A couple friends and I have been planning a game for a while now, and we should be starting in a week or two. Our first session is the public rolling of our characters (to make sure we don't get some Munchkins you bring in a character sheet that's just too perfect) and doing the back story.
The one issue, is trying to think how the party dynamic would work and justify us all meeting and staying together.
I am playing a chaotic neutral cleric of Calistria.
(Charisma skills, healing, limited melee)
Another person is playing a lawful evil (by permission of the DM) rouge on a vengeance quest. (Skill monkey, critically low social skills)
Another is playing a neutral Druid. (Wisdom skills and battle spells)
Finally, we have a player who is going to be either or neutral good or chaotic good Barbarian. (Tank)
The rouge and I think we can justify a partnership because of the correlation between Calistria (a vengeance deity) but exactly what I would get out of it isn't clear yet.
I like playing with very diverse alignments, because it means that the social interactions are going to create differences in opinion and make the story more interesting but this one looks like it may be a challenge.
you could solve it out of character by agreeing that you will stay together as a group, but I guess that's not what you want, because you seek interesting interactions.
Then I would suggest to let your GM worry about it, or remind him of this responsability.
As a GM, I normally make clear at the beginning that every split up group will end in one part dead, and even tough a little biching is okay, if they start to work against each other, they will die.
If you are too occupied defending against ennemies, there won't be a problem. However in undetermined downtime frictions are likely, but are normally worse for a group such as yours.
I know, my answer isn't really an answer, but I hope it helps nonetheless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are all seeking shelter in an isolated inn from a terrible storm and find you all have something in common. If all else fails, the inn is a trap set up by a cannibal inn-keeper and you have to work together to escape.
You are on a short sea voyage when a storm blows up and you have to abandon ship, all the party members ending up in the same lifeboat.
You are contacted individually by a mysterious stranger with a proposition 'you will find interesting'.
You are all former friends who grew up for a while in the same village and have met up years later despite subsequent differences.
When I DM, I always start the campaign by brainstorming with my players about the party glue - the concept that justifies sticking together. Because, invariably, the moment will come when everyone is fighting and everyone has reason to want to kill or kick out someone else, and each player will ask themselves "Why not?" And there had better be a good reason.
The easiest way is to identify common causes - as you already have, with the sharing of the same faith. But we need something for the other characters. Do you know what the main purpose of the game will be? Will you have some sort of quest, or is it one of those "Hey, I hear there is a reward for doing X" sort of games?
If it's the former, everyone should find a way to stitch their character onto the quest. Everyone should at least have their own reason to want to accomplish the meta goal. That way, at least the other characters are assets and allies who will help them in their quest.
Even after that, I suggest coming up with relationships. Maybe two characters are a couple or will become one (if both players are comfortable roleplaying that sort of thing). Maybe some of them are related by blood, or they're old friends from childhood who have watched each other's backs since day one. Something, anything, to give those characters a reason to get along. Because even if characters have the same goals, sometimes one character becomes more of a load than an asset.. and suddenly the rest of the party is BETTER OFF if the load trips and falls on all of your swords. And that is usually bad.
Building relationships is especially important if the game is the "I hear there is a reward for X" type. Then you don't even have common goals, other than money - and what is an annoying adventurer if not a walking pile of money that bleeds? ^__^
I think it's important for players to be flexible with their character's ideals in a group with diverse alignments and faiths. Most people make exceptions in real life for their friends and family. I played a very taciturn dwarf who hated elves, but wound up marrying one. He kept on complaining about them - ESPECIALLY his wife - but he still loved her and considered her a rare exception. Far from being unrealistic, I think this gives characters a very natural depth. Most people are living contradictions.
As for how you meet, that's really up to the DM. If you have preexisting relationships, then some of you are probably already traveling together - that helps minimize the "coincidence" that you should all meet at the same place. Hopefully you can work it so that the party is really just two groups who meet at the start of the game, and realize they have a common purpose. From that point onward, it's just a matter of keeping civil (enough) and tightening those relationships.
|
I just want to point out something......
Every group I've ever played in has been very different. My current group is/was an IT Services Manager, a fitness instructor/construction worker, a Bio-chemist, a Lawyer, a college professor, a Bus Maintenance Manager, and me, an ex-construction worker turned cemetery maintenance worker. We would probably never have a prayer of crossing paths in the real-world but we all shared a common goal and interest.....RPGs.
