If the person playing is hellbent on being a lone wolf, they shouldn’t have entered the game. Roleplaying a character who has trust issues but is willing to give the party a chance to convince them they’re trustworthy is very reasonable, though - realistic, even.
If your character has no reason to stay either the plothook was insufficient or you made a bad character. Both should be adressed ooc.
Create a new character that does have a reason to stick around.
they should not meet in session 1.
Strongly disagree. Nothing wrong with doing that, but nothing wrong with having them meet in session 1 too, as long as you have built characters who will be willing to go along with the GM’s hooks.
And even that part is flexible, depending on the nature of the hook. If the hook is “you see an ad look for rat exterminators”, then you better have a character who wants to be an adventurer and will cooperate with other would-be adventurers. If the hook is “you’re prisoners being ordered to go explore this dungeon by order of the vizier”, there’s room for slightly less cooperative PCs, as long as you PC is cooperative enough to go along with that order, even if (at first) reluctantly.
Meeting people with the inclination and schedule that I enjoy the company of to make a party with is the worst part of d&d. Please don’t wake me role play it, too.
It might be your least favorite part of DnD, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who enjoy meeting a new group of characters and finding out about their particular ticks and specialties.
I learn about the characters, myself included, throughout the campaign through their actions. Otherwise session one is like that time I asked a coworker about one of his tattoos and had to hear about his sister’s murder. That’s more of a session two+ thing to me.
For me, the tired trope of “strangers meet in a tavern” approach is the inevitable round of introductions that feels like that time at the start of school when everyone had to stand up to say their name and one interesting fact about them. It’s just awkward and everyone wants it to be over quickly.
Much better to just create characters together in session 0. Everyone already knows each other, their motivations, prior relationships established, etc… and just begin the campaign as if everyone is already on mission.
There are options besides “strangers meet in a tavern and awkwardly introduce themselves” and pre-made perfectly-tailored party. I’m a fan of starting in media res, with the characters all in a location for their own reasons, when shit happens that forces them to act as a group. I’ve just recently started the video game Baldur’s Gate 3, and it’s not a bad example of what I mean.
The friction of people rubbing off of each other for the first time creates so many wonderful opportunities for storytelling, and forming bonds naturally through play, instead of prescribing them in a clinical session 0 context, tends to make the players much more invested in those bonds, in my experience.
Yeah, I’m gonna back you up on that one. Sometimes assembling the group in session 0 is what’s right for the story, and sometimes it really, really isn’t. Think about how many movies literally have “Assembling the team” as almost their entire plot. The Avengers hangs two hours of non-stop action on “We need to put a party together.” Every heist movie is basically required to have an “I’m putting a team together…” sequence.
Session 0 is where you lay out the expectations of the game, and your players think about either how their characters have already interacted, or how they will interact when they eventually meet. You give people an idea of what they’re getting into, you pitch the tone and the style of the game, and you help people shape characters around that.
As an example a friend of mine always pitches his games by describing who they would be directed by. I remember vividly his “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Halflings” game, a Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay If It Was Directed By Guy Ritchie experience. Just setting that sense of tone up front meant that we all knew to make characters who would fit the vibe. I played “Blackhand Seth, The Scummiest Elf You’ve Ever Met,” one part Brad Pitt Pikey, one part Jack Sparrow, and I had a blast.
In my most recent campaign I’m running a Shadowrun game where the group would be assembled in session 1 by a down on his luck fixer. My pitch to the players was simple; make fuck-ups. I wanted characters who were at the end of their rope, lacking in options, either so green no one would trust them or so tainted by past failures that no one wanted them. The kind of people who would take a job from a fixer who had burned every other bridge. They rose to the assignment beautifully, and by four sessions in the group has already formed some absolutely fascinating relationship dynamics. A lot of that has been shaped by their first experiences together, figuring out how to work as a team, sometimes distrusting each other, and slowly discovering reasons to care about each other.
Sometimes assembling the group in session 0 is what’s right for the story, and sometimes it really, really isn’t. Think about how many movies literally have “Assembling the team” as almost their entire plot. The Avengers hangs two hours of non-stop action on “We need to put a party together.”
