PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Starting the Adventure



Drakevarg
2019-03-15, 07:03 PM
Lately I've been studying published campaign modules (Red Hand of Doom and Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, in particular) as a way to better understand campaign planning. Before now I've always had broad-stokes plans but rarely actually worked on any material beyond the next session. This was usually because I've just sort of grown to assume that players would somehow derail my plans. To be fair, it's been some time since the players have done anything truly unexpected beyond take three sessions to complete a scenario I expected to conclude in just one.

Anyway, one difficulty I've been having in these studies is figuring out how to begin. In basically all the modules I've checked, the party is assumed to be a cohesive unit with the necessary reputation to be called upon for aid. Even the ones that are designed to begin at first level work this way, assuming that promises of loot or cries for help will make the adventure the party's problem by default. Now personally, this has never made sense. The last times I've played in a campaign where that worked the party was either literally raised by a retired adventurer (in which case that's just an obvious lifestyle to them), or was lead by a paladin (in which case a call for help, especially one backed by coin to keep the others along, would inevitably be answered). Most of the other campaigns I've been in have either not been particularly party-focused or turned into what was essentially setpiece-tourism.

For my own part, I've repeatedly fallen back on the "you all wake up in a room far from home with no memory of how you got there" trick many times. It works, but it's a bit hackneyed. Other tricks I've tried include:
- You're all from the same small village, which is overrun by the undead.
- Party member has a personal interest in the supernatural, and triggers a disaster while investigating a local legend.
- Party decides to attempt conquest of the region they live in.
- You're all travelling along the same road for your own reasons, but as you roll into town you're brought before the local lord who asks you to investigate the source of some recent weirdness, because you look capable and his own guards are busy defending against said weirdness. (My least favorite start.)

Ultimately the question that I always come back to when trying to plan out a campaign is "how is this the party's problem?" Maybe I'm out of step with the expectations of D&D, but the bland conceit of "good heroes who do good because there is good that needs doing" has never felt sufficient for me. Nor has the presumption that the clink of coin will automatically garner the party's interest (this in particular stems from one of my early campaigns in which the party flatly ignored my attempted plot hooks until a wildly disproportional bounty was offered). As a result, every adventure I write is designed in consideration for the possibility that the party might just completely refuse to get involved unless circumstances demand it.

Once a storyline is begun it's easier to script because the party's interest is already established, but getting things started is hard. Why can't the local guard handle this? Why would someone request the aid of these 3-6 weirdos in particular? I've picked up the habit of, at the CharGen step, requiring every PC to answer the question of "what is stopping you from just going home at the earliest opportunity?" Maybe they're after a particular MacGuffin, maybe they're mercenaries by trade, whatever. They need a reason to go out and do stuff. But that doesn't really guarantee they'll be interested in the thing put in front of them in particular.

So I guess to bring this to some sort of point, what's your approach? There's a certain degree of responsibility on the part of the players to engage with the content before them rather than force the DM to narrate them hanging out at a bar for four hours, but actual investment is preferable to passive witnesses to your script.

Mike Miller
2019-03-15, 08:01 PM
2 campaigns ago, I just told my group they were starting on the way to a town to fulfill an obligation to their guild. Easy peasy

The last campaign I started with everyone being a resident of the city and dangled various plot hooks until they picked one. Less straightforward

Kyrell1978
2019-03-15, 08:32 PM
It depends. Did the players take the time and effort to give me a decent back story. If yes then I will try to incorporate something of that into the motivation to do the campaign I'm planning. If I am left to my own devices I try to pick something that makes sense based on each individual character. The church could send a paladin or cleric to investigate an increase in x activity, the thieves' guild that the rogue owes money to could call in a favor to clear the debt, the wizard could have hear rumor of a power mages spell book hidden in the area, etc. Sometimes, if its more of a short one(ish) shot, then you have all been called by the baron,duke, earl, king of xxxxxx works just as well.

Phhase
2019-03-16, 12:29 AM
They're getting paid and there's implicit loot to boot.

Ex: The guard is hiring a party to go out and find the source that is arming goblin attacks on the city with seemingly hodgepodge magical weapons and armor (usually cursed). They're getting paid AND they're defending the innocent AND there's an implicit promise of a magical forge/uncursed magical items.

Drakevarg
2019-03-16, 01:27 AM
They're getting paid and there's implicit loot to boot.

Ex: The guard is hiring a party to go out and find the source that is arming goblin attacks on the city with seemingly hodgepodge magical weapons and armor (usually cursed). They're getting paid AND they're defending the innocent AND there's an implicit promise of a magical forge/uncursed magical items.

But why the party specifically? Why this particular handful of weirdos? Not every campaign can start with the assumption that the party are the only combat-capable people in a tiny hamlet.

That's kind of my big stumbling block. If the story isn't implicitly personal - someone is out to kill them or their loved ones, specifically, for example - then why does the party have to deal with it and not someone else? "Because they're the player characters" feels like backwards reasoning to me. I suppose if the party has already selected their collective backstory as "mercenary team," that makes things much easier, but I don't really see that as a default assumption, at least not nearly as much as published modules seem to.

JoeJ
2019-03-16, 01:58 AM
You can start the campaign with the party on the road to Borderland Keep because they heard that the lord commander is paying bounties on bandits.

Tobtor
2019-03-16, 04:41 AM
I feel the same way as you. I also feel the "party-creation" often feels forced. Of course the answer depends on the campaign, the setting, the players etc. But here is a couple of ways I have handled it in the past.

A: delegate
A1. I once had a group of mixed players, where some had played maybe 2-4 campaigns, while there was also a very experienced player. I talked to that player and had him make a character concept I could work with. He wanted to be a fighter/knight type (not DnD-system, but change accordingly), so I had him be the 'trigger' of the adventure. He made a young man who had just been appointed knight by the king, and send on a messenger mission to "somewhere". He just needed to recruit a few helpers (the other players). Remember that even in DnD a level 1 fighter is one with training or experience, not a "random" guy. Thus a messenger mission works well for start characters: not complicated or requires an "already hero", but still something that you might not trust to commoners. Thus, on the mission it could develop into something more complex (start with a few obstacles to shake the party together and give them another level or so, then let them discover some clues about your main plot).

A2. Have the players figure out a reason some or all of them know each other beforehand. This is the cheap and easy solution, but does only work with players who makes concepts that fit somewhat together (all member of the same guild, from the same village, all traveling with the same caravan, all crew members of the same ship etc.).

B: Interact with the players backstories

This is more case dependent, and requires you to compromise more. But I have with some succes tried to mixed "my plot" with the characters back stories. One might be looking for some family heirloom (have that be in the hands of the villain), some ´might have lost a mother/father etc, have the murderer be the villain, someone might be looking for rare spells (let them discover the villain have some). Thus each player should have a reason to go on the mission on their own, but will not be strong enough individually, so forming a group might happen by itself.

But still it is difficult and I would also like to know how other people handle it.

Yora
2019-03-16, 04:53 AM
I always start with all the PCs being an existing party that already has a commitment. Players have to create characters that are part of this party and have signed up for the job. There are of course countless people in the game world that don't fit these criteria, but this campaign is not about them.

With the campaign I am preparing right now, the characters start as a party that failed its last job and was kicked out of the castle even though it wasn't their fault. And while they are traveling on the road to the next town for a new start, they come into possession of a magically sealed box with an adress on it. It's sandbox from there.

Pelle
2019-03-16, 05:42 AM
You can try giving the players the initial hook or the premise for the adventure before they start making their characters. That way, you can encourage that they make someone who wants to get going. No guarantees for that the players succeeding though, in that case, let the players know they have failed to make an appropriate character for the game. In can also be a good idea to make the players decide on a common unifying theme (like childhood friends, knightly order, mercenaries, pirates, private investigators etc) before they start making the characters. Then at least you can tailor a hook (or campaign) to fit that.

