Party-makeup dilemma! Appreciate advice (5e)

[FlyingWhale]

Greetings all!

I seem to be in a pickle with my current situation of wanting to run a game with a group of friends who seem to be at odds with each others play styles!

P1: totally new to ttrpg, wants to have a mix of rp and combat, enjoys puzzles, thinks outside the box, separates character/player knowledge well. Most importantly, wants to play the game that they're invited to.

P2: totally new to ttrpg, wants to do combat, minimal rp, only wants to play 1 character design (fire sorcerer with God complex), incapable of progressing game story.

P3: relatively new to ttrpg, wants to have a mix of rp and combat, enjoys puzzles, thinks way too far outside the box, separates player/character knowledge well, tends to act in ways that guarentee story drama (in ways I don't often predict)

P4: absolute madlad. Flies off the handle with conspiracy theories about why an npc waved at them or who is enslaving the local orphans to beg for copper pieces...

I've tried running a few campaigns from a rigid storytelling style to an all out open world with single overarching theme to a mix up.

Backstory aside... it seems that the party is forever locked in a battle of "follow the campaign background story" and "hell with the story let's interrogate the entire town to determine who stole the cookie from the cookie jar"

Any advice for an old GM who doesn't know how to run a game with a stalemate party? Should I assign a leader? Make pre-made characters with basic traits?
Serious campaigns are fully riddled with side jokes and total confusion over objectives.
Free-form campaigns never leave the lobby.

Thanks in advance!

[Tvtyrant]

Sit them down and talk to them about what kind of campaign you want to run and what they are willing to do as players. Always easiest to go to the source.

Pirates/navy stuff are a good compromise; you can railroad as hard as you want using weather and random ships, and you can let them do whatever they feel like and talk to the crew all day. Spelljammer is the same but In Space!!

[FlyingWhale]

Pirates/navy stuff are a good compromise; you can railroad as hard as you want using weather and random ships, and you can let them do whatever they feel like and talk to the crew all day. Spelljammer is the same but In Space!!
Funny you should mention that! We just tried a campaign which started on a boat to set the "railroad" into action. Three sessions in a row that were naval based, I decided to axe it because once we got to dry land and the "story" was laid on in front of them... they got into the deadlocked position of 2 party members wanting to follow story and 2 with their characters having no reason to move forward...

I really tried to go over the story and what my plans for the campaign were but despite the initial the same 2 just get to a major plot point and "my character wouldn't do this so I'm staying here"...

We all get along swell as friends and game together but they constantly make characters that don't fit into the world at all. Like a poetic bard in a gladiatorial arena game...

My main question is mostly, has anyone made a campaign with a solid mix of accomplishing nothing while still moving story forward?

[Batcathat]

My main question is mostly, has anyone made a campaign with a solid mix of accomplishing nothing while still moving story forward?

I suppose it depends on whether the people who aren't interested in moving the story forward are actively working against the story progressing or if they just don't care about doing it themselves. I've played with (and GM:ed for) players who don't care much about the story and/or easily get side tracked (which isn't necessarily a bad thing but can be annoying if not everyone's into whatever side story catches their attention) and it certainly can work, but it probably depends on a lot of variables.

But the short answer is probably what Tvtyrant already said, talk to the players about what you want, what they want and how to hopefully achieve both.

[FlyingWhale]

Thanks folks. I've tried to reach out to everyone and got replies that they thought everything was fine. We never seem to go more than 2-3 sessions before games collapse though, so I don't know what fine means to them :smallconfused:

A couple of players offered that we stick to doing one offs instead of campaigns. A sad way to go about it but I suppose it's better than nothing. I think I'm getting too old for the newer players and the way the game was introduced to me is a relic to a bygone era. Used to have to make a character with a name and some brief reason why they're wanting to play but now it seems to get in the way!

c'est la vie

[Tvtyrant]

Thanks folks. I've tried to reach out to everyone and got replies that they thought everything was fine. We never seem to go more than 2-3 sessions before games collapse though, so I don't know what fine means to them :smallconfused:

A couple of players offered that we stick to doing one offs instead of campaigns. A sad way to go about it but I suppose it's better than nothing. I think I'm getting too old for the newer players and the way the game was introduced to me is a relic to a bygone era. Used to have to make a character with a name and some brief reason why they're wanting to play but now it seems to get in the way!

c'est la vie

Take the players whose style matches yours and find a few more players (once the plague is over.) There isn't a reason to force disparate groups together, and it sounds like it isn't fun for you to try.

