DM Advice Needed: Players are IRL Best Friends Problem

[HunterOfJello]

Okay, this isn't a real problem, per se, but it is something I'd like to change in my games. I run a game as DM with 2 players. I'd like to get more, but haven't been able to find anyone else lately.

The problem I've been coming across is the fact that the two players are best friends IRL and have been for a very long time. This leads to their characters quickly becoming best friends and trusting one another unequivocally. It also leads them into being partners in pillaging and questing for no other reason than obtaining power.

This wouldn't be a terrible problem, but I was talking with one of the players and asked him what his ideal game would look like. He said, "The ideal game would have more to do with the way players play than any content. Involved in their characters. The cooperation needs to be backed by role playing, but should have good reasons to work together."

The two characters are a Dromite Psion 2 and a Halfling Druid 2 who are questing with a Half-Orc Rogue 1/Fighter 2 companion and slight babysitter (since casters are very squishy at low levels). The npc is a dumbass. He handles some traps and hits things when they need to be hit. That's about it. (If you'd like to tell me off for having an npc like that in their party, then please do.)

Anyway, at the moment the two PCs barely know one another, but trust one another absolutely because of the fact that their players do so. My current line of thought towards putting roleplaying into the game as the one player has asked for is this:

I think I'll try to set up more filled out backgrounds and story reasons for why each character is questing and seeking would help, but I think making their reasons slightly incongruent could help initiate player to player roleplaying a great deal. Bringing up morality choices between the characters would help too. I don't want to break the two apart and force them to hate one another, but as things are they always agree on everything 100% of the time.

I'm really not sure about all this stuff. I rank my roleplaying skills as sub-par and hate putting npcs with intellgences higher than 7 into a group.

~

TL;DR: In a game of 1 DM (me) and 2 players, one player said his, "...ideal game would have more to do with the way players play than any content. Involved in their characters. The cooperation needs to be backed by role playing, but should have good reasons to work together." However, the two players are best buds IRL and therefore are always so in-game without any roleplaying motivation. How do I make his wish come true?

[ShadowPsyker]

1) Populate the world with interesting NPC's (Not necessarily powerful) they can interact with, and have various NPC's decide to like one and hate the other.
2) Allow a rare magic item that would benefit both. Of course there's only one and if they sell it they can't get but a tenth the value cause it's so expensive.
3) Force them to either write a back story or grant you leave to do this for them; then post to here (Give more advice then).

[HunterOfJello]

1 and 3 sound like really good ideas. I'll try those. What's the point of number 2?

[Mnemnosyne]

Depending on how they would react to it, you can also somewhat mess with their characters. Give them an artifact or something that enforces certain goals upon one of them that are contrary to the goals of the other. Not necessarily diametrically opposed, but contrary enough that its difficult to accomplish both, if it's even possible. One of the goals should be accomplished far less effectively, and if that happens to be the artifacts goal, then it is going to...be unhappy, in that special way that artifacts are.

Similarly, have something change one of their alignments. Again, if you make it an artifact that does this, you don't have to follow any rules about it, so you can simply decree that there is absolutely no way for them to change back. Then if the player doesn't follow the new goals and alignment, inflict penalties upon the character for failing to complete the goals being forced upon him by the artifact.

Eventually it should of course be possible for them to destroy the artifact, be big damn heroes, and get back to their normal personalities, but hopefully in role playing the entire adventure during which they were thus forced to act in opposing manners, they will learn something about making characters that do not always automatically agree.

[KoboldsAreLittl]

I personally like the idea of number one. It fills a flavorful position in that it represents a feeling that one is liked more than the other. Plus you can spin it so that one person is seemingly receiving more glory than another. This will lead to a little player conflict. It makes a lot of sense. My DM in a previous game did a similar thing with a horribly min-maxed character in our group. No one liked the character because he had no social skills. Later we (as a group liking the guy, not the character) decided that the character would not be allowed to venture anywhere alone, due to the fact that he was a magnet for random encounters and high CR traps. The player eventually got the idea that the DM didn't terribly care for min-maxed characters that were out of balance with the campaign and played a sub-optimized character to great benefit.
Sometimes it is fun and ingenious to use DMing and roleplaying to create a rift between players so you an determine how they handle conflict together, or as individuals.

