As a GM, I try really hard to encourage my players to develop strong "role play" options for their characters, and really try to avoid "railroading" them into the direction I want them to go.....
BUT.....
I am finding that our group has certain "tendencies" that make running AP's very challanging...
1) Characters always seem to be in the Neutral alignment range....it's almost impossible to get them to show any interest in doing something that simply is in the best interest of others, or that helps others without some personal motivation or gain on their part.
2) All are pretty "stubborn" when it comes to following someone elses lead...you would think they where each carrying a shard of pride :)
3) Intimidate seems to be a far more preferable tactic than Diplomacy.
If intimidate fails...they get frustrated that they couldn't "bully" their way through, and disappointed that their characters have to resort to diplomacy with NPC's more powerful than themselves.
As a GM, what advice would you give for trying to develop a more "team" oriented approach ?
FYI: We just started Shattered Star, and I was hoping being a member of the pathfinder society would give them a bit of a motivation to act as a team....but so far they seem to be resorting to their standard MO.
Any advice ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well nothing builds teamwork so much as threat of death, give them a enemy that they learn to hate, that's dangerous enough to kill half the party if they don't work together, and don't let up, make them develop a us vrs the world mentality and the teamwork will develop, or they will get killed.
Basically as we said in the army, is "everyone is in the suck"
If that fails really the only way you can force teamwork is when the players get something nice out of it, but some people don't play well with others regardless, and this hobby does attract more than its fair share of lone wolf wannabes.
that's why I was glad to have a bunch of fellow soldiers to game with, I had to almost work at "not" getting them to work together. :)
Oh and make the threat personal, not a favor for some npc..make it come after them as a group.
I think the best way is show them the consequences of their actions
A rival team who perform better is a good idea.
Intimidate has a short time scale. Have intimidated NPC come after them/hire others to do likewise, in revenge for their bullying.
Swap in a few good aligned magic items.
Let the realise good characters/NPCs get price discounts at some shops etc
|
Try a sandbox like kingmaker on for size. That AP turns the normal adventure on its head forcing the PCs to act to protect their kingdom instead of resorting to theft and murder as the hammer and nail of every problem.
I also like Kazaan and Haldrick's ideas. Next time they turn down a quest because nothing is in it for them have a another adventure group take the job. The other band comes back as heroes. Meanwhile all the PCs did was drink in the tavern.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoMW8VYb_GE
The only way a rival group works for some of the more stubborn players is if the rival group is not npcs, but actual PCs, some of the stubborn players I have dealt with would just see it as a transparent hook and line ploy, if this group wants to be heroes likely it would not be such a problem for the GM, and no amount of "look and the nice things these NPCs get" approach..now if its another PC party..that may do the trick.
but meh, the gm knows his players best, hopefully they wont be that hard headed.
Talk to the players about your expectations and desire for the game, and appropriate characters, before a single die is rolled.
I learned this a long time ago running superhero games. If I want to run a silver/bronze age Justice League/Avengers style game, Wolverine and Deadpool are simply not suitable PCs.
I am going with the assumption he may have already tried that, since that's ALWAYS the first step in any game regardless, I get the feeling its his players RPing their "Neutral" alignment a bit over the top, and assuming a "its not my problem" attitude..but that's just my impression based on the OP.
So a bit more info on the players mannerisms, and even class makeup might lend a bit more light.
I am going with the assumption he may have already tried that, since that's ALWAYS the first step in any game regardless,
You'd be surprised.
And if he had ... would he be having this problem?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Introduce them to Tucker's kobolds.
I am going with the assumption he may have already tried that, since that's ALWAYS the first step in any game regardless,You'd be surprised.
And if he had ... would he be having this problem?
Talking isn't always the solution. It's the most preferred one because it generally takes the least effort, has the least headache and heartbreak, and is the most civil.
But it's not foolproof.
Even if he did talk to them, who's to say the way they play their characters isn't the same way they behave in real life? (I hope that's not the case, but you never know...) This "Not my problem" garbage they keep spewing, as far as I'm concerned, stems from a lack of ambition to get along with others or do anything in the game. They see no purpose for their characters, and thusly just have them sit and rot.
