Getting the party started

[Supreme Serpent]

GMs:

We all know that the start of a campaign can be a rough time, trying to get all those PCs to form at least a semblance of a group so you can spend most of the time on one plot instead of having scattered players all doing their own thing. Akin to herding cats sometimes, sometimes easy enough.

So, do you have a preferred method, or do you wing it each time?

*Establish connections pre-game (with player input most likely), without giving the PCs the chance to "mess it up"? :D

*Do it in-game? The big menace? The convoluted plot that affects them all? The instigator (one PC goes recruiting)?

Does your approach differ by genre?

Success and horror stories from the various approaches?

As a player, what do you prefer?

[AliceTheOwl]

Well, I've only run one game so far, and I'm only 6 sessions in, so I can't very well say what I "usually" do.

But how I handled was, before the game began, I asked each player to give me a reason why his or her character would be interested in doing good deeds. Once I had their motivations down, I built a scenario that would appeal to each of their motivations. It was up to them to decide to do it together, but they're cooperative players, luckily, and they each recognized right away that it would be to their benefit to keep the others around.

This is a Fantasy Hero campaign, by the way. I think such a tactic is easier the more difficult everyday survival is.

[bigdamnhero]

I've done it lots of different ways for different games. Not sure it varies by genre that much, but it depends on the campaign, who the players are, and what the characters' motivations are. I've always had a soft spot for variations on the "you're all in the same bar when a fight breaks out" introduction. How much "leverage" I pre-build into the situation depends on how likely I think the PCs (and the players themselves) are to stick together left to their own devices.

[Edit: it's not quite as random as I probably made it sound. Generally there has to be some reason for the PCs to hang together beyond just happenstance. So I try to pre-establish some common motivations or connections, even tho those may not be revealed ahead of time.]

[Derek Hiemforth]

I typically establish connections before the game begins, unless there's a pressing campaign-based reason not to do that. However, they don't all have to have connections to all of the others. More usually, it's something like John knows Jim and Jane, while Jim also knows Judy and Jack, who knows Jerry, etc.

[teh bunneh]

Same for me as Derek.

I also let all my players know that I'm running a team/group adventure, and not to create lone-wolves who have no reason to join. My players are all pretty good about this and tend to work together without any prompting from me. :)

[JohnTaber]

I've used lots of different techniques over the years. Normally I give my players some guidance then let them tailor the PC. Here is an example.

The hook I used in my current campaign might actually be the best I have ever used. It is a Star Hero campaign. I told my players that they all needed some reason to be travelling to a distant mining colony and that they had to be "nice guys under the hood" (i.e. no mass murderers). That's it. In the first session their transport ship crashes on the asteroid and the PC must use their combined skills to make it to the colony. After arriving they discover that their ship was sabotaged! Why?!? Who(m) were they after? Who did it? It worked GREAT as the PC had a common goal and a reason to stay together for safety! :D

[bwdemon]

I tend toward the "you meet at the beginning" method, because it gives a lot of opportunity for roleplaying. Start the players out in similar circumstances that drag them into a plot arc together and things just work from there to keep them together until such time as the group firms up.

Sometimes you are better off planning out the group in advance. Once done, you can still play the introduction stuff out (just because you know where the scene ends doesn't mean that you know the rest) or just leave it as given. In my experience, it's kind of nice to do some planning for superhero games - hopefully with input from the players.

If you're lucky enough to have a large group of self-motivated players (could be good or bad luck) and no need to have everyone in the same group, then you can pretty much let them go and see what happens. It can seem a little lazy for a GM to just watch and adjudicate conflict, but it is rarely boring for anyone involved.

[Eosin]

I tailor the cohesion to the setting, group, and adventures that I am planning to run. This can be as simple as saying - you are all youngish (16-23) and live in a small frontier town with foster parents. You know next to nothing about your birth family. The unspoken hook was that somehow the missing parents would connect the players. The players didn't know how or why but they were hidden to protect them from those who wanted to see them meet with a terrible fate. There were specific people within the town set to watch over them and ensure that they came to no great harm (also to train them).