Oh, that reminds me of a 4th way campaigns can start (in addition to the 3 I said in a different reply) that I’ve been in before and quite enjoyed—though wouldn’t want to be overused. The MCU method. Where each player individually gets a 1 session (maybe 2 at most) solo session introducing them and getting them to the right place to start the campaign.
Doesn’t have to be a solo session. If you have the right group for it (big IF there) you can jump back and forth between the individual characters, essentially running four solo sessions in parallel. This relies heavily on your players being the kind of people who are invested in the action even when their character isn’t present, but it can be done.
That said, I think for the most part the “Solo movie” should really be a character’s backstory. This is why I don’t like D&D, or at least the D&D presumption of starting at level 1. It leaves no room for characters to have an interesting history if they’re basically at the level where the average house-cat is a threat. If I run D&D, I start people off at somewhere around level 5 - 10. Give them enough ability that they can actually have done some interesting things already. Get the solo movie out of the way before the game even starts.
The DM came up with the plot hook and the players agreed to play, so the players need to put some effort into finding a reason to go along with the plot hook.
Suggestions on making the hook more engaging is an option too!
It goes for the players among each other too. It’s not just the one character in OP that dislikes or distrusts the party. It’s up to the rest of the party to also accomodate them. If you have a moral character in the group you might refrain from murdering, raping and pillaging for shits and giggles.
As they say “the only way to have a friend is to be one”.
For me, as a DM, real shit always happens on session 1, you swim together or fucking die.
Or third option: the person is operating independent of Table expectations or their character. Some folks just don’t get it and frankly I wonder why they want to play the game. It’s incredibly rare, but I have seen it.
You don’t have to put on a voice in a costume and write 20 pages of lore, but if you’re going to play at my table, I expect you to remain in character unless you have a question for me more or less. I expect you to take it seriously and use basic social etiquette. I’ve never played with somebody who was incapable of realizing that they are not being fun/funny, or considerate. They just get main character syndrome and stop listening to people for some reason.
It’s all about listening. If you’re capable of being at a table with a few people in life, then you’re capable of playing D&D!
That’s why it’s pretty common in Shadowrun to just have everyone be kidnapped and fitted with a bomb in their skull.
If their character doesn’t want to cooperate, you activate the player’s brain bomb.
One day I’ll play Shadowrun… I’m too lazy to learn it well enough to DM it.
That’s not common in Shadowrun… 30+ years playing and running that game, and I’ve never encountered it!
I’ve seen it once…it was used against a single player because he refused to play anything but loners who backstabbed immediately and it was mostly used to piss him off enough he quit the group.
He should have just been kicked out, sure. I think the dm just hated doing that which was cowardly. Buuut he was gone and that game was much more enjoyable!
DCC/MCC likes character funnels for similar reasons
You mean the player character’s bomb, right?
Also, Cortex bombs are lame and lazy plot- & storywriting.
- GM with 20 years experience
Mac and cheese for dinner is lame and lazy too, but also fucking delicious. TTRPGS are something your friends put together for you out of love, not necessarily some clinically perfect professional product. And to extend the metaphor, if you go to a dinner party and start bitching about your friend not plating the food like a Michelin star place, you’re an asshole.
I agree with both. It is lazy, yes. But it is also meant to be fun, and Shadowrun is a particularly goofy game (cyberpunk, with fantasy creatures, ghosts, gods, and magic? How can you take it seriously?) so being a super solid story isn’t extremely important. It’s also literally the first suggestion in the rulebook for getting players to cooperate. 🤣
You mean the player character’s bomb, right?
No. 😈
Wait, that’s illegal, I think…
What are we, some sort of Shadowrun?
Compleatly understandable. Roll three d20… unfortunelty, your character died from sevear case of buzz kill. Go ahead an roll out n new one that is exactly like this one but more trusty toward people exactly like those in the party.
In game punishments are the worst for these kinds of issues, just talk to each other.
That’s a much better advice. Much worse joke though.
My fix has always been: that’s fine! They go off on their own adventures. Now please roll a character that’s going to play the game we’re running here tonight.
I just don’t DM for people like that anymore.
Oh god I might when my kids and their friends are older though. This is why you gotta raise em right.
