Any advise for the first sessions of a new campaign?

[Creamsteak]

Summer rolls around and 4 members of my gaming group are pre-occupied for the next two months. What that means for me is that I'm going to start a seperate campaign with a slightly different group, maybe not the people I want to play with most, but still fun people. Problem is, my normal group has incredible cohesion, whereas this group has some problems. I want to get past these problems and into the heart of the game, and I was just hoping for a couple words of wisdom from board members.

I can honestly say that I have the most trouble with the first two sessions of a new campaign. If they don't 'hit it off' right away, I find myself either boring the players, or with the players on incredible tangents that I have trouble dealing with and preparing gaming material for.

One problem may be my DMing philosophy, which is to let the players decide what direction the campaign takes. I'm weighted down because my players are not necessarily that interested in writing their own plots (in the form of plot-hooks and background) as much as they seem interested in other things. Sometimes I work with what they give me, other times I try to reach out through every NPC, village, township, church, and kingdom that they encounter in order to guage what they want to do. This is great, after the characters (and their players) feel established, but initially it's a pain. Other times they try to avoid conflict and seem to have hefty trouble maintaining group cohesion.

A couple starter questions, by the way, so I can poll what others do:

1) Do you start the group within some finite grouping (friends from the same town, bar goers from the same tavern, members of the same religion, etc.), or do you let the group make that decision on their own? Do they make that decision before they start playing, or do the players come together through play? What works better and why?

2) Should you put any strictures on what classes (and races) the players need or use? Do you let players play whatever they want (within confines of logic and reason), or do you try and control groups ("I need at least one fighter-type, someone who can heal, a rogue, etc.")

3) How do you handle players that either streamline the other players onto their own quests, or those that try to avoid being dragged along with the group? Do you work with it, or do you try to remove it?


Basically I want to avoid having a weak start this time around... I want to get right into the heart of the game again, so that the new group can really get into the game and have fun.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

One problem may be my DMing philosophy, which is to let the players decide what direction the campaign takes. I'm weighted down because my players are not necessarily that interested in writing their own plots (in the form of plot-hooks and background) as much as they seem interested in other things. Sometimes I work with what they give me, other times I try to reach out through every NPC, village, township, church, and kingdom that they encounter in order to guage what they want to do. This is great, after the characters (and their players) feel established, but initially it's a pain.

While I usually don't make too many plans for adventures, the start of a campaign is different - the players are too busy establishing their characters' personality to worry too much about where the plot goes. So you need to push them a bit.

I'll give one piece advice at the beginning: Do character creation ahead of the first gaming session. This will make it much more easy to integrate the PCs into the first adventure.

A couple starter questions, by the way, so I can poll what others do:

1) Do you start the group within some finite grouping (friends from the same town, bar goers from the same tavern, members of the same religion, etc.), or do you let the group make that decision on their own? Do they make that decision before they start playing, or do the players come together through play? What works better and why?

Well, unless the players create some background ahead of time ("Oooh! A plot hook!"), I'd say that you set their background. This is fully within your rights as DM. Still, it is important that the PCs aren't "screwed over" with this - don't force any of them to go along with the adventure unless you know the player would go along with it. Better appeal to their greed or their conscience (if the PC is good).

Perhaps some of the PCs have known each other for some time, but I find that it is best if they meet each other during the course of the first session. This makes for much more interesting role-playing - and thus more chances to get their characters established.

And don't introduce them all at once - do that one after each other, and give them some chance to interact with NPCs and some of the other PCs before they all meet each other. Perhaps one of them has lived in the town for all his life, two others were hired as guards for a caravan that terminated in that town, another one was hired to steal something for the vice mayor, and the last one was found wandering in the woods with a major head wound...

This does, in fact, sum up how the PCs ended up in the same town in the first session of my old GURPS Warhammer campaign. And it worked out beautifully - the PCs had each time and opportunity to establish their character before they had the Big Adventure together.

2) Should you put any strictures on what classes (and races) the players need or use? Do you let players play whatever they want (within confines of logic and reason), or do you try and control groups ("I need at least one fighter-type, someone who can heal, a rogue, etc.")

