Best Player Roll Ins

[KnotKnormal]

Hey Everyone. posing a general question to try to grab some inspiration.

How do you roll in your players, either from the starting party, or adding a new character from re-roll or adding a player? I'm looking for more then the typical "you're all in a tavern" type start or add on.

Thanks everyone.

P.S. Also when I finally get it up and running does anyone mind if I post the Back story of the campaign and my idea for rolling in my players here? First high level game and i want to make sure it work before moving on.

[HaikenEdge]

"You all wake up terribly hung over, in various stages of undress and together in a gigantic bed fit for a king (for it is indeed the king's bed), with no idea how you got there. The room looks a right mess, and from what you can see littered across the floor, it must have been such an affair even a demon prince would be envious of."

[Flickerdart]

It really depends on the context of the adventure. I like to give my PCs the situation before they make characters, so by the time the game starts they're already arrived at where they need to be - usually a settlement or the dwelling of whoever hired them.

When the game's already begun, new characters are added as the story allows - maybe the quest giver thought they could use the backup, maybe the character is already embarked on the same quest and they meet by happenstance, maybe the character's been taken prisoner and the party rescues them. Sometimes I don't really bother and just say "and then there's this guy now."

[Phelix-Mu]

Oh, let me have some "random inspiration" fun here.

- Meet in prison. Pretty iconic, and not all that uncommon.

- Meet in a carriage/taxi. Very Fifth Element.

- 15th Class Reunion of the Class of XXXX.

- Meet in a brothel. Oh, wait, maybe they've all been sleeping with the same prostitute (but not all at the same time, you sickos :smalltongue:). Mature audiences only.:smallwink:

- They all live in the same small town. A little bit contrived, but I was actually a player in a campaign like this, complete with role play only as children who knew each other. Was actually quite good.

- Meet as slaves aboard a sinking slave ship. I did this one too, very different from the normal schtick, it turned into a desert isle survival thing.

- Meet as survivors on opposite sides of a large scale conflict.

- Meet in quarantine. Suggested this one to someone else the other day.

- Meet after a massive natural disaster. Seems like coincidence. But, as DMs, we know there's no such thing as coincidences.

- Meet later, and realize that they used to exes/one night stand partners. Another one that might be best for mature audiences.

- Meet in church.

[HaikenEdge]

Sometimes I don't really bother and just say "and then there's this guy now."

Probably one of my favorite ways to introduce a new player into a running campaign. "S/he's been here the whole time; you were all just too busy to notice."

Works particularly well if the incoming player character has stealth skills.

[KnotKnormal]

"You all wake up terribly hung over, in various stages of undress and together in a gigantic bed fit for a king (for it is indeed the king's bed), with no idea how you got there. The room looks a right mess, and from what you can see littered across the floor, it must have been such an affair even a demon prince would be envious of."

That Hilarious. I might use that next campaign i run.

for Flickerdart its an high level campaign based around killing gods.

[Grod_The_Giant]

For starting new groups, I personally like to start with a bang-- have all the PCs in town when something big happens, and they meet for the first time when they all come running to investigate.

Bonus points if there's a literal bang.

[Phelix-Mu]

That Hilarious. I might use that next campaign i run.

for Flickerdart its an high level campaign based around killing gods.

They obviously met in church.

Or on an internet forum looking for a way to beat Portfolio Sense. I imagine that the pool of people operating at that power level is small, so they might just hear each other's names through the grape vine (as power often comes with fame...not to mention spellcasters generally scope out their competition at their own and higher levels via spies and whatnot).

[HaikenEdge]

That Hilarious. I might use that next campaign i run.

I figure, since so many adventurers meet in taverns, why not skip that part and just have them wake up after they got completely drunk off their faces. Plus, it gives them a reason to work together, if only to figure out what happened the previous night.

It's like The Hangover: D&D Edition.

[Phelix-Mu]

I figure, since so many adventurers meet in taverns, why not skip that part and just have them wake up after they got completely drunk off their faces. Plus, it gives them a reason to work together, if only to figure out what happened the previous night.

It's like The Hangover: D&D Edition.

Oh, I do kind of like the "retrospective mystery" aspect of that. Hmm. Well, well, well. What will the characters make of things without the beer goggles? Hmm.

