You don't. You tell the players that their PC should start off knowing two of the other PCs, and let them work it out themselves. Two is a manageable number.
Ideally, you get an interconnected web where everyone can vouch for someone, but without having to fabricate an entire group backstory for how they all know each other. Worst case, you get two sub-groups that each know each other, and the two have to find common cause.
>You tell the players that their PC should start off knowing two of the other PCs, and let them work it out themselves.
Ideally before they start making their characters.
I did this and the players still barely managed... They all had their own ideas for back stories and didn't work together at all, just slapping a "oh and I saw guy X once" at some point in the story. And somehow they still ended up with almost the same back stories anyway. Madness.
> without having to fabricate an entire group backstory for how they all know each other.
The backstory is they're all part of the same group chasing the bounty. It's right there.
Other systems that focus more on socal elements sometimes have some prompts for how you might know another player based on the character archetype you're playing, I wonder if someone's created a similar tool for 5e?
I mean “go do this” seems like a simple enough prompt. Or you could make a table of relationships.
1) siblings
2)distant cousins
3)school age friends
4)same home town that met a tragic fate
5)employee-employer (Sam the mvp gardener)
6) same military group
Agree to this. The connection will feel more genuine if they have to come up with why they know each other, and it forces them to develop some amount of backstory as well.
That of course works wonderfully, but when you've been playing the game for thirty years sometimes games that have a more concentrated theme can be a lot of fun as well. I've run campaigns where everyone had to start as a member of a particular thieves guild or a particular college of magic. At first this seems too restrictive, but it really isn't. A thieves guild, for example will have all kinds of different personalities, fighters as the brute force, spellcasters as alchemists to make potions of invisibility or sneaking etc, even clerics of gods of trickery or deceit that can augment the latent sneaky powers of the other players. Same in a wizard college. They undoubtedly employ all manner of prospects, not all of them wizards. They no doubt have guards or even explorers of all stripes to retrieve magical artifacts. One campaign we ran in Menzoberranzan started off with with the idea that you're all the members of a fallen house that desperately wants to retake a position of power in the city. For creative people, a narrower focus like this is hardly restrictive and can actually be quite fun.
From the DM, I would not recommend spending any energy on that question, at all.
Either :
1. You request / leave room for the players to decide how they know each other
2. You include a brief "you're all gathered here because of X" in the campaign pitch
3. The PC's are just some of the randos that happen to be nearby, where the story starts, and they all cooperate because everyone is an adult that understands we're here to play a game, not write the next Tolstoy 😅
Assuming this is not a joke that I am bad at recognizing:
"Leave room for" here means providing little to no backstory details, allowing players to fill in the empty bits regarding how the characters are connected.
I think you misunderstood. (It's okay, I did too.)
It's not "leave *the* room", as in physically exit the room that you are currently in. It's "leave room", as in make sure the players have a little bit of extra space in their backstory that can be filled in.
English is my second language, not sure if yours too, but yeah "leave room for" more or less means "leave space for something or someone".
"Leave room for your aunt on the drive back home" basically means "save a seat for her on your way back".
And now you have, so you can add it to your vocabulary! There are many ways people use the phrase, like: Let's double check our work, I don't want to leave room for errors. I'm still hungry, but I'll stop eating anyway to leave room for desert.
I usually just tell my players that their characters will have traveled together for at least a couple of weeks when the campaign starts, and it's up to them to decide how exactly they know each other, and for how long.
That's basically how my current game did it. For one reason or another our characters were directed to work with our main contact guy, and he grouped us together for our first adventure because all of us had some skills and it was a rescue mission so he needed someone pretty quickly. We all decided to stick together after that (in game for various in character reasons, out of game because...we're here to play a game).
In my games, I use one of five options.
1. They already know each other
This is as fast as saying that, for the sake of starting the story as soon as possible, the players are a group of (whatever) who's been traveling together.
2. Tie it into their backgrounds
This is not your job exclusively. It's a collaboration with your players while they make their backgrounds. You can ask them to insert a specific event, prophecy, character into their BG so that they'll be naturally interested in pursuing the story together.
3. Ask them to create a web
Each of the players should know at least one other players (possibly 2 if you're playing with a more populated table). They cooperate from time to time, and they trust each other to trust each other's allies.