The GM, as it stands, if talking didn't solve the problem, needs to give them a reason, either in-game or out-of-game, to get their act straight. The in-game reason could be to have a second adventuring party join with them on a super-tough job (that has a very good reward), and show them the power and necessity to have teamwork; failure to do so will lead to all of their deaths, and failure to do so correctly will lead to other, less negative consequences.
An out-of-game reason could be civil or not-civil, depending on how the players have been acting, and for how long/how severe. Initially, a simple "Hey guys, I was hoping you would actually work together in this, Neutral doesn't mean 'won't play nice with others.'" Or simply "Look, I've tried to make the game revolve more around you guys having a good chemisty with each other, and if you don't want to play that kind of game, then I suggest you find a different game table that accepts your lone wolf playstyle, because I've had it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's as easy as having consequences. You stroll into town and bully you're way through everybody? Maybe stores close early for you, maybe the clerics (who don't want to alienate their followers) refuse healing. Maybe the Pathfinders give them the crappy jobs for PR purposes.
"Hey, I heard you had a zombie problem, I'll clear it out for a small fee."
"No thanks, I'm expecting some heroes to show up tomorrow, I can wait."
Nothing will suck more than strolling up to the damsel in distress and being politely declined. Then, let the party stumble around finding nothing but uncooperative villagers. Then, they come across a drunken fool, who drunkenly informs them no one likes them because they're jerks, and Davey down at the barn said that he'd rather be eaten by wolves than get help from them. If they don't see the error of their ways by then, remind them, there's always a bigger fish.
My party suffered from "We're the Best" syndrome, we were quickly cured of it when the store clerk we tried hustling for weapon discounts opted to instead grab the Keen Scythe from the weapon rack and cleave through the party. As a retired level 11 Fighter, our Level 3 party quickly learned to play nice. It took one round and half the party KO'd, but we started saying please.
'Hey guys, D&D is a Game and a Game is supposed to be Fun for everyone, including the DM. I'd really enjoy DMing a Heroic style game. Can we try that instead of anti-heroes?"
|
|
I think it's as easy as having consequences. You stroll into town and bully you're way through everybody? Maybe stores close early for you, maybe the clerics (who don't want to alienate their followers) refuse healing. Maybe the Pathfinders give them the crappy jobs for PR purposes.
"Hey, I heard you had a zombie problem, I'll clear it out for a small fee."
"No thanks, I'm expecting some heroes to show up tomorrow, I can wait."Nothing will suck more than strolling up to the damsel in distress and being politely declined. Then, let the party stumble around finding nothing but uncooperative villagers. Then, they come across a drunken fool, who drunkenly informs them no one likes them because they're jerks, and Davey down at the barn said that he'd rather be eaten by wolves than get help from them. If they don't see the error of their ways by then, remind them, there's always a bigger fish.
My party suffered from "We're the Best" syndrome, we were quickly cured of it when the store clerk we tried hustling for weapon discounts opted to instead grab the Keen Scythe from the weapon rack and cleave through the party. As a retired level 11 Fighter, our Level 3 party quickly learned to play nice. It took one round and half the party KO'd, but we started saying please.
Some folks will be rolling their eyes at this. Those folks want the PCs to be real important. Like more important than any NPC and if you put something in the game that’s stronger, more authoritative than them you are just trying to railroad or screw them.
That's why I wouldn't recommend having an actual Rival party swooping in stealing the glory as some have suggested Pan. The rivals may make it seem like the DM is just trying to show up the party.
If you're a jerk and irk everyone around you, you'll have to work harder before they accept a favour. This will require diplomacy and some acts of good faith to get back into the towns folk's good graces. The PCs are still the stars of the show, with a redemption story arc. If you make the level 2 party feel like they're gods amongst men, they'll act like it, and you'll get these types of shenanigans. Just because they're the stars doesn't mean they don't get smacked down every now and then.
|
|
On the cotnrary, I would rather demonstrate what working as a team and being proactive could do for the party. The rival adventuring party for instance happens in the background. It shows the PCs what they could be doing and how they could be profiting from helping others. Attacking them with a retired level 11 fighter just says "do what I want or I will kill the characters" which is way too direct of an approach for my taste.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Show them what team works looks like how well it works. You can do this with a rival party that has strong teamwork dynamics.
