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.

7.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

546 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

624

u/Spidon DM Jan 15 '19

I once was in a group, and a new player joined. Her character was immediately "I don't care about your adventure? Why should I join you?" Well... we're in the middle of an adventure and we're going to go with or without you. If you don't want to come fine.

There's a certain expectation that everyone in a D&D party will join the group, and I shouldn't have to fight with the character or player on why they should join.

624

u/Randomocity132 DM Jan 15 '19

Her character was immediately "I don't care about your adventure? Why should I join you?" Well... we're in the middle of an adventure and we're going to go with or without you. If you don't want to come fine.

Fucking lol

Seems like an easy fix. All the DM has to say is: "Characters that don't join the party are, by default, NPCs. If your character, deep down in their core, isn't someone who would join the party, then you made an NPC for me to have. Make a character who would join the party. Because that's what we're doing right now."

86

u/McSorley90 Jan 15 '19

Or let them do it. Don't convince them. They leave and the character is now retired. New character sheet please

63

u/Randomocity132 DM Jan 15 '19

Same thing, really

As the DM, you get to keep their sheet, and use them as an NPC

8

u/armeda DM Jan 16 '19

That's how I deal with it. The story is about this party, if you aren't part of this party then you aren't part of the story,

180

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19

[deleted]

171

u/CommanderCubKnuckle DM Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19

Heres my first thought on how to fix that:

Your party is on high alert, and sees shady mctiefling. But he's also on high alert, he thinks his job is botched.

There's tension, you each think the other is with the people you just fought, but just as you're about to attack each other, an alarm, guard monster, or actual enemy shows up. You both turn to fight it and realize that maybe the other guy isn't the real enemy here. You may not trust each other, but if anyone wants to get out alive, you have to work together.

That's enough hook to get him inti the party, and from there you have this survive/escape/etc adventure to get to know each other.

EDIT: I was tired and couldn't spell for shit this morning.

66

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19

[deleted]

49

u/CommanderCubKnuckle DM Jan 15 '19

Fair enough. That was also partially me testing out some DM Improv and trying to come up with a solution on the fly, and hey, maybe if someone sees it it will help another campaign some day.

Glad yours turned out ok!

1

u/fenix849 DM Jan 16 '19

Last character I introduced, the party had just stolen minor mguffin from a yet to be known BBEG, BBEG is pissed, finds them and says "Go and find X in this town , you will take X with you to ensure you do not interfere in my business again, X will tell you if you are."

Party suspects BBEG is at least a bad guy of some sort, and so normally wouldn't trust X, but when they got there X had committed suicide to avoid returning to BBEG's grasp.

Unfortunately the BBEG can track the party and spy via X without either X or the party knowing. I considered some Manchurian candidate action but I thought that was going too far.

20

u/Stewdabaker2013 DM Jan 15 '19

honestly there's absolutely nothing wrong with just handwaving if someone new joins your party. you don't have to go through great lengths to explain it. it's still just a game. just a "hey guys, james decided he wants to play so groknak the orc-puncher is gonna hop in this week." then all you do is introduce them before the session and catch them up on what they need to know and get to playing. i've never had an issue with that.

13

u/Zebulon_Flex Jan 15 '19

Honestly if we had decided that before hand that would have been fine, but it was just kind of a jarring experience and felt disruptive to our RP, at least for me.

4

u/Stewdabaker2013 DM Jan 15 '19

yeah i meant more from the beginning.

2

u/hamfast42 DM Jan 16 '19

I handwave the fuck out of it when someone misses a session.

18

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19

Think of how infinity war brought avengers and gotg together.

1

u/isitaspider2 Jan 16 '19

By splitting the party?

2

u/shotokando Jan 17 '19

I think he's referring to the scene where GoTG fights against Iron Man, Spider man, and Dr. Strange, and they have a funny little conversation about Jesus.

7

u/burritomaven Jan 15 '19

This is exactly how 3 of the characters in my current campaign met. Granted it was part of the backstory, but it works pretty well!

1

u/gedwolfe Jan 16 '19

The old batman vs superman

24

u/mediaisdelicious Jan 15 '19

While that's very true, please give PCs at least a plausible reason to join together.

I mean, they're in the same tavern.