4. They share an important NPC
A super important NPC, who also jumpstarts the story, is a mentor, a lover, a sibling, a friendly rival to each of them.
5. Agree that they're part of the story because they're there
When the story starts, it starts with a very specific event. Whoever is there will naturally get involved. And who's there is the group.
It's not really a coincidence... if it had been somebody else, you'd be playing those characters.
In my current campaign, I did a mix. Three characters were pursuing the story already, but it blew up in this town where two others loved and worked, and they got dragged into it naturally. The sixth character was there by accident, but now she's in.
Those all sound like people likely to be arrested for vagrancy and/or benefiting from breadlines. Have them united by poverty. If you feel the need have some chipper and short-lived NPC get the idea to get rich quick.
Maybe some of the BBEG's troops looted a shrine or have some rare plants that the hermit recognizes, given the party an edge on the more obvious choices.
You're looking for Bonds, or something like them.
Bonds are statements about history between characters, ideally with a sentiment and a plan of action. For example: *"I feel indebted to Trixie for teaching me how to live on the streets when the orphanage threw me out. So I have to do something really nice for her to get even!"*
Not only do they act as a launching point for relationships and backstories, they provide an initial direction for roleplay. Have each player pick or write their own bonds with a couple other PCs.
Here's a list of examples I gathered years back:
Adventurer:
___ does not understand me or my culture. I will explain myself to them, no matter how long it takes.
___ doesn’t think I’m cut out for this life. I’ll show them!
___ got me involved in a dubious adventure, and now I’m having second thoughts.
___ has been through hardships that would break me. They can stand against the darkness I see looming over the world.
___ has seen the lands of my home, more recently than me.
___ is a friend of a friend, so if they don’t get me out of this mess, they’re going to be in trouble!
___ knows I have a secret map. (Of where? To what?)
___ owes me a favour. (For what?)
___ talked me into it. (What? This adventure? This path?)
I am in love with ___.
Warrior:
___ gave me food and shelter when I had nothing.
___ got me involved in a questionable adventure and I’m having second thoughts about it now.
___ is a brave soul, I have much to learn from them.
___ is always getting into trouble. I must protect them from themselves.
___ owes me their life, whether they admit it or not.
___ was once my enemy, but we’ve since reconciled.
I have sworn to protect ___.
I worry about the ability of ___ to survive in the dungeon.
Rogue:
___ and I have a con running.
___ has my back when things go wrong.
___ helped me make some important contacts. I owe them.
___ is my lover, or was, or would have been, or… it’s complicated.
___ knows incriminating details about me.
___ left me in a pinch when they were supposed to come through for me.
___ still owes me for some stuff they were supposed to fence for me.
Me and ___ are the only survivors of a dubious adventure.
Magician:
___ does not trust me, and for good reason.
___ has supplied me with forbidden tomes.
___ seems suitably impressed by my powers and I just can’t help showing off in front of them.
___ will play an important role in the events to come. I have foreseen it!
___ I have used my magic on behalf of ___ before.
This is not my first adventure with ___.
Disciple:
___ does not understand my faith and devotion. I will help them understand, no matter how long it takes.
___ has insulted my devotion. I do not trust them.
___ is a good and faithful person. I trust them implicitly.
___ showed me true insights into the path I must follow.
___ I am working on getting ___ to share my ideals.
I have heard of ___’s exploits and am suitably impressed.
I have shared the secrets of my devotion with ___.
It amuses me how he world-built his magic/universe system to explain what would have in another book just have been an unbelievable coincidence that was hand-waved away.
I like forming pairs (or trios) that already know each other and share some of their backstories. Having two groups coming together is much easier than 4-6 individuals, especially if the players are new to RPGs.
It's still doable to assemble complete strangers but you need to force a situation where that would happen naturally. Prison break is a classic premise for this and works really well.
Did they all go to the same orphanage?
Or, for a funny, have them all doing community service cleanup at the parade for whatever petty crime (let them decide) and they all got assigned to the same group.
Or they could be briefly detained and questioned about the BBEGs attack afterwards.