Everybody’s gotta learn some time
I recently tried to DM for my son and his friends. One of his friends insisted he wanted to be a DM. I tried to gently encourage him to allow me to DM for them, and he would have much more fun as a player. Nope, he insisted, and like a good DM, I let him discover for himself why he was wrong. It was fun to be a player character, and they all learned a lot about running a game, so wins all around.
That’s awesome!
I started running games for my wife and her niblings, and the oldest boy is getting into that “I’m such a rebel” phase where they think they’re bad ass for taking slightly longer to do a chore than needed and say “no” the first time you ask them to do something.
He thought it was hilarious to have a character that refused to join the rest of the group, so I said “okay, you can stay at the inn if you want” and then proceeded to intentionally ignore anything he was saying or doing, leaving him out of rolls, and never addressing him.
He’s 12 and started literally crying to his mother about how we’re all being mean to him. Apparently “he had the opportunity to participate and chose not to” wasn’t a good enough response to his mother. I stand by my choice. Although my wife managed to convince me to let him “rejoin” at the next town/session.
He doesn’t pull that shit anymore though, when he’s playing he’s playing or he gets shut out again.
Genuine question to anyone reading: does that make me a bad DM? If so, suggestions on how to handle it?
The fact your seeking feedback suggests no, but it was certainly a bad move, both as a DM and as an uncle. Punishing anyone, though especially children, without explaining why is mean. You have a responsibility to clearly communicate problems with others as an authority figure at the table and in their life. I don’t necessarily think the punishment was unreasonable, but if it’s not explained to them, it just comes across as arbitrary and vindictive.
Imo, the best way to handle issues like that is to set the rules and consequences, making them clear to everyone, and to be consistent in their application. Letting people off or being vindictive will just exacerbate things.
I told him the game focuses on the group and if he’s not part of the group then he won’t be playing, and since that first game he has participated, with few issues popping up.
I probably could have been clearer before we even got to the table that if you aren’t playing with the group then you aren’t playing, rather than just expect them to stick with a group on their first game.
I think that was the right action, but you could have explained better. Instead of just “Ok, you stay at the tavern” something like “Ok, you can stay at the tavern if you really want to, but you do understand that will mean you’re sitting here bored all afternoon while the rest of us play, right?”
I told him multiple times that if he was going to try and do his own thing, he won’t be participating with the group, and the group is the entire focus of the game.
I suppose I could have made it more explicit that he could join the group or he could leave the game.
I should add that that was many games ago, and he has since begun participating, although he often tries to go his own way and threatens to leave the group constantly, but so far he hasn’t actually tried leaving the group unless it was agreed upon for strategy reasons. (they split up inside a crypt in the most horror movie fashion possible)
Yeah, in that case I think you did everything that could reasonably be expected of you.
Nah brother you did the best you could, 12yos are pains in the ass.
Tell him "look, this game isn’t about being a Total Badass By Yourself. It’s about working with your team and overcoming challenges you couldn’t otherwise. If you wanna be a Total Badass By Yourself, there are games you can play. But if you wanna play this, you’re gonna have to work with me here. Because my time and effort is valuable, and I want to have fun just like you do.
I really need to do some kind of team building exercise before a game, something that they’ll want to do, but requires teamwork, just to demonstrate the point that they need to work together.
When my first character did the whole “I’m gonna be all by myself because I’m a lone wolf” thing, the DM let me go off and the totally unexpected happened and my character got into a scuffle he wasn’t prepared for, but a group sure would have been.
Yes you do.
The easy way out is “abuse action economy”. There are better uses for it, though, and better options here.
The other easy way out is to let people roll to see if something happens. Never, ever allow stalled play to resort to this. They have to search and talk.
let people roll to see if something happens
Oh god so many DMs in the past have done this, and I just roll my eyes every time.
Like I’m okay if you want to roll your own dice behind the screen to see if we get attacked overnight, but that should be the only kind of “roll to see what happens” going on.
Absolutely. The GMs got tables to help them determine what’s going on - you’ve got one person. Engage with the setting, not a piece of paper.
And yes, DMs, sometimes that means adjusting your plans on the fly to make what they do have fun consequences. That’s our job.