There are some really good guides that you can send to the players. I can't get to the link for them at the moment (mobile device atm,) but you can find them in the guide of guides and the far more comprehensive list of guides that is linked to in that thread. One in particular talks about teamwork dynamics in a party and how to take advantage of roles to defeat encounters quickly.
Have real consequence for action. If they are intimidating everyone, have it come back to hurt them when they need help and are looking for allies. Have shop owners hear about how big bullies they are and start charging higher prices. Have guards start following them and harassing them because they heard they were trouble makers. Allies have to start distancing themselves from them for political or social reasons.
Neutral is fine until it isn't. I have seen people say they are Neutral and then perform Evil acts. Keep a sharp eye on that and call people out on it. If there needs to be an alignment change, enforce it.
Present them with mechanical puzzles and situations where they MUST act alone, such as there are N number of leavers that must be pulled at once and N number of PCs.
Now that they are alone attack each of them with a (their level -4) encounter. Play to their weaknesses, you want to force them to retreat if possible, to quit the objective.
Now have an epic encounter (APL+3) as an alternative to the split-up no team work approach. Have the monsters in this encounter all work well together.
One major alternative is that there is another party of the same CRs of the PCs going through the adventure. If the PCs fail to work as a team to complete objectives the rival team does instead. The AP moves forward and all negative consequences are lofted on the PCs instead of the Rivals--they are cunning rivals, afterall.--
You'll eventually get through the AP, and the PCs will either be the heroes or the side-kicks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I found this problem as well.
When I started RotRL, the first goblin attack starts and one of my players ran away with the crowd of NPCs, stating "My character don't want to fight goblins", when it's meant to be where the players state their positions as heroes.
Later when they where asked to help investigate some things, their only motivation was reward.When this happens, the player/s have basically made (a) character/s that do not want to participate in the game/campaign.
Now I demand that they create characters with a solid reason to actually be in the story and help the party. Solid enough so that the character never will actively try to stop the game "because my character don't think risking his/her life is worth it, lets go somewhere else safe" or not sticking out for another PC.
About the team working aspect, if they can't see the advantage of it, find other players.
You could have told the coward player that his PC has a PANZY POINT now, and that when he has 3 points he loses all of his PC levels, gains NPC levels, and becomes the town coward/drunk who rambles about his "glory-days" as other people at the bar--the barrister included--scoff at him.
I am going with the assumption he may have already tried that, since that's ALWAYS the first step in any game regardless,You'd be surprised.
And if he had ... would he be having this problem?
My initial "knee jerk" to this was OF COURSE I already spoke to them...
But I also know that I have a tendency to be...."subtle" in an attempt to not sound like I'm placing blame or being accusitive....
In my case "subtle" is often completely missed by people around me 0-o
So I may need to re-evaluate if I am getting my message across...
Also, their alignment choice tends to be the other way around....
They choose Neutral alignments because they are not really interested in acting the role of "hero"....and a neutral alignment allows them to play to their personal play style.
As pathfinders...I wasn't worried about the "out to save the world" mentality...but I guess a little interest in the world at large might make some of the encounters run a little more smoothly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had players like this, and my experience was
1. Ignore, hope it goes away
2. Speak to player privately
3. Ask player publicly to participate
4. Ended player's participation
Now that was only for an individual. If the majority or all the players took the stance you describe, I'd likely swap out the game for one more conducive to the players' style.
Now all of the above is based on the OP's depiction of the players' attitudes: Neutral alignments, playing very mercenary style PCs, motivated entirely by rewards. I don't think any of my advice helps them work as a team.
The 2 might be linked though by a simple reward-based system, but it ends up being highly subjective so a lot of players might feel condescended to. Basically you have some big tokens, like medals or poker chips. Every time the party acts as a team they get a token. These can be redeemed that game session for some big boost, like a +2 for all party members for a minute or a mass-invisibility for a round or whatever. The catches are: they can never have more than 3 at one time and all tokens must be redeemed in THAT game session.
See the thing is: some players DON'T want to be good. They want to be an antihero, or not even a hero at all. For these kinds of players, playing a heroic, story-driven game is simply frustrating for everyone.