[False God]

Get rid of two players, and find two new players.

Either go for zany and look for two new zany players (like 2 and 4) or go for serious and get two committed players (1 and 3).

[Alcore]

It's a madhouse.


Jokes aside let's continue...


Note that this assumes that you don't do all of it all at once and have a delicate touch.


Create a DMPC[b]. Normally this would be the bad thing to do. However you're going to need a voice of reason or at least someone to break a stalemate. He doesn't have to be impressive a simple commoner who is holding the torch will do. Do not try to get on the PC's good side cuz you might accidentally irritate them. On the flip side don't make this guy off putting he'll just live longer either way if he's just sort of there. if they like them you'll probably know it and then is a good time to start flushing out his personality until then the bare bones is really all you need. He probably doesn't even need a complete backstory either.


[B]Split the party. it's due to the fact that some of your players sound like they're very very new they haven't been trained the way a normal player has been, yet. This is a perfect opportunity to split up the party a little bit they don't have to leave the room or anything. but while the parties is fixing a puzzle be sure to have something flammable nearby for the wizard. And it might also be a good idea to actually have some real conspiracies. try to make sure that they are really really easy in case that guy goes off on his own to do it all himself.


Rail road a plot. You can put as many pit stops on it as you like but a linear adventure might actually be helpful in some ways. cuz if they're already having a problem with a series adventure perhaps it's because it's just to open ended or something. be sure to include those pit stops though cuz if they start showing initiative (as a group) you don't want to actually suppress that impulse.




Good luck!

[Alcore]

My main question is mostly, has anyone made a campaign with a solid mix of accomplishing nothing while still moving story forward?

Yes. Once i added other people to the mix they tend to fall apart. Typically the party will always stick together in DnD. When running a non DnD game you can pick out every player by play style alone. I love getting non DnD players as they are most likely to run off and save the world; especially if their prefered system allows creating balanced characters that don't need support.


Unless you have a unified party Dungeons and Dragons (doubly so for the players) is the worst thing to have. Taking those players out of the system doesn't help after they have been trained.

[OldTrees1]

Sounds like you could split the session time between the red herrings the madlad comes up with, and the actual leads. Campaigns will take longer, but they will have more flavor. Ask your players what they think. Could they make PCs that stick with the group and take turns tie breaking decisions on a temporary direction?

As long as the red herrings are enjoyable, it does not really matter that the madlad was mistaken once again.

[Batcathat]

I suppose you could try asking the two non-story guys nicely to create characters that would be interested in whatever plot you have in mind. Granted, frequent use of "my character wouldn't do this or that" can often be code for "I'm not gonna do what you want no matter what" but it could be true (and I'm not a fan of the school of thought that says a PC has to be interested in whatever plot hook the GM throws at them no matter their character) so maybe they'd care more about the plot if they made characters who did. Though it's probably a long shot.

[Satinavian]

My main question is mostly, has anyone made a campaign with a solid mix of accomplishing nothing while still moving story forward?
Yes, but honestly, there is not much you can do.

You have basically player conflict. The players need to resolve that. You can try to mediate, but you won't be able to solve it from the DM position.


Otherwise, episodic storytelling with the same characters mybe in the same location is a thing that work. Take a look at various TV series : there are many episodes that don't move any overarching plot and are pretty self contained but the characters and the setting still evolves over time and people get invested in that. You don't need an overarching campaign for an RPG.

[Yora]

Railroading is never the answer. (Unless the quetion is: What am I doing wrong?) When players are uncooperative, forcing their actions against their will only makes everything worse.

