Player split from the group, not sure the best way to proceed

[Typewriter]

So, I've been DMing for about ten years now so I have a bit of experience, but I can't decide quite how I want to handle this particular situation and was hoping for some input.

Session one of a new campaign - new player whose only played a few times before with other groups, and those tended towards hack and slash from what I understand. The town is being attacked in the middle of the night, new player (NP) is playing a hermit character. I get everyone to the gate where they have the same goal (get the gate closed, subdue a mysterious invader), and as they accomplish the goal the town starts to get overrun. An NPC calls for everyone to retreat to the inn. All the players head that way. Except for NP. NP is playing a 'hermit' type character who lives in the woods nearby and decides to retreat into the forest. With the way I've described the situation it makes perfect sense for him to be able to do so. And with him being a hermit it sort of makes sense for him to do so. Kudos to him for roleplaying.

What do I do next session though? If it was an established player I would simply let his character sit out while the inn defense plays out. You separated from the group, you know how this works. You can probably find something interesting to do out there (intercept messengers, sneak into enemy camp, etc. etc.) but you might die if you get too involved and you're all alone.

But I don't want to make NP sit out when he's new to the game, especially when his decision makes RP sense. I considered having him overhear some attackers talking about a secret way into the inn that they plan on using - that would give him the opportunity to get into the inn via the secret path and warn the other players. But then am I rewarding leaving the party? I've also considered having his character sit out, but giving him a level 1 NPC fighter character sheet - just letting him control a random towns person during the inn stuff.

It's been a long time since I've had to consider an issue like this one as I've been playing with pretty much the same group for a long time. Most of my players know to create characters that are going to want to work together so it normally doesn't come up. Or most of the time I have players build characters that already know/work together. I didn't do that this time because, for this campaign, it made more sense to me to do it this way and I didn't think about this particular issue.

tl;dr - New player in a new campaign separated himself from the party because his character is a hermit. The rest of the party is about to be involved in a small scale siege. Do I try to get him back to the party, let him just sit out, or let his character sit out while he controls an NPC fighter or something?

[Daishain]

Have you talked to the player directly? You can offer him a choice without revealing too much of your intentions.

[BootStrapTommy]

The PHB has a warning on the credits/legal page in the front of the book. It claims, among other things, that WotC is not responsible for deaths resulting from spliting the party. Make him read it.

If he wants his hermit to stay a hermit, then let his hermit stay a hermit. And make him make a new character, who is capable of being an adventurer.

[pibby]

I think you should have a giant bird fly to his location to deliver a message to him that 'the thing his character cherishes most' is in danger and that without his presence it will perish. If he decides to help the town to protect 'the thing his character cherishes most' then have the eagle carry him over the walls and onto the roof of the inn.

After the session ask him a few things. Did his character have a reason to be part of the adventuring group in the first place? Does his character have a bond with what's happening in the current plot? If no to both, the NP should reconsider his character's background. At the very least, ask him to tweak his backstory in favor of what's going on in the adventure/story. Otherwise he has every right to refuse the call to adventure.

If he likes his character the way it is then as a DM it is probably best to tweak your story/adventure to take his character's actions into considerations.

[Typewriter]

Have you talked to the player directly? You can offer him a choice without revealing too much of your intentions.

I haven't yet - some of the other players made comments about splitting the party, but I wasn't sure if I should address it directly, or just kind of make the game work around it. I don't want it to become a big deal.


The PHB has a warning on the credits page. It claims, among other things, that WotC is not responsible for deaths resulting from spliting the party. Make him read it.

If he wants his hermit to stay a hermit, they let his hermit stay a hermit. And make him make a new character.

That's how I would treat an experienced player - you want to be anti-social, fine that character is anti-social, roll up a new one. But I don't want this guys first real experience at the table to be me telling him he role-played 'wrong' and to roll up a new character.

[BootStrapTommy]

That's how I would treat an experienced player - you want to be anti-social, fine that character is anti-social, roll up a new one. But I don't want this guys first real experience at the table to be me telling him he role-played 'wrong' and to roll up a new character.
Roleplaying poorly is the death of many, old or new. No need to coddle him.

I think having him read it would suffice. The point the warning makes is that splitting the party is a bad idea. An infamously bad one. For many reason beside being a pain in the DM's bum. It puts the idea in his head that, while he roleplayed his background well, his decision was stratgetically stupid. And he'll survive longer the sooner he rectifies that.

