You can get away with it while having some downtime in a village. The bard is making coin in the tavern and the barbarian is drinking in the same place, the priest visits the local chapel, the warlock looks to spend some coin on magic baubles, etc. This also increases the creativity in which you can give your players their next quest.
But once you’re out adventuring on that quest, you’re a goddamn party. If you don’t want to be a party, then go home and play a single player game.
Edit: I have had good DMs separate the party themselves though, but we always spend it trying to find each other again.
make checks until you fail. take 40d8 damage from a mysterious source. no one’s around you to help unfortunately because you were dumb enough to separate from the party.
now make a better character or go home, your choice.
I did this in the very first RPG I played. It was Star Wars and I was playing a smuggler (who thus had a ship). Obviously the GM intended my ship to be used to move the party around. Well, the jedi PC shows up wanting to board my ship as I’m getting ready to leave. I don’t know this guy so obviously the first thing my character would do would be to say that and then turn the turrets on when this strange jedi tried to insist on joining me, followed by promptly flying off so he ended up needing to find another way to our adventure.
No idea why I was like that. The player was pretty much my best friend at the school, too, so it wasn’t anything personal against him. I think I was just trying to hard to do what “my character would realistically do” instead of just playing a game.
Probably for the best. If you’d let him onboard it might have ended up like this story.
That would have been more cool than whatever unmemorable shit actually happened in that campaign. Only other thing I remember is the GM offering me 3 capital ships if I bought him lunch one day and then promptly destroying two of them that same session, which I actually appreciate in hindsight because it contributed to seeing pay to win games as a waste of time and money. Either the shit “bought” in game can be lost that easily or it just breaks the game into a “just give me money and you, uh, win! That’s the whole game!”
My rule on this is very simple; if your character isn’t a part of the group, they’re not part of the story. That goes for lone wolves, people who betray the party, “evil” characters who work against the party’s interests, etc. You make the choices you want to make, you do what seems right for your character, but the moment that means you’re not a part of the group, you either figure out a good story for how we’re going to fix that, or you hand me your character sheet. It’s really that easy.
“But thats just what my character would do!”
OK, let’s unpack that. If that’s truly, genuinely the case, if there’s no way your character could no work against the group or leave them at this point, then this is how your characters story ends. If that comes twenty sessions into a game, well, waking away rather than betray your morals is a pretty good story if you ask me. If it comes two sessions in then we need to figure out why you’re not on the same page as everyone else.
But more often, the player simply thinks its the only possible way their character can act in this situation because they’re not thinking creatively. People are complicated. Consistency is actually the bane of interesting characters. A good character is inconsistent for interesting reasons. “My character would never trust someone in this situation!” OK, but what if they did? Now we’re left with the question of why, and figuring that out is surely going to be interesting.
There’s also the other side of this coin, which is the responsibility on the GM’s shoulders. Yes, your players owe it to each other to try to keep the story moving forward, but you also owe it to them to respect the reality their story takes place in. Don’t run a gritty crime game and then expect your players to just automatically trust some NPC that turns up with no bona fides. You actually have to put the work into crafting scenarios where the players can have their characters react naturally and still drive the story. It’s a bad GM who pisses their pants and cries because they created something that looks like an obvious trap (whether it is or not) and their players refused to walk into it.
OK, but what if they did? Now we’re left with the question of why, and figuring that out is surely going to be interesting.
“I <something disruptive >.”
“You’re about to, when you change your mind. What made you change your mind?”
It’s a powerful tool. It can be overused, but it’s good for bringing people into the right frame of mind.
Maybe something happens that’s more urgent than the trust issue. Maybe they see a tattoo on another character that has meaning for you. Maybe they just realize it could be useful to be in the party for now. Whatever it is, they are solidifying the team while also taking more authorship of the story.
I don’t like prescribing a characters actions to that degree, but I would certainly work with the player to try to help them come up with an alternate path.
If a player ultimately chooses to commit to a path that puts them at odds with the party, I’ll respect that, but I’ll make it clear to them that this is where that character’s story ends.
Your character purchased and ate bad fish the night before, and you have uncontrollable gas, which quickly turns to greasy, putrid diarrhea. As the pub bouncer tosses you out the door for smelling like raw sewage, a micrometeorite hits you in the eye and lodges itself into your brain, disrupting your medula. As you lay there struggling to breate, you shake yourself awake. It would seem you fell asleep at the table and had an awful dream.
Sorry, what were you saying about not wanting to stick around?
Biggest pet peeve with players. This is why, during session 0, I make players pre-establish a reason that they not only go along with the party and the planned campaign but also a reason why they trust at least two other characters.
I’ve made it a hard rule, “Your characters are at least familiar with each other. They’re not total strangers.” It just makes everything so much easier.
And the person who didn’t gets to default to being the loner outcast who doesn’t talk much, easy
How would they not? Session 0 we create characters together, anyone who doesn’t follow the previously stated rules can leave my table.
The entire point is to prevent the creation of “rando loner who just sits in a corner and sulks”.
One of the campaigns I play in is more of a West Marches or Adventurer’s League style with a rotating cast of players. There are… differening levels of effort.
Ngl, this has never been a problem for multiple sessions for me. As a player or DM.
As a player, I show up willing to play characters that will work with a group, even if they don’t trust them. Trust isn’t necessary to work together.
As a DM I remind all players of that fact before they roll one up. If they don’t have an idea on how their character would manage that, I’ll give them ideas.
Yeah, you’ll run into players that just don’t get that not every character has to have the same motivation to work with others, or just refuse to play different characters (instead, they try to play the same character with different names). But those are rare. And, so far, I’ve yet to run into a player that wouldn’t take the “look, you don’t have to keep playing with us, but give it a try my way and see how it goes, yeah?” talk and give it a fair try.