I have a group of gamers. I wouldn't say they're not heroic, but they're definitely not motivated by anything IN-game. They are powergamers plain and simple and enjoy killing monsters and getting treasure. Their characters tend to be very 2-dimensional and the stories we create are highly limited - my plots could usually be summed up in a paragraph.
Now for years I made epic campaigns and tried to force my players to engage in them but the reality was the players never cared about whether the NPCs lived or died, or what the BBEG's motivations were, or any of the other RP elements of the game. For these guys the game is simple: we show up every month, roll some dice and beat the crud out of some baddies.
I finally gave in and made up a homebrewed megadungeon contained inside of a sandbox region of my world. The players can LITERALLY have any game they want. I have complex social and RP situations at the ready, but I have little actual plot other than what the players pursue.
So far they've entered the megadungeon, found out there's a kobold sadist BBEG, an NPC got mad at said BBEG and vowed revenge, and then the party accepted a side quest ending a local curse. From here they might help the NPC, they might wander the dungeon on their own, they might just head into surrounding hexes and see what's around them.
The point is: my players are highly independent thinkers who don't enjoy RP. Rather than force them to work as a team for the common good and embroil them in a twisted plot they don't care about, I've instead given them such a blank slate that they need to seek out their own motivations. My hope is that they'll trip and fall into the role of heroes on their own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well...there is a age old recipe to get a group of individuals to work as a team, people have been perfecting it for centuries, hell I did it for a few years in the army as a drill sgt.
mutually shared misery.
If you want these guys to work as a team, and care about the world take it one step at a time.
first come after them personally , as a group, no other people being threaten, its all on them, make them work together or fail hard, and when they fail, have them wake up as slaves/prisoners, in the food larder, and have to work together to escape, and if they fail there, let them die, and try again.
Once you first forge bonds of brother/sisterhood between them and the world, then you give them a little light, and smack them around some more, make them depend on each other.
after a few bouts of this you may actually forge a team, once they are a team THEN you can work on making them give a rats butt about the rest of the world...but if they don't they will still fight for each other.
prizes and baubles may work but likely you will have to keep upping the anty, until you are handing out relics to get them to save a village.
Make them do pushups in the mud and the rain, make them run 10miles in full battlerattle, make them do flutter kicks till they puke.. (metaphorically of course)but make them do it together, and you will see them eventually become a team.
Just some old soldier advice..carry on.
Sounds like the players don't want to roleplay. Are your players uncomfortable with roleplaying? If so, then your options are:
1.) Change the game to a more beer and pretzels style of play. Think World of Warcraft as a table top game.
2.) Explain to the players that you're not interested in running a game without roleplaying, so you expect everyone to roleplay their characters more frequently. If they refuse or say they will and still don't, tell the players you're not having any fun. Then look for new players or play non-roleplaying games with these same players.
It sounds to me like your expectations do not match up with their expectations. Like a few others have suggested I would talk to them to find out what kind of game they want and to express to them what kind of game you want. Getting on the same page about expectations should help.
Now, that said, based off what you described above I would say:
- It doesn't sound to me like they are interested in being heroes so running most adventure paths might not be a good idea. If you want to keep with an adventure path I've heard (though never played) that Skull & Shackles works well since it doesn't assume the players are heroes and may work better if they aren't (its just what I have heard about Skull & Shackles).
- You may want to go with a more sand boxy environment where the need to play hero is not assumed. Provide the players with a setting, an environment, and some hooks and let them decide what they want to do. If they want to plunder tombs and become filthy rich, let them try. If they want to take over a city and become rulers, let them try. If they want to build a merchant empire and rule the world through money and influence, let them try (and perhaps find a different system to better support that goal and style of play).
- This one applies to everything: play the NPCs and enemies as rationally and realistic as you can. Have enemies and NPCs respond in appropriate ways to the actions of the PCs. This may result in some people shunning the PCs (if they act like bullies) and others trying to recruit them. If the enemy is coordinated and organized with sound tactics, it will almost necessitate the response of a team as opposed to a group of individuals. But don't force it. If they find a way to overcome a smart and well organized enemy as a group of individuals, let them. It may be harder than working as a team but if that is what they want don't stop them.
This really sounds to me like an expectations issue so level setting those should at least help you move forward.
You have 2 entirely separate questions here. Motivating the players and play style.
