How Do You Create a Cohesive Group Dynamic?

[Thornir Alekeg]

I have done this in the past and plan to continue doing it for the forseeable future. I insist that the PCs be a cohesive group. If not -- I won't DM them.

Heh -- for that matter I won't play in a non-cohesive group, either.

I tried this with my last group. You know what it got me? Nothing! They went ahead and made characters with no ties, no links and absolutely no reason to be together. Of course you know what they got them? One-third of the party dead so far. The new characters coming in suddenly seem to be more what I was looking for.

 

[Chimera]

the players have to want to have a good dynamic.

I insist on it before the campaign begins. If someone finds this "stifiling", and insists on playing the lone wolf, destructive character, then they can go do it somewhere else.

Amen brothers! Preach it!

My house rules say that if you can't find a reason for your character to be adventuring with the group, scrap the character concept and start over. I won't waste my time trying to figure out why your lone-wolf Half-Troll Barbarian is travelling with a bunch of urban Humans or why your sociopathic killer is working with a bunch of do-gooders. If you want to play those characters, try an on-line game or go somewhere else, because all it does is decrease everyone elses enjoyment, especially mine.

Otherwise, as above, the group has to want it. In the latest campaign I'm playing in, the group wanted it very much - and it shows. During the second session the GM noted how we're operating as "a machine" - when only two of us (of 6 players) knew each other before the group got together.

We are a cohesive group because that is the path of success and mutual enjoyment.

 

[Hjorimir]

Outside the game I promote the idea that it is within the player's best interests to work together, but it isn't a rule by any sense of the word.

However, in game dark forces will often use a 'divide and conquer' approach to the players. Over the years the players have suffered some losses because of this and I'm okay with that. It reinforces my first statement in this post.

 

[S'mon]

Good players who are happy with their PCs' roles in the game and who get on well with each other.

 

[Jupp]

Good players who are happy with their PCs' roles in the game and who get on well with each other.

Amen to that. Additionally, I would never want to put restrictions on my players what races/classes they can play and which not. It's egoistic of the DM and doesnt help alot IMO. A group of players isnt going to be more cohesive just because the DM dictates the character creation or the background story. It's the players that make the difference. I once had that experience where a DM tried to pack us into a certain common background and with restriction on character creation and personal story. To me it smelled railroady from the first second on, which in the end it also was. I think that campaign didnt last more than a few sessions.

Edit: Another reason a group looses their "grip" could also be that they've lost interest in the story or the setting. Perhaps the plot is not having the juice anymore to keep the players interested in it.

 

[jmucchiello]

Amen to that. Additionally, I would never want to put restrictions on my players what races/classes they can play and which not. It's egoistic of the DM and doesnt help alot IMO. A group of players isnt going to be more cohesive just because the DM dictates the character creation or the background story. It's the players that make the difference. I once had that experience where a DM tried to pack us into a certain common background and with restriction on character creation and personal story. To me it smelled railroady from the first second on, which in the end it also was. I think that campaign didnt last more than a few sessions.

No one here (I think) is saying that the DM dictates the background story. The idea is the players must meet and collectively figure out why each of the characters they are going to play have interrelated backgrounds. If that stiffles your creativity, don't play in those games. But it isn't too much to ask that the players create characters who have a reason to hang together. Play any race or class combination you want but there better be at least 2-3 other characters in the party who consider you a trustworthy companion or you need to make a new character.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

No one here (I think) is saying that the DM dictates the background story. The idea is the players must meet and collectively figure out why each of the characters they are going to play have interrelated backgrounds. If that stiffles your creativity, don't play in those games.

My personal suspicion, after dealing for 20 years with gamers uninterested in a group background, is that those players are less creative than the rest. I mean, with any given broad background, there are still millions of possible character concepts, and those folks apparently can't create one of them.

 

[Charles Rampant]

In the game I just started, I wanted to make sure there was a reason for the characters to 1) stay together and 2) follow the plot. It's warhammer, and I did this by saying they all had to be human, from the extended (think a clan sort of thing - branches across multiple social levels) ruling family of a single town. I insisted that they be from that background. This means that when the lord asks them to do something, they won't just turn around and go 'go stuff it' and then demand to go over to kislev and hit stuff.

Yes yes, I could have dealt with the kislev thing - but why bother? This way works and the players like it. It helps that I gave them a fairly detailed recent history for them to look over - plot is about a family curse.

Of course, the character creation got silly. They kept rolling crap like 'boatsman' and 'ferryman' and 'bonepicker'. Any career that includes a water transport within it's trappings is inherently unsuited to be awesome in my mind. In the end we just kept rolling till they got something vaguely in the area of what they wanted to play. Next time I'll just let them choose, tbh.

 

[yennico]

disallow character types that won't mesh with the rest of the party

Agreed but sometimes you do not see this before a player plays his PCs.
I played a pregenerated PC on a convention. I played a wizard, another a rogue and the third a human barbarian with int 9. The player of the barbarian played the PC very well and I liked how he played the PC, but my PC and I could not find a reason why my PC should stay in a group with this stupid PC.
Ok the barbarian is the fighter of this group, but choosing a party my wizard would rather join a party with an intelligent and educated fighter than with a barbarian.

play with people you actually enjoy hanging out with, if you wouldn't invite them to your birthday party...

Agreed, but normally you do not have the chance to pick only your favorite gamers. Sometimes a GM lacks players. In every group will be one player you dislike.

 

[yennico]

My house rules say that if you can't find a reason for your character to be adventuring with the group, scrap the character concept and start over.

Agreed, but the group must have a main goal and each PC must have a goal in furture. The personal goals of each PC must be compatible. If the wizard of the party wants to become the archmage of city XY which is far away from the country in which most of the adventures take place this goal is not compatible with this group.