Hi all,
I am just curious, when you are starting a game, whether it is D&D or something else do you start out where all of the players know each other
I like to bring people together and give them time to roleplaying meeting each other.
The only time I will have the party already know each other is when I am running a one shot and time is of the essence.
Which way do you do it and why? I am curious to hear how others bring a party together.
I fall on the "they already know each other" side. I'll take their character sheets and write out an original to explain how they know each other. I also, typically, have new players be upgraded henchmen or I'll have new characters be someone that the players have met before. Either previously in the game (related to some group the players encountered) or just someone that they met during their downtime.
I get the characters, then I create a first adventure that weaves them together organically.
It's obviously a lot more work, and if a player flakes out for the session it leaves me scrambling; but I take pride in my GM'ing.
"You have gathered around a dinner table in the Gold Dragon Inn, in the center of town, to discuss your plans."
This doesn't work so well with other genres, but for D&D there's no reason to have elaborate backstories for adventuring.
Either way works.
I conceptually like the, "At least some of the party members know each other," but I'm not going to force people to do it. Sometimes you get those bad combinations where two characters are supposed to be closest of close friends who covered each others behinds in some past incidents -- And then in actual play, the character personalities don't mesh at all.
Depends on how I'm starting the campaign. The last one I ran, the characters all started as standing in front of the local ruler, having all just been let out of the lockup. Worked for that group and their character mix. Sometimes it's the old "There you all are, having a drink in the tavern..."
Last night I said 'You all met at the pub last night and decided to go adventuring"
I've played both. More often than not recently, the folks I game with ask for back stories which are then used to bring the party together.
I don't want to spend a lot of game time on that stuff in the first session when play starts. It can drag out with some players--and I have some of those in my typical groups.
Now, depending on the nature of the campaign, and how and when we are making characters, some of that might happen before play starts. Which I don't mind, as a very minimal "background" kind of thing. This happens sometimes with characters that are being "rolled up" just before play starts. There's a lot of chatter about it as we do it, and someone makes a remark about the characters knowing each other, and off we go. But that's a social aspect of joint character creation.
Otherwise, it's in the context of the adventure. If it's a bunch of pre-gens "all from the same village", then of course they all know each other to some degree. If it's a jailbreak start, then they probably just met. Either way, they get to know each other better during the adventure.
My last major adventure setup used a twist to give me some of each side. Every player is attached to a large trade caravan that has stopped for some time near the adventure location. I wanted that specifically because I did not want any character to be from the local area, but did want them to have some vague idea of each other. They joined this caravan several weeks ago for their own reasons, and when the adventure started they were brief acquaintances. Easy.
My current favorite game, Beyond The Wall, creates the bonds between pcs during character creation. But otherwise I'll echo the "it depends" sentiment.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 03, 2023, 11:52:11 AM
I don't want to spend a lot of game time on that stuff in the first session when play starts. It can drag out with some players--and I have some of those in my typical groups.
This is true, especially if someone really wants to get into role playing their character and explain their entire background.
Quote from: Joey2k on April 03, 2023, 12:08:00 PM
My current favorite game, Beyond The Wall, creates the bonds between pcs during character creation. But otherwise I'll echo the "it depends" sentiment.
Interesting concept. Though after reading the description of Beyond the Wall the system wouldn't be for me.
Not that you were suggesting it. I just read the description having never heard of it before.
Quote from: GhostNinja on April 03, 2023, 12:26:56 PM
Quote from: Joey2k on April 03, 2023, 12:08:00 PM
My current favorite game, Beyond The Wall, creates the bonds between pcs during character creation. But otherwise I'll echo the "it depends" sentiment.
Interesting concept. Though after reading the description of Beyond the Wall the system wouldn't be for me.
Not that you were suggesting it. I just read the description having never heard of it before.