Motivation:
Some players just do not want to be heroes. Though that is the classic theme, it is not the only one. You can still sometimes find ways to make them behave altruistically if you think about it hard enough. But first ask them what their character's motivation is and where they want the campaign to lead.
I've had a group of mercenaries hired by a non-warlike but threatened village.
Probably the most successful with a group like that was: Mr Snooty/Criminal wants to be accepted by society. So Snooty hires the PC's to be part of his organization. But their job is to make him look good. They rescue orphans and recover stolen goods free of charge (they get paid under the table by Snooty.
Key though is talk to them. "Look the AP assumes the PC's will want to do these things. You guys don't. That's fine. My attempts to give hooks to you guys aren't working. How do you guys want to handle it?"
Play style: (This assumes you can't make yourself enjoy living with their current play style.)
As others have said, consequences.
Think about Baron Whosits. Yes, he is a coward that let the PC's bully him into letting them build a tower on the edge of his lands. But he is a baron, he will get even. every wolf pack or bandit chased away from the city will be pushed in their direction. When the Earl wants some free assistance, he will say that the PC's are obviously the only ones in the area capable of the task. Etc... Maybe he will even hire a cheap assassin to knife the one that insulted him the most. When the players ask "Why is he doing that? Well what did you think he was going to do when you threatened him in his own home?"
If they try to intimidate someone more powerful; have that person attack, arrest, or at least throw them out of the city. Don't work around it for them. Let them figure out how to get back on track for the mission.
The PC's will probably learn they can't bully everyone.
For combat teamwork, don't pull punches in the combat. When they get their ash kicked. Say, "Wow, I'm surprised you guys had that much trouble. That was supposed to be a fairly easy fight. It would have been with just a little bit of tactical awareness." Eventually they will probably ask you to explain what you mean. Don't just say, "You could have done X." Repeat the fight, but give them tactics that they could have easily followed based on the info they had at the time.
Then point out the difference in the results. "Look you still got to beat on things with your maul, right? But everyone took less damage, it was over quicker, the group used less spells/items, and the bad guys didn't get away."
Well, your main problem from what you've said is more a lack of ingenuity than lack of teamwork, but I'll assume the post just got away from you and both are equally a problem.
Take a close look at their character sheets (if you don't have them, make them take photographs and send them to you) and throw in a monster that will require close collaboration. It will take some effort, and may be hard depending on what comes up in the AP, but it'll pay off.
Maybe this particular ghost can only be killed by being struck by two twin swords at the same time, requiring the martials to time their attacks. Perhaps it's DR/alignment will require the cleric to cast Align Weapon on these sacred sword for them to even hit the ghost.
Step 1: Talk to them as people about the issues you mentioned. Its possible they dont want to play the kind of campaign where they are 'heroes'. You might have to adjust your game to fix that concept if a discussion doesnt change their minds.
My group also has the lack of desire for a single leader issue, and the whole butting heads when making descisions. A possible solution is something we did. We ran kingmaker. But instead of having a king or baron, we had a high council, made up of all the roles of the kingdom (including a 'prime minister'). We set up an elaborate constitution, that distributed power among the high council, and required a vote for major descisions. What this means is that through a system of law, each player had an area of expertise, whether it was the law, defense, the army, diplomacy, magic etc. Creating a geniuine heirarchy really helps with groups that normally dont play well.
In addition, the 'right thing' and self interest start to overlap, with the desire to build up, protect, and enhance their fledgling kingdom.
Sometimes you have to fit the campaign to the players you have as opposed to them adapting to the campaign.
... My group also has the lack of desire for a single leader issue, and the whole butting heads when making descisions...
I forgot about this topic. This can be a problem.
I can't see it working for everyone, but what worked for one group was a rotating leadership.This week, when we can't immediately come to a consensus on what to do, JJ makes the call. Next week, Bob will make be in the driver's seat. The week after ...
Weird, but it worked for that group.
I tend to ask for motivations from characters if they are not present in a character write up and plan/alter the circumstances of the group's origin to at least provide some semblance of reason for them starting out. If you have reasonably constructive players they can play even pretty evil characters and still get along and push the plot forward.
Sometimes laying out a hook and conditions at the beginning can be helpful. "All characters must have a reason (personal or professional) for heeding the call by _________ to investigate ________" or something of that sort.