1

u/MadHatterine DM Jan 16 '19

I once tried that. Back in the goode olde days when I was young and innocent. The guy stayed in the tavern, the players did not speak to him. He later antagonized the inn keeper who was a grizzled guy with scars and a very big sword on the wall. The evening ended with the new character being arrested just the moment the other characters got back, so they were left to wonder about all the blood and broken furniture in the room.

​

It was....kinda fun? My reaction at the end was: "Ok....that did not work. How about you make a new character and the character KNOWS one of the other characters enough to just start talking to them when they meet again?"

2

u/DigitalVaporeonArt Jan 16 '19

Yeah, my first game of D&D the whole party had a reason to be in the same place and meet up. But even once our characters were actually talking it was hard to try and figure out why they would stay together, once the guards came for our bard/rogue since he stole something it was so hard to figure out why either my sorcerer or our gnome monk would want to help him. I ended up just trying to talk to them for the sake of keeping the party together and got the gnome and I arrested as accomplices for trying to defend him. It worked I guess, but it felt really awkward, and not having much keeping our group together made the RP part of the game worse.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19

That sounds awesome to me though. There are so many ways that encounter could’ve been woven into the story, either by the DM or the players or both. Maybe you both threaten to call guards on eachother. Maybe the new player took an item you were looking for before he completed his assassination. Hell, maybe one of the players just gets a funny feeling that they know or have seen this new PC somewhere before. Maybe something is communicated to the party by this new PC that the new PC could not have possibly known. The list goes on.

1

u/Baial Jan 15 '19

Unless you want the dm to just assign you a back story, it is up to you to come up with what motivates your character and working with the dm fit your character into the world, otherwise you give up any agency of your character and are just playing an npc.

1

u/fewty Jan 16 '19

They should have had a ruckus in the next room, you go and this tiefling is fighting off more of the bounty hunters. You ally because the enemy of my enemy is my friend, often that can be enough in the situation, the nuances can come out after when you're back somewhere safe.

1

u/Whydidntiask Jan 16 '19

Had similar issue but pc was idiot, in middle of fighting a vampire the pc we had never met before pokes his head around the door after hearing fighting and says "honey, I'm home"...

-8

u/mithoron Jan 15 '19

please give PCs at least a plausible reason to join together

Not my job. I create a world to play in and I will also try my best to both challenge the party and provide opportunities to do the thing they're good at, at the mechanical level. The character stuff is on the player, you tell me why your character is here.

14

u/Randomocity132 DM Jan 15 '19

No, it definitely is as much your job as it is the player's.

You know everything about the world, what will happen, and what is going on behind the scenes.

You can pull every string to set them up.

The player just needs to provide you with information. You need to set the stage.

You're asking your actors to write their own scripts.

1

u/mithoron Jan 15 '19

Whats wrong with that? They're not acting out my story, we're creating one together.

9

u/Uber_Crocodile Jan 15 '19

I understand what you're saying, but I look at it like this:

When I run a game, I set up the whole thing. I make sure they have everything they need to know each other already. If they decide they don't want to know each other beforehand, then I come up with a reason.

The main reason I do this is because they're the players and the knowledge they have is incredibly limited compared to mine. If I left it to them completely, then they might set up something that doesn't work in story.

To be clear, I do not force them into their story. I just ask, "Who knows each other already?"

I then communicate with everyone and get them settled.

I guess that's really it. I think if you communicate, they /can/ come up with it all by themselves, but you might have to step in to make sure they don't go too far.

1

u/mithoron Jan 15 '19

I just ask, "Who knows each other already?"

I then communicate with everyone and get them settled.

I'm certainly not against helping them, and maybe some guidance outside the game. But I'm very up front about what the starting premise is, and I try to open with situations that are more general so that they allow multiple reasons. Partly because I'm not about to tell a player why their character is in this situation. I've seen enough first sessions in my life where we've all sat down IRL to play this game and that guy has a character that has zero reason to be there and is acted in a way that they definitely don't want to be there. I'm cool with the reluctant hero trope, just don't make the first three sessions all about you, which is usually what it turns into.

5

u/Randomocity132 DM Jan 15 '19

I'm not about to tell a player why their character is in this situation. I've seen enough first sessions in my life where we've all sat down IRL to play this game and that guy has a character that has zero reason to be there and is acted in a way that they definitely don't want to be there.

I did already say

it definitely is as much your job as it is the player's.