[C-Dude]

let his character sit out while he controls an NPC fighter or something?

This is the best option to avoid turning the new player off of the game. Hand him an NPC for the siege and he'll start to regret splitting the party. Then--to balance it out--make woodland creature characters for the REST of the party and have them help the hermit with a siege of his own in the forest (Reskin level 1 NPC characters for this purpose). This second encounter will be much more difficult for the hermit because he'll be the only leveled character in the mix.
After the siege you can warn the new player that it is never a good idea to split from the party and there is safety in numbers. Perhaps his recklessness results in the destruction of his forest and he sees the error of his actions.

[kaoskonfety]

options to keep him in the action on the Inn side (this looks where most everything will be taking place?)
- draft and NPC for him to play during the seige, love this idea use it myself from time to time
- put roleplay hooks into it and set the power level where you think its neat - as a bonus if the player has expressed interest in certain powers/ feats you can let him play test them a bit
- ritual caster with access to say 3rd level magic and a decent list of options on a non-combatant might be interesting
- The inns mistral, no not a bard (unless you want it to be), a normal person with a guitar in a panic over getting gutted by monsters
- not sure exactly what you plans are, but secret passages in the Inn allow access, perhaps a long forgotten tunnel ourt hermit can find to join up/help save the day?
- Allow them to write up a random throw away PC - a town guard or drunken monk etc. they may get the hint and die awesome red-shirt kinda way

Options on the other "he is outdoors side"
- you think it was a good RP choice? good - he starts play with inspiration and the seige doesn't know the character is there (I assume?), add an opportunity of 5 for the hermit to help out, picking off stray guards, being woodsy and taking out the bads with improv traps intercepting runners and messages - looks for more reasons to give the PC inspiration - try not to worry about the full details TOO much (unless they are the least sneaky hermit ever and are in metal armor - who sleeps in the woods in metal armor if they have a choice?) rule of cool it a bit and make his sweat it a bit.


Roleplaying poorly is the death of many, old or new. No need to coddle him.... snip

As a DM you are in control of the horizontal, you control the vertical - do not adjust your set. To steal from Paranoia: Mere rivalry with the players is beneath you. You the DM are not playing *against* the PC's, you are with them making a game happen. So I'll have to disagree with you: as a DM we are always coddling them when they don't end the game dead. And that is not a bad thing.

Saying someone is roleplaying badly is one thing, removing them from play permanently because they made a "reasonable at the time" RP choice you presented them with that you disagree with that inconveniences you? If you really need the players in the inn and not the woods? Set the woods on fire, not the players character sheet. Otherwise you make roleplay feel like a "you picked wrong" death trap and remove its relevance and fun.

[Shining Wrath]

I like the idea of giving him an NPC to play while he fiddles about hermiting in the woods. And when he returns, the people who shed blood defending the Inn give him the stink eye. Running into the woods and leaving everyone else to fend for themselves is not a good way to win friends and influence people.

In fact, you can have the townfolk want to lynch him, and only the intervention of the other players saves his neck. If he likes to roleplay, he's now got a reason to feel a bond to the group.

[hawklost]

Talk with him and remind him that the Hermit is just a background, something that defined him in the past. Obviously he is trying to not be a hermit anymore or he would still be alone in the woods. Since he is trying to work together with the party for (whatever reason) and is attempting to change his ways, he might want to consider the consequences of leaving the party by themselves.

You can point out also that with the party split, it is difficult for a single DM to keep everyone occupied. As such, there are a few options that you can do because of his actions.

Options:
Have him roll up a new character - least desirable since it will feel like you are punishing him for trying to follow his character
Retcon him back into the town - This means his choice never happened, maybe you can play it off as he pictured what would happen if he followed his old life style and decided against it
Have him play an NPC - This could allow him to get experience as a different style character, which is not a bad thing, possibly have the NPC 1 level lower than the party (or lvl 1 if they are 1) and tell him that as soon as you can, his character will be re-introduced to the party. Since this is his first time, tell him normally his character would not get experience but you will give his character as much xp as his NPC gets (Make some story up afterwards about what he did to earn it, like kill a few enemies in rp form instead of rolling.
Give him some Information to return - Allow him to overhear their plot in some way, this gives his character a chance to return, it might be rewarding splitting the party, but sometimes splitting occurs.
Have him sit out and watch the battle - Finally, ask him if it would be alright to have him sit out the battle, possibly allow him to play the monsters attacking the town.