I can probably do something with that. Might even pick it up and use it as a sideplot hook in an Exalted campaign that I am struggling with atm. Thanks.

[HaikenEdge]

Oh, I do kind of like the "retrospective mystery" aspect of that. Hmm. Well, well, well. What will the characters make of things without the beer goggles? Hmm.

I can probably do something with that. Might even pick it up and use it as a sideplot hook in an Exalted campaign that I am struggling with atm. Thanks.

Null sweat.

I find these kinds of setups work best if, while the players are investigating what they were up to, the DM asks what the players thought they did, to get a baseline as to how the players perceive their characters, then tell them they did something one to one-and-a-half steps more outrageous.

That, or ask the other players what a specific player's characters did during the drunken haze; if the player characters are going to act out of character (being stupidly drunk and all), might as well ask another player what they did, because that's probably as far out of character as you can get, by going out of player.

[KnotKnormal]

I just figured how to pull that off seamlessly... I'll have to use it during my next summer campaign.

[Raezeman]

What i told them before we started: you are a group of bounty hunters that often accept assignments from the capital authorities about going to arrest a certain criminal. The characters have been doing this for some time time, so you all know and trust each other. When we begin, you will have one such criminal in custody and will be bringing him back to the capital.

What i told at the beginning: you are now here (points at map) and need to bring your prisoner her (points at map again). The prisoner is shackeled at his arms and legs, meaning he can walk, but not run. At some point he says: 'you might as well release me right here right now, because when the rest of my tribe comes to my aid, you'll all be dead for sure.'

When another player joined our group: (to the others) you keep on travelling and find an empty tent. 'have spot checks' you see somewhat in the distance a group of small dinosaurs surrounding a tree. You (had high enough spot check) see that a few dinosaurs lay dead on the ground, apparently pierced by bolts or arrows. you (had even higher spot check) see there is a humanoid figure in top of the tree firing said bolts. At this point, part of the dinosaurs spot you, brake of the main group and charge at you. Roll initiative.

[KnotKnormal]

What i told them before we started: you are a group of bounty hunters that often accept assignments from the capital authorities about going to arrest a certain criminal. The characters have been doing this for some time time, so you all know and trust each other. When we begin, you will have one such criminal in custody and will be bringing him back to the capital.

What i told at the beginning: you are now here (points at map) and need to bring your prisoner her (points at map again). The prisoner is shackeled at his arms and legs, meaning he can walk, but not run. At some point he says: 'you might as well release me right here right now, because when the rest of my tribe comes to my aid, you'll all be dead for sure.'

When another player joined our group: (to the others) you keep on travelling and find an empty tent. 'have spot checks' you see somewhat in the distance a group of small dinosaurs surrounding a tree. You (had high enough spot check) see that a few dinosaurs lay dead on the ground, apparently pierced by bolts or arrows. you (had even higher spot check) see there is a humanoid figure in top of the tree firing said bolts. At this point, part of the dinosaurs spot you, brake of the main group and charge at you. Roll initiative.

I like that, it's neat and clean.however i occasionally like to let the players make their own backrounds and then tie them into each other some how.

[MrNobody]

For starting new groups, I personally like to start with a bang-- have all the PCs in town when something big happens, and they meet for the first time when they all come running to investigate.

Bonus points if there's a literal bang.

The last "new player" i added to my game crashed with his small flying ship (Eberron setting) on a building in Stormreach. The fire elemental that powered the ship set free and made a huge mess.
The new player's first roll was made to stabilize after the damage of the fall :smallbiggrin:

[Raezeman]

I like that, it's neat and clean.however i occasionally like to let the players make their own backrounds and then tie them into each other some how.

I do give them total freedom for their background on how they became bounty hunters in the first place. 3 of my players are big on the role-playing aspect and have created (or are still in the process of creating) the background on how they became bounty hunters individually. I then made a little story on how they started to work together. The other 2 are a little less fond of that, but i said that if you make a character background, i can include elements from that to the main story (such as a the city guard captain for who the fighter used to word showing up with requests), which i think would be something nice. I myself play a PC in another group of friends where our DM did that and i liked it a lot.

[Badgerish]

4ed, starting in the group as a player.
"You awake to the sound of howling wolves, finding yourselves in a cold forest clearing, lit only by the light of the moon.
You are all prone and dazed (save ends, this is a poison effect) and none of you know each other.