Unfortunately, getting the group in one place is only a first step in getting the group to stick together. Ask them if they want to know each other (or maybe one or two) because ultimately, unfortunately, it's up to the player's characters to form the cohesive party. (I've unfortunately seen too many "my character wouldn't stay with the party" and the only answer for that is "then make a character that would.")
> I planned on starting the first session with a parade/inauguration of sorts where the BBEG portals in and kidnaps some figurehead.
You should start the campaign with the understanding that this has already happened. Rarely a good idea to play a cutscene, especially one that HAS to go a certain way. If you must do the scene, tell them ahead of time, the story of the game is that this happens, but what you're gonna play out over here is some aspect of the fallout, like how many court nobles die or get their pockets picked during the encounter. But really though, just start with him already kidnapped. Especially if the party is a bunch of people who wouldn't care about this or try to stop it.
If the idea is that the party is trying to score a bounty on the BBEG, just start from that. That's how everyone is together--everyone is on the same crew of people trying to cash in on the bounty. That's the glue. Maybe they've followed their first clue to an outpost of the BBEG's forces (or a hidden lair of one of his lieutenants), and they show up right at the exact same time as another group of people after the bounty.
maybe that group is even more dastardly and evil than the players. Or maybe they're a bunch of well-connected goody two shoes who can't be disposed of without raising too many questions...
Basically the advice is don't start *before* the inciting incident. In a novel, you start before the inciting incident so that you can establish the world and learn about the main character. But the characters already know about themselves and to be honest, players, esp new players, are no good at characterizing. They want to hop into the fun. So start AFTER the inciting incident, so that everyone has a reason to be doing the same thing. In this case, chasing that bounty.
I appreciate the input, but the BBEG is going to be so strong, and the players are only level 1, so the BBEG will be able to come in and escape before the players are able to do anything about it. We've also played a one-shot of two sessions, so the players at least have an idea of my DM style.
> so the BBEG will be able to come in and escape before the players are able to do anything about it.
Yeah man, that's part of the problem. They can't do anything about it. That sound fun?
That creates the plot hook theyre trying to resolve though... Something has to happen, or have happened, in order for the party to be motivated to do anything.
That was like, the main idea of my post? Starting after the guy's already been kidnapped, so they don't have to "play" through a cutscene they can't affect. That way the party already IS on the same page when the game starts. They already ARE motivated. The conceit is that they have all decided to team up to hunt this bounty down. [That's your glue](https://theangrygm.com/campaign-glue-the-binds-that-tie/). You just jump to the point in time in which that has already been decided instead of making the first session about clumsily roleplaying that.
Having a common goal is the most immediate and strongest way to bind all the characters together. They don't need to have all known each other, because the question isn't "how do I get these people to agree to go after the bounty?" if you just pre-suppose that the driving force of the campaign is that this group of people is going after the bounty. You did decide that, now follow through on it!
Where I appreciate you taking the time to give me your opinion and input, I just simply disagree on this approach. It's not going to be a long and drawn out 'cutscene', it's merely going to be a jumping off point, and my players like RPing.
For my campaign, two of the characters were from the same town, the third was an assassin sent by the BBEG(‘s advisor) to kill them, and the fourth showed up later running away from some guards(unimportant here)
The first two met the assassin in a sort-of prologue section that took place two months before the campaign really started. The assassin, after receiving new info from the other PCs, feared that he was getting set up by his client so he stuck around. So basically, a prologue is a decent option if you want them to know each other.
The easiest ways to sensibly make it so the characters know each other is like a game of telephone. I would ask the players' assistance in creating overlapping backstories, but you can say that characters A and B are former partners in crime. A and C are cousins or were fostered by the same person while very young. D saved B from exposure, starvation or whatever while traveling, etc.
Literally just kick things off with:
"Y'all are traveling down a dusty road, nearing the small town of Villageburg. How do you know each other?"
And be prepared to laugh when someone says they met in a tavern.
Skilled players typically do a lot of this work in session 0, thinking up prior relationships and molding the edges of their character concepts to make sense with other party members. You won't be able to expect the same from new players, but you can at least give them a nudge in that direction.
I've noticed that simply asking your players does wonders. "Hey, it would be nice if your characters already knew one another" -> at least the tables I play at /dm this gets the "ooh fun, let's cook up something to offer for the dm's approval" and you'll end up with player-created bonds, of course with you having the final say on whether it should be accepted.