One common thread and we all gather together and spend time as friends every week for 5-6 years so far. Even our reasons to play RPGs are different- some of us are using it as an escape, some like using tactics primarily, some want to develop a personality for their PC and have a grand story.....even our common thread is totally different.
My point is that just one tiny thing in common can draw together a group of people and help them to work as a team towards an end.
Sometimes we fight or argue but we usually overcome the differences so as to push forward the common goal. I can't play by myself in the perfect way I think the game should be played so I tweak my own outlook on the game to fit better into the group dynamic.
PCs are just extensions of their owners and their motivations and will probably be able to work with others and be flexible enough to stay with a party.
When I DM, I always start the campaign by brainstorming with my players about the party glue - the concept that justifies sticking together.How about this?
Har! Yes, that will also do nicely. ^__^
And well put, Fake Healer.
On many occasions the 'hook' to draw the characters together is specified before the players make their characters - such as the campaign hooks in Curse of the Crimson Throne or the festival in Rise of the Runelords.
Something I have had happen occasionally (and a long time ago, thankfully) is a player looking thoughtful and saying: "You know, I cannot understand why my character would adventure with the rest of the party."
This is their problem, not yours. They knew they were taking part in a social game with the other players, and that their characters would have to get on with others before they created their character. If they don't want to play ball, that's not the DM's problem.
On many occasions the 'hook' to draw the characters together is specified before the players make their characters - such as the campaign hooks in Curse of the Crimson Throne or the festival in Rise of the Runelords.
Something I have had happen occasionally (and a long time ago, thankfully) is a player looking thoughtful and saying: "You know, I cannot understand why my character would adventure with the rest of the party."
This is their problem, not yours. They knew they were taking part in a social game with the other players, and that their characters would have to get on with others before they created their character. If they don't want to play ball, that's not the DM's problem.
I disagree, though I see where you're coming from. You can't make a character who could get along with absolutely anyone and everyone. The best you can do is try not to create a hard-headed or irritating character and make adjustments when you find out what everyone else is playing.
Because honestly, if one player makes a Paladin, and another makes an Antipaladin, what do you think is going to happen? It isn't the Paladin's problem - it's everyone's problem. It's an extreme example, I know, but the point stands that this is a group game, and these sort of problems need group solutions.
When a player can't come up with a good reason for their character to adventure with the others, I think everyone should pitch in and try to alter what they can to make it work. This certainly includes the DM.
When a player can't come up with a good reason for their character to adventure with the others, I think everyone should pitch in and try to alter what they can to make it work. This certainly includes the DM.
Yes, but that does not excuse players from making characters that are designed not to from the outset, and for some it is attention-seeking by making everyone jump through hoops for their character. I agree that if the player is willing then accommodations can and should be made, but if the player is just trying to dictate the game to everyone else, he's not being a team player.
It's like the old "I'm only acting in character" excuse - it's no excuse, because you decide the character.
I'm starting up a new campaign in a few weeks, and the hook I'm using to get the party together is that all of them have been invited to a very expensive wedding. All of the characters have some connnection to either the bride or groom, and end up in a caravan headed to the location of the ceremony. Of course, the caravan is going to be ambushed while going through a remote area, and most of the guards killed off. None of the characters are going to start with any magic items, and in fact will not be very well armed (it's not in good taste to attend a wedding in full-plate), but someone will get the idea to raid the wagons carrying the wedding gifts to equip themselves for the fight back towards civilization.
|
Often when faced with such a uniquely diverse group of players and alignments as the OP's, I usually throw the party into some sort of adversity immediately, rather than the old "crowded inn" standby.
I'll tell the group what setting we are starting in, and let them come up with backstory and reasoning why they are where I said...example: "We will begin play in Absalom." ....or "We will all start on a ship travelling to Varisia".
Now, once the game starts, say...on the boat. The boat is attacked by something and damaged beyond repair. Its sinking, and they need to work together to save themselves/others. In Absalom? Conveniently staying at the same Inn of course, there is a murder and they are all implicated somehow...happened in front of this one's room, that one found him first, that one was last seen arguing with the victim, and now the city watch wishes to speak to them "down at the station".
Force them to work together to overcome an obstacle and let it work from there. Even selfish/evil characters should come to realize that the whole is better than the single....more opportunities to inflict mayhem and hide behind the civility offered by the good aligned people.