The howling ends and you hear movement from all sides, roll initiative and tell me what you do?"

We fought off the wolves and where offered shelter by minor wizard in a small tower. She gave us hot drinks and we where able to work out what happened: we had all been in a bar during a drinking competition. We got falling-down-drunk and decided to go on an adventure!

The wizard was overjoyed by this, as she had knowledge of local threat that needed adventurers...


4ed organised play as a GM.
Well established and consistent group, but we get a new player with a stereotypical jolly Halfling Rogue, while the party is way out in the wilderness.
I suggest that he just turned up in their campsite and cooked breakfast for everyone, which led to a discussion about how Halflings are not born like other humanoids, but spring to life fully grown in kitchens and campsites.


4ed organised play as a GM.
Two players wanted to switch to new characters, so made up new level-1s. The adventure was about the party being hired to help out the city, so I asked the players with new characters if they wanted to be city guards seeking adventure.
They said yes, so I told them extra information about the city/mission and modified the briefing a little so the adventurer-characters would need some info from the guard-characters.

The adventure went well until the last stage and the party crit-failed all over the place. As such the city suffered a wave of plague/poisonings/fires and the guard-characters where fired/exiled from the city.

[molten_dragon]

Generally we run modules in our group, so I get the party together however the module suggests.

I generally try to bring new characters in whatever way is quickest and easiest while maintaining some suspension of disbelief.

If the party is in a dungeon or in some other situation where it's hard to bring a new character in in a realistic manner, I'll just have them appear out of nowhere. It's more important to me that the person playing that character not be sitting around doing nothing than it is to maintain the realism of the game.

The last campaign I ran was Skull and Shackles (the PCs are Pirates) so it was pretty easy to bring new characters in as needed. Either the new character showed up at their ship when they were in port and asked to join their crew, or the new character was (a crewman, a prisoner, something) on a ship they attacked and decided to join them.

[Chronos]

Quoth Grod the Giant:

For starting new groups, I personally like to start with a bang-- have all the PCs in town when something big happens, and they meet for the first time when they all come running to investigate.

Bonus points if there's a literal bang.
The adventure I'm currently in started something like this. The local lord had declared a festival, and most of the city was watching public performances. When assassins showed up and murdered the performers (and the local lord, of course), everyone who wasn't an adventurer fled the venue.

[Spore]

My Rogue was drinking along with the Cleric in the bar of the Sorcerer's step dad while the Paladin started a raid for illegal alcohol in the bar. The sorcerer and I were imprisoned and the cleric was asked to be a eye witness. We basically started in a tavern but didn't meet until the city's dungeon. So there's that.

So the start was more like a "you're all in a tavern - and under arrest".

[Talderas]

For starting new groups, I personally like to start with a bang-- have all the PCs in town when something big happens, and they meet for the first time when they all come running to investigate.

Bonus points if there's a literal bang.


"You all wake up terribly hung over, in various stages of undress and together in a gigantic bed fit for a king (for it is indeed the king's bed), with no idea how you got there. The room looks a right mess, and from what you can see littered across the floor, it must have been such an affair even a demon prince would be envious of."

Bonus points to Haiken.

[Ignominia]

Our group plays in Sharn (Eberron), and we rotate between myself and another player as DM. We have 2 campaigns going currently (with different PC's but the same players)

We use a very simple method for introducing new characters that actually benefits us in multiple ways.

There are 2 cannon Adventurers Guilds in Sharn, The Deathgate guild and the Clifftop Guild. We created a new "upstart" guild that the PC's successfully petitioned to join. Both groups actually now belong to the guild, and it gives us the opportunity to weave the stories together.

We used the "Affiliation" rules in the PHB 2 to build the Guild, and it provides things like lodging, buying/selling at a discount (via a sort of Goodwill/Salvation Army model) bonuses to knowledge checks and access to facilities like wizard labs etc...

Any time a new character needs to be introduced its a simple matter of him being a new recruit to the guild, or a member waiting in the recruiting pool waiting to be picked for a mission...

Its simple, but has worked very well for us so far.

[DruidAlanon]

Last time I played an undead Dread Necro in a session I woked up in a coffin, buried 2m in the ground. I didn't know I was dead and I could hardly recall any memories so you can imagine my reaction.