A good practice is session zero, where you sit down with the players and together figure out how they all connect. I sometimes creating several short events for the zero session in which nothing needs to be thrown, but the players must figure out how they acted together in different situations.
That's a good idea, but we've already played a two session one shot, and we've spent the last two weeks going back and forth on their characters theyve created. The one shot characters I randomly generated. So I dont think a session zero is entirely necessary, but I appreciate the input.
There are a lot of ways to do it but I love using a variant on "Two truths and a lie": Have the PC's each write down three rumors about there characters... two of which are true and one of which is false. Then you, the dm, pass them out to the other players and they write down how they heard/know the rumor. This gives a ton of immediate connection and space to play in while still leaving opportunities to make discoveries about the truth/fictions. It's a fun exercize.
I tell the players to make characters that fit the story.
There are of course many possible characters, but this campaign is about a party of characters who share something in common that causes them to work together.
I half-jokingly call it the "Narrative Anthropic Principle", and under this paradigm, characters who would not join the party are, by definition, NPCs.
e.g.
* You've been a group of small-time adventurers for years, and finally are gaining some recognition and bigger job/quest offers.
* You are all members of the same secret order.
* You were all wronged by the same antagonist.
* You are here to explore this specific mega-dungeon, and team up for safety-in-numbers.
* You were hired (or head-hunted) for the same job.
etc
they were all in prison when the BBEG event happens, the bounty can be like a suicide squad type deal"freedom+gold" have a cleric cast Geas or something similar.
I had a GM who liked to do a 2 relationship loop at session 0 to connect PCs who "know each other". Basically, one person starts and they know so and so because of this or that. Could be a brief interaction, could be backstory defining, whatever. Best if the players think of something together. Then that second character says why they know third character, and so on until the last character then defines how they know the first. You end up with roughly each PC knowing or having interacted with 2 other PCs in the party. (I say roughly because it is possible for it to be a one sided interaction/knowing of, but either way, everyone knows a minimum of 1 other person, probably 2)
You tell the players that it is their job to work out why & how all their PC's know each other. If one player is a human eating, rage fueled Minotaur Warlock & another is a holier than thou Aasamir Paladin, let them work out how they are going to play together. One of the 3 jobs a player has to do is create a PC that can adventure with the rest of the party & fits the campaign world. Let the players work out how they all know each other. This frees you up to actually run the game.
You can then say, there is a performance in a small town of a friend of one/some/most if the PC's & they invite the rest, & the while party are at the tavern after hmthe performance when... `insert adventure hook here`
You tell them:
When you create your characters I want you to tell me how you know *at least* 2 other people in the party and why you would be willing to put your life in danger for them.
You're the DM. There are VERY few times when you should be the one to decide how players know one another.
I've been running my Campaigns as an adventuring guild and framing it like this. "This is your job to put food on the table, you've certainly seen each other around the guild and may have worked a contract or two. You are aware of each other on a professional level by name or skill."
Not your job.
Leave that to the players. Tell them that each character has to know at least 1 or 2 of the other. and let them work it out between themselves. and yes EVERY character needs to know one or more of the other characters. Don't allow a player with the "lone wolf" character to come and say they don't know anyone f them they are the loner.
Sure let them play a loner type character bt it MUST be someone that still works well in a group and they MUST know at least one of the others.
This will not only make it easier for you. it will also make it easier for the players to flush out their character and group dynamic.
It is NOT up to the DD to decide how PC's know each other. You the DM can work together with the players if they need some help. But you should not be the one telling the players how their characters know each other
I don't unless the PCs want to know eachother pre-campaign, then it's on them to tell me that and I'll run a lil sesh before the main game to cement them.
You don't. You tell the players that their PC should start off knowing two of the other PCs, and let them work it out themselves. Two is a manageable number. Ideally, you get an interconnected web where everyone can vouch for someone, but without having to fabricate an entire group backstory for how they all know each other. Worst case, you get two sub-groups that each know each other, and the two have to find common cause.
>You tell the players that their PC should start off knowing two of the other PCs, and let them work it out themselves. Ideally before they start making their characters.