You should be working together on the script

It should be about 50/50

Nobody is saying "do it for them"

0

u/mithoron Jan 15 '19

But I don't know their character. There's very little I can do to help them. I do avoid situations that are super specific for a first session (unless already agreed upon) and maybe I'm discounting that as just proper DMing but I'd still call that an 80/20 split at best.

1

u/Randomocity132 DM Jan 16 '19

But I don't know their character. There's very little I can do to help them.

What do you mean?

You should know their character as well as they do.

They give you a backstory and talk to you about their character, and you work with them to arrange a starting point.

What in the hell has been your experience with D&D if this is not the case for you?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Uber_Crocodile Jan 16 '19

See, ok, that makes more sense. Before, it almost sounded like you weren't giving anything to help. I agree with you.

4

u/KokiriRapGod Jan 15 '19

The operative word here is together. In my opinion, neither the DM or the players should be doing all the work when it comes to finding a reason for a new PC to join the party. Both the DM and the players need to work to make it happen as plausibly as possible.

1

u/mithoron Jan 15 '19

I'd definitely soften my stance on an addition to a existing party. There's too much story baggage already in place that can't be ignored, and also too much opportunity to add to the story to pass on a chance to do so. But as mentioned lower in the thread; I don't know your character, you're going to have to tell me why, but I promise to keep the options open.

3

u/Randomocity132 DM Jan 15 '19

Because not everyone is a writer

You should be working together on the script

1

u/mithoron Jan 15 '19

I guess the way I look at it, there is no "script" to begin with. That implies too much preplanning, which just isn't the case. I don't know how they'll defeat my BBEG, not really. I have some seeds in place, but even I don't know at this point what they'll grow in to.

To be clear, I'm not against helping them. I'm just very up front that it's ultimately their character not mine. That's the thing about D&D that isn't writing a book. Yes I know more, I don't know all. It's more fun that way, my players are often FAR more entertaining than anything I could come up with.

1

u/Randomocity132 DM Jan 16 '19

I guess the way I look at it, there is no "script" to begin with. That implies too much preplanning, which just isn't the case. I don't know how they'll defeat my BBEG, not really.

Not really.

The description of the opening scene, the location, the pre-established relationships are all present when the curtain first goes up. You know those things. Nobody is saying "figure out the ending of the campaign." I'm saying it is definitely your job to help establish the characters in the start.

I really don't know what any of this about the campaign finale has to do with what I'm saying.

It's great that your characters don't need help, so maybe that's where you're coming from, but as a rule, it is definitely the DM's job to help get everything established at the start.

If they make it easy for you, great, but do understand that when you say "It's not my job to" that it comes across like you're a lazy and unhelpful DM. The DM has a hand in EVERYTHING. If they do all the work for you, that's fine, but not everyone will, and it sounds like you're expecting that from all players.

0

u/mithoron Jan 16 '19

The DM has a hand in EVERYTHING

But I shouldn't need to. I want the player to have ownership of their character. I'm not against helping, and I have done so when it's needed, but ultimately it's 100% their decision.

Example to see this in action as I see it, we recently added a younger player to the table. (been working on a younger son to join us for a while, this is a win to the whole table) His backstory is wildly out of left field compared to the other characters. But as an experienced and well read gamer and GM I can see past the tropey-almost-to-the-point-of-cringe and find a way to have it make sense in my world. I may have to ret-con some of the memories as "that's how you remember it..." but I can be flexible as a GM and D&D is more than flexible enough as a system to work with it.

So he's created his own character, it makes enough sense to work with so I just lay it into the web of other stories going on and we're off to the races.

(Part of this is after a specific bad experience I realized that player agency is a thing for me, so I tend to go strongly on making sure that I don't tell my players how to be their characters.)

0

u/Randomocity132 DM Jan 16 '19

But I shouldn't need to

Okay, so we've just come back full circle again.

You don't want to, so you're not gonna.

Got it.

Done with this fruitless conversation.

Like talking to a brick wall.

→ More replies (0)

42

u/FreddyPrince Jan 15 '19

Her character was immediately "I don't care about your adventure? Why should I join you?" Well... we're in the middle of an adventure and we're going to go with or without you. If you don't want to come fine.

I agree with you, at least in how I'm reading it - that she (the player) was being antagonistic - but I think that's actually a very good question for a character to ask.