Zhorn
2019-03-16, 08:19 AM
B: Interact with the players backstories
This is the method I'm currently setting up for.
Just got a party of 6, some have played a few games previously, a couple others this is their first d&d game.
For backstories I request a couple of sentences from the players (emphasizing depth is entirely optional) that cover 3 key questions:

Where did they come from? (nebulous answers like "the local city, "a noble family", "was in the army" are all solid picks)
Why they became an adventurer? (revenge, greed, glory, rescue a loved one, etc)
What do they want to achieve? (This can be a meta answer where the player can say what they want to do with the character, or a narrative answer of what the character's big dream is)

Then tack on a sentence or two of my own to tie the character's goals in the direction of the first few sessions.
Example: LMoP, player wants to rescue their mother. Tack on a comment that Phandalin was the last known point of contact.
This isn't the full picture, it's just the mechanism to get them there.
Part 2 is to take the character with the vaguest motivations for adventuring (ie: "I want treasure" or "wanderlust") and have them with the work contract for the main quest hook *cough*working for Gundren*cough*, and their little personal quest I put in the backstory is they are on their way to a nearby town (say... Neverwinter) to hire a group for the job.
Part 3 is just something I've learned from a great many DM's online, start session 0 in an encounter with dice rolling. In this specific case; an inn at Port Llast caught of fire while everyone is asleep, our heroes (not knowing each other) were all at the inn and must band together to get everyone out alive. Start them with a teamwork moment, and then the cooperative team building role play feels a little more natural afterwards.
"Where you headed?"
"Wow, I'm heading roughly that way too?"
"I was going to find a work crew in the next town for a job, but we seem to make a good team! Wanna make some coin while going where you're already headed?"

TrashTrash
2019-03-16, 10:39 AM
In a half-baked and partially finished campaign I'm attempting to write, I'm having the first 2-3 players meet at an inn, with additional players being picked up around the area until the full party is assembled.

I like using the "existing party hiring new members" trick. It allows for new players joining the group, for a new group forming, or for lower-level characters joining higher-level ones, like if the campaign I'm in now merged with the other group our DM oversees.

It also makes it easy to establish a "party leader" by essentially picking the best leader in the group and going, "You know what? You're already a good leader of your small party, why don't you scale it up a little bit? You'd be able to do better quests and get better loot for it, and you'd make new connections."

doctor doughnut
2019-03-16, 11:24 AM
So I guess to bring this to some sort of point, what's your approach? There's a certain degree of responsibility on the part of the players to engage with the content before them rather than force the DM to narrate them hanging out at a bar for four hours, but actual investment is preferable to passive witnesses to your script.

Yes. I'm a big fan of 'here is the adventure', if you don't like it leave and never come back.

The typical published adventure does stick with Generic Cold Openings, but they have to. The whole point is anyone can pick up the book and use it.

The whole bit where players make massive back stories full of demands and then the DM back flips for each player and makes the world thier own personal playground is just not my style. I know some peole like the whole world to revolve around the players like a Soap Opera, but not me.

Yora
2019-03-16, 11:40 AM
In my experience, most players don't care about backstories either.

Drakevarg
2019-03-16, 12:22 PM
So then getting a party to form up is relatively easy - all you really need to do is make it part of the basic campaign premise. "You're all from the same small town and grew up together." "You're all on the same pirate crew." "You're a team of mercenaries." Et cetera.

But once that's done, what are some good ways to get them moving? If you were writing a superhero story, all you'd need to do is have Peril strike somewhere within their field of vision and next thing you know they're tugging on masks and leaping into action. But unless it's a personal threat (or just one that threatens everyone at once, like a raging fire or a zombie infestation), not all parties are going to respond to it by default. A murder in an alleyway isn't necessarily the party's problem unless they know the victim or are crime investigators, for example.

Obviously this is a "tailor it to the party" things, but in the broadest strokes what are some techniques to make the Inciting Incident the party's problem?

JoeJ
2019-03-16, 12:28 PM
If the PCs are supposed to be an established team, then simply declare that they are. Tell the players to create characters who are on the same police task force, or special ops. team, or starship crew, or city watch squad, or whatever they need to be. Then the campaign starts something like this:

GM: "You're all in the locker room getting ready for your shift. The captain appears on the monitor and says, 'as soon as you're changed come to my office. I've got an assignment for you.'"

The answer to the question of why these particular characters are involved in this adventure is that it is explicitly their job.

Pelle
2019-03-16, 01:55 PM
But unless it's a personal threat (or just one that threatens everyone at once, like a raging fire or a zombie infestation), not all parties are going to respond to it by default. A murder in an alleyway isn't necessarily the party's problem unless they know the victim or are crime investigators, for example.


Let the players know about the murder in the alleyway before they make their characters, and make them answer why their new character will get involved in the case.

Yora
2019-03-16, 02:01 PM
But once that's done, what are some good ways to get them moving? If you were writing a superhero story, all you'd need to do is have Peril strike somewhere within their field of vision and next thing you know they're tugging on masks and leaping into action. But unless it's a personal threat (or just one that threatens everyone at once, like a raging fire or a zombie infestation), not all parties are going to respond to it by default. A murder in an alleyway isn't necessarily the party's problem unless they know the victim or are crime investigators, for example.

I see. I think here we are getting to the heart of the problem.

It appears you assume the players are "a group of adventurers" and that the story of the campaign will be "heroes save the kingdom". Here's the thing: Those two assumptions come from two different ways of playing fantasy RPGs, and I don't think they are compatible.

I struggled with exactly this problem for several years. Just the other way around. I tried to plan a campaign about "a group of heroic defenders" who "go on adventures". I think this simply doesn't work.

If you have a group of roaming adventurers, they will roam around looking for excitement and making seemingly easy cash.
If you have a group of virtuous heroes who want to protect the world from evil, they will dedicate themselves to seeking out evil and defending people in danger.

Those are two quite different things. Think of any fantasy stories that are about heroes who oppose great evils in a heroic struggle. Almost none of them, if any, are about random passer-bys acting out of compassion and a sense of duty. There are a couple of stories about a lone vagrant standing up to thugs, but I don't think those work for playing RPGs as a group.

Drakevarg
2019-03-16, 03:49 PM
I see. I think here we are getting to the heart of the problem.

It appears you assume the players are "a group of adventurers" and that the story of the campaign will be "heroes save the kingdom". Here's the thing: Those two assumptions come from two different ways of playing fantasy RPGs, and I don't think they are compatible.

I struggled with exactly this problem for several years. Just the other way around. I tried to plan a campaign about "a group of heroic defenders" who "go on adventures". I think this simply doesn't work.

If you have a group of roaming adventurers, they will roam around looking for excitement and making seemingly easy cash.
If you have a group of virtuous heroes who want to protect the world from evil, they will dedicate themselves to seeking out evil and defending people in danger.

Those are two quite different things. Think of any fantasy stories that are about heroes who oppose great evils in a heroic struggle. Almost none of them, if any, are about random passer-bys acting out of compassion and a sense of duty. There are a couple of stories about a lone vagrant standing up to thugs, but I don't think those work for playing RPGs as a group.

I think I'm looking at it more like "group of capable people living relatively normal lives for their profession until [inciting incident] makes their lives more exciting." Sorta the Die Hard scenario of being presented with a perilous scenario that you're in a position to resolve and not really in a position to ignore. I think this mostly stems from a dislike of the basic conceit of a "professional adventurer" in the sense of the wandering morally upright adrenaline junkie.

But I do agree I think I'm looking at it in the wrong way. When I try to think of good examples in fiction for this sort of thing, then either then inciting incident happens to the protagonists specifically (the One Ring wasn't found in the possession of Frodo's neighbor), happened to everyone (zombie apocalypses aren't opt-out), or were specifically triggered by the protagonists (if Furiosa never turns left, Fury Road just doesn't happen).

So awareness and incentive are not sufficient as plot triggers, it needs to be worked out to involve the party directly.

JoeJ
2019-03-16, 04:21 PM
I think I'm looking at it more like "group of capable people living relatively normal lives for their profession until [inciting incident] makes their lives more exciting." Sorta the Die Hard scenario of being presented with a perilous scenario that you're in a position to resolve and not really in a position to ignore. I think this mostly stems from a dislike of the basic conceit of a "professional adventurer" in the sense of the wandering morally upright adrenaline junkie.

But I do agree I think I'm looking at it in the wrong way. When I try to think of good examples in fiction for this sort of thing, then either then inciting incident happens to the protagonists specifically (the One Ring wasn't found in the possession of Frodo's neighbor), happened to everyone (zombie apocalypses aren't opt-out), or were specifically triggered by the protagonists (if Furiosa never turns left, Fury Road just doesn't happen).

So awareness and incentive are not sufficient as plot triggers, it needs to be worked out to involve the party directly.

In one very large chunk of the fiction, adventures happen to knights errant who are out specifically looking for them, either alone or as a small group.

Drakevarg
2019-03-16, 04:38 PM
In one very large chunk of the fiction, adventures happen to knights errant who are out specifically looking for them, either alone or as a small group.