[ShadowPsyker]

1 and 3 sound like really good ideas. I'll try those. What's the point of number 2?

To create, or at least attempt conflict between the characters. You did want to to try to break them out of their buddy-buddy revelry? i.e. who gets the awesome item, or agree to sell for steep drop in value as the NPC's can't afford much more. What's that? Hold onto it until you can sell it for reasonable price, okay... who uses it until then. Tip: Make it an item that requires a week to bond to it's new user so they can't just trade off each day.

[Andorax]

Or, rather than try to force an artificial rift between the characters that will make them HARDER to play by two "best buds", you can try to angle the storyline into circumstances that will draw them closer. Angle the story to fit the people and personalities you have.

[LordBlades]

Depending on how they would react to it, you can also somewhat mess with their characters. Give them an artifact or something that enforces certain goals upon one of them that are contrary to the goals of the other. Not necessarily diametrically opposed, but contrary enough that its difficult to accomplish both, if it's even possible. One of the goals should be accomplished far less effectively, and if that happens to be the artifacts goal, then it is going to...be unhappy, in that special way that artifacts are.

Similarly, have something change one of their alignments. Again, if you make it an artifact that does this, you don't have to follow any rules about it, so you can simply decree that there is absolutely no way for them to change back. Then if the player doesn't follow the new goals and alignment, inflict penalties upon the character for failing to complete the goals being forced upon him by the artifact.

Eventually it should of course be possible for them to destroy the artifact, be big damn heroes, and get back to their normal personalities, but hopefully in role playing the entire adventure during which they were thus forced to act in opposing manners, they will learn something about making characters that do not always automatically agree.

Quoting and bolding for emphasis. Don't try this unless if you're absolutely sure your players would be ok with it. Many people come to play D&D in order to play a character they want as they see fit. Enforcing a certain behavior/alignment/actions doesn't sit well with many people, especially if it's long term.

Personally, if a DM I was playing with pulled that kind of stuff on my char(and by that kind of stuff I mean imposed long-term radical changes on the character's behavior, not stuff like charm/dominate/suggestion), I'd probably just hand him the char sheet and ask him to NPC the character for the duration and either pick up a new char or stop coming until my char is back under my control.

[HunterColt22]

What seems to be the biggest conundrum here is that the table has little rp experience at least in my eyes. Also you have to remember that while rping, does mean taking on a new role for a person and playing that person, one always brings something along their lines of personality with them, either via being snotty arrogant, or in this case buddy buddy with the other player.

Personally I would set up alot more RP instances than combat ones for them to work through, and as another poster has said, make certain NPCs attracted to one character over the other for whatever reasons. Another good thing to try is to take opinions they have on issues say in the world such as politics, science, religion, etc. and amalgamate that into your game. Such as, a rebel legion has one view that caters to one player, while the dominate power at the time is more colorful to the other player. Also writing good back stories can help solve this problem as well, since they have only just met, they can't write themselves each others back stories at all. This exercise will give you a good indication possibly of why they are trusting each other, or maybe it will give motives and ways for you to show case that there can be tension between them on some issues. As stated earlier, don't force anything on to them, you are here to play a game and have fun. Just remember if an artifact does change on of their characters alot, be sure there is a way for them to fix it if they choose to undertake that option.

[Honest Tiefling]

Aren't Dromites a bit...Buggish? I dunno what sort of campaign world you have, but NPCs might be confused as to why a perfectly nice young halfling man is wondering around with such a creepy fellow. Or the reverse, depending on the world. One with poor CHA might just outright ask them.

Also consider asking for a smallish, written backstory. Might make them think about the characters more.

