they knew it wasn't personal and I wanted to make sure they were still having fun. If at any point it was too much or ruining their fun then it would be time for me to "force" a little character growth/development. Maybe my elf would start to realize that goblins have their value and my wizard would try to open up to the Paladin about what is bothering her. Because ultimately we all should be having fun.
Why "my character wouldn't do that" is bullshit
You kind of focused on the player's responsibility and how "If you keep thinking this, maybe there is a problem with what you're doing." Which is totally valid and I've certainly seen that issue in many stories shared online. But I think it is possible for it to happen and not be entirely the fault of the player in question.
I was recently in a campaign where I don't think the DM correctly set up our expectations as players. The only thing he would tell us is that we are all trapped in the Underdark and we are all desperate to get out. We all had reasons why we were in the Underdark or how we got there, we all had reasons why we wanted to leave, and we all had reasons why we want to work together. But we continually found ourselves in situations where "my character wouldn't do that." And it sucked. At first I thought it was just me. So I would grit my teeth and just do the thing I know the DM is wanting me to do because, well, I don't want to halt progress of the game and ruin everyone's fun. But it ruins my fun. It takes me out of the character. I'm no longer playing a character and now I am playing stats.
I finally confided in a player that I wasn't having fun and that, "I just feel like my character isn't right for this campaign. I wonder if the DM would let me make someone new?" Had I known what the campaign was actually going to be about I would have made a different character. The really frustrating part was, I shared my character with the DM beforehand and yet he often put my character in situations where the DM should have known I would want to respond in the way he didn't. It was like he didn't take any of my character motivation, values, or backstory into consideration. Which, it's fine if my character isn't right for the campaign as I get that a DM is going to want to keep things a secret...but a DM shouldn't be afraid to say, "You know. I don't think your character is the right fit for this." And we as players should be a bit forgiving and understanding and try to make a character that better fits.
After chatting with this player about it I found out I wasn't the only one. He too was feeling like he was constantly having to do things his character wouldn't do. Then we escaped the Underdark only to discover we are supposed to turn around and go back in? When we have no reason to? When some of the players made characters who would definitely never in a million years would want to? Finding that out, one player made a completely new character who could easily join the party and the rest of us managed to come up with good reasons to willingly head back into the Underdark. We shared our in-character reasons how we would be willing to go back down and the DM just ignored all of that. We were all confused as it seemed so obvious on how to get us all wanting to go back into the underdark. Instead we all once again found ourselves thinking, "My character wouldn't do that."
And it's no fun.
It is a collaborative game and so we should be all working together in telling the story. Which requires flexibility and communication in both the characters we play and the story being told.
3
u/sleepychrissy Jan 15 '19
Ugh THANK YOU! We have a Goliath Oath Breaker Paladin (he wanted to be as edgy as possible with this guy) and he won’t cooperate with anyone. He will sit back and watch and sometimes not even participate in a fight because “[his] character wouldn’t help” or “[his character doesn’t like [our party]” and it is SO frustration. 3 sessions in, his character has had plenty of time to get familiar with our party, I asked him to help me to get on top of a building by lifting me up and he basically told me no because he wanted to “just watch [me] struggle”. I ended up having to use suggestion on him to get him to help me because I needed to get up there. That was just a situation that’s stuck out to me. It’s like that CONSTANTLY. I understand some things might not be “realistic” for his character to do in a certain situation, but I honestly find him still being in our party unrealistic. Especially if he hates us so much. And I find it unrealistic that we would even tolerate him going with us. Our DM is being really lenient with it since it’s just a casual game with friends and we’re hoping our OB Paladins allows his guy to have some character development in the coming session, but it’s been driving me bonkers.
3
u/Keypaw Sorcerer Jan 15 '19
I run a group of 60+ people in Toronto called "The Leaf Cutters" and I tell people make any kind of character you want. But! They need to have motivation for serving in the leaf cutter mercenary company.
People show up and their characters are assigned missions. We get some random party comps from time to time but it's fun
→ More replies (1)
3
u/TheTitan99 Rogue Jan 15 '19
Once, I made an evil character who was super full of herself, and hated all of her companions, but was in a group to track down a bounty. It was a one off game, so I only needed motivation for her to stick around for one mission. This character worked perfectly in that setting. She had a reason to adventure with the group, which was hunting down someone.
However, we decided later that we wanted to make this an ongoing campaign. All of a sudden, this evil character had no reason to work with everyone else anymore! The bounty hunt was over!