Well, I'd restrict the PCs to the standard PC races (I find it hard coming up with adventures in civilized parts if realistically a lynch mob would come after one party member every time a certain PC entered town), but no restriction on classes. It's more fun adjusting the adventures to the party, IMO.

3) How do you handle players that either streamline the other players onto their own quests, or those that try to avoid being dragged along with the group? Do you work with it, or do you try to remove it?

Well, if the PCs have some quests written into their backgrounds, work that into the overall adventure so that the other PCs are motivated to pursue this goal as well, if maybe for different reasons. As for the others, make up a good background explanation why they'd want to get involved - or else appeal to their sense of greed.

 

[Nifft]

"You all meet in a bar..."
5 minutes of uncomfortable role-play
"Okay, everybody make a reflex save!"

They're the sole survivors of a vicious attack -- let the adventure come to them!

-- Nifft

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

I tend to start games by asking the players to come up with reasons for why they know and trust each other. If the players have goals I ask them to figure out how to integrate those goals so they compliment each other. I've never had a problem since.

I do place some restrictions:

* No evil characters.

* Chaotic neutral is discouraged.

* No "lone wolves"; the character must be group-oriented.


Other than that I let them go nuts. For example, there are no gnomes in my world, but if a player wants to play a gnome I let him. One guy wanted to play a kobold sorceror. I said OK. Why restrict somthing? As long as its balanced, there's no worries and it's hard to screw up balance at 1st level.

 

[Drawmack]

Total Party Kill, then make it a dream.

 

[blackshirt5]

Kill the ninja-player in the first five minutes.

Preferably with a fatal cart accident.

 

[Voadam]

A couple starter questions, by the way, so I can poll what others do:

1) Do you start the group within some finite grouping (friends from the same town, bar goers from the same tavern, members of the same religion, etc.), or do you let the group make that decision on their own? Do they make that decision before they start playing, or do the players come together through play? What works better and why?

2) Should you put any strictures on what classes (and races) the players need or use? Do you let players play whatever they want (within confines of logic and reason), or do you try and control groups ("I need at least one fighter-type, someone who can heal, a rogue, etc.")

3) How do you handle players that either streamline the other players onto their own quests, or those that try to avoid being dragged along with the group? Do you work with it, or do you try to remove it?


Basically I want to avoid having a weak start this time around... I want to get right into the heart of the game again, so that the new group can really get into the game and have fun.

1 I would talk with the Players and see if I could come up with a common hook for a new campaign, all work for the same wizard (one is an apprentice, one is a guard, etc.) all work for the same church or organization, etc. This gives them something to latch onto for character concepts and instant roleplay and story hooks.

2 Not that they need but I might restrict what is available for example, no half breeds in this campaign because the races are actually different species on this world, etc.

3 Tell players upfront that you want to avoid splitting the party and interparty frictions and ask that they work with you on that.

 

[Shallown]

This is a start I thought of using once and never got to though I have run it as a Tournament adventure.

Start with a natural disaster. Fire flood etc. There are different ideas to work with but in all it brings together people from different backgrounds classes and infuses a commanality/union between them.

Start with a fire in the city/town each character has things to do. Fighters lifting beams off people busting open doors to resque people.

Clerics healing and aiding.

Rogues using listen to locate the child's screams tumbling through the flames to grab the child under the bed.

Ranger's and druids calming animals in stables.

There is something for everyone to do and to pull everyone together. And it is nice to form those relationships with the townsfolk who can be appreciative to their saviors or even hatefully blame one for not saving their child. Lots of fodder for the fun and moral dilemma (sp?) galore.

just a thought

later

 

[fusangite]

Here's my feedback, for what it's worth:

One problem may be my DMing philosophy, which is to let the players decide what direction the campaign takes.

I can't really tell from your comments how broadly or narrowly I am to construe this.

I'm weighted down because my players are not necessarily that interested in writing their own plots (in the form of plot-hooks and background) as much as they seem interested in other things.

I hate it when players write character histories that effectively edit/modify the setting I create. Create the setting and then ask players where they want to situate their characters within it. There is no need for anyone other than the DM to produce written material about the setting. Furthermore, the more material you produce about the setting, the easier-to-write and the more relevant a character background will be.