As a GM, it's your job to figure out what are the motivations of the characters. What makes them tick? Why are they adventurers? Why do they intimidate instead of using diplomacy? Once you find out why they're doing the things they are, you can start to tailor the game to those personalities.
They intimidate one person, and it doesn't work, have that NPC leave. Now the PCs have to come up with an idea of how to proceed. Have another NPC point out the bullying, "Yeah, the scare tactic there? Bad move. If you want to figure out the solution to your problem, I could help you, but you'll need to put aside the attitude first." The problem is you, as the GM, have to be willing to just walk away from it, and then let the PCs flounder for a while. Eventually they'll look at you and wait for you to throw them a bone. "Well, you really burned some bridges with those guys, and it certainly looks like you'll need their help. What do you think will help you repair that relationship?" Don't hand them answers, but hand them opportunities to realize the answers.
When the PCs flounder, make sure things happen that show the repercussions of their actions, or inactions. Once they realize that helping the greater good helps them, they'll act.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, it's your job to figure out what are the motivations of the characters. What makes them tick? Why are they adventurers? Why do they intimidate instead of using diplomacy? Once you find out why they're doing the things they are, you can start to tailor the game to those personalities...
I very much disagree.
They made the characters, thought up the concept, and figured out how they are going to play it. Why should I have to read their minds to try and figure out what the motivation is? Tell me what your motivation is.
The AP provides and I will usually construct a few more plot hooks. I am not going to bend over backwards, alter the entire universe, and wreck the story line because you decided to play antisocial, anarchist, murderous, hermit kobold alchemist that only wants to sit in the swamp and make friends with leeches.
Swamp leeches is good people....
I tend to ask for motivations from characters if they are not present in a character write up and plan/alter the circumstances of the group's origin to at least provide some semblance of reason for them starting out. If you have reasonably constructive players they can play even pretty evil characters and still get along and push the plot forward.
Sometimes laying out a hook and conditions at the beginning can be helpful. "All characters must have a reason (personal or professional) for heeding the call by _________ to investigate ________" or something of that sort.
This might be part of the problem as well....the more experienced player tends to approach it as he should be the leader (by virtue of greater experience), several of the other players are not "followers" in the first place...so their is an underlying resistance to following each others lead.
There is also a bit of a race to see who will "hit the monster first....and hardest"
Basically they go into combat like Celt's trying for personal honour, rather than working together to defeat something that is actually more powerful than their individual characters...
(Interestingly we are all Celtic traditionalists....so I don't know why this should come as a surprise to me).
As a GM, I try really hard to encourage my players to develop strong "role play" options for their characters, and really try to avoid "railroading" them into the direction I want them to go.....
BUT.....
I am finding that our group has certain "tendencies" that make running AP's very challanging...
1) Characters always seem to be in the Neutral alignment range....it's almost impossible to get them to show any interest in doing something that simply is in the best interest of others, or that helps others without some personal motivation or gain on their part.
2) All are pretty "stubborn" when it comes to following someone elses lead...you would think they where each carrying a shard of pride :)
3) Intimidate seems to be a far more preferable tactic than Diplomacy.
If intimidate fails...they get frustrated that they couldn't "bully" their way through, and disappointed that their characters have to resort to diplomacy with NPC's more powerful than themselves.As a GM, what advice would you give for trying to develop a more "team" oriented approach ?
FYI: We just started Shattered Star, and I was hoping being a member of the pathfinder society would give them a bit of a motivation to act as a team....but so far they seem to be resorting to their standard MO.
Any advice ?
First, some players are just more oriented toward team play than others. It unfortunately sounds like you've got a bunch of stubborn individualists, so you've got an uphill climb. Some things might work better than others -- but the basic idea overall is -- reward teamwork.
Specific suggestions:
1) Common goal. Since you say they won't do things unless they have strong personal motivation, the challenge you must meet is to find something where those strong personal motivations all play toward the same end. I don't know Shattered Star so I can't comment on the specifics of how the AP would help, but generally some things that can work --
--- if there's a bad guy they need to track down, give each of them a reason to hate the bad guy. The bad guy killed the fighter's sister, stole the wizard's family heirloom, burned down the rogue's house, borrowed the cleric's core rulebook and spilled coffee all over it.