I’ve also never had a player quit because of the game not being engaging and fun.
look, you don’t have to keep playing with us, but give it a try my way and see how it goes, yeah?
I’ve heard of players refusing to adjust their play to meet the party where they’re at but I’ve never seen it happen. I’ve played with a player who did that intentionally, but their in real life stated goal was to ruin the game and ensure no one else had any fun. I don’t play with that person anymore.
None of the kids you’re talking to on this site have friends, much less play actual D&D, they probably just read the manuals and imagine running campaigns based on how they interact with other loners online.
As a game, it’s a purely social experience that even the rules are far less important than the narratives and shared storytelling experience, most adults know this and it’s why they play these kinds of games, not to “win” or be some champion of self-expression.
I am ranting about it because there is a wild disconnect between the kinds of people who use sites like this and reality. I don’t think a lot of people who comment about things online have healthy, balanced lives. I mean, I know I don’t, but I also know that many others have totally different kinds of issues that pulls them into the comment sections of sites like Lemmy or Reddit.
Alone and vulnerable, you are murdered by thieves. Make a new guy for the next game.
Lots of other good points already made, but I’ll add my own two cents.
When I run a game, I always require players to make characters together. No “go off and make a character in isolation”. That’s just a recipe for disaster. You can have some ideas already in mind, but nothing is canon until the whole group agrees.
Second, everyone needs to have buy-in to whatever the hook is. If the scenario is “you’re starting a courier business at the edge of civilization”, there are lots of good options. Guy on the run from the law. Lady studying local wild life. Intelligent, local, wildlife. Don’t play “guy who doesn’t want to be here and is a total killjoy”
Third, it’s better when characters have connections to each other. You can play the “we just met and we’re forming a relationship!” arc, but like “what if we play ourselves in a fantasy world??” it has been done.
Honestly, everyone should read Fate’s “Phase Trio” https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/phase-trio and the rest of character creation.
There’s a few ways I have approached this as a GM. I’ll go from least to most effective (and, I feel, mature).
The first is to put a shared enemy in front of the party, so that even if the characters do split up, they’re working towards the same goal. The character who has “no reason” to trust the party also has reason to recognize the effectiveness of sticking with allies in a world full of enemies. If the player wants them to go off on their own, fine, but as GM, the game stays with the party - oh, and have the player who left roll on a random injury table because they were outnumbered.
Second is to invoke the “Wolverine Approach”. Wolverine in Marvel Comics always goes on and on about not being a team player, being a bad person, being a loner, etc. - and he certainly has had his fair share of solo adventures. At the same time, there was at least one month where nearly every major Marvel title had Wolverine in it - Avengers, West Coast Avengers, X-Men, the Defenders, Spider-Man, Marvel Team-Up, Alpha Flight, etc… And because it was in the era where She-Hulk was part of the F4, he had a cameo there because of the WCA. Wolverine might claim to not be a team player, and he might be a pain in the rear end, but he’s always there if there’s a villain to be thwarted or a fight to be had. You have a right to have your character complain. Just stick in or near the party. I don’t care if you sleep in a different hotel or a separate camp. Be there in the important scenes.
Third, “Take it or leave it”. I’m not ashamed of myself for this one - I have told people, this is the game we’re playing. if you want to play this game, I want to have you. If you don’t want to play what we’re playing under the terms we’re all in agreement on, there’s the door, don’t let it hit you on the way out. It’s effective, but I don’t think it’s the most mature method in my arsenal because of the all-or-nothing nature.
Fourth is an open and frank discussion. Explain that the concept of the game is cooperative. Make sure you get buyin from everyone, not just the loner. Express the expectation I have of both players and characters for the game in play. Paranoia, for instance, has a very different set of expectations and goals than Shadowrun or Spirit of the Century / Dresden / Fate. I have GMed for a loner character in a Fate game who never showed up with the other players, but because the system is so narratively driven, they were helpful by setting up Aspects with free tags because the character could realistically be “doing his own thing” and still contribute. So I’ve learned to be open and clear with my goals and intentions. I don’t care if your character is going to be a pain - I care whether or not you as a player will contribute positively to everyone’s experience in a fair way.
The more we are clear about goals and intentions, and the more we can apply nuance and understanding to the situation, the better our games will be.
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. *Session 0 should be the creation of the story of how the group met, they should not meet in session 1.
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 make 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.
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!
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!
For me, as a DM, real shit always happens on session 1, you swim together or fucking die.
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.
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.
You mean the player character’s bomb, right?
Also, Cortex bombs are lame and lazy plot- & storywriting.
- GM with 20 years experience
You mean the player character’s bomb, right?
No. 😈
Wait, that’s illegal, I think…
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.
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!
What are we, some sort of Shadowrun?
DCC/MCC likes character funnels for similar reasons
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.
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.
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.
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)
Nah brother you did the best you could, 12yos are pains in the ass.
Yeah, in that case I think you did everything that could reasonably be expected of you.
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 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!
Everybody’s gotta learn some time
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 actually made this work in a recent cheesy short campaign. My character was an intelligent monkey, although he was still an animal and couldn’t speak. After meeting the party, he decided to go do his own thing, which just so happened to be the same thing as the rest of the party.
It worked out really well. The rest of the party could navigate social challenges without having to explain the monkey, I could sneak around and grab MacGuffins without having to accommodate huge humans who were terrible at climbing.
I doubt it works well for longer or more serious games, but it matched the hectic nature of the campaign and led to some hilarious moments.
