What is Teamwork?

[imaginary]

I'd ideally like to run a campaign with a focus around teamwork. I personally am tired of party infighting, selfish characters, and the lack of cooperation between players. So I wanted to open ask a few questions and open up the idea for input.


What do you consider teamwork to be?
How could you foster teamwork in a game?
How could you set expectations before hand?
What are some good examples of party teamwork?


For example, one way I considered trying to setup a campaign is having the players all build the party together. And have them all have some common background or connection, such as being a part of a military style unit where teamwork is critical.

Thoughts welcome. Is this even a worthy goal?

~imaginary

[Jerrykhor]

If you can find players who are willing, why not? Its more logical anyway.

[Arkhios]

I did this by uniting the group via an adventuring guild. The player characters are all part of the said guild right from the start (and even if new character had to be made, the guild would have an abundance of such people, because the guild exists and thrives without the PC's).

The guild would provide players with missions, which in this case, are contracts made by people who prefer to remain nameless for their convenience, mostly because the setup is a rather criminally active city, so the contracts' details are often rather illicit, and any connection to their contractor would be harmful. So, they use the guild's services to accomplish these missions to further their own agendas.

While I originally intended for the game to be a series of one-shots, with a loose connection to each other through the guild contracts, the situation became a bit snafu and fubar both at the same time :smallbiggrin:

It's been some 4 or 5 sessions now, and while they completed their first mission on their first session, the after-effects of that contract have caused them to try and track down their contractor, because there turned out to be a reason to claim "unfinished business" (they were framed for a murder they didn't do, and assigned for arrest and likely for an execution as punishment).

Now, the situation is that I have the group working together for a common goal, for a reason, and they know to co-operate, if for nothing else, then because they can't trust no-one else in the city, and alone they might get captured or killed (one of them actually was captured by the corruptible "law" enforcement, as an explanation for his absence from one session, and their next session was to free him from captivity).

TL;DR: What is teamwork? Give the group an incentive to work together, and they will.

[Ninja_Prawn]

What do you consider teamwork to be?
How could you foster teamwork in a game?
How could you set expectations before hand?
What are some good examples of party teamwork?

There are probably a few different ways you could define 'teamwork' in a D&D context. If you asked me, the most important factor would be about the characters working together to combine their skills and achieve things they couldn't do alone. For example, you could be a fighter, but you've been sent to fight a bunch of invisible guys. So you go and grab your bard friend because she knows Faerie Fire and you work together to beat the invisible jerks. Yay teamwork!

The thing is, D&D usually enforces this kind of teamwork by its nature as a small-unit tactical combat game. If you've got four PCs and one is a tank, one is a DPR, one is a healer and one is a controller, teamwork happens whenever one of them is doing their intended meta-role. But perhaps that's not enough for you? You mentioned selfish, bickering characters... are your players so set on this that they don't co-operate in the metagame either? Because honestly, that's just antisocial and probably stems from OOC problems.

As for actively fostering teamwork, you could try to create challenges that cannot be solved by any one character alone, or ones that require two actions at the same time. For example, let's say an evil princess has locked a beautiful dragon in her dread tower. She's threatening to execute the dragon unless you give her the doomsday device, but then lightning strikes the tower and it catches fire! Now the party has two objectives (stop the princess and don't die in a fire) and they'll need to work together to make sure the right people are doing the right things.

And if you're more into creating a more a harmonious atmosphere... well that's harder. Maybe mandate good-only characters for your next game? Or try for a light-hearted comedy-style game? Without knowing your players it's hard to know what might make a difference there.


For example, one way I considered trying to setup a campaign is having the players all build the party together. And have them all have some common background or connection, such as being a part of a military style unit where teamwork is critical.

This definitely works in terms of giving everyone a goal. I'm playing in a game (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?505983-Crimson-Ashes-IC) right now where we all part of a military unit. It won't stop people being selfish, though, if that's what they want to do.

Edit: I suppose everything I just said presupposes that the party has a shared goal. If they don't, why would you expect them to work together? Most of the time, the game should be giving the party a shared goal - which could be something as simple as "you're all being paid by this guy to do this thing," and doesn't necessarily need the PCs to childhood friends. Often, it's easier to put the goal on the table before the players write their characters: "there's an insane cult trying to unleash a monster on the world and you all need to stop them". That way, they won't end up making anything too incompatible.