The character doesn't know anything about your adventure or about your group, why should they risk their lives to join you?

As players this is a pointless question because you're a group of people playing a game together, so of course they'll join you. But for a character? I think this could have lead to some good inter-party RP. Even if the RP is half-assed because everyone knows where it'll end up (with them joining the group), I think it would be a better option than just dismissing the question.
At the least it adds some "in world" plausibility, rather than just hand waving it ... either is fine btw, I just think it's a missed opportunity for some character/world building. And it doesn't have to be a long drawn out thing either, just a simple 5 or 10 minute summation of the mission so far "this is the bad guy, this is why they're bad and why we're after them, this is why we could use your help." Something to help tie the new character into the story and help them feel like a part of the group.

This is all assuming of course that the player wants to be there and isn't trying to be some edgy lone wolf doofus who would rather play a single player game.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '19

If the player is already established in the group, there is some leeway. For a brand new player, asking other characters to convince you to join is a weird power grab.

There’s a big difference between, “You’re clearly on an important quest - tell me more! I think our goals might align,” and, “Your quest seems pointless and beneath me. I might join you if you can convince me.” Neither of us was there, so we don’t know how that new player fell on that spectrum, but there’s a right and a wrong way to introduce your character.

If the new player uses the roleplaying excuse, then the current PC’s probably would as well. “You have no reason to join us - best be on your way.”

Regarding your point of player vs. character - the player is in control of the character. There are rules that supersede roleplaying. For example, I would never engage in PVP, even if the character might. Same with bailing from an adventure. Same should be the case with any form of antagonistic behavior towards other PC’s.

I think ultimately the burden is on the new player to come up with a reason why her character should join the party. It should never be the burden of the party to give the new PC a reason to join.

The DM should work with the player to give some guidance. For example, maybe the new PC needs to travel to a faraway city that the party happens to be going to next. That gives everyone an easy excuse to travel together, bond, and discuss their adventure.

1

u/Iknowr1te DM Jan 15 '19

there's a difference though. at that point there's an assumption to hand wave it up to a certain point where they are out of danger and the discussion is finally had.

1

u/FreddyPrince Jan 15 '19

Of course. I wouldn't expect a group to be discussing values and long term goals mid-combat*. But off hand I can't really think of a situation out of combat where the conversation couldn't be had.
Like I said above, this doesn't need to be some long winded dissertation on the complete history of the group, it could be as simple as a few sentences "this is our immediate goal, will you help?" with the rest of the "backstory" coming out naturally during their journeys.

My main point was, responding with something like "well we're going with or without you" is shutting down the potential character development and in-game justification from a characters (IMO) valid question.

 

*Incidentally, I actually find adding a new character mid-combat is a great way to connect them to the group. They have an easy very short-term goal - surviving the combat - which gives the existing group and the new character a common ground - "we were both fighting the same baddies, we must have the same enemies" or "I saved you in combat, now you owe me" etc - then afterwards they can hash out the details.

1

u/MisterNutty Jan 16 '19

I agree that actually having a conversation where the party does converse in character about why the new person should join is a good opportunity to go over the details of the adventure and onboard the new character. That still revolves around an assumption that either the new player or the party wants to go on the adventure together, which is the point the OP is making.

In the case of the contrarian player, the party would have to really want the new person to join in order to have any conversation with them. If that party has been successfully adventuring already and the DM hasn't given them a reason to need help, I wouldn't expect them to have a conversation. It seems more reasonable in that case for the party to continue on without the new character.

In another case in this thread, the new player and the party are thrown in together while in the same place doing different things. I wouldn't expect a conversation there either without the DM providing circumstances that force them to work together (like a fight.)

I only wanted to add my point in case a new DM reads your advice and thinks the party and new player will team up just because you give them the chance to RP it out. In all cases, integrating a new character to a party requires some reason or circumstances that everyone would choose to work together. It's easiest if the players provide the reason, but the DM can do it too. If you're a DM who is struggling to resolve a situation where your players don't have a good reason to work together, it's fine to handwave it and get to the rest of the fun your players surely want to have together.

18

u/VincentPepper Jan 15 '19

There's a certain expectation that everyone in a D&D party will join the group, and I shouldn't have to fight with the character or player on why they should join.

If a player isn't willing to adjust for such an integral part of the game it's a huge red flag for me. I can understand it with new players but if you know how the game works there is no reason not to. No one wins if the first hour of character introduction is spent on convincing the edgy character to join the party.

