A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Splitting the party from session 1
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.And the person who didn't gets to default to being the loner outcast who doesn't talk much, easy
-
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 ." "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 bring 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.
-
And the person who didn't gets to default to being the loner outcast who doesn't talk much, easy
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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. -
> 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 ." "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 bring 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.
-
This post did not contain any content.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.
-
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](https://aussie.zone/post/407650).
-
How would they not? Session 0 we create characters together, anyone who doesn't follow the previously stated rules can leave my table.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.
-
Probably for the best. If you'd let him onboard it might have ended up like [this story](https://aussie.zone/post/407650).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!"
-
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.What if you had a player who wanted to secretly backstab and subvert the party, in character? They'd play as if they were part of the team, but in between sessions the player would communicate with the DM and decide ways to betray the party, with in-game consequences. It was the worst campaign I've ever been in. I still wonder if it was bad DMing or I'm just sour.
-
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.
-
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.I agree with both. It is lazy, yes. But it is also meant to be fun, and Shadowrun is a particularly goofy game (cyberpunk, with fantasy creatures, ghosts, gods, and magic? How can you take it seriously?) so being a super solid story isn't *extremely* important. It's also literally the first suggestion in the rulebook for getting players to cooperate.
-
This post did not contain any content.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.
-
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.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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