While true, knights errant are a fairly specific trope tied to a fairly specific context. Which isn't to say that it can't be adapted outside of those circumstances, but it's not a concept that can really be applied to all or even the majority of parties.

doctor doughnut
2019-03-16, 07:10 PM
But I do agree I think I'm looking at it in the wrong way. y directly.

I think so too.

Anyone with even a single level in a Player Character Class is already an elite 'special' person, even at 1st level. To become a Player Character Class is a big decision and it's no accident. That person has spent a LOT of time learning things way, way, way, way beyond the common average folk.

A 1st level PC is equivalent to a modern special forces solder, a scientist, a doctor or a FBI agent. So by default D&D, you would not find say a 1st cleric washing dishes at the Piggly Wiggly Tavern(that would be a 1st level commoner).

The wandering morally upright adrenaline junkie IS the bases of the D&D party. This trope is well documented...well, forever. Starting with the heroes of myth like Hercules or Thor, John Carter(of Mars), Conan, Paladin(the Western-"Have gun will travel reads the card of a man"), Kane(Kung Fu), Michael Knight(Knight Rider) and more.

The A-Team and Supernatural are both perfect fits.

Die Hard is not a very good example for what your talking about. John Mcklaine is already an experienced cop when the movie starts. Sure he is a normal average everyman, but that still makes him like a Warrior 2/Expert(investigator)1...maybe even Fighter 1/Rogue 1.

The Spy Who Dumpped Me is a MUCH better example of a every woman, commoner 2, who gets swept up in an adventure. Or the TV show Chuck. Or Sliders.

The thing is, you do what the PCs to be heroes...so they need skills and abilities to be able to do things. Sure the ''commoner game" is a thing, but that is one set style.

geppetto
2019-03-16, 07:36 PM
I ask players not to write backstories specifically to make this easier. First talk to the players and make sure they know its their job to play along and group up. Buy in is essential.

After that I've done
1. Your all from the same village/small town and are the ones with an adventuring mindset and some kind of training so naturally people expect you to handle the problem.
2. Bigger town. You are all part of a group who all answered a call for work on the bounty board. NPC describes the problem to whole group, it sounds too tough for 1 or 2 people so of course it makes sense to form groups and your PC's just sort of congregate together. Make them tell you why they choose each other. Make sure there are other groups too. Give them a little early competition.
3. They are all either guards or passengers in a merchant wagon train heading to somewhere far, far away for reasons. Its attacked the PC's defend themselves naturally and identify each other as other capable souls and start to chat.

In most of these situations I also toss a few red shirts in with the party who will die horribly throughout the first session or two leaving the PC's the only ones left and with a little opportunity for loot.

geppetto
2019-03-16, 07:54 PM
But why the party specifically? Why this particular handful of weirdos? Not every campaign can start with the assumption that the party are the only combat-capable people in a tiny hamlet.

That's kind of my big stumbling block. If the story isn't implicitly personal - someone is out to kill them or their loved ones, specifically, for example - then why does the party have to deal with it and not someone else? "Because they're the player characters" feels like backwards reasoning to me. I suppose if the party has already selected their collective backstory as "mercenary team," that makes things much easier, but I don't really see that as a default assumption, at least not nearly as much as published modules seem to.

The thing is "mercenary/treasure hunter" absolutely IS the default assumption. They made it when they chose a character class instead of NPC class expert-blacksmith or farmer.

That character explicitly decided to spend years training in a job that was really only good for killing people and stealing stuff and traveling unknown areas instead of something that a useful village homebody would do. Its their choice to leave home and adventure and they made it years before the first session of your campaign.

JoeJ
2019-03-16, 08:04 PM
While true, knights errant are a fairly specific trope tied to a fairly specific context. Which isn't to say that it can't be adapted outside of those circumstances, but it's not a concept that can really be applied to all or even the majority of parties.

It doesn't need to be applied to the majority of parties. There is no universal answer to your question, nor is there any need for one. All that's required is an answer that works for the one campaign you're starting.

That said, if you look past the specific title of knight errant, there's a more general principle of having the PCs already working in whatever job will get them going into the adventure when the campaign begins.

Drakevarg
2019-03-16, 08:52 PM
Anyone with even a single level in a Player Character Class is already an elite 'special' person, even at 1st level. To become a Player Character Class is a big decision and it's no accident. That person has spent a LOT of time learning things way, way, way, way beyond the common average folk.

A 1st level PC is equivalent to a modern special forces solder, a scientist, a doctor or a FBI agent.

The thing is "mercenary/treasure hunter" absolutely IS the default assumption. They made it when they chose a character class instead of NPC class expert-blacksmith or farmer.

That character explicitly decided to spend years training in a job that was really only good for killing people and stealing stuff and traveling unknown areas instead of something that a useful village homebody would do. Its their choice to leave home and adventure and they made it years before the first session of your campaign.

This sentiment is one so utterly incompatible with my outlook that any attempt to discuss the matter would simply be a waste of everyone's time. If anyone has advice not based on this assumption I'll listen, but if it's the view held by the community at large then I'm simply not going to find any actionable input here and will have to bow out of the thread.

geppetto
2019-03-16, 09:12 PM
This sentiment is one so utterly incompatible with my outlook that any attempt to discuss the matter would simply be a waste of everyone's time. If anyone has advice not based on this assumption I'll listen, but if it's the view held by the community at large then I'm simply not going to find any actionable input here and will have to bow out of the thread.

I'm curious why its incompatible? It seems obvious that a character class training is a serious investment of time and resources for a character. What possible reason could there be for a barbarian who actually wants to work as a pig farmer or a cleric whose career plan is waitress, a wizard who wants to work as a turnip farmer?

I can see some classes, sorcerer, psychic classes, probably a few others depending on system where your powers are naturally inborn and your just learning to deal with them where maybe they werent planning a career as an adventurer. But other then those whats the justification for the wasted investment of time and resources?

doctor doughnut
2019-03-16, 09:43 PM
This sentiment is one so utterly incompatible with my outlook that any attempt to discuss the matter would simply be a waste of everyone's time.

How so? Why is it so incompatable you can't even talk about it?

If your saying you don't ''like" the idea that PCs are powerful elite "mercenary/treasure hunter", that is fine.

If you want to change the game, and do the commoner type game, that is fine. Give each player a Commoner 1 type character, and come up with some way for them to 'suddenly' take a Player Class.

It's fine if you want to change the game and home brew things, just let everyone know your game is not default D&D.

Drakevarg
2019-03-16, 09:52 PM
How so? Why is it so incompatable you can't even talk about it?

You do understand the irony in even asking that question, yes?


If you want to change the game, and do the commoner type game, that is fine. Give each player a Commoner 1 type character, and come up with some way for them to 'suddenly' take a Player Class.

I'm curious why its incompatible? It seems obvious that a character class training is a serious investment of time and resources for a character. What possible reason could there be for a barbarian who actually wants to work as a pig farmer or a cleric whose career plan is waitress, a wizard who wants to work as a turnip farmer?

I can see some classes, sorcerer, psychic classes, probably a few others depending on system where your powers are naturally inborn and your just learning to deal with them where maybe they werent planning a career as an adventurer. But other then those whats the justification for the wasted investment of time and resources?

You've got it wrong. The part I'm rejecting is the basic concept that player classes are special, and that anyone who has one has extensive training. Any argument you make beginning with that conceit is going to fall on deaf ears.

doctor doughnut
2019-03-16, 10:02 PM
You've got it wrong. The part I'm rejecting is the basic concept that player classes are special, and that anyone who has one has extensive training. Any argument you make beginning with that conceit is going to fall on deaf ears.

Well, the rules DO say that Player Classes are special and the characters have taken long times to train to be what they are.

Again, if you want to change that and say people are born with class abilities, that is fine for your game.

I don't get you you'd be so ''deaf'' to it. You do grasp the concept that to do really anything you need training and practice? It's a very basic concept.

I do wonder what your thinking: so how is a Player Class Character, that is at least two or three times more powerful then all the common NPC folks, not special and elite?

Drakevarg
2019-03-16, 10:19 PM
Well, the rules DO say that Player Classes are special and the characters have taken long times to train to be what they are.

The rules say a lot of things. Many of them stupid.


I do wonder what your thinking: so how is a Player Class Character, that is at least two or three times more powerful then all the common NPC folks, not special and elite?