Sometimes I work with what they give me, other times I try to reach out through every NPC, village, township, church, and kingdom that they encounter in order to guage what they want to do.

Here, I have a different approach. My campaigns are usually about characters responding to crises facing them or their societies. This is really how I get the party to bond and maintain a unity of purpose -- something bad is happening and they need to stop it.

1) Do you start the group within some finite grouping (friends from the same town, bar goers from the same tavern, members of the same religion, etc.), or do you let the group make that decision on their own? Do they make that decision before they start playing, or do the players come together through play? What works better and why?

This completely depends on the campaign. Sometimes, you want the first episode to be about the party meeting; sometimes you want the party to be an extant group. I think you should base this decision on the story you want to tell. There is absolutely no "one size fits all" answer to this question. Usually my games are a hybrid where there is an existing party and the first episode is about the event that adds new people to the group.

2) Should you put any strictures on what classes (and races) the players need or use? Do you let players play whatever they want (within confines of logic and reason), or do you try and control groups ("I need at least one fighter-type, someone who can heal, a rogue, etc.")

I think the way to solve this is to have everyone do character creation at the same time. If, for some insane reason, no one wishes to play a cleric, the realization that no one else is making a person with healing abilities might cause someone to generate a bard, druid or paladin, even if they still won't go all the way in creating a cleric. With the way multi-classing works in D&D, it may also be that after one level, an unbalanced party might multi-class in ways to deal with this imbalance. Thus, I think group pressure, not DM intervention is the most effective strategy for creating a balanced group.

That said, I have little problem with restricting the number of a particular class; not only do I disallow monks on principle in all my campaigns but in my ice age campaign, I told the party that they could generate a maximum of one shaman because it would be unreasonable for a tribe to have more than two shamans and obviously one would have to stay home.

3) How do you handle players that either streamline the other players onto their own quests, or those that try to avoid being dragged along with the group? Do you work with it, or do you try to remove it?

Well, obviously, if people don't want their characters to go with the group, one might well ask why they're showing up for the game. I don't really understand what you mean by "streamline" here, though.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

I used a variant of this idea (I don't know the original author):

The party is sitting at an inn, celebrating their latest adventure success. The door opens and they turn to see who it is...and everything goes black.

Next thing they know, it is cold and something wet is on their skin.

What has happened is this: The person entering the inn was a medusa and they were turned to stone. 12 years have passed and it is now winter (which is why it turned cold all of a sudden). They have been transformed back to flesh by the mayor of the town they once aided (the town where the inn was located). He has spent the last several years trying to amass enough money to have them permanently transformed back to flesh, but he has failed.

All he could manage was to acquire enough money to buy a salve that turns them to flesh for one week (which is why their skin is wet). But if they can drink an elixir made from the blood of the "Stone Lord" (the medusa), the change to flesh will be permanent. So, they must find the medusa, kill him and drink his blood.

The problem is that in the dozen years that have passed, the "Stone Lord" has managed to overthrow the entire region and set himself up as dictator. He lives a couple of days away in a fortress.

To further complicate matters, the "statues" of the party were left at the inn as a display of what happens to those who would oppose the will of the Stone Lord. When they go missing, word will get back to the Stone Lord fairly quickly and he will be prepared for them.

This turned out to be great fun as an adventure because the party was on a tight timetable and had to keep moving forward (which is what I want when I'm running a one shot). They were immediately faced with the dilemma of heading for the fortress with all due haste or trying to kill the garrison of bugbears that the Stone Lord had stationed at the town to keep them from sending word about their "escape".

----------

I made the mistake of having a hundred years go by, to emphasize changes in the campaign world (an invasion, new threats, etc.), but that caused problems with character backgrounds, so 12 years seem about right - possibly even less. This idea could also be effectively used after the group has met several npc's and perhaps been on one or two minor adventures: you, as GM, would have a chance to re-introduce npc's and situations, with the pc's maybe having clues that no one else does (after all, their memories of events 12 years ago are fresh).

What did work well was forcing the group to work together, because they all had the same problem to overcome. It also served to give them a common bond later, as they were "those guys who got stoned for a hundred years".