D&D 5E Wait... why are we adventuring together?

[Eltab]

After DM'ing a session that featured passive-aggressive PvP ("I give her a push then stand back and laugh while she is in deadly danger and has to be rescued."), I talked with several of the participants privately and next session to the group as a whole. I flat-out stated that the group was going to behave like a group, not a bunch of backstabbers or solo-stunt'ers. Anybody who couldn't get their character to behave so, was welcome to leave and/or not come back next week. (Nobody dropped out.)

I was able to get away with this because the group was sponsored by the FLGS which hosted us; we were supposed to be providing an environment where people could try out D&D and decide they liked it.
Had I been part of a group of friends, I would have started a group discussion aiming at an informal Code of Conduct instead of handing down an Edict.

Save everybody at least one headache - discuss this during Session 0.

 

[Morrus]

It’s largely the premise of the game. It needs that initial buy-in from the players, or else they’re playing some other game. A two-minute group conversation generally removes that problem. No need to over complicate it.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

My group and I are about to start a new 5e campaign. We were talking about our old 4e game, and the problem we had of the characters being so different in their motivations that there was no real good reason for them to travel together. Why, exactly, is the dwarf paladin still traveling with the gnome sorcerer who sold his soul to a literal devil? (Other than the fact that their players really like their characters, and really like playing together!)

How have you solved this problem in your games?

Some ideas we've had:

• Shared group background. In addition to each characters' background, the group picks a background for the entire party. So for example, your paladin has the background of Noble, but the group picks Urchin. So despite your paladin coming from a noble heritage, they start the game as a gang of street urchins.
• Related characters. We've had this in a couple campaigns already, but being related is a great reason to adventure together. Already for our 5e game, we have three dwarf cousins (a fighter, a cleric, and a... wizard, the black sheep)
• FATE-style backgrounds. When coming up with your character's background, incorporate at least one other character.

Any other ideas?

Well to use your example as a further example. Other then as meta knowledge the dwarf knows he is traveling with a spellcaster and the gnome knows he is traveling with a devout warrior.

Why would the dwarf know the gnome "sold his soul" at least in the beginning.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I ask the players to come up with the reason: "why are you all working together?" NOT working together is not an option, so tell me why you ARE.

I help develop the story as needed, but most of the heavy lifting is in the players' hands.

 

[cbwjm]

I generally don't care why they stick together in game. Players are having fun playing together so that's all that's needed.

The signature of champions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Honestly, while background ties and friendships and all that are great and should definitely be utilized if the players are interested, the best incentive to keep a party together is if they’re being paid or otherwise rewarded to. They all work for the same mercenary’s guild, or they were all contacted for assistance by the same magistrate, or something along those lines.

 

[MarkB]

Honestly, while background ties and friendships and all that are great and should definitely be utilized if the players are interested, the best incentive to keep a party together is if they’re being paid or otherwise rewarded to. They all work for the same mercenary’s guild, or they were all contacted for assistance by the same magistrate, or something along those lines.

That works only for a narrow range of characters and storylines. If the DM isn't telling a tale about mercenaries, or if half the players are variously paladins, monks and druids who tend to have motivations that trump money, it won't work at all.

 

[KRussellB]

Well yeah, obviously there's certain aspects of D&D as a game that will pressure players to keep their characters together. And yes, you can always just throw the responsibility on the players. But I'm trying to think more structurally here.

I guess my thoughts stray to great groupings of characters in books, TV shows, and movies that I love. Rarely are the characters thrown together simply because they're all there at the right time. And often when that is the motivation, the narrative lacks because of it.

On the other hand, the best group narratives seem to come up with all sorts of great reasons to keep the characters together. They have a common enemy, or one of the characters wants to turn in another for a bounty, or they're rivals going after the same goal. As the plot shifts, it provides more reasons to keep the characters together, even as those characters change and develop and may gain new motivations.

The 4th Edition game I referenced was a pretty roleplay-heavy, story-heavy game. All the players were very invested in their characters. However, many of the characters started drifting in different directions (towards evil, toward ruling nations, towards being an immortal warrior), and it felt sometimes that, were this anything other than a D&D game, there would be very little reason for these characters to adventure together anymore.

With my 5th Edition games, my players and I have always started with a Group Background. For example, in my most recent game, the players picked Noble as a group background. We decided that meant everyone belonged to the same noble household, and was invested in the betterment of that household. So throughout the game, the characters have been helping the rulers of the household, have been holding negotiations, have been seeking treasures for the household. Even though in this game, another character has now sold their soul to a demon (kind of a running theme, I guess?), they are still all firmly tied into the same narrative.

I remember reading back about a D&D group who decided they would all play members of a family of halflings. I loved that! It provides so many seeds for healthy inter-party conflicts, characters development, bonds... while keeping the core idea of a unified group.

Any other ideas?

 

[Charlaquin]

That works only for a narrow range of characters and storylines. If the DM isn't telling a tale about mercenaries, or if half the players are variously paladins, monks and druids who tend to have motivations that trump money, it won't work at all.

That’s why I said “if they’re being paid or otherwise rewarded to (adventure together).” The reward doesn’t hand to be financial, but if you want people to stick together (or for the fact that they stick together to make sense), the most effective way is to reward them for sticking together.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Why, exactly, is the dwarf paladin still traveling with the gnome sorcerer who sold his soul to a literal devil? (Other than the fact that their players really like their characters, and really like playing together!)

If your players can't come up with a bunch of reasons for how this works, then they're not trying.

And that's basically the most important thing - if you try, you can justify almost anything.

The paladin doesn't know about the contract
The paladin thinks he can save the sorceror's soul
The paladin is working against a greater evil than the sorceror
The paladin doesn't give a crap about the afterlife (ie - the only suffering that matters is in life)
The paladin would sell his own soul in order to do good, so who is he to judge?
The paladin doesn't believe in the afterlife
The paladin doesn't believe that it's possible to sell a soul

The sorceror values a powerful ally, even if he keeps trying to convert him
The sorceror took the contract primarily because he wanted to feel needed, and the paladin makes him feel needed
The sorceror doesn't actually want to hand over his soul - it's some form of con
The sorceror regrets making the deal
The sorceror made the deal to do good

etc etc.