How do you bring your players together for the first time? Do you gloss over it or play out the meetings? Personally, I need to have it played out in a situation where all have an interest in the outcome. Once things get rolling it is easy to keep the PCs together but how to start without wrecking role play? I try to set up the first encounter as pretty generic to see how the characters flow but when that first encounter takes major shoe-horning, well, it annoys me. Any tips for smoothness? Any tricks that help bring disparate backstories together?
Had a group that were lost in the planes, at that point-Pandemonium. One of the guys' son wanted to join and wanted to play an orc barbarian. One of the players' Ranger had orc as his first favored enemy. For most of a week I just couldn't figure out how to bring them together without a fight among the PCs. Yuck. A mutual enemy did the trick but it seemed forced, un-natural. I don't know why, but it still bugs me.
I don't disallow class combinations beforehand (Paladin in a party of CN Druids) because they will figure it out themselves. I also don't start the meat of the campaign during the first 2 or 3 sessions so as to let the characters work out. I know things might be easier if I did but that's not what I'm wondering about. I'm looking for community wisdom and experience on the first session, the PCs coming together for the first time. Thanks, and my future players thank you too!
My first game, one player was staying in an inn and I had thugs try to rob him; they had heard he was a sorcerer and mistakingly thought that meant he had lots of loot. He actually jumped out the window to get away, and was followed by one of the thugs (who broke his leg upon impact).
Two of the other characters were walking by at the time and saw the sorcerer jump out the window (not taking the landing well), and they helped fight off the two thugs. Then they went to a tavern and the sorcerer bought them drinks.
----
Normally, if I'm starting a game at level one, I prefer if the players' characters know at least one other character in the group, but it isn't entirely necessary. I've brought the party together by having them be the only ones answering a bounty, by having them all hired by the same person, or blind chance. It really all depends on what I have planned.
It's always different, but my last game was with a bunch of people new to D&D, so I had to give them the full experience (with a twist, of course).
Yes, they all started in a tavern, and no, nobody knew anybody else.
Until the Duke's men kicked in the door.
The twelve thugs singled out the characters (four thugs each), accused them all of working for a foreign king, and attacked them. Afterwards, they decided to stick together because, "That was pretty f-ed up, and might happen again."
So far, I've run two campaigns and therefore had two chances to break out of the tavern cliche.
For my first campaign, I talked to all four players (paladin, scout, rogue, and wizard) and worked out that they would all end up in the small backwater village of Virtue. When one of them (the paladin) accepted a mission to retrieve some stolen merchandise, he went around town talking to people in order to get some leads. He met the other players at the various places he stopped, and they all happened to be looking for work.
For my second campaign, all of the players ended up in the same dungeon (an abandoned ruin turned into a bandit base) for their own individual reasons. They all teamed up to conquer the place, which did a good job of attaching them to each other.
Hmm, one attempt I made was to work out various initial professions that put them at odds, but each one serving a rather corrupt boss. They decided they'd rather work with each other instead. I've also done the tavern thing. It wasn't as interesting.
As someone said, it's always different. Often, one or more players will have backgrounds in which they know each other (I encourage backgrounds except in very unusual campaigns).
In my most recent, short-lived sci-fi campaign, the PCs were all passengers on a colony ship that crashed. They were the ones that took control of the situation most.
In a prior game, I had a merchant lord hire one of the PCs (who had a special in) to save his daughter, and to hire a bunch of mercenaries to help her do it. So she put the party together, with the obvious understanding that she could only recruit PCs.
In another game, three of the seven PCs knew each other, the others had just arrived in town. We started at night with a raid from a rival clan and the town on fire. So the PCs mostly met in the aftermath.
Another game, I worked with the players to form their backgrounds. One was a samurai, and his lord had told him to put together a special unit to deal unique situations. So in his background, he had met two of the other PCs (on separate occasions). The fourth PC was the sister of the monk the samurai had met.
Another game, many of the PCs worked separately, and didn't meet everyone else until I think the 3rd game (by that time they already had some small cliques).
Another time, they were hired by a treasure hunter as bodyguards.
There were more, but actually, I don't think I've ever used the classic tavern start. And to be honest, I can't recall playing in many games where it was used, either.