Yeah you definitely showed that 12 yr old who is boss…
If that’s what you took away from my comments, have fun I guess.
I GM public games and games at conventions, so sometimes it still crops up. People don’t always make it readily apparent ahead of game time that they’re going to pull shenanigans like this.
That’s fair. I’m really picky with my games.
For my personal games I am as well.
“Make friends with gamers, don’t make gamers out of friends” is an old tabletop adage that took me a long time to really learn.
For public stuff the best that can usually be mustered are safety tools and clear guidelines. But (rarely, thankfully) some people are just there to sabotage.
I learned as a GM to set expectations.
“I don’t want to have to fight and force you in to making this game work, because even though I’m GMing, I’d like to enjoy myself too. You need to create a character that will want to stick around with the rest of the group. You don’t have to all get on, or have deep attachments, you just need a character that I won’t have to railroad”
I have found it productive to make part of the character creation prompt a motivation for the main plot. Like tell me your class and backstory and all that, and then also tell me why you want to be on this adventure
This is a great idea
100% this. Have a conversation about expectations before you begin. DnD is a little bit game, a little bit therapy. The DM isn’t your Unity Engine. Make sure everyone is on board for the same experience and you’ll be fine.
I absolutely used to be that “my character is a quiet rogue-ish type that definitely wasn’t modeled after Aragorn when he was introduced at the Prancing Pony mixed with Robin hood” who always “had to be convinced” to join, and nobody ever called me out for it. I honestly wish they had because that’s annoying as fuck and you miss out on playing an actually fully developed character.
Nowadays I tend to be less tactful that you are, but essentially tell people the same thing, or literally beat their characters over the head with ambushes.
This is a good take. I remind players all the time that even though I’m GMing I’m a player too. I’m just playing a slightly different game. I’m here to have fun and enjoy myself, not babysit.
Gotta build those connections and relationships into the party during session zero. I like to model mine after the game fiasco where players are linked by relationships, locations, objects or needs. For DnD I think the dragon slayer classic playset works best, you can find it under the downloads section
The whole We play a game so you have to cooperate together even if role-play wise it makes no sense is a bad practice, May-be not at the point you’ll leave the table but definitely a serious sign that the table doesn’t function properly.
Luckily, there is a very easy fix Do a session zero, and build a coherent party ab initio, it include in game reason for the party to work together, coherent goals (because when player A wants to abolish the reign of the emperor, and player B wants to defend the emperor you’ll have a PvP fight within 3 session) and a meta discussion to have a pallet of skills matching the party’s goal (At least in more epic game where you don’t want to feel powerless). Almost every RPG published in the last 10-15 years contains an extensive session zero guide and tons of tips to build a relevant party.
If someone wants to play a law priest in a pirate campaign or any other character not fitting the campaign theme or opposing other PCs, it’s perfectly OK to tell the no. Obviously if everybody is aligned on some PvP and betrayal the answer may be different, but it’s again something to address in session zero.
Nobody in here is saying “even if rp wise it makes no sense”. We’re saying exactly what you are - the DM and the players set boundaries as to what kind of game they wanna play and are willing to, and then you make PCs.
Don’t be an edgelord Rogue who’s too cool to work with anyone else. Go play Skyrim.
Generally speaking, this is something that an experienced GM can handle in session zero. An important part of session zero is establishing expectations for the style of game to be played: Things like “are the player characters friends?” “Is PvP encouraged or discouraged?” “Do I as a DM want the characters to stick together?” etc etc.
Generally when running DnD, I request of my players to design characters who:
- Have a disposition to get along well with their companions. (this can be for any reason: because they’re like that with everyone, or because they’re loyal to the group, or because they view it as useful to have some friendly scapegoats nearby or any other motivation.)
- Be the kind of person who will go on adventures and take risks. (This can be because they’re a daredevil, or because they’re desperate, or because they’re devoted to their duty, or any other motivation.)
Fundamentally, most DnD games are the story of a group of friends going on adventures together. If your DnD game is the story of a group of friends going on adventures, then it’s extremely beneficial for your players to build characters who will be friends, and who will go on adventures. Together.
I have been a Dungeon Master for over 25 years. I am also a longtime anarchist, and many of my regular players are not.