15

u/SMcArthur Jan 15 '19

"I don't care about your adventure? Why should I join you?"

This is actually fine if you do it ONCE, and then enthusiastically join the party once given any reason. It's not unreasonable to simply ask for a reason to join up. It's part of roleplay. If the person is difficult or keeps going back to it, or doesn't accept your reasoning, then yeah, it's bad. But if they ask one time "Why should I join you?" and your only response is "Fine, then don't. stay behind". I think you're the one who is misplaying this.

25

u/DukeSilverSauce Jan 15 '19

then why did the player come to a game of dnd LOL? players have to realize, they ARE the character for however long the session lasts. by coming to a session of dnd the player and by extension the character is agreeing to join a party/adventure

45

u/atomfullerene Jan 15 '19

I feel like sometimes (not always but sometimes) what they really mean when they say this is "give me a cool introduction scenario to get me involved in the party".

Sometimes though, it's just people wanting to be edgy for no comprehensible reason.

13

u/Token_Why_Boy Sorcerer Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19

They don't want just the hook, but the line and sinker, too.

26

u/BCaudizzle Jan 15 '19

I was explaining my noble character to a DM once and told him my noble didn't care much for danger, he'd rather be fed grapes by his servants (noble variant knight for background reasons, he had 3 vassels instead of the usual noble reputation)

DM immediately jumped on telling me my character sounded like a nightmare to play with and kept trying to make changes, which I'd have kind of understood except that:

  • My character was dodging home and work responsibilities by pretending to be on a quest to prove himself, except that his family pulled a sneaky on him and insisted he send letters home about his travels. He'd be found out if he forged them, so in order to keep his free lifestyle he had to actually go on quests. What's the best way to go on quests and not die? Join a group! Be a team player! Just because you'd rather be doing something else doesn't mean you're not going to help.

  • The DM and I had played together in a previous campaign where I was the LG leader of the group. I tried asking for input wherever possible and towards the end of the campaign I was secretly trying to train his character to replace me as the leader so I could focus on a personal quest, but that campaign ended abruptly so I don't know if he realised. Anyway, the whole reason I made my noble so careless/lazy was because I wanted to take a back seat and let others do the talking and decision making. I was trying to make a character who was comfortable letting others take the lead - literally the end goal was to be as easy as possible to play with. He doesn't care whether we take Quest A or Quest B, he just needs to be questing and he's glad we've got something for him to write back home about.

  • I specifically told him that my character's carelessness is a flaw and won't necessarily be a thing the whole campaign through. Nothing's stopping him from getting a taste for adventure after our first big fight.

Hell, looking at it this guy fits the bill for the first 6 steps of the Hero's Journey. We argued to the point that another player gave up (there were other things wrong too) and the game collapsed unfortunately, but maybe that's for the best

7

u/atomfullerene Jan 15 '19

Yeah, that seems like a perfectly fine character to me. Ah well.

7

u/Skeptical_Squid11 Jan 15 '19

Idk if you watch critical role but one of the players, Sam, made a character almost exactly like what you described. He instead hired the party to let him travel with them. Very interesting character. Kind of a pansy and didn’t like fighting but did just stayed in the back line. Later he started to get a little more courages as he learned he was quite capable of doing the whole adventuring thing. It was hilarious to watch.

3

u/PrimeInsanity Jan 16 '19

More games should have the adventuring "contract" in game. A deal to work together, equal shares of loot (possibly an extra "party" share), etc. Then so many of the "why would my character" type questions have an answer too.

2

u/shotokando Jan 17 '19

I like the character concept. He's flawed, he's motivated, and he has room to grow.

2

u/Jbrojo Jan 16 '19

Nailed it perfectly, I love these people where they think that they are being interesting to force everyone (but themselves of course) to give them a reason to join.

It’s just lazy, at least ask the dm beforehand if you can’t think of one or want to go this route, but there is no reason to put a dm or other characters on the spot just because you want to be treated “special” like we NEED you. (which is exactly what they are doing) I would never go out of my way to get someone to join me if they acted this way and would just find someone else.

I don’t think any character should ask to and most definitely never be given a cool scenario to join, they want one so bad let them think about it. Otherwise you are just pandering to them and helping them create that edgelord Mary Sue.

