PCs who don't seem to want to meet

[d2OKC]

As a DM, I like to give the PCs a common thread and then tell them where they're going to start before we sit down to play, and it's up to the player how their character got there. And generally, I ask them to stick with similar alignments just to make things easier.

For example, in my current campaign, the common thread was an NPC who was going to be executed. I asked each of the players to give me a reason why their character hated the soon-to-be-dead NPC and then told them they'd all be at the hanging when the campaign started.

During the execution, there was an attack, and the PCs were the only ones to stay behind and fight off the attackers. Afterwards, they found clues connecting the deceased NPC and the attackers and they learned they all had reason to dislike the guy, and that was enough for them to agree to investigate this connection together. I barely had to do any work outside of setting up the encounter and then running the combat.

They've since spent a lot of time adventuring together, and have learned to trust each other in-game, which keeps them together.

I know the OP didn't ask for ways to avoid it, but I thought it might be helpful anyway.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yeah, this issue irritates me as a DM and as a player.

I remember a stretch when I was joining a series of different games mid-campaign . . . and in each one the DM (different DMs) had me roll up a standard character of the appropriate level, and then promptly stripped my character of all possessions (and clothes) and dropped me a dungeon cell for the other player's to "find". That was irritating enough.

But then, each time, the party decided they couldn't trust the naked guy in the dungeon cell and either wouldn't let me out, or would let me tag along in my skivvies with a borrowed rusty short sword . . . .

I was a cranky player during those times!

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Probably. I never fail to overestimate players though. I go into situations thinking "they can't possibly be stupid enough to do that" ("that" in this case is this, but it can be any number of things depending on the situation). Then lo and behold they do whatever "that" is, and I'm left scrambling. And next time I trust them not to be stupid again. I'm not really sure why I have such faith in them.

I know how you feel, man. I've experienced the "I'm an angsty loner brooding in the corner" situation, though thankfully not for a while now.

My current player issue is the guy who doesn't want to play an adventurer. His character is a smith who wants to make nails and stuff. When he does choose to get involved, he's a team player, but often he just doesn't want to get involved. He's not motivated by gold or glory, so sometimes he'll just say "See ya later, I'll be at the forge when you get back." And then the rest of us are left with what I had thought would be a tough encounter with a solo monster, which is now verging on a TPK encounter.

But I know why he does it: Because D&D isn't his game of choice. He'd rather be exploring the Poseidon planet. But what's a DM to do? He just told me he wants to make a new PC, so maybe this one will be more adventurous...

(Not likely, but I can hope.)

 

[KidSnide]

In my experience, a lot of players start off campaigns focusing on playing their characters instead of focusing on doing what's helpful to get the campaign started. The player have characters who aren't gregarious, it's quite possible for an entire party to sit in an inn without ever meeting each other.

That having been said, I generally think it's a bad idea to start your campaign in a tavern, on a night like any other. There are so many better ways to set the scene: "You have all been gathered here...", "It had been such a peaceful day. Then suddenly..," "You each awake to find...", "Looking out behind you! There's a..."

-KS

 

[Janx]

Most groups seem to operate on the premise that if a player shows up to the table, their PC will be allowed to join the party (nobody auditions or interviews a PC and sends them packing).

Thats not to say players aren't stupid and don't sit by the fire, refusing to join the party. As this thread says, quite the opposite.


However, because of this default meta-game acceptance of new PCs, the party is stuck accepting PC that in reality, they would never allow.

This is a case of a player abusing the Auto-Acceptance rule.

Therefore, in my games, players are expected to make PCs that would be accepted by the party.

That means you can't make a loner PC that doesn't want to join the party. You can play a backstabbing traitor who the party would have killed had they run the standard background check for an NPC.

that means you can't play the evil drow elf to join the party of paladins who like to go rescuing kidnapped princesses.

that means you can't run an elf hating dwarven bigot in a party of elves in the middle of the elven nation.

it ain't rocket science. Like folks have suggested about making them siblings, have common ties, etc. You must make a PC that can justify being part of the group or you have violated the very principle of party-based gaming

 

[Rechan]

There's also an assumption that even a team of strangers, after th einitial quest, will stick together and/or trust one another.