Another involved everyone belonging to a caravarn that crossed the dessert. The PCs were only told to make a PC that would have a reason to travel on something akin to the Silk Road. A sandstorm engulfed tham and everyone died. The PCs were the ones "taken too early" and struggled to find their way out of limbo. After surviving death, they teamed up together to discover exactly what caused their deaths since their escape have given them clues indicating that they should have had long productive lives. They also noted that they were invisible to survelliance - they left no tracks, could not be scried, and were immune to Telepathy.

These seemed to work best for me.

My favorite "you are in a tavern" story basically had the tavern fall into a sinkhole while all the players were inside. They ended up under attack and fled into the underdark along with several other inebriated patrons. After months (weeks?) of exploring they had found their way out. I can't remember who told me the story but it sounded like a great plot hook.

[sinanju]

I've never run a really long-running campaign. I tend toward the "miniseries" approach, I guess. So I have (had, really, since I haven't run a game in a couple of years) a set of standard rules for character construction. The first two rules:

1. No silly characters. 'Nuff said.

2. Your characters must be willing and able to work together. If your character's background, personality, motivations, hygiene, etc. make it unreasonably difficult or impossible for the other characters to cooperate with him--do something else.

So...I guess I'd have to say I generally do the "work it out before the game starts" approach. It's a game. You're there to have fun, and making sure everyone is on the same page about what you're there to do helps.

[Herolover]

I tend to alternate and use whatever method appears best for the campaign I have in mind.

That said, I tend to like it more when the connections are made before the game starts so the players have a reason to stay together. Makes things so much easier.

[copeab]

Establish connections pre-game (with player input most likely), without giving the PCs the chance to "mess it up"?

I've found that this works the best. In one campaign, the initial two PCs were partners who owned a small (ie, the two of them, plus a secretary) troubleshooting agency. All the PCs who got added during the campaign ended up becoming employees of the agency.

In another campaign (same general setting, different city) all the PCs are police detectives or (field) support personnel.

[Thia Halmades]

It depends really. For the military campaign I did, it was easy. "Congratulations, you're all part of this SF unit. What you do beyond that is on you, but you all work together." It allowed them to express themselves without fear of "ruining" everything.

Second. Because I really, really hate players who are all "ME! MEEEE! ME! I'M GOING TO OPEN A TEA SHOP, HOW DO I DO THAT?!?!" I want to shoot those people. So I set ground rules. Your character must conform to the following: (blah). If they do not, you need to rethink your concept. This is a middle ground, where the players are free to interpret the guidelines within a certain amount of latitude, but generally are well behaved about it.

Honestly? If I don't do something like this, my experience has been two people say "Um, we're brothers! So yeah, our characters know each other!" ...right. That's original. Or. "Um... my guy kills people." I saw this in college more times than I can count. Thankfully, my current PCs are phenomenal, and I have NONE of those problems.

[Mike W]

I've used a lot of different approaches with success. Sometimes, I just tell the players to make the characters a group(or at least connected) before the game starts.

Most often, I concoct an elaborate storyline to start things off and work all of the characters into it. This is especially true of superhero games(essentially. I'm drawing on Avengers #1 here).

[Hugh Neilson]

It depends really. For the military campaign I did, it was easy. "Congratulations, you're all part of this SF unit. What you do beyond that is on you, but you all work together." It allowed them to express themselves without fear of "ruining" everything.

Second. Because I really, really hate players who are all "ME! MEEEE! ME! I'M GOING TO OPEN A TEA SHOP, HOW DO I DO THAT?!?!" I want to shoot those people. So I set ground rules. Your character must conform to the following: (blah). If they do not, you need to rethink your concept. This is a middle ground, where the players are free to interpret the guidelines within a certain amount of latitude, but generally are well behaved about it.

I find it helpful to start out by stating that I won't overly constrain player creativity or role playing. That means you can play your character pretty much any way you want. If you want a character who wants to open and run a tea shop, fine. If you want a homocidal maniac, fine.