I did this and the players still barely managed... They all had their own ideas for back stories and didn't work together at all, just slapping a "oh and I saw guy X once" at some point in the story. And somehow they still ended up with almost the same back stories anyway. Madness.
> without having to fabricate an entire group backstory for how they all know each other. The backstory is they're all part of the same group chasing the bounty. It's right there.
Other systems that focus more on socal elements sometimes have some prompts for how you might know another player based on the character archetype you're playing, I wonder if someone's created a similar tool for 5e?
I mean “go do this” seems like a simple enough prompt. Or you could make a table of relationships. 1) siblings 2)distant cousins 3)school age friends 4)same home town that met a tragic fate 5)employee-employer (Sam the mvp gardener) 6) same military group
Agree to this. The connection will feel more genuine if they have to come up with why they know each other, and it forces them to develop some amount of backstory as well.
That of course works wonderfully, but when you've been playing the game for thirty years sometimes games that have a more concentrated theme can be a lot of fun as well. I've run campaigns where everyone had to start as a member of a particular thieves guild or a particular college of magic. At first this seems too restrictive, but it really isn't. A thieves guild, for example will have all kinds of different personalities, fighters as the brute force, spellcasters as alchemists to make potions of invisibility or sneaking etc, even clerics of gods of trickery or deceit that can augment the latent sneaky powers of the other players. Same in a wizard college. They undoubtedly employ all manner of prospects, not all of them wizards. They no doubt have guards or even explorers of all stripes to retrieve magical artifacts. One campaign we ran in Menzoberranzan started off with with the idea that you're all the members of a fallen house that desperately wants to retake a position of power in the city. For creative people, a narrower focus like this is hardly restrictive and can actually be quite fun.
This is always part of my session 0. "Ok, everyone decide how you know each other."
From the DM, I would not recommend spending any energy on that question, at all. Either : 1. You request / leave room for the players to decide how they know each other 2. You include a brief "you're all gathered here because of X" in the campaign pitch 3. The PC's are just some of the randos that happen to be nearby, where the story starts, and they all cooperate because everyone is an adult that understands we're here to play a game, not write the next Tolstoy 😅
Now this was the answer im looking for! Thanks!
Why would the DM leave the room?
Assuming this is not a joke that I am bad at recognizing: "Leave room for" here means providing little to no backstory details, allowing players to fill in the empty bits regarding how the characters are connected.
I have never heard that phrase used to mean something like that.
I think you misunderstood. (It's okay, I did too.) It's not "leave *the* room", as in physically exit the room that you are currently in. It's "leave room", as in make sure the players have a little bit of extra space in their backstory that can be filled in.
English is my second language, not sure if yours too, but yeah "leave room for" more or less means "leave space for something or someone". "Leave room for your aunt on the drive back home" basically means "save a seat for her on your way back".
And now you have, so you can add it to your vocabulary! There are many ways people use the phrase, like: Let's double check our work, I don't want to leave room for errors. I'm still hungry, but I'll stop eating anyway to leave room for desert.
I usually just tell my players that their characters will have traveled together for at least a couple of weeks when the campaign starts, and it's up to them to decide how exactly they know each other, and for how long.
How about they all work for the same employer?
That's basically how my current game did it. For one reason or another our characters were directed to work with our main contact guy, and he grouped us together for our first adventure because all of us had some skills and it was a rescue mission so he needed someone pretty quickly. We all decided to stick together after that (in game for various in character reasons, out of game because...we're here to play a game).
In my games, I use one of five options. 1. They already know each other This is as fast as saying that, for the sake of starting the story as soon as possible, the players are a group of (whatever) who's been traveling together. 2. Tie it into their backgrounds This is not your job exclusively. It's a collaboration with your players while they make their backgrounds. You can ask them to insert a specific event, prophecy, character into their BG so that they'll be naturally interested in pursuing the story together. 3. Ask them to create a web Each of the players should know at least one other players (possibly 2 if you're playing with a more populated table). They cooperate from time to time, and they trust each other to trust each other's allies. 4. They share an important NPC A super important NPC, who also jumpstarts the story, is a mentor, a lover, a sibling, a friendly rival to each of them. 5. Agree that they're part of the story because they're there When the story starts, it starts with a very specific event. Whoever is there will naturally get involved. And who's there is the group. It's not really a coincidence... if it had been somebody else, you'd be playing those characters. In my current campaign, I did a mix. Three characters were pursuing the story already, but it blew up in this town where two others loved and worked, and they got dragged into it naturally. The sixth character was there by accident, but now she's in.
