Encouraging Friendship Among Psyhopaths

[Meepo_]

I am going to be starting up a new 5e game soon, and I'm not sure what to do with the current set of players. They have played together for two of three sessions with earlier versions, whereas I am DMing as the resident veteran.

They have discussed amongst themselves character concepts, and most of the characters will be completely crazy, from a mad genius to a homicidal maniac. They also aren't exactly team players, set on immediately killing each other for building 'unoptimized characters' as soon as they meet. What does a DM do? I've already thought about the consequences of setting them loose upon a poor town of commoners, and I can't see them playing as a party for long.

I've already thought about imprisoning / press ganging them in order to force teamwork to escape. How effective would this really be?

Just wondering how I can prevent the game from turning to a free-for-all of theft and murder.

[Tallis]

They're out to kill each other? Let them. Then have them roll up new characters.
If you're set on making them work together I wouldn't go the press gang route. The players are likely to resent it. Unless your goal is to work together to escape their bonds. I would present them with a villain (or maybe in this case good guy) that they obviously can't defeat alone. Make it in their best interests to work together. Be sure you make it a situation wherein they can't just ignore the opponent.

[dragsvart]

give them a mutual enemy. my suggestion is make a DMPC and have him/her betray the party in the first session, then make them the villain of the campaign

[kaoskonfety]

Run a game of HOL (human occupied landfill) or Paranoia. Maybe Kobolds Ate My Baby.
Any of these sounds FAR closer to what they are looking for.

Or let them do their show down - It doesn't sound like it will take long, half a session or so (PC's are pretty deadly) and then ask what they actually want to do... perhaps the last man standing gets to play the group "Belkar" as a prize for winning?

Or just tell them you are not running this because its doesn't sound like you want to?

[JoeJ]

Let them kill each other. If they want to spend a session or two in PvP, give them the chance. Then devote a session to creating new characters together and tell them that this time they all know each other, and the players have to tell you how. Are they relatives? Childhood rivals? Army buddies? Are some of them former (or current) lovers? Whatever they want, as long as they all have some kind of a background together.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Or just sit down with them during "session zero" (it comes before session one, hopefully before these dweebs have FUBAR'd the whole campaign) and have a serious talk. You need to explain to them that you're not interested in running a game full of backstabby psycho nut-job PvP shenanigans, and they can either behave like adult gamers or find a masochist GM who's ready to cater to their vicarious serial-killing power-gaming fantasies.

Or something like that. Maybe a little more diplomatic? Are these friends of yours?

[ChelseaNH]

You could make them slave gladiators, which would allow both the band-together-to-escape and the murder-each-other-on-sight scenarios, and see which they go for.

Is there any reason to want to go PvP if you realize that you might not come out the winner?

[HammeredWharf]

I just tell my players not to make characters who can't stay in the party. If a character isn't in the party, that character isn't in the party, aka is an NPC. PvP games can be fun, but D&D is one of the worst ways to PvP that I can think of.

[Sigreid]

Tell them they can get together and have their murder fest without you being there and when they have characters that can pay attention to something other than murdering each other to let you know. Or maybe tell them Call of Duty is a much better platform for their little competition.

[Kane0]

Say to them "Each of you has to know and be friends with at least one other party member."

Then when they try to haggle you can compromise at acquaintance :smallwink:

[Sigreid]

Say to them "Each of you has to know and be friends with at least one other party member."

Then when they try to haggle you can compromise at acquaintance :smallwink:

I've done this sort of thing before. "You all know each other, and have lived in the same town for a minimum of x years. It's home".

[Brendanicus]

If your players are that dead-set on PvP, then just let them throw slugs for the first session. That's clearly fun to them, so let them have their good time.

For future reference, I usually tell my players ther characters their plot hook before the first session starts. For example, if the campaign starts with a discredited wizard hiring the party to plunder ancient ruins on some noble's land, I give them a printed copy of the very letter they shall receive in character. By telling your players in advance, they can make characters that would want to go on this quest, as opposed to a bunch of sociopaths that attack on sight.

[Talyn]

Real question, and this is not being sarcastic - why on earth would you want to run a campaign for these guys?

It doesn't sound like you would have a good time at all. Are you all friends outside of game? Are these the only people you can find who want to game with you?

[Kane0]

Have you ever played munchkin?

[Meepo_]

Or something like that. Maybe a little more diplomatic? Are these friends of yours?

Yes, they are friends who all show an interest in D&D. My usual group is playing Shadowrun atm.



You could make them slave gladiators, which would allow both the band-together-to-escape and the murder-each-other-on-sight scenarios, and see which they go for.

Is there any reason to want to go PvP if you realize that you might not come out the winner?

"Because the warlock picked the stupid book", to quote one of them.



I'm going to try out the whole mutual-enemy idea, along with putting them in a situation where they can either work together or choose to face the consequences of killing each other. I also really like the idea of the PCs already knowing each other, so maybe I'll do all three?

Thanks for all the advice, I've never really been in a game where the first fight happened to be the first character introduction (same group playing Pathfinder) and I don't want to ruin gaming for them.

[Meepo_]

Have you ever played munchkin?

Yes, yes I have. So have some of them. Maybe there's a correlation here...

[steeldragons]

I recommend new players.:smalltongue:

[JakOfAllTirades]

Yes, they are friends who all show an interest in D&D. My usual group is playing Shadowrun atm.




"Because the warlock picked the stupid book", to quote one of them.



I'm going to try out the whole mutual-enemy idea, along with putting them in a situation where they can either work together or choose to face the consequences of killing each other. I also really like the idea of the PCs already knowing each other, so maybe I'll do all three?

Thanks for all the advice, I've never really been in a game where the first fight happened to be the first character introduction (same group playing Pathfinder) and I don't want to ruin gaming for them.

I wouldn't worry about "ruining gaming" for them. They seem pretty well focused on ruining it for each other, IMHO. It sounds like you're going to great lengths to run a campaign that won't implode immediately so that everyone involved (including yourself) can enjoy it for more than a session or two. I hope it works out. But if the players simply refuse to wise up and you're not having a good time, you have the option of letting them know it's not working for you. Then it's their problem.

Always remember: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't hold its head underneath until the bubbles stop coming out.