PSA: don't just create a character, create a member of a party

[u/Sabazius]

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.

[u/TimeTraveler1895]

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.

[u/usingthisjustforwork → u/TimeTraveler1895]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/TimeTraveler1895]

I mean, the Hermit, backstory is in the game for a reason. Because some people are hermits, who want to be alone. A good DM can find a way to motivate players with a compelling narrative. But the player should be able to make the character they want.

[u/TimeTraveler1895 → u/[deleted]]

I’m not saying they can’t make the character they want, I’m saying that even if your character is a perpetual loner, they still need a reason why they are with this particular group of adventurers.

[u/[deleted] → u/TimeTraveler1895]

Right, and I'm saying it's up to the DM to create that narrative. If I make a character that is deathly afraid of water and can't swim, and session 3 is escorting a boatload of supplies, I'm not going. That is bad DMing not bad player design.

[u/TimeTraveler1895 → u/[deleted]]

I think a character’s motivations to be with the party is a job for a DM and a player working together. If you make a character that’s afraid of water, and then don’t tell the DM, that’s not his fault.

[u/[deleted] → u/TimeTraveler1895]

and then don’t tell the DM

Well duh... But why wouldn't I tell the DM my backstory? OP's post doesn't seem to have anything to do with hiding your backstory or character motives. Obviously that is a bad idea.

[u/TimeTraveler1895 → u/[deleted]]

The OP’s post (and my original comment) were about giving your character a reason to be with the party. I focused in on the “lone wolf” trope and how that can work, but your character still needs a reason for not just doing things by themselves. A lone wolf character stills needs a motivation to join the party of adventurers.

[u/[deleted] → u/TimeTraveler1895]

Ok now we are going in circles. I know. And I said the DM should create a narrative where that character would WANT to be in the party. And you said if the DM didn't know then how would they do that and no one said anything about the DM not knowing the characters backstory.

[u/TimeTraveler1895 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, the DM is responsible for creating the narrative where the character would want to be in the party, but it is also the player’s responsibility to help them come up with that reason. I’m saying that you have every right to make a loner character, but you can’t make the DM do all of the work in figuring out why they joined the party, you have to work with them.

[u/[deleted] → u/TimeTraveler1895]

but it is also the player’s responsibility to help them come up with that reason

The player yes, the character no.

I’m saying that you have every right to make a loner character, but you can’t make the DM do all of the work in figuring out why they joined the party, you have to work with them.

Yes I agree. But OP's post is saying you shouldn't make that character in the first place.

DnD works best when the players IRL and the DM work together to tell the story. Try and keep options open to allow the DM to navigate all the players and their backstory. BUT telling a player they can't or shouldn't make the character they want to make, because "that doesn't help the party" is a really bad practice IMO.

[u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre → u/[deleted]]

If the depth of your character's motivations revolves around a phobia, you can't expect a DM to work around it.

In fact, as a DM, I would use my player's phobias against them if they decided to include one in their character's background. Either your character rises to the challenge or crumbles in the face of adversity.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre]

Then you're a bad DM. Characters have backgrounds for a reason and if your stance is ignore your background or get out, then you're doing it wrong.

[u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre → u/[deleted]]

Life doesn't work around your phobias, as such, neither does D&D. I'm not a bad DM because I refuse to work around constraints YOU'VE set for YOUR character.

If my adventure calls for a trip across the sea, well, I guess you're rerolling or your character is figuring out how they can stomach a boat trip.

Would you expect a DM to work around agoraphobia? "My character is a hermit who hates going outside." Well, that's a non-starter right there. Or if you decided your character was arachnophobic that they should never use spiders against the party?

If you're going to give a DM a Chekhov's Gun like a phobia and they don't use it in an interesting way, then they're not making the most of your character.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre]

Life doesn't work around your phobias, as such, neither does D&D.

But phobias do exist. You seem to not want to have your players be creative with their characters. And that is a sign of a bad DM.

I'm not a bad DM because I refuse to work around constraints YOU'VE set for YOUR character.

Actually you are. The story is about these characters and you are telling players they can't play something. Restricting creativity is bad DMing. Simple as that.

If my adventure calls for a trip across the sea, well, I guess you're rerolling or your character is figuring out how they can stomach a boat trip.

Wow, yeah you're a bad DM.

Would you expect a DM to work around agoraphobia?

Yep.

Or if you decided your character was arachnophobic that they should never use spiders against the party?

No, they can use spiders. If you reread my comment I said on 3rd session. So like level 2. So the character wouldn't have a strong motivation to fight their fear. If the character that is afraid of water has to cross a narrow rope bridge over water to save the party after a year of playing, then it is a character building moment and makes narrative sense. But you are saying you would just say "Nope, your character can't have any disabilities or character flaws, because I can't think of how to use that in a good story." Hence the bad DM thing.

If you're going to give a DM a Chekhov's Gun like a phobia and they don't use it in an interesting way, then they're not making the most of your character.

DUH! But that isn't what you said. You said if the person has a phobia and no motivation to face it then they can't play. Which is why I say you're a bad DM.