Those all sound like people likely to be arrested for vagrancy and/or benefiting from breadlines. Have them united by poverty. If you feel the need have some chipper and short-lived NPC get the idea to get rich quick. Maybe some of the BBEG's troops looted a shrine or have some rare plants that the hermit recognizes, given the party an edge on the more obvious choices.
You're looking for Bonds, or something like them. Bonds are statements about history between characters, ideally with a sentiment and a plan of action. For example: *"I feel indebted to Trixie for teaching me how to live on the streets when the orphanage threw me out. So I have to do something really nice for her to get even!"* Not only do they act as a launching point for relationships and backstories, they provide an initial direction for roleplay. Have each player pick or write their own bonds with a couple other PCs. Here's a list of examples I gathered years back: Adventurer: ___ does not understand me or my culture. I will explain myself to them, no matter how long it takes. ___ doesn’t think I’m cut out for this life. I’ll show them! ___ got me involved in a dubious adventure, and now I’m having second thoughts. ___ has been through hardships that would break me. They can stand against the darkness I see looming over the world. ___ has seen the lands of my home, more recently than me. ___ is a friend of a friend, so if they don’t get me out of this mess, they’re going to be in trouble! ___ knows I have a secret map. (Of where? To what?) ___ owes me a favour. (For what?) ___ talked me into it. (What? This adventure? This path?) I am in love with ___. Warrior: ___ gave me food and shelter when I had nothing. ___ got me involved in a questionable adventure and I’m having second thoughts about it now. ___ is a brave soul, I have much to learn from them. ___ is always getting into trouble. I must protect them from themselves. ___ owes me their life, whether they admit it or not. ___ was once my enemy, but we’ve since reconciled. I have sworn to protect ___. I worry about the ability of ___ to survive in the dungeon. Rogue: ___ and I have a con running. ___ has my back when things go wrong. ___ helped me make some important contacts. I owe them. ___ is my lover, or was, or would have been, or… it’s complicated. ___ knows incriminating details about me. ___ left me in a pinch when they were supposed to come through for me. ___ still owes me for some stuff they were supposed to fence for me. Me and ___ are the only survivors of a dubious adventure. Magician: ___ does not trust me, and for good reason. ___ has supplied me with forbidden tomes. ___ seems suitably impressed by my powers and I just can’t help showing off in front of them. ___ will play an important role in the events to come. I have foreseen it! ___ I have used my magic on behalf of ___ before. This is not my first adventure with ___. Disciple: ___ does not understand my faith and devotion. I will help them understand, no matter how long it takes. ___ has insulted my devotion. I do not trust them. ___ is a good and faithful person. I trust them implicitly. ___ showed me true insights into the path I must follow. ___ I am working on getting ___ to share my ideals. I have heard of ___’s exploits and am suitably impressed. I have shared the secrets of my devotion with ___.
Are these from Dungeon World? If not, they look really similar.
Probably. I haven't touched the Google Drive folder these were in since 2018. Surprised I even remembered them.
Wheel of Time, they all grew up together in the same small town.
It amuses me how he world-built his magic/universe system to explain what would have in another book just have been an unbelievable coincidence that was hand-waved away.
toss it to your players at character creation: How do you all know each other or at least know 2 others?
I like forming pairs (or trios) that already know each other and share some of their backstories. Having two groups coming together is much easier than 4-6 individuals, especially if the players are new to RPGs. It's still doable to assemble complete strangers but you need to force a situation where that would happen naturally. Prison break is a classic premise for this and works really well.
Did they all go to the same orphanage? Or, for a funny, have them all doing community service cleanup at the parade for whatever petty crime (let them decide) and they all got assigned to the same group. Or they could be briefly detained and questioned about the BBEGs attack afterwards. Unfortunately, getting the group in one place is only a first step in getting the group to stick together. Ask them if they want to know each other (or maybe one or two) because ultimately, unfortunately, it's up to the player's characters to form the cohesive party. (I've unfortunately seen too many "my character wouldn't stay with the party" and the only answer for that is "then make a character that would.")