In other games, usually an extreme event happens in front of player's eyes. eg someone dies, a corpse falls from the sky (in a sharn-like city), etc.
In my current game (as a druid), story started as a normal everyday-life when more and more wolfs started to leave from the forest until a gread undead army appeared.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oh, I do kind of like the "retrospective mystery" aspect of that. Hmm. Well, well, well. What will the characters make of things without the beer goggles? Hmm.

I can probably do something with that. Might even pick it up and use it as a sideplot hook in an Exalted campaign that I am struggling with atm. Thanks.

Bonus points if you can work in a retired pugilist with a face tattoo, a lisp, and a pet tiger. :smallbiggrin:

I generally just give the players the starting point of the first adventure of the campaign then have them figure out how they all got there.

[MesiDoomstalker]

This is actually for a 40k, but its still fun.

I wanted to reroll, finally having gotten used to the system (and realizing how poor my choices have been up to that point), so I rerolled a Commander, which kind a mix between a Fighter and a Bard. The party had just arrived on a gambling world and half the party sat down at a poker table. The GM pulled out an actual deck and we started playing, along with 2 NPCs. The betting was all on In-World items and one of the NPCs wagered a demonic book that had a ritual to pull a planet into the Screaming Vortex. I won that hand so the book was mine. The next hand, the same NPC wagered his slave-girl, to which another PC won. The NPC quickly revealed he was out of things to wager and that the book was mostly worthless without the girl, and the girl was completely useless without the book. Que the other PC offer all kinds of trades for the book, all of refused. In the end, we finally came to an agreement; I'd hand over the book, but I'd become the leader of the party AND of the world we were going to pull into the Screaming Vortex. Twas awesome.

[turbo164]

Probably the best I've seen came from the SilverClawShift campaign logs:



[while exploring the house of a recently slain wizard; during that fight, the group lost 3 PCs. One was raised as undead, one took over an NPC, the third...]

Anyway, through this whole thing, the DM is doing a good job creeping us out. A cold and dark cottage that someone actually LIVED in not two days ago, suddenly barely recognizable as a home. A lot of morbid detail. We had a pretty moody setup going here.

Then, we find 'it'. The arcanist had some kind of weird construct, something like the rest of us had never seen before (archivist included). It was battered and partially disassembled, apparently by the kythons. It was also covered in strange markings, runes, glyphs, symbols, text fragments (on its forhead, etched in faint dwarven runes, "thus unbound unfettered and felled"). Ect.

Nearby it, what looked for all the world to be some strange flute made of the same material and in the same fashion, though not covered in the markings or runes.

We kind of fixated on the golem naturally (in retrospect, our DM would have tricked us into focusing on it if we hadn't in the first place). We managed to strap the sucker back into one piece. We shrugged and asked ourselves what to do with it, until we noticed that the flute had a detachable series of small black gemstones, which the archivist identified as being effectively "wands" with a single charge and a very simple activation. A little further examination, and he reveals that each gemstone contain a single spell, "repair damage".

You know darn well what we did.

So the DM describes the scene, getting more and more quiet. The construct begins to twitch, and jerk. The wooden grain of its frame snaking back together, the cracked stone plating melting into solid pieces once more. He gets real quiet, we're all leaning close together, and he tells us this.

"Suddenly, the construct springs up in one fast fluid motion, grabbing <dragon shaman> by the shoulders and shouting...."

And THAT is when the 6th player, the one with no current character, grabs the dragon shamans player by the shoulders and screams "WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE CREATOR?!?"

I. Almost. Peed myself.

It took us five minutes to stop laughing/throwing things/settle back down and get to the game. The player decided to be a WARFORGED of all things. Him and the DM decided behind the scenes that a warforged experiment the arcanist cooked up would be a great new addition to the party. "It" primarily served the arcanist as an assistant during magical concerns, but also as a cook, housecleaner, and entertainment.

So, now we have a warforged bard in the party. And I thought I was the odd one out

They agreed that the best way to introduce the new character would be a shocker moment. I'm inclined to agree.

So there we go. The bard plans (assuming it survives) to become a sublime chord and act as our primary arcane spellcaster, in a sense. And the DM successfully made us wet ourselves by playing one of our group against us. That bastard.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116836?

:smallsmile:

[lsfreak]

For starting new groups, I personally like to start with a bang-- have all the PCs in town when something big happens, and they meet for the first time when they all come running to investigate.