--- Good old bribery. They all work for the Pathfinder Society, what is the Pathfinder Society giving them to do what they need to do? Do they gain rank, priveleges, items? Has the Pathfinder Society perhaps offered a monetary bonus for displays of exemplary teamwork?
--- A mystery that compels them. They each have the same dream, the same mysterious package, or something go missing with the same clues left behind.
You said they tend to be roleplay driven so I would presume they either have back stories or would be willing to provide them -- you can also use this to give them extra common motivations and common ground.
2) For not working together as a team in combat, that should be cured by a fight or two with multiple strong creatures who excel at dividing and conquering. Make sure YOUR teamwork tactics are good -- show the bad guys flanking, ganging up, using excellent group tactics to show how powerful they can be.
3) "Reward" them with teamwork feats (APG), forcing them to set up tactics that make them work together.
4) Regarding the unwillingness to play nice with NPCs -- using Intimidate over Diplomacy, etc. First -- accept to an extent that's their choice. People shouldn't be forced to talk it out any more they should be forced to fight everyone. However, the way they handle things should have reasonable and realistic consequences -- they bully the town guard, the town guard puts them on watch as trouble makers. They bully a shopkeeper -- now all shops refuse to do business with them, or charge unreasonable prices. They bully a noble, rumors of the party's unsavoryness and untrustworthiness begin to circulate through town, and the whole place becomes hostile to them.
Make sure also that you're using the Rule of Three here -- there should be three ways to get any form of clue or information. So that if the AP calls for them using Diplomacy or Intimidate to gain certain information, that you think of a couple other ways they could find the information if they opt out (a note, a trail, etc.).
@Kydeem:
That would be part of figuring out their motivation. If they tell you, it just makes it easier. But it still remains the job of working those motivations into the story. You don't have to rewrite the universe to do it, but adding in something that the PCs can latch onto is going to make it easier for you, as a GM, in the long run as the players will be more invested in the story.
If the PC is going to be the antisocial hermit that only wants to be friends with leeches, that really gives no reason for them to be adventuring, and if that person came to me with that character, I'd probably tell them to rework it. Or if you wanted to go the other extreme, have the NPC point out that if whatever needs to be stopped isn't, that his swamp and all of leech friends are liable to be harmed as well.
It doesn't take much, usually to weave a bit of any PCs backstory or motivation into whatever hooks are out there. If you don't give them a reason to be invested in whatever you're playing, you're most likely not going to get people thinking about whatever die they need to roll next to overcome whatever obstacle is in front of them.
Chances are that you, and most other good GMs do this without thinking about it much
Have a great session 0.
For my games, I tell the players they are all friends, they will all cooperate, etc. If you build a PC that doesn't match those parameters, that means the PC is gone. If you can't build a PC like that at all, you need to leave the game.
You can ensure that PCs all follow certain alignments, don't play cowards or loners, etc. Do this before you start a game. IME if you place limits before players even have character ideas in mind, they're okay with it. Try it during session 1, and they will just revolt.
Man I had 3 session 0's like that and still half the party ended up being secretive, untrustworthy, don't-explain-a-word-of-what-I'm-going-to-do jerks. In a PONY campaign.
Ask them what it is that motivates them to be a group in the first place. How does your gaming session even get going at all if they have no interest in the quests/scenarios/events placed before them? If their sole motivation is to be jerks, it makes perfect sense for the villagers to rise up as a mob and give them the business. Or you could have the sheriff and deputies take care of business, and they just happen to be tougher than them.
Why bother with players that aren't interested in interacting with the story? Find a better group, find a game that your players care about, or wait some years for them to grow up.
You're the head coach of a college sports team, and your campaign isn't track and field but football. Explain what it is they sign up for, and cut their scholarships otherwise.
One note I always include in character creation is, "You can be any alignment you like, but you must be the kind if person who wants to save the world."
I think the best way is show them the consequences of their actions
A rival team who perform better is a good idea.
Give that team Teamwork Feats for added poetry. No need to give your npc's the home field advantage. Outflank, Escape Route, Paired Opportunists, etc. Just create a good tactical team that is greater than the sum of its parts for an object lesson. You may even ... *gulp* ... have fun with it.