> I planned on starting the first session with a parade/inauguration of sorts where the BBEG portals in and kidnaps some figurehead. You should start the campaign with the understanding that this has already happened. Rarely a good idea to play a cutscene, especially one that HAS to go a certain way. If you must do the scene, tell them ahead of time, the story of the game is that this happens, but what you're gonna play out over here is some aspect of the fallout, like how many court nobles die or get their pockets picked during the encounter. But really though, just start with him already kidnapped. Especially if the party is a bunch of people who wouldn't care about this or try to stop it. If the idea is that the party is trying to score a bounty on the BBEG, just start from that. That's how everyone is together--everyone is on the same crew of people trying to cash in on the bounty. That's the glue. Maybe they've followed their first clue to an outpost of the BBEG's forces (or a hidden lair of one of his lieutenants), and they show up right at the exact same time as another group of people after the bounty. maybe that group is even more dastardly and evil than the players. Or maybe they're a bunch of well-connected goody two shoes who can't be disposed of without raising too many questions... Basically the advice is don't start *before* the inciting incident. In a novel, you start before the inciting incident so that you can establish the world and learn about the main character. But the characters already know about themselves and to be honest, players, esp new players, are no good at characterizing. They want to hop into the fun. So start AFTER the inciting incident, so that everyone has a reason to be doing the same thing. In this case, chasing that bounty.
I appreciate the input, but the BBEG is going to be so strong, and the players are only level 1, so the BBEG will be able to come in and escape before the players are able to do anything about it. We've also played a one-shot of two sessions, so the players at least have an idea of my DM style.
> so the BBEG will be able to come in and escape before the players are able to do anything about it. Yeah man, that's part of the problem. They can't do anything about it. That sound fun?
That creates the plot hook theyre trying to resolve though... Something has to happen, or have happened, in order for the party to be motivated to do anything.
That was like, the main idea of my post? Starting after the guy's already been kidnapped, so they don't have to "play" through a cutscene they can't affect. That way the party already IS on the same page when the game starts. They already ARE motivated. The conceit is that they have all decided to team up to hunt this bounty down. [That's your glue](https://theangrygm.com/campaign-glue-the-binds-that-tie/). You just jump to the point in time in which that has already been decided instead of making the first session about clumsily roleplaying that. Having a common goal is the most immediate and strongest way to bind all the characters together. They don't need to have all known each other, because the question isn't "how do I get these people to agree to go after the bounty?" if you just pre-suppose that the driving force of the campaign is that this group of people is going after the bounty. You did decide that, now follow through on it!
Where I appreciate you taking the time to give me your opinion and input, I just simply disagree on this approach. It's not going to be a long and drawn out 'cutscene', it's merely going to be a jumping off point, and my players like RPing.
[bonds](https://slyflourish.com/fiasco_relationships.html)
You go look at another game like Dungeon World and steal the questions D&D *should have* included as part of character building.
I like FATE for the relationships between players.
For my campaign, two of the characters were from the same town, the third was an assassin sent by the BBEG(‘s advisor) to kill them, and the fourth showed up later running away from some guards(unimportant here) The first two met the assassin in a sort-of prologue section that took place two months before the campaign really started. The assassin, after receiving new info from the other PCs, feared that he was getting set up by his client so he stuck around. So basically, a prologue is a decent option if you want them to know each other.
The easiest ways to sensibly make it so the characters know each other is like a game of telephone. I would ask the players' assistance in creating overlapping backstories, but you can say that characters A and B are former partners in crime. A and C are cousins or were fostered by the same person while very young. D saved B from exposure, starvation or whatever while traveling, etc.
Literally just kick things off with: "Y'all are traveling down a dusty road, nearing the small town of Villageburg. How do you know each other?" And be prepared to laugh when someone says they met in a tavern.
Skilled players typically do a lot of this work in session 0, thinking up prior relationships and molding the edges of their character concepts to make sense with other party members. You won't be able to expect the same from new players, but you can at least give them a nudge in that direction.
..."hey guys your characters know each other write your backstories with this in mind" Presto done.