RPGs are at their best when there is not a pre-existing story that the players are suposed to act out while they don't know the script. Trying to prepare a story where any possible choices by the players lead to the same result is a huge amount of work, and attempting to keep the players on track is an enormous burden that keeps the GM's attention occupied and makes the whole work needlessly stressful.

In a good adventure, the GM does not care what the players do and what happens. You set up a situation with groups of antagonists who plan to do something evil and have already taken the first steps to cause chaos. The players are then free to react to it in any way they like. Then you consider what the antagonists will be doing next, and so on. At some point the antagonists are either beaten and their plan stopped, or they have won and the players lost.
This generally works best when you have three groups of NPCs with opposing goals. One can be super-evil, but you also can have all three groups having a point and being open to take the PCs as allies against the other groups.
Story in an RPG are the things that have hapened so far, not the things that will still happen.

[denthor]

Player 2 needs to run a fighter.

Have a who done it story arc. Every one in the town did it. Seethe movie murder on the oriental express.

Have a 2nd story arc with who is he working for.

Up the middle style of play. Does not matter have a boarder town when the orcs attack it is because they must because of giant slugs. Trolls are hunting the slugs that is good eating. They will investigate the problem.

Salt cantrip for wizards.

You are world building that is fun for some others it is roll dice rest heal repeat.

I watched a player roll a d20 4 times to get a beer in the tavern and use gather information to find out if the owner or bar maid took his order.


Some players just want to roll dice others want to think they are beyond intelligent. You have players that role play.

Be happy

[Gtdead]

Greetings all!

I seem to be in a pickle with my current situation of wanting to run a game with a group of friends who seem to be at odds with each others play styles!

P1: totally new to ttrpg, wants to have a mix of rp and combat, enjoys puzzles, thinks outside the box, separates character/player knowledge well. Most importantly, wants to play the game that they're invited to.

P2: totally new to ttrpg, wants to do combat, minimal rp, only wants to play 1 character design (fire sorcerer with God complex), incapable of progressing game story.

P3: relatively new to ttrpg, wants to have a mix of rp and combat, enjoys puzzles, thinks way too far outside the box, separates player/character knowledge well, tends to act in ways that guarentee story drama (in ways I don't often predict)

P4: absolute madlad. Flies off the handle with conspiracy theories about why an npc waved at them or who is enslaving the local orphans to beg for copper pieces...

I've tried running a few campaigns from a rigid storytelling style to an all out open world with single overarching theme to a mix up.

Backstory aside... it seems that the party is forever locked in a battle of "follow the campaign background story" and "hell with the story let's interrogate the entire town to determine who stole the cookie from the cookie jar"

Any advice for an old GM who doesn't know how to run a game with a stalemate party? Should I assign a leader? Make pre-made characters with basic traits?
Serious campaigns are fully riddled with side jokes and total confusion over objectives.
Free-form campaigns never leave the lobby.

Thanks in advance!

P1 & P3: You seem happy with these players, so you are in the majority. That's one thing to keep in mind when the other two mess your game. If need be, keep these 2 and try to find others to play.

P2: You can add a few easy encounters with a lot of low health targets that move in a way that begs for a fireball. In my experience this is enough to keep a blaster sorcerer sated. Usually these guys aren't very complex. If his personality isn't offensive, you can designate him as the "combat guy". Also give him proficiency to intimidation. When things don't go well, he steps in and "deals with it". This way he may be persuaded to leave the other players drive the story. If you told me that he is a powergamer that has picked fairly complex spells and try to abuse them, I'd say you are in trouble. But it doesn't seem to be the case.

P4: Get a d100. Every time he thinks there is a conspiracy, roll the dice. At 90 or more, he is right. Change the story to include some element of his craziness and you should be fine. Don't tell him that but don't hide it either, it's a DM conspiracy after all. Try to teach him to not react to the world too much either by forcing the party to move some way or by giving them a cold trail. But allow him to speak his mind. When you roll 90+, allow him to go nuts. This all assumes that you actually want to play with him.

[da newt]

Run your campaign like a choose your own adventure book - tell the story then offer a (limited) choice of A, B or C, proceed.