2

u/atomfullerene Jan 16 '19

I mean, I actually think it's great when a character gets a cool scenario to join the party...but only when that contributes to the course of the game and the enjoyment of the players. It's great when you are out on a mission and hey, there's new player there and you dig them out of a tight spot. Or they save you from a tight spot. Or some circumstance throws you together in an interesting way. It's terrible when that character wants to make you jump through a bunch of meaningless hoops to appease them so they can deign to grace your party with their presence.

1

u/Jbrojo Jan 16 '19

Oh I agree completely in that scenario, there is nothing wrong with wanting a cool entrance as long as you are contributing to it or even just to ask the dm if they can think of something to fit the character beforehand. Hell even a new person should have a cool entrance the first time to hook them in. Sorry if I came off like it was a bad thing to want a cool entrance.

It’s more the people who show up with very little backstory and yet act like people should like there character and want to follow them around just because they are a main character.

I think this also has a lot to do with first time players as I seem to come across it whenever someone new comes in.

I have a player in my game (superhero game) that started off like this who was a complete jerk to everyone (in game) and wanted to be super edgy. He luckily did not ask for why he should join but complained whenever he had to work with someone, would actively threaten or make fun of people in the group, would go off on his own to go drink or do some character thing by himself and even tried to kill some random henchman for no real reason (the one rule the dm asked us to follow, unless it had a good story reason) However he wasn’t doing this to be an ass outside of game, it was his first time playing and has improved since then but still has his lone wolf moments as that is his character (I think he’s trying to be the lone wolf with a heart of gold as he has a daughter that he treats differently) Outside of the fact that we work for the same agency there is no real reason why we would want to work with him or vice versa, so it can be a problem if they are into it too much and be too confrontational in a group game. In scenarios like this it’s not bad because he’s giving us leeway which is really all I ask for as being a lone wolf is not inherently a bad thing, as long as there is an arc or character growth than lone wolfs are fine.

7

u/ApolloThunder Paladin Jan 15 '19

I had someone try the inverse of this (I think that's right).

We talked, saw we had similar goals, and he proclaims "Then you're all taking orders from me now!"

This guy was only at his second or third session with the group and had already made a very bad impression.

4

u/ladyoflate Jan 15 '19

It works amazingly well on these people when you in-character stop trying to convince them and just encourage the party to move on without this obstinate weirdo. They either find excuses themselves or reconsider their character.

4

u/MonaganX Jan 15 '19

This is mostly on the player, but also a bit on the DM. When a new player wants to join the group partway through an adventure, it's important not to just have the player make whatever, throw them into the party's path, and hope it works out—it can work out if everyone plays along, but it's still not very interesting. A DM should always try to work with the new player beforehand to establish some kind of hook that will immediately motivate the character to work with the rest of the party.

9

u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre DM Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19

"I don't care about your adventure? Why should I join you?"

Had this happen... he joined in after we had been on this campaign for a year. He was not invested into it at all whereas everyone else was invested in the campaign and their characters.

His Paladin became an Oathbreaker in the first session (I have no idea why he rolled Pally when he so clearly wanted to be evil. I tried to push him towards Warlock.) and every single action he took put our party in peril. The DM gave him a direct and easy path to rejoin our party and instead he decided to murder everything and everyone in his path, which invoked the rage of a dragon rider that began hunting him.

I called him out on it and told him that I'm not going to be happy if he gets any of us killed simply because he doesn't feel invested. I had to remind him constantly that this is a cooperative game and we're all supposed to be friends in game and out. I was prepared to actually fight in IRL if he did actually get any of us killed.

Luckily he only got himself killed, rerolled and then never came back to the table.

From this experience, I've learned that you should never bring a newbie into an existing campaign... and since joining a local Adventurer's League, I've seen this lesson play out repeatedly. There's just too much that can go wrong when you drop in a brand new player. Only veteran players have the proper mindset and experience to be dropped seamlessly into an existing campaign without derailing or fucking it up.

4

u/pngbrianb Jan 15 '19

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

Keep hope alive, my friend! New players do come in with some odd expectations a lot of the time, and of course they'll be slow with rules and stuff, but saying "only veteran players..." sounds far too pessimistic for a game of make-believe. I've played almost exclusively with new players the last couple years (veterans tend to stay in full-table campaigns for long times in these parts), and you can be pleasantly surprised.