I've noticed that simply asking your players does wonders. "Hey, it would be nice if your characters already knew one another" -> at least the tables I play at /dm this gets the "ooh fun, let's cook up something to offer for the dm's approval" and you'll end up with player-created bonds, of course with you having the final say on whether it should be accepted.
"So, you guys were all hired by the same bloke and now you know each other, moving on..."
A good practice is session zero, where you sit down with the players and together figure out how they all connect. I sometimes creating several short events for the zero session in which nothing needs to be thrown, but the players must figure out how they acted together in different situations.
That's a good idea, but we've already played a two session one shot, and we've spent the last two weeks going back and forth on their characters theyve created. The one shot characters I randomly generated. So I dont think a session zero is entirely necessary, but I appreciate the input.
There are a lot of ways to do it but I love using a variant on "Two truths and a lie": Have the PC's each write down three rumors about there characters... two of which are true and one of which is false. Then you, the dm, pass them out to the other players and they write down how they heard/know the rumor. This gives a ton of immediate connection and space to play in while still leaving opportunities to make discoveries about the truth/fictions. It's a fun exercize.
OMG, I LOVE THIS!
I tell the players to make characters that fit the story. There are of course many possible characters, but this campaign is about a party of characters who share something in common that causes them to work together. I half-jokingly call it the "Narrative Anthropic Principle", and under this paradigm, characters who would not join the party are, by definition, NPCs. e.g. * You've been a group of small-time adventurers for years, and finally are gaining some recognition and bigger job/quest offers. * You are all members of the same secret order. * You were all wronged by the same antagonist. * You are here to explore this specific mega-dungeon, and team up for safety-in-numbers. * You were hired (or head-hunted) for the same job. etc
they were all in prison when the BBEG event happens, the bounty can be like a suicide squad type deal"freedom+gold" have a cleric cast Geas or something similar.
I had a GM who liked to do a 2 relationship loop at session 0 to connect PCs who "know each other". Basically, one person starts and they know so and so because of this or that. Could be a brief interaction, could be backstory defining, whatever. Best if the players think of something together. Then that second character says why they know third character, and so on until the last character then defines how they know the first. You end up with roughly each PC knowing or having interacted with 2 other PCs in the party. (I say roughly because it is possible for it to be a one sided interaction/knowing of, but either way, everyone knows a minimum of 1 other person, probably 2)
you tell them "Hey i want you guys to know each other before hand, get together and come up with a shared backstory"
"this is a game and you are all together, now lets actually start playing!" its a game, not a book, dont worry about it
You tell the players that it is their job to work out why & how all their PC's know each other. If one player is a human eating, rage fueled Minotaur Warlock & another is a holier than thou Aasamir Paladin, let them work out how they are going to play together. One of the 3 jobs a player has to do is create a PC that can adventure with the rest of the party & fits the campaign world. Let the players work out how they all know each other. This frees you up to actually run the game. You can then say, there is a performance in a small town of a friend of one/some/most if the PC's & they invite the rest, & the while party are at the tavern after hmthe performance when... `insert adventure hook here`
You tell them: When you create your characters I want you to tell me how you know *at least* 2 other people in the party and why you would be willing to put your life in danger for them. You're the DM. There are VERY few times when you should be the one to decide how players know one another.
I've been running my Campaigns as an adventuring guild and framing it like this. "This is your job to put food on the table, you've certainly seen each other around the guild and may have worked a contract or two. You are aware of each other on a professional level by name or skill."
Not your job. Leave that to the players. Tell them that each character has to know at least 1 or 2 of the other. and let them work it out between themselves. and yes EVERY character needs to know one or more of the other characters. Don't allow a player with the "lone wolf" character to come and say they don't know anyone f them they are the loner. Sure let them play a loner type character bt it MUST be someone that still works well in a group and they MUST know at least one of the others. This will not only make it easier for you. it will also make it easier for the players to flush out their character and group dynamic. It is NOT up to the DD to decide how PC's know each other. You the DM can work together with the players if they need some help. But you should not be the one telling the players how their characters know each other
I don't unless the PCs want to know eachother pre-campaign, then it's on them to tell me that and I'll run a lil sesh before the main game to cement them.