Best recommendation I would give is lay out some options for him and tell him why what he did was not the greatest for the game as a whole even if it was good RP.

[Typewriter]

Talk with him and remind him that the Hermit is just a background, something that defined him in the past. Obviously he is trying to not be a hermit anymore or he would still be alone in the woods. Since he is trying to work together with the party for (whatever reason) and is attempting to change his ways, he might want to consider the consequences of leaving the party by themselves.


Character backgrounds are where we basically started with people. Him and another player were both hermits who lived in the woods. They saw signs of the attacking coming and ran to the town to warn them. This is largely my fault - I got used to playing with the same group of players who sort of work together to make things work, so I didn't work in an established companionship or anything like that. I just thought, "The attack will start, this will unite them, and then they're a party" because it's how all of my pre-existing players do things.

[Once a Fool]

Step 1: give the player inspiration for role playing the character in a detrimental way. That's what inspiration is for.

Step 2: make sure the hermits decision has in-game consequences.

Maybe an offshoot of the horde follows him and he finds himself besieged and alone.

Maybe he stumbles upon a strike team that would sneak behind the other PCs' defenses and has a perfect opportunity to ambush them.

Maybe the horde sets the PCs' fortifications ablaze, but the hermit finds a route that can be used to help everyone escape.

Basically, don't shut someone down because they dared to roleplay; Adapt and find a way to make more adventure out of it.

[Callin]

Have him detail what he wants his character to do to help with the seige. If he does nothing for it then punish him. So far I see nothing wrong other than he split the party and it rubs you tbe wrong way. If its that big of an issue you never should of let him split.

The let him play an NPC during the inn battle and let his real character meet back with the group. Reward out the box thinking, but punish a coward.

[Frenth Alunril]

I have always used these options to test the gamesmanship of the player. Start you next adventure with 10 minutes focus on NP's conscience, explore options, if NP joins the fight, awesome, otherwise, NPC time!

[DireSickFish]

A lot of good suggestions have been made, and I'm in support of the ones that don't punish him for his decision. He is new and he made an IC decision.

Would it be possible for his hermit house to be a casualty of an advance scouting party? That way you railroad heard him back to the party, possibly with some new information.

Could you get the rest of the party to follow him? I know he didn't make any passionate please, but perhaps seeing him skulk off into the woods makes some of the townsfolk think they'll have a much better shot at survival out there instead of digging in and fighting the enemy. Either split the town in two with one important NPC in each location making there case, or have them all follow him and ask him where they can hide. If the town splits in two then the party might have to split, or decide which one to cover.

Could the Hermit get a shot at the leader, is in find out where he is? He could then have the information to stop the invasion, cut off the head ect. Strongly suggest that he might need some help getting to him. And then hope to high heaven that he tells the party and instead of a town defense you have a fight/sneak through an army to kill the leader.

[Celcey]

I'm definitely in favor of not punishing because his RP isn't convenient. I would either give him a sidequest-type thing (a couple of enemies are still outside! Kill them! There are NPC who need to be guided to safety! Save them!), or have him overhear something relevant to the siege. Maybe give him inspiration for acting in a way that makes sense for his character, even if it splits the party (i.e. non-metagame thinking). And if that doesn't work (like if he chooses to stay in the woods/can't figure out how to get into town), let him sit this one out out. Consequentially, he won't get the XP from the encounter, but that's no big deal. I personally wouldn't give him an NPC, because, although I do technically see the point of it, I really don't see the point of it.

[caden_varn]

Assuming the woods are very close (in sight of the town certainly), I'd probably have him spot a few stragglers from the attack, looting or maybe trying to break into a building or something. Give him the opportunity to run back to the inn before they can catch up with him, otherwise he'll need to stealth or run past them to get to woods. If he takes that route, I'd probably go with the NPC option for the inn.

Assuming he cannot get away from the stragglers, have some townsfolk who got stuck outside and have been hiding join the fight for the rest of the group to play, as someone else suggested further up.

[Typewriter]

Have him detail what he wants his character to do to help with the seige. If he does nothing for it then punish him. So far I see nothing wrong other than he split the party and it rubs you tbe wrong way. If its that big of an issue you never should of let him split.

The let him play an NPC during the inn battle and let his real character meet back with the group. Reward out the box thinking, but punish a coward.