But I won't constrain the OTHER players' creativity or role playing either. If they're all special forces members, and you're running a tea shop, you may find yourself bored as the special forces members go on missions. They aren't going to drag along the tea shop owner. The fact you're a PC doesn't obligate the other PC's to drag a useless noncomatant along on their missions. Similarly, the fact you're a PC doesn't oblige the other characters to accept a homocidal maniac as a teammate, rather than a mad dog to be put down as quickly as possible.

In other words, the onus is on the player to design a character who will fit in sufficiently that the other characters would logically want him around, or at least tolerate having him around, within the parameters of the campaign setting.

[bigdamnhero]

But I won't constrain the OTHER players' creativity or role playing either. If they're all special forces members, and you're running a tea shop, you may find yourself bored as the special forces members go on missions. They aren't going to drag along the tea shop owner. The fact you're a PC doesn't obligate the other PC's to drag a useless noncomatant along on their missions. Similarly, the fact you're a PC doesn't oblige the other characters to accept a homocidal maniac as a teammate, rather than a mad dog to be put down as quickly as possible.

In other words, the onus is on the player to design a character who will fit in sufficiently that the other characters would logically want him around, or at least tolerate having him around, within the parameters of the campaign setting.
I'm always amazed there are so many players out there who even need to be told this. I guess I've been lucky, as I have encountered very few of them over the years.

[CBikle]

But I won't constrain the OTHER players' creativity or role playing either. If they're all special forces members, and you're running a tea shop, you may find yourself bored as the special forces members go on missions. They aren't going to drag along the tea shop owner. The fact you're a PC doesn't obligate the other PC's to drag a useless noncomatant along on their missions. Similarly, the fact you're a PC doesn't oblige the other characters to accept a homocidal maniac as a teammate, rather than a mad dog to be put down as quickly as possible.

In other words, the onus is on the player to design a character who will fit in sufficiently that the other characters would logically want him around, or at least tolerate having him around, within the parameters of the campaign setting.

Plus, there are very few games where being the owner of a tea-shop adds anything to anything. Boring.

Save that character for when I decide to run my Mall Kiosk Hero game.

[Thia Halmades]

DUDE! MAIL KIOSK HERO! I'm so down with that!! YES!

Point being. *cough* Sorry. Point being. I agree with you, Hugh, but my style is built on making sure everyone knows where the freedom IS and what the expectations are prior to coming to the table. If we're playing "Way Too Dark For the Board Champions" and homicidal maniacs form killing parties (homicidal maniacs do not go hunting. Hunting implies a possibility of failure. Homicidal Maniacs go KILLING) then a Paladin would be just as out.

Agreed: if you want to play Whoopi Goldberg's character from ST:tNG, feel free, but don't be stunned when the guns are going off and you have nothing to do. I shot Neelix.

[copeab]

DUDE! MAIL KIOSK HERO! I'm so down with that!! YES!


Is he on the same super team as the Jukebox Hero?

[Manic Typist]

I shot Neelix.


What did he do?


Was he blocking your field of fire?

[Spectrum]

I think it was more of a mercy killing.

[Thia Halmades]

It was a mercy killing. If'n I hadn't shot him, I'd've gone stark raving mad. It was self-entitled mercy.

[Manic Typist]

Fair enough... but...

You shot the ship's cook?

That can be a dangerous thing on a long journey into the Black.

[TheRavenIs]

Well I've used many ways to get a team together. The best one I've found for me and my players is for them to have know each other before they become heroes, or what ever the game is set up for.

When you have them start as friends you get around the probleam with the team not getting along, it still happens, but usually they work together and get along.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well I've used many ways to get a team together. The best one I've found for me and my players is for them to have know each other before they become heroes, or what ever the game is set up for.

When you have them start as friends you get around the probleam with the team not getting along, it still happens, but usually they work together and get along.