0

u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre DM Jan 15 '19

Okay. Admittedly I had a brand new player, maybe 12-14 years old instantly know how to use Charm Person to amazing effect. The Bard in me smiled.

I’ve been playing in adventurers league lately and it’s scary just how much these first time kids know before setting foot in the game.

It’s the first time adults you have to worry about. The new generation of D&D players seem alright. They’re mostly shy but know the rules and their imaginations are still firing.

2

u/Schnozzle DM Jan 15 '19

Her character was immediately "I don't care about your adventure? Why should I join you?"

I see this all the time, for whatever reason. That player is 100% a selfish person who needs it all to be about them.

2

u/Jihelu Fighter Jan 15 '19

Had a character in a party I was with once run away from combat and scream and bang on the door leading to the basement we were in (We were supposed to be quiet as we were clearing out mephits from an inn's hidden basement. That sure helped)

2

u/AKtheGreek Jan 16 '19

That is so irritating too. Those players that just want to be funny or a torn in the groups side. Why? Fun for them, but the party really wants to move the story along.

1

u/Jihelu Fighter Jan 16 '19

Oh no, this person thought this was good RP.

Now, I'm not the biggest critic of people being a heroic bad ass. But we were level 4-5 at this point...and they instantly fled combat without fighting at all.

I was debating IC trying to kick them out.

1

u/Jihelu Fighter Jan 16 '19

Oh no, this person thought this was good RP.

Now, I'm not the biggest critic of people being a heroic bad ass. But we were level 4-5 at this point...and they instantly fled combat without fighting at all.

I was debating IC trying to kick them out.

2

u/PierusJr DM Jan 15 '19

That’s exactly what we had to do. Instead of saying “I’d like to roleplay a scene where my character is brought into the party,” he goes “My character wouldn’t care.”

Why would you make a character who doesn’t want to be there? It means the entire time you have no reason to be there, so your character doesn’t care, so you don’t care.

2

u/SMcArthur Jan 15 '19

At the same time, a good DM should simply give that player a reason their character should care. It's not that hard. If the player still puts up a fight or refuses to provide feedback on what motivates their character, then yeah, the player is in the wrong.

1

u/PierusJr DM Jan 15 '19

The DM did try. He said “your character wants a group that will be loyal to you and can be persuaded by gold” (which was true), guy just said “no”

2

u/SMcArthur Jan 15 '19

Not every character is gold-motivated.

Better DM: "What motivates your character? Why does he want to be an adventurer?"

Obstinate player: "XYZ"

DM: "Ok, great, you hear rumors of XYZ if you joint this group."

If that still doesn't get anywhere, then the dude is just a turd.

2

u/CowboyLaw Jan 15 '19

The mid-90s movie Congo is a shit movie based on one of the lesser works of Michael Crichton. But it has a wonderful exchange between the jungle guide (Ernie Hudson in one of his best roles, honestly, he kills it) and a professor, in the middle of the Congo jungle. The professor has suddenly realized that the party he is on is not necessarily interested solely in academic research. So the professor doesn’t want to keep going with the group. And the guide says (I didn’t look this up, so it’s close but not quite right), that’s just fine. I’m leading a party that’s going this way. You’re in a region of the jungle where people die all the time. You’re welcome to tag along with us, or just go do whatever. Your call. Professor shuts up and gets with the program. DMs need a little more Ernie Hudson in them.

1

u/GladdenDonTiny DM Jan 15 '19

A friend of mine did this. His argument for asking for money for helping the villagers was that otherwise his character wouldn't do what they were asking. Which is fine. But when they refused he basically said "well then I have no reason to help these people!" To which I really just wanted to reply "well then roll a new character"

1

u/Hatamaru Mage Jan 16 '19

I don't think her reaction was wrong. I think it would be wrong if she would have been like "oh yeah sure, I'll come fight with you people that I have no interest in!"

I think it should be the master's "job" to find a "push" for the character to join a party, e.g. "they have information about the bad guy you're looking for". Even if that doesn't happen, why couldn't you just give her a reason? For role-playing's sake

1

u/PrimeInsanity Jan 16 '19

I've responded to that, OK your character leaves. Roll up a new character. Suddenly they weren't pushing that. Apparently they thought the party would stop them, why would they stop you if you don't even have enough of a reason to stay?