If it's the tone/theme that doesn't work for you (young adult fantasy), it has a sister game called Through Sunken Lands aimed at a more sword and sorcery feel (think Howard, Moorcock, Lieber)
Quote from: Joey2k on April 03, 2023, 01:21:26 PM
If it's the tone/theme that doesn't work for you (young adult fantasy), it has a sister game called Through Sunken Lands aimed at a more sword and sorcery feel (think Howard, Moorcock, Lieber)
Thank you. I will give it a look over.
I will pretty much always start the campaign with the PCs as at least acquaintances. Doing meet-cutes for 5 or 6 characters is way too much, especially when it's a foregone conclusion that they're going to choose to adventure together anyway. I do generally have new characters that join mid-campaign start as strangers, though. It's more manageable when it's just one character to introduce, and it stretches plausibility for the PCs to be bumping into people they know everywhere they go.
The exception I make to that is if the introductory adventure is going to push them together anyway. So that'd be stuff like starting the PCs off as prisoners or just opening the campaign with them already having contracted to do something. Modiphius adventures are generally kind of trash, but I like the way the introductory adventure in the Conan 2d20 book sets it up. It starts all the PCs as the only survivors of an ambush, trapped behind enemy lines. I might steal that some day.
I'm completely in the "it depends on the adventure" camp. But if we're talking B/X here and you're pretty much playing RAW the key thing (and difference from 5e) is to not create elaborate backstories no matter how you set up the party since there's the high likelihood that some of them aren't surviving that first adventure anyhow. I allow PCs to add their entire Con score to starting HP and they still usually suffer casualties in their first adventures.
Quote from: Persimmon on April 03, 2023, 04:06:38 PM
I'm completely in the "it depends on the adventure" camp. But if we're talking B/X here and you're pretty much playing RAW the key thing (and difference from 5e) is to not create elaborate backstories no matter how you set up the party since there's the high likelihood that some of them aren't surviving that first adventure anyhow. I allow PCs to add their entire Con score to starting HP and they still usually suffer casualties in their first adventures.
I don't even need to have a large background story to figure out why a character is in the town or bar, just a little backstory is all I need to put it together. Or at least thats how I do it.
Quote from: ForgottenF on April 03, 2023, 03:23:25 PM
I will pretty much always start the campaign with the PCs as at least acquaintances. Doing meet-cutes for 5 or 6 characters is way too much, especially when it's a foregone conclusion that they're going to choose to adventure together anyway. I do generally have new characters that join mid-campaign start as strangers, though. It's more manageable when it's just one character to introduce, and it stretches plausibility for the PCs to be bumping into people they know everywhere they go.
The exception I make to that is if the introductory adventure is going to push them together anyway. So that'd be stuff like starting the PCs off as prisoners or just opening the campaign with them already having contracted to do something.
I generally agree - but I'd go a little farther.
It's actually quicker and easier to just say "you all know each other" rather than pretending to be strangers. If PCs have a history together doesn't mean that it's detailed - it just means handwaving introductions.
Going further, while "adventuring" can vary, PCs tend to stick together through thick and thin, and trust each other with their lives. That needs serious bonds or commonalities to be plausible for me. On the one hand, it's just a game, but I like to put in some effort towards making role-playing believable.
In my current D&D game, they all have a common patron - a wise and good royal oracle. In a previous D&D game, they all were devoted to a long-term quest to rebuild an ancient temple. The game before that was more of "they meet at a bar" -- but the premise was a worldwide apocalypse along the lines of The Walking Dead. They didn't have an option to just leave each other.
I've done meeting at a bar as strangers and then role-playing interactions. Good players can come up with reasons to bond during the adventures. However, to me it feels like going through the motions -- because it's a known outcome that the PCs are going to stick together and form a trusting party. Logically, it would make sense if at least some of the PCs don't get along and they break up after at most a single score. But metagame reasons require them to stick together. So I prefer to start them off with reasons to stick together, and then role-play without a predetermined outcome from there.
I feel that once you've played out the "how do the players meet and form the party" thing a few times, it is just a stumbling block after that.