That's not always the case.

I had one game where the initial adventure had the PCs waking up trapped in a bad situation. They had to work together or they would die soon. (The Paizo adventure Hangman's Noose, if anyone's curious). They worked together and got out.

The adventure ended, we entered the actual campaign, which was a city campaign. As soon as it started, they began working against one another. Each person was trying to screw the other over behind the other's back. Distrust mounted, and really there was no way to get the group to do anything together, their allegiances and motivations were too divergent.

 

[prosfilaes]

or, within the direct domain of the PC, the player could have decided that paladin volunteers to go with, to make sure this quest is on the up and up. If it truly is a noble quest, it's going to need a cooler head and a better moral compass than the Chaotic Nutjob can provide.

It wasn't a noble quest. It was moving an unknown item from one place to another for the God of War.

People can rationalize doing ANYTHING in real life.

No. Sociopaths can rationalize doing anything THEY WANT in real life, but most of us are bound up tight by social and moral rules. Anyway, this concept seems to obliviate the concept of roleplaying, if you can rationalize your paladin doing anything you want them to.

How hard is it for the player to RATIONALIZE why his PC would join the party, unless he's playing a dark elf and the party is a bunch of bed sheet wearing goose steppers.

I was playing a paladin worshipping a god of peace, being asked to do an unknown service for the god of war. How far off your scenario is that really?

I would have worked it differently had we made up our characters together. As it was, I was willing to take just about any hook given me. How hard is it for the DM, in this case the only person who knew all the characters, not to make a hook that was poison to one of the characters?

 

[Janx]

It wasn't a noble quest. It was moving an unknown item from one place to another for the God of War.

I was being facetious. It was presumably noble to the cleric. And since it was a "holy" mission, it probably needed some supervision by a better authority of right and wrong such as yourself.

No. Sociopaths can rationalize doing anything THEY WANT in real life, but most of us are bound up tight by social and moral rules. Anyway, this concept seems to obliviate the concept of roleplaying, if you can rationalize your paladin doing anything you want them to.

Quite the opposite actually. sociopaths don't see people as people, merely objects to be manipulated. In their mind, there is no rationalization, they simply don't value you.

Whereas normal people rationalize having affairs, embezzling money, not paying their taxes or their bills, rounding up citizens and putting them in camps, etc. And all these things are done by otherwise "good" people.

So yes, there is quite a bit you can rationalize your paladin to be able to do.*

*not that you personally want to, but any such limitation is artificially put there by you and just as easily removed.

I was playing a paladin worshipping a god of peace, being asked to do an unknown service for the god of war. How far off your scenario is that really?

I would have worked it differently had we made up our characters together. As it was, I was willing to take just about any hook given me. How hard is it for the DM, in this case the only person who knew all the characters, not to make a hook that was poison to one of the characters?

Your GM goofed up in making a hook that only appealed to 1 PC. he should have made sure there was broad appeal or at least allegiance (if the cleric was your stupid brother, you may have rationalized going along to keep him out of trouble and to see what this nefarious mission was about).

Your group of players goofed up, because you you violated the metagame rule that you're all granted permission to join the party (and virtually expected to do so), despite that not making any sense to do so.

I did leave that dark elf vs. nazi party clause in there for a reason.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

- and that basically means accepting that first adventure, even if the motivations for doing so aren't terribly clear.

There's a perfectly good motive: "Are you here to play, or not?" (There's an old story about a method actor asking the director what his motivation was to play a scene. The director's answer? "To get paid." He played the scene briliantly.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I had a player who use to brag that he could dodge any DMs plot hook.

His favorate cop out was "I am just playing my characeter" or "My character would never do that"
I finaly explained "I made a game, if this PC would not be part of it you are fine in not getting involved, Now retire him, and make up a character that will go with the game."

Over the years I went with that alot, Last year in 4e I meet a player worse...useing the above argument he went through 8 characters before he left the game.. 4 never joined the party becuse one of the other PCs 'acted suspicus' or some such, 2 left becuse 'there is no reason for me to stay' one died after attacking an old woman (killing her) and having the other PCs turn on him, and the final one left becuse a fellow PC made a joke about the race of the character.