[ShadowPsyker]

Just to emphasize the point many (yes i know including myself earlier) are bringing up: BACK STORY.

PS: Please post them when time permits.

[Acathala]

Once more with feeling, Backstory. It should be easy and quick for them to come up with something. Perhaps they werr hired together to do somethin, or banded together against a common enemy. Sure you could think up more.

[navar100]

Imagine a playing group with 5 players instead of two. It's the first session, and their characters by stereotypical coincidence happen to be at the same tavern when Adventure Plot Strikes. These 5 allegedly random strangers are the only ones in the tavern willing to Save The Day and work together to defeat the Plot Threat. They agree to form a party and travel the world together to save more days.

Welcome to D&D. That's supposed to happen. Verisimilitude goes away as it's necessary for complete strangers to absolutely trust each other for there to be a game at all. Your two players have their character be friends just so they can team up against whatever dastardly foe comes their way via you the DM. Why do you want to punish them for not playing the game your way? Why do you want them at each others' throats for your amusement? Why does it bother you they want to be partners? I say you're the one with the problem.

[NichG]

Wouldn't it just be simpler to ask them to write backstories that somehow connect their characters, so they have an in-character reason for the behavior that they're going to display no matter what you do?

Some people never play a low Int character because being clever is what they get out of the game. Some people never play a low Str character because being physically strong is a particular fantasy that appeals to them. Some people never play a spellcaster because they hate the complexity and planning of the spellcasting system. I've got a player whose 'thing' is domination effects.

Its not going to make for a more fun game if you pick at those things too much, since the fact that those things keep recurring is probably saying something about what that person enjoys.

[lsfreak]

Yep, backstory, and (possibly) make them complete theirs separate from each other so they're not purposefully making them compatible. Come up with a list of questions and basic scenarios and ask have them write out how their characters would react.

For example, how much does family mean to their character? Is family more important, or close friends? How does the character view betrayal? Is the character open and honest, or withdrawn and slow to make friends, or cold and distant? How does the character view invading an orc village and killing everyone (or at least the warriors) because they're orcs? Do they belong to a religion, and how important is that religion? How did they gain their abilities, and does this leave them with debts to pay, very close friendships, or mentors/teachers? And so on.

Then, if they go against the general principles they've set up in their pre-game questionnaire, tell them they either need to justify their actions or they should rethink what they're about to do because it's contradictory. That way they're acting as their characters, and not just themselves projected to the game world.

[Mithril Leaf]

Well, there are kind of, you know, a party...
Isn't it sort of assumed by default that members of a party trust eachother? I know that when I don't trust my various party members, it ends up with me poisoning them as they sleep. Stupid beguilers never giving me straight answers.

[HunterColt22]

Well, there are kind of, you know, a party...
Isn't it sort of assumed by default that members of a party trust eachother? I know that when I don't trust my various party members, it ends up with me poisoning them as they sleep. Stupid beguilers never giving me straight answers.

Nope, in a current campaign I am in now, we have a chaotic neutral warmage who is wild surging. A homebrew rule where you roll a d20 before the spell is even cast, if you dont hit one of your safe numbers, if you choose this option of play, you wild surge and the magic does something completely stupid, and possibly deadly for you or your foe. I already had the damn mage kill himself on me by casting mithrial staples out of thin air that then pinned him to the ground when a dire boar was attacking us, funny, and stupid, but funny. Thank god for playful trickster gods who like seeing people hurt themselves or he would have needed to roll a new character.

In either case, since he is chaotic neutral he tends to do what he wants when he wants at times, no matter the consequences. So do we fully trust him, f no, not in the least. Do we want to kill him though? For my character, no not really, she understands kind of whats going on because she has done a spell craft check multiple times when he is casting and screws it up, so she knows he is trying to do one thing, but the magic gets fouled up somehow by him. Point being that just because you are in a party with someone, doesn't mean you need or want to fully trust them immediately.