How do you like to start a campaign

[TheSword]

Bang is good. There will certainly be a bang in that scene. One of the travelers is badly wounded and there are things out there that can smell blood.

I think it all depends on how well the players know each other and the setting. If you go too disruptive for new players who don’t have a familiarity with either the world or the group you confound their expectations before they even know what those expectations are. For folks that have played together a lot and are jaded on taverns, then blowing one up sounds like a lot of fun. It is subverting expectations.

I think it’s cool for characters to know each other but certainly not essential or necessary. For me the first scene is still about introducing and showing their characters off to each other. I also want it to set the tone of the campaign and the world. If the hook is good and the world engaging I don’t think it needs to be artificially forced.

 

[DarkCrisis]

“In the beginning there was nothing and then the DM said let there be light and there was light. Players roll for blindness as the universe bursts into existence and light.”

 

[Retros_x]

I like to start in media res and with some relatively isolated single adventure at the start so the characters and players can explore their relationships and characters without to worry about "the big picture".

 

[GuyBoy]

I intend to start my upcoming Call of Cthulhu (1920s) campaign by sending players details of the world in 1925 and also full pen pictures of an influential English aristocrat, his extended family and his staff.
Players will be asked to create their own contextual backgrounds for 1925 and to include a link to the aristocrat and/or his connections in such a way that "a letter from Lord Danforth requesting your assistance will be slightly surprising, but not shocking, and you are likely to be favourably disposed to either help him, or at least to listen to what he has to say."

 

[Hriston]

I like to play generic D&D with the campaign starting at the mouth of a dungeon.

 

[payn]

I use campaign players guides (even if I have to write them myself). Even my sand boxes have meta-goals to avoid the aimless wandering that can happen in such style. So, I avoid "yall are in a tavern..." beginnings.

Though, I have had some fun beginnings such as;

• Shipwrecked
• Attending a funeral
• Tarot card reading
• Received a letter of marque

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I like to start in media res and with some relatively isolated single adventure at the start so the characters and players can explore their relationships and characters without to worry about "the big picture".

This tends to be my approach also.

 

[dragoner]

I like to start with some action, so jump right into it, like a starship battle or something. Cut to the chase.

 

[Voadam]

I generally run modules and adventure paths so I like to have PCs start off with some connection to the plot and possibly each other.

When I ran the Freeport Trilogy I had the players create backstories of why the goodhearted librarian Egil would ask them for help. The first session was meeting him at a dockside pub, which gets interrupted when a group tries to shanghai everybody there, starting with sapping Egil right after he walked in the pub door and waved at the PCs.

When I ran the Pathfinder 1e Carrion Crown adventure path I started off the campaign pitch with a solicitor's letter informing the PCs of the death of noted archaeologist professor Lorrimor Jones, their naming in his will, and his request that they be pallbearers at the funeral. They each had to come up with character concepts of their connection to the professor. The actual first game started with the PC butler of the professor using the professor's coach to gather up the rest of the PCs, the professor's rival archaeologist, the on again off again ex-girlfriend archaeologist, the young professor mentee, the professor's secretary, and the professor's grave robber associate.

 

[Celebrim]

Several times I've watched groups struggle to get good starts to games when the PCs are unknown to each other, often wasting whole sessions on what I feel is pointless banter and fake suspicion and hostility to just end up deciding to work as a cohesive group anyway.

I will say that working up how everyone knows each other works best for less mature players but I by no means agree that intraparty RP or banter is in any way wasted. In fact, as a GM, sitting back and watching good well done intraparty RP is one of my favorite things. The transcript of play that produces is... exquisite and if the players are all mature about and willing to maintain believable friction but find reasons to also respect each other or at least find each other useful that's pure narrative right there.

But not every group is going to be filled with thespians with narrative aesthetics and not every group is mature enough to have characters with somewhat contrasting personalities and goals and yet find believable reasons to work together - to yield to the play rather than just dig in on "it's what my character would do".

For my part as a GM, a lot of the early sessions are figuring out the aesthetics of my players. I don't want to impose too much on the players preferred fun. I have to have fun too, obviously, but if the players are functionally engaged in melodrama and everyone seems to be enjoying it, I am by no means in a hurry to interrupt that. Some of my favorite memories are of introduction sessions and skilled players handling that elegantly.

Plus, as I stated earlier, the idea that people who have just met, no matter the circumstances of how, suddenly being willing to risk physical harm or even death to protect one another inhibits my suspension of disbelief.

It depends on the characters and the situations. If we are "all in this together" because you are starting the game (as with my preference) with a "Bang!" and the majority of characters have a heroic background or belief system, it doesn't really require suspension of disbelief at all. You wouldn't need to explain why a bunch of paladins are working together to protect a bunch of orphans and refugees in the aftermath of a disaster. If all the characters are a bunch of scoundrels whose personality is all about themselves, then sure you'd better have some personal connections to explain why this bunch of backstabbing ne're-do-wells are working together.