It goes for the players among each other too. It's not just the one character in OP that dislikes or distrusts the party. It's up to the rest of the party to also accomodate them. If you have a moral character in the group you might refrain from murdering, raping and pillaging for shits and giggles. As they say "the only way to have a friend is to be one".

Everybody plays RPGs differently, but it's funny how some people don't get the term "roleplaying" and are constantly, relentlessly playing their real selves in the game.

I'm new to my party and roleplaying in general (though I've consumed it as entertainment) and I'm having a slightly different issue. My character was intentionally designed to be a bit naive to match me as a player, and doesn't have high skills in any int based stuff (at least for now) and instead has medical, nature, survival, etc. A lot of puzzles or traps etc I can as a player try to reason through, but my character shouldn't be able to sus out, and I feel torn between playing the character as it should be or adding ideas to solve stuff so we aren't just sitting there twiddling our thumbs for ideas.

Fun fact: The Expanse books (and eventual TV show) were started as a unique role-playing campaign where the person running it (Ty Franks) would write a prompt, the players would explain their character's reactions. He'd then write a story section incorporating that and the players would say how they reacted and so on. There was a core group of characters who were the "survivors" early on, but one of the players had to drop out early-ish, so in the next bit of story that character died. That was carried into the books and TV show, which is why after the core group of characters is established, there's a sudden, shocking death.

Wow that really is a fun fact!

Sometimes it's hard to distinguish between factual knowledge and just cleverness. There's no reason a bumpkin fresh off the farm can't be curious about what makes something tick, so they look under it or break it open - and whaddya know, they find a hidden thing. It's really up to the DM to say no, your character wouldn't know to do that.

It's natural that we gravitate towards familiarity. Case in point, how some actors always seem to play the same character, no matter which movie they're in.

Yeah that's a good parallel. Lately I've been watching Kaitlin Olson's show High Potential. Even though she's playing a super-smart crime solver, to me it's the same character she played in It's Always Sunny and The Mick.

Maybe your char bumbles around the room doing goofy things instead of working hard and logically to crack the puzzle and the dm can make your bumbling uncover extra clues that advance the plot.

If you don’t have a reason to work with the group, accept that this is a one-shot for you, which may be retcon’d as needed.

Also accept that you suck at making characters

I mean, I think they get the term, but just have a hard time doing it.

"I perform a history check to see if there's any historical significance about this desert."

DM: As you walk away, you feel a slight tingle in the air before a flash as bright as a thousand suns blinds you for an instant before... nothing. A bolt of lightning has vaporized your body. Miraculously, nobody else in the vicinity seems to have been harmed in any way nor even do they seem to have noticed what just happened, including the fact that you just disappeared. It's as if the Gods themselves, for no particular reason, have arbitrarily decided to smite you out of existence entirely. Ready to roll a new character?

This shouldn't be the GMs job btw, players, roleplaying and backstory are YOUR department, write a reason why your character would end up with the others. Work together.

> it’s the same thing, effectively I **strongly** disagree. The first two are substantively the same, I agree. But the third is a wholly separate category. I see 3 basic categories we're talking about here: you choose to work together at the start; you know each other already; you're forced into working together by circumstances. The key difference between the 1st and the 3rd is that choice. "We have the same patron" is still a choice to work for that patron, and gives room for someone to say "nah, I'm not working with these people". When the circumstances themselves directly *force* you to work together, there's no ability to turn around and say "I'm going my own way". Being kidnapped and having brain slugs put in your head is one way. Everyone arriving in the same town at the time the town is unexpectedly invaded is another one I've been in as a player. The other key thing about in media res is that you don't have that "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". You're thrown into *doing* things before there's any chance for that. You get to know each other not beforehand, as in case 2, but *as the adventure is going*. To be clear, I'm pointing to BG3 as an example that I've only very recently (the last two–four weeks) started, and which serves as a good well-known *example* of something that demonstrates a good example of something I already know works well. It's not a game that made me realise I completely new way of doing things. In media res will require players be cooperative enough to care to act, but it doesn't require they trust each other or know each other immediately. It *definitely* doesn't require pre-written specifically-designed characters.

> 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.” Oh, that reminds me of a 4th way campaigns can start (in addition to the 3 I said in a different reply) that I've been in before and quite enjoyed—though wouldn't want to be overused. The MCU method. Where each player individually gets a 1 session (maybe 2 at most) solo session introducing them and getting them to the right place to start the campaign.

You're missing the entire point by what I mean by "effectively the same" and the point of my argument. There are only ever two choices: your characters know each other beforehand, or the don't. Being forced to work together or working together by choice is irrelevant to what I'm talking about. if the party is not planned together to be a cohesive group that are all guaranteed to have a motivation to play the written campaign AND have at least a reason to trust the party members, regardless of if they have personal history or not, is my method for avoiding the inevitable player who wants to bitch about not belong allowed to play their "edgy loner". As I said before, even with literally using the threat of death forcing the character to work with the party, there is ALWAYS that one dipshit who wants to bitch and moan about how I'm "railroading them/preventing them from roleplaying their character" by doing so. Or, they waste time trying to argue for some loophole to go off and do their own thing, separate from the party yet somehow still "technically" doing the job. I am speaking from personal experience of over 10 years as a DM. > The other key thing about in media res is that you don't have that "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". You're thrown into *doing* things before there's any chance for that. You get to know each other not beforehand, as in case 2, but *as the adventure is going*. Yes, the characters are. The players, on the other hand, are all just sitting around a table rolling dice with no sense of urgency. They roll their dice, the encounter is over, and then the customary introductions start cause everyone is wondering what the other players have created for their character. Like, either you have been incredibly lucky with groups or have let Critical Roll give you rosey glasses about the role-play capabilities of the average player if you think doing things in *media res* makes a difference here. I avoid all of this by just doing it in Session 0 with the afformentioned rules about character creation. It works. Ever since, I've never had to deal with it or any of the annoyances I have talked about. Also, no, BG3 is not a good example. It is a video game that doesn't have to deal with fumbling IRL people who all have differing expectations and preferences. > In media res will require players be cooperative enough to care to act, but it doesn't require they trust each other or know each other immediately. It *definitely* doesn't require pre-written specifically-designed characters. See, the problem I have been talking about is that my method guarantees that players are cooperative enough to care to act that's the entire point of why I do it how I do it. Again, I am speaking from direct personal experience across 10+ years as a DM. Problem players will find a way to be a problem. So I nip it in the bud with a method that doesn't have to rely on the good-faith of the player, cause I've been burned by it more times than I can count.

DM: "Alright, so your character walks off after refusing to go along with the group. Okay. Well, guess you can pack up and we will see you next session. I don't have anything planned other than what the group is doing, so, guess you won't be playing today. Bye." Make it sting. Refuse to let them roll a new character and have them do the walk of shame. They made their choice So they can deal with the consequences of them.

Dice-less, narrative games are so much fun. Sadly finding a good group for it is like pulling teeth, at least in my area. \*Sad theater kid noises*