Where this becomes problematic is where it becomes quickly apparent that the characters would likely not have become friends. Their personalities are opposed, for example, or their goals incompatible. There still needs to be some effort made to ensure the characters are designed in a way that they will work together. To pick an extreme example, when Fred's character has the Psych "Hates all elves - will kill them at every opportunity" and Charlie's character is an elf, telling them "You've been friends for years" probably won't make the game flow smoothly. Fred needs to tone down the psych lim, or Charlie needs to pick a different character.

[TheRavenIs]

Where this becomes problematic is where it becomes quickly apparent that the characters would likely not have become friends. Their personalities are opposed, for example, or their goals incompatible. There still needs to be some effort made to ensure the characters are designed in a way that they will work together. To pick an extreme example, when Fred's character has the Psych "Hates all elves - will kill them at every opportunity" and Charlie's character is an elf, telling them "You've been friends for years" probably won't make the game flow smoothly. Fred needs to tone down the psych lim, or Charlie needs to pick a different character.


Well to correct that probleam is that I try to get all the C's to created at the same time. Everyone works out the little quirks and then we talk out the personalities, then we alter as needed what ever would make the C's not get along. That then allows the C's and myself to go from there. Doesn't work all the time but it is what I do try to do.

[Thia Halmades]

I'm with the Raven on this one - but it also goes back to what I was saying before. That's what the guidelines are for. Here's an example from the last major campaign I started:

Three rules. One - your character has to WANT to be in this military, and part of this unit. If you don't WANT to be here, you're missing the point of the game, and your character will utterly miss the point of receiving the honor of being Special Operations. Your character flat out won't work under those circumstances.

Two. You must be GOOD (remember this was begun as a d20 campaign, where Alignments are King). I don't care what kind of good, and I'm open to various interpretations of Good (I wrote an eight page article on it), but you must be Good, partially because of the nature of the Special Operations Unit, partly because I don't want to deal with you choosing to be "evil" at random *** times.

Three. You must be a Team Player. Your character can't (cannot, as in, banned from) having any personality quirk that prohibits them from not working with the squad. I don't mind if you go so far as to build a variation on Batman from the JLU - but you can't do Batman from the Animated Series wherein he never works with anyone except Alfred. While he was still a Loner (which is fine), he also consistently puts the team ahead of himself (and falls in love with Diana).

Those were the guidelines. Wants to be on the team/in the military. Must be Good. Must be a Team Player (as its a squad based military campaign about an elite special ops unit). Even with people pushing those boundaries (which I knew they would) they worked very nicely. That's a lot of what I was driving at when I mentioned it originally. So I didn't have the "Bob hates Fred because Fred is a pointy eared, hoity-toity bastard" issue - I never have that issue without the PCs talking amongst themselves about it long before I get to it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well to correct that probleam is that I try to get all the C's to created at the same time. Everyone works out the little quirks and then we talk out the personalities, then we alter as needed what ever would make the C's not get along. That then allows the C's and myself to go from there. Doesn't work all the time but it is what I do try to do.

I like the players (self included when I play) not knowing everything there is to know about the other characters from the outset. I also don't mind some level of conflict between the various characters. But they need to be able to work through those conflicts and work together, so there are limits to just how opposed their views and goals can be.

Thia's example ground rules, for example, provide for considerable opportunity for conflict between the characters while still providing a basis for them to work together when the chips are down.

[Thia Halmades]

Wow. Thanks, Hugh. I'm... flattered! I don't get to say that very often. ;)

[ShelleyCM]

This is one of the biggest reasons I love agent/military games -- everyone already has a built in meta motivation for being with the other members of the party and for superficially getting along (though tensions always arise). It's much rarer to have that obnoxious person who has to play the useless loner in an agency setting! (Although, sadly, it does still happen on occasion.)

Shelley

[Thia Halmades]

Well, I have that obnoxious person, despite my best efforts and consistent design to the contrary. And I still want to shoot him. But I've prohibited him from opening a tea house so far.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, I have that obnoxious person, despite my best efforts and consistent design to the contrary. And I still want to shoot him. But I've prohibited him from opening a tea house so far.

