PCs who don't seem to want to meet

[pemerton]

I'd require all PC siblings to be the same race, probably human. Other races could maybe be retainers of the family.

The last time I did this, two of the PCs were cousins (or brothers? . . . there seemed to be some family rumours which made the whole thing a bit unclear), samurai from a fallen house. Another PC was from a merchant family who funded the samurai brothers in return for fostering this third PC as a warrior. A fourth PC was from a merchant family who hired the samurai as bodyguards for a mission. And the fifth PC - a fox-spirit - was the guide to lead the group over the hills to their destination.

En route they met a sixth PC - a tree spirit - who joined with them for reasons that were never very clear. And later on in the campaign a seventh PC - a monk - was sent their way by a prophetic dream.

I've refused to meet the party once. The DM gave the cleric of Tempus an item hidden in a box and told him to hire people for travel. I would have gone along with about anything, but I couldn't in any way justify as a paladin assisting a CN cleric in transporting an unknown item. Eventually the DM tossed my character a dream to tell me it was okay.

Out of curiosity - given that you, as a player, presumably knew that you decision about how to play your PC was in danger of disrupting the game, why did you not decide that you had a dream, or some other intuition, that going with this priest was what you were destined to do?

 

[prosfilaes]

Out of curiosity - given that you, as a player, presumably knew that you decision about how to play your PC was in danger of disrupting the game, why did you not decide that you had a dream, or some other intuition, that going with this priest was what you were destined to do?

Because I was playing my character, not my god, nor the god of dreams. I was deciding what was within my purview to decide, not what was outside of it.

 

[delericho]

Realistically, it makes no sense at all for two complete strangers to meet in the pub and decide to go adventuring together. You're talking about them putting themselves into a situation in which they will have to trust one another with their lives, while in search of loot that will provide a very solid motivation for them to double-cross one another.

So, there are two 'good' ways I can see to resolve this:

1) The PCs are strangers, but for some reason they get forced together. Perhaps the local lord looks for 'volunteers', and they're it. Perhaps they get captured by slavers. Perhaps they are lost in a wilderness together. Perhaps zombies attack. Whatever the specifics, the party have to work together or die, and they have to undertake that first adventure.

2) Make it a condition of the characters' backgrounds - "You know each other, and have decided to adventure together. You work out the details."

Broadly speaking, I maintain that there are two situations in which it is okay for the DM to railroad the PCs (in campaign play) - the first is into bringing the party together, and the second is in getting them into that first adventure. At the outset, the DM probably doesn't know the specifics of the party, so how can be build an adventure especially tailored to appeal to them? So, no, it's not the job of the DM to motivate the players in this case; it's the job of the players to figure out why their PCs would be motivated to act thus.

 

[pemerton]

Realistically, it makes no sense at all for two complete strangers to meet in the pub and decide to go adventuring together. You're talking about them putting themselves into a situation in which they will have to trust one another with their lives, while in search of loot that will provide a very solid motivation for them to double-cross one another.

Well, this is roughly the plot of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. If the would-be adventurers are all down-on-their-luck, and are in a position to pool resources, then I think it can make sense.

Now admittedly The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a fiction, but I find it hard to believe that nothing like that ever happened in real life. And even if it didn't, it is such a staple of fiction - be it treasure hunting fiction (think also The Tower of the Elephant), or jail break fiction, or anything else where the desperation of the protagonists is great and their mutual reliance essential - that I can cope with it very easily in a game.

The real puzzle - which departs from a lot of this fiction - is the continue loyalty of the PCs to one another even when the mutual reliance is no longer necessary. (At least in many games. Of posters on this board, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] at least seems to play a game where the "betrayal" trope of these stories of desperate comradeship is also played out.)

I maintain that there are two situations in which it is okay for the DM to railroad the PCs (in campaign play) - the first is into bringing the party together

Maybe I'm not following what you have in mind, but how is this railroading? At least in the typical game, where the GM has primary authority over the geography of the world and the location of various people and things within it, isn't it inevitable that the GM should specify where a given PC finds him- or herself at the start of play. I mean, without that bit of narration from the GM, how would the player begin to play his or her PC?

the second is in getting them into that first adventure. At the outset, the DM probably doesn't know the specifics of the party, so how can be build an adventure especially tailored to appeal to them?