Bonus points if there's a literal bang.

I did this. Just as the major (weekly) temple ceremony ended, a half-dozen necrotic eruptions exploded in the congregation and another half-dozen in the packed marketplace outside. Starting off with a bombing in the middle of a secure city, reanimated organs, a death toll in the hundreds, and low-level PCs having to deal with Con damage really set the tone for the campaign.

[prufock]

For a starting group, unless the campaign specifically requires it, I don't have them "meet" at all. They already know each other, either as friends or colleagues. I usually give my players a quick overview before they create their characters, and insist that they provide their own reasoning for how they met and why they're working together. Often I will start them in the midst of an encounter straight away - a simple combat encounter that lets them get a grasp on how they want to play their characters and how they interact.

When new people join a campaign, I ask for a character description, and work with the players to incorporate the newbies into the party in a reasonable, story-consistent way. IE, have a cleric joining? You have to go to the temple for healing, meet the cleric, and the cleric's temple gets torched by your nemesis.

[Eldariel]

Imprisoned on some outer plane (preferably Hell, the Abyss or so) just as their captor dies and the magics binding them dissipate, of course. With Mindrape-induced amnesia (not the curable kind), because it's not like they've bothered to think up a very detailed past for their characters anyways.

Alternatively, a prophetic dream that seems all too real with all of 'em and some booming voice/lightshow effects for good measure works too.

[ddude987]

Characters that get added in my group generally are poking around the party's campsite one night and come sit round the fire for a mug of ale and some adventuring stories.

Another time one character, a bard, was singing and my character invited him because the music was preferable to another characters racist comments and constant complaints.

[Red Fel]

I prefer the more traditional introductions - they all happen to be at a place (e.g. bar, marketplace, etc.) when an event happens (e.g. fight, monsters, etc.); or they've all been recruited by a common employer (e.g. king, merchant, etc.); or they all lived in the same town and know each other. The reason I prefer these is that it gives the players somewhat more liberty with when, how, and why they join up.

I don't like when the DM basically forces the characters into a party. You can drop them in the same place, maybe give them every good reason to work together, but you can't actually force them to do so. Encouraging, but not requiring, the players to put connections in their backstories is excellent. Informing the players that their characters have worked together in the past and trust each other is horrible; it robs the players of a sense of agency. Similarly, dropping an in-character prophecy or similar mechanism that basically tells the players "You must all succeed, or you all fail," forces the characters to get along, and to force each other to get along. What happens if someone wants to leave the party? Are the other partymembers going to pin him down and drag him along, because some Magic Mouth said they would all slay the dragon together?

I've been in scenes where the characters are all present for an event, and the party starts to form - and one character holds back. For him, in-character, this just isn't the right time and place to join up. He ends up shadowing the party and joining later - which is fine, and in fact pretty cool. I take issue with scenes that basically wave a magic wand, and say "Poof! You're a party!"

[Raezeman]

Is it that big of a step when going from recruited by the same employer to recruited by the same employer a while ago so you know each other? I agree in encouraging players to come up with a background (and glad that 3 of 5 players so far have done so), which in both cases would be when and why to got to the employment, but knowing each other a while already can make things much more smoothly at the first life-or-death encounters.
I mean, imagine, you have a goal in mind and meet someone with the similar goal and team up. 5 minutes later you are attacked by savages. Are you that quickly going to trust the other to have your back in this fight? I started a campaign (evil) where this is the case and i play a dragonfire adept. First choice of invocation was endure exposure, which makes the others withstand my breath attack, which is handy during battle. So basically, after we met, found out our similar goals and teamed up, i basically said: i have no idea if i can actually trust any of you, but here let me make you immune to my only method of attack!
Of course you can disagree if you want the first introductions to be played out, but i lay my focus on experiencing the main story-line itself, so saying people know and trust each other is horrible is a little exaggerated in my opinion.

