What I want is so precious little!

[Ry]

Damnit, I'm not asking a lot.

I just want to be able to GM without sitting down, and I want buy-in to be something the players bring to the table, rather than being expected to turn characters into a cohesive party, figuring out how to motivate them, and being responsible for all the players' fun.

Is that so much to ask?

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Perhaps yes and perhaps no. Your post gives us very little background to know for sure.

Personally, if the rest of the group was seated and the DM stood, it would likely bother me enough that I wouldn't be able to get into the game. If everyone stood, then it'd be okay. But one person standing while the rest aren't? Bothersome.

As to your second part ... I believe the fault lies within your character design process. If you want player "buy-in" to be assumed, then make sure the game is set up as having it be assumed. For example, when you are starting a new game, give the players the setting:

"The next adventure we will be undertaking is going to be themed along these lines: ______. What I need you all to do before we meet next is design a character that is already part of an existing group and is friends with the other characters. Please communicate with each other outside the game time to establish a cohesive party. Please make sure that the cohesion is stated in your backgrounds."

Now, that won't solve all the problems. But ti does lay your expectation out for the players. The problem is, if you have a high death rate ... you can't expect the players to suspend reality every time someone dies and they happen to stumble across 'another long-lost friend who is immediately accepted into the party.'

 

[Mallus]

Is that so much to ask?

Not at all.

 

[Ry]

Personally, if the rest of the group was seated and the DM stood, it would likely bother me enough that I wouldn't be able to get into the game. If everyone stood, then it'd be okay. But one person standing while the rest aren't? Bothersome.

I've been standing while GMing for... gosh... 10 years now. My players are aching for me to run a new campaign, so I must have done something right.

As to your second part ... I believe the fault lies within your character design process. If you want player "buy-in" to be assumed, then make sure the game is set up as having it be assumed. For example, when you are starting a new game, give the players the setting:

"The next adventure we will be undertaking is going to be themed along these lines: ______. What I need you all to do before we meet next is design a character that is already part of an existing group and is friends with the other characters. Please communicate with each other outside the game time to establish a cohesive party. Please make sure that the cohesion is stated in your backgrounds."

Now, that won't solve all the problems. But it does lay your expectation out for the players. The problem is, if you have a high death rate ... you can't expect the players to suspend reality every time someone dies and they happen to stumble across 'another long-lost friend who is immediately accepted into the party.'

These are really good points. Party creation instead of character creation would be a big step towards what I'm going for.

I want something even more radical than "GM tells players what campaign will be about, they make that party." I've run that before, with great success (you are part of a small knightly order, you are young men in the same tribe on the steppe) - but I think something in party creation could be used to address the "I'm responsible for everyone's fun" thing. Like, the party creation also involves some kind of... reason to adventure. That way I can play to that instead of having to get everyone to play to my idea.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I've been standing while GMing for... gosh... 10 years now. My players are aching for me to run a new campaign, so I must have done something right.

Oh, sorry! The way that the original post was written I assumed that your standing was a problem and the group wasn't accepting it. I was just pointing out why it might have been a problem. But if it isn't a problem, then don't change it!

I want something even more radical than "GM tells players what campaign will be about, they make that party." I've run that before, with great success (you are part of a small knightly order, you are young men in the same tribe on the steppe) - but I think something in party creation could be used to address the "I'm responsible for everyone's fun" thing. Like, the party creation also involves some kind of... reason to adventure. That way I can play to that instead of having to get everyone to play to my idea.

So, do that. Tell the group that you don't care what kind of adventure you run. Tell them that they have X amount of time to put together their dream characters, come up with group cohesion before the game, and come up with 4 reasons they might adventure together. (Killing dragons, rescuing maidens, collecting gold, finding lost artifacts, etc). Then, make sure to give yourself enough time to come up with a general plotline for a few adventures.

Shouldn't be hard at all!

 

[shilsen]

You think you have it bad? I have to put pants on every time I run a game. It's ridiculous!

I want something even more radical than "GM tells players what campaign will be about, they make that party." I've run that before, with great success (you are part of a small knightly order, you are young men in the same tribe on the steppe) - but I think something in party creation could be used to address the "I'm responsible for everyone's fun" thing. Like, the party creation also involves some kind of... reason to adventure. That way I can play to that instead of having to get everyone to play to my idea.

I don't think that's too radical. I'd suggest just getting everyone to answer three questions during character creation: (1) Why is your character an adventurer, in the short term and the long term? (2) Why will your character choose to adventure with the other PCs? (3) Why should the other PCs choose to let your character adventure with them?

 

[Ry]

The death thing is a big problem though; death is rare but possible in my campaigns, but at the same time, background is important.

 

[shilsen]

The death thing is a big problem though; death is rare but possible in my campaigns, but at the same time, background is important.

There are two obvious solutions that come to mind: Either effectively remove death from the game (I've done that and it works just fine) or make it relatively easy to return from death.

 

[Torm]

A good background from each of the players for their character can help a LOT, as they can be mined for adventure ideas. And a small reward for writing a good background can be an awesome motivator - a free Feat works for me (just remember to make the baddies a wee tiny bit better).

That's the carrot, here's the stick: If they don't give you a background with ideas you can use, put them through a background generator like Central Casting. Warn them you will do this, and they will be stuck with the 10ft tall character with a 6 Str that was molested by a troll as a child and now has scales that may result from such a process.

(In reality, you can tweak the outcomes in a generator to make a more playable character, obviously - but the above reflects exactly what I let happen to one player that none of us wanted to stay around. He was a known thief - the player, not the character.)

 

[ChristianW]

Templates

I've run campaigns where I handed out templates and expected everyone to select one. A few points were left unspent, as to allow a few tweaks here nd there in skill points and ability scores, but that's it.

I don't like the idea of a party composed of four classes/races picked willy nilly from the PHB. It strains my suspension of disbelief a little too much. Like your example, I've said, "We'll be playing a military style campaign. Your characters are part of a holy order of knights, a few of humanity's last defenders. Before your outpost lays a blasted wasteland where the armies of Necromancer Lords mass. Brace for impact."

Well, it wasn't quite that dramatic, but everyone was expected to play a martial, non-spellcasting human - fighter, fighter, or...fighter. The focus was tight, the characters were cohesive and those who showed up to play knew what they were getting into. Anyone who didn't like it didn't have to play.

All I'm saying is that you, the DM, have the right to dictate the terms of the game. Since few are willing to sit in the Big Chair (although you prefer to stand, heh), I think the DM really can have his say. This isn't proclaiming that PCs are pawns in your screenplay, but as my friend Lyonel once told us, "I have a story I'd like to tell and I'm wondering if you guys would like to play the following roles." Presented like that, it was easy to say yes.

I think its also important to note that a "scripted" campaign doesn't have to last a long, long time. Some stories take less time to tell than to others. That can also be conveyed to the party during char creation. "I'd like to run an all rogue campaign. The goal of the game is for your characters to rise from poor street urchins to guild lieutenants. I think we'll need about 20 sessions to pull it off."