Having everyone at least know each other if not having adventured together before is far more preferable. We can do character intros and all that for players' sakes, but we don't need to do through the whole thing of getting to know each other or whatever.
There might be an adventure or something specific that might call for the D&D party meet-cute, but unless what I'm running specifically calls for it, I'm not doing it again.
Quote from: jhkim on April 03, 2023, 06:19:02 PM
Going further, while "adventuring" can vary, PCs tend to stick together through thick and thin, and trust each other with their lives. That needs serious bonds or commonalities to be plausible for me. On the one hand, it's just a game, but I like to put in some effort towards making role-playing believable.
Usually, yes. However, I often run games where the characters don't entirely trust each other, sometimes with good reasons. We usually draw the line somewhere well short of doing a murder hobo blitz on each other, but there are still shenanigans.
There's a gray area in the middle of complete, almost unbelievable trust versus "party of chaotic evil" looking to stab each other every time they turn the corner. It does help with this kind of game to have some kind of overarching motivation which explains why they must trust each other more than they normally would. Then after that first adventure, they've got a reason. Or not. :D
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 03, 2023, 06:49:01 PM
Usually, yes. However, I often run games where the characters don't entirely trust each other, sometimes with good reasons. We usually draw the line somewhere well short of doing a murder hobo blitz on each other, but there are still shenanigans.
Yes! This is the way to do it. They come together for a common good, but until they actually get to know each other they don't trust one another.
This leads to some really good role playing.
Quote from: GhostNinja on April 04, 2023, 09:20:03 AM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 03, 2023, 06:49:01 PM
Usually, yes. However, I often run games where the characters don't entirely trust each other, sometimes with good reasons. We usually draw the line somewhere well short of doing a murder hobo blitz on each other, but there are still shenanigans.
Yes! This is the way to do it. They come together for a common good, but until they actually get to know each other they don't trust one another.
This leads to some really good role playing.
I've done this before -- but to me, it only works if it is an acceptable answer for the players to not trust each other and instead turn against one another. I've done that in Amber Diceless and in some one-shot adventures, where we can actually have fun as PCs fight one another or pursue rival goals. However, those cases are rare.
If I'm role-playing through a decision like "should I trust these people" -- then I want the answer to that to be actually unknown. If the answer is a given, I think of that as acting or performing rather than role-playing.
Quote from: jhkim on April 04, 2023, 01:07:28 PM
I've done this before -- but to me, it only works if it is an acceptable answer for the players to not trust each other and instead turn against one another. I've done that in Amber Diceless and in some one-shot adventures, where we can actually have fun as PCs fight one another or pursue rival goals. However, those cases are rare.
If I'm role-playing through a decision like "should I trust these people" -- then I want the answer to that to be actually unknown. If the answer is a given, I think of that as acting or performing rather than role-playing.
True. Or maybe it's not that they don't trust each other, they just are working for a common good and feel that getting together with the party is the right move.
There are a lot of different ways to go.
Nowadays when putting together a campaign I'm mostly recruiting strangers to play. None of us know each other. I don't enjoy a game that requires a party of cooperating adventurers where everyone instead sees his character as a loner, an outsider, closed-mouth, who trusts no one. Things degenerate from there as they begin to argue over loot, risks, resources and everything else.
To avoid that I tell them flat out that there will be no "evil" characters, everyone knows each other and has a relationship such that they can reliably trust each other while out risking their lives together. I tell them that it's their responsibility to come up with all the reasons why this is so, not mine.
It works fairly well.
Quote from: Baron on April 04, 2023, 11:13:11 PM
Nowadays when putting together a campaign I'm mostly recruiting strangers to play. None of us know each other. I don't enjoy a game that requires a party of cooperating adventurers where everyone instead sees his character as a loner, an outsider, closed-mouth, who trusts no one. Things degenerate from there as they begin to argue over loot, risks, resources and everything else.
No, I agree. Most of the time for me it's just players that don't know each other and while they may not be suspicious of each other they work together for the common goal knowing that is worth it.