It doesn't rub me the wrong way, it's simply that he removed himself from the action, has no stealth, and is level one. If he tries to do anything he's likely going to get murdered. If he was an established player I wouldn't worry about it at all, but with him being new I don't want to wind up making him feel left out or punished for his decisions.


A lot of good suggestions have been made, and I'm in support of the ones that don't punish him for his decision. He is new and he made an IC decision.

Would it be possible for his hermit house to be a casualty of an advance scouting party? That way you railroad heard him back to the party, possibly with some new information.

Could you get the rest of the party to follow him? I know he didn't make any passionate please, but perhaps seeing him skulk off into the woods makes some of the townsfolk think they'll have a much better shot at survival out there instead of digging in and fighting the enemy. Either split the town in two with one important NPC in each location making there case, or have them all follow him and ask him where they can hide. If the town splits in two then the party might have to split, or decide which one to cover.

Could the Hermit get a shot at the leader, is in find out where he is? He could then have the information to stop the invasion, cut off the head ect. Strongly suggest that he might need some help getting to him. And then hope to high heaven that he tells the party and instead of a town defense you have a fight/sneak through an army to kill the leader.

I actually came up with an idea last night - the horde is going to be gathering prisoners, and it makes sense for them to have seen him run (he has no stealth or anything, and while the horde wasn't "in his way" they definitely could have seen him moving and sent some people after him.


I'm definitely in favor of not punishing because his RP isn't convenient. I would either give him a sidequest-type thing (a couple of enemies are still outside! Kill them! There are NPC who need to be guided to safety! Save them!), or have him overhear something relevant to the siege. Maybe give him inspiration for acting in a way that makes sense for his character, even if it splits the party (i.e. non-metagame thinking). And if that doesn't work (like if he chooses to stay in the woods/can't figure out how to get into town), let him sit this one out out. Consequentially, he won't get the XP from the encounter, but that's no big deal. I personally wouldn't give him an NPC, because, although I do technically see the point of it, I really don't see the point of it.

I had a couple thoughts on things he could do 'on his own', but realized I was coming up with things to accommodate him separating from the party, and that's not something I would normally do for my other, established, players. I've always tended to run a game where the world responds heavily to the players in-game actions, but I've never created things 'just because' it was convenient for the player or character. That being said there are a couple things I didn't think too much about - farmers outside the city proper that might need rescuing, for example.

[Edenbeast]

I'm not sure whether I understand correctly, but the town gets overrun, an NPC calls everyone to retreat to the inn, and this guy heads into the forest? Isn't that in the opposite direction, directly into the hands of the enemy? I can understand a hermit may be more comfortable in the wilds, but he plays his hermit in a manner that reminds me of a lawful stupid paladin.
Anyway, I'd give him one last chance to retreat in the right direction before something nasty happens.

[Knaight]

A temporary PC is probably the best option here. I've found that they're useful in general, and that having one every so often improves the game pretty much regardless.

[Callin]

Then I misread, i am sorry. Still I would have him tell me what he wants to do and let him run a NPC for a short bit. If his actions cause his death then its a lesson learned.

[Ceaon]

Give him a temporary pc, preferably one that is related somehow to his current pc. If the temp one dies, more reason for the hermit to join the party. If the temp one survives, the player can choose why the temp would invite the hermit instead. Make the player tell the story!

[Typewriter]

In case anyone is curious:

I came up with a four prong approach to this.
1. He has the opportunity to warn and possibly rescue villagers.
2. He gets knocked out while helping people and made into a prisoner.
3. He kills some enemies and finds notes detailing something that would motivate him into going back into town.
4. He hides in the trees and plays an NPC I put together for him.

As the player retreated from the town to the forest he noticed that some of the enemies in the attacking force noticed his retreat. Then, shortly after he hit the tree line, various farms and small buildings outside the town proper got attacked. One of those buildings was within range of the tree line. He decided to try to intervene, which started to go poorly for him so he decided to fall back. Sadly, he failed to notice that a trio of goblins that had seen him flee the city earlier had been sneaking up on him. Between his terrible stealth rolls and his perception failing to notice the goblins before they were on top of him he got knocked out.

He made a comment/joke that it seemed by design that it worked out this way which made me feel kind of bad. I actually figured he'd wind up in the forest the entire session as he has good speed and perception. I did make a comment later in the session saying that I had actually had an NPC prepared for him to play as I didn't expect him to get caught and he took that well.