Who are you to stand in the way of his character's goals. Of course, it's hardly YOUR fault if he's attending to his tea house while the rest of the characters are investigating the McGuffin that leads them on a cross-country multi-session adventure, is it?

Make a character who has no reason to adventure, and you'll find you have very little to do in most game sessions.

[ShelleyCM]

Poor Thia! If you were using Brownie Points, I guess you could dock him/her points for not being a team player, but IMHO that if the player is that clueless (especially after you've laid out your ground rules), nothing helps. Except not inviting them next time. :(

Shelley

[Spiral]

I do something similar to what Thia posted I give them the basic guidelines for the game. Then go from there. Sometimes they start out knowing each other but most often they meet as strangers.
For a teen hero game I did a few of years ago they all meet on the first day of summer school. That was one of the best groups to run games for they just seem to click together and went through school and ended up becoming one of the best Hero teams in my little universe.

[CrosshairCollie]

I've recently grown fond of the 'patron' angle, where all the PCs wind up, through one avenue or another, with a common contact (usually an NPC who has some money or resources). Sometimes it's a direct employment, sometimes it's more of a mutual aid thing.

For superhero games, this lets me dole out some of the traditional swag that comes with superteams (aircraft, bases, communicators) without requiring the PCs to spend their points on it (because, really ... they just won't). Admittedly, if I ever try to run a game where I don't want the high-profile Avengers/JLA-style team, then I probably won't go the patron route ... but I generally prefer big four-color action with fancy aircraft rather than the entire team piling into the back of a '85 Chevy Blazer.

[Markdoc]

I've used a variety of methods.

The current FH game was: there's a big festival. You're all there. Then I wove the various characters together with their psych. lims and other plot hooks so that now (about a dozen sessions in), they are starting to turn into a team, despite quite different goals/personalities. I allowed pretty wide latitude as to what was allowed with regard to characters.

The last two FH games had fixed ground rules: you must play a retainer, friend or relative of this NPC (the patron route), so that the players had a vested interest in playing together. I also vetted characters carefully as to what was and what was not appropriate. Two of the players pushed the boundaries in the last game anyway, with the result that the other characters went to, yes, a teashop, and calmly discussed whether to murder them. One of the troublesome characters was "disciplined" by the rest of the group and his player left - the other was resolved through roleplaying and eventually became de facto team leader.

Prior to that, I tried the "team of misfits" approach, where characters met on the road: it's the only FH game I've ever had misfire: two players made "characters who don't want to adventure, but want to establish a business instead" and then whined loudly when I politely invited them to do so - but make new characters if they wanted to keep playing. I actually lost interest in GM'ing for that group.

Before that, I've used "all family members" - where the characters were three brothers. They didn't actually like each other and they fought all the time, but hey - they stuck together because they were family and there were folks that needed killin'.

The games before that (going waaaay back now) I had a motley group stranded by a shipwreck - they had to band together to survive and (in my very first game) I had all the players drafted into the army. Being drafted and essentially considered expendable arrow-fodder, it didn't take long before they deserted and lit off cross-country as a group.

As you can see, I take whatever seems appropriate and work with that. In the end, I decided not to do it, but I had considered starting the current game by having all the characters kidnapped by færies..... :D

cheers, Mark

[CBikle]

"You all meet in a clinic for sexually-transmitted diseases..."

Yeah, the players didn't like that one at all.

[Erkenfresh]

Here are some of the starting things I've done:
1. The PC's are all participants in a tournament and decide to travel together afterwards. I used this in D&D for my first campaign.
2. The PC's worked as the crew on a trading ship but decided to keep it for themselves and become pirates. Star Hero.
3. The PC's were recruited by a strange ninja to help her defeat a villian and decide to work together for future crime fighting. Champions.
4. The PC's were friends from before, now touring the countryside aimlessly in a fairly peaceful "calm before the storm" world. The story begins with them stealing grapes to eat and getting caught by the local lord's bratty daughter who they end up saving from bandits. Fantasy Hero.

[TheRavenIs]

I have found just getting the first game over, no matter how you got them together is one of the hardest hurdles you can have.