It sounds like your team does not want to be railroaded, but needs to have some set limitations or they will do nothing of purpose. The above allows for freedom with boundaries. For you (DM), don't plan ahead much - plan for the next session in detail, but only a rough outline for the session or two after that, and nothing more - you never know where you will end up.

Decide to embrace / enjoy the chaos that this group will inevitably create.

[Samayu]

You need to get good at coming up with stories on the fly, so you can incorporate the mad theories into the real story, so when he follows them down, they lead to your real story. Yeah, I can't do that either. So then you need to apologize to him for not being able to make a good adventure out of the ideas he suggests in character, and that maybe he needs to find a different hobby. And maybe that you can invite him back when your GM story stills improve to his level. :smallwink:

[Samayu]

For the players that do try to advance the story, you let them. Encourage them to leave whether anybody else follows or not (if they hesitate, you can step in and say, "ok, you head off down the road." If someone doesn't go with them, you split the party. Then you give more play time to the ones who are going where you want them. If the others complain, tell them "well, I don't have a story written for where you are."

[FlyingWhale]

Lot of good replies here and I thank you for them! Please excuse me for not quoting them all directly; being on mobile if I refresh or change tabs I lose the whole post!

I really have tried to simply make it to where: bad guys are coming to town in 3 days to kidnap a diplomat, then they interrogate him, then ditch his unconscious body in the woods.

So if the pcs take up the contract to guard him, they get to advance a particular plot line that way by direct intervention.

If they decide to investigate the nearby farmlands, they can encounter evidence that the bad guys are looking for witnesses to a botched ambush and advance that way.

If they decide to fart around in town, they'll inevitably learn of the abduction and the contract they turned down now has a bigger contract to capture the bad guys.

If they leave town and totally turn their back on the Duke (who is their leader, militarily and landwise) then I guess they get to random encounter the bad guys on the road and advance the plot that way.....

They split up, all 4 of them, and went their own ways and there was no longer a reason to play the game because their characters didn't want to stay together or seek further contracts to advance any story (that they said they wanted to follow given a 2 sentence background)...

Fast forward 3 months! I'm running a one shot, 3 session game and they're going to be a pre-assembled crack team of soldiers sent on a special assignment to thwart an attack on a strategic town by a small, highly trained group of baddies.They all know each other, have worked together in the past, have all accepted a contract/order, and 2/5 of the characters have direct background with the baddies.
The other 3 still won't give the slightest background for their characters, one of them is the God complex guy, one is the chaotic neutral, and the other has been swamped with work but super excited to play a new game.

I have no story other than the baddies come in 3 waves, one for each session, and I have a dozen townsfolk of repute that have a few flash cards of background. Loot is abundant on the baddies and matches the characters abilities and player personalities.

If all we can do are quick one offs... I'll still pour 3-4 hours of work into making each session enjoyable!

[Toadkiller]

So - as said above. Decide what game you want to run and invite them to play within that structure. If you get a quorum (which is whatever you decide it is) then play. If you don’t, either see if someone else wants to run a game you want to play in or try again with other players.

You can’t make them play a certain way. But you can choose to only play the way that is fun for you.

[Spo]

Understand your frustration in just running one-offs. Having played Adventure League and long campaigns I much prefer the later.

The answer is that you need to change things up for you and your group.

Two suggestions I have are first try a session zero. This helps get everyone on the same page as to the expectations and hooks to get the PCÂ’s to buy-in to the game. (Btw-this will also avoid players showing up with unknown PCs for session 1. You made the effort to create a world for them beforehand, they can polite enough to provide their piece beforehand.

For example, I just had session 1 for a Frostmaiden campaign. In session zero we went over with the dm why our characters would be up North and WANTING to work together on a job. Reasons given included making money to support family; making allies that may help their orc tribe in the future; freed slave looking to belong; neophyte cleric wanting to gain strength to challenge the Frostmaiden; Session 1 went real smoothly. (Full disclosure: we (players) are all in Mad Mage together as well for over a year so we have history).

Second suggestion is to try a published module. You have trained your players with these short games and now it is their expectations that things you create wonÂ’t last long and they can make throw away PCs. Announce you are going to run Out of the Abyss or something with strong hooks in the storyline. Your characters are getting lost in the sandbox you are placing them in. This also may help you in cutting down on your preparation time.