Simple. By giving player classes to literally anyone who isn't a total noncombatant. If you can wield a sword without hurting yourself, or have literally any talents that aren't covered in the skill list, you have a class level. Commoner 1 is RHD for races without any. You couldn't pay me to use NPC classes in one of my games.

geppetto
2019-03-16, 10:21 PM
You do understand the irony in even asking that question, yes?




You've got it wrong. The part I'm rejecting is the basic concept that player classes are special, and that anyone who has one has extensive training. Any argument you make beginning with that conceit is going to fall on deaf ears.

So whats the difference between those and NPC classes? Why is one guy a fighter with a D10, feats and better saves and the other is a D8 with bupkiss?

Or do you just do away with NPC classes and give everyone a PC class? I can sort of see that, and for myself i do usually make PC classed characters much more common then the default assumption. But I dont do away with NPC classes entirely.

And you still have the problem of why say a warrior or rogue class at all instead of an expert type class that just focuses on skills without combat. A regular village homebody wouldnt need combat training and wouldnt generally spend time on it in most cultures.

doctor doughnut
2019-03-16, 10:27 PM
Simple. By giving player classes to literally anyone who isn't a total noncombatant. If you can wield a sword without hurting yourself, or have literally any talents that aren't covered in the skill list, you have a class level. Commoner 1 is RHD for races without any. You couldn't pay me to use NPC classes in one of my games.

Well, that was not so hard. Just say:

1.My game does not use NPC classes
2.Every character in my game has Player Character Class levels.

Now, see thoes Houserules do make a diffrent game world. Now the Player Characters and all the NPCs would be exactly equal and the player characters would not stand out in any way.

And the PC just have some reason to come together as a group and do something. Seems simple enough. You can even use the PCs are goor or greedy or just want fame or fun.

Drakevarg
2019-03-16, 10:31 PM
Or do you just do away with NPC classes and give everyone a PC class?

This, yes.


And you still have the problem of why say a warrior or rogue class at all instead of an expert type class that just focuses on skills without combat. A regular village homebody wouldnt need combat training and wouldnt generally spend time on it in most cultures.

On Earth, I'd agree with you (though I would use Bonus Feat Rogue rather than Expert, since it trades Sneak Attack for Bonus Feats and you could just dump them all into Skill Focus or whatever). But D&D isn't Earth, it's a world where dragons exist and spiders grow as big as barns. If you spend any time thinking about it and don't lean on the contrivance that literally everything not found in medieval Europe is conveniently clustered in the Far Off Valley of Not Eating Farmers, then you start considering the idea that almost anyone who's made it to adulthood in this world without being eaten by rabid dire rat that got into the basement can probably handle themselves in a fight.


Now the Player Characters and all the NPCs would be exactly equal and the player characters would not stand out in any way.

Well they'd eventually stand out by being higher level. But just having a class level doesn't make you special.

doctor doughnut
2019-03-16, 10:38 PM
the idea that almost anyone who's made it to adulthood in this world without being eaten by rabid dire rat that got into the basement can probably handle themselves in a fight.

Yea, makes not sense. So your third house rule is:

3.Everyone in the world is a 'tough fighting type' that has survived encounters with all sorts of monsters.




Well they'd eventually stand out by being higher level. But just having a class level doesn't make you special.

Ok...class levels don't make anyone special...even more so if everyone has them.

Drakevarg
2019-03-16, 10:50 PM
Yea, makes not sense. So your third house rule is:

3.Everyone in the world is a 'tough fighting type' that has survived encounters with all sorts of monsters.

"All sorts of monsters," no. But unless you've led an intensely sheltered existence you have undoubtedly had an unfriendly encounter with an animal at least once in your life. Be it an angry dog, a wasp, a rat. Then you consider that not only is a D&D-type world a lot less sheltered from those elements (if the pest control business was doing its job nobody would be asking that pack of heavily-armed vagrants to go clear otyugh out of the sewers), but those elements are scaled up significantly.

So even if you figure that anyone who goes outside basically ever has encountered a dire rat, a tiny monstrous spider, a giant ant... at least once or twice in their life, they're probably at least modestly prepared to throw down, if only because those things are out there and being ready for it is just good sense.

geppetto
2019-03-16, 10:50 PM
This, yes.



On Earth, I'd agree with you (though I would use Bonus Feat Rogue rather than Expert, since it trades Sneak Attack for Bonus Feats and you could just dump them all into Skill Focus or whatever). But D&D isn't Earth, it's a world where dragons exist and spiders grow as big as barns. If you spend any time thinking about it and don't lean on the contrivance that literally everything not found in medieval Europe is conveniently clustered in the Far Off Valley of Not Eating Farmers, then you start considering the idea that almost anyone who's made it to adulthood in this world without being eaten by rabid dire rat that got into the basement can probably handle themselves in a fight.
.

Fair enough. I handle it by making monsters actually dangerous and rare and most people who run into them DO just die horribly. Sort of like most fantasy novel and TV settings actually. Anything over 1 or 2 HD naturally is a very rare creature indeed in my games. But I can see your way too.

In this case the players being a group is a little harder. But you can honestly just put it on them. Give them a little background on their part of the world, the idea behind the very first session and make them tell you why they got together.

Or my idea about being survivors of an attack on a wagon train, colony, rural mine, etc still works fine. Start the first session in the middle of the fight, have red shirts dying all around and the PC's survive. If they survive. At least some of them will. They can have any job really. Everyone travels and most remote corporate outposts will have a variety of employee types there.

As to why they continue adventuring? Thats their problem. Make them tell you. They should have thought of some reason why they are going to be adventurers when they created the character. Its not your job to do everything for them.




"All sorts of monsters," no. But unless you've led an intensely sheltered existence you have undoubtedly had an unfriendly encounter with an animal at least once in your life. Be it an angry dog, a wasp, a rat. Then you consider that not only is a D&D-type world a lot less sheltered from those elements (if the pest control business was doing its job nobody would be asking that pack of heavily-armed vagrants to go clear otyugh out of the sewers), but those elements are scaled up significantly.

So even if you figure that anyone who goes outside basically ever has encountered a dire rat, a tiny monstrous spider, a giant ant... at least once or twice in their life, they're probably at least modestly prepared to throw down, if only because those things are out there and being ready for it is just good sense.

Gotta disagree with this though. Even in a regular D&D world those creatures existing or even being relatively common isnt a reason for people to be fighting them.
The real world is full of dangerous animals for example. But most creatures of animal intelligence avoid people, especially groups of people. And people do their part to avoid those animals too.
Just because you live in lion or bear country doesnt mean you've ever thrown down with a bear with your old buck knife. I lived in northern wisconsin for quite a while. We had bears, cougars, wolves. I saw them in the backyard quite often. My grandmother has had a bear for years that comes into her garden and eats things, thats why she cant grow blueberries anymore.
But neither of us ever went outside with a spear (or my gun) and decided a fight to the death with a large predator was a great idea that day. In fact not one person I knew up there had EVER been attacked by one of these very large and dangerous predators that were all around us.
You see it all over the world. Predators, mankind included tend to try to avoid each other. None of us are out for a fight. We're looking for a meal as easy as we can get it.

So I just dont see these creatures existing being at all a reason why most people would ever get into a fight with one.
Plus does say getting 10 of your buddies from the village to all grab their bows and pitchforks and hunt down one rogue spider the size of a dog really mean you all suddenly get +1 BAB and weapon focus short bow?
Realistically how many successful hunts or fights should you have to be in before you become a trained warrior? Basic army training is 16 weeks for infantry, most martial arts go months before you get your 2nd belt.

doctor doughnut
2019-03-16, 11:04 PM
So even if you figure that anyone who goes outside basically ever has encountered a dire rat, a tiny monstrous spider, a giant ant... at least once or twice in their life, they're probably at least modestly prepared to throw down, if only because those things are out there and being ready for it is just good sense.

Well, the way I do this in my game is NPC class levels. A typical person, of say thirty years of age, is around 10th level. And most people are a mix of warrior/commoner/expert. A typical age 30 farmer would be soething like a commoner 5/warrior 5.

Anyway, the PC would then be ''special" as they don't want to just work a normal job and have a normal life: they want more.

Drakevarg
2019-03-16, 11:05 PM
In this case the players being a group is a little harder. But you can honestly just put it on them. Give them a little background on their part of the world, the idea behind the very first session and make them tell you why they got together.

Or my idea about being survivors of an attack on a wagon train, colony, rural mine, etc still works fine. Start the first session in the middle of the fight, have red shirts dying all around and the PC's survive. If they survive. At least some of them will. They can have any job really. Everyone travels and most remote corporate outposts will have a variety of employee types there.