Quote from: PhoenixThere were more, but actually, I don't think I've ever used the classic tavern start. And to be honest, I can't recall playing in many games where it was used, either.
So if someone does use it, it'll seem new and original! ;)
No. No, I think it will still seem cliche. It just seems like the GM not putting much effort in (kind of like my not wanting to find the special character for "cliche"), which is not a good sign for the first game session.
I think it can only work if there's more to the tavern story than just meeting there. You know, you're all in a tavern, and suddenly you realize it's on fire...and being invaded by werewolves...on fire!
Recent campaigns - PCs were members of a special military team. Really, the PCs were set up to guard the daughter of the Captain, who thought "being in the army" would be fun. She was one PC, and the others were a cousin, a family friend's son, a wizard who owed a debt to the family, etc...
Another time, the PCs were all teens from a little village and bored. They all knew each other from childhood. They'd heard about an old set of ruins and decided to explore it. On the way there, they ran into giant rats. They very nearly never made it to the dungeon!
I usually get my players to determine their character relationships at least a day before the session. That way they can kick off the adventure with their own motivations, rather than me leadig them around by the nose.
It does require more planning, but it gives them a much greater investment in their characters.
When I started my Forgotten Realms game last sunday, I just had them all happen to be traveling in the same merchant caravan through the Cloudpeaks (except the killoren divine bard, who decided she was going to be randomly prowling the village they stopped in). Usually, however, I have them make up some sort of relationship between the characters beforehand.
My system is based on guild/organizational relationships, so I normally have given the players a rough pre-idea on which to build. When the Igbarians restarted last, it was based on the unusual plague of undead that was growing around town, with a few notes on the bardic competition on fulfilling the most news about this unstoppable growth of the undead.
The rough idea ahaed of time made my (very experienced) players create characters with skills to work against undead (and surprisingly, 2 bards to try to guide public opinion). SO by providing some rough notes of the situation before character creation, the group was able to fill in may of the pieces themsleves, in determining which guilds and factions to create characters from.
I've had a game or two start that way, but I liked the beginning of my latest one best.
The party had a theme: Villain rehabilitation. The leader was a paladin who was showing captured villains how to be a good person, while maintaining a relatively similar lifestyle. The party was the Paladin, his assistant cleric, one recent success, one work in progress (CN) and one new recruit.
I've got stubborn players, so my methods are rather harsh.
My first is backstory threading. I take each one's backstories from where they left off, and continue them X amount of time forward. That allows me to give them the reason they're traveling together, and so it makes sense in backstory, without them potentially mucking it up for the hell of it (it happens, trust me).
The second is backstory demands. I simply tell them 'you know each other. How, why, and for how long is up to you, but you're not hostile.' Let them figure it out and go from there.
Thanks to everybody who posted. I'd intended to be more involved in the conversation, but life gets in the way. Stupid Life!
What makes it satisfying? Is it really too individual to generalize? I tend to systematize encounters and campaigns to make it easy to roll with the player's whimsical sidequest urges and maybe I'm trying to systematize something that just defies it.
Villain rehab and flaming werewolves. Could be fun!
Common themes, enemies, goals, guilds, etc.. It just seems so... dull. I love creating and running campaigns but I just hate the first session. Am I making a molehill into a mountain? Ah well. Thanks again.
You know, this has got to be one of the most average, boring Aussie Shiraz' I've had ion months...Wht do I waste my palate and time with this tripe? EEHHH!
Mr. Slapzilla, I think it much of the first session contiguity comes from how much work and time you put into that first session. I don't say this to be basic or boorish, But if the players are given some kind of group idea ahead of time, and create their characters with that in mind and in the ideal of creating a long-term playing situation (and this is a lot of the issue...my average group averages some 8+ years), the results can be startlingly satisfying. If you start the thing with the idea of long-term investment, players tend ot behave better. If it is a little one-off, they don't care as much.
The best books have a great foundation. You mention the paladin in the group of CN druids...could be a great story, but the players had better figure that out ahead of time. Put the onus on them from the beginning. You'll be amazed at what happens when the players become responsible for keeping the group together.