When a player can't come up with a good reason for their character to adventure with the others, I think everyone should pitch in and try to alter what they can to make it work. This certainly includes the DM.Yes, but that does not excuse players from making characters that are designed not to from the outset..
Okay, but that isn't what you said originally. You didn't make it clear that you were talking about players who deliberately make antisocial characters for the sake of it. Obviously that's not going to work out, and the player is entirely at fault.
The DM can start the group out in a bind together, such as slaves or in a prison cell or something and they have to work together to escapes and survive.
Okay, but that isn't what you said originally. You didn't make it clear that you were talking about players who deliberately make antisocial characters for the sake of it. Obviously that's not going to work out, and the player is entirely at fault.When a player can't come up with a good reason for their character to adventure with the others, I think everyone should pitch in and try to alter what they can to make it work. This certainly includes the DM.Yes, but that does not excuse players from making characters that are designed not to from the outset..
My apologies, I thought I made that clear, obviously I didn't!
Best bet for a party that diverse is to make them all members of a family, and by family, I mean some variety of mafia family that is by turns ruthless or benevolent and would be stressing loyalty to family above all else. This way, while the evil characters might want to do away with the good characters, they wouldn't as a matter of enlightened self interest, as you don't want to get on the don's bad side, and similarly, the good couldn't take out the evil because fratricide is the greatest of evils and you can't just kill your cousin because he's raising an undead army.
Also, just because it's modeled after a mafia family does not mean it specifically calls itself that. It probably calls itself a prosperous merchant trading house or something similar.
The cold open is unappreciated in gaming in general.
Most episodic stories don't start with the backstory. If it comes out, it comes out later. If it's part of the opening, it's the most brief precis.
It's doubly true in instances where the party seems unthinkable, that the best way to figure the party out is to let the party interact as one for a few sessions, then think about the question of how this all happened.
|
Then I would suggest to let your GM worry about it, or remind him of this responsability.
I strongly disagree with this, to me it is not the GMs responsibility to come up with the reasons you are all together, its everyone's responsibility.
I do agree that if the GM simply asks you to come up with characters without discussing the campaign and the type of characters that would be appropriate then he is potentially asking for a headache.
When I DM, I always start the campaign by brainstorming with my players about the party glue - the concept that justifies sticking together.
Exactly, before we talk character concepts I like to discuss (or even create) the campaign concept with the players to discuss what type of characters would be appropriate (e.g. this is a heroic game, where PCs should be altruistic and willing to stick up for the underdog).
I then ask the players to discuss character concepts and ensure they have a tie to at least one other PC (who has a tie to another PC etc) and have a reason for adventuring together.
As for how you meet, that's really up to the DM.
I wouldn't actually say this is always true either, as stated I ask players to come up with ties to the other characters that exist before the campaign starts, so they can decide where they met for the first time (were they brothers? did they fight in the same unit in a war? were they slaves together? etc).
So to the OP, for me, you're starting a little backwards with characters first and then trying to come up with a reason to be together, so discuss things and be prepared for some players having to change their characters if you think the group won't work or doesn't make sense as is.
|
I use the following algorithm for "how does the party know each other ?"
1. Do players have their own idea for this ?
YES - evaluate the idea, double check with your plans for the game.
NO - see p. 2
2. Does the question really matter for the DM ?
YES - see p.3
NO - see p.4
3. Is DM's idea acceptable by the players ?
YES - wohoo !
NO - Sit down and re-work the idea together with the players.
4. Does the question really matter to the players ?
YES - see p.1, repeat until everybody is happy.
NO - damn the torpedoes and play the good old "Adventurer Trade Union" cliche.
Dave the Paladin/Cleric/Paladin-Cleric met the party's fighter, lent him 20 gold and stuck around until the fighter paid it back..
..they're both epic level (fighter 24 Dave 21) and Dave *still* hasn't got his gold back, despite epic-level nagging, hustling, pestering and down right 'SUNBEAM TO THE FACE' sweet talking...
O-o Just wanted to share..
Dave the Paladin/Cleric/Paladin-Cleric met the party's fighter, lent him 20 gold and stuck around until the fighter paid it back..
..they're both epic level (fighter 24 Dave 21) and Dave *still* hasn't got his gold back, despite epic-level nagging, hustling, pestering and down right 'SUNBEAM TO THE FACE' sweet talking...
O-o Just wanted to share..
ROTFLMAO!
I love that one ...