[Red Fel]

Is it that big of a step when going from recruited by the same employer to recruited by the same employer a while ago so you know each other? I agree in encouraging players to come up with a background (and glad that 3 of 5 players so far have done so), which in both cases would be when and why to got to the employment, but knowing each other a while already can make things much more smoothly at the first life-or-death encounters.
I mean, imagine, you have a goal in mind and meet someone with the similar goal and team up. 5 minutes later you are attacked by savages. Are you that quickly going to trust the other to have your back in this fight? I started a campaign (evil) where this is the case and i play a dragonfire adept. First choice of invocation was endure exposure, which makes the others withstand my breath attack, which is handy during battle. So basically, after we met, found out our similar goals and teamed up, i basically said: i have no idea if i can actually trust any of you, but here let me make you immune to my only method of attack!
Of course you can disagree if you want the first introductions to be played out, but i lay my focus on experiencing the main story-line itself, so saying people know and trust each other is horrible is a little exaggerated in my opinion.

Well, here's the thing. Having the group of players invited to be hired by a common employer is great. It gives the players a reason to be present, and an opportunity to introduce themselves in a manner they see fit. It also gives them the agency (again that word) to act in a manner they choose, up to and including declining the business offer, with whatever consequences that may entail.

Similarly, encouraging the players to collaborate on backstories is great. It gives the players a pre-game chance to get to know one another's characters, and gives them an in-game reason to work together before the game even begins. More importantly, it gives the players more freedom in how their characters interact and play together.

Telling the players that their characters have a history... Robs them of agency. It tells the players, before the game has even begun, "These are your characters, but I control their lives. Your actions are not wholly your own." Admittedly, the DM is the god of the game world, and everyone knows it, but being so blunt about it, and upfront, ruins immersion.

One of the most engaging things about a game, I find, is the sense of agency. As a player, you should feel (1) that you have control over your character, (2) that your character has the freedom to act as he chooses, acknowledging that actions have consequences, and (3) that your actions matter. With regard to #1, your character should feel like your character; not the DM's, and certainly not the other players'. With regard to #2, you should feel that your character can do what you believe is most appropriate for him to do, not what others tell you he must do or must have already done. With regard to #3, you should feel that when you take an action, it has an impact that cannot simply be hand-waved away by another player or overzealous DM.

By telling the players their characters have a history, instead of letting them choose to create one, a DM is robbing them of all three. He is telling the players that he can control their past actions, as well as possibly their future actions; that he chooses which actions are best for the party, even if they are not what the player envisions; and that he has the right and the power to rewrite history as needed to complete his objectives. He has robbed the players of agency before the game has even begun. And I, for one, can't countenance that sort of conduct. It galls me.

[Scumbaggery]

I will normally sit down with individual players and do a short one-off with them before the campaign is actually played. That way their have some backstory already, they have a reason for meeting with the others, and you allow your players to flush out some personality from their character.

[HaikenEdge]

Well, here's the thing. Having the group of players invited to be hired by a common employer is great. It gives the players a reason to be present, and an opportunity to introduce themselves in a manner they see fit. It also gives them the agency (again that word) to act in a manner they choose, up to and including declining the business offer, with whatever consequences that may entail.

Similarly, encouraging the players to collaborate on backstories is great. It gives the players a pre-game chance to get to know one another's characters, and gives them an in-game reason to work together before the game even begins. More importantly, it gives the players more freedom in how their characters interact and play together.

Telling the players that their characters have a history... Robs them of agency. It tells the players, before the game has even begun, "These are your characters, but I control their lives. Your actions are not wholly your own." Admittedly, the DM is the god of the game world, and everyone knows it, but being so blunt about it, and upfront, ruins immersion.

One of the most engaging things about a game, I find, is the sense of agency. As a player, you should feel (1) that you have control over your character, (2) that your character has the freedom to act as he chooses, acknowledging that actions have consequences, and (3) that your actions matter. With regard to #1, your character should feel like your character; not the DM's, and certainly not the other players'. With regard to #2, you should feel that your character can do what you believe is most appropriate for him to do, not what others tell you he must do or must have already done. With regard to #3, you should feel that when you take an action, it has an impact that cannot simply be hand-waved away by another player or overzealous DM.

By telling the players their characters have a history, instead of letting them choose to create one, a DM is robbing them of all three. He is telling the players that he can control their past actions, as well as possibly their future actions; that he chooses which actions are best for the party, even if they are not what the player envisions; and that he has the right and the power to rewrite history as needed to complete his objectives. He has robbed the players of agency before the game has even begun. And I, for one, can't countenance that sort of conduct. It galls me.

So, you're saying, if the DM tells the players their characters have a history with one another, but they have to figure it out themselves, that robs them of agency?