There's a really interesting "this is how you know each other" mechanism in Spirit of the Century, and you all might find it interesting.
Everybody sits down and makes characters simultaneously, and the bulk of the character creation process involves novels. You make your character, and then you write the back-jacket blurb of a novel your character starred in, about one of your previous adventures.
Then everybody passes their sheets to the right, and you write how you co-starred in the novel you just got handed. Then you pass to the right once more and repeat the process.
So if I'm creating a character who stopped a mad scientist in the events recalled in "Harold Krebs and the Terrible Secret of Space," there are two of the other players who, right off the bat, were involved in that as well. Similarly, Harold Krebs participated in two other "novels" started by other characters, so the whole group has a big history of mutual association in heroic-type endeavors.
I don't think that the "you meet in a tavern!" idea is totally without merit, but I think it needs a certain finesse and a certain amount of player investment. My big worry would be that players would sense the cliché and not try to make the group make sense.
The Spirit of the Century mechanism is a neat idea. I'll have to think about that some more....
LordVreeg, sir, you are not basic nor are you boorish. I realize now that I have put perhaps too much onus on the characters working out together without providing that much structure for them to work within, just normal game session stuff. Trusting to the players to figure it out without giving it extra oomph on my part. I think I've played with too many players who don't care how the come together works and I am quite fed up with it.
I do tend to think mid to long term from the beginning. I once sat around for an afternoon trying to think of the gnarliest creature I could. Ended up modifying the Chimeric template and combining one Great Wyrm of each of the 5 colors to create a wannabe Avatar of Tiamat that then became a dracolich. An Epic challenge to be sure, so I had to get this new group of characters up 20 or more levels without losing interest, impetus or imagination.
So I planned my strategy. Each character needed not just a back story, but a biography including details of where they grew up, who influenced them towards their chosen path and how. This was a tremendous asset bringing them together, each with a goal. I had 'homework assignments' for them, too. Envision your character at 15th level; write out the most dramatic scene you can think of your character starring in; create the perfect feat; map out your 15th level self's home base compound, and such. I was ready to mine everything I could from these bits of info to keep 'em hooked for the next 20+ levels. I was ready for the long term. When they did come together in a lonely frontier fort and the caravan master's daughter went missing, they as individuals acted according their characters, then as a group acted. They ran off in search of the kidnapped. No problem, right? Nobody introduced themselves. No-one questioned the motives of the others and is wasn't until the third day out when they began to exchange names, almost as an afterthought. It just annoyed me.
I suppose that is the difference between story and plot. Story involves character development within the plot construct and plot is the skeleton upon which the story plays out. Plot is events, story is inner monologues. It's more expansive than that, of course but you all get my thrust. I'm trying to get story out of a plot and sometimes it seems easier to get a tear to roll from a troll's eye.
I've been trying out a new DMing style, one that is more a group storytelling with an arbitrator than a traditional DM/Player dynamic and the players are long time console RPGers but completely new to the dice and pencil experience. So far, so good. They each came across the same group of goblins and kicked them around for a bit. I made sure each character had enough of a beef with goblins to give them common cause and after exchanging names and mini bios, they decided to go hunting together. Maybe it was the players, maybe it was the situation... probably both, but I don't think I did so much different, but it seemed to work. Just couldn't figure out how. Getting them together is was got me thinking about the topic in the first place.
Sometimes it works without so much planning and sometimes it doesn't despite it. (Grumble).
Anyhow, thanks for listening!
I think that part of your problem may not be "the scenario" but the actual "at table" interactions. My group is small, and they're playing their 3-4th campaigns together. When we started the most recent game (teenagers in a village), they all looked at me and said "okay, what's the story, what framework are we using to create this party?" (more or less).
If you don't have that level of familiarity, I think it really helps to sit down as a group and have a discussion about what the framework of the campaign is, what people see as "fun" and what they want to do. I've had groups that spending 3 hours on backstory and local color was a necessary minimum, and others where everyone would have left before the first hour was up.
It all depends on what the group is going for in a game, not what you as a DM choose...
True enough. I've been trying to move that exact way and the most recent start worked out pretty well. A little more 'what do you all want to do?' beforehand should smooth things out too. Thanks all!