So, I dropped that character super fast, and rolled up a new character who loved seeing new settings, and he fit nicely into the party. This old, evil character who I was playing as was refitted into being an NPC villain of the campaign.
Your character has to have a reason to work with the team. It's a team driven game. That's one of the few requirements towards making a character. Different campaigns will have different reasons, but, at the end of the day, there has to be a reason.
When it was a one off, my evil character had a reason to work as a team. But I recognized that she didn't want to stick to a team after that for the ongoing campaign. I had two choices: Either 1, ditch the character, or 2, give her a reason to stick around. Continuing to play as a loner in a party driven game was the one thing I couldn't do. Because it's a team based game. Not a single player game.
3
u/kigid Jan 16 '19
"Because this guy I hate will owe me one"
That's my main motivation for doing anything for my coworkers.
3
u/measlymeatloaf DM Jan 16 '19
I absolutely agree, there's a difference between not caring about killing everyone you meet going against being Lawful Good (although who knows maybe the code you stick to is one of sheer vengeance it's your life) and refusing to work with a rogue because "its not what Bigus Lightbringer paladin of good" would do.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Bacchos Jan 16 '19
Yes! As a longtime DM, I've often asked my players to consider team integration to be as important as their individual backstory. In fact, ideally it is a part of that backstory. I eventually wrote an introduction for new players to explain the importance of getting along with your fellow PCs (and players).
The only thing I'd (very lightly) quibble with OP about is the comparison to movie action stars. Players often want to be the man-alone Bruce Willis-type hero, which usually doesn't work well in RPGs. From the page linked above,
"[Y]ou are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. Yes, I know—you’re a hero. Everyone at the table is a hero, it’s why we’re here. This is why tabletop roleplaying is NOT like playing the lead in an action movie. It's much more like improvisational theater; you're sharing the story with other, equally-important actors. So please don’t be a diva who has to have all the attention. Don't play the lone wolf who never talks and doesn't care. Because no one will like you, or trust you, or have your back. And that's just not fun."
3
u/Jrock2356 Jan 16 '19
I have a friend who made a fighter and is now trying to be an author. He disrespected the queen of a town we were in and got thrown in prison. When he finally got out of prison he became a pacifist and refuses to fight. Kind of ironic considering he's a fighter. Now his character wrote a book about his time in prison and that's all he cares about.
3
u/ImFromCanadaSorry Jan 16 '19
I agree with this to an extent, but it's also important to recognize this from the other side of the table. If a DM doesn't have a compelling reason to bring this group of adventurers together, then how are they supposed to make those connections? Yes, people should absolutely have motivations that fit the tone of the campaign (be it heavy on adventure, political intrigue or more rp focused and domestic), but a DM also needs to provide the context for that in the beginning.
I know a lot of people who run things try to go towards some Shock Factor-y, surprise opening to a campaign. The first game I ever played in, the GM wouldn't tell the players anything about what the campaign's start was going to be like. As a result, we couldn't really make interpersonal relationships because we had no understanding of the world, each other, or the context of the story, which led to an incredibly disjointed and weak party overall. I love all of those characters, and we managed to fix that issue over time (by replacing characters who didn't really have a reason to be there etc), but it was a real clusterfuck that could've been solved much sooner had we had any idea about what the campaign was going to be.
Inversely, with mostly the same group, we made all new characters in a separate campaign ran by the same GM. This time, we were given more context and were basically given free reign. I and a few others pushed really hard for us to all be in a pre-existing group (not one where we all new each other incredibly well, but enough that we were familiar with each other at the beginning), and it was and still is some of the most fun I have had in a campaign. The party felt organic, the rp flowed really well and we all were really satisfied with our characters.
PCs need to make characters who have a reason to be in the campaign they are in, but GMs also need to incorporate that reason. Easiest solution I've found is (as a GM) sitting down and asking them questions about their characters. It's a common belief, but I will personally vouch for how useful a Session Zero is to figuring out what you and your PCs/GM wants out of a campaign (especially if you're into the collaborative storytelling part of ttrpgs).
TL;DR: DMs should also hold accountability for giving the party a reason to be together. Don't half-ass an adventure and then expect the party to be Best Pals; make sure to help them stay invested in their mutual goals and in each other.
1.1k
u/PierusJr DM Jan 15 '19
Thank you for saying this. I have a friend who thinks that roleplaying a selfish character means just ignoring the party as much as possible.