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

[Callin]

Glad to hear it worked out for everyone. I love success stories.

[Phion]

I don't get why people are saying he RPed bad, I mean he did what he felt his character would do and given the background it sounds about right ( I believe what you mean is that you find such behaviour inconvenient, which is a shame). If anything and no offense to the OP this was incorrect DMing, WHY would his character feel inclined to stay with the group after such a short period? You shouldn't just presume that everyone at the table is buddy buddy already and wants to play a hero and more to the point they shouldn't be looked down on for not playing such a generic personality, when is it ever that easy to make a strong group of companions in real life? Never. There is even a model referred to as forming, storming, norming and performing in relation to team work.

Personally in that scenario I would have allowed him to go into the forest without being spotted as a hermit of the forest would likely know paths that would avoid detection while the attacker would avoided the difficult terrain as they are trying to advance an attack. Your messenger idea or some method of drawing him back to the group was actually the correct idea; I don't get why this would be rewarding his behavior but that's likely because I don't believe in such things as punishments and rewards. There is only consequences of actions i.e. it was easy enough to run and hide in the forest but how is he going to get back to the party in the middle of the raid? Thus natural balance through logic of the situation.

[Typewriter]

I don't get why people are saying he RPed bad, I mean he did what he felt his character would do and given the background it sounds about right ( I believe what you mean is that you find such behaviour inconvenient, which is a shame). If anything and no offense to the OP this was incorrect DMing, WHY would his character feel inclined to stay with the group after such a short period? You shouldn't just presume that everyone at the table is buddy buddy already and wants to play a hero and more to the point they shouldn't be looked down on for not playing such a generic personality, when is it ever that easy to make a strong group of companions in real life? Never. There is even a model referred to as forming, storming, norming and performing in relation to team work."

I've said repeatedly that the guy was roleplaying well, and that it was something that took me off guard. The reason why I made the assumption that he would go into the city is that this is a game and most people I've played with make some degree of exception to their characters in order to make things progress - especially when it comes to forming a party. I wouldn't expect him to completely betray his characters morals or premise in order to make things move forward, but first session of a game, DM is obviously trying to get the party together, maybe I go to the inn instead of running like what I think might be more in character. The guy not doing this was not a bad thing - he role-played well. BUT - based off of what I've seen and who I've played with, most players would have gone with the group to keep things running smoothly.



Personally in that scenario I would have allowed him to go into the forest without being spotted as a hermit of the forest would likely know paths that would avoid detection while the attacker would avoided the difficult terrain as they are trying to advance an attack.

I disagree with this completely - the player had no skills or anything that would grant him bonuses, and I wasn't going to give him some just because it fit his story. That would be roughly equivalent of giving a character whose background stated that he was a diplomat the ability to resolve disputes despite having no social skills for his character.


Your messenger idea or some method of drawing him back to the group was actually the correct idea; I don't get why this would be rewarding his behavior but that's likely because I don't believe in such things as punishments and rewards. There is only consequences of actions i.e. it was easy enough to run and hide in the forest but how is he going to get back to the party in the middle of the raid? Thus natural balance through logic of the situation.

It's rewarding because it would be creating game elements that don't exist so that he could be a hero as a result of a specific action. I don't want to punish him, but I also don't want to say, "Oh, you get your own little side mission with special rewards and a chance to 'save the day' because you did your own special thing that nobody else was doing". The reason why I didn't want to do this is because, prior to him taking the action he did, I had no reason for scouts to be wandering through the woods away from the main force carrying important missives, but after this happened I started trying to engineer reasons for it to make sense. I prefer for the world, not the DM, to respond to a characters actions.

[Kyutaru]

Don't let him save the day then. Let him pull a Gandalf and "return to you now at the turn of the tide".

His penalty for splitting the party is that he doesn't get to participate in the early part of the adventure session. But once it progresses a bit, you have him show up like Tuxedo Mask and join the fray. Maybe he even throws a flower at the villain as his grand entrance saving the party somehow at a critical moment.

[MadBear]

I think the best thing to do would be to hand him read the "Making tough decisions" article by Rich Burlew. It does a great job of explaining how to have your character "react differently", and how "that's what my character would do" not encapsulate all decisions by a player.