As to why they continue adventuring? Thats their problem. Make them tell you. They should have thought of some reason why they are going to be adventurers when they created the character. Its not your job to do everything for them.

Thing is, part of what I'm trying to avert is that "first half a season of a TV show" Monster-of-the-Week syndrome. I know this is going to be something that ultimately needs to be tailored to the party, but I'm hoping with a bit of discussion on player psychology I can glean a set of best practices. I'm looking at the first session as akin to the pilot episode. By the end, you should ideally have a basic idea of who the players are, what the core group dynamic is, and what the story is about. Problem being that I can't think of many stories where the story doesn't then take a back seat to the protagonists just going about their day job for like six episodes before worming its way back in.

Which works fine for a sandboxy sort of game, but I'm kind of tired of running those.


Gotta disagree with this though. Even in a regular D&D world those creatures existing or even being relatively common isnt a reason for people to be fighting them.
The real world is full of dangerous animals for example. But most creatures of animal intelligence avoid people, especially groups of people. And people do their part to avoid those animals too.
Just because you live in lion or bear country doesnt mean you've ever thrown down with a bear with your old buck knife. I lived in northern wisconsin for quite a while. We had bears, cougars, wolves. I saw them in the backyard quite often. My grandmother has had a bear for years that comes into her garden and eats things, thats why she cant grow blueberries anymore.
But neither of us ever went outside with a spear (or my gun) and decided a fight to the death with a large predator was a great idea that day. In fact not one person I knew up there had EVER been attacked by one of these very large and dangerous predators that were all around us.
You see it all over the world. Predators, mankind included tend to try to avoid each other. None of us are out for a fight. We're looking for a meal as easy as we can get it.

So I just dont see these creatures existing being at all a reason why most people would ever get into a fight with one.
Plus does say getting 10 of your buddies from the village to all grab their bows and pitchforks and hunt down one rogue spider the size of a dog really mean you all suddenly get +1 BAB and weapon focus short bow?
Realistically how many successful hunts or fights should you have to be in before you become a trained warrior? Basic army training is 16 weeks for infantry, most martial arts go months before you get your 2nd belt.

True, but note the things I listed for examples were just pests. The sort of thing that might just attack if incidentally cornered. In our world these things are tiny, infection is a bigger danger than the actual bite. In a monster-filled world even the pests are deadly; we're just flat-out lower on the food chain. Scale everything else up and people are going to learn how to use a weapon just as a matter of common sense.


Well, the way I do this in my game is NPC class levels. A typical person, of say thirty years of age, is around 10th level. And most people are a mix of warrior/commoner/expert. A typical age 30 farmer would be soething like a commoner 5/warrior 5.

See, you do it the exact opposite of me then. The majority of people might have class levels, but just because Jeff the Fisherman has one level in Fighter on account of his universe's muskies are ten feet long and ornery, he's not likely to ever gain more levels if all he does is fish. He might be 50 years old, he's still only level 1. Maybe 3 tops, if he's in a really frontier sort of area.

JoeJ
2019-03-17, 12:15 AM
Thing is, part of what I'm trying to avert is that "first half a season of a TV show" Monster-of-the-Week syndrome. I know this is going to be something that ultimately needs to be tailored to the party, but I'm hoping with a bit of discussion on player psychology I can glean a set of best practices. I'm looking at the first session as akin to the pilot episode. By the end, you should ideally have a basic idea of who the players are, what the core group dynamic is, and what the story is about. Problem being that I can't think of many stories where the story doesn't then take a back seat to the protagonists just going about their day job for like six episodes before worming its way back in.

And yet you don't seem willing to have the story be their day job. It sounds like you really really REALLY don't want the PCs to start out being particularly competent as adventurers. Is there a reason for that? If so, maybe just tell the players that it's their job to explain why a group of pig farmers (or whatever they are) decided to take up a more dangerous profession.

Drakevarg
2019-03-17, 12:27 AM
And yet you don't seem willing to have the story be their day job. It sounds like you really really REALLY don't want the PCs to start out being particularly competent as adventurers. Is there a reason for that? If so, maybe just tell the players that it's their job to explain why a group of pig farmers (or whatever they are) decided to take up a more dangerous profession.

I think you're misunderstanding me a bit. I do want to start them at low levels (1-3), but it's less about asking why they're doing anything at all (I could very easily just say "okay you're all pirates" or whatever), but in the interest of not simply meandering on in some kind of sandboxy picaresque narrative, it's a bit more difficult to answer "why are you involved in this plot specifically?" Making them badasses and having something cool happen nearby is still missing an ingredient, IMO.

Kyrell1978
2019-03-17, 12:33 AM
I think you're misunderstanding me a bit. I do want to start them at low levels (1-3), but it's less about asking why they're doing anything at all (I could very easily just say "okay you're all pirates" or whatever), but in the interest of not simply meandering on in some kind of sandboxy picaresque narrative, it's a bit more difficult to answer "why are you involved in this plot specifically?" Making them badasses and having something cool happen nearby is still missing an ingredient, IMO.

I think you're overcomplicating things a bit here. I know that you want a reason for each person to be in your narrative, but it's just as much the pcs job to create that reason as it is yours. Also, that reason does not have to be a work of classic fiction or anything. A relatively superficial reason to begin with will do so long as during the course of the campaign they continue to gain reasons.

Drakevarg
2019-03-17, 12:36 AM
I think you're overcomplicating things a bit here. I know that you want a reason for each person to be in your narrative, but it's just as much the pcs job to create that reason as it is yours. Also, that reason does not have to be a work of classic fiction or anything. A relatively superficial reason to begin with will do so long as during the course of the campaign they continue to gain reasons.

In theory you should be right. But I've had just enough experience with uncooperative players that I feel a need to proactively minimize the problem.

It's the same reason why I stat out every variety of generic NPC the players are likely to encounter in town, on the off chance they randomly decide to tackle one of them (this has actually happened).

JoeJ
2019-03-17, 12:44 AM
I think you're misunderstanding me a bit. I do want to start them at low levels (1-3), but it's less about asking why they're doing anything at all (I could very easily just say "okay you're all pirates" or whatever), but in the interest of not simply meandering on in some kind of sandboxy picaresque narrative, it's a bit more difficult to answer "why are you involved in this plot specifically?" Making them badasses and having something cool happen nearby is still missing an ingredient, IMO.

And why not have the answer be simply that it's their job to fix this problem? It's somebody's job, right? So why not have the PCs be those somebodies? They're in the city watch, or they're the queen's special guard, or they work for the royal inquisitor. Every ruler needs to have people on staff to solve problems for them. The PCs are some of those people.

That also explains why the PCs usually seem to face level-appropriate challenges. Their boss has a number of different teams and, not being an idiot, tries to assign a team that can handle whatever the problem appears to be.

Drakevarg
2019-03-17, 12:51 AM
And why not have the answer be simply that it's their job to fix this problem? It's somebody's job, right? So why not have the PCs be those somebodies? They're in the city watch, or they're the queen's special guard, or they work for the royal inquisitor. Every ruler needs to have people on staff to solve problems for them. The PCs are some of those people.

Perhaps, though then I have to ask myself (or the players), why there's a ninja in the town guard or whatever. Pirates and mercs you expect to be kinda ragtag, formal positions less so. I suppose I could just come up with a set of stock answers based on class.

It's a starting point, at least.

JoeJ
2019-03-17, 12:57 AM
Perhaps, though then I have to ask myself (or the players), why there's a ninja in the town guard or whatever. Pirates and mercs you expect to be kinda ragtag, formal positions less so. I suppose I could just come up with a set of stock answers based on class.

If the players are told before they create their characters that they're going to be in the town guard, then you can reasonably expect them to make characters who could be town guards. If a certain character concept doesn't fit, then the player needs to save that concept for another game.

geppetto
2019-03-17, 12:58 AM
Thing is, part of what I'm trying to avert is that "first half a season of a TV show" Monster-of-the-Week syndrome. I know this is going to be something that ultimately needs to be tailored to the party, but I'm hoping with a bit of discussion on player psychology I can glean a set of best practices. I'm looking at the first session as akin to the pilot episode. By the end, you should ideally have a basic idea of who the players are, what the core group dynamic is, and what the story is about. Problem being that I can't think of many stories where the story doesn't then take a back seat to the protagonists just going about their day job for like six episodes before worming its way back in.

