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.

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.

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.

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!

In game punishments are the worst for these kinds of issues, just talk to each other.

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.

Gotta build those connections and relationships into the party during session zero. I like to model mine after the game [fiasco](https://bullypulpitgames.com/products/fiasco-classic) 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

> 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.

That's not common in Shadowrun... 30+ years playing and running that game, and I've never encountered it!

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"

Wait, that's illegal, I think...

That's a much better advice. Much worse joke though.

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.

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.

I have been a Dungeon Master for over 30 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.

DCC/MCC likes character funnels for similar reasons

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.

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.

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.