It's not as though the DM is telling the player what their history with each other is; the history itself doesn't need to be friendship or even alliances, when it could be rivalry or bitter hatred, or even having just heard about one another by word of mouth or something similar.

I think the key is to not decide what the history is, but to let the players hammer it out themselves. Rivalries, friendships, passing acquaintances, heard rumors... even one character picking another's pocket in the past without the victim knowing are all things that can create connections between the players, without the DM forcing a backstory onto the players.

[Eldariel]

I think the start of the game is the one place where railroading is okay. If the players don't have a really good reason to work together, why, some players might not get to play at all. If everybody makes a character unsupervised and then people play together, it's fully possible there's suddenly no party, since the characters aren't compatible; they'd never work together, or they're not interested in anything the world has to offer to them (I've often run into this problem with evil PCs; the only thing that motivates them is money and yet they're not willing to do anything dangerous, so they end up just walking away). Hell, someone might kill the other one on the spot and you end up with a battle royale, boom, campaign ends.

If I wish to play a game with some longetivity and the players specifically want to play a campaign, I feel it's the smaller evil to give the players a strong incentive to work together, than it is to have them fudge everything so that they can play together with a party that would never do so in reality. Twice the fun if it also gives them a bit of an unconventional situation to start with where not only the characters, but the players don't know what's going on and thus the surprise will be genuine.

[Red Fel]

So, you're saying, if the DM tells the players their characters have a history with one another, but they have to figure it out themselves, that robs them of agency?

In essence, yes. What if a player wanted to play the helpful but mysterious stranger? He has now been told, "No, they all know you."

Worse, it now forces the characters to figure out what the DM intended. And it forces them to do so psychically - what if one player figures, "We worked together before, and I spiked his milk to get him on the jet, and we had a laugh about it, and I'll do it again," and the other player thinks "Nobody in this team would ever dare pull pranks on me, I'd kill them." When Player A pulls a prank on Player B - after all, in the history he was forced to create, he'd done it before - and Player B flips, how can this be what the DM intended?


It's not as though the DM is telling the player what their history with each other is; the history itself doesn't need to be friendship or even alliances, when it could be rivalry or bitter hatred, or even having just heard about one another by word of mouth or something similar.

But that's just it. Clearly the DM intends their history to be positive - otherwise, why force it on the players?


I think the key is to not decide what the history is, but to let the players hammer it out themselves. Rivalries, friendships, passing acquaintances, heard rumors... even one character picking another's pocket in the past without the victim knowing are all things that can create connections between the players, without the DM forcing a backstory onto the players.

With this, I agree, provided that it is encouraged, not mandated. I absolutely agree that players should be encouraged to have connections in their backstories, reasons to collaborate. If they don't know each other personally, they should at least have mutual acquaintances, or allegiances to organizations, or familiarities or alignments or something in common.

But that's ultimately up to the players. If Player C wants to create the Atoner, a mysterious loner who has drifted into town with a dark past seeking to redeem himself, and the DM otherwise approved of the concept, why should his story suddenly be rewritten to say that, yes, the partymembers are his friends and probably have some idea of his mysterious past? He loses some of his hard-earned mystique. It rubs me wrong.


I think the start of the game is the one place where railroading is okay. If the players don't have a really good reason to work together, why, some players might not get to play at all. If everybody makes a character unsupervised and then people play together, it's fully possible there's suddenly no party, since the characters aren't compatible; they'd never work together, or they're not interested in anything the world has to offer to them (I've often run into this problem with evil PCs; the only thing that motivates them is money and yet they're not willing to do anything dangerous, so they end up just walking away). Hell, someone might kill the other one on the spot and you end up with a battle royale, boom, campaign ends.

Agree in part, disagree in part.

In writing, there's something called the suspension of disbelief. A common expression is that, in the first chapter of a book or fifteen minutes of a movie, you establish the tone for the plot and the rules of the universe. After that, you must adhere to them; failure to do so creates cognitive disjunction among your readers/viewers.

In a campaign, the DM should absolutely set the proper tone in the first session. This includes getting the players onboard with the plot - if you don't do it there, it's unlikely to happen.