Which works fine for a sandboxy sort of game, but I'm kind of tired of running those.

Problem is that in a RPG thats basically impossible. If you were writing a story then sure you could wrap it all up real quick in a neat bow and move onto chapter 2.

But your not. Your dealing with 4+ other people who all have their own ideas on who they want to play and how they want to interact with everyone else. And then the GM generally has his own idea too for how this all needs to come together. Add in that the actual humans playing the game may or may not know each other in real life and have to also build real relationships at the same time as their characters are and its just not reasonable to expect a nice, neat package.

Its always going to be kind of a mess at first because everyone has to organically develop those relationships to a certain extent. Thats why I like making the players give the justifications so much. Rather then you forcing some vision on them to whatever degree and making them strongly bend around it you can just present them with the glorious chaos and force them to build their own order out of it. And that forces those players to talk to each other, and work out something thats halfway logical. Its like the first team building exercise they have and IME it creates much stronger PC/PC bonds that the players are more likely to actually care about then anything created from on high for narrative clarity would.

The GM has enough work to do with building the world. Dont put unnecessary work on yourself by building the party too. Thats their job.

geppetto
2019-03-17, 01:06 AM
Perhaps, though then I have to ask myself (or the players), why there's a ninja in the town guard or whatever. Pirates and mercs you expect to be kinda ragtag, formal positions less so. I suppose I could just come up with a set of stock answers based on class.

It's a starting point, at least.

Your just giving yourself way too much work. Thats how GM's burn out. Stop it.

The ninja was trained as a child in a ninja temple. Then pops moved out west and lo there were no ninjas temples in town to join. But the city guard definitely has use for a sneaky warrior to do undercover work or to help set up security for various important figures. If you know how to break into something then you probably know how to harden it against being broken into after all.

See? Simple and easy. As a PC that took me less time to think of then to type it out.

If someone wont cooperate you simply tell that player they have to and they cant play until they do. Its your game and your the boss.

And really if they cant answer "why arent you a turnip farmer" then you probably dont want them at your game anyway.

Drakevarg
2019-03-17, 01:15 AM
Your just giving yourself way too much work. Thats how GM's burn out. Stop it.

You mean I'm not supposed to meticulously plot out every building, guard response time, monster food chain, and economic supply and demand the players might conceivably encounter, on top of the actual plot and their involvement in it?

(I've done every single one of these at some point or another in my career as a DM.)

Still, "trust my players won't completely subvert my plans for literally no reason" is a notion that's hard to internalize. I haven't even had it happen in a long time, but it's the first thing I think of when I sit down to work on a campaign.

Yora
2019-03-17, 02:07 AM
Coming at this from the other direction: What is the campaign that you want to run and need a start for?

Drakevarg
2019-03-17, 02:34 AM
Coming at this from the other direction: What is the campaign that you want to run and need a start for?

Well I haven't really pegged down the details beyond a mishmash of connected concepts, but broadly speaking I intend it to be a vaguely Elder Evils-ish campaign of gradually-raising stakes beginning with a shark cult and culminating in a kaiju smackdown between two beast-gods, set in the relatively tight playspace of an archipelago that's maybe two hundred miles across (which I think is a bit smaller than Elsir Vale from Red Hand of Doom). The setting is relatively low magic (despite the aforementioned kaiju-gods) so there aren't going to be any churches or mage guilds sending out enforcers to investigate a disturbance in the Force or whatever.

Yora
2019-03-17, 02:45 AM
I would start with thinking who in this world would people look to to deal with it? Those are the characters the players are going to play.

Knaight
2019-03-17, 02:57 AM
There's an easy way to do this in roughly two steps, assuming you have cooperative players.

Step 1) During character creation, insist that people make the sort of characters who get involved. If you want to run a plot heavy game of heroes doing heroics, insist that you get the sort of people who will take the chance to be heroic when it comes to them instead of deciding it's not their problem.

Step 2) Lean on coincidence. Yes, you're not the only people who could deal with this problem. You are the people who happen to be here though, so buckle up. From that first coincidence it pretty much takes care of things from there. You're the people who solved the first issue, you're the people known to those involved, you're the experts on what's going on.

Drakevarg
2019-03-17, 03:56 AM
I would start with thinking who in this world would people look to to deal with it? Those are the characters the players are going to play.

I think I'm gonna go with the pirate crew. Specifically, they're part of a crew who captured a sharkfolk during a salvage job and dragged it back home to show off (the sharkfolk are rarely encountered and commonly treated as a sailor's myth, so a chance to put one on display is big, like if you caught a mermaid in a net). The sharkfolk inevitably escapes (or doesn't, maybe) and then a string of murders start happening, all connected to the crew. Players are involved by association, plot unfurls from there.

doctor doughnut
2019-03-17, 12:06 PM
You mean I'm not supposed to meticulously plot out every building, guard response time, monster food chain, and economic supply and demand the players might conceivably encounter, on top of the actual plot and their involvement in it?

Well, you don't ''have to"...




Still, "trust my players won't completely subvert my plans for literally no reason" is a notion that's hard to internalize. I haven't even had it happen in a long time, but it's the first thing I think of when I sit down to work on a campaign.

I don't even see this as a problem myself. Just alter the game reality if this happens. It's easy.


I think I'm gonna go with the pirate crew. Specifically, they're part of a crew who captured a sharkfolk during a salvage job and dragged it back home to show off (the sharkfolk are rarely encountered and commonly treated as a sailor's myth, so a chance to put one on display is big, like if you caught a mermaid in a net). The sharkfolk inevitably escapes (or doesn't, maybe) and then a string of murders start happening, all connected to the crew. Players are involved by association, plot unfurls from there.

The Railroad Plot is a classsic way to go: this should work out just fine.

Aneurin
2019-03-17, 03:02 PM
So I guess to bring this to some sort of point, what's your approach? There's a certain degree of responsibility on the part of the players to engage with the content before them rather than force the DM to narrate them hanging out at a bar for four hours, but actual investment is preferable to passive witnesses to your script.

Well, uh, step one for me is generally making a campaign where the PCs actually have a task and a job to do, rather than just being a random gang of thieves, beggars and bandits. Maybe they're in the army. Maybe they're employed by the foreign ministry as discrete agents. Maybe they're detectives. Maybe they're a ship's crew and trying to keep their ship afloat. Maybe they're a gang of bank robbers - whatever. The point is they start with a common link, a common goal and, typically, an employer or someone who provides directions.

They're not "adventurers", but they are professionals whose occupations put them in a position where thrilling heroics/despicable villainy may be required on a regular basis.

The players have also agreed to this premise in advance, which is a very important thing to note. I'm not just forcing them to engage - if they're not interested in what's going on, then I have a problem and it's very, very unlikely I can fix it IC since it's almost certainly an OOC problem.


Regarding your specific case, though, I'm going to suggest that maybe D&D (and its many variants/clones) isn't the system you're looking for. There are quite definitely other games out there that have their core expectations much closer to what you seem to want to run. Even if you don't want to learn a different system, then looking at how they engage characters in their published campaigns is definitely going to be more use than looking at anything published for D&D, which tends to make some very specific assumptions about group dynamics.

Of particular interest to you, I think, are the Warhammer Fantasy RPGs where the PCs are, quite literally, ordinary people - bakers, farmers, rat catchers, squires and the like - who get caught up events. It ain't perfect, but it's campaigns and adventures tend to have good suggestions for why the PCs might want to get involved in events (and why them, rather than someone else).

The 40k RPGs have the PCs are groups of specialists, generally, working for a larger organization - or being genetically engineered super-soldiers, as appropriate - and the Dresden Files RPG assumes the PCs also have day jobs in addition to tackling problems (though it does sometimes suffer from Protagonist Syndrome) and has several free short adventures you can get on DriveThruRPG of the Evil Hat Games website, and World of Darkness doesn't tend to muck about with the adventuring in any way, shape or form.

Drakevarg
2019-03-17, 03:23 PM
Regarding your specific case, though, I'm going to suggest that maybe D&D (and its many variants/clones) isn't the system you're looking for. There are quite definitely other games out there that have their core expectations much closer to what you seem to want to run. Even if you don't want to learn a different system, then looking at how they engage characters in their published campaigns is definitely going to be more use than looking at anything published for D&D, which tends to make some very specific assumptions about group dynamics.