There have been lots of discussions here about good and bad modules. With some research you may find what you need.

[Throne12]

I can only tell you how I would handel this.
1. At the start of every campaign I tell my players " you are build/creating adventures so your character needs a reason to go on adventures and go out into the world." So I lay that law down and its not negotiable. This helps with a few things it gives me/DM story ideas and hooks. It also give the player a goal and reason to go out and do something.
2. Understand what the player/character wants. If they don't have one go back to #1. Then dangle hooks infront of them.
3. But the most important thing is to sit everyone down. And tell them look where here to play a game. This is what I enjoy running. If you can't agree to this or work with me. Then I ask you to polity leave. The everyone needs to be on the same page. If someone can't get on the same page. Then they need to leave and as the DM you need to put your foot down. I know we are all mostly uncomfortable with irl Confrontation but if you don't the problem is going to keep happening.

[Sjappo]

I don't think party make-up matters much. You have some variation in players but, guessing you are at least somewhat speaking in hyperboles, this seems to be a pretty normal spread. What you do seem to lack is player buy-in. What went wrong there, I don't know. Did you fail to get it in session 0 or did the playes buy-in but decided to revoke that somewhere along the way?

"My character wouldn't do that" and "my character wouldn't go there" are total horse manure. If the player did buy-in it is the players job to find a reason why his character would "do that" or would "go there". They are in the driver's seat so to speak. You could remind the player of his buy-in and ask him to change the characters attitude or kindly retire the character and return with a character that does buy-in.

I can get your frustration with the situation. You pour valuable time into prep and the players run the campaign to ground in no time flat. It might be that they don't know the consequences of their actions. How much it costs you in time spent in prep and frustration and aggravation gained in unfulfilling game-play.

[FlyingWhale]

@Throne12
@Sjappo

There very much was a buy in and agreement to work themselves into the game which they just abandoned to the end of session 1. No hyperbole and if I feel awful that I speak so bluntly about the shortcomings but I feel frankness and objectivity is the best for advice here. We actually, 1on1, spoke about the world as a whole, campaign story/plot points, intended direction of the end game material, intended direction of the "pre-game" material (sessions 1-3 to get used to the world and how it differs from standard rpgs), and how they could fit into such a world.

We got through session one by the skins of our teeth when two characters just wanted to get hammered at a bar and pick up wenches and start fights with patrons and town militia to prove their strength...

Which was 100% outside their characters as they introduced them to me (god complex, fire mage bent on ruling the world and burning all who would challenge him, no interest in mortal affairs, and devoted solely to a tattered cloth from a saint he worshipped... and the other an asexual bard who desired nothing more than to spread cheer through his poems/music/stories and to avoid confrontation at all costs) :annoyed:

When they finally got to the ship, they next two sessions were spent exploring the ship, npcs, learning the stories of eachother and the crew and their reasons for taking on this journey. Learned of the betrayal by the first mate when ghost/pirate ship rammed them, abandoned ship, then set off for a small island nearby. There was so much back and forth with the bard only casting the same ineffective spell against undead (a charm spell) and the fire mage roleplaying a drunken comedian... The other bard, tried his best but was so caught up in conspiracy theories as to who the party members were, how they were connected to the events, and how the enemies knew they were there to engage or flee, and then we had a fighter who was kicking ass and taking names. Session 3 we had another player join in and was the default healer running back and forth reviving people.

I think it was around 18 rounds of initiative combat.
I spoke with the players at length a few days ago and they all said they honestly enjoyed it and would like to finish the story line... I can't honestly believe 3/5 of them and even if I could, I thought it was a total disaster of 15 hours of our lives :( because after each session in the days between, it was constant bickering over miscommunications and confusion over their characters reasons to stay in the campaign.

So we're starting a one off. It's been years since I was an active member of this community but I would like to post about the new one offs if anyone would be interested in those for advice and such. Would the general D&D5e be the place for that? or maybe Homebrew?

thanks again all, I really have appreciated you all!