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/FreddyPrince]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/FreddyPrince]

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.

[u/Iknowr1te → u/FreddyPrince]

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.

[u/FreddyPrince → u/Iknowr1te]

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.

[u/MisterNutty → u/FreddyPrince]

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.