Of particular interest to you, I think, are the Warhammer Fantasy RPGs where the PCs are, quite literally, ordinary people - bakers, farmers, rat catchers, squires and the like - who get caught up events. It ain't perfect, but it's campaigns and adventures tend to have good suggestions for why the PCs might want to get involved in events (and why them, rather than someone else).

The 40k RPGs have the PCs are groups of specialists, generally, working for a larger organization - or being genetically engineered super-soldiers, as appropriate - and the Dresden Files RPG assumes the PCs also have day jobs in addition to tackling problems (though it does sometimes suffer from Protagonist Syndrome) and has several free short adventures you can get on DriveThruRPG of the Evil Hat Games website, and World of Darkness doesn't tend to muck about with the adventuring in any way, shape or form.

Ah yes, the completely unsolicited "you should change systems" advice. It has been nearly twelve minutes since the last one, so I guess we're due.

geppetto
2019-03-17, 04:33 PM
You mean I'm not supposed to meticulously plot out every building, guard response time, monster food chain, and economic supply and demand the players might conceivably encounter, on top of the actual plot and their involvement in it?

(I've done every single one of these at some point or another in my career as a DM.)

Still, "trust my players won't completely subvert my plans for literally no reason" is a notion that's hard to internalize. I haven't even had it happen in a long time, but it's the first thing I think of when I sit down to work on a campaign.

Just remember they are adults who are also sitting down in some of their limited freetime to play a game and want it to go well as much as you do and it gets easier. Then its just a matter of clear communication so you can all do that without tripping over each other and getting frustrated.

NotAnotherBard
2019-03-17, 04:48 PM
I am with greppetto here... in that the motivation comes from the Players themselves. For first level folks and players just trying to get the campaign off the ground, I like the, "you've trained in your prospective profession and have gone far enough that your boss/mentor tells you to venture out on your own to gain practical world experience as a ______. You have made your way to XYZ village/town/city in hopes to gain employment as a _____ and so you find yourself....."

When I meet with my players on the designated day we are going to play, I come and they come ready to do some D&D adventuring. So we have to suspend some disbelief as to why a Bard, Druid, Dwarf Fighter and Ranger found their way to the town of Mumbletypeg.

JoeJ
2019-03-17, 04:52 PM
When I meet with my players on the designated day we are going to play, I come and they come ready to do some D&D adventuring. So we have to suspend some disbelief as to why a Bard, Druid, Dwarf Fighter and Ranger found their way to the town of Mumbletypeg.

There's less disbelief to hang if you start in Bigport City instead of Mumbletypeg. There are probably a lot more patrons looking to hire a few adventurers, too.

Drakevarg
2019-03-17, 05:13 PM
I am with greppetto here... in that the motivation comes from the Players themselves. For first level folks and players just trying to get the campaign off the ground, I like the, "you've trained in your prospective profession and have gone far enough that your boss/mentor tells you to venture out on your own to gain practical world experience as a ______. You have made your way to XYZ village/town/city in hopes to gain employment as a _____ and so you find yourself....."

When I meet with my players on the designated day we are going to play, I come and they come ready to do some D&D adventuring. So we have to suspend some disbelief as to why a Bard, Druid, Dwarf Fighter and Ranger found their way to the town of Mumbletypeg.

I think we established fairly early on in the thread that "why are the PCs in a group?" is a much easier question to answer than "why is the inciting incident the party's problem?" Like I said from the beginning, I agree that some of the responsibility lies in the hands of the players to involve themselves in the material presented, but I feel it works better if it requires as little contrivance as possible. Simple proximity to peril or an opportunity for coin doesn't automatically equal party investment, unless they're explicitly playing capital-H Heroes or mercenaries respectively.

NotAnotherBard
2019-03-17, 05:39 PM
I don't know how many folks you have sitting around the table with you... but it is the party's problem because that is the campaign you've designed and that is what on the menu for playing...

You've created a pirate world of sharkboys and beast God smack downs.... If they've played with you as DM before, and like your style and still come back, its probably a moot point about how compelled they feel. Then again, if you are trying to force a round peg in a square hole with your chosen group of players, I don't think if any suggestions here (that you'd probably dismiss out of hand) will help.

Drakevarg
2019-03-17, 06:23 PM
I suppose I should clarify that I haven't actually had to deal with uncooperative PCs in years - the worst I've had to deal with in the last several campaigns I've run are passive players or pointless infighting. But I partially attribute that to the fact that I take steps to avoid it. I'm not one to leave things at "good enough" and hope for the best. It's not about fitting a round peg into a square hole, it's about giving that peg the most comfortable fit I can. Yeah I know it'll probably fit just fine anyway, but I'd rather remove the "probably."

geppetto
2019-03-17, 10:50 PM
I think we established fairly early on in the thread that "why are the PCs in a group?" is a much easier question to answer than "why is the inciting incident the party's problem?" Like I said from the beginning, I agree that some of the responsibility lies in the hands of the players to involve themselves in the material presented, but I feel it works better if it requires as little contrivance as possible. Simple proximity to peril or an opportunity for coin doesn't automatically equal party investment, unless they're explicitly playing capital-H Heroes or mercenaries respectively.

Okay like my current game is a modern setting, so some relatively simple adjustments will be necessary for a different setting.

But anyway the PC are members of a paranormal investigation group. Theres lots of people in the group, some show up to different investigations and some dont. The PC's are just part of the group who does it basically as a hobby because they knew to create characters who were interested in that as a hobby. They all have day jobs, none of them are professional ghost hunters or anything.

First session was exploring an old hotel/casino where the hotel portion had been shuttered for decades. About a half dozen npc's show up along with the group who we say vaguely know each other from the groups message boards and maybe previous investigations.

Some history is explored, a few jump scares and EVP's happen. Everyone is having fun being ghost hunters in a real life kind of setting when it happens, poltergeists start moving stuff. it gets a little scarier. Thats not the adventure though. The adventure is that they woke up an immortal slasher (NWoD) with their investigations and now he's on a killing spree. He hunts doctors and the original people who woke him up.

The players are involved partly out of a sense of responsibility once they realized whats happening and partly because the monster is hunting them too. Naturally everyone whose a target teams up to increase their odds of surviving, red shirts die horribly, PC's uncover the way to off the monster, adventure happens, yada yada yada.

And afterwords everyone (who were already interested in this sort of thing) realize the world is much darker then they thought and the mysteries deeper then they imagined. And so they set out to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.


For a traditional D&D setting I would adjust it so that they are members of the town militia (which was traditionally every able bodied adult male) and the mayor who also owns the biggest/only inn hasnt been able to keep guests in his rooms, has even had a few mysterious deaths and wants to know why so he calls on the militia.

The PC's being probably young hold non essential jobs in the community so they are the ones who tasked with dealing with the mayors little pet issue. Little haunts are easy enough in any system, make the big bad a shadow whose from an old murder victim that the previous owner covered up, or maybe the mayor did it and bam you have a believable story with a beatable bbeg and an ongoing villain that may have a grudge against the whole group because of what they discover, possibly forcing them to leave town and go on the run.

Boom, players working together for a believable reason, sticking together because of a shared threat and pushed into ongoing adventure out of necessity rather then because they are "awesome adventurers". I'd make it last a 3-5 session arc and by the end of that the characters should have built some bonds to hold them together and found a few more reasons to keep up the adventuring.

Or you do it episodically. They solve the little inn adventure and get a reputation as go to people around their little town. Most of the time they are doing their day jobs, maybe months go by between adventures but when theres a problem they are some of the people the town turns to first. Make the larger government far away and non-responsive unless taxes are late and youve got your nice little bow.

They dont all need the same motivation either. Thats just silly. They are each a different character with different motivations and priorities. Some might only care about gold, some might feel a responsibility to help, some might be friends with someone whose going and feels like they cant ditch their buddy in the face of danger. Different people do things for different reasons.

Thats why you dont worry about the GM coming up with a reason. Any one reason you force on 4 or 5 totally different people is by nature going to be hackneyed, unrealistic and forced.

MesiDoomstalker
2019-03-18, 01:37 AM
A bit of a cop out, but the start of a campaign should be unique to the campaign. But I suspect you want something more specific.

I personally enjoy 1 of two methods. The first defines a campaign a lot more than it sets up the campaigns beginning. The first is some variety of "Your part of [organization], [authority figure] wants you to [opening plot]." You'd go into more detail than that, obviously. What the organization is, what they do, who the authority figure is and how they relate to the PCs, etc etc etc. But this is usually a way to direct the campaign from Session 0, since the PCs are concepted as part of the plot to begin with.