[Cespenar]

This is funny in perspective. My own group is so tactical and high on teamwork that we almost play as one unified mind. It gets kinda boring after a while, and paints a rather uncolorful picture. I'd prefer some unoptimized moves made for selfish or in-character reasons in my group if I could.

[furby076]

1) They party does not keep secrets from each other
2) The party does not steal from each other
3) the party splits loot fairly (doesn't mean equal $$$ split, but can mean what's best for the group "yes we would all like to take the cloak of displacement, but the front line fighter would benefit most from it." "a wand of healing would be great for the rogue to have, so he can help the cleric heal in a pinch". "the ring of fire resistance makes the most sense for the wizard who always gets hit by ranged fire spells")
4) THe party does not kill each other
5) The party listens to each other and sacrifices their individual want to do what helps "yes, I know you want to cast spiritual weapon, but the fighter is down 50% HP, and may not survive next round. Heal him up...The benefit to you? He is your meat shield"

[Haldir]

You're all very nice DM's.

My players are currently all under the same horrible curse. They work together as characters fairly well anyway, and I generally don't make encounters easy to lose, so I have no need to force them to work together.

You know what, looking at all of your well-adjusted, "no need to curse the party!" styles of play, I'm thinking I'm being soft. Time to make the curse more horrible.

[LordVonDerp]

Talk to the players about it during session 0.

[DireSickFish]

The thing about teamwork is that when it's there it is almost invisible. Everyone works towards the same ends and supports each other institutionally. If you want a story that has teamwork figure it out in Session 0. Make sure no one is playing a loner assassin in a party with a controlling paladin. Make sure the players are playing characters they like but also fit within the group. Make sure to give each character a personal individual reason to want the group to succeed. It would also help to tie the group together with the same goal, even if they have different reasons for it.

All of that will inspire teamwork and you can smooth out any rough edges by talking to them out of game when something starts to crop up.

Now if you want a game that's -about- teamwork, that's a whole different thing. If you want it to be the thrust of the game, then that needs to be tested and reinforced. It has to be a theme that comes up in the world.

The BBEG's henchmen act as a contrast to the party by working at cross purposes form each other. And the party would have been wiped out long ago if they'd worked together. The lore could have a great evil tamed only when the kings of 5 feuding empires set aside their differences to contain it. Hags work terrifying magic in a coven because they trust and work with each other to do so.

It needs to be the solution to problems the characters have. The theif's old master comes calling with blackmail trying to pressure him back into working for the guild. But the group member with a noble background has the connections to put the old guildmaster behind bars that he can't just bribe his way out of.

It also means that teamwork needs to be tested, and have big consequences for not being a team player. Screwing over the party for short term game happens often enough in games. But that should also catch up with the individual.

Making a game -about- teamwork would be a bit more setup, but a lot of fun. If your players go with their old selfish ways then the world is doomed. Just make sure that the players care that the world is doomed. That's the hardest trick.

[JAL_1138]

Talk to the players about it during session 0.

This. Infighting, selfishness, etc. are typically due to OOC issues. Not necessarily major OOC problems, but just decisions like picking characters poorly suited to working with one another. It's not often a thing that can be solved in-game. Talk to the players about it.

[Cybren]

For example, one way I considered trying to setup a campaign is having the players all build the party together. And have them all have some common background or connection, such as being a part of a military style unit where teamwork is critical.

Thoughts welcome. Is this even a worthy goal?

~imaginary

the only thing i'd be cautious about here is that PCs rarely do well in a chain of command. Your group might be an exception, but i would expect them to go AWOL/desert/undermine their orders at every opportunity.

[DireSickFish]

the only thing i'd be cautious about here is that PCs rarely do well in a chain of command. Your group might be an exception, but i would expect them to go AWOL/desert/undermine their orders at every opportunity.

Yeah, giving them a common background is not going to make them work together any better than they already do. It takes some social engineering to figure out what each player wants from their character. Then making sure that those goals all support each other.

[pwykersotz]

Agreed with it being an OOC issue, my table has made 100% special snowflake loners before according to backstory, but they always work together super well. I have a sometimes-player who does the same but he never works well, regardless of how inclusively he builds.

If the players want to work together, the PC's will follow suit.

[Ninja_Prawn]

If the players want to work together, the PC's will follow suit.

If they don't want to work together, why are they playing D&D? It's a team game! Well, unless you run a solo game...