[JAL_1138]

The traditional penalty for splitting the party is dying horribly to the stupidest monsters the DM can find in the Monstrous Manual. Or getting jumped and mugged of all valuable possessions. Or getting jumped and mugged of all valuable possessions by the stupidest monsters the DM can find in the book. </grognard>

[Typewriter]

Don't let him save the day then. Let him pull a Gandalf and "return to you now at the turn of the tide".

His penalty for splitting the party is that he doesn't get to participate in the early part of the adventure session. But once it progresses a bit, you have him show up like Tuxedo Mask and join the fray. Maybe he even throws a flower at the villain as his grand entrance saving the party somehow at a critical moment.

Everything is all resolved now (see my prior posts if you're curious), I was just trying to avoid rewarding or punishing him, but with him being new I was afraid of skirting that line.


I think the best thing to do would be to hand him read the "Making tough decisions" article by Rich Burlew. It does a great job of explaining how to have your character "react differently", and how "that's what my character would do" not encapsulate all decisions by a player.

I somehow never noticed that - I read a bunch of Rich's articles a bit ago, but seemed to have missed that one. I'll read over it, and maybe share it with my group (don't want anyone to feel singled out :P)

[Shining Wrath]

The traditional penalty for splitting the party is dying horribly to the stupidest monsters the DM can find in the Monstrous Manual. Or getting jumped and mugged of all valuable possessions. Or getting jumped and mugged of all valuable possessions by the stupidest monsters the DM can find in the book. </grognard>

The stupidest monsters in the MM typically don't have any treasure, except in their digestive tracts from swallowing you whole

[Phion]

I can defiantly see why you did things in a certain way and nothing you did as a DM was harsh, I must apologize I read too many comments of what others were saying and felt like everyone had "oh the new guy" kind of attitude and too much of my response was aimed at you directly.

I personally would have started the mission a bit smaller and gave the party time to establish themselves as a group rather than jumping straight into a raid. I know your group already has probably established their play style and would prefer to get straight into it but such segments before a big campaign are still fun.

[JAL_1138]

The stupidest monsters in the MM typically don't have any treasure, except in their digestive tracts from swallowing you whole

Often true for either definition of stupid, low Int or ridiculous. I meant ridiculous, but either works (and there's a lot of overlap). Time to bust out the old-school monsters, like the Flail Snail, the Stench Kow, the Brain Mole, the Executioner's Hood, the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, the Vegepygmy...

[Typewriter]

I personally would have started the mission a bit smaller and gave the party time to establish themselves as a group rather than jumping straight into a raid. I know your group already has probably established their play style and would prefer to get straight into it but such segments before a big campaign are still fun.

What I normally do with my group is actually have everyone start off as children with no character sheets and run a session where they grow up together. I find out the races people want to play and flesh out parents and sometimes siblings. Other NPC children get created, etc. etc. Then there's a structure of things that happen over the course of a few years.

Start - Player One, your father is abusive. Player Two, your mother died during childbirth and your father is distant. Up to the ages of ten what kind of things do you guys do? Play a lot of games, try to help out around the house, etc. etc. This age is usually a bit beyond what most people want to do so we go over it pretty quickly, but decisions they make might have an impact on how later things develop.

Next - Alright, player three - your father gets promoted to head of the city guard. NPC child John is starting to become a bully. He especially likes to pick on the girls, two NPCs and you player four get picked on him a lot. What do you all do? Player One joins the bully as he's been abused and thinks that passing the cycle on makes sense. Player two stays out of it. Player three is influenced by his father and tries to stop/fight the bullies. Player four turns to books - both for ideas on how to resolve the situation and as an excuse to not go outside and face the bullies.

Starting around the ages of 12-13 I'll have certain story elements for the main campaign drop while other stuff continues onward. At this age the kids have to choose masters to apprentice under AND a group of Orc bandits have started charging a 'protection tax' on the town. Maybe some villagers move away and become NPCs in towns the party might venture to later in the campaign. Or maybe they die and the party will stumbled upon their body/belongings years later.

14-15 the town gets attacked and player threes father gets killed by a "hobgoblin with a red sash" or something. What did everyone do during the attack - they were ordered to hide, did they follow those orders or did they try to join in and help? Other minor events occur as well.

At 16 things really start to pick up - the town still hasn't chosen a replacement for player threes father and some townsfolk think that player three should do it. Meanwhile NPC Jenny has a crush on player three and wants him to spend all day with her. Oh, and those Orc bandits are now asking for more protection money.