The second method I enjoy a lot is en media res. Which is fancy speak for "start with combat." Set up the scene (usually you want to work with each PC to establish why they are there at that time), dump some minis out, roll init and start dispensing exposition with in-combat banter. Throw in some innocent bystanders to protect or some other easily spotted goal for the PC's to latch onto. The point is to get the players engaged quickly and enamored with the main parts of the plot quickly. Have the BBEG (or a minion with a penchant for pontification) chew the scene a bit, peace out leaving some minion's to threaten stuff the PC's care about. Establish the premise quickly and cleanly and have a clear thread to follow forward.

Drakevarg
2019-03-18, 02:16 AM
Starting out a campaign in medias res is an interesting method that I've never seen tried before. Might be worth a shot someday. Let the players roll up characters and BAM, the zombie apocalypse started a week ago.

Aneurin
2019-03-18, 06:47 AM
Ah yes, the completely unsolicited "you should change systems" advice. It has been nearly twelve minutes since the last one, so I guess we're due.

Well, I'm happy to oblige. However, if you'd continued reading past that sentence you would notice I suggested reading the campaigns and adventures from those systems regardless of whether you intended to adopt them, and looking at how those systems tie the party together and involve them in events, since they do not operate on the assumption that the PCs are anything special (for the most part, at least) or that the entire world revolves around the PCs.

NotAnotherBard
2019-03-18, 09:39 AM
"The second method I enjoy a lot is en media res. Which is fancy speak for "start with combat." Set up the scene (usually you want to work with each PC to establish why they are there at that time"

Isn't that the rub though? As I thought that was part of the original question "establish why they are there at that time" and what compels them to "be the ones" that take up the gauntlet to pursue the task. If you've got that, it doesn't really matter if you start with a battle, around the table at an inn, or standing in line at the Quik-e-Potion.

No disrespect meant.

Though I like the idea of the fancy speak stuff.... Maybe you are in line to enter the gates of a city/town right as a cyclops charges the gate (maybe he was summoned by a hidden Magic User or something....) The Guards shut the gate, leaving you on the outside with a group of currently unknown to each other adventurers, and they somehow miraculously survive the encounter... forever bonded together through blood and fire at the tender young level of 1. The city fathers are so impressed with your heroic defense of the city gate, that they have a special mission, that they feel only your plucky band of adventurers, can accomplish....

ThePlanarDM
2019-03-18, 09:59 AM
Try the Odyssey storyline.

All the PCs are from one place and they need to try to get home. They are the only ones from their town so they need to work together, but they don't need to be as aligned morally.

I'm doing this right now in my campaign. An impenetrable ward has formed around their home world, making teleportation impossible. They're all stuck on another world (the outer planes actually) trying to find how to get home.

MesiDoomstalker
2019-03-20, 11:00 PM
"The second method I enjoy a lot is en media res. Which is fancy speak for "start with combat." Set up the scene (usually you want to work with each PC to establish why they are there at that time"

Isn't that the rub though? As I thought that was part of the original question "establish why they are there at that time" and what compels them to "be the ones" that take up the gauntlet to pursue the task. If you've got that, it doesn't really matter if you start with a battle, around the table at an inn, or standing in line at the Quik-e-Potion.

No disrespect meant.

Though I like the idea of the fancy speak stuff.... Maybe you are in line to enter the gates of a city/town right as a cyclops charges the gate (maybe he was summoned by a hidden Magic User or something....) The Guards shut the gate, leaving you on the outside with a group of currently unknown to each other adventurers, and they somehow miraculously survive the encounter... forever bonded together through blood and fire at the tender young level of 1. The city fathers are so impressed with your heroic defense of the city gate, that they have a special mission, that they feel only your plucky band of adventurers, can accomplish....

I fail to see the issue. If your are leveraging Session 0 properly the "why's" and "how's" should be taken care of already. That is why I reiterated the need to handle each PC's how's and why's separately prior to Session 1. The second half is how to get the players, themselves, engaged. That's the second half of the question that I felt was the harder part to accomplish.

Yora
2019-03-21, 03:53 AM
Don't let Perfect be the enemy of Good.

If you can't find a perfect solution for a problem, then just go with something that does the job, even if it's not really elegant. How you start the game won't matter anymore in the second session. Better that than never starting at all.

FabulousFizban
2019-03-21, 09:13 AM
force them. obviously the party will start in the same place, but whether they are working together or even know each other is up to them. so sweep them up in a scenario they HAVE to deal with: a bandit raid, a dragon attack, anything that they will have to work together on to survive. then push them along from there.

the lord commander says “hey, u did a good job with that, i have a task for you. no? perhaps you would prefer the dungeon? (if they are so obstinate they would rather go to prison than work together, firstly RED FLAG!, but hey, now they have to work together to get out of jail

bonds are formed through shared conflict, you might have to drive the narrative a bit at first, and engineer reasons for them to stay together, but soon they will accept their comradery.

Jay R
2019-03-21, 11:46 AM
The way to start the action, any time, anywhere, is by rolling initiative.

"You hear somebody scream for help one block over."

Each PC gets there separately, and they see a mob of ruffians overturning the coach of a noble who, when rescued, tries to hire them for a quest.

Really. PCs don't turn down a fight in progress.

CombatBunny
2019-03-25, 11:41 AM
Put them in a situation where they can’t do otherwise but stay together,

They are all in prison when suddenly they are all dragged to an improvised coliseum to fight among themselves (or to be executed), when “unifying event happens” (dragon attacks, rival gang attacks, etc.). Or they are called by the king to do a task for him with the promise of forgiving their crimes.

They are miners who barely speaks to each other, when the room where they are working collapse, now they are together whether they want it or not. When they manage to exit the room, they discover that somehow the collapse discovered an entrance to a dungeon, which seems the only way back to the surface.

They are at a carnival and until then they are a group of strangers, you as GM state that destiny decided that they all wanted to enter the new funhouse that the local magicians constructed to entertain guests. Once inside, magic gets out of control and they must survive to get out.

The ship they are sailing is struck by a storm and it ends up upside down (like the movie Poseidon), they all must cooperate to survive.

Once this first adventure is in motion, you can plant many hooks, mc-guffings and unifying events to keep them together.

A technique I often use is start the adventure with a single PC and help him describe his current motivations and backstory, and as soon as possible I incorporate the next PC as an NPC of the first character. I keep adding PCs as ingredients of the recipe until they are all together. Example:

PC1 enters town because he is looking for his lost brother in battle.

Then, if I spot that in backstory of PC2 he told that he was a famous fighter of the kingdom, I state as GM that PC2 happens to be of the same regime that his lost brother was. Also, I try to link PC2 to PC1, maybe PC2 has a last letter the deceased brother gave him, and he made PC1 promise to give it to PC2, but just until both reached “X sacred cemetery or place” and he would have to read out aloud the letter to PC2 (and the letter would of course contain the next McGuffin). The next NPC they met, I will do everything at my hand so that it happens to be PC3.

Hope this helps.

Zakhara
2019-04-02, 03:27 AM
My three goals for a satisfactory start:

1.) Open on action,
2.) In an unsafe place,
3.) Leaving a burning question.

I find these accomplish a few things.

Opening on action is obviously good for putting players' feet to the fire, and gets the table's attention. This doesn't have to be a fight--any charged situation will do, especially if the characters all have a stake.

An "unsafe place" is my phrase for where players can't simply up and leave; circumstances prohibit turning a blind eye to the action above, forcing a charged situation one way or another. This is partly to encourage low-responsibility characters into motion, and establishes tension early on.

Leaving a burning question, to me, is most important. I tend to "backload" information, and once the dust settles from the action and the situation feels secure (ideally with characters fully introduced), now is the time to swoop in and capitalize on questions they'll have about what just happened. Instead of using a backstory to set the scene, you can leave the players (and their characters) thirsting for the truth, and can dispense as needed.

All these together give a party some thrills (whether by fight or flight), some roleplay (showing what they do in a charged situation), and a desire to learn more (to resolve the short-term queries they have). It's impetus: the party is now introduced, engaged, and ready to meet their first goal.

My oldest example:
Five men meet in prison. One's there to retrieve an elder who turned himself in, refusing to leave for fear of death. Assassins breach the cell; the party is free to fight or flee. The elder flees and is disintegrated. The assassins depart. The party realizes the elder planted a map on them, with a name on it. With the authorities arriving, they agree to form a "temporary" alliance to learn whether the assassination has a greater connection to the reasons they were behind bars.