Biggest pet peeve with players. This is why, during session 0, I make players pre-establish a reason that they not only go along with the party and the planned campaign but also a reason why they trust at least two other characters.
Best advice. Players start the game knowing how and why they are going to stick together.
I’m also inclined to put my thumb on the scale a little as DM and give the players a loose connection that they can build on and incorporate into their characters while building. BG3 did it really well - everyone has a tadpole in their head, y’all gonna be mindflayers if you leave the group.
I recently had players all start as fresh recruits in an organisation - they got to decide the organisation - where the higher-ups put them together. Previously I did a one shot at level 5 where players already had an adventuring group together 20 years before and were called back together for one last mission.
I’ve made it a hard rule, “Your characters are at least familiar with each other. They’re not total strangers.” It just makes everything so much easier.
One of the campaigns I play in is more of a West Marches or Adventurer’s League style with a rotating cast of players. There are… differening levels of effort.
I’ve played and DMed both. A West Marches campaign has been the right fit for some groups with tough schedules. That format can work really well when you have a larger world plan and story that different venn diagrams of groups slowly discover and have to post notes about to a group chat or Discord. Players remember and read about things from different sessions and piece together the story and world, then can decide on new missions and exploration in a real collaborative setting. Picture a tavern setting where they’re arguing about different plot hooks, missions, and tips, and start to switch from the selfish motivations of wanting cool loot to also wanting to uncover the story. It can be great if you lay the groundwork.
A few lazy players can disappear into the background, and they still have fun and want to hang out.
Picture a tavern setting where they’re arguing about different plot hooks, missions, and tips, and start to switch from the selfish motivations of wanting cool loot to also wanting to uncover the story.
Yea, this is exactly what I’m purposely trying to avoid with a Session 0. I, as the DM, list the plot hooks of the campaign I have prepared to run and players create characters around them that are guaranteed to be invested in the story as well as be cohesive with each other.
No arguing needed. If anyone wants to argue, they know where the door is.
Biggest pet peeve with players. This is why, during session 0, I make players pre-establish a reason that they not only go along with the party and the planned campaign but also a reason why they trust at least two other characters.
Best advice. Players start the game knowing how and why they are going to stick together.
I’m also inclined to put my thumb on the scale a little as DM and give the players a loose connection that they can build on and incorporate into their characters while building. BG3 did it really well - everyone has a tadpole in their head, y’all gonna be mindflayers if you leave the group.
I recently had players all start as fresh recruits in an organisation - they got to decide the organisation - where the higher-ups put them together. Previously I did a one shot at level 5 where players already had an adventuring group together 20 years before and were called back together for one last mission.
I’ve made it a hard rule, “Your characters are at least familiar with each other. They’re not total strangers.” It just makes everything so much easier.
And the person who didn’t gets to default to being the loner outcast who doesn’t talk much, easy
How would they not? Session 0 we create characters together, anyone who doesn’t follow the previously stated rules can leave my table.
The entire point is to prevent the creation of “rando loner who just sits in a corner and sulks”.
One of the campaigns I play in is more of a West Marches or Adventurer’s League style with a rotating cast of players. There are… differening levels of effort.
Yea, I don’t DM those types of games.
I’ve played and DMed both. A West Marches campaign has been the right fit for some groups with tough schedules. That format can work really well when you have a larger world plan and story that different venn diagrams of groups slowly discover and have to post notes about to a group chat or Discord. Players remember and read about things from different sessions and piece together the story and world, then can decide on new missions and exploration in a real collaborative setting. Picture a tavern setting where they’re arguing about different plot hooks, missions, and tips, and start to switch from the selfish motivations of wanting cool loot to also wanting to uncover the story. It can be great if you lay the groundwork.
A few lazy players can disappear into the background, and they still have fun and want to hang out.
Yea, this is exactly what I’m purposely trying to avoid with a Session 0. I, as the DM, list the plot hooks of the campaign I have prepared to run and players create characters around them that are guaranteed to be invested in the story as well as be cohesive with each other.
No arguing needed. If anyone wants to argue, they know where the door is.