[JAL_1138]

It's almost hard to picture *not* using teamwork in combat, at least. Casters buff, debuff, or heal; the Rogue's SA often depends on an ally being within 5ft of an enemy, Bardic Inspiration (other than Cutting Words and Peerless Skill) can only be used on an ally...being even marginally effective in combat relies to a large extent on working together.

Apply the same logic out of combat. The party works better at accomplishing any given task if they help each other. Someone with a great Perception works well with someone with a great Investigation to find and disarm traps, or locate and open secret doors, for example.

[pwykersotz]

If they don't want to work together, why are they playing D&D? It's a team game! Well, unless you run a solo game...

It tends to be an IRL wisdom thing. The player in question thinks the goal of the game is to roleplay 'accurately' and has his primary DM reinforces this attitude. He's the type to justify something jerkish because he's CN. And he's ALWAYS CN. I think it's just because he's younger and less well-rounded and hasn't had many friends in his life. I'm hoping he'll improve with time, and I talk to him about it when I can.

[DireSickFish]

If they don't want to work together, why are they playing D&D? It's a team game! Well, unless you run a solo game...

I've had players not help out in a fight because it "wasn't their problem". I've had players pickpocket magic items from each other because they wanted them and the character was a thief.

Often the party wants to split up. It's understandable if they want to do that in town and each develop contacts and role play. Less so when they want to complete different quests for different factions and just go on them without the party members that aren't interested in it.

A lot of it is just second nature. You're playing a game to have fun and you're going to try and do whatever you think is fun and most interesting. You can start working at cross purposes when those things don't line up, are mutually exclusive, or require you to take from others.

[Potato_Priest]

The first time I ever had a party that worked together well is right now. In a high school campaign, we have actually been doing a great job of working together. Part of our teamwork is driven by the fact that we're always trying to get somewhere nicer. So far we've made it out of the abyss, and now we're close to making it out of a terror state where we are outlaws. Next, I expect, we will be striving to get out of the gnoll-infested jungle surrounding the terror state. In any case, our working together is founded on a few principles.
a) Out of combat, we discuss what we are going to do as a group and vote if there is disagreement.
b) we don't have irreconcilable alignments (everyone is either neutral or lawful evil)
c) In combat, the newer players listen to me for our strategy. This fits with my RP as an ex army captain.

An example of a relatively simple teamwork strategy we used:
We snuck up on a gnoll war camp with 20-30 gnolls inside. When we approached, they were too spread out to get them all with a fireball. So, after mulling over strategy for a minute, we decide to have me (Fire genasi barbarian) run out and attract the gnolls into a central area for AOE. I run out, the gnolls charge me, a few of them getting shots off, and the wizard and sorcerer fireball me and the whole crew. The paladin and I then run down and kill the remaining gnoll priests for a complete annihilation of the camp.

[imaginary]

Many thanks all for your thoughts and replies about Teamwork. There were a lot of good examples and ideas. :)

Based on the comments above, I put together this rough list of what I think teamwork might be. What do you guys (and gals) think? How can I make the list more concise?

What is teamwork?

working towards as common goal
putting others before yourself (including their life or needs before yours)
trusting and relying on each other (no one can do everything)
supporting each other and each others ideas
thinking of the group before thinking of one’s self
consider group tactics before individual tactics
looks out for one another
sharing openly what you know and believe

[Honest Tiefling]

Talk to the players about it during session 0.

Oh goodness yes. You MUST do this.


I did this by uniting the group via an adventuring guild. The player characters are all part of the said guild right from the start (and even if new character had to be made, the guild would have an abundance of such people, because the guild exists and thrives without the PC's).

See, I was in a game where the DM tried to do this. And it didn't work, for a variety of factors. The first being that one player didn't really care about the guild and ended up betraying it within five sessions. This is why I say to talk to your players!

Secondly...There wasn't a lot of reason to be invested in the guild. We didn't have contact with other members, we didn't KNOW of other members. I don't know if the other players got more, but the DM didn't even mention HOW I my PC got into this organization, I sorta had to make it up for myself.

Preventing the issue of not being attached to the guild (or other organization) is going to be important, because I think overall it is good advice. Even if there is no guild, there needs to be a reason to care about NPCs or the other PCs. If your players are creative, allow them to collaborate on the setting and even make a NPC contact. If some have free time, consider ways to have down-time RP or the like. Have a session 0 to get players interested in RPing with each other's characters. Get your players invested! THAT is how you get teamwork.