I have three rules if im going to DM: 1) I pick the game system. Sorry, non-negotiable. I’ll play 5e (if I have to) but I won’t run it. 2) Party resources are communal. However you wanna work that out is up to you, but if you steal from The Party, The Gods will Curse You. And 3) You have to be willing to work in a group. This isn’t Skyrim, its a party game. The whole point is social problem solving. If you’re not up for that, its cool, I won’t make you talk or anything - but you gotta be a part of the team. Part of that is on me to make the initial hook good enough, but part of it is on you not to run a counterproductive pain in my ass.
I almost never have any problems if I do my job right and make all this clear and understood off the bat.
Sorry for being off-topic, but I don’t think I understand anarchism as a political philosophy. Isn’t anarchism the absence of imposed rules? Communal resources seems to go against that, (it does make sense that the players get to divvy it up, though) and being cursed by the gods feels like a more theocratic thing than anarchist. Im not trying to be rude or anything, I just like to pick people’s brains about this stuff.
Communal resources seems to go against that
Mutual aid is a fundamental principle of (most types of) anarchism, as is freedom of association.
In other words: if the PCs don’t like it, they can make their own game with their own rules.
Thank you. ✊️
I’m not hurting for players. I run my game exactly as often as I want to.
I think it’s funny that I have the exact same rule zero: I’ll reluctantly play 5e, but I won’t run it.
Dude, dealing with 5e players is just the worst. I’ve spent so much time and energy learning how to deprogram them.
3rd edition was a mistake
Yeah. He has a lot of rules and demands for an “anarchist” lol.
Anarchism means “no rulers” not “no rules”. If we all consent then what’s the problem?
IRL consent is complicated by coercion - you can’t disagree with your boss because if they fire you, you can’t pay your bills.
DND is an asymmetrical activity. One person, the DM, has an outsized level of effort required. If im expected to create a whole world, NPCs, plots, and respond to all your nonsense, I think its totally fair to ask the players abide by a simple code of conduct.
Again, I’ve almost never had issues.
Your rules are great, I agree you deserve some privileges when acting as DM because rod the effort you put in. My comment wasn’t on that front.
But if you are enforcing the rules, and receiving different treatment because of them, you deserve that. But if you are win control of the space, you set the rules and you enforce them. You’re a ‘ruler’ in that context. My point is, your anarchism isn’t really at play here.
The system where the enforcement of rules is delegated to trusted person who everyone agrees on is closer to “Democracy”.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but you should read some anarchist political theory if you want to address their actual beliefs.
This is exactly the kind of communal structure that anarchists advocate for: a voluntary collective where everyone agrees to contribute to furthering certain goals, values, and objectives.
OP is not coercing players to be in their game or to do things their way; they’re saying “this is the game that I run, take it or leave it,” and the players can join if they share the same goals.
Thank you
Don’t forget to hydrate. Must be tired after all that mental gymnastics.
I could tell by your first comment that you didn’t care to know about how others think.
Ignorance is a lot easier than educating yourself, so I can see why you’d choose the easy path; I’m just disappointed that you decided to be incurious instead of learning something.
But I’m sure your “highschool rebel” understanding of anarchism is truly accurate, thanks for the notes.
Standard nonsense here folks, nothing to see. Someone who thought they could “gotcha” an anarchist. You gotta get up about :checks watch: 30 years earlier if you wanna catch me slipping.
Lol you have zero ground to tell me my own table isn’t anarchist. I’ve been doing this for a long time. Go on out of here. I gave you enough of my day.
Go read the Bread Book I linked you instead of wasting our time.
Political anarchy is not inherently against rules. Anarchy does not mean that everything is on fire and everyone steals from others and do whatever they want, that’s just a common misconception.
Also it’s only 3 pretty basic rules, nothing particularly crazy about them
Thank you.
I’ve given a lot of thought to this. I want everyone to have fun, even if its not my kinda fun. But any player’s right to do so stops when they make that impossible the rest of us.
I’ve got a second tho so I’ll try:
- it means “no rulers”, from Greek. Not no rules. You can’t have more than 2 people without some rules, we just want to all be able to agree with them. Anarchists by and large are opposed to hierarchy, that’s the focus. We tend to like direct democracy and communal organizational structures.