Age 17 - Tensions are getting high with the Orcs repeatedly demanding more money. In addition John joins up with them. Jenny is Johns brother and she's worried about him and wants people to look out for him. Oh, and a mysterious figure has been coming to town asking about Player Two's mother. Maybe he gives a trinket to player two that has plot elements that will come up later.

Age 18 - The Orcs had a small skirmish with some farmers in the area and have vowed to wipe the town out. John left them and came to warn everyone, saying he is deeply sorry for his actions. The good news is that he knows where the Orc Leader is camped out - an old network of caves a few days journey to the west. A small group could probably kill him and the group would disband. The mayor looks for volunteers, specifically looking towards the young adults because the majority of the town guard/militia wants to prepare for an attack.

At this point everyone gets a character sheet and becomes level one. Stats are partially derived from the actions they took as they grew up. Spend a lot of time reading and apprenticed under a wizard? High INT. Spent a lot of time outside and helped out the smithy? High STR. Things like this, though I still give the players the ability to modify the stats if they don't like what they got.

During the attack on the Orc leader the party finds out that he took his orders from an eccentric hobgoblin named Hobbo or something and he is known for wearing a red sash. They also find out that the Orcs have been selling bodies to someone at some location. When they get back they're heroes. They also find out that the mysterious stranger showed up looking for player two and left a message saying to find him in some other town. Now they have three plot hooks (which may or may not be tied together), they know each other because they grew up together, etc. etc. And this is usually only about half of the plot hooks that pop up as everyone grows up together. I try to make sure that every player has at least one thing that will show up later.

I've mentioned this a few times and I know a lot of people hate the idea of it - I've been repeatedly told that it would be good for a 'new group' but that experienced players wouldn't want the DM to have say over their characters stats. My core group of players has been going for ten years, and every one of them has been playing for years before that, and they all love it. Usually when someone takes over as DM for a campaign or two they do the same thing. The only *real* downside to it is that it harder to kill characters. Nobody wants the character they literally grew up with and who has deep ten year old plot hooks to die at level 3 because of a trap. I, as DM, don't want that either. Sometimes we just deal with it, sometimes the campaign premise has a resurrection mechanic set in it that applies penalties for death without getting rid of the character altogether. The reason why I didn't do it with this campaign is actually because of that - using a new system with new players likely means a lot of player death, and I didn't want the whole 'growing up together' thing going on in a high risk campaign.

tl;dr - Normally I agree with you and have an entire session devoted to backstory/why the party is together, but decided to avoid it this time because of the high risk nature of a new system.

[Callin]

I am glad that works out for you and your group but HOLY HELL I dont want that much involvement from my DM in my character backstory. I tell the DM mine and he can do plot hooks from it, but dang dude that is above and beyond haha.

[Typewriter]

I am glad that works out for you and your group but HOLY HELL I dont want that much involvement from my DM in my character backstory. I tell the DM mine and he can do plot hooks from it, but dang dude that is above and beyond haha.

I usually give them players a choice as to whether we're going to do this or not, and it's usually the way we go, but sometimes people want to have their own backstories so we do something else. Honestly, I think the reason they like it so much is because the first time I did it, it went really well. I told them they were growing up and then when they turned 18 an adventure hook type thing would occur that would cause them to move on together. Then, when they were 16, I had some special NPCs visiting (the specifics aren't important), but the town was throwing a celebration in honor of the visitors. One of my players, who had been training as a bard, said, "I play my harp and begin to sing songs of their glory", to which I replied, "Everything seems normal at first, but they don't slow their approach. Before your eyes they crash into the town proper where everyone is singing and blood begins to flow". Entire town got wipe out, the party was subdued and forced to watch. The whole 16/18 switcheroo caught people so off guard that it still gets brought up fairly often 8 years later.

[Phion]

What I normally do with my group is actually have everyone start off as children with no character sheets and run a session where they grow up together. I find out the races people want to play and flesh out parents and sometimes siblings. Other NPC children get created, etc. etc. Then there's a structure of things that happen over the course of a few years.

Start - Player One, your father is abusive. Player Two, your mother died during childbirth and your father is distant. Up to the ages of ten what kind of things do you guys do? Play a lot of games, try to help out around the house, etc. etc. This age is usually a bit beyond what most people want to do so we go over it pretty quickly, but decisions they make might have an impact on how later things develop.