[Knaight]

This sounds like a playstyle thing - get everyone on board ahead of time, and all's well. With that said, having everyone make characters together is still generally a good idea if you have a game that follows one main party.

[Gizmogidget]

Teamwork is when everyone has one common goal and is willing to work together towards it.

What you have sounds like an out-of-character problem that needs to be solved with out-of-character methods.

Do all the players suffer from being insufferable jerks?

If they don't find the ones who do, and talk to them outside of the game in private. Give them fair warning that if they continue to be jerks that you will kick them out of the game.

That's my 2 cents.

[imaginary]

What I really want to do is lay the groundwork for a teamwork based campaign before the adventuring starts. There are multiple ways to do this as mentioned above.

One of them are simply talking to the players ahead of time, to set expectations, build teamwork and comradery among the players, and/or building the party together. I don't know that any of the players are a problem from the outset.

One other is giving the characters a reason to work together from the outset, including a common goals, shared background of some sort, and reason to care about each other. If they want to work together, they will figure out a way.

Once play begins, I like the idea of testing they teamwork and their loyalties, but I'd be happy if they just want to work together. <sarcastically>What could go wrong?

[ad_hoc]

It's been at least 15 years since I've seen someone try to do infighting in a game. I think it is largely a group-think issue.

I agree with others about the session 0. That is critical. Everyone should agree on what sort of game they want to play.

An organic way to have teamwork is just to have it be challenging. If the characters could die at any given time they're not going to fight amongst themselves. They will also willingly share with each other, ensuring that the gear and resources go to the characters who can benefit from it most.

[Sigreid]

What my group has done is all of the characters started with the same village as their home town. They could have any background and originally be from anywhere, but that town was home. Right away they all knew each other and had a common thing to fight for for that first adventure.

After the first adventure, well, they know they can depend on each other.

[imaginary]

What my group has done is all of the characters started with the same village as their home town. They could have any background and originally be from anywhere, but that town was home. Right away they all knew each other and had a common thing to fight for for that first adventure.

After the first adventure, well, they know they can depend on each other.

This gives me a fun idea. I was thinking of running Storm King's Thunder. In the first adventure the characters come across a town that was attacked. Perhaps the characters are all from that town. And either returning just after the attack, or be there during the attack. That might be a fun way to bring them together and provide a common goal.

[Sigreid]

This gives me a fun idea. I was thinking of running Storm King's Thunder. In the first adventure is coming across a town that was attacked. Perhaps the characters are all from that town. And either returning to find it after the attack, or be there during the attack. That might be a fun way to bring them together and provide a common goal.

It's a good way to start. Might I suggest they are out hunting and when they return...

[Arkhios]

Oh goodness yes. You MUST do this.



See, I was in a game where the DM tried to do this. And it didn't work, for a variety of factors. The first being that one player didn't really care about the guild and ended up betraying it within five sessions. This is why I say to talk to your players!

Secondly...There wasn't a lot of reason to be invested in the guild. We didn't have contact with other members, we didn't KNOW of other members. I don't know if the other players got more, but the DM didn't even mention HOW I my PC got into this organization, I sorta had to make it up for myself.

Preventing the issue of not being attached to the guild (or other organization) is going to be important, because I think overall it is good advice. Even if there is no guild, there needs to be a reason to care about NPCs or the other PCs. If your players are creative, allow them to collaborate on the setting and even make a NPC contact. If some have free time, consider ways to have down-time RP or the like. Have a session 0 to get players interested in RPing with each other's characters. Get your players invested! THAT is how you get teamwork.

I agree with the session 0 discussion.

I kinda forgot to say that I made it thoroughly clear for my players that the characters they make (right from the start and in the future) are going to be members of the guild, one way or another. This seems to have worked to a certain degree, although I did make one bad decision which has put a wedge between the guild leadership and the group, but I aim to fix that.

One thing I hadn't considered is that whether the group would interact with other groups of the guild members. I've so far had them interact with individual members only.

Maybe I should make a scenario where there are more than just their group.

I took an example from my DM and gave each of my players a homework to come up with at least one NPC outside the guild that they had been acquainted before. This caused a funny session last time, which included a lot of debauchery as well as investigation to uncover the plans of their nemesis.

While the NPC's were not affiliated with the guild I feel that the investment included in those NPC's made the group as a whole more intact, and put them through a great amount of group effort during the session.