The stories I tell don’t have to be purely anarchist in structure. If im DMing, and we all agreed to the God Curse if you screw over your party, and then one player does - who’s responsible? The one with full knowledge of the consequences who then did the thing anyway, right?
Look: as a political philosophy, anarchism exists in the real world. There are people who’ve done it very successfully. But that’s not why I call myself an anarchist. I do so because when I discovered anarchism, I found other people who thought the way I did. I’m an anarchist because my soul is anarchist and always has been. I also think its what we need to do if we’re going to survive climate change, but fuck me for trying to convince anyone of that, so I keep to myself.
See my other reply re: “no rules”
Also, just read the first chapter or two of this. It’s very, very accessible https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
What if you had a player who wanted to secretly backstab and subvert the party, in character? They’d play as if they were part of the team, but in between sessions the player would communicate with the DM and decide ways to betray the party, with in-game consequences. It was the worst campaign I’ve ever been in. I still wonder if it was bad DMing or I’m just sour.
Yeah that’s not the kind of game I run. Complicating the party is my job.
I’m a big fan of “you all wake up in loincloths sitting in a wagon, hands bound” and as long as someone at the table can roll higher than a 1, they can break free.
Or something attacks them while they’re all in a tavern
Basically I’m a fan of “you could ignore having your shit kicked in, but will you?” since so many players would stop at nothing.
Fallout NV had the right idea. “Where’s that little fucker who shot me in the head?!”
Hey, you. You’re finally awake. You were trying to cross the border, right?
DM: As you walk away, you feel a slight tingle in the air before a flash as bright as a thousand suns blinds you for an instant before… nothing. A bolt of lightning has vaporized your body. Miraculously, nobody else in the vicinity seems to have been harmed in any way nor even do they seem to have noticed what just happened, including the fact that you just disappeared. It’s as if the Gods themselves, for no particular reason, have arbitrarily decided to smite you out of existence entirely.
Ready to roll a new character?
DM: “Alright, so your character walks off after refusing to go along with the group. Okay. Well, guess you can pack up and we will see you next session. I don’t have anything planned other than what the group is doing, so, guess you won’t be playing today. Bye.”
Make it sting. Refuse to let them roll a new character and have them do the walk of shame. They made their choice So they can deal with the consequences of them.
This shouldn’t be the GMs job btw, players, roleplaying and backstory are YOUR department, write a reason why your character would end up with the others. Work together.
Disagree. The DM should provide some sort of reason for the party to come together. Some sort of external influence, to bring in any characters that don’t start the game together.
But it is the duty of the player to roll with it. Don’t fight the plot hook. What’s the point?
If you don’t have a reason to work with the group, accept that this is a one-shot for you, which may be retcon’d as needed.
Also accept that you suck at making characters
I don’t know. One time I joined a game, and I had plenty of reasons to join the party, but the DM started RPing a really rude character, and it’s like his method of getting me to join the party was to be a huge asshole to me? I just didn’t pick up on it, and when I finally gave my character an ass-pull reason to join (that I could do some good if I tagged along) the DM was like “jeez, finally” and it sucked.
Like, if I’m playing a level 1 wizard, and the DM tells me I’m gonna die if I enter the conflict, it’s not really my backstory’s fault that I don’t jump into the fray. Sometimes you’re dealing with an inexperienced DM that expects you to metagame your way into the party. I genuinely thought he was on the verge of giving me the opportunity to convince the party to run away from the dragon, not stay and fight it.
Fun fact:
The Expanse books (and eventual TV show) were started as a unique role-playing campaign where the person running it (Ty Franks) would write a prompt, the players would explain their character’s reactions. He’d then write a story section incorporating that and the players would say how they reacted and so on.
There was a core group of characters who were the “survivors” early on, but one of the players had to drop out early-ish, so in the next bit of story that character died.
That was carried into the books and TV show, which is why after the core group of characters is established, there’s a sudden, shocking death.
Wow that really is a fun fact!
Dice-less, narrative games are so much fun. Sadly finding a good group for it is like pulling teeth, at least in my area.
*Sad theater kid noises*