That said, if you establish railroading, let alone heavyhanded railroading like writing the PCs' backstories for them, you are setting that specific tone for the campaign. You are saying, "This is a thing that will happen. I will tell you how to play." For some groups of players, I acknowledge it is necessary. For the most part (with a few exceptions), the groups with which I've played never needed this kind of 'enforced' RPing. They formed a group because they wanted to, not because they were forced.

And I'd like to point out one more thing, as I mentioned earlier - suppose a player is introduced to the campaign, quickly realizes it's not his cup of tea, or realizes that the character he created simply will not fit. Let him leave, in-character or out-. Don't tell him, "No, your character has a history and has to be present now." He sees the door; let him use it, and bring in something more suited if he chooses.


If I wish to play a game with some longetivity and the players specifically want to play a campaign, I feel it's the smaller evil to give the players a strong incentive to work together, than it is to have them fudge everything so that they can play together with a party that would never do so in reality. Twice the fun if it also gives them a bit of an unconventional situation to start with where not only the characters, but the players don't know what's going on and thus the surprise will be genuine.

There is a difference between giving them incentive, like a common employer or stranding them someplace together, and forcing their actions, like telling them what their characters know or do. The former gives them a choice - even a group of characters stranded on a deserted demiplane can choose to go their separate ways. The latter robs them of agency, and I wouldn't handle it well. Others might; I wouldn't. De gustibus non disputandem.

[HaikenEdge]

In essence, yes. What if a player wanted to play the helpful but mysterious stranger? He has now been told, "No, they all know you."

Worse, it now forces the characters to figure out what the DM intended. And it forces them to do so psychically - what if one player figures, "We worked together before, and I spiked his milk to get him on the jet, and we had a laugh about it, and I'll do it again," and the other player thinks "Nobody in this team would ever dare pull pranks on me, I'd kill them." When Player A pulls a prank on Player B - after all, in the history he was forced to create, he'd done it before - and Player B flips, how can this be what the DM intended?
I think that really has to do with how active/reactive the campaign is. I generally DM a very reactive campaign, where the players are dropped into the world and then left to their own devices (it is, after all, the players' stories I'm helping tell), so I don't find it so much a problem. Also, players I've DMed for tend to talk to each other when creative character backgrounds, so the situation hasn't arisen, because the differences would already have been resolved before the game even started.



But that's just it. Clearly the DM intends their history to be positive - otherwise, why force it on the players? Because Gary Oak?

That's to say, I find rivalries and love/hate relationships can be be just as rewarding for the player as friendships and alliances, particularly when the player characters discover the basis of their rivalry or animosity turns out to be based on false assumptions about the other party, or when the characters develop a grudging respect for one another. I find the whole "positive history" idea to be extremely overrated, because positive relationships are less likely to be dysfunctional, and dysfunctional relationships are generally more character-building than functional ones.




With this, I agree, provided that it is encouraged, not mandated. I absolutely agree that players should be encouraged to have connections in their backstories, reasons to collaborate. If they don't know each other personally, they should at least have mutual acquaintances, or allegiances to organizations, or familiarities or alignments or something in common.

But that's ultimately up to the players. If Player C wants to create the Atoner, a mysterious loner who has drifted into town with a dark past seeking to redeem himself, and the DM otherwise approved of the concept, why should his story suddenly be rewritten to say that, yes, the partymembers are his friends and probably have some idea of his mysterious past? He loses some of his hard-earned mystique. It rubs me wrong.
I think you're taking the example too far. If Player C wants to play the Atoner, he can still be linked to the party without his backstory being rewritten; the other players don't need to know about his mysterious past, because all they need to have done is have heard of him, the Atoner. It's the same way an underworld figure might know another one by reputation; that itself is a kind of history between characters.

[KnotKnormal]

Thank you everyone who posted their roll ins. you really helped me decide on what to do for my campaign. In a nutshell, I'm running a high level god slaying campaign, and one of the gods i made for the campaign (Signet) dies and parts of his soul seek out and merge with the PCs, giving them a massive power boost, the few remaining followers of Signet collect them and aid them through the transition of becoming awesome. this allows me to yank them from where ever they happen to be in my world, and also give them a common bond, and explains why epic level charterers could fly under the radar of gods. I personally like it because it allows the Players to focus entirely on who their character is, instead of forcing them to write in why they were in a specific location at a specific time, i can just steal them from their homes if i need to.

what do you guys think?