I take a different view, here, namely, that the GM should prepare scenarios, including the initial scenarios, in light of the PCs that the players have built. (Or, conversely, that the GM should help the players to build PCs that will fit into the adventure that s/he wants to run.)

 

[delericho]

Well, this is roughly the plot of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. If the would-be adventurers are all down-on-their-luck, and are in a position to pool resources, then I think it can make sense.

Now admittedly The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a fiction, but I find it hard to believe that nothing like that ever happened in real life. And even if it didn't, it is such a staple of fiction - be it treasure hunting fiction (think also The Tower of the Elephant), or jail break fiction, or anything else where the desperation of the protagonists is great and their mutual reliance essential - that I can cope with it very easily in a game.

I don't have a problem with it either. I'm pretty much happy to accept almost any contrived explanation for why the PCs are together, even if they don't really trust one another. I really don't need to explore the origin story for every adventuring group in my campaigns; I just want to get on with the game.

(Incidentally, I would lump "jail-break fiction" in amongst my other "this party must assemble" examples that I gave as point #1 in my previous post. But that's a nitpick.)

Maybe I'm not following what you have in mind, but how is this railroading?

It's not. But what I'm saying is that I believe in those situations (and pretty much only those two situations, at least in campaign play), I believe it is acceptable for the DM to railroad the players.

I take a different view, here, namely, that the GM should prepare scenarios, including the initial scenarios, in light of the PCs that the players have built.

In a perfect world, this is what would happen. But what I've found is that I just don't have the time to hold off on generating those first adventures until after I have the character sheets in hand. I need to have done a lot of ground-work up front, or else the campaign will never get started (or will die a quick and mediocre death.)

(Or, conversely, that the GM should help the players to build PCs that will fit into the adventure that s/he wants to run.)

This works, to an extent. And for most players that's all that's needed. But, again in my experience, there usually seems to be that one player who has a very specific character concept in mind, or really needs to play an 'oddball' character, or otherwise doesn't quite fit and requires a bit more work.

In those cases, I'm happy to work with the player and adapt the larger campaign somewhat to suit. But what I can't do is heavily retrofit that first adventure (again, due to pressures of time). So I require him to likewise work with me a little on this front - and that basically means accepting that first adventure, even if the motivations for doing so aren't terribly clear.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'd require all PC siblings to be the same race, probably human. Other races could maybe be retainers of the family.

And now I'm tempted to faff round with the half-elf and the various elven subraces as siblings. Elf mother; first child eladrin, second half-elf or whatever.

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't handle hold any players, but if they choose to play their character this way then it's on them to get to where they need to be when they need to be.

If the party meets and the loner is doing the loner-y thing, then I handle the party PCs and will switch over to "Maverick" every so often to ask what the character is doing. If, by the time the party has made plans and decided their next move, the "Lone Ranger" hasn't yet joined the party, then things progress without them. If they haven't left the bar and the rest of the group has made plans to leave town and explore the ruined remains to the north, then I let "Wolverine" know that he's sitting in the bar with a few other patrons and continue to ask what they want to do.

I may spend a minute or two letting them do whatever it is they want, then switch back to the group for the majority of the time. If they choose to be the "Lone Gunman" the entire time and miss the fun that's their problem not mine.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Realistically, it makes no sense at all for two complete strangers to meet in the pub and decide to go adventuring together. You're talking about them putting themselves into a situation in which they will have to trust one another with their lives, while in search of loot that will provide a very solid motivation for them to double-cross one another.

Realistically, individual members of a group should know that we play as a group and that the DM has built an adventure for a group. Most often in groups I've been in they've seen the PCs of their fellow players through the creation process long before the game ever begins.

Is it too much to ask that they at least try to think up a reason their PC would join a party before we start and they're all roleplaying their own thoughts and paying the others no attention. They can hardly say they didn't see it coming that they'd have to join a party.

Personally I'd rather just play the game and join the party that I have little reason to be in. It sounds more fun than having to get forced into a party just because someone's so concerned with being realistic.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm less interested in hearing suggestions of solutions in this case than I am in simply finding out: Why?

If that situation kept occurring, I would stop the game and ask if they actually want to play or are they wasting their's and everyone's time.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

If that situation kept occurring, I would stop the game and ask if they actually want to play or are they wasting their's and everyone's time.

It's occurred in nearly every group I've been in. It's not just one group doing it, it's as though it's the normal attitude for players around here.