back around late 90's early 00's I was pretty lucky to have a group of friends that all just hung around together. Talking like 8 or more of us and it always wound up that 3 of us would have a place together out in the sticks (it changed locations/roommates from year to year but we have a good long 5+ years of everyone being consistently together). We ended up playing basically any tabletop we could get our hands on or pirate (napster/limewire back then) and print off (we still ended up spending 100's a piece though on dice and official releases), we even ended up starting to make our own games that I still think about doing something with to this day. (all just context for how we could pull off some of what I'm about to say) Getting EVERYONE together was rather difficult at times, people would come into stories and be quickly rotated out if they had to work or weren't available when we were wanting to continue running a story-line (multiple different DM's and storylines going on in concert, still can't fathom how that all worked out looking back). So we all got pretty used to being fluid about it and no one really had any FOMO unless their character was low-level versus everyone else. At that point it became apparent on my storyline that I was going to have to catch some people up so we started doing **1-on-1 DMing** where I would spend a few hours running someone basically on a solo mission that I could tie into the rest of the story and give them something to catch up to everyone else. Sometimes we would do it before a bigger session and people showing up early could sit in or do cameo appearances to help out/etc. People are a lot more comfortable to ask questions and be involved with the story that way and translates well to the group play. It ended up being a huge success and had some of my favorite interactions. Sometimes we would have a bunch of people over and some wanted to play and some wanted to listen to music and party so it just always felt natural and those involved really wanted to be there for it.

Splitting the party is fine! Here's some great reasons why you might: If you get in through the servants entrance, you're gonna have access to different stuff than if you get in through the front door. You have the most wanted woman im the country and an anthropomorphized war crime in the party, and you've decided you need to ask a duchess about a thing. The tunnel splits, and you're not about to allow that fucker to get behind you. Again. I don't trust these other fuckers. I spy on the rest of the party. You fucked up and only got one invitation. Hopefully they can open a back door somewhere. He actually can't take the armor off. It's a whole thing. He can be the distraction. The rest of the party moves 3x as fast as me and has stealth nonsense. But *I* have points in siege engineering, and resistance to fall damage. Shout when you need me.

No fuck that. Just 'okay, but the narrator is looking at these assholes.'

The guy who splits the party on session 1: 

I've played and DMed both. A West Marches campaign has been the right fit for some groups with tough schedules. That format can work really well when you have a larger world plan and story that different venn diagrams of groups slowly discover and have to post notes about to a group chat or Discord. Players remember and read about things from different sessions and piece together the story and world, then can decide on new missions and exploration in a real collaborative setting. Picture a tavern setting where they're arguing about different plot hooks, missions, and tips, and start to switch from the selfish motivations of wanting cool loot to also wanting to uncover the story. It can be great if you lay the groundwork. A few lazy players can disappear into the background, and they still have fun and want to hang out.

>Picture a tavern setting where they're arguing about different plot hooks, missions, and tips, and start to switch from the selfish motivations of wanting cool loot to also wanting to uncover the story. Yea, this is exactly what I'm *purposely* trying to *avoid* with a Session 0. I, as the DM, list the plot hooks of the campaign I have prepared to run and players create characters around them that are guaranteed to be invested in the story as well as be cohesive with each other. No arguing needed. If anyone wants to argue, they know where the door is.

THANK. YOU. Players who do this ARE BAD PLAYERS. I don't care what it takes, you WILL find a reason to cooperate. Call it metagaming if you have to. This is a team game, you will work as a team. Players are expected to make characters that will, for whatever reason, will work together and, for whatever reason, will take plot hooks. Without those two things the game doesn't happen.

Yeah, that's the kind of person that's invited to GTFO and never come back.

Hehehe it's so fun when I just have to sit and watch and can't interact, I love iiiiit!

> (instead, they try to play the same character with different names). I'm imagining every session they play a new character who meets the party and decides not to join them.

Best advice. Players start the game knowing how and why they are going to stick together. I'm also inclined to put my thumb on the scale a little as DM and give the players a loose connection that they can build on and incorporate into their characters while building. BG3 did it really well - everyone has a tadpole in their head, y'all gonna be mindflayers if you leave the group. I recently had players all start as fresh recruits in an organisation - they got to decide the organisation - where the higher-ups put them together. Previously I did a one shot at level 5 where players already had an adventuring group together 20 years before and were called back together for one last mission.

Basically my only rules for character creation are 1) your stiff must be from an officially published 5e rulebook, and 2) it must make sense for your characters to party up. It's really hard to make an interesting campaign for a group of four lone wolves who are totally disinterested in The Quest

Yeah that's not the kind of game I run. Complicating the party is my job.

Obviously, I'm probably missing some context here, but reading the way you've described this, I don't think you were at fault here. If the GM's decision really was to fold that character into the group by just having them stroll up to a smuggler's ship like "Yo, I'm the jedi, let me in," that was an incredibly fucking stupid way to handle that character introduction. If that happened in an actual Star Wars movie or TV show there would be a million youtube videos ripping on how stupid that scene was. Forget "Paranoid smuggler trying to evade the law", basically anyone working against the empire should have been suspicious as fuck there. That's not a jedi, that's an imperial spy, or worse, a sith lord. Yes, players owe to each other to try to move the story forward in a collaborative way, but the GM also owes it to the players to never demand that their characters act like complete and total morons for the sake of the story. There should have been some kind of framework there for why this group of people would trust this random-ass dude wandering into the docking bay. A message sent ahead by their contact in the resistance saying "This guy is gonna help you out, you can trust him," something like that. Not just "Yo, I'm a party member, lemme in." Real life doesn't work like that, and when games try to work like that it just makes everything feel stupid and pointless, because it's so obvious that none of it is real or meaningful.

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 a "Assembling the team" 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.

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.

"Strangers meet in a tavern and awkwardly introduce themselves" is just an example of "random group forced to team up". I've tried the whole "use McGuffin to literally force the party to work together" and still get roadblocked by that one inevitable player who insists on being the "edgy loner who has to be dragged into everything". Yes, even with the threat of death, they usually just waste time trying to argue how "that's what [their] character would do! [I'm] just punishing [them] for playing [their] character! Reee!" Still, on another point, players will still have to do the whole rigamarole of character introductions that always feels like the first day at school unless the characters were made together during session 0 anyway. I just nip all of that in the bud by just eliminating that from my table through the previously stated method: starting in media res with a party that has been pre-established during session 0. BG3 works because the cast of characters are all pre-written, specifically designed to work with that story, being that it is a video game. Real players, unfortunately unless you find a unicorn, do not roleplay on the level of professionally hand-crafted characters.

"Oh, you encounter a desert. There's nothing around for miles"

What if they leave the party and create a new character to join the party that fits in better? Is that good or bad?

I mean, it's good, but it feels like an over reaction. They don't need to make an entirely new character, they just need to think of a reason they'd cooperate. It can be a contrived reason, that's fine, but they need to work together. Some examples, 1. Highly shy character "warms up" to at least one other character and sort of talks to the group "through" that character, but you can still (as a player) face the whole table to talk as a group. 2. Character who is extremely distrusting has met a character before (just tweak backstory) or finds at least one other character implicitly trust worthy. Maybe the Rogue who has been backstabbed too many times trusts the Paladin because they know they're too honest to lie.