Next - Alright, player three - your father gets promoted to head of the city guard. NPC child John is starting to become a bully. He especially likes to pick on the girls, two NPCs and you player four get picked on him a lot. What do you all do? Player One joins the bully as he's been abused and thinks that passing the cycle on makes sense. Player two stays out of it. Player three is influenced by his father and tries to stop/fight the bullies. Player four turns to books - both for ideas on how to resolve the situation and as an excuse to not go outside and face the bullies.

Starting around the ages of 12-13 I'll have certain story elements for the main campaign drop while other stuff continues onward. At this age the kids have to choose masters to apprentice under AND a group of Orc bandits have started charging a 'protection tax' on the town. Maybe some villagers move away and become NPCs in towns the party might venture to later in the campaign. Or maybe they die and the party will stumbled upon their body/belongings years later.

14-15 the town gets attacked and player threes father gets killed by a "hobgoblin with a red sash" or something. What did everyone do during the attack - they were ordered to hide, did they follow those orders or did they try to join in and help? Other minor events occur as well.

At 16 things really start to pick up - the town still hasn't chosen a replacement for player threes father and some townsfolk think that player three should do it. Meanwhile NPC Jenny has a crush on player three and wants him to spend all day with her. Oh, and those Orc bandits are now asking for more protection money.

Age 17 - Tensions are getting high with the Orcs repeatedly demanding more money. In addition John joins up with them. Jenny is Johns brother and she's worried about him and wants people to look out for him. Oh, and a mysterious figure has been coming to town asking about Player Two's mother. Maybe he gives a trinket to player two that has plot elements that will come up later.

Age 18 - The Orcs had a small skirmish with some farmers in the area and have vowed to wipe the town out. John left them and came to warn everyone, saying he is deeply sorry for his actions. The good news is that he knows where the Orc Leader is camped out - an old network of caves a few days journey to the west. A small group could probably kill him and the group would disband. The mayor looks for volunteers, specifically looking towards the young adults because the majority of the town guard/militia wants to prepare for an attack.

At this point everyone gets a character sheet and becomes level one. Stats are partially derived from the actions they took as they grew up. Spend a lot of time reading and apprenticed under a wizard? High INT. Spent a lot of time outside and helped out the smithy? High STR. Things like this, though I still give the players the ability to modify the stats if they don't like what they got.

During the attack on the Orc leader the party finds out that he took his orders from an eccentric hobgoblin named Hobbo or something and he is known for wearing a red sash. They also find out that the Orcs have been selling bodies to someone at some location. When they get back they're heroes. They also find out that the mysterious stranger showed up looking for player two and left a message saying to find him in some other town. Now they have three plot hooks (which may or may not be tied together), they know each other because they grew up together, etc. etc. And this is usually only about half of the plot hooks that pop up as everyone grows up together. I try to make sure that every player has at least one thing that will show up later.

I've mentioned this a few times and I know a lot of people hate the idea of it - I've been repeatedly told that it would be good for a 'new group' but that experienced players wouldn't want the DM to have say over their characters stats. My core group of players has been going for ten years, and every one of them has been playing for years before that, and they all love it. Usually when someone takes over as DM for a campaign or two they do the same thing. The only *real* downside to it is that it harder to kill characters. Nobody wants the character they literally grew up with and who has deep ten year old plot hooks to die at level 3 because of a trap. I, as DM, don't want that either. Sometimes we just deal with it, sometimes the campaign premise has a resurrection mechanic set in it that applies penalties for death without getting rid of the character altogether. The reason why I didn't do it with this campaign is actually because of that - using a new system with new players likely means a lot of player death, and I didn't want the whole 'growing up together' thing going on in a high risk campaign.

tl;dr - Normally I agree with you and have an entire session devoted to backstory/why the party is together, but decided to avoid it this time because of the high risk nature of a new system.

I think that's a great set up we have done a few campaigns with a similar approach in the past and it helps to prevent simple min maxing in its own little way. In that case it was just the way the cookie crumbled this time, at least you took the time to consider how you would even proceed with the situation and from what you said about the end result no harm done.

As for new players literally had a new guy yesterday who was confused and decided to attack the barbarian, as you can imagine the party instantly went to kill him but I manged to calm them down. By all rights should have just let him die but that would have just put him off I think so I managed to come up with terms and conditions to let him live and been explaining how the game is played and why his actions were stupid (he thought it was just a board game and found it so confusing that people would get so defensive about attacking a party member, the paladin dragonborn Shivar was the hardest to calm down).